Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

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.

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.

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.

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."

ICAN'T, 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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Answer: 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!

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.

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: 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 ?

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.

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

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.