What? Real theories are based on knowledge.
Ancient ALIEN Creationism - science or new age RELIGION?
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
What? Real theories are based on knowledge.
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/
An hour ago science knew how this was accomplished, now it is just a theory. I accept your defeat.
So are you aware that the DNA matrix with it's four bases is the best hard drive for binary code known to humanity?
Giving credence to the fact that the matrix is nothing more than a scaffolding for a code the acts much like that in a modern computer?
First off doucehbag I never claimed it was fully understood but a theory is as far science goes.
You have defeated nothing and have been proven wrong on claim after claim. You said...
They were chosen because of a known response mice have acetophenone.
It's olfr151. They have it it's been identified.
Again I accept your defeat..............................
But you can babble on as you see fit
You have proven that you are not of capable comprehending what you read. You failed to connect this to reincarnation which you initially claimed it proves just as the op failed to connect ancient aliens to atheism.
Last edited:
Substantiated? FYI: If a theory substantiated anything through the scientific method of Observed, Repeatable, experimentation..... a theory would no longer be a theory, it would be a FACT of SCIENCE through application of the scientific method. Truth: A theory is an idea that does not possess the required prerequisites of applied science to be known or considered as a "fact" of science. Anything that is not a fact is simply an opinion, regardless of how one wishes to spin that opinion.
If what you declare is truth show us the experiment, just one of the countless thousands that have been attempted where proponents of vertical evolution have demonstrated that life can be recreated by nature, or in the lab void of using preexisting life....just one. In fact every time such an experiment is attempted the very theory of spontaneous generation of life from dead matter has been rejected by the application of the Scientific Method. Real Science proves one thing....life only comes from preexisting life. Life begats life. It cannot be re-created artificially...in nature void of preexisting life...or in the lab.
Thus the fundamental core foundation of vertical evolution is based upon a demonstrable fabrication. You have "omitted" the one thing that makes a theory a theory when you falsely claimed theoretical substantiation.....you forget the qualifying term....EXPLANATION. An explanation is not always based upon truth just because someone attempts to explain something.
Example: The theoretical philosophers calling themselves Scientists.....attempt to explain a theory through ASSUMPTIONS. Like Assuming that the radio active decay in all elements used for dating purposes has remained CONSTANT with no possibility of variation over the past 3 billion plus years...when science demonstrates the fact that something so simple as water leeching can vastly change that rate of decay. Its not like there is scientific evidence that the entire surface of the earth has been under water at some point in earths history as demonstrated via the science of archaeology that has validated the finding of sea life atop the highest peaks on earth.
Last edited:
No, you are wrong. "Scientific fact" is not a common term used in science to describe anything that attempts to explain a wide variety of phenomena or fact. Even with the best proof a scientific theory is as high as it goes for any thing offered as explanation.
You are conflating theories of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.
"Vertical" evolution??? So you accept horizontal evolution? LOL
Last edited:
https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Facts are just building blocks for the theories and what the theories explain. The theory of evolution is backed by a ton of facts.
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution/
Here’s a brief summary of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection:
Biochemistry is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells. The biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.
Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.
Comparative anatomy of the bones in the front limbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.
Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor.
On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.
Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.
Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.
Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.
Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements.
Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution.
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution/
Here’s a brief summary of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection:
Biochemistry is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells. The biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.
Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.
Comparative anatomy of the bones in the front limbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.
Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor.
On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.
Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.
Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.
Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.
Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements.
Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution.
Enlighten us just how does the theory of "vertical evolution"....evolution outside of a species in changing from one species into another...stand void of spontaneous generation? What? You agree in CREATION and VERTICAL EVOLUTION? If not...why can't you demonstrate just how nature CAUSED LIFE in the beginning...and if nature did cause life to come into existence from dead matter void of preexisting life, why can't that reality of supposed science be Observed today....or reproduced today via application of the scientific method? What? A one and done thing that's incapable of observing today or reproducing via science?
In one breath you claim a theory is just as valid as a fact of science...which is total BULLSHIT. Then in the next breath you deflect by appearing to deny the foundation of Darwanian Cultism...Spontaneous Generation of life from dead matter Again a theory only offers explanation without the required knowledge of demonstrating that explanation to be true....not even in a prima facie manner.
And of course. Horizontal Evolution is a demonstrable fact of science....unlike the type of evolution suggested by the Darwin Cultists.....Vertical Evolution or evolution outside of the species. There is nothing in applied science or the science of archaeology, etc., that even comes close to proving that a fish can turn into a mammal given enough time.
Of course Horizontal Evolution stems from the DNA signature of all lifeforms....all forms of life within species have programmed into their DNA the ability to adapt to their surroundings, but there is no evidence garnered through science that suggests that a DNA can be added unto via a natural means....the only natural change that can occur with DNA is MUTATION or a natural flaw of parts of a DNA signature being damaged resulting in a less than perfect example of that life form, MUTATION is the taking away from a perfect example of DNA, not adding unto it..every life form can evolve and adapt to its natural surroundings. If such were not a fact of science the first time that any biological life came into contact with a simple virus....game over...the end of life.
Simply present one example of a fish changing into a mammal.....a cold blooded creature changing into a warm blooded creature, a dog changing into a horse.
The only examples you can present of any type of evolution is claiming that its vertical evolution when a small horse has adapted to survive as a larger horse....or an insect that becomes a butterfly...when its DNA was programmed all along to change...not from one species to another...but to adapt in order to continue the species.
What idiot does not accept "horizontal evolution" as a reality? And what type of bigger idiot attempts to pass off same species adaptation or horizontal evolution as Darwinian Vertical Evolution outside of the same species? Why is there no LAW of EVOLUTION? Its simple a fact is conclusion that can be proven to be TRUE...a theory is simply speculation, conjecture and assumptions made by observing the reality that exists today in comparison to what is "THOUGHT" to have existed in eon's past.....or in some distant expanse of space. Its philosophy....nothing else.
Last edited:
Well, first, you need to define vertical evolution. Vertical evolution could mean you inherit traits from your parent vertically rather than horizontally from other species in your environment. There are other definitions (see link) but what you are talking about is not referred to as vertical evolution but just evolution.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115547646
Evolution explains/studies how life changes over time and how that process creates diversity. It's not about the origin of life.
I don't "agree in (sic) Creation."
Spontaneous Generation of life from dead matter has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.
Facts are not above theory. They are a different sort of thing entirely. Theories explain facts and phenomena.
You are going to have to share your definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_evolution
Oh I see the problem. You apparently studied evolution under Ken Ham. You don't know what horizontal evolution implies to people who understand evolution (I assumed you meant the gene transfer). You really should not use their jargon unless you want to look like an idiot, which I suspect is the case with you.
Last edited:
It appears you are using "horizontal evolution" to mean what is sometimes referred to as "microevolution" or development of genetic changes below the speciation threshold. But I have heard other creationists argue that evolution is possible below their made up "kind" level. Which are you? Is the limit species or "kind?"
I still don't get how vertical then applies to change at the speciation threshold while horizontal explains it below. In both cases the changes are usually passed down vertically.
Can't read and comprehend English? Vertical Evolution is Darwinian Evolution....a supposed evolution from a cold blooded reptile or fish into a warm blooded example of life. Its fiction.
Horizonal Evolution (Micro Evolution) is just that, the ability to adapt or evolve within a base species in order to survive to a changing environment. Its documented throughout nature. The K-9 Species all sprang from the same DNA signature....you have many shapes, sizes, and personalities of the same species. But nothing has ever evolved outside of the species and been confirmed by any method of science. There is no evidence of Vertical Evolution (some creature changing into a complete and totally new creature never seen before)....its fiction, a fraud unproven by any scientific discipline other than theoretical conjecture, speculation or other philosophy calling itself science.
Again....something that is "mutated" is not an example of nature adding unto a DNA signature....its the opposite, its nature taking away something from a perfect DNA signature making it mutate into something less than the perfect DNA designed.
Creationists have never failed to confirm the reality of Horizontal or Micro-Evolution...the Bible even confirms that type of evolution).....but that type of adaptation within any given species is not an example Darwinian Evolution that is taught as fact throughout the education system in this nation. There has never been documented one example of something "mutating" into a totally new species because nature somehow added unto an existing DNA string....never. And don't bother to bring up the micro evolution of germs or virus as calling it a mutation....its not, its an example of a species adapting within the same species. A cold virus has never mutated into any other strain of virus...it simply adapts to whatever treatment is being used....basically its the same type of evolution that has made men/women, different colors, different sizes, etc., it due to environmental adaptation. Science proves that the same blood is found in all different supposed races of people's on earth regardless of size, color, lack of skin pigmentation, addition of more skin pigmentation..etc.,
Such Vertical Evolution as espoused by Darwin has never been observed in any biochemistry lab or in nature, nor in any fossil finds....there simply is no evidence for evolution outside of the original species...its simply wishful thinking to conclude that miro evolution somehow proves vertical evolution outside of the species.
And as usual...just like all SNOWFLAKES....you attempt to tout your your supposed indoctrination/education as some kind of insult to others....a pompous ass liberal in other words. FYI: if you are taught a lie....repeating it ad nauseam does not make it truth....only a demonstration of facts make something true or false...at the very least the prima facie evidence has to be beyond doubt....and Darwinian evolution is certainly not beyond any intelligent persons ability to demonstrate doubt. Others are just to stupid....you don't have to present the scientific evidence...its beneath your vast knowledge...no? Laugh My Ass Off.
Again...a simple question. Where is the Science that proves that life came from dead matter? Its not difficult. You can't have your cake and eat it...either you believe in CREATION or you don't...if you don't, you must demonstrate the root theory of life springing from non living matter....or not, because you can't. Your entire two page response is nothing but a bull shit...transparent deflection away form that fact.
Last edited:
Can't read and comprehend English? Vertical Evolution is Darwinian Evolution....a supposed evolution from a cold blooded reptile or fish into a warm blooded example of life. Its fiction.
Horizonal Evolution (Micro Evolution) is just that, the ability to adapt or evolve within a base species in order to survive to a changing environment. Its documented throughout nature. The K-9 Species all sprang from the same DNA signature....you have many shapes, sizes, and personalities of the same species. But nothing has ever evolved outside of the species and been confirmed by any method of science. There is no evidence of Vertical Evolution (some creature changing into a complete and totally new creature never seen before)....its fiction, a fraud unproven by any scientific discipline other than theoretical conjecture, speculation or other philosophy calling itself science.
Again....something that is "mutated" is not an example of nature adding unto a DNA signature....its the opposite, its nature taking away something from a perfect DNA signature making it mutate into something less than the perfect DNA designed.
Creationists have never failed to confirm the reality of Horizontal or Micro-Evolution...the Bible even confirms that type of evolution).....but that type of adaptation within any given species is not an example Darwinian Evolution that is taught as fact throughout the education system in this nation. There has never been documented one example of something "mutating" into a totally new species because nature somehow added unto an existing DNA string....never. And don't bother to bring up the micro evolution of germs or virus as calling it a mutation....its not, its an example of a species adapting within the same species. A cold virus has never mutated into any other strain of virus...it simply adapts to whatever treatment is being used....basically its the same type of evolution that has made men/women, different colors, different sizes, etc., it due to environmental adaptation. Science proves that the same blood is found in all different supposed races of people's on earth regardless of size, color, lack of skin pigmentation, addition of more skin pigmentation..etc.,
Such Vertical Evolution as espoused by Darwin has never been observed in any biochemistry lab or in nature, nor in any fossil finds....there simply is no evidence for evolution outside of the original species...its simply wishful thinking to conclude that miro evolution somehow proves vertical evolution outside of the species.
And as usual...just like all SNOWFLAKES....you attempt to tout your your supposed indoctrination as some kind of insult. Others are just to stupid....you don't have to present the scientific evidence...its beneath your fast knowledge...no? Laugh My Ass Off.
The jargon of your science denying cult is unfamiliar. Vertical vs horizontal evolution is something you must have read in a creationist book not in a science book. I still don't understand why you are calling one vertical and the other horizontal?
It appears you are using "horizontal evolution" to mean development of genetic changes below the speciation threshold. But I have heard other creationists argue that evolution is possible below their made up "kind" level. Which are you? Is the limit species or "kind?"
Dick I hate to break into your belief that you were born in Darwins muck pond, but I will. Back to what we discussed last night, can you tell us how a bad experience such as the mouse shock travels into sperm cells. This is the question, does the brain instruct new sperm cells to mutate? or does the brain merely code the experience into some sort of chemical memory that is encoded into the sperm. Remembering (if you can) that we know that this happens, we need you to enlighten the World as to how it happens, and using the word epigenics is meaningless as you need to explain how sperms genetic structure is changed by this.
Go.
Oh well the dick of the internet gave up....................Oh well
The question, idiot, is how it supports reincarnation which you originally claimed?
I see no reason to think it is controlled by the brain. It does not matter how many times it is explained to you, you are not going to get it.
The parent mouse experiences an EPIGENETIC change that affects how his genes are read. He passed it through his sperm and it affected how genes of his offspring were read.
Still phishing? For someone that is self professed to be Intelligent you sure are a dumb ass...as far as being some expert on Evolution. Micro evolution..i.e., horizontal evolution Macro evolution...i.e., vertical evolution Its something that every school child is taught before high school.
You are still to present any documentation of Applied Science in demonstrating that Darwinian Evolution (Macro) if you prefer is Observable, Reproducible via experimentation. If you cannot you are not working with science...you are working with a philosophy....called theoretical science, a name self appointed by those who deal in pseudo science....that exists only in one place...between their ears. Its you that continues to attempt to distance Darwinian Evolution away from abiogenesis while further attempting to group All Evolution into one group while suggesting that micro evolution proves marco evolution....without any documenting scientific evidence. Darwinian Cultism is nothing but a type of religion.
Last edited: