How many here believe in evolution?

[takeda]

You seem to have evolved a pretty thick skull Hortlund...

I went to great lenghts to explain you that if I don't go to some forsaken african dry riverbed to dig for chewed bones or make my way into a biology lab to look down their microscopes to make sure i'm not getting BS'ed by 4 generations of scientists is because it's impractical, so I must rely on proper published, tested and peer reviewed scientifical knowledge.

While you try to chew on that... how about sending a few $$ to erect the Holy Pyramid (scheme) of Shrdlu?

[straffo]

DA98 : CTHULHU rulezz !!!

[takeda]

mmmm DA, I asked 'ole Shr about the virgin thing, and he told me that some other guy up there is hoarding all that stuff as of late and they are gettin scarce and expensive... so first we must get the Great Pyramid (scheme) going...

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by takeda
I must rely on proper published, tested and peer reviewed scientifical knowledge.

Well, your problem is that you dont seem to understand what that is.

[takeda]

Care to explain it then?

For my it's pretty much like this:

-Someone observes a fact
-Sees it's repeatable
-Checks it with his nearby colleages
-Extracts a conclusion from the fact
-Describes all of it in a paper
-Submits it for publication
-Referees check it
-The paper is published (or not)
-The scientific community at large can check it, accept it, disprove it or whatever, but not because they like or dislike it, they must stick to measurable facts.

As time goes by, that knowledge gets superseded, disproven, or just keeps being the best available you got to work with.

So I am perfectly prepared to admit God, martians or that 'ole chap Shrdlu did put us here, as long as they go through the aforementioned process, which I know that works.

[Hortlund]

Lets just say that I disagree with your "scientific method" and leave it at that. In fact, I doubt you will find too many supporters to your method.

[takeda]

Tsk tsk tsk.... you keep challenging me as if I were making all this stuff up, all while failing to provide any alternative.

I don't need anyone to support anything. I didn't invent the peer reviewed publishing system. It's there... produces good and usable science and keeps the snake oil vendors out.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by takeda
Tsk tsk tsk.... you keep challenging me as if I were making all this stuff up, all while failing to provide any alternative.

I don't need anyone to support anything. I didn't invent the peer reviewed publishing system. It's there... produces good and usable science and keeps the snake oil vendors out.

But you are making that stuff up.

Here, let me help you. This is the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. Because there is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Now, let me ask you, do you want me to point out where the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the scientific method? Or do you prefer to live on in your belief that the theory of evolution is a fact?

[takeda]

Go ahead... point, point...

[edit]
I was going to leave it "unpunished", but it's a pretty dirty trick, so here you go.

You were asking me why did I trust scientifical knowledge generated by others and not by myself, so I presented you the process of scientific communication.

You are telling us now about the process of "generating" that knowledge from the facts, so no contradiction, both are parts of the bigger scientifical scene.

What i said is valid as well as the outline you cited is correct, so the dirty trick is oposing both things as you did

So, you go on and promise us to produce some invalidating stuff to disprove evolution... Go ahead... better prepared people than you (and me) had been unable to come up with anything in 150 years.
[edit]

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
The sad part about this post of yours is the fact that I'm critizing the theory of evolution on a scientific basis, and you dont even realize that. Apparently, if I'm saying that evolutionists have not been able to give sufficient evidence for their theory, I'm showing contempt for the scientific method. If Im saying that according to the scientific method, it is wrong to ignore observations that disprove the current theory, or to make unsubstantiated conclusions from other observations in order to fit them into the  current theorem I'm the one showing contempt for science?

You really dont have a clue takeda. You simply think you know what is right and what is wrong, and based on that belief, you jump to the defence of your pet theory, without even understanding what I'm critizizing or why.  Frankly, it would appear that you are more religious than me, but your religion is science, and you probably dont even realize it.

Using words with "ology" at the end do not constitute a "scientic basis" lol... that is one of the funniest post you've made so far.

You have been presented with pictures, links and Myelo's well written explainations to your questions. But you have yet to show exactly what evidence is being ignored by scientists. C'mon Steve, what have you got?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Using words with "ology" at the end do not constitute a "scientic basis" lol... that is one of the funniest post you've made so far.

You have been presented with pictures, links and Myelo's well written explainations to your questions. But you have yet to show exactly what evidence is being ignored by scientists. C'mon Steve, what have you got?

Tomorrow MT,
Im working on a trial I have tomorrow right now. Just to clue you in, the topic I'm going to post about tomorrow it is "the Cambrian explosion". Since that post will be kinda big I thought I'd take my time with it instead of rushing it to the BB.

I'm starting to suspect that you think that evolution = micorevolution, and that is why you desperately cling to the idea that evolution has been observed. Just to make things clear for any future discussions, microevolution is not the issue here. Macroevolution is.

And apparently you missed my point to that spanish person with about a mile. Perhaps you should try to read my post again, a bit more slowly this time maybe?

[crowMAW]

there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
-Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980.

Hortlund,

The quote from Dr. Ross concerning the 2nd Law and open systems is interesting.  However, it is taken out of context of the rest of the article.  (FYI, Dr. Ross has been at Stanford University for some time)

If you read the rest of the work you will see that the 2nd Law can be used to mathematically model open systems only if one takes into account the matter and energy entering the system.  The 2nd Law can only be perfectly applied to an isolated system.  To learn more about this you can read here:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy3.html

Your examples concerning how solar energy increases entropy are a little off.  The solar energy is a catalyst in the oxidation process, which causes your car's paint to fade.  The rotting of flesh has less to do with solar energy and more to do with organisms (macro and micro) feeding on the carcass.  Place both a painted car and a dead animal into a sunlit vacuum and see if you get the same results.

Converse to your examples, solar energy is used in the photosynthesis process to locally decrease entropy, ie to grow a more ordered organism.

[RDSaustinTX]

The benefit of metamorphosis is the ability to utilize different niches or environments at different stages of developement. Not much of a stretch to picture complete changes being pressured into intermediate steps through environmental pressures.

 
"complete changes being pressured into intermediate steps" ??
 
LOL. What the hell do you call THAT theory, 'cause it ain't evolution.
 
Not much of a stretch? If metamorphosis developed through evolution, it had to do it in small incremental steps. It is very hard to conceive how metamorphosis could evolve. Even a biologist will concede that.

[midnight Target]

LOL back atcha..

Maybe, just maybe you could be mistaken...

Key to metamorphosis evolution

Here is another:

"The origins of insect metamorphosis."

[Leslie]

Originally posted by mrfish
shouldn't they though if it's a part of their belief system?

Absolutely, though it's not just restricted to Christianity.  Many religions involve creation accounts.

On an intellectual level, science and religion are not incompatible...they both attempt to explain what's going on here, on Earth.  Science covers our physical world; religion deals with man's spiritual needs.  The best example I can give is: an airplane needs two wings to fly.  Though simplistic, I believe it's fitting.

One of the main tenants of the scientific method is proof of fallibility, i.e. scientific theories (current accepted facts) stand until proven wrong through scientific experimentation and observation.  Obviously, religion is not science, as it is based on faith and cannot be proven false.  Science does not involve the intervention of a diety or dieties, miracles, etc... only observable facts which can be replicated through experimentation.

This does not mean a scientist cannot believe in God personally.  He just cannot professionally include God in his observations, submitted before peers for critique and examination.  It is not "creatio ex nihilio" territory.

............................. ............................


I believe God created the universe and all things in it.  I have a hard time with abiogenesis (Spontaneous Generation) from the primordeal soup.  The Bible states the spirit of God moved above this region (the waters) to start the life process.  If I were a scientist, which I'm not, I could not ignore the astronomical mathmatical  improbabilities against the random combination of molecules, amino acids and proteins to form a single living cell, which in itself is extremely complex.  I believe this was done by design, and did not happen by chance.

As far as attempting to prove fallibilities and inconsistencies in the Bible, forget it...it's impossible.  The best that can be accomplished in that area is the implication of fallibility, which falls far short of proof.

Either way, I enjoyed this thread because it made me think.  


Les