Evolution according to Scotty Kilmer--has Masters degree in--common sense

[SkyWriting]

Well; not to belabor the point; but I think a Masters degree in Anthropology is closer to a Ph.D. in evolutionary science; then one semester in high school shop class; is to a professionally trained car technician. And Scotty is both.

Appeal to authority has no intrinsic value. Many technical authorities are self taught.
President Trump went to one of the most highly respected schools of stuff.

 

[mnorian]

How many scientific theories; using this definition have been found in error or replaced; in the last 100 years; do you think?

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

Including Einstein's theory of general relativity:

From Nautilus:
Now for the problem: Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

 

[mnorian]

The reason I bring up quantum mechanics is; if the biological sciences can't give us a "definitive" answer to the question between evolution theory and creationism; that would satisfy both camps; and have a chance of answering the age old "where does it all come from" then we need to look into that what connects biology and all matter:

The interaction of subatomic particles and the quantum mechanics events. These events happen in jumps (yes, quantum leaps), with probabilistic rather than definite outcomes. Quantum rules allow connections forbidden by classical physics. This was demonstrated in a much-discussed recent experiment, in which Dutch researchers defied the local effect. They showed two particles—in this case, electrons—could influence each other instantly, even though they were a mile apart.

 

[juvenissun]

We evolved from apes because we are apes. Monophyly is not the easiest concept to grasp, but it doesn't require a genius to understand it.

Hi, ape. Good morning.

 

[Shemjaza]

How many scientific theories; using this definition have been found in error or replaced; in the last 100 years; do you think?

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

Including Einstein's theory of general relativity:

From Nautilus:
Now for the problem: Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

Yeah, I have no idea why people would think there is good evidence for relativity:

 

[Jimmy D]

if the biological sciences can't give us a "definitive" answer to the question between evolution theory and creationism

What question is that specifically?

 

[DogmaHunter]

How many scientific theories; using this definition have been found in error or replaced; in the last 100 years; do you think?

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

Including Einstein's theory of general relativity:

From Nautilus:
Now for the problem: Relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

Science is in constant state of progress and learning.
That theories might be refined or replaced, is not an argument against the valueness of theories. Neither is it an excuse to be dishonest about how a "scientific theory" differs from a "theory" you might dream up at the bar.

None of this changes the fact that scientific theories, are bodies of knowledge that best explain the evidence and data at our disposal. That potential new evidence and data might force a rethink tomorrow, is actually the strength of science, yet here you are pretending it to be a weakness.

 

[Shemjaza]

So I actually watched the video... and I'm super unimpressed.

It's ultimately: "Evolution? HA HA HA! Nuh Uh."

Pathetic as an argument against an entire practical field of science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The reason I bring up quantum mechanics is; if the biological sciences can't give us a "definitive" answer to the question between evolution theory and creationism

You make an invalid comparision.
Evolution as a theory is immensly more solid and well evidenced then any theory involving quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, creationism is religion and has nothing do with science.

Evolution theory, is a very well established theory in biology. It can even be said to be one of the most established theories in all of science.

; that would satisfy both camps;

The only thing that would even satisfy a creationist, is believing in creationism.
Creationists are really just religious extremists. Fundamentalists. Reason and evidence, is not important to them. Belief in their sacred tales - that's what's important to them.

Creationists do not oppose evolution because of the science. Creationists oppose evolution because evolution doesn't agree with their extremist beliefs. And that's it.

and have a chance of answering the age old "where does it all come from" then we need to look into that what connects biology and all matter:

Evolution theory deals ONLY with the processes that existing life is subject to.

The interaction of subatomic particles and the quantum mechanics events.

None of which actually matter to biology.

These events happen in jumps (yes, quantum leaps), with probabilistic rather than definite outcomes.

Yes, quantum physics is weird. But here's the thing: that weirdness only manifests at the quantum level.

Quantum events might be probabilistic, but macroscopic events aren't. They are deterministic.

Hydrogen and oxygen are made of sub atomic quantum particles that operate according to quantum physics. Yes, mix them together in specific conditions and they will form water molecules every single time. It is deterministic at the macroscopic level.

Quantum rules allow connections forbidden by classical physics. This was demonstrated in a much-discussed recent experiment, in which Dutch researchers defied the local effect. They showed two particles—in this case, electrons—could influence each other instantly, even though they were a mile apart.

That's nice. Marcoscopic objects don't do that.
As said, that weirdness only happens at quantum levels.

Sub atomic particles can do some weird things.
Atoms and molecules, do not do that.

 

[mnorian]

What question is that specifically?

Hi Jimmy; maybe that's the question.
Maybe where one side sees no question; the other side only sees answers.

I'm on the side that sees the answers; as before I accepted Christ Jesus as my savior and Lord; all I could see was questions about, evolution, the big bang and where did the universe come from and where did "I" come from; now afterward; all I see are answers; all answered in: "Jesus".

Sorry to get all "faith" driven.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi Jimmy; made that's the question.
Maybe where one side sees no question; the other side only sees answers.

I'm on the side that sees the answers; as before I accepted Christ Jesus as my savior and Lord; all I could see was questions about, evolution, the big bang and where did the universe come from and where did "I" come from; now afterward; all I see are answers; all answered in: "Jesus".

Sorry to get all "faith" driven.

Your choice of word is kind of ironic....

As Lawrence Krauss said once (paraphrasing):
"As a scientist I value intellectual honesty. So I don't pretend to have the answers before actually asking and investigating the questions. But creationists aren't like that. Creationists pretend to have the answers, before even asking the questions. In some cases, even before even understanding the questions. Before even knowing what the questions are..."


That certainly seems to apply here.

Really, what you are describing here seems to be that you just find comfort in intellectual lazyness.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi Jimmy; made that's the question.
Maybe where one side sees no question; the other side only sees answers.

I'm on the side that sees the answers; as before I accepted Christ Jesus as my savior and Lord; all I could see was questions about, evolution, the big bang and where did the universe come from and where did "I" come from; now afterward; all I see are answers; all answered in: "Jesus".

Sorry to get all "faith" driven.

It's an answer, but it isn't an explanation. And it certainly isn't a justification for another.

 

[Aman777]

Adam was spiritually re-made in the Spirit of God from the natural or animal man.

Amen, but I prefer physical man since we did NOT magically evolve from the common ancestor of Apes, since LUCA was created long after Jesus made Adam.

Man was created by the earth along with the other beasts.

Earth cannot "create" anything. It's neutral, dead and has no power to make anything. It takes the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create". Jesus creates temporary beings subject to death, but dirt remains dirt.

 

[Aman777]

Humans are apes ny definition.

False since Humans (descendants of Adam) were first made on the 3rd Day, before the plants, herbs, rain and trees. Genesis 2:4-9

There is no real debate about the ToE as its incredibly well supported by data and research.

False, since the ToE is provably wrong Scripturally, scientifically and historically, and all you can do is click on the optimistic button, as you hide from God's Truth. You can hide but failure to reply shows that your rhetoric is as false as the ToE.

 

[Aman777]

Well; not to belabor the point; but I think a Masters degree in Anthropology is closer to a Ph.D. in evolutionary science;

Studying a lie for a long time doesn't change the fact that it's provably false, Scripturally, scientifically and historically. All you get is a Masters in lying.

 

[Jimmy D]

Hi Jimmy; made that's the question.
Maybe where one side sees no question; the other side only sees answers.

Lol, I walked into that one.

I just re read your earlier post and I see what you meant now.

 

[durangodawood]

Common sense does not override repeated observations.

 

[mnorian]

Your choice of word is kind of ironic....

As Lawrence Krauss said once (paraphrasing):
"As a scientist I value intellectual honesty. So I don't pretend to have the answers before actually asking and investigating the questions. But creationists aren't like that. Creationists pretend to have the answers, before even asking the questions. In some cases, even before even understanding the questions. Before even knowing what the questions are..."

But I (and others) did have the questions:
1-- evolution; was there macroevolution or only microevolution?
2-- the big bang; how could it happen without any outside force? what was happening one second before the BB?
3--where did the universe come from? (you answer number two and you've answered number three)
4--where did "I" and everybody else come from and why?

Granted I was no Ph.D. in evolutionary science; but I did have a fairly good deductive reasoning honed by many years technical searching for answers about electronic circuits and computer systems; but it didn't help me much. What I did notice; after reading about all the scientific experiments that the top scientist were doing; was they were getting no farther along to the answer of what was; or who was; behind; the beginning of biology; the beginning of the universe; the beginning of the start of the BB.
So thru a very personal experiment; which lead to an experience with the power that created the universe; and started the big bang; and He; God; with a laser like precision; touched me in a very powerful way. Later on God the Father; introduced my to Jesus His Son.

So the answers were and are; (it's easier to answer them out of order):
2--BB--one second before the big bang?; there was no second before; because there was no time; just eternity; and God/Jesus has always been there; and always will be.
3--where did the universe come from? it was created by Jesus by a "sweep of His hand" which was the Big Bang.
1--evolution? It doesn't really matter; if you know who made the universe; the earth; all life; you know that Jesus/God gave us the Bible to show us that man was made in His image. and that's where we come from: 4

 

[Nithavela]

But I (and others) did have the questions:
1-- evolution; was there macroevolution or only microevolution?

There is no such thing as macro/microevolution. There are only gradual changes in every generation. The term macroevolution was invented to say "evolution in such a scale that it cant be readily observed in a human lifetime, so we can deny it".

2-- the big bang; how could it happen without any outside force? what was happening one second before the BB?
3--where did the universe come from? (you answer number two and you've answered number three)

Nothing to do with evolution.

4--where did "I" and everybody else come from and why?

Ask your parents.

 

[Aman777]

But I (and others) did have the questions:
1-- evolution; was there macroevolution or only microevolution?
2-- the big bang; how could it happen without any outside force? what was happening one second before the BB?
3--where did the universe come from? (you answer number two and you've answered number three)
4--where did "I" and everybody else come from and why?

1. Neither. People who rejected God's Truth in Genesis, changed descent with modification within His and Their kinds, into godless evolution. They have eliminated God from His own Creation.
2. One second before the big bang of our cosmos, Jesus was doing what God did to create air, dust and water in the beginning. Genesis 1:1 God changed some of the energy in His Heaven into matter, in the physical world. Jesus changed some of that matter back into energy, which cooled, and our Universe began.
3. Jesus made the present Universe at the beginning of the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 Notice that God made the first Heaven and this verse shows that Lord God/Jesus made other Heavens (plural) on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2.4 KJV
4. Humans are God's children. It is not good for the One God in physical form, Jesus Christ, to be alone. He loves us and wants us to love Him. Those of us who do are made immortal. We shall NEVER die. Jhn 11:26 Amen?