Tremulous Forum
Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: beerbitch on September 15, 2009, 10:12:48 pm
-
The Theory of Evolution.
I have not seen enough good flame wars here lately so I thought I would stir the pot. I posted a short essay on our OPP forums to test the waters and a long thread resulted.
My original essay - http://notjustatheory.blogspot.com/
The thread in our forums - http://clan.oppressed.net/index.php?topic=1228.0
To summarize our forum discussion for those of you who don't like reading 13 pages of me getting kicked around :laugh:, basically I presented strong evidence for evolution, and nobody could refute any of it. There was some debate on things we don't know, even though I stipulated in my essay that we would not bring them up, people did anyway.
Also there was the beginnings of a good discussion on Intelligent Design, there might be some more added soon.
Finally, a link to the poll I did on our forums which is still open. Feel free to vote in it and skew the results :P
http://clan.oppressed.net/index.php?topic=1243.0
Sadly, only 3 of us believe in evolution, but I do have a good chance of going to Hell so its not so bad.
-
We tried to keep it a scientific debate. Talking about evolution not orgins.
I was totally surprised as the lack of acceptance. (at least from people on our forums)
I have looked into all the evidence and it is astronomical, hence why the scientific community accepts it.
Then they just went after Beerbitchs "worldview" in a way I didn't understand. They quoted him said based on what he said his worldview is wrong.
http://clan.oppressed.net/index.php?topic=1242.0
Then a friend told me to watch "expelled" because all the "scientists" who bring up another theory get in trouble.
I have never seen such a piece of propaganda as the movie expelled spouts. I checked into it, and there r sites upon sites that go through the movie and debunk it. Evolutionists are compared to the Nazis. The scientists try and argue that something looking intelligent is proof of intelligent design.
I bring up the movie because that was the fallback attack, to attack everyones worldview.
-
...
Then they just went after Beerbitchs "worldview" in a way I didn't understand. They quoted him said based on what he said his worldview is wrong.
...
I'm just an evil atheist heathen, dontchaknow ? 8) Therefore evolution must be false, cause I said otherwise.
-
The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.
Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).
Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
-
The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.
Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).
Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
Source? Credible scientific? That the earth is actually slowing down. A 30 year old book of someone who thought it might be so isn't proof.
-
The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.
Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).
Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
Source? Credible scientific? That the earth is actually slowing down. A 30 year old book of someone who thought it might be so isn't proof.
Actually, I can just reference the talkorigins page on this subject, the rebuttal is backed up by scientific evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
If you're going to use arguments from Kent Hovind you might also mention he is in prison for being a lying cheat. ;D
I'm sorry, that sounded a little like an ad hominum attack, pardon me. Must be that other thread rubbing off on me.
-
First of all, I'm not quoting Kent Hovind, this has absolutely nothing to do with him and I'd like you to keep him out of the discussion.
Secondly, these do not agree:
Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.
Why does one say something different from the other? One must be lying or mistaken or exaggerating or belittling.
-
First of all, I'm not quoting Kent Hovind, this has absolutely nothing to do with him and I'd like you to keep him out of the discussion.
Secondly, these do not agree:
Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.
Why does one say something different from the other? One must be lying or mistaken or exaggerating or belittling.
Apologies on Hovind, my snarkiness was showing.
You are making the assumption that the Earth always spun at a particular rate since it has existed. Our solar system was not always so calm and accommodating. Where does our Moon come from for example ? I addressed the moon orbit decay rate in my essay, its basically the same kind of argument.
If you like math like you seem to, you might enjoy reading this :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
-
Well, sorry for not reading all of your essay, it was a little long.
As for your argument, planets do not spin faster very well on their own. So either some productive mechanism sped the earth up, something massive hit the earth at exactly the right angle to speed it up, or the earth is younger than you theorize.
My theory states that the moon was put in motion by an intelligent being not limited by time or space.
-
Here is another rebuttal of it -
#20 taken from this page - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html
Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19). At least Dr. Hovind doesn't use the horrendous rate of 1 second per year which Dr. Walter Brown employed as a result of a total misunderstanding of time keeping. I believe that Dr. Brown discarded that argument upon realizing his error, but don't expect it to disappear from the creationist literature. Only a towering optimist could expect that!
The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.
Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:
((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
= (21.4 days)/Year
Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.
The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day
If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:
...the correct present rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is excessively high, because the present rate of spin is in a resonance mode with the back-and-forth
motion of the oceans' waters in the ocean basins. In past ages when the rotation rate was faster, the resonance was much less or nonexistent, resulting in a much more gradual slowing of the rotation rate. The most recent calculations indicate that the earth could be 4 to 5 billion years old and not have been spinning excessively fast or requiring the moon to be any closer to the earth than 225,000 kilometers (140,000 miles).
(Sonleitner, 1991, file=MOVIE2.WP)
A study of rugose corals from the Devonian (370 million years ago), initiated by John W. Wells of Cornell University in 1963, indicated that the year then had 400 days of about 22 hours each. For a discussion of coral clocks see Dott & Batten (1976, pp.248-249). Subsequent work with corals of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and modern origin have produced highly revealing, if approximate, results.
Determinations of the same kind were made for algal deposits (stromatolites) of the Upper Cambrian (-510 m.y.) (Pannella et al., 1968). Plots of the collected data for the entire time span from Recent back through the Paleozoic Era showed a nonuniform increase in days per month going back in time, and from this it is inferred that tidal friction has not been uniform in that period.
(Strahler, 1987, p.147)
Studies of the chambered nautilus, for a time, was also proposed as a geologic clock by Kahn and Pompea. However, that effort ran into problems. Creationists still cite it in their efforts to discredit the coral clocks. Each case, of course, has to be judged on its own merits. The nautilus is not a coral, and the coral clocks are good enough to destroy the young-earth claims.
From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.
These facts spell "Old Earth."
-
...
My theory states that the moon was put in motion by an intelligent being not limited by time or space.
...
Perhaps debating here with me would be a waste of your time then ?
You are free to believe that, naturally, but no empirical evidence I could present will ever be enough if you already accept and believe in miracles.
I should add that I asked about the moon because one moon origins theory is that a large celestial object collided with an early earth and later formed the moon.
-
Perhaps debating here with me would be a waste of your time then ?
Not at all. See, if my God added things to the universe all the time or changed the speed of the planet, or turned back time frequently, then it would be very difficult to prove anything. Luckily, my God decided not to touch anything once he created the world, so all we need to do is look at processes that we see happening and determine a starting point for them. That starting point would be the creation.
As for your rebuttal up there, it doesn't address anything about gravity forces resulting from centrifugal force or oceans/seas being moved to the poles. If you can address that, that would be nice. I'm not arguing about whether a fourteen-hour day is possible, I'm arguing about whether conditions like that are viable for human life.
-
I should add that I asked about the moon because one moon origins theory is that a large celestial object collided with an early earth and later formed the moon.
If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?
-
I should add that I asked about the moon because one moon origins theory is that a large celestial object collided with an early earth and later formed the moon.
If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?
Here is a good rundown on the prevailing theories on the subject -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html
You can mine some vids out of this search result if you want to see visually how it may have looked -
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon+origin&search_type=&aq=f
-
If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?
This is not explained in your site.
-
Perhaps debating here with me would be a waste of your time then ?
Not at all. See, if my God added things to the universe all the time or changed the speed of the planet, or turned back time frequently, then it would be very difficult to prove anything. Luckily, my God decided not to touch anything once he created the world, so all we need to do is look at processes that we see happening and determine a starting point for them. That starting point would be the creation.
As for your rebuttal up there, it doesn't address anything about gravity forces resulting from centrifugal force or oceans/seas being moved to the poles. If you can address that, that would be nice. I'm not arguing about whether a fourteen-hour day is possible, I'm arguing about whether conditions like that are viable for human life.
I'll get to the centrifugal force answer after I read some scientific publications on the subject, perhaps this evening. Outside of Ken Hovinds version of this question I have not see it before.
-
If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?
This is not explained in your site.
It is if you accept that the Earth has been around for a few billions of years and had all that time to recover from the impact.
Another link on the subject - http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html
You can Google plenty of scientific studies done on this subject-
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=moon+origin&hl=en&btnG=Search
-
One thing that I'd like to point out as this debate gets going that I either missed in Beerbitch's essay, or was not there is that evolution does not have "choice".
On the OPP forum thread, Clayborn argued "Why didn't evolution just make a smart ape which could survive better?".
That's because evolution isn't out looking around, "OH, LOOK, APES ARE STRONG. LET'S MAKE THEM SMART TOO."
Simply, it's just what happens, happens.
Evolution itself is not a force, but rather, a grouping of events that are widely accepted, but get all controversial-like when put together.
Here's three things that I don't really think anyone could refute:
1) Offspring are like their parents.
2) Something that is dead cannot have offspring.
3) If something is better suited for where it lives, it will survive better than things that aren't.*
*There are of course, situational outliers; in general, it stands true.
Those are really the basic principles of evolution.
Here's some examples for those three things:
1) You are like your parents, right?
If you breed two dogs, the puppies are going to look something like the parent dogs, right? **
**Again, there are outliers in which the offspring are more like higher generations in the family, due to recessive and dominant genes.
2) Do I really even need to say this one?
You shoot a deer. It dies. Is it going to magically spring to life and go have sex?
I highly doubt it.
3) Let's say, there if a big room with mice in it. These mice are of different sizes.
The way to get food is to go through a hole, which has food on the other side.
Mice that are too large for the hole will not get through, therefore, they will not eat and will die of starvation.
These smaller mice who can fit through the hole are better suited to the environment of the large room with a hole in it and will survive better than the large mice who are not suited for that same area.
Now, let's expand on #3 a bit. So, these small mice are suited for this box and living. These not dead mice can live long enough to have babies, which will be like them, relying on property #1. The large mice who are not eating are dying, so, they cannot have babies, which will soon make less and less big mice.
This is all I feel like typing up for now, I'll add in a bit more in a bit.
-
Evoltuion is a SCIENTIFIC theory, whereas "Intelligent Design" is as convincing as the "healing" power of stones.
Btw.: The shape and creation of the earth have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution (evolution is about genetics/animals/plant life). But I guess you creationism fucks are just too silly to use the last bits of brains you got left.
-
But I guess you creationism fucks are just too silly to use the last bits of brains you got left.
This is sure a hell of a way to convince someone of something.
Anyways, I'd like to see a refrain from comments like these.
To both sides of the argument, their position seems "so obvious", but is puzzling to the other.
Calling names and insulting intelligence will not help anyone expand their horizons or keep a debate legitimate, flaming just leads to flaming.
-
It is if you accept that the Earth has been around for a few billions of years and had all that time to recover from the impact.
If that is true, why is our moon still so close? After all, our moon should have floated far away from earth from now, even if you take into account the gravity inverse square law.
Edit:
Evoltuion is a SCIENTIFIC theory, whereas "Intelligent Design" is as convincing as the "healing" power of stones.
Btw.: The shape and creation of the earth have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution (evolution is about genetics/animals/plant life). But I guess you creationism fucks are just too silly to use the last bits of brains you got left.
Bissig, shut up and read the conversation. You've just lowered everyone's opinion of you. Don't think you can just come in and shout something and leave and think everyone will think you're so wise because you summed it up in one post.
And on top of all that, you're wrong about "The shape and creation of the earth having nothing to do with the theory of evolution."
The only way animals could EVER evolve to humans (if at all) would be through very long slow processes that involve TIME. Therefore, if we can prove a young earth and universe, the theory of evolution will be discredited. So you see, evolution very much DOES have to do with the shape and the creation of the earth.
I'M the silly one? Yeah.. sure. I'm sure it's evident.
-
One thing that I'd like to point out as this debate gets going that I either missed in Beerbitch's essay, or was not there is that evolution does not have "choice".
On the OPP forum thread, Clayborn argued "Why didn't evolution just make a smart ape which could survive better?".
That's because evolution isn't out looking around, "OH, LOOK, APES ARE STRONG. LET'S MAKE THEM SMART TOO."
Simply, it's just what happens, happens.
Evolution itself is not a force, but rather, a grouping of events that are widely accepted, but get all controversial-like when put together.
Here's three things that I don't really think anyone could refute:
1) Offspring are like their parents.
2) Something that is dead cannot have offspring.
3) If something is better suited for where it lives, it will survive better than things that aren't.*
*There are of course, situational outliers; in general, it stands true.
Those are really the basic principles of evolution.
Here's some examples for those three things:
1) You are like your parents, right?
If you breed two dogs, the puppies are going to look something like the parent dogs, right? **
**Again, there are outliers in which the offspring are more like higher generations in the family, due to recessive and dominant genes.
2) Do I really even need to say this one?
You shoot a deer. It dies. Is it going to magically spring to life and go have sex?
I highly doubt it.
3) Let's say, there if a big room with mice in it. These mice are of different sizes.
The way to get food is to go through a hole, which has food on the other side.
Mice that are too large for the hole will not get through, therefore, they will not eat and will die of starvation.
These smaller mice who can fit through the hole are better suited to the environment of the large room with a hole in it and will survive better than the large mice who are not suited for that same area.
Now, let's expand on #3 a bit. So, these small mice are suited for this box and living. These not dead mice can live long enough to have babies, which will be like them, relying on property #1. The large mice who are not eating are dying, so, they cannot have babies, which will soon make less and less big mice.
This is all I feel like typing up for now, I'll add in a bit more in a bit.
So true.
This leads to DDT resistant insects and different strains of diseases that are resistant to the antibiotics that we use.
However, every time the smaller mice reproduce, the result is always a MOUSE is it not?
The need for smaller mice does not produce snakes, it just produces smaller mice. And even then, won't a large mouse be born once in a while?
-
The need for smaller mice does not produce snakes, it just produces smaller mice. And even then, won't a large mouse be born once in a while?
Ah, and that is where you misunderstand macroevolution.
You are totally right in the respect that a mouse will NOT have a baby snake.
An orange tree will not grow a watermelon.
Cat will not all of a sudden have a dog as a baby.
Where new species come from is speciation.
Basically, when enough microevolution happens that two groups are unable to mate, that is when you get a new species.
If you have enough of this over time(suppose our argument of billions of years), and all over all the different places on Earth, you can get the wide range of species that we have.
Note: The following is for example purposes ONLY. This is not AT ALL how snakes came to be, and nothing like this will ever happen to mice.
Let's go back to the mice in a room example. Say, you have the same room. But now, the hole traps the mice as they come in, and behind it is a tunnel.
The longer the mice are, the more food they can grab, because, as our earlier example, the mice have gotten very small and short.
These longer mice can reach more food, and therefore they survive. The more and more mice there are, the farther back they have to go into the tunnel. After many generations of this, you have mice that are six and seven feet long, while being skinny enough to go in the holes.
Suddenly, the box breaks, and these snake-mice are let out into a field with other mice.
Mating season comes around, but it is different for the long mice. They try to get all jiggy with the normal mice outside, but the normal ones are all up in their grill like, "Ew, you're six feet long and it's not our mating season bitch go get me a soda."
So, these mice do not resemble the normal mice, and they cannot mate with the normal mice. Would you still call these mice the same species?
Now, imagine a few billion years of this, and you have how we can get these wild and different species.
Every animal has to try and fit a different niche to survive, and when trying to fit these different niches, they gradually change into something unidentifiable from where they started.
-
Well, sorry for not reading all of your essay, it was a little long.
As for your argument, planets do not spin faster very well on their own. So either some productive mechanism sped the earth up, something massive hit the earth at exactly the right angle to speed it up, or the earth is younger than you theorize.
My theory states that the moon was put in motion by an intelligent being not limited by time or space.
And you have no evidence for this "intelligent designer", therefore it isn't science. Something looking like it could be "intelligent" isn't prove of intelligence. You have just stated your belief, a belief withour evidence, which means based on faith. Faith means you believe in it in absence of proof.
You are assuming the Moon has always been there.
As for the smart ape thing. Creationists and such like to say evolution says you came from monkeys.
Let me correct this.
We have a common ancestor. One evolved strength and abilities to live in the jungle.
One evolved more intellectually and became the a weed species of the earth.
Which one is the "super ape"?
-
I suppose I'll jump into this flame war head first, then:
evolution sux kthxbai
-
Please lock this uselessness.
-
Please lock this uselessness.
Just because you can't understand any of it does not make it useless.
-
I'd say this thread is one plus a thousand times more useful than all the stupid bacon banners :>
(One plus, because 1000 * 0 is still 0, and this is more)
-
I believe this thread will be appropriate if the discussion stays as civil as it is now.
If a flame war erupts, I would recommend a lock, but not a delete.
A fat lot of good what I recommend will do though.
-
Yay for blatant trolling!
I Have just this to say: The theory of Evolution is just that: a THEORY.
You are assuming that just because microevolution can and does occur, that that is how everything must have started. There is still no solid proof for evolution.
-
Please lock this uselessness.
I agree with Rocinante.
We are trying to have a good debate/discussion, gtfo Helix
-
Yay for blatant trolling!
I Have just this to say: The theory of Evolution is just that: a THEORY.
You are assuming that just because microevolution can and does occur, that that is how everything must have started. There is still no solid proof for evolution.
No solid proof?
What about the ERV?
And finding that 2 of our chromosomes are fused, which is why we have 46(23 pairs) instead of 48.
All well documented science. All addressed in my brothers essay, which now I know you didn't read. Saying there is no solid proof of evolution is laughable.
-
Spork, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "Theory".
To many people, the word theory is a synonym for hypothesis.
A theory is far from a hypothesis, just like a cow is far from cream pie.
There is a lot of work to make a theory.
To an extent, everything is a theory.
Even good ol' gravity is a theory. Why? We don't know EVERYTHING about gravity.
It's impossible to know everything about something, making everything a theory.
Please, I do also implore you to read Beerbitch's essay and my own posts, if just to know where we're arguing from.
To anyone:
If you do not understand something that we are talking about, please, give us a quote with what you do not understand, and we will try to explain what we mean and clarify our wording.
-
Beerbitch, why post about this when you knew it was going to be contentious? As long as free will and thought exists, the theory of evolution will remain just that: a theory (yes, I know, I'm repeating what Whales said). Even if the evidence for it is 'astronomical' as you say, that doesn't stop people from thinking up far-fetched ideas of alien scientists spreading the seeds of life on Earth, or something like that.
Oh, and I thought you and Beerbastard were Christian? The only reason I know that, though, is because I like to trawl through old topics and read them - hey, I don't like to post that much.
But even if you are still Christian, "fundamental atheists" like Richard Dawkins would be much happier ;)
-
it's alot easier to believe in an Intelligent Designer, than to believe from the zoo, to the goo, to you.
-
Wait wait wait, I thought it was goo first, then zoo, then you!
-
Abiogenesis != Evolution
Catholics accept evolution, what does Christianity have anything to do with it ?
And yes, I knew it would be contentious, I love the debate and I always learn something new from somebody posting on the subject.
If you are offended, don't participate. I believe all ideas are debatable.
;D
-
Lets say, hypothetically that an intelligent designer started life on this planet.
Let say, that this designer used the laws of evolution as part of his toolkit to get things going.
Even if I concede those two things, you still have to explain to me how there is no evidence for evolution, or that the Earth is only 6-10k years old.
/me still has to read up on centrifugal force and the planet shape but thinks it might not be much of a revelation.
-
The banana fits perfectly in our hand. God obviously made the banana that way. So of course evolution isn't true. Here's some proof retards!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I
-
Sorry, the stereotype of all American Christians being ID supporters popped into my head when I posted that, whereas you two seem to be firmly in the evolution camp. Excuse my ignorance.
Don't worry, I'm not offended, just interested as to where this whole debate will go.
@Grape: Lol, nice example.
-
Too many people worship the false god of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)
-
Abiogenesis != Evolution
Catholics accept evolution, what does Christianity have anything to do with it ?
And yes, I knew it would be contentious, I love the debate and I always learn something new from somebody posting on the subject.
If you are offended, don't participate. I believe all ideas are debatable.
;D
Excuse me? If you have read your bible AT ALL you should know how it begins: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". I have yet to meet a real(Not E&C) Roman Catholic who believes in Evolution, not Creationism.
Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary: theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)
1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.
-
Excuse me? If you have read your bible AT ALL you should know how it begins: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". I have yet to meet a real(Not E&C) Roman Catholic who believes in Evolution, not Creationism.
Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary: theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)
1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.
