Bonky Posted May 9, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Saint JOHN said: The one word nearly everyone misses in these type of debates is "THEORY" of evolution ....look it up in your own dictionary...you see words like IDEA with NO bases in FACT !!! I hope you realize that the particular definition you're looking at is NOT the one that scientists are using. A scientific theory is regarded as being well established explanation of some aspect of the natural world. In fact if I'm not mistaken the only reason why it's a "theory" and not a law is because it can't be expressed mathematically. 2 hours ago, Saint JOHN said: most REAL scientist accept this ..to a point.. they see a design in everything, begging the question..DESIGNER... Ironically you are begging the question. I won't disagree with life being complex, but whether it is designed is a different issue [and needs to be established not just proclaimed]. Look at the "design" of humans and other animals and we can pick out flaws. Child birth for example caused a lot of deaths prior to modern medicine. If you want to infer design that's up to you but why didn't the designer aim for excellence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint JOHN Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2017 God has gone for perfection THE SPIRIT !!! though we are wonderfully made, flesh and blood will NOT inherit the kingdom of God ; it is a biological machine and subject to much wear ,tear, misuse abuse etc etc....not able to put on immortality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint JOHN Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 19 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2017 Theory '???ri/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "Darwin's theory of evolution" synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;............ Oh yes lets not forget all the fosil evidence ???(none); millions of variations of all creatures changing; like foxes into whales or visa versa; honey eaters dead by the thousands waiting for beaks to get long enough ..etc etc..symbiosis..etc.. I mean realy !? evolution is such a lame duck its right up there with Micky mouse and Peter Pan.........they may as well teach how fairies jump around the garden !? just a smoke screen not to believe... eventually this biological machine will stop for each person...you will have to pay the piper eventually ! whether you belive or not.... Resistance is Futile... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Saint JOHN said: Theory '???ri/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "Darwin's theory of evolution" synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;............ Ok and the way scientists use this term is: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. 41 minutes ago, Saint JOHN said: eventually this biological machine will stop for each person...you will have to pay the piper eventually ! whether you belive or not.... Resistance is Futile... There is a chance we are play things to a creator that doesn't care about any circumstance other than what did we believe about a particular Jew who lived a couple thousand years ago....but I'm comfortable that if there's a God it is reasonable. If I'm wrong? I did the best that I could with what I was given [regarding religion], let the cards fall where they may. Edited May 10, 2017 by Bonky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted May 10, 2017 21 hours ago, Bonky said: A scientific theory is regarded as being well established explanation of some aspect of the natural world. To be more 'Precise', it's... "A Scientific Theory summarizes a *hypothesis* or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING." https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138 "A Scientific Theory consists of one or more *hypotheses* that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING." https://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/ "A Scientific Theory represents an *hypothesis*, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been *CONFIRMED* through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Quote In fact if I'm not mistaken the only reason why it's a "theory" and not a law is because it can't be expressed mathematically. You are 'Mistaken'... "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process) and Identify The CAUSE; e.g., Germ Theory. Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED. "Scientific Laws": "describe" ---The What/IS (The How/Why is N/A). They are based SOLELY on OBSERVATIONS. Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That's why they're called The Laws of Thermodynamics and NOT the 'Theories' of Thermodynamics. Quote I won't disagree with life being complex Factually Incorrect. Life is characterized by Functional Sequence Specified Complexity. Snow Flakes/Crystals/Fractals ect are examples of mere 'Ordered Complexity'. Quote I won't disagree with life being complex, but whether it is designed is a different issue [and needs to be established not just proclaimed]. For the 1289th time... Scientific Law: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever CAUSED by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception! That is...whenever we find *INFORMATION* existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME !! SUPPORT: 1. Library of Congress. 2. ALL Books. 3. ALL Newspapers. 4. ALL Languages. 5. ALL Computer Software. 6. THE INFORMATION AGE !!! Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation *CAN NOT* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION). If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed... "DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes." Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410 "The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found both in the *GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM* and in modern computer and communication codes." Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000 I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed. Sooo, My Position... The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN NOT* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation) Your Position: Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. Go ahead...? btw: "To do a hypothesis test, you will actually have two hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). *THE NULL HYPOTHESIS* is the conclusion that is considered *THE DEFAULT* – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis." California State University Northridge; Hypotheses Testing http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/ECON309lect7Bhypotesting.doc Quote Look at the "design" of humans and other animals and we can pick out flaws. So?? Whenever the transmission on my Jeep 'wets the bed', I don't then attempt to send it back (With Warranty) to the wind/waves/erosion/Laws of Motion Factory for Repair. Quote If you want to infer design that's up to you but why didn't the designer aim for excellence? HE did, it's HIS Default...WE screwed it up. SEE: Genesis 3 regards 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said: Factually Incorrect. Life is characterized by Functional Sequence Specified Complexity. Snow Flakes/Crystals/Fractals ect are examples of mere 'Ordered Complexity'. I'm factually incorrect when I agree that life is complex? 2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said: "Scientific Laws": "describe" ---The What/IS (The How/Why is N/A). They are based SOLELY on OBSERVATIONS. Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Right and notice that little part where they say "Often expressed mathematically". I don't deny that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem, but many times in the past humanity looked to the sky for gods to explain this and that only to find out later they were wrong. We should have learned by now that an argument from ignorance is never going to be a great way to go. We find organic molecules in space, I don't think it's impossible that life can arise naturally. 2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said: HE did, it's HIS Default...WE screwed it up. SEE: Genesis 3 How does Genesis 3 explain why childbirth is dangerous? Edited May 10, 2017 by Bonky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Just now, Bonky said: I'm factually incorrect when I agree that life is complex? Yes, too ambiguous. Quote Right and notice that little part where they say "Often expressed mathematically". Yes, I noticed. But you said: "the only reason why it's a "theory" and not a law"... this is Factually Incorrect. Also: Define Often...? Define Only...? Quote I don't deny that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem No, that's a Belly Laughing Mis-Characterization from the Black Lagoon!! I've already Explicitly Illustrated, now for the 1290th Time (the 1289th you just DODGED, again)... The Origin of Life is Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE: 1. The Natural Formation of the The Physico-Chemical Molecules. 2. The Natural Formation of "INFORMATION". 3. Natural Formation of "Matter". Which Part do you need me to "Explain" and Illustrate, again? Quote but many times in the past humanity looked to the sky for gods to explain this and that only to find out later they were wrong. 1. Non Sequitur Fallacy. 2. (Implied) Argument to the Future (Fallacy). Quote We should have learned by now that an argument from ignorance is never going to be a great way to go. Then Why are you using one? Quote We find organic molecules in space, I don't think it's impossible that life can arise naturally. 1. Really?? Which Please...? 2. You can't even get ONE "Functional" Molecule, (Let alone LIFE )... a. DNA/RNA/Proteins *NEVER* spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively. It's Physically and Chemically *"IMPOSSIBLE"*. That's just the Hardware! To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed Spontaneously/Naturally "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism from: Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively: CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin ! Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research... "We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could *NOT BE* achieved by presently known chemical reactions." Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993. Do you know the reasons WHY that is? Of the ~50 obstacles precluding the Natural/Spontaneous formation, what are the Two ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM here...? Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words (Literally), after more than 50 Years of OOL Research... "However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on *“If Pigs Could Fly”* hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help." Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/articleid=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018 So after showing us *"PIG'S FLYING"* ... Then the WOOLLY T-REX in the Room... b. *How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?* In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...? “DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its *INFORMATION* using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as *INFORMATION*, or *SOFTWARE*. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” Paul Davies PhD Physics; How we could create life. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk 3. "You don't think"... is your case? We're gonna need 'a little' more. 4. I'll give you all the SUBSTRATES by the Truckloads... you'll get NOTHING. Quote in space You talking about the "Vacuum of Space"?? If so... How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) *WITHOUT* a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ?? In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to your 'religion'... BOTH, at the same time?? Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...? regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: Which Part do you need me to "Explain" and Illustrate, again? The part where you assert it's "impossible". Coming from an advanced ape on a small rock in a little solar system. Are you familiar with the term hubris? 30 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: 1. Non Sequitur Fallacy. 2. (Implied) Argument to the Future (Fallacy). I'm not asserting that you are wrong now, I'm saying we have examples in the past where we have said "Only god can explain X!!" and then later found out that isn't necessarily so. I'm warning against potentially falling into the same trap. Isaac Newton even made this mistake when he couldn't figure out celestial mechanics. His conclusion? Divine intervention aka "God did it". LaPlace came along and provided the solution using calculus. When asked why he [LaPlace] didn't suggest God's involvement LaPlace responded "I have no need for that hypothesis". An epic moment in history demonstrating the potential danger of throwing our hands up and resorting to the supernatural to account for natural phenomena. Edited May 10, 2017 by Bonky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted May 10, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted May 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Bonky said: The part where you assert it's "impossible". Define Assertion...? Define Illustration...? No matter how long you wait, X will never become A; same concept here. Quote Coming from an advanced ape on a small rock in a little solar system. I'm no Ape. Don't Insult me again or I'll Report Ya. Well you can't even explain the Vacuum in Space so...Your Assertion --- the mere "Parroting" what you've been told to believe, of a 'Solar System' holds no more veracity than that of a Phlogiston Supporter. Quote Are you familiar with the term hubris? Yes Quote I'm not asserting that you are wrong Well yea, because I'm not. Quote I'm saying we have examples in the past where we have said "Only god can explain X!!" and then later found out that isn't necessarily so. 1. We?? I never made any such Argument From Ignorance (Fallacy). 2. Appealing (then "Parroting") Anecdotes from the distant past is not a Coherent Argument/Position. 3. False Equivalence (Fallacy). Quote Isaac Newton even made this mistake when he couldn't figure out celestial mechanics. His conclusion? Divine intervention aka "God did it". Newton (and all the rest) are merely attempting to "Describe" Phenomena, not assign Causation. So your point is Nonsensical: Non-Sequitur Fallacy. Quote LaPlace came along and provided the solution using calculus. When asked why he [LaPlace] didn't suggest God's involvement LaPlace responded "I have no need for that hypothesis". 1. LaPlace was on Crack. 2. He (or anyone else) never had a Formal Scientific Hypothesis to begin with ...I suppose that explains his 'Non-Need' for another. 3. He hitched his Crack-Wagon to the "Nebular Hypothesis" (which is not only a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher...it's not a Scientific Hypothesis), nuff said there. Quote An epic moment in history It's right up there with Space Balls. Quote resorting to the supernatural to account for natural phenomena. Sir you can't even explain "THE" in word or thought in your Fairytale World-View; Ergo... I'd be Climbing all over the Brakes on just about everything if I were you. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Certain things about evolution can be disproved but an old earth cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts