Posted on 10/11/2005 7:27:16 AM PDT by Valin
It's as verifiable as the evolution of the TTSS into a flagellum. Yet you accept the one merely on the basis that it has not yet been disproved, but not the other. Why do you think that's reasonable?
The most famous dinosaur of all time -- the brontosaurus -- never existed. . . . Watever you say, Chief. If you want to assume that an error with some bones means that the bones themselves never existed
Of course the bones existed. The assumption based on those bones, however, is erroneous.
You certainly can spell "arrogant", can't you? You either read that or you did not. If you nit-picked out "all the grammar and spelling error" then you read it.
You are as right as the Holy Church and the Inquistion was when it prosecuted Galileo.
These are all "non-verifiable" statements in the context that are using for veacity.
So too is the statement "There are no gods, there is no God." It is even less possible to demonstrate.
I'll skip Godel's theorem today, except to note that Truth is all about perception, an acceptance of that perception by the consciousness. Restated: there are truths that in any formal system that cannot be verified inside of that formal system.
> It's as verifiable as the evolution of the TTSS into a flagellum.
So you equate an infinite God with a flagellum?
Interesting theology you have.
Projection.
>G-d exists. Two lines parallel at one point never intersect at another. The sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180.
> These are all "non-verifiable" statements in the context that are using for veacity.
The first is merest speculation, as scientifically valid as "Odin exists," "The Great Green Arkleseizure exists," "Frodo Lives!" or "Allah exists." None of these, including "God exists," are valid points for a scientific discussion. At what point in a muder investigation is it fvalid to bring up "God did it?" At what point in your average missing person investigation is it scientifically valid to conclude that being borne bodily up into Heaven is just as likely as a kidnapping?
The second two are true within certain limitations, false in others. I've seen triangles with total interior angles of 270 degrees. I've seen parallel lines intersect at two points. And, in fact, so have you. One does not need advanced hyperspace math of LSD to see such things... they are commonplace, everyday sights.
How do you figure that?
>> So you equate an infinite God with a flagellum?
> How do you figure that?
"It's as verifiable as the evolution of the TTSS into a flagellum."
On the one hand, you've got the rather mundane transformation of a small biological structure into a physically similar small biological structure with a different function. This is no more remarkable that a bird beak used for eatign bugs mutating into a bird beak capable of punching through bark to get at the bugs. Same structure, slightly changed through no will of the owner, into a structure capable of doing a new thing.
On the other hand, you've got an infinite God, capable of creating entire universes billions of lightyears wide, with every single subatomic particle specifically placed.
Now, for scientists, one of these propositions is far more extraordinary than the other, and consequently the level of evidence required for adequate confirmation would be equally extraordinary. But you equate the two as equally likely... which means to you a minor mutation is no more or less extraordinary than God.
As I said... interesting theology you have going there.
That God did it is as verifiable as the evolution of TTSS into a flagellum via the process the fellow described earlier.
On the one hand, you've got the rather mundane transformation of a small biological structure into a physically similar small biological structure with a different function.
Actually, it is not that mundane. If the TTSS actually did evolve into the flagellum the Theory of Evolution would pretty much have to be thrown out the window.
> That God did it is as verifiable as the evolution of TTSS into a flagellum via the process the fellow described earlier.
Disagree. For the thign to evolve, all you'd have to demonstrateis mutation. For God to have created it, you'd have to demonstrate God.
> If the TTSS actually did evolve into the flagellum the Theory of Evolution would pretty much have to be thrown out the window.
Curiously, nobody in evolutionary biology agrees with you.
No, to verify something you have to show that it can be done. Speculation about a possible evolutionary path from TTSS to flagellum doesn't show that it can be done.
If the TTSS actually did evolve into the flagellum the Theory of Evolution would pretty much have to be thrown out the window. . .Curiously, nobody in evolutionary biology agrees with you.
What would it mean if the TTSS preceded the flagellum?
> to verify something you have to show that it can be done. Speculation about a possible evolutionary path from TTSS to flagellum doesn't show that it can be done.
Really? Which of the steps described is counter to physical possibility?
> What would it mean if the TTSS preceded the flagellum?
That the TTSS existed first, at least for that particular bacterium. Not exactly something that would shake the pillers of science.
So if something is possible, it's verified?
That the TTSS existed first, at least for that particular bacterium.
No, it would mean it existed before all eubacterial flagella. Now, what is the purpose of the TTSS?
> So if something is possible, it's verified?
Ahem: "to verify something you have to show that it can be done."
Your own words, Chuckles.
> Now, what is the purpose of the TTSS?
I'm sure you're capable of reading the articles and finding out.
A being outside the natural laws of the physical universe can create life ex nihlo. We've just verified the existence of God and ID. Fair enough?
> Now, what is the purpose of the TTSS? I'm sure you're capable of reading the articles and finding out.
Thank you. But it's not my reading skills that are at issue. Why would the undirected evolution of the TTSS into the eubacterial flagellum be a kick in the shin to the ToE?
Apparently they saw a change in direction of the light. They attributed it to the gravity of the sun.
Could it not be from passing through the atmosphere of the sun caused a refraction which is known to change the direction of light?
Quoting from the introduction to the book Origin of the Species:
"After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions,..."
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived."
It is a religion because the book Origin of the Species does not explain the origin of the species.
You have to take on faith that Darwin's theory is fact.
Darwin himself states that his theories are actually his speculations and there is ample evidence that come to a different conclusion.
Why can't it be taught as a theory and the actual words of Darwin be used to explain where it came from?
ping for later read
I don't have the background to allow me to say what refractive effects are possible in such a situation.
A line drawn from an observer to the observed position of such a distant star would establish the apparent position of that star. I would imagine that the apparent position was considerably outside the disk of the sun and sufficiently outside to establish that such rays did not pass through appreciable solar atmosphere. One would have to know more about such "atmosphere" in order to be confident. I have never heard that such was a consideration so I am inclined to believe that it was not a factor.
I have read that the measurement error in the original observations were such that there was some significant probability of reaching the correct conclusion by accident of measurement error rather than by having actually measured the displacement. I haven't heard any challenge that would suggest that observations made with a more perfect experimental setup would violate the theory.
I believe that the "bending" of light rays by gravity has been separately confirmed by the action of "lensing" by very dense objects in the universe. Objects behind such dense obects can appear distorted because divergent rays become aligned causing the object to appear larger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.