Creation is a Scientific Fact

reply to post by Conspiriology


Ah!! my friend, this reply of yours confirms my suspicion. I am very glad that you are an independent thinker, more similar to AshleyD than BigWhammy. Hey man, what’s the deal about AshleyD beating my arguments like a step child? Firstly, AshleyD may not appreciate your passing remark of her having a giant ape as a step child, (but I do appreciate it, it will be cool if she adopted me, thanks man!). Secondly, you need to give Gigantopithecus time to do research man! Gigantopithecus don’t debate without research, remember that! Thirdly, I am planning to take on AshleyD one of these days, it will be fun.

From a scale of 0 to 100, 0 being Atheist and 100 being Fanatical Believer who goes to length to twist the means to justify his faith, I am a 1. I comprehend and accept science wholeheartedly and totally, but I also have faith that God is out there. You can imagine why both the opposing groups won’t accept me with open arms. Seriously, I do want to know more of your thoughts and experiences about God. Perhaps not here, it would be off topic. I am planning to start some threads as suggested by AshleyD and Jphish. I am still not comfortable about starting threads as I view them as being offensive. Perhaps I will start some constructive threads instead, like respecting your opponent’s beliefs, debate fairly, identifying unfair debaters. I have many of my own thoughts and experience to share too. You will be surprised what I have to say. Hope this get your attention, I believe in the end, Agnostics will show the way.

Everyone, coming back basically this thread is a sham. BigWhammy’s video is manufactured evidence. I shan’t go into detail as others here had already pointed out so fairly well, time and again. If you can’t see, I am truly sorry, I don't have an answer. I can't make you see what you can't see. Whether it evolution or creationism, one thing is for sure, some of us have the ability to see further than the surface. We can see the video is manufactured evidence. We also can see the video is manipulated to give the illusion of fairness but either way you argue, it baits everyone to prove God’s existence. Specifically he wants you to believe he is not linking creation to creationism. But you guys know better, well some of you don't, hence kept arguing for creationism.

Let me simplify. If you are for the videos, you are for creation and creationism, thereby proved God’s existence. If you are for Big Bang Theory, you have again proven God’s existence because his videos say so. If you are against his videos, you are going against mainstream science, since mainstream science is wrong, evolution is wrong, so creation and creationism is right, so his videos are right and you have proven God’s existence.

Let me simplify it even further. BigWhammy is telling you, if you toss a coin, head he will win, tail you will lose. Some of you might need a longer time to think about the coin analogy, hope you get it. The fact is, you will lose all the time. If you still can’t understand, he had already taken you for a ride.

So what’s the next step? I think we all step back from debating among ourselves. Do some research, Google is the easiest way. Debate the post, question the OP why the need to manufacture evidence? Question his intention, seek his clarification on his use of vague wordings. Visit his Youtube site, see what people outside ATS said about the OP’s video. Majority disagree with him.

I am offended the way he misuses Albert Enstein's name so many times for his purpose. I will do some research and put up an argument on this.


[edit on 12-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by Anomander
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I thought science follows facts to whatever conclusion they take it to. In your case, you already have the conclusion (essentially God did it), and now you are fitting the facts to your conclusion. Not science.

Science does not necessarily follow facts. It follows what we can consistently observe. Facts are not necessarily observable, and what is observed are not necessarily facts.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, when I say facts I mean what science can work with, consistently so, as you yourself point out. I am not just throwing the word around. Perhaps I should say 'scientific' facts? I don't know, but I believe there is a word for it.

In BW's case, he had a hypothesis (which he felt was quite obvious); based on that hypothesis, he has considered others' relevant experimentations and conclusions, and through inference, has come to his conclusion. BW may be correct, but because his scientific conclusion is ground and consequent; he will only be so, by luck.

A hypothesis? No. A conclusion. Watching the video, and reading BW's posts, I do not get the impression that he arrived to his conclusions after an exhaustive [scientific] method, but that might just be me. In any case, even if it's the reverse, he took the scientists' conclusions and put his own interpretation on them, and then went ahead and claimed that said scientists (and a lot more) support his position.

If the concerned scientists were asked, would they really agree with him that their conclusions point to a creation event by none other than the Christian God? BW claims they do, and I for one would like to see some links.

Fitting facts to justify a hypothesis and arrive at a conclusion is called coherentism. It's what evolutionary theory is heavily based on. So if you believe that BW is not being scientific, then you should believe that evolutionary theory is not scientific.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by JPhish]

Those are not exactly my words. "Fitting facts to justify a hypothesis"? Tell me, how was that hypothesis formulated in the first place?

As I said, (is there an echo around here?) I have not seen anything from BW's posts that suggests that he arrived at his conclusions based on a thorough analysis. He took others' findings, and interpreted them in his own way, and formulated a conclusion (but, again, a foregone one IMHO). He asserts that the evidence points to a [specifically] Christian God, not just a Creator.

Now to evolution. I would like to know what conclusion it is that the theory of evolution supposedly starts with and try to find fitting facts to? That's what you are claiming. If it worked that way, the other fields of science would throw it out. Last time I checked, it had not happened.

Hmm, I am tired.

reply to post by melatonin


Funny thing is I have already admitted I went a little too far with the "fact" statement. It was an experiment to expose the hypocrisy of Darwinists. You proved that hypothesis. It's a solid theory now. You thrive on a scientific double standard. If a position supports materialism and atheism it is a "fact". If it threatens materialism it's a theory.

Thanks to your last blast of hot air.You proved the point again. Thanks

I remember how bent out of shape poor melvin got when he saw the definition for Darwnism given by D'Souza.

Evolution is a scientific theory, Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and a political ideology. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution.

Oh the pleading and whining has been ceaseless from melatonin. Ohh Darwin didn't this... Evolution doesn't say that... ad nauseum
There's one born every minute.

Now we see hypocrisy in it's purest form as the word creation is properly defined as:

the event that occurred at the beginning of something;

The Big bang certainly meets this definition. Big Bang Cosmology describes a creation event. There's nothing dishonest about including the creation word. Other than it threatens the Darwinists metaphysical stance (that supposedly doesn't exist ROFL)

But ohhh he wants to attach all sorts of metaphysical and political positions to te word creation now. So a creationist automatically believes in a 6000 year old earth and dinosaurs cohabitation with man. Seems like (as usual) they love to dish it out but cry like small childresn when it comes back on them.

More double standards and semantic sophistry. :shk:

theory is now a law

Darwinists love to dish it but can't take it.

ROFLMAO



[edit on 7/11/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.[2]

A religious belief can be a fact, if you like, but it has nothing whatever to do with science.

ID/Creationism/Godism, is not testable and is NOT A THEORY.

Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

The Big Bang model is not complete. For example, it does not explain why the universe is so uniform on the very largest scales or, indeed, why it is so non-uniform on smaller scales, i.e., how stars and galaxies came to be.
...
The Big Bang theory makes no attempt to explain how structures like stars and galaxies came to exist in the universe.

It only goes back to 10>-43 seconds when everything was contained in about 1 cubic mm. Not T= zero, and not beginning with nothing. When you presume any more than that, you presume you know more than Stephen Hawking. Not bloody likely. That probability really is zero! You have no idea what you are talking about.

Most of our view of the universe is blocked by dust and gas in our own galaxy. If it turns out that our universe began as just a new bubble in a foam of pre-existing universes, how will the idea of "God" be forced to evolve to survive in that new environment?

The first attempt to replicate the environmental conditions of primordial earth was done in 1953 and produced far more than expected quantities of organic chemicals, including amino acids, in only one week.
The latest estimate of the volume of the earth's oceans is 1.5x10>9km>3, or about 1.5x10>20 liters. The volume of the atmosphere is about 30x10>20liters, for a total of roughly 45x10>20liters of total volume where the first primordial life could have formed.

Assuming the very first experiment, in about I liter of volume, produced far better than expected results, then repeating it for only 1 billion years would be 52x10>9 times. Since each week would begin with the cumulative results of all the previous weeks, the results would be exponential. That would come to about 1.5x10>183 repetitions under all the different environments on earth.
Only one combination capable of self-replication would be enough to get life started.

Oops, it only took 50 years.

June 4, 2008

A team of researchers at Harvard University have modeled in the laboratory a primitive cell, or protocell, that is capable of building, copying and containing DNA.
...
When the team started its work, the researchers were not sure that the building blocks required for copying the protocell's genetic material would be able to enter the cell.

"By showing that this can happen, and indeed happen quite efficiently, we have come a little closer to our goal of making a functional protocell that, in the right environment, is able to grow and divide on its own," said Szostak.

Originally posted by melatonin

So because you claim other people do it, then that means it's OK to do it? I think the attempt to hide evangelism as a discussion on science is actually more deceptive (but I wasn't surprised, tbh).

Apparently it is Mel as I never see you point it out when evolutionists do it and they cant argue macro evolution without doing it. It is the only way it can be explained.

Yet whammy wants to make a big thing about a potential beginning which is supposedly congruent with the bible, but ignore all the other clearly false claims in genesis.

There are false claims in Genesis?
Oh well it says God made the heavens and the earth you mean ?

As if that crap Dawkins subscribes to is credible. PfffT

Why should anyone give special weight to one simple claim about a universe coming into existence? If we do eventually find multiverses to be well-supported, would you become hindu?

Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. He mentions one earth and plural heavens

It will come down to philosophy unless you have a good way to test it. Even then, can we truly rule out natural causes? It's like saying that little blue invisible magic-men in a parallel but impinging dimension push the planets in their orbits. We have good reasonable natural explanations and we see no reason for interdimensional magic smurfs, but how do we show that little blue magic-men do not push the planets?

Well one way is to quit limiting scietific method to things that can only be done in the capacity of a construction worker

2 billion years later, all humans are actually dead, we are extinct throughout the universe, and so is life on earth (sun went boom eventually). Some wacky religionists wiped us all out with some designed virus to bring on the 'Capture', where their fantasy Spooks supposedly took all souls to their supernatural Devon to eat Scones and Fresh Cream with Doris and Her Holy Poodle.

However, on this seeded planet life is thriving. A couple more billion years later intelligent conscious life evolves. They form religions etc to explain their world, but eventually some guy called 'Marwin' develops a scientific theory that accounts for the diversity of life. The evidence is clear, no telic designers required for evolution. Eventually they clearly show how abiogenesis can occur naturally (just as it did on the hypothetical earth). They assume no telic designer required, and the evidence fits.

They are wrong, however. How would they know?

Easymacro evolution "transmutation" has never been observed and never will. Evolution wasn't the brain child of a scientist interested in our origin , it was an idea to counter the genesis account by a very disgruntled luke warm so called Christian named Darwimp.

Nope, they appear to have evolved the ability. Ken Miller & Dawkins have essentially accepted the idea that we see design in nature, just non-teleological.

Of course they did sheesh what a crock

Humans designing planes and the design we see in nature is rather different. If the planes could reproduce and undergo variation and selection, then it might fit.

But they do Mel they do and they have a mechanism too. You just don't see it. WE arre the mechanism Mel,, US

- Con

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

So the Atheist attempt to marginalize the word "creation" is a cheap propaganda attempt to discredit honorable scientists like Edwin Hubble, Albert Einstein, and many others who have contributed to the Big Bang Creation Cosmology. As well as people who believe in a creator God. Which is most of the world.

I'm just taking the word back. Creation is mainstream. Get over it.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Ok, I have done my research based on the most recent statement by the OP above. I googled “atheist discredits albert einstein” and guess what? It’s more like Atheism being discredited time and again. One particular hit says “Einstein Humiliates Atheist”. Upon reading further at www.snoop.com, this proved to be false also. So now you know the OP is the one trying to discredit Atheism. He is the one who has marginalised the word "creation". Only he can say why.

I proceeded to google “albert einstein religion” ho ho, Albert Einstein professed to be an Agnostic. He was upset when Atheists quoted him to support their case against existence of God and he was angry that people claimed he worshipped a Judeo-Christian God. If you want to know more about Albert Einstein and his thoughts on God and religion, these two links said it all and are collaborated by many many other articles:

Wikipedia on Albert Enstein

en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein And Religion

www.einsteinandreligion.com...


Here are the two google search links:

Results of "atheist discredits albert einstein"

www.google.com.sg...

Results of "albert einstein religion"

www.google.com.sg...


As always, you don’t have to trust me. Do your own research.

Atheists have Nick Gisburne. BigWhammy, you have Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Please leave Albert Einstein to us, Agnostics. Stop trying to discredit Atheists and instigate hatre against Atheists and Science. Stop misusing honourable scientists for your benefit. You are misleading everyone. You also should stop mocking fellow ATS members, it's just not the way.



[edit on 12-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Funny thing is I have already admitted I went a little too far with the "fact" statement. It was an experiment to expose the hypocrisy of Darwinists. You proved that hypothesis. It's a solid theory now. You thrive on a scientific double standard. If a position supports materialism and atheism it is a "fact". If it threatens materialism it's a theory.

Make your mind up, whammy. Is it all about a Creator (TM) or all about proving hypocrisy of 'darwinists'?

You're just being even more disingenuous here. I'm quite happy to accept that evolutionary theory is a theory. There are also the facts of evolution. I understand that it is a distinction that you are unable to comprehend. You didn't go 'a little too far', you were just plain wrong on the scientific fact claim.

You see, you actually pointed out YOUR hypocrisy, disingenuity, confirmation bias, and inability to understand science. BB theory is as much a theory as evolution. Indeed, evolutionary theory is more robust with much more repeatedly verified evidence. Moreover, BB theory fails when you most want to depend on it, rofl - and it will be supeceded in time.

Ph4ar the science, whammy. It's gonna leave you and your bronze age wishful-thinking behind. In fact, it did so a long time ago.

Thanks to your last blast of hot air.You proved the point again. Thanks

With your ability to contort, I think anything would 'prove' your wishful-thinking.

I remember how bent out of shape poor melvin got when he saw the definition for Darwnism given by D'Souza.

Evolution is a scientific theory, Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and a political ideology. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution.

Oh the pleading and whining has been ceaseless from melatonin. Ohh Darwin didn't this... Evolution doesn't say that...

ad nauseum
There's one born every minute.

That's because D'Souza is even more dishonest and disingenuous than you.

You have work to do. Keep at it.

Now we see hypocrisy in it's purest form as the word creation is properly defined as:

the event that occurred at the beginning of something;

The Big bang certainly meets this definition. Big Bang Cosmology describes a creation event. There's nothing dishonest about including the creation word. Other than it threatens the Darwinists metaphysical stance (that supposedly doesn't exist ROFL)

Whammy, your repeated equivocation in this thread is pretty clear, and it is again.

Do you even read what you post?

But ohhh he wants to attach all sorts of metaphysical and political positions to te word creation now. So a creationist automatically believes in a 6000 year old earth and dinosaurs cohabitation with man. Seems like (as usual) they love to dish it out but cry like small childresn when it comes back on them.

More double standards and semantic sophistry. :shk:

Oh, no. It's you that wants to do that. Hence all your waffling about materialism and metaphysical/philosophical implications. If you want to take the potentially non-teleological definition of the word 'create', then it is a trivial point with no clear implications for metaphysics and all that jazz.

And one I didn't even bother about until your repeated equivocation was clear - I was more interested in your BS fine-tuning and probability arguments, as the use of the word 'creation' was trivial - unusual and not common in the scientific community, but defensible under the one definition. However, your equivocation and dishonesty is more relevant.

'Semantic sophistry', bwahahaha. You owe me a new irony meter.

theory is now a law

Darwinists love to dish it but can't take it.

ROFLMAO

Of course, whammy. A 'theory is now a law'...

Don't give up the day job.

your, petard, hoist, own, with

[edit on 12-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Apparently it is Mel as I never see you point it out when evolutionists do it and they cant argue macro evolution without doing it. It is the only way it can be explained.

I tend to read few posts not really aimed at me, or that don't perk my interest, and even less of those not ripe for a lulz harvest.

I think you're wrong here, con. There is no equivocation over macro and micro - no real fundamental difference, just one of scope. It is in your case a false distinction you and other creationists want to make to do your two-bit jig - But itz JusT mIcroEVolUtioN!!1oneoneeleventyone!1 - which simply means anything we do in the lab, can directly observe, and is not so readily obfuscated.

All big changes in evolution need are novel traits (observed), variation (observed), descent with modification (observed), gene flow (observed), non-random selection (observed), and time (observed). When you find a barrier, then you might have a reason to make a real fundamental distinction.

The mechanisms for macro are mostly those for micro, although some have suggested there might be something else at the genetic level, but even when observed it will then suddenly become microevolution, rofl. As it also assesses large timescales and radiations in evolution, it will also be open to major environmental/ecological and potentially emergent influences (e.g., was the cambrian radiation impacted by major changes in environment? The effect of large scale extinctions - how does this influence evolution of remaining species?). Some think macro can be directly reduced to pure micro (Dobzhansky), others than we miss some important influences if we do so (it's a reductionism issue).

All about scale. The notion of 'rats becoming bats' is not really controversial, except for you creationists.

Macroevolution

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

Here, you can examine the patterns of macroevolution in evolutionary history and find out how scientists investigate deep history.

Evol 101

Try it out.

There are false claims in Genesis?
Oh well it says God made the heavens and the earth you mean ?

As if that crap Dawkins subscribes to is credible. PfffT

Oh, yes. Many.

Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. He mentions one earth and plural heavens

Cool. Short chapter then, and not quite as I remember it.

Well one way is to quit limiting scietific method to things that can only be done in the capacity of a construction worker

Yes, con. The world awaits the new methodological supernaturalism. Get to it!

Easymacro evolution "transmutation" has never been observed and never will. Evolution wasn't the brain child of a scientist interested in our origin , it was an idea to counter the genesis account by a very disgruntled luke warm so called Christian named Darwimp.

Like big bang theory, it is a theory that explains observations and that makes specific testable predictions. Many of those predictions have been verified by observations. Indeed, even more than for inflationary theory.

But they do Mel they do and they have a mechanism too. You just don't see it. WE arre the mechanism Mel,, US

- Con

OK. I think you are talking about memetic 'evolution' - the evolution of ideas and cultural information. That's one of Dawkins' babies.

Quite distinct from biological evolution.

You really missed the point of much of my post. Oh well, I won't bother wasting so much time again.

............................................................................................................

With the current semantic themes over micro/macro and creation/Creation, Ever so pertinent:

There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master – that's all.'

[edit on 12-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


I tend to read few posts not really aimed at me, or that don't perk my interest, and even less of those not ripe for a lulz harvest.

Well I appreciate your responding nevertheless Mel and Thank you.

Ok,, first, I have a MUCH different position on BB than whammy, I don't even talk to him about it our differences in that regard as I know they are as far apart as yours is with his. I simply don't want to argue it with him and stick to what we agree on.

The Bible is NOT a Science book and doesn't explain HOW an event happened but merely WHAT happened. I keep trying to explain this even to Christians who insist on trying to substantiate Biblical Folklore with Science by using Science rather than spiritual revelation. Many of us like to think what we think IS that revelation. The way to know is if it is contrary to what is Gods word or the Bible itself. Nothing is to be added not even assumptions and BB is an assumption, it is a theory it is what it is and doesn't encompass a lot of other theory like evolution does so it isn't a fair comparison in that regard is it? I don't think so. The word evolution has many meanings to define it.

BB does not and even though it was frst thought of to mock Christianity, it has become synonymous for Yec theorists. There are many times in this thread I could have posted what would seem to be a post arguing against whammy and have some damn good ones that come to mind that I think would convict him on more of a biblical spiritual level and not on a scientific one.

You must understand however, that the reasons your attempts at exposing this "hypocrisy" fall on deaf ears is, if I may be forced to flatter you here, YOU are (i believe) the example all evolutionists here look up to. You are considered by most in both camps "THEE GUY" to challenge and / or go to when evolutionists need reinforcements or support.

I can't imagine what this place would be like if not for you and madness, lol I'd be bored to death. Both Camps have there cheer leaders with Pom Poms in hand people like Dave and I suppose I have carried em a few times. Both camps have their antagonists and occasionally they have some in a category all to themselves, one I can't mention but eyemblind fits it to tee. So I understand why you are or actually, HAVE to be very selective about answering some of these posts.

I may be presumptuous in saying this as I really have no idea what his spiritual beliefs are but I think JPHISH is our answer to you when it comes to that academic arena of science and was afraid Horza would take your place. I think JPHISH has more respect for you than Horza however.

Where whammy may have a point is where you seem to be missing the point and even though he may be guilty of equivocation, it isn't the fault of creationists it is the evolutionists who make this a practice using convergence as a means of what I see to be neurolinguistic programming and YOU are a perfect example or your post would indicate that. Before I explain, again. I want to be clear about my stance on Christian creation and am in no way pleading a case for whammy's theory as we are far apart on that issue but his reason for doing what again I will say IS an active pursuit among evolutionists to obfuscate the truth. "obfuscate" is a word I see you using a lot lately but not till after I was using it against evolutionists.


