Post Reply
Page 5 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ORIGIN OF LIFE - Question 10 - How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 10:58PM #41
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:51PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:30PM, Ken wrote:

iama: "Logical reasoning from facts" is not observational scientific evidence!


Ken: Of course it isn't. It's what you do with observational scientific evidence.


Do you ever stop to think before you post?



Ken, the "facts" are the observational evidence.


Yes, I know.


Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:51PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

IF you engage, then, subsequent to the observed "facts,"in "logical reasoning from facts," and speculate "goo to zoo to you" evolution, and have no scientifically garnered "facts" as a result of testing your speculation / hypothesis, then, you don't have scientific evidence your speculation.


That's not a problem. Evolutionary biologists have plenty of "scientifically garnered" facts.


Creationists have none.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 11:50PM #42
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,000

Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:58PM, Ken wrote:



iama: "Logical reasoning from facts" is not observational scientific evidence!


Ken: Of course it isn't. It's what you do with observational scientific evidence.


Do you ever stop to think before you post?


iama: Ken, the "facts" are the observational evidence.


Ken: Yes, I know.


iama: IF you engage, then, subsequent to the observed "facts,"in "logical reasoning from facts," and speculate "goo to zoo to you" evolution, and have no scientifically garnered "facts" as a result of testing your speculation / hypothesis, then, you don't have scientific evidence your speculation.


Ken: That's not a problem. Evolutionary biologists have plenty of "scientifically garnered" facts.


Creationists have none.



iama: Yes, Yes, Yes!  They do have "scientifically garnered" facts regarding all life-forms.  That is not at issue, here!


Evolution-presuppositioned scientists, daily, garner their scientific facts. Not a problem, at all.


What scientists garner, today, as scientific facts, are not long-ages-historical facts, because those highly desired facts, are NOT available to scientists, today.


So, what evolution-presuppositioned scientist do is, based upon their legitimately garnered science facts, speculate, as d_p_m has (let the cat out of the bag, so to speak), entered into a "logical reasoning from facts"-speculation, which, if you read their journals, are stated such that all the evolutionists, posting here, believe that there are "scientifically garnered facts" evidencing evolution.  In reality each and every statement is a leap / a speculation, un-evidenced according to the scientific method of investigation / there are no evidenced-observations!


Take a trip through a biology journal some time and realize for yourself how you have been deceived.


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 11:54PM #43
steven_guy
Posts: 11,564

Mar 31, 2012 -- 11:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:58PM, Ken wrote:



iama: "Logical reasoning from facts" is not observational scientific evidence!


Ken: Of course it isn't. It's what you do with observational scientific evidence.


Do you ever stop to think before you post?


iama: Ken, the "facts" are the observational evidence.


Ken: Yes, I know.


iama: IF you engage, then, subsequent to the observed "facts,"in "logical reasoning from facts," and speculate "goo to zoo to you" evolution, and have no scientifically garnered "facts" as a result of testing your speculation / hypothesis, then, you don't have scientific evidence your speculation.


Ken: That's not a problem. Evolutionary biologists have plenty of "scientifically garnered" facts.


Creationists have none.



iama: Yes, Yes, Yes!  They do have "scientifically garnered" facts regarding all life-forms.  That is not at issue, here!


Evolution-presuppositioned scientists, daily, garner their scientific facts. Not a problem, at all.


What scientists garner, today, as scientific facts, are not long-ages-historical facts, because those highly desired facts, are NOT available to scientists, today.


So, what evolution-presuppositioned scientist do is, based upon their legitimately garnered science facts, speculate, as d_p_m has (let the cat out of the bag, so to speak), entered into a "logical reasoning from facts"-speculation, which, if you read their journals, are stated such that all the evolutionists, posting here, believe that there are "scientifically garnered facts" evidencing evolution.  In reality each and every statement is a leap / a speculation, un-evidenced according to the scientific method of investigation / there are no evidenced-observations!


Take a trip through a biology journal some time and realize for yourself how you have been deceived.


.




You seriously believe that? Yeah, right.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 5:24AM #44
d_p_m
Posts: 9,013

Mar 31, 2012 -- 11:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


So, what evolution-presuppositioned scientist do is, based upon their legitimately garnered science facts, speculate, as d_p_m has (let the cat out of the bag, so to speak), entered into a "logical reasoning from facts"-speculation, which, if you read their journals, are stated such that all the evolutionists, posting here, believe that there are "scientifically garnered facts" evidencing evolution.  In reality each and every statement is a leap / a speculation, un-evidenced according to the scientific method of investigation / there are no evidenced-observations!


Take a trip through a biology journal some time and realize for yourself how you have been deceived.




Speculation and reasoning from known facts are two entirely different processes. That you cannot tell them apart is symptomatic of the difficulty that creationists seem to have with science, where every part of the process is misunderstood and mishandled by creationist who do not understand science; it seems that they do not want to.


An example: I have mentioned before the problem that creatioists have with uniformitarian issues. Somehow, they manage to consistently and without fail, apply uniformitarian assumptions to non uniform processes, and non-uniformitarian assumptions to uniform processes. Even randomly flipping a coin to choose and approach would be much better at getting it right than these folks.


It's like they've trained themselves to fail, because successful analysis of scientific issues will give them answers they don't want to know about.


Similarly, they confuse basic scientific definitions, all the time, and seem incapable of learning the correct ones.




PHARAOH IRY-HOR, FROM THE 3100s BC, IS THE FIRST HUMAN WHOSE NAME WE KNOW.

-- cool facts from xkcd


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 8:31AM #45
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 686

Mar 31, 2012 -- 11:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


......What scientists garner, today, as scientific facts, are not long-ages-historical facts, because those highly desired facts, are NOT available to scientists, today.....




So you realize Iama, that then, according to your logic, 'creation' is also speculation since no one has actually witnessed it.




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 9:21AM #46
57
Posts: 20,548

Mar 31, 2012 -- 9:00PM, Midutch wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 4:35PM, 57 wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 4:15PM, d_p_m wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 4:04PM, 57 wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 6:31PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  Since "living fossils" exist, why haven't they changed in evolutionary long-ages?

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years,
if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.

.



Don't you know animals don'thave to change?  Of course only when it seems fit for evolutionism. 




Wow. Change 'evolutionism' to 'Theory of Evolution' and you got something more or less right.


Now all you have to do is learn how to apply the principles involved to figure answers out for yourself. It's not hard if you keep thinking about mutations creating information and natural selection separating out the good bits.



mutations don't create information.  they destroy information...get you theory right.


At the risk of having this post deleted, this would be a lie.


Mutations (the addition of completely new genetic material) adding "information" to the genomes of various bacteria that make them immune to antibiotics is a well known occurence of considerable medical concern.


You have been given this information before, and yet you continue to make this blatantly false claim.




Can you show me instances where information has been gained, that is, become more complex? Added upon several times?


If not  it is you who is lying.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 9:22AM #47
57
Posts: 20,548

Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:51PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:30PM, Ken wrote:



d_p_m: Some of us engage in a different mental activity. It's called logical reasoning from facts, and it is very different from speculation, hand-waving, and convenient assumption of pseudo-facts and conclusions.


I highly recommend you try it, you might find it rewarding.


iama: "Logical reasoning from facts" is not observational scientific evidence!


Ken: Of course it isn't. It's what you do with observational scientific evidence.


Do you ever stop to think before you post?



iama:  Ken, the "facts" are the observational evidence.


IF you engage, then, subsequent to the observed "facts,"in "logical reasoning from facts," and speculate "goo to zoo to you" evolution, and have no scientifically garnered "facts" as a result of testing your speculation / hypothesis, then, you don't have scientific evidence your speculation.


It is a speculation as long as there is never the testing to confirm your speculation by observation!


Evolutionists make a leap from the observed "facts" to their speculation.  Between the "facts" and the "speculation" the "logical reasoning from the facts" takes place. 


Evolutionists are, apparently, believing their "logical reasoning from the facts," to be true-in-reality-"facts".


Evolutionists have no evidence to support their "logical reasoning from the facts," so their resulting speculations remain speculations, and are, therefore, not true. Simple as that!


.




Evolutionism is based upon CIRCULAR reasoning.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 10:52AM #48
Midutch
Posts: 3,525

Apr 1, 2012 -- 9:22AM, 57 wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:51PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 10:30PM, Ken wrote:



d_p_m: Some of us engage in a different mental activity. It's called logical reasoning from facts, and it is very different from speculation, hand-waving, and convenient assumption of pseudo-facts and conclusions.


I highly recommend you try it, you might find it rewarding.


iama: "Logical reasoning from facts" is not observational scientific evidence!


Ken: Of course it isn't. It's what you do with observational scientific evidence.


Do you ever stop to think before you post?



iama:  Ken, the "facts" are the observational evidence.


IF you engage, then, subsequent to the observed "facts,"in "logical reasoning from facts," and speculate "goo to zoo to you" evolution, and have no scientifically garnered "facts" as a result of testing your speculation / hypothesis, then, you don't have scientific evidence your speculation.


It is a speculation as long as there is never the testing to confirm your speculation by observation!


Evolutionists make a leap from the observed "facts" to their speculation.  Between the "facts" and the "speculation" the "logical reasoning from the facts" takes place. 


Evolutionists are, apparently, believing their "logical reasoning from the facts," to be true-in-reality-"facts".


Evolutionists have no evidence to support their "logical reasoning from the facts," so their resulting speculations remain speculations, and are, therefore, not true. Simple as that!


Evolutionism is based upon CIRCULAR reasoning.


At the risk of having this post deleted, this would be a lie.


The Theory of Evolution is based on a VAST amount of logic, reasoning, observations, experimentations, scientific research and empirical evidence.


The that YOU ignore, reject, dismiss, denigrate and lie about it all does NOT change that FACT.

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 11:00AM #49
Midutch
Posts: 3,525

Apr 1, 2012 -- 9:21AM, 57 wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 9:00PM, Midutch wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 4:35PM, 57 wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 4:15PM, d_p_m wrote:


Mar 31, 2012 -- 4:04PM, 57 wrote:


Mar 28, 2012 -- 6:31PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


iama:  Since "living fossils" exist, why haven't they changed in evolutionary long-ages?

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years,
if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.

.



Don't you know animals don'thave to change?  Of course only when it seems fit for evolutionism. 




Wow. Change 'evolutionism' to 'Theory of Evolution' and you got something more or less right.


Now all you have to do is learn how to apply the principles involved to figure answers out for yourself. It's not hard if you keep thinking about mutations creating information and natural selection separating out the good bits.



mutations don't create information.  they destroy information...get you theory right.


At the risk of having this post deleted, this would be a lie.


Mutations (the addition of completely new genetic material) adding "information" to the genomes of various bacteria that make them immune to antibiotics is a well known occurence of considerable medical concern.


You have been given this information before, and yet you continue to make this blatantly false claim.


Can you show me instances where information has been gained, that is, become more complex? Added upon several times?


If not  it is you who is lying.


Moving the goal posts again? Typical. Your dishonesty knows no bounds, does it?

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 11:08AM #50
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,322

Apr 1, 2012 -- 9:21AM, 57 wrote:



Can you show me instances where information has been gained, that is, become more complex? Added upon several times?


If not  it is you who is lying.




In sickle cell disease the cause is a single nucleotide substitution cytosine-adenosine-cytosine from cytosine-thymine-cytosine that changes a single amino acid glutamic acid to valine at position 6 in the beta chain of the hemoglobin molecule.  This single change produces a different protein chain that acts exactly like the beta chain at normal oxygen concentration but polymerises at low oxygen concentrations.  While the homozygous expression of this mutation is a disease state the heterozygous state or carrier state is not only not a disease but grants a resistance to malaria.  In a typical expression of the concept of survival of the fittest, in areas where malaria is endemic, West Africa, India, the trait remains at a level of about 4% while in areas where malaria is rare such as the USA even among Blacks of West African descent the incidence is 0.25% and dropping.


As we see above a change in a single nucleotide pair produces a point mutation coding for a different protein with subtly different properties conferring disease resistance on the organism.


So I guess it is 57 who is lying.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook