Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

For Jorge, how “just so stories” become testable scientific theories.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    It's a goodie to ask creationists if:-

    1) They were there to see that God had a hand in the writing of any part of Genesis.

    2) They were there to see that whoever wrote those texts was recording anything that actually happened and if so, did so with accuracy.

    3) They were there to see fossils actually forming from real live animals that died, got buried by sediment which then turned into rock. There are other interpretations - God put the patterns in the rocks to test our faith. The devil put them their to deceive us. Same data, different interpretation.

    In fact, for all three points, the events all happened in the unrepeatable past, and so any one interpretation is as good as any other.

    I do just love using creationist arguments against creationists.
    I wasn't there.

    ...but then, I am ready to admit that the history I believe in IS FAITH.

    ........are you ready to admit that the history you believe in IS FAITH ?
    To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
      I wasn't there.

      ...but then, I am ready to admit that the history I believe in IS FAITH.

      ........are you ready to admit that the history you believe in IS FAITH ?
      There's history written in the rocks, stars, fossils, genomes, and radioactive isotope ratios.

      To me that history overwhelms your My First Childrens' Picture Bible "reading" of Genesis.

      And I know you don't care about this, by I know personally Catholic theologians who are as a devout a Christian as you who have no problem with alternate readings of the Genesis stories from the ANE perspective.

      It doesn't affect their theology of original sin, miracles, incarnation, sacrifice, and redemption.

      Truth cannot contradict truth -- JP III.

      Go figger...

      K54

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
        I wasn't there.

        ...but then, I am ready to admit that the history I believe in IS FAITH.

        ........are you ready to admit that the history you believe in IS FAITH ?
        It depends on how you are defining "faith".

        I have heard that faith "is the evidence of things unseen". What does that mean? How are you defining "faith"?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rwatts View Post
          It depends on how you are defining "faith".

          I have heard that faith "is the evidence of things unseen". What does that mean? How are you defining "faith"?
          that Hebrews 11:1 quote, in context, refers to future event ("...the substance of things hoped for..."

          The rest of that chapter is about people who had faith in Someone they KNEW existed, (they had close encounters of the God kind) , so the faith they had was in what the God they KNEW promised or asked of them.

          ....well, except for Rahab, but she knew of the reports from Egypt (Red Sea event) and decided to put her faith in the Hebrews' God (a no-brainer)

          ....well, there is I suppose, one 'past' reference, in verse 3, a reminder verse to set up the rest of the context, (reason to put your faith in Bible God) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

          So in context of this discussion would be HISTORY INTERPRETATION

          IOW, whose interpretation do you trust. (whose interpretation do you have faith in)
          To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
            that Hebrews 11:1 quote, in context, refers to future event ("...the substance of things hoped for..."

            The rest of that chapter is about people who had faith in Someone they KNEW existed, (they had close encounters of the God kind) , so the faith they had was in what the God they KNEW promised or asked of them.

            ....well, except for Rahab, but she knew of the reports from Egypt (Red Sea event) and decided to put her faith in the Hebrews' God (a no-brainer)

            ....well, there is I suppose, one 'past' reference, in verse 3, a reminder verse to set up the rest of the context, (reason to put your faith in Bible God) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

            So in context of this discussion would be HISTORY INTERPRETATION

            IOW, whose interpretation do you trust. (whose interpretation do you have faith in)
            I'd trust the one with:-

            1) A coherent, consistent, and logical argument in support of it, that

            2) has empirical evidence backing it up, and that

            3) is open to continued verification by experimental testing.


            Thus, I can have faith and believe either of these claims:-

            1) Elves having a party last night, were responsible for spreading a mess all over my back yard.

            2) A strong wind blew up last night and that scattered a mess all over my back yard. I know this because I was woken by a loud swishing noise last night, and I could hear twigs hitting my roof. Consistent with wind causing the mess, was the gusting sound which came and went. That wind can blow leaves from a tree is illustrated by getting a fan and placing it near dry leaves on a tree. Switch the fan on and the leaves fall off.


            Which interpretation would you have faith in?
            Last edited by rwatts; 10-13-2014, 04:16 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rwatts View Post
              I'd trust the one with:-

              1) A coherent, consistent, and logical argument in support of it, that

              2) has empirical evidence backing it up, and that

              3) is open to continued verification by experimental testing.
              ahhh, you are referring to SCIENCE !

              Thus, I can have faith and believe either of these claims:-

              1) Elves having a party last night, were responsible for spreading a mess all over my back yard.

              2) A strong wind blew up last night and that scattered a mess all over my back yard. I know this because I was woken by a loud swishing noise last night, and I could hear twigs hitting my roof. Consistent with wind causing the mess, was the gusting sound which came and went. That wind can blow leaves from a tree is illustrated by getting a fan and placing it near dry leaves on a tree. Switch the fan on and the leaves fall off.


              Which interpretation would you have faith in?
              hmmmm, lets see,
              elves or science.

              gee I wish there were more choices, I hate being stuck in a bifurcation dilemma.


              oh boy, is it door number one or is it door number two. decisions decisions.

              ok, Roland
              I think I am going to have to go with The Elves on this one, (if my life depended on it, that is)

              I am not confident in picking something that is famous for being SELF CORRECTING, ...a lot, self-correcting a lot

              a whole lot
              self corrected BELIEFS such as:


              The BELIEF that Ramapithecus was our ancestor
              The BELIEF that Piltdown Man was our ancestor
              The BELIEF that Zinjanthropus was our ancestor
              The BELIEF that Homo habilis was our ancestor
              The BELIEF that Australopithecus africanus (the Taung Child) was our ancestor
              The BELIEF that Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) was our ancestor
              The BELIEF that Ardipithecus was our ancestor
              The BELIEF that Mitochondrial Eve was our ancestor

              ....all since superseded by new "information"

              all nothing but MERE FAITH, after all.




              and people thought they 'knew' based on dozens of "theories" but it turns out their "knowledge" wasn't knowledge after all, JUST FAITH:

              (Biology)
              Spontaneous generation
              Maternal impression
              Miasma theory of disease
              Preformationism
              Recapitulation theory
              Telegony
              Vitalism
              Out of Asia theory of human origin
              (Chemistry)
              Caloric theory
              Phlogiston theory
              (Physics)
              Emission theory of vision
              Ptolemy's law of refraction,
              Luminiferous aether
              Caloric theory
              Emitter theory
              John Dalton's model of the atom
              Plum pudding model of the atom
              Rutherford model of the atom
              Bohr model
              Electron cloud
              (Astronomy and cosmology)
              Ptolemaic system
              Geocentric universe
              Heliocentric universe
              Copernican system
              Luminiferous aether theory
              Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was in a steady state, and had no beginning.
              (Geography and climate)
              Flat Earth theories of anti-religious naturalists, (The Greek materialists, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes)
              Terra Australis
              Hollow Earth theory
              The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole
              Rain follows the plow
              (Geology)
              Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
              Geosyncline theory
              Neptunism
              (Psychology)
              Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy
              (Medicine)
              Theory of the four bodily humours/Four temperaments,
              Eclectic Medicine,
              Physiognomy, and phrenology

              ....the Lamarckism was wrong
              ....later epigenetics , maybe Lamarckism is right

              The belief that junk DNA is useless , later, as Roland informed us, de novo genes from the non coding regions

              The belief that the most reliable mineral on the MOHS SCALE (zircons) was uncontaminable

              ....


              dang, Roland,

              couldn't you have used something besides ELVES???
              To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                ahhh, you are referring to SCIENCE !



                hmmmm, lets see,
                elves or science.

                ok, Roland
                I think I am going to have to go with The Elves on this one, (if my life depended on it, that is)

                I am not confident in picking something that is famous for being SELF CORRECTING, ...a lot, self-correcting a lot

                a whole lot
                self corrected BELIEFS such as:
                What's interesting about this reply is, self-correcting systems tend to correct themselves, enabling one to point to a long list of corrections. Systems that cannot correct themselves have no corrections at all, so one can't point to any. And obviously, systems that correct their mistakes are inferior to systems that never make mistakes. And you can tell they never make mistakes, because they never make corrections!

                I'm reminded of one of our posters here, who has never been wrong because he has never admitted being wrong. Despite literally thousands of attempts at correction.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                  I wasn't there.

                  ...but then, I am ready to admit that the history I believe in IS FAITH.

                  ........are you ready to admit that the history you believe in IS FAITH ?
                  Why should he?

                  Just about every evolution advocate on this board has publicly proclaimed, at your request, what evidence would cause them to rethink their views. None of us are working on faith the way you are, and so none of us need admit any such thing.

                  Your attempts to suggest that our views are as unsupported as yours are not going to convince anyone. Not now. Not ever.

                  Roy
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                  Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                    I am not confident in picking something that is famous for being SELF CORRECTING, ...a lot, self-correcting a lot

                    a whole lot
                    self corrected BELIEFS such as:

                    ...
                    The BELIEF that Mitochondrial Eve was our ancestor

                    ....all since superseded by new "information"
                    Ok, so you haven't the faintest idea to what "Mitochondrial Eve" refers, but are willing to invoke it anyway.

                    Congratulations on the loss of your credibility.

                    Or would you like to argue that Mitochondrial Eve is not our ancestor?

                    Roy
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Ok, so you haven't the faintest idea to what "Mitochondrial Eve" refers, but are willing to invoke it anyway.

                      Congratulations on the loss of your credibility.

                      Or would you like to argue that Mitochondrial Eve is not our ancestor?

                      Roy
                      The deal was, no recombination for mitochondrial DNA.

                      But they discovered some of Pop's DNA in it after all.

                      I had big post about that before old TWEB went away

                      so no more HYPOTHETICAL Mitochondrial Eve
                      Last edited by jordanriver; 10-13-2014, 07:48 PM.
                      To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                        The deal was, no recombination for mitochondrial DNA.

                        But they discovered some of Pop's DNA in it after all.

                        I had big post about that before old TWEB went away

                        so no more HYPOTHETICAL Mitochondrial Eve
                        Are you FOR mitochondrial Eve or against mitochondrial Eve?

                        And how does that fit into your Fisher-Price My First Picture Bahbel reading of Genesis?

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I love the way Jorgian-JordanRivine YECS shoot spitwads at the body of scientific knowledge.

                          It's kinda wonderful.

                          Now, how's 'bout we talk geology - the preponderance of limestone deposit (a Fludde doesn't do this), various erosional conditions of meteor craters (oops! I mean Earth burps). Appalachian cyclothems, Kirkwood gaps, SN1987A, the tidal lock of the Moon, ... und so weiter...

                          Of course, spitwads are fun. We used empty Bic pens as cannons in Study Hall. It was a blast, when we could get away with it.

                          It's great being one of the "Lost".

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            It's great being one of the "Lost".

                            K54
                            Hear, hear.

                            I don't mind being a sinner, sick, living in darkness, unsaved - given the antics of many who claim to be saved, born again, and walking with the Lord.

                            This is not a shot an many sensible Christians who live in a world in which this kind of language is the norm. But for other Christians who live in that world, it's far better, and dare I suggest, far more Godly to be lost, sick and in darkness.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jordanriver View Post

                              I hate being stuck in a bifurcation dilemma.
                              Why JR? Don't you live in that world where you are saved, in the light, a sheep, and all others are unsaved, in darkness, and goats?


                              Originally posted by JR
                              ok, Roland
                              I think I am going to have to go with The Elves on this one, (if my life depended on it, that is)
                              I would say the same thing as you, if my life depended on it. But that would hardly mean that "elves" is the best explanation in the sense of being the most likely explanation. (It would only be the best in the sense that I get to keep my life).

                              It's as if you cannot see the difference JR.

                              Originally posted by JR
                              I am not confident in picking something that is famous for being SELF CORRECTING, ...a lot, self-correcting a lot

                              a whole lot
                              self corrected BELIEFS such as:


                              The BELIEF that Ramapithecus was our ancestor
                              The BELIEF that Piltdown Man was our ancestor
                              The BELIEF that Zinjanthropus was our ancestor
                              The BELIEF that Homo habilis was our ancestor
                              The BELIEF that Australopithecus africanus (the Taung Child) was our ancestor
                              The BELIEF that Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) was our ancestor
                              The BELIEF that Ardipithecus was our ancestor
                              The BELIEF that Mitochondrial Eve was our ancestor

                              ....all since superseded by new "information"
                              Hmmm. I don't think you understand what those fossils mean in the context of "our ancestor". They are "our ancestor" in the sense that the are probably more or less closely related to the direct line of descent leading to us.

                              Originally posted by JR
                              all nothing but MERE FAITH, after all.
                              See above.

                              (We do have empirical evidence for our "more or less closely related" claim.)


                              Originally posted by JR
                              and people thought they 'knew' based on dozens of "theories" but it turns out their "knowledge" wasn't knowledge after all, JUST FAITH:

                              (Biology)
                              Spontaneous generation
                              Maternal impression
                              Miasma theory of disease
                              Preformationism
                              Recapitulation theory
                              Telegony
                              Vitalism
                              Out of Asia theory of human origin
                              (Chemistry)
                              Caloric theory
                              Phlogiston theory
                              (Physics)
                              Emission theory of vision
                              Ptolemy's law of refraction,
                              Luminiferous aether
                              Caloric theory
                              Emitter theory
                              John Dalton's model of the atom
                              Plum pudding model of the atom
                              Rutherford model of the atom
                              Bohr model
                              Electron cloud
                              (Astronomy and cosmology)
                              Ptolemaic system
                              Geocentric universe
                              Heliocentric universe
                              Copernican system
                              Luminiferous aether theory
                              Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was in a steady state, and had no beginning.
                              (Geography and climate)
                              Flat Earth theories of anti-religious naturalists, (The Greek materialists, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes)
                              Terra Australis
                              Hollow Earth theory
                              The Open Polar Sea, an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the North Pole
                              Rain follows the plow
                              (Geology)
                              Expanding Earth theory (superseded by subduction)
                              Geosyncline theory
                              Neptunism
                              (Psychology)
                              Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy
                              (Medicine)
                              Theory of the four bodily humours/Four temperaments,
                              Eclectic Medicine,
                              Physiognomy, and phrenology

                              ....the Lamarckism was wrong
                              ....later epigenetics , maybe Lamarckism is right
                              A real grab-bag of ideas there JR.

                              I see that you are unable to decide between the plumb-pudding model of the atom and the Bohr model.

                              Which shows your understanding of science. Do you realise that it's the Bohr model, with its much greater explanatory power, helped give rise to the transistor and hence modern computers on which you write your posts?

                              Yet you are unable to distinguish between the two theories, one of which is discredited and the other which is the current working model.

                              Tsk JR. You should not be so cocky given this.

                              Originally posted by JR
                              The belief that junk DNA is useless , later, as Roland informed us, de novo genes from the non coding regions
                              There is little point in spreading half-truths JR, particularly if you see yourself as saved and in the light. As I have pointed out in one thread starter, the case for Junk DNA remains very much open:-

                              "The case for junk DNA"

                              The argument is nuanced and you need to be able to address the evidence as opposed to your own made up stories.


                              Originally posted by JR
                              The belief that the most reliable mineral on the MOHS SCALE (zircons) was uncontaminable
                              ?



                              Originally posted by JR
                              dang, Roland,

                              couldn't you have used something besides ELVES???
                              An F to you for a lousy argued post?
                              Last edited by rwatts; 10-14-2014, 03:36 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                jordanriver had posted

                                The belief that junk DNA is useless , later, as Roland informed us, de novo genes from the non coding regions


                                Originally posted by rwatts View Post

                                There is little point in spreading half-truths JR, particularly if you see yourself as saved and in the light. As I have pointed out in one thread starter, the case for Junk DNA remains very much open:-

                                "The case for junk DNA"

                                ?
                                half-truths? what"

                                I pointed out that you showed de novo genes come from non coding regions ,
                                in your ''“DeNovo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes” or How Some New Genes Come About' thread'
                                your post 1
                                ""In essence, this process causes new genes to form from the vast stretches of DNA lying between the protein coding genes. Naturally, protein coding genes are those which do code for functional DNA, and the stretches of DNA between are generally named “junk” because it seems that these regions have little to no function. However, scientists are beginning to find evidence that they may be regions from which new genes can arise"

                                AND your post 15
                                "Since the human/chimp spilt, an estimated 10 to 12 genes per million years had been “bubbling” into existence from the DNA “junk” regions."

                                AND your post 18
                                "In other words, these cells are such that a lot of transcription is going on, not just of regular and denovo genes, but also of the “junk” regions between the genes. Once bits and pieces of junk regions get transcribed, there is the possibility that some of the transcribed sequences will make it through to translation and the resulting polypeptide (protein) then becomes open to selection. That is, junk sequences can become denovo genes"


                                I never claimed that you therefore believe there is no such thing as junk DNA.



                                The argument is nuanced and you need to be able to address the evidence as opposed to your own made up stories.
                                maybe you missed it, but there was another junk DNA thread started in August ''A "junk DNA" discussion'

                                I believe I did address the evidence for function of so-called junk DNA:

                                in my post 9
                                AND in my post 23
                                AND in my post 29
                                AND in my post 107
                                To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-18-2021, 12:27 PM
                                10 responses
                                47 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 01-16-2021, 03:43 PM
                                2 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-15-2021, 04:43 PM
                                8 responses
                                50 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-15-2021, 07:40 AM
                                21 responses
                                84 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-13-2021, 04:55 PM
                                5 responses
                                27 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Working...
                                X