thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 If you cannot make your CFR then it isnt a fact.Next item please.There is no way you studied the Links I presented in the 5 minutes between my post and yours. I met the demands of the CFR. While the evolution of the whale is reasonably well known there is still plenty to learn about it. IE; If I want to drive from my house to the White House in Washington DC. I do NOT need to describe every tiny misplaced grain of sand along the trip.
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 There is no way you studied the Links I presented in the 5 minutes between my post and yours. I met the demands of the CFR. While the evolution of the whale is reasonably well known there is still plenty to learn about it. IE; If I want to drive from my house to the White House in Washington DC. I do NOT need to describe every tiny misplaced grain of sand along the trip.You didnt meet the demands. You always post the same links, the same videos, etc.. I have already seen them before.I find it of interest that you say the evolution of the whale is reasonably well known there is still plenty to learn. Whats that suppised to mean? That is certainly not how a fact is supposed to be presented.
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) You didnt meet the demands. You always post the same links, the same videos, etc.. I have already seen them before.I find it of interest that you say the evolution of the whale is reasonably well known there is still plenty to learn. Whats that suppised to mean? That is certainly not how a fact is supposed to be presented. A CFR doesn't necessitate the finding of a new reference. Only one that answers the question. I've never claimed that we know everything about everything. That is for you creationist to do. http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986 & "Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com Edited March 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Gray Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_reported_to_have_lived_beyond_130#Ancient_Sumer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_reported_to_have_lived_beyond_130#Persian_empire It was once common to claim very long lives for cultural heroes and kings. These claims are not to be taken literally.
Gray Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) If you cannot make your CFR then it isnt a fact.Next item please. The CFR would be satisfied by directing you to any modern biology textbook, but it would seem to be a futile gesture Edited March 24, 2014 by Gray
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 The CFR would be satisfied by directing you to any modern biology textbook, but it would seem to be a futile gestureThe CFR is for facts not theory. Big difference.
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 The CFR is for facts not theory. Big difference.The more you post the more obtuse/disingenuous you become. Theories are more useful than facts. IE; That atoms exist is a fact. The atomic theory allows us to make make everything from chemistry to the Atomic Bomb work. That the sun and our earth exist are facts. The Heliocentric theory allowed Galileo, unlike Bruno, to escape burning at the stake. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity allowed us to send spacecraft to outside our solar system. Germs are a fact. The germ theory of disease allows us cure diseases. Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution allows us to produce antibiotics that help in the cure of disease that the germ theory predicts.
danielwoods Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Rob Osborn, on 24 Mar 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:The darwinian model of evolution is not a fact.Incorrect. Claiming that the darwinian model is indeed a fact is the same as saying that it's no longer a model. So, is it no longer a model?We don't create models for facts. Facts are data we observe, no one observed evolution (in history) which is why it's a model. Unfortunately darwinist believers don't like to admit that creationists use the exact same data as found in every biology text book, and every geological find, but that is a fact as well.In essence, darwinists claim that their model is a fact because they believe it so strongly. It doesn't change the fact that it is still just a model, like the many other models. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Claiming that the darwinian model is indeed a fact is the same as saying that it's no longer a model. So, is it no longer a model?We don't create models for facts. Facts are data we observe, no one observed evolution (in history) which is why it's a model. Unfortunately darwinist believers don't like to admit that creationists use the exact same data as found in every biology text book, and every geological find, but that is a fact as well.In essence, darwinists claim that their model is a fact because they believe it so strongly. It doesn't change the fact that it is still just a model, like the many other models. No scientist that I know of says models are facts. What models do is represent the best current thinking is of what the facts are. That is exactly what we do. The better the model the closer it is to presenting facts. IE; No one has seen an atom. But you know as well as I do that they exist and we have models that accurately describe them. Incorrect. Creationist do not use the same data. They start with a conclusion and shape the data to conform to that conclusion.
Gray Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 The CFR is for facts not theory. Big difference. The theory describes the phenominon. Evolution occurs. The theory of evolution describes how.
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 The theory describes the phenominon. Evolution occurs. The theory of evolution describes how.Yeah, its the theory of trying to explain what they see. But, thats not fact, just theory. Big difference. A fact is observable, testable, indisputable without any doubt principle. Its thus not a fact. 1
danielwoods Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 No scientist that I know of says models are facts. What models do is represent the best current thinking is of what the facts are. That is exactly what we do. The better the model the closer it is to presenting facts. IE; No one has seen an atom. But you know as well as I do that they exist and we have models that accurately describe them. Incorrect. Creationist do not use the same data. They start with a conclusion and shape the data to conform to that conclusion. And yet, you said that the word, "incorrect" when Rob stated that the "darwinian model of evolution is not a fact." Why is that?
Gray Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Yeah, its the theory of trying to explain what they see. But, thats not fact, just theory. Big difference. A fact is observable, testable, indisputable without any doubt principle. Its thus not a fact. Evolution is observable and testable. Nothing is indisputable, though. If facts exist, evolution is one of them.
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 And yet, you said that the word, "incorrect" when Rob stated that the "darwinian model of evolution is not a fact." Why is that? The model of evolution is the best most current explanation of the fact of evolution. So it is subject to change. Facts don't change. But I would be surprised if the theory of evolution were to be completely overthrown like Rob is claiming. IE; That atoms exist is a fact. The atomic theory allows us to make make everything from chemistry to the Atomic Bomb work. That the sun and our earth exist are facts. The Heliocentric theory allowed Galileo, unlike Bruno, to escape burning at the stake. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity allowed us to send spacecraft to outside our solar system. Germs are a fact. The germ theory of disease allows us cure diseases. Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution allows us to produce antibiotics that help in the cure of disease that the germ theory predicts.
danielwoods Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 The model of evolution is the best most current explanation of the fact of evolution. So it is subject to change. Facts don't change. But I would be surprised if the theory of evolution were to be completely overthrown like Rob is claiming. IE; That atoms exist is a fact. The atomic theory allows us to make make everything from chemistry to the Atomic Bomb work. That the sun and our earth exist are facts. The Heliocentric theory allowed Galileo, unlike Bruno, to escape burning at the stake. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity allowed us to send spacecraft to outside our solar system. Germs are a fact. The germ theory of disease allows us cure diseases. Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution allows us to produce antibiotics that help in the cure of disease that the germ theory predicts. So you agree that the model of evolution is not a fact, but is as you say, "the best most current explanation..." Yet you couldn't agree with Rob when he said exactly what you've stated, that the model isn't a fact. Why is that?
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Evolution is observable and testable. Nothing is indisputable, though. If facts exist, evolution is one of them.Evolution of all life from a common ancestor is not observable nor testable at this point. Thus, there is no fact of all life from a common ancestor.
Ahab Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Evolution is observable and testable.Micro but not macro. CFR on any example of a being that has become a different kind of being.I won't be holding my breath. 1
Gray Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Evolution of all life from a common ancestor is not observable nor testable at this point. Thus, there is no fact of all life from a common ancestor. You're moving the goal posts, but yes it is observable/testable
Gray Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Micro but not macro. CFR on any example of a being that has become a different kind of being.I won't be holding my breath. Please see: your nearest biology textbook
ksfisher Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Micro but not macro. CFR on any example of a being that has become a different kind of being.I won't be holding my breath.How would you define "a different kind of being?"
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 You're moving the goal posts, but yes it is observable/testableHaha...funny.Its you guys moving your own goal posts. Look, the whole world knows that "theory" does not equate with "fact". In science we have things that are facts such as erosion is a fact. Then we have things such as theories that are ideas based on evidence that explains something which may or may not be fact. 2
halconero Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Interestingly enough, I was in a fireside with Elder Bednar this Saturday for YSA. He answered a question with a set of scriptures indicating that involuntary aging, death, and sickness are the result of living in and around sin. He contrasted this by saying that Christ's death was in no way involuntary. Regardless of his mortal state on the cross, he had to be the one to give up the ghost.Nobody else has that choice in this mortal state.Without digging deeper than necessary, it seems entirely possible that biological processes are influenced by the state of sinfulness in the world over time. This is would be currently impossible to falsify through experimentation though. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Micro but not macro. CFR on any example of a being that has become a different kind of being.I won't be holding my breath. There is no difference between the two. There is no scientific definition of kind. I see no science based advantage to holding your breath. Better to breathe in the clean air of facts than to suffocate on the waste products of your own ignorance. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 So you agree that the model of evolution is not a fact, but is as you say, "the best most current explanation..." Yet you couldn't agree with Rob when he said exactly what you've stated, that the model isn't a fact. Why is that? Mere quibble.
Recommended Posts