Many of the example you say are observed are also based on liquid logic Mel. That is to say the Logic isn't pure and Lennox has proven what Pure unadulterated mathematical logic can do to any argument even when someone as bright as Dawkins is at it.

When you say birds seem to have evolved for instance here is where the division between us comes from. What do you mean they seem to have evolved? from what? You see what I mean? Did they merely grow bigger beaks like Darwin's finches or are you saying transmutation took place which IS something you yourself seem to have merged into one complete and separate distinction and one I will insist out of pure respect for the truth that they never merge. If this is a transmutation, then from what? I have seen and posted almost a half dozen or more alleged dino to bird fossils now proven hoaxes some were pretty pathetic.

It would seem to me their is a bounty out for such artifacts and if so why?

what are they "trying" to prove?
Why is it Dawkins says evidence certainly "appears" to have been designed but writes it off and emphatically insists you remember this is an illusion. While the feathered dino fossil market in china is not? Who is trying to kid who here?

The challenge I gave about Dawkins explanation of evolution has never been clarified and I have never seen anyone but Dave who just mocked me but couldn't make any more sense of it and was smart not to try.

It is as obvious as that to me that what you say is observed doesn't mean you have the right to assume the consequent and not have it be a logical fallacy.



Where there is microevolution we have no argument but where transmutation molecules to man macro evolution takes place is where Micro evolution ends and where Bunk begins.

The rest, I don't care WHO you are or HOW smart you think you are, THAT is a debate I am worthy of winning because now I will insist on using pure logic in the mythical scientific method that is rarely used in science anyway. Presuppositions limit the ability to observe. Even if there were no presuppositions, political pressure and coercion may cause more inaccuracy than the presuppositions cause.

I'm talking about Logic and critical thinking the likes evolutionists talk a good game about but rarely display in their arguments. Or a method of thinking that applies certain mathematical rules for which no observed exceptions have ever been found, sometimes called strict mathematical logic. What I see coming from proponents of the convergence of micro to macro evolution is NOT logical, not at all. It is thinking that is based on presupposed and hidden assumptions and fabrications while using "terms" consistent with logic or even described in my first example of logic to make it seem as if that first method of logic is being applied thus the obfuscation and if allowed is premise for exhibit A when exhibit A is still a lie.

None of us denies what you say is factually proven except that which is above and beyond what has been proven the same way we have accepted micro evolution. This can be said of the multi universe and I see the same distinct pattern for convergence of terminology having argued the meaning for the word "kinds" in the Bible with Madness and also his new mis applied, mis understanding of the word universe.

When we saw evolutionists constantly making therads attacking religion, Ashley made one about evolution where the atheists came in as if they were cattle NOT cats defending it insulting anyone that would dare question its tenets.

When Atheists kept making threads attacking Christianity as the biggest evil killing hundreds of thousands in Salem as Witch's. I saw this coming and Christians did the same damn thing taking a tragic evil and looked for a common distinction of atheism and hence forth we seen many threads about Stalin and moa and millions of dead.

I see this as nothing more but the same thing where we called it like we saw it after having it done to us, we see the evolutionists can dish it but dun like it when it is done to them or used against them.

Multi universes will NEVER be proven like the model we have now. It might be MORE POPULAR but not more proven.

Just like God, we cannot prove him more than he has already proven himself to those he reveals his presence to. This is why their will also be the same problem proving transmutation and you guys just don't get it.

We can't prove the supernatural for the same reason you will never prove transmutation and how all the species came into existence.


that reason whether you choose to accept it or not is still a fact.

whether you believe it or not,

that reason is simply this,


"Goddidit"



- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Ok,, first, I have a MUCH different position on BB than whammy, I don't even talk to him about it our differences in that regard as I know they are as far apart as yours is with his. I simply don't want to argue it with him and stick to what we agree on.

I'm annoyed. As my last reponse was just wiped out, lol.

I'll be briefer this time, so I apologise.

Fair enough, I see lots from many users I could respond to, but I have limited time and could be here all day if I responded to every misrepresentation, error, or post of interest I see. Sometimes I correct whoever posts - I did so earlier on a small issue in the probability/statistics realm.

I see whole threads on wacky stuff I just ignore.

Nothing is to be added not even assumptions and BB is an assumption, it is a theory it is what it is and doesn't encompass a lot of other theory like evolution does so it isn't a fair comparison in that regard is it? I don't think so. The word evolution has many meanings to define it.

Don't think I'd call BB theory an assumption. But it will just be part of the answer.

You must understand however, that the reasons your attempts at exposing this "hypocrisy" fall on deaf ears is, if I may be forced to flatter you here, YOU are (i believe) the example all evolutionists here look up to. You are considered by most in both camps "THEE GUY" to challenge and / or go to when evolutionists need reinforcements or support.

Heh, well, they'd be pretty silly. I think I just have easy access to the 'good stuff' (i.e., the hard drugs known as 'journals'). I tend to leave people to fend for themselves if they ask for help out of a hole - not really my problem - they can learn for themselves, however I might push them in the right direction.

Someone U2U'd me t'other day saying how they noted more anti-evo and anti-atheist threads when I show myself, I responded that perhaps I'm their sort of muse, heh.

I may be presumptuous in saying this as I really have no idea what his spiritual beliefs are but I think JPHISH is our answer to you when it comes to that academic arena of science and was afraid Horza would take your place. I think JPHISH has more respect for you than Horza however.

I actually like J. He expresses some traits I see as a sign of smarts. I think the 'J' & 'Ph[F]ish' are a sign of his beliefs, but I could be wrong.

Many of the example you say are observed are also based on liquid logic Mel. That is to say the Logic isn't pure and Lennox has proven what Pure unadulterated mathematical logic can do to any argument even when someone as bright as Dawkins is at it.

I wouldn't really use Lennox as a good source of logic, this is the guy who says he believes stuff 'because his worldview depends on it'.

Not a good sign.

When you say birds seem to have evolved for instance here is where the division between us comes from. What do you mean they seem to have evolved? from what? You see what I mean? Did they merely grow bigger beaks like Darwin's finches or are you saying transmutation took place which IS something you yourself seem to have merged into one complete and separate distinction and one I will insist out of pure respect for the truth that they never merge. If this is a transmutation, then from what?

Birds appear to have evolved from a type of therapod dinosaur. The evidence is pretty good this is case.

Evolution depends on taking features present in a species and altering them. Thus, a swimming limb gradually becomes a walking limb, which gradually becomes a flying limb.

There's not that much difference between the beak getting longer style evolution and that for novel traits. First thing is to note that evolution really takes place at the population level. In one case, the pre-existing trait becomes more common in the population by selection (usually*) cf. an old trait. In the novel trait example, a new trait arises and becomes more common in a population by selection (usually*) cf. an old trait.

*could also just be random drift, but selection is a better example.

