Religion dooms you atheism saves you

Originally posted by twhitehead
All science is connecting the dots. The problem is that you seem to accept connecting the dots when it suits you, but reject it when it doesn't.
Finding a bone shaped stone and concluding that it was once a life form is 'connecting the dots' and you seem to take that to be indisputable fact, yet when it comes to finding a clear pattern in the types of li ...[text shortened]... error.
But you have never satisfactorily explained to me why you make this differentiation.

The what has to happen road for me is enough! If you can tell me how many
mutations had to occur to build a useful eye we can start talking about your
dots and why they could have occured. If all you got is, it may have happened
this way or that you got nothing! If you see various and sundry eyes even at
different points in time is not rock solid proof one lead to the other, it only means
that you have found different eyes which we can see today, in this time frame
without anyone suggesting a flies eyes came from a human over time!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The what has to happen road for me is enough! If you can tell me how many
mutations had to occur to build a useful eye we can start talking about your
dots and why they could have occured.

Why do you need that specific statistic? You didn't ask such questions when someone showed you a bone shaped stone and said it used to be an animal. Why do you need every possible dot for one thing, but are happy with just a few when it comes to something else?

Originally posted by twhitehead
All science is connecting the dots. The problem is that you seem to accept connecting the dots when it suits you, but reject it when it doesn't.
Finding a bone shaped stone and concluding that it was once a life form is 'connecting the dots' and you seem to take that to be indisputable fact, yet when it comes to finding a clear pattern in the types of li ...[text shortened]... error.
But you have never satisfactorily explained to me why you make this differentiation.

And you don't think it's possible that a scientist can have a pre-conceived idea about how the finished article should look like (based on certain unprovable philosophical presuppositions) and thus connect the dots to correspond with their pre-conceived idea?

Originally posted by dj2becker
And you don't think it's possible that a scientist can have a pre-conceived idea about how the finished article should look like (based on certain unprovable philosophical presuppositions) and thus connect the dots to correspond with their pre-conceived idea?

Of course its possible. But if there is a dot out of place, it has to be dealt with somehow. Usually we adjust our theory to fit the new dots.
Also, we allow other scientists who don't have the same pre-conceived ideas to critique our results.
Thats how science works.

However there are times when you have so many dots all matching your pre-conceived idea that there is no reasonable explanation other than that it is correct.

As an example of the above, models for the movements of the planets have gone through a number of different stages. Quite early on, people had the pre-concieved idea that the earth was in the center and that the planets must follow some perfect rules so they looked for regular polyhedra etc as models. But it never really fit perfectly. Later on once we had Newtons laws to help us, we made a more accurate model, but even that didn't fit perfectly. Then Einstein made some more adjustments and as far as I know we haven't been able to find any dots out of place. Every planet goes where relativity says it should. When we find a dot out of place, we may have to add something to relativity or find something new.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I just don't feel like wasting anymore time on it.

I see. Now I finally shown you the evidence for macroevolution, you just want admit it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is a lot of dot connecting going on that suits people, you have a point?
Kelly

"..That is how science works. We go wherever the evidence points i.e. “connect the dots”. ..."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you need that specific statistic? You didn't ask such questions when someone showed you a bone shaped stone and said it used to be an animal. Why do you need every possible dot for one thing, but are happy with just a few when it comes to something else?

Because depending on the meaning! You can tell me that a stone used to be an
animal, I can say okay if I agree with it, now if you tell me that animal's name was
Bob he was married to another animal named June I may have some doubts start
to come up. Since I don't think June is a name any self respecting animal would
call their daughter! 🙂

It all depends on the meaning you want to assign to what you are showing me! If
you say this rock was an animal, that is as far as we have to go, as long as there
is no other meaning you want to assign to that rock I'm good, but as soon as you
start piling on other tid bits of info like that animal ate bird eggs, or it was green,
or it was....something that a rock alone cannot give us, you either have to come
up with more than the rock to make your claims worth believing! Each claim as
to be looked at on its own!
Kelly

If you want to start telling me that eyes formed because....you better have more
than a rock to look at! All I have ever seen are "possible reasons" with the
disclaimer this is a theory. It puts blinders on design, and keeps the discussion
in fairly land where anything can be true if we just have some small reason to
accept it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
"..That is how science works. We go wherever the evidence points i.e. “connect the dots”. ..."

Yea, you can connect them anyway you want, that is my point!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to start telling me that eyes formed because....you better have more
than a rock to look at! All I have ever seen are "possible reasons" with the
disclaimer this is a theory. It puts blinders on design, and keeps the discussion
in fairly land where anything can be true if we just have some small reason to
accept it.
Kelly

But you have demanded a specific statistic. You want to know the exact number of mutations required to form an eye. If you had said:
Give me a reasonable amount of evidence, for the eye evolving via evolution, then I would accept that challenge. But instead, you chose a specific number and demanded that that be known before any discussion is had.
Its equivalent to saying: I cannot believe that bone shaped rock is evidence of a previous life form unless you can tell me exactly what percentage of silicon it contains.

Your demand is unreasonable. It is possible to be reasonably sure that an eye evolved without ever knowing how many mutations were required. Darwin wrote a whole book on evolution long before DNA and mutations were even discovered.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you have demanded a specific statistic. You want to know the exact number of mutations required to form an eye. If you had said:
Give me a reasonable amount of evidence, for the eye evolving via evolution, then I would accept that challenge. But instead, you chose a specific number and demanded that that be known before any discussion is had.
Its eq ...[text shortened]... ired. Darwin wrote a whole book on evolution long before DNA and mutations were even discovered.

You realize details is what I'm asking for, if you cannot provide that, all you have
is a fairy tale.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You realize details is what I'm asking for, if you cannot provide that, all you have
is a fairy tale.
Kelly

And I have no problem with you asking for details. Its when you deliberately demand specific details that you think I may not have that I object.
I can not tell you where every atom is in the fossil. I cannot give you the exact family tree of every living thing ever. I can not tell you every mutation that lead to the development of the eye.
That does not make any of the above fairy tales. If it did, then it would apply equally to all of them, yet you accept the fossil without question but dismiss the eye as a fairy tale.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, you can connect them anyway you want, that is my point!
Kelly

If all the pieces of evidence shows that we evolved (which they do) then it doesn't matter in which order you look at the pieces evidence, they all point to the same conclusion so the final conclusion would always be the same regardless of the order you look at the pieces of evidence. There is only one way here to "join the dots"

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
If all the pieces of evidence shows that we evolved (which they do) then it doesn't matter in which order you look at the pieces evidence, they all point to the same conclusion so the final conclusion would always be the same regardless of the order you look at the pieces of evidence. There is only one way here to "join the dots"

Maybe you should explain what you mean by the word 'evolved'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course its possible. But if there is a dot out of place, it has to be dealt with somehow. Usually we adjust our theory to fit the new dots.
Also, we allow other scientists who don't have the same pre-conceived ideas to critique our results.
Thats how science works.

However there are times when you have so many dots all matching your pre-conceived ...[text shortened]... we find a dot out of place, we may have to add something to relativity or find something new.

Of course its possible. But if there is a dot out of place, it has to be dealt with somehow. Usually we adjust our theory to fit the new dots.

Or the theory is adjusted to fit the imagined dot.

Also, we allow other scientists who don't have the same pre-conceived ideas to critique our results.Thats how science works.

In an ideal world, yes. Or you discard it as pseudo-science.

However there are times when you have so many dots all matching your pre-conceived idea that there is no reasonable explanation other than that it is correct.

And in the case of 'macro evolution' the dots are imagined or real? And there is NO other explanation for the 'dots'?

Every planet goes where relativity says it should. When we find a dot out of place, we may have to add something to relativity or find something new.

And there is absolute proof for relativity? Stop kidding yourself...
http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I have no problem with you asking for details. Its when you deliberately demand specific details that you think I may not have that I object.
I can not tell you where every atom is in the fossil. I cannot give you the exact family tree of every living thing ever. I can not tell you every mutation that lead to the development of the eye.
That does no ...[text shortened]... to all of them, yet you accept the fossil without question but dismiss the eye as a fairy tale.

I do not accept the eye because of the amount of 'luck' involved, the fossil is just
time, pressure, and conditions. The eye the lenght of the nerve has be put into
the DNA coding, the type of nerve has to be put into the DNA coding, all things that
connect the light sensitive spot to the nerve has be put into the DNA coding, what
can translate the information making it useful has be put into the DNA coding,
understanding the information has to be put into the DNA coding, and all of that is
suppose to have happened by independent random mutations that have nothing to
do with each other. I think that is beyond possible at every level.
Kelly