Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Jimmy D]

It's too annoying seeing all these responses to posts I can't see, I'm going to risk my blood pressure and take said posters off ignore.

 

[Jimmy D]

You misunderstand, or more precisely, you just made that up...prove evolution.

I have never put a piece of notebook paper into the business end of a blow torch, but because I know things that I have put in the blow torch flame will burn, I have a theory the paper will burn.

I can run that science experiment, see the paper will indeed burn, and now I have proof, hence, that theory has now been proven to be fact. Science has now proven the paper will indeed burn.

Simple theory, and simple proof that even you can understand.

Now, just for laughs, explain how that is not a simple science experiment, and how it does not turn my theory to proven fact?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You misunderstand, or more precisely, you just made that up...prove evolution.

Evolution theory....is a scientific theory.
You know....one of those scientific theories that are never considered proven.

So...... yeah.

I have never put a piece of notebook paper into the business end of a blow torch, but because I know things that I have put in the blow torch flame will burn, I have a theory the paper will burn.

That's not a scientific theory.

I can run that science experiment, see the paper will indeed burn, and now I have proof, hence, that theory has now been proven to be fact. Science has now proven the paper will indeed burn.

That's not a scientific experiment.

Simple theory, and simple proof that even you can understand.

Neither were scientific.

Now, just for laughs, explain how that is not a simple science experiment, and how it does not turn my theory to proven fact?

Try it again in vacuum.
See what happens.

 

[xianghua]

It can support that the earth is round to a ridiculous degree. So much so, that we might as well call it a fact.

thanks. so science can prove things after all.

 

[xianghua]

If its so simple, show me how we can measure it.

so you can detect design when you see a car or not? you dont think its e asy to detect design in a car?

 

[DogmaHunter]

thanks. so science can prove things after all.

Did you miss the word "support"? Or did you misread it as "prove"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you can detect design when you see a car or not? you dont think its e asy to detect design in a car?

Why are you so stubbornly avoiding to simply explain the method by which you apparantly can detect design?

You really seem to be going far out of your way to not explain this method.

Could it perhaps be that you have no such method?

 

[xianghua]

we assume the cars we see are designed because we have no experience of cars which are not man-made

right. the same with a genome: we never seen a genome that was not the result of design (genetic engineering).

 

[tas8831]

It's too annoying seeing all these responses to posts I can't see, I'm going to risk my blood pressure and take said posters off ignore.

Don't do it! It isn't worth it. Trust me...

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution theory....is a scientific theory.
You know....one of those scientific theories that are never considered proven.

So...... yeah.



That's not a scientific theory.



That's not a scientific experiment.



Neither were scientific.



Try it again in vacuum.
See what happens.

Dance.

There you go again, just because you say so. Did you not read my post asking for explanation, or is that part a problem for you?

Try it again in vacuum.
See what happens.

Why do I have to do that? That wasn't part my experiment, and why, if mine didn't qualify as a scientific experiment, would running it in a vacuum qualify?

 

[tas8831]

right. the same with a genome: we never seen a genome that was not the result of design (genetic engineering).

Genetic engineers have made a whole genome?

Do tell! I thought you folks always dismissed the Venter lab's minimal genome experiment?

 

[xianghua]

The diagram is based on your imagination (as opposed to actual detailed data points obtained from rigorous study of the objects in question - both inside and outside).

but a truck has a bigger wheels. this is an actual data.

 

[xianghua]

I see no evidence of human manufacture in that picture. Perhaps you could point it out.

if you see no evidence for desing in a motor then we cant detect evidence for design in a car too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dance.

There you go again, just because you say so. Did you not read my post asking for explanation, or is that part a problem for you?

I responded to your nonsense of burning paper.
Let's assume that after your first "experiment", you now consider it a fact.

Then you repeat your experiment in a vacuum. The paper no longer burns.
So how factual is your "theory"?

Either your "theory" is wrong, or it is incomplete.

In either case, it's not a fact.

So there you go. That's your answer: no, a succesful experiment does not turn the tested theory automagically into a fact. At best, you can say that your experiment supports your theory. At the very best, you can say that ALL experiments support your theory and that NONE contradict it. But how can you be sure that a NEW experiment that you'll conduct tomorrow will still be in support of the theory?

The answer is, that you can't be sure. Which is exactly why theories are never considered proven. Because future facts / experiments / tests / whatever can potentially overturn your theory or show it to be incomplete.


Get it now?

(my money is on "no")

 

[VirOptimus]

so you can detect design when you see a car or not? you dont think its e asy to detect design in a car?

Answer the question or just admit that you cant. Stop dodging.

 

[xianghua]

The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?

so evolution is brilliant now? from your own link:

"Luckily, individual components of the bacterial flagellar motor have indeed been found elsewhere"

this is simply false. those parts are only similar but no identica. they even admit it: "the genes that code for them are so similar they have clearly come from the same genetic ancestor".

so first: this claim is false. and secondly: the fact that some similar parts of the flagellum can be found in another system doesnt prove they evolved from each other. a car and an airplane share many parts too, but they dont evolved from each other and even if they were able to reproduce they c ant evolve from each other in small steps.

 

[VirOptimus]

so evolution is brilliant now? from your own link:

"Luckily, individual components of the bacterial flagellar motor have indeed been found elsewhere"

this is simply false. those parts are only similar but no identica. they even admit it: "the genes that code for them are so similar they have clearly come from the same genetic ancestor".

so first: this claim is false. and secondly: the fact that some similar parts of the flagellum can be found in another system doesnt prove they evolved from each other. a car and an airplane share many parts too, but they dont evolved from each other and even if they were able to reproduce they c ant evolve from each other in small steps.

Just because you really really want something to be true doesnt make it so.

Read the Dover trials transcript if you want to see this flagellum ID debunked in detail.

If you want to challange established science the way to do so is a paper for peer-review. If you cant do that, you dont matter and your views are simply worthless.

 

[Jimmy D]

your views are simply worthless.

They have got a small amount of comedy value, or at least they did the first few thousand times he posted them.

 

[xianghua]

Don't answer my question with another question.
Don't try to dodge the question.


Again: What is the method by which design can be objectively detected?

You claim that you are able to detect design. Put your money where your mouth is. Explain to us the method by which this can be done objectively. In such a way that we can take random objects, any objects, and determine if they are designed or not, using your method.

Again, don't dodge. Just answer the question. You claim to be able to detect design in anything. So I ask you: how?

here is a simple way to detect design in most cases: the chance of that object to be the result of a natural process. we know for instance that the chance for a car to be the result of a natural process is radically low. therefore we can detect design when we see a car since a natural procoess cant explain how such a car can evolve naturally.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I responded to your nonsense of burning paper.

Yes, and? No one said you did not, and you know what, little twist like that say much more than you think they do, and may be a clue to how reliable the rest of your thoughts are.

Then you repeat your experiment in a vacuum. The paper no longer burns.
So how factual is your "theory"?

That was not my experiment, you do your own in a vacuum. But still, in even stating that, you are saying that "proves" it's not factual...how can that be when your particular science proves nothing?

Either your "theory" is wrong, or it is incomplete.

No it is neither, it went as far as I wanted to go, it absolutely was complete. Wow. So you're saying I have to do every experiment possible on the paper in order for the one that I chose to do to be complete? That's just out there.

In either case, it's not a fact.

It's not a fact that the paper burns?

You know, I expected a laugh but this is so bizarre it's not even funny.