Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical!

[invisible trousers]

the sciences of the world has to be seperated into what really is science and what is not science. i use the 'falsifiable' theory to check which is which

falsifiable:
physics
chemistry
genetics
medicine
anatomy
physiology
chiropractic
some astronomy

unfalsifiable:
evolution theory
some astronomy
geology
archaeology

A few points:

* This really looks like a list where you separate things into two categories: "science i like" and "science that is against my view of creation". I mean, if it was explicitly obvious that geologists started to completely ignore the scientific method, make up data, whatever, it would make sense to be wary of them. However, I find it strange how all the anger directed towards people who study the earth (i.e. people creationists disagree with) is coming from creationists, and not professionals in those and related fields.
* I question your judgement when you list chiropractic medicine in the same category as physics, chemistry, etc, when the science (if there is any) behind it is dubious at the absolute best.
* I'd really like to see what astronomy is unfalsiable. Does it happen to be astronomy which "conflicts" with your view of creation, or are there legitimate wrongs being put forth by astronomists?

the unfalisifable 'sciences' are abit more tricky. you dig up a fossil and say "hey that's 6 MYO" but someone else will come along and say "hey that's 6,000 YO!" and no one is correct

Are you using an arbitrary definition of falsifiable? Maybe I've been misled to think that it means "hey, we're pretty sure this is how this works, but we could be wrong".

Since creationism is certainly unfalsifiable, shouldn't it also be on your list along with geology and archaelogy?

listen to what both sides have to say and read up on both sides of the arguments. look to the 17th C philosophers with their scientifc methods as well as their scientific metaphysics. they have a whole world of wisdom to offer, definately a heck of a lot more open minded than the generation of today

Well, it makes more sense that they were opened minded, however, they had no idea how gravity and light worked. The concept of the "atom" and "molecule" didn't even exist, neither did the elements. Calculus came around near the last quarter of the century, and didn't even begin to take off until the 18th century.

don't be disheartened, science is good. if you're up for it i recommend going to your library and reading Newton's Principia, and for starters on philosophy, Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.

Considering I'm studying concepts far more advanced than those introduced in Principia, it's probably safe to say I'm a little bit smarter than you think I am

A question: Why would God provide us mountains of evidence showing how He created our universe, but then only to have it disagree with His book?

 

[SBG]

Didn't know deists could post in here. Are you a deist, or did I just read that wrong?

Christianity and science would go together if science wasn't so biased on the fact that everything happened by chance. It is only the te's who say it didn't happen by chance, but by God. It is true science that says nothing of God starting or guiding the process, but rather it all just kinda happened one day by accident.

The Bible says differently. And as I have said before, atleast the te's are making it known that God is in there somewhere.

 

[kofh2u]

Didn't know deists could post in here. Are you a deist, or did I just read that wrong?

Christianity and science would go together if science wasn't so biased on the fact that everything happened by chance. It is only the te's who say it didn't happen by chance, but by God. It is true science that says nothing of God starting or guiding the process, but rather it all just kinda happened one day by accident.

The Bible says differently. And as I have said before, atleast the te's are making it known that God is in there somewhere.

Certainly your belief that as scripture is understood you sit nice and pat, "saved" as you might think.

For sure, the self confidence with which you examine just who qualifies in the way they understand the Bible to be a Christian implies a set of rules.

By these rules, you impose a law, one of your own making, upon others.

There is no New Testament scripture which supports your arrogance.

The holiest of judgements significantly condemns your perspective and stands as a direct denial of you position. mThe White Throne Judgement by Christ himself will measure us and separate the preaching self right bigots from the behavior of those who serve their fellow man.

But you, you sit upon a throne of implied total bible knowledge, telling others that what they understand is in error, as if the scriptures are a text for some final exam.

In this, you are exactly like the pharisees:

Matt. 23:30 And say, If we, (the orthodoxy, the "pharisees," even as of our own generation, likened today, to include even certain Christian bible experts), had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets, (in the human sacrifice of Jesus, called the Christ).


See what I am warning you against, confusing behavior and acts with academic interpretation?

 

[SBG]

Certainly your belief that as scripture is understood you sit nice and pat, "saved" as you might think.

For sure, the self confidence with which you examine just who qualifies in the way they understand the Bible to be a Christian implies a set of rules.

By these rules, you impose a law, one of your own making, upon others.

There is no New Testament scripture which supports your arrogance.

The holiest of judgements significantly condemns your perspective and stands as a direct denial of you position. mThe White Throne Judgement by Christ himself will measure us and separate the preaching self right bigots from the behavior of those who serve their fellow man.

