[_ Old Earth _] Some people give scientists such power

[Heidi]

My, I can have such power if i do what the teachers say and complete the coursework to get a Ph.d. Then once I receive it, I can say that humans came from beasts in the jungle and people would believe me! All I have to say is that it happens through mutation or even bigger words like metamorpheses and people who don't bother to open up a dictionary will believe me. They just assume because of the letters after my name, that I must be right. People can be easily duped if they don't think for themselves. But if they think for themselves, they will see that a catch-all term like mutation cannot produce offspring of a different species than its parents.

And assuming it is possible for new genes to spontaneously appear in the cell, for an ape to reproduce (excuse me, produce because apes would not reproducing themselves) a species so unlike itself as to be given a new name, this would require many, many mutations. In addition, these mutants would have to find other mutants who mutated in the exact same way so they can get together and produce offspring that re-inforce those traits and then mutate into even greater traits, the odds of which are astronomical.

But this is what evolutionists would like us to believe. But what they neglect to see is that this hasn't happened since the beginning of recorded history when there have been witnesses. So why aren't apes doing this today? Maybe they just got tired. What do others think? :o

 

[Quid]

My, I can have such power if i do what the teachers say and complete the coursework to get a Ph.d. Then once I receive it, I can say that humans came from beasts in the jungle and people would believe me!

If you followed scientific process and what you say stands up to peer review, yes you could.

All I have to say is that it happens through mutation or even bigger words like metamorpheses and people who don't bother to open up a dictionary will believe me.

I'm still waiting for the dictionary entry that says a requirement for apes is that they must be able to breed with one another.

They just assume because of the letters after my name, that I must be right.

If that's how you want to act about it, please don't visit the doctor again. It'll do the world some good either way.

People can be easily duped if they don't think for themselves. But if they think for themselves, they will see that a catch-all term like mutation cannot produce offspring of a different species than its parents.

As compared to believing the catch-all term of creationism and trying to call it science.

And assuming it is possible for new genes to spontaneously appear in the cell,

It is. I've shown you.

for an ape to reproduce (excuse me, produce because apes would not reproducing themselves) a species so unlike itself as to be given a new name, this would require many, many mutations.

She can be taught!

In addition, these mutants would have to find other mutants who mutated in the exact same way so they can get together and produce offspring that re-inforce those traits and then mutate into even greater traits, the odds of which are astronomical.

Not quite. Because it takes so long, traits are able to spread through a population before they become too different to mate. But even if it were astronomical, it wouldn't make it impossible.

But this is what evolutionists would like us to believe.

It's not really there for belief. Many medicines are developed because of this theory as well as new crops and cattle grown.

but what they neglect to see is that this hasn't happened since the beginning of recorded history when there have been witnesses. So why aren't apes doing this today? Maybe they just got tired. What do others think? :o

I've told you, significant changes usually take millions of years. Millions > than six thousand.

 

[Rick W]

People will follow those they choose. People will follow a scientist only as long as what they say or do aligns with what the person wants to believe. After that all bets are off.
Then there's "scientific conclusion" where data is collected and a conclusion is made. One scientist may interpret the data one way and another scientist the other. Depending on which conclusion fits one's preference dictates which scientist will get support.
Global warming is one example. Warming is evident but the reason why or the cause thereof is up for grabs.

 

[Quid]

People will follow those they choose. People will follow a scientist only as long as what they say or do aligns with what the person wants to believe. After that all bets are off.
Then there's "scientific conclusion" where data is collected and a conclusion is made. One scientist may interpret the data one way and another scientist the other. Depending on which conclusion fits one's preference dictates which scientist will get support.

Man what? What happens is both scientist put up their conclusions for peer review as well as how they arrived at them. If the conclusion for one is incorrect or one didn't follow scientific method, that would be the one that isn't accepted. It isn't opinion, it's facts based on observation. When done correctly both scientists would come to the same conclusion. Facts don't change just because you will them to.

 

[Rick W]

Before something is researched an assumption is made. The following work is geared to support that assumption. A defense attorney first assumes his client is innocent and will use the science of forensics to prove the client is not guilty. Likewise, the prosecuting attorney assumes the client is guilty and will use the science of forensics to prove the client is not innocent. Each uses science to support their goal.
The defense is not looking for evidence that his client is guilty nor will the prosecutor look for evidence that the client is innocent.
Again, the debate of global warming is backed on both sides by "science" and fact finding but it's what is sought that makes a difference. And there are many cases where a "scientific fact" has been proven wrong as more data is produced or the data collection mechcanisms become more sophisticated.

