The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[ianw16]

I look not at how high and lofty and smug they might be in their beliefs,

At least those 'beliefs' are based on science, evidence and observation, rather than primitive scribblings.

 

[dad]

No.

When you have no reason to assume special things, don't.

When you have reason to assume time is the same in the far universe get back to us. Meanwhile if models built on the belief contradict God's word, you are welcome to your own beliefs.

 

[dad]

At least those 'beliefs' are based on science, evidence and observation, rather than primitive scribblings.

NOT KNOWING is not science based. Projecting fishbowl realities into infinity and beyond with no proof is Buzz Lightyear level ignorant.

 

[dad]

That is pure invention. Faith-based stuff, that has no scientific basis.

You are in no position to claim billions of people are liars when they testify of miracles and observations and tests. You have not one single witness to your claims of time existing the same in far space. I win.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you have reason to assume time is the same in the far universe get back to us.

It's called the null hypothesis.
I assume that gravity in the US works the same way as it does in Belgium for the same reason.

Meanwhile if models built on the belief contradict God's word, you are welcome to your own beliefs.

If your "god's word" contradicts the evidence of reality, then your "god's word" is wrong.

 

[ianw16]

You are in no position to claim billions of people are liars when they testify of miracles and observations and tests. You have not one single witness to your claims of time existing the same in far space. I win.

Nope, you lose. No evidence. What about the people who see UFOs? Or Elvis in the local diner? Delusional, or just misunderstanding what they see. Or lying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are in no position to claim billions of people are liars

Barring a few "professional" creationists, who's (ginormous) income streams are literally dependend on preaching fundamentalist religion, I actually don't call any creationist a liar.

Just mistaken, wrong, scientifically illiterate, confused, misguided, uneducated, intellectually dishonest,... depending on the situation

Lying implies intention and knowing that what they say is wrong.
I don't believe that most creationists do that.
I think / assume that most of them are quite sincere.

And yes, they are demonstrably wrong in their beliefs.
But off course, if part of your fundamentalist doctrine is that if the evidence of reality conflicts with your beliefs - then dissmiss the evidence of reality.... then you're going to miss the fact that that evidence actually demonstrates your beliefs being wrong.

when they testify of miracles and observations and tests.

All of which is anecdotal nonsense that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

You have not one single witness to your claims of time existing the same in far space. I win.

lol

You win, yes.
At pidgeon chess.

 

[dad]

It's called the null hypothesis.
I assume that gravity in the US works the same way as it does in Belgium for the same reason.

Me too.

If your "god's word" contradicts the evidence of reality, then your "god's word" is wrong.

When reality is restricted to and defined by your unproven silly godless religious beliefs, it is a very limited reality.

 

[dad]

Nope, you lose. No evidence. What about the people who see UFOs? Or Elvis in the local diner? Delusional, or just misunderstanding what they see. Or lying.

People who have seen time the same in the far universe are...? Oh, there is none. You have religion. Don't blame Elvis.

 

[dad]

Barring a few "professional" creationists, who's (ginormous) income streams are literally dependend on preaching fundamentalist religion, I actually don't call any creationist a liar.

Just mistaken, wrong, scientifically illiterate, confused, misguided, uneducated, intellectually dishonest,... depending on the situation

When you call the bible an invention that is an insult to Christ and all the holy men of God of all ages.

Lying implies intention and knowing that what they say is wrong.

You claiming they lied also implies you have some proof of your charges. Otherwise it must remain jealous religious slander.

I don't believe that most creationists do that.
I think / assume that most of them are quite sincere.

And yes, they are demonstrably wrong in their beliefs.

Don't pass the buck to some unmentioned so called creationist you claim is demonstrably wrong.
I am demonstrably correct. Science has limits and actual basis for their models of origin issues that is absolutely faith based.

But off course, if part of your fundamentalist doctrine is that if the evidence of reality conflicts with your beliefs - then dissmiss the evidence of reality...

No evidence anywhere contradicts the bible or my ideas on how science is wrong. None. No exceptions. You conflate religious tripe and faith based fantasy with evidence.

All of which is anecdotal nonsense that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

The bible already withstood scrutiny. You religion is under scrutiny something fierce, and is flailing like a scared bangee on drugs.

 

[sjastro]

I am demonstrably correct. Science has limits and actual basis for their models of origin issues that is absolutely faith based.
No evidence anywhere contradicts the bible or my ideas on how science is wrong. None. No exceptions. You conflate religious tripe and faith based fantasy with evidence.

The bible already withstood scrutiny. You religion is under scrutiny something fierce, and is flailing like a scared bangee on drugs.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade but you have stated on numerous occasions that parallax only applies in your "fishbowl".
Do you understand the very mention of the word parallax implies a heliocentric model where the Earth orbits the Sun.
This is quite contrary to the stationary Earth centred geocentric Universe described in the Bible.
By your own standards you are a hypocrite and apostate by going against the teachings of the Bible.

Furthermore your hypocrisy is highlighted by referring to Science as an “evil religion” while conveniently enjoying the fruits and benefits of Science through technology, medicine etc.
Do us a favour show the courage of your convictions and go live in a cave.

 

[Mountainmike]

No there isn't. These are just hoaxes. On a par with the monks of Glastonbury finding the burial of King Arthur. They needed the money from visitors. It is all very transparent.

So says a man who has not even looked at the evidence so knows nothing about it..
You sceptic pseudoscientist atheists are all the same. Your faith blinds you
Like a parachute, a mind works better when it is open, and fails completely when as closed as yours.

As a past employer of many PHd scientists, I can say your attitude would not even get an interview, let alone a job. You clearly do not have an enquiring mind, nor any clue what science really is or how evidence is assessed. You start by looking at the evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is sad you dont seem to know what abiogenesis is.
Or the lack of any evidence or process for it.

According to the conjecture (it is not a theory or even a valid hypothesis) much as atheist pseudoscientists try to pretend it is such.

The first cell appeared according to those who hold to the conjecture as a result of random chemistry.(presumably a prokaryote to keep it simple so spare us the waffle about species similarity or evolution)

So either the entire cell popped into existence. Which is laughable in quantum chemistry terms..
So instead the only way the conjecture can be true...
There is a lowest intermediate as a self replicating and evolving minimum cell, capable of becoming the complexity of the simplest DNA genome cell, but also simple enough that it did pop into existence as a result of random biochemsitry.

Except that...nobody has a conjectured process or such a minimum intermediate.
It has never been observed as either a process, or the intermediates found!
( which if it were possible, where are they?)
It cannot be made to happen.
So it fails ALL of the requirements for valid hypotheis.

i might even agree with it, but if I did is just an act of faith. Not a hypothesis.
It is the name for a big hole in the sceptic paradigm "life from random chemistry" - it is not a name for an actual process.


On the other hand bread became flesh has evidence it has actually occurred. And has defied explanation by fraud.

I dont need to account for how, any more than the chinese did not need to account for "moss on the north wall of a church yard" curing people for it to be true.

So there is far more evidence for life from eucharistic miracles than there is for life originating by abiogenesis - the paradigm that assumes first cell as a biochemical accident.


Now do you understand?

I only need to "explain" it, (which simply means linking to other existing concepts in the model, it is not a fundamental explanation ) to put it in the scientific model. Which is just a model of repeatable things.
Why shoud it be there?

Why repeat a pathetic lie? Why not address real evidence?

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

Now show us the tested mechanisms for turning bread into cardiac muscle, and you may be on equal footing. And them maybe explain WHY such a thing is supposed to be evidence for Jehovah.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry to rain on your parade but you have stated on numerous occasions that parallax only applies in your "fishbowl".
Do you understand the very mention of the word parallax implies a heliocentric model where the Earth orbits the Sun.
This is quite contrary to the stationary Earth centred geocentric Universe described in the Bible.
By your own standards you are a hypocrite and apostate by going against the teachings of the Bible.

Furthermore your hypocrisy is highlighted by referring to Science as an “evil religion” while conveniently enjoying the fruits and benefits of Science through technology, medicine etc.
Do us a favour show the courage of your convictions and go live in a cave.

Nothing about technology or medicine involve origin science fables whatsoever. Not a single thing. So it depends how one defines good and evil. If we take the bible definition, then science fables are evil. If we take your definition...well, who really cares?

As for the bible talking about earth, your feeble and sinister and purposeful misrepresentations and misconceptions of what it says would easily be dashed to pieces if you come out and provide details.


Finally your gibberish about how parallax applies shows you have no idea what you are arguing against.

 

[sjastro]

Nothing about technology or medicine involve origin science fables whatsoever. Not a single thing. So it depends how one defines good and evil. If we take the bible definition, then science fables are evil. If we take your definition...well, who really cares?

As for the bible talking about earth, your feeble and sinister and purposeful misrepresentations and misconceptions of what it says would easily be dashed to pieces if you come out and provide details.


Finally your gibberish about how parallax applies shows you have no idea what you are arguing against.

Are you just plain stupid or violating the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness..."
This is a recent quote of yours:

The three sides of any stellar parallax measure are one base line from here in the solar system using our time and space....and two other lines to stars, that are supposed to represent the same thing yet out in unknown deep space.

What do you think the base line in our solar system is?
It is diameter of the Earth's orbit around the Sun which you admit exists.
So therefore you are describing a heliocentric model.

How is this consistent with the Bible?
The Bible makes it very clear the Earth is stationary.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I suggest you be very careful in your choice of words such as sinister...............

 

[dad]

Are you just plain stupid or violating the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness..."
This is a recent quote of yours:

What do you think the base line in our solar system is?
It is diameter of the Earth's orbit around the Sun which you admit exists.
So therefore you are describing a heliocentric model.

When I talk about taking a portion of distance involving space and time in the solar system, and using this as one of the three lines to a star as parallax does, that does't involve the bible. That involves space and time here, as well as a few lines that try to make space and time equal all the way to a star.

Now if you want to talk bible we can do that, if you lose your whiny strawman rude approach real fast.

How is this consistent with the Bible?
The Bible makes it very clear the Earth is stationary.

No. Sorry. Echoing your misconceptions doesn't make them important.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Right the earth is here to stay, as God is. Not sure if you really thought people were so dumb as to thin that means neither God nor the earth moves.

I suggest you be very careful in your choice of words such as sinister...............

It is bad and evil to claim God's word says what it does not say, in fact it is sinister. . I suggest you stop being ugly rude and calling people stupid liars.

 

[SelfSim]

It is sad you dont seem to know what abiogenesis is.
Or the lack of any evidence or process for it.

According to the conjecture (it is not a theory or even a valid hypothesis) much as atheist pseudoscientists try to pretend it is such.

The first cell appeared according to those who hold to the conjecture as a result of random chemistry.(presumably a prokaryote to keep it simple so spare us the waffle about species similarity or evolution)

So either the entire cell popped into existence. Which is laughable in quantum chemistry terms..
So instead the only way the conjecture can be true...
There is a lowest intermediate as a self replicating and evolving minimum cell, capable of becoming the complexity of the simplest DNA genome cell, but also simple enough that it did pop into existence as a result of random biochemsitry.

Except that...nobody has a conjectured process or such a minimum intermediate.
It has never been observed as either a process, or the intermediates found!
( which if it were possible, where are they?)
It cannot be made to happen.
So it fails ALL of the requirements for valid hypotheis.

i might even agree with it, but if I did is just an act of faith. Not a hypothesis.
It is the name for a big hole in the sceptic paradigm "life from random chemistry" - it is not a name for an actual process.
...
Now do you understand?

I only need to "explain" it, (which simply means linking to other existing concepts in the model, it is not a fundamental explanation ) to put it in the scientific model. Which is just a model of repeatable things.
Why shoud it be there?

Goodness me!
What a pile of word-salad, misconceptions, straw-men and gibberish!
The spelling of "shoud" nicely captures the essence of that post.
"Now do you understand?"

 

[sjastro]

When I talk about taking a portion of distance involving space and time in the solar system, and using this as one of the three lines to a star as parallax does, that does't involve the bible. That involves space and time here, as well as a few lines that try to make space and time equal all the way to a star.

Yes it does involve the Bible whether you like or not.
You have admitted a base line exists in the solar system therefore the Earth revolves around the Sun.
This contradicts the Bible.
End of argument.

Now if you want to talk bible we can do that, if you lose your whiny strawman rude approach real fast.

I’m quoting chapter and verse like any programmable fundamentalist and there are no misconceptions as the Bible makes it perfectly clear the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.
Are you so utterly deluded as to think the Biblical quotes I supplied support a heliocentric model?

No. Sorry. Echoing your misconceptions doesn't make them important.
Right the earth is here to stay, as God is. Not sure if you really thought people were so dumb as to thin that means neither God nor the earth moves.

If you think the terms and excerpts in Biblical quotes supplied describing the Earth such as “firm”, “immovable”, “fixed”, “foundation”, “never can it be shaken” and “himself fixed it fast” can be interpreted as a moving Earth, there is no doubt who is the real dummy here.

Martin Luther one of the most brilliant theologians in history who was by no means “dumb” provided this commentary about Copernicus.

There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving.

So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].

It is bad and evil to claim God's word says what it does not say, in fact it is sinister. . I suggest you stop being ugly rude and calling people stupid liars.

And I suggest you look at your own behaviour before moralizing.
To use God as a justification for calling people who disagree with you as sinister, bad and evil is morally repugnant.
Don't expect individuals to show you any respect with the attitude you display.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Me too.

How would you know? Have you personally been to every square cm in belgium to test if gravity works the same everywhere?

When reality is restricted to and defined by your unproven silly godless religious beliefs, it is a very limited reality.

Not beliefs. Evidence and data.
When I want to define reality, I base it on what I actually observe in reality, instead of on what I read in a bronze age book.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you call the bible an invention that is an insult to Christ and all the holy men of God of all ages.

I disagree.
Since I consider gods to being fictional, I can't really insult them.

You claiming they lied also implies you have some proof of your charges. Otherwise it must remain jealous religious slander.

If you aren't aware of exposed creationist liars, then it can only be because of lack of looking.

You can start with the term cdesign proponentsists.

That term has become like a meme by now, symbolic of creationist dishonesty.
It is off course just one example among many, many examples of creationists caught lying.

Don't pass the buck to some unmentioned so called creationist you claim is demonstrably wrong.
I am demonstrably correct.

No, like all creationists, you are demonstrably wrong also.

But I already explained to you why it's impossible for you to realise that.
You literally stated that if the evidence of reality disagrees with your beliefs, then you assume that reality is wrong.

So you dissmiss evidence that counters your beliefs. And you dissmiss it ONLY for that reason: that it counters your beliefs.

But off course, the evidence that counters your beliefs, is precisely the evidence that demonstrates your beliefs to being wrong.

So yeah, you basically dissmiss at face value anything that proves your wrong, because it proves you wrong, and then proudly proclaim that nothing proves you wrong.


It's quite ridiculous to witness.

Science has limits

Sure. But just inventing stuff (faith) is no solution to that.

and actual basis for their models of origin issues that is absolutely faith based.

No.

No evidence anywhere contradicts the bible or my ideas on how science is wrong. None.

None that you will accept anyway.
As said above: when you auto-dissmiss any and all evidence that proves your wrong, because it proves you wrong, then off course you'll miss the fact that you're actually wrong.

You conflate religious tripe and faith based fantasy with evidence.

The bible already withstood scrutiny.

No.
"just believe it (faith)" is the very opposite of scrutiny.

You religion is under scrutiny something fierce, and is flailing like a scared bangee on drugs.

I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion.