Theistic Evolution - What is it?

[fragmentsofdreams]

Hey thanks...but as both of your posts confirm you do understand what I mean by "theory". In fact I just posted once again about the difference between a theory that "works" and one that isn't proven yet. Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture seems a little long. Fairy tale maybe? I'll have to think of a better term.

And since you do know what I was getting at Vance..how about responding to my main point.

Evolution does not deal with particles. It does not start until you have simple life.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Vance....you of all people shouldn't be trying to point out when you think somebody didn't respond to someone's points. In my short time here you have repeatedly ignored responses to yourself. You also ignored my post on the pine completely.

The pine needs researching. Real science, unlike creationism, doesn't consist of a few off the cuff arguments.

notto...you need to quit harping on certain words and just provide the evidence- yes, the proof. In fact I've used the word "proof" and "prove" before and in fact responses have been "yes I can prove" etc.

Evidence is not the same thing as proof. Proof simply does not exist in science. Disproof does.

The following observations, for example, would disprove evolution:

(1) Modern plants (e.g. grasses) in a Dimetrodon stomach
(2) An angiosperm flower in a carboniferous coal bed
(3) Rabbit bones in a Velociraptor coprolite
(4) Consistent protein analyses that show that rabbits and humans are more similar genetically than humans and gorillas

Talk Origins' 29 Evidences of Macroevolution has potential falsifications for every one of the predictions of evolutionary theory. It's that easy to falsify. When a theory has that many potential falsifications, and yet remains unfalsified, it can be considered a very good theory indeed.

I don't accept it because it's flawed. As pointed out before they also have an agenda. They lie.

Scientists in all fields of science occasionally falsify results. That's why repeatability is so important, and why we have checks and balances. It's why we quickly identified the Chinese fossil bird hoax - which was purpotrated for money by a Chinese farmer, by the way, not a scientist. It doesn't compare with, for example, Hovind's lies about mammoths and Cytochrome C, does it? Do you know of a specific lie told by evolutionary scientists that is currently doing the rounds?

This is not the same kind of science that results in visible results, the kind that ends up "working"(A-bomb), the kind that is consistent.

Oh, but it does! Lucaspa is the man for this, but evolutionary biology is used all the time in developing antibiotics. It is also finding applications in electronic circuit design. It's an extremely powerful phenomenon.

It's extremely flexible as well.

You mean that it is modified and refined as new data is gathered? Welcome to this strange thing called "science".

My God cannot be disproven.

No. He can't be proven either. It's not what's at issue - everyone on this thread and in this forum believes in God - it's a Christians Only forum, remember?

He does not have as His defenders those who don't believe in Him.

Are you suggesting non-Creationists don't really believe in God?

He Created this world as he so stated in Genesis- in 6 days.. And the evidence of his wonderous Creation are there for all to see.

Yes. But it screams out loud and clear that it was not literally created in six days.

 

[Dutchunter]

I don't accept it because it's flawed. As pointed out before they also have an agenda. They lie. This is not the same kind of science that results in visible results, the kind that ends up "working"(A-bomb), the kind that is consistent. It's extremely flexible as well.

My God cannot be disproven. He does not have as His defenders those who don't believe in Him. He Created this world as he so stated in Genesis- in 6 days.. And the evidence of his wonderous Creation are there for all to see.

Ignorance is taking evolutionary flawed science as gospel. I'll stick to the real Gospel.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You keep on asserting that scientists lie. You never actually substantiate your scurrilous accusation. Unless you do, you are breaching the ninth commandment.

When I say Hovind lies, I susbstantiate it with examples. You do not. You are just smearing and poisoning the wells. It is behaviour unbecoming of a Christian.

Come on. What are the lies?

 

[Dutchunter]

I sure did substantiate it. I wasn't the only one who even said it. I wonder what else one could find regarding regarding this.

 

[Dutchunter]

More examples:

Fraud Happens: What to Do About It

By Nicholas Wade





For many years physicists lagged way behind biologists in the perpetration of scientific fraud. But they have caught up in spectacular style with the ambitious opus of Jan Henrik Schon of Bell Labs, who placed seven of his fictive works in Nature and nine in Science. All those ad hoc explanations for biomedicine's leadership role in fraud--that entrance to medical school selected for corner-cutters, or that the mathematical structure of physics leaves little slack for fudging figures--must be laid aside.

Fraud in science is a minor irritant from one perspective, a serious problem from another. Most instances of fraud concern work of little importance and are quickly forgotten. Some practitioners forsake the safety of mundane fabrication and concoct spectacular experiments about matters at the cutting edge of their fields. But one can argue that the more ambitious the fraud, the more quickly it will be discovered.

