Science Babble vs Truth

[nPeace]

Don't know what you mean with standard deviation of faith, you need to explain that then?

Lol. Did I do that? I meant standard definition of faith. Sorry.

 

[Nimos]

Lol. Did I do that? I meant standard definition of faith. Sorry.

Ahh ok np

Just from google, which seem to work fine with me:

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

 

[gnostic]

So tell me something. If the evidence supports the idea, why does that change later? Because it never supported it in the first place.
It was just a belief.
So when you say the Bible does not counter these - beliefs... that's what they are, it's simply babbling about your beliefs, without knowing that the evidence supports it.

First off, you were the one who indicated the superiority of “biblical truth” over sciences. You have also indicated that Bible being more accurate in both history department and science department.

The Bible is only collection of books of belief by people (Jews and then Christians) based on their respective traditions, and accepted through faith, and faith alone.

The Bible was never about historical accuracy or scientific accuracy, that just you and other creationists interpretations of the Bible.

Sciences, particularly physical sciences and natural sciences, developed explanatory and predictive models, based on preliminary observations (evidence) and later more observations through testings (more evidence).

No scientific theory start out with no evidence whatsoever ever, like pure imagination. There are always evidence, before someone start writing the hypothesis, hence preliminary evidence/observation. The preliminary evidence is the starting point that provide ideas to start a hypothesis, which is to explain the phenomena being observed.

A scientific theory is only true and accepted as science, when it has been tested repeatedly (Scientific Method) and all the information (explanation, predictions and evidence-based data) are reviewed by other scientists (Peer Review).

I have never said that scientific theory cannot be changed or cannot be replaced. Of course, you can challenge, change or replaced already accepted theory, sciences allow for it to happen, but any new or alternative model must be supported by new tests or better observable evidence, because scientific theories are not written in stone.

You are still misunderstanding what sciences do and how sciences work.

A scientific theory is the current best explanation science have so far. It allow for modifications of current theories or replace current theories with alternative theories, but only if there are EVIDENCE (hence new information) to support such changes or replacements.

It is what science called progress.

Your ignorance is simply staggering, if you think science have to be static, unchanging.

Take this for example:

So tell me something. If the evidence supports the idea, why does that change later?

To give you example of changing

Back in mid-10th century, was the first recorded discovery of Andromeda, by Muslim astronomer, I don’t remember his name, he observed and describe the feature of Andromeda, all without telescopes.

After the telescope was developed in early 17th century, in the18th century, a French astronomer named Charles Messier have classified Andromeda as a “nebula” located within, not a “galaxy”. Other galaxies were also mis-classified as nebulae.

Between Galileo and before 1919, every astronomers assumed that there was not one galaxy in the universe was the Milky Way.

In 1919, a new and more larger (the largest at that time) and powerful telescope - the Hooker Telescope - was constructed, and Edwin Hubble discovered that all those nebulae including Andromeda and Triangulum weren’t nebulae, but separate galaxies.

Hubble didn’t just discover there were more than one galaxy, but the universe were filled with galaxies, and the universe is even larger than any astronomer (before 1919) ever imagined.

And throughout the rest of the 20th century and the 21st century, new technology enabled scientists and engineers to build even more powerful telescopes than the Hooker Telescope. Radio astronomy, red-shift astronomy, space telescopes, all providing new evidence, and therefore new information about the Andromeda Galaxy and other galaxies that are even more distant than Andromeda.

The points in my example of Andromeda, is that as better technology, it can change what we know and even replaced scientific theory.

In my example, the notion that Andromeda, Triangulum and other objects were nebulae, were replaced by new theory that they are galaxies, all because better technology that provide better observations of the evidence.

What do you think scientists should do? Not learn from new evidence? Not progress forward?

Sciences aren’t fixed, especially when new evidence provide new information. Science must change when new evidence are discovered, or else it would be replaced by alternative evidence.

As to the theory of evolution that you have been trying to get rid of, you have not offer any better alternative. Evolution did change, as biologists were able to implement genetics into evolution, as well as discovering other mechanisms other than Natural Selection (eg genetic drift, mutations, etc). Also better understanding of speciation, when biologists discovered new method for testings - DNA testing. All these strength the theory of evolution, and it isn’t a mess as you have claimed in your earlier replies.

The only mess I see, are coming from Creationism and Intelligent Design. No evidence were found in either, just biblical interpretations and biblical apology.

All you have done, is try to redefine what faith and evidence mean. You have even tried to pathetically equate faith with evidence, hence deliberately try to dishonestly distort both words to suit your biblical truth.

The irony of your OP that you brought up biblical truth, but what many of your replies have shown, you were never honest with us, nor to yourself.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Suggests? Why do you make that philosophical argument?

No. The route has a purpose. That's how design works.
For example, it may look stupid to a person, why something is made or done a certain way, but when one realizes the reason for the function, that understanding should help them to be reasonable. Not unrealistically make ridiculous arguments.

To illustrate, the water cycle has a purpose.

Yes, the water runs down mountains amd takes long routes to oceans and form lakes, but they serve very important, and useful purposes.
In fact, if there was no water cycle, life would quickly be reduced.
Similarly, the laryngeal nerve which are really two, are designed to source organs along its route. They have a purpose, and a goal.


I'm sorry, but please don't make such incorrect statements (putting it mildly) for the sake of argument.
There is no scientific consensus for philosophical arguments put forth by Dawkins and other Atheists.
The laryngeal nerve performs useful function to the body, which explains its route. That's the only consensus, and it is a direct observable fact. No sane person denies that. I don't.

However, your ridiculous argument is not a scientific consensus. Science does not do Creation Evolution arguments. Atheists do.
I hope you are not another scientist, because such ridiculous arguments do not do the scientific community any justice.


Wait. Did you ask... BTW, can you explain why the info you posted refutes the claim that the route of the laryngeal nerve is evidence for evolution and against ID?
Perhaps you need to rewrite that, because, right now, it asked why what I posted is against ID, and I did not post anything against ID, so I cannot answer that, and If you can't, I don't know what more to say.


Yup. Are you?


Then perhaps you don't understand what we are discussing. We are discussing the laryngeal nerve.
There are some educational courses on the laryngeal nerve, that can help with learning its purpose.

I'll suggest the same I did to @viole. Also, these ridiculous Atheistic arguments will get us nowhere other than an endless argument.
So since we know the laryngeal nerve has a purpose, which requires its route, there is no need for me to continue listening to your philosophy.
Here you go.

Done.


What? No that's not the case, but even if it were. There would be a reasonable explanation - like the wall was built on the other side of the door, before the door was removed, which it will be, as it serves no purpose.

Since no sane doctor has seen the need to perform surgery to shorten the laryngeal nerve or remove it, we know it is serving its purpose.

Surgeons operate to correct things that are useless, and problematic.
We don't find that to be the case with the laryngeal nerve. Do we?


The usual Atheists ad hominem.
They never fail to throw it in Lol.
When they talk to a scientist, they say the same thing, to their embarrassment. Lol.
James Tour and the other thousands of scientists laughs at them.

No one cares about your ad hominem, in case you don't know, and think they have some effect. All they do is show up more clearly the Atheists' inability to engage in a reasonable discussion.
So if you want to see what looks foolish....



If one buries their head in the sand, it would be impossible to see what they hide their senses from.

It'll take me some time, but I can get those references for you.
In the meantime, here are some references you can consider, showing that not all scientist are in agreement on these matters.
The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth
...some scientists have disparaged the entire field of science studies, claiming that it was undermining public confidence in science by denying that scientific theories were objectively true.
“The Scientific Method” as Myth and Ideal


Not according to many scientists.
https://iai.tv/video/missing-evidence
Yes. I know, that some like to hide their head in the sand, when it comes to protecting their Atheistic views, but I think when we acknowledge things that are true, it allows us to move forward in reasonable discussions, rather than, stating closed minded views.

Are you denying that there is bad science, and or ideas and conjecture presented as science?
Preceeding your comments with a yes or no, would be helpful.

Getting back to design though.
We know that random processes do not need to be specific, nor goal driven.
For example, during the water cycle, the rain and snow falls, but the path the water takes is random, as it carves out "valleys" which can take many different paths. Randomly.

However, if you were to alter the design of many things, life would not exist, and this is a fact, from the beginning of the universe - the so-called Big Bang, to our amazing bodies.
So we have strong evidence, and facts that there is a designer.

You are free to deny that, until death. , but I think that's the final nail in the coffin.

Pun intended.

Wow, great YouTube vid (the last one) on the laryngeal nerve!
Thank you for posting it, nPeace!

Some, like Dawkins, are so intent on attacking Design, they end up shooting themselves in the foot! Gotta love when genuine science supports Intelligent Design! Trying to use science to debunk Design, always results in faulty conclusions based on guess work. Not the complete facts.

1 John 5:19 & Revelation 12:9 are so manifest!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Any person with some basic education on the topic, would know of it already.


In any case, a few DNA samples of extant species is already enough to determine common ancestry.
Apparently you aren't aware of how we are very able to build family trees and conclude common ancestry simply by sequencing and comparing DNA.

It is important to note that many examinations of the genetics and molecular biology in insect taxa support much of the previous taxonomy based on morphological data. There have been changes that have resulted in the use of genetic and molecular data, but I think it surprised a lot of people to find how stable taxonomies based on insect morphology were. I don't know if this is true for animals outside of arthropods or with plants, but it would not surprise me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Don't know what you mean with standard deviation of faith, you need to explain that then?

I don't think anyone knows. It seems made up. It is not part of statistics. What data would you used to determine the value of faith among the faithful and calculate a standard deviation? Who knows?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow, great YouTube vid (the last one) on the laryngeal nerve!
Thank you for posting it, nPeace!

Some, like Dawkins, are so intent on attacking Design, they end up shooting themselves in the foot! Gotta love when genuine science supports Intelligent Design! Trying to use science to debunk Design, always results in faulty conclusions based on guess work. Not the complete facts.

1 John 5:19 & Revelation 12:9 are so manifest!

I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design. Could you enlighten us? What is "genuine science"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow, great YouTube vid (the last one) on the laryngeal nerve!
Thank you for posting it, nPeace!

Some, like Dawkins, are so intent on attacking Design, they end up shooting themselves in the foot! Gotta love when genuine science supports Intelligent Design! Trying to use science to debunk Design, always results in faulty conclusions based on guess work. Not the complete facts.

1 John 5:19 & Revelation 12:9 are so manifest!

It isn't an attack on design in the sense you mean. It is evidence that demands an answer if it were designed. That last video didn't demonstrate it is designed. It showed Dawkins, made some false claims about what Dawkins said in the piece shown and then claimed that nerve must travel the way it does, because it has other functions. It did not demonstrate that the path was a demand of design. It is still like installing an outlet in your living room and running 300 feet of extra wire from the breaker box through your kitchen, up into the attic, around the back bedroom and finally to your living room. So what if you can tap into the circuit in your bedroom and hook up a light there. It is still crap as a design.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You seem very keen on evidence and 'proof' when it comes to evolution. Where is even the first suggestion of the tiniest hint of the slightest morsel of evidence, let alone proof, that these verses are remotely related to the truth?

They are metaphorical. Twisted by the demand to interpret them as some literal event to expect will happen.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How useful is this? The only use this has is to draw attention to oneself and inflate one's ego, but serve no useful purpose at all.
It also demonstrates a lack of interest in any meaningful discussion.
So like the fellow below, it shows that you merely ask questions, but have no interest in the answers or discussing them, especially when they are answers you seem afraid of, and you can't argue back and forth with pointless arguments.

If you had at least followed with, 'Here is why.' one could see that you can discuss your arguments, but...


...and then you ask more questions.
For what reason? To give meaningless one-liners?

You recognize that you were asked questions, but I do not see answers to those questions. You claim to know, so it should be a piece of cake to answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To which I responded, and gave an answer.


That was your question?
Interesting. I thought that's what I was saying, and trying to find out from the opposing side, where the difference lies.


Not that I don't appreciate you explaining, but could you give me the standard deviation of faith please.
That's what I was asking for. Then I can come back to this.

Why don't you tell us what the standard deviation of faith is. Take your time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have to love the acquisition of knowledge via Google. The trouble is, you end up missing the forest for the trees, because a non-anatomist like this guy leaves out a lot of 'facts' - because he is unaware of them.

Actually, you are correct. It starts in the brain. This creationist does not at all seem to understand the structure of a nerve. A peripheral nerve, like the vagus nerve, consists mostly of axons of neurons. That is, the cell bodies of the neurons of the vagus nerve are IN THE BRAIN, and their axons descend into the thorax and abdomen. The naïve creationists seems to think that THE RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVES start AT the branch point. Ignorance breed confidence.
How spectacularly uninformed.

So smug... so self-assured... So clueless...

Ah, so because the RLNs are BRANCHES of the vagus, this somehow renders its nonsensical path A-OK and totally a God design.

Funny - the genius did not mention the superior laryngeal nerve - also A BRANCH! of the vagus. But it goes straight to the larynx. No weird looping. No going well out of its way to get to its target.

What @nPeace the non-anatomist, non-scientist left out (aka does not know about because it did not pop up on his google search) is WHY the the RLNs have to 'recur' at all!

You see, during embryonic development, the adult form of the aortic arch DOES NOT EXIST. The early circulatory system looks like this:

View attachment 56352

The primordial heart would lie below the truncus arteriosus. Of course, what is not shown in this diagram is what is happening with the other body systems - such as the nervous system and the digestive/respiratory systems (that's right - the mammalian respiratory system is a branch off of the digestive system - almost like an afterthought...) and their very close proximity to one another, especially this early in development.
Just behind the vessels shown we would see the developing brain:

View attachment 56353

The green thing labeled 10 is the vagus. In the adult, it (more correctly, they as there is a left and right one) travel well down into the abdomen. But note where it goes in the early embryo - sort of straight down into what looks like the 'neck' of the embryo. Of course, that is NOT the neck - those bulges into which the nerves numbered 5-10 are growing into are the pharyngeal arches - which also contain aortic arches as seen in the diagram above. Those pharyngeal arches in mammals develop into regions of the face and neck - where we, coincidentally, find the larynx later on. In fish, they develop into the gills.
And this is what happens to those aortic arches as development continues (same source as above):
View attachment 56354

The dotted lines show the locations of the earlier stages which regress or are co-opted to form adult vessels. So, while those changes are occurring, the laryngeal branches of the vagus had already reached their target, the larynx. They become 'trapped' between these adult vessels - which then start their migration (due to differential growth patterns), in the case of the adult arch of the aorta, into the upper thorax, well below the larynx. This, in effect, 'pulls' the recurrent branches away from the larynx, thus the 'recurrence' ("going back") of the branch.

Why are the cranial nerves and aortic arches arranged like that in the first place?

Gee, I don't know - maybe because that basic 'plan' was inherited from organisms in which that layout made more sense?

View attachment 56355

In fish (teleost, (b) above) the aortic arch patterns stay as-is. The vagus (fish have multiple branches of the vagus, so vagi?) just goes 'straight' to its targets, no need for it to go out of its way and loop around this or that.

So thanks @nPeace, for pointing out a nice bit of evidence for retained ancestral traits!

Pity - after I demolished nPeace on phylogenetics a few years ago, he put me on ignore, the poor thing, so he will never see that his dopey Google-based misinformation was corrected...

He put me on ignore too, apparently. I suppose it helps not to muddy his waters with people that know facts and evidence too well. Just a guess. Personally, I would want to discuss this with people trained in biology. I know. Weird right.

 

[ratiocinator]

For what reason? To give meaningless one-liners?

That's exactly what you gave to me when I asked for your evidence in support of carnivores being designed as vegetarians, for which you'd only quoted some bible verses.

Considering how you approach the evidence for evolution, your double standards couldn't be more stark. Did you really think a list of content-free one liners would stand up? You didn't back up a single one of them with a single piece of actual evidence, now you're criticising me for responding in kind. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Oh, and Matthew 7:5.

If you want to present some actual evidence for your claims, I'll look at it with more seriousness.

 

[viole]

Of course it doesn't. You don't look like an ape either.

Correct. I do not look like an ape. I am an ape. Like all humans. A great ape, to be precise. Like gorillas and chimps.

So, what makes you think you are not an ape, despite our taxonomic classification? Do you at least agree you are a primate? If not, what about mammal? Vertebrate? Where do you put the line?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Of course it doesn't. You don't look like an ape either.
Ah. The design of predators.
Easy enough. First three paragraphs here, and first portion here.
You are looking at the rusted car right now, and thinking it was designed that way. Not according to Genesis. Isaiah 11:6-9, and Isaiah 65:25 makes that clear.

Therefore you admit that sophisticated traits of "design", like efficient teeth and digestive systems, a new powerful muscular structure allowing to crush victims bones, together with speed and concealment, and all that makes predators so efficient, could in fact have been undesigned?

Same thing with preys, I suppose. Like the stick insect for instance, which would not need any camouflage in a Garden where even T-Rexes eat only lettuce. Or the Chameleon, with its amazing polychromic characteristics that cannot possibly have been designed by God, since it is a mere survival device, totally useless in a place without death.

How do you differentiate then between something that has been designed vs. something that it was not? Do you use the Bible as sole epistemological tool to determine that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't know of any science that supports intelligent design.

Yeah, that’s sad. Isn’t it? Even the explanation for the formation of the Earth. Completely laughable!
Gravity explains how it and the other planets are held in place, but there’s no believable mechanism for how they originated and began than orbits.

Very sad!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is still crap as a design.

No it isn’t. There is purpose in its lengthy route. Other functions were discovered. And there may even be more that will be found.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, that’s sad. Isn’t it? Even the explanation for the formation of the Earth. Completely laughable!
Gravity explains how it and the other planets are held in place, but there’s no believable mechanism for how they originated and began than orbits.

Even if this were true (which it isn't) a gap in our scientific knowledge is not evidence for ID.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is purpose in its lengthy route.

Such as...?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Such as...?

They’re in the videos, @nPeace posted.