Posted by Amazing [Anointed] on November 25, 1999 at 22:39:26 {yaNwUlwC5c/CPYT8orz2ASIIcexUto}:
Bar: My apology regarding for my earlier response to you. I returned to you what I felt that you were throwing at me, namely, personal attack. I will now respond to your comments:
1. You took exception with what you perceived as my quoting AF. If you look at my post you will see that I did not specifically quote anyone. I have read much of AF's works on evolution and know him personally. I hold him in high esteme and I know better than to misquote him. He did a masterful job in exposing the Society's Evolution book with respect to its use of fictional works for referencial support. AF is modest with respect to his conclusions about evolution and the potential existence of God. He and I differ in this some, but not on a scientific level. I was actually quoting 'Dajahvue' who posted in my first thread on evolution. You suggest that if I cannot quote someone correctly, I should not quote tem at all. That goes without saying. I think if you had applied that practice yourself, you would have noted that I was not quoting AF. You would have not then needed to refute any alleged quote because it was not there to begin with.
2. You quoted my statement out of context about 'History repeating itself'. Although, I have to admit I did a poor job by failing to completely state what I meant. The pure statement that 'History does not repeat itself' needs clarification. Social and cultural historical events do indeed repeat themselves. That is why humankind often repeats the same mistakes over and over again. As to evolutionary development, I cannot say for sure whether certain aspects or processes have ever repeated themselves. No, I have no examples of this to point to one way or the other. My point has more to do theoretical development and laboratory scale repetition of observable and measurable evolutionary events. I am not saying that we can achieve this now, but that the concept may one day be achieved.
3. You said regarding data collection that is humans were on hand to observe events before Einstein arrived that it would only have been useful data in the development of Einsteins theory. True enough, but humankind has also observed and tested Einsteins theory since he arrived and establish conclusions on that basis. What I was trying to get across is that we now have the technological means and abundant theories and hypothesis available today that we can set up tests which will yield results in some future generations millions of years from now. In the meantime a lot can happen. There are serious logistical problems associated with a macro test of that kind and science and theory may so much change between now and then that such experiments may become mute.
4. You stated that I have it backwards with respect to recording and measuring today's data to make future analysis. No, I do not have it backwards. First, you collect data then you analyze it. From such analysis extrapolations may be made and conclusions drawn. The context of my statement was to state that by using presently available technology, we have the means to collect and record enough data to make better analysis in the future. If such equipment had been available 100 million years ago, we would have better evidence on hand today to make more precise extrapolations.
You then talk about inventing new ways of disproving theories. As I recall the objective of a scientist is not to set out to prove or disprove theories. The scientific method is used to determine if a theory will hold up under test. When I conducted testing, my objective was not to prove that a component will survive and function though a nuclear plant accident. Nor was my objective to prove that it would necessarily fail. My objective was to determine what it would do after accelerated thermal and radiation aging if exposed to reactor loss of coolant accidents. Once I obtained the data, I could then extrapolate maintenance intervals, and failure modes. The results determine the actions and beliefs to be held. Never did we ever set out to prove or disprove anything. We just wanted the facts.
5. You take exception with my 'obvious' statement about the Ameoba to say that it will not buy extra credibility. I am not trying to buy extra credibility. This forum is not a contest of scientific saavy. I stated in one of my earlier posts that I am not an expert in microbiology or evolutionary sciences. Many in this forum have varying levels of experience and edcuation. So, I tried to write to a broad audience. You did not dispute my point in itself. So it really does not require any level of attack by you.
6. You said with my respect to my comment about the chemical building blocks being measurable and predictable that one cannot predict the past. "predicting the past" is somewhat self-contradictory. Yet, we can with modern science observe, measure, and test some aspects of earlier chemical development and postulate what must have happened. This process is done all the time in science and test engineering.
7. You asked what does volume have to do with the boiling point of water? Everything. Basic elementary science classes in junior high school teach this fundamental point. If you take a Bunson burner and hold it close to a small 10cmm test tube of water it will boil in a short time due to the low volume of water. If you hold the same Bunson burner to the Pacific Ocean it will never reach the boiling point. The mass and other aspects of thermal dynamics far exceeds the heat energy from a Bunson burner necessary to boil the ocean. I fail to understand why you took issue with this point. It was like asking what does gasoline have to do with automobiles.
7. You dispute the age of the universe as meaningless with respect to the evolutionary process. You then make a reference to a mythical being (I guess you may be referring to God). Then you draw the conclusion that evolution had had enough time to play out because we are here and that the overwhelming evidence it that we evolved. You may be right, I cannot dogmatically say it happened that way. I am not convinced of the evidence. I have to weigh more of the evidence before I can come to a conclusion. Also, if the universe has not been around long enough for the probabilities of basic building blocks of life to form, then before we make hard and fast conclusions, we need to find out why the discrepancy exists.
When I have conducted destructive testing of components, and we observed an unusual phenomenon, we did not rule the issue out simply because all other aspects of the test indicated acceptance in accordance with the test program and procedures. Rather, before we ruled out the existence of a phenomenon or drew any conclusions, we had to go back an analyze the phenomenon, try to repeat the results and learn whether it may be affecting our extrapolations. Likewise, the theory of evolution has serious issues which challange it. An objective scientific approach is not to hold evolution up as a god that cannot be questioned, but we need to resolve the questions presented, even if they cause serious upset in the theory. The tougher the question, the more effort and analysis needs to be done to interpret it.
9. You challenged my statement as unscientific that I suscribe to the theory that God exists and that he created us. I never said that it is scientific. Why the challenge then? Although, I believe that there is some scientific basis to the theory of intelligent design. The systems in place that humankind did not develop, such as vegetation, animal life, the cosmos exhibit many complex features, symbiosos, and balance which suggest to me that an intelligent designer placed it all in operation. What processes he used and how he used them are left to science and speculation. But proof? Not on your life. I cannot prove God's existence anymore than I can prove conclusively that humankind evolved from lower life forms. I believe that there are excellent arguements on both sides of the fence.
10. You close with the a personal attack against me that you wonder why people bother posting this kind of tripe. You personal musings here have no bearing on what I have written in the earlier post. It is an attack on the person rather than the topic. It has the effect of belittling the messenger because you don't like his message.
In my professional engineering career I have run across very few personalities like yours. Most engineers and scientist I have worked with are focused on the issue rather than personal jabs at one another. Some are strongly opinionated, but they will make the best objective review of comments, data, and questions as possible. These individuals have little use for personalizing theoretical dabate. Some do, but few in my experience. Such tactics are not germane to the topic and serve no useful purpose.
11. My whole purpose in starting a new thread about evolution is that in-spite of my personal faith in God and Jesus Christ, I am open and objective when it come to science. If the truth, as best as science can determine, reveals something that strongly contradicts my treasured beliefs, I am open to change. For example, the entire issue of Jesus coming to earth to die for our sins is earth-centered as we understand the Bible. If one day we discover intelligent sentient life on other planets, or they arrive and discover us, it will raise some serious theological questions. I am arrogant or blind to this possibility. I would not refuse to face such overwhelming evidence. I, along with millions of others, would certainly have a lot of questions for such beings if they were able to communicate with us.
Anyway, if I say something that is not in accordance with current microbiology or evolutionary sciences, then I welcome correction. But please refrain from snitty little remarks against me. It really does not enhance any of your comments, but may tend work against you.
Thanks again for your comments. - Simply Amazing