Different Opinions....Who is right?

[dad]

No, it tells you only that. It tells evidence based thinkers something entirely different. People trained in science and critical thinking see more than you do. You choose to be blind to reality because it contradicts your faith based ideas about what it was supposed to look like.

Evidence-based thinkers are actually not those people who restrict the scope of their thinking to a pile of foolish beliefs. They are trained to lobotomize objective thinking.

Nope. If your beliefs were correct, there would be no cosmic microwave background. It was created when the universe cooled enough that neutral matter became stable. You won't find that in Genesis.

Wrong. You made that up. You can't prove it cooled and that this is the reason it exists. You just look at what exists and try to claim credit for your little belief set.

The details were predicted and confirmed. The theory is correct.

Looking at one site, I see this

"Scientists uncovered another mystery with this information: Fluctuations in the CMB at large angular scales did not match predictions."
Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang | Space

In the same link we see other researchers predicting/claiming syuff that was false.

"Other research efforts have attempted to look at different aspects of the CMB. One is determining types of polarization called E-modes (discovered by the Antarctica-based Degree Angular Scale Interferometer in 2002) and B-modes. B-modes can be produced from gravitational lensing of E-modes (this lensing was first seen by the South Pole Telescope in 2013) and gravitational waves (which were first observed in 2016 using the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO). In 2014, the Antarctic-based BICEP2 instrument was said to have found gravitational wave B-modes, but further observation (including work from Planck) showed these results were due to cosmic dust."


As for the expansion (one of the items in your belief pile that is required) the link says this.

"As of mid-2018, scientists are still looking for the signal that showed a brief period of fast universe expansion shortly after the Big Bang"

The predictions for the temperature expected apparently were 5 Kelvin..

"
Then in 1948 Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman published a paper predicting a consequence of the big bang model. The paper was actually focused on the relative abundance of elements in the universe, but it noted that if the universe began hot and dense as the big bang model claimed, then there must be a thermal remnant. That is, the universe must be bathed in thermal microwaves from the big bang, and the spectrum of that background must match that of a blackbody. In the paper they estimate the temperature of that background to be about 5 Kelvin.

Twenty years later, it was found that the universe is indeed bathed in a microwave background, with an almost perfect blackbody spectrum at a temperature of about 3 Kelvin."

Predicting the cosmic background

That seems like about 40% off!!!

If God created the universe we would also expect a thermal remnant. No one needs you pile of beliefs and predictions that might as well be at a carnival seer.

The science is correct. It's successful predictions confirm that to reason and evidence based thinkers. If you ever chose that path to knowledge, you would agree.

I hope you don't play the stock market if you think 40% error is perfect.

It's the mythology that is false. There was no six days of creation, no global flood or first human beings, for example. Those were wrong guesses, and they've been disproven.

Horse manure.

There is no other reality apart from the physical world.

Ostrich approach, backed by nothing at all. You are in denial of history if you think there is no spiritual as well as physical,

Supernaturalism is another wrong guess. Anything that it is claimed is undetectable even in principle is nonexistent.

You might as well claim that anything not seen by a blind lady is not real.

It is absurd to presume that such a realm could impact our universe,

Yet you admit science observes only 5% of the universe? Ha.

but our universe could not detect much less impact it. Your talking about two billiard balls, one capable of moving the other, but the impacted ball unable to knock the other, or interact with it in any other way under any conditions. When you require that that be the case, you are talking about the nonexistent.

The spiritual is not like a ball that would impact a physical ball actually. Ridiculous.

The sine qua non of a correct idea is that it can be used to anticipate outcomes better than competing formulations.

Formulations have no value unless you input the proper things.

Science generates correct ideas using its empirical method.

Science is s dying pagan cult that uses its beliefs in a religious method and presents itself as something else fraudulently.

We know they are correct by their fruits - they work. Poli vaccine prevents polio. Electric lights come on at night with the flick of a switch. Space probes leave earth and rendezvous with their intended targets. These things alone tell us that the method that elucidated the principles necessary to accomplish these stunning feats is valid.

You have descended into foolishness because nothing you mention even relates to the nature in the far past on earth.

Contrast that with failed guesses like Christianity

Bible prophecy is precisely 100% correct and most is now history actually.

They generate zero useful ideas

Prophesy is not about generating ideas. It is about telling the future before it happens for the benefit of people. The main aspects of Christian belief have resulted in charity and freedom. People in the dark rabbit hole of so-called science delusion and fantasy may not value those ideas. But who really cares?

