We have apes, we have men, but we have no ape-men.

We have reptiles, we have birds, but we have no reptile birds.

We have land mammals, sea mammals, yet only ONE TYPE of air mammal.

We have apples, we have figs, but we have no apple-figs.

We have cats, we have dogs, we have no cat-dogs.

If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs.

Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?

We have reptiles, we have mammals, but we have no reptile-mammals.

Does it sound like I am repeating myself here? Because I am.

Explain the absence of transitional forms.

And one last thing, if every law of thermodynamics states that energy flows from a high state to a low state, and that organized matter decays into unorganized matter, then why would these laws which can be applied to everything imaginable, single out the progression of living materials to an organized fashion, regardless of the time that has passed over them?

Thoughts, comments, theories?

PS Does Thermodynamics mean that we are DE-evolving over time?

If not, then what does it me in regards to this?

Insight, you seem to be misunderstanding the process of evolution. The extant species of apes and humans, as well as all the extinct species of apes evolved from a common ancestor. I cannot explain the whole process to you for lack of time and space but all of these species of apes that have lived over time could be interpreted as the transitional forms you are referring to. When mutations happen, most of the time they are deleterious but sometimes they give a selected advantage to the individual and they in turn have better reproductive success. This is evolution in a nutshell. Perhaps sitting in an a college level course on biology or anthropology could help you understand the process better. And to address your statement of:"Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?" Well you see not all dinosaurs evolved into birds. One or perhaps a few species evolved into birds and to what evidence are you referring to about your statement "If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs."?

And, there were flying dinosaurs as well. Teradactyls. So they evolve because they have to adjust more to their environment. They were large bird dinosaurs. A large wing span. But we also have large birds (albatross, eagles, etc) with similarly large wing spans. Just because one specie of dinosaurs evolves into something that survived the dinosaur era doens't mean all of the dinosaurs would have evolved to survive as well.

And, there were flying dinosaurs as well. Teradactyls.

Yes, flying DINOSAURS. They were reptilian, not avian. Completely different classes. Why didn't the flying reptiles survive along with the birds?

So you say they evolve because they have to adjust more to their environment.

Do not confuse evolution (The changing of one species into another) with adaptation (Certain genetic traits if a species becoming more or less prevalent.). The peppered moth comes in two varieties, one of which nearly died out from predaters during the undustrial revolution due to the fact that the white moths were more visible on the soot covered trees and were picked off.

For a species to evolve, it must get new, original genetic information, add it to it's code by replacing and loosing old bits of data.

Mutation is not evolution, because it is the error of already existing genetic code, not the accumulation of NEW code.

Adaptation is not evolution, because it is dormant traits in already existing code becoming more or less prevalent.

Chickens actually contain a gene that if tunred "on", will cause them to grow teeth in their beeks. This code is not coming from outside the chicken's code (evolution), but from inside (adaptation)

They were large bird dinosaurs.

This sentences is faulty. You cannot group two species as one. Bird-LIKE dinosaurs, yes. Do we classify bats as bird mammals? No. They are mammals. Do we classify whales as mammal fish? No, they are also classified as mammals.

While humans DNA most closely resembles primates, our RNA most closely resebles that of a chicken. And out Mammary enzymes that of a donkey. That's right, our Mammary enzymes are much closer to that of a donkeys than to that as a Primate. And our RNA is so far from that of a monkey it's not even funny.


A large wing span. But we also have large birds (albatross, eagles, etc) with similarly large wing spans.

Similar. yes. Not identical. Much as a dolphin has similar appendages to a human. And a slug, similar optical organs to that of a human. All things have similarities, ecspecially those things which share their plane (Ie land, water, or air)

Just because one specie of dinosaurs evolves into something that survived the dinosaur era doens't mean all of the dinosaurs would have evolved to survive as well.

But where do the NEW genetic codes come from that enables the dinosaurs to aquire new genes, and lose old ones, becoming a completely new species?

DNA is the most complex single molecule in the universe. Quite litterally millions of times more complex than any non-living matter. How would a species have a new piece of code put into them, and old pieces removed? Further more, how would this new code exist seperately from a living being and then become part of one, kicking out the old code?

I think she was talking about the south american "terror Birds"
***
to answer to your "new" genetic codes question: It's started off as a mutation, ( like gaining a bigger frontal lobe for modern man) then that "positive" mutation will give to the mutant an edge over it's predecessors. This edge gave it an "natural" superiority giving it the right to mate, that in term permitted the mutant gene to go forward to the other generation and so on.

+++
Also the rarety of "transitional" beings is due to the fact that they are "transitional", therefore a product not completely evolved to survive in X environment...it's a question of time and climate.
(look for neanderthal man)

Insight, all you did was make me look ignorant (which yes it's been a few years since my biology classes) in my knowledge of DNA, RNA and other ways of the body.

However you did not disprove that the flying dinosaurs, whether it was mutation or evolution or whatever you would like to call it, was not the original "blueprint" or "design" for our birds we have today.

There is no proof to prove that I'm wrong, same as there is no evidence to prove evolutionism or creationalism either way. When there is no evidence, you must be open to the theories presented. Humanity can't even get to the deepest trenches in our own oceans. We can't exactly date the age of the Sphinx. Humanity can't even prove or disprove whether an ancient city (Atlantis) existed. So when you talk about the differences of mutation or evolution...whether we're more closely related to donkeys, monkeys or slugs, I know that CHANGES happen daily to humanity, and that is something that is easily proven. If we can see noticeable changes in the last couple hundred years, don't you think the changes on a longer time scale would be noticeably larger? A lot of people use the analogy that a few hundred years ago, people were CERTAIN the world was flat, well, in another few hundred years, the things we feel certain about could be proven wrong, and obviously you're a very intelligent person. There is a reason you believe in what you do, but why? There must be plenty of credible sources you learned this information, what are they? What makes you so certain, but not the science world?

Is it my understanding you lean more towards creationalism? If so, what evidence do you have that causes you to lean more in that direction than evolution? Provide sources if you don't mind, credible ones, it would truly be informative.

I have to disagree most strongly about the lack of evidence concerning evolution. I have discussed, at length, many of the things mentioned in this thread in my "Scientific Methodology" thread and in the "Creationism Vs. Evolution" debate. I would strongly recommend reading those to anybody with a desire to find detailed answers to mosts of the points in this thread.

"We have apes, we have men, but we have no ape-men."

Define "ape-men". We have a large assortment of creatures along both the ape and human evolutionary line (no, we do not descend from apes) that share similar characteristics.

"We have reptiles, we have birds, but we have no reptile birds."

Why would we? Reptiles and birds are two disctinct species, seperately evolved.

"We have land mammals, sea mammals, yet only ONE TYPE of air mammal."

"Type"? What does "type" mean? Species? There is more than one species of flying mammal. Does it mean Genus? Are we talking the entire Chiroptera family?

Incidentally, what difference would it make if we had one or a hundred of either?

"We have apples, we have figs, but we have no apple-figs."

Again, what is your point here? Are you suggesting that the apple is evolutionarily descended from the fig?

"We have cats, we have dogs, we have no cat-dogs."

I believe the earliest common ancestor of cats and dogs was the Miacid. They went extinct quite a while ago.

"If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs."

The first creature we could classify as having modern-day feathers was the Archeopteryx, which was indeed a contemporary of some dinosaurs.

"Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?"

Same reason anything else evolves. Random chance.

"We have reptiles, we have mammals, but we have no reptile-mammals."

That is because, again, they are not in each others lines of descent, and no one that I know of has ever claimed the to be.

"Does it sound like I am repeating myself here? Because I am."

No, actually. It sounds like you are repeating the same simplistic arguments all creationists use. You could read the two topics I mentioned above and find answers to many more of the arguments you are going to put forth.

to answer to your "new" genetic codes question: It's started off as a mutation, ( like gaining a bigger frontal lobe for modern man) then that "positive" mutation will give to the mutant an edge over it's predecessors. This edge gave it an "natural" superiority giving it the right to mate, that in term permitted the mutant gene to go forward to the other generation and so on.

No no, you misunderstood. Mutation does NOT create new genetic code. Mutation scrambles the existing code to produce random effects. If a man growes a third foot, and ends up breeding and creating more three footed people, and they end up being able to run and jump higher, this is the creation of a race, not a new specie. The man gained no new genetic code at all. What he did gain is change in instruction about how to use already existing code. No matter how many feet he grew, or how big or small they were, they weould never be anything more than feet.

Mutation does allow for diversity within a species, but it is not counted as the gain of new, seperate coding (Such as the code to grow gills, or wings)


+++
Also the rarety of "transitional" beings is due to the fact that they are "transitional", therefore a product not completely evolved to survive in X environment...it's a question of time and climate.
(look for neanderthal man)

There is not proof that neanderthal man was anything more of less than modern day man. Maybe he was hunched, had a thicker skull, or smaller brain cavity, but this does not mean he contained genes that humans do not contain. Hitler thought Germans were genetically superior than blacks, even though Hitler contained all the genes that he needed to become fully black. (And please do not think I am comparing hitler to any of you people right now. Nor am I comparing what he thought to what you think. I'm trying to make a similarity into ANY person or race thinking they are "more" or "Better" than any other race.

Though Neanderthal man may have been simple, primitive, and stooping, I believe these are a result of his culture, and evironment, and society, and not because of his inferior genetic code.

Insight, first i used the " " arround new, because it's not new it's a nuace of a existing gene. Second, Neanderthal man was a subspecie of Homo sapian, they weren't hunched and had a bigger brain then modern man...Infirior genetics, what's this? Climate made them into what they were, when the climat changed the Neanderthals were taken over by it's southern "version".

Insight, all you did was make me look ignorant

I apologize for this, as it was not my intent. I was merely trying to bring as much information to the subject at hand as possible.


However you did not disprove that the flying dinosaurs, whether it was mutation or evolution or whatever you would like to call it, was not the original "blueprint" or "design" for our birds we have today.

Actually I did. But you didn't understand it.

You still do not seem to understand the difference between evolution, mutation, and adaptation. The "blue print" for a house accounts for every material needed in it's construction. You can use those materials in different ways that don't follow the blue print exactly, and end up with a different house depending on your preference (Adaptation) or with somting completely different build from the house materials (Mutation), but to end up with a bigger, better, more advanced house, you would need to bring in outside meterials that were not in the original blue print, and then incorporate them into the new blue print (evolution).

There is no proof to prove that I'm wrong,

Are you 100%percent positive? In my mind, the logic path and matter interaction laws I have stated here prove to my mind beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. I am open to new ideas and suggestion, and will incorporate everything into my logic line, but you have not given me any new tools to do so, nor any curves that force me to re-evaluate.

same as there is no evidence to prove evolutionism or creationalism either way.

Whoa whoa whoa! You admit that there is not evidence proving evolution? I can honestly admit that this is the very first time a believer of evolutuionary theory admitting to the fact that there is no proof of evolutions credibility.

And as I said, never say never. You limit your mind for both sides. If you say there is no proof either way, you will never see any proof, ever, of either way. Read my above post for more on this.

Humanity can't even get to the deepest trenches in our own oceans.

How do you know that? What if somebody lied to us about the fact for some unknown reason? (Unlikely, but consider it)

We can't exactly date the age of the Sphinx.

Nor can we exactly date anything.


Humanity can't even prove or disprove whether an ancient city (Atlantis) existed.

We can't? What if we already did, but th epowers that had done so decided to keep it a secret for our best interests, or to keep the power of it to themselves?

Besides, there is much evidence a city existed. Even the fact that we know it's name is reason to believe that "Something" existed.


So when you talk about the differences of mutation or evolution...whether we're more closely related to donkeys, monkeys or slugs, I know that CHANGES happen daily to humanity, and that is something that is easily proven. If we can see noticeable changes in the last couple hundred years, don't you think the changes on a longer time scale would be noticeably larger?

Of course they would. But CHANGE and EVOLUTION are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There is a reason you believe in what you do, but why? There must be plenty of credible sources you learned this information, what are they? What makes you so certain, but not the science world?

I am part of the science world. Infact, I know many professor level scientists who share my beliefs. There is an increasing number of scientists who are coming to bvelieve what I do. In time, perhaps all of science will. But the better asnwer to this is the fact that humable are fallable, matter and energy are fallable, and therefore, if left to their own devices, the human masses are MORE LIKELY tolean toward inproper theory, because we are corruptable, more than we are incorruptable. That's why with out law ENFORCEMENT, society would degrade. It's not enough that we simply know the laws. This is why I am so certain, because the only way for me to persue incorruptability, is for me to persue something TRUELY incorruptable by nature:God. Does thgis logic line make sense?

You must learn about the secrets of the earth. The secret societies. The natures of becoming powerful. The human natures. The natures of matter. You much learns into all of these to believe what I believe. You must lose trust in autority.

Insight, first i used the " " arround new, because it's not new it's a nuace of a existing gene.


You should have said, "Different existing", not new. That would have fit.

Second, Neanderthal man was a subspecie of Homo sapian, they weren't hunched and had a bigger brain then modern man...Infirior genetics, what's this?

I apologize. My intent was to convey a mainstream conception of what a primitive man was. An "ape-man" if you will.

Climate made them into what they were, when the climat changed the Neanderthals were taken over by it's southern "version".

Yes, and this is called adaptation and/or mutation. But not evolution. Creationism completely allows and accounts for adaptation and mutaion. But not for evolution.

so mutation and adaptation isn't allowed by evolution eh?.

So even though the evolution is the modification of a specie, it's not a mutation nor an adaptation. If we follow that logic, this means that evolutionary steps are gifts form the sky and the unique creations of god can re-create them selfs and modify there bodies to live in harmony with there environment (even though only god can create).

fuzzy math...

I will leave you these words from Douglas J. Futuyma Ph.D. of the University of Michigan:

Insight, as I feared, you are simply going over very well trod creationist arguments. Since I have already gone over these at length in the above sources, I will ask you outright: What exactly would it take for you to believe in evolution?

I ask this because your arguments do not display a knowledge of evolutionary biology. They do not show an understanding of genetics. Nor do you show any formal logical structure in your deduction. In and of itself, none of this is inherently bad. It is simply a lack of experience.

Creationists arguments sound very convincing and scientific to the layman mind, however when they are met with the unwielding brutality of objective evidence, logical deduction, and scientific methodology, they invariably crumble. I have absolutely no fear whatsoever that you can pose a question concerning evolution that I cannot answer in as excrutiating detail as you wish (trust me, many here will vouch that my posts can sometimes be excrutiating).

Currently, the points that you have made are very basic ones that can be easily answered by any first year biology student, let alone a student of evolutionary biology, and your arguments reflect the basic strategy of amorpheus definitions and straw man arguments that creationists like so much. I have no need to defend evolutionary theory; it has withstood much harsher attacks than any arising within this forum. I am, however, interested in convincing you of the scientific validity of it. Whether you choose to believe it or not is then up to you.

So, my question to you is quite simply this: What will it take for you, Insight, to believe in the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?

Insight, as I feared, you are simply going over very well trod creationist arguments. Since I have already gone over these at length in the above sources, I will ask you outright: What exactly would it take for you to believe in evolution?


This caused you fear?


I ask this because your arguments do not display a knowledge of evolutionary biology.

Would you have me be an experienced pupil of a following I feel is faulty? Would I myself consider your arguments to display a knowledge of creationist biology?

They do not show an understanding of genetics.

Define "understanding".

Nor do you show any formal logical structure in your deduction.

Define "formal logical structure".

In and of itself, none of this is inherently bad. It is simply a lack of experience.

Nor would I consider any lacking of knowledge by you in regards to creationist theory a bad thing. Unknown ignorence is innocence. Knowful ignorance is is almost a crime of sorts.


Creationists arguments sound very convincing and scientific to the layman mind,

Layman?? I do not believe that term would apply to a friend of my mother's who is a creationist quantum physicist, at such a level he has very high clearing military codes given to him.

however when they are met with the unwielding brutality of objective evidence,

Objective? But I though you believed Truth was subjective, not objective?

logical deduction, and scientific methodology, they invariably crumble.
As do the cities of man, and the hills of the ants. All theories put in place by man pose threat of decy. Which is why I seek truths from an incorruptable source. This comes mainly by faith in God, which to a non believer could only seem faulty at best. But to say the bible contains no scientiffic information is ignorant. The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.


I have absolutely no fear whatsoever that you can pose a question concerning evolution that I cannot answer in as excrutiating detail as you wish

Details behind a lie can often be greater than those of a truth. Of course I do not believe you are knowingly lying about anything you believe in, I am by no means making that accusation at all.

(trust me, many here will vouch that my posts can sometimes be excrutiating).

I wouldn't have it any other way. How else is my faith to be challenged?

Currently, the points that you have made are very basic ones that can be easily answered by any first year biology student,

You seem the first to think so. Also, what leads you believe I have not studied past first year biology? Perhaps my school teaches different truths that do not coincide with yours?

let alone a student of evolutionary biology,

A course I was unwilling to take. However I believe in my arguments of late, it would be valuable to have under my belt. However, I would find it difficult to devote to, for obvious reasons. Though devotion of such is not outside my realm of ability.

and your arguments reflect the basic strategy of amorpheus definitions and straw man arguments that creationists like so much.

Do you expect me to type a thesis on this page in regards to my beliefs? Obviously the form of written communication which this page allwos has it's limits. As does my time concerning recreational activities.



I have no need to defend evolutionary theory; it has withstood much harsher attacks than any arising within this forum.

As had the creationist theory of my subscription.




So, my question to you is quite simply this: What will it take for you, Insight, to believe in the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?

First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)

Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.

I have seen malignent cacers mysteriously curced after prayer. I have seen crippled men walk after prayer. I have seen a man deaf in one ear hear from it, after prayer. I have had countless times in my life where a "sure thing" was comprimised, and later learned of intense interventional prayer on my behalf. I have withnessed supernatural events in my life, and all of them are tied directly into the prayer and following of the Living, loving God.

Upon my decisions to follow Him, I began to see things that were impossible become possible. But it was only after these decisions to follow him. Would God reveal his concrete actions to a person who would indefinately regect them? No, because it would be a waste of time. Like peeing into the wind for him I suppose. I have even heard reports from bretheren about powerful movements, in which 3 people were raised from the dead (Unfortunately I was not able to withness this myself, so it of course will be subject to more speculation that things I have seen with my own eyes.).


So, I guess what I'm saying, is that you would need to prove to me that these things I have witnessed were all coincidence. You would need to scientiffically explain how a persons belief in something that doesn't exist can open the world of the impossible, and enrich your life beyond words.

You would also have to convince me that scientiffic validity can ever be truely valid. That our collective observations of purposed fact are free from collective error.

But what would probably do it for me, is if you proved evolutionism AND creationism collectively wrong, and began a new theory which sweeps the nation in a way neither could.

Are there more creationists than evolutionists? Is the majority wrong, or the minority wrong? Does majority ever matter? I don't know.

Lets say that you were able to provide to me evolutionary evidence that swayed my beliefs of God. Then if he were truely real, he would reveal to me any error in such, and allow me to believe in him once more.

Let the games begin??

*chuckles*

flint to the stone tool to the wheel to the lever to the inclined plane



Well it is the best way to comprehend the world, to understand the world we live in we must seek information form any source available (well that's my point of view). I studied theology for a semester in college because it's my quest for knowlegde that drove me to it. If you are simply interested in your own little world then so be it, but i would tell you this an opened mind is like having opens eyes, they are better to see the beauty of the complexity of ones' universe.



Yet it was used many times againts Copernic and Galilée, curious indeed.



Do you know the law of Lavoisier? (nothing Disappears, nothing is Created there is only transformation)



Well what's even more tricky is to prove if god exist at all. ( If not gods)



That would be called the placebo effect, in my antropology study group we studied that effect, which is quite interesting indeed. Some use Shamans others Crystals and some use gods, but it all have the same effect a form of healing, basically ease the pain and removes stress. That effect can also be seen in players when they "pump up" before a match with team songs and cheers.



Tell me can a child born prematurely think for him self;"there's no god, i'll let those doctors cure me". My family and I spend days praying to a god to help this small child, but he wouldn't live to even be able to open his eyes, yet live long enough to feel the pain of broken legs and several operations. Can Moises reject god, could he? was he even able to understand what was happening around him?

Hey Insight, you, me, and Lodge should start a cult.
"The zealous religious non-conformists of confoundedly correct collected consciousness conspiracies"
We should get a banner.

Asides from being a fairly common non-literal expression, yes, it did indeed. Cre vs. Evo threads tend to be long and require much patience, and can get tiring at times. Unfortunately, I can never seem to back down from them.



Yes, most definitely. I have studied creationist argument with the same zeal and throughness that I used against evolutionary arguments. I can and have on many occasion pointed out the logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions that many rely on, and I will do so for you as well. I am indeed an experienced pupil of creationism, though not a follower. There is nothing wrong with learning about what the other side of a debate teaches; in fact, it is often the simplest manner with which to demonstrate both a respect for their knowledge and obtain the credibility any person requires prior to passing on their own teachings.



Understanding is having a thorough or technical acquaintance with the practice of a given field. For instance, in the field of evolution, or science in general, you have made several statements that do not reflect what the field teaches, such as your examples of evolutionary descent, and your request to prove something wrong. This indicates a lack of both knowledge and experience, as these questions are generally answer throughout not just one experiment, but through the practice of the entire field.



Formal Logic is a method used by science to verify the correctness of an argument. It has specific rules and warning flags that point out if the argument is structured in a faulty manner. It is not, a method for gleaning facts or evidence, but rather one for logical deduction. As an example, you have committed the Fallacy of Composition with your thermodynamics example, and I will explain that further on.



I couldn't agree more. This is why it is so important for you to learn a bit more about evolutionary theory prior to deciding that it is false.



Yes, but we are talking about you, not your mother's friend. He too should be able to explain the Fallacy of Composition in the thermodynamics problem, and I would be interested in knowing, should he do so, how he reconciles certain problems. Incidentally, I had top secret clearances in my military job as well, and it is a far more grandious title than the actual job warrants. It is certainly no indicator of skill and knowledge.



Truth is subjective. Facts, on the other hand, are not. Truth varies from culture to culture and person to person. Science does not concern itself with truth. It concerns itself with imperical evidence and logical deduction. Truth is left to philosophers.



All theories do pose the threat of deceit, which is why there are so many complex and intricate systems put into place to detect it. Prior to being published, all theories must go through a peer review. All theories must have references, sources, and full accounting of data. Failure casts immediate doubt. Incidentally, the bible does not say the Earth was round; it states the Earth is a circle, and it does so as a metaphor at that (Isaiah 40:22--He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers)



Yet it is true that in details lie the facts. As a student of science, I have personally verified and tested the foundations of the theories I expound. If there is an error, it is my fault for not being able to detect it by following the rules of science. As for deceit, I am afraid that I have caught creationists in knowingly passing off faulty information as factual, and I am afraid repeated experience has left me jaded.



I guarantee you that I am not the first. The statements and claims that you made in your very first post make it very clear that you do not understand or have experience with biology. As for truth, it has no place in a science class. Either the evidence speaks for itself, or it doesn't.



You do not need to type a thesis, but I do expect you to be able to recognize and avoid such basic errors. These have nothing to do with creationism nor deduction. They do, whoever, reflect on your credibility, no matter how innocently you use them, and they will affect the standing of your arguments.