But you, you sit upon a throne of implied total bible knowledge, telling others that what they understand is in error, as if the scriptures are a text for some final exam.

In this, you are exactly like the pharisees:

Matt. 23:30 And say, If we, (the orthodoxy, the "pharisees," even as of our own generation, likened today, to include even certain Christian bible experts), had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets, (in the human sacrifice of Jesus, called the Christ).


See what I am warning you against, confusing behavior and acts with academic interpretation?

I am sorry, but where did this come from? Did you not like what I said about true science saying nothing of God? Was it me saying that TE's atleast give the credit to God that you didn't like?

And what rules have *I* imposed on anyone?

And where did I say I have *total* Biblical knowledge. I may speak strongly on creation/flood, but I have never said I have complete and total Biblical knowledge.

You want to judge me, go ahead. You want to say I am taking a throne, go ahead. Say what you would like, as you have done, about me.

And I do think the Scriptures are to be used for a final exam. It is called the Coming of Jesus Christ, to show thyself approved. I find the Scriptures rather important.

As I said, judge me as you wish. I only have to worry about how God sees me, not how you see me.

 

[shernren]

Kofh, to be absolutely frank, I have no idea why you are spouting all this on an origins forum, firstly. Secondly, there are right and wrong interpretations of scripture, because behaviour stems from interpretations of scripture and that "dry knowledge" you seem to dislike. The Bible said clearly that the Israelites perished for lack of knowledge, knowledge of who their God really was and what He really wanted of them.

To give a simple and clear example, if you believe that life is sacred in God's sight and that the infant is a human soul at conception you will believe that abortion is wrong, which will lead to a behavior of not condoning, sanctioning or performing abortions. If you believe otherwise, you will have no problem with abortions. This is a very over-simplified example, but it illustrates my point that Christian interpretations lead to Christian behaviour and are therefore very much a part of Christian life.

And God is very clearly personal and Triune in Scripture. If you will deny that you probably shouldn't be posting in a Christian-only thread. And yes, that is a threat. As polite as I'm trying to be.

*angry rant mode off*

SBG, all science assumes that God doesn't interfere. God is simply unquantifiable by science, so that any statement about Him stepping in is simply unprovable within science. As no-one refutes, even creation science assumes that God does not intervene in large-scale geophysical processes between (to be charitable) the Flood and the present day. Or else they wouldn't be coming up with any scientific hypotheses, because a scientific hypothesis can only yield a definitive cause-effect relationship if it assumes that there will be no "transcendent" interference.

Biliskner, show me an example of how a natural rock production process happening 6000 years ago, would yield a rock with an isochron dating age of 6 million years. If you don't know what isochron dating is go look it up on the 'Net.

 

[Biliskner]

A few points:
* This really looks like a list where you separate things into two categories: "science i like" and "science that is against my view of creation".

did you even read past the list? i explained why i thought those two things were where they were. oh whatever. read what you want. skip what you want.

I mean, if it was explicitly obvious that geologists started to completely ignore the scientific method, make up data, whatever, it would make sense to be wary of them. However, I find it strange how all the anger directed towards people who study the earth (i.e. people creationists disagree with) is coming from creationists, and not professionals in those and related fields.

by your logic Aristotelians were correct until the Scientific Revolution era, then all the laws of physics MUST HAVE CHANGED 'cos then the Aristotelians were seen as wrong and Newtonian mechanics took over.
Majority rules? History seems to show that the majority is quite gullible.

* I question your judgement when you list chiropractic medicine in the same category as physics, chemistry, etc, when the science (if there is any) behind it is dubious at the absolute best.
* I'd really like to see what astronomy is unfalsiable. Does it happen to be astronomy which "conflicts" with your view of creation, or are there legitimate wrongs being put forth by astronomists?

Chiropractic? Their patient's recovery far outwieghs physio's.

Astronomy? prove to me dark matter exists.

you should refute things you at least have some knowledge of.

Are you using an arbitrary definition of falsifiable? Maybe I've been misled to think that it means "hey, we're pretty sure this is how this works, but we could be wrong".

can you test the theory? = is this falsifiable?

Since creationism is certainly unfalsifiable, shouldn't it also be on your list along with geology and archaelogy?

already there mate, already there.

Well, it makes more sense that they were opened minded, however, they had no idea how gravity and light worked. The concept of the "atom" and "molecule" didn't even exist, neither did the elements. Calculus came around near the last quarter of the century, and didn't even begin to take off until the 18th century.

so you're saying... we're at the pinnacle of these dudes? without them you would be an Aristotelian with your "advanced Aristotle... err... "physics.""
what's your point?

Considering I'm studying concepts far more advanced than those introduced in Principia, it's probably safe to say I'm a little bit smarter than you think I am

the point of reading Principia is to show you what real science is like, but since you're "far more advanced" then you should know what real science is like... or should you, since you are in the majority.

A question: Why would God provide us mountains of evidence showing how He created our universe, but then only to have it disagree with His book?

lock and load.

 

[Biliskner]

But alone, that is not evolution. You also have to see the frequency of the allele in the gene pool change. That requires natural selection. When you get only mutations, you do not have evolution. It is when you get mutations + natural selection that you get evolution.

wow, we actually agree on something - "only mutations, you do not have evolution"

that comes to the crux mechanism:
"what is natural selection?"
(by your definition)

Lots of people think it is absurd. But their uninformed opinion does not stop it from happening.

i think it absurd that aliens built the pyramids. how close are you to believing that the pyramids were built by aliens? considering we cannot explain with the current evidence that it was built by humans?

some absurdities are more absurd than other absurdities. some are true. some are not.

Bad analogy. The one you want is: since we can observe that I can peddle my bicycle around the block, we can infer that I can peddle my bicycle across the continent.

okay my bad.
if i peddle harder my bike goes faster. if i peddle hard enough i should go so fast so i can fly into the sky and then finally out into space and into the moon.

Nothing prevents mutations from adding information. Give me a definition of genetic information and a mathematical basis for determining when it is increased or decreased and I'll wager we can find objective instances of increased information due to mutation.

of course nothing prevents mutations from adding information. but you have no emperical evidence to say that mutation (or any other genetic phenomena) CAN add information to an existing genome/dna strand.

The branches and lines are based on data. They are redrawn on the basis of additional, more accurate data. For example, the recent analysis of the relationship of whales led to redrawing the mammalian orders to place the Cetacea (whales) inside the order of Arteriodactyla (even-toed ungulates) and renaming the latter Cetarteriodactyla.

there's no point arguing lines. you have to agree that it has been redrawn several times, massively. the fact that we need to redraw them shows me that this theory is a theory in flux, everchanging. very like the model of mathematics.

It is Darwin's theory. If you disagree, show me the citation.

i can't (oh yes!) and that is a fact.

No, it's not. No magic required for evolution. Just an observed process continued one step at a time.

ha. hold off on your judgement princess, until you explain to me what this "natural selection" is...

 

[Biliskner]

Biliskner, show me an example of how a natural rock production process happening 6000 years ago, would yield a rock with an isochron dating age of 6 million years. If you don't know what isochron dating is go look it up on the 'Net.

show it yourself.

we both know that your challenge is: "give me some more fuel to burn my fire baby!"

dream on.

 

[Biliskner]

1) Hello, mr/ms B,

(I am used to people arrogantly attempting retorts,.. NOT to the posted verses I offer to them.
In response to them, the best they can do is denigrate my faith in Jesus.
They imply our differences in interpretation make them "Ckristian," while I must not be as right, or rigthegous as they are.)

Is the disciple to expect more?
Can u c y we have had to wait so long, for the Second Coming?

Who is exhibiting Christian behavior when people ridicule or name call (gnosticism, Christian-buddhist, etc) ...
...simply because THEY, themselves, act as if they "KNOW" everything about scripture?
What say u to this point, brother?

Who are the goats, since the judgement of the sheep is not a final exam on interpretation?
The "final" judgement of who is a Christian requires an examination of Matthew 25:31-end.
True?

3) You didn't notice?
THERE HAS BEEN NO EXEGESIS OFFERED.

Except for the inte pretation of YHVH, here and above,

Yet, you seem on the ready to "judge" such as "eisegesis."

That is why I have cast no other pearls of defense, yet.

Clearly, my simple, concise reply to your criticism of "Universal Force" meaning First Cause, to an exegesis of the meaning of YHVY, to include all evidence that no one really KNOWS ... this has not excused me in YOUR opinion.

So, what chance of intelligent sharing do you offer?

Aren't you the bottom line for validation when all is said and done?

Matt. 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, (vain Bible lawyers), that ye are the (genetically related) children of them (who think so common to this Modern Homo sapien species) which killed the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets, (including Jesus Christ, whom you offered in human sacrifice to perserve a failed Judaism).

i think you misunderstand me. i was asking a simple question. but i am sorry if it came about too harshly.

