Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[bu villain]

I'm not throwing out any scientists work, including Darwin's. But I'm also not going to swllow it hook, line, and sinker without learning about it first with my own research.
I don't see scientists proclaiming that gravity is spawning new species, new elements, or anything like that. I have not problem with scientists trying to further the studying of the evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with it being taught as fact, when it clearly is not fact. Scientists that push evolution do it with the same conviction and tactics as religious doctrines - and with just as much missing answers.
You are correct that belief in one does not require a disbelief in the other. I agree 100% with you on that. Again, that is faith - which I have advocated that it is the entire time.
I question any science that makes outlandish claims that go against mathematical probability. I question religions also - unfortunately, they do not have to attempt to prove their claims.
You appear to not understand possibility and probability. Possibility is either 0 or 1, and since we cannot prove that something is always impossible, the answer is always 1. Probability is always measured between the two, and will move up and down the scale. The probability that teh current evolution theory got us to where we are was once calculated as 1 in 10x38th power. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. Do you have faith that you can do that?

In the end you either trust the scientific method and scientist or you don't. If you don't trust them, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The evidence I have seen is convincing to me, obviously not so to you. I guess you just have a higher threshold for belief than 95% of scientists. Btw, if current evolutionary theory is true, then the chance it got us to where we are today is 100%. The chance of one person winning the lottery may be 1 in a million and yet someone always wins the lottery.

Also, I would like to know, what are the consequences of teaching evolutionary theory that you fear? Since it is really the only scientific theory on the subject out there right now, do you suggest we not teach it at all or do you simply want more emphasis placed on the fact that we can't answer every single question associated with it?

[David88vert]

In the end you either trust the scientific method and scientist or you don't. If you don't trust them, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The evidence I have seen is convincing to me, obviously not so to you. I guess you just have a higher threshold for belief than 95% of scientists. Btw, if current evolutionary theory is true, then the chance it got us to where we are today is 100%. The chance of one person winning the lottery may be 1 in a million and yet someone always wins the lottery.

Also, I would like to know, what are the consequences of teaching evolutionary theory that you fear? Since it is really the only scientific theory on the subject out there right now, do you suggest we not teach it at all or do you simply want more emphasis placed on the fact that we can't answer every single question associated with it?

First, let me expain probability to you.
Cover all of North America in dimes, with the edge of each one touching each other. Then stack dimes in columns on those all the way to the moon. Now take that one pile that is the size of North America piled all the way to the moon, and multiply it 1 million times. Take one dime and paint it red and put it a random somewhere in those 1 million piles of dimes each the size of North America and piled to the moon. Have a blindfolded person pick out that one dime. That is the odds that a single living cell came from nothing, and became our current civilization.
The question was can you personally always win the lottery - every day. It is mathematically improbably, but its odds are much better, but I doubt that you believe that you can do that.
Show me the scientific method for testing how something comes from nothing (spontaneous creation from the lack of matter), plus scientific method of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life), and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

You seem to be easily convinced. That is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish, I have no problem with that. If someone tells you the world is flat, and you believe them, it probably won't affect your daily life.

I have no problems or issues with teaching evolution. I do believe that evolution should not be taught as fact, when it is clearly not. It should be taught that it has ample data available that makes it improbable, but do not rule it out entirely. That is very different than what you see presented by biased individuals currently.

[bu villain]

First, let me expain probability to you.
Cover all of North America in dimes, with the edge of each one touching each other. Then stack dimes in columns on those all the way to the moon. Now take that one pile that is the size of North America piled all the way to the moon, and multiply it 1 million times. Take one dime and paint it red and put it a random somewhere in those 1 million piles of dimes each the size of North America and piled to the moon. Have a blindfolded person pick out that one dime. That is the odds that a single living cell came from nothing, and became our current civilization.
The question was can you personally always win the lottery - every day. It is mathematically improbably, but its odds are much better, but I doubt that you believe that you can do that.
Show me the scientific method for testing how something comes from nothing (spontaneous creation from the lack of matter), plus scientific method of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life), and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

You seem to be easily convinced. That is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish, I have no problem with that. If someone tells you the world is flat, and you believe them, it probably won't affect your daily life.

I have no problems or issues with teaching evolution. I do believe that evolution should not be taught as fact, when it is clearly not. It should be taught that it has ample data available that makes it improbable, but do not rule it out entirely. That is very different than what you see presented by biased individuals currently.

Your coin image is very powerful but I have a hard time believing it. Could you please explain how you arrived at those numbers. I don't see how you could calculate the probability of something like that without making unsubstantiated assumptions. There are far too many unknowns.

Also, the theory of evolution does not make any comment on how the first life started, it only tries to explain how life developed once it had started. So your comment about something from nothing is irrelevant to this discussion.

And your right. I am easily convinved by people I trust. That's what trust means! On this biological issue I trust the biologists more than a random guy on a message board (although I have no doubt you are intelligent as well). However, I would probably trust you on car issues more than an evolutionary biologist. I would argue that's how most people handle complex issues outside of their expertise.

[David88vert]

Your coin image is very powerful but I have a hard time believing it. Could you please explain how you arrived at those numbers. I don't see how you could calculate the probability of something like that without making unsubstantiated assumptions. There are far too many unknowns.

Also, the theory of evolution does not make any comment on how the first life started, it only tries to explain how life developed once it had started. So your comment about something from nothing is irrelevant to this discussion.

And your right. I am easily convinved by people I trust. That's what trust means! On this biological issue I trust the biologists more than a random guy on a message board (although I have no doubt you are intelligent as well). However, I would probably trust you on car issues more than an evolutionary biologist. I would argue that's how most people handle complex issues outside of their expertise.

I did not calculate it to that degree - nor could I spend that much time doing it. It came years ago from a DNA calculation book which included the example. They definitely did not have to make as many assumptions as you do to believe in evolution - as it is currently presented.
I do have lots of information on DNA that I could send you - if you are interested in it. It's pretty dry reading material, but it is pretty clear that DNA does not mutate like the old textbooks claimed in support of evolution.

Ok, ignore the fact that something cannot come from nothing. Show an example of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life) from inorganic matter through the scientific method, and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

So, you choose to trust a random person who you cannot name, question, research, etc? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's cheap..
I would hope that you would question everything told and taught to you - however, that being said, there is no real harm in you believing something that does not daily impact your life. Like I said earlier, it is all about faith. I personally cannot have faith in something that defies probability to such an extent as the current theory does, but whether I believe it or not does not affect my daily decisions either of how I provide for my family.

[bu villain]

I did not calculate it to that degree - nor could I spend that much time doing it. It came years ago from a DNA calculation book which included the example. They definitely did not have to make as many assumptions as you do to believe in evolution - as it is currently presented.
I do have lots of information on DNA that I could send you - if you are interested in it. It's pretty dry reading material, but it is pretty clear that DNA does not mutate like the old textbooks claimed in support of evolution.

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.

Ok, ignore the fact that something cannot come from nothing. Show an example of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life) from inorganic matter through the scientific method, and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/sc...l?pagewanted=1

So, you choose to trust a random person who you cannot name, question, research, etc? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's cheap..
I would hope that you would question everything told and taught to you - however, that being said, there is no real harm in you believing something that does not daily impact your life. Like I said earlier, it is all about faith. I personally cannot have faith in something that defies probability to such an extent as the current theory does, but whether I believe it or not does not affect my daily decisions either of how I provide for my family.

I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.

[David88vert]

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence.

I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/sc...l?pagewanted=1

Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants.

I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.

You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.
Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense.


BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

[bu villain]

I said nothing of the sort. DNA has mutations, but by the vast majority, they are not considered more than mildly beneficial, at best. Most mutations are a detriment, or of no consequence..

Agreed. I guess I misunderstood your previous post on this. It is the rare, mildly beneficial changes which over immense stretches of time which evolutionary theory credits for evolving traits.

Did you read all the way to the end? Even evolutionary biologists were not convinced. It was a hybrid - which is common when you mate two different sunflowers. The important part of the study (and his work still on-going today), was that he successfully reproduced the same genetic change 3 times of breeding. In reality, it is similar to the mating the two different species of a donkey and horse - in that case you get a mule, all males are infertile, and cannot reproduce a new species. The difference here was that his flower was extremely similar to the existing wild sunflower - which does continue to reproduce. So, did selective breeding of a hybrid help it evolve to a higher level (i.e. - the benefit that evolution makes claim to)? The answer is - no, no benefit that we know of - yet. I do like the research program though, and am all for it. Like I said before, I do not want them to stop researching possibilities, I just don't agree that the current data supports the current theory (theories can be rewritten though). As most evolutionary biologist will state themselves, replication is much more complex on animals than plants..

I took this article as more like a proof of concept rather than a be all end all of evolution. If you look at dog breeds, they are getting to the point where certain breeds could never realistically mate with other breeds (e.g., chihuahua and great dane). I know this is not a perfect example but it seems plausable to me that a continued divergence of those two types of dogs could eventually lead to them being considered different species since usually a species is defined as a group which can reproduce fertile offspring.

You should question it. The majority of current thesis on evolutionary biology are flawed from being based upon an incorrectly calculated report.

As I stated before, I do question it. Otherwise, why would I read books on it or continue this discussion with you. Don't mistake my being convinced by the arguments as I understand them for unquestioning faith.

Evolutionary biologists start with an agenda, rather than observation. That is no different than trusting a random individual on the street - both try to sell something. For that matter, religious zealots try to do the same thing - sell their unproven beliefs. In their own minds, they make perfect sense..

And this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe evolutionary biologists start with an agenda anymore than any chemist, physicist or any other biologist.

BTW - I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice your reply until now. I was not ignoring you.

Haha, no need to apologize. We could probably go on indefinitely. It's perfectly understandable that evolutionary debates on IA are not your foremost concern. Even though we disagree I respect that your position comes from your interpretation of the evidence rather than blind disbelief. Skepticism is the most important driver of scientific discovery!