Yes, it stood unchallenged for several thousand years. And yet, when a challenger rose up less than 150 years ago, we find today that literal creationists have dropped from a global monopoly to a mere handful. How could such a longstanding notion be so dramatically overcome? Simply because Truth had to give way to fact.



I will explain the first in a later post, as this one has already become too unweildy, and I must get to work.

The second betrays your lack of knowledge about science. Science does not prove that things do not exist. The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works. There is not such thing as a theory that explains why something doesn't work.

As for the miraculous healing, those are far more common than you would expect. Through sheer coincidence, miracles (events beyond the statistical probability of them occuring) occur about 315 time a day. Even given that, your question is a loaded one. It presumes several things, chief among them that the cure was indeed miraculous and that implication that the Judeo-Christian god was responsible for them.

I cannot, for obvious reasons, explain each and every event you claim to be proof for your God, nor am I interested in doing so. As I stated quite clearly, my purpose is to show you how evolutionary theory is scientifically valid. Should you choose to apply the same rigorous standards that science applies to theories to your God, that is your choice. It is not, however necessary. Anybody can believe anything they wish, for belief has no rules concerning support, and sense and nonsense is waived. Belief in the theory of gravity and in the ability of a pair of unwashed gym socks to guarantee you victory are both equal. In science, however, faith is replaced by credibility. It is not simply a question of belief, but rather of support and logical deduction.

Have you read the Evo vs. Cre Debate in the debate board?

Why? Why does that have anything to do with evolution? Evolution does not disprove god...

The evolution vs. creationism debate is a touchy subject.

I do agree that the most damaging evidence against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils.
If species A evolved into species K, we would expect to find fossilized remains of that species in its B through J form, yet there are none. What happened to them?

Do you know the law of Lavoisier? (nothing Disappears, nothing is Created there is only transformation)

I think that this law does infact coincide with thermodynamics, in the sense that nopthing NEW is created, and that matter does not end. But what does this law mean in regards to transformation? Thermodynamics would state that the transformation you speak of only occurs from High to Low. Unless Lavoisier states otehr wise, I believe these laws are one in the same, buty using different wording.



Well what's even more tricky is to prove if god exist at all. ( If not gods)

Perhaps that is only so because the christian community does not fund massive scientiffic projects regarding such, because they feel they do not have to prove their beliefs to anyone. I think the time has come where such undertakings should, neigh must become a reality.


That would be called the placebo effect, in my antropology study group we studied that effect, which is quite interesting indeed. Some use Shamans others Crystals and some use gods, but it all have the same effect a form of healing, basically ease the pain and removes stress. That effect can also be seen in players when they "pump up" before a match with team songs and cheers.

The placebo effect is a very real thing, and alot stronger than many believe it to be. But I do not believe it can nessesarily account for miraculous healings (Such as reports of movements in which people with tooth pain have been prayed for and later found diamonds in the holes of their teeth, all of these people being of a desperately poor culture, and not being able to buy their way into such a thing. These reports were confirmed to me by what I consider the most reputable of sources. Obviously they are up for debate in your community)





Tell me can a child born prematurely think for him self;"there's no god, i'll let those doctors cure me". My family and I spend days praying to a god to help this small child, but he wouldn't live to even be able to open his eyes, yet live long enough to feel the pain of broken legs and several operations.

A common question I have been asked many times. A premature child is born with no understanding, and there for essentialy spiritually perfect. Without sin. Sin being his seperation from God. If he dies without sin, he is innocent, and not condemned. Some would say this is almost a grace factor of God, in allowing a human being to pass into heaven without trials. Before the fall of man, man was not meant to die. Death did not exist, and at the time, death was only a result of being seperated from God. After the first sin, man created death for himself (man being a creative being, which was made in the image of god), and condemned every one of his offspring to it. God however still did not condemn all men to die, but rather he wanted to give them every chance for eternal life, and instructed man on how to achieve it, even if their was sin in their lives (Repentence, and in the old testament, animal blood sacrifices.)

Can Moises reject god, could he? was he even able to understand what was happening around him?

No, and therefore, if the child dies, he is without sin, and without knowledge of sin (Just like adam and eve were before eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) the child is allowed to live forever in heaven, in whatever incomprehensible form that may be.

Sounds like a plan.

Asides from being a fairly common non-literal expression, yes, it did indeed. Cre vs. Evo threads tend to be long and require much patience, and can get tiring at times. Unfortunately, I can never seem to back down from them.

Ah, I see what you mean.


Yes, most definitely. I have studied creationist argument with the same zeal and throughness that I used against evolutionary arguments. I can and have on many occasion pointed out the logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions that many rely on, and I will do so for you as well. I am indeed an experienced pupil of creationism, though not a follower. There is nothing wrong with learning about what the other side of a debate teaches; in fact, it is often the simplest manner with which to demonstrate both a respect for their knowledge and obtain the credibility any person requires prior to passing on their own teachings.

I agree with what you say, and believe it may become nessesary for me to study evolution in depth for me to more deeply defend my beliefs in the future.

Understanding is having a thorough or technical acquaintance with the practice of a given field. For instance, in the field of evolution, or science in general, you have made several statements that do not reflect what the field teaches, such as your examples of evolutionary descent, and your request to prove something wrong. This indicates a lack of both knowledge and experience, as these questions are generally answer throughout not just one experiment, but through the practice of the entire field.

Conflicting feilds can yeild different results, and therefore different truths. Look at what Einstein was trying to accomplish with the unified feild theory. Both feilds worked mathematically seperately from one another, but they didn't line up when joined together. He failed to form a unified feild. As many have failed to prove both creationism and evolutionism together. A few have theories, just as with Einstein's feilds (Superstring anyone?) but so far nothing has yeileded revolution.


I couldn't agree more. This is why it is so important for you to learn a bit more about evolutionary theory prior to deciding that it is false.

Agreed.


Yes, but we are talking about you, not your mother's friend. He too should be able to explain the Fallacy of Composition in the thermodynamics problem, and I would be interested in knowing, should he do so, how he reconciles certain problems. Incidentally, I had top secret clearances in my military job as well, and it is a far more grandious title than the actual job warrants. It is certainly no indicator of skill and knowledge.

But it is an indicator of repect from peers. Such repect surely means something. And yes, I too would love for him to start posting on this board. I have many MANY questions for him now, and hopefully I will get to meet him again soon.

Truth is subjective. Facts, on the other hand, are not. Truth varies from culture to culture and person to person. Science does not concern itself with truth. It concerns itself with imperical evidence and logical deduction. Truth is left to philosophers.

Two completely different schools of through come from the beliefs that either truth is something to be persued, or truth is something to be invented. Infact, I think that might be the defining factor in the Creo/evo debate, and possibly that of the entire world. Believing true is subjective places the ultimate power in the hands of man himself, which is corruptable and fallable. If man defines truth for himself ,conflict inevitably arises from another man with different definitions. A main question for you now is, who is right? are they both right? If they are, then that means my definition of truth, and yours, are equally as valid, and both true. But they cannot be BOTH true if they do not prove each other.


Believing truth is objective places the ultimate power in the hands of a being that is literally made up of truth, and who is perfect and incorruptable, and able to define truth for a corruptable being. If truth is something that is perfect, and un wavering, it could not fully manifest it's self in an imperfect world. It would have to be manifest in a world of perfection, and imparted into a fallable world in any way shape or form it could. Man is not meant to achiev perfection in his life time in order to be accepted into the perfection of heaven, he is merely meant to seek truth with all his heart, and admit when he has shortcomings. After his death, he is then judged by God, who looks at his heart and decides if he was truely seeking this perfection in selflessness. It states in scripture, that when we repent of our shortcomings, God wipes our slate clean. No body can die with a perfect slate, for we will inevitably forget at least one shortcoming, because we are fallable, but God looks at this too. It goes back to the thing about the newborn child and innocence. If we innocently forget to repent a certain shortcoming, but account for as many as we possibly can, God will judge us in his favor.




All theories do pose the threat of deceit, which is why there are so many complex and intricate systems put into place to detect it. Prior to being published, all theories must go through a peer review. All theories must have references, sources, and full accounting of data. Failure casts immediate doubt.

Peers which are capable of innocent fallability.

Incidentally, the bible does not say the Earth was round; it states the Earth is a circle, and it does so as a metaphor at that (Isaiah 40:22--He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers)

Is a circle not round? He could have easily said, "The plains of the earth." But He didn't. He says everything for a reason. Also, that's a simile, not a metaphor. A metaphor is symbolic of something, a simile draws direct comparisan. A small technicality perhaps, but perhaps an important one as well.



As for deceit, I am afraid that I have caught creationists in knowingly passing off faulty information as factual, and I am afraid repeated experience has left me jaded.

As I have experienced from my side.


Too true though, too true, and thus they look like fools for doing so, ecspecially if they do not renounce it! As I have stated, I believe facts are truths. And perfect truth cannot manifest fully in a fallable human brain. For it to do so would be man becoming God. We are not meant to become god, which is why we were not meant to understand everything, which is the ESSENSE of why were are taught to recieve the rest in faith. No christian, no matter how intellegent, will understand all truth. But he is to take on faith that the rest of the truths exist. God never says we have to understand everything about truth to enter into eternity with him.


As for truth, it has no place in a science class. Either the evidence speaks for itself, or it doesn't.

I don't think I've ever heard evidence speak. It always seems that people have to interpret it, and decide to believe it or not.



You do not need to type a thesis, but I do expect you to be able to recognize and avoid such basic errors. These have nothing to do with creationism nor deduction. They do, whoever, reflect on your credibility, no matter how innocently you use them, and they will affect the standing of your arguments.

Agreed.


Yes, it stood unchallenged for several thousand years. And yet, when a challenger rose up less than 150 years ago, we find today that literal creationists have dropped from a global monopoly to a mere handful. How could such a longstanding notion be so dramatically overcome? Simply because Truth had to give way to fact.

I think this will be our main disagreement, because I think truth and fact are one in the same. What I percieve then, in what you have stated above, is that truth had to give way to lies. "fact" had to giveway to "misfact" The world has advanced more in the last 150 years then it has advanced in the thousands and thousands of years humans have been alive for. Since technology is power, and power corrupts, it makes sense that truth was corrupted as quickly as technology expandd quickly. I believe that we are all being controlled extensively, and that is not of God. God gave us freewill, and does not try to control us. Lucifer, on the other hand, wants power for himself, and to grieve his enemy, which is God. Lucifer would seek to control man in any way he could inorder to feel power, and to condemn souls into the torture which was created for him. (Hell being the seperation from god. A place created when lucifer fell, and a place never intended for man to dwell in the beginning.) It's not unreasonable to think that the governments has contact with aliens, and receives their highest technology from them. It is not unreasonable to think these alines are demons, or demonic, and are giving our leaders technology to be controls by Lucifer, in order to control the rest of humanity.





I will explain the first in a later post, as this one has already become too unweildy, and I must get to work.

Science does not prove that things do not exist.

Attempt to explain. Attempt. But I disagree with this as well. Science can explain how something does not exist. Science can explain how lighting cannot exist when there is no electrical charge in the air. Science explains how frozen water cannot exist at a temperature of 100 degrees. These are obviosly elemetry observations.

The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works.

Does science not allow for theory on how something doesn't work? Or is that something that is assumed when the above quote has already been placed?

But a very interesting point you have made here. The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works.
Very interesting. What if the situation were revesed? What if the purpose of theory was to prove how something didn't work? Surely it would be much more tedious in it's advanced, for it is much easier to say why something is, than why something is not. Perhaps this is a fatal flaw?


There is not such thing as a theory that explains why something doesn't work.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Is it impossible for me formulate theory on why evolution doesn't work? I think I missed something here.

As for the miraculous healing, those are far more common than you would expect. Through sheer coincidence, miracles (events beyond the statistical probability of them occuring) occur about 315 time a day. Even given that, your question is a loaded one. It presumes several things, chief among them that the cure was indeed miraculous and that implication that the Judeo-Christian god was responsible for them.

Not every miracle is of God. Some are of Lucifer. He imitates God. What better way to attack the enemy then to immitate him?


As I stated quite clearly, my purpose is to show you how evolutionary theory is scientifically valid.

I don't doubt you believe in it's validity. I'd be more inclined to believe it's validity if my God told me it was true. If he told me he created the universe, then allowed it to evolve, I would believe in evolution. But he told me not so.


Should you choose to apply the same rigorous standards that science applies to theories to your God, that is your choice.

It is my choice. And I have made it. The Bible fortells a time when no man can deny the existance of God. And I would like to be part of that process. (Even though that time is during the apocolypse and such. *laughs*)

It is not, however necessary. Anybody can believe anything they wish, for belief has no rules concerning support, and sense and nonsense is waived.


Belief in the theory of gravity and in the ability of a pair of unwashed gym socks to guarantee you victory are both equal. In science, however, faith is replaced by credibility. It is not simply a question of belief, but rather of support and logical deduction.

Nothing can ever be 100% credeble though. Not in a fallable world. That's why faith even exists I suppose.


Have you read the Evo vs. Cre Debate in the debate board?

I will now.

Forever in heaven

Nice concept, which would rest my soul, but the fact is my brother is not alive while others live a wicked life.
****

The concept of Lavoisier is that things never really disappear they just change: As Oxygen turns into carbondioxyde after being consumed or as electron will move from atom A to atom B to "blend" them together.
---

In the glory days of religion, the vatican tried to shut the experimentations of scientist because they were asking question the bible couldn't answer. But since science became more accessible to the people the vatican simply turns away only to strike when the scientific community is able to do something that would help humanity, but to the Church it would be "playing god".

"miraculous healings"

so god would care for a tooth and not for a life? ( he was babptised only days after he was born, in order to let him reach "heaven" and not linger in the limbo with other poor souls, for more information about "where does the soul go?" check out "the 9 levels of hell")

You asked me for a definition of "understanding" and why I do not believe you have it in regards to science, and this is another example of it. Do not use the word "truth" in reference to scientific work. Truth is not scientific terminology, and has implications beyond what any theory proposes.

(In regards to security clearance)


NO! No, no, no, no. A security clearance is not an honorary title of any sort and does not carry any manner of special academic privilege or dispensation. All a security clearance means is that that person has access to data that is pertinent to the project they are working on, and ONLY the project they are working on. Security clearances are not bestowed by peers and they are not given for respect. They are granted by security personnel and only out of necessity.



Whichever is right is irrelevent. Whether truth exists as a concept is irrelevant. Creationism can trot out truth as much as it likes, but it will not make it any more scientific than it is now. Science does not rely on truth because there is no evidence that truth exists. Science relies ONLY on imperical evidence and logical deduction, not on truth.



When there are a dozen learned men seperately evaluating your work, and when your work is published in a scientific journal for the world to see and comment on, the chances of deceit grow smaller and smaller. Invariably, frauds and hoaxes are brought to the front, if they even manage to get past the peer review process to begin with. Please note that many of the examples creationists gleefully use to demostrate the times science went astray were frauds uncovered by scientists, not by creationists. For that matter, many of the frauds uncovered in creationism were also uncovered by scientists, not creationists. What guards the faithful from deception by their fellow man? What system is put into place to prevent the faithful from being taught incorrectly, innocently or otherwise?



Let's not be coy. A circle is not a sphere, much less an oblate spheroid. If you look at the artistic conceptions of the earth and heavens from this time period, you will find a flat, circular Earth, above and below which are several levels containing stars, moons, angels, and demons.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth--metaphor: He isn't literally on a throne up in the air. It simply symbolizes the kingly power he wields over it.

"and its people are like grasshoppers."--Simile: Two unlike things often introduced by 'like' or 'as'.



And I re-state that you understanding of science is lacking. Truth is not a scientific term. It is not precise enough, which is why it is often used in creationist topics. Truth can mean a variety of different things depending on context, but by and large, its definition of "scientific fact" is overshadowed by its deeper meaning of spiritual law.



This goes back to the "fairly common non-literal expression" thing. Everything is interpreted. Everything. Wether it be scientific facts or religious text, absolutely everything has to pass through the filter of the human mind. The difference with evidence is that any person, regardless of background or personal belief, can run an experiment independantly and have the same result. In other world, they can use the evidence to verify the interpretation themselves. This cannot be done with religious text.



I am afraid that this isn't a disagreement at all. You cannot re-define scientific terminology at will. Asides from being rude, it is also libelious. You are changing what one person said to something else, and in the process change the entire meaning and intent of their message, just as you changed my claim that philosophical truth had to give way to objective evidence into truth had to give way to lies. Personally, I find the implication of the latter to be somewhat insulting.



This is an example of what I claimed to be your deficit in creating a logical argument:

If: A equals B,
If: B equals C,
Then: A equals C

A: Technology, B: Power, C: Corruption

Technology equals Power
Power equals Corruption
Technology equals Corruption.

Unless you believe that Technology is the same as Truth, then you have committed a logical error in argument.



There is no theory of lighting. There is a theory of electricity which explains how electricity will react in a given environment. Lighting is a logical deduction from that theory. Theories exist to explain a phenomena. There is no theory about how lightning doesn't exist because the the theory of how electricity does exist already covers it. In other words, science explains how something can exist; if the requirements for that existence are not present, then neither is the phenomena. If somebody wishes to supplant a scientific theory, they cannot do so by proving it wrong; they have to do it by showing what is right.



No. You have not. You have not applied the standards of science to your god because you do not know what the standards of science are. Perhaps, if you have read the Evo Vs. Cre, you have learned them.



And scientists understand that perfectly. In science, fallacy rules. If there isn't a way to prove something wrong, then the theory isn't considered scientific.

Incidentally, your statement that nothing can be 100% credible would negate the existance of Truth, wouldn't it?

In all cases, these posts are way too long. Pick one topic, we'll resolve that one, and then we'll move on to another, or we will never get anywhere. Take your pick of whichever one you wish.

---

In the glory days of religion, the vatican tried to shut the experimentations of scientist because they were asking question the bible couldn't answer. But since science became more accessible to the people the vatican simply turns away only to strike when the scientific community is able to do something that would help humanity, but to the Church it would be "playing god".

Uh, the Vatican does not represent christians or God anymore in my opinion. It is a corrupt control device.



"miraculous healings"

so god would care for a tooth and not for a life? ( he was babptised only days after he was born, in order to let him reach "heaven" and not linger in the limbo with other poor souls, for more information about "where does the soul go?" check out "the 9 levels of hell")

These are catholic beliefs and do not directly represent the bible.
Also, do not count out Satan's influence over the earth. Too many people blame God instead of Lucifer. It is us, not god, who allows lucifer's meddlings. We allow inroads due to our seperation from God.

Geez did this topic take an illegal left turn or what (that would be an illegal right in Britan)

As for transitional evidence I think you need to turn to paleontology and ask them. Any bone find is a miracle in itself, a fragile item that through chance and happenstance became mineralized and was 'cast in stone' as were. When we look at these site they are only mere glimpses into the past, like shining a penlight into a cavern. I don't doubt that there are many transitional skeletons, we just haven't found many. In a lot of your cases were talking millions and millions of years ago. An interesting note is that even though we have a dozen skeletons on T-Rex few of them are the same, some are smaller, taller, wider, not oly in stature height but in various bone lengths. So maybe theses are indications of transitional creatures.

Whichever is right is irrelevent.

Not according to what I believe.


Whether truth exists as a concept is irrelevant.

I can't think of anything more relavent.

Science does not rely on truth because there is no evidence that truth exists. Science relies ONLY on imperical evidence and logical deduction, not on truth.

Fact: The earth is round.

Question: I heard the earth isn't round. Is that true?
Answer: No, that isn't true. The earth is infact round.

Conclusion: It is true that the earth is round.




When there are a dozen learned men seperately evaluating your work, and when your work is published in a scientific journal for the world to see and comment on, the chances of deceit grow smaller and smaller.

Of HUMAN deceit. Not supernatural deceit.




Let's not be coy. A circle is not a sphere, much less an oblate spheroid.
Did the Hebrews have a word for sphere? Perhaps in the hebrew text, it did infact say sphere.


If you look at the artistic conceptions of the earth and heavens from this time period, you will find a flat, circular Earth, above and below which are several levels containing stars, moons, angels, and demons.

Men drew these. These were not words of "God", as were the words of the bible.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth--metaphor: He isn't literally on a throne up in the air.

Not in the physical air, no. But on a spiritual plain, where he can observe earth, yes.




And I re-state that you understanding of science is lacking. Truth is not a scientific term. It is not precise enough, which is why it is often used in creationist topics.

Probably because God idetifies himself to us as the source of all truths. We are not meant to define truths be ourselves, because we are fallable. But if God truely did invent our concept of and ability to pratice science, then what is scientiffically "true" before God, is also fact before God. Truth could be define as a fact that is not up for dispute.


Example: It is fact that all humans evetually die. This is not up for dispute.

Me: "God, is it true that all humans die?"

God: "Yes."

The fact that all humans die is a truth. It is not up for dispute.


Truth can mean a variety of different things depending on context.

Quite right. "Truth" can be a lie at times. Therefore, the only TRUE context OF TRUTH, is that which is unwavering. That which is undisputable. And to take a non-disputable fact and dispute it shadowing truth. It's making the truth harder to see. Over these thousands of years the bible has been torn apart and polluted by man's language. Thus many people believe parts of it are up for debate. Gods says that to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must become like a little child. Children believe anything they are told. This is how God wants us to be. He knows that we cannot wrap our human minds around his entire truth, and because of that we will speculate it and shadow it further. He knows the only way to fully accept it all is to believe everyword regardless of whether or not we understand it. This sounds nieve, and in any other context it would be. But God clearly states that he is the source of truth, and a solid foundation. That all other foundations will crumble for they are of man.


but by and large, its definition of "scientific fact" is overshadowed by its deeper meaning of spiritual law.

This cannot be done with religious text.

explain further.



You cannot re-define scientific terminology at will.

Asides from being rude, it is also libelious. You are changing what one person said to something else, and in the process change the entire meaning and intent of their message, just as you changed my claim that philosophical truth had to give way to objective evidence into truth had to give way to lies. Personally, I find the implication of the latter to be somewhat insulting.

Apologies.



This is an example of what I claimed to be your deficit in creating a logical argument:

If: A equals B,
If: B equals C,
Then: A equals C

A: Technology, B: Power, C: Corruption

Technology equals Power
Power equals Corruption
Technology equals Corruption.

Unless you believe that Technology is the same as Truth, then you have committed a logical error in argument.

Aha, something I left out. The sources of power. Power used to ones own end is evil. Power used exclusively for other's good is pure. To gain power, and not be corrupted by it, one must use it selflessly. This is why God says that the greatest person in his kingdom is the servent. Because the servent remains uncorrupted in his power.

Human beings tends towards a state of disorder. Humans are inherently evil. Therefore the innocent use of power for one's self soon becomes evil, stepping on the heads of others. You gain by the loss of multiple others is not justice, or goodness.


Two sources of power: God, and lucifer.

The power we humans gain from God is that which glorifies God, the uncorruptable, the perfection. The power we gain from Lucifer is that which glorifies Lucifer above god, that which glorifies man above God. God's power cannot be used for evil. However Lucifer can immitate God's power for evil purposes. Hell, just look at the modern church and tell me it isn't of Satan himself.



There is no theory of lighting.


A Terrible typo on my part! I MEANT to say LIGHTNING, not lighting.

There is a theory of electricity which explains how electricity will react in a given



No. You have not. You have not applied the standards of science to your god because you do not know what the standards of science are.

I see what you are saying here.

But I believe my God created my mind, and my concept of science, and my ability to persue it. I believe he lives inside me spiritually and will guide me towards correct scientiffic thinking and lead me away from incorrect thinkings.


And scientists understand that perfectly. In science, fallacy rules. If there isn't a way to prove something wrong, then the theory isn't considered scientific.

There is no way to prove that God is not perfect. There are ways to prove that man is inperfect. To understand much of my responses, you must have a complete concept of what is possible in perfection. What is possible to come from perfection.

Can science prove that there is nothing beyond our human perceptions?
Can a man's ways prove anything beyond what is in his world? Can any knowledge we can muster account for things which exist in a completely seperate and different plain?







And scientists understand that perfectly. In science, fallacy rules. If there isn't a way to prove something wrong, then the theory isn't considered scientific.

Incidentally, your statement that nothing can be 100% credible would negate the existance of Truth, wouldn't it?

No.

Nothing that man says is 100% credible. truth does not come from Man. it comes from God. He and he alone can dictate truth. Man can attempt to interpret them, but is never perfect in this.

In all cases, these posts are way too long. Pick one topic, we'll resolve that one, and then we'll move on to another, or we will never get anywhere. Take your pick of whichever one you wish.

Agreed. My eyes are sore. But I fear that any topic I can choose will lead back to these types of posts.

How about we discuss the various possibilities of what might exist outside our universe, but which is still connected to it. Such as where conciousness actively comes from. If this is too bleak, I'll leave the topic up to you.

Nope. The hebrew word for circle was used.

No, this thread is about transitional evolutionary forms, so let's stay in that general area. First and foremost, here is my question to you: Do you understand the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology?

Visit the following site.

www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm

Surprisingly, the page was fairly accurate about quite a few things. Unfortunately, the bias of the author made a perfectly workable system sound like some sort of dogmatic rulebook. While the site was technically accurate, it is obvious that the author is not taking into account what every single experienced researcher knows: science is not neat and pretty, and hardly ever clear cut. I am not sure exactly what this "myth" is that he believes the world to be laboring under, but scientific methodology is indeed a dynamic system that sets very few hard and fast rules, and is open to change and development (one of the rules is less than a few decades old).

So, I ask again, are you familiar with the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology?

[quote=aquatus1,Nov 23 2004, 01:17 PM]
I am not sure exactly what this "myth" is that he believes the world to be laboring under, but scientific methodology is indeed a dynamic system that sets very few hard and fast rules, and is open to change and development (one of the rules is less than a few decades old).

Hear!Hear! Aquatus. "The Universe is a crapshot with loaded dice." "Never say never." "Chaos is as chaos does"

Neat and tidy and not true of our universe, look at relativity and the search for TOE (Theory of everything) Proving one theory tends to disprove a few others. Let's talk about this again in a millenia or two and it will have changed.

Elaborate

I'll take that as a no, then.

The prerequisites for scientific methodology are as follows:



In order for any theory to be considered scientifically valid, it must, at a bare minimum, fulfill these pre-requisites. Depending on the field, other requirements may also be present. These pre-requisites reflect certain basic points about scientific methodology that are extremely significant, both historically and in intellectual impact.

1) Any theory needs to explain the imperical evidence concerning the pertinent phenomena. This reflects the nature of theories explaining how things work, rather than how things do not. One does not disprove a theory by showing that it does not work, but rather by presenting a theory that works better.

2) A theory is basically a formal proclamation to the world that one has found a formula which, when a specific set of elements are in place, results in a specific phenomena occurring. Through this formula, one should then be able to use elements that are not yet in place, or that were in place in the past, and be able to predict future or past occurences.

3) Science is, at its core, a method used to strip away the subjective and illogical. A scientific theory cannot depend on a person's personal bias or desires to lead them to the conclusion proposed. Any independant person should have the ability to replicate the theory on their own and be able to arrive (although not necessarily agree with) the same conclusion.

4) Any theory, in order to be considered scientifically provable, must have a means through which it can be unproven. If it cannot be unproven, it cannot be verified, and if it cannot be verified, then it is useless for scientific purposes.

5) In line with that, in science, there is no such thing as Truth. Truth is a philosophical concept of something which is 100% complete and unchangeable. Put more simply, it is an end result. It is innate human nature to support their beliefs, and this is a safeguard against that. One cannot allow the end result to dictate the existence of the evidence; one must allow the existing evidence to form the end result. Science cannot be done backwards.

I can elaborate further, if you like. This is the foundation of scientific understanding, and it is absolutely imperative to understand in order to be able to distinguish between genuine science and pseudoscience.

One does not disprove a theory by showing that it does not work, but rather by presenting a theory that works better.

"Better" seems to represent a gray area.


3) Science is, at its core, a method used to strip away the subjective and illogical. A scientific theory cannot depend on a person's personal bias or desires to lead them to the conclusion proposed. Any independant person should have the ability to replicate the theory on their own and be able to arrive (although not necessarily agree with) the same conclusion.

The beauty behind being created with free will was the fact that God gave us the ability to actually belief and find proof for whatever we wanted. If he created the world where is was painfully obnvious to any casual observer that he HAD to exist, then we wouldn't be beings of free will. We would be forced into a belief system.


5) In line with that, in science, there is no such thing as Truth. Truth is a philosophical concept of something which is 100% complete and unchangeable. Put more simply, it is an end result. It is innate human nature to support their beliefs, and this is a safeguard against that. One cannot allow the end result to dictate the existence of the evidence; one must allow the existing evidence to form the end result. Science cannot be done backwards.

You didn't adress my previous statement:

"Is the earth flat?"

"No"

"How do we know that?"

"Because it has been proven that the earth is round by many. It's a fact."

"Is it true that the earth is round?"

"Yes, that is true."

Does not fact and truth coicide here? If someone asks if it is true or not that the earth is round, will you answer with the word "true" or with the word "fact"?




I can elaborate further, if you like. This is the foundation of scientific understanding, and it is absolutely imperative to understand in order to be able to distinguish between genuine science and pseudoscience.



Convetional science cannot seem to acocunt for the existance of God. Why then can there also be creationist scientists, who seem to be able to account for God's proof using the same means you have described to me here?

If mainstream or conventional science cannot account for God, it only makes sense that this feild is headed by godless men. Where as Godly men find the proof they seek. It almost seems that what ever a man fills his mind with, he is able to find.

Have you ever heard of a creationist becoming an evolutionist after his scientiffic findings? (That's an actualy question, not a rhetorical.)

Many people think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a proven fact. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, recent developments in science completely disprove the theory. The only reason Darwinism is still foisted on people by means of a worldwide propaganda campaign lies in the ideological aspects of the theory. All secular ideologies and philosophies try to provide a basis for themselves by relying on the theory of evolution. Many evolutoinsists have gone public in their findings, and changed their outlook on science and evolution.

A quote from Krister Renard:

"I had a hidden agenda in believing in evolution, although mine was not theological, but sociological. Even years after I had committed myself to observing the commandments of the Torah, I still clung to a belief in evolution. Why? I didn't want to be one of them. The Creationists, Jerry Falwell and his ilk, made my skin crawl. Denying the Theory of Evolution would have put me on their side of the fence, and jeopardized my image of myself as an enlightened, scientific thinker."

An exerpt from Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box -- The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution:

Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism -- natural selection working on variation -- might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small.

All this leads me to defining creation science. It seems to me that Biblical creation begins with the confession that certain knowledge of God "is plain to [man], because God has made it plain to [us]. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made ..." Romans 1:19-20 Employing a sound approach to the legal method of proof, we enter alleged testimony of the Creator from Genesis as evidence from the only conceivable witness of the events, methods, and timing of creation. Within the context of this testimony, we mount up physical evidence together with the testimony of experts in their respective fields of study so as to confirm for many the reliability of the testimony of God. Is our faith, then, in the words of men? No. Our faith rests on the truthfulness of the God who cannot lie. But we feature proofs from the science of man as additional confirmation of the word of God "so that you may be saved."

I'm not nearly finished responding to your last post, but I'm falling asleep here, so I'll pick up where I left off tomorrow. Sorry.

It most certainly does, and there are no lack of those in science. Quite often, there are multiple theories for the same phenomena. Ultimately, the one that is the most accepted is the one that answers the most questions in the simplest fashion. That is, of course, until further evidence comes to light.



That's just it. It isn't "painfully obnvious to any casual observer that he HAD to exist". I do not see it at all, I have looked from many different angles. The only way to see it in this manner is too first look at the end result (God Exists), and then "find proof" (he created the world). As I said, one cannot do science backwards. The evidence must come before the conclusion. That is just one of the differences between science and belief.



I had hoped you had read my previous thread to avoid answering this question yet again. Ah well...

"Does not fact and truth coicide here? If someone asks if it is true or not that the earth is round, will you answer with the word "true" or with the word "fact"?"

Neither. I will answer with "The Earth is an oblate spheroid." Truth is relative to the individual. One person, in a given situation, will say that the Earth being round is true, and another (or even the same person) will say, in another situation, that the Earth being round is not true.



Excellent question. The answer is: They can't. There has, to date, not been a single serious study concerning a supernatural power that has conclusively shown their existance without violating at least one, often more, of these five rules. Once you better understand the five pre-reqs, you will find yourself going back over what you once proudly proclaimed to be truth and find yourself asking questions about the proceedures involved.



Hardly. Science, as I said, does not depend on the bias or personal desires of the researcher. While it is true that, the higher the educational level of a person, the less chance they believe in supernatural or paranatural phenomena, there are still more than a significant number of high-level scientists who believe in deities.



That is precisely why science is set up the way it is. To keep people from overlooking what is there in favor of what they have filled their mind with.



Yes, indeed. In fact, I can proudly claim to be responsible for at least one person doing just that myself. I think, however, that what you are asking is whether a person has ever given up their faith because of evolution. I suspect the answer to that is yes, but not as a direct cause of it. Science is about the facts, not about beliefs. There is absolutely no need to stop believing in God simply because you stop believing creationism. In fact, I think you will find that your relationship with God will be enriched the more you learn about the world he created for you, rather than keeping your mind bound up in the stories created by man millenia ago.

But I digress. My purpose here is to show you how scientific validity works.



No theory is a proven fact. The only thing that can be a fact is an individual element of data. A theory is a formula tying together as many of these elements as possible and explaining them in a reliable and predictable way. I think you will find that the many alleged "disproofs" to Darwinism tend to fall into three categories:
1) Competing or symbiotic theories
2) Bad Science
3) Outright deceit.

Regarding your quotes:

The first quote from Krister Renard reflects the basic political nature of...well, anything. Credibility is quite possibly the most important quality a scientist can possess, and it is difficult to gather and easy to lose. Darwin himself established his credibility through twenty long years of research and studies proving to the scientific community that he had a complete grasp of science as it was understood at the time. The reward for this was, when he published his revolutionary theory, he was met with righteous indignation and immediate opposition, but not by disbelief and scorn.

The second quote is quite simply a different style of creationism that we are accustomed to hearing about. There are several different branches of it, and only one is fundamentalist bible literalist. Unfortunately, he still makes the fundamental mistake of beginning at the conclusion: God exists. It is, as your own quote said earlier, very easy for man to find proof when he wishes to.

Since you have so many questions, why don't we take these one at a time? Which of the five pre-requisites would you like to discuss?

It most certainly does, and there are no lack of those in science. Quite often, there are multiple theories for the same phenomena. Ultimately, the one that is the most accepted is the one that answers the most questions in the simplest fashion. That is, of course, until further evidence comes to light.

Since when has what is "most" accepted every been right? Look at mainstream culture, products, and business practices!

That's just it. It isn't "painfully obnvious to any casual observer that he HAD to exist."

You misunderstood what I said. Of course, it IS NOT PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that God exists, otherwise we would not have free will. If God's existance WAS so very obvious that we could not deny him, then we WOULD NOT have free will. He created us with the mental ability to deny him or accept him.



I do not see it at all, I have looked from many different angles.

There is a verse in the Bible that says, "They look with eyes that do not see, and they listen with ears that do not hear."


The only way to see it in this manner is too first look at the end result (God Exists), and then "find proof" (he created the world).

Proof is subjective to your beliefs. If you outright deny God's existance, you will never see him. If you close you mind to something, no ammount of it's evidence will sway your mind.




Neither. I will answer with "The Earth is an oblate spheroid." Truth is relative to the individual. One person, in a given situation, will say that the Earth being round is true, and another (or even the same person) will say, in another situation, that the Earth being round is not true.

Convetional science cannot seem to acocunt for the existance of God.

I completely disagree with this statement. Have you ever heard of the concept of "Irreversibly complex"?

If you remove a single part from a mousetrap, it will not function. There is not combination of the parts that you can arrange that will lead up to anything even close to a working mousetrap if one part is not used. This shows intellegent design.

The human eyeball is another example of this. Many regard it as the Perfect organ.

Why then can there also be creationist scientists, who seem to be able to account for God's proof using the same means you have described to me here?[/quote]

Excellent question. The answer is: They can't. There has, to date, not been a single serious study concerning a supernatural power that has conclusively shown their existance without violating at least one, often more, of these five rules.

I ask you, HOW can a natural study account for a SUPERNATURAL occurence? The five rules are meaningless in explaining the supernatural. How can the IMPERFECT define THE PERFECT? It simply cannot.

There has, however, been many studies which account for intellegent design by very prominent scientists.

Once you better understand the five pre-reqs, you will find yourself going back over what you once proudly proclaimed to be truth and find yourself asking questions about the proceedures involved.

You mean, fact, don't you? I thought truth was subjective, and had no place in science.




Hardly. Science, as I said, does not depend on the bias or personal desires of the researcher.

Grossly untrue, as I have read countless acounts of the personal and individual reasons for evolutionists to follow what they do. To remove bias of some sort is to remove one's own humanity.

While it is true that, the higher the educational level of a person, the less chance they believe in supernatural or paranatural phenomena, there are still more than a significant number of high-level scientists who believe in deities.

Deities are NOT of God. It doesn't matter what diety it is. If it is not God/JesusChrist, it is not God. Gad says he in the only one, that he is a jealous God, and will have no other gods be proclaimed above them. There is no room for gray here in his eyes. The belief in deities is just as "bad" as atheistic beliefs.



That is precisely why science is set up the way it is. To keep people from overlooking what is there in favor of what they have filled their mind with.

Or perhaps this is just another method of our control by the powers that be. Making us believe that we have the an ability to descern fact from misfact, giving us an illusion of control, of freedom, when infact the system is fundementally flawed.



Yes, indeed. In fact, I can proudly claim to be responsible for at least one person doing just that myself. I think, however, that what you are asking is whether a person has ever given up their faith because of evolution. I suspect the answer to that is yes, but not as a direct cause of it.

What do you make of the following quotes?

"I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University)

The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."
(Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)

The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."
(Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University)

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
(Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History)

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
(Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought)

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
(Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267)

It is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years."
(Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D., physicist and C-14 dating specialist)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."
(Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose)

"The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling ... the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet ... To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phoney science."
(Thomas Barnes Ph.D., physicist)

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89)

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.)

"When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them."
(C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioural complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity ... Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form."
(James A Shipiro, Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, "Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 (June 1988))

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ... it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."
(John Woodmorappe, geologist)

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."
(H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."
(N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist)

"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that w