Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,987 Year: 19,023/19,786 Month: 1,443/1,705 Week: 249/446 Day: 47/98 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 376 of 402 (474618)
07-09-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by ICANT
07-09-2008 5:36 PM


Re: Scientist
The sun also orbits the earth. It just takes 200 million years to make the trip. If I am wrong feel free to correct me.

Perhaps you could try responding to a relavent portion of my post, rather than latching on to a minor part of a single sentence that serves only to redirect the topic on a compeltely unrelated tangent?

However, you're mistaken. The Sun does not orbit the Earth, even over 200 million years (its wrong on SO many levels; the Earth is not a gravitationally significant entity relative to the Sun, producing only a tiny wobble, not an orbit). Perhaps you are referring to the Sun's orbit of the galactic center? I don't know the timeframe of that one off the top of my head, and being off-topic here I'm not even going to bother looking it up.

Do you have a response to my post relevant to the topic ICANT, or are you content to snipe at sentence fragments?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 5:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 377 of 402 (474621)
07-09-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 10:20 AM


John 10:10 writes:

I guess we will forever disagree on this matter of proof.

I guess this is the case. But, please note that there are actual scientists working in several different fields who are posting on this very thread, and all of them are among the number who disagree with you.

Seeing how every scientist on this thread has disagreed with your statement that "science is proving to a high degree of accuracy," you should probably admit that this is not the definition of science. The scientific consensus has spoken against you.


Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:20 AM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:01 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 4001 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 378 of 402 (474627)
07-09-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 9:59 AM


Listen, you're the one backing up my argument.

All of my points are directly correlated from your own point of view. I can't believe you can't see it. You say that we must be able to make a movie of evolution occurring from the primordial soup up to humans to prove it as "true science", which is an absolutely ludicrous idea, and I say that you must be able to make a movie of a uranium atom actually splitting up into multiple pieces to prove that nuclear fission exists.

You won't see the evidence for evolution, so I won't see the evidence for nuclear fission.

My point is the same as your point. Do you understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:59 AM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:32 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 4001 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 379 of 402 (474628)
07-09-2008 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by ICANT
07-09-2008 5:36 PM


Re: Scientist
The sun also orbits the earth. It just takes 200 million years to make the trip. If I am wrong feel free to correct me.

The sun just orbits the galactic core, not the Earth. That's like saying the Earth orbits the moon once every year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 5:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 9:42 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 380 of 402 (474630)
07-09-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Dr Adequate
07-09-2008 10:47 AM


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?

Answered in 355, for those who can read and understand plain English.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link to message 355.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2008 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2008 12:18 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 381 of 402 (474631)
07-09-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by rueh
07-09-2008 10:48 AM


Re: Observations
The time factor that you demand is that life go from single cell to human in the span of a lifetime? This is a statement that you have made earlier in this thread. You know that this is impossible, you know that nowhere does the theory of evolution claim this to be the method of opperation. So why do you make such a ridiculous statement?

We both know the ToE claims to be the explanation of how life can supposedly go from a single cell to humans. That is not the issue. The issue is that it can never be proven by you or by the 72 Nobel proze winning scientists, now matter how many fossils you trot out. All the fossil record shows is that certain creatures existed million of years before us. The fossil record doesn't tell you how they came into existance. For all you know, they could just as well have been created.

The statement I made was that true science proves things in the here and now to a high degree of accuracy, enabling one to know as best as one can know what is true or not true. The T0E is certainly not true science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by rueh, posted 07-09-2008 10:48 AM rueh has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 382 of 402 (474632)
07-09-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Larni
07-09-2008 12:40 PM


Re: More nonsense
(1) prove how gravity works and thereby engineer the force of gravity into other useful results,

You got me there. I should have said, "understand" instead of prove. Those gravitons are tricky little things to find and catch.

I noticed you didn't deal with the rest of the sentence, nor the other two.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Larni, posted 07-09-2008 12:40 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 383 of 402 (474633)
07-09-2008 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by deerbreh
07-09-2008 1:52 PM


So you trust the biologists when they help solve medical problems but you don't trust them when they tell you something that goes against your religious beliefs?

I use biologists and doctors that understand how the human body, whom God created, works, and how to help fix it when something goes wrong. I also have faith in my Creator that He works all things for the good of those who trust in Him, including divine healing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by deerbreh, posted 07-09-2008 1:52 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 384 of 402 (474635)
07-09-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Coyote
07-09-2008 2:31 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

I would be somewhat satisfied if evolutionists would simply say this, and then leave it at that. But if you will read many other posts on this topic, many others believe and state that the ToE is proven fact, not theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2008 2:31 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by subbie, posted 07-09-2008 9:54 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 385 of 402 (474636)
07-09-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Organicmachination
07-09-2008 8:02 PM


Re: Scientist
Here I find:

CHICAGO -- Astronomers focusing on a star at the center of the Milky Way say they have measured precisely for the first time how long it takes the sun to circle its home galaxy: 226 million years. The last time the sun was at this exact spot of its galactic orbit, dinosaurs ruled the world.

Since earth is in the Milky Way the sun has to go around the earth every 226 million years.

Unless you got a better explanation.

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 379 by Organicmachination, posted 07-09-2008 8:02 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by lyx2no, posted 07-09-2008 10:44 PM ICANT has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 386 of 402 (474638)
07-09-2008 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 9:35 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
quote:
I would be somewhat satisfied if evolutionists would simply say this, and then leave it at that. But if you will read many other posts on this topic, many others believe and state that the ToE is proven fact, not theory.

No.

What they say is that evolution is a fact. It has been observed, both in nature and in the lab. In real time. It has happened. Evolution is, at it's most basic, descent with modification. This means that daughter populations will differ from parent populations, and environmental pressures will affect which of those changes will be more likely to be passed on.

The Theory of Evolution is the scientific theory that explains how it happens, and explains how evolution has produced the variety of life on this planet. Everyone here agrees that this is a theory. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:35 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 387 of 402 (474641)
07-09-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Blue Jay
07-09-2008 5:50 PM


Seeing how every scientist on this thread has disagreed with your statement that "science is proving to a high degree of accuracy," you should probably admit that this is not the definition of science. The scientific consensus has spoken against you.

I started this discussiom by giving the following definition of science:

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as "obtained and tested" through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary)

Then we get this kind of scientific method explained as science:

Extrapolating the predictions of the Theory of Evolution backwards in time predicts a fossil record exactly like the one we observe in reality.

Yes, the consensus at this forum has spoken against me, but not against the definition of science that requires the knowledge of truths to be obtained and tested. Extrapolating the predictions of the ToE backwards in time and calling this science does not meet the true definition of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Blue Jay, posted 07-09-2008 5:50 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by subbie, posted 07-09-2008 10:13 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 388 of 402 (474644)
07-09-2008 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by John 10:10
07-09-2008 10:01 PM


quote:
Extrapolating the predictions of the ToE backwards in time and calling this science does not meet the true definition of science.

You are completely missing the point of the language you quoted.

Rahvin writes:

Extrapolating the predictions of the Theory of Evolution backwards in time predicts a fossil record exactly like the one we observe in reality.

What Rahvin was saying was that the ToE makes certain types of predictions. If we extrapolate those predictions backwards in time, the ToE describes the kinds of things we should see in the fossil record. When we examine the fossil record, we see the things that the ToE tells us we will see. When the predictions that the ToE makes coincide with real world observations, this is a very powerful confirmation of the accuracy of the ToE.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:01 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 10:44 PM subbie has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 389 of 402 (474646)
07-09-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Rahvin
07-09-2008 5:14 PM


Re: Scientist
Message 376
Rahvin writes:

Perhaps you could try responding to a relevant portion of my post, rather than latching on to a minor part of a single sentence that serves only to redirect the topic on a completely unrelated tangent?

I am sorry I did not know we were conversing again I thought you was just being polite and answering my question. I apologize.

I do hate to upset you so much.

Rahvin writes:

I don't know, ICANT. Was the Declaration of Independence something that can be attributed to all of the signatories, or is it something all of their names are "attached to?"

Well those guys sit around and worked up the documents and knew exactly what was in them. So I would say yes since their physical signatures are on the document.

Rahvin writes:

And what do you mean by "their names are attached to" anyway? Do you really think some lawyer wrote up the brief and then just randomly chose the names of 72 Nobel Prize winners to "attach?" Do YOU sign documents related to court trials that you don't agree with? I know I certainly wouldn't.

I think we could agreement that a law firm drew up this law suit.
How many lawyers worked on it I would not know or care.
The 72 Nobel Prize winners were specifically selected, not randomly chosen.

Do I think they read the documents in their entirety before they allowed their names to be used since they did not sign the documents.
No, I doubt if 2 did. They documents were explained and they agreed to allow their names to be used as they were in sympathy with the case.

Rahvin writes:

It's amusing that your question seems intended to cast doubt on the veracity and the support of the Nobel Prize winners of this document, in much the same way the law they were fighting intended specifically to cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution. The fact is that this was a legal brief filed witht he support (and likely authorship) of those Nobel Prize winners specifically to affirm that the Theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in all of science, on par with any other biological theory, and that attempts to cast doubt specifically on the Theory of Evolution because it is (in part) a theory of human origins but not on any other theory demonstrates a clear religious motivation.

My questions are always asked to cast doubt on anything I am discussing. Unless I am just asking for information as I did in the post you first answered. If you think I am bad here you should see me when I get together with a bunch of preachers and we discuss doctrine or the Bible.

Do you think these Nobel Prize winners took time out of their life to help put together a legal brief. No way. One may have been consulted but I doubt that.

Rahvin writes:

The truth is, the Theory of Evolution is considered to be as reliable in the accuracy of its predictions as the Theory of Gravity - both are theories backed by mountains of evidence, and yet no reasonable person would question the Theory of Gravity. Questions pertaining to the Theory of Evolution are solely the purview of those whose religious beliefs run counter to the predictions of the Theory of Evolution, in exactly the same way that the Heliocentric model of the solar system was once persecuted by religious authorities.

Rahvin I know you believe what you are saying, I am sorry I don't because I can only see mole hills where there are supposed to be mountains.

As far as evolution is concerned it does not bother me that it does not agree with what I believe. I read on here somewhere that everything must have opposites. So you have creation on one side and on the opposite side you have evolution. We can make a choice what we want to believe. The reasons don't matter what does is that we have a choice.

The rest of your post was not addressed to me but through me.

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 373 by Rahvin, posted 07-09-2008 5:14 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 390 of 402 (474647)
07-09-2008 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Organicmachination
07-09-2008 7:53 PM


You won't see the evidence for evolution, so I won't see the evidence for nuclear fission.

I see a theory for evolution, but I do not see the truth for evolution that has been "obtained and tested."

If elements that were not there before the unraium atom was split appear after the uranium atom was split, and these elements talk, quack, and are chemically the same as other elements that appear in nature, then most scientists see the evidence for nuclear fission beyond any reasonable doubt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Organicmachination, posted 07-09-2008 7:53 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Blue Jay, posted 07-09-2008 11:13 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded
 Message 395 by lyx2no, posted 07-09-2008 11:16 PM John 10:10 has not yet 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