Author Topic: Some scientists will be upset... (Read 3720 times)

ironglow · « **Reply #90 on:** January 03, 2011, 01:46:13 PM »

Oh Boy ! I watch the various theories and "discoveries" come and go...Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man....and does anyone remember the 'lost tribe', which was "discovered" by anthropoligists in the Philipines a few years back ? .. That is until tyhey also discovered that the 'lost tribe' members were just a group of regular Filipinos..taking time off to go to the heritage village which they fixed up to fool the daffy professors.
Now, you guys who follow every new fad of the anthropoligists and paleontologists are welcome to ooh and aah over each 'discovery' that comes along.
Tha latest fad seems to be some boney stones called "Lucy".

I just consider the various "this man and that man" to come along as simply the latest in a series of "undocumented human beings"...

,

The big difference between God and 'scientists' is that God is smart enough, that He has never had to change his mind or story or apologize for a mistaken analysis.

(see Genesis chapter 2)

MG;
You talk as if "theory" is a virtually iron clad, unshakeable opinion, I don't see "theory" that way. As with many words there are various shading of meanings. I, and I would be willing to wager, most others view the proper use of the term as in #6 in the below link.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

MGMorden · « **Reply #91 on:** January 04, 2011, 03:32:37 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on January 03, 2011, 01:46:13 PM

MG;
You talk as if "theory" is a virtually iron clad, unshakeable opinion, I don't see "theory" that way. As with many words there are various shading of meanings. I, and I would be willing to wager, most others view the proper use of the term as in #6 in the below link.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

And that's fine in your everyday business. That's not the scientific definition however, and when dealing with the word in the context of the scientific method, the scientific definition is the one that's relevant.

I'd wager that when most people consider the word "grain" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grain definition #5 isn't the one that springs to mind. Try using any other definition when reloading and it doesn't matter what you consider to be the proper use of the term is - you're not using the applicable definition to your current scenario.

BTW, Lucy isn't some latest fad. The fossil was discovered in 1974 - 36 years ago. Hardly recently. Your "great revelation" starting this thread was pretty much immediately debunked. You were doing the happy dance thinking Lucy was now irrelevant you completely misrepresented the stated age of the fossil - you stating 200k years when the actual date is 3.2 million years ago. It's been estimated at 3+ million years since it's discovery - it's not like they snatched the date up from under you and upped it. Despite your basic premise being debunked on the first page of posts, you're still carrying on as if a point has been made.

Spirithawk · « **Reply #92 on:** January 04, 2011, 05:12:10 AM »

Fact will always be fact, but hypotheses and theories will always be just that....hypotheses and theory. They might be an educated guess, at the very best, but the FACT still remains that that is all they are...just a guess. Open to interpretation by anyone and everyone viewing them. That is why they are called hypotheses and theories and not fact. Look at them otherwise and you are just kidding yourself with wishful thinking.

powderman · « **Reply #93 on:** January 04, 2011, 11:41:32 AM »

MGM. No disrespect intended here but what it boils down to is that most of us have faith in and believe and trust God, you have put your faith in man. POWDERMAN.

MGMorden · « **Reply #94 on:** January 04, 2011, 12:52:06 PM »

Quote from: powderman on January 04, 2011, 11:41:32 AM

MGM. No disrespect intended here but what it boils down to is that most of us have faith in and believe and trust God, you have put your faith in man. POWDERMAN.

To some degree, you're right. In that regard, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic.

ironglow · « **Reply #95 on:** January 04, 2011, 12:53:07 PM »

Quote from: MGMorden on January 04, 2011, 03:32:37 AM

Quote from: ironglow on January 03, 2011, 01:46:13 PM
MG;
You talk as if "theory" is a virtually iron clad, unshakeable opinion, I don't see "theory" that way. As with many words there are various shading of meanings. I, and I would be willing to wager, most others view the proper use of the term as in #6 in the below link.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

And that's fine in your everyday business. That's not the scientific definition however, and when dealing with the word in the context of the scientific method, the scientific definition is the one that's relevant.

I'd wager that when most people consider the word "grain" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grain definition #5 isn't the one that springs to mind. Try using any other definition when reloading and it doesn't matter what you consider to be the proper use of the term is - you're not using the applicable definition to your current scenario.

BTW, Lucy isn't some latest fad. The fossil was discovered in 1974 - 36 years ago. Hardly recently. Your "great revelation" starting this thread was pretty much immediately debunked. You were doing the happy dance thinking Lucy was now irrelevant you completely misrepresented the stated age of the fossil - you stating 200k years when the actual date is 3.2 million years ago. It's been estimated at 3+ million years since it's discovery - it's not like they snatched the date up from under you and upped it. Despite your basic premise being debunked on the first page of posts, you're still carrying on as if a point has been made.

   MG;
  They played the "Piltdown" game in textbooks for over 40 years, and Lucy is just 'stoney bones' from an ape...Sooo They have even carried the Darwin hoax for more trhan 150 years...and "global warming" is still hot with some...and we can see some of the many wild "conspiracy theories"which some folks, even here..indulge in..

   "You can fool some of the people all of the time". ..Abraham Lincoln

powderman · « **Reply #96 on:** January 04, 2011, 04:43:04 PM »

Quote

You can fool some of the people all of the time". ..Abraham Lincoln

HEH, aint that the truth. POWDERMAN.

FourBee · « **Reply #97 on:** January 07, 2011, 05:21:18 PM »

Well; of all the men that have tried to explain our beginning, I've chosen to follow the words of Moses in the book of Genesis. If he didn't get it right, for sure nobody else has or will for that matter. JMTC

Mohawk · « **Reply #98 on:** January 08, 2011, 01:34:59 AM »

The folks trying to find the missing link are ........ disturbed. Don't know if you have ever met one but they will deny their eye color before admitting Christ. - GB..... just making a point....

blind ear · « **Reply #99 on:** January 08, 2011, 04:03:05 AM »

Scientist won't be upset.

Scientist know that evolution has already been proven true and that and creationism will pass away just as the belief in a flat earth has passed away.

Just as a belief in an earth that you can sail off of the edge of and an earth that rests at the center of the solar sysem has passed away.

It will take a long time for science and knowledge to overcome the indoctrination of religion that is supported by the state to keep it's subjects confused and scared and controlled.

It will take a very long time for science and knowledge to overcome and remove the taboos created by religion.

But it will happen.

ear

ironglow · « **Reply #100 on:** January 08, 2011, 05:00:28 AM »

Quote from: blind ear on January 08, 2011, 04:03:05 AM

Scientist won't be upset.

Scientist know that evolution has already been proven true and that and creationism will pass away just as the belief in a flat earth has passed away.

Just as a belief in an earth that you can sail off of the edge of and an earth that rests at the center of the solar sysem has passed away.

It will take a long time for science and knowledge to overcome the indoctrination of religion that is supported by the state to keep it's subjects confused and scared and controlled.

It will take a very long time for science and knowledge to overcome and remove the taboos created by religion.

But it will happen.

ear

Blind ear;
Should we add ..blind eyes also ? The THEORY of evolution has NOT been empirically proven... And that old saw about "flat earth" etc.. some men in later years labored under that misapprehension, but the Bible, some 5,500 years ago said they were wrong in thinking the earth as being flat....

billy_56081 · « **Reply #101 on:** January 08, 2011, 07:35:20 AM »

Blind ear, when did evolution go from a theory to a fact? I had quite a bit of education in the field of anthropology in college and evolution was still a THEORY. Can you please provide information of when this changed? I think you may be in need of a bit of education on htis subject, you might become enlightened as I was.

mechanic · « **Reply #102 on:** January 08, 2011, 07:39:48 AM »

Blind ear, you obviously have not been paying attention, but the state is pretty much anti-religion, or at least pseudo-religion. Unless you are muslim, then you're ok.

Mohawk · « **Reply #103 on:** January 08, 2011, 08:34:53 AM »

Scientists have proved nothing. Scientists said my wife CAN NOT get pregnant. She is two months along. Li'l Mohawk is due Aug 10th-14th.

FourBee · « **Reply #104 on:** January 08, 2011, 10:20:11 AM »

Congrat's to ya Mohawk.

ironglow · « **Reply #105 on:** January 08, 2011, 10:49:34 AM »

Congrats Mohawk...
It must be an even greater blessing ... when you don't expect it could happen. Here's to little Mo !

Scibaer · « **Reply #106 on:** January 08, 2011, 01:17:36 PM »

again, there is a misunderstanding of the term evolution.
evolution , as a scientific term is well established and proven concept described through scientific methodology.
it is, in short ,a change of any given species through adaptation and in some cases bio-genesis.
it is without doubt, shown to be fact, by the evidence that we have sub-species of certain animals in different locations.
now if you are talking about life springing up from nothing and changing from one life form into another life form all together... that is entirely a different topic,
how some have been using evolution here is in lay-mans terms and not apart of the scientific vernacular.
like wise, the term fact is a lay term and not a part of the scientific method and vernacular.

ironglow · « **Reply #107 on:** January 09, 2011, 02:14:15 AM »

Scibear;
  How about "Law", as in the law of gravity or the 2nd law of thermodynamics ? Is there a LAW of evolution ? Does not the theory of evolution run contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?
  Simplified, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that any system left to itself, degenerates and disintegrates, just as 'science" claims the universe is doing...yet evolutionists say things have been getting more complex ...
   Here is how the noted Astrto-physicist Dr Robert Jastrow, director emeritus, Mount Wilson Observatory & Hale Solar laboratory, NASA Alumni Assn puts it. It is worth a complete read:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm

MGMorden · « **Reply #108 on:** January 09, 2011, 04:41:41 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on January 09, 2011, 02:14:15 AM

Scibear;
  How about "Law", as in the law of gravity or the 2nd law of thermodynamics ? Is there a LAW of evolution ? Does not the theory of evolution run contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?
  Simplified, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that any system left to itself, degenerates and disintegrates, just as 'science" claims the universe is doing...yet evolutionists say things have been getting more complex ...
   Here is how the noted Astrto-physicist Dr Robert Jastrow, director emeritus, Mount Wilson Observatory & Hale Solar laboratory, NASA Alumni Assn puts it. It is worth a complete read:

   http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm

There is no law of gravity. It's still "just a theory".

However the 2nd law of thermodynamics typically only applies to very large entities, such as the universe itself. Individual portions of a system can become more complex as needed. As long as the system over time disintegrates - and it does. Our planet here and everything and everyone on it are made up of heavy elements. Nothing heavier than helium can be produced outside of the core of a star. To quote Carl Sagan "We are star stuff.". We are made up of the interstellar "guts" of large stars that went supernova, and then blew their contents out amongst the universe to recoalesce into new stars and planets again - but typically smaller ones than before. Our own sun, in time, will go red giant and swallow up the inner planet destroying the system, before sheding it's outer layer and cooling to a white dwarf.

Evolution, amongst scientists (including physicists who can explain how it pertains to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics far greater than I), enjoys INCREDIBLE acceptance. Even the most biased polls show an acceptance rate on the low it at 87% or so in support of evolution. On average though most of them show scientific support for evolution in the high-90th percentile among scientists. When using the scientific method, it IS the prevailing explanation. To try to go any other direction at this point is simply to ignore science, plug your fingers in your ears, and go off and do your own thing.

Scibaer · « **Reply #109 on:** January 09, 2011, 05:11:54 AM »

A person can not take different areas of science, like thermodynamics, physics, biology and make links or comparisons, most specifically at the theory level, which is by the scientific method is designed to explain a phenomenon or idea that other scientists can test, reproduce for study and generally agree on.
thermodynamics, is basically the study of energy and heat in mechanical applications. the "laws" that govern thermodynamics have nothing ( in scientific terms, defined by methodology ) with evolution ( adaption ). although you may find a few outliers who would believe or say otherwise.
no, there is not a "law" of evolution, not yet. just there is not a law of religion or religious beliefs or phenomenon.
if thermodynamics has a close counter part, where comparisons could be made, it would be the law of energy conversation that states "energy can neither be created or destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed." meaning energy in its raw form can never be lost. thermodynamics sets out to find and explain that energy, whether it is transferred or transformed and to explain how energy acts.
there is a study of biological energy with its own set of laws, hypothesis' and theories.
but that does not change the fact that in this thread 'evolution' has been mis used and lay terms have been touted as scientific.
a tooth does not make a species.
detritus does not confirm a species age.
evolutionary adaption is 'fact'.
there is no possible way to prove or disprove GOD
there is no possible way to prove where ALL life started.
the scientific method is the best thing we have to explain the world around us.
ignoring rational logic does not make it invalid.
so take a second look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics to explain evolution.
evolution: a change over time in a species. is evolution a system.. nope its a term. but if you like there is a rebuttal in science to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and by coincidence, it uses the universe as its example. it says " As the universe evolves in time, more of its energy becomes trapped in irreversible states. This has been referred to as the thermodynamic heat death of the universe. In this heat death the energy of the universe does not change, but the fraction of energy which is available to do produce work through a heat engine, or be transformed to other usable forms of energy, grows less and less. The energy is ultimately lost, and the universe dies for the same reasons a perpetual motion machine will eventually stall out.

Mohawk · « **Reply #110 on:** January 09, 2011, 09:04:51 AM »

Thanks ya,ll! We are excited. That was my point to this thread. When Science told her "no you can't" HE said "yes you WILL". I took it as no man should interfere in HIS work. Even her Dr was baffled. Evolution is nothing but a very loose theory. kind of like stopping power theories. It sells many books and makes $ for the author. That's about it. I think the saying is "contraversy sells". And it does. The book I prefer to read is free.

MGMorden · « **Reply #111 on:** January 10, 2011, 02:05:09 AM »

Quote from: Mohawk on January 09, 2011, 09:04:51 AM

The book I prefer to read is free.

Actually, Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" is out of copyright and just as "free" (ie, only the cost of printing or available as a free download online) as any other book

. Interestingly enough, when Darwin first attended college he was studying to become a Christian Minister.

ironglow · « **Reply #112 on:** January 10, 2011, 04:14:09 AM »

Knew he wasn't going to make it. huh ? ...only teasing..

Seriously, I posted that link http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm specifically so you could hear from the reknowned Dr Robert Jastrow and his final conclusion to all this "scientific" speculation...read especially, the last two paragraphs..

Scibaer · « **Reply #113 on:** January 10, 2011, 04:26:41 AM »

And likewise is Darwin's Descent of Man. Both very good books, and even reading about Darwin himself is very interesting.
I meant to post this earlier, but forgot as my posts got a bit long winded trying to explain my points.
anyway i find this very interesting....
The National Academy of Sciences states: "Many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many( Religions ) have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts". Quote from The National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
Science, Evolution, and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences.( 2008 ) p. 12.

i did read the article.. here are Jastrow's comments in the last two paragraphs.. "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16, p.116 )

I dont anything scientific in these statements, or do i find them all that professional. they read much more like smart-a$$ comments based on a personal view.

MGMorden · « **Reply #114 on:** January 10, 2011, 07:15:58 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on January 10, 2011, 04:14:09 AM

Knew he wasn't going to make it. huh ? ...only teasing..

Seriously, I posted that link http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm specifically so you could hear from the reknowned Dr Robert Jastrow and his final conclusion to all this "scientific" speculation...read especially, the last two paragraphs..

I did read your link, but it doesn't hold a lot of weight. The acceptance within the sceintific community is high, but being non-absolute you can always find SOMEONE not-supporting it. Heck the Flat Earth Society manages to dig up a few supporters of their beliefs - you have to look to the whole, as well as the evidence at hand.

ironglow · « **Reply #115 on:** January 10, 2011, 12:14:35 PM »

Quote from Dr Jastrow;
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16, p.116 )

Scibear,McMorden;
Now you may not see it that way, but it appears Jastrow is saying that to him, after his lifetime of study in the field, he has a sneaking suspicion that when the "scientists" have pursued enlightment concerning the origin of life and why we exist...and have struggled over that last hurdle of life (death), they will discover that the old preachers had it right all along...

McM.. Pleased to hear you say that the acceptance of evolution in the science community is not absolute, nor is the acceptance of intelligent design universal in the faith community... When we each struggle over that final hurdle...then WE will know..

Till then, I guess we have worn this subject to a nub..

Scibaer · « **Reply #116 on:** January 10, 2011, 04:08:45 PM »

Yeah , we have bashed this topic well enough,

and your right, when i meet my end, then i will know, and till then, i do try and live my life best i can and treat others best i can.
I sure have enjoyed this thread though and took pleasure in reading most all of the responses and differing views.
i think we all did pretty good, there was no bashing or name calling and i hope no hard feelings, just opposing points of view, which is a good thing too.
i sure would like to see more threads like this

ironglow · « **Reply #117 on:** January 11, 2011, 12:02:40 AM »

Scibear;
Right on, we can disagree without being disagreeable (as the old saw says). I have enjoyed the repartee also, thanks for the courtesy guys...