Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 397 of 457 (708821)
10-14-2013 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Coyote
10-14-2013 11:14 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Considering that drift hadn't come up until now, what's the problem with my admitting I had a problem getting a clear idea of it? It wasn't for lack of reading up on it, and now that it has become an issue I now have a decent grasp of it.
And nothing else you wrote even remotely describes me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2013 11:14 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2013 11:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 402 by Tangle, posted 10-15-2013 2:27 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 399 of 457 (708823)
10-15-2013 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Coyote
10-14-2013 11:54 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
I'm well aware of the arguments against the Bible, far from being unwilling to examine them. I've studied them from the beginning. It's discussed all the time in Christian contexts I follow. I disagree with the arguments, I don't ignore them, there IS a difference.
And I've said nothing in this thread either about the Bible or about Creation science to back up my argument which is all about the biological issues, which of course YOU are not addressing as you prefer to insinuate other things about me instead.
And I've been answer the "evidence," not ignoring it. Either answering it or showing that it supports MY point of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2013 11:54 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2013 12:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 401 of 457 (708825)
10-15-2013 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Coyote
10-15-2013 12:22 AM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Evolution is not science, it's an unevidenced speculation that has acquired ironclad status despite its unprovability.
I have not referred to the Bible to prove anything in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2013 12:22 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 9:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 404 of 457 (708838)
10-15-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Tangle
10-15-2013 2:27 AM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Interesting that all anyone does now is throw accusations at me, or in Frako's case a completely new topic; no comment on any of my argument.
Clearly there's no point in my continuing here, but I do have at least another post I want to make. And I have to correct you that I did not say genetic drift is "wrong anyway," I've made use of it in my understanding of the Jutland cattle study, correctly I believe.
And I can assure you that I understand evolution as well as the average person who has ever thought about evolution. We have been bombarded with it all our lives and many have taken time to think about it at least occasionally -- which I did quite a bit when I still believed in it before I became a Christian.
And I'll also say again since I haven't said it in a while that the science that is done in the name of evolution is often good science, but what it supports is always microevolution and never macroevolution.
I do like that Jutland cattle study, it really does support my own theory here, very nicely.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Tangle, posted 10-15-2013 2:27 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by NoNukes, posted 10-15-2013 1:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 406 by Percy, posted 10-15-2013 3:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 414 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 6:42 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 407 of 457 (708861)
10-15-2013 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by NoNukes
10-15-2013 1:42 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Interesting that all anyone does now is throw accusations at me, or in Frako's case a completely new topic; no comment on any of my argument.
After you've demonstrated yourself to be clueless at the level you've managed here, why should anyone care about your argument? You've demonstrated repeatedly in this thread that you don't understand the terms used to describe evolution while posting for years on the subject.
Which ought to clue you that I DO know what the terms I use the most mean but I am giving a different model or theory which changes the way evolutionists use them, and I've tried very hard to be clear about the differences. This OUGHT to be clear by now. Insisting on the evolutionist interpretations just misses the whole point of what a Creationist is trying to do. ARGUE those interpretations, fine, but insisting on them is just begging the very questions being addressed here.
To make such a big deal out of my admission that Genetic Drift has been unclear to me is REALLY missing the point since I haven't argued anything in relation to it until the last few posts. NOW I grasp it but the word "sampling" which I still hate and will refuse to use from now on, just confuses its meaning for me.
You have admitted being utterly incapable of reading any scientific paper on the subject, but that does not keep you from insisting that evolution is not science.
True it does not keep me from that. I have a grasp of what I need to have a grasp of for my purposes and the technical language only serves to obscure the basics. I am not a scientist and if you want only scientists here to defend Creationism that should be advertised up front in a big banner so we nonscientists will stay away. Otherwise it ought to be clear by now that you have to talk nontechnical language if you care at all to talk with us, which perhaps you don't anyway. The mission here is to be sure Creationists get put down and ridiculed; the very idea that we might have something to say is simply unthinkable.
Years of dicussion and you still cannot state ideas from Origin of Species correctly?
What ARE you talking about?
I don't know what's wrong with you, but whatever it is causes you to start thread after thread on a subject you know nothing about, and on which you could not possibly post anything like an evidence based attack or rebuttal. I don't see any reason to respect anything you post on the subject of evolution.
Nor anything I say on the subject of microevolution or how selection and isolation reduce genetic diversity which defeats the very idea of evolution beyond the evolving species; how the mere description of most mutations makes it clear that they could not possibly be the basis of normal alleles; or how changed allele frequencies are caused by the simple splitting of a population, especially if the population is smaller, and how this alone brings about phenotypic change. All that is a correct use of the truly scientific concepts when set free from their false evolutionist baggage. But you're going to make an issue of obscurantist trivia instead.
