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

"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."

I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
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?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Quote:
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.

And a lot have appeared as well.

Quote:
At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Quote:
we don't see any new species.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Quote:
And for an organism to 'change'- Two must evolve at the same time , find one another, and fuck each other...Right?

If an organism evolved yes, but organisms don't evolve, populations do. Massive single shifts in genes are rare and usually produce infertile creatures but a collection of small changes bring about new species gradually without infertility.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."

I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.

The problem is that's exactly what happens, there a large number of transitional fossils between ape and human but creationists who look at them always say "This one is fully ape, that one is fully human"*. Most people looking at the set of transitional fossils between ape and human (r any other pair of species) can see that they are indeed transitional, but creationists simply say no they aren't.

*Note: The never agree with each other as to which ones are which though.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:07 AM

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

"We know matter can't be created or destroyed, but we also know that it is slowly decaying into useless matter."
First a correction - matter doesn't decay, energy is proposed to undergo entropy.

"With evolution things are constantly evolving into higher tiers."
'Higher' (and 'lower') imply there is some kind of goal to evolution, which isn't the case.

"The fossil records do show one clear thing a lot of species have gone extinct."
The fossil record also indicates that humans or giraffes DIDN'T live alongside dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs DIDN'T live alongside trilobites.

"At the same time not one fossil has ever been found in an intermittent stage"
There are plenty of intermittent fossils, for example in the fossil record of land animal ----> whale. But as was pointed out, that won't satisfy you, because what you will insist on is intermediates between the intermediates.

Quote:

I think there are some useful things for you to remember as you think on the topic:

1) when it comes to the creation of life, time is your friend, because, with time, all sorts of things will happen by chance, and life is one of them
2) life only has to happen once, and then it will inevitably overtake the random system in which it spawned
3) when it comes to the evolution of life time is also your friend because random changes and natural selection will be at work

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Unless the fossil is that of a species that became extinct, every fossil is an intermittent species. And this argument is clearly a no-win argument for scientists, since if we have fossils A and C, then there's a "missing link" we need to find. Say paleontologists then find fossil B connecting A and C, then there'll be two "missing links", between A and B and B and C, etc."

I see your point, but would disagree. I think that if the missing link was extremely obvious most would except it. I'm sure some would argue about a need for even more missing links, but I think it is because people love to say 'missing link'.

The problem is that's exactly what happens, there a large number of transitional fossils between ape and human but creationists who look at them always say "This one is fully ape, that one is fully human"*. Most people looking at the set of transitional fossils between ape and human (r any other pair of species) can see that they are indeed transitional, but creationists simply say no they aren't.

*Note: The never agree with each other as to which ones are which though.

I must say I have a hard time with anthropologists looking at bone fragments, jaws ,and teeth and coming to any conclusion at all...smells like junk science.......I do know there are a couple half fossils, but most are a piece here and a piece there. I think that some of these classifications are a little 'out there'.........

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:15 AM

"First a correction - matter doesn't decay, energy is proposed to undergo entropy."

Well, in any event the 'energy'(converted matter) is degraded to the point of randomness and unavailability.............

"There are plenty of intermittent fossils, for example in the fossil record of land animal ----> whale. But as was pointed out, that won't satisfy you, because what you will insist on is intermediates between the intermediates."

I am not saying that animals do not adapt or change environments. But, a whale is a whale and a gnat is a gnat and always will...Well, with slight changes.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I must say I have a hard time with anthropologists looking at bone fragments, jaws ,and teeth and coming to any conclusion at all...smells like junk science.......I do know there are a couple half fossils, but most are a piece here and a piece there. I think that some of these classifications are a little 'out there'.........

Actually there is many largely complete skeletons, most of the time conclusions aren't going to be based off of a few fragments and when they are they are usually only accepted as tentative until much better evidence is found.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:18 AM

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

But entropy isn't a constant, and can be eliminated, even reversed, locally. The other thing to remember is that entropy is a theory.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:20 AM

"The other thing to remember is that entropy is a theory."

Ditto for evolution.........

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:25 AM

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

Thats' true. And also remember ID isn't a theory, it's a religion.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"The other thing to remember is that entropy is a theory."

Ditto for evolution.........

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Thats' true. And also remember ID isn't a theory, it's a religion.