I ask because I want to know where you are getting your revised Bible from. From the quotes I've seen in multiple threads, you have a superbly "paraphrased" eisegesis interpretation of the Scriptures. In Genesis when it says God you put in brackets "Universal Force" - what the hell does universal force mean? can you BE more ambiguous?

 

[Biliskner]

so Kofh you believe in the death of Christ that saves you from the wrath of God and buries the sin in your life and the resurrection of Christ as victory over death universally and also in your life and believe in him to be your Savior and your Lord and your God?

ok i think that should come across better.

 

[Biliskner]

However, I find it strange how all the anger directed towards people who study the earth (i.e. people creationists disagree with) is coming from creationists, and not professionals in those and related fields.

you haven't clicked very far.

just search "geology" and "creation" in this forum and prove yourself wrong.
(i was going to list names but the admin will probably "have a little word with me" if i did)

 

[gluadys]

"what is natural selection?"
(by your definition)

Natural selection is an environmental pressure (such as less food to go around, changing climate, more predators, etc.) which results in differential reproductive success for organisms which have differing variations in character traits. The result will be a shifting of the proportions of the traits. Since these traits are the expression of different gene variants (aka “alleles”) the basis of the shift in character traits is a shift in the frequencies of the alleles.

The alleles may or may not show a recent mutation, but since all alleles are the product of mutations to the gene, fundamentally, what natural selection selects are the various gene recipes (alleles) for proteins originally or recently created by mutations.

Hence, the oft-quoted statement that evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

The basic mechanism of natural selection is differential reproductive success, and that is probably a better name for the process than “natural selection” which Darwin chose to connect his thesis with “artificial selection”.

okay my bad.
if i peddle harder my bike goes faster. if i peddle hard enough i should go so fast so i can fly into the sky and then finally out into space and into the moon.

I did not say anything about peddling faster. That is not a requirement. It does not matter what rate you peddle at, or even if you change the rate (faster or slower) or even if you take rest breaks (stasis), as long as you keep going, you will get across the continent---or even to the moon. (or at least an equivalent distance).

of course nothing prevents mutations from adding information. but you have no emperical evidence to say that mutation (or any other genetic phenomena) CAN add information to an existing genome/dna strand.

A bacterium adds a single base nucleotide to its DNA and lo, and behold, it is able to digest nylon. Show me how that is not adding information to an existing DNA strand.

there's no point arguing lines. you have to agree that it has been redrawn several times, massively. the fact that we need to redraw them shows me that this theory is a theory in flux, everchanging. very like the model of mathematics.

It is not the theory that is in flux. It is our understanding of the actual phylogenic history. That is to be expected when we have so few clues about the history.

i can't (oh yes!) and that is a fact.

Then, until you can, stop saying I am not talking about the same evolution Darwin was.

 

[kofh2u]

shernren:
Kofh, to be absolutely frank, I have no idea why you are spouting all this on an origins forum, firstly.

KOFHY:
I am reacting to the repetitive name tagging. Instead of intellectual responses, this person attacks others by classifying their responses. That issue would require another thread of some length.

By such means, tagging is setting forth a prejudicial inference that makes what one actually says enlarged and given unintended meanings.

He called the previous poster a "deist."

In my case, he had the audacity to question my Christianity, suggesting Gnosticism and buddhism as tags.

HE SAYS:
And I do think the Scriptures are to be used for a final exam. It is called the Coming of Jesus Christ, to show thyself approved. I find the Scriptures rather important.

AND, yes, Matthew 25:31-end agrees with what he DOES say here, while what he implies is that his Creationism will be part of those explicit evaluations, which isn't true.

His "bent reed" of misunderstanding will not help nor hurt...

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).


shernren:
Secondly, there are right and wrong interpretations of scripture, because behaviour stems from interpretations of scripture .

KOFHY:
Whereas you are correct, please set forth your interpretation WITHOUT the banner of a self-right assumption that others are responding from a position that is NOT Christian.

That would assure that no one has grasped the golden ring, yet.

That mean, until the discussion is over, it maybe assumed that you, too, are in need of correction.

In fact, this is EXACTLY my point.

Scripture is important.

You, me, the lamp post may have opinion, but don't call yours lf the Christian and others deist or gnostic... not yet.

shernren:
..and that "dry knowledge" you seem to dislike.

KOFHY:
What "dry knowledge?"

Could you be concise?

shernren:
The Bible said clearly that the Israelites perished for lack of knowledge, knowledge of who their God really was and what He really wanted of them.

KOFHY:
And, Daniel specifically told us we must wait for just a moment as the 21st century.

The doctrines opposing TE and Freudian understandings, like SBG's, are 17th century.
Daniel already condemned them, didn't he, de facto?

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

shernren:
To give a simple and clear example, if you believe that life is sacred in God's sight and that the infant is a human soul at conception you will believe that abortion is wrong,

KOFHY:
You blame the symptom for the problem.

Abortion is contraceptive.
It is symptomatic of sexual premiscuity in the adolescent subculture.

The toleration of adolescent sexual license and economic misdirection by ignoring the licentious prenuptial subculture ultimate produces unwed pregnacies.

Rev. 17:2 (An institution) with whom the kings of the earth have
committed fornication (in the name of economic complicity), and the inhabitants of the earth have
been made drunk with the wine of her (exploitive) fornication.

shernren:
...which will lead to a behavior of not condoning, sanctioning or performing abortions. If you believe otherwise, you will have no problem with abortions.

KOFHY:
See?

I believe otherwise, yet you and I disagree.

Does this make you eligible for a tag? Or me?
God forbid, no, IMO.

shernren:
This is a very over-simplified example, but it illustrates my point that Christian interpretations lead to Christian behaviour and are therefore very much a part of Christian life.

KOFHY:
MY POINT is unless the interpretation IS correct, it is only SBG's opinion.
Advertising his view as authenic while denigrating my take or others is at issue.

I am asserting the ground rule, IF indeed he is the Christian here, not merely one of the millions who attend his particular denominational church... then, the Truth will out.

I say, please, SBG, drop the pious "self-I-am-right- you are wrong" attitude.
See?

shernren:
And God is very clearly personal and Triune in Scripture.

KOFHY:
IF scripture was SO clear to men we would NOT have twelve large mainstream denominal churches ar uing with one another. Truth?
Christian Truth?

shernren:
If you will deny that you probably shouldn't be posting in a Christian-only thread.

KOFHY:
I do NOT deny that God is personal nor that God is triune.
I deny the clarity because millions disagree, and they insist they are Christians.
Jehovah Witnesses, for instance.

LDS, for instance.

Scripture made it clear only to us who do believe, about triune Godheads.

"Christian tags" or even identification is irrelevent to such belief, because there is no CLEAR explicit statement in scripture regarding Trinity. It is therefore irrelevent to being His brother.

shernren:
God is very clearly personal and Triune.

KOFHY:
I don't remember any statement of mine implying otherwise. Are you putting this forth as an accusation?

shernren:
And yes, that is a threat. As polite as I'm trying to be.

KOFHY:
Well, then please produce the statement which supports your polite threat.

Or, in the name of honesty, in not Christian example, apologize.

shernren:
*angry rant mode off*

KOFHY:
Hmmm...
Anger ought come AFTER you read this, my defense until proven clearly worthy of aer.

If ypu read me, are still 9n disagreement, please direct your comment to specifics.

You seem prone to "red herrings." Abortion and Trinity and reiteration that the "kingdom of God is within."

What was the point? Charges by induendo? Have NOT previous even mentioned any of these subjects.

You ought be much more objective before over reacting to phantoms you, yourself invent here.

shernren:
... all science assumes that God doesn't interfere. God is simply unquantifiable by science, so that any statement about Him stepping in is simply unprovable within science. As no-one refutes, even creation science assumes that God does not intervene in large-scale geophysical processes between (to be charitable) the Flood and the present day. Or else they wouldn't be coming up with any scientific hypotheses, because a scientific hypothesis can only yield a definitive cause-effect relationship if it assumes that there will be no "transcendent" interference.

KOFHY:
EXCEPT AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL.

Cause - Effect is no longer a clear Axiom. And, human Consciousness also influences material outcomes.

Cosmic Consciousness seems appropriately invested at the QM level.

 

[invisible trousers]

did you even read past the list? i explained why i thought those two things were where

they were. oh whatever. read what you want. skip what you want.

I sure read your list, and think your line of logic is quite flawed. You're ridiculously simplifying archaeology in order to try and prove a point, but it's not working. I'm curious as to what group is saying some fossil is 6 million years old and what group is saying 6000 years old. Does one of the groups have actual physical evidence and tested scientific methods behind its' conclusion? Better yet, is one of the groups ignoring data in favor of misguided religious ideas?

In fact, you managed to show I was right. I said you didn't like those sciences/whatever because they disagree with your view on the creation, and you didn't contest it one bit. If you're going to criticize a science, please do it on scientific basis, not religious.

by your logic Aristotelians were correct until the Scientific Revolution era, then all the laws of physics MUST HAVE CHANGED 'cos then the Aristotelians were seen as wrong and Newtonian mechanics took over.
Majority rules? History seems to show that the majority is quite gullible.

Uh...no? My point was that the people who whine most about archaeology, geology, geophysics, etc, are people whose beliefs are challenged by the constant new information gathered by those disciplines, not people who have legitimate complaints.

Chiropractic? Their patient's recovery far outwieghs physio's.

What. I don't understand what you mean, and you still haven't explained how chiropractice belongs in the same category as physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

Astronomy? prove to me dark matter exists.

you should refute things you at least have some knowledge of.

Ah, yes, we've come to the point in the thread where you show your lack of understanding of how science works. Scientific theories aren't proven by a lack of evidence to show them being wrong, but by evidence itself that shows it to be wrong. Scientific theories cannot be proven right, but only proven wrong. They also are written under the premise that they're the best result of the knowledge we have right now and to be consistantly accurate under their defined conditions.

Newton's laws of motion were pretty good for a long time, given what we knew then. They're also good until you start approaching the speed of light, where we run into...

Special/General relativity, works nearly all the time given what we know. The results from those theories can be applied to whole lot of situations, except when dealing with things like black holes, or motion at the quantum level, which leads into...

String theory. Since quantum mechanics and GR don't quite go together, we've been trying to find a theory that will unite both of them. String theory is still in its' early infancy and could very well be completely wrong. In fact, none of the string theories have even made firm predictions that allow them to be tested!

Do you see how this works? The theories are made with the best knowledge at the time, but are continually updated as experiments/theories/whatever show them to be wrong. String theory might be found to be wrong, but we'll move on to something else that is more accurate. This process will probably be repeated forever, at least until God decides to visit and explain the whole universe.

can you test the theory? = is this falsifiable?

Wrong! I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse, although I'm led to believe that you are. A idea/theory/etc is falsifiable if in principle it is is possible to make an oberservation that would show it to be false, even if the observation hasn't been made. An example of such would be the statement "All current American coins in circulation are made from silver colored metals" which is falsified by pennies. If it is not possible to show the theory can't be wrong, then it isn't falsifiable, and probably doesn't belong in science. Here's a better example, relating to above.

Aristotelian mechanics was falsified by Galileo's experiments, which were kind of replaced by Newton's laws of motion. The Youngian wave theory of light (the ether) then replaced Newton's ideas of light particles, but were falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Those were superceded by some of the greatest work in all of physics--the derivation of the speed of light by Maxwell's equations and natural constants, and those being incorporated into special (and later general) relativity.

so you're saying... we're at the pinnacle of these dudes? without them you would be an Aristotelian with your "advanced Aristotle... err... "physics.""
what's your point?

Again, no. I'm saying that it's a lot easier to be open-minded about monsters existing in your closet, until you go turn on the light and see they aren't there. Essentially it is easy to make all sorts of ideas and theories when you know next to nothing.

the point of reading Principia is to show you what real science is like, but since you're "far more advanced" then you should know what real science is like... or should you, since you are in the

majority.

I'll tell you what "real science" is not:
Real science is not ignoring important discoveries and findings because you disagree with them.
Real science is not basing the majority of your arguments on straw men.
Real science is not trying to push religious theories of questionable origins into a science classroom where they doesn't belong.
Real science is not having the fundamental theory of creation be unfalsifiable.

He called the previous poster a "deist."

My bad, I was goofing around with the tags. I really like the little atom!

EXCEPT AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL.

Cause - Effect is no longer a clear Axiom. And, human Consciousness also influences material outcomes.

Cosmic Consciousness seems appropriately invested at the QM level.

I'd appreciate if you elaborate on this since it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Also, this thread is for discussing evolution, not questioning the spirituality of other forum members. There are many subforums that would be much more appropriate for something of that nature.

 

[kofh2u]

I sure read your list, and think your line of logic is quite flawed. You're ridiculously simplifying archaeology in order to try and prove a point, but it's not working. I'm curious as to what group is saying some fossil is 6 million years old and what group is saying 6000 years old. Does one of the groups have actual physical evidence and tested scientific methods behind its' conclusion? Better yet, is one of the groups ignoring data in favor of misguided religious ideas?

In fact, you managed to show I was right. I said you didn't like those sciences/whatever because they disagree with your view on the creation, and you didn't contest it one bit. If you're going to criticize a science, please do it on scientific basis, not religious.



Uh...no? My point was that the people who whine most about archaeology, geology, geophysics, etc, are people whose beliefs are challenged by the constant new information gathered by those disciplines, not people who have legitimate complaints.


What. I don't understand what you mean, and you still haven't explained how chiropractice belongs in the same category as physics, chemistry, biology, etc.



Ah, yes, we've come to the point in the thread where you show your lack of understanding of how science works. Scientific theories aren't proven by a lack of evidence to show them being wrong, but by evidence itself that shows it to be wrong. Scientific theories cannot be proven right, but only proven wrong. They also are written under the premise that they're the best result of the knowledge we have right now and to be consistantly accurate under their defined conditions.

Newton's laws of motion were pretty good for a long time, given what we knew then. They're also good until you start approaching the speed of light, where we run into...

Special/General relativity, works nearly all the time given what we know. The results from those theories can be applied to whole lot of situations, except when dealing with things like black holes, or motion at the quantum level, which leads into...

String theory. Since quantum mechanics and GR don't quite go together, we've been trying to find a theory that will unite both of them. String theory is still in its' early infancy and could very well be completely wrong. In fact, none of the string theories have even made firm predictions that allow them to be tested!

Do you see how this works? The theories are made with the best knowledge at the time, but are continually updated as experiments/theories/whatever show them to be wrong. String theory might be found to be wrong, but we'll move on to something else that is more accurate. This process will probably be repeated forever, at least until God decides to visit and explain the whole universe.


Wrong! I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse, although I'm led to believe that you are. A idea/theory/etc is falsifiable if in principle it is is possible to make an oberservation that would show it to be false, even if the observation hasn't been made. An example of such would be the statement "All current American coins in circulation are made from silver colored metals" which is falsified by pennies. If it is not possible to show the theory can't be wrong, then it isn't falsifiable, and probably doesn't belong in science. Here's a better example, relating to above.

Aristotelian mechanics was falsified by Galileo's experiments, which were kind of replaced by Newton's laws of motion. The Youngian wave theory of light (the ether) then replaced Newton's ideas of light particles, but were falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Those were superceded by some of the greatest work in all of physics--the derivation of the speed of light by Maxwell's equations and natural constants, and those being incorporated into special (and later general) relativity.


Again, no. I'm saying that it's a lot easier to be open-minded about monsters existing in your closet, until you go turn on the light and see they aren't there. Essentially it is easy to make all sorts of ideas and theories when you know next to nothing.


I'll tell you what "real science" is not:
Real science is not ignoring important discoveries and findings because you disagree with them.
Real science is not basing the majority of your arguments on straw men.
Real science is not trying to push religious theories of questionable origins into a science classroom where they doesn't belong.
Real science is not having the fundamental theory of creation be unfalsifiable.


My bad, I was goofing around with the tags. I really like the little atom!


I'd appreciate if you elaborate on this since it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Also, this thread is for discussing evolution, not questioning the spirituality of other forum members. There are many subforums that would be much more appropriate for something of that nature.

Hello mr common sense.

You are doing an excellent job of Psychological Validation of a number of theories which need to be demonstrated. They also ought be brought to the attention of Bible readers. This will help reveal meanings of scripture lo underexposed or basically ignored.

1) The Bible has strong Intuitive appeal.

Most people would agree that they "Just know what it is saying, and that for them it is clearly understood."

That's Intuitive Knowing.

2) In spite of secular observations, the logical and mathematical
knowing" of science people can be discounted by these Intuitive Knowers.

What you are experiencing is also common between men and women. Socrates said, "Is there anyone less desirable to your discourse than your wife?"

Ezekiel's four faced che ubim is the symbo
ic representation of the Four Jungian Functions of Thinking.

Christians might debat this, and certainly,I will fair no beter than you there. But the Lion of Intuition walks this board jyst certain in the face of the man of logical thinking.

A step back, and we can see how Jungian Psychology permutates the four faces of the Cherubim, each symbolic of a Jungian Function Think9ng Source.

These permutations produce twelve combinations.

One Function of the four in every combination ****ible is Dom9nant, a second is subordinate. The twelve possible results predict twelve genetic "tribes" of human predisposition.

All this is SOoooo hard to actually prove even scientifically, that an appeal to "feelings" is found in religion. That is, today, Christianity is composed of Twelve Mainstream Denominational Churches, all with different predispositions to what they read in Scripture. Their intranscence in their perspectives between themselves evidences the psychology in Ezekiel and Numbers.

The collective front against logical thinking supports the intuitive classification I mentioned.

Now, this is NOT to denigrate the churches. It is to use them as "Exhibit A" in what they largely agree with themselves. Much of the problem is like husband and wife. Both may by and large be saying the same thing but in a different "Babel."

For instance, if properly defined in the Hebrew dictionary the word "day" actually COULD be interpreted as "Era."

Gen. 1:5 And God, (the Theistic Universal Power), called the light Day, (the end of an era), and the darkness he called (that which had preceeded), Night. And the evening, (prior to the Big Bang), and the morning (of the materialization that followed) were the first "day," (the Azoic Era). (1)

Gen. 1:8 And God, (the Theistic Universal Power), called the firmament Heaven. And the evening (of that which had preceeded) and the morning (of all that had evolved) were the second "day," (the Archeozoic Era). (2)

Gen. 1:13 And the evening (of that which had preceeded) and the morning (of all that had evolved) were the third "day," (the Proterozoic Era). (3)


See what I mean?

 

[SBG]

My bad, I was goofing around with the tags. I really like the little atom!

That was I who asked about the deist tag. No worries, I thought it must have been a mix up.

Kofh2u:

I said something about deist, because there is a little graphic under some peoples names that tells what denomination they are. Invisible Trousers had the deists icon under hers. I simply asked about it. I wasn't questioning hers or your 'Christianity.'

.......

 

[kofh2u]

That was I who asked about the deist tag. No worries, I thought it must have been a mix up.

Kofh2u:

I said something about deist, because there is a little graphic under some peoples names that tells what denomination they are. Invisible Trousers had the deists icon under hers. I simply asked about it. I wasn't questioning hers or your 'Christianity.'

.......

My apology.

I thought I was again on a "Christian" board where "Christians" were demonstrating unChristian name calling.

Sorry.

My fault.

In regard to my understanding, a person IS a Christian when they confess Christ at... in... the head.

In regard as to whether they are truthful, I observe if they do the work of our Father.

So, I admit I support people under verbal attack for anyhing except the words that come out of their mouth.

My appreciation if you can forgive and forget.

 

[SBG]

I just wanted to clarify that, but I never held it against you, so you have already been forgiven. No worries, friend.

 

[shernren]

hmm ok, kofhy, you should talk about origins since you're talking on an origins thread. I hope that's clear.

biliskner: first you say:

of course nothing prevents mutations from adding information. but you have no emperical evidence to say that mutation (or any other genetic phenomena) CAN add information to an existing genome/dna strand.

then AiG says:

We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Now, let's think logically, assuming both of you are right. Mutations don't increase genetic information. Mutations do confer an advantage, sometimes. Therefore there is a way to confer advantage without increasing genetic information, i.e. mutations.
Now AiG says from the same page:

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.

But, you already showed that "the generation of tens of millions of 'letters' of new information" is not required! Teehee.

And, you can't show me the method to make a young rock look old? My point exactly.

 

[Biliskner]

Natural selection is an environmental pressure (such as less food to go around, changing climate, more predators, etc.) which results in differential reproductive success for organisms which have differing variations in character traits. The result will be a shifting of the proportions of the traits. Since these traits are the expression of different gene variants (aka “alleles”) the basis of the shift in character traits is a shift in the frequencies of the alleles.

so frequency of alleles
+ "selection"
= evolution?

you forgot one thing in there. magic.

if a mutation of one allele cannot make an amoeba spawn legs - or whatever - then how does adding natural selection make evolution happen? the idea might not be absurd as such, but the conjecture and its logical conclusion is.

my "idea"/concept of evolution is not wrong. if you say that alleles cannot spawn evolution, by adding natural selection, nothing is achieved. you might as well have said:

freq alleles + magic = evolution. there is no diff.

A bacterium adds a single base nucleotide to its DNA and lo, and behold, it is able to digest nylon. Show me how that is not adding information to an existing DNA strand.

and through this bacterium a bacteria can grow extremities to become a pre-fish like fish?
(common, say it, i know that is what you are thinking.)

It is not the theory that is in flux. It is our understanding of the actual phylogenic history. That is to be expected when we have so few clues about the history.

and that model is flawed. just like the pythagorean theory of mathematics was flawed but many people of that time believed it to be a fantastic model
(we know better, with Newton and Leibniz.)

Then, until you can, stop saying I am not talking about the same evolution Darwin was.

what i meant was: "i can't be bothered looking up the quote, because we don't need it to discuss genetics."

***a note to all you invisible readers - what we're doing here is not science, it is philosophy, therefore the extrapolation of "micro evolutionary FACTS" and attempting to employ it into MACRO EVOLUTION is philosophy, not science