This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[ChristineM]

I had no idea you have dyslexia. I am not mocking you for that at all and I apologize if that is how it came across. But it does appear that you feel okay about mocking those who believe in God as the Creator.
I am sorry to hear you were mocked by "Christians". Certainly, although they treated you in an
unChrist-like way, you don't think Jesus would do so, do you?

Is belief in god now a disability?

Sorry accepted but you treated me in the same way, is it coincidence that it only seems to be christians who self imposed members of the spelling police?

I am not mocking, i am highlighting your mockery of atheism

 

[InChrist]

Is belief in god now a disability?

Sorry accepted but you treated me in the same way, is it coincidence that it only seems to be christians who self imposed members of the spelling police?

I don't think so and I'm sure you must know that is a generalization and isn't true. I've had non-Christians correct my spelling, grammar and other things before.

I am not mocking, i am highlighting your mockery of atheism

Well, I would have to go back and read old posts of yours to determine if you mock Christians or not. If you don't then I apologize again and am guilty of generalizing myself. It does often seem that atheists mock those who believe in God or a spiritual aspect to life. Even the idea that you express that people only believe in God due to indoctrination is a put down, as well as being false.

While I disagree with atheism, I do attempt to express my disagreement without mockery.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think so and I'm sure you must know that is a generalization and isn't true. I've had non-Christians correct my spelling, grammar and other things before.


Well, I would have to go back and read old posts of yours to determine if you mock Christians or not. If you don't then I apologize again and am guilty of generalizing myself. It does often seem that atheists mock those who believe in God or a spiritual aspect to life. Even the idea that you express that people only believe in God due to indoctrination is a put down, as well as being false.

While I disagree with atheism, I do attempt to express my disagreement without mockery.

Im sure it must happen but ive never seen it and believe me, i have a personal interest in seeing where the spelling police congragate.

I would never mock a religion but will always contend a point of fact, i guess this can be seen as mocking religion to those shown to be in error but individuals, right or wrong are not a religion.

I don't see "indoctrination" as a putdown or false. What would you call feeding a child a constant supply of a single religious viewpoint with no explorations of other viewpoints? Being constantly reminded they must believe and follow that particular point of view or they will go to a horrible place called hell.

It is my understanding that we are all born without belief in deity's, most children are indoctrinated into belief by their parents long before their brain is fully independent.

So you believe "atheist evolution", "atheist gravity", atheist science", "atheist anything that goes against your belief" is not a form of mockery?

 

[InChrist]

I am mildly disappointed. So far no real participation by those that could benefit most from learning the basics.

To the creationists if you think that you understand the basics then prove it. No copy and paste of poorly written definitions. In your own words what is the scientific method? In other words how is science done?

The scientific method involves observation and asking a question or identifying a problem, gathering information and evidence, forming a hypothesis, direct experimentation if possible, analyzing results and data and coming to a conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific method involves observation and asking a question or identifying a problem, gathering information and evidence, forming a hypothesis, direct experimentation if possible, analyzing results and data and coming to a conclusion.

You forgot testing that hypothesis, adjusting it as necessary and publishing one's results. A scientist must remember that he may be biased and he needs others to check his work. But otherwise not bad. It is a good beginning.

But since you identified that a hypothesis is needed let's go on to discuss evidence. Hypotheses are evidence based. One needs to have evidence to support a hypothesis. In the sciences scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. If you want to read more this is a good article on the concept:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Now a simple question:

Is "Lucy" evidence for human evolution?

 

[InChrist]

Im sure it must happen but ive never seen it and believe me, i have a personal interest in seeing where the spelling police congragate.

I would never mock a religion but will always contend a point of fact, i guess this can be seen as mocking religion to those shown to be in error but individuals, right or wrong are not a religion.

I don't see "indoctrination" as a putdown or false. What would you call feeding a child a constant supply of a single religious viewpoint with no explorations of other viewpoints? Being constantly reminded they must believe and follow that particular point of view or they will go to a horrible place called hell.

It is my understanding that we are all born without belief in deity's, most children are indoctrinated into belief by their parents long before their brain is fully independent.

My perspective is that any child would naturally love and believe in God were it not for those who indoctrinate them otherwise or damage the true loving character of God which human misconceptions and/or sin.

So you believe "atheist evolution", "atheist gravity", atheist science", "atheist anything that goes against your belief" is not a form of mockery?

I did not intend it as a form of mockery, rather clarification.

 

[ChristineM]

My perspective is that any child would naturally love and believe in God were it not for those who indoctrinate them otherwise or damage the true loving character of God which human misconceptions and/or sin.


I did not intend it as a form of mockery, rather clarification.

Have you ever asked the child after they have all the information required to make an informed decision?

I always find it fascinating to see people who mistakenly use or misrepresent the word atheism or atheists in order to boost their religious point.

But what i find absolutely hilarious is those religious fundimentalists who use science (electricity, electronics, even quantum mechanics) in order to mock, disrespect and abuse the science they are using and rely on every day of their lives

 

[InChrist]

But what i find absolutely hilarious is those religious fundimentalists who use science (electricity, electronics, even quantum mechanics) in order to mock, disrespect and abuse the science they are using and rely on every day of their lives

LOL, now that is a projection. I could say you are guilty of the same thing. I see the order and laws of the world/universe set in place by a Creator which makes even the study of these things through science possible. Besides, the fact that the God sustains all things and provides each breath and heartbeat you rely on everyday.

 

[InChrist]

You forgot testing that hypothesis, adjusting it as necessary and publishing one's results. A scientist must remember that he may be biased and he needs others to check his work. But otherwise not bad. It is a good beginning.

But since you identified that a hypothesis is needed let's go on to discuss evidence. Hypotheses are evidence based. One needs to have evidence to support a hypothesis. In the sciences scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. If you want to read more this is a good article on the concept:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Now a simple question:

Is "Lucy" evidence for human evolution?

I don't think so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think so.

Why not? It is empirical evidence and it supports the hypothesis. By definition it is scientific evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, now that is a projection. I could say you are guilty of the same thing. I see the order and laws of the world/universe set in place by a Creator which makes even the study of these things through science possible. Besides, the fact that the God sustains all things and provides each breath and heartbeat you rely on everyday.

You need reliable evidence to even begin to make such a claim.

 

[InChrist]

Why not? It is empirical evidence and it supports the hypothesis. By definition it is scientific evidence.

Only about 40% of bones were found and those were mostly small fragments so scientists had to reconstruct a skeleton according to their presumed beliefs about the fossil as to whether "Lucy" was an ape, human, or ape-human. Since Lucy is from the past, who or what this creature actually was is not open to testing with the scientific method, which involves experimentation or observation in the present. So to state that Lucy is evidence for human evolution , I believe is false and not based on empirical evidence, but speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only about 40% of bones were found and those were mostly small fragments so scientists had to reconstruct a skeleton according to their presumed beliefs about the fossil as to whether "Lucy" was an ape, human, or ape-human. Since Lucy is from the past, who or what this creature actually was is not open to testing with the scientific method, which involves experimentation or observation in the present. So to state that Lucy is evidence for human evolution , I believe is false and not based on empirical evidence, but speculation.

So what? Even just a skill would have still been empirical evidence.

You need to keep yourself honest here.

Edit: And you need to avoid using words like "presumed" . That puts the burden of proof upon you to prove that there was a presumption.

 

[nPeace]

This...intelegence, is not how intelligence is spelled.
Many intelligent individuals who completely understand science and the scientific method also know and believe God of their own volition...not by indoctrination.

I use the expression atheistic evolution, not out of confusion, but because even those who acknowledge a Creator/God accept evolution.which lines up with way He designed life to evolve or change, just not the atheistic evolutionary model.

Man, you chose a giant! The first time I heard this guy speak, he was speaking to an audience of young people, and his humility was so admirable. I thought to myself, Wow!
When I looked at his credentials, man I thought to myself, Wow!
I guess he wowed me - brilliant yet humble.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Man, you chose a giant! The first time I heard this guy speak, he was speaking to an audience of young people, and his humility was so admirable. I thought to myself, Wow!
When I looked at his credentials, man I thought to myself, Wow!
I guess he wowed me - brilliant yet humble.

And yet he is still guilty of making logical errors.

 

[InChrist]

So what? Even just a skill would have still been empirical evidence.

You need to keep yourself honest here.

Edit: And you need to avoid using words like "presumed" . That puts the burden of proof upon you to prove that there was a presumption.

Sure a skull is evidence of something, but it or a fragmented collection of fossilized bones are certainly not enough evidence to conclude that humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Australopithecine specimens like Lucy could be examples of extinct primates that had nothing to do with human ancestry. There is no way the scientific method can reveal the complete answer.

I won't stop using words like presume because everyone is influenced or filters their perceptions concerning any evidence through their foundational presumptions, whether evolutionist or anti-evolutionist.

 

[InChrist]

And yet he is still guilty of making logical errors.

As are all people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure a skull is evidence of something, but it or a fragmented collection of fossilized bones are certainly not enough evidence to conclude that humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Australopithecine specimens like Lucy could be examples of extinct primates that had nothing to do with human ancestry. There is no way the scientific method can reveal the complete answer.

I won't stop using words like presume because everyone is influenced or filters their perceptions concerning any evidence through their foundational presumptions, whether evolutionist or anti-evolutionist.

You are in no position to judge. Nor do you seem to understand how many different finds there have been of Australopithecus. Whole bodies can be reconstructed from multiple fossils. Lucy was easily identifiable. You are grasping at straws

the find is exactly what the theory predicts we would find. Like it or not it is evidence.

Lets see if you can be honest yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As are all people.

That is true, but as a scientist he makes some lulus.

 

[danieldemol]

...
New genetic information is never added in reproduction- only deleted or rearranged....

Then how do you explain this;
File:Glyptodon-Armadillo.jpg - Wikipedia
How did the Armadillo gain it's segmented shell given it's ancestor the Glyptodon had a single shell?