An argument can also be made that so is science

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:37 AM

Let's not get too careless when it comes to entropy, it's a fundamental part of a physical law. And while in science a law outranks a theory, a theory is something pretty significant in its own right and can be taken as fact, different from the meaning of the word in everyday usage.

Kaneman is right, though, in that eventually the matter in the universe will become useless. It'll either be heavy elements, which can't form suns and all that stuff, or it'll be light elements too dispersed to get pulled towards each other to form suns and all of that stuff. But I don't think any of that is significant in the debate about abiogenesis and evolution...

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

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:39 AM

Later people, my memorial weekend begins shortly. I have to go pick up beer and fuck my girl friend. Enjoy your holiday. Remember don't drink and walk...drive fuckheads(you know who you are)

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:40 AM

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

Kaneman,

Science requires testing, religion forbids it. The two are distinctly different.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Thats' true. And also remember ID isn't a theory, it's a religion.

An argument can also be made that so is science

Just applies to evolution, but can easily be used to cover everything else.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kaneman,

Science requires testing, religion forbids it. The two are distinctly different.

Disagree, I think there are many religious scholars that study and test religion

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:01 AM

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

"Let's not get too careless when it comes to entropy, it's a fundamental part of a physical law."
It's like the 'law' of gravity which people still treat as a theory, except entropy is far less quantified.

"eventually the matter in the universe will become useless."
Only if it all goes through the maw of an active sun. And no one knows quite what happens to the stuff which goes into a black hole.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:02 AM

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

"Disagree, I think there are many religious scholars that study and test religion"

They may look into the history of the religion but faith is required for the tenets.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:17 AM

Show me somebody treating scientific laws as theories and I can find you as many scientists as you like not willing to take that person seriously.

"Only if it all goes through the maw of an active sun."
I also said that there will still be light elements, except that they too will be useless because they're too far apart for gravitational pull to have a significant effect, and hence they wouldn't be able to form anything.

"And no one knows quite what happens to the stuff which goes into a black hole."
Let's stick to what we know and not what might be. This is also the issue I had with Sigma earlier.

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

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:45 AM

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

Khyron,

Are you claiming that no one is studying gravity? Or space/ dimensions/ quantum theory and gravity? That b/c it's a "law" there's no active research? UUhhh ...

"I also said that there will still be light elements ..."
In an ever expanding universe (as proposed) don't you think there will be non-light matter that escapes the various suns?

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Show me somebody treating scientific laws as theories and I can find you as many scientists as you like not willing to take that person seriously.

As it's been explained to me by a source I trust, the idea of a scientific law is no longer in favor. The reality is that given the progressive nature of science even something that is known to be true will not be immune to refinement, thus the concept of an immutable law is no longer considered valid and new discoveries that in previous generations might have had the title of law applied to them are now being left at the status of theory.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:09 AM

You're the one who brought up the law of gravity, maybe you need a reminder of what it actually is. Yes, I'm claiming that nobody outside of high school is studying this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation

What causes gravity is a different matter, that's not what this law is about.

"In an ever expanding universe (as proposed) don't you think there will be non-light matter that escapes the various suns?"
Not sure what your point is. Unless a star is at the end of its life, no heavy elements are formed, so none can escape. Even if the star were to form them, I doubt it would emit them. But even without an expanding universe stars explode and hurl all sorts of heavy elemental junk into the cosmos... so? Where are you going with this?

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

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:13 AM

Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

From the first link: "Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."

Fred, I still think there's a significant difference between laws and theories, but I don't object to the reclassification as long as it's understood that it doesn't mean that theories that have previously been accepted as laws are now less true or points of contention, they're just differently labelled.

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

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:57 AM

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

Khyron

There are laws that have come under question. Entropy is one of them and gravity is another. When scientists probe into the beginnings the of the universe, its basic structure, and possible end the laws - as currently formulated - fall short. So yes, these supposedly immutable laws do come under scrutiny.

Your contention is that there will be either heavy or light elements. That isn't true unless you're considering that light is hydrogen and helium, and heavy is everything else. (In that case the final dead universe will be composed the same as the current one.)

edited: Einstein put a lot of stock in the idea of entropy. I was looking for the quote (I can't find it) but it went something like - even if all of his theories were to be proven untrue, and in fact if all other physics theories were proven untrue, he thought entropy would remain. For all the credit he gave the idea though, he still recognized it as being a testable theory.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
From the first link: "Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."

By that definition a law would be reclassified as a fact.

Quote:
Fred, I still think there's a significant difference between laws and theories

There is, it's just that from what I've heard many if not most scientists are backing away from the idea of a law of science since nothing can be proven absolutely in science.

Quote:
but I don't object to the reclassification as long as it's understood that it doesn't mean that theories that have previously been accepted as laws are now less true or points of contention, they're just differently labelled.

This is the problem. One of the favorite tactics of the anti-evolution people is to say "It's only a theory" by playing off of the general publics definition of theory. A scientist will know that being shifted from law to theory isn't much of a downgrade, but to the ublic it seems huge.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:15 AM

I am trying to say that if molecules and particles are the same throughout the universe, as claimed, where is the evolution? Why don't particles evolve? If they do, why the same everywhere in the universe? If one form of matter evolves shouldn't it all?
And if it is the same every where..can we conclude it comes from the same origin? If we can agree on that, how does it not evolve differently so far removed from its self? After all the whole premise of evolution is to turn the innate into living..but in the end it comes down to Protons, electrons, and such.............they should NOT act uniformly everywhere.........

*Kaneman washes his pecker and goes out for a drink.......*

*slaps his girlfriend, while yelling "hurry the fuck up bitch. I am getting thirsty!"

*slaps baby on her ass saying, "thata girl"*

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are laws that have come under question. Entropy is one of them and gravity is another. When scientists probe into the beginnings the of the universe, its basic structure, and possible end the laws - as currently formulated - fall short.

Sure, under extreme circumstances, such as the time after the Big Bang, or when the bodies are moving at high speeds relative to each other, etc, the laws need to be tweaked. But as far as I can tell we weren't talking about anything like that. In pretty much any given situation, the laws hold.

Quote:
Your contention is that there will be either heavy or light elements. That isn't true unless you're considering that light is hydrogen and helium, and heavy is everything else. (In that case the final dead universe will be composed the same as the current one.)

In this context I consider heavy elements to be the ones that couldn't form a star, i.e. one couldn't get nuclear fusion started. So basically what I'm saying is that there'll be lots of stuff with which one can't form new stars, and all of the stuff with which one could form stars is too few and far between.

Effectively, the universe will be dead. Unless there's a Big Crunch and everything starts anew.

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

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By that definition a law would be reclassified as a fact.

Don't see why. 'The fact of universal gravity' sounds less impressive and commanding. Plus one can't use 'facts' to compute stuff, for instance gravitational attraction.

Quote:
There is, it's just that from what I've heard many if not most scientists are backing away from the idea of a law of science since nothing can be proven absolutely in science.

It's the first I've heard of it, but I guess that doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I'm a maths student and we don't hang out with the physicists too much (they have dandruff and watch Star Trek... *shudder*).

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

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I am trying to say that if molecules and particles are the same throughout the universe, as claimed, where is the evolution? Why don't particles evolve? If they do, why the same everywhere in the universe? If one form of matter evolves shouldn't it all?
And if it is the same every where..can we conclude it comes from the same origin? If we can agree on that, how does it not evolve differently so far removed from its self? After all the whole premise of evolution is to turn the innate into living..but in the end it comes down to Protons, electrons, and such.............they should NOT act uniformly everywhere.........

I don't know where to start with this... so I won't.

Quote:
*Kaneman washes his pecker and goes out for a drink.......*

*slaps his girlfriend, while yelling "hurry the fuck up bitch. I am getting thirsty!"

*slaps baby on her ass saying, "thata girl"*

Aw, that's sweet. Just remember to practice safe sex!

You crazy kids...

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

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I am trying to say that if molecules and particles are the same throughout the universe, as claimed, where is the evolution? Why don't particles evolve?

Because particles do not reproduce. The components required for evolution are reproduction and heritable variation (a way for the new creatures to be different from their parent(s) and pass those differences on to their offspring), particles have neither of these.

Quote:
If one form of matter evolves shouldn't it all?

It is not the matter in our bodies that is evolving, it is the blueprint that controls how they are put together that is evolving.

