Theory in Crisis

[tas8831]

My sources are Faith based and as such, I see they will be confirmed by science.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but...

 

[tas8831]

Huh.....in another thread you stated that asking questions is a deflection tactic. And now here you are, asking a series of questions.

Interesting, eh?

Almost as if... they have a hard time engaging in self-awareness, or maintaining common standards.

 

[tas8831]

More deflection.

More projection.

Still nothing on your banana/honeybee gaffe?

Nothing on your 'extended synthesis' myth?

Nothing of substance at all, just double standards and bailing from you?

 

[Jose Fly]

Almost as if... they have a hard time engaging in self-awareness, or maintaining common standards.

From a human behavior standpoint, denialism, and the behaviors it forces people to engage in, is fascinating to behold.

 

[tas8831]

From a human behavior standpoint, denialism, and the behaviors it forces people to engage in, is fascinating to behold.

Yeah...

When I am wrong about something, and am corrected on it, I either acknowledge it and move on, or just drop it (and move on) - like when Deeje corrected me about Cain's wife. Digging in and and doubling down just makes one look immature and absurd.

Of course, I (and most sensible people, I like to think) try not to pontificate on subjects that I have little knowledge of in the first place.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah...

When I am wrong about something, and am corrected on it, I either acknowledge it and move on, or just drop it (and move on) - like when Deeje corrected me about Cain's wife. Digging in and and doubling down just makes one look immature and absurd.

Of course, I (and most sensible people, I like to think) try not to pontificate on subjects that I have little knowledge of in the first place.

I think you touched on one of the key differences between science folks and creationists. I don't know if you saw this a few years ago, but when Neil deGrasse Tyson said something wrong about helicopters and helicopter pilots told him he was wrong, his first response was something like "Show me, because if I'm wrong I want to know". And when they showed him, he corrected himself. It's like with the Nye-Ham debate and the famous moment of "what would prove you wrong" and the difference between "evidence" (Nye) and "nothing" (Ham).

Some folks just will not self-correct, no matter what. And the doubling-down thing absolutely fascinates me. It's so foreign to me, I can't help but gawk in amazement when it happens.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but...

No worries, there is not one iota of news that you can give me that is bad news, so give it your best shot

I live by the known fact that God doeth as God chooseth and marvel at the science that man is capable of as a result.

Regards Tony

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...the ToE details the steps and various mechanisms of the process, with examples and evidence.

Then detail the steps and the mechanisms utilized in the evolution of whales from a land-based mammal.

I've seen a lot of guesses, but nothing substantive even regarding the pressures behind such a move to a water environment.

And I asked for step-by-step processes detailing how natural selection or other mechanisms could build the bacterial flagellum...but 'no one seems to know.'

They just "know it happened"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then detail the steps and the mechanisms utilized in the evolution of whales from a land-based mammal.

I've seen a lot of guesses, but nothing substantive even regarding the pressures behind such a move to a water environment.

And I asked for step-by-step processes detailing how natural selection or other mechanisms could build the bacterial flagellum...but 'no one seems to know.'

They just "know it happened"

Why? To what purpose? We don't need to know every step to know how the whale evolved.

Tell me, do you need to know what a murderer had for breakfast the day that he killed someone? Anyone can make foolish and pointless demands.

And this is why learning what is and what is not evidence is key. When you go looking for scientific evidence for the theory of evolution you can find it everywhere. When one looks for scientific evidence for creationism there is none to be found at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then detail the steps and the mechanisms utilized in the evolution of whales from a land-based mammal.

I've seen a lot of guesses, but nothing substantive even regarding the pressures behind such a move to a water environment.

And I asked for step-by-step processes detailing how natural selection or other mechanisms could build the bacterial flagellum...but 'no one seems to know.'

They just "know it happened"

That's what it seems like to me. But I don't think someone can put a whale together from, um, evolutionary scratch. Maybe an evolutionist believes that one day they will make whales and humans from, shall we say, bacteriological scratch?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why? To what purpose? We don't need to know every step to know how the whale evolved.

Tell me, do you need to know what a murderer had for breakfast the day that he killed someone? Anyone can make foolish and pointless demands.

And this is why learning what is and what is not evidence is key. When you go looking for scientific evidence for the theory of evolution you can find it everywhere. When one looks for scientific evidence for creationism there is none to be found at all.

May I ask if you think a scientist can make/produce gravity? I mean we know it exists because of the effect. It's invisible. And birds do fly, but of course, they don't defy gravity. Humans can't fly in general, by themselves. They need to go in a plane, or attach rockets to their backs, etc. Big super rockets have to rev up their engines to leave the gravitational force of the earth. That's evidence of gravity, as well as proof. You are teaching me. So again the question, do you think a scientist can ever make/produce gravity similar to the enormous force we have on the earth and in the universe as gravity exists now -- no human exercise involved in making the current gravitational forces as they are now, keeping one's feet on the ground, as the saying goes. Do you know the elements that cause/make gravity in such huge forces?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why? To what purpose? We don't need to know every step to know how the whale evolved.

Tell me, do you need to know what a murderer had for breakfast the day that he killed someone? Anyone can make foolish and pointless demands.

And this is why learning what is and what is not evidence is key. When you go looking for scientific evidence for the theory of evolution you can find it everywhere. When one looks for scientific evidence for creationism there is none to be found at all.

Yes, there is scientific evidence. I'll start with the fact that there are absolutely no known or discovered genes showing that bonobos or chimpanzees or said "close relative" thereof, developed in the evolutionary way to start speaking in order to transmit their history. I don't think fish did that either. That is scientific evidence that humans are an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT form of organism from chimpanzees and fishes. That 98-99% genes are said to be similar from bonobos or chimpanzees, for homo sapiens does not prove humans evolved by "natural selection," whatever that means but I know you don't like the term 'chance,' so I'll use natural selection. Perhaps you can advise me on a term better suited to your belief in evolution, rather than "natural selection," as if the organism's genetic structure selected which genes to evolve from or into, from fish to whatever came after that until human beings.

 

[Valjean]

There are hundreds of sites online explaining how organisms change form over time. There are hundreds of scientific journals, and textbooks. You were (should have) been taught all this in high school. It you refuse to see, no-one here can help.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are hundreds of sites online explaining how organisms change form over time. There are hundreds of scientific journals, and textbooks. You were (should have) been taught all this in high school. It you refuse to see, no-one here can help.

I believed what they taught me. They said we came from chimpanzees, or close relative, I had no reason at the time to question that. So let me ask this: have you (or any scientist) seen genetic development from, let's say, fish to the next step proceeding to humans? I'm not talking about looking at genes or DNA. They're there. I'm talking about (scientists) seeing the remains of genes going through changes in their examinations of fossils into another form.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are hundreds of sites online explaining how organisms change form over time. There are hundreds of scientific journals, and textbooks. You were (should have) been taught all this in high school. It you refuse to see, no-one here can help.

They don't, insofar as I know, explain the 'how'. They just say they did. And talk about climate change, so perhaps you can direct me to the scientific evidence of genetic changes from fish, let's say, to the next form. Drawings of these organisms said to have evolved is not proof. Or evidence. So is there genetic proof or evidence of fish becoming land crawlers extracted from fossilized remains? That could be closer to 'how' rather than drawings.

 

[Neuropteron]

There is no controversy among scientists, and support continues to accumulate.

On this forum following quote was made:

"1987: Beliefs of American earth and life scientists:

According to Newsweek in 1987:
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%"


I have no idea if these numbers are correct. However I do know that a large number of respectable scientist risk their reputation and career by going against popular trends by standing up to mainstream teachings. It is understandable that the majority of scientist do not want to lose their position or tenure as some of their colleagues have in the past. The consencus amongst scientist is simple: scientist must believe in evolution if they want to maintain their job regardless of the lack of evidence this theory has to offer.
History has taught us, the majority is often wrong.

"The only acceptable explanation of the origin of life is creation. There is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis the life began spontaneously". (Physicist H.S. Lipson)

"I feel compelled to look to a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man" (Charled Darwin)

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I ask if you think a scientist can make/produce gravity? I mean we know it exists because of the effect. It's invisible. And birds do fly, but of course, they don't defy gravity. Humans can't fly in general, by themselves. They need to go in a plane, or attach rockets to their backs, etc. Big super rockets have to rev up their engines to leave the gravitational force of the earth. That's evidence of gravity, as well as proof. You are teaching me. So again the question, do you think a scientist can ever make/produce gravity similar to the enormous force we have on the earth and in the universe as gravity exists now -- no human exercise involved in making the current gravitational forces as they are now, keeping one's feet on the ground, as the saying goes. Do you know the elements that cause/make gravity in such huge forces?

Let me remind you that you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. Nor do you seem to understand what "proof" is either.

And I probably understand gravity far better than you do. Your rather inept questions tell me this.

Are you ready and willing to learn the basics?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, there is scientific evidence. I'll start with the fact that there are absolutely no known or discovered genes showing that bonobos or chimpanzees or said "close relative" thereof, developed in the evolutionary way to start speaking in order to transmit their history. I don't think fish did that either. That is scientific evidence that humans are an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT form of organism from chimpanzees and fishes. That 98-99% genes are said to be similar from bonobos or chimpanzees, for homo sapiens does not prove humans evolved by "natural selection," whatever that means but I know you don't like the term 'chance,' so I'll use natural selection. Perhaps you can advise me on a term better suited to your belief in evolution, rather than "natural selection," as if the organism's genetic structure selected which genes to evolve from or into, from fish to whatever came after that until human beings.

Sorry, you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. And your claim has been refuted by a fused chromosome.

The following is a very serious question. If you cannot answer it then that tells us that you cannot claim to have scientific evidence for creationism:

What reasonable test could refute creationism if it is wrong?

Let me explain what "reasonable" means. First off it means based upon one's idea's own merits. You cannot base it on evolution being proven true. Second, the test has to be one that could conceivably be done at the very least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On this forum following quote was made:

"1987: Beliefs of American earth and life scientists:

According to Newsweek in 1987:
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%"


I have no idea if these numbers are correct. However I do know that a large number of respectable scientist risk their reputation and career by going against popular trends by standing up to mainstream teachings. It is understandable that the majority of scientist do not want to lose their position or tenure as some of their colleagues have in the past. The consencus amongst scientist is simple: scientist must believe in evolution if they want to maintain their job regardless of the lack of evidence this theory has to offer.
History has taught us, the majority is often wrong.

"The only acceptable explanation of the origin of life is creation. There is not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis the life began spontaneously". (Physicist H.S. Lipson)

"I feel compelled to look to a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man" (Charled Darwin)

No, there are still only a small handful of loons in the field of biology that oppose the theory of evolution. In a field of white egrets the plaid ones will stick out like a sore thumb. One might not even notice the white ones.You

And why quote a physicist on a question of biology. If true your physicist has demonstrated ignorance at a Trumpian level.

 

[Valjean]

I believed what they taught me. They said we came from chimpanzees, or close relative, I had no reason at the time to question that. So let me ask this: have you (or any scientist) seen genetic development from, let's say, fish to the next step proceeding to humans? I'm not talking about looking at genes or DNA. They're there. I'm talking about (scientists) seeing the remains of genes going through changes in their examinations of fossils into another form.

You were very poorly educated in biology. You don't understand the basic principles. You don't understand the mechanism's of the ToE. Moreover, you don't understand evidence or how to evaluate it.
You don't have to see something happen to know it happened, and to piece together how it happened. Juries convict people of crimes everyday, from evidence they haven't directly witnessed.

We have fossils showing a succession of changes over time. We don't have every step in the process, and this is to be expected, considering how rare fossilization is, and how rare finding one is. It's remarkable we have the fossils we do. The fossils we do have clearly show a series of changes.
You don't need every piece of a jigsaw puzzle to discern what's depicted.