Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My reference was Mary’s actions were not anecdotal but a consistent pattern of behavior from which we draw conclusions and call them facts. This is a pattern of behavior I believe proponents of evolution have engaged in for years.
Years ago it was vestigial tails and organs with no modern function (assumed) that provided the facts for ‘proof’ of evolution. Like Mary’s behavior or your example above concerning the fossil record these are consistent observable phenomenon. The “facts” based on the conclusions drawn from these events are what are suspect. – Today it is “junk” DNA supplying the “facts” to support evolution (which is now being discovered may not be so much “junk” after all, we’ll have to see after scientific rigor is applied).
Together they are things we observe and draw conclusions from to support a pre-supposed result.
You completely miss the point.
The filters all three apply to the object do not exist, they are abstractions we use to classify and categorize raw data into information we can consume.
Then I don’t see where you or anyone else should take exception with my willingness to accept MIchio Kaku’s estimate. The question in this context, is irrelevant.
Your approach is that evolutionists are biased and see only what they want to see. If that is what you believe, then I guess no one will change your mind. Remember, though, that scientists are predators. There is always someone eager to make a name for himself by proving someone else was wrong, and while we cannot "prove" we are right, we can prove that something is incorrect.
Every scientific Theory is an abstraction. Why should the Theory of evolution be any different?
As an aside, it is unfortunate that the term "junk" was ever applied to DNA. All it meant was that the function of some sequences was unknown. I am sure that some "junk" DNA will be found to have a purpose. Some may turn out to be nothing but fossils of a sort or like the keys we all have in a drawer somewhere that fit locks we no longer have. That "junk" DNA is subject to mutation, however, so it is always possible it might code for something in the future even if it does not do so now. A little bowl that someone thought was junk and sold at a yard sale for a few dollars recently was auctioned for a couple of million. Men use the term junk to refer to certain anatomic bits that I am sure they consider to be very important. We may call DNA junk. That does not mean no one is looking for treasures in the junk shop.
Feel free to accept the current estimate of the age of the earth. Just keep in mind that it is and always will be an estimate. As technology improves, it can and will be revised, just as the estimated age of the universe has recently been revised by about 80 million years.
Holy Cow! That's a real book? "Exploring Creation With Physical Science"? That's on the approved curriculum for home schooling? Are you kidding me?
I feel so sorry for that kid.
This is one reason why America is falling well behind other countries in Science education.
This is one reason why America is falling well behind other countries in Science education.
It gets worse. I know a college (pardon me, "university") that has removed all the books about genetics and evolution from its library. It has a school of nursing.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
[quote=suzy_q2010;28812804]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964
Your approach is that evolutionists are biased and see only what they want to see. If that is what you believe, then I guess no one will change your mind. Remember, though, that scientists are predators. There is always someone eager to make a name for himself by proving someone else was wrong, and while we cannot "prove" we are right, we can prove that something is incorrect.
Every scientific Theory is an abstraction. Why should the Theory of evolution be any different?
As an aside, it is unfortunate that the term "junk" was ever applied to DNA. All it meant was that the function of some sequences was unknown. I am sure that some "junk" DNA will be found to have a purpose. Some may turn out to be nothing but fossils of a sort or like the keys we all have in a drawer somewhere that fit locks we no longer have. That "junk" DNA is subject to mutation, however, so it is always possible it might code for something in the future even if it does not do so now. A little bowl that someone thought was junk and sold at a yard sale for a few dollars recently was auctioned for a couple of million. Men use the term junk to refer to certain anatomic bits that I am sure they consider to be very important. We may call DNA junk. That does not mean no one is looking for treasures in the junk shop.
Feel free to accept the current estimate of the age of the earth. Just keep in mind that it is and always will be an estimate. As technology improves, it can and will be revised, just as the estimated age of the universe has recently been revised by about 80 million years.
Not all, but many I believe do have a pre-determined outcome and see everything through this lens.
I also believe, as illustrated here that many are trapped in an evolution vs creation mindset which translates to a science vs religion paradigm which is absolutely ridiculous and again limits our perspective as we view everything through this lens.
Personally, the primary problem I have with evolution is not just macro-evolution, or transition from one species to another but the expansion of a gene pool in general.
Evidence I have seen always point to a refining or specialization from a more generic starting point. This points to variation within species which contracts, not expands genetic viability. I think "junk DNA" is interesting and may lead to answers in this direction as well as cellular / DNA replication and the flexibility of stem cells. Is there a biological process we are still unaware of?
As for creationism ruining our educational system - please give me a break.
There are many problems with our educational system and evolution vs creation is so far down the list it becomes irrelevant.
Not all, but many I believe do have a pre-determined outcome and see everything through this lens.
I also believe, as illustrated here that many are trapped in an evolution vs creation mindset which translates to a science vs religion paradigm which is absolutely ridiculous and again limits our perspective as we view everything through this lens.
Personally, the primary problem I have with evolution is not just macro-evolution, or transition from one species to another but the expansion of a gene pool in general.
Evidence I have seen always point to a refining or specialization from a more generic starting point. This points to variation within species which contracts, not expands genetic viability. I think "junk DNA" is interesting and may lead to answers in this direction as well as cellular / DNA replication and the flexibility of stem cells. Is there a biological process we are still unaware of?
As for creationism ruining our educational system - please give me a break.
There are many problems with our educational system and evolution vs creation is so far down the list it becomes irrelevant.
The creationists are the ones with the evolution vs creation mindset. Scientists do not give a hoot what creationists believe. They just do not want creationism taught as science. Many scientists are religious and see no conflict between their religion and their science.
What do you mean by genetic viability? I am not familiar with that term.
Creationists are bound and determined to block teaching of evolution wherever they can. If they want to home school and teach it or teach it in non-publicly funded private schools, that's fine. They are only condemning their own children to ignorance. When they try to affect public school science curricula, it is indeed relevant. The fact that a college does it is absolutely chilling.
Personally, the primary problem I have with evolution is not just macro-evolution, or transition from one species to another but the expansion of a gene pool in general.
Evidence I have seen always point to a refining or specialization from a more generic starting point. This points to variation within species which contracts, not expands genetic viability. I think "junk DNA" is interesting and may lead to answers in this direction as well as cellular / DNA replication and the flexibility of stem cells. Is there a biological process we are still unaware of?
Again, evolution, despite a 100 years of scrutiny under increasingly more powerful tools of observation has only strengthened evolution.
There could possibly be some unknown mechanism that runs counter to everything evolution. It's just a very tiny chance. The human genome project has been over, we've already sequenced a lot of species' genome and we've moved on to the next thing.
Evolution is the religious dogma of the Atheist. Teaching it in public schools violates the 1st Amendment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's wrong with teaching evolution in public school?
