Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
The answer is, as always 'goddidit'.
What are the dependent and independent variables in validating "scripture"?
My ass and, what I pull out of it.
What are the dependent and independent variables in validating "scripture"?
Scripture itself is outside of Science's Purview. Errr, I never claimed otherwise.
It's often beneficial to debate the ACTUAL Arguments that are presented instead of the one's you conjure (i.e., Straw Man Fallacies).
Ahhh, is reading comprehension a problem for you?? Isn't that what I just posted....
Independent Variable -- "The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control..."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio1...hypothesis.htm
"Independent variables are the variables that the experimenter changes to test their dependent variable."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...Definition.htm
1. So the "Independent Variables" are the "Input" that is CHANGED so as to measure the "Output" (Dependent Variables).
2. And, Independent Variables are VITALLY Essential (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments...How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" on a Past Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?
Incidently, you're here @ this moment...
regards
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
How very...interesting (and incorrect).
(Acts 16:31)
Note the verb: Πίστευσον (exercise faith).
And again:
(John 20:29)
Again, Note the verb: πιστεύσαντες (have faith in...without having seen).
Which, had you ever read it in context, does not refer to "salvation", but how to live in community.
Consider one last one:
(Ephesians 2:8)
Note the noun, the object of how we are "saved"...yep, πίστεως , ("faith") again.
You have much self-education to get done...
This seems to be a word, the correct meaning of which you are unaware.
This seems to be another word, the correct meaning of which you are unaware.
This seems to be yet another word, the correct meaning of which you are ignorant.
Yet another ...
...And this seems to be yet one more word, the correct meaning and proper employ of which you do not demonstrate.
A veritable host of persons of straw. Suppose you stand them over there, under that windmill, with the others?
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
So, you require scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, fail to comprehend the massive evidence presented to you -- but then naïvely accept "scripture" as truth.
Do you believe in The Vedas? If not, why not? How about the Tao Te Ching?
What process did you undergo to decide on the particular "scriptures" you have chosen? Was it scientific? Did you use a dartboard? Did you study them all and decide on the most compelling in some emotional or intellectual sense you can share?
Last edited:
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,766
This may have been said/asked, but there will be many times when testing an "independent variable" will be well beyond the scope of what can currently be recreated in laboratories. A demand for such an experiment seems to dismiss the idea that hundreds of years of accumulated observation and thought are also important to understanding the world. Whoever studied the dust in Denmark (IIRC) discerned patterns, and had reasons to interpret those patterns as a year-by-year record. Someone mentioned the thick layers of skeletal marine animals that form limestone as clear, concrete evidence about the Earth's age.
If these things aren't hundreds of thousands of years old, why does it so mysteriously look as if they are? Is there another explanation for this slow buildup of tiny marine skeletons on what is now clearly land? There is a science of interpreting indicators of the Earth's age and it grows with accumulated knowledge. Is all this to be discounted? If so, what explains these phenomena?
It sounds to me as if the creationist and the scientists are both in awe - whether of God the Creator, or the mechanism of natural selection over billions of years. It's an awesome universe, either way. I'm not saying the two world-views are of equal explanatory value - one is pretty open-ended and the other proves with syllogisms that God did it, despite the clear fossil record. The people I've learned from here are the ones presenting evidence of an older earth. Maybe Daniel will surprise me if I ever get through this thread.
MetalPig
Illuminator
I'm imagining Daniel with his Gotcha! card in his hand and no one is giving him the answer he needs to te able to play it and claim he won the internet.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,030
So, summarizing Daniel's arguments in the various threads.
Anything he did not see happen himself therefore is not true. Except anything described in the bible, because *insert special pleading here*
I'm so glad our lives are mostly not under the control of people like him anymore. And it makes me pity those living in theocracies all the more. Look at what we have achieved when a part of humanity stopped blindly believing in a single truth.
Now imagine what we could achieve if this were the norm in all the world.
How many Mozarts, Einsteins, Marie-Curies currently die as child soldiers or are forbidden school because of their sex or birth?
How many intellects are squashed from birth into the never question *insert holy book* mentality?
As for the creationist argument. If it were true, why can god not create a new lifeform again to settle this argument? Just pray for it and see what appears.
Anything he did not see happen himself therefore is not true. Except anything described in the bible, because *insert special pleading here*
I'm so glad our lives are mostly not under the control of people like him anymore. And it makes me pity those living in theocracies all the more. Look at what we have achieved when a part of humanity stopped blindly believing in a single truth.
Now imagine what we could achieve if this were the norm in all the world.
How many Mozarts, Einsteins, Marie-Curies currently die as child soldiers or are forbidden school because of their sex or birth?
How many intellects are squashed from birth into the never question *insert holy book* mentality?
As for the creationist argument. If it were true, why can god not create a new lifeform again to settle this argument? Just pray for it and see what appears.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
The obvious answer is that God is a pathological liar...
Son of Inigo
Thinker
My dear Daniel,
I am truly confused. I did the science 'your' way, and I still get the same result, an earth that is at least 250,000 years old, which is much, much older than the 6,000 of the bible.
Why in your world are tree rings not a scientifically valid method of dating trees? Just how does one go about determining the age of something in your world?
Why are only you right when you discredit the TOE by using 'Daniel' science, but we are wrong when we use the same 'Daniel' science to disprove your god? Or use it to disprove your 6,000 year old earth. Or really anything.
Remember Daniel, I was you not too long ago. You are speaking to a former fellow traveler. A decade ago, I would have been right by your side, a crusading warrior of the biblical truth. We would have been bosom buddies, slaying those unrighteous scientists together.
But then I actually started to learn science. Not the crap taught in the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum I learned in my private Christian school, but real science as practiced by real scientists. The ones that cured polio, sent men to the moon, and designed my computer.
What wondrous things science can tell us. What great questions they are asking, and striving mightily to answer. What great benefits are shared with the world by their tireless and hard research.
'Daniel' science gives us nothing. Only stories from an old book. It cannot cure cancer, cannot invent new products, cannot help us solve any problems. It is actively trying to silence and muzzle real science, the one that gives us the real benefits, in favor of dogma, conformity, and unquestioning belief.
I made my choice several years ago to accept science. You will call me a heretic, a traitor, a sinner. I consider myself a free thinking inquirer of the truth. Life has never been better.
ETA: almost forgot. Tree rings. Explain tree rings Daniel.
I am truly confused. I did the science 'your' way, and I still get the same result, an earth that is at least 250,000 years old, which is much, much older than the 6,000 of the bible.
Why in your world are tree rings not a scientifically valid method of dating trees? Just how does one go about determining the age of something in your world?
Why are only you right when you discredit the TOE by using 'Daniel' science, but we are wrong when we use the same 'Daniel' science to disprove your god? Or use it to disprove your 6,000 year old earth. Or really anything.
Remember Daniel, I was you not too long ago. You are speaking to a former fellow traveler. A decade ago, I would have been right by your side, a crusading warrior of the biblical truth. We would have been bosom buddies, slaying those unrighteous scientists together.
But then I actually started to learn science. Not the crap taught in the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum I learned in my private Christian school, but real science as practiced by real scientists. The ones that cured polio, sent men to the moon, and designed my computer.
What wondrous things science can tell us. What great questions they are asking, and striving mightily to answer. What great benefits are shared with the world by their tireless and hard research.
'Daniel' science gives us nothing. Only stories from an old book. It cannot cure cancer, cannot invent new products, cannot help us solve any problems. It is actively trying to silence and muzzle real science, the one that gives us the real benefits, in favor of dogma, conformity, and unquestioning belief.
I made my choice several years ago to accept science. You will call me a heretic, a traitor, a sinner. I consider myself a free thinking inquirer of the truth. Life has never been better.
ETA: almost forgot. Tree rings. Explain tree rings Daniel.
slyjoe
Illuminator
Very nice Inigo.
My dear Daniel,
1. It's not 'my way'. SEE Sir Francis Bacon et al.
2. Let's SEE it in the Scientific Method...?
1. Well because you skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method.
2. How can a Method used to explain "CAUSE and EFFECT" Relationships be used to validate "Ages"
Show the GNP of the Netherlands with a Framing Square...?
Historical Documentation.
With al do respect sir...as evidenced by your comments here and previous posts, you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.
regards
Nope. Please try and refute my ACTUAL arguments instead of the ones you conjure (aka: Straw Man Fallacies)
Ok, *Something from Nothing*.
regards
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
Argument by Ignorance.
1. Well because you skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method.
2. How can a Method used to explain "CAUSE and EFFECT" Relationships be used to validate "Ages"
Show the GNP of the Netherlands with a Framing Square...?
Argument by Ignorance AND incredulity.
Argument by Ignorance. And no.
Argument by incredulty, and Ignorance.
Ad hom as well.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
Pure Strawman.
Perhaps if you actually offered arguments, instead of incredulity fallacies?
Son of Inigo
Thinker
My dear Daniel,
1. It's not 'my way'. SEE Sir Francis Bacon et al.
2. Let's SEE it in the Scientific Method...?
1. Well because you skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method.
2. How can a Method used to explain "CAUSE and EFFECT" Relationships be used to validate "Ages"
Show the GNP of the Netherlands with a Framing Square...?
Historical Documentation.
With al do respect sir...as evidenced by your comments here and previous posts, you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.
regards
Wait..... is that the sound goal posts make while moving?
For every year of growth, a ring will be formed in a tree. Happens every year, in every tree (that I am aware of), all over the world, whether someone observes each ring being formed or not. We know this because we can plant many trees, and x number of years later, core the trees, and count the rings. The number of rings always matches the number of growth years. Always. That is a historically documented scientific fact. No tree has ever been found to have more or less rings than its actual growth years. Ever.
Using the historically documented scientific fact stated above, our cut down red wood has 214 growth rings. Using historically documented facts, we can reliably scientifically prove that the red wood was 214 years old.
That is using YOUR criteria, Historical Documentation (sic). Something you just stated is the method used to determine the age of an object.
Please tell me again, how counting 214 rings in our cut down red wood DOES NOT scientifically validate that the tree was 214 years old, when it is what the historical documentation states is just exactly what we would expect it to be?
An aside to this. If new information is discovered that discredits any historical documentation, how are we to process this new information. Can't use historical documentation, as the information isn't historical, it is new information, and it conflicts with the established historical documentation. New does not equal historical. So if historical documentation is the gold standard of 'Daniel' science, how does 'Daniel' science ever progress?
Historically, and we can check the documentation on this, the sun was perceived to revolve around the earth. Do you still adhere to this historically documented science of cosmology? Also, you will find historical documentation that the earth was flat. Do you still accept this historical documentation to be correct. If you don't, why not?
Anticipatingly I remain yours, ect, ect.....
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
That's not true. It's known, for instance, that the Bristlecone Pine (one of the most longest-lived species of tree) has both double rings and missing rings in different years.
Here's a random website discussing the issue and ways to address it:
http://www.conifers.org/topics/oldest.htm