sammy7

!

Moderator Note

sammy7, you have three choices here.

 

1. I close this thread

 

2. I close your other thread that I split for you to discuss this exact same question: http://www.sciencefo...ution-creation/

 

3. I merge them both.

 

Pick one and in future, don't open multiple threads on the one topic.

 

 

sure sorry then just delete the other one then if thats alright?

hay ringer immortal assinine cretina moontana man etc i have reviewed the hox literature

immortal if you will could you please write in a few sentences what you feel/believe/understand etc that literature to "show" if you will?

then based on what you feel it "shows" could you please start running me through it step by step (yes this may be an arduous process i know) like based on whatever you feel it "shows" point me to say eg. "page 5 top left column' or "page 2 bottom left column" etc etc if you understand what im saying?

ok thanks

bye

What does "the land of Nod" mean as mentioned on Genesis 4.16 ?

lol i posted this before but why does it keep getting deleted please mod? to the original poster i personally find it interesting that in the game command and conquer "kains" side has the "hand of nod" comment please

Well, how can they both be literally true? Genesis 1 says humans were created after the other animals, men and woman together. Genesis 2 says humans were created before the other animals, man first and then woman after from man's rib.

 

How can both be literally true?

im surpised at how well evolutionists know their bible lol (if you are one i presume?). i presume your belief of origins is whats commonly referred to as "the big bang" or "stellarnucleosynthesis" or something? id be interested to hear your personal beliefs...that said

genesis 1 is the literal six days in the order that it is alleged to have happened (which i believe obv)

genesis 2 appears to be a recap of the events of creation week in seemingly no apparent order....

yes that is the logic i follow lol

this is for immortal and ringer- i am going to bed soon, im at page 5 of the hox literature, it is quite long and will take a few more hours etc etc... i will read your literature ringer after i consume this one and discuss its points/or lack thereof with immortal

ok about the telomere telomere literature, please both read it if you will immortal and ringer (click the link and the pdf should pop up, you can save it). i will give one example were they assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observation/effect today. it happens at least once more...( i will let you guys see if you can find where/how)

"The data we present here

demonstrate that a telomere-to-telomere fusion of ancestral

chromosomes occurred, leaving a pathognomonic relic at"

okay please notice the word "occurred" again here we see the assigning an unobserved cause in the past to this present day effect. again if this logic is used i can insert any insane unobserved story i want into being the cause and say thats what accounts for any observation i can make today...do you understand this? or am i on my own in this line of thinking lol? i will await your responses on this (and it does happen at least once more in the literature) and discuss it more if you want, then i will probably go to bed and continue the hox literature when i wake up...

ok i will review all these literatures and comment, i will not reply to posts like moontan man or the ones below just using analogies/metaphors... give me some time i will review the literatures and post...

If you're not satisfied with the overview and don't believe in it, search the article in scientific journals like Nature or scientific american, I can't do much other than that.

no if you wont cite it then its not evidence, N-D-T is making the claim, its up to its proponents (if you are) to cite it.... if you do find it and cite it i would be happy to read it.... (NOT JUST AN OVERVIEW)

here is the telomere telomere paper.

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf

Science is not a propaganda we are open to alternate explanations and theories which gives better explanations based on evidence than the current ones.

unfortunately thats not how the scientific heirarchy seems to operate...(JUST MY OPINION)

please link to just one literature then..i will only read and fail one from each person... ( i dont have infinity time lol) well maybe more if i think its worth it for some unknown reason...

again not an overview actual literature....(no someones OPINION on that talk origins site does not count lol, we are trying to elevate this to level of science remember not hear-say...

Again I ask, since we can't directly observe atoms do they not exist?

i have never even looked down a tunneling electron microscope or whatever but based on some vids i saw on youtube they seemed to define them somewhat

this is a poor reference , i could find more but i dont think its terribly relevant to our discussion... if your referring to the nucleus or whatever...well..i only learned of imagining techniques 2 hours ago so i cant really comment... i dont see how its hugely relevant though given some of the vids on youtube can define them to some degree...

Macro-evolution is a theory, it is not a fact. Please care to read what the paper claims to explain, before it was argued that there was no genetic mechanism for macro-evolution but now the researchers have found out a genetic mechanism of how macro-evolution could've happened.

if the scientific model goes- hypothesis-observation-theory etc etc darwinian evolution/neo-darwinain theory/the general theory of macro evolution is stalled on the hypothesis stage.. (if this is not the right model please write out the precise right model thanks)

i dont care what an overview says i need ACTUAL LITERATURE. on a topic like this an overview will not suffice...ACTUAL LITERATURE PLEASE lol.

The geological evidence provides the conditions that prevailed on earth at different times, molecular clocks and evolutionary trees provides timescales on when a population diverged and branched out to form a different species, this is the most reasonable explanation that we have got based on evidence.

again we are back to the ol assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today.....when one starts noting this trend they dont think that it could possibly extend to the literature itself do they? lol please see the telomere telomere paper and comment on that for me..INTERESTING NOTE-francis collins himself referenced me this paper.....

i dont know what else to say.....if no one can cite anything then the title of my post is accurate....comment away please.

Sorry, you're not allowed to move the goal post you started with. Now, we did not observe the birth of Earth. Again, are you saying that makes our belief in the result, the existence of Earth, one based in faith?

yes we BOTH did not observe the birth of the earth...when it comes to origins wether its cosmic evolution or creation...as we already know...these are faith based beliefs....

we can observe the earth right here in the present..what does that tell us? well that tells us we can observe the earth right here in the present...i cant make it more simpler than this.

thanks for reading

sammy7,

 

There are plenty of examples where science holds up its hands and says "I don't know" because, as you say, it happened in the past or is unobserved. This, however, doesn't mean inference can't be employed as a very real and compelling answer to whatever the question may be. In astrology the observation that a star wobbles, given our clearly understood knowledge of the physics involved, it is perfectly reasonable to assume such wobbling is the result of a planet orbiting.

Science has provided a myriad of evidence to support evolution (just google it), what exactly is your counter proposal to explain everyday observations of our planets flora and fauna.

 

 

lol i saw it. hi dimreepr thanks for the reply, my personal belief is biblical creationism if you will, i do not claim this to be"scientific", i take by faith genesis 1.1 to be a literally true. please see my other thread in speculations i just started.... thanks

I say that you don't know what is meant when scientists say observable.

 

 

 

They are scientifically observable, just not by the arbitrary definition you are using.

 

 

 

You don't understand what I meant when I said it has nothing to do with how factual evolution is. No matter how many questions you throw out at an individual that they can't answer it doesn't mean A.) that the answer is unknown or B.) if the answer is unknown it negates all the other evidence available.

 

Please share this video where Dawkins says that evolution is not observable today.

hi please see my new thread in speculations...

That's odd because he never said that. He said there's no limit to variation in DNA. Now you've raised questions about your ability to comprehend by reading and listening to what others write and say because he wrote and said DNA and you read and heard speciation.

my mistake thank you for pointing that out...

So our belief that Earth exists is based on faith?

can we observe it right here in the present?......(no semantics about time please you know what i mean..i could elaborate on this further but i hope i wont need to)

ahh thanks dude, im new here just trying to get something going...gr8 links thanks

im sorry i didnt see the literature ( i dont want just an overview)....also even just by reading the overview i can see the same trait as in the telomere telomere paper-assigning an unobserved cause in the past to account for an observation today (this is plain and simply a story wether you like it or not, if one chooses to believe it, it is taken by faith that it happened)- i dont need to say the utterly insane things i could fit into this model if i wanted to and call it science...please cite the actual literature if you have it...

I did see it. It contains zero evidence proving the scientific method to be faith based. Neither does this one. Back up your assertions or retract them.

 

 

baloney! I posted a 9 minute video and you claim you watched it in 2 minutes, the time by which you responded to the post with the video.

i watched your video, i left the guy a comment asking for literature for his claim "there is no limit to speciation"

We don't observe the birth of planets in our lifetime either, particularly the Earth's. Will you now tell us that accretion disks are not science either?

i dont know what that is (yet) but if we didnt observe something then if we believe it happened it is taken by faith that it did....

hay thanks. well it is still a faith position. it is in the past. it was never observed. if one wishes to believe in it, it is taken by faith that it happened...could you please cite one piece of literature for that homeobox thing you said that has actually been observed? thanks

we can see the effects, but we do not know all of the causes.

i can hardly believe this... its in the "fusion of ancestral chromosome 2" paper as well.... they are attributing an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today...and it starts with the big fat presupposition----darwinian evolution is true.... i see circular reasoning here...do you?

also could you please quote 3 ways it would be falsifiable?.....

It may not be an exact science like physics and mathematics but it still falls in the domain of science because the theory is falsifiable. It is a type-2 science.

thanks for the reply i didnt expect people to take to it so kindly lol. is there a model for this type-2 science? (i would be interested to see it) also about it being falsifiable......neo darwinian theory has this almost magic attribute of actually not being falsifiable....lol....i will await your comments before posting more. thanks

Macro-evolution is not something which can be observed in a person's life time, we can make inferences from the mutations of homeobox genes which indicates that small and single mutations can cause a wide range of abdomen changes with limbs developing in every segments to no limbs at all, so its not that unlikely considering the millions of years of evolution on earth. We don't just accept the macro-evolution theory as a fact, theories are there to give us better explanations for our collected observed data.

ok. please see dictionary definiton of science. . you have just reiterated what dawkins said ie-we dont observe it today, because it happened in the past. this is not science. (again see dictionary definition again)

Just because macro-evolution is not observed doesn't mean that God created the life on earth, so the arguments of creationists cannot be accepted as science they need to do more than just say there is no observable empirical testable reproducible evidence for macro-evolution. I am a theist and I don't have to make god fit with science or even call it as science.

im not suggesting that because it isnt science that MEANS there was a creation event. i never said such a thing.

by dawkins own admission N-D-T is a FAITH based position (please see 2nd video again from 16.00 onwards

definition faith-

faith-belief that is not based on proof

as you will see in my other thread yes it is faith based. yes i watched it also thanks

hi please see my other thread in speculations entitled "the general theory of evolution, neo darwinian theory is faith based" thanks

hay all just thought id throw a spanner in the works so to speak lol

please watch these videos of the worlds frontman of neo darwinian theory saying himself that (my interpretation) macro-evolutionary "theory" has never been observed and the official story is it started and stopped a long time ago without observation. also please look in your nearest dictionary for the definition of the word "science". you will notice the words OBSERVABLE EMPIRICAL TESTABLE REPRODUCIBLE etc etc........that said please view the following and comment....

from 16.15 on, notice richard dawkins comment "thats true"...................................................................................

here is a dictionary definition of "religion" from dictionary.com

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

thanks for viewing..( i will comment more on the religion definition once people have viewed/commented)

So you say atoms are observable without evidence of them being observable?

well based on the vids i just saw they are somewhat observable right? (i have no scientific training in anything whatsoever)

It has been watched and commented on, not that it has anything to do with how factual evolution is.

well ok i have another vid if you are interested where dawkins confirms what hes saying in the above video ( not observable today, happened long time ago etc without observation..)......

Cite your sources, because so far as I am aware an atom has never been 'imaged' (I assume that means an image made of them) other that drawing based on theories.

 

hay im just reading about electron microscopy now... dont have any.

 

So you want to preach?

lol i figured this out a few days ago that IMO the whole thing is built on a house of cards/a mirage... if you would like to know more please watch the dawkins video i posted above and comment more... ( i have another video too but will wait...)