What are the Holes in Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Clearly you don't if you're happy to make up whatever you like about science in order to try and get your point heard. That's not holding it up to a higher standard at all, it's just plain dishonesty.

As I have said before, it'll be a hot day in Helsinki when I make stuff up.

Just because you don't know the meat of the Word - don't blame me.

I suggest you make an effort to learn it, before you accuse me of dishonesty.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Aside from the fact that there appears to have once been a wider variety of animals, and also a failure upon evolutionists for not mentioning the fact that reptiles continue to grow larger throughout their lifetime. No one really knows if this applied to dinosaurs. There is also the simple realization that in 4000 plus years of recorded history, there is never any mention of any specie change. Ther is not any indication that anyone observed changes of any sort in the animal population that would indicate a shift to some new specie, EVER!

Livestock farming, it’s amazing how many breeds of sheep can be had by manipulating genetic variation, and all this in less than ten thousand years. Imagine if you can the differences that could be reached in 500,000 years or 50,000,000 years. The same story for other domesticated animals including cattle, pigs, goats, chickens and most defiantly dogs.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV


I guess you fight fires better then fire fighters, and heal better then doctors too?

No --- but I know Someone Who does.

 

[Loudmouth]

Without my Bible???

The accuracy of a scientific theory is not measured by it's adherence to theology, your theology or anyone's theology. The accuracy of a scientific theory is measured by the evidence.

 

[Elduran]

As I have said before, it'll be a hot day in Helsinki when I make stuff up.

Just because you don't know the meat of the Word - don't blame me.

I suggest you make an effort to learn it, before you accuse me of dishonesty.

Dream on. I don't need to know about the bible to know that you spoke rubbish about science without even knowing the definition of phrases you were using. Claiming that as anything but nonsense (i.e. claiming that it's some higher standard of science) is pure dishonesty, bible or no.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

As I have said before, it'll be a hot day in Helsinki when I make stuff up.

I politely and silently refer to my signature.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As I have said before, it'll be a hot day in Helsinki when I make stuff up.

The temperature just spiked at 95 degrees.

Just because you don't know the meat of the Word - don't blame me.

Just becuase you want the meat, but choke on the bone -- don't blame us.

I suggest you make an effort to learn it, before you accuse me of dishonesty.

Learned it -- accusation stands.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- but I know Someone Who does.

You think you do, but you've only read about him in a book.

 

[TheManeki]

Without my Bible???

Trying to disarm me? That Bible is the only offensive Weapon mentioned in the arsenal against Satan in Ephesians 6.

It pwns more "scientists" and atheists per square mile, than Roundup pwns weeds.

Interesting comparison to Roundup there. Especially now that overuse of that particular herbicide is leading to weeds becoming resistant to it. Would that be considered an evolutionary adaptation?

 

[AV1611VET]

The accuracy of a scientific theory is not measured by it's adherence to theology, your theology or anyone's theology. The accuracy of a scientific theory is measured by the evidence.

Does the accuracy change as the evidence "changes"?

If so, is there such a thing as "scientific accuracy", or is that a contradiction in terms?

 

[AV1611VET]

Dream on. I don't need to know about the bible to know that you spoke rubbish about science without even knowing the definition of phrases you were using. Claiming that as anything but nonsense (i.e. claiming that it's some higher standard of science) is pure dishonesty, bible or no.

And what "rubbish" would that be, Elduran? And as far as definitions go, please free to correct anything I say - (and I'll do the same).

My point stands: We Christians hold science up to a higher Standard than "scientists" themselves do.

 

[Blayz]

Does the accuracy change as the evidence "changes"?

Yes

If so, is there such a thing as "scientific accuracy", or is that a contradiction in terms?

No (to the contradiction comment), because accuracy is quantitative, not qualitative.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, because accuracy is quantitative, not qualitative.

Oh, my!

So you have more accuracy than you have quality of accuracy?

 

[AV1611VET]

I politely and silently refer to my signature.

And I corrected that, too --- making a whole new thread out of it.

For you to keep it as a signature is, IMO, immature.

 

[Inan3]

You think you do, but you've only read about him in a book.

You'd like to think that's as far as it goes but sorry it goes much deeper than that.

 

[Blayz]

Oh, my!

So you have more accuracy than you have quality of accuracy?

Don't really know what this means. Accuracy is bounded by some kind of confidence level, be that chi-squared, pvalue, stand deviation, standard error, or some other measure. Since there is no such thing as an absolutely correct empirical measurement, what other option is there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting comparison to Roundup there. Especially now that overuse of that particular herbicide is leading to weeds becoming resistant to it. Would that be considered an evolutionary adaptation?

Yes --- I believe so --- microevolution, I think, is the term.

But when it comes to macroevolution, God has boundaries that nature cannot overstep.

[bible]Psalm 74:17[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Accuracy is bounded by some kind of confidence level...

So the higher your confidence in something, the more accurate it becomes?

 

[Blayz]

So the higher your confidence in something, the more accurate it becomes?

Sort of, yes. Generally speaking, the better the confidence, the narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be.

 

[DeathMagus]

So the higher your confidence in something, the more accurate it becomes?

Uh oh.

I'd just like to point out that scientific confidence is statistically determined - it's not just some scientists saying "We believe this," or "We really believe this!"

This is the difference between scientific confidence and lay-person confidence.