“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith based.

J regia

Well-known member
You are a medical outsider. You have never seen a painful case of priapism from sickle cell anemia in surgery. So you have to run to wickie to get a response.
And what do you and Walter Mitty do with a priapism if you are performing surgery? Do you cut it off, or hit it with a cold spoon, or massage it away? Or do you just stand around twiddling your thumbs until it goes away, like we did when performing mature-age circumcisions 50 years ago at Vung Tau, and then tied it up with a fancy pink or blue bow as a present when the patient woke up?
 
Last edited:
No part of that Wikipedia page says anything about general terms not being allowed in scientific models.
How would one accomplish the following using general terms?

"Scientific modeling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge.
Neither do you, apparently. As you keep refusing to define what you mean.
You gave 'parent' as an example of a term not found in nature, but we certainly can point at a parent.
Elsewhere you seem to think that a term has to be quantifiable to count, but that has nothing to do with what one can point at.
You seem deeply confused as to what you are even talking about.
How does one present a model explaining a mathematical operation in detail without using mathematical terms? How does one present a chemical model in detail without using terms found in chemistry? How does one present a scientific model explaining in detail a natural process [D+M=NS which supposedly happens in nature] without using terms found in nature? It is that simple.
As to math, we do not use 'large amount' we give specific amounts. =365.253
As to chemistry, we do not use 'pinch of salt' but 3mg NaCl.
As to D+M=NS you should not use 'parent' but be specific, 'bull or cow' if one is describing a process involving cattle, or 'Tom or Queen' if describing a process involving cats.
Why?
Because the scientific method is an orderly method used by scientists to solve problems, in which a recognized problem is subjected to thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of either experiment, further observation, or both. That is why no theory of the origins of species can be proved scientifically because the essence of the scientific method is observation, experimentation, or both.
 
I note that you are unable to answer the point in rossum 's quote.

What is the definition of "terms found in nature"? Don't just give supposed examples. Give us a definition. Otherwise the cynical would assume that you are just arbitrarily forbidding certain terminology in order to protect an untenable position.
'Term found in nature is the definition'.
How does one present a model explaining a mathematical operation in detail without using mathematical terms? How does one present a chemical model in detail without using terms found in chemistry? How does one present a scientific model explaining in detail a natural process [D+M=NS which supposedly happens in nature] without using terms found in nature? It is that simple.
As to math, we do not use 'large amount' we give specific amounts. =365.253
As to chemistry, we do not use 'pinch of salt' but 3mg NaCl.
As to D+M=NS you should not use 'parent' but be specific, 'bull or cow' if one is describing a process involving cattle, or 'Tom or Queen' if describing a process involving cats.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
How would one accomplish the following using general terms?
Exactly as I already did. Are you going to provide a source saying mathematical models cannot use general terms, or have you given up?

How does one present a scientific model explaining in detail a natural process [D+M=NS which supposedly happens in nature] without using terms found in nature?
I already gave you a model using terms found in nature. Instead of addressing it, you are evading and posting nonsense.

Do you accept that organisms replicate? Do you accept that they do so imperfectly, with heritable mutations producing variation? Do you accept that not all offspring have equal reproductive chances? If you accept all three, then what mechanism prevents these three, i.e. D+M+NS, from producing significant biological diversity over time?
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
You are a medical outsider. You have never seen a painful case of priapism from sickle cell anemia in surgery. So you have to run to wickie to get a response.
Exactly the same can be said of you. Except that in your case, your last sentence as all you ever do or are capable of doing.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
'Term found in nature is the definition'.
How does one present a model explaining a mathematical operation in detail without using mathematical terms? How does one present a chemical model in detail without using terms found in chemistry? How does one present a scientific model explaining in detail a natural process [D+M=NS which supposedly happens in nature] without using terms found in nature? It is that simple.
As to math, we do not use 'large amount' we give specific amounts. =365.253
As to chemistry, we do not use 'pinch of salt' but 3mg NaCl.
As to D+M=NS you should not use 'parent' but be specific, 'bull or cow' if one is describing a process involving cattle, or 'Tom or Queen' if describing a process involving cats.
And what (or more likely who) determines whether a term is found in nature or not? You have been given very precise descriptions of how natural selection works, both in general and in particular cases, yet you reject them because the terminology is "not found in nature". Actually, you reject them because you do not accept that they are found in nature. Your rejection of evolution is entirely circular. You don't believe it because you don't believe the terms used to describe it are valid. You don't believe the terms are valid because they describe a process that you don't believe happens.

I don't see why we should bother to break down this circular tower of ignorance you are watching over. Evolution and scientific study of it will continue without your agreement.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
'Term found in nature is the definition'.
How does one present a model explaining a mathematical operation in detail without using mathematical terms?
One doesn't. That's not the aim or point of a model. Remember the definition that you've cited:

"Scientific modeling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge."

No mention of 'in detail' at all there. That's your invention.

However, one can easily make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge. The simplest example I can think of:

If you have an apple, and I give you another apple, how many apples do you have? Two. Two is the result of adding the one apple to the other one apple. Addition is the mathematical process of adding numbers to each other. In this case, we add 1 (apple) to 1 (apple) and get 2 (apples).

That makes a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge. No 'detail'. No 'terms not found in nature'.

The numerous scientific models given by many other contributors of natural selection are perfectly valid; you reject them because you are idealogically opposed to them, not for any valid scientific reason.

Oh, and there is no reason whatsoever to not use 'parent' but rather use 'bull or cow', or not to use 'organism' but rather use 'dog or cat'. That is a particularly nonsensical objection. We do find organisms in nature; we do find parents in nature. And so forth.
 
Exactly as I already did. Are you going to provide a source saying mathematical models cannot use general terms, or have you given up?
Common sense.
Let's use general terms in a mathematical model.
A large amount + a large amount = a larger amount.
vs. 100 Darwinist +100 Darwinist= 200 Darwinist.
I already gave you a model using terms found in nature. Instead of addressing it, you are evading and posting nonsense.
Look back through the tread and found none.
Do you accept that organisms replicate?
Yes
Do you accept that they do so imperfectly, with heritable mutations producing variation?
Yes
Do you accept that not all offspring have equal reproductive chances?
Yes
If you accept all three, then what mechanism prevents these three, i.e. D+M+NS, from producing significant biological diversity over time?
Same as asking 'Do you believe wings exist", "Do you believe pigs exist" If you accept the two what mechanism prevents pigs from flying?
As to you question, there is no mechanism that prevents D+M= NS from producing X because D+M=NS does not exist. No one can point to it. Just because you point to the supposed parts does not equate that the whole exists.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Common sense.
Let's use general terms in a mathematical model.
A large amount + a large amount = a larger amount.
vs. 100 Darwinist +100 Darwinist= 200 Darwinist.
You are confusing general terms and vague terms. I did not use vague terms in my model.

Look back through the tread and found none.
Try again. The model is descent plus modification through natural selection.

Yes Yes Yes
Then you have accepted evolution.

Same as asking 'Do you believe wings exist", "Do you believe pigs exist" If you accept the two what mechanism prevents pigs from flying?
As to you question, there is no mechanism that prevents D+M= NS from producing X because D+M=NS does not exist. No one can point to it. Just because you point to the supposed parts does not equate that the whole exists.
How can you accept the parts but not the whole? That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, sure there's a foundation, floor, walls, windows, and a roof, but where's my house?
 
And what (or more likely who) determines whether a term is found in nature or not? You have been given very precise descriptions of how natural selection works, both in general and in particular cases, yet you reject them because the terminology is "not found in nature". Actually, you reject them because you do not accept that they are found in nature. Your rejection of evolution is entirely circular. You don't believe it because you don't believe the terms used to describe it are valid. You don't believe the terms are valid because they describe a process that you don't believe happens.

I don't see why we should bother to break down this circular tower of ignorance you are watching over. Evolution and scientific study of it will continue without your agreement.
Funny how the Darwinist claim to have an attribute of the divine while at the same time deny the existence of the divine. Amazing how you know what is in my mind. That would make you omniscient.
As to the rest of your post. The process I am asking for is not NS but D+M=NS, there is a difference. I believe that the finches beaks changed size, but they still remained a finches. The fossil record is clear, every species disappeared as it appeared, there is no transitional evidence in the fossil record.
As to terms found in nature, I have given a multitude of examples. If you cannot figure it out from the examples, you have no clue as to how science operates.
BTW I believe and operate by science, logic and reason. My trust in Jesus Christ is based on logic, reason, and science, very little to do with faith. Unlike Darwinist why solely rely on blind faith.
 
Then please show us where the term "Christianity" is found in nature. That will help us to find what definition you are using.
Can you point to "Christianity". "Christianity" is not a term found in nature. Christianity is a belief system or a worldview.
 
One doesn't. That's not the aim or point of a model. Remember the definition that you've cited:

"Scientific modeling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge."

No mention of 'in detail' at all there. That's your invention.
Lets try something simple. "Scientific model for Baklava, the aim is to make Baklava easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge."

Science model for making Baklava.

• 1 (16 ounce) package phyllo dough

• 1 pound chopped nuts

• 1 cup butter

• 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

• 1 cup of water

• 1 cup white sugar

• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract

• 1/2 cup honey

• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F(175 degrees C).

• Butter the bottoms and sides of a 9x13 inch pan.

• Chop nuts and toss with cinnamon. Set aside.

• Unroll phyllo dough. Cut whole stack in half to fit pan. Cover phyllo with a dampened cloth to keep from drying out as you work.

• Place two sheets of dough in pan, butter thoroughly. Repeat until you have 8 sheets layered. Sprinkle 2 - 3 tablespoons of nut mixture on top.

• Top with two sheets of dough, butter, nuts, layering as you go.

• The top layer should be about 6 - 8 sheets deep.

• Using a sharp knife cut into diamond or square shapes all the way to the bottom of the pan.

• Bake for about 50 minutes until baklava is golden and crisp.

• Boil sugar and water until sugar is melted.

• Add vanilla and honey.

• Simmer for about 20 minutes.

• Remove baklava from oven and immediately spoon sauce over it.

• Let cool.

• Per Serving: 393 calories; 25.9 g fat; 37.5 g carbohydrates; 6.1 g protein; 27 mg cholesterol; 196 mg sodium.

The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientists to solve problems, in which X is subjected to a thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation. A simple recipe for Baklava passes the test, it is observable and repeatable. 160 years after the Origin of Species the Darwinist has no multiple lines of experimental, repeatable evidence but observational evidence for ‘descent with modification through natural selection”. And such ‘evidence’ is presented as a testimonial from a novel interpretation of that evidence.

However, one can easily make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge. The simplest example I can think of:

If you have an apple, and I give you another apple, how many apples do you have? Two. Two is the result of adding the one apple to the other one apple. Addition is the mathematical process of adding numbers to each other. In this case, we add 1 (apple) to 1 (apple) and get 2 (apples).

That makes a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge. No 'detail'. No 'terms not found in nature'.
So how would one make a natural process [D+M=NS] easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize or simulate without using terms found in nature? =[Something I can point to.]
You argument is similar to arguing against a mathematical model that uses mathematical terms
The numerous scientific models given by many other contributors of natural selection are perfectly valid; you reject them because you are idealogically opposed to them, not for any valid scientific reason.
I reject it because I hold a common standard as to what passes as science vs faith.
Oh, and there is no reason whatsoever to not use 'parent' but rather use 'bull or cow', or not to use 'organism' but rather use 'dog or cat'. That is a particularly nonsensical objection. We do find organisms in nature; we do find parents in nature. And so forth.
Can you point to 'parent or organism'? No. You can point to a cow, bull, dog, or cat.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Lets try something simple. "Scientific model for Baklava, the aim is to make Baklava easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge."

Science model for making Baklava.

• 1 (16 ounce) package phyllo dough

• 1 pound chopped nuts

• 1 cup butter

• 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon

• 1 cup of water

• 1 cup white sugar

• 1 teaspoon vanilla extract

• 1/2 cup honey

• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F(175 degrees C).

• Butter the bottoms and sides of a 9x13 inch pan.

• Chop nuts and toss with cinnamon. Set aside.

• Unroll phyllo dough. Cut whole stack in half to fit pan. Cover phyllo with a dampened cloth to keep from drying out as you work.

• Place two sheets of dough in pan, butter thoroughly. Repeat until you have 8 sheets layered. Sprinkle 2 - 3 tablespoons of nut mixture on top.

• Top with two sheets of dough, butter, nuts, layering as you go.

• The top layer should be about 6 - 8 sheets deep.

• Using a sharp knife cut into diamond or square shapes all the way to the bottom of the pan.

• Bake for about 50 minutes until baklava is golden and crisp.

• Boil sugar and water until sugar is melted.

• Add vanilla and honey.

• Simmer for about 20 minutes.

• Remove baklava from oven and immediately spoon sauce over it.

• Let cool.

• Per Serving: 393 calories; 25.9 g fat; 37.5 g carbohydrates; 6.1 g protein; 27 mg cholesterol; 196 mg sodium.
That's not a model; it's instructions.
The scientific method is an orderly method used by scientists to solve problems, in which X is subjected to a thorough investigation, and the resulting facts and observations are analyzed, formulated in the hypothesis, and subjected to verification by means of experiments and further observation. A simple recipe for Baklava passes the test, it is observable and repeatable. 160 years after the Origin of Species the Darwinist has no multiple lines of experimental, repeatable evidence but observational evidence for ‘descent with modification through natural selection”. And such ‘evidence’ is presented as a testimonial from a novel interpretation of that evidence.
That is simply false. There are any number of descriptions of the evolutionary process at whatever level of detail you like.
So how would one make a natural process [D+M=NS] easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize or simulate without using terms found in nature? =[Something I can point to.]
What is this "using terms found in nature" bit? It's nonsense. There's no such restriction in any scientific model.
You argument is similar to arguing against a mathematical model that uses mathematical terms
No, it's not. A mathematical model might use mathematical terms; it might not. The example I gave above does - simple terms like 'add'.
I reject it because I hold a common standard as to what passes as science vs faith.
No, you don't. You are not referencing any common standard when you talk of "using terms of nature", nor "detailed" in your description of a model. Those are restrictions you have invented.
Can you point to 'parent or organism'? No. You can point to a cow, bull, dog, or cat.
Of course I can. Any cow, bull, dog or cat is an organism. When I point to any of them, I'm pointing at an organism. Same for 'parent'.

Do you not understand that 'organism' or 'parent' is used deliberately, to show that whatever is being described applies equally to many different types of organism? If I give you a model (of whatever) using cats as an example, you might reasonably say "great, now where's the model for dogs? And what about the one for cows?" By using 'organism' instead, I cover all of those. I might use other, less broad terms (such as invertebrate or mammal) to describe more than one species if applicable. This is another restriction of yours that you've invented.

I think at root the problem is that you don't know what a model is, what it's for or how one is used.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
That's not a model; it's instructions.

That is simply false. There are any number of descriptions of the evolutionary process at whatever level of detail you like.

What is this "using terms found in nature" bit? It's nonsense. There's no such restriction in any scientific model.

No, it's not. A mathematical model might use mathematical terms; it might not. The example I gave above does - simple terms like 'add'.

No, you don't. You are not referencing any common standard when you talk of "using terms of nature", nor "detailed" in your description of a model. Those are restrictions you have invented.

Of course I can. Any cow, bull, dog or cat is an organism. When I point to any of them, I'm pointing at an organism. Same for 'parent'.

Do you not understand that 'organism' or 'parent' is used deliberately, to show that whatever is being described applies equally to many different types of organism? If I give you a model (of whatever) using cats as an example, you might reasonably say "great, now where's the model for dogs? And what about the one for cows?" By using 'organism' instead, I cover all of those. I might use other, less broad terms (such as invertebrate or mammal) to describe more than one species if applicable. This is another restriction of yours that you've invented.

I think at root the problem is that you don't know what a model is, what it's for or how one is used.
The root of the problem is that he wants to be able to dismiss arguments he can't deal with in a completely arbitrary way.
 
Top