Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity

SkyWriting said:

It's all imaginary and of almost no value.
What was the temperature outside your front
door, 2 inches above the threshold, 60 minutes ago?
So much for knowing the past.

Click to expand...

Imaginary?

What the.....

Can't tell if serious or trolling. I hope trolling. But I fear serious.

AV1611VET said:

That is correct.

Nested hierarchies are a joke.

Click to expand...

So you do not acknowledge that the "dots and lines" are parent-child relations after all? Then how are babies made?

I don't think you would like to propose scientific storkism nor created by a miracle. So what are the "dots and lines" - remember if you say "imagined" or "assumed" then you are in effect saying "babies are made by imagination" or "babies are only assumed" or "babies only exists on paper", etc...

SkyWriting said:

It's all imaginary and of almost no value.
What was the temperature outside your front
door, 2 inches above the threshold, 60 minutes ago?
So much for knowing the past.

Click to expand...

Are you saying it is not possible to record temperatures or anything at all for that sake?

Hoghead1 said:

We should not readily accept, sit on our laurels, and take from granted the teachings of some church we are in. ... I am going directly to Scripture and listening to what the structure of the texts tell me about themselves and their relationship to God

Click to expand...

How do you decide what ideas/concept to reject or accept and how do you form new concepts/ideas?

joshua 1 9 said:

If you accept Science AND the Bible then you have your work cut out for you. Lazy people only accept one or the other.

Click to expand...

Living in a 'all or nothing' world makes things so much easier to understand, doesn't it?

In situ said:

Are you saying it is not possible to record temperatures or anything at all for that sake?

Click to expand...

What was the exact temperature outside your front
door 6 seconds ago? Take as much time as you wish
to predict your answer then test it and see if you were
right. Use the scientific method. Re-check your
method and build up a data base of supporting
experiments. Turn your work-book over to peers
and have them re-check your experiment.

OldWiseGuy said:

You mean intellectually lazy I hope. At the end of my work day I just want to be entertained, not educated.

Click to expand...

Whatever Joshua means with 'lazy', Joshua managed to insulted everone who does not believe as he does, he claims to be superior than the rest of us, because we, the rest are 'just lazy'.

SkyWriting said:

What was the exact temperature outside your front
door 6 seconds ago? Take as much time as you wish
to predict your answer then test it and see if you were
right. Use the scientific method.

Click to expand...

You don't predict the past, you remember the past with recordings.

In situ said:

Comments about truths in the Bible is not to be confused about the truths in the Bible. That said, I asked you, what is more important for you, to find the truth, about your god, either in the bible or finding the truth about god in all of reality where you and I, and your god, and everything else, actually exists in?

Click to expand...

I see you've found Jesus in "all of reality," agnostic.

DogmaHunter said:

Imaginary?

Click to expand...

Full Definition of fiction. 1
a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
c : a work of fiction; especially : novel.


A Data Scientist's Real Job: Storytelling
Six ways scientists can become storytellers
Scientists as Storytellers

In situ said:

You don't predict the past, you remember the past with recordings.

Click to expand...

So the scientific method does not work for past events.

SkyWriting said:

What was the exact temperature outside your front door 6 seconds ago?

Click to expand...

Anyway, whatever the case is with reliability of measurement in the past, it does not entitle creationists to distort what biologist actually says or claim. If you are to represent an opponents opinion you should do that as truthfully as possible and not distort it in order to make yourself look better, in particular if you are a Christian as YEC's are.

Don't you agree?

In situ said:

Anyway, whatever the case is with reliability of measurement in the past, it does not entitle creationists to distort what biologist actually says or claim.

Click to expand...

So the scientific method does not work for past events.
With that premise, whatever they say is imaginary and not truthful.

Why Data Scientists Need to be Good Data Storytellers

Hint: Good storytelling is convincing people that your fiction is non-fiction.
Example: The Exorcist - This film was inspired by true events.

The scariest thing about science is that it isn't religion. That's not to say that some people don't treat science like religion. What I mean is that, ultimately, it is the utility of a theory that matters more than anything. "Truth" is less important than "seems to function better than alternatives at the present moment". This is because science is based on humility. Right now, with what we can actually demonstrate, modern evolutionary paradigm (which is not Darwin's obsolete version) is the most useful tool available to biologists when doing biology. It's of no use to physicists, so they don't really need to care one way or another. Ultimately, whether or not it is "true" is irrelevant. Does it appear to be generally useful? If enough data amasses to make it too cumbersome and unwieldy, it will be replaced by a different paradigm. Real science is all about using specific, repeatable methods to destroy our current models of the universe and replace them with something that fits more data than the older models fit. It is not about bolstering something as if it were an "eternal truth". There is no such thing as eternal truth in science. This is keenly felt by those of us who work in basic medical research, where we are every day reminded of how much we are fumbling along, trying our best, and how we must be willing to, at a moment's notice, abandon any paradigm.

Hoghead1 said:

Well, that is precisely the problem. Many persons do not have the time or education to ponder these matters, true. But we should all do the best we can. Just throwing all the issues aside because you want entertained or very simple answers deems to me to be a big cop out. Simple religion is for simple minds.

Click to expand...

Perhaps most people have already 'pondered' evolution vs creation and have made up their minds.

SkyWriting said:

Full Definition of fiction. 1
a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
c : a work of fiction; especially : novel.


A Data Scientist's Real Job: Storytelling
Six ways scientists can become storytellers
Scientists as Storytellers

Click to expand...

The observation of nested hierarchies in comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, etc... are anything but "imaginary".

BryanMaloney said:

(which is not Darwin's obsolete version)

Click to expand...

Interesting way you worded that.

Is "obsolete" the new techno-pr word for "wrong" or "pwned"?

DogmaHunter said:

Imaginary?
What the.....

Click to expand...

Interesting that you don't consider the role of imagination in science. Being key and all.

Why science needs imagination and beauty

Sigh. Lets look at the observational evidence. Everyone keeps wanting to ignore the observational evidence of how variation occurs in the species for some reason.


Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Brown bears mate with Brown bears and produce ONLY Brown bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin mate with Bottle-nosed dolphin and produce ONLY Bottle-nosed dolphin, This is true for every animal in existence.

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

These:



are no different than these:



Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species. They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

Not to mention they ignore their own scientific definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Since it is those locally adapted traits they claim is the cause of the variation - it simply makes them sub-species or different infraspecific taxa in the species - not separate species. So when you ignore how life propagates and variation happens in the species, and ignore your own scientific definitions - you end up incorrectly translating 90% of the fossil record as separate species, instead of the infraspecific taxa that they in reality are.

SkyWriting said:

Interesting that you don't consider the role of imagination in science. Being key and all.

Why science needs imagination and beauty

Click to expand...

Nested hierarchies aren't imaginary.
They are observably real.