The Definition of Real Science

[ChristB4us]

I just completed a couple weeks exchange with a man from Europe whose view increasingly reduced to a tautology: evolution is fact, shut up and accept it. The question of micro v macro didn't seem to register with him. My 'problem' was that I was afraid of what I would find out.

Essentially, I found, it is the view that since the cell 'emerged' there is a form of 'evolution-think' in which the 'brain' of a cell keeps trying to find ways to survive and dominate. This can lead to thinking of arms or legs! But if a bear is faster and stronger than a human and would dominate, why are there humans on 2 legs?

As far as I can tell, he was not even familiar with the Cambrian explosion of fossil evidence, and several other things.

I ended up trying to see if he could understand the bird vs the egg principle, and of course, he insisted that the egg could just develop on its own. He kept sending a Tedtalk by Hancyck, in which Hancyck believes he can demonstrate cells doing 'evolving-thinking' of more and more advanced and dominating life forms. I found it naive, theoretical, doctrinaire, inexperienced, tautological. The experiment would have to work on a rock in space and you scoop a bucket from some where else, drop the substances on the rock and wait. There are no other designs or knowledge or forces or measurements allowed.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Real science is what can be observed and proven.

Seems laymen such as our selves can do that, sir.

You keep referring to detectives and in a lot of ways they have to do what science has to do and that is prove or disprove a hypothesis.

But nowadays, they just build hypothesis on top of another hypothesis without ever proving one of them. I call that spinning a fairy tale.

The principle I laid out is not unique to detectives, nor scientists. We use it when we wake up, see everything is wet, and infer that it rained overnight even though we didn't directly observe the rain.

Use your common sense and the power of observation.

I do, but I also recognize that common sense can get it wrong. Even observation can get it wrong: just look up into the sky and you'll see the sun travel around the earth.

And if all else fails as it can when it come to those pushing a lie as if it is true, ask Jesus Christ to show you the truth in science as well as the truth in Hs words.

 

[ChristB4us]

The principle I laid out is not unique to detectives, nor scientists. We use it when we wake up, see everything is wet, and infer that it rained overnight even though we didn't directly observe the rain.

And yet you say this below;

I do, but I also recognize that common sense can get it wrong. Even observation can get it wrong: just look up into the sky and you'll see the sun travel around the earth.

So basically like the Catholics have been told to rely on the RCC for the "correct" interpretation of His words, so are you relying on faulty science to tell you the correct presentation of every "evidence" as a "fact" in attending towards the evolution theory.

When Jesus Christ appears at the pre great tribulation rapture event and you see that fiery destruction coming on that third of the earth; the western hemisphere; maybe then you will call on Jesus Christ to save you for then you will know you have been lied to by that false science.

 

[CrowCross]

I didn't see anything in that video that makes it scientific (which is what Frank was asking for). There were no references to previous scientific works that discussed the topic (the only references I saw were biblical ones), especially articles or books that disconfirm what the video claims. There was no presentation of where the supposed data and facts came from. Without all that, it's not science.

Oh well then Gus. Stick with your atheism.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Oh well then Gus. Stick with your atheism.

Unless you can counter it, what I said stands.

 

[Gus Bovona]

And yet you say this below;

There's no conflict between those two statements. Using common sense to tell you that it's rained overnight is an example of when we know common sense works. But common sense doesn't work all the time.

So basically like the Catholics have been told to rely on the RCC for the "correct" interpretation of His words, so are you relying on faulty science to tell you the correct presentation of every "evidence" as a "fact" in attending towards the evolution theory.

You have not demonstrated the science in evolution is faulty, you're merely claiming that it is.

The problem, though, is that, in order to show how evolution is wrong, you'd have to somehow counter the massive amounts of evidence of evolution. That's not impossible, but doing so would be an enormous job merely because the amount of evidence for evolution is so massive.

When Jesus Christ appears at the pre great tribulation rapture event and you see that fiery destruction coming on that third of the earth; the western hemisphere; maybe then you will call on Jesus Christ to save you for then you will know you have been lied to by that false science.

 

[CrowCross]

There's no conflict between those two statements. Using common sense to tell you that it's rained overnight is an example of when we know common sense works. But common sense doesn't work all the time.

Yes, you evos have demonstrated that. How's your dead bird coming along?

 

[Gus Bovona]

How's your dead bird coming along?

It's still dead.

ETA: My previous statement still, still stands.

 

[EarlyActs]

There's no conflict between those two statements. Using common sense to tell you that it's rained overnight is an example of when we know common sense works. But common sense doesn't work all the time.


You have not demonstrated the science in evolution is faulty, you're merely claiming that it is.

The problem, though, is that, in order to show how evolution is wrong, you'd have to somehow counter the massive amounts of evidence of evolution. That's not impossible, but doing so would be an enormous job merely because the amount of evidence for evolution is so massive.

There are several problems with it, and it sports terms like 'the Great Unconformity' and 'missing links' (thousands) and Darwin's abomination (bees) and the discoverer of dino DNA saying on 60 Minutes that carbon dating 'doesn't really help here.'

I don't think gradualist evolutionists have wrestled with Lewis in "Science and Religion" or "Two Lectures." Both are in GOD IN THE DOCK. As he said in TL: "'Developmentalism' was made to look plausible by a trick, a slur of speech...we have been taught to look with only one eye open."

 

[Gus Bovona]

There are several problems with it, and it sports terms like 'the Great Unconformity'

In order for that to disprove evolution (and geology, as well), it would have to be established that no explanation within current geology is possible, and I'm not aware that that case has been made. Failing that, it is a phenomenon that is being studied:

There is currently no widely accepted explanation for the Great Unconformity among geoscientists. There are theories that have been proposed; it is widely accepted that there was a combination of more than one event which may have caused such an extensive phenomenon.

Source

and 'missing links' (thousands)

Missing links are in no way problematic for evolution, as evolution doesn't predict that we're able to find every fossil, nor that a fossil of every species was made in the first place. Obviously, finding a fossil depends on (1) how many fossils were made (and fossilization is very rare), and (2) our ability and resources devoted to finding them. Neither of those two factors has anything to do with the essential elements of evolution (common descent, mutations, natural selection, etc.).

and Darwin's abomination (bees)

Same as above. It's a problem to solve, and no one has shown that this disproves evolution; generally, the best one could do is to ask, "How could the evolution of flowers possibly happen?" But that is a question, it's not a disproof of evolution.

and the discoverer of dino DNA saying on 60 Minutes that carbon dating 'doesn't really help here.'

I don't know the specifics of what you're talking about, but carbon dating only has a limited range of dates that it works for, so I don't know what the problem is. And, again, a mystery or an unsolved question is not a refutation.

I don't think gradualist evolutionists have wrestled with Lewis in "Science and Religion" or "Two Lectures." Both are in GOD IN THE DOCK. As he said in TL: "'Developmentalism' was made to look plausible by a trick, a slur of speech...we have been taught to look with only one eye open."

That's pretty vague. Exactly what is he talking about, and specifically, (1) what is his claim, and (2) what is the evidence that sufficiently demonstrates his claim?

 

[EarlyActs]

In order for that to disprove evolution (and geology, as well), it would have to be established that no explanation within current geology is possible, and I'm not aware that that case has been made. Failing that, it is a phenomenon that is being studied:

Source


Missing links are in no way problematic for evolution, as evolution doesn't predict that we're able to find every fossil, nor that a fossil of every species was made in the first place. Obviously, finding a fossil depends on (1) how many fossils were made (and fossilization is very rare), and (2) our ability and resources devoted to finding them. Neither of those two factors has anything to do with the essential elements of evolution (common descent, mutations, natural selection, etc.).


Same as above. It's a problem to solve, and no one has shown that this disproves evolution; generally, the best one could do is to ask, "How could the evolution of flowers possibly happen?" But that is a question, it's not a disproof of evolution.


I don't know the specifics of what you're talking about, but carbon dating only has a limited range of dates that it works for, so I don't know what the problem is. And, again, a mystery or an unsolved question is not a refutation.


That's pretty vague. Exactly what is he talking about, and specifically, (1) what is his claim, and (2) what is the evidence that sufficiently demonstrates his claim?

GusB:
finding a fossil depends on
Sorry but claiming Ms of years of transitioning and not having enough fossils for so many admitted missing links is a no brainer to me: I won't go there with my brain. There should be gobs. 'Missing links' should never have been coined. These are folks who admit maybe one massive disruptive event: a comet 65M years ago. Why would that change the Bs of years of gradualism and settled development and its fossil record? But to admit many more disruptions and recent ones would...sounds too much like catastrophism; I've heard them.

Bees and Cambrian
CG said they were both abominable obstacles. Bees have always been bees in the record. But its not just that. It's the complexity of the social system and next. The Cambrians suddenness makes no sense. Gradualism is just that.

Collagen and dating
The discoverer of dino RNA tried to step out of the problem that collagen can last more than a few thousand years. It would undermine gradualism because dinos should be gone 65M years. The last NOVA I watched tried to say so and say that hundreds of half eaten dino eggs in Peru were 65MYO. What a hoot.

Lewis on developmentalism
I can't reprint a whole essay. Lewis is ruthlessly precise. Developmentalism is evolution; in the essay of the two lectures, it is the treatment of the adult bird and the egg, in which the professor simply declares that the egg developed on its own, using Lyell's language, that 'we know this from processes we can see.' Lewis was saying science was pretending to sound informed, when the 'we' involved must have had one eye shut not to see the adults produce eggs, in a perfectly designed environment and process and a perfectly designed egg for the final stage of hatching. GOD IN THE DOCK has two other very sharp related essays: 'Science and Religion' and 'Man Or Rabbit.'

I'm glad you don't think a mystery is a refutation, unless you have decided not to apply that question to the Biblical Creator who spoke things into existence.

 

[Gus Bovona]

GusB:
finding a fossil depends on
Sorry but claiming Ms of years of transitioning and not having enough fossils for so many admitted missing links is a no brainer to me: I won't go there with my brain. There should be gobs.

Why doesn't the rate at which fossils are made (number of fossils made divided by the number of organisms) enter into your calculations?

'Missing links' should never have been coined. These are folks who admit maybe one massive disruptive event: a comet 65M years ago. Why would that change the Bs of years of gradualism and settled development and its fossil record? But to admit many more disruptions and recent ones would...sounds too much like catastrophism; I've heard them.

The theory of evolution has no problem accommodating gradual change as well as more rapid change.

Bees and Cambrian
CG said they were both abominable obstacles.

CG doesn't speak for biology.

Bees have always been bees in the record.

Yes.

But its not just that. It's the complexity of the social system and next.

It's the immense length of time that produces such complexity, and the vast number organisms subject to mutation and natural selection, both of which are so large that we don't intuitively grasp them.

The Cambrians suddenness makes no sense. Gradualism is just that.

Again, unless you make a claim that it was impossible, and then adequately support that claim, it's just a question that biologists are working on. See here, especially #5.

Collagen and dating
The discoverer of dino RNA tried to step out of the problem that collagen can last more than a few thousand years. It would undermine gradualism because dinos should be gone 65M years. The last NOVA I watched tried to say so and say that hundreds of half eaten dino eggs in Peru were 65MYO. What a hoot.

Again, unless you make a claim that it was impossible, and then adequately support that claim, it's just a question that biologists are working on.

Lewis on developmentalism
I can't reprint a whole essay. Lewis is ruthlessly precise. Developmentalism is evolution; in the essay of the two lectures, it is the treatment of the adult bird and the egg, in which the professor simply declares that the egg developed on its own, using Lyell's language, that 'we know this from processes we can see.' Lewis was saying science was pretending to sound informed, when the 'we' involved must have had one eye shut not to see the adults produce eggs, in a perfectly designed environment and process and a perfectly designed egg for the final stage of hatching. GOD IN THE DOCK has two other very sharp related essays: 'Science and Religion' and 'Man Or Rabbit.'

Exactly what claim are you making here? That an egg could not have evolved? If so, what's your support for that claim, and is it sufficient to establish the claim?

I'm glad you don't think a mystery is a refutation, unless you have decided not to apply that question to the Biblical Creator who spoke things into existence.

 

[EarlyActs]

Why doesn't the rate at which fossils are made (number of fossils made divided by the number of organisms) enter into your calculations?

The theory of evolution has no problem accommodating gradual change as well as more rapid change.


CG doesn't speak for biology.


Yes.


It's the immense length of time that produces such complexity, and the vast number organisms subject to mutation and natural selection, both of which are so large that we don't intuitively grasp them.


Again, unless you make a claim that it was impossible, and then adequately support that claim, it's just a question that biologists are working on. See here, especially #5.


Again, unless you make a claim that it was impossible, and then adequately support that claim, it's just a question that biologists are working on.


Exactly what claim are you making here? That an egg could not have evolved? If so, what's your support for that claim, and is it sufficient to establish the claim?

re the egg. Exactly. The 'professor of developmentalism' had made the public forget that an elaborate designed environment (womb) had fostered the egg and then that the egg itself is an amazing miraculous device. Which the public would know from adults producing eggs! So the doctrine: 'we report processes that we can see' was a lie!

Where in space is there any possibility of a kind, warm environment with placenta and oxygen processing from the start? Lewis writes: everyday we see the perfect reproducing the imperfect, but developmentalism insists that the imperfect becomes the perfect.

 

[EarlyActs]

The theory of evolution has no problem accommodating gradual change as well as more rapid change.
This is not addressing the fossil problem. The fossil 'problem' for evolution is that it takes the conditions of a catastrophe to preserve them. The suddenness of burial and the instant removal of oxygen. When these collections have been found (all the rest is eaten or oxidized or decomposed) there are no missing links. There should be gobs.

When the early geologist Steno (1700s? German) made his 4 classes of geologic layers, he was following the Biblical order of major events. What we now call the Cambrian he had called the cataclysm period. But he knew that a mass burial of fossils could not happen without a global disruption.

But I also disagree with your inclusiveness. I just spent 2 weeks talking to a European evolutionist, who started every chat with 'why are you afraid of evolution?' Very annoying! But it came down to this: cells just 'evolve-think' new parts into existence! That was his answer, and I find it hooey.

The reason I can't accept it is because we know already know that cells are themselves 'cities' of activity, transpo, vehicles, moving parts by nature, all of which worked from the first moment for it to be a 'cell.' They were designed and they were complete and worked complete from creation. Cells don't 'evolve-think.'

NPR carried a recent piece on how a certain octopus can 'create RNA' for sudden temperature change. How convenient to chose the word 'create.' I find this ridiculous. The feature was there from the beginning without which it doesn't make it. Cells do not 'evolve-think' up another blood type. Nor can blue whales 'evolve-think' a thermostat for their testicles blood flow that will save them. These are complex engineering that were designed and worked immediately upon creation.

 

[Gus Bovona]

re the egg. Exactly. The 'professor of developmentalism' had made the public forget that an elaborate designed environment (womb) had fostered the egg and then that the egg itself is an amazing miraculous device. Which the public would know from adults producing eggs! So the doctrine: 'we report processes that we can see' was a lie!

Where in space is there any possibility of a kind, warm environment with placenta and oxygen processing from the start?

I still don't see an actual claim. Just one sentence would suffice. Once we're clear about what your claim is, the next step would be to produce evidence sufficient to accept it.

Lewis writes: everyday we see the perfect reproducing the imperfect, but developmentalism insists that the imperfect becomes the perfect.

What is developmentalism? It certainly isn't evolution, which doesn't say that organisms are perfect.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The theory of evolution has no problem accommodating gradual change as well as more rapid change.
This is not addressing the fossil problem. The fossil 'problem' for evolution is that it takes the conditions of a catastrophe to preserve them. The suddenness of burial and the instant removal of oxygen. When these collections have been found (all the rest is eaten or oxidized or decomposed) there are no missing links. There should be gobs.

Before we go any further, I have to remind you that I asked you a question that is really essential to your issue about fossils, and I'll ask it again: Why doesn't the rate at which fossils are made (number of fossils made divided by the number of organisms) enter into your calculations?

When the early geologist Steno (1700s? German) made his 4 classes of geologic layers, he was following the Biblical order of major events. What we now call the Cambrian he had called the cataclysm period. But he knew that a mass burial of fossils could not happen without a global disruption.

So what? Evolution doesn't say that global events can't happen.

But I also disagree with your inclusiveness. I just spent 2 weeks talking to a European evolutionist, who started every chat with 'why are you afraid of evolution?' Very annoying! But it came down to this: cells just 'evolve-think' new parts into existence! That was his answer, and I find it hooey.

I couldn't find anything about "evolve-think" from the sources about evolution that I use (Berkeley, TalkOrigins), and I've never heard or read that term in the books about evolution that I have read, so it just might be hooey. Fortunately, it looks like "evolve-think" has nothing to do with evolution.

If you want to learn what evolution actually is, I suggest starting with the Berkeley link above.

The reason I can't accept it is because we know already know that cells are themselves 'cities' of activity, transpo, vehicles, moving parts by nature, all of which worked from the first moment for it to be a 'cell.'

Do you have evidence that a cell couldn't have developed from a simpler version of itself or from something else?

Sometimes people use a mousetrap as an illustration of how life couldn't evolve from simpler versions in the same way that a mousetrap couldn't evolve from simpler versions because if you take away one part of the mousetrap, the whole thing can't work. See here for an explanation of why that is wrong.

They were designed and they were complete and worked complete from creation.

That's your claim, but you didn't provide evidence for it.

Cells don't 'evolve-think.'

See above about "evolve-think."

NPR carried a recent piece on how a certain octopus can 'create RNA' for sudden temperature change. How convenient to chose the word 'create.' I find this ridiculous. The feature was there from the beginning without which it doesn't make it. Cells do not 'evolve-think' up another blood type. Nor can blue whales 'evolve-think' a thermostat for their testicles blood flow that will save them.

Science reporting is notorious.

These are complex engineering that were designed and worked immediately upon creation.

That's your claim, but you didn't provide evidence for it.

 

[EarlyActs]

GusB:
the rate at which fossils are made

I hope you will read Lewis' coin-drawer analogy. The gradualist thinks the world is just a mathematical solution. But a number of other things can happen which will alter that math.

If you have a global burial event as the cataclysm was, what is the point of using a nice calm division equation? God meant to record something entirely different by sudden mass burial, which is why that is what we find all over the earth.

 

[EarlyActs]

GusB:
anything about "evolve-think"

You won't find anything unless you use your common sense listening to a devoted evolutionist. That's what he was describing. He thinks evolving is mind-less or -free, but there is actually a BMW engineer operating everything.

I don't mean that I accept macro-evolution (about origins), I mean that all systems in all creatures and the realms/spheres themselves were designed to work from the first. That is what Gen 1 is saying. Notice the Hebrew expression for the 'filling' of each realm with creatures, 'let them swarm with swarms'.

The Euro friend didn't get the creation joke; thought I was drunk. God says to 4 leading scientists: 'there's a rock orbiting in space, go make life on it.' The team: 'we'll need some soil, some oxygen, etc.' God: 'I don't think you understand. You have to make those things, too.'

So Lewis says "'Developmentalism' was made to seem plausible by a trick, by a slur of speech."

In the Judeo-Christian understanding, there is no trick needed. God creates by speaking-into-existence (Gen 1, Ps 33, and Jn 1 God created through the Logos (the Word), and this understanding has cultural echoes as far away from the source as the Sequalish people near Seattle. Why would it echo? Because as a pair of curators at the British museum would say, 'Cultures echo what was the original understanding of the Bible, but it fades, it gets turned about, it loses a detail, each echo."

 

[Gus Bovona]

GusB:
the rate at which fossils are made

I hope you will read Lewis' coin-drawer analogy. The gradualist thinks the world is just a mathematical solution.

This has nothing to do with gradualists. *You* made a claim about how frequent fossils are, and I'm questioning how you could make that claim without taking into account the rate at which fossils are made.

But a number of other things can happen which will alter that math.

If you have a global burial event as the cataclysm was, what is the point of using a nice calm division equation?

Fine, for the sake of argument, let's accept your cataclysm event: what is the rate at which fossils are made (number of fossils divided by number of organisms)? Without that number, your argument makes no sense. Even if it is an estimate (which it has to be anyway).

God meant to record something entirely different by sudden mass burial, which is why that is what we find all over the earth.

How do you know that they were all died and fossilized at the same time?

 

[Gus Bovona]

GusB:
anything about "evolve-think"

You won't find anything unless you use your common sense listening to a devoted evolutionist. That's what he was describing. He thinks evolving is mind-less or -free, but there is actually a BMW engineer operating everything.

Your European friend doesn't speak for evolution. Try looking at reputable sources produced by actual biologists with *their* sources cited.

I don't mean that I accept macro-evolution (about origins),

Evolution is not about the origin of all life, it's about how life, once there, changed.

I mean that all systems in all creatures and the realms/spheres themselves were designed to work from the first. That is what Gen 1 is saying. Notice the Hebrew expression for the 'filling' of each realm with creatures, 'let them swarm with swarms'.

You have still, again, not provided any evidence for that claim.

The Euro friend didn't get the creation joke; thought I was drunk. God says to 4 leading scientists: 'there's a rock orbiting in space, go make life on it.' The team: 'we'll need some soil, some oxygen, etc.' God: 'I don't think you understand. You have to make those things, too.'

So Lewis says "'Developmentalism' was made to seem plausible by a trick, by a slur of speech."

I have no idea what developmentalism has to do with evolution.

In the Judeo-Christian understanding, there is no trick needed. God creates by speaking-into-existence (Gen 1, Ps 33, and Jn 1 God created through the Logos (the Word), and this understanding has cultural echoes as far away from the source as the Sequalish people near Seattle. Why would it echo? Because as a pair of curators at the British museum would say, 'Cultures echo what was the original understanding of the Bible, but it fades, it gets turned about, it loses a detail, each echo."