Scientist and their Science - Infalliable ?

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I have to stop here I guess everything I learned is wrong and I am wrong, and everything you know and learned is right.
"

1. strawman
2. I never said that at all
3. your knowledge should always be increasing, give it time. read more?

Ok fine what should I read. You said "Then your misinformed" that is the samething as saying what I have learned is wrong. Ok you say the evidence doens't point to evolution, well which evidence are you talking about and what does it point to.

 

[LouisBooth]

" Ok you say the evidence doens't point to evolution, well which evidence are you talking about and what does it point to."

again, I'm not sure what it points to. I said that already. What it DOESN'T point to is evolutionary theory in the current form. Maybe it points to another variation, a totally different theory, or maybe creationism.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
" Ok you say the evidence doens't point to evolution, well which evidence are you talking about and what does it point to."

again, I'm not sure what it points to. I said that already. What it DOESN'T point to is evolutionary theory in the current form. Maybe it points to another variation, a totally different theory, or maybe creationism.

That is just your option right but all the scientist disagree they believe it does point to evolution.

 

[LouisBooth]

"but all the scientist disagree they believe it does point to evolution."

no, not all scientists believe in evolution. And ALL scientists do know that some of the evidience does not point to it either.

 

[TheBear]

Louis,

In your opinion, what exactly is "evolutionary theory in it's current form"?

 

[TheBear]

oooopseee!

Now I am off topic.....sorry.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"but all the scientist disagree they believe it does point to evolution."

no, not all scientists believe in evolution. And ALL scientists do know that some of the evidience does not point to it either.

Ok I will give you that but most of the people that believe that are YEC scientist.
The evidence that we do have does point to evolution.

 

[LouisBooth]

Macro and micro.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Macro and micro.

So you are saying you will not accept evolution until a human gives birth to another animal or something?

If you are I could say ALMOST the samething about god.

 

[LouisBooth]

"If you are I could say ALMOST the samething about god."

LOL, umm God created man, so again you're out

no, I disbelieve macro because it doesn't exsist.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"If you are I could say ALMOST the samething about god."

LOL, umm God created man, so again you're out

no, I disbelieve macro because it doesn't exsist.

No you don't understand you don't believe in macro cause you don't think it exist or until you see evidence of. Thats how I am with god. So yeah I can say the samething.

 

[LouisBooth]

"you don't believe in macro cause you don't think it exist or until you see evidence of. Thats how I am with god."

LOL, no macro is a process, its quite a different thing.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by seesaw
So you are saying you will not accept evolution until a human gives birth to another animal or something?

I do not think that is what Louis is saying - I hope not!

That is not what evolutionary theory predicts, after all. If something did happen that way the theory would be shaken up quite a lot!

I am assuming Louis is talking about there might be some sort of barrier to genetic variation, which is possible, although it is hard to see what sort of barrier it could be.

Observation in the laboratory would not be able to see this barrier in action, in all likelihood, as we cannot run many generations past very quickly except in bacteria and the like and even then the rate is only as fast as they duplicate in nature so we cannot simulate the millions of years "macro" evolution would take in the laboratory.

However, if there is no way to falsify this barrier it starts dropping from the realm of science pretty quickly ....

It may exist, but there are no explanations as to what it is or how it works and so forth.

Until there is and until testing is done to see if the barrier theory stands up, evolutionary theory stands.

I should add that there is no evidence that a barrier exists, either, so it is pretty much ruled out until someone defines it.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"you don't believe in macro cause you don't think it exist or until you see evidence of. Thats how I am with god."

LOL, no macro is a process, its quite a different thing.

Yeah it's a process but I am saying that you don't believe in it the same way I don't believe in god. You havn't seen any evidence to change your mind.

And you don't know if macro hasn't happened since we can't look at all the animals in the world and that includes humans.

 

[LouisBooth]

"You havn't seen any evidence to change your mind. "

ahh...so you're saying you've seen no evidience to change your mind, okay, I can accept that and I would say, as you do about me, you're not accepting the evidience then.

"And you don't know if macro hasn't happened since we can't look at all the animals in the world and that includes humans."

I'm thinking either 1. english isn't your native language or 2. I didn't understand what you're trying to say here at all.

 

[lithium.]

I'm thinking either 1. english isn't your native language or 2. I didn't understand what you're trying to say here at all.

No english is my native language it's just sometimes when I am typing fast and in a hurry I make mistakes. and sometimes it's hard for me to type what I want to say. So I am sorry about that.

But what I am saying is the earth is so big we can't look at every species of animal and check and see if macro has happened.

 

[lithium.]

you're not accepting the evidience then.

I accept evidence, but only real evidence that we can see or test. You accept evidence based on faith which isn't evidence and theories are only backed up with real evidence not faith.

 

[LouisBooth]

"But what I am saying is the earth is so big we can't look at every species of animal and check and see if macro has happened."

Umm..it hasn't happened at all.

"but only real evidence that we can see or test."

so you don't believe in love then?

"You accept evidence based on faith which isn't evidence and theories are only backed up with real evidence not faith."

No, you misunderstand. I have a reasoned faith, not a blind faith, no christian is blind in his faith they way you imply.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"But what I am saying is the earth is so big we can't look at every species of animal and check and see if macro has happened."

Umm..it hasn't happened at all.

"but only real evidence that we can see or test."

so you don't believe in love then?

"You accept evidence based on faith which isn't evidence and theories are only backed up with real evidence not faith."

No, you misunderstand. I have a reasoned faith, not a blind faith, no christian is blind in his faith they way you imply.

I believe in love cause we can see it we and observe it. Emotions are something we can observe..

Yeah you are right it hasn't happened to humans, but how do you know that in some jungle there isn't a animal that gave birth to a completely new species.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by seesaw
I believe in love cause we can see it we and observe it. Emotions are something we can observe..

Yeah you are right it hasn't happened to humans, but how do you know that in some jungle there isn't a animal that gave birth to a completely new species.

Evolution does not predict such happenings, although I suppose they are possible, just incredibly - and I do mean incredibly - unlikely.

Gradual change over time through a population means that there should never be a point where you can point to exactly when a new species emerged. There should be a smooth flow between generations, with no generation being noticeably different than the next.

Ring species are good examples of this in action. All around the ring, the animals near to each other can interbreed. Yet two animals on opposite sides of the ring cannot.

(This is similar to language - all across Europe there are villages whose occupants can understand people in the neighbouring villages perfectly well. Yet two villagers from villages distant to one another may well be speaking two different languages - Italian and Spanish, for example.)