I wasn't trying to 'prove evolution' using a single painted cave as an example.
I was trying to get you to see that the evidence that the planet is very ancient indeed is ludicrously, ridiculously, there's-an-elephant-having-a-shit-in-my-living-room, preposterously, superabundantly obvious. So obvious that it takes a huge effort of will to ignore it. So obvious that you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes and hold your own reason in the sink until it stops squirming.
There is no 'controversy'. There is no 'debate'. Only people who won't, or can't, understand what they see.
This is actually an inhuman failure of imagination, and I think that that's what pisses me off about creationists the most.
Anyway. Just that.
Shetline: don't let the guy's condescending, patronising shite cause you to lose your temper. He's very good at that. He's had practice.
"starlight and time"... Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.
Humphrey is a joke, so much so that some of his biggest critics are christian cosmologists. Next time cite something that hasn't been totally discredited and, please, take the time to look up why he's wrong. THe whole 'head hurt' tactic is the pseudoscientist's primary weapon.
Quote:
I am a biophysicist, and I use the terms accordingly. You [shetline], on the other hand, most definitely do not know what you're talking about.
What you call a 'biophysicist' I call a kid who just got a chemistry bachelors this year and has thoroughly demonstrated that he doesn't know either what a scientific law is or anything about what newton actually said about gravity. Come back down.
No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales...
I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about...
I claim no expertise on biochemistry (I'm a software engineer, since you seem to care to know about that), but I've read Dembski's boot "Mere Creation", so I know the argument you're trying to make here. In his case, I'll give the man some credit for an attempt at good scholarship, and for at least having the decency to acknowledge that evolutionary theory has a lot going for it -- rather than taking the dismissive "What fools!" attitude toward evolution that so many creationists assume.
I'll just say in brief that I found his argument (and this applies to your case too, unless you have something beyond Dembski to add) nothing more than an elaborate "watchmaker" case. For one thing he forgets the statistical nature of thermodynamics -- a big mistake to make at the molecular level. I could go on, but that would be more tangential than I care to be right now.
Quote:
Hardeeharhar has done an admirable job of explaning how some of the complex objects seen in life might have come about by natural processes. However, there are just theories, and most of which have never been observed. Additionally, they still fall very short of what would be necessary for even the simplest cell to be formed...
Wow. The conclusive proof of abiogenesis is that it's "a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter". What a crock. That statement is meaningless. Life, and it's processes are interesting, of course, but getting from molecules to life is going to require a bit more than your vacuous "interesting process."
What appears to be going on here is an elaborate ploy to shift the burden of proof.
I say there's nothing about evolution or biogenesis which is incompatible with thermodynamics. You say back that there's nothing in thermodynamics that proves that evolution or biogenesis are possible.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that merely not running afoul of thermodynamics in any clear-cut way is more than good enough. How did complex living organic chemistry arise from pre-biotic matter? Good question. How does natural selection do such a good job of generating novel structures and adaptations? Another good question. Having answers for those questions would be great, but having those answers is not necessary for proving evolution, nor is having those answers necessary for proving compatibility with thermodynamics.
One of the guiding principles in science is Occam's Razor, often paraphrased as "Given a choice of explanations, the simplest is usually true". But something important is lost in that paraphrasing. Here's the original Latin:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This translates to "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary". An example from
For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.
Which of these explanations better survives Occam's Razor?
(A) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life have arisen from the known phenomenon of evolution on a small scale (the so-called "microevolution" which by now even most creationists accept) expanding in scope, over a broader scale and larger time span, to produce large scale biological development and change?
(B) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life can only be explained by the prior existence of some intelligence -- a prior complex entity, an additional entity, the origin and complexity of which is beyond our ability to explain?
If you wish to assume that complexity and intelligence can arise out of nothingness, or simply "just have been there" all along, why not assume that the known physical universe is the thing itself capable of reaching complexity and intelligence, instead of adding a new entity outside of the physical universe to do the job?
If you wish to condemn evolutionists for not being able to explain each and every mechanism needed to turn non-living matter into complex life, should I not also, and more strongly, condemn you for having no explanation whatsoever for where your Intelligent Designer comes from, how It does what It does, and how It overcomes the problems you say evolution doesn't solve?
Could you replace those beautiful pictures of yours with links or smaller pictures, so I don't have to stretch my browser window to 2/3 the width of my 22" Cinema Display simply to avoid horizontal scrollbars?
I know this complaint may seem picky of me. Please, don't worry, I still love you.
But Groverat, we can test liquid babyjesustears! In icecores and whatnot!
We have baby Jesus tears in ice? Awesome, first we get that drill they used in Jurassic Park to get dinosaur DNA from amber and then we'll clone baby Jesus!
And then he'll eat a lawyer who is cowering on a toilet.
Aren't they a massive parasitic collective, intent on devouring the galaxy?
Quote:
Let bruce do the speaking, we were actually having some fun, since I don't have to reinvent the wheel each time I talk to you "the earth isn't a closed system which proves evolution" people.