The Nuclear bombs and WOMD, Bioweapons, cancer-causing agents and etc etc that science does give us may be something you find useful.

Blood letting was another wrong idea, equally sterile - or worse, counterproductive. Where the intent was to cure, the outcome was often to hasten death. When medicine became an empirical science and threw out its faith based beliefs about humors, it was at last capable of serving humanity.

Drifting off into incoherence eh? Or did you actually think the bible asked us to slash our wrists or something to cure disease!?

Science imposes no limits on what it discovers.

By dealing only with the physical, it has limited itself from ever having any possibility of finding the truth.

Scripture is fossilized, and burdened with wrong guesses.

Example?

No, we reject the claims and commands of people speaking for a mythical god - all such gods, not just yours.

Good luck with that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it is necessary to jettison beliefs to study science and this includes the belief that there is no God.

Actually, it is necessary to jettison the god belief to do science properly. The scientist who can't leave his Sunday morning beliefs at home when he goes to work Monday will not be able to do science properly as the intelligent design people demonstrated. They brought a god belief to the lab and it caused them to do pseudoscience instead.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, including me. We neither reject gods nor accept claims of their existence. There is no basis for doing either. That's what being agnostic means - recognizing that an idea hasn't been ruled in or out, and behaving accordingly by stating that the concept is unresolved rather than guessing and picking one answer or the other.

You can't factor out beliefs you don't see you have.

One can learn to think without faith or with false beliefs. It only requires evaluating ones conclusions using his beliefs and comparing them with reality. If they consistently match in a way not equaled by competing beliefs, the belief and all beliefs leading to it can be considered valid.

If one is applying a false belief unknowingly, he will come to wrong conclusions. If he is trained in critical thinking and interested in holding only correct ideas and weeding out any incorrect ones, he will investigate how that happened, and adjust his mental map accordingly. Do this for decades, and you will identify any false beliefs even if previously invisible.

How does an evolutionary biologist factor out a belief that "species" exist when he can't even see a "rabbit" but merely member of the species?

I don't understand what problem you see. Species is a useful scientific construct. Why factor it out?

How can anyone factor out a belief that 2 + 2 = 4 when it's central to the way we think?

Why would you?

But here's a guy who would:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Despite the fact that there are no two identical things in existence we each believe that if we had two groups of two things we'd have four things.

Being identical is irrelevant. The objects just need to be discrete. It is appropriate to believe that if one combines two discrete object with two more, he will have four items, whatever they are. If these were apples, they need not be identical, or even of the same color or variety.

Of course, one has to know where this fact can and cannot be applied. If one combines two discrete crowds with two more, he will not end up with four crowds - just one. And combining two gallons of water with two gallons of gasoline will not produce four full gallons of solution (or so I'm told).

We don't notice that each of our models are different so when we perform calculations it's not at all unusual to get different answers

If two people get different answers for the same calculation, at least one of them has made an error.

The magic trick that is technology is NOT evidence that our beliefs in science are correct OR that we understand the theory represented by any of that technology.

The success of science is all the evidence we need to know that the underlying assumptions that led to those ideas are correct. We're not looking for anything more from science. The magic trick of the Internet is all you need to know that whatever science led to its existence is correct.

Evidence-based thinkers are actually not those people who restrict the scope of their thinking to a pile of foolish beliefs. They are trained to lobotomize objective thinking.

We've lobotomized the faith lobe. That's why what we generate works.

You can't prove it cooled and that this is the reason it exists.

Not to you. You are a faith based thinker. All I can offer is evidence and reasoned argument.

If God created the universe we would also expect a thermal remnant.

No.

You are in denial of history if you think there is no spiritual

I said that there is no evidence for the supernatural.

You might as well claim that anything not seen by a blind lady is not real

False equivalence. ‘Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining’

Yet you admit science observes only 5% of the universe?

No, I do not. If there are unobserved parts of the universe, nobody knows about them yet.

Science is s dying pagan cult that uses its beliefs in a religious method and presents itself as something else fraudulently.

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.

Bible prophecy is precisely 100% correct and most is now history actually.

Exactly wrong. Bible prophecy is also useless.

The main aspects of Christian belief have resulted in charity and freedom.

Christianity has nothing to do with freedom. It's all about submission and obedience.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree. However IMO blaming guns or religion for killing people is wrong when it's the fault of people that use it for such.

That's a false equivocation imo.
But I'm not going to drag myself into a gun debate in this thread.

I'll just stick to it being a false equivocation imo.

 

[metis]

Near the time of Sandy Hook, a man in China went on a rampage in an elementary school with a knife, thus stabbing 22 children. They all lived.

Now, if he had gone in with an AR-15, does one honestly think the results would have likely been the same?

How about the myriads of drive-by shootings that occur daily in our major cities? If people didn't have guns, would they just throw knives at people? If so, how effective would that be as compared to guns?

Bottom line: the excess proliferation of guns in American society puts the average Joe and Mary Schmoe many times more at risk than in similar countries that have far fewer guns, such as those in western Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No

Really? I didn't know that! First time I heard of this..

More than eight people? Or less? Please let me know.... thanks.

Either way, it would disagree with the Apostle Peter, who said only 8 survived.

Now he is saying there was Noah, four sons and their wives. That is now 9 and adding the nameless Mrs Noah, that is 10.

Shem, Ham, Japheth and ??? Big Louis?

it is nice allegory.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Now he is saying there was Noah, four sons and their wives. That is now 9 and adding the nameless Mrs Noah, that is 10.

Shem, Ham, Japheth and ??? Big Louis?

it is nice allegory.

Yeah, I noticed the "four" mistake too.
Then I remembered: in the Book of Enoch, it mentions Big Louis....he was Japheth’s black sheep brother. He showed up at the last minute.
Lol.

I don't believe it is allegory. Otherwise, how could the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 include a fictional person?

You know, we may disagree, but I think we'd get to be good friends in person.

Wish you the best, stay safe!

PS: I saved your comments re: Genesis as allegory, from a few months back. I'm going to answer those bullet points eventually.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The problem is that you don't understand how that process works.

Oh...but you do understand how that process works?

Then, please, be the first to explain how a cellular structure like the bacterial flagellum evolved? How did all those proteins get accurately placed to function at the same time?

You'll be the first, that I've ever read.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh...but you do understand how that process works?

Yes.

Then, please, be the first to explain how a cellular structure like the bacterial flagellum evolved?

1. this dishonestly moves the goalpost. the point was NOT about how a specific structure evolved or could evolve, but about how artificial design can be detected in certain objects and distinguished from "natural" design. Which is not at all the same thing.

2.

How did all those proteins get accurately placed to function at the same time?

Through natural selection.

You'll be the first, that I've ever read.

Must be that you never bothered to look it up (unsuprisingly). The youtube clip above is from 2006.

I also note how you simply ignored the rest of my post. Didn't even bother to acknowledge the points and strawmen I correct you on.

Unsurprising, again.

 

[gnostic]

Yes "I" called it primitive science because it was primitive and it was science. It had nothing to do with my link.
However my link shows many examples of trial and error in science throughout it and even states.... "The scientific method can be regarded as containing an element of trial and error in its formulation and testing of hypotheses. Also compare genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and reinforcement learning – all varieties for search which apply the basic idea of trial and error."

I guess we will have to settle on different opinions.

You are forgetting that in my first reply to you, you were blaming everything on science, among them were alcohol and cigarettes, and my response was that science didn’t invent alcohol and tobacco.

Brewing beer and making wine predated recorded history, during the Neolithic period.

And while tobacco growing and tobacco smoking existed lot later than alcohol, these were used probably first by the Mayan culture, but it was unknown in the Old World (which at stage Europe was in medieval period).

A lot of things go through trial and error, but it doesn’t mean science is the only one who use that methodology.

I know exactly why you referred to “primitive science”.

When I gave you examples that alcohol and tobacco making weren’t made by science, rather than conceded that you were wrong in this regards, you instead making up excuses, so that you can still blame science for things even when they didn’t start them.

If you aren’t blaming science for alcohol and tobacco, then why persist in making excuses?

You simply cannot admit you were wrong.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That you say you are only aware of Dr. Behe, and do not know who Drs. Stephen Meyer or Douglas Axe or Jonathan Wells are, is revealing. Apparently, you do not even know the opposition's leaders? Have you heard of Dr. Günter Bechly?

How can you claim to refute their science-based arguments, when you've never bothered to read them?

The T3SS is an old argument, I see why you refer to the video...do you understand that it's outdated? From more recent research, it's quite obvious the secretory system came after the flagellum. So the origin of it remains unsolved through natural means. (And "Likely" isn't the language of empirical science.)

I also note how you simply ignored the rest of my post. Didn't even bother to acknowledge the points and strawmen I correct you on.

The reason I didn't address the other issues, is because of my time, and they were peripheral to the main subject.

FYI, I'm not a YEC, so that issue doesn't apply.

 

[metis]

All life forms, much like all material forms, appear to change over time, thus "evolution" is to be expected.

Yes, it is that simple.

 

[cladking]

Actually, it is necessary to jettison the god belief to do science properly.

It is impossible to jettison all belief. You believe your models are a reflection of reality and use these models to invent hypothesis and experiment. How can models be an image of reality when they are woefully incomplete?

The scientist who can't leave his Sunday morning beliefs at home when he goes to work Monday will not be able to do science properly as the intelligent design people demonstrated.

So only "sunday morning" beliefs impede science! If you believe ghosts are real that's no problem. If you believe in evolution that's no problem. But if you believe in religion THAT'S a problem.

One can learn to think without faith or with false beliefs.

This is mere contention. It is actually obvious how all our beliefs affect all of our thinking and how we practice science.

If they consistently match in a way not equaled by competing beliefs, the belief and all beliefs leading to it can be considered valid.

Reality isn't some thing that's between conflicting beliefs. It is independent of all belief and if we use modern science to learn about it then IT MUST BE DERIVED FROM EXPERIMENT. This is how our science works. "Look and See Science" isn't science at all and most of its results are almost certainly FALSE.

If two people get different answers for the same calculation, at least one of them has made an error.

This is not true. In the real world different equations are often developed for the same phenomena. Even if the same equation is used by two individuals the identical results might be misinterpreted by one or both.

The reality is that math is quantified logic and physics is (has become) quantified experiment. The problem is that the logic that is math is never exactly applicable to reality because no two identical things exist in the universe. There is no such thing as "6.31726984719..." rabbits. Every consciousness is distinct and individual.

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible.

EVERY thing must be questioned. But 2 + 2 = 5 is reality sometimes. If two pregnant couples get on an elevator on the first floor and one gives birth on the second then 5 get off on the third.

We simply don't understand the Bible but this hardly means there is no truth in it. These are mostly collections of old "holy" stories that were not understood by the writers of the Bible and were interpreted the best they could while maintaining the literal meaning of what they were copying the best they could. That you can't understand it doesn't make it false or wrong. It is merely the results (not metaphysics) of ancient science written by individuals who didn't understand. Few theologians believe everything in the Bible is literally true though personally I suspect that it is ALL grounded in the literal because this was the nature of Ancient Language; the language that was before babel.

The success of science is all the evidence we need to know that the underlying assumptions that led to those ideas are correct.

NO!!!!

Technology is magic that springs from experiment and understanding experiment. Indeed, technology can even spring from observation in many many cases. Look at the Romans. They had no science and still created technology.

 

[cladking]

All life forms, much like all material forms, appear to change over time, thus "evolution" is to be expected.

Yes, it is that simple.

This is a semantic argument. "Evolution" is "change". Obviously all things change. If no two identical things can exist at the same time it follows that once something exists it must change until it ceases to exist.

Just because we know all life changes does not mean we understand the cause of the change. This is what experiment is for and no experiment has ever shown that life changes because of "survival of the fittest".

 

[cladking]

EVERY thing must be questioned. But 2 + 2 = 5 is reality sometimes. If two pregnant couples get on an elevator on the first floor and one gives birth on the second then 5 get off on the third.

You could also say that 2 1/2 couples get off on the third floor but the reality is no two couples are identical so "half a couple" has no meaning. You could say 5/ 9 ths of a baseball team get off on the third floor but what position can the baby play? Can it play for the 1927 Yankees?

 

[gnostic]

Reality isn't some thing that's between conflicting beliefs. It is independent of all belief and if we use modern science to learn about it then IT MUST BE DERIVED FROM EXPERIMENT. This is how our science works. "Look and See Science" isn't science at all and most of its results are almost certainly FALSE.

I have said this before, to you, in other threads.

Experiments are observations, cladking.

Whether scientists “discover” evidence in the fieldwork or find evidence as the results of some experiments performed in the controlled environment such as lab, they are all valid means of observations .

The focus of science is evidence finding, and evidence are observations; that is how scientists determine if the explanatory and predictive models (models, such as hypotheses or theories) are true (verified) or false (refuted).

You keep saying “Look and see science”, but that exactly what experiments are for - observations and testings.

Not all evidence can be carried out in the labs. Some required going outside of the controlled environments, and find evidence in the field.

You are being narrow-minded if you ignored experiments are observations. It is just another one of your silly conspiracy theories.

 

[metis]

This is a semantic argument. "Evolution" is "change". Obviously all things change. If no two identical things can exist at the same time it follows that once something exists it must change until it ceases to exist.

Correct.

Just because we know all life changes does not mean we understand the cause of the change. This is what experiment is for and no experiment has ever shown that life changes because of "survival of the fittest".

"Natural selection" only works on existing organisms, but the real catalyst for change are "mutations", whereas their variations relate to "genetic drift". These are three "legs" of the ToE "stool" for the evolution of life forms.

 

[Milton Platt]

Did I say that?

There is no one more powerful than God.....he is allowing the pretender to prove his claims of being the better ruler of mankind....the devil never challenged God's power.....he only challenged his right to make the rules. If people understood the reasons why God has done what he did....instead of putting their own spin on what they think he did, they would not be so hasty in making their judgments.

You implied it. But, okay. Why was it absolutely necessary that your god introduce evil into his world? Was this the only way he could have created it? Was that a limitation? If not, then he is evil himself by creating evil. Or did the evil being exist without the help and approval of your god? Which would make the evil being a god at least equal to your god....eternal, no need for a creator.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That you say you are only aware of Dr. Behe, and do not know who Drs. Stephen Meyer or Douglas Axe or Jonathan Wells are, is revealing. Apparently, you do not even know the opposition's leaders? Have you heard of Dr. Günter Bechly? How can you claim to refute their science-based arguments, when you've never bothered to read them?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. It's not a matter of refuting their arguments, but of being uninterested in them. Creationism and the ID program are not scientific pursuits. Neither uses the methods of science, both are faith based, neither has generated anything in support of its stated goal (incidentally, if your goal is not to go wherever the data leads a dispassionate, open mind, but rather to find god, you're not doing science.

I understand that some of these people have published in mainstream journals, but nothing that supports intelligent design.

And creationist apologetics has a long history of intellectual dishonesty and tendentious thinking, which is another reason not to read anything from that world. You're a nice guy who I doubt is ever deliberately dishonest, but I can't trust anything from you or any other creationist because your standards and methods for determining what is true about the world are different from mine, and you will likely read creationists in a trusting manner looking for support for your faith-based beliefs. It's not just that we have different beliefs, but that we have different methods for arriving at them, and I have lost confidence and interest in faith-based thought and what it generates.

The T3SS is an old argument, I see why you refer to the video...do you understand that it's outdated? From more recent research, it's quite obvious the secretory system came after the flagellum. So the origin of it remains unsolved through natural means. (And "Likely" isn't the language of empirical science.)

One big difference between a faith-based thinker and an evidence and reason-based thinker is that the former will believe something like this without compelling supporting evidence, whereas the latter will just say, "OK, this is what that person believes. Duly noted." and have no other change in his own belief set.

If you want to change a critical thinkers mind, you have to provide what is necessary to do that, which is much more than mere assertion. You need to support your claim with evidence.

By the way, I Googled your claim ("the secretory system came after the flagellum"), and could not find anybody that agreed with you except a Christian apologetics site which made the claim, "This argument is so old that it was already dealt with and refuted in the 2003 ID documentary Unlocking the Mystery of Life." I simply would never take my science from such a source - not from you, from the link, or from the ID documentary.

Furthermore, nothing that is true is known only to Christian apologists. If what you are claiming is true, you ought to be able to produce a reference from a mutually trusted source. If it can only be found on sites like this one, well, I'm not interested. As I said, their methods, agenda, and ethics are not mine and are not to be trusted.

It is impossible to jettison all belief.

I am not interested in jettisoning all belief, just false ones. I am interested in accumulating correct beliefs and integrating them together to form a mental map that allows me to accurately predict outcomes so as to make desired outcomes appear and to avoid undesired outcomes, not to jettison an accurate map.

How can models be an image of reality when they are woefully incomplete?

Maybe you expect more out of knowledge than I do. Please allow me to illustrate. The desired outcome is to get to the pier from my front door. The hypothesis is that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. If walking five blocks south and three blocks west gets me to the pier, then I have confirmed that that idea accurately maps a portion of reality, and add it to my belief set (mental map). If it doesn't, then I have to modify my hypothesis until I have one that works. It's that simple.

So I don't really understand what you are referring to here. Consider your question in the light of what I just wrote. How is this model not an accurate image of a piece of reality or woefully incomplete?

So only "sunday morning" beliefs impede science! If you believe ghosts are real that's no problem. If you believe in evolution that's no problem. But if you believe in religion THAT'S a problem.

No, all faith-based thought is destructive to all reason and evidence based processes if it is allowed to modify the pure reason and evidence-based path that would have been taken without it. I gave you an illustration in an arithmetic problem. There are many paths from addends to sum - one can add the numbers in a different order, for example, due to the commutative property of addition (a + b = c = c+ b + a = b + c + a, etc..) just as one could get to the pier from my door by any path that that adds up to three blocks west and five blocks south.

But if I make a faith-based choice ("Let's have 2 + 2 = 5 just this once"), you've gone off the rails and will not arrive at your intended destination or desired outcome.

A creationist can do good science, but only if he leaves his creationist beliefs outside of the lab or observatory - only if he does the same science that a competent secular humanist would have done. But if he injects his beliefs into his work in a way that causes him to do science differently, it ceases to be good science just as when I inject 2 + 2 = 5 into my addition, it ceases to be good arithmetic. There simply is no place for faith in science.

Reality isn't some thing that's between conflicting beliefs. It is independent of all belief and if we use modern science to learn about it then IT MUST BE DERIVED FROM EXPERIMENT. This is how our science works. "Look and See Science" isn't science at all and most of its results are almost certainly FALSE.

I don't know what you're accusing science of here, or what is meant by look and see science, but science uses the same method I did to determine the general rule that would get me from my front door to the pier - a combination of hypothesizing, collecting data, generating a rule that accounts for all observations, and confirming that it does what it was intended to do - anticipate outcomes accurately. Any idea that can do that is a keeper.

The word you are looking for is observation, not experiment. Experiment is a way to control what can be observed, but in sciences like astronomy, the observations will generally be of celestial objects without experimenting.

But 2 + 2 = 5 is reality sometimes. If two pregnant couples get on an elevator on the first floor and one gives birth on the second then 5 get off on the third.

Well, this kind of thinking isn't helpful. It doesn't lead to useful ideas. You have to set up the problem correctly and choose the appropriate mathematics. If one person inside another is counted as only one person, then you will make an error using arithmetic.

This is not true. In the real world different equations are often developed for the same phenomena.

That's not what I was discussing. If two people do the same calculation, such as 34289 + 6521, if they don't come to the same conclusion (sum), at least one is wrong.

Even if the same equation is used by two individuals the identical results might be misinterpreted by one or both.

Irrelevant. Did they come up with the same or different results? I don't need their interpretation if I can follow the math, just their results.

Just because we know all life changes does not mean we understand the cause of the change. This is what experiment is for and no experiment has ever shown that life changes because of "survival of the fittest".

We do know why evolution occurs. Genetic variation in living populations over generation is subjected to differential natural selection. That's settled science, notwithstanding religious objections.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

By the way, I Googled your claim ("the secretory system came after the flagellum"), and could not find anybody that agreed with you

You couldn't? How hard did you look?

"3. INJECTISOME-T3SS DERIVED FROM FLAGELLAR ANCESTORS
The evolutionary relationship between the flagellum and the injectisome has been the subject of considerable debate. Flagella exist in both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, while injectisomes have so far only been found in Gram-negative species, suggesting a flagellar T3SS as ancestor [24,54]. However, early phylogenetic studies suggested that both systems share a common ancestor, and have since evolved differently from each other [55]. With the ever-growing number of genome sequences [56,57], it became clear that flagellar components are almost always encoded on the bacterial chromosome and co-evolved with the rest of the genome to a certain degree [58,59], while the genes coding for the injectisome are often encoded on virulence plasmids or pathogenicity islands, and are more closely related to each other than their flagellar counterparts. They are distributed independently of the phylogeny of the respective species, and have probably been frequently transferred between species [38,55,60]. Latest analyses suggest that the ancestral T3SS was used for locomotion and was similar to current-day flagella, while modern injectisomes were derived through a series of gene losses and subsequent acquisitions via a non-flagellar ancestor that did not translocate proteins, leading to a protein translocation machinery [38] (figure 2)."

Excerpt from
Type III secretion systems: the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@It Aint Necessarily So ,
Here's another:

The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems

from: The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems