Scientists say...

[Ajax]

Science has never discovered a species that has become another. But I also think that you can believe whatever you want.

Wrong again...
Tiktaalik

 

[Eli G]

As I said: you can believe whatever you want or whatever others tell you to believe.

About the existence of pathogens I could say a lot. For example, what causes them to affect certain people in certain places and under certain circumstances, and not others. Perhaps if they had let God guide them and not men, He would have taught them their importance and how to avoid possible harm.

I could continue to dialogue with you, but it will perhaps be later today. I have to prepare for my meeting during the week... You can't imagine how much I have to study, like every Jehovah's Witness in the world, to update my knowledge and be able to talk about this and thousands of other topics.

Have a good night, from Atlanta.

 

[Ajax]

As I said: you can believe whatever you want or whatever others tell you to believe.

Well, at least the "others" produce evidence that everybody can disprove it, if they can.

Good night!

 

[Pogo]

That's the new "understanding" of evolutionism. Some MONTHS ago they said something different ... and maybe a few months later it will change again, and again, and again, ... Most people in RF just need to update their supposed "knowledge" according to what the "experts" tell them.

Phrenology was never science but quack medicine used to justify racism and no to pretend this is recent is disingenuous on your part.

Phrenology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Phrenology or Craniology (from Ancient Greek φρήν (phrēn) 'mind', and λόγος (logos) 'knowledge') is a pseudoscience that involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits.[1][2] It is based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules.[3] It was said that the brain was composed of different muscles, so those that were used more often were bigger, resulting in the different skull shapes. This led to the reasoning behind why everyone had bumps on the skull in different locations. The brain "muscles" not being used as frequently remained small and were therefore not present on the exterior of the skull. Although both of those ideas have a basis in reality, phrenology generalizes beyond empirical knowledge in a way that departs from science.[1][4] The central phrenological notion that measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits is discredited by empirical research.[5] Developed by German physician Franz Joseph Gall in 1796,[6] the discipline was influential in the 19th century, especially from about 1810 until 1840. The principal British centre for phrenology was Edinburgh, where the Edinburgh Phrenological Society was established in 1820.

Phrenology is today recognized as pseudoscience.[1][2][7]

Now you know a little bit more.

 

[Sargonski]

Well the general consensus is that it is supernatural and acts there, if you have an example of a gods actions in the natural, then it can be investigated otherwise the scientific limitation of methodological naturalism leaves the supernatural out of consideration. Note, claiming things we don't know or understand as it's purview is what is called god of the gaps or argument from ignorance.

Who said we have an example .. and who said we don't know or understand the science ?

Premise .. "IF supernatural is Acting on the System" (OK ?? .. so that does not leave supernatural out of consideration !! ) -- THEN - Science can help us to identify, measure, and quantify that external action on the system

The question is do you understand the limits of science. It is apparent by the above you do not. Science cannot remotely"help us determine if God is active in the process of Creation.

Suggest the one who understands not the logic nor the science take log out of own eye .. as indeed we can use science to identify and quantify external action (by a God) on the system.

For Example ---- Define God ---- "Wind" -- can we not measure action of the wind on the system ?

You can not talk in the abstract .. make these broad based claims with undefined and/or arbitrary terms and have the claim make any sense.

Define God !- that definition being something other than "God is everything" that would work too but does not illustrate the point of the exercise as well. .. and I will explain to you how science could be used to detect actions of this God on creation.

and lest we not forget to respect our Elders and Teachers --- Me - Great Scientist and Subject Matter Expert .. YOU .. ?? .. Yeah .. so save the smartypants snark for someone who deserves it

 

[shunyadragon]

Who said we have an example .. and who said we don't know or understand the science ?

Premise .. "IF supernatural is Acting on the System" (OK ?? .. so that does not leave supernatural out of consideration !! ) -- THEN - Science can help us to identify, measure, and quantify that external action on the system

Science can only test for natural forces and processes acting on the system.Yes, the miraculous and supernatural, are by definition, outside the ability to test, because they would lack objective verifiable evidence, If we have evidence that is testable it is no longer supernatural by definition,

Suggest the one who understands not the logic nor the science take log out of own eye .. as indeed we can use science to identify and quantify external action (by a God) on the system.

No as above.

For Example ---- Define God ---- "Wind" -- can we not measure action of the wind on the system ?

Wind yes, but not God.

You can not talk in the abstract .. make these broad based claims with undefined and/or arbitrary terms and have the claim make any sense.

No

Define God !- that definition being something other than "God is everything" that would work too but does not illustrate the point of the exercise as well. .. and I will explain to you how science could be used to detect actions of this God on creation.

God as everything, everything being physical would be a Pantheistic God.

Pantheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are numerous definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God. A doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

The Theist God

God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence. God is often believed to be the cause of all things and so is seen as the creator, sustainer, and ruler of the universe. God is often thought of as incorporeal and independent of the material creation,

Please define your terms and DO NOT argue from hypotheticals. Argue from the perspective of a Theist God you believe in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The existence of God is not a matter that concerns biology.

Correct. It's more in the realm of superstition. Like astrology, tarrot readings, voodoo, crystal healings and poltergeists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The concept of "science" has become a cliché abused by evolutionists. The vast majority of defenders of this teaching are not scientists at all, and they defend it because they consider that those who teach it are superior to them in knowledge, and not because they are convinced that the teaching has real evidence.

You don't need to be a scientist to understand scientific theories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that is a big problem,

Learning and making progress is a "big problem"?
We'ld still be living in caves fighting over fire if it weren't for learning and making progress.

that people take themselves so seriously, to the point of persecuting and abusing those who think differently

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science has never discovered a species that has become another.

observed speciation at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Valjean]

Isn't it the same with theories of science? Although as far as I am concerned, regardless what critics or archaeologists say about the Bible, I find it to be a document not only of immense interest, but detailed truth. Naturally not everybody will see it that way.

Theological claims are almost always based on scant evidence and poor reasoning.. You're right that science doesn't claim "proof," but what it excels at is amassing tested, consilient evidence; evidence with very high confidence levels..
There is no realistic correspondence between scientific and theological claims.

 

[Sargonski]

Science can only test for natural forces and processes acting on the system.Yes, the miraculous and supernatural, are by definition, outside the ability to test, because they would lack objective verifiable evidence, If we have evidence that is testable it is no longer supernatural by definition,

No as above.

Wind yes, but not God.

No

God as everything, everything being physical would be a Pantheistic God.

Pantheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are numerous definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God. A doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

The Theist God

God is often conceived as the greatest entity in existence. God is often believed to be the cause of all things and so is seen as the creator, sustainer, and ruler of the universe. God is often thought of as incorporeal and independent of the material creation,

Please define your terms and DO NOT argue from hypotheticals. Argue from the perspective of a Theist God you believe in.

No they do not lack verifiable credible evidence .. your just making up nonsense and pretending it is true .. and ignoring the fact that this false claim has already been proven false .. We can measure the wind

No .. God as everything would not be a pantheistic God .... God as everything is a form monotheism. .. If you say every force in nature is a God .. that is pantheism. For one who lacks not the basic understanding .. but inability to understand what is being stated .. you should not be making defacto claims.

Then you say "define your terms" .... when it is you that .. after being asked 5 times now .. has not defined God ?? .. let us not be projecting your issues on to the other.

It is your claim .. define your terms .. define what is meant by God in context of your claim = explain specifically how this force/God is acting on the system in a specific instance .. instead of speaking in hypotheticals and abstract generalities as you have been doing while asking others not to do this ? ?

Who told you I believe in a Theist God ? .. once again using jargon to hide your lack of understanding --- Theist - a God who intervenes - as I have been discussing .. specifically from that perspective .... which obviously you did not understand .. now asking for something you have already been given .. but do not realize it. This whole conversation is about the theist perspective .. God .. intervening in the experiment. That is the assumption here .. right from the get go .. You can't use science to detect intervention by God .. if God has not intervened .. now can you.

The definiton of God you provided is a "General" (not specific) and thus out of context definition that does exactly what you ask not to be done .. giving some general nonsense definition that does not relate to the question at hand. In addition giving the definition I told you not to give "God is Everything" but most important.. not defining God in context of how specifically this God is intervening in the experiment already running. "God created everything" does not help us .. the question is not one of creation itself .. but of the intervention in creation after the fat. .. Creation meaning evolution in a specific case. One can't answer "Creation in General" and have a clue at the same time.

1) State your claim 2) Define God in the Context of that claim = explaining how this God Force is intervening in a specific example of intervention (NOT A General Case) .. such that this event would be measurable ... like the example you were given up front .. if one defines God as Wind for example.

That I am having to outline in baby steps .. how to make a scientific argument .. making bunch of corrections thus far speaks volumes in relation to your Boastful defacto claims in relation to science. Quit pretending to know stuff defacto is True -- when reality is far from that case .. thats not how we scientists talk friend.

Now Define this Theist God .. explaining an example of intervention related to evolution .. the main question of this whole inquiry .. or go with the God is advanced aliens who came to earth from the heavens and created modern humans from already existing proto-humans .. manipulating DNA - invetro fertilization to create a hybrid human .. (The second definition being what people living in the near east 4000 years ago believed .. round the time of Abe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A speaker who gives a lecture where she says that the ape's brain grew and finally made it more intelligent over time because it learned to light a fire, and when cooking had more time to spend thinking is not a "scientist" at all.

Someone tell me in what category I can include that kind of indoctrinator.

PS: that lecture of a supposed expert in the theory of evolution is real; I heard it online. Many people paid to hear this...

Perhaps because you failed to appreciate the message - as to gaining more energy by cooking than not doing so, and hence why they had more time available for other things. Not notice the number of creatures that spend the vast majority of their time in foraging and/or eating?

 

[Pogo]

Who said we have an example .. and who said we don't know or understand the science ?

apparently no-one, I asked if you did so we would have something to discuss.

Premise .. "IF supernatural is Acting on the System" (OK ?? .. so that does not leave supernatural out of consideration !! ) -- THEN - Science can help us to identify, measure, and quantify that external action on the system

This starts with an IF, again do you have an example?
ELSE we are wasting time.

Suggest the one who understands not the logic nor the science take log out of own eye .. as indeed we can use science to identify and quantify external action (by a God) on the system.

not a logic question, still waiting for an example to justify accepting premise 1,

For Example ---- Define God ---- "Wind" -- can we not measure action of the wind on the system ?

A few centuries ago, wind was removed from the god of the gaps pantheon due to scientific observations of physical characteristics of the surroundings.

You can not talk in the abstract .. make these broad based claims with undefined and/or arbitrary terms and have the claim make any sense.

Hey i agree, your broad claim is non-sensical without any examples/evidence.

Define God !- that definition being something other than "God is everything" that would work too but does not illustrate the point of the exercise as well. .. and I will explain to you how science could be used to detect actions of this God on creation.

You are the one who is claiming something for god, your burden to define this so that it becomes useful in conversation.

and lest we not forget to respect our Elders and Teachers --- Me - Great Scientist and Subject Matter Expert .. YOU .. ?? .. Yeah .. so save the smartypants snark for someone who deserves it

If you wish to weigh in on the to old for president, it isn't age that makes the difference and you haven't taught me anything, in fact, I'm still trying to figure out just what you think your expertise is.

 

[Eli G]

Well, at least the "others" produce evidence that everybody can disprove it, if they can.

Good night!

What seems like "evidence" to some is not evidence at all to others, no matter how much the first ones insist.

About those supposed specimens which you think they are converting from one species to a diferent one: do you really think that because someone found a few bones belonging to a single rare animal, it means you found a missing link between two diferent species?

 

[Ajax]

What seems like "evidence" to some is not evidence at all to others, no matter how much the first ones insists.

Well, what are you waiting for? Disprove their "false" evidence and the Nobel prize is yours!

About those supposed specimens which you think they are converting from one species to a diferent one: do you really think that because someone found a few bones belonging to a single rare animal, it means you found a missing link between two diferent species?

You haven't read anything about evolution, because it hurts your belief in creation, so there can be no serious discussion between us.
I have studied in length the Bible and have read a great deal of scientific articles on many subjects, and the result was that I became agnostic.

 

[Eli G]

..You haven't read anything about evolution, because it hurts your belief in creation, so there can be no serious discussion between us.
I have studied in length the Bible and have read a great deal of scientific articles on many subjects, and the result was that I became agnostic.

Funny ... like you think you know me and you know the Bible better than me, and you are the one who deserves the Nobel.

I guess you are in a different mood today.

Have a good one.

 

[Tomef]

Scientists say that, eh?

Maybe some scientists say that (and others say "steady-state model" of the universe).

The guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory about a century ago (Georges Lemaître) was a scientist, but he was also a priest, which means there's possibly a bias towards the religious belief of a beginning.

I think this idea that the universe has a beginning is nonsense, at least in the sense of time as we know it in a scientific context (as one of the most fundamental dimensions in physics along with mass and length).

Two scientists (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) discovered cosmic microwave background radiation about half a century ago, and they were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for it; they also used their discovery to endorse the Big Bang Theory. However, there are at least two problems with this; the first is that people apparently associate the Nobel Prize that they were awarded with both the discovery and the endorsement (from what I understand, it was only for the discovery, not the endorsement) and use this perception to grant credibility to the Big Bang Theory; the second is that, in general, being awarded a prize (such as the Nobel Prize) is not science, just essentially something like a bribe.

To me, the reason the Big Bang Theory somewhat appears to be scientifically sound or reasonable is because there may be at least two possible explanations for cosmic microwave background radiation redshift; one of them can sort of be interpreted as a "big bang" & a beginning to the universe (which I think is wrong), and the other may involve redshift simply being the result of energy loss (of photons traveling their limits in distance through space across many galaxies); this paper seems to support the latter: Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift - Ling Jun Wang

This is useful, I always thought it was the ‘wigwam’ theory. I must have misheard. Changes my worldview, that’s for sure. Unless maybe there was a wigwam involved -?

 

[Eli G]

Again, for other readers: do you really think that because someone found a few bones belonging to a single rare animal, it means they found a missing link between two different species?

So, one pair is insufficient to give rise to a new species, but a few bones are enough to prove that an entire generation of a certain rare animal, supposedly interspecies, once existed?

When people get so immersed in an unfounded theory, they lose common sense.

 

[Ajax]

About those supposed specimens which you think they are converting from one species to a diferent one: do you really think that because someone found a few bones belonging to a single rare animal, it means you found a missing link between two diferent species?

Evolution is an observed and tested fact of nature, not a theory. It happens, whether you believe it or not and to be perfectly honest, nobody cares if you don't. The theory of evolution explains how it works. Light is a fact of nature. The theory of optics explains how it works.
Just as an apple falling is an observable fact (and we have the theory of gravity), so is evolution an observable fact. Evolution is routinely observed, every day. The theory of evolution makes very strong predictions about reality, which can be tested, and shown to match prediction. Claiming that evolution doesn't happen is exactly like claiming apples don't fall, but perpetually hover in the air.

Have a nice one too..