How do you decide if something is factual?

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In your studies, did you learn that sometimes when comparing genes, not all sequences are complete?

Absolutely! I also learned that sequences that differ are not always "incomplete" just different in different creatures. For example, if we have an AT where there is no AT in the other creature's genome this does not necessitate a mutation OR an insertion or deletion event (the assumption of the "ancestor of the gaps" crowd) though that is certainly one way of interpreting this data and thus the opinion of those who hold to a particular preconceived conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Are you suggesting that a Christian biologist will be biased against the Bible?

To quote one of them:

"I have written this book mainly for people who believe, as I do, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God from cover to cover."

The author of that remark is a neuro scientist at Cambridge, and certainly no YEC.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Okay. So you didn't even see the shower running? Must be ghosts...



Job 38:16 says "springs OF the sea", not IN the sea. Nothing about trenches. Besides, people back then knew of water coming from springs. Not a hard leap to make to think they thought of the sea the same way. I mean, living in a desert environment, they wouldn't think there was enough rain to fill up the sea. So springs is the next option for them.



There is nothing in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously states some scientific knowledge that would have been impossible for them to come to.

I agree though nebek clearly means to burst forth or fountains and if so who could know of fountains OF the seas. As for not seeing the shower running the conclusion was we had no idea HOW or WHAT could cause this but the conclusion (all of us hearing it and the room full of steam) was deduced by the facts (which cannot be tested). There is no natural explanation. Something invisible to the human eye caused this to happen. Ghosts? Who knows, but not explainable by the laws of physics at that time.

But let's not get away from the point which was your example was of something you know and your examples (experiment) was to show your daughter it was true not false.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Absolutely! I also learned that sequences that differ are not always "incomplete" just different in different creatures. For example, if we have an AT where there is no AT in the other creature's genome this does not necessitate a mutation OR an insertion or deletion event (the assumption of the "ancestor of the gaps" crowd) though that is certainly one way of interpreting this data and thus the opinion of those who hold to a particular preconceived conclusion.
Great!

So maybe you can address this - I have asked you about 3 times now:


pshun2404:
Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...

Human Gene HDLBP (uc002wba.1) a 110-kD protein that specifically binds HDL molecules, which functions in the removal of cellular cholesteral...it is a section 87,092 base pairs long

Rat Gene Hdlbp (NM_172039) which is only 68, 238 base pairs long performs a similar function but apparently not identically.

The allegedly the “SAME GENE” in Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) functions differently and is primary to cell division, and only has 3,669 base pairs.

Finally, the alleged “SAME GENE” in D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB). Having 9119 base pairs (3 times that of Yeast) seems to do nothing!
Had you considered the possibility that those 'same genes' were not sequenced to the same extent?

When I was in graduate school, we we comparing 2 introns from a gene across several species. We used the human gene - the entire coding region, plus introns, plus 3' and 5' flanking regions - as a reference. For some taxa, our genomic DNA samples were old and we had limited success in sequencing the introns. In others, we had no problems at all. The primers we used to generate PCR fragments were in exons because they were fairly well conserved, and so for some taxa we had not only the introns, but parts of exons as well. several taxa had extensive repetitions in their introns, making one, for instance, nearly 1kb larger than all of the others.
By your implicit logic, we should have concluded that these sequences were not from the SAME GENE, despite the fact that we have amplified fragments using identical primers (30+ years of reading on these subjects should be sufficient for your understanding of the above).

I suggest that the human gene you refer to includes all intronic sequence and flanking regions, whereas the others are limited to smaller regions (e.g., without the flanks, or just mRNA).

In fact, I am willing to bet on it.

What say you?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
By doing it over and over again to see if the results were anomalous or typical.

That objects fall according to their surface area rather than their weight - just because an object falls faster doesn't mean it is heavier.

So are you saying the premise you believed was that the speed of falling objects was based solely on their weight? And you were trying to prove this wrong? No...I do not believe that is what you believed (but I cannot test this) I believe you knew already that it was not true and you were demonstrating as true that which you already knew to be true.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But there is some conceivable test which would falsify it, isn't there - if I pumped your stomach and found strawberry remnants, or got you to poop in a cup and found strawberry seeds, or strawberry seeds between your teeth. I can conceive of something which would indicate that you didn't.

I don't think you understand what falsifiability actually means...

But it should not be accepted as a fact if you can't think of something that proves it wrong.

I mean, if you can just handwave away any evidence that suggests it is wrong, you have something that can't be disproven, but that doesn't make it a fact, does it?

But it should not be accepted as a fact if you can't think of something that proves it wrong.

Change the wording to "might prove it wrong" as "thinking of something" does not prove it wrong. And NO! Just because something cannot be disproven does not make it true.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Great!

So maybe you can address this - I have asked you about 3 times now:

Actually I did consider the example you provided and I thought it equally possible that each organism has and repeats this gene as they individually require (as the different organism needs in order to be what it is)...in other words (which was my point) a similar gene across genomes in different creatures does not imply a lineal relationship just some degree of similarity (for reasons of form or function).

TO ME the evidence in many cases that these alleged "shared Genes" are shown by testing to be different in size, order, and function make this alternate interpretation of the evidence equally feasible. And it is fine if you disagree...I am not dogmatic on the point, but have ceased being dogmatic on the point that this demonstrates lineal relationship.

My apple is red and my pet canary is red (same shade), so in this area they are similar, but not related in a familial sense, nor does it indicate one came from the other, or from some earlier undemonstrable (hence imagined) source.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Already down it twice already. If you ignored it then, you'll ignore it now, and I've got better things to do than waste my time.

You seem to be totally confused over the meaning of the word "refute". It means to prove another wrong. I'm still waiting on your refute but you seem to be running away. Is it because you cannot prove me wrong? Of course it is. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
One group believes that creationism is factual, and the other group accepts that it all happened on it's on.

Scientists can DEMONSTRATE that the evidence is consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Creationists can't come up with any predictions for creationism, much less show that the evidence is consistent with their claims. That's the difference.

We could go on and on about the science used in your version of the question but since science is just our opinion of what the natural is telling us, . . .

Science is testable theories, not opinions.

Next common sense comes into play. I have never ever, even once, seen anything come from nothing, on it's own, yet I have seen things created. As a matter of fact, everything beyond what we call the natural, was created by man...everything.

Evolution does not have new species coming from nothing. I think you are trying to describe creationism.

That would cover the basic answer to your question, but if one wanted to go a step further, common sense also dictates, if someone created me, a living thinking being just like my creator, that someone (God) would want to let me know all about my creator and why he created me/us...hence the biblical God being the actual creator, and that bible being his explanation to us all.

I don't see the connection. How does one start with parents, and end up with the conclusion that there is a deity?
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
I see nothing in that passage about the trinity making creatures, only blessing them.

Then let us see Who made them?

Gen 1:21 And God (Elohim-The Trinity) created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind,

God blessed them AFTER He created them. Amen?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Actually I did consider the example you provided and I thought it equally possible that each organism has and repeats this gene as they individually require (as the different organism needs in order to be what it is)...in other words (which was my point) a similar gene across genomes in different creatures does not imply a lineal relationship just some degree of similarity (for reasons of form or function).

A nested hierarchy (i.e. phylogeny) of gene sequences does indicate relatedness through common ancestry since a nested hierarchy is what we should see if genomes are related through common ancestry. It isn't simply similarity that points to shared ancestry. It is the PATTERN of similarity that points to shared ancestry.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Scientists can DEMONSTRATE that the evidence is consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Creationists can't come up with any predictions for creationism, much less show that the evidence is consistent with their claims.

False, as you yourself have demonstrated. When confronted with the historic evidence for the SUDDEN arrival of Humans on this planet, you slink away, hoping that everyone will not see that you have been presented empirical (testable) evidence but failed to reply. I also have predictions for Creation which are happening as we speak. Want to see them?
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
As for UFOs (though I have no solid opinion), UFO’s are a curious topic. If one thinks of space travel in only a mechanical sense, some beings able to travel here is seems unfathomable. With the viewing capabilities of today’s telescopes and computers and satellites wouldn’t we see them entering the atmosphere?

But why should we assume this is the only way they may travel? It is so un-economical! Sci FI has offered some interesting possibilities. And why not? Even many scientists speculate. Maybe they can transverse space dimensionally, or suspend time, or quantum leap like electrons...

Studies done in the 50s and early 60s by the US Air Force (Project Blue Book) were able to explain most claims, but when they were shut down in 1969 they had concluded that about 3% of the 12,618 cases could NOT BE explained. The cases they covered included sightings questioned or observed by groups of people not expecting what they saw, and also the reports of pilots. Some of the “explained” cases were simply referred to as Identified Flying Objects and thus not categorized as UFOs for the study. Perhaps these were experimental in nature.

So we do have many people through history (even before people thought there may be alien space creatures or crafts) in every culture that claim to have seen some unusual objects in the sky and in no time or culture have ALL seen these. We also know many are hoaxes and many people making the claim are fanatics who are making this stuff up but that does not mean they are not real or have not been observed. 3% of 12,617 is about 375 cases that even the US Government declared unexplainable by natural means though this itself does not prove they are other worldly. Finally none of this demonstrates they do not exist or that all people who have seen them are wackos or liars.
I'm with you on the possibilities of
transversing space dimensionally, or suspending time, or quantum leap likeelectrons. This would go against my original theory, but now you got me wondering if maybe there could be a blurring of the lines of both theories! I wonder if it's possible if we might run into some type of argument of semantics...like perhaps a 'Spirit' entering and leaving that 2nd floor bathroom you talked about, imagine if that spirit accomplished the goal of getting to that shower knob using the same technique as an alien who traverses space dimensionally??

Also speaking of blurred lines, could there be a point in technological knowledge/ability where the 'Supernatural' technically doesn't even violate laws of nature? What if God, although he can violate laws of nature, doesn't even need to do so because 'Miraculous' possibilities are already pre-packaged into the universe? Thoughts? If I'm even making sense lol.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm with you on the possibilities of
transversing space dimensionally, or suspending time, or quantum leap likeelectrons. This would go against my original theory, but now you got me wondering if maybe there could be a blurring of the lines of both theories! I wonder if it's possible if we might run into some type of argument of semantics...like perhaps a 'Spirit' entering and leaving that 2nd floor bathroom you talked about, imagine if that spirit accomplished the goal of getting to that shower knob using the same technique as an alien who traverses space dimensionally??

Also speaking of blurred lines, could there be a point in technological knowledge/ability where the 'Supernatural' technically doesn't even violate laws of nature? What if God, although he can violate laws of nature, doesn't even need to do so because 'Miraculous' possibilities are already pre-packaged into the universe? Thoughts? If I'm even making sense lol.

Since God created there is nothing unnatural about anything He does or allows.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... The factual REALITY of experience can never be denied by any who have had such experience. All testing is irrelevant.
That may be true, but it's also true that it's not possible to be certain that an experience was of some externally real event; it's also possible (even fairly common) to be certain of having had an experience that never occurred, i.e. a false memory.

So whether or not an individual can deny the factual reality of their experience is no guarantee that it was of some externally real event, or that the experience actually occurred at all. Undeniability is no guarantor of factual reality.
 
Upvote 0

The Brown Brink

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2017
802
211
91
Kentucky
✟20,029.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay. So you didn't even see the shower running? Must be ghosts...



Job 38:16 says "springs OF the sea", not IN the sea. Nothing about trenches. Besides, people back then knew of water coming from springs. Not a hard leap to make to think they thought of the sea the same way. I mean, living in a desert environment, they wouldn't think there was enough rain to fill up the sea. So springs is the next option for them.

There is nothing in the Bible that clearly and unambiguously states some scientific knowledge that would have been impossible for them to come to.

I think it's cool how the Bible tells about the Flood coming from God...
Some say that God kept a reserve of water somewhere in the sky...

And science has no real answer as to how all the water on our planet got here...just that it likely came from space...from the sky...

Kinda cool...

Science and the Bible agree.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
...In my studies most scientists I have read either do tests to show their hypothesis was correct, or else to obtain data (which then may change or shape the hypothesis) or to determine a fact.
Do you understand how scientists test their hypotheses? do you understand what the null hypothesis is for? what the p-value means?

I ask because what you say about your 'studies' suggests otherwise.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0