Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
☭proletarian☭;2208760 said:
I see,
☭proletarian☭ = "Let me google that for you"
So in other words you have no knowledge about the subject of your own, only stuff you find on the internet.
Actually there are entire fields of theoretical math which deal in whether an answer exists to certain questions, whether said answer is unique, what metric applies to the space in which the answer exists; etc. It gets a bit strange, but that's how theoretical math works.that's not an explanation. produce an equation that accounts for biology over time as a control.
i think what you've just stated is pure nonsense, but i am willing to see it substantiated by math. produce such an equation, and your theory that hypotheses must fit a math model -
Actually there are entire fields of theoretical math which deal in whether an answer exists to certain questions, whether said answer is unique, what metric applies to the space in which the answer exists; etc. It gets a bit strange, but that's how theoretical math works.that's not an explanation. produce an equation that accounts for biology over time as a control.
i think what you've just stated is pure nonsense, but i am willing to see it substantiated by math. produce such an equation, and your theory that hypotheses must fit a math model -
The theory of evolution could be examined mathematically, and the people who work with genetic, rather than the traditional morphic, animal classification use the same tools which would be used to confirm the validity of Evolution as a selection mechanism for species survival in nature. The OP is not referencing a document produced by a mathematician (at least not one of any discernible ability) as they introduce assumptions into their work without labeling them. All mathematical proofs begin with definitions and postulates, either explicitly or implicitly.
it with any credence.Actually, creationists know that the world is complex where as, evolutionists think that they can fit the world to a linear model without bounds. They think that with a few hundred years of data with significant scatter, they can fit a linear regression to it while ignoring all of the variables and boundary conditions necessary to derive an accurate model. Not to mention the enormous uncertainty that would be generated from trying to forecast the model back a few tens of thousands of years much less billions or trillions of years. The fact that they even claim to hold some sort of scientific theory is utterly laughable.
what is linear about evolution theory?
boundary conditions? if you know what you're talking about, can you help me out and explain the relationships between your (or your buddy's book's) math and evolution or biology? evolution certainly takes account for the present date and an estimate of the age of the earth. regional boundary conditions are acknowledged as the basis of population isolation... but that's biology. i dont get how a mathematician's model is more credible than scientific research.
your fail is that you're trying to pigeonhole evolution into an equation, a differential of all things, and claim that it's failures in that paradigm are due to the theory, without demonstrating the equation can resolve something as complex in the firstplace.
thats whats utterly laughable, lite.
A mathematical model is used to describe a highly complex universe. Scientific research can only observe something in the current time dimension. Therefore in order to forecast a hypothesis one must fit a mathematical model to the data. (i.e. Scientific research can only be used to define and/or validate a mathematical model)
There is NO evidence that any animal has ever mutated into existence from another totally different animal. All we have is evidence that WITHIN a species changes occur.
-----------------------------
Evolutionists don't believe that animals ever mutated into something totally different either. I'm afraid that's a false premise. Change comes with the slow accumulation of genetic differences until one part of a population can no longer breed with another and you have a new species.
☭proletarian☭;2209026 said:☭proletarian☭;2205986 said:zombie: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force
Nobody noticed the dead 'saints' and wrote about it?
Why does it only appear in a single novel?
Maybe, compared to all the other 'wonders' that were happening, it didn't seem that 'amazing'.
wonders such as...?
What records are there of any common 'wonders' that would render the zombie apocalypse less than noteworthy?
im a bit turned off by some abridged explanations of evolution. when it is explained to kids, or in pop magazines, authors tend to personify the process or imply that the mechanism is lead more directly by the organisms involved, rather than more heavily stressing the role of selection and how that works.
but to condemn evolution education on the lines that the theory of evolution hasn't been proven, does not take into account the number of proven hypotheses which support it. that would be akin to condemning education on the theory of relativity because it hasn't been proven. the reality is that none of these theories will ever reach the point of absolute proof, because of what they state. evolution would require omnipresence across time to verify, and relativity would require omnipresence across space... right on back to God.
if education drives home the basis of fundamental science: the scientific method, the value and role of theory, law, hypothesis, experimentation, etc... i think you'd better appreciate what the theory claims independent from 'fact', a term alien to science altogether.
i get the impression that your dissatisfaction with the relative certainty that the precepts of the theory puts forth is based in lack of understanding of them. some of the challenges you've put forward and your claims that no evidence supports the theory are merely the product of lack of research and education on your part.
does that really place you in an adequate position to critique education? that aside, is it so bad that we teach and learn the state-of-the-art, rather than doubt it? the consequences arent that bad. imagine if God turns out to be drastically different than what you've learned? if you die and vishnu approaches you to brief you on your next life, while you would have been wrong about your christianity, you would have lived a virtuous christian life notwithstanding that.
isnt your faith more valuable than what science has come up with as the roots of our earthly origin and offers substantial evidence to support? that's based on less tangible evidence than evolution, as rdean and the cynic will point out. if i die and Jesus tells me, 'nah, bro, you had it all wrong, what me and Dad did was create each species one by one and just throw all that genetics stuff in for giggles' ... i wont be crushed, just happy to be in the Man's presence.
I get what you are saying...this makes sense to all the 'educated' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I could use the same argument for religion.... it makes sense to all the 'good' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I was taught evolution, there are just too many unanswered questions to present it as fact for me. I still watch for new developments and read on new findings, most are disappointingly vague.
I am not against science (that includes mathematics as well as the sciences that are twisted to make political points). I am against 'teaching' (I would call it indoctrinating, because if the students present a different theory, they are punished thru grades) that science has ALL the answers. It doesn't. We are very complex creatures with physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological needs. Science cannot meet all those needs, it cannot even begin to explain why we act the way we do. I am simply suggesting that the classroom present the facts: many scientists work to prove the theory of evolution....., many theologians work to prove the theory of creation....., it isn't sloppy, it isn't complicated. It allows the student the freedom to choose to believe in one, the other, both, or to develop a new theory.
Do me a favor and listen to the 'evolutionists'; there is usually a hidden message that is suggesting there is no G*d, no Creator. The 'believers' of evolution do not want anyone to be able to choose different from evolution. If you believe them on that 'whopper', well then you will be easy to manipulate on all their other 'science based' plans to enslave the population of the world. It is the reason they 'hate' G*d. He sets people free. They will insist it is the other way around, but observe both sets of 'believers' and see if you can see a pattern. The 'believers' in evolution typically have more 'mental health' problems that can manifest physically causing them to age quicker. The 'believers' in creation, just seem happier, more content with their lives, and less prone to illnesses from stress. (Before you go off on me...it is a generalization, not ALL inclusive)
Again, TRUTH is everything .if you are only willing to look at one side; you may eliminate a path to understanding. That is my biggest problem with only presenting, one theory.
your very fundamental misunderstanding is with the use of the word *fact*. whats the point of the term 'theory' if you talk about teaching the theory of evolution as fact? i digress to my point that education has failed to even drive home the basics, like what a theory is. being one such victim, you're ahead of yourself worrying about a specific theory without understanding the term 'theory' in the first place. after you're apprised of its meaning, you could look into its application: essentially a precept to explore and by which hypotheses can be drawn and vetted.
a declaration of fact, such like what fundamentalist religious doctrines may state, is not, per sa, scientific. that is the issue is i have with teaching creationist dogma in a science classroom. it operates outside of science by virtue of its (oft supernatural) bases and conjecture that it is incontrovertible. maybe history or anthropology, philosophy or religion class. i had a religious education for years, and it was never necessary for my science teacher to go on about god, as all that was studied in it's own depth elsewhere. we still had grades to keep up in religion as well. the discipline of scholarship should bend to your skepticism about evolution too?
as to the tug-of-war between fundamentalists and atheists, that is a whole separate argument. neither will ever find the tools for accounts of the supernatural to substantiate the natural, or the natural to measure the supernatural. from my perspective, those struggles are for idiots. while most researchers abide by a religious tradition and subscribe to evolution at the same time, the vast majority of people have moved past the quest for one paradigm to compete with the next. i cant speak for this entire majority, but i find them to compliment eachother. the scientist who's out to disclaim god through science is debasing his trade to the same extent that a preacher is debasing god through the denial of natural science. after all, didn't god supply us with the wherewithal to observe nature, moreover create nature in the first place? my faith isnt threatened by that science, nor my knowledge of the world by my knowledge of God. many people share this mindset; part of our day and age.
as for your perception of creationists and their wellbeing... well,
I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.
----------------------------
That would cheapen the whole notion of a scientific theory. Theories aren't guesses. They're hypotheses backed up backed up by experimentation and observation. While there's plenty of evidence for evolution, there's none for creation. Therefore, it's NOT a scientific theory and has NO place in a science classroom.
I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.
----------------------------
That would cheapen the whole notion of a scientific theory. Theories aren't guesses. They're hypotheses backed up backed up by experimentation and observation. While there's plenty of evidence for evolution, there's none for creation. Therefore, it's NOT a scientific theory and has NO place in a science classroom.
"Some scientists" are presenting evidence of creation; it is called "intelligent design".
I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.
----------------------------
That would cheapen the whole notion of a scientific theory. Theories aren't guesses. They're hypotheses backed up backed up by experimentation and observation. While there's plenty of evidence for evolution, there's none for creation. Therefore, it's NOT a scientific theory and has NO place in a science classroom.
I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.
----------------------------
That would cheapen the whole notion of a scientific theory. Theories aren't guesses. They're hypotheses backed up backed up by experimentation and observation. While there's plenty of evidence for evolution, there's none for creation. Therefore, it's NOT a scientific theory and has NO place in a science classroom.
"Some scientists" are presenting evidence of creation; it is called "intelligent design".
What evidence of creation is there?
"Some scientists" are presenting evidence of creation; it is called "intelligent design".
What evidence of creation is there?
The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'.
If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.
For the sake of argument, say, there is a 'Creator'. If that Creator set the planet in place, formed the basins for the oceans and made the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, created all the 'life' on the planet... in essence MADE the physical laws (what you call science), wouldn't you think that would be important to mention in 'science class'?
In the Bible, the 'Creator' described doing the above.
Men that would elevate themselves 'above' Him. want to argue that His work is irrelevant.
They 'try' to humiliate those that 'believe' in Him 'over' simple men (that would be the men that cannot: set the planet in place, form the basins for the oceans and make the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, create all the 'life' on the planet).
You can choose to 'believe' men. I choose to believe 'men' that spoke with the Lord, many over thousands of years with a consistant message, not a Johnny come lately with his own version to raise money to fund his 'explorations and discoveries'.
Well then the inefficiency of nature, survival of the fittest, the collisions of meteors, asteroids, planets etc., all say a "creator" must be quite imperfect."Some scientists" are presenting evidence of creation; it is called "intelligent design".
What evidence of creation is there?
The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'. If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.
Also just because it bears repeatingWell then the inefficiency of nature, survival of the fittest, the collisions of meteors, asteroids, planets etc., all say a "creator" must be quite imperfect.What evidence of creation is there?
The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'. If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.
And variety indicates evolution more than simple creation. It is highly unlikely that a creator would make all the very subtle minute variations that exist in each species. A creator might make a few varieties but not hundreds of variations of the same species.
What evidence of creation is there?
The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'.
Evolution also explains the diversity of life
Yes there would, there can be always be further additions that would make an organism better adapt to the environment or survive better. Always.
If we had proof there was such a creator then yes, as it stands now we don't and there's nothing we could do to prove there is one, so it should not be in any science classroom.
And other religions like the church of the flying spaghetti monster.
Ok I'll give you a challenge. Let's assume there's a god, prove it wrote the bible. The fact that we can't prove that or this "creator" is why it never belongs in science clas.
They 'try' to humiliate those that 'believe' in Him 'over' simple men (that would be the men that cannot: set the planet in place, form the basins for the oceans and make the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, create all the 'life' on the planet).
So because they don't have super powers they're wrong? Hey wait the pope and every priest on the planet don't have super powers, why should I believe them?
You can choose to 'believe' men. I choose to believe 'men' that spoke with the Lord, many over thousands of years with a consistant message, not a Johnny come lately with his own version to raise money to fund his 'explorations and discoveries'.
Ooh an appeal to tradition fallacy, never seen that before </sarcasm>
I choose to believe people with data and evidence backing them up not people who say they talk to men in the sky and rely on faith.
Well then the inefficiency of nature, survival of the fittest, the collisions of meteors, asteroids, planets etc., all say a "creator" must be quite imperfect.What evidence of creation is there?
The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'. If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.
And variety indicates evolution more than simple creation. It is highly unlikely that a creator would make all the very subtle minute variations that exist in each species. A creator might make a few varieties but not hundreds of variations of the same species.
what is linear about evolution theory?
boundary conditions? if you know what you're talking about, can you help me out and explain the relationships between your (or your buddy's book's) math and evolution or biology? evolution certainly takes account for the present date and an estimate of the age of the earth. regional boundary conditions are acknowledged as the basis of population isolation... but that's biology. i dont get how a mathematician's model is more credible than scientific research.
your fail is that you're trying to pigeonhole evolution into an equation, a differential of all things, and claim that it's failures in that paradigm are due to the theory, without demonstrating the equation can resolve something as complex in the firstplace.
thats whats utterly laughable, lite.
A mathematical model is used to describe a highly complex universe. Scientific research can only observe something in the current time dimension. Therefore in order to forecast a hypothesis one must fit a mathematical model to the data. (i.e. Scientific research can only be used to define and/or validate a mathematical model)
My, oh my. You mean that you have never heard of fossils? Ice cores? Isotopal dating?
Evolution is the most robust of all the Scientific Theories, it has the most evidence supporting it.
Browse the Talk.Origins Archive
So we went from the "order" in the universe proves the existence of a creator to the "disorder/chaos" proves a creator in one short post.Well then the inefficiency of nature, survival of the fittest, the collisions of meteors, asteroids, planets etc., all say a "creator" must be quite imperfect.The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'. If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.
And variety indicates evolution more than simple creation. It is highly unlikely that a creator would make all the very subtle minute variations that exist in each species. A creator might make a few varieties but not hundreds of variations of the same species.
Do you think it is possible the Lord made all the species with the ability to adapt? The Lord did make 'man' with the ability to reason (that would imply, adaptibility).
The Lord did promise that after the jugdement, the chaos will be ordered. Order was taken away when Adam and Eve were banished from the garden. The Lord set new rules in place... things would no longer be 'easy'. It was told.