My question is what is wrong with posters who expect you to learn anything about evolution after the demonstration you've put on over the last few years.
Well there's a big problem, that anyone wants me to learn more about evolution, but that's not my mission here. I am quite sure I know enough about the ToE, but since I reject it I'm not going to use what is truly scientific in any way that appears to give it credence; what is truly scientific supports many creationist views, mine included, and my effort is to show THAT.
"Drift just now came up". Seriously? You talked about the impossibility of mutations adding to diversity and you didn't feel the need to address drift? What kind of advocacy is that?
Yes, as a topic of focus it just now came up. Before that I was using the concept of random breeding patterns wherever it was applicable, which is the same thing as drift, though I didn't think of it as drift because of that indigestible term "sampling," and I also had the CORRECT basic idea that drift contributes to phenotypic change along with reduced genetic diversity WITHIN a population rather than by physical splitting, just as the other selecting and isolating "mechanisms of evolution" do. That is completely valid and sufficient for this entire discussion.
I've been doing my best to be clear about how I use the terminology, I believe I've used it correctly and for the most part defined it well enough to show how I'm using it, although there is always room for improvement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by NoNukes, posted 10-15-2013 1:42 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Tangle, posted 10-15-2013 5:28 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 456 by shalamabobbi, posted 12-14-2013 11:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 409 of 457 (708865)
10-15-2013 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Percy
10-15-2013 3:12 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
You have a way of sucking people in, even those who have long experience with you, into thinking that a coherent evidence-based discussion with you is possible. Gradually realization sinks in.
That's almost a compliment so perhaps I should thank you. Perhaps there's another explanation for the phenomenon, however, that continues to allow that I AM working from evidence although within a different explanatory context. From that point of view it's the foreign creationist explanatory context that uses the evidence differently that eventually alienates evolutionists, rather than any lack of evidence. Not to say I always use the evidence accurately, but I know I do more than is credited to me.
The power of your ideas is not based upon what you think of them, but others...,
But of course in this debate the "others" I'm up against are the entire Evolutionist Establishment, people who have been trained for years in the kind of thinking I'm arguing against. Their judgments are not going to be favorable to any new way of thinking or new way of using terms they've learned to use differently, and especially if it's a creationist presenting the argument. One keeps plugging away hoping to hit on a choice of words that might break through the bias. To you I am wrong, and I'm not going to say I'm not wrong about SOME things, I don't know, but I know my main argument is overall NOT wrong.
and in science discussions their assessments are to a great degree based upon the correspondence to real world evidence.
Which of course in many cases I dispute since so much of evolutionary theory IS pure speculative cogitative castle-building and not at all about the real world.
But you don't really care about evidence. You think evidence you don't understand supports your ideas,
Well, from what YOU presented of the Jutland cattle, THAT evidence DOES support what I've been arguing all along. Beautifully. Small new herds developing new phenotypes RAPIDLY? Right down my alley. Especially now that I have more of a handle on genetic drift, which I've nevertheless been talking about all along in different words.
... and you ignore evidence you realize doesn't support your ideas.
I don't ignore it, I put it aside hoping to understand it better later. I believe I've made some important points against evolution, on this thread, and elsewhere for that matter, and I try to be careful not to let myself get sidetracked into issues that I don't fully understand yet. If my good arguments aren't being recognized, why would I want to be drawn off into something else until they are? Also,when I sit for a while on some of the arguments against me I eventually see the errors in them OR how in fact they do support my ideas rather than what they are presented as supporting. Too often MY points are ignored here, or mangled through gross misunderstanding, and there is no attitude of grace toward one who hasn't paid the scientific dues so I have to fight to keep my argument on the table at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Percy, posted 10-15-2013 3:12 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2013 6:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 412 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2013 6:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 411 of 457 (708867)
10-15-2013 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by PaulK
10-15-2013 6:00 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Sure, it's "arrogant" to think you are right and evolutionists wrong; sure, it's "dishonest" to claim that terms mean something different than they mean to an evolutionist. Double standard? Clever way of insisting I talk like an evolutionist, seems to me.
I don't know if I'll come back to this post or not but I was going to try to answer your earlier one and it got rather stale so I let it go. But maybe I could at least comment again on this idea of a "hole" in my argument, by which of course you mean that I haven't effectively answered the claims about mutations. Here's how you put it in that earlier post:
I have no idea how it can be obvious to you [that mutations can't make the difference evolutionists expect them to]. It is intuitively obvious that increases in diversity can offset decreases and I believe that is obvious to you, to. So you need a reason specific to this case and quite frankly you haven't offered anything that cones close to explaining such a reason.
So I'll try to answer it now: I agree that in the abstract it looks obvious, of course, just a matter of alleles-out-alleles-in, but considering what I’ve been arguing it’s far from obvious.
The argument, again, first describes the trend to reduced genetic diversity through the various mechanisms of evolution that select and isolate new populations, including even most particularly Natural Selection. This trend is NOT normally acknowledged in discussions of evolution, it's always described as mutation plus selection onward and upward through the entire supposed genealogical tree, although when I point it out some here will acknowledge it without acknowledging that it hadn't entered their minds before.
and second, another part of the argument is that maintaining a new subspecies or breed or variety DEPENDS on preventing genetic increase -- or, (as breeders know about their own work), you’ll just destroy your NS-wrought adaptation or Speciation-wrought new Species which are, according to the ToE, supposedly stepping stones along the way upward and onward -- sky’s the limit -- to more and more new and different Species;
With that in the back of my mind it is intuitively obvious to me that mutation even if it exists and does anything like what you all think it does, is at best redundant, at worst an interference with what the ToE requires on the way from single-celled organism to human being.
And then, third, of course it looks to me like mutations of the sort you expect do NOT exist and those that do DON’T do what you think they do. Percy quoted the article about the Jutland cattle as referring to mutations, and the two mutations described are stuttering alleles and changes in a segment of DNA that do nothing (as far as anybody knows). From that kind of mutation you couldn’t possibly get anything remotely like what the ToE requires.
That's my answer. There is no "hole" in my argument.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2013 6:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2013 1:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 428 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2013 2:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 413 of 457 (708869)
10-15-2013 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Coyote
10-15-2013 6:30 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
No. You run all evidence through a filter.
And so do you.
If it confirms your religious beliefs you accept it uncritically, along with wishful thinking, speculation, and just outright nonsense.
If it confirms the ToE you accept it uncritically, along with wishful thinking, which is really all the ToE is anyway, speculation, ditto, and just outright nonsense, ditto.
If it contradicts your religious beliefs you reject it no matter how solidly documented.
If it contradicts the ToE you reject it no matter how well argued it is (although, to be fair, I don't think you are capable of recognizing a good argument against the ToE to begin with.)
That is the characteristic of creation "science" not real science. It is pure religious apologetics no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, and try to delude your audiences.
That is the characteristic of the ToE, that all true science is made to fit it no matter how strained the fit, and since the theory is nothing but unprovable fantasy, you can go on indefinitely deluding yourself and others with it.
But the saddest part of all of this is that you have to delude yourself first of all.
Ah well, the ToE is the biggest delusion that was ever foisted on humanity. Wish God would show at least some of you how that is the case. Make that a prayer.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2013 6:30 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 415 of 457 (708872)
10-15-2013 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by frako
10-15-2013 6:42 PM


Defining the ToE
Ok then explain what is evolution i asked you this right at the beginning of this thread and you claimed by who Darwin or Dawkins, at the time proving my point that you dont know what a theory is or what the theory of evolution is.
Oh good grief. Darwin's theory was that species originate from other species back to some primordial life forms by the means of natural selection of the best adapted individuals, those best fitted to their environment, which he based on his observations of artificial selection in domestic breeding, which he did a lot of himself.
But the definition has acquired other parts since Darwin, particularly including mutations as at least equally important in explaining how new species can arise.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 6:42 PM frako has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 416 of 457 (708873)
10-15-2013 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by frako
10-01-2013 10:12 AM


Frako's Msg 86 list of proofs of evolution
1. Observed instances of new species forming
Observed beneficial mutations and speciation in Anolis lizards
Were the allele pairs in the parent generation for the trait attributed to beneficial mutation studied to prove it was a mutation and not just a normally occurring allele?
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.
Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.
Evolution of five new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.
Speciation in action among Larus seagulls.
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.
A new species of Evening Primrose named Oenothera gigas
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.
Evolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella
Either microevolution or something else peculiar to one celled creatures.
A new species of mosquito in London Culex pipiens
Microevolution.
Finch speciation in the Galapagos
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.
2. Observed instances of new genetic material(information) arising
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated,
Mutations occur, but what's the benefit of a gene duplication?
and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur." (Zhang et al. 2002)
No way to judge what this is about.
"Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further." (Brown et al. 1998)
Unicellular creatures have their own peculiar genetics.
Some old world monkeys developed a mutation in the protein TRIM5 that created a new protein called TRIM5-CrypA. This novel protein helped protect cells from HIV and other retroviruses. (Newman, 2008)
No way to judge this.
A chromosome fusion event in stickleback fish of the Japan Sea resulted in the formation of a new species.(Gilbert, 2009)
Either a genetic mistake that didn't do much of anything (except perhaps reproductively cut off the new "species" from the old?), or some form of microevolution, certainly nothing in support of the ToE.
Begun et al., 2007 and Levine et al., 2006 observed the formation of de novo genes arise from mutations in noncoding DNA in a population of Drosophila.
And what did the de novo genes DO if anything?
Cai et al. 2008 found that a new, functional gene in a specific yeast species had evolved from a previously non-coding region.
The HIV virus has recently undergone rapid evolution which has resulted in the emergence of new genetic information; specifically, the Vpu gene.
Not going to comment on one celled creatures since they do things in some way peculiar to themselves.
A new gene arises by Gene duplication in Zebrafish
Typical mutation. Of what value to the Zebrafish?
Formation of a novel X-Chromosome in Stickleback fish
Doesn't sound healthy to me.
3. Observed instances of beneficial mutations
Beneficial mutations of yeast in a low phosphate environment
Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
Chlamydomonas adapts to grow in the dark
Bacteria evolve to eat nylon
No comment on unicelled creatures.
Resistance to atherosclerosis was documented in small population in Italy. The resistance was caused by a mutation in the angiotensin-converting enzyme gene, which affects the plasma levels in an individual.(Margaglione, et al., 1998)
Maybe a true beneficial mutation, but boy are they RARE.
E. coli evolves to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose
E. coli evolves to metabolize propanediol
E. coli evolves to digest citrate
Klebsiella bacteria develop a new metabolic pathway to metabolize 5-carbon sugars
No comment on unicelled creatures.
Fruit fly adaptations to low oxygen environments
I'd suspect this to be mere normal microevolution. Perhaps drastic natural selection wiping out most of the rest of the population?
Blowfly Insecticide Resistance
Same suspicion as above.
Fungi evolves to harness high radiation levels in Chernobyl, Russia
Chlorella algae evolves multicellularity in response to a predator
Yep those unicelled creatures have their own peculiar genetics.
4. Observed instances of large morphological changes
Croatian Lizards change body shape to adapt to a new environment
Ah yes, that video of the lizards of Pod Mrcaru. Definitely standard microevolution.
Anolis Lizards change body shape to adapt to new island environments
Same as above. Not necessarily environment-driven, just natural variation through new allele frequencies.
Galapagos Finches morphologically change in response to seed sizes
All within the built-in genetic capacity of the creature, simply normal microevolution, and probably NOT in response to the seeds, more likely the genetic change came first and then they gravitated to the seeds for which they were now suited.
Autralian snakes adapt to introduction of poisonous toads
Probably a true case of natural selection, which is just one kind of microevolution.
Change in size of the bony armor of Stickleback fish
Boy those sticklebacks are genetically busy creatures. Are all the changes noted here part of the same adaptive event perhaps? I'd have to go back and reread. But in any case there is nothing outside the normal genetic variability in such a size change of the bony armor. Just normal microevolution.
Will have to get to the rest later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 10:12 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 10:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 429 by AZPaul3, posted 10-16-2013 3:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 418 of 457 (708880)
10-15-2013 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by frako
10-15-2013 6:42 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Yes there are also people who devoted their lives to the study of evolution and every single one of them knows that if they manage to disprove it they get fame and fortune.
However, haven't there been some who have studied it extensively and devoted their lives to the science who have come to see it as false, even written books against it but do NOT get fame and fortune?Or if they do they don't get it from the scientific community, which remains untouched by their new insights.
To my mind this goes to demonstrate that the whole thing is far from science and really just a matter of belief and opinion, something that can't be definitively pinned down because it's all unproven speculation etc. If someone does see through it there is no way for them to actually prove their case either. It's always a matter of hoping to be persuasive about some vague plausibilities. That's the case on both sides of the debate in the end.
So, while a lot of actual science IS done in the name of the ToE, the ToE itself is pure mental conjuring out of thin air.
which I did quite a bit when I still believed in it before I became a Christian.
What where you before an atheist, did you come from a secular family or did you belong to a different religion.
My parents sent their four offspring to church just because it was the thing to do and a way to get us out of their hair for a while on the weekend. They themselves went only on the holidays and for special occasions. Neither of them was an atheist but they certainly weren't believers either. They might as well have been secular but they didn't preach that point of view either. It was a teacher in high school who aggressively ridiculed Christianity that turned me into an atheist, which I remained for the next thirty years. During which I also believed in evolution and read articles about it from time to time.
And I'll also say again since I haven't said it in a while that the science that is done in the name of evolution is often good science, but what it supports is always microevolution and never macroevolution.
But there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution there is only evolution
I believe I've demonstrated on this very thread that that is false, that there is a natural genetic barrier to macroevolution. Thought I'd bold that because I have the impression you didn't bother to read much of what I wrote anyway. On this thread or any of the others where I've pursued the same argument.
Is the retrovirus since that has been done good science? And does it deal with micro or macro evolution? I would like to hear your explanation on how retroviruses just happened to insert themselves in the same exact spot on the genome in so meny different "kinds", common descent explains that how does creationism do it.
I don't know. I stick to the topics I feel I can best argue and I believe I've shown that macroevolution is impossible, in which case all the other unanswered questions just have to be left for later.
I do like that Jutland cattle study, it really does support my own theory here, very nicely.
Yea well its the study of breeds or what you would call micro evolution so id be surprised if it wouldn't.
I doubt Percy sees it that way.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 6:42 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2013 10:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 422 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 11:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 420 of 457 (708883)
10-15-2013 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Coyote
10-15-2013 10:39 PM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
But just as a test, can you name one, just one, scientific theory that has been proved?
You'll parse "proved" to prove that there is no such thing as "proving" anything but sure,
Newton Gravity
Harvey Blood Circulation
Germ theory Pasteur
Solar system planets circle sun Galileo, Copernicus
Wegener's continental drift
The spiral helix form of DNA Crick and Watson
And many more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2013 10:39 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Coyote, posted 10-15-2013 10:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 423 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 11:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 424 of 457 (708889)
10-15-2013 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by frako
10-15-2013 11:28 PM


THE ToE IS NOT IN ANY SENSE TRUE SCIENCE
Sure, I knew you'd all play with the words that way, but none of those "theories" is in any sense unproved the way the ToE is unproved. All of them are about things we CAN observe, and the ToE absolutely is not, it's about an unwitnessed and unprovable past that can never be disproved for that reason. All you have to do is keep rearranging the props imaginatively whenever the theory is challenged because the whole thing is nothing but mental hooha.
NOT true of gravity which any of us can test for ourselves, IN THE PRESENT, who cares about Mercury; blood circulation, well that one's a little harder to observe but there are hundreds of ways we easily infer it from experience, like feeling our pulse, IN THE PRESENT; continental drift has been measured, IN THE PRESENT; we can't see germs but we know all about the effects of pretending they aren't there, IN THE PRESENT; and the DNA helix works for tons of other observations, IN THE PRESENT. All of these things work in hundreds and hundreds of ways, IN THE PRESENT.
The ToE does absolutely nothing but sit there and dictate to us how we are supposed to understand things in the past we couldn't possibly observe, that nobody has ever seen, that we can't make use of in any way, that doesn't "work" at all in the sense the other "theories" do, it just sits there and sucks a ton of science into it to no purpose whatever, pretends to be the cause of medical breakthroughs when it isn't, and so on,. It's a big fat lie and usurper of science.
AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY PEOPLE SAY THIS SORT OF THING ABOUT THE ToE. It's the truth but you can't see it. You can't see why half of your "scientific" observations are just wishful nonsense and the ones that have some truth in them are chewed up by theory so they don't make sense out of anything and someday they all WILL come back to bite you. Oh well, oh well, oh well.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 11:28 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 12:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 446 of 457 (708936)
10-16-2013 2:43 PM


My summary
What's wrong with people? can be asked from the Christian and creationist point of view too, but such things get answered by those who have the POWER to answer them according to their own opinions, not necessarily those who have the truth.
Evolutionists think anything done in the biological sciences confirms evolution, but most of it describes only microevolution which creationists regard as normal variation through built-in alleles. Of course they can just go on hallucinating "evolution" beyond that since they refuse to recognize that depleted genetic diversity is the necessary end result of evolutionary processes, and mutations couldn't possibly be the maker of normal alleles --in any number that could save the theory. Besides which, if they continued for millions of years, or even a hundred thousand or less, there wouldn't be anything left alive on the earth.
As long as science continues to be co-opted to the ToE and people want to believe it as apparently so many do, it will maintain its illusion as scientific.
I'd get on the Mayflower today if there was anywhere for it to go.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 10:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 450 by ringo, posted 10-17-2013 11:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 453 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-18-2013 11:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024