Fine, we get that you get the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Quote:
The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals
If you're not an fit animal, you don't reproduce and you die. No more of your schema in the fossil record.
Yes, they are. And no, I do not hold blindly to the fact that there "has to be a God." I just figure if I see fingerprints, there has to be fingers that made them. If instead I see enough evidence to convince me otherwise, I will do so with the amount of analysis befitting such a change in position. It's not really up to you to decide how much information is necessary to change my mind.
If I was in these discussions to change other people's minds, I would be a very unhappy person. I enjoy these arguments because they help me reach the absolute truth, which is what I'm more interested in than anything else.
Of course it is not up to me to decide how much evidence is necessary will change your mind. I am merely estimating it will take an infinite amount because religion is the ultimate fallback. It cannot be proven to be wrong.
If you really wanted to know the truth, I would recommend looking into comparative religion and read from the likes of Joseph Campbell. His relatively old works haven't been superceded yet and probably won't be superceded until "evolutionary psychology" matures.
As far as your scientific prowess, maybe you're not communicating well, but you haven't displayed any scientific prowess yet. You can talk the language of biophysicists, yet you don't even understand the rudiments of the scientific method. And as long as you have unfalsifiable a priori beliefs, essentially a belief in magic, the absolute truth will evade you.
Quote:
People once thought that classical mechanics was able to explain everything. Then technology developed to the point where we were able to observe discrepancies that classical physics couldn't explain. A new theory was then needed, and we're still hammering out the specifics, and will continue to do so for quite some time.
Yeah. That is the nature science. It adjusts to new data. The point of laboratory experiments on abiogenesis is to understand how it could happen. To generate some actual data to look at instead of thought experiments. Once there is a handle on how life can arise, predictions and hypotheses can be made of how it could come about billions of years ago, data will be gathered to support it, experiments will be performed to verify it. And refinements will be made ad infinitum.
Could you replace those beautiful pictures of yours with links or smaller pictures, so I don't have to stretch my browser window to 2/3 the width of my 22" Cinema Display simply to avoid horizontal scrollbars?
I know this complaint may seem picky of me. Please, don't worry, I still love you.
No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales.
LIE no.1: I pointed out on page 1 that a known deception of Creationists is to claim such a thing. Evolution does not say that cows turn into whales. Another strawman. Evolution does not say that anything alive today will ever turn into something else living today. I suspect you know this.
Quote:
Once again, you are using the definition of evolution to prove itself. Adaptation on a small scale has occured, (and since that means genetic material was changed, is defined as evolution) However, naturalists postulate that (these small adaptations) and only those are enough to explain all observed genetic variation.
LIE no.2: If you had an understanding of the real theory and not your cows/whales/information strawman definition of it, you'd know that is all that is required as defined by the Scientific definition of Evolution. Hell, If I saw a Cow give birth to a whale, I'd start to believe in God pretty sharpish. I suspect you know this.
Tell me, if an animal goes through 1000 instances of microevolution over a million years, and at the last microevolution makes it reproductively isolated and it goes its seperate way and starts to adapt to its environment by microevolution seperately from the original organism, why is that not macro?
C'mon then define 'kinds'
Quote:
I'm arguing that anything even resembling the massive amounts of changes needed has never been observed. The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals, i.e. you don't see anything that would resemble a species in transit. You can try and explain it away (as has been done many times) with the puntuated equilibrium model, but at that point, the theory is bordering on incredible.
Stupidity 1: Every fossil ever found is a species in transit. Or are you pretending that once a cow always the same cow? Oh yes, the Creation theory strawman "Why did a cow become a cow and then stop evolving?"
LIE no.3: So the theory says that it takes a +/-million years to produce macroevolution from thousands of instances of microevolution, and you claim that because we havn't seen macroE directly, is proof that the theory is wrong. Mmmmkay. I suspect you know this.
LIE no.4: As for the fossil record, largely we find exactly what is predicted by the theory. Lots of incremental small changes between perfectly fit animals. I suspect you know this.
Tell me, do you expect to find proof of a half whale, half cow that was really unfit for its environment?
AND, if cows did turn into whales, how would you recognise the fossil as a transitory one?
All these variations of the homo species, were they all specifically designed by God, and then discarded because he thought they were no good. Where is the explanation of that in the Book of Genesis? Oh wait, they were planted by Satan?
Quote:
Actually, imagine that the cow is made of several trillion entire lego sets, and then you're getting a bit closer to the actual complexity of the thing. I was referring to a single protein being like a bunch of legos.
But ok, let's keep going with this.
LIE no.5: Yes lets imagine this, and then come back to reality that the cow is actually only made from the same 4 single cubes of lego. I suspect you know this.
Quote:
Really. How about a half-formed flipper? It's pathetic for swimming, and very cumbersome for walking on. Perhaps you're saying it developed all at once? Yeah...right. S.H.A.R.K.B.A.I.T.
"And then a wing developed!". Uh huh.
