Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod by leadb

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But you haven't answered my question: How does one differentiate the uranium that decayed in space while it was just dust and gas awirling around from the decay that takes place on Earth? Why is the clock started with the formation of earth, as if all the decay only started when the Earth was formed? Doesn't uranium decay in space too? And wouldn't the lead content indicate when the uranium was formed, as opposed to when a planet is formed?

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

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Can you explain your reasoning? It seems like a non-sequitur to me. Stating that ID and Creationism are the same doesn't need to prove that they are wrong, just that they are very similar.

yes.. but all along youve said that theres no evidence for ID. ID and Creationism both have a 'creator'.. so if theres no evidence for one, then theres no evidence for another

Right...but your argument was that if I was saying they were the same then I must be able to prove they are wrong, that simply doesn't follow.

Quote:
Quote:
As for whether or not ID is creationism, I refer you again to: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html . ID is not identical to YEC, but it's pretty damn close.

yes.. the site for atheists who abhor theists

Um...no, actually many of the contributors are Christian or some other theistic belief, their involvement with the site has nothing to do with a dislike of religion but rather a dislike of lies and misinformation spread in the name of religion.

Quote:
Quote:
The amount of sediment needed for even a small portion of the strata we observe would be extreme, plus that doesn't account for the stratification at all, if the sediment was deposited in the space of less than a year then fossils should be mixed up instead of perfectly stratified.

first of all, many fossils are mixed up.. as the article i posted indicated. secondly, i think a flood could cause the stratifications and erosion we've seen

First, not nearly as many or as mixed up as would have resulted from a flood of minor proportions much less the catastrophic forces present in a flood of Noahchian magnitude.

Second, I'd love for you to actually demonstrate the ability of a flood of the violence necessitated by the Noahchian Deluge to make the ordered strata that we see.

Quote:
Quote:
What mechanism has been found that would prevent an "archetype" shift from occuring?

what mechanism have you found that allows a complete archetype change?

That would be evolution, without any mechanism that prevents large changes the smaller changes will build up until they become large changes.

Quote:
there are similarities in the DNA of humans and primates, but no amount of 'decoding' is going to turn a human into something too far beyond our current state, and thats my prediction.

Which you can make because you'll never see the result.

Quote:
i guess evolutionists predict that a few million years from now we too may be something else entirely.. but i dont believe so

Actually in this case your opinion is likely correct, though for the wrong reasons, humans no longer adapt to our environments we just use tools to provide us with our preferred environment regardless of the situation. Because of this it's fairly unlikely that we will have a major shift. However the human race will still be changing, I've seen estimates that in the next couple centuries black people and white people will disappear and the entire worlds skin tone will end up being a uniform coffee color because of the ease of mixing different races now.

Quote:
Quote:
Would the transition from land animals to whales be an "archetype" shift? We have a very good fossil record of that occuring.

yes.. but if your basing that off a useless organ, then i would require more evidence.

You will always require more evidence, regardless of how much is given to you. But ignoring that for a moment, it's based off of the gradual shift demonstrated by the fossils that have been found from a land mammal to an aquatic mammal as well as the genetic and biochemical evidence. The conclusion is inescapable unless you approach it with the preconceived opinion that it can't possibly be right and simply refuse to accept the evidence.

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Which is what I assumed, but didn't bother to look up.

ETA: No wait Fred, that doesn't make sense. Let me propose this problem for the sake of illustration:

Let's assume that you have pure uranium-238 vapor flaoting in space as a result of a supernova explosion. The uranium decays at a rather convenient rate of about 10% every billion years. So there it is, decaying in space for a billion years, at which point you have a vapor of 90% uranium and 10% lead.

Then the vapor coalesces into a plant, which hums along nicely for another billion years (assuming that it doesn't explode) at which point you would have lost another 10% of the remaining uranium and reached relative U/Pb concentrations of 81%/19%. By looking at that ratio, you could correctly conclude that the uranium had been decaying for 2 billion years, but you would be mistaken in saying that the planet was 2 billion years old.

Where am I going wrong?

Ah I see, well what happens is this, when rock gets superheated and melts the uranium and lead will be mixed back up effectively resetting the clock, this is why lava flows can be dated as being 0 years old. So by dating igneous rock you are dating the last time the clock was reset in that sample.

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 8:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So there is some sort of partitioning that goes on naturally, which is reversed during lava flows. OK, I think I get it. Thanks!

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

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:10 AM

KHYRON

I don't get it, wasn't that question addressed in the link I gave above? Anyway, this might be interesting too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isodaughter.

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

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks. It didn't make immediate sense to me that isochron dating was the answer to my question. I'm still not sure that it is, I'll have to study it more to understand it.

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

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:02 PM

Quote:
fredgiblet-

Um...no, actually many of the contributors are Christian or some other theistic belief, their involvement with the site has nothing to do with a dislike of religion but rather a dislike of lies and misinformation spread in the name of religion.

maybe thats true.. if so, i think their theology is flawed, or just compromised to cater to secular beliefs. can we admit that "lies and disinformation" are spread in the name of science too? for example, most of the 'facts' of the Scopes trial, in favor of evolution, arent even accepted today among evolutionists. IMO their ought to be some leeway for error, or science ceases to be objective and actually becomes 'religious' in nature

Quote:
First, not nearly as many or as mixed up as would have resulted from a flood of minor proportions much less the catastrophic forces present in a flood of Noahchian magnitude.

Second, I'd love for you to actually demonstrate the ability of a flood of the violence necessitated by the Noahchian Deluge to make the ordered strata that we see.

can i use this as an example of the hypocracy of darwinian evolutionists? so a global flood, a 'seemingly' random event, cant create ordered sedimentary levels.. but complete disorder, chaos, and randomness created all the intricate design of the universe(and its infinite complexities)?

Quote:
That would be evolution, without any mechanism that prevents large changes the smaller changes will build up until they become large changes.

ok.. so wheres the fossil evidence? where is the observable evidence? Darwin himself expressed the most criticism towards his model regarding the visible record, since we do not see anything in a mutational or transitional stage. a platypus may 'appear' like an example of these macro changes.. but id venture to guess that the species has always existed in a similar form, and that it was 'designed' that way. species on the galapagos islands dont really break any new molds.. they still follow their 'own kinds'. the evidence IMO is not their to confirm the claims otherwise(but im sure ill be enlightened otherwise)

Quote:
Actually in this case your opinion is likely correct, though for the wrong reasons, humans no longer adapt to our environments we just use tools to provide us with our preferred environment regardless of the situation. Because of this it's fairly unlikely that we will have a major shift.

you know... i was working on my car yesterday, trying to replace my alternator(very inconveniently placed), and struggling with a bolt that no human could possibly unfasten, with tool-in-hand. at that moment this is actually what came to mind 'what evolutionary process could any primate have possibly been introduced to, that would have 'forced' or guided the ability to deconstruct an engine block?' seriously... im supposed to believe that nature produced our incredible intelligence and adaptability, by selection? now i call BS.

Quote:
However the human race will still be changing, I've seen estimates that in the next couple centuries black people and white people will disappear and the entire worlds skin tone will end up being a uniform coffee color because of the ease of mixing different races now.

that could very well happen.. but thats a change that does not escape our designed 'archetype'(or phenotype). but i wouldnt speculate much further beyond those levels of changes

Quote:
You will always require more evidence, regardless of how much is given to you. But ignoring that for a moment, it's based off of the gradual shift demonstrated by the fossils that have been found from a land mammal to an aquatic mammal as well as the genetic and biochemical evidence. The conclusion is inescapable unless you approach it with the preconceived opinion that it can't possibly be right and simply refuse to accept the evidence.

many biologists believe in ID, because complex information just does not arrange and create itself through random mathmatic chance. when i see the world, i see order and design and 'purpose', i do not see chaos and randomness. people are entitle to use this as their premise, but it seems very illogical to me

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, instead of pointedly ignoring me, you could have asked me a question yourself, such as: Well, how do you define science? The answer is very complex, and I'm not sure I can answer it.

im sorry, i wasnt intentionally ignoring you; i try to respond to my comments in order, but even i get lost in the shuffle. im not sure i can answer all your questions, but i try to argue the 'other side' as best i can. otherwise, we wouldnt even be having this discussion, and that would be a shame, since i think this subject is far from conclusive

Quote:
Here's another question you could have asked, which I have no frigging clue how to answer: If uranium decay is one possible "clock" by which we can measure time, and uranium is widely considered to have been formed in a supernova explosion, doesn't the amount of uranium date back to the time of the explosion, NOT the the formation of the earth? If you'd asked that, I would have had to spend all kinds of time googling up the answer. I might have even concluded that the age of the earth is wildly overestimated.

have you heard the argument that carbon dating is not as accurate geologically, and cant be relied on beyond thousands of years? thats a common dispute i hear among Creationists.. i dont know personally though

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 1:54 PM

KANEMAN

"Ah I see, well what happens is this, when rock gets superheated and melts the uranium and lead will be mixed back up effectively resetting the clock"

That is bull shit. So the daughter Isotopes go back to U238. Bull shit you can't date using Uranium. There is an assumption it began decomposing on earth..Siggy is correct.......That is not so.

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:12 PM

Well, my head is spinning from all that science above, so I'll take the easy way out and comment back to Finn ;-)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Well put Finn; my exception is that I think the Creator was busy doing things before creating the heavens, etc.
I don’t know what god was doing before the Big Bang. I’m not even sure that such a statement makes sense, since time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there could never have been a “before the Big Bang.” You can go crazy trying to think about that kind of stuff. When I imagine how God might exist, I like to think of God as being something like a fourth spatial dimension. We can accept it’s existence, but it’s impossible to visualize it and therefore impossible to measure it, because our minds just can't wrap around it.

Well, that's the fun of this part of the discussion; we know so little about what came before the Big Bang it leaves us a tremendous realm to speculate about. Keeping in mind I don't disagree with what your saying, I do have my 'preferred' mode of thought on the topic, which has the benefit of being as likely to be right as anyone's ;-). I like to think of the Creator as 'living' in a universe with at least one more dimension than ours; and I don't mean 'time'; but perhaps a 4th physical dimension. His act of creating our universe created a 'small' three dimensional pocket with our universe in it. If you've seen Men in Black, think of the 'Galaxy on Orion's Belt' and then remember the 'zoom out' at the end of the movie; something like that.

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Ah I see, well what happens is this, when rock gets superheated and melts the uranium and lead will be mixed back up effectively resetting the clock"

That is bull shit. So the daughter Isotopes go back to U238. Bull shit you can't date using Uranium. There is an assumption it began decomposing on earth..Siggy is correct.......That is not so.

I believe the concept is that when the rock recrystallizes, there's a bias for the like atoms to arrange themselves in homogeneous structures; as a consequence by studying the various 'new' crystalline structure, you can then determine the age of the new crystal. If you have reason to believe that the rock in question has not been 'remelted' since the forming of earth, you have good cause to believe you can successfully date the age of the earth; or at least bound the earth as being 'at least this old, until we find a 'better' sample'. I could be wrong, though. That article made my head spin a wee bit.

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

Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
fredgiblet-
Um...no, actually many of the contributors are Christian or some other theistic belief, their involvement with the site has nothing to do with a dislike of religion but rather a dislike of lies and misinformation spread in the name of religion.
maybe thats true.. if so, i think their theology is flawed, or just compromised to cater to secular beliefs. can we admit that "lies and disinformation" are spread in the name of science too? for example, most of the 'facts' of the Scopes trial, in favor of evolution, arent even accepted today among evolutionists. IMO their ought to be some leeway for error, or science ceases to be objective and actually becomes 'religious' in nature

Hmm, you might be right, their theology might be flawed... of course, using 'their theology is flawed' to claim your science is correct is not likely to convince many scientists. Even if their -theology- is flawed, it does not mean their science is flawed. It might even lead one to question the accuracy of your theology. In any case, this is why I tend not to discuss the science side of these issues with you, you tend to attack the people rather than the scientific positions. You tend to convey "These people don't agree with me, thus they must be wrong" by this approach.

Yes, we clearly have learned things about science since the time of the Scopes trial; however, the method of science is trial, experiment, reformulation. For instance, General Relativity has displaced Newtons Theory of Gravitation in the same time span; does this mean Newton was trying to 'pull a fast one'? No, it means his formula, which is still used today to produce usable results if we avoid 'relativistic conditions' , was not as 'refined' at Einstein's.

Quote:

Quote:
First, not nearly as many or as mixed up as would have resulted from a flood of minor proportions much less the catastrophic forces present in a flood of Noahchian magnitude.

Second, I'd love for you to actually demonstrate the ability of a flood of the violence necessitated by the Noahchian Deluge to make the ordered strata that we see.

can i use this as an example of the hypocracy of darwinian evolutionists? so a global flood, a 'seemingly' random event, cant create ordered sedimentary levels.. but complete disorder, chaos, and randomness created all the intricate design of the universe(and its infinite complexities)?

Actually, there's several methods where we see 'nature' impose order on chaos. If you'd like to see an example, take some sugar and mix it in water do so until there's persistently some sugar on the bottom; add another... 5 tablespoons of sugar. Heat the water in a microwave; stir in as much sugar as you can while it is still near a boil; decant off about half the liquid, and try to avoid getting any sugar crystals in the new glass (which should be -very- clean, ideally, clean it with distilled water). Let it cool to room temperature... then drop in a single grain of sugar. Check back in a bit, and you should have some nice, organized crystalline structures.

You forget that there's an 'ordering' process to offset the randomizing/chaos factor; in the case of evolution, it is natural selection.

Quote:

Quote:
That would be evolution, without any mechanism that prevents large changes the smaller changes will build up until they become large changes.
ok.. so wheres the fossil evidence? where is the observable evidence? Darwin himself expressed the most criticism towards his model regarding the visible record, since we do not see anything in a mutational or transitional stage. a platypus may 'appear' like an example of these macro changes.. but id venture to guess that the species has always existed in a similar form, and that it was 'designed' that way. species on the galapagos islands dont really break any new molds.. they still follow their 'own kinds'. the evidence IMO is not their to confirm the claims otherwise(but im sure ill be enlightened otherwise)

The problem is that new samples will only close the 'gaps'; you will declare the new samples to be a new 'archtype' or otherwise dismiss them. To be honest, if the only thing available was the fossil record, I'd tend to understand your reluctance to agree; however, there's supporting evidence from DNA, RNA and mitochondrial DNA (pardon any spelling error on that), as well as other data. In any case, you've convinced me you are not going to be convinced, and I shan't bother you more on the topic.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually in this case your opinion is likely correct, though for the wrong reasons, humans no longer adapt to our environments we just use tools to provide us with our preferred environment regardless of the situation. Because of this it's fairly unlikely that we will have a major shift.
you know... i was working on my car yesterday, trying to replace my alternator(very inconveniently placed), and struggling with a bolt that no human could possibly unfasten, with tool-in-hand. at that moment this is actually what came to mind 'what evolutionary process could any primate have possibly been introduced to, that would have 'forced' or guided the ability to deconstruct an engine block?' seriously... im supposed to believe that nature produced our incredible intelligence and adaptability, by selection? now i call BS.

I can't believe you said that. De-constructing the engine block is easy; it's the designing it and building it in an affordable fashion in the first place that is impressive;-). A bit more seriously, much of what you marvel at here is the slow accumulation of scientific understanding over time. All evolution had to do was get us to the point were we understood 'Fire hot' and the making of simple tools (clearly a benefit to humanity); why didn't people make cars 9,000 years ago? Are we that much smarter? No, but we have learned how to write down what we know and disseminate it. The fact that we can use simple tools and can pass our learning from one generation to the next is all evolution had to get us to, imho.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

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

Friday, June 22, 2007 6:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks for the reply Anti.

It seems to me that you think that nature is chaos, and that order only comes about from intent. If you start with that assumption, it would intuitively follow that nothing complex can come from "nature". And yet nature is full of examples of order from chaos, and this order comes from the repetitive operation of simple principles:

Galaxies, solar systems, and the division of our own earth into sky, ocean and land from gravity. This leads to days, and seasons.

The formation of crystals from a random melt or a saturated solution.

The growth of blood vessels, trees, and river tributaries following the physical principles of minimum flow disturbance.

-----------------
We can "create" (model) very complex systems from simple principles ourselves, including virtual evolution and the models created by Steve Wolfram, who says "{our inutition leads us to believe that}... creating complexity is somehow difficult, and requires rules or plans that are themselves complex." when in fact nothing fo the sort is required. www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-2

Science, at it's heart, seeks to discover the underlying principles that create the orderly, predictable phenomena that we see. IMHO it is easier to explain "order" by science than it is to explain chaos by science Or, in fact, easier to explain order by science than order by religion.

You know, if I had to pick a "god" it would be the "god of chance" because otherwise everything is predetermined in an endless chain of cause and effect, and there is no freedom - or free will.

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

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

Friday, June 22, 2007 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
fredgiblet-

Um...no, actually many of the contributors are Christian or some other theistic belief, their involvement with the site has nothing to do with a dislike of religion but rather a dislike of lies and misinformation spread in the name of religion.

maybe thats true.. if so, i think their theology is flawed, or just compromised to cater to secular beliefs.

And what makes your interpretation correct? That's the fun part about that argument, you can say their theology is flawed and they can say yours is flawed and neither of you can prove the other wrong, it's completely subjective. As a side note IIRC one of the people from talkorigins said that the reason he didn't take the Bible literally is because he considers the universe to be God's primary work and the Bible to be a spiritually accurate but not necessarily literally accurate creation of man.

Quote:
can we admit that "lies and disinformation" are spread in the name of science too? for example, most of the 'facts' of the Scopes trial, in favor of evolution, arent even accepted today among evolutionists.

I am unaware of the specific arguments used in the Scopes trial so I can't comment on whether or not they are accurate. Science is a progressive endeavor which sometimes takes paths that turn out to be dead ends, I don't really think that it can be called lying when to the best of their knowledge the arguments were probably correct. In the modern day most of the arguments used by anti-evolutionists are known to be false, frequently by the person using the argument, that is lying. While some people don't seem interested in doing research that might show their opinions to be false and certainly won't accept said research if they do it, it probably shouldn't be considered lying but rather ignorance

Quote:
IMO their ought to be some leeway for error, or science ceases to be objective and actually becomes 'religious' in nature

There is leeway for error, the problem is that most of the arguments used against evolution have been known to be wrong for years, decades or even over a century.

Quote:
can i use this as an example of the hypocracy of darwinian evolutionists?

You can try.

Quote:
so a global flood, a 'seemingly' random event, cant create ordered sedimentary levels.. but complete disorder, chaos, and randomness created all the intricate design of the universe(and its infinite complexities)?

A global flood of the necessary magnitude would be extremely violent and chaotic, the likelihood of strata being laid down in the same order across the entire planet with the same fossil patterns (which are deposited in a fashion entirely inconsistent with hydrological sorting) is far lower then the incorrect calculations that anti-evolutionists use to claim that evolution is statistically impossible. The only way that a flood could have resulted in the world we see today is by the direct, comprehensive involvement of a supernatural entity. This then begs the question of why God would arrange the entire world so that it appears not only that a flood didn't happen but that a flood couldn't have happened and left the world we see today.

As for evolution being random, I've covered that before, it's one of the many incorrect arguments used by anti-evolutionists. Evolution is not random, the rules of physics are not random.

Quote:
Quote:
That would be evolution, without any mechanism that prevents large changes the smaller changes will build up until they become large changes.

ok.. so wheres the fossil evidence? where is the observable evidence?

All around you, but you just refuse to see it.

Quote:
Darwin himself expressed the most criticism towards his model regarding the visible record, since we do not see anything in a mutational or transitional stage.

If you want to get pedantic then every species except for the endpoint of extinct lineages is a transitional species. But to be less pedantic we still see evidence like ring species and the speciation of fruit flies that demonstrate that the idea is sound.

You are trying to throw this into my court to prove but it doesn't belong here, the mechanism of evolution has no endpoint except extinction, there is no barrier preventing the accumulation of vast amounts of mutations so the development of highly complex forms is the logical result. YOU claim there is a barrier, YOU need to demonstrate said barrier because no one else can see it. If you could back it up with actual evidence you'd be a rock star among your fellow ID advocates, because no one's been able to come up with one.

Quote:
a platypus may 'appear' like an example of these macro changes

Not really, it's just a case of a variety of examples of convergent evolution. Certainly improbable that that many different convergent features could appear in the same animal but certainly not impossible either.

Quote:
but id venture to guess that the species has always existed in a similar form

And you'd be wrong, but you won't accept fossil evidence so...

Quote:
species on the galapagos islands dont really break any new molds.. they still follow their 'own kinds'.

Nor are they claimed to, the Galapagos finches are an excellent example of "micro"evolution.

Quote:
the evidence IMO is not their to confirm the claims otherwise(but im sure ill be enlightened otherwise)

The evidence for evolution outside of a 'kind' is well documented, but it consists largely fossil evidence, and it's been established that you won't accept that so...

Quote:
you know... i was working on my car yesterday, trying to replace my alternator(very inconveniently placed), and struggling with a bolt that no human could possibly unfasten, with tool-in-hand. at that moment this is actually what came to mind 'what evolutionary process could any primate have possibly been introduced to, that would have 'forced' or guided the ability to deconstruct an engine block?' seriously... im supposed to believe that nature produced our incredible intelligence and adaptability, by selection? now i call BS.

Sure, tool use requires intelligence and provides a huge benefit. Those who can use tools better, find better tools, or make better tools (all of which require intelligence) will do even better than the others that use tools. Consider, who's going to do better in the medieval period, an idiot who can barely figure out how to shovel horse crap or a highly skilled blacksmith? Tool use continues to be a selective benefit until recently (these days most people can afford more children then they have, so it's not as much of an issue). Another aspect of the evolution of intelligence is the social aspect, socialization requires intelligence and promotes teamwork which requires more intelligence. Those who have higher intelligence can do better in both socialization and teamwork situations. Another selective advantage.

The argument you use there is called an argument from incredulity, for example "I can't believe it so it didn't happen". Guess how well those arguments hold up.

Quote:
many biologists believe in ID

My turn to call BS. Unless your definition of "many" is "very few" then that's simply not true.

Quote:
because complex information just does not arrange and create itself through random mathmatic chance.

Ever hear of snowflakes? Completely random process turning the highly disordered form of liquid water into a highly organized very complex form. And besides, evolution isn't random and the rules of physics aren't random.

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

Friday, June 22, 2007 12:15 PM

MALBADINLATIN

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING FOR ALL OF YOU who have invested so much time on this thread.

The Language of God
Francis Collins PhD

Collins's faith in God has been confirmed and enhanced by the revolutionary discoveries in biology that he has helped to oversee. He has absorbed the arguments for atheism of many scientists and pundits, and he can refute them. Darwinian evolution occurs, yet, as he explains, it cannot fully explain human nature -- evolution can and must be directed by God. He offers an inspiring tour of the human genome to show the miraculous nature of God's instruction book. Sure to be compared with C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, this is a stunning document, whether you are a believer, a seeker, or an atheist.

"How drunk was I last night?"
"I don't know I passed out"

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

Friday, June 22, 2007 1:56 PM

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignor
ance/

EDIT: Non sequiturs, arguments from ignorance and incredulity, ignoring known evidence...pass.

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

Friday, June 22, 2007 3:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I read the review and laughed my *ss off. Yes! I see God in the pustules of smallpox, and hear him the the death rattle! The evidence of divine morality is all around us in human behavior! BWHAAAHAHAHA!

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

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 5:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think that the Collins book deserves a more thoughtful answer than the one I gave. From the passages that I read, I had the very strong impression that Collins was a man in emotional turmoil, a troubled person, a seeker. And he was. This is what he had to say about his religious conversion: www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf But even in a presentation about his religious convictions he uses the word evolution 26 times.

Here is a quote from wiki about Collins' book:

Quote:
In Collins' book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE)

To forestall any reference to Coral Ridge Ministries, Collins said that his interview was used without his knowledeg or consent, and completely misrepresents his views on evolution. Clearly Collins trusts the theory of evolution to provide insight into the "how" of nature, but he has placed faith in Christianity as to the "why".

So. moving the discussion from atheism v theism back to evolution v creation: Anti, you have not yet managed to answer HOW our rocks and fossils have been sorted into distinct multiple layers from one great flood. I think the answer is that you cannot. As I said very early in this discussion, it takes a special person to reject the evidence of their senses. In rejecting evolution you must reject so many lines of evidence that it becomes untenable to claim that you have at least one eye on the "real" world.

And I reiterate my comment (above) on "god" being necessary for order and complexity: If you think that nature is random and chaotic then any evidence of order will look like a god. But "nature" is capable of producing order and complexity through the action of simple principles, and since science seeks to understand those principles behind repeatable and orderly phenomena it far is easier to explain order though science than it is to explain chaos through science.

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

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 8:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

It seems to me that you think that nature is chaos, and that order only comes about from intent. If you start with that assumption, it would intuitively follow that nothing complex can come from "nature". And yet nature is full of examples of order from chaos, and this order comes from the repetitive operation of simple principles:

Galaxies, solar systems, and the division of our own earth into sky, ocean and land from gravity. This leads to days, and seasons.

ok.. but it is your assumption that these elements guided themselves into place, thereby establishing the 'laws' that we understand. to me, that seems incredibly unlikely, that what amounts to literal mathmatic randomness can establish this magnitude of 'order' that we see in the universe. since we cannot possibly reproduce these results.. we havent been able to 'create' life in a lab yet, nevermind that it supposedly happens continuously on its own, by accident. IMO in the end, it will always come down to a philosophical difference

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 9:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
ok.. but it is your assumption that these elements guided themselves into place, thereby establishing the 'laws' that we understand.

Science looks for consistent, repeatable phenomena. When an underlying principle is found and characterized, it is given a name like "gravity" to distinguish it from other phenomena like "atoms". That doesn't mean that we know what gravity "is" in some ultimate sense, but we do know how it causes matter to behave. Explaining the falling apple and beauty of snowflakes or the marvel of the cosmos with "god done it" doesn't further our understanding one whit.

In any case, you do not believe in a "deist" universe of harmony, you believe in Creation and the Bible. To refocus the discussion: What is the better explanation for the fossils, geology, and DNA evidence all around us: Creation and The Flood, or evolution?

I really don't expect a straightforward answer. In the end, you'll waffle around inconvenient facts like what you see in order to preserve your belief. In the end, it seems to me that religion rests on subjective idealism which discounts the notion of reality. Please look up Bishop Berkely.

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

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 9:37 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think that the Collins book deserves a more thoughtful answer than the one I gave. From the passages that I read, I had the very strong impression that Collins was a man in emotional turmoil, a troubled person, a seeker. And he was.

Thanks for that more....thoughtful answer....ummmm....I guess......I feel a little turmoil, trouble, and seeking behavior in my life too, imagine that!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fredgiblet:EDIT: Non sequiturs, arguments from ignorance and incredulity, ignoring known evidence...pass.

Wow Fred you're a quick reader! I'm impressed! It took me 3 weeks to read it. Oh!!!! wait!!!!!....you little scamp....nobody reads that fast. Let me guess...you ran out to the web....google'd the book...ran back with the first bad review you found.....am I right?

I was just trying to offer something to consider. But I guess I shouldn't be touchy when battle hardened veterans of this thread swing an axe my way. I swear this thread has probably had real live casualties, like people who've shown up but were never intellectualy seen again:smile

"How drunk was I last night?"
"I don't know I passed out"

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 10:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mal, if I were to do some armchair psychoanalysis... which I'm about to... I would say that Collins has a heightened sense of fairness. Or as discussed in the other thread: honor and chivalry.

I've followed the human genome project on and off for some time. The reason why Collins got into it was because he wanted to decode the human genome for public availability. He was in a race against Craig Venter who was trying to capture the human genome as a proprietary source of profit. Based on my rather quick reading about Collins, as a physician he was disturbed by the presence of disease, and puzzled by the faith of those who were ill. (This is pretty much quoting him.) I think he's projecting his personal quest for "fairness" on the universe, and that was the answer that he found.

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

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 10:21 AM

KANEMAN

"I believe the concept is that when the rock recrystallizes, there's a bias for the like atoms to arrange themselves in homogeneous structures;'

Not all of them.........

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 10:23 AM

KANEMAN

"Wow Fred you're a quick reader! I'm impressed! It took me 3 weeks to read it. Oh!!!! wait!!!!!....you little scamp....nobody reads that fast. Let me guess...you ran out to the web....google'd the book...ran back with the first bad review you found.....am I right?"

OOOOUUUUCCCCCHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!One of the best EVER...My hat is off, Malbad.........

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[ Science looks for consistent, repeatable phenomena. When an underlying principle is found and characterized, it is given a name like "gravity" to distinguish it from other phenomena like "atoms". That doesn't mean that we know what gravity "is" in some ultimate sense, but we do know how it causes matter to behave. Explaining the falling apple and beauty of snowflakes or the marvel of the cosmos with "god done it" doesn't further our understanding one whit.

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'. thats a dangerous precedent, because once science feels it has disproved God(or the neccessity for a Creator), maybe science will(and has) began tell everybody what is OK to believe and whats not, based on what is percieved to be 'real' and 'factual'.

saying 'God did it' doesnt undermine legitimate discovery. it is irrelevant to know who the actual designer was of a watch or television, but what we ought to recognize is the many elements and parts, had to align perfectly, in all their complexity and design, to fullfill the devices purpose. the complexity of an invention indicates intelligence, so why not the entire universe, in its incredible equilibrium and synchronicities? we believe 'God did it', because we believe order precedes design. what you are saying instead is that it all 'just happened', as a product of time, and purely random mathmatical chance. you believe chaos precedes design, which is just a different philosophy. i dont believe you can prove me wrong

Quote:
In any case, you do not believe in a "deist" universe of harmony, you believe in Creation and the Bible.

thats not true.. their are doctrinal differences between Creation and ID, but they both tell the same story as far as im concerned; IDs just dont go 'far enough' in their conclusions. would it be fare to say that you believe in an 'atheist' view of a 'universe of harmony'?

Quote:
To refocus the discussion: What is the better explanation for the fossils, geology, and DNA evidence all around us: Creation and The Flood, or evolution?

i dont believe in chaos guiding evolution, i believe in order through design. i acknowledge that evolutionary changes occur, i do not accept that these processes manifested themselves, beginning with spontaneous generation, to eventually account for the genesis of all life on earth. some people maintain that DNA, and the basic building blocks of life essentially write and guide themselves to create the visible 'order', but i believe instead that it follows patterns which the Creator of the universe established. why is this position so controversial? i think people are more opposed to christianity and theism.. its one thing to have a faith, its another to express it in public or attempt to justify it

Quote:
I really don't expect a straightforward answer. In the end, you'll waffle around inconvenient facts like what you see in order to preserve your belief.

your right.. and i dont have a straight forward answer. the problem with this subject is that im arguing against the status quo; everything people are taught, about evolution.. the age of the universe, biology, is all based around a secular premise that our entire existence(what we know if it) occurred naturally over 'billions of years'. so when you find a fossil, you date the ground by the alleged era that this species supposedly existed, or vice versa. so how do we really know when this species lived? you can guess what 100 million year old soil looks like.. but their is no way to know for sure. as far as i can tell all of evolutionary science requires this kind of circular reasoning, because the observable evidence IMO doesnt conclude atheistic evolution, as many people claim... it just lends itself better to a particular artificial model

Quote:
In the end, it seems to me that religion rests on subjective idealism which discounts the notion of reality.

im not 'discounting' reality.. i actually include it. talk about subjective idealism.. maybe we should just re-write the last 4-6 thousand years of history, and just pretend that none of this 'deism' stuff ever existed (it was all entirely false, creative inventions maybe) ... and lets just assume that we really did spontaneously occur just a few unfathomable billion years ago. thats not my 'reality'.. so lets agree that we disagree philosophically about life, and whether it has any 'real' meaning or not

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 3:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

See new thread

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

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"I believe the concept is that when the rock recrystallizes, there's a bias for the like atoms to arrange themselves in homogeneous structures;'

Not all of them.........

True; but apparently enough that they can look at those structures and use it for dating; unless of course you just want to say they are blowing smoke up our collective skirts ;-)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

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

Monday, June 25, 2007 6:35 PM

RUE

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

New thread here:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29385

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:27 AM