I don't see why anyone should bother focusing on specific areas such as blood clotting and the eye when your problem is with the process of historical sciences in general. You seem to not accept that observations of the present can tell us anything about the past. You seem to be demanding that to know anything about the past someone had to be there watching it. Seeing as historical sciences such as paleontology, cosmology, evolution, geology, etc are all based on deriving past events from present observations then that means no matter what evidence is presented from these fields, you won't accept it.
So it is pointless to talk about specific complicated parts of a specific scientific theory such as evolution if you don't accept basic principles of historical sciences. Basically if you don't accept an old earth then you automatically won't accept evolution. So age of earth should be the topic, not blood clotting or eyes.
Originally posted by PotatoErrorI am assuming you can follow a point. Does the fact that pluto
"You have recorded the change of something over a billion years?"
Noone has seen, or recorded a complete orbit of Pluto. So are you saying that the concept of Pluto orbiting the sun is not scientific?
orbit the sun proves what, that it has been doing so over a billion
years?
Kelly
Originally posted by PotatoErrorI have not said that we cannot glean anything from observations in
I don't see why anyone should bother focusing on specific areas such as blood clotting and the eye when your problem is with the process of historical sciences in general. You seem to not accept that observations of the present can tel ...[text shortened]... . So age of earth should be the topic, not blood clotting or eyes.
the present, I have said that there is a line between what we can call
facts and what is faith. You want to believe in billions of years, go
ahead, just know it is a belief nothing more. You want to automatically
accept billions of years, it is easier for you to accept evolution too, it
is what is called, bias.
Good thing for us, you seem to think that evolution can be proven.
So prove it! Lets start with blood clotting or the eye, we don't even
have to discuss time with this as far as I'm concern. Can it happen
no matter how much time is avaiable?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDoesn't the Bible say must Pluto orbit the earth?
I am assuming you can follow a point. Does the fact that pluto
orbit the sun proves what, that it has been doing so over a billion
years?
Kelly
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
See - the earth does not move.
Originally posted by steerpikedoesn't the bible say sinners go to hell?
Doesn't the Bible say must Pluto orbit the earth?
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
...[text shortened]... made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
See - the earth does not move.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe geological column is scientific evidence that has been passed down from generation to generation. It clearly showes that the Earth is billions of years old. Is that good enough evidence for you? I have a felling you will only accept written evidence passed down from father to son.
You have recorded the change of something over a billion years?
Pray tell, what was it and who started the recording and how was
it passdown from generation to generation?
Kelly
"I am assuming you can follow a point. Does the fact that pluto orbit the sun proves what, that it has been doing so over a billion years?"
The point I am making is that past leaves its mark on the present, and so by looking at those marks we can narrow down conclusions about the past. You can also extrapolate backwards in the absense of any evidence against uniformity.
It doesn't matter whether the past we are talking about is billions of years ago in the case of geology, or 248 years ago in the form of the last time Pluto was in a certain place in the sky. Both conclusions are drawn from the same method. So I cannot see how you can accept one but not the other.
Cosmology, genetics, biology, archeology, forensics, geology, paleontology, physics, all use the same method of determining the past from the present and applying trends we see today backwards in time.
But you seem to be selectively labelling only the sciences you don't like as faith.
"I have not said that we cannot glean anything from observations in
the present, I have said that there is a line between what we can call
facts and what is faith."
Sure but faith is an individuals choice. Science comes up with an explaination, or a hypothesis to explain certain features in the present. If the explaination has been pulled out of thin air and is supported by no evidence then it is just speculation. Scientists make lots of speculation but they will admit it is speculation. It only becomes faith if the scientist makes a personal choice to believe in that speculation and refuse to budge.
Explaintions that can be tested against more data and pass have a higher degree of certainty than speculation. If they are tested against data and pass against the odds then they are regarded as much stronger. For example Big Bang theory predicted that background radiation should exist at a certain frequency. Years later background radiation was discovered (by accident) at that exact frequency. So the explaination was regarded as stronger because it had sucessfully predicted against the odds. At that point more cosmologists and astronomers started supporting it.
Eventually a level of support is reached at which there is no reasonable doubt given current evidence that the model is false. It might be disproven by future data, but for the moment the model is regarded as a scientific fact.
"You want to believe in billions of years, go ahead, just know it is a belief nothing more. You want to automatically accept billions of years, it is easier for you to accept evolution too, it is what is called, bias."
Geologists figured the Earth was old long before the theory of evolution even existed. The young earth - old earth conflict in geology began in the late 1700's and the ida of uniformitarianism appeared at this time. By the time of Darwin it was already accepted the Earth was old with different estimates between hundreds of thousands and billions of years.
So if anything it was Geologists that influenced Evolution and not vice-versa.
"Good thing for us, you seem to think that evolution can be proven.
So prove it! Lets start with blood clotting or the eye, we don't even
have to discuss time with this as far as I'm concern. Can it happen
no matter how much time is avaiable?"
No scientific theory can be proven. From my explaination above all that you can do is test them against more and more data. The validity of a theory is judged by how well it copes with new data.
Blood clotting and the eye are little details of evolution and may or may not be known (I am sure they are certainly not known fully). If I were going to make the case for evolution I would start with more general things. As I have already said though, there is no point even discussing evolution with someone who does not accept the Earth is older than 6000 years because it is clear that it isn't the evidence for evolution that we disagree over, but the nature of what science itself should be.
I'm sorry, where have I talked about God that you bring Him up in this
conversation?
The changing definitions are implicit in your responses.
You have seen a cell transform from a single cell into a human, a
rose, a crab, a whale, a spider, or something else? I guess I missed
your observation, where did you publish it?
Don't be a sap. When you get sick, do you determine this by observing the germs in your body or by observing other data (e.g. high temprature, vomiting, achiness)?
I'm still waiting on someone to bring a science paper on just blood
clotting or the formation on the eye.
Why? If you are interested, why don't you look for yourself? That's my point. You're not interested. This is simply a challenge from one of your propaganda peices.
As far as evolution being testable, define evolution, bring a test that
proves it occurs the way you define it and maybe we can start a
conversation on your work.
I'm an economist. You know that. I am also not the one with a million pressing questions about evolution. Again you are not really interested in understanding why biologists accept evolution. You only want to concoct a superficial rejection of whatever evidence they offer.
As far as my being willfully ignorant, let’s see what you can bring to
the table and I'll bow to your knowledge if you can offer something
other than matters of faith. I want to see something where we start
with one creature and end up with another, I do not want to start
with dogs and end with dogs and have you claim you proved
something. If you have true science, it shouldn't be to hard, so
step up to the plate or run off as it appears you have a desire to
do.
I will not be goaded into researching for you. You are the lazy one. If you are really interested, then first study biology. After that read some science papers on the biological topics of your interest. If none exist, then do some work yourself. At this point, you couldn't understand any scientific article presented you. Of course, you don't really care to understand it anyway, do you? Honestly, KJ. Think about it. You really don't care.