OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 03:06:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 324796 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4725 on: October 09, 2012, 01:55:55 PM »

If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.
I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.
I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy.  In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt.  The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

I forgot to mention your mistake.  For an accusation to even be made, in legal work, evidence MUST exist. 
And I say, yes, evidence does exist.  Your insistence that evidence does not need to exist in science continues to show again, ignorance.  You just happen to like to dismiss evidence.  Which is fine, if you even know what you're talking about.

And yes, evidence is supplied by the scientist making the claim, and he explains the reasons to prove it.  Reading enough scientific journals would help you understand this.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #4726 on: October 09, 2012, 04:10:55 PM »

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar.  The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions.  For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit.  You say "enough evidence."  Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses.  In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis.  If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.


Quote
In science it is not always the case.  Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.  

What do you mean "guess work"?  You see, this is a problem.  There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work.  There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory.  But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing.  There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote
In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed.  The rest is up to the prosecution.  If they can win the case, that's on them.  In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney?  Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?


Quote
Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong.  Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered.  This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote
You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again.  Scientists do have to prove it.  Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected.  Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.


Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc.  If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.
I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week.  I will finally have my computer then.  I will say this.  If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before.  So, I don't understand how it's a failure.  Look at earlier posts.

Mina, not attacking you, but this statement is potentially misleading without context -- proven according to what standard?
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

I read the wikipedia article and couldn't find what I wanted in it. Might save the judgment for reading on a rainy day.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4727 on: October 09, 2012, 04:16:59 PM »

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar.  The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions.  For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit.  You say "enough evidence."  Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses.  In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis.  If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.


Quote
In science it is not always the case.  Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.  

What do you mean "guess work"?  You see, this is a problem.  There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work.  There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory.  But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing.  There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote
In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed.  The rest is up to the prosecution.  If they can win the case, that's on them.  In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney?  Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?


Quote
Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong.  Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered.  This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote
You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again.  Scientists do have to prove it.  Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected.  Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.


Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc.  If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.
I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week.  I will finally have my computer then.  I will say this.  If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before.  So, I don't understand how it's a failure.  Look at earlier posts.

Mina, not attacking you, but this statement is potentially misleading without context -- proven according to what standard?
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

I read the wikipedia article and couldn't find what I wanted in it. Might save the judgment for reading on a rainy day.
Intelligent Design (ID) was made as a counterattack to evolution for its gaps, and explains these gaps for ID.  As a result, these gaps were defined in court and have been in fact shown to be answerable by evolution, disproving ID.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4728 on: October 09, 2012, 07:48:07 PM »

Actually, quite the opposite.  We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have.  That's all.  As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).
Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:

1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?

2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?

3) How do you explain formation of cell?

4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.

5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.

6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?

Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.

May I recommend a book for you, because I cannot answer all these questions for you in one short post?  Because otherwise your bombardment of questions is nothing but an emotional response, and really in the end, you like to make yourself a scientist and disregard such studies as proof.  Or you can go back to page one of this thread and read everything that is written, and then ask questions that haven't been asked here before.
Or you could give a clear definitive answer instead of what has been given.  "Because" isn't proof.  I would be happy for number 6.  At least then The scientific method would apply and we could start calling it science.  Of course, it would have to be duplicated several times with the same results.
The experiment that compares human chromosome 2 to a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes, not to mention overall 95% similarity.  This is the same procedures used to determine degree of relation between individuals, hence, it has been used before in practical times.  Kerdy, you quoted me linking a youtube video.  For God's sake, there's the proof.

Also, Kitsmiller v. Dover Area School District proved the validity of teaching evolution in classes and the invalidity of teaching intelligent design.  There has also been a video linked here of the proceedings of this court.
Hmm, I thought it was 98%, but 95% is even better because when compared to rats it's 94%, but yet there is soooo much difference between us and rats in comparison to chimps and only 1% difference.  After all, is our similarities not the reason people first thought we were related to chimps?  Interesting.  

You say there is "proof", but others here have been honest enough to admit there is no smoking gun.  Interesting.

That court case was, as I stated, about what to teach between the two.  This case put ID on trial.  It in no way states evolution is indisputable.  For you not to recognize that presents serious questions.  I realize you believe me to be lacking, but that is a mistake.  I have told you, this is what I do and if I were not good at it, I would have been fired long ago.  My purpose in life in way of my job is to investigate, everything.  It's what I do.  Because our opinions are not shared in no way validates either opinion.  In the future, please present relevant evidence, especially if you are going to use court cases.  Thank you!

And you may want to take a look at the Memorandum Opinion by Judge Jones, for a starting place.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 07:54:00 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4729 on: October 09, 2012, 08:05:56 PM »

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar.  The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions.  For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit.  You say "enough evidence."  Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses.  In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis.  If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.


Quote
In science it is not always the case.  Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.  

What do you mean "guess work"?  You see, this is a problem.  There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work.  There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory.  But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing.  There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote
In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed.  The rest is up to the prosecution.  If they can win the case, that's on them.  In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney?  Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?


Quote
Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong.  Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered.  This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote
You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again.  Scientists do have to prove it.  Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected.  Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.


Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc.  If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.
I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week.  I will finally have my computer then.  I will say this.  If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before.  So, I don't understand how it's a failure.  Look at earlier posts.

Mina, not attacking you, but this statement is potentially misleading without context -- proven according to what standard?
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

I read the wikipedia article and couldn't find what I wanted in it. Might save the judgment for reading on a rainy day.
Intelligent Design (ID) was made as a counterattack to evolution for its gaps, and explains these gaps for ID.  As a result, these gaps were defined in court and have been in fact shown to be answerable by evolution, disproving ID.
Yep, they did an extremely poor job at presenting their case.  How the lawyers passed the bar is beyond me, but as it develops, this will eventually be reversed.  But again, this in now way supports your initial claim so I must ask what was the purpose of presenting this case in defense of evolution?  There is no logical one I can see.  This case was about ID and a pitiful defense for it.

Sadly, your summation of the case is faulty.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 08:07:52 PM by Kerdy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4730 on: October 09, 2012, 08:50:12 PM »

I absolutely agree people should read Judge Jones' EXCELLENT summation:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

and I will gladly quote three pages in it, pp. 83-86:

Quote
Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution.  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks use  prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.  (1:94-100 (Miller)).  As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science.  To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.”  Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original).  Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence.  Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.


In analyzing such distortion, we turn again to Pandas, the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer.  Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs’ experts agree in that regard.  (16:83 (Padian); 1:107-08 (Miller)).  A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology, which studies the life of the past and the fossil record.  Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology. His testimony therefore remains unrebutted.  Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles. 


We will provide several representative examples of this distortion.  First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics.  (16:87-97 (Padian); P-855.6-855.19).  Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years.  (17:27-40 (Padian); P-855.83-855.102).  Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals.  (16:146-48 (Padian)).  Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abruptappearance.  Id.   Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about preCambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals.  (16:107-17, 16:117-31, 16:131-45, 17:6-9, 17:17-27 (Padian); P-855.25-855.33, P-855.34-855.45, P-855.46-855.55, P-855.56-866.63, P-855.64-855.82). 


In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science.  Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides.  (1:112 (Miller)).  Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed.  (1:113-17 (Miller); P-854.9-854.16; 23:35-36 (Behe)). In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.  (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245).  In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound.  (1:139-42 (Miller)). 


Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case

In other words, even though this courtcase was to prove the invalidity of ID, its invalidity in fact VALIDATED evolution in a court of law.  If evolution was ever to be challenged the way ID was, it would succeed.  Judge Jones' 139 page document proves this.

What ID fails to be under a court of law, evolution succeeds to be just that.

And Kerdy, you shouldn't be so harsh on the lawyers.  Behe did a poor job on defending ID's case, and he as well as other ID experts are failures in the scientific field.  Not to mention, Behe actually does believe common descent between chimps and humans.  His argument of irreducible complexity only was for biochemical purposes.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 09:19:20 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,078


« Reply #4731 on: October 09, 2012, 10:15:21 PM »

It's probably worth mentioning that Judge Jones is a church-going Republican, i.e. he's not exactly your textbook liberal activist judge.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4732 on: October 09, 2012, 11:44:09 PM »

I absolutely agree people should read Judge Jones' EXCELLENT summation:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

and I will gladly quote three pages in it, pp. 83-86:

Quote
Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution.  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks use  prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.  (1:94-100 (Miller)).  As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science.  To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.”  Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original).  Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence.  Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.


In analyzing such distortion, we turn again to Pandas, the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer.  Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs’ experts agree in that regard.  (16:83 (Padian); 1:107-08 (Miller)).  A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology, which studies the life of the past and the fossil record.  Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology. His testimony therefore remains unrebutted.  Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.  


We will provide several representative examples of this distortion.  First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics.  (16:87-97 (Padian); P-855.6-855.19).  Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years.  (17:27-40 (Padian); P-855.83-855.102).  Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals.  (16:146-48 (Padian)).  Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abruptappearance.  Id.   Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about preCambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals.  (16:107-17, 16:117-31, 16:131-45, 17:6-9, 17:17-27 (Padian); P-855.25-855.33, P-855.34-855.45, P-855.46-855.55, P-855.56-866.63, P-855.64-855.82).  


In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science.  Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides.  (1:112 (Miller)).  Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed.  (1:113-17 (Miller); P-854.9-854.16; 23:35-36 (Behe)). In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.  (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245).  In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound.  (1:139-42 (Miller)).  


Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case

In other words, even though this courtcase was to prove the invalidity of ID, its invalidity in fact VALIDATED evolution in a court of law.  If evolution was ever to be challenged the way ID was, it would succeed.  Judge Jones' 139 page document proves this.

What ID fails to be under a court of law, evolution succeeds to be just that.

And Kerdy, you shouldn't be so harsh on the lawyers.  Behe did a poor job on defending ID's case, and he as well as other ID experts are failures in the scientific field.  Not to mention, Behe actually does believe common descent between chimps and humans.  His argument of irreducible complexity only was for biochemical purposes.
I'll address only the case...no, it did not...period.

But I could why you would believe this if you are the type of person who thinks Loving vs. Virginia was about marriage and not race.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 11:49:00 PM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4733 on: October 09, 2012, 11:46:29 PM »

It's probably worth mentioning that Judge Jones is a church-going Republican, i.e. he's not exactly your textbook liberal activist judge.
I see only one major issue with anything he said.  He apparently doesn't understand the first amendment and separation of church and state, but that really had nothing to do with this case, so why he would mention them is baffling at best.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4734 on: October 09, 2012, 11:55:30 PM »

I absolutely agree people should read Judge Jones' EXCELLENT summation:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

and I will gladly quote three pages in it, pp. 83-86:

Quote
Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution.  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks use  prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.  (1:94-100 (Miller)).  As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science.  To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.”  Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original).  Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence.  Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.


In analyzing such distortion, we turn again to Pandas, the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer.  Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs’ experts agree in that regard.  (16:83 (Padian); 1:107-08 (Miller)).  A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology, which studies the life of the past and the fossil record.  Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology. His testimony therefore remains unrebutted.  Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.  


We will provide several representative examples of this distortion.  First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics.  (16:87-97 (Padian); P-855.6-855.19).  Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years.  (17:27-40 (Padian); P-855.83-855.102).  Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals.  (16:146-48 (Padian)).  Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abruptappearance.  Id.   Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about preCambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals.  (16:107-17, 16:117-31, 16:131-45, 17:6-9, 17:17-27 (Padian); P-855.25-855.33, P-855.34-855.45, P-855.46-855.55, P-855.56-866.63, P-855.64-855.82).  


In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science.  Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides.  (1:112 (Miller)).  Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed.  (1:113-17 (Miller); P-854.9-854.16; 23:35-36 (Behe)). In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.  (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245).  In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound.  (1:139-42 (Miller)).  


Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case

In other words, even though this courtcase was to prove the invalidity of ID, its invalidity in fact VALIDATED evolution in a court of law.  If evolution was ever to be challenged the way ID was, it would succeed.  Judge Jones' 139 page document proves this.

What ID fails to be under a court of law, evolution succeeds to be just that.

And Kerdy, you shouldn't be so harsh on the lawyers.  Behe did a poor job on defending ID's case, and he as well as other ID experts are failures in the scientific field.  Not to mention, Behe actually does believe common descent between chimps and humans.  His argument of irreducible complexity only was for biochemical purposes.
I'll address only the case...no, it did not...period.

Wow...talk about denial.  I wonder if this sounds familiar:

Quote
And you may want to take a look at the Memorandum Opinion by Judge Jones, for a starting place.

Quote
But I could why you would believe this if you are the type of person who thinks Loving vs. Virginia was about marriage and not race.
I don't know the case.  So I honestly don know what you're talking about.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 11:58:59 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4735 on: October 09, 2012, 11:59:44 PM »

I absolutely agree people should read Judge Jones' EXCELLENT summation:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

and I will gladly quote three pages in it, pp. 83-86:

Quote
Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution.  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks use  prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.  (1:94-100 (Miller)).  As the court in Selman explained, “evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science.  To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists.”  Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original).  Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution, Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence.  Plaintiffs’ science experts, Drs. Miller and Padian, clearly explained how ID proponents generally and Pandas specifically, distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge in making their anti-evolution argument.


In analyzing such distortion, we turn again to Pandas, the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer.  Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs’ experts agree in that regard.  (16:83 (Padian); 1:107-08 (Miller)).  A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology, which studies the life of the past and the fossil record.  Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology. His testimony therefore remains unrebutted.  Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles. 


We will provide several representative examples of this distortion.  First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics.  (16:87-97 (Padian); P-855.6-855.19).  Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years.  (17:27-40 (Padian); P-855.83-855.102).  Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals.  (16:146-48 (Padian)).  Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abruptappearance.  Id.   Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about preCambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals.  (16:107-17, 16:117-31, 16:131-45, 17:6-9, 17:17-27 (Padian); P-855.25-855.33, P-855.34-855.45, P-855.46-855.55, P-855.56-866.63, P-855.64-855.82). 


In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science.  Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides.  (1:112 (Miller)).  Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed.  (1:113-17 (Miller); P-854.9-854.16; 23:35-36 (Behe)). In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes.  (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245).  In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound.  (1:139-42 (Miller)). 


Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case

In other words, even though this courtcase was to prove the invalidity of ID, its invalidity in fact VALIDATED evolution in a court of law.  If evolution was ever to be challenged the way ID was, it would succeed.  Judge Jones' 139 page document proves this.

What ID fails to be under a court of law, evolution succeeds to be just that.

And Kerdy, you shouldn't be so harsh on the lawyers.  Behe did a poor job on defending ID's case, and he as well as other ID experts are failures in the scientific field.  Not to mention, Behe actually does believe common descent between chimps and humans.  His argument of irreducible complexity only was for biochemical purposes.
I'll address only the case...no, it did not...period.

Wow...talk about denial.  I wonder if this sounds familiar:

Quote
And you may want to take a look at the Memorandum Opinion by Judge Jones, for a starting place.


ROFL!  You have no idea what you are talking about.  I can't even continue if you can't comprehend what is in print.  Stop reading what you WANT to see and read what is actually there. 
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4736 on: October 10, 2012, 12:17:23 AM »

Sure whatever.  I'm tired of this crap.  Other more important issues to discuss anyway.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4737 on: October 10, 2012, 02:31:49 AM »

Sure whatever.  I'm tired of this crap.  Other more important issues to discuss anyway.
I agree. It is tiresome when you read into something that is not there.  This case was about ID, not evolution.  The ONLY part of evolution mentioned was the ID misrepresentation of specific concepts which were widely ACCEPTED by peers.  I won't even touch on the peer review flaws, rather focus on what this case actually said, not what you want it to say.  ID failed to present itself as a scientific theory for entry into the education system.  Nothing more.  Sorry, but you are simply wrong.  

Additionally, one group presenting a poor defense for their view does not, by default, prove anything else is true.  That thinking is completely absurd.  I can't even imagine how that would fit into a real court room.  Because prosecution failed to convince the jury the defendant is guilty, by default, this person (insert random person) is guilty.

I certainly am happy the entire legal system is not run in the same way as evolutionary biology.  Wow!
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 02:37:38 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4738 on: October 10, 2012, 02:47:44 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 02:50:53 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,246


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4739 on: October 10, 2012, 03:54:48 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.


Yep. That about sums it up. Well said.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4740 on: October 10, 2012, 07:21:58 AM »

Quote
No observable experiments (#6).

Just as for most of your cases you can't OBSERVE a murder, so you can't have observed the past evolution of species.  But you can look at the smoking guns of it all.  I presented to you DNA evidence.  Yes, rats are also highly similar to humans too, but there's no inconsistency in the similarity.  As you get closer and closer to apes, you get a larger and larger number of genetic similarity, making it look like we descended from an ape family.

YOUR failure is that you ignore the answers given to you, and you call them, by your own "expertise in investigations", failures to your answer.  You're the one who causes the brown-nosing.  If you were color-blind, and I told you this is green, look at the wave-length registered here, you'd probably don't care.

If you listen to the details of the court case, you'd notice how much time was spent in proving evolution, thereby debunking ID.  Your insistence on not addressing Jones' quote I gave you shows how much you just want to "address the case", ignoring Jones' memoriam.

I'll let others decide if they feel "evolution would win in a court of law" by reading Jones' memoriam as I provided the link.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4741 on: October 10, 2012, 07:24:01 AM »

Tell me this, have you studied genetics in college?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4742 on: October 10, 2012, 07:38:53 AM »

Dear Heorhij,
If evolution can't be explained mathematically or experimentally because it's a "random" process, and the evolutionary model can't make sure previsions, why not call it "statistics" and not "science"? Statistics are equally useful, they apply a mathematical concept (probability) but they still don't have to be accurate. In fact, I can enter a casino and play the roulette 900 times, yet it COULD happen that number 3, despite the statistics, doesn't result of those 900 attempts. I refute to accept "models" as science if they can't make sure assertions. The prototype of science is this: "Given an X system, X always turns into Y". For example, it is science to say: "Given an isolated neutron, this will decay within 15 minutes into a proton, an electron and a neutrino electron, with an exchange of a W boson". The Standard Model foretells this as a consequence of the weak interaction. In other words, the weak interaction, when correctly understood, allows to make certain previsions: if they are verified experimentally, the theory is a very good description of reality, and certainly MORE then just a simple "theory".
On the contrary, evolution proves to be ruled by "vague" laws with even more "vague" conclusions. The fact that evolutionists expected a common ancestor for chimps and humans to be "more chimp-like" and "less human-like" but this theory seems to have been disproved by the recent discoveries, puts some doubts on its ability to make sure previsions.
I hope you can understand my point: evidently we have two entirely different definitions of science... but in my heart I feel that the evolutionary theory has the same probability to make right previsions then astrology does.

In Christ,   Alex


The facts bear out the evolutionary prediction exactly.

The closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. [5][6]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second. [7]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. [8]
Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."[8]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4743 on: October 10, 2012, 09:18:47 AM »

Quote
No observable experiments (#6).

Just as for most of your cases you can't OBSERVE a murder, so you can't have observed the past evolution of species.  But you can look at the smoking guns of it all.  I presented to you DNA evidence.  Yes, rats are also highly similar to humans too, but there's no inconsistency in the similarity.  As you get closer and closer to apes, you get a larger and larger number of genetic similarity, making it look like we descended from an ape family.

YOUR failure is that you ignore the answers given to you, and you call them, by your own "expertise in investigations", failures to your answer.  You're the one who causes the brown-nosing.  If you were color-blind, and I told you this is green, look at the wave-length registered here, you'd probably don't care.

If you listen to the details of the court case, you'd notice how much time was spent in proving evolution, thereby debunking ID.  Your insistence on not addressing Jones' quote I gave you shows how much you just want to "address the case", ignoring Jones' memoriam.

I'll let others decide if they feel "evolution would win in a court of law" by reading Jones' memoriam as I provided the link.
Brown nosing???

Um, last I checked, scientific method (validity and reliability - youre kind of missing the whole observations from experimentation results here to support anything, not observing it way back when-duh) was kind of a requirement.  Well, unless we are talking about evolution...of course.

They didn't prove evolution, they "disproved" ID, by way of revealing misrepresentations of evolution done at that specific school system, thats it.  I realize its a lot to accept, but it's all right there.

Oh, and just for your knowledge, "Bob Smith" can come in and confess to a murder, but unless it can be proven he is the one who did it, he walks.  It's happened before.  Why?  To keep weirdos from confessing to something they didn't do.  Like I said, law and science are similar, not the same.  

See, here is the problem.  You, and folks like you, are so enthusiastic about evolution, you expect people to just accept it at face value.  When they don't and tell you, "That's real nice, but it just isn't enough" you become upset.  Man made global warming was all the rage and anyone who disagreed was just stupid.  Well, right up until all the emails were found, the scientists shown to be liars and faking "proof" and so on.  But if anyone, like Kerdy (who said it often), said its all bunk (polar bears have increased in numbers by a whole bunch), that person was the recipient of ridicule.  Now that the science is really in (Al Gore), people aren't laughing so much.  Oh, and I'm still waiting on the next ice age I was promised in the 70s.  It must have been a short one, cause I missed it.

So, you'll just have to excuse my untrusting nature when it comes to this sort of thing.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 09:26:47 AM by Kerdy » Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,217



« Reply #4744 on: October 10, 2012, 09:19:17 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.

Kerdy (supported by others) feels that he is somehow vindicated because nobody has been able to replicate something in a lab that takes millions of years to occur in nature (evolution), and somehow feels that this lack of "proof" disproves evolution. And due to his attendance of a couple school biology courses, he feels that he understands evolution better than the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet. He also insists that the burden of proof is on the believers of evolution (which, by now, excluding some religious fundamentalists, is pretty much every educated person). But since science deals with theories (like Germ Theory, for instance), one would in fact need to replace the vastly supported theory of evolution with an alternative theory that is even more consistent and better supported. Yet nobody has thus far come close to doing so. Nobody here has even tried, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the "web of life" picture that evolutionary understanding affords us grows clearer and clearer daily, as more pieces of the puzzle are fit together, more fossils unearthed, and more predictions based on the theory end up being absolutely correct (as expected). The only people in the world, by and large, who refuse to accept evolution or to actually try to understand it, are those who prefer to take the Bible (or Quran) literally, word-for-word. A small but very vocal representation of these science-deniers argues evasively in circles on this very thread, and seem to be entirely unable to offer any alternative explanations for such evidence as the fossil record, vestigial organs in animals, or the consistency with which evolution is accepted and valued across many scientific disciplines.

Repeatedly people come to this thread and share evidence and facts supporting evolution, but these are dismissed out of hand by creationists who cannot make room in their brains for both God and scientific truth. And again and again, people grow frustrated and save their discussing of evolution for minds not yet closed by religious fundamentalism or biblical literalism. And evolution-deniers cling to their tiny safe refuge against the findings of science, which they call “lack of proof” (i.e. “If you can’t prove it by my standards, I don’t have to listen, LA LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you”).

Meanwhile, science marches on. Smiley
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 09:22:02 AM by stavros_388 » Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4745 on: October 10, 2012, 09:30:22 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.

Kerdy (supported by others) feels that he is somehow vindicated because nobody has been able to replicate something in a lab that takes millions of years to occur in nature (evolution), and somehow feels that this lack of "proof" disproves evolution. And due to his attendance of a couple school biology courses, he feels that he understands evolution better than the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet. He also insists that the burden of proof is on the believers of evolution (which, by now, excluding some religious fundamentalists, is pretty much every educated person). But since science deals with theories (like Germ Theory, for instance), one would in fact need to replace the vastly supported theory of evolution with an alternative theory that is even more consistent and better supported. Yet nobody has thus far come close to doing so. Nobody here has even tried, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the "web of life" picture that evolutionary understanding affords us grows clearer and clearer daily, as more pieces of the puzzle are fit together, more fossils unearthed, and more predictions based on the theory end up being absolutely correct (as expected). The only people in the world, by and large, who refuse to accept evolution or to actually try to understand it, are those who prefer to take the Bible (or Quran) literally, word-for-word. A small but very vocal representation of these science-deniers argues evasively in circles on this very thread, and seem to be entirely unable to offer any alternative explanations for such evidence as the fossil record, vestigial organs in animals, or the consistency with which evolution is accepted and valued across many scientific disciplines.

Repeatedly people come to this thread and share evidence and facts supporting evolution, but these are dismissed out of hand by creationists who cannot make room in their brains for both God and scientific truth. And again and again, people grow frustrated and save their discussing of evolution for minds not yet closed by religious fundamentalism or biblical literalism. And evolution-deniers cling to their tiny safe refuge against the findings of science, which they call “lack of proof” (i.e. “If you can’t prove it by my standards, I don’t have to listen, LA LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you”).

Meanwhile, science marches on. Smiley


I didn't bother reading past the "can't replicate" part because if you don't understand how basic science is supposed to work (hint-that's part of it), the rest is a waste of my time.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4746 on: October 10, 2012, 09:33:48 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.

Kerdy (supported by others) feels that he is somehow vindicated because nobody has been able to replicate something in a lab that takes millions of years to occur in nature (evolution), and somehow feels that this lack of "proof" disproves evolution. And due to his attendance of a couple school biology courses, he feels that he understands evolution better than the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet. He also insists that the burden of proof is on the believers of evolution (which, by now, excluding some religious fundamentalists, is pretty much every educated person). But since science deals with theories (like Germ Theory, for instance), one would in fact need to replace the vastly supported theory of evolution with an alternative theory that is even more consistent and better supported. Yet nobody has thus far come close to doing so. Nobody here has even tried, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the "web of life" picture that evolutionary understanding affords us grows clearer and clearer daily, as more pieces of the puzzle are fit together, more fossils unearthed, and more predictions based on the theory end up being absolutely correct (as expected). The only people in the world, by and large, who refuse to accept evolution or to actually try to understand it, are those who prefer to take the Bible (or Quran) literally, word-for-word. A small but very vocal representation of these science-deniers argues evasively in circles on this very thread, and seem to be entirely unable to offer any alternative explanations for such evidence as the fossil record, vestigial organs in animals, or the consistency with which evolution is accepted and valued across many scientific disciplines.

Repeatedly people come to this thread and share evidence and facts supporting evolution, but these are dismissed out of hand by creationists who cannot make room in their brains for both God and scientific truth. And again and again, people grow frustrated and save their discussing of evolution for minds not yet closed by religious fundamentalism or biblical literalism. And evolution-deniers cling to their tiny safe refuge against the findings of science, which they call “lack of proof” (i.e. “If you can’t prove it by my standards, I don’t have to listen, LA LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you”).

Meanwhile, science marches on. Smiley

Indeed!  A great summation of the creationists here.  Because of how frustrated I am, and how it is affecting my other posts, I'm taking a break.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #4747 on: October 10, 2012, 09:40:06 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.

Kerdy (supported by others) feels that he is somehow vindicated because nobody has been able to replicate something in a lab that takes millions of years to occur in nature (evolution), and somehow feels that this lack of "proof" disproves evolution. And due to his attendance of a couple school biology courses, he feels that he understands evolution better than the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet. He also insists that the burden of proof is on the believers of evolution (which, by now, excluding some religious fundamentalists, is pretty much every educated person). But since science deals with theories (like Germ Theory, for instance), one would in fact need to replace the vastly supported theory of evolution with an alternative theory that is even more consistent and better supported. Yet nobody has thus far come close to doing so. Nobody here has even tried, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the "web of life" picture that evolutionary understanding affords us grows clearer and clearer daily, as more pieces of the puzzle are fit together, more fossils unearthed, and more predictions based on the theory end up being absolutely correct (as expected). The only people in the world, by and large, who refuse to accept evolution or to actually try to understand it, are those who prefer to take the Bible (or Quran) literally, word-for-word. A small but very vocal representation of these science-deniers argues evasively in circles on this very thread, and seem to be entirely unable to offer any alternative explanations for such evidence as the fossil record, vestigial organs in animals, or the consistency with which evolution is accepted and valued across many scientific disciplines.

Repeatedly people come to this thread and share evidence and facts supporting evolution, but these are dismissed out of hand by creationists who cannot make room in their brains for both God and scientific truth. And again and again, people grow frustrated and save their discussing of evolution for minds not yet closed by religious fundamentalism or biblical literalism. And evolution-deniers cling to their tiny safe refuge against the findings of science, which they call “lack of proof” (i.e. “If you can’t prove it by my standards, I don’t have to listen, LA LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you”).

Meanwhile, science marches on. Smiley


I didn't bother reading past the "can't replicate" part because if you don't understand how basic science is supposed to work (hint-that's part of it), the rest is a waste of my time.

No. I think you seem to misunderstand something about science here. The observations need to be repeatable, they don't have to be repeatable in an artificial lab setting. Otherwise you'd have to conclude that astronomy was not a science as it's pretty hard to contain astronomical bodies in a lab. Now without attempting to argue one way or the other on evolution itself (frankly this thread is simply continuing to swallow its own tail), you can't dismiss evolution as non-scientific simply because it can't be repeated in a lab - the time scales involved preclude it in just the same way as the size precludes astronomical observations in the lab. If a theory predicts a pattern in natural data outside the lab and these predictions can be repeatedly observed to be true (such as is the case with astronomy) then this has satisfied the requirement for repeatability. Evolution certainly is capable of doing this. Whether you agree that it does or not is a different question.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4748 on: October 10, 2012, 09:51:09 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.

Kerdy (supported by others) feels that he is somehow vindicated because nobody has been able to replicate something in a lab that takes millions of years to occur in nature (evolution), and somehow feels that this lack of "proof" disproves evolution. And due to his attendance of a couple school biology courses, he feels that he understands evolution better than the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet. He also insists that the burden of proof is on the believers of evolution (which, by now, excluding some religious fundamentalists, is pretty much every educated person). But since science deals with theories (like Germ Theory, for instance), one would in fact need to replace the vastly supported theory of evolution with an alternative theory that is even more consistent and better supported. Yet nobody has thus far come close to doing so. Nobody here has even tried, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the "web of life" picture that evolutionary understanding affords us grows clearer and clearer daily, as more pieces of the puzzle are fit together, more fossils unearthed, and more predictions based on the theory end up being absolutely correct (as expected). The only people in the world, by and large, who refuse to accept evolution or to actually try to understand it, are those who prefer to take the Bible (or Quran) literally, word-for-word. A small but very vocal representation of these science-deniers argues evasively in circles on this very thread, and seem to be entirely unable to offer any alternative explanations for such evidence as the fossil record, vestigial organs in animals, or the consistency with which evolution is accepted and valued across many scientific disciplines.

Repeatedly people come to this thread and share evidence and facts supporting evolution, but these are dismissed out of hand by creationists who cannot make room in their brains for both God and scientific truth. And again and again, people grow frustrated and save their discussing of evolution for minds not yet closed by religious fundamentalism or biblical literalism. And evolution-deniers cling to their tiny safe refuge against the findings of science, which they call “lack of proof” (i.e. “If you can’t prove it by my standards, I don’t have to listen, LA LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you”).

Meanwhile, science marches on. Smiley


I didn't bother reading past the "can't replicate" part because if you don't understand how basic science is supposed to work (hint-that's part of it), the rest is a waste of my time.

No. I think you seem to misunderstand something about science here. The observations need to be repeatable, they don't have to be repeatable in an artificial lab setting. Otherwise you'd have to conclude that astronomy was not a science as it's pretty hard to contain astronomical bodies in a lab. Now without attempting to argue one way or the other on evolution itself (frankly this thread is simply continuing to swallow its own tail), you can't dismiss evolution as non-scientific simply because it can't be repeated in a lab - the time scales involved preclude it in just the same way as the size precludes astronomical observations in the lab. If a theory predicts a pattern in natural data outside the lab and these predictions can be repeatedly observed to be true (such as is the case with astronomy) then this has satisfied the requirement for repeatability. Evolution certainly is capable of doing this. Whether you agree that it does or not is a different question.

James
This is only one, of many problems, but here is the problem with what you said.  If you can't experiment, you can't observe.  If you take observations from the past mixed with preconceived ideas, there is no experiment.  By the rules of science itself, this creates a huge problem.  In addition, these observations are what some people think took place.  It's very possible, as has been stated multiple times here, an alternate hypothesis is all life existed at the same time.  Some of it died out, some didnt.  Just as "observable" as the other, but still lacks the experimentation.  I've even had some people attempt to "prove" it has been replicated in experiments.  

Again, and hopefully for the last time, I have no problem with science, when conducted properly, without having to alter the basic rules to accommodate an idea.  And even if that is done, don't try to pass it off as fact.  As eluded above, just because a bunch of really smarto scientists say something is true doesn't mean it really is, cause sometimes, just sometimes...it ain't.

The stories change far too often from one extreme to the other for a thinking person to blindly accept what is conjured up every so often, especially when watching these "facts" change on a constant basis.  You see, I'm using scientific method to achieve my views.  How crazy is that.  These folks experiment in ideas and theory and I observe the constant wrong "facts" change all the time.  

I do; however, see what you are saying and it's certainly something to think over.  I have always said, I do t care if someone wants to believe in evolution, just don't try to say its truth.  The truth is, you really just don't KNOW.  You believe, but you can't know.  No one can.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 09:58:59 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4749 on: October 10, 2012, 10:04:54 AM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.

Kerdy (supported by others) feels that he is somehow vindicated because nobody has been able to replicate something in a lab that takes millions of years to occur in nature (evolution), and somehow feels that this lack of "proof" disproves evolution. And due to his attendance of a couple school biology courses, he feels that he understands evolution better than the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet. He also insists that the burden of proof is on the believers of evolution (which, by now, excluding some religious fundamentalists, is pretty much every educated person). But since science deals with theories (like Germ Theory, for instance), one would in fact need to replace the vastly supported theory of evolution with an alternative theory that is even more consistent and better supported. Yet nobody has thus far come close to doing so. Nobody here has even tried, as far as I can see. Meanwhile, the "web of life" picture that evolutionary understanding affords us grows clearer and clearer daily, as more pieces of the puzzle are fit together, more fossils unearthed, and more predictions based on the theory end up being absolutely correct (as expected). The only people in the world, by and large, who refuse to accept evolution or to actually try to understand it, are those who prefer to take the Bible (or Quran) literally, word-for-word. A small but very vocal representation of these science-deniers argues evasively in circles on this very thread, and seem to be entirely unable to offer any alternative explanations for such evidence as the fossil record, vestigial organs in animals, or the consistency with which evolution is accepted and valued across many scientific disciplines.

Repeatedly people come to this thread and share evidence and facts supporting evolution, but these are dismissed out of hand by creationists who cannot make room in their brains for both God and scientific truth. And again and again, people grow frustrated and save their discussing of evolution for minds not yet closed by religious fundamentalism or biblical literalism. And evolution-deniers cling to their tiny safe refuge against the findings of science, which they call “lack of proof” (i.e. “If you can’t prove it by my standards, I don’t have to listen, LA LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you”).

Meanwhile, science marches on. Smiley


I didn't bother reading past the "can't replicate" part because if you don't understand how basic science is supposed to work (hint-that's part of it), the rest is a waste of my time.

No. I think you seem to misunderstand something about science here. The observations need to be repeatable, they don't have to be repeatable in an artificial lab setting. Otherwise you'd have to conclude that astronomy was not a science as it's pretty hard to contain astronomical bodies in a lab. Now without attempting to argue one way or the other on evolution itself (frankly this thread is simply continuing to swallow its own tail), you can't dismiss evolution as non-scientific simply because it can't be repeated in a lab - the time scales involved preclude it in just the same way as the size precludes astronomical observations in the lab. If a theory predicts a pattern in natural data outside the lab and these predictions can be repeatedly observed to be true (such as is the case with astronomy) then this has satisfied the requirement for repeatability. Evolution certainly is capable of doing this. Whether you agree that it does or not is a different question.

James

Also, here is the difference between astronomers and evolutionists.  I can't remember the star, but recently astronomers published they made a mistake in the distance from earth to the star by half the previous distance.  Are they right now?  Who can say for sure, but they admitted their previous answer was wrong.  They didn't say, "We learn new things every day".  They simply admitted they were wrong and believed they were correct in the second calculation.  Honesty, that's what I'm looking for, not deception and cover up.

Something else as well.  When astronomers look at other systems and try to find earth like planets, it's just that, earth LIKE, based on, well, the earth.  Size, shape, type of star, distance from that star and so on.  But, what they don't do is say, it's another earth.  To do so would be foolish because the only way to prove it would be go to that planet, which they can't.  So, again, intellectual honesty rules the day.  They think, based on what they know for certain, and predict one possibility while never claiming that possibility as fact.  Slightly different with evolution, IMO.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 10:11:59 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,497



« Reply #4750 on: October 10, 2012, 11:09:47 AM »

 Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  

Number 6 appears to be a prisoner here and perhaps we can discuss this issue. I still do not know what evidence you want to see. I personally thought that in vitro protein evolution would be a good place to start since it represents a proof of concept that Darwinian-style evolution works. I am not up to date in this area because I have not followed it since the original phage display papers but I could probably catch up with a weekend of reading.

There is a wiki article on this but it is not particularly informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

The technique is being used to create enzymes that otherwise do not exist in nature, so it is interesting to read about if you are interested in biotechnology.

As far as evidence for evolution in vivo. This is best done with bacterial and viral examples. Again, I do not know what you want to see. Viruses are important here because they help make evolution work.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4751 on: October 11, 2012, 01:30:30 PM »

So, lets sum up what we have to date.  Unanswerable questions, which SHOULD be easy to answer, resulting in a peppering of random scientific ideas which may or may not suggest any number of possibilities, all while fervently avoiding an answer to the basic questions.  So far only one person has provided an answer to my original question and even he did not which of his answers were right, if either.  Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  Nothing...well, we have a lot of pretty talk in circular argumentation and a lot of people being called ignorant.  I also forgot people are ok with objections to evolution as long as they are informed objections, until its time to actually put that into practice.  And last, any scientist who, with the same education, experience, etc, who disagrees is dismissed for some apparent reason.  Oh, that's right, he is ignorant too, even though that is his job.  

Sorry folks, but all I have seen is a whole bunch of tail chasing and no one has been able to catch it yet.

One person has been honest enough to say it isnt provable.  Why can no one else be his honest and say they accept it because they BELIEVE it is right, without looking down their noses to anyone who believes it is not.  I don't get it.

All you have to do is prove it, or a part of it, but you simply cant.  It's your failure, no one else's.
We have to add here other important things that high priests of nowadays pseudoscience implement in order to blind people. They have set up classical catch-22 situation all over the research and academia: peer-review system. Here's catch: 1) Any idea that does not go through peer review is not scientific on on hand; 2) On the other hand anything that does not qualify there preset principles (if it's not totally materialistic or does not comply with evolutionary theory) will not go through that system. Therefore they say, such theories are only in the minds of "crackpots".
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4752 on: October 11, 2012, 01:36:54 PM »

Quote
No observable experiments (#6).

Just as for most of your cases you can't OBSERVE a murder, so you can't have observed the past evolution of species.  But you can look at the smoking guns of it all.  I presented to you DNA evidence.  Yes, rats are also highly similar to humans too, but there's no inconsistency in the similarity.  As you get closer and closer to apes, you get a larger and larger number of genetic similarity, making it look like we descended from an ape family.

YOUR failure is that you ignore the answers given to you, and you call them, by your own "expertise in investigations", failures to your answer.  You're the one who causes the brown-nosing.  If you were color-blind, and I told you this is green, look at the wave-length registered here, you'd probably don't care.

If you listen to the details of the court case, you'd notice how much time was spent in proving evolution, thereby debunking ID.  Your insistence on not addressing Jones' quote I gave you shows how much you just want to "address the case", ignoring Jones' memoriam.

I'll let others decide if they feel "evolution would win in a court of law" by reading Jones' memoriam as I provided the link.
Your failure is using different types of fallacies. Same example of false analogy was already presented by you. We know that murders happen. We have observed murders. So when we see somebody's dead we can assume that it could've been murder. Evolution has never been observed in nature. So you can't compare these 2 examples. Most close comparison here would be if after seeing a dead body we considered a case of murder committed by newborn. This is closer comparison. So don't bring false analogy again, if you please.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4753 on: October 11, 2012, 01:45:22 PM »

 Also, no scientific method models to support any claim, which is sort required.  No observable experiments (#6).  

Number 6 appears to be a prisoner here and perhaps we can discuss this issue. I still do not know what evidence you want to see. I personally thought that in vitro protein evolution would be a good place to start since it represents a proof of concept that Darwinian-style evolution works. I am not up to date in this area because I have not followed it since the original phage display papers but I could probably catch up with a weekend of reading.

There is a wiki article on this but it is not particularly informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

The technique is being used to create enzymes that otherwise do not exist in nature, so it is interesting to read about if you are interested in biotechnology.

As far as evidence for evolution in vivo. This is best done with bacterial and viral examples. Again, I do not know what you want to see. Viruses are important here because they help make evolution work.
# 6 is not the only problem here. All of the things mentioned is problem. You have not answered others or answered wrongly.

Same is true for 6. Your link is OK for discussion but there's one major problem. Take the name "evolution" from it since we have not observed evolution in such experiments yet. It's a misnomer purposely concocted to suggest people as if there's been evolution observed in this experiments. As an experimental model, yes, it will be fine model. Let the DNA mutate randomly and select it the way you want it. Just show us that you have gotten a new piece of DNA coding for a new protein for a novel function. If you have done this then we can talk.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,087


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #4754 on: October 11, 2012, 01:46:21 PM »

Why would anyone care about evolution? Why not use the time worrying about evolution for prayer? My first and last post in this thread.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #4755 on: October 11, 2012, 01:52:02 PM »

May I recommend a book for you, because I cannot answer all these questions for you in one short post?
You can't answer even 1 of these questions. I've seen your answers. I really don't like to waste my time on a book which is going to be scientific failure. ...

Need I really discuss any further with you?  This reminds me of the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.  Of course, we had this discussion before.
Of course we had discussions before. I don't have time now to quote from a so called evidence (imagined fusion chromosome 2) you presented as evidence of evolution. I remember how you liked my questions initially and your answers were "I don't have answers". Later my questions became irritating to you. Now the irritation level has gone up. You have dubbed them "emotional" questions. Maybe you right. After being confronted with fallacies it should be a significant cause of stressful emotions Wink
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4756 on: October 11, 2012, 03:18:07 PM »

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.
I didn't bother reading past the "can't replicate" part because if you don't understand how basic science is supposed to work (hint-that's part of it), the rest is a waste of my time.
We've never reproduced black holes in a laboratory.  Do you believe black holes exist or not?
We've never reproduced gravity -- we've only observed its effects.  Do you believe gravity exists?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #4757 on: October 11, 2012, 03:25:30 PM »

Why would anyone care about evolution? Why not use the time worrying about evolution for prayer? My first and last post in this thread.

Substitute evolution for anything else and never post here again.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4758 on: October 11, 2012, 03:34:49 PM »

The stories change far too often from one extreme to the other for a thinking person to blindly accept what is conjured up every so often, especially when watching these "facts" change on a constant basis.
This sounds like hyperbole to me.  How has the thinking in evolution changed from one extreme to the other in the last century or so? 
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4759 on: October 11, 2012, 04:43:54 PM »

I can't remember the star, but recently astronomers published they made a mistake in the distance from earth to the star by half the previous distance.
That was indeed quite an error.  I'd be interested in knowing more about this star and its scientific history.  Do you remember anything more about the story?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4760 on: October 12, 2012, 07:20:06 AM »

I feel that I can sum things up just a little more accurately here, if you don’t mind.
I didn't bother reading past the "can't replicate" part because if you don't understand how basic science is supposed to work (hint-that's part of it), the rest is a waste of my time.
We've never reproduced black holes in a laboratory.  Do you believe black holes exist or not?
We've never reproduced gravity -- we've only observed its effects.  Do you believe gravity exists?
Why is it I know the differences between scientific hypothesis, theory and law, while you ask me these questions?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4761 on: October 12, 2012, 07:21:32 AM »

The stories change far too often from one extreme to the other for a thinking person to blindly accept what is conjured up every so often, especially when watching these "facts" change on a constant basis.
This sounds like hyperbole to me.  How has the thinking in evolution changed from one extreme to the other in the last century or so? 
I've already addressed a few of these alterations.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4762 on: October 12, 2012, 07:22:41 AM »

I can't remember the star, but recently astronomers published they made a mistake in the distance from earth to the star by half the previous distance.
That was indeed quite an error.  I'd be interested in knowing more about this star and its scientific history.  Do you remember anything more about the story?
I'll try to find it, but it's been some time since I read the article.  About a year I think.

If you are looking for it, also check systems.  I may be remembering star when it's a system.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 07:27:06 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4763 on: October 12, 2012, 07:28:35 AM »

New questions.

According to science, how old is earth and how long ago did life spring forth?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #4764 on: October 12, 2012, 01:13:29 PM »

New questions.

According to science, how old is earth and how long ago did life spring forth?
a) Approximately four billion years.
b) During the first billion years; probably in the first half-billion.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,497



« Reply #4765 on: October 12, 2012, 02:54:36 PM »

Same is true for 6. Your link is OK for discussion but there's one major problem. Take the name "evolution" from it since we have not observed evolution in such experiments yet. It's a misnomer purposely concocted to suggest people as if there's been evolution observed in this experiments. As an experimental model, yes, it will be fine model. Let the DNA mutate randomly and select it the way you want it. Just show us that you have gotten a new piece of DNA coding for a new protein for a novel function. If you have done this then we can talk.

If you are asking if I have done this personally, the answer is no. What I have done is SELEX to select for a DNA sequence that binds to a particular protein.  In my case, I started with a random 20 nt sequence where each position could be dA, dC, dT, or dG. The random sequence was flanked by known DNA sequence such that sequences that bound to my protein could be amplified by PCR for subsequent rounds of selection and DNA isolation at more stringent conditions. This represents approximately 10^12 different DNA sequences as starting material. This is an easy technique to do.

Evolving proteins that bind other proteins or small molecules such as toxins is also fairly straightforward and usually involves error-prone PCR (DNA replication) or mutagenesis to create mutations in the DNA sequence of a protein. It is straightforward because binding assays are usually straightforward. Phage display was developed in the early 1990s for just this purpose and has been in constant use since then (e.g., Rapid evolution of peptide and protein binding properties in vitro. 1992 review. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1368436)

Evolving enzymes is a lot more complex and therefore interesting. I am particularly interested in the entirely in vitro approach (in vitro replication, transcription, translation, compartmentalization, and assays) and I am primarily interested in the technology rather than the biology.

I did come across two papers so far that might be of interest:

In this paper, Highly active and selective endopeptidases with programmed substrate specificities (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654239), the authors used error-prone replication and saturation mutagenesis to generate (evolve, in common terminology) a protease that cleaves between the sequential amino acid residues Glu-Arg. An enzyme with this activity is unknown in nature.

In the other paper, High-throughput screening of enzyme libraries: in vitro evolution of a beta-galactosidase by fluorescence-activated sorting of double emulsions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16356846), the authors started with a protein of unknown function and evolved it to cleave lactose into galactose + glucose. This was an in vitro approach, the authors previously did this using bacteria as an intermediary.

Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4766 on: October 12, 2012, 06:45:04 PM »

New questions.

According to science, how old is earth and how long ago did life spring forth?
a) Approximately four billion years.
b) During the first billion years; probably in the first half-billion.
Thanks!  I ask because, probably a surprise to most, I actually read and watch a lot regarding this stuff.  Though I do not accept much of it past ideas, I always find it interesting to see what direction people are going and what those new ideas arising are.  I have been seeing a lot of things lately where dates/time periods seem to have shifted and wasn't sure what was still being used as a standard.

BTW-did you see the the where the brains of prehistoric arthropods are far more advanced than thought, comparable to moderns ones?  That was interesting I thought.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,078


« Reply #4767 on: October 12, 2012, 07:01:04 PM »

Cephalopods are pretty smart. This always makes me wonder about how shellfish are permissible on fast days (or on relaxed fast days, according to some), on the grounds that since they don't have backbones they aren't really animals. In some ways squid are smarter than cows.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #4768 on: October 12, 2012, 07:08:58 PM »

Cephalopods are pretty smart. This always makes me wonder about how shellfish are permissible on fast days (or on relaxed fast days, according to some), on the grounds that since they don't have backbones they aren't really animals. In some ways squid are smarter than cows.
I never found them tasty or enjoyable eating.  I am not much of a sea food person.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,078


« Reply #4769 on: October 12, 2012, 07:56:54 PM »

Cephalopods are pretty smart. This always makes me wonder about how shellfish are permissible on fast days (or on relaxed fast days, according to some), on the grounds that since they don't have backbones they aren't really animals. In some ways squid are smarter than cows.
I never found them tasty or enjoyable eating.  I am not much of a sea food person.

That's lucky for you. I love all kinds of seafood.
Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.232 seconds with 76 queries.