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.
Then why has the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" never been applied to evolution itself? "Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex." (Creation)
Evolution has never been able to replicate a "simple beginning." Why the failure of the "scientific method" in this case?
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
This is beyond stupid, for so many reasons I just don't know where to start.
Then why has the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" never been applied to evolution itself? "Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex." (Creation)
Evolution has never been able to replicate a "simple beginning." Why the failure of the "scientific method" in this case?
Wilson
Wow! You are the loon incarnate aren't you?
Q1: "Why hasn't the SM been applied to evolution itself"? Oh, and this gem: "Evo has never been able to replicate a simple beginning?" Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but then we've said this so many times, it must be a permanent neural brain mis-function in all the devoutly religious, or they are unable to let go of this silliness, even though it's so wrong. It is interesting to see you make such a fool of yourself with your spectacular lack of biological knowledge. Amazing someone would do this to their own reputation! What ARE you talking about?
A1: This is not worth discussing in any detail, since you're uninterested in facts and history, and you'd just vomit it back up in some incoherent form. But know this, oh vastly ignorant one: All the advances in understanding about Evolution (and abiogenesis as well, as well as all of moden medicine, and jet plane design...) have come precisely from the careful and thorough application of the SM.
You know nothing, and are repeatedly affirming that here, to all of the readers. Astounding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
For example, some German scientists before and during WW2 had a theory called "Eternal Ice" that supposed, among other things, that the earth was hollow and that we lived on the inside on the sphere rather than the outside. They shot radar into the sky to see if they would get a signal back from the other side. They were unable to prove their theory, so it was never an accepted fact, though some no doubt still believe in that theory. Scientists today, of course, are much smarter than those WW2 scientists and may have every thing figured out exactly right. I suspect, however, that today's scientists will look just as foolish a hundred years from now as those physicists at the turn of the 20th century whose theory said man couldn't survive speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour. Barney Oldfield (the "Mile a Minute Man) proved that theory patently false shortly after the turn of the century.
Evolution can't be proven, therefore it is still a theory, not a fact. I'm confident it will never be proven as fact.
Then nothing we "know" and use with trust and faith are not provable as fact. Nothing. Best not ever get on a commercial jetliner ever again, because the theory of flight is just that. (My God, you folks are SOOO stuck in your denial desperation, aren't you?). If you could read a link, I'd prove Evolution to you, but I've already provided it so many times, and it remains purposefully unread by you all, so you don't want to understand anything beyond your bronze-age tribal beliefs.
In your silly example of WWII German "scientists", you conflate old and truly non-science silliness, based on ludicrous hypotheses, with modern, advanced and thoughtful science. Before someone tries any novel cutting-edge research approach now, it's goals, all it's possibilities and it's possible predictable outcomes, or possible failures, are usually very thoroughly reviewed by all participants or at the least, the various leaders in that field.
So.... if you honestly think that, now, vast government money would be available to try to prove the heavens are but an outer shell that signals might bounce off of, you're nuts!
We can all sit around and make stuff up, citing useless old stories and then "pretend" (you know, like little kiddies do?) that they somehow apply to the entirety of how science operates today. And that, because of Barney Oldfield's rash claims, all the things we now know will be useless in a few years, because they didn't understand the basics of molecular interaction and other advanced physics back in the 1930s. Except, of course, the absurdities of the literal biblical Genesis story, or of Noah's Ark, or of a supposed scribe named Jesus wandering around with over 70% of his life unaccounted for, and yet he was cited as The Son of God.
You find this all believable of course. What do you read? The Christian Science funnies? The Answers in Genesis forums, but without questioning their absurd conclusions?? Or as pro-geologistman here correctly notes, again.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
I find it asounding how people ignore 30 something pages of text in a thread and then make such unsupported drivel apparently with a straight face.
And then, this is amply demo'd for us yet again, right on cue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsoncole
You are limiting your thinking ability by reading stuff that complicates the simplicity of the question.
"What good is evolution in the most important areas of life?"
Good health is not the most important area of life. It is the most healthy of men who are required to kill other healthy men in times of war.
Even if ALL diseases and other ailments were cured by employing what you attribute to evolution, it would do nothing to teach men how to avoid warfare and its resultant expenditures and miseries.
Hardly the intent of a non-self-aware system, now is it? You want to blame a biochemical logic system for man's propensity towards violence, usually at the behest of his religious leaders/handlers? How odd.
It's hardly the role of Evolution to manage our stubborn, ignorant soul-less personalities, the ones that relentless Evolution has nonetheless generated but that religion has taken full advantage of.
Still, understanding Evolution has lead to startling advances in disease control, as you well know, you troll you. (See: antibiotics, and present efforts by the Centers For Disease Control to manage the evolution of all the various potentially virulent pathogens that mutate out of range of current antibiotics.)
It's also defined exactly how all the bio-diversity we observe around us has arrived. We can now rather easily track it's genetic ontogeny down to the timing and generation of the exact changes in each species, sub-species, race and tribe's genotype changes.
Just how would you define Evolution? A cat giving birth to a chicken overnight? With the result of a feathered, tailed, meowing & perching bird/predator "transitional" with whiskers? How foolish and immature.
Here: read this (that'll be the day, but still, I must try to eradicate vast personal scientific dumbing down that frantic religious absolutism hath wrought...)
Oh? How has the scientific method been applied to abiogenesis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Tell yah what, old soak: read any of the published studies I previously posted for you on RNA and precursor investigations. Whaddah yah think they are doing? Using Pick-up-Stix to get their answers? You are the one, aren't you? The virtual Anti-Christ of Rational Reasoning for sure.
What is the "scientific method?" It has thus been described:
"Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled."
"In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?" (Creation pp 50,51)
Quote:
Originally Posted by astounded_rflmn™
Back in say, 1945, it was also not possible to observe an aircraft breaking the sound barrier, nor of any aircraft exceeding Mach 2. And yet, it was predicted. And later, guess what? Science designed and then did it.
As well, the entire understanding of bacterial diseases was completely unknown back then, and yet there it was. And antibiotics interrupted some key element of it's life cycle and thus were capable of killing off massive human infections that previously, when prayer and symbolism and animal sacrifices and self-flagellation didn't do SQUAT, science held sway.
But now, in 2011, we have observed the combination of various key potential primordial elements into RNA sub-molecules, probably into full RNA as this is being written, and it's now reasonably speculated that RNA may well be the base route towards self-reproductive molecules (also known as Life, but I speculate that when it is done, you'll just redefine "life" as your type has tried to do with "Evolution" and "species". And failed, of course...
Boy, won't you be surprised in a few years when they do fully create life out of those precursors, huh? Say: you wouldn't want to bet, say, $10,000 US$ on that one would you? With all the witnesses here? Or even double or nothing, that, as you say, scientists will NEVER create self-reproducing and mutagenic life in the lab? All absent the glorious breath of God's soul?
And how's about your disclaimers about Evolution? It's now been fully
PROVED, too bad for you. Good thing you didn't bet on that one, huh? See what I've saved you?
So what do you say about all that, sunny-boy? You'll just deny it all I'd guess, since you refuse to read up on anything more scientifically recent than about 1953....
Maybe I am in for some education here.
Yep! Wisest thing you've said in this entire thread. Brace yourself, my boy!
For example, some German scientists before and during WW2 had a theory called "Eternal Ice" that supposed, among other things, that the earth was hollow and that we lived on the inside on the sphere rather than the outside. They shot radar into the sky to see if they would get a signal back from the other side. They were unable to prove their theory, so it was never an accepted fact, though some no doubt still believe in that theory. Scientists today, of course, are much smarter than those WW2 scientists and may have every thing figured out exactly right. I suspect, however, that today's scientists will look just as foolish a hundred years from now as those physicists at the turn of the 20th century whose theory said man couldn't survive speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour. Barney Oldfield (the "Mile a Minute Man) proved that theory patently false shortly after the turn of the century.
Evolution can't be proven, therefore it is still a theory, not a fact. I'm confident it will never be proven as fact.
You went this far in this thread and did not see that Evolution is both. We are on page 39. I posted a primer on this subject on page 7. Learn the difference.
Because, as has been explained to you a thousand times, "beginning" has no more to do with the Theory of Evolution, than it does with the Atomic Theory.
