Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.
Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.
Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.
Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.
Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.
Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.
The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.
read later
“Science magazine in 2001 says
You should check these references out yourself rather than trusting someone else who says they support your position. The title of the article is "Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?" and discusses evidence (fossil and molecular clock) that many of the phyla seen in the Cambrian had Precambrian origins. We have some excellent strata for Cambrian fossils but nothing so nice for Precambrian, although we're currently getting some interesting metazoan embryos from Precambrian strata in China that are providing such evidence.
...the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian ...and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.”
I looked this up and it was a true quote, but I'm not sure why the author said it, unless he was just overcome by enthusiasm. A discussion of the difficulty of placing Cambrian organisms into modern phyla is given here.
If space itself is expanding, the resultant speed of light is dependant on the rate of expansion. This is also the reason for all red shift observations from Earth. It all expanded away from Earth, in every direction.
The speed of light is unchanged, the wavelength is just modified.
Thanks for the post. :-D
Dr. Idiot, all I can tell is you are a Dr. of BS.
I agree.
[What is the time limit for evolution? Is there a specific rate of change organisms have to hold to? Is there a maximum species life span where the species has to either become extinct or speciate? Where can I find the literature that describes these limits?]
"Any scientific textbook that discusses the factual (and not the hypothesised yet unproven) capabilities of genes-..."
I didn't ask you to make a generic comment, I asked you for specifics. You made a number of claims that were specific about organisms surviving hundreds of millions of years without change. I asked for an example of that which you ignored then I asked where you obtained information that states species must speciate within a given time frame. You made a specific claim that suggests questions requiring specific answers. The onus is on you to provide a link to some science somewhere that stats there is a time limit to morphological stasis.
Where is that specific information?
"time plays no part in moecular biological fact"
If you are saying that there are no time limits then why did you bring up the claim that there are organisms which have not changed since the Precambrian? When you made that statement it appeared to me, and probably others, that you were trying to invalidate evolution by claiming those organisms should have changed had evolution been correct, but since they have not (according to you) evolution must be false.
If that is not your intention in this new claim then you are quite wrong. Even your own words support the idea that genomes change over time so time is very much a factor in molecular biology.
[Where did the scientists working on fruit flies say it was equivalent to millions of years? In which publication did those same scientists specify which time period a specific mutation corresponded to? Where is it mentioned that the experiments were an attempt to produce speciation? From what you imply, they must have tried an accumulation of mutations in order to ratchet more than one feature in a specific direction. Where is the documentation for this?]
"Where? Online or library- help yourself- “Tried an accumulation of mutations? No- they let the process take it’s ‘natural’ course. The result? Freakish fruitflies- no fruit bats!
You made a specific claim. The onus is on you to provide specific support for that claim.
If the scientists had no intention to create a new species, your comments are irrelevant. My understanding of the research is that it is not an attempt to create new species but a tool to explore how changes to the genome affects the phenotype. If they had wanted to create new species then they would have had to try the 'natural' path which requires an accumulation of changes in different areas of the genome.
Evolution is an accumulation of changes, you cannot get away from that, so for you to claim that no speciation has occurred by giving an example where no speciation was attempted through multiple changes to multiple alleles throughout multiple generations, invalidates your claim. This is simple logic.
[Now the big question - what changes in the morphology of a fruit fly are necessary for that fruit fly to become something other than a fruit fly?]
"Genetic sequences. The mutated fruitflies retained their unique fruitfly genetic information- the sequence reamined intact and was limitted to fruitfly only caps- centuries of selective breeding have proven that species specific information can’t be altered enough to move a species outside it’s own KIND.
Selective breeding is not an attempt to move something beyond its own 'kind' (whatever that is) it is an attempt to fix a specific allele within a population. No consideration has ever been given to selecting for alleles which do not express a non-morphological change and in fact any divergence from the ideal is removed from the population. Selection is used to cluster the population around a specific trait thus constraining the changes in the population.
We have never, ever, duplicated all the forms of selection active on a population in a single species. We have never ever even tried.
"No amtter how hard we’ve tried- it is simply biologically impossible to do so.
We have never tried.
"Time doesn’t solve the biolgical problem- the evidnece doesn’t show creation of new organs or systems not unique to a species. We’ve been over and over the species specific limitations many times here with many links given- There simp-ly are no evidneces that support the idea that species gain NEW information not unique to the species and not spcific to the species. Each species has limits as to how altered their information can become, and we Dhese limits in nature and the record
Yes we have gone over this and found that you are incapable of defining information let alone quantifying it enough for it to be objectively measured. Your entire argument boils down to a putative ability to somehow guess that one organism has more information than some other. Your explanation of information and its limits is unconvincing without a more scientific approach.
But at least I know what radiocarbon dating is, what its limitations are, and how to interpret the results.
(Not bad for an idiot, eh?)
Selective breeding most certainly is an attempt to move something beyond its own kind. darwinists have been trying this for many many years without one iota of success.
Did someone say "Purveyors of Unknowledge?:
In the history of the world, only a tiny fraction of all the people who ever lived have had the opportunity to ask highly qualified scientists direct questions, and learn from their wisdom. Happily, because of the internet and places like FR, it was possible for people from all walks of life to converse directly with all sorts of scientific experts; wehavehad physicists, microbiologists, mathematicians, astronomers, and chemists, to specify but a few, roaming these threads, and eager to explain what they know and how they know it to virtually anyone willing to ask an intelligent question.But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
I submit that such people are not here to learn anything, but are in fact interested in quite the opposite. I submit they are here to interfere with the dissemination of scientific knowledge that they find offensive. They don't want other people to ask the experts questions and learn from them; no, they are here to attack the experts and cast doubt upon their wisdom, in the desperate hope that others will turn away and not listen to them.
IMHO that is why the same people show up over and over again parroting the same refuted diatribes and misinformation, and spewing the same bogus out-of-context quotes designed specifically to disrupt the dissemination of scientific knowledge. That's why the same people show up over and over again misrepresenting what scientific theories and laws are, despite having had it explained to them 1720th time; they are here to instill confusion and spread their ignorance, not to disseminate knowledge.
The experts [who were once] here on these threads ought to be revered and thanked for sharing with us their insights and explanations of the natural world around us; instead scorn is heaped upon them and their knowledge by the belligerently ignorant. I submit that these purveyors of unknowledge should be treated for the intellectual disruptors that they are. They
starestared the best opportunity any of us will ever have to gain more insight and understanding in the eye, andspitspat in the faces of those who offer and have the knowledge to help make that a reality.Behold, I give you the belligerently ignorant, the intellectual Luddites of our time. Know them for the anti-knowledge disruptors they are.
Sadly, the Purveyors of Unknowledge have been very, very effective and chasing away most of the scientists and pro-science posters we one had on FR, to the point where bedwetting buffoons feel it is safe to insult the few remaining scientists on FR while parading their own ignorance for all to see.
That, in a word, is "pathetic."
You are right, the speed is technically constant, but there is a resultant appearance that either the speed has increased, or that from an observational point of view a greater time has elapsed than really has.
First, only a fool tests God's word against man's highly falible 'science.'
Second, most of Genesis calls for a literal interpretation due to it's highly selective wording.
Third, there is nothing about a literal interpretation of Genesis that is at odds with real science (i.e. remove the propaganda from the science and there is agreement). The assumed great age of the cosmos is a refutation of our best scientific knowledge. Einstein's General Relativity removed the reason for assuming great age by explaning the dilation of time that takes place when space is expanded (all current scientific models conclude that space has expanded).
There is a lack of scientific evidence for a global flood at about 4350 years ago.
Thanks again for your unfounded opinion.
Care to give me an example?
Give just one cite for an experiment where the intention is to 'move something beyond its kind'.
Coyoteman: There is a lack of scientific evidence for a global flood at about 4350 years ago.
editor-surveyor: Thanks again for your unfounded opinion.
Neither unfounded nor an opinion.
The date 4350 years ago is the average of the estimates of a number of Biblical scholars. Many estimates are quite close to that date.
In doing archaeology, I have found cultures which continue unbroken from before, during, and after that date.
There is continuity of both culture and DNA, as well as local fauna and flora. Native languages show no sign of having originated in the Near East. The mtDNA types of living descendants in this area are found back as early as 10,000 years.
Also, in layers of that age we do not find massive silt deposits nor do we find erosional features resulting from the scouring away of earlier soils.
And this is just evidence I have come up with! Many of my colleagues in archaeology and the other fields of science have a lot more evidence than I do. For example, early geologists, who were pretty much all creationists seeking to prove the global flood, gave up on the idea about 1830. Also, Egypt was a going concern 4350 years ago and they didn't notice a global flood.
In order to contradict this evidence you will have to overturn most of science, as archaeology relies on everything from nuclear chemistry to basket weaving, including most of the physical and natural sciences. You will also have to rewrite the historical record for much of the world.
(Myth busted.)
First of all, it is called God's Word by man, who is admittedly fallen. It is inspired by God, but it had to pass through man. That's why a litral reading is superficial. It's for sheep who fear to think for themselves.
So you are also declaring what is plain evidence flawed? You are calling God a fraud? That's what we see in His Creation. Look for yourself. You have not because you know looking at the real, physical world will shatter your conception of Faith. You can't handle the Truth. Second, most of Genesis calls for a literal interpretation due to it's highly selective wording.
Genesis calls for no such thing! I see nothing like that in the Bible. You claim it is literal. but there is nothing there that says it is. Like I said before, only those of shallow faith rely on an interpretation that is literal in nature. You seem to be the type of so called Christian who must shout with his ears and eyes closed in case your literal interpretation has any inconsistencies or contradictions.
And your comments abour Einstein and relativity show you do not know what you are talking about. Another example of someone so enraptured by a literal Biblical reading that they must warp and twist things to fit their preconceptions. If you want to spout Einstein, do it the right way. Post the equastions that show relativity supports an Earth about 6-10K years old. Even though there is tons of phyical evidence that it is much, much older. If you want to dismiss that evidence, then you are calling God a liar and you are not an agent of the Lord.
Boy, are you trashing creationsists big time. Creationists really are anti-science luddites, just as you describe!
[You need to cite a real reference, not a science denier site.]
Science Denier Site- Bahahahaha- Yup- Science deniers- whatever.
[Obviously you’ve never actually done such an experiment, not do you understand the first thing about radiometric dating. You should stop peddling ignorance.]
What a brilliant rebuttle to what is in Woodmorapp’s book- By golly- that was simply stunning!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.