Faith Freedom International :: View topic - New Species of Hominid Discovered?

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

New Species of Hominid Discovered?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

shiloh

Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 98
Location: On the Rock

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:27 am Post subject:

Hector,

You are a master bater...uh I mean worthy debater..uh something like that.

You have a belief system; everyone does. It is in the makeup of mankind to search for that which deep inside we know is missing. We want to believe in something that can explain why we are here. We are the only species in the animal kingdom that does not adhere to a basic nature..man goes against the law of nature and has a unique intellect. We all wonder why and how we are so uniquely constructed.

Quote:

Hector wrote: It is merely your assumption that 'chromosomes would have to change through some drastic mutation that does not allow the mutated strain to breed with the ancestor species'. Today, if we look at Chimps and Humans the difference in genetic material is only about 1%, but if you look at the most critical sites (because genetic material contains a lot of non-coding sequences and redundancies), the difference is only 0.6%.

All creatures on this planet have similar genetics..come on, we all breathe air and are carbon based. We live under the same natural laws that our creator established and we are all made from this earth (from dust we were made and to dust our bodies will return). 0.6% difference is still without a missing link.
Moral law exists in our hearts and we are also composed of spirit.

Mankind did not come from some chance chemical reaction and it really does get old hearing evolutionist using billions of years as a ploy to try and justify the possibilities that life just happened to beat the odds and then we evolved from primordial slime.

I concede that I cannot explicitly prove creation and I do not try to claim to understand everything, still everything we see in the natural world is the proof that a creator exists.

You cannot prove that a Creator does not exists. Good preserved Fossil records require certain conditions in order to preserve the fossil; fossil records only show that in ancient times more diversity existed than we see today.

I cannot explain the gaps and neither can scientist. All science can provide us with are theories.
_________________
American Against Islamic Infiltration and Dhimmitude

Last edited by shiloh on Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:29 am; edited 2 times in total

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:43 am Post subject:

shiloh wrote:

You are a master bater...uh I mean worthy debater..uh something like that.

The reason Hector is good at debates isn't because of his skills, but it's because he argues with facts, not opinions.

shiloh wrote:

You have a belief system; everyone does.

Assuming you're right, the difference between the belief systems of a Creationist and an Evolutionist is this : the former based his belief on imaginations, and the latter based his on scientific findings.
_________________
‌

Last edited by gupsfu on Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:55 am; edited 3 times in total

Hector

Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 7144
Location: Astroistan

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:19 am Post subject:

shiloh wrote:

Hector,

You are a master bater...uh I mean worthy debater..uh something like that.

Geez, thanks... I think.

And I see you're also a master bater yourself.

shiloh wrote:

You have a belief system; everyone does. It is in the makeup of mankind to search for that which deep inside we know is missing. We want to believe in something that can explain why we are here. We are the only species in the animal kingdom that does not adhere to a basic nature..man goes against the law of nature and has a unique intellect. We all wonder why and how we are so uniquely constructed.

You're right - everyone has a belief system. Mine happens to be humanist and rationalist.

shiloh wrote:

Quote:

At least I've shown you that the genetic difference between seemingly diverse, yet related, species is not all that great.

As for 'missing link' - if you find a link how can it be 'missing'? That's just layman semantics, in my view. Would you call Australopithecus a missing link? There's evidence that one should and could.

shiloh wrote:

Moral law exists in our hearts and we are also composed of spirit.

Well, that's the realm of faith and please don't spill it over into reason.

shiloh wrote:

Mankind did not come from some chance chemical reaction and it really does get old hearing evolutionist using billions of years as a ploy to try and justify the possibilities that life just happened to beat the odds and then we evolved from primordial slime.

That's your philosophical world view. Not mine. There's no evidence for your view.

shiloh wrote:

I concede that I cannot explicitly prove creation and I do not try to claim to understand everything, still everything we see in the natural world is the proof that a creator exists.

Good to hear. I, too, cannot explicitly prove the Theory of Creation. Don't feel bad about that. Nobody can. That's why it's called 'faith' and not 'science' or 'reason'.

In fact, I can prove the Theory of Creation is a load of crap - look at the fossil record. Out of the millions of fossils uncovered, there's not a SINGLE verified specimen of an 'out-of-place' fossil. Every single of the millions of fossils is consistent with the Theory of Evolution and inconsistent with the Theory of Creation.

shiloh wrote:

You cannot prove that a Creator does not exists. Good preserved Fossil records require certain conditions in order to preserve the fossil; fossil records only show that in ancient times more diversity existed than we see today.

No - that would be an argument from absence. I only try to explain what I see - it's called reason or logic.

As for the fossil record only showing that in ancient times there was more diversity existed than we see today - I beg to differ. Things seem strange but strangeness is not evidence of diversity (except for some periods of hyper-evolution - see theory of punctuated equilibrium). We're in the period of fairly stable ecology and therefore, we're in the 'equilibrium' state and not the 'punctuated' state according to the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

shiloh wrote:

I cannot explain the gaps and neither can scientist. All science can provide us with are theories.

But science is filling the gaps pretty quick smart. It is not the fault of Science that you are unable or unwilling to see this.

I also note you are not cognisant as to what a Scientific Theory means. The Theory of Gravity is just that - a theory. But does that mean we're all floating weightless? No. Ditto the Theory of Evolution.
_________________
What sort of man would f*ck a sweet little prepubescent nine-year-old child who liked playing with dolls and swings? Mo the demon Pedophile.

Last edited by Hector on Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:15 am; edited 4 times in total

shiloh

Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 98
Location: On the Rock

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:03 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Hector really said: I also note you are not cognisant as to what a Scientific Theory means. The Theory of Gravity is just that - a theory. But does that mean we're all floating weightless? No. Ditto the Theory of Evolution.

You have proven that you are the greatest Master Bater of the 21st century.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

Gravity was considered theory when Sir Issac Newton played with apples; now gravity is a fact and can be proven and fully tested in the labratory using a gyroscope.

We experience gravity all around us, unlike evolution which is only theory and has never been proven; nobody has ever seen a new species mutate as you evolutionist proclaim happens. Evolution cannot be proven using any experiments and until it can be reproduced over and over again, then it "remains only a fleeting illusion, to be pursued, but never attained"..
_________________
American Against Islamic Infiltration and Dhimmitude

Righteous

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 3728
Location: Through the looking glass.

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:45 pm Post subject:

Hi Shiloh,

You are using the layman's view on the word "theory". You have purposely only used the definition of "theory" to suit your story. There are theories that are mere conjectures, but there are other theories that are not conjectures but in your words

Quote:

Nothing can really be "proven" in physics. No scientist will say that his theory will forever be unassailable. All one can say is that the theory will remain "validated" by more supportive evidence, but when just one evidence to the contrary occurs, the theory may have to be discarded/revised.

Shiloh wrote:

Gravity was considered theory when Sir Issac Newton played with apples; now gravity is a fact and can be proven and fully tested in the labratory using a gyroscope.

No self respecting scientist will call gravity a "fact". How and why it works is still being worked on. Einstein's General Relativity works best at this stage but scientists don't like the way that gravity works differently from the other 3 forces. And that the fact that gravity seem to act instantaneously over infinite distances - something contradictory to the limit that the speed of light imposes on the universe.

Although our understanding of gravity has advanced greatly since Newton, gravity still remains a theory. It does not matter how many times we find supporting evidence... there is no magical point by which a theory becomes a fact.

By the way, I suggest you read up on Einstein's General Relativity to see how the theory of gravity is handled by him. And now how scientists are attempting to further his work, most notably through the Grand Unification Theory or the Theory of Everything.

Shiloh wrote:

We experience gravity all around us, unlike evolution which is only theory and has never been proven;

Yes, evolution has been "proven" ie. that evidence supporting the theory has been verified countless times. We still call evolution a theory - just in case someone will find evidence to refute it. So far, nobody has.

Shiloh wrote:

nobody has ever seen a new species mutate as you evolutionist proclaim happens.

Yes, they have. I don't think you mean "species mutate" since we can see species evolve all the time. Our real life experiments with dog and horse breeding is evidence of this.

The question of interest is speciation, when species diverse. The observed instances of speciation is given in this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html And so, we have actually observed evolution at work.

Shiloh wrote:

Evolution cannot be proven using any experiments and until it can be reproduced over and over again, then it "remains only a fleeting illusion, to be pursued, but never attained"..

No... evolution has been validated using experiments. Just follow the links I gave above. For example:

Quote:

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963.

Evolution is not an illusion. And like gravity, we keep finding evidence to support evolution time and time again.

Rgds
R
_________________
"The harsh truth is that science and Islam parted ways many centuries ago." - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear and High-Energy Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Last edited by Righteous on Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hector

Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 7144
Location: Astroistan

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:52 am Post subject:

shiloh wrote:

Quote:

You have proven that you are the greatest Master Bater of the 21st century.

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

Merry Christmas Shiloh,
I knew you were going to do this. Righteous is right - you seem to only have a lay person's view about Science. Have you been to University and studied physics?

Do you know that Gravity, besides being Newton's law and theory, is also a theory in the present day?

Have you thought of checking your facts instead of making baseless accusations and making a fool of yourself as a result? Try googling THEORY and GRAVITY. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=THEORY+GRAVITY&meta=

Here's a short list I made in 30 seconds flat:

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html

Quote:

Mercury's orbit is elliptical, as predicted by Newton's theory of gravity

http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

Quote:

2004-4-5: A theory of gravity does not need to deal with space-time topologies other than R4.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node53.html

Quote:

Gravity
In the 17th century, Sir Isaac Newton formulated his Law of Universal Gravitation to explain the observed motions of astronomical objects such as the moon and the planets. In this Chapter we will see how that this law, when supplemented with Newton's other laws, accurately describes the orbital motion of satellites and planets. We will also point out the deficiencies in Newton's theory that led Einstein to formulate his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein's theory radically altered our view of space and time, and predicted, among other things, the existence of black holes.

http://www.antigravity.org/InertialTheoryOfGravity.html

Quote:

Inertial theory of gravity is an attempt to simplify and demystify gravity.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae620.cfm

Quote:

What is the quantum theory of gravity?

etc. etc. etc.

SO WHO'S THE MASTER BATER NOW, SHILOH?

Cheers,
Hector.

PS: As for this:

shiloh wrote:

We experience gravity all around us, unlike evolution which is only theory and has never been proven; nobody has ever seen a new species mutate as you evolutionist proclaim happens. Evolution cannot be proven using any experiments and until it can be reproduced over and over again, then it "remains only a fleeting illusion, to be pursued, but never attained"..

How come it took until 1665 for someone to discover the Theory of Gravity when gravity was so evident. Didn't people before 1665 realise that there was such a thing as gravity? After all they must also have experienced gravity all around them.

As for evolution not being able to be proven using any experiments - you have little understanding of how science works. There's such a thing as observational science as opposed to empirical science.

For instance, we theorise the Big Bang. We can never lab test it. But we can see the results. These results are consistent with the theory of the Big Bang. Therefore, based on probability the Big Bang is the likely scenario. But we can never ever ever test the Big Bang.

In fact, the realm of cosmology falls squarely in the 'observational' science category and not in empirical science. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199605/0001.html

I suggest this link which is a good layman start in understanding the Scientic Method and what science actually means/ involves. http://users.aristotle.net/~asta/science.htm

Here is even one from a Creation site that explains the difference between observational and empirical science. This site also explains that fossils (i.e. evolution/paleontology) are observational and not empirical.
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx5c.htm

Further, Righteous has given you links and examples of how evolution is/was observed in experimental situations. Therefore, it seems to me that evolution is a primarily observational science, but unlike astronomy also has some empirical elements.

In short, you are merely parroting the usual Creationist line: demanding a standard that does not exist (i.e. that all science must be empirical and not observational). I think this is a form of the Logical Fallacy of Interrogation, and also a straw man.
_________________
What sort of man would f*ck a sweet little prepubescent nine-year-old child who liked playing with dolls and swings? Mo the demon Pedophile.

Last edited by Hector on Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am; edited 8 times in total

shiloh

Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 98
Location: On the Rock

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:00 pm Post subject: Theory versus Law

Come now Hector, the theory of gravity has been proven and is called the Law of Gravity. It is mathematically proven as well as has been reproduced in the labratory and is used in physics. Without laws of motion and law of gravity Physics would be unintelligeable.

From hypothesis to theory then to important law of physics

Quote:

The Law of Gravity

Newton discovered the Law of Gravity. Just what is it? Is it as simple as, "Things tend to fall downward?" Of course people knew that things fall downward, ever since there were people. Newton never mentioned being hit on the head by an apple, but he did say that he saw an apple fall. Maybe the moon was in the sky at the time, maybe not. But when Newton saw the apple fall, and thought about it, his great insight was that he saw that the same thing that caused the apple to fall (gravity) was what held the moon in its orbit.
Along with his laws of motion, Newton's law of gravity led directly to mathematical explanations of Galileo's falling object experiments (See Galileo And The Leaning Tower of Pisa), and Kepler's Laws concerning the motions of the planets. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states:

F=Gm1m2/d2
F is the force of gravity, G is a constant (the Gravitational Constant) which can be measured, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects (earth and apple or earth and moon, in the above text), and d is the distance between them. You can see that gravity follows the famous inverse square law that many physical phenomena follow.

One consequence of all this is that everything attracts everything else with gravitational forces. The earth attracts the apple and the apple attracts the earth with the same force. The apple is the one that moves noticeably because it is so much lighter (and easier to move) than the earth. The earth and a ten pound weight are attracted to each other with a force of exactly ten pounds. In fact, that is the definition of weight, the force of gravitational attraction. Everything attracts everything, hence the "universal" in the name of Newton's law. And the law holds way out as far as telescopes can see; it is truly universal.

Einstein's General Relativity is the more recent, more accurate, law of gravity. Has Newton's law of gravity been thrown onto the trash heap? Is it wrong? No, it is a very valuable first approximation which is good enough for almost all purposes. And Newton's law is valuable for comparison with and understanding Einstein's version. And Einstein's version is too complicated for most purposes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: the above article uses subscripts and superscripts. Here is the law, without these symbols (with M and m being the two masses):

F=GMm/d^2

When will we have a law of evolution?
It must first be mathmatically possible and then the theory must have repeatable results through observation and experimentation.
_________________
American Against Islamic Infiltration and Dhimmitude

Hector

Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 7144
Location: Astroistan

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Theory versus Law

shiloh wrote:

Quote:

When will we have a law of evolution?
It must first be mathmatically possible and then the theory must have repeatable results through observation and experimentation.

Dear Shiloh,
You obviously still do not understand the nature of Science and have some deficiencies in your education. Here are my observations:
1. You haven't read my links above that explains all this.

2. You confuse scientific laws and theory. Here is the link again. This time I'll highlight the relevant portion.

http://users.aristotle.net/~asta/science.htm

Quote:

Science definitions for the following terms are specific:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Hypothesis: A testable statement or prediction about the natural world which can be supported by experiment or observation.
Law: A descriptive generalization or pattern about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances, often stated in a form of a mathematical equation.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of how the natural world works that explains facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Note here that Scientific Theory explains the scientific laws. They are not mutually exclusive. It is the layman's mistake to assume that the sequence goes from hypothesis to theory to law. This is not the case. The theory of gravity remains a theory. The Newtonian law of gravity is explained by the general theories of gravity - including quantum theory - see one of my links above. Better yet - google theory of gravity and check for yourself.

3. You seem to think the Newtonian Law of Gravity is all there is to know about gravity. This is not the case anymore with new discoveries like quantum physics.

shiloh wrote:

When will we have a law of evolution?
It must first be mathmatically possible and then the theory must have repeatable results through observation and experimentation.

You are committing another straw man. Is there a requirement for any branch of science to be a law before it's valid? I suggest you re-read my links about the nature of science.

Therefore, you're proved wrong again. Tell me, is there a Law of Creation? The word of the Bible doesn't count.

Didn't you read the creationist article I provided that talks about the difference between observational and empirical science? Why are you demanding ToE to be totally empirical? I've already pointed out that by doing so you are committing the logical fallacies of interrogation and the straw man.

Is there a mathematical equation for Creation? Unless you can come up with one, don't come and demand this test for ToE because that would be unfair and hypocritical. Heaven forbid.

And I know you are not unfair and hypocritical.
_________________
What sort of man would f*ck a sweet little prepubescent nine-year-old child who liked playing with dolls and swings? Mo the demon Pedophile.

Righteous

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 3728
Location: Through the looking glass.

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:38 am Post subject: Re: Theory versus Law

Hector wrote:

Note here that Scientific Theory explains the scientific laws. They are not mutually exclusive. It is the layman's mistake to assume that the sequence goes from hypothesis to theory to law.

Very good observation.

I also find many people not in the science field to make such mistakes. The biggest one is "its only a theory" to disqualify anything they don't like. And the exact reverse, "its a fact/law" in an attempt to raise the significance of their argument.

Rgds
R
_________________
"The harsh truth is that science and Islam parted ways many centuries ago." - Pervez Hoodbhoy, Professor of Nuclear and High-Energy Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

shiloh

Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 98
Location: On the Rock

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:27 pm Post subject: Double team bring it on!

I stand corrected and am at fault for considering theory to be separate from scientific laws. I now have the correct definition of theory, so please accept my modest crawfishing.

Quote:

A hypothesis is a formal generalization, or tentative explanation for a set of data, or a group of observations. A hypothesis allows scientists to design specific, do able experiments to test whether the tentative explanation will work on a new set of observations on the same subject. A theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested to the point of being generally accepted as true. Sometimes we use the term "law" for a very extensively tested theory, especially one that has an equation, or quantitative rule used to predict the outcome in a certain situation, e.g., the Law of Gravity. It is a common error to assume that when a scientist uses the term "theory" that he or she means something which is still not yet believed or accepted. This is not true. The word is used for almost all principles because we do not really understand anything completely.

I have a hard time with the notion that evolution can be considered a theory in the first place. I suppose that within the scientific community one must concede that evolution is "generally accepted" though this is of itself not adequate to declare it a serious theory. As a theory evolution is lacking scientific experiments to test whether the tentative explanation will work on a new set of observations on the same subject, therefore evolution is at best only a generally accepted hypothesis.

Quote:

Science is a way of thinking and scientists use that way of thinking to conceive conceptual schemes or theories that are rational representations of collective human experience. The function of theory is to help us grasp the whole picture. Following Holton, we can define a scientific theory in the following way:

Scientific Theory: A theory is a conceptual scheme which we invent or postulate in order to explain to ourselves, and to others, observed phenomena and the relationships between them. Thus the theory brings together in one structure the observations, concepts, hypotheses, principles, and laws from often very widely different fields.
Theories are of value to science because they unify, and in so doing they simplify. A theory is assumed to have universal applicability when it agrees with what we already know and can be repeatedly validated by future experiences to which it is applied.

An important question is where do theories come from? Is a theory entirely suggested by a scientist's examination of data, or is it purely a product of imagination in which the scientist's mind has been set into action by contact with data? Alternatively, could the theory be the result of a combination of observation and imagination? To such questions there are no right or wrong answers. In fact, there is not even a consensus among those scholars who care about such issues.

Of great concern now as in the past to scientists and nonscientists alike is whether or not science captures reality? This long-standing question can be said to be roughly equivalent to asking which of the philosophies, realism or idealism, characterizes what scientific theories reveal. Realism is the belief that experiences that come by way of our senses must reveal a "real" world that exists independent of any human perceiver or acts of perception. The other doctrine, idealism, is the belief that there is no objective or absolute reality apart from the products of our imagination or mental constructs. According to idealism humanity can fashion only imperfect copies of that ultimate reality of our imaginations.

Idealism and realism are philosophical orientations whose origins can be traced back to Plato (427-347 B.C.) and his pupil and successor Aristotle, respectively. Thus the philosophical orientation of scientists never has and probably never will be as rigidly prescribed as one might suppose it to be. Einstein approached this difficult problem in an illuminating way. He observed that the practicing scientist "appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe the world independent of the act of perception, but as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free invention of the human spirit." Thus both realism and idealism may have a place in answering the question of reality in scientific theories.
http://www.physics.gmu.edu/classinfo/astr103/CourseNotes/ECText/ch03_txt.htm

My primary problem with accepting the theory of evolution, as it presently stands, is that it cannot be "repeatedly validated" and instead the theory itself is in a constant state of evolution.
I really consider it only to be a hypothesis of evolution.
My point is that for the theory of evolution to be more than just generally accepted within some of the scientific community, it should have useful "laws" for very extensive testing of the theory; at minimum the theory should have some quantitative rule used to predict the outcome in certain situations. I am looking for quantitative testing with repeatable observations that support the theory.
_________________
American Against Islamic Infiltration and Dhimmitude

Hector

Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 7144
Location: Astroistan

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:56 pm Post subject: Re: Double team bring it on!

shiloh wrote:

I stand corrected and am at fault for considering theory to be separate from scientific laws. I now have the correct definition of theory, so please accept my modest crawfishing.

Quote:

Merry Christmas shiloh,
Thanks for the vigorous and well-mannered discussion. I will close on several points:
1. Repeated experiences - is not repeated experiments. It is very difficult if not impossible to experiment directly in the observational sciences. This standard of lab testing is a layman's view. Through much of the scientific fields, it is impossible to lab test. The prime example is astronomy - how do you lab test a supernova? Evolution, because of the time scale involved, is a mainly historical endeavour and therefore cannot easily be lab tested, although Righteous has pointed out some experiments that seem to validate the theory.

2. Secondly, repeated experiences is what we see with ToE - every fossil dug up and analysed and invariably found compatible with the ToE and incompatible with the ToC is a repeated experience.

3. As for quantitative testing - I suggest this is another standard that does not exist. Evolution is not physics nor is it mathematics. The quantitative testing is mainly limited to dating procedures and measurements of fossils. To have a mathematical equation that proves evolution is absurd and unfair. Why don't you ask your local priest for a mathematical equation to prove God created man?

Again, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
H
_________________
What sort of man would f*ck a sweet little prepubescent nine-year-old child who liked playing with dolls and swings? Mo the demon Pedophile.

shiloh

Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 98
Location: On the Rock

Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:06 am Post subject: In closing

Merry Christmas Hector,
Thank you for the vigorous and well-mannered discussion, especially in light of your patience with my lack of scientific expressions (I am educated by the way, though only in the engineering sciences)

Quote:

1. Repeated experiences - is not repeated experiments. It is very difficult if not impossible to experiment directly in the observational sciences. This standard of lab testing is a layman's view. Through much of the scientific fields, it is impossible to lab test. The prime example is astronomy - how do you lab test a supernova? Evolution, because of the time scale involved, is a mainly historical endeavour and therefore cannot easily be lab tested, although Righteous has pointed out some experiments that seem to validate the theory.

2. Secondly, repeated experiences is what we see with ToE - every fossil dug up and analysed and invariably found compatible with the ToE and incompatible with the ToC is a repeated experience.

3. As for quantitative testing - I suggest this is another standard that does not exist. Evolution is not physics nor is it mathematics. The quantitative testing is mainly limited to dating procedures and measurements of fossils. To have a mathematical equation that proves evolution is absurd and unfair. Why don't you ask your local priest for a mathematical equation to prove God created man?

My short reply to your conclusions are as follows:

1) The theory "TOE" will continue to evolve as man lives out his short lifespan in pursuit of more perfect knowledge.

2) I agree that more experience is gained with each new fossil discovery; I would not call it repeated, since each new find brings with it new hypothesis.

3)Since quantitative testing is not practical due to billions of years needed to uphold such a theory, the jury is still out. LOL..Forgive my I thought for a moment that I was a member of the jury..ROFL..

In closing my part of this thread:

_________________
American Against Islamic Infiltration and Dhimmitude

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:44 am Post subject:

Quote:

I do not need any priest, pastor, or any other man to provide proof of the existance of a creator, for the proof is all around me and within me.

Proof? No, that's a pathetic way to deny you have no proof.

Anyway, merry xmas. *<

_________________
‌

heisiam

Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 29

Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:10 am Post subject:

BloodoftheLamb wrote:

Jesus the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

the evolutionists are busy with their erasers again.

LOL...

God is an evolutionist!
whose side are you on? i'd check on that.

look at how far we've gotten, without God's help.
modern technology is developing faster and faster everyday, social standards are being raised and despite the wars (which are inevitable... someone's always got something to sya! *wink*)

the evolutionist theory is flawed just as much as any religious theory. so why come crashing down on them? do you know how we got here?
_________________
i am a sinner lord, and i'll prove it to you.
with every waking breath i'll send them to you.
living or dead, they will make a choice.

..heisnotsoiamnotsoheis..

heisiam

Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 29

Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:13 am Post subject:

gupsfu wrote:

Quote:

I do not need any priest, pastor, or any other man to provide proof of the existance of a creator, for the proof is all around me and within me.

Proof? No, that's a pathetic way to deny you have no proof.

Anyway, merry xmas. *<

if provided with the means for obtaining proof would you have the drive to look for it?

season's greetings! :?)
_________________
i am a sinner lord, and i'll prove it to you.
with every waking breath i'll send them to you.
living or dead, they will make a choice.

..heisnotsoiamnotsoheis..

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum