PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 5 6 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 09:21 AM on March 9, 2009 :
This is "oddly" interesting

On Christmas Day in 2002, Jack Whitaker, of Scott Depot, West Virginia, got lucky, becoming the largest single-ticket lottery jackpot winner until that time in North America. His prize? A Powerball jackpot of $314.9 million. Over a hundred million other tickets didn’t match
If someone won even two such lotteries consecutively, we would all assume the results were rigged. And yet, when it comes to life existing in our universe, the odds are far more remote than winning a hundred Powerball lotteries consecutively.

Physicist Paul Davies comments, “The conclusion must be that we live in a world of astronomical unlikelihood.
Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10^124, a number beyond imagination.

So , is the Earth and  life itself rigged?


If you really wanted to know the answer to that question, instead of bringing your copy pasta here, you should go do some research. That might include finding out if the Paul Davies quote is strawman / misquote in the first place, assembling the other evidence (not creationist propoganda) and then looking for existing refutations, THINKING (now theres a novel idea for a fundie) and reasoning an original argument of your own.

WIPE THE POO DAGS OFF YOUR OWN BUM KID!!


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 05:34 AM on March 10, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

skepticus
I don't have to rely on trust when I am offered an explanation that can be understood as obviously true and inevitable under the prevailing circumstances.

So you don't have to "trust" say, Scientific America, because you can look at an article and know whether or not it is true? Unless the "prevailing circumstances" are altered? Wow.

Like yourself, I can (and do) choose to educate myself to the point that I have a working knowledge and when presented with details of an idea, I can fit them in with my existing understanding. If they do not fit in with my existing understanding, I have a discrepancy on my hands. That is what I have chosen to do. You apparently have not.

Actually Lester has demonstrated on numerous occasions that according to his "existing understanding" there are too many "discrepancies" in the TOE to consider the theory valid.

Skepticus: Do you really wonder about the question you are positing ….are you only towing the party line?

Lester: Yes I wonder a lot about the question I’m positing. I wonder how a philosophical bent...

So it is an acceptable evos ploy to divert the opponent onto the defensive. "towing the party line"?

No no no. I was asking about the questions you posit. You are trying to ignore the question and put me in the defensive position. Classic creationist ploy BTW. Don't run the discussion off the rails and create diversions please.

But not acceptable for a creo to divert.

My question, was obviously about the questions you posit as objections or discrepancies with evolution and how critically you evaluate the sources. Judging from your response you are not interested in critical evaluation of the source of the information.
The information is about a technique you don't understand, so you are clearly not in any position to be able to judge sensibly for yourself if the methods are valid. This means you are entirely dependent upon the credibility of your creationist sources.

On the contrary, understanding the philosophical bent of of your source is absolutely relevant in the critical evaluation. I'd imagine you don't seek information from AIG because their philosophy is repugnant to you.

You are clearly not motivated by any earnest desire to find truth in general, but rather to contradict and undermine evolution by natural selection (which you also don't seem to understand), seemingly on the full trust of your sources.

Who defines "truth in general"? Certainly you are not the final arbiter of truth. And if you would realize that, perhaps you would notice that Lester actually has a very relevant understanding of evolution beginning with the FACT that no one completely understands it.

Skepticus: The scientific method is what you are presently challenging no less
Lester: Actually I have no general problem with the scientific method –what I have a problem with is grouping evolution with all of its philosophical bias in with actual science.


HA Hahahaha. Um those dating techniques you mentioned, they wouldn't happen to rely on the laws of physics by any chance would they? Coz I always thought they did. And, ah.. all the fossil evidence that fundies attempt without understanding to discredit, that wouldn't happen to rely on the science of geology would it?

You are intentionally misunderstanding Lester's point. The evos community has cheated by removing the terms micro and macro from the definition of evolution. Actual science is observable and testable. ( the micro part) All the rest of that stuff is hypothetical based on anecdotal evidence with a preconceived explanation already in place.

Lester  Mixing evolution in with experimental repeatable science unsullied by imaginative speculation is obfuscation.


What you object to Gregor Mendel's repeatable pea experiments? I think Barbara McClintock and a few geneticists since, would want to tell you a thing or two about the laborious repetitive nature of  genetics research.

Case in point. You intentionally disregard Lester's allusion to (macro) evolution by referencing (micro) evolution research.

Natural selection provides an absolutely beautiful explanation for the appearance of design. Once it is understood a person has one of those moments of revelation that the metaphor of a penny dropping barely captures. It is exhilarating as it is obvious to anybody who comprehends it. I do not choose to believe this idea, rather It is simply unavoidable.

This is the same type of exhilaration a person feels when they recognize the intentional design in everything. It is as unavoidable in light of creos presupposition as yours is in light of evos presupposition.

Incredible it is, how creationists always get that thing ass backwards? It's patently obvious, that what an engineer or a mathematician believes is not going alter their ability to do anything. Beliefs don't have causal influence on anything. Beliefs don't count for anything because, believing something doesn't make it true.

Thanks for the strawman. Belief counts for everything. Edison invented the light bulb because he believed it would work despite all of the failures. All of the incredible knowledge that is at our fingertips was built on the backs of previous generations who believed that their work would aid humanity.

The point you willfully ignored with that strawman is that, the laws of nature are dependable facts of reality that science must discover. They are not fictional scenarios which can be made up like biblical parables. Biological principals are no different than physics principals, and are attended to by the same scientific method and peer review process.

True, but does science normally define a law and then set out to prove it? Or does the law arise out of continued expansion of what is known?


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:44 AM on March 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi again Skepticus,

I don't have to rely on trust when I am offered an explanation that can be understood as obviously true and inevitable under the prevailing circumstances.


Perhaps trust was the incorrect word to use under the circumstances since it is so easily misconstrued in this forum as a word denoting lack of intelligence or plain blind stupidity. What may be obviously true to you is clearly not as obviously true for me and vica versa.

If they do not fit in with my existing understanding, I have a discrepancy on my hands. That is what I have chosen to do. You apparently have not.


I get your point. However what if your existing understanding is flawed and the only discrepancies you have are because of your existing and possibly flawed understanding? The understanding forced upon us all at schools and universities all over the globe.You imagine that I enjoy and actively nurture discrepancies? No, my earlier understanding was consonant with evolution. I then found too many discrepancies and had to overhaul my prior understanding to eliminate multitudes of inconsistencies. Now I reject evolution as a flawed understanding of everything that exists. Three years and many challenges to my new understanding later and I am more firmly convinced than ever that the concept of evolution is a philosophical choice and is not consonant with reality.

The disinformation creationists harvest from sources like AiG, are willful lies of creationist leaders like Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Henry Morris et al. These are repeat  offenders that are caught red handed and proven to be lying in front of their own audiences. Initially they recant and take back what ever claim they have made, but in the next creationist publication the same lie is repeated. These people are devious charlatans and frauds of the lowest caliber.


And would this be your original opinion - or a regurgitation of consistent copy and paste ad hominem attacks made on these men by evolutionists everywhere when they run out of scientific challenges to what they are saying?

Surely you don't just believe somebody because they happen to be clutching a Bible.

No I try to be discriminating since wolves often come dressed as sheep as every Christian knows. As yet I find no fault with Ken Ham, Duane Gish nor Henry Morris. I also would prefer to stick to their ‘faulty’ or deceptive claims rather than a prejudicial attack on their personalities or intentions.

You are trying to ignore the question and put me in the defensive position. Classic creationist ploy BTW. Don't run the discussion off the rails and create diversions please.


I had thought that was a classic evolutionist ploy - observe Wisp with gluteus maximus in a discussion about the probability of abiogenesis
       
How many elephants did Noah carry into the ark?
How many elephant species are alive today?
Do all marsupials share a common ancestor?
What about felines?
What about canines?
What about apes?”

Judging from your response you are not interested in critical evaluation of the source of the information.


Why, because I have not come to the same conclusion as you?

The information is about a technique you don't understand, so you are clearly not in any position to be able to judge sensibly for yourself if the methods are valid.


You are clearly in no position to assess my level of understanding of radiometric dating techniques at this point. It seems to me to be that therefore it is because I do not concur with the evolutionists that my understanding of the theory is judged to be faulty or lacking?

This means you are entirely dependent upon the credibility of your creationist sources.


Only a fool would depend entirely on the credibility of their sources. I think you must know that and that is the implication of your statement.

You are clearly not motivated by any earnest desire to find truth in general, but rather to contradict and undermine evolution by natural selection (which you also don't seem to understand)


My that was a mouthful of ad hoc rubbish. Once again it seems to me that my failure to agree with you is undermining your desire to see any good side to my intentions. As for contradicting and undermining evolution by natural selection –I contradict it where there are problems with its pronouncements and I resist when philosophy is clearly overriding science and the truth is being distorted.
The most common claim of evolutionists is that we don’t agree because we cannot understand –it is not only arrogant but also tiresome hearing it repeated ad nauseum. Only intelligent people understand evolution and only evolutionists are intelligent. If only I understood it, I would immediately become an evolutionist. Not toeing the party line is the stupid road to take. Despite all of that, I have chosen the ‘stupid’ road because I value truth above backpatting and public approval. Evolution is the easy road –the broad road….

HA Hahahaha. Um those dating techniques you mentioned, they wouldn't happen to rely on the laws of physics by any chance would they?


The laws of physics certainly are a portion of what radiometric dating techniques have been based upon. However as with all dating techniques, aside from written historical proof of age, they mostly rest upon unprovable assumptions which I would think you would know since you are, you strongly suggest, so well versed in radiometric dating.

And, ah.. all the fossil evidence that fundies attempt without understanding to discredit, that wouldn't happen to rely on the science of geology would it?  


Frankly no – it does not rest upon the science of geology, it rests upon the unproven assumption of uniformatarianism - which would be fine if the evidence weren’t so contradictory to the premise.

What you object to Gregor Mendel's repeatable pea experiments? I think Barbara McClintock and a few geneticists since, would want to tell you a thing or two about the laborious repetitive nature of  genetics research.


Do you misunderstand on purpose or are you truelly confused as to my point here. I speak not of repeatable experimentation on things like genetics but on unrepeatable assertions such as dinosaurs developed into birds and chemicals became people (over a looong period of time).

Physics gives rise to chemistry, which gives rise to, biology which gives rise to evolution


There it is again, it’s that last part that is the odd man out and you missed it again!!

.. complexity, diversity etc.


Variation arises from genetic reshuffling allowing biological creatures to adapt to their environment. There is no evidence that it can cause any increase in complexity and a lot of evidence to the contrary. You should try reading about genetics and the mutational load sometime.

Natural selection provides an absolutely beautiful explanation for the appearance of design.


Incorrect. Natural selection can only select that which already exists. It does not even begin to explain the original appearance of different biological forms.

Once it is understood a person has one of those moments of revelation that the metaphor of a penny dropping barely captures. It is exhilarating as it is obvious to anybody who comprehends it.


It is so drab existing in this world where pennies apparently fail to drop. Science is not about that which is obvious it is about that which is evidential. Your feelings aside.

I do not choose to believe this idea, rather It is simply unavoidable.


There is absolutely nothing unavoidable about evolution. Your conviction appears to be religious.

You know that is not what I was suggesting.


It could hardly be misconstrued as a suggestion, Skepticus. It was vastly clear to anybody who cared to read it.

I am trying to be patient with you and you might just like to pretend you have enough respect ….


Parent to child stuff huh Skepticus – my thanks for your understanding of my all too apparent shortcomings. It is because I am deaf to the pennies dropping…

the laws of nature are dependable facts of reality that science must discover. They are not fictional scenarios which can be made up like biblical parables.


…you mean like evolutionary just-so stories that defy the laws of nature but comply with man’s wishful thinking?

Biological principals are no different than physics principals, and are attended to by the same scientific method and peer review process.


‘I’m afraid evolution is not in the category of being confirmed by the scientific method but I can understand why you’d like to believe that. Biological principles that conform to the scientific method are not what we are arguing about here.

In this world, extremist religious fundamentalism, is apparently desperate to coerce or kill people to propagate religious beliefs. to protect religious interests.


Are you talking about muslims slitting throats here or are you suggesting that Christian creationists are planning to bring in the guillotine to wipe out dissent over supernatural creation? You would do well to look closer to home if you want to see suppression of free speech and the firing, character assassination and negative propoganda against those who would disagree.

The transitional continuum of the geological column and mountains of fossils arranged by morphological relationships and tending towards modern forms in later eras?


That is not what you see - but then you wish you did and therefore apparently you do –that is called fanciful imagination or wishful thinking but does not accord with the actual evidence. Is a trilobite less modern than an elephant? Is a monkey more modern than a dinosaur –it depends entirely on whether you believe the theory of evolution. We still have unicellular organisms –shouldn’t they have succumbed to evolution by now?

What the hell would you know about the scientific method anyhow? If I had wanted to sound like less than a quarter wit, I wouldn't say anything half that smart.


I’m sorry –there goes my stupid ignorant and retarded mouth again.

Because they don't want to permit the supernatural creation story to be accepted huh? I wonder why they would all so comprehensively in you 'evolution sector', be anti-creation.


What?

Mindbogglingly ignorant, inane comparisons are "not necessarily the same as true." either.


I’m sorry.


It seems that science and truth have taken divergent paths.



Oh does it? I thought it was just the 'evolution sector'.


Yes that’s exactly what I think.

That is the nature of science, it is self vetting and encourages intellectual criticism.


Not with evolutionists holding the fort it doesn’t. I’m sorry you hadn’t noticed. I’m sure the Nazis believed they were open to honest criticism as well.

In Darwin's case the acceptance was overwhelming as should be expected of a  body of knowledge so completely true and factually correct.


All hail Darwin. Excuse we while I puke.

I would thank you not to talk to me in tones of worldly wisdom about Evolution in particular, nor any science in general, as if you are entitled to benefit me with your contemptible ignorance.


I’m sorry.

The above quote sounds dangerously like you are attempting to bestow some of your puerile misinformed rantings upon me


I’m sorry.

I don't take education about science from somebody who hasn't a foggiest clue about scientific fact, nor how science is done, and I don't like a patronizing tone coming from somebody with such comprehensive ignorance of the subject you are professing to know about. SO be a) naive or b) knowledgeable, but don't be 'a' and pretend to be 'b'.


I’m sorry.
You know you really sound like the epitome of the new priesthood of the evolutionary religion now. I hope you intend to change the science books into another very special language (it already is quite special) only to be learnt by very clever people so that the stupids will not interfere with your settled matters.

Now I am just not understanding you on just how the peer review process is failing in biology but not any other science.


Biologists commitment to evolution is what is causing the failure. They do not like to be contradicted on their belief system and they do not like to think that it is a belief system and not science - so only that which complies with protocol is decreed acceptable in biology. That is why it is failing in biology.

My first point from the previous post, the one you completely ignored when you instead tried to attack my viewpoint, was that the scientific method and peer review process are universals that just can't be undermined, least of all in an isolated area of science.


Dream on. Truth can be undermined when consensus rules.

the scientific method cant be abandoned by a scientist


Apparently it can, which accounts for all the wonderful imaginative opportunities in the account of the evolution of humans.

How is it held off limits and how do you know this? You are just making baseless assertions here. Even if I wanted this to be true 100%, I couldn't be the slightest bit convinced, by what you are telling me. You are not giving evidence of this conspiracy and I am interested.


You could start by reading “Slaughter of the Dissidents” which gives individual accounts of what happened to scientists that dared to question evolution. That should help you to realize that there is no more freedom in academia and that evolution dominates by force and not by the scientific method.

peer review journals are there to filter out bogus bullshit


….and anybody that disagrees with the theory (not the fact) of evolution. You would say that that is the same thing but I would have to disagree.

I also have a serious problem with that which is not true  especially when it is being spouted by ignorant creationist liars, who know very well they do not have the knowledge required to understand and criticize the factuality of evolution and yet have the brazen arrogance to face their critics and insinuate them as liars, especially when those critics understand evolution and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is rock solid fact.  


My point about not tolerating dissent.

I Have pangs of outrage that test my heartfelt convictions as a peace loving person


That is called religious intolerance –my religion or the highway is what you are saying.

Anybody found trying to indoctrinate any child of mine would have bought themselves a free ride in a body bag.


I feel pretty strongly about what my children are having forced down their throats as well and evolutionists are the ones doing the forcing. No dissent tolerated, no alternate viewpoints allowed or the ACLU will get you. God doesn’t exist. Chance and natural selection did it, evolution did it and that’s that. I love it when democracy works.

It's better that I don't have children than have to risk doing serious time for a crime of passion


You shouldn’t have children.

