Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2683 Oct 21, 2013
Levi wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand Blind Faithiness. I am not interested in calling Randi (and as I said, that prize has been withdrawn). It wouldn't meet some scientific standards, yet it is science. Quantum theory does NOT meet scientific standards. Scientific standards had to be changed to accommodate quantum theory. I've studied it so I know. The standard of repeatable results does not apply in quantum mechanics, yet it is deemed as a core part of science. Think on this for a while.
So lets concentrate on Quantum mechanics and how it in many cases cannot give a repeatable experiment given the same initial conditions.
Sure. I have some knowledge here, too, and am always looking to learn more. I can speak to specifics like emission lines/"quantum leap", quantum spin, entanglement, so-called spooky behavior, and a few other sub-topics. Beyond that I'll have to open the books or ask university physics faculty(there is a particle specialist and a solid-state specialist that I can rely on if needed).

The physicist I know are very confident in QT's track record of predictability and ability for modeling. Quantum computing is on the cusp of reality and we use spectography to read the chemical make-up and distance of stars(Doppler shift using specro lines). Quantum state and spin are measured with high precision, fulfilling once theoretical models. Proton and atom smashers/particle accelerators are revealing the layers beneath the quantum level to further explain the "whys" of the quantum world.

What issues have you identified with QT?

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2684 Oct 21, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
Pete, I came to the same conclusion after seeing how odd and illogical madhere's claims seem. His/her supernatural imaginations weren't part of any established dogma that I'd seen before, so I began to think "poe".
Then I looked on some other forums and found this(just one of many, many pages that the maz gets completely destroyed by fact & reality):
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
He/she kept claiming to be a 'great debater' that only debates scientists when first popping up here. LOL! So, I was curious.
The reality is that maz is not a poe, just a creationist that has gone off the fundamentalist script in an effort to 'win' debates. Let's just say that that goal never panned out and maz continues to make more and more wacky, far-fetched excuses and scenarios to justify belief that has zero scientific basis. He/she has learned just enough 'science-y' language to get a foot in the door (or to make one wonder if maz is in fact a poe).
In other words, maz is just another apologist willing to use dishonesty and mind-numbing displays of broken logic to 'keep the dream alive'. I'm still getting lots of laughs from maz's silliness though, so I say let him/her keep digging that hole. The more illogical, less-than-truthful behavior maz shows, the more documented wackiness and dishonesty that exists on the record to use as evidence down the road.
I use the words of folks like maz on a regular basis to teach kids how they *don't* want to appear when defending an intellectual position. It seems to be a very effective motivational tool.**No one** wants to be the "mazhere" of an argument.
You hit the nail on the head with Mazhere, he pats himself on the back very well, that's about all I can say about him. Denying that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution is never a good angle.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2685 Oct 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not completely destroyed. I won the debate reducing evos to spam, like you. Look...
Here are some more facts and evolutionary blunders!
1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof of TOE, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE has ended up in that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc ...
2. Creationists predictions re vestigial organs being functional are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu ...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68 ...
That was a great post and to date has not been refuted.
Natural News....nuff said.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2686 Oct 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to humour you let me tell you that any particular religions, or sites statement of faith does not inform the evolution/creation debate any more than Santa does or your faiths statement of faith does. I could also use a plethora of research from both ID and old earth bases. I am not an IDer or a YEC.
The point is, I have presented research from evolutionary researchers in my post above so your aside about statements of faith is just another walk down the garden path to nowhere at all.
Again, if the best you can do is demand answers to questions about the irrelevant then any scientific debate with you is not really worth pursuing.
And none have stood the peer review test.
You need peer review so your theory gets support, posting "evidence" from Natural News is a step above AIG but still doesn't reach the first rung of the peer review ladder.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2687 Oct 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorant stereotyping of all evolutionary scientists cannot be right because there is such a thing as theist evolutionists. The pope has accepted TOE. There goes your ignorant argument of religious bias down the drain hole.
It appears you are the one with the screwed mind, because you cannot intelligently discuss the theory you reckon is fact and you attack the rubbsih you make up. Good Plan!!!???.
The thread topic has been answered, obviously. I am only here is there is someone that wants to debate or discuss the veracity of either theory on abit higher level than 'they said so'.
What you appear to be saying is you don't want to talk any scientific point to its conclusion to see which appears the more credible. What you do want to do is maintain the wobbly argument, that the majority rules because they said so, regardless of the fact that the majority having been wrong many times before. OK, got ya! Bye....
I had no idea the Pope was scientist, thanks for clearing that up.

