Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I only have the time to deal with gravity here.
Newton's law, postulated in the 18th century, relates specifically to mass and the attraction of bodies, that is, the observable, predictable properties of bodies in space.
It is not 'the law of gravity'. It is 'Newton's law.' Physics has moved along a way since Newton, and we still don't know what gravity itself is. Gravity hasn't been 'solved'. If you work in gravity you work in theory. Which is why it is agreed in the physics department of every university on the planet that gravity theory is what we call 'theory.'
It hasn't been solved. It is, like evolution, theory. All the evidence tells us that it exists.
You obviously haven't been reading my links about scientific law. (And I've also proven you haven't even read yours very thoroughly before posting them).
(first line of google define:scientific law)
Scientific law: "A natural phenomenon that has been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met"
Sounds like gravity with has been proven
to occur through testing. No testing, no
scientific law. Do not drag down real science in an attempt to lend credence to a naturalists pipe dream.
This is ridiculous. The marine deposits are carved seashells. You're expecting me to believe that a flood, for which there is absolutely no evidence in the Chauvet caves, swept human artifacts into a cave and the water miraculously left the paintings in the cave in pristine condition.
Originally posted by benzene
Things living in the cave....a flood comes by and deposits marine artifacts...a glacier comes through after the flood and seals it off.
Originally posted by THT
All it takes is for you to present evidence for your beliefs. That's all it takes. Yet 99% of these evolution v creation threads are about problems with evolution and science. Hardly an iota of evidence for creation has ever been presented.
I've been doing both actually. I've been stating over and over again the design quite evident in biological systems, and also attacking the naturalistic notion that it came about by chance.
Originally posted by THT
You say A or B. It doesn't work that way. Science doesn't go about proving things with false dilemmas. It's either A or not A. Then evidence and tests for B or not B. C or not C. Since all of the discussion is always about evolution, the only agenda creationists have are to sew the seeds of doubt about evolution in society.
I don't even understand why you pick on biologists since most of your arguments would be with cosmologists, physicists, geologists and chemists. So, is Big Bang Theory the next theory to have a warning label? Can't wait for the campaigning for that. The weak force obviously must have a warning label too with all of troubles with radiametric dating. What about plate tectonics? How about the speed of light and those 10+ billion light year away quasars? Thermodynamics? Planetary formation? Genetics?
Only one supportable inconsistency is enough to prove
a theory is incorrect. Why do you think I've been hammering thermodynamics so much? As for my A vs B statement, you provide me with a third possibility for the generation of life. And don't give me panspermia (even though we spend billions of dollars flying junk to mars), because that just puts the onus on another planet.
Thermodynamics picks on biologists, chemist, and mostly
physicists. (Read me earlier statement about how many physicists believe in naturalism as well). Cosmology is a purely observatory science, as is geology.
All science is either physics
or stamp collecting. ---Ernest Rutherford
Originally posted by THT
You'd think that all of those Christian universities, let alone the Vatican, would sponsor some of their researchers to go gather evidence, formulate hypotheses, and perform experiments.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Can i just say that mammalian cell cultures suck ass?
Yes, they certainly do. I only have to work with them for a bit longer though.
Why is it that people can accept microevolution but not macroevolution? There is fundamentally nothing different between the two.
, because macroevolution has never been observed in a living system (hence it cannot be proven), moreso
, it is due to the massive amounts of genetic change that would have to occur to transition between even closely related "species". As I said earlier, it's very easy for a biologist to say "and then a wing evolved", while the geneticist is shaking his/her head.
Some work has been done trying to link genetics to the naturalists' "tree of life", and although it fits in some of the more obvious branches, it also has prompted significant rethinking of our understanding of species & their depiction.
So what is a better definition? I don't know. But it shouldn't be based upon reproduction since a single mutation in an individual can bring about such a failure in the definition
I'm assuming you mean infertility, but that hardly applies since it's changed genetic material cannot be preserved after that point. As it stands, "species" has been a purely taxonomical definition, and due to the historical bent of naming systems in science (IUPAC anyone?) will not be changing in the near future.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
In the face of the most preposterously abundant evidence, much of which you can see by going to your nearest museum of natural history, you're claiming that God made man when Obatala climbed down a white sheet to the banks of the River Niger / the Inuit bird of creation dived down to the bottom of the Bering Straits and came back with a fistful of pebbles / some numinous invisible force made the first man from dust in the Garden of Eden. You wilfully misunderstand terms, consider axioms 'controversial' and demand a kind of unequivocal proof for something entirely self-evident which you don't AT ALL require for an explanation which by its very frigging definition is impossible to prove.
And what evidence is that? Fossils dug from the ground force-fit into a closeminded naturalistic explanation. Nevermind that a true missing link has been found (even the "finding" that started this whole thread, a picture of which I link to here
, is very clearly stated as being an ape, and not a link between humans and apes, only between previous primate subspecies.
Again, "natural history" is the strongest naturalists bastion, as they do not have to rigorously test hypotheses (hint: they can't). Whereas the harder sciences (which I've been saying all along) are much
more careful about broad statements about the beggining of life. (As a matter of fact, most of the ones I've talked to stick to a more agnostic POV)
As for your examples of tribal evolution, the biblical explanation is an exercise in simplicity: An exceptionally intellegent God made the world.
You keep telling me how bad my science is. I propose we lay our credentials on the table. I'll start with mine. I'm by no means an expert, but I have looked into this matter (evolution/creation) a lot more than most in my field.
B.S. in Chemistry (analytical-weighted) from Indiana Wesleyan University (minor in biology, as well as research in cellular biology and optics)
First year grad student at Texas A&M University, in the biochemistry/biophysics department, under a NIH training grant in molecular biophysics.
You (hassan) have said that you are into geology and literature. What is your scientific background?
I once read that Mac users have a higher average I.Q. than windows users (which isn't really suprising), so hearing about the qualifications of the various members of AI would be a neat thing anyway.
Originally poste by Hassan i Sabbah
You have been fed, and have believed, a lie, benzene. I hope you don't post anything about this fossil again on another forum - that would be dishonest, no?
I'll post the intro here for everyone else to read:
"Traditionally, there was little hope that biomolecules might be recovered from bone more than a few thousand years old. However, 20_years ago, partial amino acid sequences were identified from the shells of mollusks 80 million years old (33). Gurley et al. (34) followed with a report of amino acids in the bony tissues of the Late Jurassic (150 million years ago) sauropod dinosaur, Seismosaurus, and more recently the small and highly acidic bone protein, osteocalcin, has been recognized immunologically in extracts of dinosaurian bone (35). Stable isotope studies (36), including those done on the specimen used in the following study (37), indicate that at least some of these molecules are endogenous to the fossils, rather than arising from younger exogenous contaminants. These results suggest that significant protein remnants may exist in fossil bone. In light of the above studies, it was decided to examine nonpermineralized dinosaur bone for biomolecular degradation products, including hemoglobin."
Very interesting. If you remember, the whole point of this topic was to state that your previous statement about the ability to date the fossilization process was trash. This paper goes to prove my point, right from the opening statement. Fact of the matter is, unless you know the conditions in which the bone was first situated, you cannot make anything better than a guess at how long it's been there. A perfect example: link
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
BENZENE. Without making references to evolution or biology at all. Put your EVIDENCE for creation theory on the table.
Well, considering that this entire
argument is about the orgins and development of life, how could you not include biology? Your statement makes no sense.
I've been stating the design of life many times this thread, which is great evidence that life was created, not "generated by chance". Ask me about the photosensitive cells in the eyes being installed backward. That's a tough question for design.
DISCLAIMER: MarcUK has asked me to reply to several questions. Due to a previous misunderstanding about my beliefs, I (as descartes) believe:
1) Life was obviously created, not evolved
2) The holy book that is most accurate and explains the creation process best is the Bible.
That said, onto the questions:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...11011?v=glance
1), I want to see that the Bible is actually a credible book written under divine inspiration of God
All of the archalogical evidence pertaining to biblical times has meshed with the bible, not disproved it.
2) I want evidence that the Author of Genesis actually existed. I believe it was Moses.
Most biblical scholars believe that moses compiled Genesis, as he would have access (as the adopted son of the Pharoh) to the massive library at Alexandria.
2b) Then I want an explanation of why the Moses character appears in Egyptian myth as Horus.
Well, other than the interesting egyptian custom of chiseling all the names of previous dynasties off their buildings, it could be due to a royal name vs. a common name. Especially since Horus was an egyptian god, he might have been given that as powerful nickname. A link for this would be nice.
3) I want evidence that the World and all living creatures were created in 6 days.
Because the bible has been accurate in the other historically and scientifically verifyable facts, I belive that the Bible can be trusted when it says 6 days.
4) I want evidence that this happened <10000 years ago.
4b) A decent explaination of how light from objects 10billion light years away is viewable from Earth, backed up with evidence.
A paper (and subsequent book) by Dr. Russell Humphreys (whom I've had the pleasure of meeting with) does an excellent job of explaning how this might happen:http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/index.html
I can give you a short synopsis if you'd like.
5a) I want to know why God framed Eve
How so? The bible says that Adam was right there with her, and is equally to blame for not intervening.
5b) I want to know how the punishment was justifiable by the crime
5c) I want to know why I am still responsible.
5d) I want to know why animals are also responsible
Read Romans 5:12
6) I want evidence that it is structurally possible to build an Ark to the dimension stated using this plywood stuff.
I don't know how big you think the Ark was, but it was only about as high as a three-story building. As for plywood, you can make it as thick as you need, and being naturally bouyant, would float excellently.http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/arksize.html
7) I want evidence of where all this water came from
I have already made statements about a water canopy.
8.) I want evidence of where it all went.
The oceans. If the earth did not have as much topographical convolutions as before the flood, a global flood could be very possible. In any case, people are all freaked out about the polar icecaps melting and flooding a lot of what we do have anyway.
9) I want evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
A ten second google search yielded this: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
10) I want evidence that Bishop Ussher correctly counted the date of Creatiom.
All of the dates and and lifetimes of the patriarchs are tabulated in the bible (I believe the reason they're there is to close any possiblities of "millions of years" inserted between thm). You can add them up yourself with a calculator. (I haven't done it personally, but my wife has).
Then, considering I have provided evidence that information can increase...
You have? Really? Where?
I want you to explain why the theory of Evolution isn't credibe as an explanation of life from the first primitive cell to humans, regardless of how the first cell appeared as we both know evolution makes no claim on who/how the first cell appeared.
Because that amount of genetic diversion has never
been seen. Only postulated.
A full analysis of MarcUK's article will have to come later. Too much to do, too little time.