|
Author
|
Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
|
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: 02-01-2006
|
|
Message 46 of 402 (473893)
07-03-2008 1:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Brian
07-03-2008 12:41 PM
|
|
But this still doesn't account for the vast amount of evidence that supports evolution, ignoring this evidence doesn't make it go away. There is a vast difference between looking at the evidence that "supposedly" supports the theory of evolution, and the proof that evolution actually works over billions of years, taking life from simple cell creatures to complex man. True science looks at things that can be proven to a very degree of accuracy, not theories can that never be proven. Have you read lately some of the "so-called scientific theories" that somehow sparked or brought the spark of life to our earth? Very unimpressive, belonging more to a Hollywood Si-Fi thriller than to true science. Edited by John 10:10, : added quote box
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Brian, posted 07-03-2008 12:41 PM | | Brian has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2008 1:38 PM | | John 10:10 has replied | | | Message 51 by Brian, posted 07-03-2008 2:15 PM | | John 10:10 has replied |
|
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: 02-01-2006
|
Re: What We Mean by Theory
"Theory" is the highest accolade that a modern scientist can give to an idea. It will only be used when there is a wealth of evidence to support the idea (although "theory" is used in a looser sense within physics). An idea with no supporting evidence is, at best, a hypothesis. Again I disagree. The highest principle a scientist, old or modern, can give to an idea is "proof" that one understands cause and effect to a high degree of accuracy, and that the results can be repeated over and over again to a high degree of consistency. This evolution cannot nor ever will be able to do. I agree with the following quote:
quote:
It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
Also, if you want to quote Bible passages, I recommend that you put short passages right here on the page, instead of forcing others to look them up, because I guarantee that most people won't bother to look them up. This is exactly what I want them to do, if they are genuinely interested in what the Bible has to say. Otherwise, I'm just wasting my time and yours as well. Edited by John 10:10, : spelling error
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
More misunderstanding
True science looks at things that can be proven to a very degree of accuracy, not theories can that never be proven. The evolutionary model is just such a thing. It is supported by so much evidence that it has an extremely high probability of being true. "Proven" is used, technically, in math where things actually can be proven with a 100 % chance of being right.
There is a vast difference between looking at the evidence that "supposedly" supports the theory of evolution, and the proof that evolution actually works over billions of years, taking life from simple cell creatures to complex man. What you need is evidence. Actually any evidence at all. None is what you have supplied. What you need here is evidence that shows that it could NOT have taking life through it's development over the last 3 billion years. All the evidence we have says it can and did. Oh, by the way, we HAVE that evidence, 1,000,000's and millions of bits of it. You, on the other hand seem to be stunningly short of it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 1:10 PM | | John 10:10 has replied |
|
Granny Magda
Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: 11-12-2007 Member Rating: 3.8
|
Re: What We Mean by Theory
Again I disagree. Well then, why don't you provide some citations from mainstream scientific sources that back up your argument? Simply saying "I disagree" isn't much use to anyone.
The highest principle a scientist, old or modern, can give to an idea is "proof" that one understands cause and effect to a high degree of accuracy, and that the results can be repeated over and over again to a high degree of consistency. Close, but no cigar. As Nosy has pointed out above, "proof" is part of mathematics. Scientists deal in evidence.
I agree with the following quote:
quote:
It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
Yeah, I thought you might. Look, even AiG acknowledge that "evolution is only a theory" is a spectacularly bad argument. For once, you should listen to them, since they are trying to save you from the embarrassment of making such poor arguments.
This is exactly what I want them to do, if they are genuinely interested in what the Bible has to say. Otherwise, I'm just wasting my time and yours as well. Huh? You want them to not bother looking up your quotes and go in complete ignorance of your point? I assure you, giving the quote on the page, where it requires no effort to read it is going to have far more impact than forcing people to go looking for it, because most simple will not bother to go looking. I advise you to do your own homework, because others are not going to do it for you. That really is a waste of your time.
Mutate and Survive
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 1:34 PM | | John 10:10 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 2:38 PM | | Granny Magda has replied |
|
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: 02-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 50 of 402 (473901)
07-03-2008 2:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by NosyNed
07-03-2008 1:38 PM
|
|
Re: More misunderstanding
True science looks at things that can be proven (substantiated) to a very degree of accuracy, not theories can that never be proven (substantiated).
The evolutionary model is just such a thing. It is supported by so much evidence that it has an extremely high probability of being true. No such thing!!! All the evolutionary model has are bits and pieces of an evolutionary particles-to-people process that is nothing but unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. True science is dealing with cause and effect facts that can be repeated to a high degree of accuracy over and over again. Edited by John 10:10, : added word
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2008 1:38 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2008 4:07 PM | | John 10:10 has not replied |
|
Brian
Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: 10-22-2002
|
There is a vast difference between looking at the evidence that "supposedly" supports the theory of evolution, and the proof that evolution actually works over billions of years, taking life from simple cell creatures to complex man. But there is no difference. Science arrived at the conclusion that life evolves by looking at the evidence, not the other way round.
True science looks at things that can be proven to a very degree of accuracy, not theories can that never be proven. What do you think a theory is? Ideas do not simply become theories as soon as they are presented, there's a very rigourous process to go through before anything is accepted as a theory. A theory has to be falsifiable, and evolution is very easy to disprove, so why has no one been able to dislodge evolution as a theory?
Have you read lately some of the "so-called scientific theories" that somehow sparked or brought the spark of life to our earth? But this is not what evolution is, it doesn't deal with the origins of life.
Very unimpressive, belonging more to a Hollywood Si-Fi thriller than to true science. Well bud, I have studied the Old Testament, archaeology, ancient near eastern history, and theology for a long time, and I have read things that make the plots of science fiction movies appear very unimaginative.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 1:10 PM | | John 10:10 has replied |
|
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: 02-01-2006
|
Re: What We Mean by Theory
Close, but no cigar. As Nosy has pointed out above, "proof" is part of mathematics. Scientists deal in evidence. Yes, scientists and true science deal with evidence that can be repeated over and over again to a high degree of consistency. This is proof for the scientist that one can contain the power of nuclear fission and engineer it to produce electric energy, or into a bomb if one chooses to do so. Show us the evidence that the evolutionary model works from start to finish?
|
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: 02-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 53 of 402 (473907)
07-03-2008 2:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Brian
07-03-2008 2:15 PM
|
|
But there is no difference. Science arrived at the conclusion that life evolves by looking at the evidence, not the other way round. True science arives at conclusions by substantiating cause and effect, not just looking at life forms and making conjectures that life could possibly evolve in this or that way. This is where the evolutionary model has gotten far off track, proclaiming itself as true science when if fact it is not.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Brian, posted 07-03-2008 2:15 PM | | Brian has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5949 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.5
|
What a shame you didn't speak to any scientists while you had the opportunity; many of them would have been happy to fill in the appalling gaps in your schooling, like what scientists do, what science is, and what the word "theory" means. I doubt very much that he had encountered very many scientists at the power plants, if any at all. Engineers and technicians, yes, but not scientists. One thing I've found is that engineers are notoriously contemptuous of scientists and mathematicians and scoff at theory, preferring to base designs on emperical measurements. For example, when I tried to work out a formula for converting a sensor's ADC measurements to the value being measured (eg, humidity), the EE just created a 256 element array of all the possible values. In another example, a EE instructor teaching us about the delta function (take a pulse with an area of 1 and shrink the delta-time to zero, which gives you an instantaneous force of infinite amplitude with which to slam a circuit so you can calculate its response; that's called "convolution") told us with great professional pride that engineers had thought it up and had been using it for decades with great success before those bumbling theoreticians were able to catch up with them and prove it right. You should also have noticed that most of the creationist "scientists" tend to be engineers. Or "food scientists".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2008 12:55 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: 02-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 55 of 402 (473909)
07-03-2008 3:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by dwise1
07-03-2008 2:50 PM
|
|
I doubt very much that he had encountered very many scientists at the power plants, if any at all. Engineers and technicians, yes, but not scientists. I have a great respect for true scientists who deal with substantiating cause and effect, but not much respect for those who live with Si-Fi rather than true science. Yes, engineers live in a real world as it is substantiated to be, not in a fairy tale world you want it to be.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2008 2:50 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
True science arives at conclusions by substantiating cause and effect ... You know that doesn't mean anything, right?
... not just looking at life forms and making conjectures that life could possibly evolve in this or that way. If you wish to pretend that that's what evolutionary biology is like, you're not going to deceive anyone. If you did a little research into what you're talking about, you wouldn't even deceive yourself.
This is where the evolutionary model has gotten far off track, proclaiming itself as true science when if fact it is not. Actually, it's not "the evolutionary model" that "proclaims itself as true science". It's these people called "scientists". Who know science when they see it. And who don't get all muddly and confused over the basic terms and concepts of science like you do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 2:49 PM | | John 10:10 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 6:04 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
I have a great respect for true scientists ... Splendid. Here are 72 Nobel Prize winners. Guess what, they're "true scientists". In fact, they may well know even more about science than you do, like, for example, the first damn thing about what they're talking about.
The process of continuous testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational or experimental support. Such hypotheses become known as scientific "theories." ... The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept. --- Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang. Now, who should I believe about science, them or you? Well, have you won 72 Nobel Prizes in science? No. Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? No. Do you even know the meaning of the words you're using? No. Do they know something you don't? Yes. So perhaps instead of arrogantly shooting your mouth about what is and isn't scientific, a subject of which you evidently know damn-all, perhaps you ought to find out some of the things that scientists know about science and you don't. Like what science is and what scientists do. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 3:06 PM | | John 10:10 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 6:07 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Granny Magda
Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: 11-12-2007 Member Rating: 3.8
|
Re: What We Mean by Theory
Yes, scientists and true science deal with evidence that can be repeated over and over again to a high degree of consistency. Are you suggesting that past events cannot be studied scientifically? I would hope that you would not be so foolish.
Show us the evidence that the evolutionary model works from start to finish? No. Two reasons. Firstly, that is not the purpose of this topic. This topic is about whether ID qualifies as science, not the evidence for the ToE. This forum is quite strict about staying on topic. Secondly, if you want to examine the evidence for evolution from start to finish I suggest that you sign up at a university for an evolutionary biology course. What you are asking for would take years. Indeed, one could spend a lifetime studying evolution and still not be familiar with all the evidence. If you have any specific questions about evolution I suggest that you start a thread (where they would be on topic) and I'm sure that people would be only too happy to help.
Mutate and Survive
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 2:38 PM | | John 10:10 has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Such!
No such thing!!! All the evolutionary model has are bits and pieces of an evolutionary particles-to-people process that is nothing but unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture. Wrong! As others have been, with moderate patience so far, pointing out to you you have no idea what you are talking about. You know nothing of the science involved or the evidence behind it. Your ignorance makes no dents in the science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 2:13 PM | | John 10:10 has not replied |
|
Tanypteryx
Member Posts: 4413 From: Oregon, USA Joined: 08-27-2006 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: What We Mean by Theory
Granny Magda writes: Secondly, if you want to examine the evidence for evolution from start to finish I suggest that you sign up at a university for an evolutionary biology course. Granny he does not want to learn anything about science or evolutionary biology. He only wants to tell us what science and evolution are. It is clear he does not know even the most basic concepts of either subject. Middle school students have a better understanding than he does. He claims to have been an engineer at many nuclear powerplants. A scary thought! We should run!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 07-03-2008 3:46 PM | | Granny Magda has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 6:17 PM | | Tanypteryx has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2