I wonder if a Duck thinks its half formed flipper is pathetic for swimming or cumbersome for walking. I wonder if a flying squirrels think their half formed wings and arms are useless for flying and climbing at the same time? I wonder if a flamingo thinks its flightless wing is useless for running and pathetic for quick movement. I wonder if flatworms, clams, scallops, spiders, think their light sensive cells are useless eyes?
LIE no.6. Flippers, wings, antenaa, etc didn't just form from thin air according to the theory, they are modified legs, arms, that happened because the environment selected the adaption that best suited the environment. I suspect you know this.
Quote:
Correction: I never said macroevolution was possible in any case. I don't care how long you have. It's never been observed, it's only been postulated.
LIE no.7: according to the correct understanding of the theory, you accepted that what is postulated by the theory is no problem. What you are saying IS the problem is not in evolution theory. I suspect you know this.
Quote:
Try to imagine this: Most scientists accept evolution as a paradigm. Also, all of this "evidence", whether it be patchy fossils, or genetic similarities is completely untestable. Additionally, in the testable areas, it's never been confirmed, or even observed.
LIE no.8: Every scientific theory is a paradigm if you want to nit-pick. There is no absolute proof. Fact does not mean 100% true. Evolution has as much supporting evidence as any other scientific theory. Even I know that einsteins theories are not 100% true, same with Quantum Mechanics, same with fluid dynamics, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Lack of 100% truth does not mean your God did it.
LIE no 9. In the directly testable area of microevolution it has been observed and confirmed. I suspect you know this.
TRUTH 1.: Creation Theory is completely untestable, so that makes it useless and irrelavent according to your very definition.
Quote:
I was asked how old the earth was (I don't know exactly), but not the universe.
A seemingly simple question, but one that has an exceptionally complex answer.
Dont you need to invoke Occams Razor about now?
Quote:
I believe I was asked to explain the "starlight and time" theory, so here goes: (the ultra-concise version)
Gravity (an effect of mass) has an effect on time. This is well known by physicsts. i.e. the fabric of spacetime.
If the universe does not have equally distributed mass (which is actually being discovered to be true), then areas in spacetime where density is high, time will go very slowly. (This has already been postulated many times about the "singularity" in black holes, where time stops completely).
The universe is also very obviously expanding. (redshift of starlight, etc.)
If the earth is near the center of the universe, or near one of the aforementioned dense points, time will be slow for us compared to objects in areas of less density.
Therefore, while some stars may in all actuality be millions, billions, or even trillions of years old, the earth may actually be less than 10k. (How old the earth is, I don't really know).
This is actually one of the reasons I picked out the bible as being more accurate than any other holy book. In almost every other text, gods are talked about as existing in the same timeframe as humans. However, the bible talks about God being seperate from time. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." etc.
These phenomena have actually just been recently observed using the earth's "dent" in spacetime as a measuring point.
The book "starlight and time" was written by the physicist Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.
LIE no.10. Using Evidence of mass distribution density on the order of the 1000th decimal place to imply distribution fluctuations on the whole number. I suspect you know this.
LIE no.11. Implying the density and effects of Singularities is on the same magnitude to the density of the solar system. I suspect you know this.
LIE no.12. there is no center of the universe. I suspect you know this.
LIE no 13. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth is near a very dense part of the universe. I suspect you know this.
LIE no 14. Claiming you dont know how old the earth is, but previously stating you think it's less than 10k. Thats pretty specific when you're claiming some stars could be trillions of years old.
LIE no 15. "Earth dent" same as lie no 10. I suspect you know this.
LIE no 16. Everything you state as IF, is known not to be the case as supported by the evidence.
STUPIDITY NO 2. Your logic is drivel. If we were near a very dense part of the universe and time went really slowly for us, that doesn't mean that the universe was created at different times. It just means that we perceive it as slower, meaning that 14 billion years have still passed as we measure it in our frame of reference, regardless of wether 10000 years have passed in a very undense part of the universe as measured in that specific frame of reference using our frame as a benchmark. But if such an absolute frame of reference existed, the amount of time that passed in every part of the universe would be the same because all light and all mass has to be traceable back to the same point at the same time. In our frame of reference it is +/-14 billion years.
STUPIDITY NO 3. Using the Bible to claim "that days are like thousands of years and thousands of years are like days", when you are claiming that it all happened in accordance to literal 6x24hour periods.
Quote:
I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
STUPIDITY NO 4. claiming people are ignorant, when you've demonstrated beyond doubt that you do not know what the real theory of evolution actually postulates.
Quote:
Yes, and no. You really need to pay more attention.
As I've said countless times in this thread, thermodynamics provides no mechanism for which simple molecules will arrange themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy.
probable LIE no 17. I'll be honest, I know very little about thermodynamics, so I can't comment, Snowflakes spring to mind, but it sounds like a strawman to me. Does thermodynamics have a mechanism that prevents simple molecules from arranging themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy?
16 plus lies, 1 truth and 4 accounts of stupidity. Are you related to Henry Morris?
Theory: Finches on several close Islands seem to have been selected (as in dog breeding) for features that aid them in their local environments. On this I propose Evolutionary theory -- there are forces which will bias a population towards adaptations (both behaviorally and physiologically) that will aid them to survive more so than their ancestral state in their environments.
My theory suggests that if some of these adaptations occur through genetic changes, there will be an obvious bias towards the gene products that the ancestral species had. This means that when looking at species that appear related (through an independent analysis of rRNA sequences), their gene products should be more similar than those of two species that are distantly related (by rRNA analysis).
You get hypotheses from Theories, you can test those hypotheses. It turns out that the hypothesis that gene products don't change radically between related species (in other words species that have similar rRNA sequences) is true -- evidence that evolutionary theory accurately predicts this result.
This is NOT using evolutionary theory to prove evolutionary theory.
Right, I think its time. Im not going to discuss evolutionary theory any more. Its clear that we will all go round in circles for infinity with no outcome.
What we need now is proof of the following.
1) That the Bible was written under divine inspiration of God.
2) That the Author of Genesis actually existed and was chosen by God to scribe the events.
3) That the current translations of the Bible are the accurate word of God, and have not been tampered with in any way whatsoever.
4) precise Definitions of key words that appear in Genesis in the original language, such as Adam, Elohim, etc.
5) Evidence that the Christian God, is different from all other Gods in all religious texts, and proof that every other designed religious theory of creation is wrong.
6) Evidence that the Earth is <10000 years old.
7) Evidence that light has changed speed since creation by hundreds of magnitudes.
8.) Evidence that the universe has a center or we are in a very dense or very undense portion of it.
9) Evidence that Satan planted all other 'kinds' of humans in order to deceive us - or they were Gods prototypes.
10) Evidence of a biological mechanism that prevents 'information' being added to the Genome.
11) definitions of 'Kinds' 'information' and for my understanding, what was an unclean or clean beast?
12) Evidence that it was possible to build a boat from gopher wood to the dimensions stated.
13) Evidence that the whole Earth was flooded by one global flood a few thousand years ago.
14) Evidence that canopy theory is scientifically valid
15) Evidence that rushing water can uplift mountains and cause deep sea depressions in about a year.
16) Evidence that a wooden boat would be able to survive the journey over the forces of water that caused no.15
17) Evidence that such forces of water can sort fossils into very precise bands of increasing complexity, without smashing the fuck out of them.
17) Evidence that the Earth was significantlly flatter <10000k years ago.
18) Evidence that Genesis should be taken literally
19) Evidence that the serpent was Satan.
20) Evidence that an Apple can contain all the knowledge of the Gods.
21) Evidence that the punishment fitted the Crime
22) Evidence that it is possible to repopulate the world to 7 billion in a few thousand years.
just to start with.
Occams razor, opinions or 'if's' do not count. Put the evidence on the table.
I've got a harsh set of finals coming up, as well as several projects that are reaching critical mass.
Since I want to research each inquiry thoroughly, it will be some time before I have complete answers for either the scientific or personal questions.
BBL
LIE no.18. Running away when you've been owned, a common creationist trait.
Don't forget to research both sides of the argument if you want to be honest and maintain integrity. There are no personal questions here, I am just asking for the evidence of your 'scientific' theory.
Cannot you at least define 'information' in Scientific terms before you go?
I hate to burst anyones bubble, but this "news" of a "missing link" has been done many times before. the Piltdown man in my old textbooks was made entirely from a pigs tooth. Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey. there is not much evidence to suggest to much otherwise with this "news" on BBC.
Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey.
There's a quality set up for a mom joke there but I'll pass.
Your comment has already been addressed, I'll repeat it here just for you: no one is trying to prove that there is a "missing link" and haven't been since the 50's. The "link" is no longer "missing" and it has been proven beyond doubt that humans are related to, and descended from, apes.
The article plays up the "missing link" angle as it has become lodged in the public imagination but the real newsworthyness of the article is the finding of an old fossil and the scientific information that provides, not that it "proves" human descent from apes.
I hate to burst anyones bubble, but this "news" of a "missing link" has been done many times before. the Piltdown man in my old textbooks was made entirely from a pigs tooth. Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey. there is not much evidence to suggest to much otherwise with this "news" on BBC.
Unbelievable. Another tour de force of mutual respect and tolerance on the pages of Appleinciter.
I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque.
Folks, Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level -- wake up and smell the complexity. Speciation works like the dickens, so does adaptation -- but the curtain is coming down on the concept of "Evolution" -- a 100 years of hemming and hawwing on the avialibility of evidences (and what constitutes them) is just too long.
Darwin had his turn, it's time to face up to reality.
Genisis could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- the universe could be infinite -- there still isn't enough time.
Comments
I wasn't trying to 'prove evolution' using a single painted cave as an example.
I was trying to get you to see that the evidence that the planet is very ancient indeed is ludicrously, ridiculously, there's-an-elephant-having-a-shit-in-my-living-room, preposterously, superabundantly obvious. So obvious that it takes a huge effort of will to ignore it. So obvious that you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes and hold your own reason in the sink until it stops squirming.
There is no 'controversy'. There is no 'debate'. Only people who won't, or can't, understand what they see.
This is actually an inhuman failure of imagination, and I think that that's what pisses me off about creationists the most.
Anyway. Just that.
Shetline: don't let the guy's condescending, patronising shite cause you to lose your temper. He's very good at that. He's had practice.
Originally posted by benzene
"starlight and time"... Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.
Humphrey is a joke, so much so that some of his biggest critics are christian cosmologists. Next time cite something that hasn't been totally discredited and, please, take the time to look up why he's wrong. THe whole 'head hurt' tactic is the pseudoscientist's primary weapon.
I am a biophysicist, and I use the terms accordingly. You [shetline], on the other hand, most definitely do not know what you're talking about.
What you call a 'biophysicist' I call a kid who just got a chemistry bachelors this year and has thoroughly demonstrated that he doesn't know either what a scientific law is or anything about what newton actually said about gravity. Come back down.
Originally posted by benzene
No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales...
I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about...
I claim no expertise on biochemistry (I'm a software engineer, since you seem to care to know about that), but I've read Dembski's boot "Mere Creation", so I know the argument you're trying to make here. In his case, I'll give the man some credit for an attempt at good scholarship, and for at least having the decency to acknowledge that evolutionary theory has a lot going for it -- rather than taking the dismissive "What fools!" attitude toward evolution that so many creationists assume.
I'll just say in brief that I found his argument (and this applies to your case too, unless you have something beyond Dembski to add) nothing more than an elaborate "watchmaker" case. For one thing he forgets the statistical nature of thermodynamics -- a big mistake to make at the molecular level. I could go on, but that would be more tangential than I care to be right now.
Hardeeharhar has done an admirable job of explaning how some of the complex objects seen in life might have come about by natural processes. However, there are just theories, and most of which have never been observed. Additionally, they still fall very short of what would be necessary for even the simplest cell to be formed...
Wow. The conclusive proof of abiogenesis is that it's "a particularly interesting process of organized energy and matter". What a crock. That statement is meaningless. Life, and it's processes are interesting, of course, but getting from molecules to life is going to require a bit more than your vacuous "interesting process."
What appears to be going on here is an elaborate ploy to shift the burden of proof.
I say there's nothing about evolution or biogenesis which is incompatible with thermodynamics. You say back that there's nothing in thermodynamics that proves that evolution or biogenesis are possible.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that merely not running afoul of thermodynamics in any clear-cut way is more than good enough. How did complex living organic chemistry arise from pre-biotic matter? Good question. How does natural selection do such a good job of generating novel structures and adaptations? Another good question. Having answers for those questions would be great, but having those answers is not necessary for proving evolution, nor is having those answers necessary for proving compatibility with thermodynamics.
One of the guiding principles in science is Occam's Razor, often paraphrased as "Given a choice of explanations, the simplest is usually true". But something important is lost in that paraphrasing. Here's the original Latin:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This translates to "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary". An example from
http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/fo...am's+Razor
For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities.
Which of these explanations better survives Occam's Razor?
(A) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life have arisen from the known phenomenon of evolution on a small scale (the so-called "microevolution" which by now even most creationists accept) expanding in scope, over a broader scale and larger time span, to produce large scale biological development and change?
(B) The origin, diversity, and complexity of life can only be explained by the prior existence of some intelligence -- a prior complex entity, an additional entity, the origin and complexity of which is beyond our ability to explain?
If you wish to assume that complexity and intelligence can arise out of nothingness, or simply "just have been there" all along, why not assume that the known physical universe is the thing itself capable of reaching complexity and intelligence, instead of adding a new entity outside of the physical universe to do the job?
If you wish to condemn evolutionists for not being able to explain each and every mechanism needed to turn non-living matter into complex life, should I not also, and more strongly, condemn you for having no explanation whatsoever for where your Intelligent Designer comes from, how It does what It does, and how It overcomes the problems you say evolution doesn't solve?
Could you replace those beautiful pictures of yours with links or smaller pictures, so I don't have to stretch my browser window to 2/3 the width of my 22" Cinema Display simply to avoid horizontal scrollbars?
I know this complaint may seem picky of me. Please, don't worry, I still love you.
But Groverat, we can test liquid babyjesustears! In icecores and whatnot!
We have baby Jesus tears in ice? Awesome, first we get that drill they used in Jurassic Park to get dinosaur DNA from amber and then we'll clone baby Jesus!
And then he'll eat a lawyer who is cowering on a toilet.
You are assuming the flood consisted of water.
Aren't they a massive parasitic collective, intent on devouring the galaxy?
Let bruce do the speaking, we were actually having some fun, since I don't have to reinvent the wheel each time I talk to you "the earth isn't a closed system which proves evolution" people.
Fine, we get that you get the Second Law of thermodynamics.
