Ringer Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) So you say atoms are observable without evidence of them being observable? It has been watched and commented on, not that it has anything to do with how factual evolution is. [edit] spelling correction [/edit] Edited May 19, 2012 by Ringer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 So you say atoms are observable without evidence of them being observable? well based on the vids i just saw they are somewhat observable right? (i have no scientific training in anything whatsoever) It has been watched and commented on, not that it has anything to do with how factual evolution is. well ok i have another vid if you are interested where dawkins confirms what hes saying in the above video ( not observable today, happened long time ago etc without observation..)...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 hi please see my other thread in speculations entitled "the general theory of evolution, neo darwinian theory is faith based" thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 hi please see my other thread in speculations entitled "the general theory of evolution, neo darwinian theory is faith based" thanks Didn't watch it did you? Didn't think so. What's the matter? Are you afraid of the scientific method? By the way, it's not faith based. Anyone that thinks otherwise is uneducated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 as you will see in my other thread yes it is faith based. yes i watched it also thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 as you will see in my other thread yes it is faith based. I did see it. It contains zero evidence proving the scientific method to be faith based. Neither does this one. Back up your assertions or retract them. yes i watched it also thanks baloney! I posted a 9 minute video and you claim you watched it in 2 minutes, the time by which you responded to the post with the video. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 baloney! I posted a 9 minute video and you claim you watched it in 2 minutes, the time by which you responded to the post with the video. Deceit, intellectual dishonesty and misplaced fear. Without them, creationist claims have no way to maintain their hold on the rational mind. Very sad. How can someone lie to themselves while claiming a religion-based moral high ground? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 I did see it. It contains zero evidence proving the scientific method to be faith based. Neither does this one. Back up your assertions or retract them. baloney! I posted a 9 minute video and you claim you watched it in 2 minutes, the time by which you responded to the post with the video. i watched your video, i left the guy a comment asking for literature for his claim "there is no limit to speciation" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 i watched your video, i left the guy a comment asking for literature for his claim "there is no limit to speciation" That's odd because he never said that. He said there's no limit to variation in DNA. Now you've raised questions about your ability to comprehend by reading and listening to what others write and say because he wrote and said DNA and you read and heard speciation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 That's odd because he never said that. He said there's no limit to variation in DNA. Now you've raised questions about your ability to comprehend by reading and listening to what others write and say because he wrote and said DNA and you read and heard speciation. my mistake thank you for pointing that out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 sammy7, There are plenty of examples where science holds up its hands and says “I don’t know” because, as you say, it happened in the past or is unobserved. This, however, doesn’t mean inference can’t be employed as a very real and compelling answer to whatever the question may be. In astrology the observation that a star wobbles, given our clearly understood knowledge of the physics involved, it is perfectly reasonable to assume such wobbling is the result of a planet orbiting. Science has provided a myriad of evidence to support evolution (just google it), what exactly is your counter proposal to explain everyday observations of our planets flora and fauna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 So you say atoms are observable without evidence of them being observable? I say that you don't know what is meant when scientists say observable. well based on the vids i just saw they are somewhat observable right? (i have no scientific training in anything whatsoever) They are scientifically observable, just not by the arbitrary definition you are using. It has been watched and commented on, not that it has anything to do with how factual evolution is. well ok i have another vid if you are interested where dawkins confirms what hes saying in the above video ( not observable today, happened long time ago etc without observation..)...... You don't understand what I meant when I said it has nothing to do with how factual evolution is. No matter how many questions you throw out at an individual that they can't answer it doesn't mean A.) that the answer is unknown or B.) if the answer is unknown it negates all the other evidence available. Please share this video where Dawkins says that evolution is not observable today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 In astrology the observation that a star wobbles, given our clearly understood knowledge of the physics involved, it is perfectly reasonable to assume such wobbling is the result of a planet orbiting. Oh, no you didn't! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) I say that you don't know what is meant when scientists say observable. They are scientifically observable, just not by the arbitrary definition you are using. You don't understand what I meant when I said it has nothing to do with how factual evolution is. No matter how many questions you throw out at an individual that they can't answer it doesn't mean A.) that the answer is unknown or B.) if the answer is unknown it negates all the other evidence available. Please share this video where Dawkins says that evolution is not observable today. hi please see my new thread in speculations... Edited May 19, 2012 by sammy7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 Oh, no you didn't! LOL yep I did... doh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 sammy7, There are plenty of examples where science holds up its hands and says "I don't know" because, as you say, it happened in the past or is unobserved. This, however, doesn't mean inference can't be employed as a very real and compelling answer to whatever the question may be. In astrology the observation that a star wobbles, given our clearly understood knowledge of the physics involved, it is perfectly reasonable to assume such wobbling is the result of a planet orbiting. Science has provided a myriad of evidence to support evolution (just google it), what exactly is your counter proposal to explain everyday observations of our planets flora and fauna. lol i saw it. hi dimreepr thanks for the reply, my personal belief is biblical creationism if you will, i do not claim this to be"scientific", i take by faith genesis 1.1 to be a literally true. please see my other thread in speculations i just started.... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 i take by faith genesis 1.1 to be a literally true. So Genesis 2 must be literally true as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 yes that is the logic i follow lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 19, 2012 Share Posted May 19, 2012 yes that is the logic i follow lol Well, how can they both be literally true? Genesis 1 says humans were created after the other animals, men and woman together. Genesis 2 says humans were created before the other animals, man first and then woman after from man's rib. How can both be literally true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammy7 Posted May 19, 2012 Author Share Posted May 19, 2012 Well, how can they both be literally true? Genesis 1 says humans were created after the other animals, men and woman together. Genesis 2 says humans were created before the other animals, man first and then woman after from man's rib. How can both be literally true? im surpised at how well evolutionists know their bible lol (if you are one i presume?). i presume your belief of origins is whats commonly referred to as "the big bang" or "stellarnucleosynthesis" or something? id be interested to hear your personal beliefs...that said genesis 1 is the literal six days in the order that it is alleged to have happened (which i believe obv) genesis 2 appears to be a recap of the events of creation week in seemingly no apparent order.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Well, how can they both be literally true? Genesis 1 says humans were created after the other animals, men and woman together. Genesis 2 says humans were created before the other animals, man first and then woman after from man's rib. How can both be literally true? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 im surpised at how well evolutionists know their bible lol (if you are one i presume?). Knowing both sides of an argument is the intellectually honest thing to do. i presume your belief of origins is whats commonly referred to as "the big bang" or "stellarnucleosynthesis" or something? id be interested to hear your personal beliefs. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang Theory. After everything I've read, BBT has the most evidence to support it, and it's actively and constantly being studied and refined, so I trust it to be the best explanation, unless something better supported comes along. genesis 1 is the literal six days in the order that it is alleged to have happened (which i believe obv) genesis 2 appears to be a recap of the events of creation week in seemingly no apparent order.... The order of creation only differs by one point, so "no apparent order" is inaccurate (especially for someone claiming an inerrant Bible). And the question of whether man and woman were created together or it was man first, woman second should at least show you that the two Genesis versions are subject to interpretation, which means you can't say one is literal and the other isn't. As for a literal six day creation, Genesis 2:17 says: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Obviously, Adam and Eve did NOT die the day they ate the fruit of the tree. This must mean that "day" (yom in the original Hebrew) has multiple interpretations, such as during daylight, 24-hours, or an indeterminate time like "back in the day". Could it not be that six days could be billions of years to your god? Wouldn't it have been easier to write a six day creation as an explanation to the iron age Hebrews of the time, as opposed to what the geological record shows us really happened? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 i presume this is to short for a mutation to arise and a new generation to come forth Science is not based on presumptions. It's based on predictions which are then tested to confirm or deny their accuracy. "To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. " hay yes thats what im saying they fail as "scientific evidence" (no im not claiming i have a better model/nor that the bible nor any other religion creation story is "scientific") The scientific community disagrees with you. And frankly, I'm just a smidge more inclined to believe folks who have been looking into this for years or decades than someone who only decided two weeks ago that mainstream science was wrong without coming up with a model that A) explains what we see in nature, and B) provides testable, falsifiable predictions for things we should see and haven't found yet. "Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history." no but we cant claim with certainty that just because we observe something acting in a certain way today it has always been acting that way... ie - i see my friend mowing his lawn one day at 3pm, i then claim that every day in the past he has been mowing his lawn at 3pm based on that one observation..science??imo not... Do you even understand how the scientific method works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 ! Moderator Note Closed as per my mod note here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts