Page 97 of 97 FirstFirst ... 47879697
Results 3,361 to 3,391 of 3391

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #3361
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by webishop14 View Post
    Yes. Bummer! Your logic breaks at step one.

    and:
    This only applies to inquiring minds. Yours is ossified, so don't go expecting God to deliver for you.
    not sure what you mean - but i suspect that you have not been paying attention

    perhaps you would like to modify my exposition of the scientific method?

  2. #3362
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by webishop14 View Post
    Bad logic Frank! Your assertions are not validated by another's refusal to refute them.



    Peter's post does NOT fit with what you have been saying. That's because what you have been saying does not fit with reality.



    Here we have a wee bit of honesty, if only in the form of projection. I'm surprised, Frank!, that you haven't been able to figure out yet that you're not going to gain any converts here. You have long ago discarded your "earnest student in search of knowledge" disguise. Do you really expect anything other than ridicule? Now just stamp you foot in disgust and storm off.
    no - but it does mean that they still stand unrefuted

  3. #3363
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,486

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    whyncha check then?
    I was curious as to what tools he would have had. My guess is pre iron age so bronze axe and adze...not something I would want to build a boat with but hey apparently it took him 120 years.
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

  4. #3364
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Back to the Peppered Moth and SINEs

    TwoDot has declined to answer the call (probably wise)

    The Peppered Moth saga has proved to be junk science - at least the part i will call Mark 1. - the "originally there were light and dark moths, then a sooty environment favoured a preponderance of the dark variety, but when the environment was cleaned up , the lighter colours staged a comeback" part.

    This is Natural Selection - yes - and unquestioningly accepted by all scientists, evolutionist or creationist .

    But note! no new potential has been demonstrated!

    Que Mark 2.

    an article was posted that referred to the appearance of a "Black" variety, that i think they were trying to say was not present before IIRC 1849 (or 1812? - ).

    they traced this new type to a specific gene at a specific location (IIRC) - and i understand the inference to be that this demonstrated Evolution because new potential had arisen that was not present before. One small step , but it is postulated that many more such steps accumulating and operated upon by selection processes could account for the appearance (in time) of all life forms .....

    However i came across a reference to "Jumping genes" (or SINEs?) and the point was made that this appeared to be an example of such a gene which 'jumps in' to a critical position in the DNA strand and causes a new variation to express. (in this case a totally black moth?)

    I picked up (forgive me , i am no expert in this - which is why i await some competent commentary) - that these jumping genes are not a random phenomena - they usually seem to insert in just the place where they perform a useful function. This is not a random event - this is not evolution - and i understood this to be perhaps under the direction of some part of the DNA usually classified as "Junk".

    that would be important for junk DNA is an argument for Evolution - so, not junk , no evolution

    Plus, introducing another level of feedback and control, beyond the normal coding level of DNA introduces a whole new level of complexity likely beyond the capacity of natural selection to operate. this would be fatal for Evolutionary theory?

    I post this for the consideration of all.

    regards,

    frank
    Last edited by Frank!; 02-15-2018 at 10:26 AM. Reason: 'Mark' rather than 'Part' ......

  5. #3365
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,322

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post

    I picked up (forgive me , i am no expert in this - which is why i await some competent commentary) - that these jumping genes are not a random phenomena - they usually seem to insert in just the place where they perform a useful function. This is not a random event - this is not evolution - and i understood this to be perhaps under the direction of some part of the DNA usually classified as "Junk".

    regards,

    frank
    Think on this. If the mutation caused by the jump or any other random event is not beneficial it will not be passed on. So a random mutation can trigger evolutionary change. The "selection" part of evolution deals with what happens to the new genes after they occur. If they are beneficial they survive, if harmful the carrier reproduction mechanism (life form) will not breed to pass them on.
    So the arrival of the gene for black colour as a random event and its being passed on as it conferred a survival benefit is evolution at work.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  6. #3366
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,498

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Keith, in common with the braying herd here, you are seriously underestimating the quality and competence of some who have given the matter serious and intelligent consideration. It does you no credit to bring it down to this level .....
    While I was being sarcastic, I was making a dead-serious point about creationist 'logic'. If God intervenes in the natural world, there is nothing, absolutely nothing at all, that requires him to be parsimonious with miracles. If you posit one miracle, why not two? If two, why not three? If three, why not three billion? If giant blobs of water with all the magnetic fields magically aligned ('magic' being a term interchangeable with 'miracle', although less polite), why not miniaturized animals to fit on a plausibly-sized ark? If a magical flood covering the whole earth, why not radioactive decay products miraculously created in situ 6000 years ago to make it look like the earth is 4 billion years old? Think about this; really. Science does not admit the supernatural. Once you do, you have utter chaos, limited only by your imagination.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  7. #3367
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Wakefield, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    8,771

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    forgive me , i am no expert in this
    In fact, your understanding of the subject is extremely weak, so you're unable to spot the errors and deception you've been fed on sites like creation.com. I briefly considered trying to straighten out some of those basic misconceptions, but you're in "argument mode," not "learning mode," so it doesn't seem worth the effort. It's hard enough to learn about molecular genetics when you're engaged and interested. To learn about it in a suspicious, argumentative frame of mind would be impossible.

    You said, earlier in the thread, that you enjoy the "cut and thrust," and I have to say, it's fairly frustrating to explain things to a person who is always "cutting and thrusting." Instead of doing that, I will recommend a book to you. It is a very lively and entertaining introduction to the kind of work that molecular biologists like twodot do every day. It won't make you competent in genetics, but it will give you a sense of what competence looks like. Heck, if you promise to read it, I'll even send you a copy.

    https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/herdin...9781472910066/


  8. #3368
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    913

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    no - but it does mean that they still stand unrefuted
    So you say.
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  9. #3369
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Taylor View Post
    In fact, your understanding of the subject is extremely weak, so you're unable to spot the errors and deception you've been fed on sites like creation.com. I briefly considered trying to straighten out some of those basic misconceptions, but you're in "argument mode," not "learning mode," so it doesn't seem worth the effort. It's hard enough to learn about molecular genetics when you're engaged and interested. To learn about it in a suspicious, argumentative frame of mind would be impossible.

    You said, earlier in the thread, that you enjoy the "cut and thrust," and I have to say, it's fairly frustrating to explain things to a person who is always "cutting and thrusting." Instead of doing that, I will recommend a book to you. It is a very lively and entertaining introduction to the kind of work that molecular biologists like twodot do every day. It won't make you competent in genetics, but it will give you a sense of what competence looks like. Heck, if you promise to read it, I'll even send you a copy.

    https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/herdin...9781472910066/

    Well, thankyou Bruce,

    (pls forgive tardy reply - windstorm here and lots of cleanup of fallen trees .....)

    Please dont think that my being in "argument mode" (actually, i hadnt thought i was, really!) means that i am not primarily committed to getting at the truth.

    The plain truth (or the best guess at what is closest to it) i recognise is often difficult for a person to accept (or understand even) if it is different to one's background understanding or training or "education" (quotes because often, particularly nowadays, i think that education is unfortunatelly geared more to delivering dogma than awakening critical faculties for enquiry - more focused on passing exams than generating the tools of understanding - and most critically for me, the education process seems to have lost understanding of, and respect for, truth)

    (rant over)

    Yes, please, i would be interested to look at the book - it appears a lively read - but i fear that biology, along with chemistry, is a subject i most struggle with - all those names, and unfathonable words! not to mention the jargon. i sometimes think that , as a biologist, i would have made a good flood - mitigation Civil Engineer! (i didnt get to do that either due to life's misadventures and ended up ekeing out a career in electronics ....)

    But, might i prevail upon you to have a deco at my attempt to understand the Peppered Moth thing as i set out in my post #3364 and give me your thoughts? I am particularly interested in what seems to me to be the cutting edge stuff that involves the jumping genes (and whether they might be responding to some kind of epigenetic (?) control - rather than bieng merely a random or fortuitous mutation of some kind).

    thanks again,

    frank

    o - and was i really wildly out in my understanding in my comments re what i termed the Mark 1. version?
    Last edited by Frank!; 02-15-2018 at 10:30 AM.

  10. #3370
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    While I was being sarcastic, I was making a dead-serious point about creationist 'logic'. If God intervenes in the natural world, there is nothing, absolutely nothing at all, that requires him to be parsimonious with miracles. If you posit one miracle, why not two? If two, why not three? If three, why not three billion? If giant blobs of water with all the magnetic fields magically aligned ('magic' being a term interchangeable with 'miracle', although less polite), why not miniaturized animals to fit on a plausibly-sized ark? If a magical flood covering the whole earth, why not radioactive decay products miraculously created in situ 6000 years ago to make it look like the earth is 4 billion years old? Think about this; really. Science does not admit the supernatural. Once you do, you have utter chaos, limited only by your imagination.
    Yes Keith, i used to not accept that there were ever any true miracles - but perhaps it was the perspective of Shakespeare that (IIRC) "there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your science ...." that began to break down my simplistic assumptions.

