the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

and yet you ramble on and on about a "different state past" (aka "last thursdayism") anyway

What I deduce and surmise rests on the word of the Almighty creator, as well as on the evidences. We tire of the sour grapes. 'gosh, if you won't accept, by faith, my claimed same state nature in the past, there is nothing real then, so there'

 

[dad]

T

Science and religion aren't opposites. They aren't even comparable. One is about faith and belief. The other is about observable facts and questioning what one knows.

Origins sciences and that includes the theory of evolution have no facts or observation at all. Rather they are religion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

what about them?

We are cousins.

Didn't you know I had a cousin that is a banana tree?

 

[Speedwell]

Origins sciences and that includes the theory of evolution have no facts or observation at all. Rather they are religion.

Not everything which contradicts your religion needs to be a religion itself.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Not everything which contradicts your religion needs to be a religion itself.

in this case, darwinianevolution is. until someone comes up with transitionals and origins... it is a faith.
and i would like to see some scientific method!

 

[Speedwell]

in this case, darwinianevolution is. until someone comes up with transitionals and origins... it is a faith.
and i would like to see some scientific method!

There are plenty of transitionals.
The origin of life is a different field of study not addressed by the theory of evolution.
The theory rests firmly on the scientific method.

BTW, Darwin is respected for his original insight, but science has moved on in the 150 years since and his work is now only of interest to historians. It's not "Darwinian" evolution any more. Clearly, you've got some catching up to do.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There are plenty of transitionals.
The origin of life is a different field of study not addressed by the theory of evolution.
The theory rests firmly on the scientific method.

BTW, Darwin is respected for his original insight, but science has moved on in the 150 years since and his work is now only of interest to historians. It's not "Darwinian" evolution any more. Clearly, you've got some catching up to do.

So, absolutes are not supposed to change... yet here we see just that. If a scientific "fact" can change, it was never a fact to begin with. When is this going to change again? Next week? Next month? How many times can a "fact" change until you finally nail it down?
Amazing faith.

 

[Speedwell]

So, absolutes are not supposed to change... yet here we see just that. If a scientific "fact" can change, it was never a fact to begin with. When is this going to change again? Next week? Next month? How many times can a "fact" change until you finally nail it down?
Amazing faith.

Facts don't change, only new ones are discovered. Scientific theories can change, or even be discarded, in response to the discovery of new facts. That is the genius of the scientific method.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...So no, your tree with 3 members is no where near as complicated as a tree with 30. Your tree breaks down when you add more members and include the variations within the members.

You were told that repeatedly. You have never made no attempt to address it. You just ignore what you don't want to hear.

How dare you! - I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that...

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Facts don't change, only new ones are discovered. Scientific theories can change, or even be discarded, in response to the discovery of new facts. That is the genius of the scientific method.

Ah yes... so this is what creationists say also. They are just waiting for you to catch up with the "new" facts. Just because you cannot see them, or have not "discovered" them does not mean they are not there.
But I have been watching for decades as "science" has been going around and around with the age of the universe. First it was a billion years old... and if you disagreed you were ignorant and uneducated. Then they changed the truth and decided it was 4 billion years old, and once again anyone who disagreed was ignorant and uneducated. Then it was 8 billion... disagreers were ignorant and uneducated... then 12 billion... disagreers were ignorant and undeducated. Finally we have arrived at 14 billion (or has it changed?) and once again everyone who disagrees are ignorant and uneducated. I dinno SW... I just wish they would either settle in at a final number so we could finally be deemed informed and educated, or just admit they do not know or are unsure. But lets stop calling people names and smiting by science.
Facts don't change.
But I did read about a man with a XY sex gene... who science has deemed to be a women.
More changes that are driving the rest of us crazy.
Please settle in on a cold hard fact. We are getting dizzy.

 

[Speedwell]

Ah yes... so this is what creationists say also. They are just waiting for you to catch up with the "new" facts. Just because you cannot see them, or have not "discovered" them does not mean they are not there.

What facts do you have in mind?

But I have been watching for decades as "science" has been going around and around with the age of the universe. First it was a billion years old... and if you disagreed you were ignorant and uneducated. Then they changed the truth and decided it was 4 billion years old, and once again anyone who disagreed was ignorant and uneducated. Then it was 8 billion... disagreers were ignorant and uneducated... then 12 billion... disagreers were ignorant and undeducated. Finally we have arrived at 14 billion (or has it changed?) and once again everyone who disagrees are ignorant and uneducated. I dinno SW... I just wish they would either settle in at a final number so we could finally be deemed informed and educated, or just admit they do not know or are unsure. But lets stop calling people names and smiting by science.

Who is calling you names? I certainly have not.

 

[dad]

Not everything which contradicts your religion needs to be a religion itself.

I might say the same for evolutionists. Either something is based just on beliefs, or not.

 

[Speedwell]

I might say the same for evolutionists. Either something is based just on beliefs, or not.

The theory of evolution is based on empirical evidence, even if you don't recognize or understand it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

in this case, darwinianevolution is. until someone comes up with transitionals and origins... it is a faith.
and i would like to see some scientific method!

Sorta what I used to say-- then I saw the transitionals.

 

[dad]

The theory of evolution is based on empirical evidence, even if you don't recognize or understand it.

The theory of evolution is based on the religious, belief based theft of empirical evidence, even if you don't recognize or understand it..or admit it, or like it. Total fables. The truth is turned to fables, and that is why we need God's word.

 

[xianghua]

We are cousins.

Didn't you know I had a cousin that is a banana tree?

this is your belief, not science.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

My experiance is that the more intensely someone denies that their belief system is a religion... the more fantatical they are, and the more fundamentilst their religion is. Their truth IS truth to the exlusion of all other evidence and logic. They cannot evaluate or even see other systems of thought. Their fundamentalist mindset has essentially blinded them from seeing anything other than their narrow view. Some areas of science have left the integrity and safety of pure facts, and entered the arena of searching for the right collection of "facts" that will prove their version of truth.
For many years I held to the young earth belief simply because that is all I was presented with, and frankly I did not need or care to search for anything else. As I grew older I discovered there were apects of evolution which had a ring of truth... and there were scripture to support such aspects. So I changed my origins belief to theistic evolution because that is what is evident from both scripture and scientific fact. If you are not williing to alter your belief to conform to facts.. you are kind of lost. You can talk yourself into anything.. but those pesky facts will always haunt. I don't like being haunted. Not to say I have all the answers even to my own satisfaction... but I am as close as I can get given what i have. So I am content.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, absolutes are not supposed to change...

-_- scientific theories aren't "absolutes". One of the qualities they have to have in order to be theories is the potential to be disproven. Theories are never considered 100% accurate and complete explanations of natural phenomena, they are considered to be the MOST accurate and the MOST complete explanations of natural phenomena.

yet here we see just that. If a scientific "fact" can change, it was never a fact to begin with.

Unfortunately, the fact that we observe changes in populations over time, and the theory that explains that fact, are both called evolution. That populations change over generations IS a fact, and the theory of evolution is currently the best explanation of why and how.

When is this going to change again? Next week? Next month? How many times can a "fact" change until you finally nail it down?
Amazing faith.

-_- this is why I hate that the observed phenomenon and the theory that explains it are both called evolution. It makes people confused. Gravity actually has the same problem.

 

[xianghua]

Unfortunately, the fact that we observe changes in populations over time, and the theory that explains that fact, are both called evolution.

so any change in population is evolution then?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so any change in population is evolution then?

-_- if it's on the genetic level. People getting tanner during the summer wouldn't be, of course, because that's not a consequence of any genetic changes.

Minor changes that aren't even outwardly noticeable are the result of the same processes that result in speciation, etc. The only difference is number of generations. My generation does NOT have the same distribution of genes as the one before me, and the generation after mine won't have the same distribution of genes as mine does. Some of it is purely by chance; for example, perhaps fewer people with green eyes will have children in my generation than did in the preceding one, resulting in fewer green eyed children in the next generation. That is a change in the gene pool that can influence gene distributions for generations.

Some of it is not by chance, however. With the rise of genetic testing, there may be an increase in the number of people that decide not to have children on the basis of not wanting to pass down a genetic disease. People in war-torn areas are more likely to die and thus leave behind fewer children, which also shifts gene distributions within the population. Evolution is a continuous process.