I have seen and posted almost a half dozen or more alleged dino to bird fossils now proven hoaxes some were pretty pathetic.

It would seem to me their is a bounty out for such artifacts and if so why?

what are they "trying" to prove?

Who? Take archeoraptor, it was the scientists who showed this to be fake. Some random dude fakes a fossil, tries to make a buck, then a scientist shows it to be a fake. I see no problem there, in most circumstances this is the case. In others, some ass of a scientist is shown to be a fraud by other scientists.

Indeed, the scientist who showed archeoraptor to be fake is the same dude digging up dozens of early bird and reptile-bird transitionals in china (Xu Xing). In contrast to what you think, most scientists take their integrity and the veracity of their findings very seriously.

Why is it Dawkins says evidence certainly "appears" to have been designed but writes it off and emphatically insists you remember this is an illusion.

Because we have an excellent explanation for the apparent design.

While the feathered dino fossil market in china is not? Who is trying to kid who here?

I think the vast majority of scientists are out there trying to clear the fog of ignorance. They have a thirst to do so.

Some others are more comfortable with a fog of ignorance, somewhat comparable to the mysterians. It allows their faith-based beliefs to prosper more effectively. And when the fog is cleared, they perform gymnastics to alleviate cognitive dissonance and maintain their wishful-thinking.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


I'm annoyed. As my last reponse was just wiped out, lol.
I'll be briefer this time, so I apologise.

Oh sorry to hear that.

I know what you mean about the access to "the good stuff" and is why I hang out at ASU on many afternoons. I have made many friends there and Oh man you should see or hear the discussions we have over drinks at the sports bar. I don't drink so I usually win the arguments after they have had a few lol. They are a great bunch a guys all atheists except for me and a statistics prof. who can do some wild stuff with that it makes me want to go back to school!

Jphish is cool and yu might be right about that J and the Phish being < never tought of that. He impressed the crap out of me I admit that and have learned a great deal about things just reading his posts. I do know he has a lot of respect for you as he has said so in u2u's, but most people I think do even if they don't like you they know you ain't no dummy.

Well I only have this one last question where you say lennox worldview depends on it.

Can that not be said of Dawkins? Does not his worldview depend on evolution? Isn't that the same? If so that is what scares me too lol


Thanks again taking the time Mel

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
The challenge I gave about Dawkins explanation of evolution has never been clarified and I have never seen anyone but Dave who just mocked me but couldn't make any more sense of it and was smart not to try.

Not sure what you are on about here, sorry.

It is as obvious as that to me that what you say is observed doesn't mean you have the right to assume the consequent and not have it be a logical fallacy.

Affirming the consequent?

If p then q; q, therefore p?

Abductive reasoning is common in science, not just evolution. The fact is that we don't make claims of absolute truth, we argue for tentative explanations that are open to changes and falsification through evidence. That's why we don't 'prove' hypotheses or 'prove' theories, we can confirm them.

Where there is microevolution we have no argument but where transmutation molecules to man macro evolution takes place is where Micro evolution ends and where Bunk begins.

No, con. you can't separate micro from macro so easily. Macro is dependent on the same mechanisms.

The rest, I don't care WHO you are or HOW smart you think you are, THAT is a debate I am worthy of winning because now I will insist on using pure logic in the mythical scientific method that is rarely used in science anyway. Presuppositions limit the ability to observe. Even if there were no presuppositions, political pressure and coercion may cause more inaccuracy than the presuppositions cause.

Pure logic is great. Great for maths and philosophical masturbation. But in the real world we need to accept the limits of our abilities, that we can't know all about a system. That we start from a position of ignorance and work towards knowledge. That we can never know for certain a potential absolute truth.

I accept all this. I am humble enough to accept that science is limited. That we will make mistakes.

And it is true that the scientific method is a flexible amorphous approach to the gathering of knowledge. But it works, con. It does. It is the best we have. The proof is in the pudding. And all the creationist whining is of little consequence - because as you whine about the limitations of science, great discoveries are being made right now. Right at this minute.

I'm talking about Logic and critical thinking the likes evolutionists talk a good game about but rarely display in their arguments. Or a method of thinking that applies certain mathematical rules for which no observed exceptions have ever been found, sometimes called strict mathematical logic. What I see coming from proponents of the convergence of micro to macro evolution is NOT logical, not at all. It is thinking that is based on presupposed and hidden assumptions and fabrications while using "terms" consistent with logic or even described in my first example of logic to make it seem as if that first method of logic is being applied thus the obfuscation and if allowed is premise for exhibit A when exhibit A is still a lie.

If you think so. Yet evolutionary theory keeps pumping out those predictions and being verified. All the hot air on the internet and in your church basements means nothing. It adds nothing, more a sideshow and a waste of human effort. Think of how many kids could've been fed with the millions Ken Ham wasted on his silly museum.

When we saw evolutionists constantly making therads attacking religion, Ashley made one about evolution where the atheists came in as if they were cattle NOT cats defending it insulting anyone that would dare question its tenets.

Con, ash's thread was nothing extraordinary. Such threads have been made repeatedly since I have been a member here. Although not quite as pretentious and passive-aggressive.

When Atheists kept making threads attacking Christianity as the biggest evil killing hundreds of thousands in Salem as Witch's. I saw this coming and Christians did the same damn thing taking a tragic evil and looked for a common distinction of atheism and hence forth we seen many threads about Stalin and moa and millions of dead.

Yadda yadda.

I see this as nothing more but the same thing where we called it like we saw it after having it done to us, we see the evolutionists can dish it but dun like it when it is done to them or used against them.

Evolutionists tend to do their stuff where it belongs - in the science arena. Creationists try to subvert science in some socio-political attack on science.

Why are we even talking about this stuff. What we do here is pretty meaningless, con. The fact you think it has some great import is the problem, you need to be doing science to make a real impact on science. But that's not the issue I guess. It's more socio-political. As I noted the other day, religion and politics are closely intertwined, thus if you don't get your way in the science arena, you turn to political shennanigans.

Multi universes will NEVER be proven like the model we have now. It might be MORE POPULAR but not more proven.

I like when people make such claims, great stuff. The problem is that the scientific approach that enables the 'proven like the model we have now' is not much different from 'proven like common descent is now'.

But, again, confirmation bias is at work. Your worldview can accept one, but has to deny the other. When you start with the conclusion, when evidence is optional, when faith is a virtue....well, that's where it gets you.

We can't prove the supernatural for the same reason you will never prove transmutation and how all the species came into existence.

Heh.

that reason whether you choose to accept it or not is still a fact.

whether you believe it or not,

that reason is simply this,

"Goddidit"

- Con

Such a great insight. Errm, yeah, thanks.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Well I only have this one last question where you say lennox worldview depends on it.

Can that not be said of Dawkins? Does not his worldview depend on evolution? Isn't that the same? If so that is what scares me too lol

Thanks again taking the time Mel

- Con

I'll answer on the hope you'll stop making me blush, heh. Call me a darwimp atheist baby-killer damn you!

OK, I think it is different in Dawkins' and my own case. We have evidence for evolution, you might not accept it, but it acceptable to atheists, agnostics, christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists etc etc.. If you find evidence to show it to be wrong, then I'll discard it.

Once you say that you believe something because your worldview depends on it, you have left the arena of evidence-based reason. I don't believe in multiverses, I see the concept as being a potential explanation. Even though physics is going that way, that we have some questionable evidence, I don't believe it. I might accept it as a good explanation with more evidence though.

Time will tell.

I know what you mean about the access to "the good stuff" and is why I hang out at ASU on many afternoons. I have made many friends there and Oh man you should see or hear the discussions we have over drinks at the sports bar. I don't drink so I usually win the arguments after they have had a few lol. They are a great bunch a guys all atheists except for me and a statistics prof. who can do some wild stuff with that it makes me want to go back to school!

You should go back if you can.

Discussions with good academics do tend to be stimulating and exciting. Don't know why you do all this posturing then, con.

If your god wants to be found by science, I'm sure he'll make it so. Not as if he shouldn't be able to do so.

As for atheism, we have a right to have a voice. What's amazing is that it takes a muslim to bomb a cafe, to fly planes into some towers to be labelled 'militant'. It takes a christian to bomb or kill an abortion doctor to be a 'militant'. It takes an atheist to write a book or speak to be a 'militant'.

Something wrong there methinks.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by melatonin]

Wow isn't this an epic battle between Conspiriology and melatonin. Outcome? Still no winner. But you guys deserve a good rest before the next battle.

Here is Nick Gisburne to entertain you. Don't worry, I have already gone through it, nothing offensive to either party, unless you are ultra super sensitive. I always tell you guys not to trust me and to do your own research, but trust me this time you don't have to do research, this is funny and truthful. For those easily tickled pink, hold on to your chair.


[edit on 12-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by melatonin

Con, ash's thread was nothing extraordinary. Such threads have been made repeatedly since I have been a member here. Although not quite as pretentious and passive-aggressive.

heh WRONG GUY to dis Ashley to,, and I have been nice to you too. So lookin at the rest of this post of yours,, so much for that.

It may not be "extraordinary" but the point I was making that Atheists who claim they are like herding cats came in there like flys on dung and exhibited every single trait of religious zealotry from doctrine to dogma and it is undeniable.

Affirming the consequent?

If p then q; q, therefore p?

Abductive reasoning is common in science, not just evolution. The problem is that we don't make claims of truth, we argue for tentative explanations that are open to changes and falsification through evidence. That's why we don't 'prove' hypotheses or 'prove' theories, we can confirm them.

Yes Mel Affirming the consequent and yes I know what it is and the problem is that Science DOESN'T make claims of truth.

That they DO argue FOR tentative explanations UNTIL that one gets debunked so they can make up another!

In fact that is all they are good at anymore and I agree the scientific method works but it is only as good as the Scientists are honest and what I keep seeing is people like yourself making charges and sarcastic remarks about what we think is true but if I were to use that same elastic crap for creationism YOU'D BE MOCKING IT.

The double standards the Teflon slippery double speak talking out of both sides of your damn mouth is what I am talking about.

Dawkins silence after that question was asked and goes on to explain a question that was never asked is what I am talking about. Taking proof of micro evolution and assuming the consequent that it also proves macro evolution is not science it is bull crap efforts of convergence and linguistic programming. Me SAYING "at least you Scientists are honest to admit Science is infallible" doesn't make one honest Mel

BEING HONEST does

When you ARE,, Then you have every right to speak emphatically as I am that macro evolution is a complete fabrication from the day Chuck came up with it they have tried and tried and little by little using more changes to fit the fantasy to the fetish that binds them together their dislike for any thing having to do with a God concept. Just look at the terminology they would have had to change the meanings of to make it more acceptable in view of its very real lack of proof and lo and behold all the words that needed to be changed and / or merged for macro evolution HAVE BEEN.

Fact is no longer what it was, truth is not even considered important, excuses are what makes science self correcting, evidence is that which can be plausible and written as a just so story given as an explanation for that which their is no REAL evidence. No reason for this other than to keep a theory alive and going on strong. New theories used to be new theories, now however they are new just so story to explain the same old dumb idiotic falsified a thousand times, dead dead defunct theory of evo effing lution.

That isn't just true but to borrow an old word using the old school definition before Science "F'd" it all up,, but It is a FACT.

That is my point that is what is wrong with Science these days and what Jphish was saying to horza. I think Science ought to be looking for the truth and NOT be working on plausibility factors of fiction for their next evolution model.

You realize the consensus not long ago, assuming you were alive long enough, was that the fossil record was abysmally devoid of any transitional fossils? Now suddenly the definition of fossil where it pertains to the fossil record a mandate put out by the NAS was to say they are no longer "just fossils" but transitional forms and ALL are transitions.

This has brought about many quips to answer creationists such as "look in the mirror, you'll see a transitional form" '

Clever stuff but ya know what, humans haven't changed a damn bit and neither has gators, sharks, Bats OR BIRDS! They found a Bird living 55 millions years before dinos and all we keep hearing is stuff about creatures evolving from terpods but I have never seen anything but torturously construed alibis or subjective reasoning that bears no resemblance to common sense, or honest objectivity and of course nothing we can say observable.

We found another living fossil again this one an insect thought to be extinct but apparently it, like every single living fossil in existence has evolved so perfectly well up the point of its current life form that no more evolution needed to take place as their were no environmental pressures.
Then why the hell was it thought to be EXTINCT!
Can anyone answer that!

I accept all this. I am humble enough to accept that science is limited..

I am angry enough to not accept them limiting it any longer.

And it is true that the scientific method is a flexible amorphous approach to the gathering of knowledge. But it works, con. It does. It is the best we have. The proof is in the pudding. And all your whining is of little consequence - because as you whine about the limitations of science, great discoveries are being made right now. Right at this minute..

I believe that they are in Computer Science, in Math, and Chemistry but I have a very poor report from Biology World Wide they have nothing to report but more bullcrap

Evolutionists tend to do their stuff where it belongs - in the science arena. Creationists try to subvert science in some socio-political attack on science.

Why are we even talking about this stuff. What we do here is pretty meaningless, con. The fact you think it has some great import is the problem, you need to be doing science to make a real impact on science. But that's not the issue I guess. It's more socio-political. As I noted the other day, religion and politics are closely intertwined, thus if you don't get your way in the science arena, you turn to political shennanigans.
.

Creationists are not allowed in Science Mel and THAT is the political shenanigans of Evolutionists having nothing to do with their will to keep Science alive but to continue the advancement of their religion of Atheism and THAT I am convinced. It is the only Science so threatened by Christians entering it and to me,, that says something.
.

If you think so. Yet evolutionary theory keeps pumping out those predictions and being verified. All the hot air on the internet and in your church basements means nothing. It adds nothing.

Oh you mean like those truths you say they don't look for and those new excuses they make up to explain the latest lie of the month in the lie of the month club called the NAS. Yeah I'm all too familiar with it. Great stuff! PfffT
.

But, again, confirmation bias is at work. Your worldview can accept one, but has to deny the other. When you start with the conclusion, when evidence is optional, when faith is a virtue....well, that's where it gets you

It is where it has gotten me all along just fine too thank you but my faith is in God. Ken Miller is someone you like to bring up a lot I notice but I hope it isn't because he says he is a Christian. You brought him up again

Miller admits that such things as "the origin of life have not been shown to be explicable by chemical evolution." He also says "in time, science will be able to". But Mel,, you just pointed this out to me, science is supposed to be based on evidence, while this is a faith statement miller made.

I don't like Ken Miller because he is the biggest bearer of false witness I have ever seen in my life. He tries to refute teleological explanations to us "fundies" our mis-understanding about the human eye or as he puts it eye evolving in stages. He claims that even slight increments of improved eyesight offer some kind of survival advantage to the life form.
Mel,, I ask you,, where is the proof of this?

would such a small incremental improvement actually BE any advantage at all? I doubt it.

Your astrological forecast would be a better determining factor whether or not some animal ended up eaten by a predator than whether the animal had 20/650 vision instead of 20/700 vision. More than that is the fact we have to even argue this point when the fact is we STILL have NO proof such incremental stages of the eye even happened at ALL much less argue how well it worked! Yet I see it happening all the time where we shouldn't even engage in bullcrap on top of more bullcrap because the initial bullcrap was never proven in the first place.


You claim Science is done by using the evidence, when it's all speculation!

I guess that all depends on what you think evidence means.

Now I know why they changed the meaning

of that word too



- Con









[edit on 12-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

Mel,, I just want to add and I know you have already taken the trouble to explain this before but just so you or anyone else might make this mistake.

when you said:

" Abductive reasoning is common in science, not just evolution. The problem is that we don't make claims of truth"

and I said: "That is the problem, Science DOESN'T make claims for truth"

I almost said "That is the problem YOU Don't make claims for truth!"

See why I might have done that and you might have taken it very personal as do I when you use the word "WE" in science.


Just thougt I would mention that incase you or anyone else take anything we (anyone of us ) said personal,,

see if that person didn't have a reason like that, I think that happens a lot around here

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
heh WRONG GUY to dis Ashley to,, and I have been nice to you too. So lookin at the rest of this post of yours,, so much for that.

It may not be "extraordinary" but the point I was making that Atheists who claim they are like herding cats came in there like flys on dung and exhibited every single trait of religious zealotry from doctrine to dogma and it is undeniable.

I wasn't dissing ash. Perhaps I dissed the thread.

I think the likes of MIMS and Astyanax have commonly discussed anti-evolution threads, so no great insight. I suppose this would be a case of post-hoc ergo propter hoc.

Yes Mel Affirming the consequent and yes I know what it is and the problem is that Science DOESN'T make claims of truth.

That they DO argue FOR tentative explanations UNTIL that one gets debunked so they can make up another!

In fact that is all they are good at anymore and I agree the scientific method works but it is only as good as the Scientists are honest and what I keep seeing is people like yourself making charges and sarcastic remarks about what we think is true but if I were to use that same elastic crap for creationism YOU'D BE MOCKING IT.

Probably not, because if creationism was in the place of evolution, it would have some bleedin' evidence.

You can mock evolution, doesn't bother me. A good piece of mockery would give me some lulz. Problem is, creationists tend to be a bit naff at it. Hence we have Dembski's pathetic attempts at 'street theatre', they even needed to buy in someone to do the great 'beware the believers' video.

Now that was good! I luled for days, and still do when I watch it.

The double standards the Teflon slippery double speak talking out of both sides of your damn mouth is what I am talking about.

Okie doke.

Dawkins silence after that question was asked and goes on to explain a question that was never asked is what I am talking about. Taking proof of micro evolution and assuming the consequent that it also proves macro evolution is not science it is bull crap efforts of convergence and linguistic programming. SAYING "at least you Scientists are honest to admit Science is infallible" doesn't make you honest Mel

BEING HONEST does

I'm not sure why you think Dawkins' moment of silence is of any great importance. Do you think it falsifies evolution or something? Even if Dawkins couldn't think of an answer or had a brain fart, would it really matter? He's not the great Oracle or anything.

Con, macroevolution has evidence that has little to do with 'proof' of microevolution. Check it out sometime. The 29+ evidences would be a good place to start.

When you ARE,, Then you have every right to speak emphatically as I am that macro evolution is a complete fabrication from the day Chuck came up with it they have tried and tried and little by little using more changes to fit the fantasy to the fetish that binds them together their dislike for any thing having to do with a God concept. Just look at the terminology they would have had to change the meanings of to make it more acceptable in view of its very real lack of proof and lo and behold all the words that needed to be changed and / or merged for macro evolution HAVE BEEN.

There is no lack of 'proof', con. We have evidence of common descent.

Fact is no longer what it was, truth is not even considered important, excuses are what makes science self correcting, evidence is that which can be plausible and written as a just so story given as an explanation for that which their is no REAL evidence. No reason for this other than to keep a theory alive and going on strong. New theories used to be new theories, now however they are new just so story to explain the same old dumb idiotic falsified a thousand times, dead dead defunct theory of evo effing lution.

So, you want to criticise science for using approaches open to affirming the consequent, yet criticise it for taking findings tentatively because we accept the problems like affirming the consequent.

I guess science can't win.

That isn't just true but to borrow an old word using the old school definition before Science "F'd" it all up,, but It is a FACT.

That is my point that is what is wrong with Science these days and what Jphish was saying to horza. I think Science ought to be looking for the truth and NOT be working on plausibility factors of fiction for their next evolution model.

We are looking for truth. We just accept it will always be under conditions of uncertainty.

You realize the consensus not long ago, assuming you were alive long enough, was that the fossil record was abysmally devoid of any transitional fossils? Now suddenly the definition of fossil where it pertains to the fossil record a mandate put out by the NAS was to say they are no longer "just fossils" but transitional forms and ALL are transitions.

This has brought about many quips to answer creationists such as "look in the mirror, you'll see a transitional form" '

Well, that's a bit simplistic. The issue is that in a way, we are all potential transitionals. You just need to think how this could be so with such an ongoing dynamic process. But we don't view all past fossils as transitionals. Indeed, many of those extinct are failed transitionals.

Clever stuff but ya know what, humans haven't changed a damn bit and neither has gators, sharks, Bats OR BIRDS! They found a Bird living 55 millions years before dinos and all we keep hearing is stuff about creatures evolving from terpods but I have never seen anything but torturously construed alibis or subjective reasoning that bears no resemblance to common sense, or honest objectivity and of course nothing we can say observable.

You probably need to look in the right place. Jonathan Wells' books won't be it.

We found another living fossil again this one an insect thought to be extinct but apparently it, like every single living fossil in existence has evolved so perfectly well up the point of its current life form that no more evolution needed to take place as their were no environmental pressures.
Then why the hell was it thought to be EXTINCT!
Can anyone answer that!

Because we had never found one? Therefore it appeared to be extinct?

I accept all this. I am humble enough to accept that science is limited..

I am angry enough to not accept them limiting it any longer.

I don't think you are quite getting this. It's a philosophy of science thing.

I believe that they are in Computer Science, in Math, and Chemistry but I have a very poor report from Biology World Wide they have nothing to report but more bullcrap

rofl

Creationists are not allowed in Science Mel and THAT is the political shenanigans of Evolutionists having nothing to do with their will to keep Science alive but to continue the advancement of their religion of Atheism and THAT I am convinced. It is the only Science so threatened by Christians entering it and to me,, that says something.

They are allowed in science. They just have to do science. Science isn't threatened by christians, it is threatened by a particular group of people who are unable to accept that science won't bend to their vacuous BS.
.

Oh you mean like those truths you say they don't look for and those new excuses they make up to explain the latest lie of the month in the lie of the month club called the NAS. Yeah I'm all too familiar with it. Great stuff! PfffT

...

It is where it has gotten me all along just fine too thank you but my faith is in God. Ken Miller is someone you like to bring up a lot I notice but I hope it isn't because he says he is a Christian. You brought him up again and Miller tries to refute teleological explanations to us "fundies" our mis-understanding about the human eye or as he puts it eye evolving in stages. He claims that even slight increments of improved eyesight offer some kind of survival advantage to the life form.
Mel,, I ask you,, where is the proof of this?

I do like to bring up Ken Miller. It is both becuase he is a great speaker and expert on evolutionary science, and he is also a christian.

would such a small incremental improvement actually BE any advantage at all? I doubt it.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king?

Or more exactly - in the kingdom of the blind, the organism with a photoreceptor is king?

the fact is we STILL have NO proof such incremental stages of the eye even happened at ALL much less argue how well it worked!

Nope, we do have evidence. Such typical creationist blah

We see evidence of basic 'eyes' going back 600 million years.

WASHINGTON — Scientists have traced the origin of eyes back to a transparent blob of living jelly floating in the sea about 600 million years ago.

That creature, the distant ancestor of a modern freshwater animal known as a hydra, could only distinguish light from dark.

But that simple trick was such an advantage that it was passed on from generation to generation of the hydra's cousins and their myriad descendants. It was the precursor of the wildly different, ever more complex eyes of fish, ants, flies, giraffes and people.

...

We chronicled when and how animals went from lacking opsin genes to possessing multiple opsin genes with different functions,'' Oakley said. ``We put a timeline on the origin of light-sensitive opsin genes.''

www.mcclatchydc.com...

Indeed, rather than repeated eye evolution (polyphyletic), it appears to be monophyletic.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Anomander
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, when I say facts I mean what science can work with, consistently so, as you yourself point out. I am not just throwing the word around. Perhaps I should say 'scientific' facts? I don't know, but I believe there is a word for it.

You asked a question; I attempted to give you an answer. I did not realize your question was rhetorical. It’s OK, my mistake; and yes, saying “Scientific facts” sounds alright to me.

A hypothesis? No. A conclusion. Watching the video, and reading BW's posts, I do not get the impression that he arrived to his conclusions after an exhaustive [scientific] method, but that might just be me. In any case, even if it's the reverse, he took the scientists' conclusions and put his own interpretation on them, and then went ahead and claimed that said scientists (and a lot more) support his position.

You cannot come to a conclusion without inference. (scientific or otherwise)

I hypothesize that if I hold my pen above my desk and release it, it will fall, hitting my desk and as a result, it will make a noise. That is not a conclusion, it is a hypothesis. No matter how obvious a hypothesis is of being correct, it is not a conclusion until you “drop the pen” so to speak . . .

Only after I drop the pen countless times, can I conclude that when I drop my pen above my desk, it will land on it and make a noise.

If the concerned scientists were asked, would they really agree with him that their conclusions point to a creation event by none other than the Christian God? BW claims they do, and I for one would like to see some links.

Perhaps BW has given you that impression with his posts . . . but in the video- he is sharing scientific knowledge and showing how it is congruent within his spiritual beliefs. He is not saying that the universe had to have been created by the Christian G*d. He’s saying

“All this scientific evidence supports that the universe had a beginning;
My spiritual beliefs hold that a G*d created the universe;
If G*d created the universe, it had a beginning;
The evidence suggests that G*d created the universe.”

A supports B
BW believes C to be true
(as a result)
B is a requisite of C
(if A supports B)
A supports C

Those are not exactly my words. "Fitting facts to justify a hypothesis"? Tell me, how was that hypothesis formulated in the first place?

I didn’t use your exact words, because yours were improper; rearticulating them was needed to maintain status quo within my response. His hypothesis was formulated through external and (likely) internal observation.

As I said, (is there an echo around here?) I have not seen anything from BW's posts that suggests that he arrived at his conclusions based on a thorough analysis.

There is no evidence otherwise, so it is a moot point.

He took others' findings, and interpreted them in his own way, and formulated a conclusion (but, again, a foregone one IMHO). He asserts that the evidence points to a [specifically] Christian God, not just a Creator.

Again . . . it’s called coherentism; you are allowed to disagree, but his conclusion is logical, and because his logical conclusion was based on scientific inferences; it is coherent within science. Keep in mind, it does not mean he is right.

Now to evolution. I would like to know what conclusion it is that the theory of evolution supposedly starts with and try to find fitting facts to? That's what you are claiming. If it worked that way, the other fields of science would throw it out. Last time I checked, it had not happened.

There is no conclusion that they’re trying to fit facts to. You’re making the same mistake again . . . conclusion is not synonymous with theory/hypothesis. As a result of this fault, the rest of your reasoning is erroneous.

Hmm, I am tired.

Physically or mentally? I have no reason to presume the latter. But I hope you rested well.

[edit on 7/13/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by melatonin

You should go back if you can.

I certainly have the time and I think I might just look into that.

Discussions with good academics do tend to be stimulating and exciting.

They are intoxicating lol

Don't know why you do all this posturing then, con.

What can I say,, I am hoplessly in love with the lord Mel.

No, I don't suspect you would ever understand that.

I pray you will nevertheless.

If your god wants to be found by science, I'm sure he'll make it so. Not as if he shouldn't be able to do so.

mmm Interesting parable I got in an email yesterday seems appropriate


whoops seems ash wants to use it in another thread so Ill save ATS the bandwith

Ok ,, Im outa here got to hit the gym

Take Care Mel, J, Whammy

- Con

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
and I said: "That is the problem, Science DOESN'T make claims for truth"

I almost said "That is the problem YOU Don't make claims for truth!"

See why I might have done that and you might have taken it very personal as do I when you use the word "WE" in science.

Oh, con. Stop worrying about it. I could mean we as humans, we as in those who do science, we as in those who like science, we as in those who defend science from anti-science ideologues, we as in people with brown hair.

Language is like that. Sometimes saying we is a bit easier than saying 'scientists', 'people who think science rawks' etc etc.

Just thougt I would mention that incase you or anyone else take anything we (anyone of us ) said personal,,

see if that person didn't have a reason like that, I think that happens a lot around here

- Con

I don't take much personal. I have a pretty thick skin.