How can you be indoctrinated into an institution which has no doctrine.


God did it or evolution did it –two possible choices –neither automatic.
Chance and natural selection is the only one ‘science’ is prepared to accept –that is a choice and their doctrine is that only naturalism is allowed in science. Nothing else is permissible therefore the choice is made without one scrap of evidence being required.

Natural Selection DOES, provide a natural, explanation for biological organization.


No it doesn’t. It only provides an explanation for why some things die and some survive. It explains precisely nothing about where they came from. You presume the rest.

It requires leaps of faith, to ignore infinitely more parsimonious natural explanations, for supernatural fantasies,


You think evolution is parsimonious? What if it is untrue? Why do you think that it is a parsimonious explanation. That comment is certainly not self explanatory. Chemical reactions did not obviously organize organisms into a unit called life. It is far more parsimonious to say that an organizer organized natural components into life. Your supposedly parsimonious explanation is also imaginary.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:44 AM on March 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:44 AM on March 10, 2009 :

The laws of physics certainly are a portion of what radiometric dating techniques have been based upon. However as with all dating techniques, aside from written historical proof of age, they mostly rest upon unprovable assumptions which I would think you would know since you are, you strongly suggest, so well versed in radiometric dating.


So, did the paper you cited date lava or inclusions?


(Edited by Apoapsis 3/10/2009 at 11:35 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:34 AM on March 10, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:14 PM on March 9, 2009 :

the origins of life is still work in progress.  It's obvious to me that abiogenesis did happen here on earth.  


Obvious? I take exception to that. It's a leap of faith to believe that non living chemicals together can form living cells. Has this ever been reproduced in the laboratory under ideal circumstances? This quote here kind of puts a damper on the theory
"If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”.  This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles.  Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land.  Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents.  It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios.  This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers.  A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”  Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means. "

And I am still shaking my head from what I asked earlier that if evolution is "blind", how is it that complex beings of a high magnitude of order come to be?

PS I do not know how many elephants were on the Ark.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:23 PM on March 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus -

So if abiogenesis did not happen, how did life get started?  God?  

God is not really an answer for me.  That only poses the question of where did God come from?  You can say, He's always existed.  But that's not really a very satisfying answer.  Just like the Christian dogma that there is eternal 'life' awaiting you in heaven.  I don't think I would want eternal life.  I can't even imagine it.  

What in your opinion is Man's place in the universe?  And what is the benefit of having eternal life/existence?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:00 PM on March 10, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Glute..

It's a leap of faith to believe that non living chemicals together can form living cells.


If you dont believe in God then this is NOT a leap of faith at all but rather the ONLY POSSIBLE scenario (whether you understand the exact mechanism or not).

One mark of intelligence is the ability to 'put yourself in someone elses shoes' ie to imagine yourself in their place and see things as they see them.  Try it sometime. Put yourself in the place of a person who is absolutely convinced that there is no GOD... THEN ask yourself how life began. (Remember you WONT come to the conclusion that Goddidit).

Did you try that?
So.. How did life begin?

Real scientists have to think this way ALL THE TIME. They are NOT ALLOWED to give up and say God did it!



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 9:07 PM on March 10, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion, (Waterboy too) I can get into a discussion about the existence of God, should we do it here or another thread?
But speaking of God, what would your logical answer be to the question " What started the thing that started the thing [ad infinitum] that started the universe"


(Edited by gluteus_maximus 3/10/2009 at 9:12 PM).

(Edited by gluteus_maximus 3/10/2009 at 9:13 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:11 PM on March 10, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Glute

This is not about whether God exists. That would be another dicussion.

The point of my previous post was that "God did it" (irrespective of your personal faith position) can never be a satisfactory explanation for a scientitst.

As for the 'ultimate cause' argument. Yes... trying to imagine how the thing started that started the thing that started the..  blah blah ..  might lead one to posit a 'creator' whom noone had to create. But its just as easy to imagine an infinitely long chain of cause and effect as it is to imagine Divine beings. Of course, scientists are not particularly interested in WHO made it they would inevitably have to ask the question HOW God made it.

Personally I have no problem with the idea that the universe as we know it emerged out of a singularity, which we can call a big bang if we like. For our purposes the big bang suffices as the 'beginning' of everything since it is the beginning of everything we care about.

Since the whole of time/space resolves back to a singularity the mechanism by which we ascribe precedence and sequence to events does not apply outside the time/space dimensions of this universe ie the phrase "before the big bang" simply does not make sense. Nothing, not even God, can precede the big bang.. not because of any problem with God but because the word 'precede' is meaningless in the context and that's NOT a semantic problem. Its a reality of our universe unless you can come with an ontological argument that is completely independent of space, time and matter.




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 11:15 PM on March 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But its just as easy to imagine an infinitely long chain of cause and effect as it is to imagine Divine beings.


With 'imagine' being the operative word. The sad thing about 'evolution' is that it is a deception that 'science' can only allow you to imagine the long chain of cause and effect. It is no more 'scientific' than to imagine the only other possibility which is that a creator did it.

Why is it that the 'Big Bang' or 'the singularity' are more 'scientific'? Truth be told it isn't but there is this false pride that goes with 'science'. You have to be intelligent enough you see, in order to exclude 'God' -only the stupid people include God in the list of possibilities. It's illogical but scientists and anyone who goes and studies most anything after school are convinced of this basic 'truth' and thereafter are too embarrassed to posit the obvious as an alternative to evolution because they think it looks stupid.
The devil is certainly not stupid.

In the beginning (time), God (cause) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter.)

If you dont believe in God then this is NOT a leap of faith at all but rather the ONLY POSSIBLE scenario


My point precisely. It's like asking 'what is the answer to the question 2+2' but you may not answer 4 or anything like 4 or anything that adds up to 4 because it is too religious, not scientific enough and thus is not allowed. You see, when you eliminate the correct answer than anything goes and you can make up what you like and you'll be as right as any other made up answer that is not 4.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:29 AM on March 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx, what Skepticus says is perfectly reasonable. Trust is not so big a deal when the subject is well understood by the reader.

I have read publications i don't trust lots of times. I got used to tell the difference between the real deal and the bullshit.

The same with the Discovery Channel. I have seen serious bullshit there.

It's not blind trust what makes us believe what we read. It has to make sense. Bullshit tends not to make perfect sense.

timbrx
1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology  (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

Please explain how evolution is not a philosophy.
I'd have to know first which one of the 5 definitions you gave is a fitting depiction of the TOE.

Seriously, i have no clue. I'd guess that you don't mean something related to ethics. Well, you do think that moral principles can be extracted from the TOE, so i can't be sure even of that...
Point out just one of them, or better yet, give me your own definition of philosophy (you're free to bend it to make it fit the TOE, but don't bend it too much).

Presenting evidence against Evolution should be a piece of cake. Just find species that don't fit in the evolutionary tree.
That presupposes your acceptance of the hypothetical tree.
As wrong as it gets.
I don't believe in the tree.
As irrelevant as it gets.

I'm not talking about the fact that species have evolved as the evolutionary tree depicts it. Nevermind that.

I'm talking about the actual evolutionary tree. I'm talking about the arrangement.

In your hypothesis God has made some very strange creatures, just because He wanted to. But even the strangest creature fits in the evolutionary tree.

You can't deny the tree because it's a model. A representation. It is not a fact (even if it accurately depicts factual knowledge).

It doesn't matter if you believe in evolution from microbes to microbiologists.


Now, the arrangement is not whimsical. The phylogenetic tree and the taxonomic tree fit perfectly.

Animals are arranged by

* Kingdom
___* Phylum
___* Class
___* Order
___* Family
___* Genus
___* Species

We humans belong to the animal kingdom, chordata phylum, mammalia class, primata order, homo genus, homo sapiens species.

If you found a crocoduck, i'd make it fit in the animal kingdom, chordata phylum, and then i'd shoot myself. Or become a christian (just in case).

But we don't find that.

The lower you go in the arrangement the more confusing the terms are, but that's just the wording. Nothing weird is really happening. Pieces keep fitting in the puzzle, even if we're not sure what to call them.

Species that don't fit, don't exist either.

Skepticus
Physics gives rise to chemistry, which gives rise to, biology which gives rise to evolution; complexity, diversity etc. There's no odd one out in fact they are hopelessly interdependent fields of study.



Skepticus
Lester10
You appear to imagine that evolutionary thinking put the computer together but you’re wrong –
You are being dishonest Lester. You know that is not what I was suggesting.
You're taking it very well, Skepticus! I warned you against Lester10 and gluteous. Gluteous is even worse.

You expect anybody to believe that there is a conspiracy in science but only in the area where the knowledge is inconvenient to creationist dogma?
That's what i always point out. They trust science (and thinking knowledgeable people) with their lives. Except in those areas where the Bible had something to say.

They manage to believe that we have some selective blindness (even when we have no reasons for that).

Skepticus
Lester10
“Aah but we see evolution happening before our eyes,” you say. No actually you only see as much as the Bible has already told us all –
Where in the bible, does it describe Mendelian inheritance, Recombinant DNA, The transitional continuum of the geological column and mountains of fossils arranged by morphological relationships and tending towards modern forms in later eras?
Really, Lester. Take that claim back. Or rephrase it into something that makes sense.
Better not forget wispy's  (220 was it wisp?) species of elephants.
160. 220 was the minimum amount of them that should have been embarked into the ark if those species existed before the flood event.

That number could raise up to 1.120 if elephants are 'clean'.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:47 AM on March 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Actually Lester has demonstrated on numerous occasions that according to his "existing understanding" there are too many "discrepancies" in the TOE to consider the theory valid.
Too vague. Specific problems with the TOE, please.

On the contrary, understanding the philosophical bent of of your source is absolutely relevant in the critical evaluation.
Do you understand it? Can you explain it?

Because we do understand your bias. And we can explain it in pretty simple terms.

I'd imagine you don't seek information from AIG because their philosophy is repugnant to you.
Or because it contains no information.

Lester actually has a very relevant understanding of evolution beginning with the FACT that no one completely understands it.
Nobody has a complete understanding of light bulbs either.

What's the point? When are we going to speak about specific problems you find in the TOE?

This thread shows a specific problem gluteous finds with the TOE: chance.

We replied: it's not about chance, and his calculations are all but relevant.

Next subject, please.

The evos community has cheated by removing the terms micro and macro from the definition of evolution.
I understand how you feel. I don't know what the hell was going on in the head of the guy who coined those silly terms.

How big is macro? How small is micro?

But nevermind the terms. Let's please talk about specific problems.

Talking about your theory would be nice too. Some specifics.

Actual science is observable and testable. ( the micro part) All the rest of that stuff is hypothetical based on anecdotal evidence with a preconceived explanation already in place.
Well, it's a good explanation. And excellent preconceptions.

Look at this:

And this:


Would you believe me if i told you that these creatures existed once, and that they don't anymore?

Do you see the neck in the Rodhocetus?
Do you see the hint of a neck in the Protocetus?
Do you see the tail? Wait... Are both of those tails?

Do they look alike to you? Guess which one was found in a higher layer.

Go on. I know you can, just like you know i can.. ;)

That's what happens with the TOE. We just keep 'guessing' correctly.

NOW talk about chances.

Case in point. You intentionally disregard Lester's allusion to (macro) evolution by referencing (micro) evolution research.
What's the difference?

Please, really, do tell!

All you have answered is 'not extra species' or something like that. But we don't know what you mean when you say 'species'.

You just copypasted a dictionary definition (several definitions, actually).

You CAN'T mean the same as we do. We mean a group of animals that have enough traits to be considered separated from their relatives. Every species has relatives.

So let's hear YOUR definition/concept.

True, but does science normally define a law and then set out to prove it?
Change 'prove' for 'test', and you're fine.

I get your point. However what if your existing understanding is flawed and the only discrepancies you have are because of your existing and possibly flawed understanding?
That has really happened in the past. Like the constant speed of light, that showed a discrepancy with the concept of simultaneity, which ws assumed to be correct.

So yes, it could happen again. Except that it does not. Everything fits smoothly (at least regarding the basics).

The understanding forced upon us all at schools and universities all over the globe.
Hahaha! Stop it!

I know evolution is true, because i've thought about it by myself, and it makes perfect (perfect, mind you) sense.

Nobody forced anything upon me. And i have had equal access to science and religion.

Well, they forced Geography upon me. But i have no reasons to distrust them regarding that. And i've forgotten most of it (it's like History, but without people or dates).

The only ones that could feel 'forced' to buy Evolution are the ones that don't care about it.

Not a single one of us in this forum believes in Evolution because of any forcing, i assure you.

Hum... Flat earthers would say that they force geography upon us at all schools and universities all over the globe.

You imagine that I enjoy and actively nurture discrepancies? No, my earlier understanding was consonant with evolution.
I find it hard to believe that you ever really understood it. That would imply that you lost it somehow. For it has no discrepancies.
I then found too many discrepancies
Please, do share them with us. Pretty pretty please!
and had to overhaul my prior understanding to eliminate multitudes of inconsistencies.
How many elephant species are alive today, under your present understanding? And how many elephants were carried into the ark? What does your present understanding tell you about kangaroos and wallabies? And koalas? Wolves, foxes, coyotes, dogs, hyenas?

If you can't answer these simple questions, so much for an understanding!

Now I reject evolution as a flawed understanding of everything that exists.
Show me the money. I mean the flaws.

The disinformation creationists harvest from sources like AiG, are willful lies of creationist leaders like Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Henry Morris et al. These are repeat  offenders that are caught red handed and proven to be lying in front of their own audiences. Initially they recant and take back what ever claim they have made, but in the next creationist publication the same lie is repeated. These people are devious charlatans and frauds of the lowest caliber.
And would this be your original opinion - or a regurgitation of consistent copy and paste ad hominem attacks made on these men by evolutionists everywhere when they run out of scientific challenges to what they are saying?
Are you denying the lots of debunked claims that keep being repeated by creationists? Do you deny that lots keep talking about Darwin recanting? Or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that many creationists keep talking about the bombardier beetle as an example of irreducible complexity, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that the eye is irreducibly complex, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them link the teaching of evolution with an increase of the crime rate, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that Evolution can't be falsified, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them say that creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them claim that Evolution is atheistic, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that Evolution is a religion, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that DNA needs proteins to form, and proteins need DNA, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that the Church never taught that the Earth was flat, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that Evolution is a religion, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that early molecules would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that blood clotting is irreducibly complex, or do you support that claim?

Do you deny that some of them keep saying that the first individual of a new species would not find a mate, or do you support that claim?

Man, i could just keep going on and on.

No I try to be discriminating since wolves often come dressed as sheep as every Christian knows.
Not every christian knows that, or that they should not eat pork, or bury their dead, or judge people.

You are trying to ignore the question and put me in the defensive position. Classic creationist ploy BTW. Don't run the discussion off the rails and create diversions please.
I had thought that was a classic evolutionist ploy - observe Wisp with gluteus maximus in a discussion about the probability of abiogenesis
Please, take that back.

Or support your claim.

I don't ignore the question, even if it's really dumb. I answer.
Q: How can such complex proteins have appeared by chance?
A: They couldn't.

Is it answered? Or do you mean some other questions?

I have answered lots of questions (none of them any good), while not being offered many answers (i don't know why you cite me, instead of gluteous, who gives so very few answers, and supports none of his claims).
Start being specific. Please.

And while you're at it, answer those questions you copypasted.

The most common claim of evolutionists is that we don’t agree because we cannot understand –it is not only arrogant but also tiresome hearing it repeated ad nauseum.
And what do you say instead? That you do agree? Or that the fact that you don't has nothing to do with understanding? It's not clear to me.
If only I understood it, I would immediately become an evolutionist.
Haha! xD
Sorry about the truth.

Evolution is the easy road –the broad road….
I don't know what you mean by 'easy'. It's not easy to understand for some people (specially when they're biased).

Or you mean because most scientists accept it as a fact?

If that's the case, heliocentrism is the easy road -the broad road...

There is absolutely nothing unavoidable about evolution. Your conviction appears to be religious.
What do you mean about 'nothing unavoidable'?

…you mean like evolutionary just-so stories that defy the laws of nature but comply with man’s wishful thinking?
What laws?

Specific!

Biologists commitment to evolution is what is causing the failure.
What failure, specifically?

Is Astronomy's commitment with heliocentrism causing some kind of failure too?

They do not like to be contradicted on their belief system and they do not like to think that it is a belief system and not science - so only that which complies with protocol is decreed acceptable in biology.
Do all scientists share that arrogancy, or just the ones that believe in Evolution?

….and anybody that disagrees with the theory (not the fact) of evolution.
Of course. Theories are not facts. They explain facts. The fact that the TOE explain is Evolution.

My point about not tolerating dissent.
We tolerate flat earthers. Well, we don't put them in jail or anything. But they will never make it to a serious scientific journal.

God did it or evolution did it –two possible choices –neither automatic.
What makes you say that those are the only two choices?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster could have done it.

And if you are talking about choices that have sense, then, again, you don't have two.

gluteous
It's a leap of faith to believe that non living chemicals together can form living cells.
Define 'living'.

This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles.  Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land.  Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents.
Yeah, very true. We're just not sure.

Fortunately that has little to do with Evolution.

And unfortunately for you, we do know much about the whole process, and you don't know much about animals in the garden of Eden, or the ark, or after that, or before that, or in between, or anything...

A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”
Minimum number of parts for an autotrophic free living organism to live...

What do you mean by 'free'?

I'll have a good answer waitinf for you, once you respond to this question.

By the way, all living organisms live.

Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means."
What research?

And I am still shaking my head from what I asked earlier that if evolution is "blind", how is it that complex beings of a high magnitude of order come to be?
Perhaps i missed that question.

I'll answer it now:
By baby steps.

If you want to know more, then ask. Or google 'evolution'.

PS I do not know how many elephants were on the Ark.
Ok. Finally an answer.

Do you have any hypotheses? Any possibiliities? Do you think that there's any possibility that could give the ark story some basis?

I see none. And i have no evidence that any creationist does.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:01 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can sense Wisp is a very ferocious angry human being(evolved from an ape) who will have his evolution come hell or high water.

You keep blowing off my observations about the mind blowing odds & chance that life exists and is completely un-noteworthy. 2ndly, U posit  that unguided baby steps formed absolutely amazing things like the human eye and brain and consciousness, self healing capabilities against unsurmountable odds. Tell me how this happens. This is where odds and chance come into play, as I see it.

"It's a leap of faith to believe that non living chemicals together can form living cells.
Define 'living'."
Do I really have to?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:14 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can sense Wisp is a very ferocious angry human being(evolved from an ape)

Wisp is, like all humans, an ape.

You keep blowing off my observations about the mind blowing odds & chance that life exists and is completely un-noteworthy

what odds, how did you calculate them, how many other planets or moons does life exist on.  If you don't know these things, how do you know what the odds of life existing are?

2ndly, U posit  that unguided baby steps formed absolutely amazing things like the human eye and brain and consciousness, self healing capabilities against unsurmountable odds.

Insurmountable odds???  You can't even show us what those odds are or how they were calculated!  And mutation combined with natural selection can easily account for all characteristics seen in living organisms.  You still don't understand evolution or biology.

This is where odds and chance come into play, as I see it.

And you're not a biologist, you don't know what the odds are and no chance is involved in evolution.

It's a leap of faith to believe that non living chemicals together can form living cells.
Define 'living'."
Do I really have to?


If you want to have an intelligent discussion about abiogenesis, yes you do!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:01 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can sense Wisp is a very ferocious angry human being
Ad hominem (and i don't even know what you mean, but no, i'm not an angry person). Please, say something about my reasoning.
(evolved from an ape)
You have shown us your ignorance about the process you try to deny lots of times. Why stop, right?

Saying that humans evolved from apes is like saying that ducks evolved from birds.

who will have his evolution come hell or high water.
zzz...

Is that the best you can do?

You keep blowing off my observations about the mind blowing odds & chance that life exists
They are irrelevant. 'Chance' isn't the drive force that produces proteins. So there. Your claims are wrong. Plain wrong.

Not only i discard it as valid. You should take it back, so you don't embarrass yourself anymore.

and is completely un-noteworthy.
Yes, completely. So?
2ndly, U posit  that unguided baby steps formed absolutely amazing things like the human eye and brain and consciousness, self healing capabilities
I didn't say they were amazing, but yeah, they are.
against unsurmountable odds.
No.
Tell me how this happens.
The whole deal? Natural selection, self-replicants, genes, alleles, kin selection, types of mutation... Everything? Isn't there anything you already know?

Why do you come here to discuss? How can you have what it takes to have an edifying discussion about a matter you know nothing about?

This is where odds and chance come into play, as I see it.
No. Chances come into play in mutations (most of which can do no good, but the very few that can spread through the population), and affecting survival (reproductive) rates by environmental unpredictability (a tree can crush an individual with the best available genes). I can't think of any other cases of chance affecting the process of evolution.

Can anyone else?

"It's a leap of faith to believe that non living chemicals together can form living cells.
Define 'living'."
Do I really have to?
Do i really have to answer to that?

I mean, of course you do!

My concept of 'life' is very vague. And i'm ok with it. I don't care if viruses are alive or not. I know what they are, and that's enough for me.

Just like i know that Pluto is a system that consists of two great bodies orbiting each other. I don't care if you call that a planet or not, because we agree about the facts.

But in this case i do care about what you call 'life'. You're trying to deny the fact of Evolution using words that are supposed to mean something specific.

Depending on your concept of 'living', you could say that living chemicals together can form a living cell, or that non-living chemicals together can form a non-living cell.

Are viruses alive to you?


(Edited by wisp 3/12/2009 at 02:15 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:03 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can sense Wisp is a very ferocious angry human being
Ad hominem (and i don't even know what you mean, but no, i'm not an angry person). Please, say something about my reasoning.
(evolved from an ape)
You have shown us your ignorance about the process you try to deny lots of times. Why stop, right?

Saying that humans evolved from apes is like saying that ducks evolved from birds.

who will have his evolution come hell or high water.
zzz...

Is that the best you can do?

You keep blowing off my observations about the mind blowing odds & chance that life exists
They are irrelevant. 'Chance' isn't the drive force that produces proteins. So there. Your claims are wrong. Plain wrong.

Not only i discard it as valid. You should take it back, so you don't embarrass yourself anymore.

and is completely un-noteworthy.
Yes, completely. So?
2ndly, U posit  that unguided baby steps formed absolutely amazing things like the human eye and brain and consciousness, self healing capabilities
I didn't say they were amazing, but yeah, they are.
against unsurmountable odds.
No.
Tell me how this happens.
The whole deal? Natural selection, self-replicants, genes, alleles, kin selection, types of mutation... Everything? Isn't there anything you already know?

Why do you come here to discuss? How can you have what it takes to have an edifying discussion about a matter you know nothing about?

This is where odds and chance come into play, as I see it.
No. Chances come into play in mutations (most of which can do no good, but the very few that can spread through the population), and affecting survival (reproductive) rates by environmental unpredictability (a tree can crush an individual with the best available genes). I can't think of any other cases of chance affecting the process of evolution.

Can anyone else?

"It's a leap of faith to believe that non living chemicals together can form living cells.
Define 'living'."
Do I really have to?
Do i really have to answer to that?

I mean, of course you do!

My concept of 'life' is very vague. And i'm ok with it. I don't care if viruses are alive or not. I know what they are, and that's enough for me.

Just like i know that Pluto is a system that consists of two great bodies orbiting each other. I don't care if you call that a planet or not, because we agree about the facts.

But in this case i do care about what you call 'life'. You're trying to deny the fact of Evolution using words that are supposed to mean something specific.

Depending on your concept of 'living', you could say that living chemicals together can form a living cell, or that non-living chemicals together can form a non-living cell.

Are viruses alive to you?

What do you know about animals in the garden of Eden, or the ark, or after that, or before that, or in between, or anything...?

Or what do you think?

Or what are the options that have any credibility to you?

Give me something!


(Edited by wisp 3/11/2009 at 11:06 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:06 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:23 PM on March 10, 2009 :
“What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?”  Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means. "


A chemoheterotroph would require many fewer parts, wouldn't you agree?  Wouldn't that be a more likely first life form?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:24 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 9:29 PM on March 11, 2009 :
It is no more 'scientific' than to imagine the only other possibility which is that a creator did it.

Why is it that the 'Big Bang' or 'the singularity' are more 'scientific'?


In science Lester, like in any other human endeavor, there is a strong need for some purpose or goal if you will. Science seeks to understand how our universe works in general but more specifically it must come up with some criterion to test models or ideas about the way any part of the universe might work.  

When you conduct an experiment, you are trying to show what will happen in any given situation, such as water boiling at a particular temperature. Relationships may be built up and general patterns may emerge, such as increasing the density of the water (by dissolving salt in it for instance) will reduce the boiling point and likewise increasing the pressure will decrease the boiling point.

Many explanations may be offered for why these set of interrelated circumstances arise in just the particular way they do, and that will prompt more experiments to be performed to investigate which explanations (hypothesis) are more accurate. From the new data estimates or probabilities can be calculated and on it goes.

An essential set of criterion has been formulated to describe what any rational person should consider plausible. That criterion is called Ockham's Razor, or the principal of parsimony. Basically it suggests that the more parsimonious an explanation is the more it agrees with the evidence and the less it makes assumptions. So far, so good I hope.

With all the testing and observation, it is possible to establish some facts or observations to an exceedingly high degree of confidence. To save controversy, we may observe that fire always seems to give of heat or the sun always rises in the east. etc etc. More knowledge (like the earth is not flat but a globe) gives better hypothesis a chance. Somebody suggests... hey... maybe the earth is revolving and that we see the sun as if it were orbiting us only because of the earths angular rotation.

Surprisingly even if all other factors were put aside the new model at least explains one more thing. it explains why the other bodies also traverse our sky line in the same manner (with some minor discrepancies but nevertheless). The stars and our moon now become more explicable and if this theory is correct it serves us with a reason for why anything should appear to move across the sky from east to west and with a specific momentum. The rotating earth idea agrees beautifully with evidence. It also causes little if any recourse to extra assumptions.

The objective to reduce assumptions in science is generally satisfied by finding explanations which show the necessity of things. It is necessary for objects to appear to move from east to west, because if the earth rotates in the opposite direction that is what it must look like. With the geocentric model there was no particular reason to suppose the sun must travel in any direction. There was no rhyme or reason as they say.  Necessity also introduces reason as a transitive goal on it's way from assumption to necessity.

To establish reasons that work in generality, rather than single situations there needs to be some way to make a statement that defines a limited range of possibilities and states what can be said in those situations. So while we test and observe, we don't just try to reach conclusions about the specific trial, test or observation in the present moment, we try to generalise with laws that are based on reason.  We can test these laws and have them make predictions that we might not otherwise expect. If the laws are founded on factual truth, we have every reason to expect their predictions to be vindicated.

The laws we discover from our scientific endeavors are granted as being of this world and in every sense natural, as we do not know how to test any other world or realm. What we find in the universe is considered as natural (that is "of nature"), because our only know methods of testing things inside of the empirical bounds of this universe. Supernatural beings, be they ghosts goblins or gods, present are an insoluble challenge. Not only do they evade observation and experiment by empirical means, but as explanations for anything they would be total assumption, giving gaps in explanation.

Remember that our objective is to increase our understanding  by discovering ideas which reach more agreement with evidence and force us to (or call for) less assumptions (the principal of parsimony). If some thing is suggested to be caused by supernatural entities or forces, then it is effectively the same as saying "we don't know how that happens". Achieving understanding is knowing logically how something works, what makes it necessary, or as Julius Sumner Miller would say: "Why is it so?" In fact, to say of god or supernatural entities, "we don't know how that happens" is an understatement. A supernatural event / phenomenon, IS by definition, something which must violate some known law or laws of nature. To qualify as supernatural, an event must present a phenomenon which  actually violates some laws as they are already understood.

God and Gods powers are defined as supernatural. If you have some other God, a logical God, then that god must operate within natural laws. OK then but where is he/she/it? The bottom line is that the only understanding we actually have of the supernatural, is that it's defined as anything which contradicts our natural laws. In science you can't have magic, all you can have is violations of rational understandings; discrepancies with nature; breakdown of causality. God is not a logical explanation, it is exact the opposite, an illogical, assumption. The opposite to parsimony.

Hope that helps.
Skep.



-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 11:50 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

skepticus - a little correction here (I majored in chemistry in college):

such as increasing the density of the water (by dissolving salt in it for instance) will reduce the boiling point and likewise increasing the pressure will decrease the boiling point.


You got that backwards - solutes in water (such as salt or sugar) will increase the boiling point of water (by lowering the vapor pressure of water).  Likewise, an increase of pressure will increase the boiling point (this is why a pressure cooker cooks food faster).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:17 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skep - good explanation of why God (or the supernatural) can't be part of a scientific explanation.  I often wonder if Creationists really understand that crucial point.  It seems to be a concept that they just can't grasp.  The incompatibility of science with supernatural beliefs.  If the supernatural existed, science would fall apart because natural laws woudl be violated.  The scientific method would be in trouble.  So far we have never seen a violation of natural laws.  

If you know of an example of natural laws being violated, please present it.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:55 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We can test these laws and have them make predictions that we might not otherwise expect.
Exactly. Like transitional fossils from land mammals to whales, or the Tiktaalik.

Creationists are easily amazed by the human eye, but don't get surprised when we make our wild (to them they must be quite wild) guesses.

God and Gods powers are defined as supernatural. If you have some other God, a logical God, then that god must operate within natural laws.
Or not operate at all.

My God doesn't operate.

I second orion. Good post, Skepticus.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:41 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks Guys,

Orion - I thought about cooking before I said about the boiling point and how fundies can put cyani... er salt in, to [in my head 'make it boil easier']. Well I put salt in my water when i cook and always understood that it comes to the boil at a lower temperature and uses less energy to heat the water. DUH!! of course 'cooks easier BECAUSE the temp can be higher'.  And the thing is I knew this about the pressure cooker, and yet my head said 'cooks easier' = 'lower temp'.

I stand corrected (and boiled at a much HIGHER temperature).


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 03:47 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Imagination is a crucial part of human intelligence. We need, however, to distinguish between fantasy and imagination.
Seeing angels and fairies is fantasy. (Some say believing in God falls into the category of fantasy). Imagination is the ability to acquire knowledge of things indirectly ie without being able to 'see' them.

Imagination is required for all knowledge beyond direct experience of the senses. Its essential, for example, to all sorts of problem-solving. Both creation and evolution are concepts that require imagination.

The difference between evolution and creation is that we can see evolution happening in certain experiments and we only need to 'imagine' what would happen if the sorts of changes we have seen in the exeriments kept happening for a long time and if environmental pressures kept changing.

Creation, on the other hand, argues by analogy ie Ive seen people 'creating' all sorts of stuff and thats how new things 'come into being'. Perhaps that is how everything came into being but in that case whoever 'made' the universe must be 'outside' everything (just as a clockmaker is 'outside' the clock she makes). Lets call the 'universe-maker' God.

Do you see the difference?



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:31 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skepticus
In science you can't have magic


Well do you accept that dinosaurs turned into birds or that chemicals organized themselves into life?

If you have some other God, a logical God, then that god must operate within natural laws.


Then you are talking about a god that has been created as well and thus must stay within certain limitations as do we humans.

God is not a logical explanation


If life is capable of putting itself together (organizing itself) as a result of pure physical laws operating in nature, then God is not necessary but if life cannot arise spontaneously from non-life, then God is the only logical explanation. Nobody has demonstrated that life can organize itself so either God (or an intelligent creator) did it or else there is some as yet undemonstrated (and thus only assumed) self organizing principle at work. Since this has never been demonstrated, it is not more parsimonious to suggest that it must have happened and to insist that there is no God.

I'm afraid I can't agree -where design exists in nature, God is a far more logical explanation since design requires a designer.

Orion

So far we have never seen a violation of natural laws.


You don't know that life itself is not a violation of natural laws. In nature right and left handed amino-acids are found occurring naturally as an approximately 50:50 mix. They can be synthesized but only in a50:50 mix. In life we are all made of 100% left handed amino-acids. Who separated out the right handed amino-acids? Why do we revert back to a 50:50 mix when we die?




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:37 AM on March 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:37 AM on March 13, 2009 :
You don't know that life itself is not a violation of natural laws. In nature right and left handed amino-acids are found occurring naturally as an approximately 50:50 mix. They can be synthesized but only in a50:50 mix. In life we are all made of 100% left handed amino-acids. Who separated out the right handed amino-acids? Why do we revert back to a 50:50 mix when we die?


Starlight separates them out.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:44 AM on March 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well do you accept that dinosaurs turned into birds or that chemicals organized themselves into life?
Yes. Is that magic to you?

