...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[Mr Strawberry]

It's not funny to me.

Phlogiston is quite amusing, no? No?

What difference does it make how much evidence is behind an idea before it becomes a theory?

After all this time on the forum you still don't know?

How much evidence is behind the moon's Capture Theory?

Not much as far as I know.

A theory is a theory.

Undeniably true.

And for the record, and not to sound like a broken one, but Aristotle stunted the growth of science for almost 2000 years with his theory about earth, air, fire and water.

He took it forward from where it was before, but I think it is harsh to hold his theory singlehandedly responsible for stunting science in the western world during the period that the Christian Church dominated. It wasn't his fault.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, how many scientific laboratory experiments have you conducted in your life? Or, do you just take scientists at their face-value?

Let's think about this for a minute. Let's use the chimp genome paper as an example:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Just eyeballing it, I see about 50 to 75 authors on that paper that were involved in the sequencing and analysis of the chimp genome. Are you saying that they all colluded together to produce false genetic markers in the chimp genome to just make it look like humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

On top of that, the published sequence is used by scientists around the world in their research. If there were large divergences between the published sequence and the sequence found in experiments there would have been very big alarms going off.

Quite frankly, the moon landings would be easier to fake than a genome sequence given the availability of sequencing firms and technology. The only reason that you try to hide behind a conspiracy theory is that the evidence is against you.

The latter is the most dangerous; if you cannot reproduce the same experiments as the scientist telling you what truth is, then you are as handicap as the layman. You are held hostage at the scientists of choice.

If you can not repeat their experiments how is it that you can even claim that there is a conspiracy? More to the point, why don't any creationists repeat these experiments and show that the results have been faked?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. These people are members here.
2. These are personal and eyewitness accounts.
3. A true scientist explores. A coward hides from the truth.

Then why do creationists run away from discussions of the evidence found in biology?

 

[In situ]

Funny how it was proposed as a "theory" without much evidence, and rejected by scientific experimentation less than 100 years after it was first proposed, isn't it?

Actually they had good reason to think their must exists something like phlogiston. The basic idea with the phlogiston theory was that it requires some form of media to carry waves. However, as we know today, the implication gave some absurd properties of phlogiston that wasn't believable as it could not be reasonable justified by observations - at that time at least. So the idea was abandoned, due to lack of evidence, and it was concluded that waves can carry them self in empty space.

Despite that, I been giving, some shallow, thoughts about the basic ideas in the theory and reflected on what modern science says about space and in a way, it seams to me at least, the essence of the theory can be seen as coming back in a new form in modern science which says that empty space posses "background" properties. However, I am not really clear on my own wild, and most likely incorrect, speculative line of thoughts in this matter so cannot defend such position. In other words it is just a, non-to-be-taken-to-serious, speculative reflection I have on he current state of knowledge...

 

[durangodawood]

Actually they had good reason to think their must exists something like phlogiston. The basic idea with the phlogiston theory was that it requires some form of media to carry waves. However, as we know today, the implication gave some absurd properties of phlogiston that wasn't believable as it could not be reasonable justified by observations - at that time at least. So the idea was abandoned, due to lack of evidence, and it was concluded that waves can carry them self in empty space.

Despite that, I been giving, some shallow, thoughts about the basic ideas in the theory and reflected on what modern science says about space and in a way, it seams to me at least, the essence of the theory can be seen as coming back in a new form in modern science which says that empty space posses "background" properties. However, I am not really clear on my own wild, and most likely incorrect, speculative line of thoughts in this matter so cannot defend such position. In other words it is just a, non-to-be-taken-to-serious, speculative reflection I have on he current state of knowledge...

Are you thinking of the "the ether"?

 

[Lollerskates]

Let's think about this for a minute. Let's use the chimp genome paper as an example:

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome : Article : Nature

Just eyeballing it, I see about 50 to 75 authors on that paper that were involved in the sequencing and analysis of the chimp genome. Are you saying that they all colluded together to produce false genetic markers in the chimp genome to just make it look like humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

On top of that, the published sequence is used by scientists around the world in their research. If there were large divergences between the published sequence and the sequence found in experiments there would have been very big alarms going off.

Quite frankly, the moon landings would be easier to fake than a genome sequence given the availability of sequencing firms and technology. The only reason that you try to hide behind a conspiracy theory is that the evidence is against you.

Don't you just love ad hominem? I would suspect so, since you use it in almost every response. You still didn't answer my initial question. How many of the experiments have you reproduced in a laboratory on your own merit (especifically w.r.t evolution). Or, are you just believing what these scientists have to say, without being able to substantially prove it yourself?

Like I have told you (and several others on this forum,) I can reproduce and understand the science behind the majority of theories presented. In fact, it was my job to reproduce several of them before I began my own research. I

If you can not repeat their experiments how is it that you can even claim that there is a conspiracy? More to the point, why don't any creationists repeat these experiments and show that the results have been faked?

Firstly, don't pigeonhole me as a creationist. A person's beliefs are as dynamic as the earth itself. Secondly, I can repeat their experiments, and I have - as well as people I know who are engineers and scientists alike. Most independent researchers DO show their results, but they never see the light of day because of politics in the scientific community. To go against the presented scientific status quo can warrant penalties anywhere from ridicule to scholarly articles pulled, to termination. I have been witness to it.

Now, back to the original question: how many scientific laboratory experiments have you conducted in your life, specifically w.r.t evolution? Or, do you just take scientists at their face-value?


Follow up: where did you get your masters and/or Ph.D, and in what discipline of science?

Stay focused this time; answer the initial question to which you responded.

 

[In situ]

Are you thinking of the "the ether"?

Yes, I am, sorry I mixed them up.

 

[In situ]

I do believe evolutionist always run away when it comes to their personal problems.Their conducts should been questioned due to their wrong world outlook and their wrong outlook on life.

What is an "evolutionist" in your perspective? Is it an evolutionary biologist, i.e. scientist and researchers, or just the common man on the street that accept the theory of evolution but only know the basic but not really know the foundation behind it or both of them?

 

[In situ]

The punishment from God always come to them before they know the truth.

Is it fair to punish someone that does not know the difference between what is right and wrong to do?

 

[paul becke]

You bet. Here's why:

1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!
2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!
3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!
4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!
5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!
6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.

This was compiled by a guy who posts to the Uncommon Descent blog under the username, bornagain77. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge and understanding of the latest findings in physics, and has drawn up up a grand synthesis of the growing number of discoveries in physics which, frankly, brook no other explanation than a personal god: theism; in fact, with the latest findings of Polish physicist, Christianity, itself.

You got that right, Lollerskates. Their life-style is too precious to them, and an objective moral order is a permanent threat to it.

 

[TheBear]

Personally, I have witnessed creationists drop out of thread discussions when painted into a corner. If they do continue, they're usually moving goal posts, obfuscating, and going off in other directions...... addressing anything but the points of topic. They'll go into preaching salvation mode, mind read the member's motives, play around with philosophical muses, or some other smoke screen. I have also witnessed threads where creationists won't even touch the subject, because they have nothing to honestly and logically counter with.

 

[In situ]

Like I have told you (and several others on this forum,) I can reproduce and understand the science behind the majority of theories presented. In fact, it was my job to reproduce several of them before I began my own research. I

Then you should know, and are not excused, to appeal to authority as a valid argument. I would had let that invalid argument of you pass if it was not for what you just wrote here, and will hold you responsible for using invalid argumentation in trying to validate your own points.

 

[paul becke]

Personally, I have witnessed creationists drop out of thread discussions when painted into a corner. If they do continue, they're usually moving goal posts, obfuscating, and going off in other directions...... addressing anything but the points of topic. They'll go into preaching salvation mode, mind read the member's motives, play around with philosophical muses, or some other smoke screen. I have also witnessed threads where creationists won't even touch the subject, because they have nothing to honestly and logically counter with.

What do you have to say to rebut the points I've just relayed to you? You don't even have to tell us. It can only be an abject admission of your fundamentally erroneous belief in the matter, or an equally abject silence. Or can you refute it?

 

[HitchSlap]

You bet. Here's why:

1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!
2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!
3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!
4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!
5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!
6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.

This was compiled by a guy who posts to the Uncommon Descent blog under the username, bornagain77. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge and understanding of the latest findings in physics, and has drawn up up a grand synthesis of the growing number of discoveries in physics which, frankly, brook no other explanation than a personal god: theism; in fact, with the latest findings of Polish physicist, Christianity, itself.

You got that right, Lollerskates. Their life-style is too precious to them, and an objective moral order is a permanent threat to it.

PRATT's, one and all. This is simply recycled creo propaganda that's been copypasta'd on every YEC web store.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

(I always find it funny the hubris creos have when it comes to making proclamations like these - NO ONE who actually works in these relevant fields says anything like it - at all.)

 

[Lollerskates]

Then you should know, and are not excused, to appeal to authority as a valid argument. I would had let that invalid argument of you pass if it was not for what you just wrote here, and will hold you responsible for using invalid argumentation in trying to validate your own points.

hmm.. ok.

So you are saying what - that I should know that evolution is real?

I am not being facetious, I really don't understand what you are saying (or, at least, it hasn't clicked yet.)

 

[HitchSlap]

hmm.. ok.

So you are saying what - that I should know that evolution is real?

I am not being facetious, I really don't understand what you are saying (or, at least, it hasn't clicked yet.)

He's saying that you shouldn't expect anyone to consider an invalid argument, even yours.

 

[TheBear]

My remarks were in reply to R2P's claim that creationists don't run away. It also highlighted, by example, R2P's changing the topic to things like "evolutionists'" personal problems, philosophical "outlook", and ending with the wrath of god.


I think it was the timing of my post. It would have been less confusing if I quoted the remarks. sorry about that.

 

[Lollerskates]

He's saying that you shouldn't expect anyone to consider an invalid argument, even yours.

Oh, I see.

But, who constitutes what is valid? Lay-persons? Or, do scientists/experts qualify something as invalid? If it is the latter, then it circles back to my point : you should be able to repruduce the science for your own enrichment, and to be able to determine objectively what is, and isn't valid. Of you are taking someone else's word for it, then it becomes a faith issue (which, there is nothing philosophically wrong with that.)

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I see.

But, who constitutes what is valid? Lay-persons? Or, do scientists/experts qualify something as invalid? If it is the latter, then it circles back to my point : you should be able to repruduce the science for your own enrichment, and to be able to determine objectively what is, and isn't valid. Of you are taking someone else's word for it, then it becomes a faith issue (which, there is nothing philosophically wrong with that.)

Being able to reproduce the actual science is your world and you are welcome to it.

I would anticipate, that science will continue on its merry way and you are certainly free to make any counter claim by recreating their work and producing those results for all to see and others to verify.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you want to become a Chinese? In China, you have no right to decide the number of children you give birth to. Also in China, you can find evolutionist almost everywhere. they even don't know what creationists mean ! If you are an evolutionist, it may sounds cool for you to make friends with them and talk to each other about the high value of freedom.

What does anything he stated have to do with China?