    Also, i took comfort in what i understand to be a dictum of Physics that if something can be demonstrated to be probably true by a factor of 10 to the 50th power - then it can be accepted as a fact ..... and dont lose sleep over it unless one can come up with a better idea.

    I found myself coming across things that were so beyond the bounds of coincidence (at least as far as i could see at the time) - that i found it easier to just accept it as a 'miracle' and leave it at that.

    That being said, i would not accept that so many compounding miracles are likely to happen that , as you say, utter chaos reigns and we can not be certain of anything.

    Whilst i am comfortable that that there are some genuinely reported miracles in the bible, and some of them (eg Resurrection) are crucial to the vast majority of adherents of christianity - i expect that god has been a bit parsimonious with them and only allowed those that make a point of some kind - even if the point does not seem apparent immediately.

    That is why i do not accept that god would "plant" radioactive decay products, or put fossils in rocks that look like they were caught up there by a great watery catastrophe if they were not really, or implant in the light from distant stars false evidences of "age" - and so on.

    But, "Science does not admit the supernatural" - well, no - that is a misinterpretation imposed upon the scientific method. as i have pointed out before, science has no limitations as to what it can investigate - otherwise we could not investigate claims fro the paranormal, or UFOs, or any number of things - even the origin of the universe which is by definition a unique, unrepeatable event!

    I think you can say there are no presupositions allowed when doing science . You can no more say "God is true" than you can say "Evolution is true" - or anything else for that matter ..... you can start with those as propositions - and seek evidence for and against - that is what true science is for - and that is what i see as the real purpose of threads like this one. I see no point in parading dogma here, but presenting evidence for discussion. ther is no point in vilifying someone because they happen to have a different view, or because they present "unacceptable evidences" - it has to be properly disposed of.

    well i probly said more than enuf,

    frank(ly)

  11. #3371
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,498

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    That is why i do not accept that god would "plant" radioactive decay products, or put fossils in rocks that look like they were caught up there by a great watery catastrophe if they were not really, or implant in the light from distant stars false evidences of "age" - and so on.
    Why not? Again, if one miracle, why not one million, or one every millisecond? You are inventing a God that fits your preconceptions, one that generally lets things work according to ordinary repeatable understandable natural law, but very rarely does something completely outside those bounds. How do you know God works that way? Frank, who are you to tell God what to do?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  12. #3372
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Why not? Again, if one miracle, why not one million, or one every millisecond? You are inventing a God that fits your preconceptions, one that generally lets things work according to ordinary repeatable understandable natural law, but very rarely does something completely outside those bounds. How do you know God works that way? Frank, who are you to tell God what to do?
    Yup - i accept that some people TOTALLY reject miracles (i did once)

  13. #3373
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,498

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Yup - i accept that some people TOTALLY reject miracles (i did once)
    You're either missing or avoiding my point. Once you start positing things that are utterly beyond human understanding, how can you say anything at all? If not one miracle, why not ten? If ten, why not divine intervention in every atom of existence at every moment? How can you tell what's miraculous and what isn't? Who are we to tell God what to do?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  14. #3374
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,322

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    You're either missing or avoiding my point. Once you start positing things that are utterly beyond human understanding, how can you say anything at all? If not one miracle, why not ten? If ten, why not divine intervention in every atom of existence at every moment? How can you tell what's miraculous and what isn't? Who are we to tell God what to do?
    It sounds as though Frank is falling into the god of the gaps trap.
    Everything except miracles can be explained by scienceists, so god must be responsible for those handful of miracles.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  15. #3375
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,365

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Frank!, I'd love some answer to my question. "Light", "Day" and "Night" pop up three days before the Earth, and four days before stars and the Moon.

    How can this be? Is it merely a translation error? Naturally you should, if taking a literal view of the bible, understand the culture and language of the most original source available. But then, you'd have to accept raqia as a physical vault as in the original Genesis, which would (surely?) then automatically leave you to dismiss heliocentricity as part of accommodating your Young Earth Creationism...

    Are you up for that?

    Andy
    "We were schooner-rigged and rakish, with a long and lissome hull ..."

  16. #3376
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,322

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    Frank!, I'd love some answer to my question. "Light", "Day" and "Night" pop up three days before the Earth, and four days before stars and the Moon.

    How can this be? Is it merely a translation error? Naturally you should, if taking a literal view of the bible, understand the culture and language of the most original source available. But then, you'd have to accept raqia as a physical vault as in the original Genesis, which would (surely?) then automatically leave you to dismiss heliocentricity as part of accommodating your Young Earth Creationism...

    Are you up for that?

    Andy
    Back in post http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...67#post5469267
    I recommended a book on genealogy and origin myths. In the concluding chapters the author deals with how different peoples created genealogy as a part of the creation myths. These were aural traditions so in order to make them manageable they were all limited to ten or so ancestors back to the first human who was born of, fathered by, or created by a god. It was only after writing was invented that the family tree could grow past the limit of what could easily be remembered. This is why the list of patriarchs in genesis is not complete and misleads the YEC literalists who use it to calculate creation in 4004 BC.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  17. #3377
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    East coast of England
    Posts
    3,393

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    It sounds as though Frank is falling into the god of the gaps trap.
    Everything except miracles can be explained by scienceists, so god must be responsible for those handful of miracles.
    If we don't (yet) understand something, it must be a miracle. I'm imagining someone time travelling from 6000 years ago to visit us. He or she would be truly amazed - incredulous - at the number of miracles God has wrought in this world since his or her own time.
    "Mozart is the heart's touchstone" (Edwin Fischer)

  18. #3378
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    913

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Arthur C. Clark's 3rd law covers it pretty well. Both for someone from 6000 years ago, as well as Frank!

    "It's turtles, all the way down."
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  19. #3379
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    Well, the following is in the account. Perhaps he can help?

    Day one of Genesis, the unnamed third-person narrator (who he?) states that we get light. Day four is the creation of the Sun and all the other 1*10^24 stars, planets and what-not. Isn't this a tiny bit of a stumbling block to fully-literal interpretations?

    Andy, confused
    Yeh - i find that i can not even begin to sort through what those early days were like

    But i am equally dissatisfied (perhaps more so cos my engineering soul does not like things that i can (sort of) understand - but still refuse to fit properly. }

    The most accepted version (i understand there are many versions of the Big Bang thoery in attempts to plug various holes .......) - of the BB theory has a fudge factor of more than twenty times - in other words there is, according to those experts, twenty times as much stuff out there as what they can wxplain. - and this supernatural stuff they call "Dark" - as if that explains anything!

    No wonder Cosmologists of all stripes are similarly dissatisfied , and are all having a go at coming up with better models.

    A couple that i have come across take Einstein's equations to the 5th dimension (apparently mathematically, that is valid?) and find no need for dark matter, dark energy, etc.

    Another interesting thing in some of the models is that , just as Einstein allows twin Astronauts to have different ages according to their voyaging history (does everyone else have no problem with that?) - different parts of the universe can have different ages......

    hey , Andy - if you get anywhere with this - let us know will you?

    peace,

    frank

  20. #3380
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,486

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    All to do with traveling at or near the speed of light, doesn’t quite make sense to me but I don’t lose sleep over it. I don’t understand algebra either but I know it works. Same with biology and geology I understand some of it and that is enough. I know plate tectonics exist because we can measure the rate of I drift and if you go to Iceland you can see it in action. I know coal seams were once forests because we find the fossil remains of plants in them. I also know the process takes millions of years. I also know that the ark story is at best based on a very localised event.
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

  21. #3381
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Above the Sword of Damocles, with a knife.
    Posts
    832

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  22. #3382
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,486

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    Saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
    Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

  23. #3383
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,486

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Well worth watching. Frank will hate it.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7xVBldyy_Oo
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

  24. #3384
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge


  25. #3385
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,486

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Some people have too much time on their hands.
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

  26. #3386
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,322

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    You can read anything into anything if you really want to.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #3387
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,498

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Human beings have very active pattern detectors. We are very good at finding patterns where they exist, but also imagining them where they don't.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  28. #3388
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    au revoir

    frank

  29. #3389
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    37,322

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    au revoir

    frank

    I could not resist
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  30. #3390
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    913

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    You can read anything into anything if you really want to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Human beings have very active pattern detectors. We are very good at finding patterns where they exist, but also imagining them where they don't.
    It's really quite biblical if you think about it. "Seek and ye shall find." Sometimes one must seek a little harder, or more earnestly. But it's there to be found, isn't it?
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  31. #3391
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    24,486

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post

    I could not resist
    Beautiful.
    Liberalism, the Nazis were shouting from the rooftops, meant weakness: James Holland

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •