The Definition of Real Science

[CrowCross]

You are making claims that you refuse to back up with scientific evidence.

If there was a worldwide that could have happened. All you need to do is provide scientific evidence for the flood that we can discuss.

The bible speaks of a world wide flood...not a local flood. Jesus even spoke of the flood...so did Peter.

There are H U G E sandstone deposits..bigger than continents which speak of a world wide flood.

 

[ChristB4us]

You are wrong. Please consult a basic text on evolution.

I don't know where you get your information.

Punctuated equilibrium was, however, hardly controversial at its inception.

"As a general characterization of macroevolutionary processes, it was largely presaged by Hugh Falconer (1808–1865) and Charles Darwin (1809–1882) in the mid-nineteenth century and later echoed by Hermann J. Muller (1890–1967) and George Gaylord Simpson (1902–1984) in the early twentieth century. Eldredge and Gould postulated their version of the hypothesis as a logical extension (into paleontology) of Ernst Mayr’s (1904–2005) ecological theory of allopatric speciation (1963), which was widely considered the dominant theory of speciation. Allopatric theory proposes that speciation occurs when a smaller subpopulation becomes geographically isolated from its parent population. Over time, this peripheral daughter population diverges in isolation until it can no longer interbreed with the parent. Speciation as such happens relatively quickly in a small population and in a limited geographic range. Due to the relative brevity of this localized speciation event, intermediate morphologies will be unlikely to fossilize and will be rare even if they do, producing an apparent paleontological pattern of stasis punctuated by discontinuous speciation events."​

​

I'll attend to the rest of your post later.

Yet Stephen Jay Gould postulated it because of the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records. Sounded like he was going from scratch again in pursuing that and on the evidence of lack of transitional fossils in the fossil records from however it was originally proposed.

Real science is about what can be observed and proven. You say macroevolution happens out of sight by series of microevolution and yet that is mighty convenient in side-stepping what real science has been defined as.

 

[ChristB4us]

When I was in HS we received our religious instructions from own parishes. Public school released us an earlier on Tuesdays for religious instructions. I do not know what schools do these days but I think it up to parents and churches to figure it out for themselves.

Thanks for sharing that information but it is news to me, but I reckon it is a Catholic thing so probably why I have not heard of it at all.

There is a private Catholic High School in the area and so they probably just go there; even though I know one student that was Catholic who had left the Catholic Church & Jesus Christ altogether because of the evolution theory. The Lord used me to show the false science of it to him and he went back to being Catholic again at that time even though I was disappointed that he did. I had thought the Lord would keep him out of there in having a personal reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ rather than through a church.

 

[Frank Robert]

Yet Stephen Jay Gould postulated it because of the huge gaps of transitional fossils in the fossil records. Sounded like he was going from scratch again in pursuing that and on the evidence of lack of transitional fossils in the fossil records from however it was originally proposed.

Microevolution and macroevolution are not different processes. Both relate to genetic changes in a population across generations; the only difference is the timescale on which the two operate.

Real science is about what can be observed and proven.

You are partially correct. Science (there is no need to call it real) is about testable hypotheses that make observable predictions.

Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions.

You say macroevolution happens out of sight by series of microevolution and yet that is mighty convenient in side-stepping what real science has been defined as.

Perhaps a picture can explain it better than me

 

[ChristB4us]

Microevolution and macroevolution are not different processes. Both relate to genetic changes in a population across generations; the only difference is the timescale on which the two operate.

You are partially correct. Science (there is no need to call it real) is about testable hypotheses that make observable predictions.

Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions.

Perhaps a picture can explain it better than me
View attachment 213

Sorry. I believe God's words which never changes over man's ever changing "facts" in that false science, the evolution theory.

Did you know the behemoth in Job is a dinosaur?

Joh 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Goes to show tainted education affecting our Biblical scholars when they think in the Bible footnotes even in the KJV that the behemoth is an alligator, a hippo, or an elephant and neither has a tail like a tree which is what a cedar is.

Only in the last decade that science discovered that the sexual organs of the dinosaurs are internal and yet the latter part of verse 17 says the Bible already knows that.

So how can a dinosaur be in the Bible that God said He created with man when science says man has never seen one?

Is the Lord waking you up now?

 

[Frank Robert]

Sorry. I believe God's words which never changes over man's ever changing "facts" in that false science, the evolution theory.

God specks to us in ways we can understand. From my perspective your perspective of science is very much different than mine.

Did you know the behemoth in Job is a dinosaur?

That is what you been told or taught, I was taught science in both public and Catholic schools so my understanding of science and evolution is much different than yours.

Joh 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Goes to show tainted education affecting our Biblical scholars when they think in the Bible footnotes even in the KJV that the behemoth is an alligator, a hippo, or an elephant and neither has a tail like a tree which is what a cedar is.

Each of us are entitled to interpret the bible according to our religious beliefs. I think it is great that we can discuss our differentces but some people fail to understand that in the end it is best to agree to disagree.

Only in the last decade that science discovered that the sexual organs of the dinosaurs are internal and yet the latter part of verse 17 says the Bible already knows that.

The ability of science to self-correct is our gift from God.

So how can a dinosaur be in the Bible that God said He created with man when science says man has never seen one?

That is what you believe but the sciences tools that God gave us show that dinosaurs went extinct before the OT was written. How do we know? God gave us the tools and the ability to increase our knowledge of the earth and all its inhabitants so that we can trace back the progression of His wonderful creation. It is simply a coincidence that scientists labeled

Is the Lord waking you up now?

I like to think so.

 

[Manfred]

nwrt

Manfred said:
Yes, and we all know why

That's because dogs are relatively recent. If you understood the concept, you'd understand that the ancient ancestor to the dog, which ancestor was not a dog, "became" a dog (although that introduces implications that are not part of evolution).

Manfred said:
I understand the concept. Yet you have many different breeds of dogs, that are all still dogs.
No dog has yet come close to becoming something else than a dog, despite all the breeding.

Dogs are relatively recent?
And we need to take your word and that of others who use geustimating, that dogs are "relatively" recent.
There is no proof, apart from using your bias and the bias of the so-called scientists to prove it by what is mostly speculation.

Your claim is still that however many moons ago, some other animal became a dog.
You have no proof and speculate. The best you can do is "claim" that the evidence points to it. That is nothing but common bias.

Dogs weren't around 15 billion years ago.


1. Speciation doesn't have to happen at some constant rate for all species, as the environment is an important factor.

Try telling that to those who are trying to reproduce this in labs.
I see design and you have your blinders on.

2. What would become dogs separated from what would become cats 50 million years ago. Those species *did* evolve, and dogs only separated from wolves around 30,000-40,000 years ago.

Says who and by what evidence?
Don't give me some biased link to an un-truthful page that you and your fellow Evos use to tickle your ears.

... snip

Reading the rest of your reply is just more statements without facts and taken on face value.
You have a blind faith disguised as fact.

 

[ChristB4us]

God specks to us in ways we can understand. From my perspective your perspective of science is very much different than mine.

That is what you been told or taught, I was taught science in both public and Catholic schools so my understanding of science and evolution is much different than yours.

I doubt that science was any different.

Each of us are entitled to interpret the bible according to our religious beliefs. I think it is great that we can discuss our differentces but some people fail to understand that in the end it is best to agree to disagree.

Not true; Either you see the truth in His words or whoever taught you is not rightly dividing the word of truth as scripture cannot go against scripture.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You are supposed to trust Jesus Christ as your own personal Good Shepherd to help you understand and apply His words as meat in the KJV to discern good & evil in these latter days where faith is hard to find. If you do not do that, then you are allowing fallible men to teach you science and the Bible and church traditions without proving then with Him by the scripture to make you fall for anything and everything that is not true.

The ability of science to self-correct is our gift from God.

Not when it is run by fallible men such as the Catholic Church and other Protestant churches are run.

That is what you believe but the sciences tools that God gave us show that dinosaurs went extinct before the OT was written. How do we know? God gave us the tools and the ability to increase our knowledge of the earth and all its inhabitants so that we can trace back the progression of His wonderful creation. It is simply a coincidence that scientists labeled

I like to think so.

Check out these evidence of dinosaurs with mankind then.