 

[Rick W]

Stephen Hawking produced many papers on black holes where nothing escaped the forces of internal gravity. This is still taught today since current texts are not updated to reflect his new findings that such is not the case.

 

[Quid]

Before something is researched an assumption is made.

A hypothesis is made. As in "Things always fall towards the ground, therefore something must be causeing this."

A defense attorney first assumes his client is innocent and will use the science of forensics to prove the client is not guilty. Likewise, the prosecuting attorney assumes the client is guilty and will use the science of forensics to prove the client is not innocent. Each uses science to support their goal.

The difference being they leave out parts and aren't actually following scientific method to come to their conclusions because it's not applicable.

The defense is not looking for evidence that his client is guilty nor will the prosecutor look for evidence that the client is innocent.

This is true. However, a scientist is expected, at all times, to state the facts. And those don't change with bias.

Again, the debate of global warming is backed on both sides by "science" and fact finding but it's what is sought that makes a difference.

Or is it possible that the answer just isn't as simple as you'd like?

And there are many cases where a "scientific fact" has been proven wrong as more data is produced or the data collection mechcanisms become more sophisticated.

Yes. That's the point of science. If they get something wrong, they fix it. However, there is no actual evidence against evolution. It's certainly not been perfected yet, but it's plenty better than claiming a being, one which can't be proven through science to exist, created everything.

 

[Quid]

Stephen Hawking produced many papers on black holes where nothing escaped the forces of internal gravity. This is still taught today since current texts are not updated to reflect his new findings that such is not the case.

And what would the case be?

 

[Rick W]

As far as evolution is concerned I'm seeing two camps for the origin of life. The oldest, the one generally taught is abiogenesis. The newer one is panspermia. The project "Deep Impact" was the first I'd seen where NASA claimed to be looking for "seeds of life" on comets. If abiogenesis was fact then why the search for seeds of life? In short, science has yet to prove as fact where life on earth came from. And the last time I looked evolution was still a theory.

 

[Quid]

Because science doesn't arrive at a conclusion and say "Well, that's it, no one mess with it ever again." Any and all theories are constantly tested. When new ideas come up, they're tested as well. Science has the ability to change, which has saved untold millions.

 

[Rick W]

Because science doesn't arrive at a conclusion and say "Well, that's it, no one mess with it ever again." Any and all theories are constantly tested. When new ideas come up, they're tested as well. Science has the ability to change, which has saved untold millions.

Agreed.
In areas where cause and effect can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab or otherwise controlled with similar results has the inherent characteristics of fact, such as what happens when certain chemicals are mixed that produce the same and exact results consistantly and without flaw. Where these things are not so straight forward then the data collected, by science, is up for interpretation, prone to conclusion based on the assumption that resulted in the research in the first place. This is what I term "scientific conclusion", an opinion based on presented evidence by data collected through an accepted scientific method.

I'm not against science. I'm all for it for it since I strongly believe it's a God-given gift to man. It's when that gift is used in an attempt to prove the giver doesn't exist that I have a problem with conclusion, opinion and conjecture under the name of science. Opinion is not science. The method of gathering data may indeed be scientific but the conclusions arrived at doesn't necessarily reflect fact.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Because science doesn't arrive at a conclusion and say "Well, that's it, no one mess with it ever again." Any and all theories are constantly tested. When new ideas come up, they're tested as well. Science has the ability to change, which has saved untold millions.

Agreed.
In areas where cause and effect can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab or otherwise controlled with similar results has the inherent characteristics of fact, such as what happens when certain chemicals are mixed that produce the same and exact results consistantly and without flaw. Where these things are not so straight forward then the data collected, by science, is up for interpretation, prone to conclusion based on the assumption that resulted in the research in the first place. This is what I term "scientific conclusion", an opinion based on presented evidence by data collected through an accepted scientific method.

I'm not against science. I'm all for it for it since I strongly believe it's a God-given gift to man. It's when that gift is used in an attempt to prove the giver doesn't exist that I have a problem with conclusion, opinion and conjecture under the name of science. Opinion is not science. The method of gathering data may indeed be scientific but the conclusions arrived at doesn't necessarily reflect fact.

Science has never been used to show that God doesn't exist. Science has simply found several claims made by people with specific interpretations of the bible to be inconsistent with reality. This doesn't happen for Maimonides or the Spinozists for instance, as they believe that the bible was written by men in the first place and is in the context of the men who wrote it.
It's typically those christians who take an uncritical position on the bible that have problems with science.

Stephen Hawking produced many papers on black holes where nothing escaped the forces of internal gravity. This is still taught today since current texts are not updated to reflect his new findings that such is not the case.

Ah,ah, ah...noooo.
Stephen Hawking was fairly certain information was lost when it went into a black hole, but he was shown wrong. Matter however is irretrievable from black holes, this is a fact that has not changed. And any science teacher who is actually going to such lengths to teach black hole physics is going to bring up the latest findings.

Global warming is one example. Warming is evident but the reason why or the cause thereof is up for grabs.

Also incorrect the scientific community has a general consensus that global warming is occuring and that human beings have been highly significant in bringing this about. The people who disagree are typically experts hired by companies for the express purpose of disagreeing with climate scientists. That and the Bush administration, that went to great lengths to doctor the negative portions of EPA reports on the subject.

Evolution only contradicts religion when the religious are too stuck in their ways to accept reality and cling hidebound to dogmas that simply make no sense. Christianity, like virtually every other religion on the planet, has its creation of the universe story. If you can accept that the men who wrote the bible were capable of metaphor and allegory, then its very easy to reconcile religion and science.

 

[Heidi]

My, I can have such power if i do what the teachers say and complete the coursework to get a Ph.d. Then once I receive it, I can say that humans came from beasts in the jungle and people would believe me!

If you followed scientific process and what you say stands up to peer review, yes you could.

All I have to say is that it happens through mutation or even bigger words like metamorpheses and people who don't bother to open up a dictionary will believe me.

I'm still waiting for the dictionary entry that says a requirement for apes is that they must be able to breed with one another.

[quote:2e295]They just assume because of the letters after my name, that I must be right.

If that's how you want to act about it, please don't visit the doctor again. It'll do the world some good either way.

People can be easily duped if they don't think for themselves. But if they think for themselves, they will see that a catch-all term like mutation cannot produce offspring of a different species than its parents.

As compared to believing the catch-all term of creationism and trying to call it science.

And assuming it is possible for new genes to spontaneously appear in the cell,

It is. I've shown you.

for an ape to reproduce (excuse me, produce because apes would not reproducing themselves) a species so unlike itself as to be given a new name, this would require many, many mutations.

She can be taught!

In addition, these mutants would have to find other mutants who mutated in the exact same way so they can get together and produce offspring that re-inforce those traits and then mutate into even greater traits, the odds of which are astronomical.

Not quite. Because it takes so long, traits are able to spread through a population before they become too different to mate. But even if it were astronomical, it wouldn't make it impossible.

But this is what evolutionists would like us to believe.

It's not really there for belief. Many medicines are developed because of this theory as well as new crops and cattle grown.

but what they neglect to see is that this hasn't happened since the beginning of recorded history when there have been witnesses. So why aren't apes doing this today? Maybe they just got tired. What do others think? :o

I've told you, significant changes usually take millions of years. Millions > than six thousand.[/quote:2e295]

You mean if someone goes into the desert and finds a piece of rock that he has decided is an ancient skull, then I will be right if I agree with him. Is that correct? :o If so, then you're one of the many people who can be easily duped by Ph.d's. That's how the first 3 claims of finding the missink link came about and many years later were found to be a hox. But they sure were considered to be scientific at the time of their discovery!

But you contradict yourself, my friend. Are you saying that apes were programmed to create offspring that turned into human beings? Or are you saying it was an accident? If it was an accident, then why can't it happen again? And if it was an accident, then how did these mutants happen to mutate again and produce offspring with more traits of humans? Another coincidence? :o Or are you saying that the humans we have known since the beginning of recorded history came out of an ape only one time? Which is it? :o

 

[Heidi]

And by the way, I have already posted the name of the dictionary. It's the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus American Edition which says the definition of a species is; "A category in the system of classification of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding." And since animals and humans are not capable of interbreeding, we cannot be the same species. But that should be obvious to anyone with eyes even without the dictionary. :

 

[Quid]

You mean if someone goes into the desert and finds a piece of rock that he has decided is an ancient skull, then I will be right if I agree with him. Is that correct? :o If so, then you're one of the many people who can be easily duped by Ph.d's. That's how the first 3 claims of finding the missink link came about and many years later were found to be a hox. But they sure were considered to be scientific at the time of their discovery!

Yes. They were hoaxes. Which is why they were disproved and people moved on. How many people have made up lies in God's name? Should you abandon him because of that?

[quote:029ae]But you contradict yourself, my friend. Are you saying that apes were programmed to create offspring that turned into human beings? Or are you saying it was an accident? If it was an accident, then why can't it happen again? And if it was an accident, then how did these mutants happen to mutate again and produce offspring with more traits of humans? Another coincidence? :o Or are you saying that the humans we have known since the beginning of recorded history came out of an ape only one time? Which is it? :o

[/quote:029ae]

Actually, Neandertals were very close but clearly different. However, they were different enough that they did not breed with Humans.

And you said apes can interbreed. Why do you avoid citing a dictionary or biology book that says that? I've cited several that say they don't.

 

[Heidi]

You mean if someone goes into the desert and finds a piece of rock that he has decided is an ancient skull, then I will be right if I agree with him. Is that correct? :o If so, then you're one of the many people who can be easily duped by Ph.d's. That's how the first 3 claims of finding the missink link came about and many years later were found to be a hox. But they sure were considered to be scientific at the time of their discovery!

Yes. They were hoaxes. Which is why they were disproved and people moved on. How many people have made up lies in God's name? Should you abandon him because of that?

[quote:6d2ee]But you contradict yourself, my friend. Are you saying that apes were programmed to create offspring that turned into human beings? Or are you saying it was an accident? If it was an accident, then why can't it happen again? And if it was an accident, then how did these mutants happen to mutate again and produce offspring with more traits of humans? Another coincidence? :o Or are you saying that the humans we have known since the beginning of recorded history came out of an ape only one time? Which is it? :o

Actually, Neandertals were very close but clearly different. However, they were different enough that they did not breed with Humans.

And you said apes can interbreed. Why do you avoid citing a dictionary or biology book that says that? I've cited several that say they don't.

[/quote:6d2ee]

Wait a minute...I thought neanderthals were precursors to humans. So how could you say they even had a choice whether or not to breed with humans who evolutionists say didn't even exist then? :o You contradicted yourself again, friend.

Excuse me? Are you claiming that apes can't breed with each other? If so, then you again need to go to a zoo to see where ape offspring come from. But it is simply a fact that apes and humans cannot breed with each other whether you know that or not.

And that is why interbreeding and the capacity to pass along genes to each other is the hallmark of what constitutes a species. Otherwise, fish, birds, and tigers can be considered our ancestors, or any animal can be the ancestor of any animal and there would be no such thing as separate species. But trying to make the impossible possible is the degree that some people have to go to to deny there's a God. This is beyond science fiction. :evil:

 

[Barbarian]

Wait a minute...I thought neanderthals were precursors to humans.

Nope. Please go and learn about these things before you presume to lecture us about them.

So how could you say they even had a choice whether or not to breed with humans who evolutionists say didn't even exist then?

Wrong again. Neandertals and anatomically modern humans were contemporaries. Please go and learn about the subject before you presume to lecture us on it.

 

[Heidi]

Wait a minute...I thought neanderthals were precursors to humans.

Nope. Please go and learn about these things before you presume to lecture us about them.

[quote:ec7cb]So how could you say they even had a choice whether or not to breed with humans who evolutionists say didn't even exist then?

Wrong again. Neandertals and anatomically modern humans were contemporaries. Please go and learn about the subject before you presume to lecture us on it.[/quote:ec7cb]

So you're saying that neanderthals were speparate beasts and were not a forerunner of man. Is that correct? If so, then you're contradicting all other evolutionists who said that apes bred homonids that turned into homo sapiens that turned into neanderthals that turned into some other name and finally turned into humans. But I know that scienctists have changed their minds on this several times so I can see why it's confusing, and of course, they'll keep changing their minds about this forever because animals cannot breed humans.

So where did these neanderthals come from and where are they now? :o

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Heidi, you're ignorance of evolution is showing.
Neaderthals are our cousins in the ape family, not our ancestors. Evolutionists have recognized this for ages.

 

[Rick W]

Man what? What happens is both scientist put up their conclusions for peer review as well as how they arrived at them. If the conclusion for one is incorrect or one didn't follow scientific method, that would be the one that isn't accepted. It isn't opinion, it's facts based on observation. When done correctly both scientists would come to the same conclusion. Facts don't change just because you will them to.

Passing peer review doesn't make it fact.