The Schon case does not strongly support this contention. His fraud remained undetected for two years, during which time he produced work of such seeming distinction that he was talked of for the Nobel Prize. He was detected because of an insider's tip, not by the usual checking mechanisms of science; refereeing and replication. Had he had the good sense to stop in time, his oeuvre might have gained him a professorship from which he could have directed the work of an army of honest PhDs and laid a firmer basis for his scientific standing. Perish the horrid thought that undiscovered Schons throng the halls of academe.

Science is a cumulative process, however, and in the long run each brick must bear the load of those placed above it. So there is much force to the argument that incorrect results of any kind--whether obtained by fraud, self-deception, or other regrettable human frailties--cannot last indefinitely.

But they can last a long time, breezing past the conventional checkpoints of scientific quality without the slightest difficulty. This is the sense in which fraud is a serious problem, both of methodology and of public relations. Scientists point to the refereeing system as a guarantor of quality, but in the next breath will assert that referees cannot be expected to detect fraud. In fact, a referee, who after all is just doing an unpaid paper review, cannot test for much more than plausibility. That's a useful function, but it's not very effective as a screen against fraud.

Replication is central to scientific methodology, but in practice it's almost never an exact duplication of the kind necessary to support an accusation of fraud. There are plenty of honest reasons why two researchers may get different results from the same experiment. A claim that cannot be replicated is generally ignored, not publicly repudiated. Like refereeing, replication plays a useful purpose in science, but it is not designed to detect fraud and rarely does so.

Many, perhaps most, cases of fraud come to light because someone in the perpetrator's laboratory, someone in a position to observe his behavior and see the raw data, gets uncomfortable enough to blow the whistle. The front line of defense against fraud is not methodological but personal. The lab chief is in the best position to detect fraud. Only he can demand to see the lab notebooks, evidence that is beyond the reach of outsiders.

Science, by this analysis, is institutionally vulnerable to fraud. Its quality control mechanisms do not prevent fraud, yet as each new case bursts into public view, scientists find themselves put in the generally false position of declaring that there is no need to worry, because the quality control mechanisms of science infallibly detect fraud.

A more direct answer would be that research is not a process that can be made efficient. There is an inevitable degree of waste in the system, and fraud is generally not a serious enough problem to justify any measure that would cost significant time or money. However, it has not proved to be a popular response to go before Congress or the news cameras and declare, "Fraud happens--forget about it." There's a strong case for viewing the prevention of fraud as the direct responsibility of the lab chief. If the people he or she has hired are disturbed enough to cook data, the lab chief should get to know about it. If the lab chief puts his name on the concoction, intending to draw credit for it, he deserves a big share of the blowback. But at present every fraud case seems to end the same way. The perpetrator disappears from view, slinking off to become a pathologist in a Midwestern hospital. And the lab chief receives the commiseration of his pals for the unfortunate occurrence that fate visited on him.

Nicholas Wade is a science writer for The New York Times

I could spend a day on this. Here's a line on this page: http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/womenedsept97.html

Scientist's Fraud Costs Michigan $1.7 Million

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Point is, you are saying (if I correctly understand you) that evolution is based on scientists' lies. If not, then it's actually irrelevent to the truth of evolution.

Some salient points from your article:


Most instances of fraud concern work of little importance and are quickly forgotten. i.e. major areas of science, such as evolution, are based on good science, not fraud.

Science is a cumulative process, however, and in the long run each brick must bear the load of those placed above it. So there is much force to the argument that incorrect results of any kind--whether obtained by fraud, self-deception, or other regrettable human frailties--cannot last indefinitely. i.e. frauds out themselves - this is what happened with Piltdown - it didn't fit in with what else we knew about hominid evolution.

Now, can you substantiate that the major lines of evidence on which evolution is based are fraudulent? That scientists are routinely lying to support evolution? - not occasionaly famous frauds like Piltdown, but routine, systematic fraud, without which the evidence would not hold up?

 

[Dutchunter]

Point is, scientists lie. Point is, evolutionists have been known to lie- hoaxes, frauds, you name it.

Unfortunately for you, Karl- you were referring to SCIENTISTS.

You keep on asserting that scientists lie

Those are your words above claiming I just assert that scientists lie and don't back it up. Not only that, but the quote you give

Most instances of fraud concern work of little importance and are quickly forgotten. i.e. major areas of science, such as evolution, are based on good science, not fraud.

obviously is an ASSERTION.

From the article above:

For many years physicists lagged way behind biologists in the perpetration of scientific fraud. But they have caught up in spectacular style

The person the article is based on could have been up for a Nobel Prize!

The Schon case does not strongly support this contention. His fraud remained undetected for two years, during which time he produced work of such seeming distinction that he was talked of for the Nobel Prize.

See now you've changed to "systematic fraud". You're evolving.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Not at all.

Your response to the scientific evidence that supports evolution is "scientists lie".

Unless the fraud is systemic - that it actually casts doubt on the entire corpus of evidence for evolution, I can't really see what point you're trying to make.

 

[Dutchunter]

And you and others said they don't lie. Then you kept asking me to show/prove that scientists lie. I have pointed out evolutionists lies and I have pointed out that "scientists" lie. The point is science doesn't just make mistakes, it can lie- scientists lie. Scientists fabricate. Now that that's been pointed it out you've moved on to "systemic" fraud/lies. Quite a few lies together with quite a few mistakes(not intentional) together with making a giant leap of faith(a few bones to make a link) and evolution has a problem.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You have not demonstrated that evolution is maintained with lies. That is the important thing.

I also put it to you that relatively speaking, there are not "quite a lot of lies". Moreover, "a giant leap of faith with a few bones" is such a gross misrepresentation of the scientific process as to be dishonest and misleading. You clearly do not have the first idea just how much detailed work goes on each of these bones to ensure that no "great leaps of faith" are involved, but rather good, solid, inference.

 

[Dutchunter]

AIG and others have demonstrated that evolution is a fairy tale, maintained with misinterpretations, wishfull thinking, bad science, AND lies. I know how much detailed work goes into using those few bones to fill in the story of the fairy tale.

But I must repeat...not only the above...but it was preached to me endlessly here that scientists do not lie. That is another fairy tale.

Here it is again:

Fraud Happens: What to Do About It

By Nicholas Wade





For many years physicists lagged way behind biologists in the perpetration of scientific fraud. But they have caught up in spectacular style with the ambitious opus of Jan Henrik Schon of Bell Labs, who placed seven of his fictive works in Nature and nine in Science. All those ad hoc explanations for biomedicine's leadership role in fraud--that entrance to medical school selected for corner-cutters, or that the mathematical structure of physics leaves little slack for fudging figures--must be laid aside.

Fraud in science is a minor irritant from one perspective, a serious problem from another. Most instances of fraud concern work of little importance and are quickly forgotten. Some practitioners forsake the safety of mundane fabrication and concoct spectacular experiments about matters at the cutting edge of their fields. But one can argue that the more ambitious the fraud, the more quickly it will be discovered.

The Schon case does not strongly support this contention. His fraud remained undetected for two years, during which time he produced work of such seeming distinction that he was talked of for the Nobel Prize. He was detected because of an insider's tip, not by the usual checking mechanisms of science; refereeing and replication. Had he had the good sense to stop in time, his oeuvre might have gained him a professorship from which he could have directed the work of an army of honest PhDs and laid a firmer basis for his scientific standing. Perish the horrid thought that undiscovered Schons throng the halls of academe.

Science is a cumulative process, however, and in the long run each brick must bear the load of those placed above it. So there is much force to the argument that incorrect results of any kind--whether obtained by fraud, self-deception, or other regrettable human frailties--cannot last indefinitely.

But they can last a long time, breezing past the conventional checkpoints of scientific quality without the slightest difficulty. This is the sense in which fraud is a serious problem, both of methodology and of public relations. Scientists point to the refereeing system as a guarantor of quality, but in the next breath will assert that referees cannot be expected to detect fraud. In fact, a referee, who after all is just doing an unpaid paper review, cannot test for much more than plausibility. That's a useful function, but it's not very effective as a screen against fraud.

Replication is central to scientific methodology, but in practice it's almost never an exact duplication of the kind necessary to support an accusation of fraud. There are plenty of honest reasons why two researchers may get different results from the same experiment. A claim that cannot be replicated is generally ignored, not publicly repudiated. Like refereeing, replication plays a useful purpose in science, but it is not designed to detect fraud and rarely does so.

Many, perhaps most, cases of fraud come to light because someone in the perpetrator's laboratory, someone in a position to observe his behavior and see the raw data, gets uncomfortable enough to blow the whistle. The front line of defense against fraud is not methodological but personal. The lab chief is in the best position to detect fraud. Only he can demand to see the lab notebooks, evidence that is beyond the reach of outsiders.

Science, by this analysis, is institutionally vulnerable to fraud. Its quality control mechanisms do not prevent fraud, yet as each new case bursts into public view, scientists find themselves put in the generally false position of declaring that there is no need to worry, because the quality control mechanisms of science infallibly detect fraud.

A more direct answer would be that research is not a process that can be made efficient. There is an inevitable degree of waste in the system, and fraud is generally not a serious enough problem to justify any measure that would cost significant time or money. However, it has not proved to be a popular response to go before Congress or the news cameras and declare, "Fraud happens--forget about it." There's a strong case for viewing the prevention of fraud as the direct responsibility of the lab chief. If the people he or she has hired are disturbed enough to cook data, the lab chief should get to know about it. If the lab chief puts his name on the concoction, intending to draw credit for it, he deserves a big share of the blowback. But at present every fraud case seems to end the same way. The perpetrator disappears from view, slinking off to become a pathologist in a Midwestern hospital. And the lab chief receives the commiseration of his pals for the unfortunate occurrence that fate visited on him.

Nicholas Wade is a science writer for The New York Times

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Dutchhunter,

Of course some scientists have lied, but you are proposing a whole community of them has lied.

Some of the writers of the Bible lied, it doesn't invalidate the gist of the message.

By the way, show me one good scientist on the AIG staff. AIG are yet another bunch of scientific neophytes and dullards whose only redeeming grace is that their list of 'arguments creationists should not use' is somewhat more extensive than buffoons like Hovind and the ICR folks.

About all AIG has proven is it's ability to maintain a website. Nothing more, nothing less.

From reading your posts it seems the odds of you recognising good science from bad science are about the same as Osama Bin Laden being converted to evangelical Christianity.

i.e. zero

Why not take some science classes, learn at least the basics, and then examine the atrocious state of creation science (oxymoron of the first degree).

Maybe then you can at least proffer an opinion of thine own rather than cut and paste AIG ideas and essays that are of ideas refuted so long ago some of them are written upon papyrus.

 

[Dutchunter]

Chi....you can try to spin this off into something else but the whole point of my posts is to point out scientists DO LIE. I was told they do not- but they do. AIG and others have demonstrated that evolution is a fairy tale, maintained with misinterpretations, wishfull thinking, bad science, AND lies. I'll take the guys from AIG over you any day.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Well if you believed what someone said about scientists not lying then you believe anything.

Of course all groups in societies have their liars.

But you are trying to imply the entire scientific community is lying. An equally silly viewpoint.

AIG, and others like them, have never demonstrated a thing accept their own scientific stupidity.

And you seem to be someone who is incapable of understanding different because you have limited scientific knowledge yourself it seems.

You seem to be falling into the category of believing the group spouting the opinion you have preformed even though that group has little to no expertise in the area.

If your doctor informed you that you had appendicitis would you believe your plumber if he said you didn't.

So why believe non-scientists over scientists?

 

[Dutchunter]

"Well if you believed what someone said about scientists not lying then you believe anything."

I didn't believe it. That's the point.

AIG has plenty of scientists working with them. They also have articles etc by scientists who aren't actual members of AIG. You are yet another one who obviously doesn't bother to stay up-to-date with regards to AIG. They also are able to use what evolutionists use- scientific discoveries or what have you- and go from there. Guess we need a recap. AIG and others have demonstrated that evolution is a fairy tale, maintained with misinterpretations, wishfull thinking, bad science, AND lies. I'll take the guys from AIG over you any day.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Sorry, but I visit AIG site regularly. Often for comedic relief.

Please name a 'scientist' on their staff who does any work that is not creationist in nature.

i.e. anyone with a rep whatsoever.

From what I have seen their people are most people who have at most a master's degree, often in unrelated fields.

I hope you aren't counting people like Sarfwi (I think I have that right).

He is as much a physicist/astronomer as the pope is.

 

[Dutchunter]

Chi...as usual it's changed. First their were none. Now you want one that is not a Creationist in nature. Shame on you.

From what you have seen......that's funny.

Again... You are yet another one who obviously doesn't bother to stay up-to-date with regards to AIG. They also are able to use what evolutionists use- scientific discoveries or what have you- and go from there. Guess we need a recap. AIG and others have demonstrated that evolution is a fairy tale, maintained with misinterpretations, wishfull thinking, bad science, AND lies. I'll take the guys from AIG over you any day.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I'm sorry but you are impossible to have discourse with.

You yourself obviously understand little to no science. You take the teaching of people with a little science and yet expect people in mainstream science, like me, to take your position seriously.

The YEC people shall always be a fringe, slightly kooky, embarrassment to Christianity as long as they cherish whacky, out of touch views with some pseudo-science mumbo jumbo thrown in.

I repeat AIG, and their ilk, are not scientists. No amount of moaning and groaning is going to change that. They will not be taken seriously by either mainstream science or even most of the general public until they start presenting models and theories with some scientific understanding and analysis behind it.

Instead we just get to laugh at them, and it is mighty funny too.

 

[Dutchunter]

Your whining still doesn't change the fact that you changed your "requirement". Did you collect the $250,000 btw?

AIG has plenty of scientists working with them. They also have articles etc by scientists who aren't actual members of AIG. You are yet another one who obviously doesn't bother to stay up-to-date with regards to AIG. They also are able to use what evolutionists use- scientific discoveries or what have you- and go from there. Guess we need a recap. AIG and others have demonstrated that evolution is a fairy tale, maintained with misinterpretations, wishfull thinking, bad science, AND lies. I'll take the guys from AIG over you any day.