Explain? TELLING me that one has nothing to do with the other amounts to an "explanation?" I will never accept that! You really expect me to believe that evolution had no beginning? Your very best proponents claim that evolution had a simple beginning and became increasingly complex. I am intensely interested in that "simple" beginning. How can you expect me to believe they are two different things when one originated with the other? It's like building a tower without a foundation! Nothing to stand on. It's like saying that the man over there was never a baby. Things do not just happen. They are usually caused. If pressed, I am sure you can tell me what caused that human embryo to grow into a man. Yet you and all of your friends cannot tell me what caused evolution.
Quote:
We do not know where atoms "originated" anymore than we know where life originated. Are you going to say atomic theory is not generated using the scientific method?
Don't try to muddy up the water! I didn't ask you anything about atoms and I will not be sidetracked by atomic theory.
Quote:
Theory of evolution makes testable predictions making it astoundingly easy to replicate studies showing evolution (which is no more or less than the change in allelic frequencies over time).
That's the theory talking so, I will repeat:
"In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?"
Your language is punctuated by claims of changes taking BILLIONS of years to achieve, effectively excluding the possibility of anyone checking it out. It takes great faith to swallow that giant pill.
Wow! You are the loon incarnate aren't you?
Q1: "Why hasn't the SM been applied to evolution itself"? Oh, and this gem: "Evo has never been able to replicate a simple beginning?" Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but then we've said this so many times, it must be a permanent neural brain mis-function in all the devoutly religious, or they are unable to let go of this silliness, even though it's so wrong. It is interesting to see you make such a fool of yourself with your spectacular lack of biological knowledge. Amazing someone would do this to their own reputation! What ARE you talking about?
A1: This is not worth discussing in any detail, since you're uninterested in facts and history, and you'd just vomit it back up in some incoherent form. But know this, oh vastly ignorant one: All the advances in understanding about Evolution (and abiogenesis as well, as well as all of moden medicine, and jet plane design...) have come precisely from the careful and thorough application of the SM.
You know nothing, and are repeatedly affirming that here, to all of the readers. Astounding.
Mr. Rifleman,
If you are addressing me, let me assure you that I will not continue any sort of communication or dialogue with you if you insist on being abusive and disrespectful.
Maybe I am in for some education here.
Quote:
Yep! Wisest thing you've said in this entire thread. Brace yourself, my boy!
Look again!
My question is a simple one: Matters That Really Count
Let's look at matters that really count:
“What good is evolution in dealing with family unity, world peace, an end to pollution, corruption in high places, rising tide of crime, insecurity, poverty, economic slavery, global warming, love of fellow humans, kindness, faithfulness, integrity, justice, fairness, generosity. It is useless when it comes to motivating individuals to honesty. It is useless when it comes to avoiding harmful litigation. It is useless when it comes to promoting worthwhile morality. Its uselessness can be expanded greatly.”
No matter how you puff yourself up, you, Mr. Rifleman, have come nowhere close to showing me the value of evolution in dealing with the most important issues of life as mentioned above.
Look again!
My question is a simple one: Matters That Really Count
Let's look at matters that really count:
“What good is evolution in dealing with family unity, world peace, an end to pollution, corruption in high places, rising tide of crime, insecurity, poverty, economic slavery, global warming, love of fellow humans, kindness, faithfulness, integrity, justice, fairness, generosity. It is useless when it comes to motivating individuals to honesty. It is useless when it comes to avoiding harmful litigation. It is useless when it comes to promoting worthwhile morality. Its uselessness can be expanded greatly.”
No matter how you puff yourself up, you, Mr. Rifleman, have come nowhere close to showing me the value of evolution in dealing with the most important issues of life as mentioned above.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
I don't understand your point. Even IF evolution was completely useless, it doesn't change anything about the fact that evolution is real. Are there any other scientific facts that you hold to such a bizarre standard? What have atoms, gravity and electromagnetism done to improve family unity, create world peace and end corruption and crime? I guess you don't believe in these facts either. By the way, your idea of "matters that really count" is entirely subjective. The theory of evolution has saved millions of lives through the improved understanding of diseases and cures. That may be irrelevant to you but it sure does matter to me.
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.
