|
Author
|
Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
Message 391 of 402 (474649)
07-09-2008 10:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 388 by subbie
07-09-2008 10:13 PM
|
|
Re-ToE
subbie writes: 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. I think that was Bluejay.
subbie writes: When the predictions that the ToE makes coincide with real world observations, this is a very powerful confirmation of the accuracy of the ToE. Who/What decides what the predictions are that the ToE makes? 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 388 by subbie, posted 07-09-2008 10:13 PM | | subbie has not replied |
|
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: 02-28-2008
|
|
|
Message 392 of 402 (474650)
07-09-2008 10:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 385 by ICANT
07-09-2008 9:42 PM
|
|
A Better Explanation
You assume the the galactic center lies within the limits of the ecliptic (and, likely, on the ecliptic). You assume wrongly. Your intuitive model of the galaxy is as erroneous as your intuitive model of biological evolution. Perfectly good models can be found at the tip of our fingers.
Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 385 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 9:42 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 393 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 10:57 PM | | lyx2no has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 393 of 402 (474652)
07-09-2008 10:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 392 by lyx2no
07-09-2008 10:44 PM
|
|
Re: A Better Explanation
lyx2no writes: You assume the the galactic center lies within the limits of the ecliptic (and, likely, on the ecliptic). You assume wrongly. The earth revolves on its axis. The earth goes around the sun every 365 1/4 days. The sun goes around the Milky Way every 226 million years. My assumptions would be that the sun goes somewhere toward the outer parts of the Milky Way. Then again my assumptions does not make much difference. If the sun goes around in a 226 million year circle while the earth is going around the sun then the sun has to circle the earth once every 226 million years. Now please cure my ignorance. 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 392 by lyx2no, posted 07-09-2008 10:44 PM | | lyx2no has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 396 by lyx2no, posted 07-09-2008 11:28 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
Hi, John 10:10.
John 10:1 writes: 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. Here's the problem: How do you know what elements are there before and after, and how many neutrons each one has? You certainly have never seen them or their neutrons. And, even if you had, how could you tell a neutron from a proton just by looking? Are there little “+” signs on the protons? Maybe neutrons are blue and protons are stripey? No, you can’t say this because you don’t actually see protons and neutrons: all you ever see is a suite of real-world effects that physicists theorize are correlated with sub-microscopic particles. The particles, themselves, have never been seen or otherwise recorded. The only way to distinguish between different elements is by observation of physical properties and/or analyses by burning, reacting, hyper-sensitive mass measurements, etc. In other words, all you ever get to see is secondary effects, indirect measures, not the actual thing. So, you can't rule out the possibility that some other process or material produces the same observable effects. And that is exactly the objection you're bringing up against evolution: despite the fact that all the fossil record, radiometric dating, stratigraphy, and molecular and morphological phlyogenetics so far observed line up behind ToE, we can't actually be certain that God's creative process doesn't just happen to produce evidence that looks like evolution. You go farther to say that, because we can't prove that there isn't some other process that we can’t yet distinguish from evolution, the entire science of evolutionary biology is unscientific. But, you're right: maybe Creation just coincidentally looks like evolution. Of course, then, an equally valid and supported argument could be made that some miraculous chemical process just coincidentally looks like nuclear fission to our current instruments and understanding. Your logic supports both arguments equally well. That means that you can make both arguments together, or neither of them, but you can't make one without the other. Science demands consistency, and your argument doesn't have it. You don't have a case here, John. Back off.
Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 390 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:32 PM | | John 10:10 has not replied |
|
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: 02-28-2008
|
Facts and Theories
The Fact: One starts with 235U and a neutron. One ends with 141Ba, 92Kr, three neutrons and energy. The Theory: The 235U split into parts, releasing energy in the process. You've established the fact. You've not established theory. You can't establish the theory because your assumptions allow for magic beings creating thing that look like biological evolution, so why not 235U splitting into parts, releasing energy in the process. You've made anything called "true science" impossible. And do you think you could add some argument to your endless repetition.
Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 390 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:32 PM | | John 10:10 has not replied |
|
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: 02-28-2008
|
|
|
Message 396 of 402 (474656)
07-09-2008 11:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 393 by ICANT
07-09-2008 10:57 PM
|
|
Re: A Better Explanation
Assume the Earth is on a bicycle rim and the Sun is the hub. The axle of this contraption is several meters long and is attached to a bearing of its own representing the galactic center. The wheel rolls along the ground. The Sun will never go around the Earth because they are not in the same plane. That's one possibility.
Now please cure my ignorance. I'm not sure that is possible where you work so damnably hard to contract it.
AbE: My model above is erroneous and I retract it. Edited by lyx2no, : G.D., son of an effen B.
Kindly Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute. ‘—
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 393 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 10:57 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 397 of 402 (474658)
07-09-2008 11:41 PM
|
|
|
Some old "Evolution as fact and theory" type topics
Maybe worth some (re)reading and/or bumping:
Fact Theory Falacy - 136 messages, still open.
Evolution as Fact and Theory - 21 messages, closed because of bad topic drift, later reopened.
The Fact of the Evolution (change) of Life on Earth - 4 messages, still open. Adminnemooseus
|
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: 02-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 398 of 402 (474659)
07-10-2008 12:01 AM
|
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. That has been explained to you a dozen or more times on this thread. The following quotes go much further than explaining the ToE as just a theory:
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. I can show you conclusive evidence that you descend from a common ancestor with the chimps, John. Do you want to see it, or does that frighten your cowardly soul? Well, Douglas Theobald has compiled a list of the ways in which the theory of evolution has been tested with results that are replicated again and again. My favorite test is how whenever anyone constructs a phylogenic tree, the essentially repeat the same pattern that everyone else gets. Face it, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, but no scientific evidence for creationism. However, the ToE has been tested as fully as any other scientific theory, I repeat, as fully tested as any other scientific theory. There is no description that you can provide of science as it is actually done by scientists in the real world that would exclude the ToE. If you want the evidence for the evolution of humans, you go to the fossil record because it's all there. Evolution is both a fact AND a theory. That's why it's called the theory OF evolution. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. And why do you think this hasn't been accomplished? What is it about the fossil record that you claim is insufficient? What is it about the molecular phylogenetic tree that you claim is insufficient? What is it about our direct observation of evolutionary events such as speciation right in front of our eyes that you claim is insufficient? EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY In short - Evolution is a FACT. We observe evolution. And, the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution. The ToE has been "proven" to a high degree of accuracy, which makes it a "fact" by your own standard. Molecular phylogeny mapping to morphological phylogeny, mapping said phylogenies to the stratigraphic fossil order of appearance, the fossil record, biogeography, & palaeontology off the top of my head all point to evolution. Unless you live in a world of coincidence, in which case we can dismiss every single scientific conclusion as pure luck. quote: and can be proven to a high degree of accuracy within the time frame in which we live. 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. But the fossil record, the molecular phylogenetic tree, the stratigraphy, etc., they all show the start-to-finish of evolution and show that spontaneous generation "after their own kind" is false. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 370 by Coyote, posted 07-09-2008 2:31 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
John 10:10 writes: Answered in 355, for those who can read and understand plain English. Your pathetic evasions, obfuscation and rhetoric do not in fact consistute an answer, nor indeed "plain English". I knew this would scare you. Let's ask again.
Dr Adequate writes: 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? Jesus writes: Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 380 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 8:48 PM | | John 10:10 has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
Need a source for that quote
Please either edit in into the existing message or add it in a message that is a reply to that existing message. Maybe it's time to pull the plug on this topic and get some sort of fresh start on whatever the current theme is. Adminnemooseus
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 398 by John 10:10, posted 07-10-2008 12:01 AM | | John 10:10 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
The following quotes go much further than explaining the ToE as just a theory: Yes, they also explain that the fact of evolution is a fact. When you finally grasp the meaning of the word "theory", which has been repeatedly explained to you since the beginning of this thread, then you will understand this. Good luck with that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 398 by John 10:10, posted 07-10-2008 12:01 AM | | John 10:10 has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
Re: Some old "Evolution as fact and theory" type topics - Topic closing in 15 min,
Past 400 messages, and what I call a "terminal mess". Closing in 15 minutes. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.
|
™ Version 4.2