Quote:
After all the whole premise of evolution is to turn the innate into living

No it's not. Evolution is separate from the idea of abiogenesis, evolution is strictly about the development of self-replicating structures that have the capacity for heritable variation whether they were created by chemistry, god or aliens.

Abiogenesis is in the domain of organic chemistry and biochemistry instead of biology and is an entirely different topic.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Can't even figure out what this person is trying to say...

If there are 10^80 electrons in the universe.
Mebbe. I dunno. How does that sound to the experts?

And the universes age is 30 billion years(that being on the high end), which is 10^18 seconds.
OK

And the chance of a simple 100 part protein randomly coming together is 10^158.
Did he just pull that outta his *ss or was there some sort of guesstimate behind this value?

Now if the electrons equal the number of available particles for components.
I have no idea what he's trying to say here. The number of electrons is not equal to the number of atoms or the number of amino acids ("parts").

Only 10^78 such groups could exist at any one time.
Well it follows his assumptions.

Far short of the 10^158 chances needed.
Still wondering how that figure was developed.

So, if the moon was made of green cheese...

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:03 PM

@Sig

I suspect that whoever Kaneman got those numbers from intended for them to discredit evolution, one of the defining characteristics of anti-evolution arguments is the smell of the ass that they were pulled out of.

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:22 PM

"Can't even figure out what this person is trying to say..."

I'll try to clarify.....

"And the universes age is 30 billion years(that being on the high end), which is 10^18 seconds.
OK "

That is generous...it is more like 13.7 ...Well, scientists say it's true....

"And the chance of a simple 100 part protein randomly coming together is 10^158.
Did he just pull that outta his *ss or was there some sort of guesstimate behind this value?"

No guesswork here..any 7th grader can tell you that is the possible number of ways 100 parts can combine to form a functional thingy?.........

"Now if the electrons equal the number of available particles for components....
I have no idea what he's trying to say here. The number of electrons is not equal to the number of atoms or the number of amino acids ("parts")."

Point made is he is being generous...thank him....

"Only 10^78 such groups could exist at any one time.
Well it follows his assumptions."

True........again thank him it is much lower!

"Far short of the 10^158 chances needed.
Still wondering how that figure was developed."

WAS MAKING AN ORIGINAL POINT THAT TO MAKE A SPECIFIC PROTIEN, THAT MEANS ANYTHING(functional) out of 1 hundred parts that is the chance that- that thingy would come into being.......again very generous.....

"So, if the moon was made of green cheese..."

I would eat it! I would not say it was a mushroom that mutated....Well, it's true.........

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:32 PM

And, I feel like I am being attacked here, because I am asking a question...Using mathematical principles..not Jesus said stuff, to question our being here....What's wrong with that? Who are the fanatics? Clerics or scientists? and who has YOU brainwashed?

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 3:39 PM

So, now I am going to go throw-up in the toilet....Oh, I will pray to god while doing so.....Well, it's true.........

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:30 PM

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

Yes, you will be on your knees, bowing to the cool hard white god in your bathroom. Well it's true.......

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 3:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kaneman- there is no reason to think that a 100-part protein has to achieve one SPECIFIC configuration in order to be useful. Take a look at any particular protein (say, hemoglobin) and you will find (in this case) at least a hundred functional variants. And that assumes that "hemoglobin" MIUST have been part of the development. So setting up a specific tempalte and saying that a combination of amino acids has to match that template is one big bad assumption.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Kaneman- there is no reason to think that a 100-part protein has to achieve one SPECIFIC configuration in order to be useful. Take a look at any particular protein (say, hemoglobin) and you will find (in this case) at least a hundred functional variants. And that assumes that "hemoglobin" MIUST have been part of the development. So setting up a specific tempalte and saying that a combination of amino acids has to match that template is one big bad assumption.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Not so sure. In the beginning, when there was nothingness. For a particular particle to be made and start evolving into everything else, does it not have to be a particle that can replicate somehow? And that particle would have to be specific and have function. Or now do we say it could be any combination. If the parts were ABC. Wouldn't we assume if BCA is the combination that would yield a functional particle, wouldn't we rule out AAB,CBA, etc....

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:54 AM

And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Not so sure. In the beginning, when there was nothingness.

Cosmology is where the (scientific) answers for where the universe came from, not evolution.

Quote:
For a particular particle to be made and start evolving into everything else, does it not have to be a particle that can replicate somehow?

No, particles don't evolve. We don't know exactly what happened during the Big Bang (or at least I don't) but since the Big Bang the number of any given particles has stayed largely (though not entirely) the same, there is no reproduction or evolution of particles though fusion and fission sometimes results in the conversion of some particles into energy.

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

No. There are quite a few fossils and more than enough to fill a coffin. This is simply more Lying For Jesus.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

No. There are quite a few fossils and more than enough to fill a coffin. This is simply more Lying For Jesus.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I gotta hand it to you...that is somekinda site....

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:52 AM

Yeah, it is (or was there doesn't seem to have been much activity lately) run by a wide variety of people from the talk.origins newsgroup who decided to make a comprehensive site rebutting anti-evolution arguments. This "debate" has been going on for over a century, there's an enormous amount of material rebutting the arguments against evolution. That's what makes this so frustrating, so much of what you will hear against evolution has been disproved decades or even a century ago, yet the anti-evolutionist either don't or won't check their facts. Some like Hovind even use arguments so bad that other anti-evolutionists consider him a joke, but people still believe him. *sigh*

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 6:57 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
posted by fredgiblet- That's what makes this so frustrating, so much of what you will hear against evolution has been disproved decades or even a century ago, yet the anti-evolutionist either don't or won't check their facts.

but at the same time, would you honostly take to heart any information which contradicted a current theory and indicated ID? its not that there are no intriguing arguments, but most people just cherry pick what they want to believe(myself included). i see plenty of evidence of evolution, but to deduce all life on earth, or the entire galaxy(and beyond)... i mean there are a lot of processes and cycles, and likely other un-discovered laws at work in the universe, that we arent even aware of right now. is this something we can agree on?

my whole thought is that when we talk about millions of years ago, i think we leave the realm of 'hard science', and begin to speculate more theoretically, and ID does have a place there. IMO we have such a small sampling of data from the universe, that i dont believe we can honostly claim to know half of what we say we do. i know ill get criticized for this.. but a lot of the time i feel we just take this small observable sampling, combined with some other choice data, and we invent all these models and theories around it, as if to suddenly explain everything away.. and i almost feel thats dis-ingenuous. there are enough things that we dont know yet, that in light of the uncertainty, i am more open to considering arguments put forth by IDs. even if the IDs platform consists mostly of attemps at contradicting proven theories, i am enclined to encourage the skepticism, because just maybe theyre not wrong 100% of the time(like many would have us believe). its a nice break from the attitude put forth by most evolutionists, which is that 'we already know everything' there is to know about the subject, and everything definately happened by random accident(despite what i consider to be a lack of corresponding fossil evidence)

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 7:03 PM

AZRIEL

I think that Puppies made the universe.....so they could rule over it with an iron fist.

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

Friday, May 25, 2007 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but at the same time, would you honostly take to heart any information which contradicted a current theory and indicated ID?

If it came from a reputable peer-reviewed source? Sure, and if it held up and was confirmed later I'd be shocked but I'd accept it.

Quote:
i see plenty of evidence of evolution, but to deduce all life on earth, or the entire galaxy(and beyond)... i mean there are a lot of processes and cycles, and likely other un-discovered laws at work in the universe, that we arent even aware of right now. is this something we can agree on?

Sure but I don't think we'll agree on the nature of the processes and laws. I can't think of any reasonable reason why the rules that govern evolution and biochemistry here would be any different anywhere else. Outside of probability I don't see much chance of major processes or laws being found that would prove a serious challenge to evolution, but then there's a story I heard about a guy working in the patent office back around the beginning of the 20th century who said that they should close the patent office because there was nothing left to invent.

Quote:
my whole thought is that when we talk about millions of years ago, i think we leave the realm of 'hard science', and begin to speculate more theoretically

In some ways yes in others no. Geology is a science that deals with time frames exactly like that, physics deals with laws that have not changed appreciably in the time that we are aware of and as near as we can make out have never been significantly different then they are today. Certainly there is very little that we can know for sure from millions or billions of years ago. We can't say exactly how many of one kind of dinosaur there was, or even give a reasonable guess, but we can tell roughly when the were around and roughly when each species died out. We can't say for sure how long the days were, but we can look at coral that has specific behavior patterns and get a decent guess. But there is a lot that we can be reasonably sure of and as our knowledge increases the accuracy of the observations gets better and the number of things that we can expect to get reasonable answers for gets better.

Quote:
and ID does have a place there.

No, ID is not scientific, it never has been and likely never will be. This is not surprising considering that ID is not about science, it's about politics and religion.

Quote:
IMO we have such a small sampling of data from the universe, that i dont believe we can honostly claim to know half of what we say we do.

Most of what we know comes from the rules of the universe, to imply that because we have a small sampling we don't know what we think we know would imply that the rules of the universe are different elsewhere, this is an enormous claim that has never been sustained. In fact at present it's irrelevant whether or not things are different elsewhere as we can't go elsewhere in the first place, until we have the ability (which we will get by applying what you think we don't know) to go elsewhere it is perfectly reasonable to assume that things are the same everywhere because it makes no difference either way since we can't find out for sure and it has no effect on us right now. As an analogy, does it matter to someone in the Sahara (ignoring the butterfly effect for a moment) that it's raining in India? No, because rain in India has no effect on the Sahara.

Quote:
i know ill get criticized for this.. but a lot of the time i feel we just take this small observable sampling, combined with some other choice data, and we invent all these models and theories around it, as if to suddenly explain everything away

We are limited in our reach, until we can extend our reach we simply have to make do with the observations we can make. As for "choice data" we use the most accurate data we can get, that means that we throw out data as we get better readings, including old data or inaccurate data just keeps us from refining our models to perfection. As for inventing models, of course we invent the models, the Bible doesn't have a model for gravitation, neither does any of the other holy books, so they have to be made by us. We invent models that fit the data, and if we get new data that doesn't fit we throw out the model and make a new one, or we refine the existing model, I really don't see what the problem with this is.

Quote:
there are enough things that we dont know yet, that in light of the uncertainty, i am more open to considering arguments put forth by IDs.

I would be open to their arguments if they did actual scientific research, but they don't. All the ID proponents do is rehash old arguments against evolution and attempt to use rhetoric and public speaking to turn people against evolution. That is not the way science works. If you want to propose a new theory you don't do so by attempting to disprove the old theory and saying "well that one wasn't right so you should believe ours" you replace to old theory by doing research to confirm your new theory until it becomes apparent that your new theory is more accurate and comprehensive.

If the ID movement was serious about providing scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer then the scientific community would be open to review and possibly accept anything that IDers came up with. The problem is like I said before, ID isn't about science, it's about politics and religion.

Quote:
i am enclined to encourage the skepticism

Skepticism is good, most scientists are quite skeptical of anything and everything, but there comes a point where skepticism becomes absurd, it makes no sense in light of everything we know to be skeptical of heliocentrism, it makes no sense to skeptical of a round earth. Much of the components of evolution have been proven as well as heliocentrism or a round earth. Certainly there is things we don't know about evolution, like whether or not allopatric or sympatric evolution is more prevalent. But the basic mechanisms have advanced to the point where science, an endeavour built on skepticism, simply can't justify skepticism any more.

Quote:
because just maybe theyre not wrong 100% of the time(like many would have us believe).

What's that saying about stopped clocks? If you throw enough out you're bound to get something right sooner or later. I'm curious, what exactly have they said that has been proven scientifically?

Quote:
its a nice break from the attitude put forth by most evolutionists, which is that 'we already know everything' there is to know about the subject

I don't know who you've been talking to but it can't be a scientist. I for one know that we don't know everything about evolution, and just about every biologist would probably tell you the same. We do know just about everything about the basics of evolution, evolution at the high school level hasn't seen much serious change for a while, to get to the things that we truly don't know you have to be looking at college level biology.

Quote:
and everything definately happened by random accident

Biochemistry is not random, evolution is not random. If someone told you that everything we see came about by random chance then they were either lying or misinformed. If evolution was purely random then it would certainly be absurd to think that life as it exists now would be impossibly unlikely, but since it isn't random that isn't a problem.

Quote:
(despite what i consider to be a lack of corresponding fossil evidence)

You are free to disbelieve all you want, but the fossils are there.

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

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:33 AM