SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[WalkingMyFishLikeABoss]

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go." Galileo Galilei

[Bonky]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Everything is missing in the fossil record. Where did mammals come from? Many of them suddenly appeared fully formed in Turkey, Ethiopia and Egypt. Supposedly some early mole had ears similar to reptiles because it lives close to the ground and relies on vibration frequencies like a reptile. Does that prove evolution, that some mole has ears similar to reptiles?  But where are the transitions from that early mole to cats and horses and elephants and giraffes and kangaroos? We should have some sequence. Oh but organisms don't fossilize easily and so evolution must just be accepted without the evidence. What if small mammals radiated out from the ark into a world of previously amphibuous reptiles, and the bigger mammals stayed in Middle East. Until a sudden ice age wiped out the dinosaurs and made the world more suitable to larger warm-blooded mammals. This would explain the sequence better and explain the congregation of early mammals in Turkey, something that science will amusingly attempt to explain

https://news.ku.edu/2015/08/10/research-mammal-evolution-focuses-pivotal-eocene-interval-turkey

What is observed in nature is that already existing rare organisms radiate out from niche environments when conditions change and adapt rapidly  into clades, what is not observed is genetic evolution of complexity from 1000 unique genes to 22000 unique genes.

 

 

 

 

I think the discussion goes quite a bit deeper than what we're going to be able to sort out here.  Just doing some quick research I'm finding documents/articles etc that refer to creatures such as the ones in the clade Cynodonts and also [for example] Therapsids.   I also have not noticed that these fossils are just showing up in Turkey or Egypt.  In fact, I don't recall seeing either of those areas as common places to find such fossils.  

I have no skin in the game personally, evolution can stand or fall and it won't impact me much at all.  I have my own questions and things I don't understand.  I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research.  I'm also going to guess in advance that any example that is brought up as a possible transitional animal will be rejected [no matter what it is] and I'll hear, "that's just another creature God made".

I'll also add, it wasn't the fossils that convinced me of evolution it was the genetic evidence.  

Edited July 18, 2017 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

2 hours ago, Bonky said:

I have no skin in the game personally, evolution can stand or fall and it won't impact me much at all.

 a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...?

b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...?

d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?

e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

 

Quote

I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research.

1.  Why (??), they're not Scientists.

2. Argument Ad Populum (Fallacy).

 

Quote

I'm also going to guess in advance that any example that is brought up as a possible transitional animal will be rejected

What on Earth is a "Transitional Animal" and... what does it mean anyway?

 

Quote

I'll also add, it wasn't the fossils that convinced me of evolution it was the genetic evidence.

1.  SEE: "evolution" what's that?? THEN answer a. b. c. d. e. Above.

 

2.  Genetics??    Begging The Question (Fallacy) -- Where'd you get Genes??  Start Here...

1. "Functional" 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.

 

 

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/plosb iology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjo urnal.pbio.0060018

 

Then the WOOLLY T-REX in the Room... 

2. 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 http://www.guardian.co .uk/education/2002/dec/11/high ereducation.uk 

 

Please Explain...?

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

19 hours ago, Kevinb said:

 you weren't religious before you looked into evolution?

1.  a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...?

b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...?

d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?

e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

 

2.  "evolution" is a 'Religion'...

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a RELIGION. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000.

 

Quote

Yes I mentioned the dover trial but even the judge laughed at the opposing evolution stance.

Well Judge Jones' (aka: ACLU) Science Acumen... rivaled yours !! ; that's why he was laughing. (Ignorance is Bliss.  )

SEE my FULL Exposition EXPOSING the Dover Trail Kangaroo Court, Here (You Tube): Science vs Scientism Ep. 10 - Evolution and Irreducible Complexity.

 

See my previous responses in this Thread (and many others) EXPOSING "Your" Trainwreck Science Acumen.  

 

regards

[Bonky]

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

 a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...?

b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...?

d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?

e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

Questions better asked to a biologist who studies evolution.  This is why I agreed with Agrosy that I am not a stalwart defender of evolution because I'm not properly educated in it.  

I also think that you have a very narrow view of scientific investigation.  Not everything we learned came from a beaker with chemicals and a microscope in a lab.  

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

2. Argument Ad Populum (Fallacy).

If you want a discussion with me I would be delighted.  You're going to have to start listening to what I'm saying and stop looking for "gotcha" moments.  I didn't even come close to the fallacy you're asserting.  I never said "Evolution is true because X number of Biologist says so".  I was merely stating to Agrosy that I doubt that trained biologists are ignoring or ignorant of these gaping holes that Agrosy is asserting are there.  

I also spend about a half hour researching some of the things that Agrosy was saying so that I could "engage" him in this discussion.  I didn't just post flippant counter posts.

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

What on Earth is a "Transitional Animal" and... what does it mean anyway?

Well we can look that term up and find out.  The term was brought up by Agrosy btw, not me.

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  SEE: "evolution" what's that?? THEN answer a. b. c. d. e. Above.

 

2.  Genetics??    Begging The Question (Fallacy) -- Where'd you get Genes??  Start Here...

Another example where you don't seem to be listening to me and really being invested in a conversation.   You actually committed a fallacy here which is very ironic [strawman].  I don't argue against some being tinkering with life or some being who tinkered with biology on earth.  You seem to think that if someone supports evolution they, by definition, are a hard atheist.  

I also am puzzled as to how dna can arrive into being.  If you were paying attention, Agrosy and I weren't debating whether some powerful agent/being was involved.  We were merely addressing whether evolution happened at all.  

So if you want to discuss things with me, I'm ok with that.  I'm going to need you to amp down the rhetoric and slow down enough to read what I'm saying and try to process it. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

10 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Questions better asked to a biologist who studies evolution.    

Well you made the claim in respect to your 'belief' in it...I'm shocked you have no idea in what you believe.

Go find a "Biologist" and bring them in here to tell us what "YOU" believe... and, they'll wish they never heard of "Biology" when I'm through with them !! 

 

Quote

This is why I agreed with Agrosy that I am not a stalwart defender of evolution because I'm not properly educated in it.

So you don't know what you 'believe'; That's reaaallly scary sir.

 

Quote

I also think that you have a very narrow view of scientific investigation.

You "think"??  Based on what?

 

Quote

Not everything we learned came from a beaker with chemicals and a microscope in a lab.

Ahhh...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method.

The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).

The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".

The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables".

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is supreme"and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

It's not that hard.

 

Quote

If you want a discussion with me I would be delighted.  You're going to have to start listening to what I'm saying and stop looking for "gotcha" moments.

I do listen and read your (and everyone's) claims, quite intently; However, your "Claims" are Unmitigated Disasters both Logically and Scientifically as I have Illustrated Point by Point, Ad Nauseam.

Your lack of Acumen in these discussions doesn't Ipso Facto = negative intent by others.  It merely means... you have a lack of Acumen and would be WISE to stop commenting on your "beliefs"-- that you don't know about, and start educating yourself on your "beliefs". Establish the Latter before engaging in the Former. 

So when you get CHALLENGED by people who have done their Homework, you'll be able to stand and give 'Coherent' Account... rather than cry about how you're being treated. 

I mean gimme a break.  This is tantamount to Mr. Magoo stepping into the ring with Mohamed Ali and in the midst of Mr. Magoo getting his ears boxed in... appeals to Ali by stating that he really hasn't prepared for the Heavy Weight bout and Ali should stop being a Jerk by PUMMELING HIM !!! smh

 

Quote

I didn't even come close to the fallacy you're asserting.

I beg to differ.  You said...

Bonky: "I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research."---

Appealing to Consensus of Nameless Faceless TENS OF THOUSANDS  "Field Researching Biologists" and their implied adherence to "evolution (Whatever That Is??) is the Textbook Definition of it...

Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)-- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/feature s/fallacies/appeal-to-populari ty.html

 

Quote

You actually committed a fallacy here which is very ironic [strawman].

How in the World can you claim a Straw Man when you appealed to your BEST PROOF "GENETICS" of the Fairytale that you believe in (but don't know about )...  Which then, I commented on with the Fundamentals of "GENETICS", Pray Tell??? 

Do you know what a Straw Man Fallacy is??

Straw Man (Fallacy)--- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. http://www.nizkor.org/feature s/fallacies/straw-man.html

Are you claiming Genetics is Straw Man Fallacy to... Genetics??  

 

regards 

[Bonky]

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well you made the claim in respect to your 'belief' in it...I'm shocked you have no idea in what you believe.

Go find a "Biologist" and bring them in here to tell us what "YOU" believe... and, they'll wish they never heard of "Biology" when I'm through with them !! 

I believe in black holes and neutrinos and yet I don't know the first thing about the calculations or the data behind the discoveries.  I trust the experts, not with unending unbreakable confidence.  That would be religion.  

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

So you don't know what you 'believe'; That's reaaallly scary sir.

I'm personally convinced that evolutionary biology provides rational answers for the development of biological life.  Is it unshakable?  No.  That would be religion.   Am I a biologist?  No.   Can I defend evolution at a high level...NO.  From what reading I have done on the subject, it makes sense to me.  Are there questions and uncertainties?  Yes.  

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

You "think"??  Based on what?

The fact that historically there have been different philosophies on how to make scientific progress.  Ever heard of Karl Popper?  There isn't even one exact standard for the "scientific method"!!  You put science in a tiny box, and I think I know why.

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)-- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/feature s/fallacies/appeal-to-populari ty.html

You boned it up again.  Reading comprehension, look into it.

My quote:

Bonky: "I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research."---

 

I don't say ANYTHING about the scientists being right about evolution!!!!!

I state that I find it hard to believe that they are that stupid in their field of expertise, that they are ignoring or ignorant of the fact that there is gaping holes in their theory and they just don't face it.

Now read that 5 times slowly.

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

How in the World can you claim a Straw Man when you appealed to your BEST PROOF "GENETICS" of the Fairytale that you believe in (but don't know about )...  Which then, I commented on with the Fundamentals of "GENETICS", Pray Tell??? 

Do you know what a Straw Man Fal

I can give you examples, I never said I have no reasons for what I believe.  I said I can only defend it so much, I'm not an expert.  

Once again you struggle to read and comprehend what someone is saying.  I don't have this issue with anyone here on the entire board.

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Are you claiming Genetics is Straw Man Fallacy to... Genetics??  

Your statements assumed that my position is that there can't be an intelligent creator behind the scenes.  I don't feel that way, there very well may be.  Therefore you were trying to argue a position i don't hold.  Checkmate.

[Enoch2021]

12 hours ago, Bonky said:

I believe in black holes and neutrinos and yet I don't know the first thing about the calculations or the data behind the discoveries.

 Yep, Religion -- 'Belief' without Evidence; and taking the word of Priests (The Pseudo-Science Variety).

 

Quote

I trust the experts, not with unending unbreakable confidence.  That would be religion.

Yep, Religion.  They're not 'experts', they're Priests (The Pseudo-Science Variety). 

 

Quote

I'm personally convinced that evolutionary biology provides rational answers

You can't even DEFINE IT! 

Phlogiston provided more 'rational' answers.

 

Quote

Is it unshakable?  No. That would be religion.

Well my position on the Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetics is "UNSHAKABLE"... is that 'Religion' ??  

 

Quote

Are there questions and uncertainties?  Yes.

Yea, like what IT IS.  That's a pretty big 'Uncertainty'. 

 

Quote

The fact that historically there have been different philosophies on how to make scientific progress.

Post them...?

 

Quote

Ever heard of Karl Popper?

Yep. 

 

Quote

There isn't even one exact standard for the "scientific method"!!

Says who...?

So "The Scientific Method" meaning Errr... ONE, has no Standard?  It doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone conceptual coherency.

 

Quote

You put science in a tiny box, and I think I know why.

1.  "Science" isn't an Entity, it's a Method-- a "Concept"... The Scientific Method -- It has no Physicality, nobody can put it anywhere let alone in "A Box"; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

2.  Implicit Appeal to Motive/Intent (Fallacy).

 

Quote

 

My quote:

Bonky: "I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research."---

I don't say ANYTHING about the scientists being right about evolution!!!!!

 

You don't need to Explicitly say it, merely Imply it...and you went above and far beyond the call here.

 

Quote

I state that I find it hard to believe that they are that stupid in their field of expertise, that they are ignoring or ignorant of the fact that there is gaping holes in their theory and they just don't face it.

1.  Key Phrase again: "believe".

2.  Nobody said they were stupid.  'Religion' is playing a MONSTER Role here...along with Job Security.  

3.  Gaping holes in "Their Theory"??  Which "theory" might that be...?

 

Quote

 

Now read that 5 times slowly.

I can give you examples, I never said I have no reasons for what I believe.

 

Read this 5 Times slowly...

WHAT do you 'believe'...?  THEN... don't just give examples, give the MECHANISMS ?  mmM K?

 

Quote

 I said I can only defend it so much, I'm not an expert.

 Defend What...?

 

Quote

Your statements assumed that my position is that there can't be an intelligent creator behind the scenes.

Well post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution along with--You remember: a. c. d. and e. --- and we'll see if I was 'Assuming".  

 

Quote

 I don't feel that way, there very well may be.  Therefore you were trying to argue a position i don't hold.

Well we're gonna see.

 

Quote

Checkmate.

If you would have said "Cherry Blossoms" it would have had more veracity.

 

regards

[Bonky]

3 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well we're gonna see.

No you're not.  You're not engaging in discussion, you're looking for bickering arguments.  Find it somewhere else, I tried.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Bonky

[Tristen]

On 7/19/2017 at 3:09 AM, Bonky said:

I think the discussion goes quite a bit deeper than what we're going to be able to sort out here.  Just doing some quick research I'm finding documents/articles etc that refer to creatures such as the ones in the clade Cynodonts and also [for example] Therapsids.   I also have not noticed that these fossils are just showing up in Turkey or Egypt.  In fact, I don't recall seeing either of those areas as common places to find such fossils.  

I have no skin in the game personally, evolution can stand or fall and it won't impact me much at all.  I have my own questions and things I don't understand.  I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research.  I'm also going to guess in advance that any example that is brought up as a possible transitional animal will be rejected [no matter what it is] and I'll hear, "that's just another creature God made".

I'll also add, it wasn't the fossils that convinced me of evolution it was the genetic evidence.  

 

Hi Bonky. Just a few points on your comments.

You said “I have no skin in the game personally, evolution can stand or fall and it won't impact me much at all”

Firstly, I don’t think it’s logically possible to falsify a claim about the unobserved past (either Biblical creation or Common Ancestry). But if it were possible, given that there are only really two viable models proposing the origins of life on earth (three if you include panspermia), such a falsification of a secular model should force a serious consideration the Biblical model. It only doesn’t impact you when you presuppose the secular model. But if the Biblical model is ultimately true, you definitely have “skin in the game personally”.

 

“I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research”

I don’t think anyone is intentionally ignoring the evidence. Most biologists would be well-aware of the “major gaps/holes” in their respective areas of expertise. But when one presupposes the secular model of reality (as the majority of scientists do – i.e. namely Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry), that’s all the gaps are – gaps in our knowledge. Those gaps don’t logically necessitate a rejection of those models, or even a consideration of the possibility of other models.

The current problem confronted by creationists is that the secular paradigm so thoroughly saturates the scientific conversation, that the secular paradigm is considered to be the only valid scientific perspective by many scientists (an impression which is subsequently adopted by the general community). As a result, there is widespread failure to even consider the possibility of other paradigms – which are often ridiculed as unscientific.

So it’s an issue of context. The context in which scientific research is conducted unjustifiably prefers one paradigm over another, and often prohibits consideration of other paradigms. Creationists engaged in scientific research, and trying to build their careers, know not to include any positive implications of their research to the Biblical model - if they want to get published, that is. Creationists know (and are advised by other creationist scientists) to establish their careers before ‘coming out’ as creationists.

 

“any example that is brought up as a possible transitional animal will be rejected”

When Darwin originally lamented over lack of transitional forms, he was referring to transitional structures (e.g. an intermediate form between scales and feathers), not - any animal that can be preemptively squeezed between other animals on some assumed tree of life (i.e. the original 'transitional' issue was not about “transitional animals”).

 

Cheers.