And the Gish Gallop continues.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2688 Oct 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorant stereotyping of all evolutionary scientists cannot be right because there is such a thing as theist evolutionists.
I never stereotyped evolutionary scientists, I stereotyped people who reject evolution. And it's true.
The fact that people of all beliefs accept the ToE doesn't by itself prove it, but it does tell me something...just like the fact that only people with a belief in a very specific literal reading of a "holy book" refuses to accept it.

I can compare it to the flat earth belief, which only a few people cling to...and why do they do that? You guessed it, they believe a certain passage in their holy book says so.
MazHere wrote:
The pope has accepted TOE. There goes your ignorant argument of religious bias down the drain hole.
Nope. Read what I said. Only religious WITH A VERY SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION OF THEIR HOLY BOOK! Not all religious people are that stupid, I see that.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2689 Oct 21, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
And none have stood the peer review test.
You need peer review so your theory gets support, posting "evidence" from Natural News is a step above AIG but still doesn't reach the first rung of the peer review ladder.
I have not used any creationist research here below. It is ALL from evolutionary researchers. Are you one of those evos that say Nature and Discovery are creationist sites? LOL

Can you or can't you do more than talk about generalities and AiG?'No' seems to be the answer. Is that the sum total of your credibility? Yes.

Don't forget the majority of the scientific community have been wrong plenty of times before eg Human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk DNA.

1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists suggested 'junk dna' was proof of TOE, there was no designer, God would not make junk, and creos were scientifically ignorant and in denial.

Now evos are in denial, suggesting TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna, Also Evolutionists deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable empirical evidence for TOE has ended up in the rubbish bin.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc ...

2. Creationists predictions re vestigial organs being functional are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu ...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since.

Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya, basilosaurus that predates it ancestors, and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The fossil evidence supports creationism and assumptions supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68 ...

So which one would you lke to falsify? Oh that's right, evolutionists cannot falsify one claim I made above. Creationist predictions are being verified as TOE itself evolves and falsifies itself.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2690 Oct 21, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stereotyped evolutionary scientists, I stereotyped people who reject evolution. And it's true.
The fact that people of all beliefs accept the ToE doesn't by itself prove it, but it does tell me something...just like the fact that only people with a belief in a very specific literal reading of a "holy book" refuses to accept it.
I can compare it to the flat earth belief, which only a few people cling to...and why do they do that? You guessed it, they believe a certain passage in their holy book says so.
<quoted text>
Nope. Read what I said. Only religious WITH A VERY SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION OF THEIR HOLY BOOK! Not all religious people are that stupid, I see that.
Then get your dummy out of your mouth and start talking science and show us our Holy book is rubbish. The bible writers knew the moon was created after the earth before NASA did..

I have not used any creationist research here below, nor the bible. It is ALL from evolutionary researchers. Are you one of those evos that say Nature and Discovery are creationist sites? LOL

Can you or can't you do more than talk about generalities and AiG?'No' seems to be the answer. Is that the sum total of your credibility? Yes.

Don't forget the majority of the scientific community have been wrong plenty of times before eg Human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk DNA.

1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists suggested 'junk dna' was proof of TOE, there was no designer, God would not make junk, and creos were scientifically ignorant and in denial.

Now evos are in denial, suggesting TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna, Also Evolutionists deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable empirical evidence for TOE has ended up in the rubbish bin.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc ...

2. Creationists predictions re vestigial organs being functional are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu ...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since.

Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya, basilosaurus that predates it ancestors, and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The fossil evidence supports creationism and assumptions supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68 ...

So which one would you lke to falsify? Oh that's right, evolutionists cannot falsify one claim I made above. Creationist predictions are being verified as TOE itself evolves and falsifies itself.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2691 Oct 21, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
I had no idea the Pope was scientist, thanks for clearing that up.
And the Gish Gallop continues.
However, the pope is an unbiased Christian, much to your dismay.

John C Sanford is a scientist and has published many works. Sandford was also a very well respected evolutionary researcher until his science led him into being a YEC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

I seems this thread is made for atheists not here to discuss science at all because they have the scientific credibility of a brick.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2692 Oct 21, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
I've already addressed this line of wackiness, silly person. I entertained your "junk DNA" vague assertion-fest and asked why these creationists never published. You **never** responded. Instead you chose to gish gallop along down the road of vague generalities and hypocritical ridiculousness. As I said, keep it coming. I love watching you make a fool of yourself with transparent theatrics.
"junk DNA" #2510: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-d...
++++++++++
You chose instead to talk about a "Mr Attitude"? which revealed your obvious trollishness. You still haven't addressed any of the responses and instead chose to ask the same questions. All typical (and boring) troll behavior. I'll just recycle my response to you from the first time you spilled your "creative" understandings of science and history on the thread.
__________post #2531
BF: "So, now we know 2 important things about mazhere's argument and view:
1) The mechanism for change is not important(meaning that maz is not interested in a scientific approach and is simply posturing). "It doesn't matter how god created"--maz
2) Generalizing is ideal, as opposed to addressing the reality in academia, where there always are and have been many competing ideas about all new science/evidence(which may be inconvenient to his/her agenda).
The logic from point 2 follows that if anything any evolution scientist (or related field) ever published/asserted/studied is attributed to the generalized form 'evo', implying every single person to ever accept evolution thinks exactly the same things(LOL!!!!!), the same holds for creationists. This means, using the logical implications that follow mazhere's use of generalization, any/all ridiculous things put forth **ever** by creationists must be accounted for by any/all creationists from now til forever.
Logic is a two-way street, and mazhere is stepping out in on-coming traffic without looking both ways. LOL!
So, Ken Hamm has some interesting(/sarc) things to say. Hope you're ready to answer for each and every one of them. Once we finish with Ray, we'll move to the rest of the Youtube creationists. There couldn't be more than a few thousand ridiculous videos with ridiculous claims for you to creationists to explain.
So, start by explaining how humans used to ride around on dinosaurs, as creationists have claimed...or maybe learn what a happens in the real world of academic science and competing ideas. Ah, who are we kidding, right. You'll have better luck trying to explain humans riding on dinosaurs."
So, what did the kangaroos eat as they hopped back to Australia? Why don't you bother to respond to questions? Oh, yea, that's right. You're a troll. Probably a kid, considering the poor quality of trollmanship.
Oh bla bla bla...Not one bit of reseatch but plenty of opinion about kangaroos and dino man. This spam above with nothing to do with the thread topic, postin gto illicit an emotional reaction is the definition of a troll. That would be you. That would also be evolutionists that can't talk science reduced to spam, and I love it.

Listen Pal, after this full page of blunderspam, I'll remind you that the data that is derived from your own evolutionary researchers falsifies TOE, eg Negative epistasis.

That is why you have ended up with a bush that got there by much more than Mendellian inheritance. eg HGT, epigenetics.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2693 Oct 21, 2013
I think Blind should start explain why he is evolved into a spammer that has no intention of discussing science or the thread topic with me.

John Sanford was ridiculed for his published work on genetic entropy because it overturned the status quo. The ridicule was based on evos own assumptions. Now there is data that supports Sanford work in other ways.

This data demonstrates a decline in adaptive ability over time with benificial mutations working against each other, the fitness landscape declines. An hypothesis extrapolated is that this process would not cause extinction over millions of generations. I say it would.

"These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Is the flawed evolutionary claim that adaptation is a process that is not genomically limited a topic you can discuss or would you rather support TOE and show us how smart you are with your spam and tanties?

My claim is that adaptability is limited and that is proof that life must have been created with systems in tact, rather than evolved.

Would any of you like to try something more substantive than 'they said so', the bible is wrong or your opinion of creationist sites?
Levi

London, UK

#2695 Oct 21, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. I have some knowledge here, too, and am always looking to learn more. I can speak to specifics like emission lines/"quantum leap", quantum spin, entanglement, so-called spooky behavior, and a few other sub-topics. Beyond that I'll have to open the books or ask university physics faculty(there is a particle specialist and a solid-state specialist that I can rely on if needed).
The physicist I know are very confident in QT's track record of predictability and ability for modeling. Quantum computing is on the cusp of reality and we use spectography to read the chemical make-up and distance of stars(Doppler shift using specro lines). Quantum state and spin are measured with high precision, fulfilling once theoretical models. Proton and atom smashers/particle accelerators are revealing the layers beneath the quantum level to further explain the "whys" of the quantum world.
What issues have you identified with QT?
I don't have an issue with QT. There are two things of relevance:

Observing can affect the outcome (standard science model is different here).

It cannot predict with certainty, it is probabilistic (standard science model is again different here).

Scientists don't draw attention to this being different from the standard scientific model. It is not theory predicts result of experiment. It's theory predicts probability of result of experiment.

Now you brought up James Randi as some sort of litmus test. If you went to James Randi, he could say predict with certainty such and such, yet there are 100's of experiments that Quantum Theory wouldn't be able to do with certainty, but do we have people saying that QT is invalid because it doesn't satisfy certain criteria? Do we have people saying that this or that QT result is anecdotal because it didn't repeat in the exact same way for someone else? Of course not! Because it's still science. So again, go back to my post and see what I meant. And notice that it's not so different from Science, it is not anecdotal.

Like I said before, if you want to progress in spiritual knowledge, you have to apply scientific method, but not be constrained in the way that you try to constrain it, or James Randi does. Truth doesn't need to fit on your box of how it should be. QT doesn't. God, doesn't.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2696 Oct 21, 2013
Levi wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have an issue with QT. There are two things of relevance:
Observing can affect the outcome (standard science model is different here).
It cannot predict with certainty, it is probabilistic (standard science model is again different here).
Scientists don't draw attention to this being different from the standard scientific model. It is not theory predicts result of experiment. It's theory predicts probability of result of experiment.
Now you brought up James Randi as some sort of litmus test. If you went to James Randi, he could say predict with certainty such and such, yet there are 100's of experiments that Quantum Theory wouldn't be able to do with certainty, but do we have people saying that QT is invalid because it doesn't satisfy certain criteria? Do we have people saying that this or that QT result is anecdotal because it didn't repeat in the exact same way for someone else? Of course not! Because it's still science. So again, go back to my post and see what I meant. And notice that it's not so different from Science, it is not anecdotal.
Like I said before, if you want to progress in spiritual knowledge, you have to apply scientific method, but not be constrained in the way that you try to constrain it, or James Randi does. Truth doesn't need to fit on your box of how it should be. QT doesn't. God, doesn't.
QT is why Big Bang breaks down even with multiple dimensions.

I have presented a model of an earth centred universe. There is no need for dark energy.

Models are models and no more. All models are based on assumptions and have insertion values that are assumptive eg mutation rates.

Another example is that gallaxies are spiralling away from earth. The Copernican principle is the basis for not accepting what is observed and then creating models to search for a more comfortable and paradigm, eg BB.

The Copernican principle is a basis of faith, not science. Faith that there is no God and earth is therefore not special and cannot be special, not matter what is observed.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2697 Oct 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Then get your dummy out of your mouth and start talking science and show us our Holy book is rubbish.
Numbers 22:28-30
Donkeys can't talk.

Oh, that verse is not meant literal? Only those later found to happen to fit reality is? How convenient.
MazHere wrote:
The bible writers knew the moon was created after the earth before NASA did..
Genesis 1.14 seems to indicate them being made at the same time, and that both are lights, which they aren't.
Oh, not literal?
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional
Meaning 20% isn't, perhaps?
MazHere wrote:
and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
Creationist expectations?
MazHere wrote:
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE.
Then why do close to all geologists disagree with you?
MazHere wrote:
The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind.
Depending on if you read Genesis 1 or 2. They differ.
MazHere wrote:
Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment .
Nope, Genesis 2 has man made before plants.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2698 Oct 21, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Numbers 22:28-30
Donkeys can't talk.
Oh, that verse is not meant literal? Only those later found to happen to fit reality is? How convenient.
<quoted text>
If you can believe in multiple dimensions, the mysterious dark energy and matter that makes 97% of the algorithmic magic scientists use, and can believe in elements organizing themselves into complex factories of reproduction, you shouldn't have any problem believing a God can have ventriloquist skills.

You're a religious bigot, not here to discuss science or theories at all. You are here to either pounce on uneducated creos or start trolling when some one matches up to you. Keep trolling and spamming. Sadly, not one shred of science is reflected in your post, only hate.
Genesis 1.14 seems to indicate them being made at the same time, and that both are lights, which they aren't.
Oh, not literal?
Oh so now an atheist is an expert on Genesis. ROLF! Genesis 1:14 clearly states the lights in the heavens, that distinguish night and day, were made after the earth was formed. NASA has confirmed so with the moon. Well done NASA!
<quoted text>
Meaning 20% isn't, perhaps?
<quoted text>
Creationist expectations?
<quoted text>
That means re predictive ability creos are so far 80% right and evos are 80% wrong about junk being evidence for TOE. You may note an evo researcher suggesting his expectation is that 100% of non coding dna will be found to have function. I understand why you totally ignored that. Perhaps you should read the link instead of fluffing your feathers.

That is what predictive ability is all about sticking with a prediction..... Not the knee jerk science TOE offers us, functionless non coding dna proves TOE, functional non coding dna now proves evolution. TOE has NO predictive ability at all. eg Chaos theory of TOE.
Then why do close to all geologists disagree with you?
<quoted text>
The fossil evidence supports creation as I have stated. Your reply is akin to 'they said so'. You are not here to discuss the thread topic you are here to post hate mail for your daily jollies. You prove it with every post to me..

If you were half as smart as you'd like to think you are you would actually enter into a debate with me over it as opposed to fluffing.
Depending on if you read Genesis 1 or 2. They differ.
<quoted text>
They are both the same. You need to read all of chapter 2, not just quote mine.
Nope, Genesis 2 has man made before plants.
Nope, Gen 2:8 clarifies that Eden had been made in between forming the earth and creating man.

So again, can you or can't you discuss any one scientific point to conclusion?

It appears the basis of your entire credibility relating to the thread topic is your ability to argue about the irrelevant, and stay as far away from the science you defend as is humanly possible.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2699 Oct 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can believe in multiple dimensions, the mysterious dark energy and matter that makes 97% of the algorithmic magic scientists use, and can believe in elements organizing themselves into complex factories of reproduction, you shouldn't have any problem believing a God can have ventriloquist skills.
Who says I do. We're talking about evolution here. VERY different from believing a donkey once talked. You actually believe it? Haha....
MazHere wrote:
You're a religious bigot
No, I used to be one but left my faith 5 years ago.
MazHere wrote:
Oh so now an atheist is an expert on Genesis.
Many atheists used to be christians, so maybe not an expert but pretty well versed. Studies have shown that atheists know more about the books in the bible than actual christians. Makes sense.
MazHere wrote:
ROLF! Genesis 1:14 clearly states the lights in the heavens, that distinguish night and day, were made after the earth was formed.
So, sun after earth? Where does NASA say that?
This is scientific to you? No cherry picking on your part?
MazHere wrote:
TOE has NO predictive ability at all.
Sure it has. The Human Chromosome #2 is such an example even if creationists have to by default reject it.
Why did a god make us with such a fused chromosome then?
MazHere wrote:
The fossil evidence supports creation as I have stated.
Nope, you just keep saying that. Doesn't make it true, even if you have convinced yourself with that rambling.
MazHere wrote:
Your reply is akin to 'they said so'.
No, it's more like close to all experts in the world have studied this for a long time and all available evidence points just one way...there's no alternative and ONLY some fringe scientists who just happen to believe in a very specific interpretation of some creation story they happened to have been indoctrinated into say otherwise.
MazHere wrote:
If you were half as smart as you'd like to think you are
I haven't said I'm smart, but I am.
MazHere wrote:
you would actually enter into a debate with me over it as opposed to fluffing.
The debate over these issues is done by scientific papers in peer reviewed environments. Get to it! Post your work, findings and Nobel Price acceptance speech here after you show you actually have something.
MazHere wrote:
They are both the same. You need to read all of chapter 2, not just quote mine.
Nope, it CLEARLY says that Adam was made before plants. You just don't like it so you try to interpret it away. It's right there.

Genesis 2 (NKJV)

4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being
----------
But who cares, IT'S JUST A STORY!

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2701 Oct 21, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it has. The Human Chromosome #2 is such an example even if creationists have to by default reject it.
Why did a god make us with such a fused chromosome then?
<quoted text>
!
Ahh finally some opinion about chromosome 2. I knew eventually you would stumble on some scientific opinion sooner or later.

Indeed the fusion could have been a result of the fall and a fusion, if human chromosme 2 has a fusion site at all. Computer modelling is designed to find some straw of a 2nd remnant centromere. If 2 human chromosomes fused then 2 came out of it, not 2 fused and a swathe of genomic material just disappeared resulting in one, without lethal result.

The research says the fusion site is not what would be predicted. Refute that with more than your opinion.!!!

This is published research by evo scientists and I have spoken to it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421751

Here is another....

Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates

“Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7–2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5–97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420924...

This data seriously calls into question the validity of the fusion model and human evolution in general.

Do you have anything of substance to add?
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2702 Oct 21, 2013
Levi wrote:
Observing can affect the outcome (standard science model is different here).
The "quantum observer" is a peculiar aspect of entanglement and other probability-related phenomenon. A. Einstein had a difficult time with it, too, quoting famously "God doesn't play dice". Wave-function and probability aren't referring to an observer in the common sense, though. At the scale of atomic particles and the forces that govern them things are very different than the way physics work on our scale (which is billions of orders of magnitude different).
It cannot predict with certainty, it is probabilistic (standard science model is again different here).
Sure it can. The standard model **did** predict every particle that we know of. Every type of gluon, muon, quark, and boson was predicted long before they were exhibited. They were predicted before particle accelerators were built to find them. The Higgs was the last of the standard model's predictions.

Are you talking about being able to predict the location of say an electron, which exhibits properties of wave and particle? This is where 'probability modeling' comes from. Electrons, as I said, have very different properties compared to what we see on our scale. They aren't really little round plastic balls flying around a nucleus like they show in chemistry class, ya know. They are bundles of near massless energy traveling close to the speed of light that are both waves and particles. "Amazing" is how I describe them.
Scientists don't draw attention to this being different from the standard scientific model. It is not theory predicts result of experiment. It's theory predicts probability of result of experiment.
Sure they do. It's taught everyday in high school and college chemistry and physics classes. What makes you think this is some secret? In reality it's common knowledge. LOL.

What do you mean by "standard scientific model"? I think you may be mixed up on your terminology.
Now you brought up James Randi as some sort of litmus test. If you went to James Randi, he could say predict with certainty such and such, yet there are 100's of experiments that Quantum Theory wouldn't be able to do with certainty, but do we have people saying that QT is invalid because it doesn't satisfy certain criteria? Do we have people saying that this or that QT result is anecdotal because it didn't repeat in the exact same way for someone else? Of course not! Because it's still science. So again, go back to my post and see what I meant. And notice that it's not so different from Science, it is not anecdotal.
Like I said before, if you want to progress in spiritual knowledge, you have to apply scientific method, but not be constrained in the way that you try to constrain it, or James Randi does. Truth doesn't need to fit on your box of how it should be. QT doesn't. God, doesn't.
Set up an experiment then. You'll be the most famous person in the world if you can bridge this world to whatever supernatural realm you think you are in contact with. I, just like the rest of humanity, will hoist you up on our shoulders and shower you with praise for your achievement.

Have you ever read Carl Jung? He may be of interest to you regarding the blending of science and the supernatural. He also sought to use science to find spiritual knowledge. I'll let you discover the rest for yourself.
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2703 Oct 21, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit the nail on the head with Mazhere, he pats himself on the back very well, that's about all I can say about him. Denying that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution is never a good angle.
Yep. Sometimes I can't believe these trolls think they've got anyone fooled other than themselves. He might as well be arguing that the Earth doesn't orbit the sun.

He's such a great example for what *not* to do in discussion/debate, though, I hope he doesn't quit anytime soon. Someone has to be 'the worst'. No reason it shouldn't be mazzy.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2704 Oct 21, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Sometimes I can't believe these trolls think they've got anyone fooled other than themselves. He might as well be arguing that the Earth doesn't orbit the sun.
He's such a great example for what *not* to do in discussion/debate, though, I hope he doesn't quit anytime soon. Someone has to be 'the worst'. No reason it shouldn't be mazzy.
The problem for you is of course any drop kick can have an opinion. Even the majority of credentialed drop kicks have been wrong. eg Human knuckle walking ancestry.'POOF, there goes the credibility behind the argument of majority rules the science day.

Your specific problem is you cannot maintain any of the evidence offered to support TOE, effectivly proving TOE is built on many straw men.

Here is one you have ignored in favour of your ego stroking.

Computer modelling is designed to find some straw of a 2nd remnant centromere. If 2 human chromosomes fused then 2 came out of it, not 2 fused and a swathe of genomic material just disappeared resulting in one, without lethal result.

This is what researchers found. Even with trheir biased computer modelling all they could find was a staw that was not screaming out "I am the remnant straw grab of a chimp centromere". ROLF!

"However, signals were also detected on the long arm of chromosome 2 at approximately q21.3–q22.1"

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF...

The research says the fusion site is not what would be predicted. Further more to that there is only assumption that assumes human ch2 is a fused in some way to begin with. Refute that with more than your opinion of how great you are.!!!

This is published research by evo scientists and I have spoken to it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421751

Here is another....

Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates

“Although their function has not yet been clearly elucidated, interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) have been cytogenetically associated with chromosomal reorganizations, fragile sites, and recombination hotspots. In this paper, we show that ITSs are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints of the inversions between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque chromosomes. We proved that ITSs are not signs of repair in the breakpoints of the chromosome reorganizations analyzed. We found ITSs in the region (0.7–2.7 Mb) flanking one of the two breakpoints in all the inversions assessed. The presence of ITSs in those locations is not by chance. They are short (up to 7.83 repeats) and almost perfect (82.5–97.1% matches). The ITSs are conserved in the species compared, showing that they were present before the reorganizations occurred.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420924 ...

This data seriously calls into question the validity of the fusion model and human evolution in general.

This data provided evidence that there is no common ancestry between chimps and mankind.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
SDA main PILLAR coming DOWN! (May '14) 8 min Saved By Grace 2,216
MANY SDA's believe WEDNESDAY Crucifixion, WHY? (Feb '11) 28 min STEENBERG 3,926
...The number OF A MAN 1 hr Shane Rohrich 616
The Thief on the Cross 1 hr DANNO 7
QUESTIONS SDA's ARE AFRAID TO ANSWER (Mar '10) 3 hr DANNO 73
The False Doctrine of 'Once Saved, Always Saved'. (May '14) 7 hr DANNO 1,285
Who kept the Sabbath prior to Exodus? (Nov '13) 7 hr sitka happy 2,492

Seventh-day Adventist People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE