Ummm, so what about the experiments that don't come close to the expected results that are completed rejected during the publication of the paper?

The guy who submits the publication has to explain y those experiments were rejected. As i said, it could be calibration errors etc.

The bias is coming from you, not from mine or others who have been making these observations. No one has argued beliefs here hietherto - if you paid attention.

everyone has a bias. You and I included.

On the contrary, people are concerned about these wide berths that deviate from scientific integrity. The people doing the bashing actually include celebrated names within the scientific community that feel new research will send them packing.

Those wide berths are usually disproved after. An example is the South Korean fraud who claimed to have cloned dogs. There is a difference between hype (who doesn't hype their ideas like donald trump) and scientific integrity.

You're terribly missing the point. No one has described scientists as punks or whatever. The concern rather is that there are so many irregularities within the scientific community today that is at variance with principled science.

No i'm not missing the point. i don't see any irregularities. Principled science only arises when these "irregularities" are debated and then the scientific community agrees on what is right. The quantum theory guys were considered idiots about 50 years ago. We all study quantum mechanics in physics classes today.

If you think you are right, then go ahead regardless of how irregular you may sound. keep in mind, What's principled science today may not be principled science tomorrow.

I'm done

The guy who submits the publication has to explain y those experiments were rejected. As i said, it could be calibration errors etc.

Interesting to explain something not their. Submissions for publication are not sent in lab note books therefore I doubt the reviewers get a chance to see individual lab notebooks and rejected experiment

savanaha:

Interesting to explain something not their. Submissions for publication are not sent in lab note books therefore I doubt the reviewers get a chance to see individual lab notebooks and rejected experiment

This is not really what this thread is about, but I can shed some light here. An experimental result will not be accorded much value unless it is reproducible. If other researchers attempt to reproduce the experiment under the same conditions and do not get the same results, then the initial findings will be questioned. Anyone who has engaged in research will be able to tell you this. Outliers cannot simply be removed without some valid justifications.

Scientific is not defined by one paper or publication, you need to look at the body of knowledge in the field before concluding.

savanaha:

Interesting to explain something not their. Submissions for publication are not sent in lab note books therefore I doubt the reviewers get a chance to see individual lab notebooks and rejected experiment

such explanations are supposed to be part of the publications or else they would be find out later.  Most publications usually have a discussion portion for this.

bawomolo:

everyone has a bias. You and I included.

Which is not the point being discussed here, no? Or, should I take that as a detour for your missing the point?

bawomolo:

Those wide berths are usually disproved after. An example is the South Korean fraud who claimed to have cloned dogs. There is a difference between hype (who doesn't hype their ideas like donald trump) and scientific integrity.

Nope, that one we know already. You need to go back and re-read what the main gist hitherto has been. You are still far from grasping the issue here.

bawomolo:

No i'm not missing the point. i don't see any irregularities.

Okay, this confirms the point that you are actually missing it all. Go back and calmly read through - there have been concerns that indeed irregularities occur - whether out of pressure, or the politics that keep researchers mute.

bawomolo:

Principled science only arises when these "irregularities" are debated and then the scientific community agrees on what is right.

Should I take that as your admission that indeed irregularities do occur? Compare that with your earlier statement that you don't see any irregularities.

bawomolo:

The quantum theory guys were considered idiots about 50 years ago. We all study quantum mechanics in physics classes today.

And. . .? Your point exactly is what - how does that tessellate with what has been discussed so far?

bawomolo:

If you think you are right, then go ahead regardless of how irregular you may sound. keep in mind, What's principled science today may not be principled science tomorrow.

This again is skewed. Go re-read what is being discussed.

bawomolo:

I'm done

Aye.

bawomolo:



If you think you are right, then go ahead regardless of how irregular you may sound.  keep in mind, What's principled science today may not be principled science tomorrow.

I thought I understood what principled science meant until now.

Is principled science a view/theory (in which case it can change) or is it the manner in which science is supposed to be done for it to be interpretable (in which case it shouldnt change)   For instance, its always expected that one includes controls in experiments and that will never change.

Now if I come across an experiment that lacks controls that would enable me interpret the data, that would make me raise eyebrows.

And u are right, those editors arent dummies, and so that makes me raise even something bigger than eyebrows  

Should I take that as your admission that indeed irregularities do occur? Compare that with your earlier statement that you don't see any irregularities.

what's an irregularity today could be considered principled science tomorrow.

As shown, Ida doesn't complete the evolutionary tree.  Heck we could keep on adding things to it for centuries to come.

You guys using your biases have gone ahead to claim some irregularity hogwash when in reality science thrives on such conflicts.

Is principled science a view/theory (in which case it can change) or is it the manner in which science is supposed to be done for it to be interpretable (in which case it shouldnt change) 

I would say it's the methodology but is the methodology used today the same as the methodology used in 1950?

bawomolo:



I would say it's the methodology but is the[b] methodology used today the same as the methodology used in 1950?[/b]

Nope .

But I dont see how this answers my question unless if U are telling me that Principled Science = Scientific methods 

Aint principles and methods different in most context?

Principled science is all of the above.

hypothesis, theories, laws, methodology gbogbo ati gbogbo.

This is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

debosky:

This is not really what this thread is about, but I can shed some light here. An experimental result will not be accorded much value unless it is reproducible. If other researchers attempt to reproduce the experiment under the same conditions and do not get the same results, then the initial findings will be questioned. Anyone who has engaged in research will be able to tell you this. Outliers cannot simply be removed without some valid justifications.

Scientific is not defined by one paper or publication, you need to look at the body of knowledge in the field before concluding.

Yes it is usually reproducible after being tweaked many times. Most science is just a copy of what has already been done by someone else and changing a little here and there. I've seen what I've said being done by someone that gets huge amounts in grants from many respectable sources including the government.

bawomolo:



This is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

Actually, I am taking that with one big bag of salt, three bags of Pepper and 5 bags of Egusi.

Principled science is DIFFERENT from methodologies used in Science. I know because I have taken a course entitled "Ethics and Methods in Science". Boring class but thats besides the point.

@bawolomo,

Let me underscore this simple issue for you:

pilgrim.1:

Okay, this confirms the point that you are actually missing it all. Go back and calmly read through - there have been concerns that indeed irregularities occur - whether out of pressure, or the politics that keep researchers mute.

That essentially has been the main concern hiterto - and here are a few quotes from other contributors to the same point:

1. mine:

pilgrim.1:
However, it seems we're all concerned about one thing: the problem of a lack of 'scientific integrity' (if there's anything like that)

2. Uche2nna's reply:

Uche2nna: Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that standards are being compromised. I might be wrong but there are some articles that U read and U begin to wonder how in the hell did this get published
. .
That really makes one wonder about scientific integrity  

3. davidylan observes:

davidylan: Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?
That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

4. m_nwankwo agrees:

Even in top class journals like Science and Nature, look at the number of retractions. I have had my manuscripts rejected by these top journals simply because my finding will pose a serious scientific problem to multibillion vaccine industry. I  also have reviewed manuscripts and recommended them for publication based on scientific merit and yet the editor rejects the recommendation because the paper dig holes in what he has established over 30 years of research. So therir is politics, bias etc in peer review but in the end these papers published for reasons other than scientific merit will soon or later get discredited.

5. Uche2nna again:

Uche2nna: I think that both sides of the coin (which is rejecting a new idea and publishing false claims) are equally dangerous. Either one can set off and maintain the other. Keep on publishing false claims and future scientists will keep on citing those false claims and basing future experiments on those claims. In the end, we would just be building a house on a pack of cards.

I could quote a few more - but that essentially is the main gist here, not beliefs of anyone. You didn't pay attention close enough to have drawn the wrong inference. But it's your call anyways.

Uche2nna:

Nope .

But I dont see how this answers my question unless if U are telling me that Principled Science = Scientific methods

Aint principles and methods different in most context?

Relax now, haba! You and 'us' know they are not the same, although many people make the mistake of making them same.

pilgrim.1:

Relax now, haba! You and 'us' know they are not the same, although many people make the mistake of making them same.

I am relaxed, trust me.
I just wanted to know if there is something Bawo knows that I dont.

Principled science is DIFFERENT from methodologies used in Science. I know because I have taken a course entitled "Ethics and Methods in Science". Boring class but thats besides the point.

hey you are right then.  

I could quote a few more - but that essentially is the main gist here, not beliefs of anyone. You didn't pay attention close enough to have drawn the wrong inference. But it's your call anyways.

ditto

I just wanted to know if there is something Bawo knows that I dont.

the only thing bawo knows is chasing women

Uche2nna:


I am relaxed, trust me.
I just wanted to know if there is something Bawo knows that I dont.

This is so tempting, I can hardly miss the party. Will come back and see how the dance has progressed. Laterz. . .  and enjoy all.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/148409_ida_jpg53669865f74c6d9b6e70a79cbad67c29

Cute. Some nairalanders bear an uncanny resemblance to Ida.

^^hey girl!!


@topic

debosky:

This is not really what this thread is about, but I can shed some light here. An experimental result will not be accorded much value unless it is reproducible. If other researchers attempt to reproduce the experiment under the same conditions and do not get the same results, then the initial findings will be questioned. Anyone who has engaged in research will be able to tell you this. Outliers cannot simply be removed without some valid justifications.

Scientific is not defined by one paper or publication, you need to look at the body of knowledge in the field before concluding.

It rarely ever happens . . . its the reason most "methods sections" leave out tiny little details that make it near impossible to repeat their experiments with exact same conditions. Scientists are getting smart.

@ ToneyB

Evolutionist at least are providing evidence for their theory. where are the evidence for creationism? Grin Grin. I have noticed that no body wants to provide any evidence or try to defend creationism. all the arguments are against evolution with NO evidence or scientific backing for creationism. very funny people. Grin Grin

We do not need to prove creation. Just take a look at the design and you will see the Designer. Every design must of necessity have a designer. The trillions of cells that make up your body are all designed, and to argue that over time these cells developed their various parts and bio-molecules is ridiculous.

For example did the so-called primitive cell start out with DNA, or protein, or both? How did that design come about anyway? How did molecules get their design? Why don't atoms slit apart? The bible says "by whom all things consist" speaking of Jesus' power to hold the universe together after having created it. There is so much power in the atom, that has been tapped by man to create atomic and H-bombs. Have you ever stopped to think what is holding all this power in the atoms?

I did  courses called biochemistry, molecular biology, and trust me, everything in our cells work the exact same way, give and take those cases to cater for mutation.  When for example you look at how motor proteins literally pull vesicles along a tube-like structure in a cell it is just amazing.

The theory of evolution advocates that life came by chance. All these balanced life forces simply just gradually put themselves in place.

To believe that requires more faith that what God expects of Christians.

Bobbyaf:

[b

To believe that requires more faith that what God expects of Christians.

Those who are interested in reading the actual paper should look at the link below. I posted it earlier today on another thread. See below:

Reporting in the journal PLoS ONE, a team of international scientists describe the morphology and paleobiology of a 47-million-year old fossil of a primate known as Darwinius masillae ("Ida". The fossil is 95% complete and provides the most complete understanding of the paleobiology of Eocene primate till date. Analysis of this fossil suggests that it is a transitional species between primititive non-human evolutionary primates like the Lemurs and human evolutionary primates (anthropoids) such as monkeys and apes. This article is published in May 19, 2009 issue of PLoS ONE. See below:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723

The above statement is going to be dissected methodically to show you how and why evolutionists can be deceitful and untrustworthy.

1. Evolutionists try to imply legitimacy by implying association with a specific number of scientists that agree with it i.e. they tried to imply that their subsequent statements are true because "an international team of scientists said so" Notice that they did not mention the other international scientists that disagree with it - 1st assumption.

2. They ascribe an age to the skeletons and try to pass off that age as a legitimate age despite that there are many scientific papers that show and give physical evidence that basically "all dating methods" used in dating of fossils are inherently incorrect, hence all evolutionary theories and statements based on such dates thus inherently flawed and incorrect. - 2nd assumption

3. They claim the fossil is 95% complete, based on the assumption that they know what the remaining[b] 5%[/b] is supposed to be. (this same fraudulent method of interpretation of fossil records has been repeated time and time again e.g. lucy, piltdown man to mention just a few) - 3rd assumption.

4. They call the fossil a primate based on other earlier assumptions (which themselves are based on assumptions) - 4th assumption.

5. They claim the fossil is a transitional form based on other earlier assumptions (such as monkeys and apes being their own great grandfathers) (notice that this their statement was based on what they think/believe/want to believe, and not on what they can prove scientifically) - 5th assumption.

Wow  don't you people find it alarming that in just that small paragraph alone there were 5 different assumptions


So does any right thinking person now see why evolution is basically a house of cards built on one assumption after another, so much so that they keep building on past (often disproved) assumptions without scientific verification for their current assumptions, yet they simply verbally and professionally attack anyone that dares to point out the inherent flaws of building more and more speculations of previous past speculations.


Finally, before you respond to this comment, please kindly choose an position out of the following two options. You cannot sit on the fence cus the option you choose determines the foundation of what you consider to be true.

Option 1: Everything was created. - Please explain when and how.

Option 2: Nothing was created. - Please explain when and how.

Bobbyaf:

@ ToneyB

We do not need to prove creation. Just take a look at the design and you will see the Designer. Every design must of necessity have a designer. The trillions of cells that make up your body are all designed, and to argue that over time these cells developed their various parts and bio-molecules is ridiculous.

How has you general statement prove anything? Moslems look at the design and all they see is the beautiful handiwork of Allah. Ancient greeks looked at the design and all they saw was Zeus and his perfect craftsmanship. How did you get to know that there are trillions of cells that make up the human body? Did you read about it in the book of proverbs or in the book of Luke? The bible states how the god it talks about created the world and that description does not fit with the universe in which we live in unless if the bible is talking about another universe.

For example did the so-called primitive cell start out with DNA, or protein, or both? How did that design come about anyway? How did molecules get their design? Why don't atoms slit apart? The bible says "by whom all things consist" speaking of Jesus' power to hold the universe together after having created it. There is so much power in the atom, that has been tapped by man to create atomic and H-bombs. Have you ever stopped to think what is holding all this power in the atoms?

How did we get to know about DNA, its functions and what it contains? we surely did not read about it in the book of genesis did we?  I believe that if you read the koran or other religious text you will see where their own deities talk about how they hold everything humans see in the world together and keep them in oder. But how does that explain anything. The god of the gaps or the god did it hypothesis has never answered any thing. Ancient Jews saw the refraction of water droplets in the atmosphere( rain bow) and since they couldn't explain it they decided to say that it is a covenant between them and their god.

I did  courses called biochemistry, molecular biology, and trust me, everything in our cells work the exact same way, give and take those cases to cater for mutation.  When for example you look at how motor proteins literally pull vesicles along a tube-like structure in a cell it is just amazing.

So because everything works in our cell in a intricate manner then the god of the bible most have put it there? Allah in the koran and other deities also said that they are the ones that created all the cells to function in the very complex way we see them. Go ahead and prove them wrong. It is always easy to say that Allah or Jehovah did it, isn't it? Everything is amazing 1000 years ago the ancient Jews all thought that the sun moves from place to place didn't they, they even wrote it in your bible, the saw the lightening in the sky and all attributed it to their god's wrath because they had no knowlege of what causes it. The blamed disease on evil spirits because they never knew what bacterias and viruses were.

The theory of evolution advocates that life came by chance. All these balanced life forces simply just gradually put themselves in place. 

Evolutionist have done much more to defend their postulations than any of you "god did it trumpeters" have ever done to defend your own postulations, the god of the gaps hypothesis has never done and real explanation. No rain "god caused it", Hurricane "god caused it", complex sructure of the eyes "god created it". Its very easy for me to say that Allah created it too. What are your evidence that your god created it? at least we have the 7 day creation account in genesis 1 and 2  to work with don't we? Why are you guys not defending the creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2 and using it to provide some evidence to show that your god created the universe?

To believe that requires more faith that what God expects of Christians. 

Sure it is much easier to believe the god of the gaps. Evolutionist work through science. And we all know how science works. Science has enabled humanity to make enormous improvements in its technological capabilities, material prosperity, and moral philosophy. Science is supported because it provides spectacular benefits at all levels in the society but the god hypothesis does no such thing rather most of its claims have always been debunked by science. So because the sun has not refused to give off its light means that the bible god is the one that is holding it in place? yet the same bible god inspired men to write that the sun moves from place to place when it doesn't. Do the writers of the bible know anything about genetics when they wrote that if you stripe sticks and drop it in front of mating goats they will produce stripped offsprings? The god of the gaps offer no explanation for anything.

@ ToneyB

How has you general statement prove anything? Moslems look at the design and all they see is the beautiful handiwork of Allah. Ancient greeks looked at the design and all they saw was Zeus and his perfect craftsmanship.

However the difference lies in God's words. In life there is the genuine and the counterfeit. The end results determine the strength of inspiration. God's words have proven itself prophetically, and otherwise. One of the very kingdoms of which you speak, that is Greece, was predicted to come after Media-Persia by Daniel the prophet. In fact the prophet went on to predict the division of Greece into four divisions to be headed by his four generals after his death. Amazing isn't it?

How did you get to know that there are trillions of cells that make up the human body? Did you read about it in the book of proverbs or in the book of Luke?

Of course not for the bible never had to be a biology book to have said, "we are wonderfully and fearfully made", among the other things that the bible said about the body. That sums up the entirety of biochemistry.

The bible states how the god it talks about created the world and that description does not fit with the universe in which we live in unless if the bible is talking about another universe.

And every fool knows that the theory of evolution is the biggest crap ever written. The bible didn't have to go into details about creation to confirm that it took a Designer to have made a design as perfect a universe as we have it. Now you tell me. How could such a perfect design emerge out of the big bang? What kind of order are you expecting from an explosion. How convenient! No probable chance theory can account for such a design as the one we now confront. Its mathematically improbable.

How did we get to know about DNA, its functions and what it contains? we surely did not read about it in the book of genesis did we?

What we are arguing is not whether or not the bible speaks specifically about the science of DNA, or protein, but the illogical and nonsensical arguments presented by those who advocate the theory of evolution. For example abiogenesis is what was taught for years as to how life spontaneously generated itself. There can be no life without life first existing in order to continue life. That is what God did from the very beginning. God made mature creatures with the capability to procreate in order that the species could continue. The TOE says life first began with a cell, yet is not able to consistently project the central dogma of biology, which says that for a cell to make protein is must have DNA material. Yet they first said that protein had to have been the first component of the cell.

My question to you is this. Who put the bio-molecules together that were used to make either DNA, or Protein? Where did the atoms come from to have assembled the bio-molecules? To continuously argue the chance theory is gross dishonesty on the part of those who advocate the TOE. There is no way natural forces could have by chance over a period of time put bio-molecules together in such a fashion with such precision and accuracy. That is like saying a hurricane passed through a junk yard and out came a brand new Boeing 747,

I believe that if you read the koran or other religious text you will see where their own deities talk about how they hold everything humans see in the world together and keep them in oder. But how does that explain anything. The god of the gaps or the god did it hypothesis has never answered any thing. Ancient Jews saw the refraction of water droplets in the atmosphere( rain bow) and since they couldn't explain it they decided to say that it is a covenant between them and their god.

Well, that is your problem not mine. I am only concerned about what the bible says.

So because everything works in our cell in a intricate manner then the god of the bible most have put it there?

The TOE hasn't done a proper explanation, so who else could have made our bodies with such intricacy? The simple answer is, if there is a master design, then there is a Master Designer. That is as inescapable as night follows day. Name any watch or motor vehicle that never had a designer? Even the astronauts proclaimed that God made the heavens and earth when they saw outer space.

Allah in the koran and other deities also said that they are the ones that created all the cells to function in the very complex way we see them. Go ahead and prove them wrong.

Wrong purpose! Stick to the discussion.

It is always easy to say that Allah or Jehovah did it, isn't it? Everything is amazing 1000 years ago the ancient Jews all thought that the sun moves from place to place didn't they, they even wrote it in your bible,

They wrote what they experienced, or were able to explain. To them it appeared that way. God is patient isn't He?

the saw the lightening in the sky and all attributed it to their god's wrath because they had no knowlege of what causes it. The blamed disease on evil spirits because they never knew what bacterias and viruses were.

How can you say otherwise when you weren't there. You cannot disprove what they attributed to disease and sickness.

Evolutionist have done much more to defend their postulations than any of you "god did it trumpeters" have ever done to defend your own postulations, the god of the gaps hypothesis has never done and real explanation.

Evolutionists have done noting of the sort, and deep down you know it, but you're afraid to deny it. But what strikes me most about people like you is that you never even majored in advanced life sciences, yet you all have the biggest defense speeches. All you guys do is ferret internet info and make it your arguments. You aught to think independently.

I will repeat once more. To believe the TOE requires more faith that what God expects of Christians. Grin

Bobbyaf:

@ ToneyB

However the difference lies in God's words. In life there is the genuine and the counterfeit. The end results determine the strength of inspiration. God's words have proven itself prophetically, and otherwise. One of the very kingdoms of which you speak, that is Greece, was predicted to come after Media-Persia by Daniel the prophet. In fact the prophet went on to predict the division of Greece into four divisions to be headed by his four generals after his death. Amazing isn't it?

Very Very WRONG. The book of daniel was written long after the events it "predicted" happened, its very easy to make a prediction after an event had already happened (dating and content). There are a lot of historical errors in the book of daniel and so many of its "predictions" never saw the light of the day. You can read about the Historical inaccuracy of the book of daniel and also The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies . So there is nothing amazing in the book of daniel which like most of all the other books in the bible were written long after most of the events they narrated(Gospels,Pentatuech,Book of Prophecies and on and on). By the way If we are to believe in the bible because it made some correct "prophecies" then what about the so many other wrong prophecies or non prophecies it made?

Of course not for the bible never had to be a biology book to have said, "we are wonderfully and fearfully made", among the other things that the bible said about the body. That sums up the entirety of biochemistry.

Because the bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully answers all the questions eh? I too can say that, so difference does it make? The bible has it's own account of how it said the universe was "wonderfully and powerfully" made and I don't see you referring to it to show me that how we were "wonderfully and fearfully made" when talking about how your god created the universe. Are the creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2 missing in your bible?

And every fool knows that the theory of evolution is the biggest crap ever written. The bible didn't have to go into details about creation to confirm that it took a Designer to have made a design as perfect a universe as we have it. Now you tell me. How could such a perfect design emerge out of the big bang? What kind of order are you expecting from an explosion. How convenient! No probable chance theory can account for such a design as the one we now confront. Its mathematically improbable.

Sure it is crap I will agree with you, but so also are the creation accounts in your bible. The universe and the world in which we live in did not come about according to that creation account.

