BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 08:14 AM

Actually Skarpi, the data are unequivocal and it's the way the consensus is portrayed in the media is skewed. Naysayers (often not involved in climate research) are given equal airtime despite being in a tiny minority.

In fact, as scientists tend not to have the PR machine of the other vested interests many are resigned to never getting their message across as the media (which part of the establishment) essentially colludes to keep their research out of the news.

Disaster is coming, and there's very little anyone can do about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:58 AM

Big oil, skarpi, that's who. Even if there was the slightest degree of uncertainty about humanity-driven global warming, it would still be highly irresponsible and highly immoral to do nothing. Even if it was fifty-fifty we would have to act as if it were real. But we're not and we are going to be stuffed. Watch the windmills go round (sometimes), let them ease your conscience, step on the gas and whack up the central heating!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: skarpi
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM

the climate turn in , in many weather ways more powerful weathers the glacier is melded with more speed than ever , I dive pass few off them many time ´s every year I see it change , but scientist are in two groups one that say all is ok , and another that say every thing is going to end in a disaster ...so who are paying the first one to say
don´t worry be happy .....

in Iceland the weather , glaciers and the heat . the cold ..every thing has changed ...so be on alert this is no joke ...the earth is a living thing and if we don´t take care if as we should do , it will kick back
and just wait and see , the mother earth will do so ...so take care of it , we only have one Earth ...and no plan B ...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 05:05 AM

No, Pete, you've parroted "data that don't fit evolutionism" from crackpot, red-neck websites! You've continually demonstrated that you don't really understand the arguments. You also demand over and over again that we show you some evidence for evolution but we all know that if we did so you would only reject it out of hand whilst parroting more nonsense. The data is out there, Pete, just get off your sad, fundamentalist arse and read it!


Oh yes, science IS a process - live with it! Scientists are also obliged to interpret the evidence that they gather and if those interpretations fail to support the creation myths of a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goatherds - well, tough!! Live with that as well!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:22 AM

"So go on, prove me wrong, show me some evolution?"

Is that it Pete? After that ramble you come back to the tactic of constantly repeating this creationist mantra?

"It is easy to acuse and abuse, but not so easy to frame a convincing argument ."

Grow up Pete. Part of your tactic is to treat this not as a debate but a war of attrition. That approach appeals to some of the more belligerent types here who profess their admiration for your 'taking a stand' whilst overlooking your own ability to insult and generalise. More fool the fools.

"In other words a faith position ! Ie you believe that accepted at one time science can be put on hold till something turns up to validate your devotion to evolutionism"

Really? Is that all you've got? After all these threads with links provided (you have to actually read them yourself, no-one can do that for you) you're reduced to trotting out these hackneyed old arguments. Also, best not assume to know my thoughts on this or any other subject Pete, as your assumption is invariably rather wide of the mark.

By the way, my PhD project now includes the evolution of the dinosaur taxa I'm working on. Result!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 08:54 PM

Are you Keith, Snail? Think I may have told you before that I post what I want to post and do not jump through hoops, yours or anyone else's. Anyway, you haven't told me yet whether you think the moon is more real than evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 08:14 PM

Previously from me -
You wouldn't care to actually address the points in my post would you Steve?

Apparently not.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:00 PM

And Bill thinks it's worth debating that. Christ on a bloody bike.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:45 PM

How about addressing the argument, stu. It is easy to acuse and abuse, but not so easy to frame a convincing argument . My argument is quite simple.....show me an interpretation of the data that can only be accounted for according to your belief. I have previously shown data that don't fit evolutionism, but of corse, you can always fall back on the ...science is a process....line!   In other words a faith position ! Ie you believe that accepted at one time science can be put on hold till something turns up to validate your devotion to evolutionism !.          Bill,, I also keep telling you, that when you believe something for which there is not conclusive evidence ,that is IMO, a faith position. I reckon circular reasoning goes both ways. You assume it is true, and so you look to the authorities that confirm your belief. The fact is, people, even many scientists believe stuff that they do not have any evidence of.....only interpretation of data.                            Shimrod... Hypothesis based on an analogy?   Well, no one could accuse you of that....you got a hypothesis based on fanciful ideas. What kind of analogy can you use for an everything from nothing via no one belief.....and you call that science ! Again, it is your faith position, and I doubt you can even find an analogy to use.   You say you are ..inclined to accept the authority if scientists....,as long as it is the ones that agree with you eh!    Apart from the fact that there are a lot of scientists that don't buy it, it is an invalid argument anyway. most scientists at one time were geocentric....and wrong !.   So go on, prove me wrong, show me some evolution?!.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:35 PM

Can any one point to a good summary of the various creation myths (three of them is it ?) in the Old Testament ? I heard about them in a sermon by an Anglican Bishop but it's too big a book to read looking for them.

The Bishop was sympathetic to the plight of that old guy (was it Moses ?) trying to set out the old stories in sensible way but he (the Bishop) was not a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:16 PM

"he had in fact been quoting pete quoting me so, qualified apology Stu because it still read as if it was me you were having a go at"

No worries.


"but as just about anything you might cite could be accounted for in the creation model"

With all respect, that is one steaming great pile of bullshit.

Seeing as you are so anti-science Pete, you might be better off concentrating on your own spiritual path rather than making yourself look like a total thickie (which I'm sure you're not). Thing is, you're so far from understanding any of the science it's ridiculous. You really have no fucking clue. Not an inkling.

I read the New Testament when I was in my twenties after being raised a good Christian. I do know about the subject as I had years of church services, groups for young teenagers and who know what else. In the end (and after much deliberation), I decided to reject the existence of your Abrahamic God on the same grounds I dismiss the existence of the Lock Ness Monster (something else I was really fascinated by when I was younger); theres not a jot of evidence.

In the end your fundamentalist, literalist mates are simply trying to distract any degree of debate on the validity of creationism by making up words and theories that shoehorn or misrepresent the facts to support their own worldview. This isn't science (which already has a robust and thorough system of peer review to ensure it's integrity and veracity), it's making shit up.

Whilst you continue to be influenced not by scientists (many people of faith themselves) but by people making shit up, then this conversation is pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 11:06 AM

" it boils down to a faith position."

No Pete... it does not. There is a big difference between "faith" in a story written in old manuscripts and 'confidence' in an ongoing, methodical study of evidence. I have explained many times that you are playing fast & loose with definitions of 'faith'.

"as far as the bible is concerned creation is the evidence of a creator."

Again... circular reasoning: you believe the Bible explains God, then believe God 'inspired' the Bible. Each depends on the other, and both depend on blind acceptance.
You would reject that sort of reasoning about other things, but when it's about the creation of the universe, it's just fine? Wow....

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:42 AM

"But as far as the bible is concerned creation is the evidence of a creator."

The idea that people create things, therefore everything around us must have been created is an hypothesis based on an analogy - but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis. And why should I believe the old myths in the Bible?

" ... if I note that he admits he could tie himself up in knots explaining evolution !"

I have, in fact, avoided tying myself in knots by pointing you to an authoritative source. I also repeat that I'm more inclined to accept the authority of scientists - who have accumulated copious amounts of evidence over the last century and a half - than I am to accept the authority of a bunch of fundamentalist religious fanatics who have chosen to believe that the myths related in an old book represent the absolute truth.

"His insistence that God has to come from somewhere, or that he needed somewhere to get his materials from, is not the description of the biblical God. His demands merely mean that he rejects God. "

No, I question (rather than absolutely "reject") the authority of the Bible.

"I agree that getting material from nothing is impossible, but as scripture says...what is impossible with men, is possible with God."

That load of pious claptrap answers nothing! I'm not impressed by piety, pete.

" ... I reckon that's a whole lot more logical than everything from nothing without a creator"

There's nothing logical about it - just what you choose to believe!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 06:36 PM

We can of course imagine anything might happen, as you ,s mostly think happened in your evolution story...... I cannot prove there is a creator God, anymore than you can prove abiogenesis and everything else unobservable in the general theory of evolution. You can point to certain data and evidence, but as just about anything you might cite could be accounted for in the creation model, it boils down to a faith position. And despite your greater academic standing,your belief that defies observational and experimental science betrays a philosophical rather than evidenced belief. Lighter has a lot of maybes, and bill wants a sign in the sky.....in all languages . But as far as the bible is concerned creation is the evidence of a creator. That of course is rejected by you, and you interpreted the evidence to accommodate evolutionism, and only allowing a vague possibility of a starter maker. Shimrod, continues to evade framing his own arguments for his creation myth, but were I to do the same, it would be totally unacceptable.   And did you spot the out of context quote at the beginning. Would I be quoting out of context, maybe, if I note that he admits he could tie himself up in knots explaining evolution ! . Maybe that is why he don't frame his own arguments. His insistence that God has to come from somewhere, or that he needed somewhere to get his materials from, is not the description of the biblical God. His demands merely mean that he rejects God. I agree that getting material from nothing is impossible, but as scripture says...what is impossible with men, is possible with God.    And I reckon that's a whole lot more logical than everything from nothing without a creator

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 02:28 AM

"or as I believe non reality ..."

Yes, pete, you believe in "non reality" all right!

"And what does shimrod do to counter this argument;...direct me to a website ! I could do that too ..."

As you appear to get all of your 'information' from crackpot, redneck websites, I thought that I would direct you to a sane one! But you prefer to hold on to your FAITH in silly fairy tales, don't you? As I said before, I could tie myself in knots trying to explain evolution to you but you would merely shout I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! (and others would jump on me for any terminological inexactitudes) so, rather than play those games, I think that it's best if you get your information from the 'horse's mouth' - as it were.

"Everything which is made has a maker, and intelligence can not ,has never been seen to, arise from mere chemicals. Evolutionism can not even account for the simple chemicals arising from nothing, let alone intelligence arising from matter."

That demented jumble is so full of wild assumptions and preferred explanations that it's difficult to know where to start! Your particular preferred explanation is that everything was created by the God of the Bible - but that particular creation myth is just one among thousands. In addition, to a questioning mind, the explanation "the God of the Bible did it" is no explanation at all because that questioning mind needs to know where God came from and where he got his materials from. Did he gets his materials from 'nothing', pete? I thought that that, according to you, was 'impossible'?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 07:21 PM

We have seen human beings and certain animals "making things."

The universe, however, does not seem to be much like the things we have seen made.

Was it made or did it make itself or has it existed eternally, the Big Bang being no more than a local, specialized phenomenon? Why should the universe require a maker in the same way that a watch does? And if it did, what evidence is there that *any* human religion can tell us anything about that maker?

Maybe the cosmos needs a maker and maybe it doesn't. Or maybe it did at its inception and that maker has long since moved on to make other universes. Or maybe "maker" is far too simplistic a concept. And that, I believe, is about all that can be said on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 06:50 PM

"Everything which is made has a maker, and intelligence can not ,has never been seen to, arise from mere chemicals."

Pete... that is something between a tautology, a slogan and an opinion. It makes all sorts of assumptions which depend on interpretations of 'make' and 'maker'. It is very close to just saying everything has a "cause", but even that simpler form needs explication of the context in which one is discussing causality. It *seems* to be intuitively obvious, but when examined carefully, it just depends on linguistic conventions.

I will grant that your meaning 'might' be true, but we can't exactly 'see' the beginning, any more than we can see 'evolution' as a process. MY point is that even IF there was a Creator such as you believe in, all the evidence we can gather merely describes, as best we can, what happened after Creation. I do wish that your 'simpler' version could be verified, but it is not something that anyone can ever know... barring some Divine intervention... like writing in the sky in all languages.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 06:23 PM

Seems I did get what snail meant, but whether viewed as concept or observable reality, or as I believe non reality and invalid concept, his challenge still stands, and I endorse it for what it's worth, and till that challenge is met, belief in evolutionism is a nun evidenced faith position.   And what does shimrod do to counter this argument;...direct me to a website ! I could do that too, but I endeavour to frame my own arguments , albeit with input from other sources. But shimrod could do the same....if there is nothing in his own discipline that has any bearing on origins ( !), but rather , it seems to me, prefers to hide behind sources he claims evidence evolutionism. It seems perfectly logical to me, that there is a creator because there is a creation. That is not an argument from ignorance but from observable and experimental simple science.   Everything which is made has a maker, and intelligence can not ,has never been seen to, arise from mere chemicals. Evolutionism can not even account for the simple chemicals arising from nothing, let alone intelligence arising from matter.                         And to conclude with ref to snail saying no one saying they have read the relevant beginning of origins. I did plough through enough of it to read that he, Darwin himself acknowledged that what he was suggesting was open to other interpretations. Which I presume means that he knew it was a concept, and not as definite as some here who say it is real, or true !. ....or are so evangelical in their atheism outright reject creation or intelligent design.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

Bill D, I think you'll find that pete "credits" me whenever he uses the "show me some evolution" line. Very annoying. (Note to self; do not try to engage pete in any sort of discussion...ever.) I have been using it for some time. I think I've explained that my usage is to do with the nature of evolution, whether it is a concept or an observable reality. pete, as far as I can make out, simply thinks it doesn't exist.

As an aside, I see that when I thought Stu was quoting me and then having a go at me for my "ignorant delusions" and my "stand against the forces of reason", he had in fact been quoting pete quoting me so, qualified apology Stu because it still read as if it was me you were having a go at. Even Steve thought so.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM

For a moment there, it all seemed to be going so well. I should have known it wouldn't last. You wouldn't care to actually address the points in my post would you Steve?

The science (...) can wait until I take a break from marvelling at what evolution/God* has done for our beautiful planet.

*delete according to taste.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM

> Did you know that God is a scientist?

Well, there is the Church of Christ, Scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 11:48 PM

Snail... You mistook my intention. It was Pete who originally dared us to "show him some evolution". I was in such a hurry that I neglected to note how it was used in your post.

I do try to debate the concept... not the person.... but I still assert what I said about the very idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 10:19 PM

Did you know that God is a scientist? I didn't either until I came across this:
Genesis 30
(v. 37) Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.

(v. 38) Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,

(v. 39) they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

(My devout brother tried that. It didn't work.)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:13 PM

Well that's a shame, Snail. I think there's plenty of room for imagination, dreaming and whimsy at the edges of science without threatening the scientific process. You must be a sad fellow. Are you sure your name isn't The Spock?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:59 PM

Steve, thank you for that politely and clearly expressed post. I shall try to respond likewise.

Evolution isn't a solid object like the moon, but that's no reason why it should be harder to accept.
Fine, but accepted as what? I am quite happy to accept it as "as one of the most important, integrative, and robust concepts in science" or, toe keep Stu happy, a theory, hypothesis or a philosophical construct. (Of those, I'd plump for theory.) You seem to think it is belittling to call it a mere "scientific concept". Surely scientific concepts are amongst the pinnacles of human achievement?

Bill D says of my "show me some evolution" line that it is a trick phrase. Well, in a way, it is, but I had no choice. Things like "a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs" and "The scientific concepts surrounding the fact of evolution derive from the scientific explanations of evolution" trotted out with no supporting evidence or argument imply that evolution was there for all to see and that was the starting point for the science. As I have pointed out, Darwin says it was not. It's there in his An Historical Note at the beginning of The Origin of Species. I have mentioned this several times. Nobody has yet said they have read it.

We can see the products of evolution all around us, the beauty, diversity and complexity of life on our pale blue dot. There is absolutely no other way it could have got there.
...that we have thought of ... yet. Perhaps we never will but science cannot exclude the possibility.

The science (which I love - in fact, I'm a biologist who did loads of genetics and evolution and palaeobotany at university) can wait until I take a break from marvelling at what evolution has done for our beautiful planet.
I don't think I will say any more for the moment than that sentence leaves me feeling very uncomfortable indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:57 PM

"Shimrod claims that positing the eternal, spiritual God of the bible removes me from the discussion, is IMO, ridiculous when he posits an explanation he has provided no evidence for ..."

I provided you with a link to a website which presents loads and loads and loads of evidence ... but you don't WANT to read that evidence, do you, pete? And, yes, "positing the eternal, spiritual God of the bible" (whatever the f**k that means!) does remove you from the discussion because you've changed the terms of the debate from the logical and scientific to the "spiritual" (whatever the f**k that is!).

"If there is a god, then creation is logical. If there is no god, creation ...loosely termed.. is not logical."

What??!! There is nothing in those two sentences which bears any relation to logic!!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,correctly spelled Lamarckian (but still not
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:23 PM

@Bill D
I think mine was the only post that mentioned Lamarck (took me ages to find it 'cos I missed the 'c' out). It was the one-liner "Epigenetic changes ?"

I wondered when someone would pick up on someone else's recent "inheritance of acquired characterists".

I quite like to bring it up in these discussions because although the Lamarck was wrong in the wider sense I still remember the outright mockery with which my paleontology professor recounted his (Lamarck's) theory. I wonder just how much sooner epigentic changes would have been recognised at a molecular level if researches had risked mockery and dared to do some experiments earlier.

With people like Pete around one has to be careful to stick to a measured scientific approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:31 PM

Shimrod, did I claim that lemski claimed his experiment proved bugs to biologist evolution?   Of course he might well have hoped that fast reproducing organisms observed over several decades might give evidence of that, but be it his hope or not, my contention is that a experiment that might equate to a evolutionary timeframe, did not produce anything but bugs reproducing after their kind.....as the bible predicts. Not enough time you may say......well , how many decades do you require, or you might say that ecoli may be an example of evolutionary stasis.....double talk saying nought but an excuse for no change over alleged myo!.       This is what I mean by show me some evolution......you will have to ask snail, if he means something else!. Evolutionism is probably the only area of science where the conclusions are reached , and then the evidence is searched for to verify the conclusions.    You will of course...as shimrod implies....reply that creationists do that, but as I often say, evidence and data don't speak for itself, It is interpreted. And quite frankly, even I can see that evolutionism has to contradict otherwise accepted scientific laws to even get off the ground.    Shimrod claims that positing the eternal, spiritual God of the bible removes me from the discussion, is IMO, ridiculous when he posits an explanation he has provided no evidence for, and actually contradicts observable and experimental science.    If there is a god, then creation is logical. If there is no god, creation ...loosely termed.. is not logical.   All that can be done by God deniers is hope that something turns up to make it logical. Till such time, most will retain their philosophical position, while only a few, like Anthony flew, abandon it when examining the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 02:30 PM

Well, that's an intelligent, helpful quibble. I would prefer two different terms to describe the 'process' and the description/designation, but it's useful to clarify each.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:09 PM

> Evolution is not a 'process' ... Evolution is a description/definition/explanation of the results of various events in order to make sense of the changes in organisms.

Not quite. What leads to changes to species over time is indeed a "process" (though, as you point out, not the blatant kind like kneading dough). One definition of "process" is "a specific continuous operation, action, or series of changes." Like evolution.

The description/designation of the process as "evolution" is different from the process itself. A designation is a different entity from what it designates.

Quibbling of course, but I rarely get the chance to exercise my brain in these discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:24 PM

From several days ago...

"IMO the only reason to bother arguing with creationists is to give other people a chance to make up their own minds. Ask yoursleves - would you bother having a one-to-one argument with one ?"

Oh sure I would... as I have said before, I'd love to sit down with Pete and debate terms and logic and what constitutes 'proof' and all the relevant concepts. I have no illusions I'd convert him, but I can talk faster than I can type and we could clear up some misunderstandings 'in real time' and fill in some details.
(I..ummm.. do NOT think I could easily debate GfS in the same way. Our differences are on an entirely different level than I have with Pete.)

---------------------

As to earlier remarks about Lamarck and "the inheritance of acquired characteristics"..... it seems that some are not entirely clear about what that means.

Lamarck posited that organisms can pass on characteristics such as 'muscle strength' and 'long necks' (in giraffes) - thus suggesting that lots of exercise could benefit one's children. Evolutionary theory is that the only thing that is passed on is the genetic composition of the muscles and neck... NOT the way they are used. Simplified further, evolution asserts that various accidental genetic changes in the length of necks allowed 'some' giraffes to reach more food and thus *select* for that characteristic in later generations.

see here for details

-------------------------------

As to "show me some evolution"... that is a trick phrase which is an equivocation on "show". Evolution is not a 'process' like kneading dough and 'watching' it change from one consistency to another. Evolution is a description/definition/explanation of the results of various events in order to make sense of the changes in organisms. The events themselves are NOT usually visible. (I don't know if it is even possible to view, under a microscope, the alteration of a gene in some microorganism... it would certainly not be possible to see it happen in a butterfly or a monkey.) But we CAN examine DNA from various generations of certain organisms and note where genes are different.... and we certainly can & do follow the macro changes in organisms by examination of various specimens.

   This last is where Pete wishes to dispute the claims. He suggests that the gaps in the evidence of Paleontology do not allow us to make certain assumptions. (I have noted several times that it would be physically impossible to have an unbroken line of specimens... and even if it were possible, Pete would deny that it 'proved' anything about the variations).
   Science can only follow where the evidence leads, and Paleontology has enough evidence to make educated conclusions about the general processes involved, always mindful that **details** are always subject to revision. There IS no other reasonable explanation than "microbes to man", even though the exact steps will forever be revised as we discover more evidence.
If Pete wishes to assert that God planned and defined the process "at the Beginning", I can only shrug... but we can only look at the evidence and try to understand how "God's plan" proceeded. And no evidence beyond calculations of generations claimed in a translation of a few old manuscripts can dispute that the history of US goes back billions of years rather than thousands or years. "Belief" about the source of those manuscripts is certainly a simpler answer.... but.... well, you know what I think about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

If you really want to know about evolution, pete (which, of course, you don't - do you?) here's another website you can read as a sane alternative to your favourite redneck, crackpot ones:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

Again, I know that you don't want to know this but the Theory of Evolution is based on evidence - not belief. The Theory of Evolution itself evolves as more evidence becomes available (that's true of every scientific theory). Nevertheless, the basic outline of the theory remains the same (inheritance of acquired characteristics etc.) whatever new evidence may come to light. Although you want to believe that the Bible is a source of absolute truth (and you've got no evidence, whatsoever, for that belief) there is no such thing as 'absolute truth' in science.

You should also remember that that if, some day, evidence comes to light to show that evolutionary scientists were wrong all along (unlikely - but you never know) that would say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the truth, or otherwise, of the myths in the Bible (an old book which gullible people have arbitrarily chosen to believe in!).

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:09 AM

"Shimrod,I see finally agrees with me....lemskis decades long experiment does not demonstrate microbes to man evolution!."

I don't agree with you!! It's extremely unlikely that Lemski set out to "demonstrate microbes to man evolution", you idiot!

And if you were really interested in evolution (rather than only being interested in debunking it) you would read the literature! There's plenty of popular texts out there that you could start with. I, for one, am not going to tie myself in knots trying to explain something that I have never specialised in, just so you can bleat, "I don't believe it!"
And before you start crowing that I've admitted that I know nothing (I haven't), let's not forget that you know nothing either - allowing yourself to be brainwashed by, and parroting, crackpot websites doesn't count!

Just remember that your preferred explanation for life on Earth, i.e. 'God did it' doesn't explain anything! Not unless, that is, you can explain where God came from and where he got his materials from. If you choose to spout pious bullshit about God being unknowable or something, you have instantly removed yourself from the debate!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 09:04 PM

I am not capitalising my name, snail, the i pad is, but I am capitalising on your line , as I don't suppose you have copyright on it!. And I may be a unlettered,lesser layman but I know enough to see that no one has met your challenge, and that only supports my contention. It seems hardly anyone else here understands your point either, judging by disagreements between you !.       Shimrod,I see finally agrees with me....lemskis decades long experiment does not demonstrate microbes to man evolution!. Will the right honourable scientist now agree with me, that when asked " show me some evolution " that is probably the best that can be offered!.                                                    Stu, just claiming you got overwhelming evidence......don't make it so.....show me some evolution?!. And as it is not visible....like the moon is.....any evidence you present has got to be only able to be interpreted your way. Otherwise it is only moonshine.........

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:34 PM

Well, I reckon the moon and evolution are both true. A few blokes have been to the moon, I believe 'em, I can see the moon and I've had a good gander at it through my boyhood telescope and me binocs. It's wonderful in so many ways. I like the science of of the moon, but the science can wait until I take a break from marvelling at the moon in all its truthful glory. Evolution isn't a solid object like the moon, but that's no reason why it should be harder to accept. We can see the products of evolution all around us, the beauty, diversity and complexity of life on our pale blue dot. There is absolutely no other way it could have got there. The science (which I love - in fact, I'm a biologist who did loads of genetics and evolution and palaeobotany at university) can wait until I take a break from marvelling at what evolution has done for our beautiful planet. There's no rush.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:39 PM

Didn't the moon landings prove once again that the moon is there and a material object? Were the moon landings faked?

Of course, I can't know because I wasn't there. And if I had been there, I might still have been deluded by my own lying eyes or, moments later, by my unreliable memory. It's obvious.

So I guess the opinion that the sun goes around the earth is every bit as good and valuable as the opinion that it doesn't. Better, in fact, because it challenges the "wisdom" imposed by the self-interested Ruling Class. It brings freedom.

I mean, who's to say otherwise?

In any case, evolution is a slow, subtle process and the moon is not.

Just so we know. If we can know anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:28 AM

Yes, the moon is clearly visible. Going round the earth. Just like the sun and stars only not as quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:24 AM

The moon is clearly visible. Anybody can see it's there by looking.

Evolution is mostly invisible. You can't just look up and see it.

The moon is a material object and evolution is a process

The difference is not the level of actuality, but in the ease of eyes-on verification by lay persons.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

No, GUEST, that isn't what I mean.

I see no point in trying to persuade Pete of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:24 AM

Steve Shaw
You're lashing out, Snail,
My first appearance on this thread was when you mentioned "the tiresome snail fellow" followed by your bizarre attack on me in your post of 13 Dec 14 - 04:05 PM. I don't think you're in any position to take the moral high ground. You frequently resort to personal abuse as a substitute for reasoned debate. I just need to know that if I am going to put any effort into a debate I can expect a reasoned response instead of references to slime trails whenever you're stuck for something sensible to say.

As to the question, you've read the whole thread, I've made it perfectly clear what I think evolution is so what's you're problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:16 AM

It could be Snail knows that with creationists like Pete about regarding the common descent element of evolution as 'scientific fact' is harder than regarding the moon as a 'fact'.

Would first need to convince Pete that it is a fact that his changes "within a kind" can lead to new "kinds".

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:10 AM

You're lashing out, Snail, desperately it seems. You said that I thought that evolution was as real as the moon (actually, I didn't say "real", but hey ho). Don't worry, I've read the whole thread but there are times when I can be a man of few words. Selective responding, sort of style. I was simply wondering, as you implied disagreement with my "thought", why you think evolution ISN"T as real as the moon (or not as true, have it your way, I'm not bothered). Simple enough, n'est-ce pas?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:00 AM

You could try reading the whole of that post. If that doesn't work, try going back through the exchanges between me and Stu over the last few days. If you can't be arsed to do that, I suppose I could go back and cut and paste the important points but is it worth it? Are you actually prepared to listen and make an effort to try and understand or will you just go back to you playground abuse and blind instance that "It's True. It's True. It's True I tell you."?
You and Pete are very alike. You both KNOW THE TRUTH which means you don't listen to anything that doesn't suit your belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:43 PM

So evolution isn't as real as the moon, eh, Snailieboy? In what respect is it less real then?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:20 PM

"Trying to confuse creationists is a common evolutionist tactic ..."

It's not a tactic! It's easy!!

"I don't think citrate digesting bugs under airless ?conditions constitutes evidence of microbes to man evolution."

Somehow, I doubt whether Dr Lemski's starting hypothesis involved "microbes to man" - you plonker!!

Anyway, where were we, pete? Oh yes, you were going to read Lemski's original paper(s), follow up on the references and then perhaps write to Dr Lemski in order to clarify any points that you didn't understand. That's probably quite a lot of points ... perhaps it would be best not to burden him with too many ... I'm sure he's a very busy man ... just pick out the main ones ...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:48 PM

Creationists are confused by default. By trying to contradict the overwhelming evidence they are presented with (be it biology, palaeontology, geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology etc etc) they tie themselves in knots constantly, a problem they try to solve by inventing their own pseudo-scientific terms e.g. 'Baramins'.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:36 PM

Pete (what happened to pete?) stop using my "show me some evolution" line. You don't remotely understand the point I am making and I don't imagine you ever could so I won't try and explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 03:24 PM

"..off the shelf nonsense"......such as ?      Trying to confuse creationists is a common evolutionist tactic....aka equivocation or bait and switch. Take that snail mega lab link, how does that demonstrate slimy snail to scientist snail, yet it is called evolution! Certainly not, as far as the general theory, as for example outlined by kerkut, is concerned.               Ebbie, the new Pete is insisting he is the same person as old Pete. Well, shimrod, seems I have read more about lemski and his bugs than you have, and I don't think citrate digesting bugs under airless ?conditions constitutes evidence of microbes to man evolution.   So I will quote snail again.....show me some evolution,....rather than the bait and switch of offering natural selection.       And complaining that I read creationist stuff is irrelevant. You either got a reasoned argument or you ain't .               Guest somebody, no problem with genetic variation....within the kind....howsoever caused.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:42 AM

What's the problem with using "scientific concept" as a wider term for "a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct". If you need to know which (or what else) go back and look at how it was used in the first sentence of that linked page.

Maybe using the wider term makes it easier for creationists to understand and harder for them to trot out off-the-shelf nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:25 AM

Stu
I did earlier. Hypothesis, theory and the scientific philosophy that forms the backbone of any given piece of research.

Do you mean when you said -
What defines a scientific concept? Are you talking about a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct? Perhaps you mean a guess? Or a musing? Define sil vous plait.?
I thought you were being sarcastic.

All these are products of the human mind; attempts to bring some order and understanding to the actual observable evidence. None of them are something you can see in your back yard. Don't tell Steve Shaw who thinks that evolution is as real as the moon.