Author Topic: Scientific Method or Fiction: What be they teaching our kids these here days  (Read 1409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Right skarke, when fuged numbers and lies are used to tout "science" it isn't science, it is just another liar poseing as something they are not, especially not scientist. eddie

Without fear of damnation there is no need for faith in redemption.
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
I don't fear God as he gave us the way to life. I fear what happens if i choose to not follow his way . I see it as a big difference. This debate about flawed numbers to me is the same as false religions . If you look you will find flaws in most things man has a hand in . The problem is in either is people try to change the facts to suit their goal. Scientfic fact don't change nor does the word of God. The funny thing is after all these years we are still learning about both and really havent mastered either. When man learns To let God lead him in his scientific serches he will find more success IMHO. Why because them man will only seek truth not reconition .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241

Person B: Paleontologist with studies in evolution and using carbon dating.  Found many things that are millions of years old using carbon dating.

I had a professor tell me one time that science and religion are not compatible but he looked forward to the day science could prove god existed.


 Carbon 14 can't be used to date anything over ~50,000 years old.

 Evolutionary 'science' will never prove God's existence; it presupposes that there is no God. An atheistic world view drives their though processes, so why would anyone assume that they could ever find God? And if their philosophy is A-OK, why would another's theistic world view be "not compatible" with science? Because he might actually find evidence of God?

 'Scientists' trying to prove evolution are dealing with historical evidence, not the observation and repeatability that science requires in order to determine a theory to be true or not. Nobody was around to watch evolution happen in the past and there isn't any evidence it's happening now. The fossil record is one of extinction, not evolution.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline MGMorden

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2093
  • Gender: Male
Carbon 14 can't be used to date anything over ~50,000 years old.

Which is why for older samples different, but similar techniques are used, such as Uranium-Lead dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

Quote
Evolutionary 'science' will never prove God's existence; it presupposes that there is no God. An atheistic world view drives their though processes, so why would anyone assume that they could ever find God? And if their philosophy is A-OK, why would another's theistic world view be "not compatible" with science? Because he might actually find evidence of God?

All good scientific theories presuppose that anything that hasn't yet been proven by evidence is false.  If you come up with solid evidence for your position, scientists will adjust their position.  Indeed scientists, MUCH unlike religious people, are FAR more amicable to changing their ideas, because they strive to know truth - but only truth that has evidence.

Quote
'Scientists' trying to prove evolution are dealing with historical evidence, not the observation and repeatability that science requires in order to determine a theory to be true or not. Nobody was around to watch evolution happen in the past and there isn't any evidence it's happening now. The fossil record is one of extinction, not evolution.

I think you're confusing the concept of evolution with the question "has it happened in Earth's past".  The concept of evolution can and has been tested.  In the lab we have been able to get small organisms to evolve.  You can see it everyday with bacteria in regard to antibiotics.  Hit bacteria with anti-biotics for a short time, and those that are most resistant to it survive. The result is once they build back up, they whole population is now more resistant.  This is a survival adaptation, and this is is repeatable, and testable.  As to it happening?  Looks pretty likely.  It's obvious that huge changes can be made in selective breeding  of animals.  Just look at the number of changes humans have created in various dog breeds in the span of just a few thousands years.  Now, when you go back over time through the fossil record, we see animals change a little bit by little bit.  It's gradual, but it is indeed there.  Go back in small steps and everything looks like it's predecessor.  Go back in huge jumps though and between spans of millions of years, species change radically.  It's pretty obvious that they're changing form over that span, so we basically get left with two possibilities: is a giant invisible man with a beard making it happen by magic, or is it the result of a plausible phenomenon which is already been observed to happen in the lab setting?

Offline skarke

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
MG,

I think that we have already discussed interspecies variability, and no one is denying the ability of an organism to adapt.  What critics of macroevolution claim is that no evidence exists in the sea slime to homo sapien leap.

I continue to find it interesting that few get the point that the problem is bias, not scientific method.  Those of us who hold complete faith in the macro-evolutionary theory, please explain to the rest of us the cambrian explosion.

Also, if you would be so kind, I'm very interested in learning about your opinion of the concept of irreducible complexity (that concept where even the simplest of organisms are so complex that they couldn't possibly exist by chance, because if any part of their structure was missing, the creature cannot live), especially since we hade devolved our discussion into one of single celled organisms.

No, believing that eons ago, in some primordial sludge, the right group of chemicals just bumped together into a complex dna sequence to form an ameoba like creature, now THAT is faith.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.  Ronaldus Maximus

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
 1. Uranium-lead dating canont be used to detemine what era an organism that became a fossil (which has, by definition had its organic material replaced with minerals) lived.

 2. Scientists are rarely "amicable to changing their ideas." (see my 1st post in this thread).

 3. Scientists have never seen any organism "evolve" into another species; they have only seen them "adapt" to their environment.

 Dogs, though they can be made to look different through selective breeding (via intelligent intervention), they're still all dogs, and will never become chickens due to built-in limitations present in all genetic material.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
skarke, the anatomy and physiology books describe it very much as you described it. Mitocondria bumped into some protoplasm and a symbiotic relationship formed. Not even reproduction at that point. Life probably came about in other ways also, asexual as well as sexual reproduction also that still goes on. eddie
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline skarke

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
eddie,  with all due respect, MITOCHONDRIA and PROTOPLASM don't just exist outside of the cell.  They are part of a whole.  Yet again we run headlong into the fact that the simplest cells are irreducibly complex.  They literally cannot exist missing say, at least one mitochondrion.  And, mitochoindria don't just form up for the heck of it.

Gunk producing life is the exact baseless "science" that we teach our kids, because atheists cannot explain life outside of the existence of a Creator.  It is speculation, not science.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.  Ronaldus Maximus

Offline crustylicious

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Reading is fundamental, comprehension optional!

I don't have a problem with either science or religion. The bible and science can and do coexist. The Bible is one of the greatest books ever written. A great book to draw inner strength, inspiration, and direction from. I don't believe it was ever meant to be a science book.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and the wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
"The speaking in perpetual hyperbole is comely in nothing but love" Francis Bacon, Sr.
Voting is like driving a car- choose (D) to go forward- choose (R) to go backwards!
When all think alike, no one thinks very much. Albert Einstein

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
A step along the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_life#Evolution_of_life

Wikipedia:
Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[2][229] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[230]

The eukaryotes were the next major change in cell structure. These came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[99][231] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[232] An independent second engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[233] It is unknown when the first eukaryotic cells appeared though they first emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago.

The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[2][234] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[235]

138.^ a b Schloss P, Handelsman J (December 2004). "Status of the microbial census". Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68 (4): 686–91. doi:10.1128/MMBR.68.4.686-691.2004. PMID 15590780.
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4495
  • Gender: Male
Here's the statement of assumption in the wikipedia post ... "it is generally accepted." By who? By folks with a bias to believe whatever follows that statement. It was generally accepted by the United States that Obama was the best Presidential candidate. It is generally accepted that we must all go green, that climate change is massive. It is generally accepted by billions on this planet that Mohammed will return to reestablish an Islamic theocracy. You'd be suprised what the phrase "it is generally accepted" has been used to justify.

Some folks should read from more than one scientific school of thought, as even within the sciences there are competing theories as we should expect. Heard a great discussion today on the radio about the relationship between mind and body; it has been generally accepted by the evolutionary school of thought that the brain (physical organ) is the cause of the mind - causality is accepted. However current scientific study has proven the opposite is true, the mind can change the biological framework of the brain, as evidenced in cognitive behavioral studies involving stroke patients who literally forced their brain to move functioning from the damaged area into a different area, with no loss of function in other areas. So current scientific research has negated the causality of the animate to the inanimate. It has not identified where the mind comes from, but its clear the relationship is not as was generally accepted. Kinda reverses the ascendancy of psychiatry over non-pharmaceutical therapies if medicating the brain doesn't fix the mind, but training the mind heals the brain.

You mentioned cells; the DNA mapping studies have found a wall they cannot go beyond. Within the cells there are translators that read the DNA code and call out to proteins, etc. to form new cells or repair damaged cells using the DNA as the blueprint. But there is no scientific way to determine how the translator knows how to read the DNA or communicate to the proteins. It just happens; its observable, reproducible, consistent in every life form. Somehow that little foreman has ingrained knowledge to interpret and take action on external data. But we have no way of measuring that, not that the item isn't measurable - there's just no indication as to how its doing it.

The sheer volume of data out there, study after study reaching a dead end ... its no wonder that a hermeneutical bias is so prevalent among scientists. Its not personally satisfying when after you've bored through all the layers, conducted test after test, there is still an x factor that is unquantifiable given the limitations of our ability to only measure time and space. There is an assumption among the hobbyist intellectuals that science has it licked - but if you read scientific journals and listen to the lectures you begin to hear the opposite is quite true.
held fast

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Yep, God did it sure makes it clear and simple. eddie
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4495
  • Gender: Male
Newton said, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." God did it can be both true and sufficient to explain natural things, unless your presupposition is that God does not exist. Since you can no more satisfyingly prove to me that He does not exist, than I can satisfyingly prove to you He does, He remains a possiblity and therefore cannot be removed from the list of optional answers. I chose to be unbiased, and leave all possibilities on the table until proven otherwise.
held fast

Offline skarke

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Does anybody here have any clue as to how complex a prokaryote is?  The cell structure and functioning is hopelessly complex for even the most faithful of the sludge to life religion to explain by chance.

Take a look at one.  What that little flagellum that you see attached to is a cell structure that looks a whole lot like an outboard motor.  If any part of that "motor" like apparatus is missing, guess what, it doesn't run.  So, the sludge to life crowd must believe that miraculously a whole buch of atoms jumped together in such a perfect fashion to complete the propulsion system AND that bunch of atoms just happened to jump together with the remaining hundreds of rna sequences to just fly into a prokaryote.

HMMMM, doesn't seem like there is any faith going on here ;) ;) ;D

No, if you believe that life evolved from sludge to homo sapien, it didn't start with prokaryotes.  Logic dictates that it HAD to have started with something simpler.  The problem is, no simpler life form exists that isn't parasitic, or symbiotic.  No proof exists that there ever was a simpler, autonomous creature that predates a prokaryote.  So, if it (the prokaryote) is the simplest creature, and it is too hopelessly complex to exist by chance, then the problem becomes a paradox.

Except for the Mighty Hand of God.

See, the "science" of evolution relies at its very core on faith in an unprovable hypothesis, that of sludge to life.  Life is special, and miraculous.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.  Ronaldus Maximus