Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
23 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, PaulK (3 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,886 Year: 20,922/19,786 Month: 1,319/2,023 Week: 270/557 Day: 10/71 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 346 of 402 (474526)
07-09-2008 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:36 PM


John 10:10 writes:

quote:
You feel the ToE model from start-to-finish has been proven to a high degree of accuracy, thereby making it fact, not theory, and I certainly do not!

But you have been given the very thing you claim does not exist: A direct example of the evolutionary model from start to finish.

So what's the problem? Be specific.

quote:
You offer the fossil record, and bits and pieces of life processes that can be currently observed as your proof. This is certainly not the way most other scientific principles are validated.

Incorrect. It's exactly how other scientific principles are validated.

The entire field of astronomy is done off of fossils. When you look up in the sky and view stars, you don't see them as they are. You see them as they were in the past. The light we get from the sun is eight minutes old. The light we get from the nearest star other than the sun is over four years old. The cosmic background radiation is over 13 billion years old.

So if astronomy can work as a science despite looking at fossils, why are you picking on evolution?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:36 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 347 of 402 (474527)
07-09-2008 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:42 PM


John 10:10 writes:

quote:
You must not know that the scientists proved that the fragments resulting from the bombardment of uranium by neutrons were different elements by chemical analysis.

Huh? Clearly we see that we had uranium and we wound up with lead, but how on earth do we know what it was the uranium atom splitting apart? We didn't actually see it. How do we know it isn't the devil taking away the uranium and replacing it with lead and a whole bunch of energy? How on earth do we know it's neutrons when we've never seen a neutron?

And of course, up until we developed the scanning-tunneling microscope, we had never even seen an atom, so where did we get off saying that they existed? And yet somehow, we managed to come up with an entire morphology of the atom from the nucleus to the electron orbitals.

Do you know what a "cloud chamber" is? It's used in particle physics to detect particles. You don't actually see the particles. Instead, you see what are essentially condensation trails as the particles pass through the mist.

So if you accept that physics can find out things about the world without direct observation, why are you picking on evolution?

Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:42 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 348 of 402 (474528)
07-09-2008 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:55 PM


John 10:10 writes:

quote:
Theories that are really correct in explaining things as they are result in facts

Incorrect. Theories are not facts. Theories never become facts. Instead, theories are based upon facts. That's why evolution is both a fact and a theory. You start with the fact of evolution and then develop a theory to explain how evolution happens.

Theories can change. Facts never can.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:55 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 349 of 402 (474535)
07-09-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Rrhain
07-09-2008 2:33 AM


Re-Horses
Rrhain writes:

What about it? Surely you aren't about to say that a species cannot have variations, are you?

Those are two different species of horses. There is no way they could breed physically.

Thumbelina is the smallest horse on record.
Thumbelina facts.
Breed: Dwarf miniature horse
Type: Chestnut Mare
Birthday: May 1st, 2001
Home: Goose Creek Farms in Missouri
Height: 17 1/2 inches or 44.5 centimeters tall
Weight: 57 pounds
Diet: 1 cup of grain twice a day and a few handfuls of hay.
Her parents were standard miniature horses.
Thumbelina is not a Shetland.

The big fellow is Radar, a Belgian draught horse.
He stands 6' 7 1/2" weighs 2400 lbs.
At the time of the picture he was the world's tallest horse.
There is one now 6' 11" tall.

So since we have horses today from the size of Tumbelina to Radar
and all points in-between I am not sure the horse tree is correct. But that is my problem.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 2:33 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by mark24, posted 07-09-2008 8:04 AM ICANT has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3515 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 350 of 402 (474537)
07-09-2008 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by ICANT
07-09-2008 7:40 AM


Re: Re-Horses
ICAN'T,

So since we have horses today from the size of Tumbelina to Radar
and all points in-between I am not sure the horse tree is correct. But that is my problem.

The phylogeny is based on many morphological characters. I'm not even sure it's based on absolute size at all.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 7:40 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 5:32 PM mark24 has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 351 of 402 (474547)
07-09-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Coyote
07-08-2008 6:13 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
You claimed "kinds" were all there is, so lets see some scientific documentation.

So far you have ducked this challenge twice. I think you have no scientific basis for "kinds" and that it is purely a religious term but you are unwilling to admit it.

I simply said the "revelation" that our Creator has given us says He created every creature after their own "kind." Yes, this is my religious belief as well.

Your religious belief is in the speculations of the ToE. If the ToE can be proven to a high degree of accuracy within the time frame in which we live, as are most other scientific proofs, then then you would have a proven evolutionary model that should be taught in every biology classroom.

Of course you "claim" the speculative evolutionary model is a proven scientific model to begin with. So it's the evolutionist who starts with a conclusion, and then works backward to a model that can never be fully proven to any reasonable degree of accuracy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2008 6:13 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2008 2:31 PM John 10:10 has responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 352 of 402 (474549)
07-09-2008 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Organicmachination
07-08-2008 9:07 PM


I didn't make myself clear. The guppies actually speciated into two new species. They underwent reproductive isolation and, after a number of generations, were not able to breed. This defines speciation, because now, genetic information cannot be shared between the two populations, and evolution can only occur on the population level.

Let me know when these guppies have climbed all the way up the evolutionary ladder to at least a chimp. Then you will have some proof that the start-to-finish evolutionary model works beyond these guppyites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:07 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 353 of 402 (474551)
07-09-2008 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Organicmachination
07-08-2008 9:18 PM


Re: Observations
You completely misunderstood the question. Straggler asked whether specifically creationist science, not science done by christians, has benefited the human race in any way. Has any science, based fundamentally from the view that God created the Earth, ever done anything for humankind? Has any such science ever been done period?

You misunderstand what the real issue is all about.

If the evolutionary model can be called "true science", which it is not, and taught in the classroom, then the belief that our Creator created the universe and all life therein should be given an equal opportunity. But the religion of the Theory of Evolutionists will not allow this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:18 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by rueh, posted 07-09-2008 10:48 AM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 365 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2008 11:02 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 354 of 402 (474552)
07-09-2008 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Organicmachination
07-08-2008 9:23 PM


Sure sure, they were different elements. But does every element fission like this? No? Then by your own logic, you're claim is fishy. What if chemical analysis is Satan's tool to fool scientists? Unless you can make a movie of the atom splitting into two separate atoms, emitting a ton of energy and a few more neutrons, then their claim is not true science, by your argument.

I don't hear anyone else backing up your "fishy" argument.

By the same token, what if the ToE is Satan's tool to fool you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:23 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Organicmachination, posted 07-09-2008 7:53 PM John 10:10 has responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 355 of 402 (474557)
07-09-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2008 11:11 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
Those 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists I quoted --- do they know what "true science" is?

Answer:

The start-to-finish ToE predictions/theories are off limits to true scientific research.

If these 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists think the predictions of the start-to finish ToE model has been verified/proven to a high degree of accuracy and is true science, the answer is NO!

If these 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists have verified/proven to a high degree of accuracy phenomena in other fields of study, then the answer is YES!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2008 11:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2008 10:27 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 356 of 402 (474558)
07-09-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2008 11:41 PM


And, of course, it would describe the theory of evolution perfectly. How else do scientists know that it's true, except that it predicts the facts of nature apparent to us now?

I guess we will forever disagree on this matter of proof. Scientists know things are true by "proving" to a high degree of accuracy that things are as they are. This the ToE has not done nor ever will be be able to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2008 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2008 10:42 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded
 Message 377 by Blue Jay, posted 07-09-2008 5:50 PM John 10:10 has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 357 of 402 (474559)
07-09-2008 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 10:16 AM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
I knew you'd run away from this one. I asked you for a yes-or-no answer, without any windy creationist rhetoric. You gave me windy creationist rhetoric without a yes or a no.

So let's do it again.

72 Nobel Prize winning scientists say that:

The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.

So you know perfectly well what they think of evolution, don't play dumb.

Now, do they know what "true science is"?

Yes or no?

YES or NO ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:16 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 12:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 371 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2008 3:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 358 of 402 (474560)
07-09-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Rrhain
07-09-2008 3:45 AM


Just what is this "time factor" that you consider to be so problematic?

The FACT that no one can duplicate the "time factor" long enough to prove the start-to-finish ToE model. True science actually proves to a high degree of accuracy that things are as they are within a certain time frame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 3:45 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 359 of 402 (474562)
07-09-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Rrhain
07-09-2008 4:17 AM


So we're back to my question since you didn't answer it: Why? What part of the fossil record are you having trouble with?

The part that actually "proves" to a high degree of accuracy over billions of years that the start-to-finish ToE model works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 4:17 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1316 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 360 of 402 (474563)
07-09-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Rrhain
07-09-2008 4:07 AM


Indeed. That's why the theory of evolution is the fundamental theorem of all biology. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

If it were so inaccurate, why would the entire biological community depend upon it? Are you saying they are frauds engaged in a conspiracy?

The biology that makes sense is the biology that truly understands how the human body works and how to help fix it when something goes wrong, not a theory about how life evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 4:07 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2008 10:47 AM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 369 by deerbreh, posted 07-09-2008 1:52 PM John 10:10 has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019