is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded? by kaneman

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:17 AM

Does he assume a uniform distribution of electrons throughout the universe? By the sounds of it, yes he does, in which case he would be retarded.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Does he assume a uniform distribution of electrons throughout the universe? By the sounds of it, yes he does, in which case he would be retarded.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

No, I think he's actually allowing them all in one place (for arguments sake I guess). Which he says is even more generous than the actual dispersal.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yep. Much more statisticly likely that a giant invisible man with a beard said "Let there be life" and *poof*, here we are.

Makes much more sense....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Trying to stay away from the religious shit. Just looking up the probability of life...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

Thanks for this link.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:36 AM

As an addition to the link I posted.

There's two possibilities, either he's not very good at what he does or he's intentionally lying, my money's on the latter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

Thanks for this link.....

Did it answer your question?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:52 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yep. Much more statisticly likely that a giant invisible man with a beard said "Let there be life" and *poof*, here we are.

How do you know he has a beard if he's invisible?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:00 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

Mal's ship goes vroom.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*Peter* Peter*; power *re-peater*~
`@/
/Y
/_)

*Petrelli for President. Together we can soar.*
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HEROE'S IS MY CRACK!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

If you ever have a question about evolution, check talkorigins.org, they probably have the answer. If they don't then the talk.origins newsgroup can probably find it for you.

Thanks for this link.....

Did it answer your question?

It did answer my question, but even in that forum they are talking a LONG time (not as long) to form a single sugar. My question now is, is there any way to take the statistical probability of life (lesser or higher) and determine how many mutations it would take, the time it would take, the route it would take... to get to us having this discussion.....Every thing I am reading is saying ...believing in god is retarded..and there is no way it could happen if the universe is 13.7 billion yrs. old never mind 30 billion.... Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:02 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Misstressahara:
Mal's ship goes vroom.

And swoosh! Don't forget swoosh!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:04 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

And *ooooooooooooooo* Look at the pweddy colors.
o_0

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*Peter* Peter*; power *re-peater*~
`@/
/Y
/_)

*Petrelli for President. Together we can soar.*
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HEROE'S IS MY CRACK!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:04 PM

Quote:
My question now is, is there any way to take the statistical probability of life (lesser or higher) and determine how many mutations it would take, the time it would take, the route it would take... to get to us having this discussion.....

Not really, the thing is that there are times when large chunks of the genome have been replicated, there are times when many mutations take hold in a short period, there are regressions, there is natural selection, sexual selection, extinction. There's just too many variables to get a clear picture. If you make a lot of assumptions you can arrive at a figure for how it COULD have gone, but there's no way to tell the way things actually happened since DNA doesn't fossilize.

Quote:
Every thing I am reading is saying ...believing in god is retarded..

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying but evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:38 PM

One other thing throwing a wrench into plotting our genetic past is the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. Punk Eek basically says that evolution does not move continuously but rather runs in short spurts then plateaus for a while when the population lacks a sufficient evolutionary pressure to change. Evolution is extremely messy and convoluted in practice, though in theory it's pretty simple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
My question now is, is there any way to take the statistical probability of life (lesser or higher) and determine how many mutations it would take, the time it would take, the route it would take... to get to us having this discussion.....

Not really, the thing is that there are times when large chunks of the genome have been replicated, there are times when many mutations take hold in a short period, there are regressions, there is natural selection, sexual selection, extinction. There's just too many variables to get a clear picture. If you make a lot of assumptions you can arrive at a figure for how it COULD have gone, but there's no way to tell the way things actually happened since DNA doesn't fossilize.

Quote:
Every thing I am reading is saying ...believing in god is retarded..

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying but evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.

Just asking....your link(I think) made the case that it is possible to make a sugar molecule in less than 10^158 SECONDS...how do we get the diversity we see on this planet after the smaller time?

I think getting something from nothing is wrong...I also believe GOD did not make it happen.....There has to be something we can't yet comprehend.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Just asking....your link(I think) made the case that it is possible to make a sugar molecule in less than 10^158 SECONDS...how do we get the diversity we see on this planet after the smaller time?

Massively parallel development + a wide variety of ways to mutate. I once heard an analogy that went something like this, give identical books to a few thousand different scribes and have them copy the books, each scribe will likely leave a couple errors in their copy, take the copy and give it to another scribe and have them copy that one, they will leave a few errors of their own, in a few thousand generations the books will be noticeably different but still obviously the same, but after a couple hundred thousand generations they will be barely recognizable as being related because of the accumulation of errors.

If you consider that some of the mutations were assisted by natural selection or sexual selection and also consider polyploidy (where entire chromosomes double) then the mutations add up very fast.

Quote:
I think getting something from nothing is wrong

All the building blocks were already there, they just followed the laws of chemistry and assembled themselves until one (or more) started a self-replicating reaction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 3:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Stephen Wolfram showed that extremely complex patterns develop from the application of simple rules, over time.

I have thought that once formed a reproductive system (including life) has a survival edge over completely random systems. So it only needs to happen once, and then it takes over any random system. The other thing is that a system that uses limited random changes (evolves) will outpace a rigid system.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:21 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
posted by Fredgiblet- If you consider that some of the mutations were assisted by natural selection or sexual selection and also consider polyploidy (where entire chromosomes double) then the mutations add up very fast.

yet id venture to guess that this hypothetical species remained within its 'archetype', and didnt evolve into something different altogether. we all plainly see micro evolution, but the other two(macro/abiogenesis) require a burden of proof that i dont feel has been delivered. now please correct me if im mistaken, but we should at the least have thousands of examples available from the fossil record to support all these alleged billions of species successfully and unsuccessfully evolving and mutating. there should be a pretty sizeable gap between non life(billions of years ago), to present day.. i would think that we'd have more fossil evidence of every species progressive evolution from microscopic organisms to their current states. i am left with the impression that cats have always been cats, without any of these extreme biological deviances to its archetype. now i accept that this then poses the question 'then where did it come from'?.. to which id suggest it was uniquely designed that way. but then thats the flaw of ID, its either obvious or its not(apparently)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:51 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
yet id venture to guess that this hypothetical species remained within its 'archetype', and didnt evolve into something different altogether.

I've heard this argument before, and I find it a little confusing. It sounds like you're imagining one complex creature 'turning into' another, like a cat turning into a horse or something. But that's not the way it works. Animals evolve through mutation and natural selection - I'm assuming this is what you mean by 'micro evolution'. Each individual organism will carry minor changes forward, some in one direction, some in another. If those lines evolve separately for a long enough period of time they might be considered two different species. It's a largely arbitrary distinction anyway.

I'd say that evolution isn't about creatures morphing into new creatures, it's more about life from common sources diverging as it reproduces.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 6:15 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It sounds like you're imagining one complex creature 'turning into' another, like a cat turning into a horse or something. But that's not the way it works.

the way ive heard it explained is that life began in the oceans, as proteins, and from there progressed over vast, inconceivable amounts of time, from an amphibious life form, to a land bound species, and from there into all the different forms of life we see today(overly simplified of course). to me, this is an enormous leap in logic.. and maybe you can explain it better, but i dont feel we have anything remotely resembling evidence to support this contention

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:26 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
... to me, this is an enormous leap in logic.

To me, it seems like an inevitable conclusion. Once you buy the idea of genetic change and natural selection, how could you not end up with a bunch of radically different creatures after millions and millions of years?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.

This is where I call bullshit. This number could not possibly be known. And since everything is dependent on this, his house of cards get blown down.

I believe looking up straw-man and red herring arguments would shed some light on what this guy has done.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:03 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

To me, it seems like an inevitable conclusion. Once you buy the idea of genetic change and natural selection, how could you not end up with a bunch of radically different creatures after millions and millions of years?

well, thats if you accept the premise that the earth is billions of years old. i think if we're honost with ourselves, we'll admit that we have no real way to establish a date on the earth(at this point). it seems baffling to consider where the earth came from... i can see why we'd assume its old beyond imagine, but i dont neccessarily know that to be the truth. someone above made a fair observation when he asked what the mathematical possibility would be that random change would produce everything in existence, with its intricate design, in such abundance... and you really have to wonder- are we here by accident, or by design? its really a pretty fundemental question

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:46 AM

Sigh. You know, it's posts like this that really make me sad for the human race. The fact that we live in a society with (mostly, let's not turn this into a different debate here) free education and we still have posts like Antimason's convinces me that we will never get off this rock alive (as a species).

Look, it's -admittedly- hard for me to not be insulting in replying to this post, but for Pete's sake, if you're this deliberately obtuse in your way of thinking there's no hope for you left. You're obviously either retarded or trolling, and at this point I'm not sure which.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

well, thats if you accept the premise that the earth is billions of years old. i think if we're honost with ourselves, we'll admit that we have no real way to establish a date on the earth(at this point).

Yes, we do. There are lists of scientific methods a mile long that have given us an accurate picture of the age of the universe, and of the Earth itself. Radiocarbon dating. Isotopic decay. Mathmatics on the speed of particles (light, other radiation). Seriously, what more do you want? You're holding out such hope for God to come down from the Heavens and say, "I created the world on Sept. 5th at 3 am 6000 years ago" that you're losing your ability to grasp the rational. The problem isn't "we" aren't honest with ourselves, it's "you" aren't honest with yourself - you're so desperate to be a believer that you've given up any train of rational thought.

Quote:
it seems baffling to consider where the earth came from... i can see why we'd assume its old beyond imagine, but i dont neccessarily know that to be the truth.

This is what I mean by deliberately obtuse. How can you not know it? It takes a supreme act of mental blindness to ignore the evidence for the age if the Earth in 2007.

Quote:
someone above made a fair observation when he asked what the mathematical possibility would be that random change would produce everything in existence, with its intricate design, in such abundance... and you really have to wonder- are we here by accident, or by design? its really a pretty fundemental question

I think it's your choice of terminology that sends you into the downward mental spiral. "Accident." Why not "realization of a possibility?" Is random chance really that bad? In fact, I think that if it were true that we came about randomly, it would in fact make us more likely to care about one another and the planet we lived on. We too often don't worry about our planet or each other because of a belief in the supernatural, which is frightening. Besides, what difference does design make to the age of the universe? I believe that the universe was set in motion by God, and yet I have no problems believing in science and evolution. I can separate faith and reason in my brain. Why can't you?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........

Judging by some of your posts, I'm not sure you made the climb.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:54 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Are you a teacher Seven? And if so does this tone of lecture go over well with your students?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:14 AM

Antimason,

"he way ive heard it explained is that life began in the oceans, as proteins, and from there progressed over vast, inconceivable amounts of time,"

Actually, the earth is about 4.567 billion years old. This guy used the age of the universe for his stats, which is 30 billion years. And still came up with zero chance. There is a link above from Fredg that shows how statistics can be misleading, however
there is a link at the bottom of that forum that brings you to another site That states http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low."

Now that seems better if using 30 billion as time frame, the problem I am having is the earth is not that old making even the smaller number improbable.

Then for conclusion:

"The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping."

Not sure if he is saying... "at the present time evolution can't be proven"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Well, just trying to figure out how I climbed out of the primordial ooze to be come kaneman..........

Judging by some of your posts, I'm not sure you made the climb.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

LOL....Wow!!!Seven has some humor!!! Never would have guessed it..............

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Actually, the earth is about 4.567 billion years old. This guy used the age of the universe for his stats, which is 30 billion years.

The age of the universe is irrelevant if other numbers are wrong. Please read my previous post.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:05 AM

@SevenPercent:

Brutal but brilliant!

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:07 AM

So I am looking around the Internet and all I read is how it isn't as impossible to make monomers or polymers if there was enough ingredients (I'll try not to ask where these ingredients came from) as some creationists make it seem.
Then I come across these:

"Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible if such a coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival."

"The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time, the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery."

"Directions for the reproduction of genes, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth- all had to be simultaneously present at one moment" - Haskings

"Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the Arthropods. It's hard enough accounting for the origins of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to modern theory makes my head swim" -Salisbury
(That reminds me of Charles Darwin saying the thought that the eye could be made by natural selection made him ill.)

Have any of these questions been answered?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.

This is where I call bullshit. This number could not possibly be known. And since everything is dependent on this, his house of cards get blown down.

I believe looking up straw-man and red herring arguments would shed some light on what this guy has done.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

Sig, Google it or wikipedia...this is the agreed upon number not his........

*edit*
If you so easily believe all the other "knowns" from scientists, why trouble with this one?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:11 AM

Sigma, 10^80 electrons in the universe is a fair estimate. Unless Wikipedia has it wrong too, but I think I remember seeing that estimate elsewhere before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Sig, Google it or wikipedia...this is the agreed upon number not his........

*edit*
If you so easily believe all the other "knowns" from scientists, why trouble with this one?

You don't get it. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#In_the_universe

We have:

"""
Scientists believe that the number of electrons existing in the known universe is at least 10^79.
"""

Please note the use of the word "believe" and the use of the word "known" /before/ universe.

So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers.

You aren't reading beyond the number nor where it came from.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Are you a teacher Seven? And if so does this tone of lecture go over well with your students?

I am. But I wasn't aware I was supposed to be teaching.

In the classroom, I am patient and attentive until I am sure my students "get it." In the RWED, I get tired of idiots who are willfully ignorant, and I can vent.

True story: My friends (outside of school) know me as a firecracker who is easily wound. On the other hand, my students have repeatedly been dumbstruck by the fact that I never lose my patience in the classroom. I can hold one set of emotions in one place, and one set in another - kind of like faith and reason. There are times and places for ways of thinking and reacting.

Besides - summer vacation started. I'm off the clock.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:33 AM

"So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers."

I think you are making a better case for this guy. He thinks that that number 10^80 is generous, that in the calculations if we used the number of electrons on earth and a lesser 4.567 billion year age frame the statistical probabilities defy the human mind..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, what about the part of the universe that we can't see? What about types of exotic matter that we don't know anything about nor even know exists that could seriously skew these numbers.

Right, we should be taking into consideration as many hypothetical forms of matter it takes to make the numbers work out in favour of evolutionists. Not exactly sound science, but who cares, we need to disprove the creationists by any means necessary, right?

OR we can just look at the Talkorigins link that Fred supplied for a counterargument that actually works.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:34 AM

"I get tired of idiots who are willfully ignorant, and I can vent."

Tell me about it! I think the same way....You ass.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Right, we should be taking into consideration as many hypothetical forms of matter it takes to make the numbers work out in favour of evolutionists. Not exactly sound science, but who cares, we need to disprove the creationists by any means necessary, right?

Why not take hypotheticals into account? Scientists have evidence that dark matter and other oddball sounding stuff exists; they just don't know how to measure its effects yet. All he was saying was "what we can measure right now may not be the only things influencing how the universe works." Admittedly, this in itself sounds almost like a creationist argument. The difference is that science says, "let's figure it out," while creationism says, "God did it, that's enough."

Besides. You can't "disprove" what they have never managed to "prove." That's the problem inherent with creationism and faith.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Tell me about it! I think the same way

God help me.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:54 AM

God?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Why not take hypotheticals into account?

Why should they be taken into account if there are better counterarguments available? Saying something like "That calculation isn't true because there's other stuff that we don't know much about that might have an effect" doesn't sound like an argument any creationist would accept, and trying to win arguments by invoking the magical realm of possibilities that hypotheticals allow doesn't seem like the solid, scientific counterargument I'd be comfortable with.

Quote:
The difference is that science says, "let's figure it out," while creationism says, "God did it, that's enough."

Right, but using Sigma's argument we'd have science countering "God did it, that's enough" with "Some stuff we don't know about did it, that's enough".

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:04 AM

By the way, this is a completely pointless off-topic discussion, because presumably the reason why that creationist dude only took electrons into account is because they are what's necessary for atoms to combine and form molecules. Unless it was recently discovered that dark matter holds together proteins, I don't know what Sigma was on about.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Right, but using Sigma's argument we'd have science countering "God did it, that's enough" with "Some stuff we don't know about did it, that's enough".

But Sigma's not saying "that's enough." That's the difference. He's saying "we're still looking, so don't call the debate finsihed yet."

Wait a minute - what the hell are we arguing for, anyway? Aren't we on the same side? Forget I brought it up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:15 AM

I think the Creationist model is followed more closely by measurable natural law, in that it would predict a decaying universe(it was created perfect and can only go down from there). We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter. With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers. Why would the matter act differently than life? In evolution new species would appear. In creationism species would disappear over time. What do we observe? The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct. At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage, we don't see any new species. What does that show? And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:16 AM