What we are arguing is not whether or not the bible speaks specifically about the science of DNA, or protein, but the illogical and nonsensical arguments presented by those who advocate the theory of evolution. For example abiogenesis is what was taught for years as to how life spontaneously generated itself. There can be no life without life first existing in order to continue life. That is what God did from the very beginning. God made mature creatures with the capability to procreate in order that the species could continue. The TOE says life first began with a cell, yet is not able to consistently project the central dogma of biology, which says that for a cell to make protein is must have DNA material. Yet they first said that protein had to have been the first component of the cell.

How did you know that it was your god that did it? because some men that said that the sun moved from place to place wrote about it? or some anceint men that said that by peeling sticks in front of mating goats the goats will produce strriped offsprings? So your god did it because you read the words of ancient men who saw the refraction of light on water droplets in the atmosphere and decided to tag it as convenant between them and their god. If we were left with the bible alone would you have every known about anything call the DNA? The bible said God did so did the koran and all other religious text and I said its up to you to prove that they are wrong.

My question to you is this. Who put the bio-molecules together that were used to make either DNA, or Protein? Where did the atoms come from to have assembled the bio-molecules? To continuously argue the chance theory is gross dishonesty on the part of those who advocate the TOE. There is no way natural forces could have by chance over a period of time put bio-molecules together in such a fashion with such precision and accuracy. That is like saying a hurricane passed through a junk yard and out came a brand new Boeing 747,

No body knows for now, The level of knowledge we have acquired in the last 100 years is greater than the one we have acquired in the last 1000 years put together, we dont know for now by we now have an avalanche  of knowledge and lets wait and see what happens in the next 500 years. And as for your question I will say that Allah did it, its up to you to prove me wrong.

Well, that is your problem not mine. I am only concerned about what the bible says.

OK, then lets talk about how the bible layed out its account of creation and see if it comes close to the reality that we see around. You guys don't like talking about the creation accounts in the book of genesis you only like to talk about how god holds everythin in his hands.

The TOE hasn't done a proper explanation, so who else could have made our bodies with such intricacy? The simple answer is, if there is a master design, then there is a Master Designer. That is as inescapable as night follows day. Name any watch or motor vehicle that never had a designer? Even the astronauts proclaimed that God made the heavens and earth when they saw outer space.

Neither has the bible provided ANY explanation too. God created the heaven and the earth is no explanation, its just an assertion.

They wrote what they experienced, or were able to explain. To them it appeared that way. God is patient isn't He?

NO, they wrote what the god whom they speak for and who "inspired" them to write about him and how he created the universe told them to say. He told them to say that the sun moves from place to place. Its funny when you guys push away scientific  and factual errors in the bible by saying that it is the fault of the authors not the fault of the god who "inspired" them to write the factually inaccurate stuffs. Was it not the god they were talking about that told them to write that the rainbow is a covenant between him and them? Who told the writers of genesis to write the 6 day creation account in genesis? Who told them to write than the sun moves from place to place?

How can you say otherwise when you weren't there. You cannot disprove what they attributed to disease and sickness.

They attributed blindness, seizures, crippling, leprosy and so many other diseases to their god as the cause or evil spirits its all over the bible.

Evolutionists have done noting of the sort, and deep down you know it, but you're afraid to deny it. But what strikes me most about people like you is that you never even majored in advanced life sciences, yet you all have the biggest defense speeches. All you guys do is ferret internet info and make it your arguments. You aught to think independently.

I don't have to major in life sciences to know that I have never seen any of you defending the creation accounts in genesis. I want you that has studied life sciences to start right away and provided scientific evidence for the creation accounts.

I will repeat once more. To believe the TOE requires more faith that what God expects of Christians. Grin

I think I will agree with you on this, but the "god did it" hypothesis has no explanation for anything. Its just an assertion.

@ ToneyB

Very Very WRONG. The book of daniel was written long after the events it "predicted" happened, its very easy to make a prediction after an event had already happened Grin(dating and content). There are a lot of historical errors in the book of daniel and so many of its "predictions" never saw the light of the day. You can read about the Historical inaccuracy of the book of daniel and also The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies . So there is nothing amazing in the book of daniel which like most of all the other books in the bible were written long after most of the events they narrated(Gospels,Pentatuech,Book of Prophecies and on and on). By the way If we are to believe in the bible because it made some correct "prophecies" then what about the so many other wrong prophecies or non prophecies it made?

Your simplicity never fails to amuse me! Every honest historian knows that Babylon conquered the kingdom of Judah in the 6th century BC. The subjects of such captivity including Daniel lived under captivity for 70 years before being released by the king of Persia, Artaxerxes 3, after Persia conquered Babylon in BC 539. Persia ruled from BC 539 - BC 331 when Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Rome then conquered Greece in BC 331 and ruled the world up to AD 476. So where does that leave room for the prophecy to have been written? What would be the central motif for any set of people, including the Hebrew people, to benefit from documenting dis-ingenuous historical information? As a matter of fact when were such mischievous documentations to have taken place, and how could such an attempt be made without intelligent people not becoming privy to such deception? bear in mind that the prophecy included 4 kingdoms that were to have ruled in succession beginning with Babylon. For your arguments to hold true such a documentation would have to have been skillfully crafted by some genius of sorts, and would have to have occurred some time after Rome fell as a kingdom, which took place in AD 476. Are you able to verify when such so-called deceptive documents were first put forward, and by whom?

Because the bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully answers all the questions eh?

I simply suggested that the bible didn't have to be a biology book for us to know that, but it paraphrased it well enough.

I too can say that, so difference does it make? The bible has it's own account of how it said the universe was "wonderfully and powerfully" made and I don't see you referring to it to show me that how we were "wonderfully and fearfully made" when talking about how your god created the universe. Are the creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2 missing in your bible?

As usual you're confused. I wasn't describing how wonderfully and fearfully the universe was made, but rather how the bible described the human body. If you're going to quote me at least do it intelligently.

Sure it is crap

What a confession! Need I hear more?

I will agree with you, but so also are the creation accounts in your bible. The universe and the world in which we live in did not come about according to that creation account.

Seeing that you confessed that the TOE is crap, then tell us how did the universe come about?

How did you know that it was your god that did it? because some men that said that the sun moved from place to place wrote about it? or some anceint men that said that by peeling sticks in front of mating goats the goats will produce strriped offsprings? So your god did it because you read the words of ancient men who saw the refraction of light on water droplets in the atmosphere and decided to tag it as convenant between them and their god. If we were left with the bible alone would you have every known about anything call the DNA? The bible said God did so did the koran and all other religious text and I said its up to you to prove that they are wrong.

Let me repeat stick to the discussion at hand. Your constant repetition is boring.

No body knows for now, The level of knowledge we have acquired in the last 100 years is greater than the one we have acquired in the last 1000 years put together, we dont know for now by we now have an avalanche of knowledge and lets wait and see what happens in the next 500 years. And as for your question I will say that Allah did it, its up to you to prove me wrong.

So if according to you men don't know where the atoms came from, and how bio-molecules happened to have been intricately put together, then what the hell do we mortals know. And even if you don't believe in God then hasn't it occurred to you to at least not rule out the remotest possibility that some higher power than ourselves could have been responsible for life? Why not seek to explore the unknown? Why not take it from a different angle?

OK, then lets talk about how the bible layed out its account of creation and see if it comes close to the reality that we see around. You guys don't like talking about the creation accounts in the book of genesis you only like to talk about how god holds everythin in his hands.

So where is your question?

Neither has the bible provided ANY explanation too. God created the heaven and the earth is no explanation, its just an assertion.

And a good place at which to begin is the bible. If you spend the time in searching its pages you will see the truth. Ancient men didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today about atoms, etc. They simply wrote what God revealed to them. As time progressed and men became more mindful of the environment and how nature worked, and as knowledge increased, the bible was better understood. There are a lot of things that were said in the bible that makes one wonders about it. How did ancient men know that the earth was round long before science discovered it? The bible speaks of large creatures with rib cages looking like iron and with tremendous sizes, long before scientists discovered fossils of dinosaurs.

NO, they wrote what the god whom they speak for and who "inspired" them to write about him and how he created the universe told them to say. He told them to say that the sun moves from place to place. Its funny when you guys push away scientific and factual errors in the bible by saying that it is the fault of the authors not the fault of the god who "inspired" them to write the factually inaccurate stuffs. Was it not the god they were talking about that told them to write that the rainbow is a covenant between him and them? Who told the writers of genesis to write the 6 day creation account in genesis? Who told them to write than the sun moves from place to place?

That is simple to explain. You simply don't understand inspiration. Don't confuse it with dictation. Besides, there are implications in the process of inspiration that you have no clues about. I'd have to give you a bible study on such.

They attributed blindness, seizures, crippling, leprosy and so many other diseases to their god as the cause or evil spirits its all over the bible.

You cannot blame the bible for that. Its just telling us what the people believed. The bible holds nothing back. It tells us where men fail and where men succeed, even as it addresses the chosen people of God. Besides, some of those diseases were indeed caused by evil spirits. Today it is a fact that certain illnesses are caused by demonic attacks and molestations. Some directly and some indirectly. Of course you are not involved with Christianity to know the dark forces we are up against, and as such you're not qualified to comment. The moment you confess Christ as Lord of your life you will see what we are talking about. That is why we know in whom we believe.

I don't have to major in life sciences to know that I have never seen any of you defending the creation accounts in genesis. I want you that has studied life sciences to start right away and provided scientific evidence for the creation accounts.

We don't need to. The evidences are already there, but of course we do not expect blind people to see them.

I think I will agree with you on this, but the "god did it" hypothesis has no explanation for anything. Its just an assertion.

And it is a positive assertion at that,

Bobbyaf:

@ ToneyB

Your simplicity never fails to amuse me! Every honest historian knows that Babylon conquered the kingdom of Judah in the 6th century BC. The subjects of such captivity including Daniel lived under captivity for 70 years before being released by the king of Persia, Artaxerxes 3, after Persia conquered Babylon in BC 539. Persia ruled from BC 539 - BC 331 when Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Rome then conquered Greece in BC 331 and ruled the world up to AD 476. So where does that leave room for the prophecy to have been written?

What are you talkıng about here? I said most historian and scholars agree that the book of Daniel was written long after the events it "predicted" and It was written in 2 parts. Most historian agree that the book was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC by an author who expected God to set up his everlasting kingdom in his own near future.

What would be the central motif for any set of people, including the Hebrew people, to benefit from documenting dis-ingenuous historical information? As a matter of fact when were such mischievous documentations to have taken place, and how could such an attempt be made without intelligent people not becoming privy to such deception? bear in mind that the prophecy included 4 kingdoms that were to have ruled in succession beginning with Babylon. For your arguments to hold true such a documentation would have to have been skillfully crafted by some genius of sorts, and would have to have occurred some time after Rome fell as a kingdom, which took place in AD 476. Are you able to verify when such so-called deceptive documents were first put forward, and by whom?

Read this.

Daniel's Four Empires

The prophecies in the Book of Daniel all end with the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes as punishment for his atrocities and sacrileges at the beginning of the Messianic Age, . However, different chapters in Daniel arrive at this same destination through two different paths. Chapter 8 emphasizes the continuity between Media and Persia, treating them as Phase 1 and Phase 2 of a single empire. Chapters 2 and 7, on the other hand, emphasize the distinction between them, treating them as two separate entities. Let us begin by examining the four-empire scheme of chapters 2 and 7 and the author's probable motives in inventing it. In these chapters, the four successive empires are Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. They are represented by the golden head, silver chest, bronze loins, and iron legs in the vision of the statue in chapter 2, and by the lion, bear, leopard, and dragon in the vision of the four beasts in chapter 7. Clearly our author's scenario is counterfactual, for Persia under King Cyrus conquered Media in 550 BC before conquering Babylonia in 539 BC.

The evidence for this identification of Daniel's four empires is as follows. Most importantly of all, the fourth empire is clearly Greece. The second half of Daniel consists in four visions: the vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7, the vision of the ram and the he-goat in Daniel 8, the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9, and the prophecy of the kings of the north and the south in Daniel 10-12. All four end with an antichrist figure who blasphemes God, overthrows the Jewish law, and persecutes righteous Jews for three and a half years. This is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes, the ruler of the main successor state of the fourth empire. The visions go on to say that God would supernaturally overthrow the blasphemous king and impose his righteous rule over the whole world at the appointed time of the end. The failure of this prediction demonstrates that the four purported prophecies of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt were actually written after the fact.

We identify the second empire by elimination. Daniel 2:37-38 explicitly says that the first empire was Babylonia. Persia must be the third empire because it was conquered by the fourth empire, Greece, in 331 BC (Daniel 8:20-21; 10:20; 11:2-4). Daniel served as an official in the imperial courts of the following kings in succession: the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1,2,3,4) and his son Belshazzar (Daniel 5; 7:1; 8:1); the fictitious Median King Darius, who killed Belshazzar and took over his kingdom (Daniel 5:30-31; 6; 9:1; 11:1); and the Persian King Cyrus (Daniel 1:21; 6:28; 10:1,13,20). Therefore, Daniel’s second empire has to be the semifictitious Median Empire.

In order to explain away the nonfulfillment of Daniel's predictions, most evangelicals identify Daniel's four empires as Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. They argue that the symbolism of the statue and the beasts fit this interpretation more naturally and straightforwardly than the critical interpretation. Supposedly, the slow, lumbering bear with three ribs in its mouth symbolizes the Medo-Persian Empire with its three main conquests: Lydia in the north, Babylonia in the west, and Egypt in the south (Daniel 7:5; 8:4). The swift, agile leopard with four wings and four heads symbolizes the swift conquests of Alexander the Great, and the breakup of his empire into four kingdoms as described elsewhere in Daniel (Daniel 8:21-22; 11:4). (The swiftness of the growth of the Persian Empire in Isaiah 41:3 is conveniently ignored.) The terrifying ten-horned monster with teeth of iron symbolizes the unprecedented power of the Roman Empire, the mightiest empire the world had yet seen. The two legs of Daniel's statue symbolize the division of the Roman Empire into two halves, the Latin-speaking West and the Greek-speaking East. The ten toes of the statue, which are incapable of adhering together, and the ten horns of the fourth beast symbolize the smaller nations that arose after the fall of Rome. Supposedly, Jesus will make his second coming in the days of these successor states of the Roman Empire.[7]

Actually, Daniel would still be a false prophet even if the evangelical interpretation were correct. Under this theory, the Roman Empire was to be the last world empire before Jesus' second coming, and all four were important to the author of Daniel because they controlled Judah and Jerusalem. In real history, however, the Islamic and Ottoman Empires falsified Daniel's prophecy because they succeeded Rome and likewise occupied Judah and Jerusalem. In fact, they were much larger and lasted far longer than the Babylonian Empire of Daniel's prophecy.

The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies

simply suggested that the bible didn't have to be a biology book for us to know that, but it paraphrased it well enough.

The bible uses that kind of expression for a lot of things we really don't know what the authors had in mind.

As usual you're confused. I wasn't describing how wonderfully and fearfully the universe was made, but rather how the bible described the human body. If you're going to quote me at least do it intelligently.

OK, I thought you were referring to the human body.

What a confession! Need I hear more?

I have never said that I believe in evolution. I only said that the evolutionist have tried at least to bring peer reviewed papers in support of their theory, I am yet to see any peer reviwed scientific paper in support of creationism.

Seeing that you confessed that the TOE is crap, then tell us how did the universe come about?

No one knows for now, just like no one knew that there was a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organism (DNA) 1000 years ago.

Let me repeat stick to the discussion at hand. Your constant repetition is boring.

This is also part of the discussion.

So if according to you men don't know where the atoms came from, and how bio-molecules happened to have been intricately put together, then what the hell do we mortals know. And even if you don't believe in God then hasn't it occurred to you to at least not rule out the remotest possibility that some higher power than ourselves could have been responsible for life? Why not seek to explore the unknown? Why not take it from a different angle?

Man has been seeking to know the unknown in ernest for the past 200 years, that is why we now know how the sun operates, because of our curiosity we are now know how the body functions, we know how some of the various aspects of nature work, because of our curiosity we now know what causes earth equakes, lightening in the sky, hurricanes, mudslides, and other natural disasters that were formally thought to come about as a result of the wrath of god. We now know what cause diseases as oppsed to diseases were caused by evil spirits. We now know how so many things that the ancient people attributed to their god or gods function.

We now know how to prevent them, from happening or cure them if they pose a treat to us. Man is seeking to explore the unkown that is why i will not accept or god with the god of the gaps argument. 3000 years ago the ancient jews thought that the sun moved from place to place and they said that their god "inspired" them to write about it. Now we know that it is false.

So where is your question?

On what day of creation did god create the plants. The bible says that God makes two lights "the greater light (the sun) to rule the day, and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night." Is the moon light? If God made the moon to "rule the night" why does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? and the god really create all animals and humans as vegetarians? (The bible says so). You can begin with this.

And a good place at which to begin is the bible. If you spend the time in searching its pages you will see the truth. Ancient men didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today about atoms, etc. They simply wrote what God revealed to them. As time progressed and men became more mindful of the environment and how nature worked, and as knowledge increased, the bible was better understood. There are a lot of things that were said in the bible that makes one wonders about it. How did ancient men know that the earth was round long before science discovered it? The bible speaks of large creatures with rib cages looking like iron and with tremendous sizes, long before scientists discovered fossils of dinosaurs.

What truth are you talking about here? So god told them to write that peeling sticks and puting it in front of mating goats will make the goats to produce multicoloured offsprings? Was it god that told them to say that the sun moves from place to place?

That is simple to explain. You simply don't understand inspiration. Don't confuse it with dictation. Besides, there are implications in the process of inspiration that you have no clues about. I'd have to give you a bible study on such.

So god inspired them to write historical accounts that are incorrect? there is more then enough evidence to shown that so many of the biblical accounts are historically incorrect. Was it their all knowing god that inspired them to write things that are scientifically in accurate?

You cannot blame the bible for that. Its just telling us what the people believed. The bible holds nothing back. It tells us where men fail and where men succeed, even as it addresses the chosen people of God. Besides, some of those diseases were indeed caused by evil spirits. Today it is a fact that certain illnesses are caused by demonic attacks and molestations. Some directly and some indirectly. Of course you are not involved with Christianity to know the dark forces we are up against, and as such you're not qualified to comment. The moment you confess Christ as Lord of your life you will see what we are talking about. That is why we know in whom we believe.

I should not blame the bible but instead I should blame the authors, I really don't understand what you are saying here. The people wrote what they believed and some of what they believed turned out to be wrong or inaccurate. You believe that evil spirits cause diseases? . What kind of diseases do they cause?

We don't need to. The evidences are already there, but of course we do not expect blind people to see them.

What are the evidence? The Moslems see all the evidence for the wonderful creation powers of Allah all around them. How are they wrong?

And it is a positive assertion at that,

Positive does not mean true. You could be positive at a lot of things and still end up short.

On Ida, I'd advice people to exercise caution in accepting what has essentially been a circus act as opposed to the science of taxonomy, etc. The claims that Ida is representational of human ancestry appear to be greatly exagerrated at best. Further, always be wary of discoveries that try to bypass or influence the peer-review process by not only publishing its wonky paper after sensationalising its discovery in the press, but also finally realeasing it in a subpar journal. That the guys behind Ida should act like Creationists in their dealing with the discovery should certainly set off alarm bells. Just my thoughts so far.

KAG:

On Ida, I'd advice people to exercise caution in accepting what has essentially been a circus act as opposed to the science of taxonomy, etc. The claims that Ida is representational of human ancestry appear to be greatly exagerrated at best. Further, always be wary of discoveries that try to bypass or influence the peer-review process by not only publishing its wonky paper after sensationalising its discovery in the press, but also finally realeasing it in a subpar journal. That the guys behind Ida should act like Creationists in their dealing with the discovery should certainly set off alarm bells. Just my thoughts so far.

KAG is gradually starting to see the light and starting to scrutinise official party lines.

No2Atheism:

KAG is gradually starting to see the light and starting to scrutinise official party lines.

I think KAG makes the same sense that several people have tried to express in this thread. I especially liked this caution:

KAG:

Further, always be wary of discoveries that try to bypass or influence the peer-review process by not only publishing its wonky paper after sensationalising its discovery in the press, but also finally realeasing it in a subpar journal.

pilgrim.1:

I think KAG makes the same sense that several people have tried to express in this thread. I especially liked this caution:

Exactly,

@Kag, don't worry that is how it all starts. It all starts when u start to question the official party line. I would not be suprised if your fellow Evolutionists actually start to turn on you for daring to questions the "ever missing" missing link discovery.

Men is so good to think outside of the box and scrutinise all supposed truths,


For example of how easy it is to be brainwashed via the official party line, I would use an example about Nikola Tesla.

I am a scientist by nature and an engineer by study, yet it took a while to realise that:

Nikola Tesla was the greatest scientist ever, yet most people do not even hear about him. Nikola Tesla was so bloody good that he made Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison look like a dullards.
Nikola Tesla was so bloody good that most of his research have been termed state secrets by some developed countries like USA and Russia.
The alarming part is the Nikola Tesla actually showed that Albert Einstein was wrong via is own (Nikola Tesla's) theory.


I only came to know about him when i started to search for the truth behind the news, the Media has simply brainwashed everybody into thinking that Albert Einstein was the best thing since Sliced Bread.

No2Atheism:

Exactly,

@Kag, don't worry that is how it all starts. It all starts when u start to question the official party line. I would not be suprised if your fellow Evolutionists actually start to turn on you for daring to questions the "ever missing" missing link discovery.

No offence, but um, what the hell are you on about? There is no offical party line. There is the need for scepticism with claims that have little going for them, though. That the whole Ida debacle may be flawed doesn't invalidate the other independent, empirical and potentially falsifiable lines of evidence for evolution. Evolution occurs.

Men is so good to think outside of the box and scrutinise all supposed truths,

Yes it is. Although sometimes it's better to question why there's a box and why you are in it. Anyway, yes, scepticism is often good.

For example of how easy it is to be brainwashed via the official party line, I would use an example about Nikola Tesla.

I am a scientist by nature and an engineer by study, yet it took a while to realise that:

Nikola Tesla was the greatest scientist ever, yet most people do not even hear about him. Nikola Tesla was so bloody good that he made Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison look like a dullards.
Nikola Tesla was so bloody good that most of his research have been termed state secrets by some developed countries like USA and Russia.
The alarming part is the Nikola Tesla actually showed that Albert Einstein was wrong via is own (Nikola Tesla's) theory.


I only came to know about him when i started to search for the truth behind the news, the Media has simply brainwashed everybody into thinking that Albert Einstein was the best thing since Sliced Bread.

Tesla may or may not have been the greatest scientist ever. That's debatable. He was a very brilliant man, though. I don't think there's a big conspiracy against the Tesla name and his invention - at least, not presently; not since the waned influence of Edison.

Anyway, Einstein has been rightly lauded for his work. He got an amount of things wrong, but several of the things he got right were breathtaking. Which brings me to your claim. In what did Tesla show Einstein wrong?