Good grief. I have other things to do than write posts all day in AI. Cells to split, experiments to run, and papers to read. I haven't left because I was "intimdated" I left because I have to get sleep and actually get work done.
That said, let's get to it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This is incorrect. It has. It was all over the news. Iridium deposits ahoy. Google for a 180-kilometer diameter ring structure centered on the present coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and several hundred metres of sedimentary deposits and the word 'Chicxulub'. Magnetic anomolies suggesting a huge crater measureable from space. For heaven's sake.
I was fully aware of the iridium "layer" theory. It's one that has been postulated by many naturalists for quite some time. However, there is significant disagreement (even among geologists) that it was from the asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
For a summary of the problems encountered in trying to associate the extinction event with the impact layer, see these resources:
Signor, P.W., and J.H. Lipps. 1982. Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns and catastrophes in the fossil record, p. 291-296, in Silver, L.T., and P.H. Schultz (eds.). Geological implications of impacts of large asteroids and comets on the Earth. Geological Society of America Special Paper 190.
Williams, M.E. 1994. Catastrophic versus noncatastrophic extinction of the dinosaurs: Testing, falsifiability, and the burdon of proof. Journal of Paleontology 68: 183-190.
Quote:
Next.
By all means!
Quote:
Gravity is a theory. Like evolution. You are arguing, it appears, and depressingly predictably so, from a position of ignorance about the scientific term 'theory'. Justgoto someUniversity websitesor do somefrigging Googling. Gravity exists. We can see it. The planet is ancient. We can see it. We haven't yet been able to measure the causes of gravity. It is a theory.
Gravity doesn't happen. We don't understand it. It's only a theory.
You very obviously did not follow the link I posted for a definition of a law. Try again
You also very obviosly did not even read your own link, as on the very same page is this:
Quote:
Law of gravitation, Newton's law of gravitation - (physics) the law that states any two bodies attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them
Newton's law is often used and will be presented first.
and:
Quote:
1 Newton's law of universal gravitation
Hopefull this will put the "theory" of gravitation to rest.
Quote:
I beg you. Please find out the truth for yourself. Get your nose out of that Book and look at how awesome the universe is.
Actually, I have my nose in lots of "Books", and I realize how awesome the world is, especially because I don't think it came about by pure chance.
Quote:
I'm not afraid of facts, you see. And I still have to see you present one single piece of evidence so important that the sum total of the last century's research in these fields has to be counted out en masse.
There is a Nobel Prize in it for you.
You obviosly are unaware of how science works. Very rarely is a scientific theory knocked dead by a single discovery or statement. There is a progression of unrefutable evidence (like thermodynamics, which is not subject to interpretation like paleontology) that eventually makes the incorrect position untenable.[/b]
Quote:
No. They are not. Only lupus is a disease. All of these conditions result from genetic predispositions and are what we could call 'design flaws.'
You obviously do not know the definition of a disease. Please read this to be informed. You also very obviously ignored my statements about the progression of genetic damage (mutations).
Quote:
The last time you checked you were completely, utterly, lost-an-argument-on-the-internet-by-ignorance-of-the-facts wrong. Strata are dated by an estimate of the time it would take for immense pressures to petrify organic sediments, their geographical location, their depth, a calculation of the immense time it would take for vulcanisation to cover ancient heathers, for a sea to cross all of it laying down the organisms that become limestone, for silts to cover that, for more vulcanisation to cover that, for a tectonic plate to crash into it and push the fossils of extinct tropical palms into the Arctic, the pertaining environmental conditions of the time they were laid down (cross-checked across entire continents) and the immense time it would take for immense pressures to transmute igneous rocks, stuff like that.
Let's get down to buisness:
First, petrification, or fossilization can not be expressed linearly. There are simply way too many variables, such as how fast sediment was accumulated, how much, and the conditions before and after. As a perfect example, in the June 1996 issue of Earth magazine, paleontologists found a non-fossilized section of a T-Rex bone. Impressive, no? Again, your interpretation depends on your axioms. If you state that a certain fossil is x million years old, then a fossil found below it must be x + y million years old. (not considering plate inversion or anything like that). If you (again, assume) that it takes a million years to generate 100 feet of sediment, and fossil y was found 100 feet above fossil x, then it would be a perfectly valid statement to say that fossil x was x + 1 million years old, as long as your axiom was right. If instead, it took only three days to generate 100 feet of sediment (which has been done in flood plains a lot quicker than that), then all of your conclusions have been shot to heck.
If you believe in a massive flood, something that could cover the face of the earth, then tectonic plate rearragement is very plausible (in fact, expected). Being alive around the time of the flood and immediately after during the settling of the geology must have been terrifying indeed. As for tropical plants found in the arctic (like those in the stomaches of frozen woolly mammoths found in siberia), the immense impact a global flood would have on the ecosystem would have could explain these changes.
Most creationists believe that a very dense water vapor canopy once existed in the atmosphere, which would go very far to explain the increased atmospheric pressures evident in fossils (like 6-foot dragonflies), as well as explaining how the world would have one been very green-house like.
Quote:
The Chauvet caves. I pointed out the depth of virgin mineral deposits, the bones of extinct species and pollen in the cave. I could have added the glacially-sealed cave entrance, marine artifacts discovered inside, heaven knows what else. You decided to settle on the carbon dating, as if that would make all of the other evidence for the painting's immense age redundant. I should have remembered: never, ever mention carbon dating when you're debating with someone who believes that the planet is 10,000 years old (I can't believe I'm writing this.)
Read my statements above as to how a cave containing pollen and bones could contain marine artifacts that have been sealed off in a cave by a glacier forming after the flood. i.e. Things living in the cave....a flood comes by and deposits marine artifacts...a glacier comes through after the flood and seals it off.
Quote:
So, it seems that there's some striations on Mt St Helens that apparently formed very quickly, making all of glacial science redundant and proving that (I don't know) glaciation never happened and that the world is very young.
Except it turns out that your example is nonsense.
Hardly. The evidence you posted goes to support the statement that fine striations in massive amounts of deposited material can form very quickly.
Also, I never said glaciers couldn't have existed. Seems to me a massive flood and the subsequent ecological disturbances are an excellent vehicle.
Quote:
Orginally posted by hardeeharhar
Why does there need to be an intelligence to any of this? Do we not understand yet that you can toss a coin and some fraction of the time it will land on its edge?
Yes, because tossing a coin and having it land on its edge is a great example of how amino acids could concentrate, autocatalyze their polymerization (in the correct order nonetheless!) and fold to make a catalytic shape. (and that's only a single enzyme).
A billion monkeys banging on a billion typewriters writing sonnets is a pathetic example of the true problems necessary for life to have evolved. Fact of the matter is, no "macroevolution" has ever been observed, only postulated from microevolution. Segovius is correct, if evolution made one mistake (especially early on), it would have wiped out any chance of contuining the process at that point. Just because the monkeys make a trillion mistakes (as they are expected to do) does not in any way mean that they would eventually be predestined to write a correct one. (As there was no way to prevent from doing the same mistake twice)
hardeehar, The AI forums are a perfect place to discuss the likelyhood of evolution, because the usual mantra of "Well, everybody believes it" does not apply. If that statement were true, Windows would be considered the best operating system, and we'd all be lauding it. As it is, there is probably a higher percentage of scientists that have significant doubts about evolution than apple has marketshare (unfortunately...)
Quote:
What did God say when you asked him what the biological mechanism was that prevented information being added to the genome?
I didn't say there was a biological mechanism that prevented the addition of more genetic material.
Prokaryotes are usually very stingy with their genomic data, but they make up for that by dividing very quickly. (as well as picking up DNA from their surroundings)
Eukaryotes on the other hand, have pretty sophisticated DNA handling techniques, so they can tolerate a lot more excess material, which allows for very fine tuning of the control mechanisms of the actually transcribed material. (which recently was found to be probably less than 25,000 genes in humans, link)
Quote:
What did God say when you asked him if the catholic church had forged the references to Jesus in Josephus' work?
You still haven't provided any material backing that claim.
Quote:
What did God say when you asked him if the theory of Evolution was the best explaination of how mankind got here?
This is the theory of an infinite number of monkeys randomly bashing on an infinite number of typewriters for eternity would write the works of Shakespeare.
This may be true but what it neglects to address is that they would also half-write them, write them in all possible forms with all possible endings and write every other possible work of fiction as well.
We see no such correlation. The metaphor as it is suggests that the infinite monkeys with their infinite typewriters came up with one work in all of eternity and only one: a perfect Shakespeare.
Not a half written one, not all the variations with all possible mistakes - one and one only.
That's where it falls down.
<*bonks head on desk at manipulations of evidentiary standards*>
At least the scientific side has published protocols trying to test this theory...
2) I personally think that the Bible's explanation fits best.
I want to ask you a question. Do you believe that in order to be a Christian you must deny evolution? Do you believe that an acceptance of biological evolution, and an old earth, would mean that you are denying the Bible, or otherwise not being a good Christian? I ask because it's my impression that the vast, vast majority of creationists are religious conservatives who believe as they do because they think they are following the Bible.
And therefore I think it's important to point out that most Christian denominations have issued statements in one way or another stating that they are not evolution-deniers. That includes the Catholic church as well as most Protestant denominations. The official position of most of these groups is what you might call "theistic evolution" - that God created the universe, but that all of the scientific explanations are still correct, like biological evolution and the 4 billion year old earth and all that good stuff.
In other words, they don't agree with you. The fact is, not only is your type of young-earth creationism a discredited belief in science, it's a discredited and fringe belief even within Christianity.
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.
Like evolution.
This is a rearguard action on my part to actually save some meaning in universally accepted terms from the willful ignorance of people with a vested interest in their obfuscation.
Read my statements above as to how a cave containing pollen and bones could contain marine artifacts that have been sealed off in a cave by a glacier forming after the flood. i.e. Things living in the cave....a flood comes by and deposits marine artifacts...a glacier comes through after the flood and seals it off.
Apart from this.
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.
And the entire set of talking points for naturalists is to call creationists "stupid".
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.
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?
Science accepts any and all theories. The only caveat is that people have the data and experimentation that supports their theories. I've seen plenty of threads like this where a creationist is asked for their evidence and experimentation to support their theories. Yet you hardly ever see any evidence come up. 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.
Can i just say that mammalian cell cultures suck ass?
Thanks for the time for that public statement...
Why is it that people can accept microevolution but not macroevolution? There is fundamentally nothing different between the two.
I think back to all the falsehoods put forward in my biology classes (with each level tweaked back to make them less false), and I honestly think the error in some of the thinking comes from the definition of a species. Our current definition is a working one and is not based upon any thing having to do with genetics -- can these two species mate producing a fertile offspring? But the unthinkable has not been done -- we have not tried to mate a human to a chimp or banobo etc etc. This definition also leads to the problems of ring species where, for instance, species around a mountain can mate with their nearest neighbors creating a logical fallacy in the definition. 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.
Where does this leave us? Not very far from microevolution and I believe that is the point.
You obviosly are unaware of how science works. Very rarely is a scientific theory knocked dead by a single discovery or statement. There is a progression of unrefutable evidence (like thermodynamics, which is not subject to interpretation like paleontology) that eventually makes the incorrect position untenable.
[/B]
This takes a lot of sauce.
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 you're the one telling me I 'don't understand how science works.'
I'm very busy today. I have to deal with your post bit by bit.
First: a non-fossilised dinosaur bone!
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
First, petrification, or fossilization can not be expressed linearly. There are simply way too many variables, such as how fast sediment was accumulated, how much, and the conditions before and after. As a perfect example, in the June 1996 issue of Earth magazine, paleontologists found a non-fossilized section of a T-Rex bone. Impressive, no? Again, your interpretation depends on your axioms. If you state that a certain fossil is x million years old, then a fossil found below it must be x + y million years old. (not considering plate inversion or anything like that). If you (again, assume) that it takes a million years to generate 100 feet of sediment, and fossil y was found 100 feet above fossil x, then it would be a perfectly valid statement to say that fossil x was x + 1 million years old, as long as your axiom was right. If instead, it took only three days to generate 100 feet of sediment (which has been done in flood plains a lot quicker than that), then all of your conclusions have been shot to heck.
And it is a fossil. It is a fossil. It is a fossil.
It contained extractable proteins. 'Earth' magazine (a science mag for teenagers that apparently folded after three issues, which explains why I've never heard of it) ran an article about it at about the time that Jurassic Park came out.
Some creationist 'scientists' seized on it.
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?
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.
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?
Science accepts any and all theories. The only caveat is that people have the data and experimentation that supports their theories. I've seen plenty of threads like this where a creationist is asked for their evidence and experimentation to support their theories. Yet you hardly ever see any evidence come up. 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.
THT Gets it.
BENZENE. Without making references to evolution or biology at all. Put your EVIDENCE for creation theory on the table.
You can easily prove evolution is wrong by proving Creation theory IS right. Banging on the finer points of evolution only proves that you dont understand, or you are deliberatly deceiving.
1), I want to see that the Bible is actually a credible book written under divine inspiration of God
2) I want evidence that the Author of Genesis actually existed. I believe it was Moses.
2b) Then I want an explanation of why the Moses character appears in Egyptian myth as Horus.
3) I want evidence that the World and all living creatures were created in 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.
5a) I want to know why God framed Eve
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
6) I want evidence that it is structurally possible to build an Ark to the dimension stated using this plywood stuff.
7) I want evidence of where all this water came from
8.) I want evidence of where it all went.
9) I want evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
10) I want evidence that Bishop Ussher correctly counted the date of Creatiom.
I dont count occams razor, ifs, buts, or maybe's as evidence, and dissing evolution doesn't count.
Then, considering I have provided evidence that information can increase, 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.
Marc, you realise that most of the stuff you cite has nothing to do with Evolution, yes? By confounding the two you're playing the Creationist game and forcing people to choose between religion and evolution, and we both know that the Bible says nothing that the vast majority of Christians believe is inconsistent with evolution.
The Creationists twist Christianity as much as they do Science.
Marc, you realise that most of the stuff you cite has nothing to do with Evolution, yes? By confounding the two you're playing the Creationist game and forcing people to choose between religion and evolution, and we both know that the Bible says nothing that the vast majority of Christians believe is inconsistent with evolution.
The Creationists twist Christianity as much as they do Science.
Thats the point, this is about Creation theory, so I want evidence of their theory.
Unless you havn't been reading along, Evolution says nothing about first cause or God, so disproving Evolution is Irrelavent to wether their is a God or a designer. If a Creationist want to come into my life and tell me that every thing I accept, believe in, and trust, is a deception of Satan, they had better be able to back it up - with truth, honesty and evidence. Not lies, deceptions and strawmans.
Creation Theory however states that it all happened in strict accordance with a literal interpretation of Genesis, so the 'Burden of Proof' lies with the Creationists. Its up to them to present evidence for their theory - And the first thing that needs to be adressed is whether the Bible is actually what it claims to be - the word of God.. If it is not, then every single thing they claim becomes irrelavent. There is a multi-billion dollar Creationist industry feeding lies and deceptions. They are in our schools, in our government and they have a dangerous agenda, that if successful (ie convering everyone to Creationism) will surely send mankind back to the dark ages.
Why, because in order to present their claim, they go way beyond the boundary of evolutionary theory. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, quantum mechanics are all rubbished by Creationists in order to make their case. Does the world really need a generation of kids growing up believing that all discliplines of Science are deceptions of Satan?
And rightly, you say that the majority of Christians don't have to chose between evolution or the bible. Good. But I havn't exactly heard any of them ever stand up and be counted, or tell a Creationist where they are going wrong with their intrepretation.
I can only apologise to those Christians if my stance on this is upsetting. But they have a choice. They can keep quiet, as they have done, or they can stand up and be counted. If by adressing Creation theory, I have to stamp on their feet, thats a direct consequence of them being quiet, and allowing certain groups to pervert the real message of Christianity.
As segovius has previously said something like - "Religions start out pure and inspiring, and over the course of life, become their polar opposite, perverted, backwards and militant". This is the Creation movement. Perhaps it's the last final war cry of a dying religion, from the people who refuse to let it go. If Christianity is to be preserved, its up to realistic Christians to put the Creationist straight, or else Christianity will go down in its end days as an intolerant, militant, bigotted, backwards fundamentalist perversion, and then it will die.
SO, bring out the evidence for Creation theory. Starting with proof that the Bible is the word of God, Genesis was divinely dictated to Moses by God, and is not the evolution or 'pillaging' of pre-Christian astrotheology.
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.
Like evolution.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Any questions?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
All science is either physics
or stamp collecting. ---Ernest Rutherford
Quote:
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.
Basically, 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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Hardly.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
4) I want evidence that this happened <10000 years ago.
See above.
Quote:
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:
How so? The bible says that Adam was right there with her, and is equally to blame for not intervening.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
7) I want evidence of where all this water came from
I have already made statements about a water canopy.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
9) I want evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
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).
Quote:
Then, considering I have provided evidence that information can increase...
You have? Really? Where?
Quote:
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.
While your answering my questions, and I collate all the evidence that shows your lying or making it up, please answer the question I already asked.
considering creationists accept evolution on the grounds that the process can only decrease information, "What is the biological mechanism that prevents information being added/increased in the genome"?
Also please define the non scientific term "Information"
and please give your definition of "kinds".
And please give your synopsis of the starlight book, im rather adverse to spending any more good money on a propoganda machine.
And just so you know, I believe in a God, and my God is consistent with observable reality - for in order for the whole universe, from the largest black hole to a simple quark to be a product of God and not Satan, it must be possible to correlate observations of reality with God.
I do believe in order to accept Creation theory, that the whole universe, the Earth and every living thing must be a product of Satan in order to deceive me about the work of your God. That makes your god a weak and feeble god who doesn't give a shit if Satan deceives me, or an accomplice of Satan for not doing anything about it.
T2) I want evidence that the Author of Genesis actually existed. I believe it was Moses.
You might want to check out this book. For a summary of the J,E,P,D hypothesis, see here.:
Quote:
They generally accept the "Documentary Hypothesis" which asserts that the Pentateuch was written by a group of four authors, from various locations in Palestine, over a period of centuries. Each wrote with the goal of promoting his/her own religious views:
J: a writer who used JHWH as the "unpronounceable name of God." It is often translated as Jehovah.
E: a writer who used Elohim as the divine name
the author of the book of Deuteronomy
P: a writer who added material of major interest to the priesthood
Finally, a fifth individual was involved :
R: a redactor who shaped the contributions of J, E, P and D together into the present Pentateuch.
Oh. Cool. You're even quoting me saying things I haven't even posted.
You are misunderstanding me on purpose, it appears, and you've signally avoided dealing with what I've actually said, and now we're arguing about gravity a lot.
We don't know what causes gravity. Yes, we can observe its effects. Gravity research is theory because we're still trying to work out what it actually is.
Gravity has not been been 'proven' or 'solved'. It is theory.
It is still theory.
Even when you've finished reading this sentence it will still be theory. That's because, since the facts are on my side, I am right. Hey ho.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
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.
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS. You've been 'hammering' on thermodynamics and you've had half a dozen posts pointing out your errors. Go and frigging read them. Pages 2 and 3. Go and read them.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
[B]Cosmology is a purely observatory science, as is geology.[b]
The speed of light is constant. The properties of radiation are to all practical purposes entirely predictable. Mathematics are far more useful to an understanding of the forces that shaped the universe (cosmology) than they are to geology. Your comparison is absolutely useless.
What are you talking about?
And the universe is far too big and far too old. Unless, of course, God sped up light from ludicrously distant galaxies in order to, I don't know, test us, or do our heads in. Or something. He's God, after all. Might as well make things difficult for us, eh?
And you can be as patronising as you please, but if you're seriously expecting me to believe that a flood swept into a cave carrying only pierced sea shells, leaving no other marine detritus, and left ancient, fragile cave paintings entirely intact than you are nuts. I know a hell of a lot about these caves. There was no flood. It didn't happen. It is impossible. This cave was sealed by glaciation with artifacts like cave bear skulls placed carefully about it. These artifacts were covered by virgin mineral deposits. The paintings were pristine. There is still carbon from lampsmoke on the walls.
My qualifications are in English literature and performance and I write about African hunter gatherer cultures and paleolithic parietal art. So what?
Comments
That said, let's get to it.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This is incorrect. It has. It was all over the news. Iridium deposits ahoy. Google for a 180-kilometer diameter ring structure centered on the present coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and several hundred metres of sedimentary deposits and the word 'Chicxulub'. Magnetic anomolies suggesting a huge crater measureable from space. For heaven's sake.
I was fully aware of the iridium "layer" theory. It's one that has been postulated by many naturalists for quite some time. However, there is significant disagreement (even among geologists) that it was from the asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
For a summary of the problems encountered in trying to associate the extinction event with the impact layer, see these resources:
Signor, P.W., and J.H. Lipps. 1982. Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns and catastrophes in the fossil record, p. 291-296, in Silver, L.T., and P.H. Schultz (eds.). Geological implications of impacts of large asteroids and comets on the Earth. Geological Society of America Special Paper 190.
Williams, M.E. 1994. Catastrophic versus noncatastrophic extinction of the dinosaurs: Testing, falsifiability, and the burdon of proof. Journal of Paleontology 68: 183-190.
Next.
By all means!
Gravity is a theory. Like evolution. You are arguing, it appears, and depressingly predictably so, from a position of ignorance about the scientific term 'theory'. Just go to some University websites or do some frigging Googling. Gravity exists. We can see it. The planet is ancient. We can see it. We haven't yet been able to measure the causes of gravity. It is a theory.
Gravity doesn't happen. We don't understand it. It's only a theory.
You very obviously did not follow the link I posted for a definition of a law. Try again
You also very obviosly did not even read your own link, as on the very same page is this:
Law of gravitation, Newton's law of gravitation - (physics) the law that states any two bodies attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them
Also, on this link, is the following lines:
Newton's law is often used and will be presented first.
and:
1 Newton's law of universal gravitation
Hopefull this will put the "theory" of gravitation to rest.
I beg you. Please find out the truth for yourself. Get your nose out of that Book and look at how awesome the universe is.
Actually, I have my nose in lots of "Books", and I realize how awesome the world is, especially because I don't think it came about by pure chance.
I'm not afraid of facts, you see. And I still have to see you present one single piece of evidence so important that the sum total of the last century's research in these fields has to be counted out en masse.
There is a Nobel Prize in it for you.
You obviosly are unaware of how science works. Very rarely is a scientific theory knocked dead by a single discovery or statement. There is a progression of unrefutable evidence (like thermodynamics, which is not subject to interpretation like paleontology) that eventually makes the incorrect position untenable.[/b]
No. They are not. Only lupus is a disease. All of these conditions result from genetic predispositions and are what we could call 'design flaws.'
You obviously do not know the definition of a disease. Please read this to be informed. You also very obviously ignored my statements about the progression of genetic damage (mutations).
The last time you checked you were completely, utterly, lost-an-argument-on-the-internet-by-ignorance-of-the-facts wrong. Strata are dated by an estimate of the time it would take for immense pressures to petrify organic sediments, their geographical location, their depth, a calculation of the immense time it would take for vulcanisation to cover ancient heathers, for a sea to cross all of it laying down the organisms that become limestone, for silts to cover that, for more vulcanisation to cover that, for a tectonic plate to crash into it and push the fossils of extinct tropical palms into the Arctic, the pertaining environmental conditions of the time they were laid down (cross-checked across entire continents) and the immense time it would take for immense pressures to transmute igneous rocks, stuff like that.
Let's get down to buisness:
First, petrification, or fossilization can not be expressed linearly. There are simply way too many variables, such as how fast sediment was accumulated, how much, and the conditions before and after. As a perfect example, in the June 1996 issue of Earth magazine, paleontologists found a non-fossilized section of a T-Rex bone. Impressive, no? Again, your interpretation depends on your axioms. If you state that a certain fossil is x million years old, then a fossil found below it must be x + y million years old. (not considering plate inversion or anything like that). If you (again, assume) that it takes a million years to generate 100 feet of sediment, and fossil y was found 100 feet above fossil x, then it would be a perfectly valid statement to say that fossil x was x + 1 million years old, as long as your axiom was right. If instead, it took only three days to generate 100 feet of sediment (which has been done in flood plains a lot quicker than that), then all of your conclusions have been shot to heck.
If you believe in a massive flood, something that could cover the face of the earth, then tectonic plate rearragement is very plausible (in fact, expected). Being alive around the time of the flood and immediately after during the settling of the geology must have been terrifying indeed. As for tropical plants found in the arctic (like those in the stomaches of frozen woolly mammoths found in siberia), the immense impact a global flood would have on the ecosystem would have could explain these changes.
Most creationists believe that a very dense water vapor canopy once existed in the atmosphere, which would go very far to explain the increased atmospheric pressures evident in fossils (like 6-foot dragonflies), as well as explaining how the world would have one been very green-house like.
The Chauvet caves. I pointed out the depth of virgin mineral deposits, the bones of extinct species and pollen in the cave. I could have added the glacially-sealed cave entrance, marine artifacts discovered inside, heaven knows what else. You decided to settle on the carbon dating, as if that would make all of the other evidence for the painting's immense age redundant. I should have remembered: never, ever mention carbon dating when you're debating with someone who believes that the planet is 10,000 years old (I can't believe I'm writing this.)
Read my statements above as to how a cave containing pollen and bones could contain marine artifacts that have been sealed off in a cave by a glacier forming after the flood. i.e. Things living in the cave....a flood comes by and deposits marine artifacts...a glacier comes through after the flood and seals it off.
So, it seems that there's some striations on Mt St Helens that apparently formed very quickly, making all of glacial science redundant and proving that (I don't know) glaciation never happened and that the world is very young.
Except it turns out that your example is nonsense.
Hardly. The evidence you posted goes to support the statement that fine striations in massive amounts of deposited material can form very quickly.
Also, I never said glaciers couldn't have existed. Seems to me a massive flood and the subsequent ecological disturbances are an excellent vehicle.
Orginally posted by hardeeharhar
Why does there need to be an intelligence to any of this? Do we not understand yet that you can toss a coin and some fraction of the time it will land on its edge?
Yes, because tossing a coin and having it land on its edge is a great example of how amino acids could concentrate, autocatalyze their polymerization (in the correct order nonetheless!) and fold to make a catalytic shape. (and that's only a single enzyme).
A billion monkeys banging on a billion typewriters writing sonnets is a pathetic example of the true problems necessary for life to have evolved. Fact of the matter is, no "macroevolution" has ever been observed, only postulated from microevolution. Segovius is correct, if evolution made one mistake (especially early on), it would have wiped out any chance of contuining the process at that point. Just because the monkeys make a trillion mistakes (as they are expected to do) does not in any way mean that they would eventually be predestined to write a correct one. (As there was no way to prevent from doing the same mistake twice)
hardeehar, The AI forums are a perfect place to discuss the likelyhood of evolution, because the usual mantra of "Well, everybody believes it" does not apply. If that statement were true, Windows would be considered the best operating system, and we'd all be lauding it. As it is, there is probably a higher percentage of scientists that have significant doubts about evolution than apple has marketshare (unfortunately...)
What did God say when you asked him what the biological mechanism was that prevented information being added to the genome?
I didn't say there was a biological mechanism that prevented the addition of more genetic material.
Prokaryotes are usually very stingy with their genomic data, but they make up for that by dividing very quickly. (as well as picking up DNA from their surroundings)
Eukaryotes on the other hand, have pretty sophisticated DNA handling techniques, so they can tolerate a lot more excess material, which allows for very fine tuning of the control mechanisms of the actually transcribed material. (which recently was found to be probably less than 25,000 genes in humans, link)
What did God say when you asked him if the catholic church had forged the references to Jesus in Josephus' work?
You still haven't provided any material backing that claim.
What did God say when you asked him if the theory of Evolution was the best explaination of how mankind got here?
He laughed.
I have consistently stated my beliefs as two different entites throughout this thread.
Evidently you have not been paying close attention:
1) A vs. B statement (Evolution is not sufficient, so something else)
2) I personally think that the Bible's explanation fits best.
Originally poste by benzene
its progression of thought (from the old to the new testaments) makes sense of what I think God would be like
I guess it's a good thing you changed your sig huh?
[edit]
Big font sizes don't make you any more believable.
Originally posted by benzene
Marc,
I have consistently stated my beliefs as two different entites throughout this thread.
Evidently you have not been paying close attention:
1) A vs. B statement (Evolution is not sufficient, so something else)
2) I personally think that the Bible's explanation fits best.
I guess it's a good thing you changed your sig huh?
[edit]
Big font sizes don't make you any more believable.
Originally posted by segovius
This is the theory of an infinite number of monkeys randomly bashing on an infinite number of typewriters for eternity would write the works of Shakespeare.
This may be true but what it neglects to address is that they would also half-write them, write them in all possible forms with all possible endings and write every other possible work of fiction as well.
We see no such correlation. The metaphor as it is suggests that the infinite monkeys with their infinite typewriters came up with one work in all of eternity and only one: a perfect Shakespeare.
Not a half written one, not all the variations with all possible mistakes - one and one only.
That's where it falls down.
<*bonks head on desk at manipulations of evidentiary standards*>
At least the scientific side has published protocols trying to test this theory...
Originally posted by benzene
2) I personally think that the Bible's explanation fits best.
I want to ask you a question. Do you believe that in order to be a Christian you must deny evolution? Do you believe that an acceptance of biological evolution, and an old earth, would mean that you are denying the Bible, or otherwise not being a good Christian? I ask because it's my impression that the vast, vast majority of creationists are religious conservatives who believe as they do because they think they are following the Bible.
And therefore I think it's important to point out that most Christian denominations have issued statements in one way or another stating that they are not evolution-deniers. That includes the Catholic church as well as most Protestant denominations. The official position of most of these groups is what you might call "theistic evolution" - that God created the universe, but that all of the scientific explanations are still correct, like biological evolution and the 4 billion year old earth and all that good stuff.
In other words, they don't agree with you. The fact is, not only is your type of young-earth creationism a discredited belief in science, it's a discredited and fringe belief even within Christianity.
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.
Like evolution.
This is a rearguard action on my part to actually save some meaning in universally accepted terms from the willful ignorance of people with a vested interest in their obfuscation.
Originally posted by benzene
Read my statements above as to how a cave containing pollen and bones could contain marine artifacts that have been sealed off in a cave by a glacier forming after the flood. i.e. Things living in the cave....a flood comes by and deposits marine artifacts...a glacier comes through after the flood and seals it off.
Apart from this.
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.
The facts aren't important to you.
Originally posted by benzene
And the entire set of talking points for naturalists is to call creationists "stupid".
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.
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?
Science accepts any and all theories. The only caveat is that people have the data and experimentation that supports their theories. I've seen plenty of threads like this where a creationist is asked for their evidence and experimentation to support their theories. Yet you hardly ever see any evidence come up. 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.
Thanks for the time for that public statement...
Why is it that people can accept microevolution but not macroevolution? There is fundamentally nothing different between the two.
I think back to all the falsehoods put forward in my biology classes (with each level tweaked back to make them less false), and I honestly think the error in some of the thinking comes from the definition of a species. Our current definition is a working one and is not based upon any thing having to do with genetics -- can these two species mate producing a fertile offspring? But the unthinkable has not been done -- we have not tried to mate a human to a chimp or banobo etc etc. This definition also leads to the problems of ring species where, for instance, species around a mountain can mate with their nearest neighbors creating a logical fallacy in the definition. 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.
Where does this leave us? Not very far from microevolution and I believe that is the point.
Originally posted by benzene
You obviosly are unaware of how science works. Very rarely is a scientific theory knocked dead by a single discovery or statement. There is a progression of unrefutable evidence (like thermodynamics, which is not subject to interpretation like paleontology) that eventually makes the incorrect position untenable.
[/B]
This takes a lot of sauce.
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 you're the one telling me I 'don't understand how science works.'
First: a non-fossilised dinosaur bone!
Originally posted by benzene
First, petrification, or fossilization can not be expressed linearly. There are simply way too many variables, such as how fast sediment was accumulated, how much, and the conditions before and after. As a perfect example, in the June 1996 issue of Earth magazine, paleontologists found a non-fossilized section of a T-Rex bone. Impressive, no? Again, your interpretation depends on your axioms. If you state that a certain fossil is x million years old, then a fossil found below it must be x + y million years old. (not considering plate inversion or anything like that). If you (again, assume) that it takes a million years to generate 100 feet of sediment, and fossil y was found 100 feet above fossil x, then it would be a perfectly valid statement to say that fossil x was x + 1 million years old, as long as your axiom was right. If instead, it took only three days to generate 100 feet of sediment (which has been done in flood plains a lot quicker than that), then all of your conclusions have been shot to heck.
I have found your bone.
And it is a fossil. It is a fossil. It is a fossil.
It contained extractable proteins. 'Earth' magazine (a science mag for teenagers that apparently folded after three issues, which explains why I've never heard of it) ran an article about it at about the time that Jurassic Park came out.
Some creationist 'scientists' seized on it.
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?
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.
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?
Science accepts any and all theories. The only caveat is that people have the data and experimentation that supports their theories. I've seen plenty of threads like this where a creationist is asked for their evidence and experimentation to support their theories. Yet you hardly ever see any evidence come up. 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.
THT Gets it.
BENZENE. Without making references to evolution or biology at all. Put your EVIDENCE for creation theory on the table.
You can easily prove evolution is wrong by proving Creation theory IS right. Banging on the finer points of evolution only proves that you dont understand, or you are deliberatly deceiving.
1), I want to see that the Bible is actually a credible book written under divine inspiration of God
2) I want evidence that the Author of Genesis actually existed. I believe it was Moses.
2b) Then I want an explanation of why the Moses character appears in Egyptian myth as Horus.
3) I want evidence that the World and all living creatures were created in 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.
5a) I want to know why God framed Eve
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
6) I want evidence that it is structurally possible to build an Ark to the dimension stated using this plywood stuff.
7) I want evidence of where all this water came from
8.) I want evidence of where it all went.
9) I want evidence that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans.
10) I want evidence that Bishop Ussher correctly counted the date of Creatiom.
I dont count occams razor, ifs, buts, or maybe's as evidence, and dissing evolution doesn't count.
Then, considering I have provided evidence that information can increase, 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.
Thankyou.
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/...indlies/A.html
Be sure to read every page.
The Creationists twist Christianity as much as they do Science.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Marc, you realise that most of the stuff you cite has nothing to do with Evolution, yes? By confounding the two you're playing the Creationist game and forcing people to choose between religion and evolution, and we both know that the Bible says nothing that the vast majority of Christians believe is inconsistent with evolution.
The Creationists twist Christianity as much as they do Science.
Thats the point, this is about Creation theory, so I want evidence of their theory.
Unless you havn't been reading along, Evolution says nothing about first cause or God, so disproving Evolution is Irrelavent to wether their is a God or a designer. If a Creationist want to come into my life and tell me that every thing I accept, believe in, and trust, is a deception of Satan, they had better be able to back it up - with truth, honesty and evidence. Not lies, deceptions and strawmans.
Creation Theory however states that it all happened in strict accordance with a literal interpretation of Genesis, so the 'Burden of Proof' lies with the Creationists. Its up to them to present evidence for their theory - And the first thing that needs to be adressed is whether the Bible is actually what it claims to be - the word of God.. If it is not, then every single thing they claim becomes irrelavent. There is a multi-billion dollar Creationist industry feeding lies and deceptions. They are in our schools, in our government and they have a dangerous agenda, that if successful (ie convering everyone to Creationism) will surely send mankind back to the dark ages.
Why, because in order to present their claim, they go way beyond the boundary of evolutionary theory. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, quantum mechanics are all rubbished by Creationists in order to make their case. Does the world really need a generation of kids growing up believing that all discliplines of Science are deceptions of Satan?
And rightly, you say that the majority of Christians don't have to chose between evolution or the bible. Good. But I havn't exactly heard any of them ever stand up and be counted, or tell a Creationist where they are going wrong with their intrepretation.
I can only apologise to those Christians if my stance on this is upsetting. But they have a choice. They can keep quiet, as they have done, or they can stand up and be counted. If by adressing Creation theory, I have to stamp on their feet, thats a direct consequence of them being quiet, and allowing certain groups to pervert the real message of Christianity.
As segovius has previously said something like - "Religions start out pure and inspiring, and over the course of life, become their polar opposite, perverted, backwards and militant". This is the Creation movement. Perhaps it's the last final war cry of a dying religion, from the people who refuse to let it go. If Christianity is to be preserved, its up to realistic Christians to put the Creationist straight, or else Christianity will go down in its end days as an intolerant, militant, bigotted, backwards fundamentalist perversion, and then it will die.
SO, bring out the evidence for Creation theory. Starting with proof that the Bible is the word of God, Genesis was divinely dictated to Moses by God, and is not the evolution or 'pillaging' of pre-Christian astrotheology.
As segovius has previously said.
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.
Like evolution.
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.
Any questions?
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.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
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.
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-...macroevolution
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-...microevolution
Basically, 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?
Hardly.
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.
See above.
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.
considering creationists accept evolution on the grounds that the process can only decrease information, "What is the biological mechanism that prevents information being added/increased in the genome"?
Also please define the non scientific term "Information"
and please give your definition of "kinds".
And please give your synopsis of the starlight book, im rather adverse to spending any more good money on a propoganda machine.
And just so you know, I believe in a God, and my God is consistent with observable reality - for in order for the whole universe, from the largest black hole to a simple quark to be a product of God and not Satan, it must be possible to correlate observations of reality with God.
I do believe in order to accept Creation theory, that the whole universe, the Earth and every living thing must be a product of Satan in order to deceive me about the work of your God. That makes your god a weak and feeble god who doesn't give a shit if Satan deceives me, or an accomplice of Satan for not doing anything about it.
Originally posted by MarcUK
T2) I want evidence that the Author of Genesis actually existed. I believe it was Moses.
You might want to check out this book. For a summary of the J,E,P,D hypothesis, see here.:
They generally accept the "Documentary Hypothesis" which asserts that the Pentateuch was written by a group of four authors, from various locations in Palestine, over a period of centuries. Each wrote with the goal of promoting his/her own religious views:
J: a writer who used JHWH as the "unpronounceable name of God." It is often translated as Jehovah.
E: a writer who used Elohim as the divine name
P: a writer who added material of major interest to the priesthood
Finally, a fifth individual was involved :
R: a redactor who shaped the contributions of J, E, P and D together into the present Pentateuch.
You are misunderstanding me on purpose, it appears, and you've signally avoided dealing with what I've actually said, and now we're arguing about gravity a lot.
We don't know what causes gravity. Yes, we can observe its effects. Gravity research is theory because we're still trying to work out what it actually is.
Gravity has not been been 'proven' or 'solved'. It is theory.
It is still theory.
Even when you've finished reading this sentence it will still be theory. That's because, since the facts are on my side, I am right. Hey ho.
Originally posted by benzene
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.
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS. You've been 'hammering' on thermodynamics and you've had half a dozen posts pointing out your errors. Go and frigging read them. Pages 2 and 3. Go and read them.
Originally posted by benzene
[B]Cosmology is a purely observatory science, as is geology.[b]
The speed of light is constant. The properties of radiation are to all practical purposes entirely predictable. Mathematics are far more useful to an understanding of the forces that shaped the universe (cosmology) than they are to geology. Your comparison is absolutely useless.
What are you talking about?
And the universe is far too big and far too old. Unless, of course, God sped up light from ludicrously distant galaxies in order to, I don't know, test us, or do our heads in. Or something. He's God, after all. Might as well make things difficult for us, eh?
And you can be as patronising as you please, but if you're seriously expecting me to believe that a flood swept into a cave carrying only pierced sea shells, leaving no other marine detritus, and left ancient, fragile cave paintings entirely intact than you are nuts. I know a hell of a lot about these caves. There was no flood. It didn't happen. It is impossible. This cave was sealed by glaciation with artifacts like cave bear skulls placed carefully about it. These artifacts were covered by virgin mineral deposits. The paintings were pristine. There is still carbon from lampsmoke on the walls.
My qualifications are in English literature and performance and I write about African hunter gatherer cultures and paleolithic parietal art. So what?
Re-reading that article, I see it is still a fossil. It just is. It's a fossil, not 'an unfossilised dinosaur bone' as you incorrectly posted.
That was untrue. Because the bone is a fossil.