The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals
If you're not an fit animal, you don't reproduce and you die. No more of your schema in the fossil record.
Originally posted by benzene
Yes, they are. And no, I do not hold blindly to the fact that there "has to be a God." I just figure if I see fingerprints, there has to be fingers that made them. If instead I see enough evidence to convince me otherwise, I will do so with the amount of analysis befitting such a change in position. It's not really up to you to decide how much information is necessary to change my mind.
If I was in these discussions to change other people's minds, I would be a very unhappy person. I enjoy these arguments because they help me reach the absolute truth, which is what I'm more interested in than anything else.
Of course it is not up to me to decide how much evidence is necessary will change your mind. I am merely estimating it will take an infinite amount because religion is the ultimate fallback. It cannot be proven to be wrong.
If you really wanted to know the truth, I would recommend looking into comparative religion and read from the likes of Joseph Campbell. His relatively old works haven't been superceded yet and probably won't be superceded until "evolutionary psychology" matures.
As far as your scientific prowess, maybe you're not communicating well, but you haven't displayed any scientific prowess yet. You can talk the language of biophysicists, yet you don't even understand the rudiments of the scientific method. And as long as you have unfalsifiable a priori beliefs, essentially a belief in magic, the absolute truth will evade you.
People once thought that classical mechanics was able to explain everything. Then technology developed to the point where we were able to observe discrepancies that classical physics couldn't explain. A new theory was then needed, and we're still hammering out the specifics, and will continue to do so for quite some time.
Yeah. That is the nature science. It adjusts to new data. The point of laboratory experiments on abiogenesis is to understand how it could happen. To generate some actual data to look at instead of thought experiments. Once there is a handle on how life can arise, predictions and hypotheses can be made of how it could come about billions of years ago, data will be gathered to support it, experiments will be performed to verify it. And refinements will be made ad infinitum.
Originally posted by shetline
Hey, Hassan...
Could you replace those beautiful pictures of yours with links or smaller pictures, so I don't have to stretch my browser window to 2/3 the width of my 22" Cinema Display simply to avoid horizontal scrollbars?
I know this complaint may seem picky of me. Please, don't worry, I still love you.
THey were beginning to bug me too.
Originally posted by benzene
No, you have a hypothesis that says the genetic ability of bacteria to adapt is proof that cows can turn to whales.
LIE no.1: I pointed out on page 1 that a known deception of Creationists is to claim such a thing. Evolution does not say that cows turn into whales. Another strawman. Evolution does not say that anything alive today will ever turn into something else living today. I suspect you know this.
Once again, you are using the definition of evolution to prove itself. Adaptation on a small scale has occured, (and since that means genetic material was changed, is defined as evolution) However, naturalists postulate that (these small adaptations) and only those are enough to explain all observed genetic variation.
LIE no.2: If you had an understanding of the real theory and not your cows/whales/information strawman definition of it, you'd know that is all that is required as defined by the Scientific definition of Evolution. Hell, If I saw a Cow give birth to a whale, I'd start to believe in God pretty sharpish. I suspect you know this.
Tell me, if an animal goes through 1000 instances of microevolution over a million years, and at the last microevolution makes it reproductively isolated and it goes its seperate way and starts to adapt to its environment by microevolution seperately from the original organism, why is that not macro?
C'mon then define 'kinds'
I'm arguing that anything even resembling the massive amounts of changes needed has never been observed. The fossil record is full of perfectly fit animals, i.e. you don't see anything that would resemble a species in transit. You can try and explain it away (as has been done many times) with the puntuated equilibrium model, but at that point, the theory is bordering on incredible.
Stupidity 1: Every fossil ever found is a species in transit. Or are you pretending that once a cow always the same cow? Oh yes, the Creation theory strawman "Why did a cow become a cow and then stop evolving?"
LIE no.3: So the theory says that it takes a +/-million years to produce macroevolution from thousands of instances of microevolution, and you claim that because we havn't seen macroE directly, is proof that the theory is wrong. Mmmmkay. I suspect you know this.
LIE no.4: As for the fossil record, largely we find exactly what is predicted by the theory. Lots of incremental small changes between perfectly fit animals. I suspect you know this.
Tell me, do you expect to find proof of a half whale, half cow that was really unfit for its environment?
AND, if cows did turn into whales, how would you recognise the fossil as a transitory one?
All these variations of the homo species, were they all specifically designed by God, and then discarded because he thought they were no good. Where is the explanation of that in the Book of Genesis? Oh wait, they were planted by Satan?
Actually, imagine that the cow is made of several trillion entire lego sets, and then you're getting a bit closer to the actual complexity of the thing. I was referring to a single protein being like a bunch of legos.
But ok, let's keep going with this.
LIE no.5: Yes lets imagine this, and then come back to reality that the cow is actually only made from the same 4 single cubes of lego. I suspect you know this.
Really. How about a half-formed flipper? It's pathetic for swimming, and very cumbersome for walking on. Perhaps you're saying it developed all at once? Yeah...right. S.H.A.R.K.B.A.I.T.
"And then a wing developed!". Uh huh.
I wonder if a Duck thinks its half formed flipper is pathetic for swimming or cumbersome for walking. I wonder if a flying squirrels think their half formed wings and arms are useless for flying and climbing at the same time? I wonder if a flamingo thinks its flightless wing is useless for running and pathetic for quick movement. I wonder if flatworms, clams, scallops, spiders, think their light sensive cells are useless eyes?
LIE no.6. Flippers, wings, antenaa, etc didn't just form from thin air according to the theory, they are modified legs, arms, that happened because the environment selected the adaption that best suited the environment. I suspect you know this.
Correction: I never said macroevolution was possible in any case. I don't care how long you have. It's never been observed, it's only been postulated.
LIE no.7: according to the correct understanding of the theory, you accepted that what is postulated by the theory is no problem. What you are saying IS the problem is not in evolution theory. I suspect you know this.
Try to imagine this: Most scientists accept evolution as a paradigm. Also, all of this "evidence", whether it be patchy fossils, or genetic similarities is completely untestable. Additionally, in the testable areas, it's never been confirmed, or even observed.
LIE no.8: Every scientific theory is a paradigm if you want to nit-pick. There is no absolute proof. Fact does not mean 100% true. Evolution has as much supporting evidence as any other scientific theory. Even I know that einsteins theories are not 100% true, same with Quantum Mechanics, same with fluid dynamics, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Lack of 100% truth does not mean your God did it.
LIE no 9. In the directly testable area of microevolution it has been observed and confirmed. I suspect you know this.
TRUTH 1.: Creation Theory is completely untestable, so that makes it useless and irrelavent according to your very definition.
I was asked how old the earth was (I don't know exactly), but not the universe.
A seemingly simple question, but one that has an exceptionally complex answer.
Dont you need to invoke Occams Razor about now?
I believe I was asked to explain the "starlight and time" theory, so here goes: (the ultra-concise version)
Gravity (an effect of mass) has an effect on time. This is well known by physicsts. i.e. the fabric of spacetime.
If the universe does not have equally distributed mass (which is actually being discovered to be true), then areas in spacetime where density is high, time will go very slowly. (This has already been postulated many times about the "singularity" in black holes, where time stops completely).
The universe is also very obviously expanding. (redshift of starlight, etc.)
If the earth is near the center of the universe, or near one of the aforementioned dense points, time will be slow for us compared to objects in areas of less density.
Therefore, while some stars may in all actuality be millions, billions, or even trillions of years old, the earth may actually be less than 10k. (How old the earth is, I don't really know).
This is actually one of the reasons I picked out the bible as being more accurate than any other holy book. In almost every other text, gods are talked about as existing in the same timeframe as humans. However, the bible talks about God being seperate from time. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." etc.
These phenomena have actually just been recently observed using the earth's "dent" in spacetime as a measuring point.
The book "starlight and time" was written by the physicist Russell Humphreys, and he goes into a lot more detail, a lot of which makes my head hurt.
LIE no.10. Using Evidence of mass distribution density on the order of the 1000th decimal place to imply distribution fluctuations on the whole number. I suspect you know this.
LIE no.11. Implying the density and effects of Singularities is on the same magnitude to the density of the solar system. I suspect you know this.
LIE no.12. there is no center of the universe. I suspect you know this.
LIE no 13. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth is near a very dense part of the universe. I suspect you know this.
LIE no 14. Claiming you dont know how old the earth is, but previously stating you think it's less than 10k. Thats pretty specific when you're claiming some stars could be trillions of years old.
LIE no 15. "Earth dent" same as lie no 10. I suspect you know this.
LIE no 16. Everything you state as IF, is known not to be the case as supported by the evidence.
STUPIDITY NO 2. Your logic is drivel. If we were near a very dense part of the universe and time went really slowly for us, that doesn't mean that the universe was created at different times. It just means that we perceive it as slower, meaning that 14 billion years have still passed as we measure it in our frame of reference, regardless of wether 10000 years have passed in a very undense part of the universe as measured in that specific frame of reference using our frame as a benchmark. But if such an absolute frame of reference existed, the amount of time that passed in every part of the universe would be the same because all light and all mass has to be traceable back to the same point at the same time. In our frame of reference it is +/-14 billion years.
STUPIDITY NO 3. Using the Bible to claim "that days are like thousands of years and thousands of years are like days", when you are claiming that it all happened in accordance to literal 6x24hour periods.
I said that thermodynamics excluded the ability of complex macromolecues to randomly autoassemble. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
STUPIDITY NO 4. claiming people are ignorant, when you've demonstrated beyond doubt that you do not know what the real theory of evolution actually postulates.
Yes, and no. You really need to pay more attention.
As I've said countless times in this thread, thermodynamics provides no mechanism for which simple molecules will arrange themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy.
probable LIE no 17. I'll be honest, I know very little about thermodynamics, so I can't comment, Snowflakes spring to mind, but it sounds like a strawman to me. Does thermodynamics have a mechanism that prevents simple molecules from arranging themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy?
16 plus lies, 1 truth and 4 accounts of stupidity. Are you related to Henry Morris?
My theory suggests that if some of these adaptations occur through genetic changes, there will be an obvious bias towards the gene products that the ancestral species had. This means that when looking at species that appear related (through an independent analysis of rRNA sequences), their gene products should be more similar than those of two species that are distantly related (by rRNA analysis).
You get hypotheses from Theories, you can test those hypotheses. It turns out that the hypothesis that gene products don't change radically between related species (in other words species that have similar rRNA sequences) is true -- evidence that evolutionary theory accurately predicts this result.
This is NOT using evolutionary theory to prove evolutionary theory.
(Sexual Selection, anyone?)
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Micro. macro: evolution either way.
(Sexual Selection, anyone?)
And evidence of increasing 'information'
Originally posted by MarcUK
And evidence of increasing 'information'
Actually, that is quite easy -- trisomy is increased info....
What we need now is proof of the following.
1) That the Bible was written under divine inspiration of God.
2) That the Author of Genesis actually existed and was chosen by God to scribe the events.
3) That the current translations of the Bible are the accurate word of God, and have not been tampered with in any way whatsoever.
4) precise Definitions of key words that appear in Genesis in the original language, such as Adam, Elohim, etc.
5) Evidence that the Christian God, is different from all other Gods in all religious texts, and proof that every other designed religious theory of creation is wrong.
6) Evidence that the Earth is <10000 years old.
7) Evidence that light has changed speed since creation by hundreds of magnitudes.
8.) Evidence that the universe has a center or we are in a very dense or very undense portion of it.
9) Evidence that Satan planted all other 'kinds' of humans in order to deceive us - or they were Gods prototypes.
10) Evidence of a biological mechanism that prevents 'information' being added to the Genome.
11) definitions of 'Kinds' 'information' and for my understanding, what was an unclean or clean beast?
12) Evidence that it was possible to build a boat from gopher wood to the dimensions stated.
13) Evidence that the whole Earth was flooded by one global flood a few thousand years ago.
14) Evidence that canopy theory is scientifically valid
15) Evidence that rushing water can uplift mountains and cause deep sea depressions in about a year.
16) Evidence that a wooden boat would be able to survive the journey over the forces of water that caused no.15
17) Evidence that such forces of water can sort fossils into very precise bands of increasing complexity, without smashing the fuck out of them.
17) Evidence that the Earth was significantlly flatter <10000k years ago.
18) Evidence that Genesis should be taken literally
19) Evidence that the serpent was Satan.
20) Evidence that an Apple can contain all the knowledge of the Gods.
21) Evidence that the punishment fitted the Crime
22) Evidence that it is possible to repopulate the world to 7 billion in a few thousand years.
just to start with.
Occams razor, opinions or 'if's' do not count. Put the evidence on the table.
I've got a harsh set of finals coming up, as well as several projects that are reaching critical mass.
Since I want to research each inquiry thoroughly, it will be some time before I have complete answers for either the scientific or personal questions.
BBL
Originally posted by benzene
Just to let you guys know (MarcUK, especially):
I've got a harsh set of finals coming up, as well as several projects that are reaching critical mass.
Since I want to research each inquiry thoroughly, it will be some time before I have complete answers for either the scientific or personal questions.
BBL
LIE no.18. Running away when you've been owned, a common creationist trait.
Don't forget to research both sides of the argument if you want to be honest and maintain integrity. There are no personal questions here, I am just asking for the evidence of your 'scientific' theory.
Cannot you at least define 'information' in Scientific terms before you go?
Originally posted by 9secondko
Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey.
There's a quality set up for a mom joke there but I'll pass.
Your comment has already been addressed, I'll repeat it here just for you: no one is trying to prove that there is a "missing link" and haven't been since the 50's. The "link" is no longer "missing" and it has been proven beyond doubt that humans are related to, and descended from, apes.
The article plays up the "missing link" angle as it has become lodged in the public imagination but the real newsworthyness of the article is the finding of an old fossil and the scientific information that provides, not that it "proves" human descent from apes.
Originally posted by 9secondko
I hate to burst anyones bubble, but this "news" of a "missing link" has been done many times before. the Piltdown man in my old textbooks was made entirely from a pigs tooth. Anyone remember Lucy? it turned out that she was just a tree swinging monkey. there is not much evidence to suggest to much otherwise with this "news" on BBC.
Hey, who brought the cool kid?
I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque.
Folks, Evolution simply doesn't work at ANY level -- wake up and smell the complexity. Speciation works like the dickens, so does adaptation -- but the curtain is coming down on the concept of "Evolution" -- a 100 years of hemming and hawwing on the avialibility of evidences (and what constitutes them) is just too long.
Darwin had his turn, it's time to face up to reality.
Genisis could be literal, figurative, abstract impressionist, you name it -- the universe could be infinite -- there still isn't enough time.