Humans with Dinosaurs Evidence

Scroll down to "Stegosaur Depiction at Angkor Wat, Cambodia" to see that picture. Deniers want to say that is just a flower but I see that dinosaur clearly. Can you?

 

[CrowCross]

Microevolution and macroevolution are not different processes. Both relate to genetic changes in a population across generations; the only difference is the timescale on which the two operate.

You are partially correct. Science (there is no need to call it real) is about testable hypotheses that make observable predictions.

Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions.

Perhaps a picture can explain it better than me
View attachment 213

Nice theory...we all have seen the charts as they were force fed to us back in school.

The problem is proving it actually did happen. One thing that would help would be to include the "transitional fossils" at the "T's" in your fancy chart. Thing is, they don't exist.

 

[CrowCross]

So how can a dinosaur be in the Bible that God said He created with man when science says man has never seen one?

Here's the part that interested me..."when science says man has never seen one".

Evo's jaws drop when they scroll through this very informative site. The site contains tons of information answering the question if man ever saw and lived with dinosaurs.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nice theory...we all have seen the charts as they were force fed to us back in school.

I feel sad for you that you had boring teachers for science. When I was middle school I was inspired by some excellent nuns who made science exciting.

The problem is proving it actually did happen.

Once again, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

You don't need to take my word for it. Just google it.

One thing that would help would be to include the "transitional fossils" at the "T's" in your fancy chart. Thing is, they don't exist.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are apparently regurgitating creationist the misunderstanding that has been refuted over and over the past two or three decades. If all you read is creationist material you will continue to have a limited understanding of science.

Special Creation and the Fossil Record: The Central Fallacy

online.ucpress.edu

 

[ChristB4us]

Here's the part that interested me..."when science says man has never seen one".

Evo's jaws drop when they scroll through this very informative site. The site contains tons of information answering the question if man ever saw and lived with dinosaurs.

Thanks for sharing that link;

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

@Gus Bovona & @Frank Robert I hope the Lord will lead you guys to have that checked it out.

 

[Frank Robert]

I doubt that science was any different.

It is not that science is different its your understanding of science is different from the mainstream understanding.

Not when it is run by fallible men such as the Catholic Church and other Protestant churches are run.

I think it is strange that a Christian has so much animosity for other Christian denominations and other religions.

Check out these evidence of dinosaurs with mankind then.

Humans with Dinosaurs Evidence

Scroll down to "Stegosaur Depiction at Angkor Wat, Cambodia" to see that picture. Deniers want to say that is just a flower but I see that dinosaur clearly. Can you?

You may believe there is evidence for dino's and men but you are wrong. If creationists scientists have valid evidence for dinos and men they should share it by having it published in a scientific journal.

 

[Frank Robert]

Thanks for sharing that link;

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

@Gus Bovona & @Frank Robert I hope the Lord will lead you guys to have that checked it out.

The website you linked to, Genesis Park, is a creationist website that promotes the belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

I found it entertaining but also found the evidence presented of coexistence weak and inconclusive. Even so, I think it is nice to have a platform for those who believe in the possibility of human-dinosaur coexistence to share their ideas.

 

[ChristB4us]

It is not that science is different its your understanding of science is different from the mainstream understanding.

You are aware of how woke is being imposed on little kids in school through the Department of Education?

I suggest you see that mainstream understanding as corrupted, brother, because it is.

I think it is strange that a Christian has so much animosity for other Christian denominations and other religions.

What church held the Inquisition again?

Granted, Protestant fares no better when John Calvin had warned Servitus not to come or else John was going to have him arrested and put to death, even though he had hoped the threat of death will lead him to repentance but it dd not happen and so preferred a more humane way to die as a heretic, but he did not stop that execution.

You may believe there is evidence for dino's and men but you are wrong. If creationists scientists have valid evidence for dinos and men they should share it by having it published in a scientific journal.

I believe the Bible of God's description of the behemoth as a dinosaur over fallible men's science any day.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Manfred said:
Yes, and we all know why

Ironically, even *that* is nwrt.

Manfred said:
I understand the concept. Yet you have many different breeds of dogs, that are all still dogs.

Yes, evolution accepts that.

No dog has yet come close to becoming something else than a dog, despite all the breeding.

It's just that the changes come so slow and imperceptibly, that's why you're not seeing it.

Dogs are relatively recent?
And we need to take your word and that of others who use geustimating, that dogs are "relatively" recent.
There is no proof, apart from using your bias and the bias of the so-called scientists to prove it by what is mostly speculation.

First of all, science doesn't do proofs, science looks at the evidence and builds models of reality, makes testable predictions based on those models, and the models whose predictions are borne out are the winners. There are just massive amounts of evidence for evolution.

Your claim is still that however many moons ago, some other animal became a dog.

Not in the way that that sounds; rather, some other animal built up small changes over vast amounts of time and, through various processes, one of which is being geographically isolated from other animals of the same type, eventually got to the point at which they couldn't breed with those other animals and, eventually, the small changes built up such that we now have what we recognize as a dog.

You have no proof and speculate. The best you can do is "claim" that the evidence points to it. That is nothing but common bias.

You should go examine how much evidence there is for evolution. Here's a link that summarizes that evidence, and even the summary is massive.

Try telling that to those who are trying to reproduce this in labs.
I see design and you have your blinders on.

Look at the evidence.

Says who and by what evidence?
Don't give me some biased link to an un-truthful page that you and your fellow Evos use to tickle your ears.

Just go look at the evidence for evolution at the link I gave you.

Reading the rest of your reply is just more statements without facts and taken on face value.
You have a blind faith disguised as fact.

 

[ChristB4us]

The website you linked to, Genesis Park, is a creationist website that promotes the belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

I found it entertaining but also found the evidence presented of coexistence weak and inconclusive. Even so, I think it is nice to have a platform for those who believe in the possibility of human-dinosaur coexistence to share their ideas.

So seeing is not believing any more in spite of the evidence to the contrary that men had never seen a dinosaur?

It takes greater faith to believe in macroevolution than the Bible, brother. I suggest you go with the Bible.

 

[CrowCross]

I feel sad for you that you had boring teachers for science. When I was middle school I was inspired by some excellent nuns who made science exciting.

I love science...my teachers were not boring to say the least. When I began to learn the science behind the YEC models I was amazed.

Once again, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

You don't need to take my word for it. Just google it.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are apparently regurgitating creationist the misunderstanding that has been refuted over and over the past two or three decades. If all you read is creationist material you will continue to have a limited understanding of science.

Special Creation and the Fossil Record: The Central Fallacy

online.ucpress.edu

Referring to your article...the fossil records fits like a hand in a glove when seen through the event called Noah's flood and what that flood would have done to the earth.

 

[ChristB4us]

Yes, evolution accepts that.

You mean the Law of Biogenesis in how a dog can become a different kind of dog but still a dog?

But science should not be accepting the phenomenon of macroevolution.

Ever witness genetic information being added to a living organism? Not going to happen unless man intervenes ( intelligent design ) and wind up making that altered living thing impotent for messing with its DNA.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It is not that science is different its your understanding of science is different from the mainstream understanding.

I think it is strange that a Christian has so much animosity for other Christian denominations and other religions.

You may believe there is evidence for dino's and men but you are wrong. If creationists scientists have valid evidence for dinos and men they should share it by having it published in a scientific journal.

I looked at the first piece of evidence about dinosaurs from your link and it's just a picture in the Bishop's Tomb? And you think that is valid piece of evidence to add to the pile to reach the conclusion that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time? Do I have that right? Assuming that's the case,

You're missing something very important about science: the really crucial step in science is not about trying to prove a hypothesis right, but it's trying to prove it wrong. That's what science does all day long. I've read scientists talking about scientific conferences at which they present their findings and all anyone does in the audience is to pick at the presentation and try to prove it wrong. That's what science does. If a hypothesis can still be standing after everyone gets a chance to try to disprove it, then science acknowledges that we might be on to something.

Have you tried that with that dinosaur drawing from the bishop's tomb? One way to try to prove that wrong is to try to imagine all the other explanations for see such a drawing in the tomb besides that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans. If you try, I'll bet you can come up with some.