25 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75This shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works. The fundamental theory of evolution by natural selection hasn't changed since Darwin. When new discoveries are made, there are just minor adjustments to the smaller details which scientists are not clear on. No one knows the 100% truth, but as more discoveries are made, we are forever getting closer to it.
And each time they dig up a bone then they all run back to the black board to change it all again. And that's the way it will always be because they will never find the answers to something that they all confidently say "it is a fact."
There is one thing that is certain though in any scientific model which hasn't changed for around 150 years. That is that evolution is a fact.
EDIT: Another way to illustrate the point, when a new discovery in aerodynamics are made, planes are built to fly better. That doesn't mean that previous knowledge of aerodynamics was completely wrong and therefore older planes couldn't fly.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJay“…since you don't have the knowledge to do it yourself,
That has been my point, since you don't have the knowledge to do it yourself,
understand the process to do it yourself, AND IT WORKS how do you think
you can ID a flaw? With CPU the pain and suffering that does into finding flaws
again requires several teams working together whose only purpose is to find
them and they require tons of data, you claim you ...[text shortened]... what would
happen if we were able to make all the changes we think would be better.
Kelly
understand the process to do it yourself, AND IT WORKS how do you think
you can ID a flaw?...”
If you had read one of my previous posts you will see that I have already TOTALLY debunked this line of reasoning by answering that question. Reminder of what I said:
“…we do NOT NEED to have COMPLETE understanding of how the CPU design works to spot a very silly and obvious design flaw.
For example, suppose we look at its design and we see a wire going from one transistor to another that takes a totally unnecessary long route when we can see an obvious shortcut complete with adequate space for that shortcut route; how could that NOT be a design flaw? –we do NOT know everything BUT ONE of the things we DO know that the longer the route the slower and less energy efficiently the signal will be sent down that wire. So we can deduce that that really is a design flaw and we can deduce this WITHOUT the vast mountain of IRRELEVANT knowledge about other aspects of the CPU’s design such as the number of transistors it has and where are its registers etc….”
25 Aug 10
Kelly cannot understand how his god once started life in detail - yet he argues like god did it all perfect from the beginning. How can he know that?
Kelly knows nothing about evolution, he doesn't want to. So in fact he cannot tell us any flaw of evolution. He simply cannot do that, according to his own arguments.
Who does he think he is? God himself?
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonhttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/
The original comment of yours that I responded to was:
“…I agree with lab science when it's not twisted into false ideas and theories,…”
Can you give me a specific example of either a lab result or some other empirical observation that is “twisted into false ideas and theories” about evolution?
-I certainly cannot recall a single incident that I would describe as this.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by lauseyExactly about the airplane. A man has to step in and adjust the design. It doesn't do it on it's own. No life form can adjust itself to the point of becoming a totally new species.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works. The fundamental theory of evolution by natural selection hasn't changed since Darwin. When new discoveries are made, there are just minor adjustments to the smaller details which scientists are not clear on. No one knows the 100% truth, but as more discoveries are made, we are forever getting c ...[text shortened]... ious knowledge of aerodynamics was completely wrong and therefore older planes couldn't fly.
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLike I said, you don't hava a clue.
“…since you don't have the knowledge to do it yourself,
understand the process to do it yourself, AND IT WORKS how do you think
you can ID a flaw?...”
If you had read one of my previous posts you will see that I have already TOTALLY debunked this line of reasoning by answering that question. Reminder of what I said:
“…we do NOT NEED to have C ...[text shortened]... of the CPU’s design such as the number of transistors it has and where are its registers etc….”
Kelly
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75Do you really consider an aeroplane as an biological being? Really?
Exactly about the airplane. A man has to step in and adjust the design. It doesn't do it on it's own. No life form can adjust itself to the point of becoming a totally new species.
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75So how can you do the funny comparison that - "If aeroplane cannot evolve without technicians, then biological species cannot do that either" - ?
Uhhhh yep! Come on....are you serious?
So I ask you again: Do you really consider an aeroplane as an biological being? Really?
And, yes, I'm serious. Don't discuss evolution, if you don't know evolution. Your religious opinions has no value.
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by daniel58This is just a load of creationist propaganda. It just gives opinions.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/
Can you give me a SPECIFIC example of an incident where a scientist made a SPECIFIC observation and responded to that observation by “twisted into false ideas and theories” by deducing evolution or some aspect of evolution?
-you have yet to show me a single specific example of this for me to scrutinise.
26 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo humour us;
Like I said, you don't hava a clue.
Kelly
-show the flaw in the facts I pointed out;
-tell us why we could not ID such a hypothetical obvious flaw in the CPU without, according to what you imply, knowing a vast amount of irrelevant information about its design….
twhitehead had made some excellent posts pointing out the same basic flaw in your reasoning albeit using completely different words and tactic.
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHe cannot. He doesn't know anything about evolution. He is influenced by creationists propaganda, nothing more.
This is just a load of creationist propaganda. It just gives opinions.
Can you give me a SPECIFIC example of an incident where a scientist made a SPECIFIC observation and responded to that observation by “twisted into false ideas and theories” by deducing evolution or some aspect of evolution?
-you have yet to show me a single specific example of this for me to scrutinise.
26 Aug 10
1 edit
The mysterious route of the laryngeal nerve is not going to convince creationists to leave their belief, nor will the platypus convince evolutionists to leave their belief. It just adds another dimension to the Great Debate.
That being said, I would like to share this website.
http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/
27 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltontwhitehead said he could spot a flaw in a CPU by seeing something not work.
So humour us;
-show the flaw in the facts I pointed out;
-tell us why we could not ID such a hypothetical obvious flaw in the CPU without, according to what you imply, knowing a vast amount of irrelevant information about its design….
twhitehead had made some excellent posts pointing out the same basic flaw in your reasoning albeit using completely different words and tactic.
Even the teams in both AMD and Intel would not by just seeing something not
work be able to tell if it was a design flaw or not on a single part. The amount of
research that goes into that is huge, seeing something not work on one part could
be due to some type of flaw in manufacturing of that one part, it could be due to
something within your motherboard, software being used, the list is huge, and
NONE of those could have anything to do with the parts design! If you don't have
relevant information about its design you have no clue what is it supposed to do
and why, so your verbiage,
"-tell us why we could not ID such a hypothetical obvious flaw in the CPU without, according to what you imply, knowing a vast amount of irrelevant information about its design…."
simply shows if you don't grasp what everything is there for and why! Without
that understanding and information you could not tell me what is a flaw because
you don't understand the meaning behind it.
Kelly