Then you are talking about a god that has been created as well and thus must stay within certain limitations as do we humans.
It's YOU who limit God, by assigning Him a personality, and silly tasks like creating the world, getting mad, flooding stuff, molding Adam out of clay (instead of just saying "Let there be Adam!"), rib clonning...

You have created a God that limits Himself needlessly all the time. You could take one step further, and make Him limit Himself to act according to the laws of nature (which would make more sense than limit Himself to need a flood to make the bad people disappear).

If life is capable of putting itself together (organizing itself) as a result of pure physical laws operating in nature, then God is not necessary
Indeed.
but if life cannot arise spontaneously from non-life, then God is the only logical explanation.
Don't forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Nobody has demonstrated that life can organize itself so either God (or an intelligent creator) did it
Not demonstrated, so Goddidit...
or else there is some as yet undemonstrated (and thus only assumed) self organizing principle at work.
Or lots of demonstrated 'principles'.

If you have any problems with any of them, just say it.

Since this has never been demonstrated,
'This' is very vague. And yet there's evidence for all of 'this'.
it is not more parsimonious to suggest that it must have happened and to insist that there is no God.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster makes more sense. More congruent.

I'm afraid I can't agree
No surprise.
-where design exists in nature, God is a far more logical explanation
Aliens would be a better explanation for design. Fortunately, we don't have a single example of design in nature. Not even spider webs.
since design requires a designer.
True. But there are no designs.

You don't know that life itself is not a violation of natural laws.
We do. It's not.
In nature right and left handed amino-acids are found occurring naturally as an approximately 50:50 mix. They can be synthesized but only in a50:50 mix.
But they can easily become all left handed.
In life we are all made of 100% left handed amino-acids. Who separated out the right handed amino-acids?
You have already said that right handed amino-acids are deleterious (there are some organisms that use them, for your information). So natural selection could rule them out (or make use of them). Like oxygen. Life got used to it, or used it, or hid from it.
Why do we revert back to a 50:50 mix when we die?
Why not? Do you have a point?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:09 AM on March 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can't help but notice that you made no comments about these creatures:




Cool, huh? Any comments?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:11 AM on March 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

the question of chirality (left vs right amino acides, sugars, nucleotides) has already been discussed, and possible explanations were pointed out.

For instance, reseach has indicated that left-handed amino acids are slightly more stable than right-handed AA.  Also, meteorites have been found to contain predominantly left-handed AA.

Your 50-50 mix of chiral molecules happens when they are created in the lab.  However in nature there are other factors that may determine the predominance of left-handed AA to occur.  

I think the rebuttal by Creationists that chirality is a show-stopper is actually not an issue with abiogenesis.


mechanism for chirality


The above mechanism meshes in nicely with what we see in meteorites.  Read on -

meteorites and chirality


I remember studying chirality back in college in my organic chemistry class.  I wondered at the time why life was based on only left-handed AA.  That was over 30 years ago.  I'm pleased to finally know a possible explanation for this puzzle.  

This is a nice example of two approaches.

1 - Creationists say 'Look, life is made up of only left-handed amino acids, and right-handed surgars and bases.  Hmmm... that proves that God created life!

2 - Science:  there must be a natural explanation for this puzzle.  We don't know the answer to it yet, but with continued research someday we hope to find an answer.  You only have to read the two articles above to see that we are now in the process of discovering why life is based on left-handed AA.  And science did it without resorting to a 'God solution'.

Now, which method (1) or (2) do you think leads to the truth of the myster of chirality of life?  It's a no-brainer for me - (2) all the way.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:20 PM on March 13, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you atheists not agree that everything has a beginning?


I also want to know the name of the biologist that created life in a test tube from non living chemicals/molecules that were available to him. By non-living I mean material that lacks metabolism, reproduction and adaptation.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:10 PM on March 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you atheists not agree that everything has a beginning?
I don't. But i'm not an atheist. Can i respond nevertheless?

Unlike you, i like answering.

I also want to know the name of the biologist that created life in a test tube from non living chemicals/molecules that were available to him. By non-living I mean material that lacks metabolism, reproduction and adaptation.
Like viruses?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:43 PM on March 13, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no like regular living cells.
You may answer about if everything has a beginning, we would feel remiss if you didn't chime in.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:13 PM on March 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no like regular living cells

What's a 'regular' living cell?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:07 PM on March 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:10 PM on March 13, 2009 :
I also want to know the name of the biologist that created life in a test tube from non living chemicals/molecules that were available to him. By non-living I mean material that lacks metabolism, reproduction and adaptation.


You're probably thinking about Sidney Fox:

To initiate the discussion, Dr. Gottlieb asked the audience "Based on what you heard tonight, how many of you now think that a living organism, a protocell, has been synthesized artificially in a test tube from inanimate material?" Approximately half the audience raised their hands.

The remainder of the audience divided their responses between the next two questions: "How many of you do not think that a living organism, protocell, was synthesized artifically in a test tube?" and "How many of you are uncertain as to whether a living organism, protocell, was synthesized artificially in a test tube?"

My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:38 PM on March 13, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "Big Bang" is about as good a model of 'cosmogenesis' as we currently have and it suggests a beginning ....  of sorts...   and it doesnt REQUIRE the intervention of a Divine being.

As far as I know no-one has managed to 'manufacture' a complex cell ... yet.
Im not sure what the point of your question is. There are plenty of scientists trying and some of the are succeeding to demonstrate some of the necessary steps along the way. What really matters is that they are trying... they have an hypothesis and they are working on it. For what its worth.. to name one..  look up Prof George Church of Harvard Medical School.

Now...   you name one scientist who is even trying to reproduce (or refute) creation!

(Edited by waterboy 3/13/2009 at 11:49 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 11:47 PM on March 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "Big Bang" is about as good a model of 'cosmogenesis' as we currently have


Yes it is -but did it happen? It is not an observable repeatable experimental thing - it is theoretical and will remain so. It is an historical occurence if it even happened. Nobody was there. Just since it is as good as man can imagine up in the meantime, does not mean that it happened. Or is the Big Bang the story we accept from man's imagination in the absence of a written story that 'scientific' man can accept?

We have a story, it is written down. It has a beginning and it says the heavens are expanding, that time and matter had a beginning and that everything is running down. It says we have a creator and the creator says that if the creation is not good enough evidence of His existance, it is because we are 'wilfully blind'. You like your story, we accept ours as scientifically/theoretically acceptable - it is in accordance with the evidence. Who's to say which is the better story? Who's to say one should be preferred over the other in the absence of proof?
Can we have a choice or do we have to accept your story?

it doesnt REQUIRE the intervention of a Divine being.


Which makes it what? a better story? a more likely story? a story you are prepared to accept?

you name one scientist who is even trying to reproduce (or refute) creation!


Thought you evolutionists were trying to refute creation. We are waiting to see some evolutionist take some basic ingredients under acceptable circumstances (not too protected) and show us how it happened in the absence of an organizer.
But we won't be holding our collective breath...



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:24 AM on March 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteous
wisp
gluteous
By non-living I mean material that lacks metabolism, reproduction and adaptation.
Like viruses?
no like regular living cells.
Are you sure? By "non-living" you mean "regular living cells"??

I still don't know what you mean by "non-living", and now i don't know what you mean by "regular living cells"... So confusing...

Lester10
The "Big Bang" is about as good a model of 'cosmogenesis' as we currently have
Yes it is -but did it happen?
No. It's a model. Nothing happened in our regular use of the word 'happen'.

Things happen in time, and the Big Bang doesn't.

The theories predict a lack of predictability (or postdictability) in the Big Bang and the black hole.

When by definition we can't extract information from an 'event', such an event did not occur.

Saying that the Big Bang really 'happened' is a mistake.

But why are we talking about the Big Bang in this forum?

Just to prove God?

How lame. No information can be extracted from God either. God should also be just a model. A model that could help us visualize the sumum of the intelligence, for instance. Or consciousness. Or whatever 'good' qualities we want to consider.

And such a visualization would only be useful to... I don't know... Meditate. It's a spiritual concept/model. It has nothing to do with science.

The Big Bang does allow us to understand certain things.

It is not an observable repeatable experimental thing - it is theoretical and will remain so.
It's nice when you say correct things, for a change.
It is an historical occurence if it even happened.
I find no gramatical sense in that phrase, but i guess you mean something correct again.
Nobody was there.
True. But that's not important. Really, it's not. Human witnesses are very unreliable.
Just since it is as good as man can imagine up in the meantime, does not mean that it happened.
True. (I wonder where this is going)
Or is the Big Bang the story we accept from man's imagination in the absence of a written story that 'scientific' man can accept?
I don't know what you mean, but it's just a model. Models should be useful, and the Big Bang model is (to some extent).

We have a story, it is written down.
And makes no sense (for the VERY little part that was written down).
It has a beginning and it says the heavens are expanding,
That God created an expansion, and expanded it, does not imply that it's expanding. Besides the biblical expansion was as high as it should be so water can fall down on Earth from it.
that time and matter had a beginning and that everything is running down.
Can you find me the passage where it says that? Thanks in advance.
It says we have a creator and the creator says that if the creation is not good enough evidence of His existance, it is because we are 'wilfully blind'.
Really? Where?? I'm sure that by reading the Bible so much you find things that i've missed. Please, do show.
You like your story,
It's useful.
we accept ours as scientifically/theoretically acceptable -
You accept all you want. It doesn't make it valid.
it is in accordance with the evidence.
Only when you say "God's will". That can be in accordance with ANY evidence.

But as soon as you start being specific, it all falls down.

Global flood? Haha! You don't even know what animals share a common ancestor.

Did all of the 160 elephant species that have been found share a common ancestor or not?

Does the dog share a common ancestor with the wolf? With the coyote? With the hyena?

Who's to say which is the better story?
Me, for instance.
Who's to say one should be preferred over the other in the absence of proof?
When there's evidence, well, me again (for instance).
Can we have a choice or do we have to accept your story?
Of course you have a choice. You chose wrong.
Thought you evolutionists were trying to refute creation.
No scientist is trying to do that. Not while he's at work, at least.

Creationism is self refuted. It doesn't make the least sense.

Look, it says that the flood gave us layers. A single event cannot make random layers like we found. Done. Refuted. Piece of cake.

We are waiting to see some evolutionist take some basic ingredients under acceptable circumstances (not too protected) and show us how it happened in the absence of an organizer.
Big Bang, abiogenesis... Is that all you got?

Here. I give you more options:



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:55 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Nobody was there. Just since it is as good as man can imagine up in the meantime, does not mean that it happened. Or is the Big Bang the story we accept from man's imagination in the absence of a written story that 'scientific' man can accept?

Lester, you speak of the Big Bang theory as though its just a story that someone made up.  It's not.  Nature provides historical documentation that is far more accurate, and unbiased, than anything that was produced by the writers of the Bible.

But understanding Nature's documentation doesn't come easy.  Reading and interpretation of this documentation that Nature provides us takes time and effort.  But the wonderful thing about Nature is that she often leaves us multiple sets of documentation (clues) that can be used to verify each other.  These multiple clues can be used to build a case for scientific theory.  And the theory becomes stronger and more useful if it can predict what other clues (facts) we may discover.  The Big Bang theory does this better than any other alternate scientific theory we currently have.  And the theory can certainly be tested with observation.

Lester, you're wrong about scientists not having a historical document.  Scientists can look back in time.  When we look through a telescope we are actually peering back into time.  The sun we see in the sky is not the sun we see as it is right now, it is the sun we see as it wa 8 minutes ago.  The distant galaxies that the Hubble Space Telescope sees that are billions of light-years away are galaxies as they appear billions of years ago.

Nature leaves us with clues that we can observe today, such as the cosmic microwave background radition, which was predicted by theory in 1948, and discovered as fact in 1965.  

The Big Bang is a model, a theory.  It is useful only if it can explain what we see AND make accurate predictions.  It is work in progress.  It is by no means a complete explanation.  If it were complete cosmologists would be able to hang up their hat.  

Wisp is right, this thread isn't really abou the Big Bang.  But there are some good web-sites that explain the BBT.  I'm still in the process of reading this material myself.


Big Bang evidence

Big Bang tutorial
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:17 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:24 AM on March 14, 2009 :
Yes it is -but did it happen? It is not an observable repeatable experimental thing - it is theoretical and will remain so.


Not true.  The theory results in predictions that can be confirmed or negated by repeatable experiments.  Those experiments might be astronomical, subatomic, or on a tabletop.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:05 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis, don't fall into his trap.

He's trying to diminish the very concept of a scientific theory.

The fact that the evidence leads to the BBT doesn't change the fact that it's ('just'?) a theory.

Perhaps theories is all we can have in life (even if they're completely accurate).

The sophists said:
There is no truth.
If there is a truth, it can't be learned.
If it can be learned, it can't be told.



Lester, or gluteous (who seems to like numbers). What are the odds of finding exactly the kind of animals that the TOE predicts?

A couple of days ago i ventured the hypothesis that the ornithorhynchus (platypus) and the echidna are less warm blooded than us.
Because they're descendants from the same reptile-mammals that we descend from (and they were becoming warm blooded).

I could have been wrong (they could have kept evolving into fully warm-blooded organisms, just like we did, since we diverged 150 million years ago), but i wasn't. (Their temperature is around 32°C [90°F], compared to about 35°C [95°F] for marsupials, and 38°C [100°F] for most placentals.)

Will you make any comments about my demi-whales?

Do all turtles share a common ancestor?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:41 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

BBT predicted that there should still be Background microwave radition (BMR) . So they had a way of refuting the theory. They just had to show that there was no BMR and that would prove that the BBT was wrong. They conducted the experiment that could have refuted BBT. They found the BMR! INow... in a way...  we can observe the Big Bang.

Genesis 'predicts' that there is a large body of water above the 'firmament'. We havent found it yet.

Looks to me like we can say quite objectively that BBT is a better theory than Creation ala Genesis. Its NOT JUST A MATTER OF OPINION.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:01 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I still don't know what you mean by "non-living", and now i don't know what you mean by "regular living cells"... So confusing..."

Talk about not falling for a trap! Wisp I sense you are grasping at straws trying to either chg the subject or force me to parse my words such that you can extrapolate a red herring from them.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 10:29 PM on March 14, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Talk about not falling for a trap! Wisp I sense you are grasping at straws trying to either chg the subject or force me to parse my words such that you can extrapolate a red herring from them.

Why can't you just answer the question?  What's a 'regular' living cell?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:11 AM on March 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why does a living cell need to be "regular"?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:07 AM on March 15, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ordinary as in material that lacks metabolism, reproduction and adaptation. Already said that.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 08:34 AM on March 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ordinary as in material that lacks metabolism, reproduction and adaptation. Already said that.

How can a living cell lack metabolism and reproduction?  And how do you define adapation?  Once again, answer the question if you want a meaningful answer.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:32 PM on March 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 08:34 AM on March 15, 2009 :
ordinary as in material that lacks metabolism, reproduction and adaptation. Already said that.
It has to lack all of that at the same time?

Viruses lack metabolism.

Are they living or not?


You comment about my demi-whales, and then you can talk about evading. I'm not evading.

Anyway, whatever you mean, are you expecting us to defend your ignorant concept that abiogenesis says that a living cell that shows the traits of metabolism, reproduction and adaptation can be made from chemicals that lack metabolism, reproduction and adaptation? All of that with no steps in between?

Isn't it just another strawman?

Defending evolution is easy. 'The easy way', like you say.

Yours is the hard way. More like the impossible way.

Can your 'theory' account for the approximately 5 million extant species? Or the billions that have existed?


(Edited by wisp 3/15/2009 at 6:53 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:41 PM on March 15, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does everything have a beginning? (From a couple posts back.)
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:34 PM on March 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again: no.

God doesn't. Or any other concept, for that matter.

Now you answer something. You have plenty to chose from.

EDIT:
And if you needed a 'yes', ok:
Everything has a beginning.

Now say what you had to say.
You have given it some thought, so it better be worth it.


(Edited by wisp 3/16/2009 at 7:48 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:38 PM on March 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does everything have a beginning?

Hmmm... Wisp - I disagree.  I think everything does have a beginning.  I have a hard time concieving of something that does not have a beginning - or end, for that matter.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:52 PM on March 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It depends on the definition of "thing" to say that everything has a beginning or not.

You can define it as "entity with a beginning", and then i'll say you're right.

Our disagreement might be semantic. But, since we agree on the fact of Evolution, this comes to show how meaningless this question is when it comes to the subject of this forum.

Perhaps it only comes to prove (in gluteus' mind) God (still saying nothing about creationism, of course).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:21 PM on March 16, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 5 6 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.