The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[AECellini]

Gradyll,

creationism is empirically false, why teach it?

can i come up with theories for public schools to teach as well? come on, they're alternatives just like yours.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Gradyll,

creationism is empirically false, why teach it?

can i come up with theories for public schools to teach as well? come on, they're alternatives just like yours.

As opposed to evolution which goes against every experimental result of mutations?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

That goes against the entire fossil record which shows only static forms with mere variation?

That has no explanation for how life came from non-life, except faith that it happened?

That constantly mislabels the adult or babies of the same species or variations of the same species to feed the ego of scientists?

Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs - YouTube

At least creationism isn't directly contradicted by the evidence as is evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As opposed to evolution which goes against every experimental result of mutations?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

That goes against the entire fossil record which shows only static forms with mere variation?

That has no explanation for how life came from non-life, except faith that it happened?

That constantly mislabels the adult or babies of the same species or variations of the same species to feed the ego of scientists?

Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs - YouTube

At least creationism isn't directly contradicted by the evidence as is evolution.

It is too bad that you do not understand your own sources.

None of them indicate any sort of contradiction at all. Worse yet you try to overstate a claim that has already been shown to be an over statement.

Why do you keep reposting articles that you know are not true?

 

[Dizredux]

It is too bad that you do not understand your own sources.

None of them indicate any sort of contradiction at all. Worse yet you try to overstate a claim that has already been shown to be an over statement.

Why do you keep reposting articles that you know are not true?

You gotta use what you have no matter how bad because that is all you got.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Gradyll,

creationism is empirically false, why teach it?

can i come up with theories for public schools to teach as well? come on, they're alternatives just like yours.

ok ok, well technically it's a scientific model only.

because the experiments of creation cannot be repeated.

but it is no more or less scientific than evolution itself.

due to the fact that there are no observations or tests for macro evolution that can be repeated.

it thus cannot be science under the scientific method because of the fact it is so un repeatable in nature.

creation is unrepeatable but you don't see the federal gov. funding creation do you?

I am just sayin.

this is a messed up world we live in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok ok, well technically it's a scientific model only.

because the experiments of creation cannot be repeated.

but it is no more or less scientific than evolution itself.

due to the fact that there are no observations or tests for macro evolution that can be repeated.

it thus cannot be science under the scientific method because of the fact it is so un repeatable in nature.

creation is unrepeatable but you don't see the federal gov. funding creation do you?

I am just sayin.

this is a messed up world we live in.

That is not true gradyl.

There is no scientific model for creation. And you do not understand the scientific method. Creation itself does not need to be repeated. That was never the demand for either evolution or creation. The evidence must be repeatable. For example a geologist can dig up a fossil from a site. That is evidence. If he documented his find well enough other people observing that one particular fossil is a repetition of that experiment. And better yet, the same species can very often be dug up there or even at other places. That too is a repetition of that experiment. The changes in fossils as one goes through various strata is evidence for evolution. Those experiments can all be repeated.

A biologist could explain how experiments that give evidence for macroevolution can be repeated.

The fact is that creationists won't present a working model because they know it will fail tests.

Evolution is testable and has passed all major tests to date. Creation may be testable, all models to date when tested have failed.

 

[bhsmte]

You gotta use what you have no matter how bad because that is all you got.

Dizredux

Yep, they have to have something to hang their hat on.

 

[bhsmte]

ok ok, well technically it's a scientific model only.

because the experiments of creation cannot be repeated.

but it is no more or less scientific than evolution itself.

due to the fact that there are no observations or tests for macro evolution that can be repeated.

it thus cannot be science under the scientific method because of the fact it is so un repeatable in nature.

creation is unrepeatable but you don't see the federal gov. funding creation do you?

I am just sayin.

this is a messed up world we live in.

Priceless!

 

[createdtoworship]

Priceless!

but I haven't even got into teaching the controversy over evolution, that in fact should be funded.

also, ID is more of scientific model I believe. Creationism involves the religious literature of the Bible, so I am not sure it can be called a scientific model or not, I will get back to you.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is not true gradyl.

There is no scientific model for creation. And you do not understand the scientific method. Creation itself does not need to be repeated. That was never the demand for either evolution or creation. The evidence must be repeatable. For example a geologist can dig up a fossil from a site. That is evidence. If he documented his find well enough other people observing that one particular fossil is a repetition of that experiment. And better yet, the same species can very often be dug up there or even at other places. That too is a repetition of that experiment. The changes in fossils as one goes through various strata is evidence for evolution. Those experiments can all be repeated.

A biologist could explain how experiments that give evidence for macroevolution can be repeated.

The fact is that creationists won't present a working model because they know it will fail tests.

Evolution is testable and has passed all major tests to date. Creation may be testable, all models to date when tested have failed.

a fossil dug up is not experimental science. Nor is evolution, I think you are mistaken. Also biology is not experimental, only experimental biology is within the realm of experimental sciences. So those tests for evolution would fail to qualify as a true experimental science (with hypothesis, tests, and theories). IF you wish to still call it science very well, but there are no hypothesis, no testing or observing or anything related to the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

a fossil dug up is not experimental science. Nor is evolution, I think you are mistaken. Also biology is not experimental, only experimental biology is within the realm of experimental sciences. So those tests for evolution would fail to qualify as a true experimental science (with hypothesis, tests, and theories). IF you wish to still call it science very well, but there are no hypothesis, no testing or observing or anything related to the scientific method.

Sure it is. It fits all of the requirements of an experiment. You can deny it all that you want. You will of course be wrong.

And of course there are hypotheses that cover these observations. You should not assume that scientists are fools. They do know what they are doing.

 

[AECellini]

ok ok, well technically it's a scientific model only.

because the experiments of creation cannot be repeated.

but it is no more or less scientific than evolution itself.

due to the fact that there are no observations or tests for macro evolution that can be repeated.

it thus cannot be science under the scientific method because of the fact it is so un repeatable in nature.

creation is unrepeatable but you don't see the federal gov. funding creation do you?

I am just sayin.

this is a messed up world we live in.

it's more of a blending of imprecise and unfalsifiable concepts than a scientific model.

and to say that it is on par with evolution says you've never really read scientific research on the subject. maybe consider some evolutionary genetics research.

this big distinction you're making between macro and microevolution is really laughable. the difference is time scales.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but I haven't even got into teaching the controversy over evolution, that in fact should be funded.

also, ID is more of scientific model I believe. Creationism involves the religious literature of the Bible, so I am not sure it can be called a scientific model or not, I will get back to you.

You can believe ID and evolution. They don't necessarily clash.

 

[Loudmouth]

a fossil dug up is not experimental science.

It is an observation, and a repeatable one. The experiment comes in where fossils are compared to one another and to living species in an objective and repeatable fashion. This is used to test hypotheses of how species are related to each other and how they evolved in the past.

Also biology is not experimental,

Baloney. I already showed you the experiment. Did you already forget?

Observations: We observe that retroviruses insert randomly among many, many bases and can be passed down through vertical inheritance if they insert into a germ line cell. We observe endogenized retroviruses that are passed down vertically and are found in both the chimp and human genomes.

Hypothesis: If humans and chimps share a recent common ancestor, then the vast majority of the ERV's in each genome will be found at the same spot in both genomes.

Null hypothesis: If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor, then ERV's will only rarely be found at the same position, consistent with the rare even of a retrovirus inserting at the same base in two independent insertion events (about 1 in every 10,000 at most).

Test: Compare the position and sequence of ERV's in the human and chimp genome.

Results: Of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, more than 99% are found at the same location. The hypothesis is supported, and the null hypothesis is rejected.

Conclusion: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Can you please tell me why this does not follow the scientific method?

So those tests for evolution would fail to qualify as a true experimental science (with hypothesis, tests, and theories).

Again . . . Baloney.

IF you wish to still call it science very well, but there are no hypothesis, no testing or observing or anything related to the scientific method.

Look above.

 

[Loudmouth]

also, ID is more of scientific model I believe.

Then show us the model, and demonstrate how it is testable.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then show us the model, and demonstrate how it is testable.

easy this link provides some easy observations, tests, hypothesis, and scientific methodology for ID.....however Evolution is not so lucky, as there are no observations for it.

More on How We Can Know Intelligent Design Is Science - Evolution News & Views

note ID is different than creationism, I am still researching whether or not creationism can be included as a scientific model. I will get back to you, so far ID is for sure a true scientific theory, but evolution is not. It cannot be observed and no one has provided transitions of macro evolution that can stand up under scrutiny. Not even one. So its safe to say evolution is a farce.

 

[AECellini]

easy this link provides some easy observations, tests, hypothesis, and scientific methodology for ID.....however Evolution is not so lucky, as there are no observations for it.

More on How We Can Know Intelligent Design Is Science - Evolution News & Views

pretty much all contingent on irreducible complexity, which hasn't been adequately demonstrated.

 

[createdtoworship]

Can you please tell me why this does not follow the scientific method?

this link provides a detailed argument against your view of ERV's

More Points on ERVs - Evolution News & Views

so again you have yet to provide one line of reasoning into how any of your post is actually the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can see you are just diverting where there is a lack of debatable material to answer. What about the orientation of the iliac bone?

What about it? Is it towards the dorsal surface like that seen in other apes? Nope. Is it at the sides, as seen in the human pelvis? Yep, sure is.

 

[Loudmouth]

this link provides a detailed argument against your view of ERV's

More Points on ERVs - Evolution News & Views

so again you have yet to provide one line of reasoning into how any of your post is actually the scientific method.

Please, show how any of that information refutes my argument.