Well, maybe Beerbitch and Beerbastard are exceptions to the rule! From my point of view, I think that it wouldn't hurt to have more people who are progressive Christians like those two.
And I guess the word theory is ambiguous anyway. A theory is true until disproven, after all.
-
Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary: theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)
1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.
Actually no... the definition actually means what whales said. Here are 5 links to prove it, including merriam webster and a google link to hundreds of sites.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html (http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS333US333&defl=en&q=define:theory&ei=mjixSsK1FInWtgOK7Y3HCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS333US333&defl=en&q=define:theory&ei=mjixSsK1FInWtgOK7Y3HCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory)
And... wait for it... here is the same site you quoted from:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory)
You'll notice that I, unlike you posted the link, instead of just copying a single line from the source.
Here is number 3 from your link:
(countable) (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.
Maybe you will also notice that number 3 has the word "(sciences)" in the beginning, unlike number 1, your link, which does not mention science, which is, after all, what we are discussing.
You do yourself more hurt than credit when you try to use a single line from 1 source to support yourself and exclude everything else.
EDIT: @Grape, the obvious conclusion is that men (or ape like beings, earlier forms of humans) who were born with hands that perfectly formed to rap around a banana had more fun in life, and quickly became more interested in sex. Because of this intrest in sex stemming from being able to hold a banana comfortably in their hand, these humans quickly had more sex than the other men who could not so perfectly hold a banana, and just as quickly gained much more experience in sex and in attracting females. Because of this expertise in attracting mates, the men who could hold a banana perfectly had many, many more children than their counterparts who were sadly unable to weild a firm grasp on a banana, and thus the evolution begins, and the banana holder's children were also born with this trait, spreading through the world until all humans were thankfully able to achive such a feat. (Except people from Sweeden, but really, they're screwed in many ways besides that.)
-
The banana fits perfectly in our hand. God obviously made the banana that way. So of course evolution isn't true. Here's some proof retards!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I
<irony> the banana was domesticated by humans into the form we eat today, before you had to COOK it or it was not edible. </irony>
I'm guessing this is your point ? :P
-
Abiogenesis != Evolution
Catholics accept evolution, what does Christianity have anything to do with it ?
And yes, I knew it would be contentious, I love the debate and I always learn something new from somebody posting on the subject.
If you are offended, don't participate. I believe all ideas are debatable.
;D
Excuse me? If you have read your bible AT ALL you should know how it begins: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". I have yet to meet a real(Not E&C) Roman Catholic who believes in Evolution, not Creationism.
Also, @KillerWhale: The Definition of Theory From Wikitionary: theory (countable and uncountable; plural theories)
1. (countable) An unproven conjecture.
Quote mining, the Creationist best friend.
In regard to Catholics and evolution, you only have to read what the Pope himself has said - http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm
"'Humani Generis'," he stated, "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
-
/me still has to read up on centrifugal force and the planet shape but thinks it might not be much of a revelation.
Centrifugal force doesn't exist.
-
Me personally I am atheist. I don't believe in god because I have seen no proof. I have (probably false)hopes of an afterlife of some sort. I don't believe there is one because I have seen no proof.
Hope and believe are 2 different things.
Don't argue that I can't be moral because I don't have the fear of god, or that life means less. Life means more if you believe this is it.(check out milgrims experiments on morality)
I can't disprove a diastic god.(hands off initial creator)
You can't prove a god.
We can prove and disprove theories. Evolution is one of those theories that has yet to be disproved.(every decade it gains more supporting evidence, recently with genetics)
Creationists radiometric dating attacks/the earth is slowing down are unproven pseudoscience to give people on the edge something to latch onto. They do this in hopes that someone on the edge would keep their faith because they don't bother to investigate further. Some religions make it against the "rules" to read certain books by atheists.
Why would a religion be against you reading a book? They preach and preach to read the bible. Why so scared of Dawkins books etc, if they have no truths in them?
+Where god could fit in+
If you accept evolution, and still wish to believe in god. Right now you could believe he made the rules, and made the first organism and stepped back and let things roll. You can believe that right now because we have yet to be able to take nothing, and make something(even a single celled organism).
If that is what you believe, Then fine. You would get to the afterlife and god would say "You were exactly right, u accepted my laws of the universe and still believed in me, etc etc"
If you don't believe in god but accept evolution, the diastic god should be ok with that too. "You discovered my laws of the universe, but you didn't believe in me. This is ok because I didn't leave you a reason to believe in me"
-
Let me fix my bros post.
centripetal force*
common mispronunciation. Thanks done
-
Let me fix my bros post.
centripetal force*
common mispronunciation. Thanks done
Beerbitch spellchecker FAIL!
Thank you.
-
Everywhere I see this topic referenced, its calling it centrifugal force.
The Claim -
EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing one second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
This rate of slowing is inaccurate. Its source is Phoenix creationist Walter Brown, who assumed that because a leap second is added to atomic clocks every year or so, that this must be because of slowing in the earth's rotation. This was discussed in talk.origins, and is also discussed in Strahler, 1987, pp. 146-148.
Brown has admitted that he was wrong, and removed this point from his book of alleged evidence against evolution.
I am still trying to find a source link for Strahler, 1987, pp. 146-148 so I can get more detail on this....
Anyway, Gim is correct, centrifugal force does not exist.
-
That goo zoo you thing, is from this dork. Yes I mean idiot in every sense of the word.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x60y5i_proof-evolution-is-an-evil-lie-from_webcam
Everything he says is so backwards, he doesn't even grasp the concept of evolution.(We are cousins, we don't come from monkeys.)
At the end of the video he posts pictures of giant man fossils(all hoaxes, quick google search shows that)
Cows didn't evolve from whales(like he says).
Whales and Wolves have a common ancestor.
All his videos are picked apart very effectively by others. I won't continue. He had to leave youtube a year because he filed false copyright claims, and the guy he did it against had mercy and didn't get him a life long youtube ban.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrhsBcpYr4
That is all that needs to be done about this idiot. /end debate
-
Wait wait wait, I thought it was goo first, then zoo, then you!
oh rite, oops
even it was from a "dork," it's basically what evolutionists believe. :P
-
That goo zoo you thing, is from this dork. Yes I mean idiot in every sense of the word.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x60y5i_proof-evolution-is-an-evil-lie-from_webcam
Everything he says is so backwards, he doesn't even grasp the concept of evolution.(We are cousins, we don't come from monkeys.)
At the end of the video he posts pictures of giant man fossils(all hoaxes, quick google search shows that)
Cows didn't evolve from whales(like he says).
Whales and Wolves have a common ancestor.
All his videos are picked apart very effectively by others. I won't continue. He had to leave youtube a year because he filed false copyright claims, and the guy he did it against had mercy and didn't get him a life long youtube ban.
Watching vids with that guy can be endlessly entertaining. ;D
The best part of that vid you are linking to is 2 minutes in he is already comparing evolutionists to Hitler. :laugh:
-
Wait wait wait, I thought it was goo first, then zoo, then you!
oh rite, oops
even it was from a "dork," it's basically what evolutionists believe. :P
Abiogenesis != Evolution
*sigh* always the topic gets derailed into this stuff.....
/me thinks its only a matter of time before somebody busts out with the morality argument.....
-
Absolute and objective morality is stupid.
Just throwin' that out there.
-
I thought that this was a pretty interesting quote, from the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) in tuple's post:
"... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."
-
And you have no evidence for this "intelligent designer", therefore it isn't science. Something looking like it could be "intelligent" isn't prove of intelligence. You have just stated your belief, a belief without evidence, which means based on faith. Faith means you believe in it in absence of proof.
You are assuming the Moon has always been there.
Hey, do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? YOU DO? But do you have absolute proof? YOU DON'T?
Wait wait wait..
isn't that..
..faith?
So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence.
HOWEVER, Christians like myself try to associate things like this with the Bible instead of trying to conjugate a guess from what we see now. So you see, we do have an idea of what we believe and we don't have "blind faith" in the Bible. God doesn't ask that much of us and anyway, it's irrational.
And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable.
Edit:
Also, Beerb!itch, you have yet to explain the moon evidence.
-
And you have no evidence for this "intelligent designer", therefore it isn't science. Something looking like it could be "intelligent" isn't prove of intelligence. You have just stated your belief, a belief without evidence, which means based on faith. Faith means you believe in it in absence of proof.
You are assuming the Moon has always been there.
Hey, do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? YOU DO? But do you have absolute proof? YOU DON'T?
Wait wait wait..
isn't that..
..faith?
So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence.
HOWEVER, Christians like myself try to associate things like this with the Bible instead of trying to conjugate a guess from what we see now. So you see, we do have an idea of what we believe and we don't have "blind faith" in the Bible. God doesn't ask that much of us and anyway, it's irrational.
And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable.
Lets see....
Winnie the Pooh has -
1 ) A book
2 ) A jar of honey given to him by his friend Piglet
Scientists have -
1 ) Fossils
2 ) Anatomy
3 ) Paleontology
4 ) Geology
5 ) Geochronology
6 ) Genetics
7 ) Radiocarbon dating
8 ) Phylogenetics
9 ) Probably more overlapping life science disciplines with evidence I can't think of at this moment
"So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence."
We're winning the race, Pooh. Or rather, there isn't a race, your side has not even gotten into the car yet.
"And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable."
Indeed it is acceptable, but not scientifically. Until there is scientific evidence (along the lines of God's signature on a molecule saying 'Here I Am') ID should not be treated as if its science, especially in light of the fact that science has not yet needed to include ID as an explanation, and continues to find natural explanations when exploring what we don't know. What we don't know yet should not automatically equal GODDIDIT !
Thats all I ask when debating this topic, focus on the evidence gathered by the scientific process.
-
Lets see....
Winnie the Pooh has -
1 ) A book
2 ) A jar of honey given to him by his friend Piglet
Scientists have -
1 ) Fossils
2 ) Anatomy
3 ) Paleontology
4 ) Geology
5 ) Geochronology
6 ) Genetics
7 ) Radiocarbon dating
8 ) Phylogenetics
9 ) Probably more overlapping life science disciplines with evidence I can't think of at this moment
"So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence."
We're winning the race, Pooh.
So far, you have yet to disprove the two points I'm pushing so I don't want to hear any dumb unproven comments like that.
-
Lets see....
Winnie the Pooh has -
1 ) A book
2 ) A jar of honey given to him by his friend Piglet
Scientists have -
1 ) Fossils
2 ) Anatomy
3 ) Paleontology
4 ) Geology
5 ) Geochronology
6 ) Genetics
7 ) Radiocarbon dating
8 ) Phylogenetics
9 ) Probably more overlapping life science disciplines with evidence I can't think of at this moment
"So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence."
We're winning the race, Pooh.
So far, you have yet to disprove the two points I'm pushing so I don't want to hear any dumb unproven comments like that.
How about you ? You can say all you want about the Earth's rotation, but can you disprove all the 140+ years of experimentally and empirically observed evidence in these subjects ?
1 ) Fossils
2 ) Anatomy
3 ) Paleontology
4 ) Geology
5 ) Geochronology
6 ) Genetics
7 ) Radiocarbon dating
8 ) Phylogenetics
Don't worry, once I have more time then I do now for reply-on-the-fly I'll get back to your rotation argument.
-
I should add that if a designer is consistent, wouldn't it make logical sense that there is a natural explanation for your Earth rotation scenario ? Given the fact that we have all this other observable evidence showing us an old Earth ?
-
"Hey, do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? YOU DO? But do you have absolute proof? YOU DON'T?
Wait wait wait..
isn't that..
..faith?
So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between the piles of evidence evolution has vs absolutely no evidence you have.
I can site genetics, comparitive anotomy, biology...the list goes on that show proof of evolution in one way or another and it all fits together.
Where is your evidence of this intelligent being?
HOWEVER, Christians like myself try to associate things like this with the Bible instead of trying to conjugate a guess from what we see now. So you see, we do have an idea of what we believe and we don't have "blind faith" in the Bible. God doesn't ask that much of us and anyway, it's irrational.
And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable.
Edit:
Also, Beerb!itch, you have yet to explain the moon evidence.
As for the moon, the proof doesn't lie on us. It lies on you. To prove 2 things.
1. That the moon has always orbited the earth.
2. That the speed at which the earth is slowing down, would mean the earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. (if it just means 4.5 billion years ago our days were 16hours long, it doesn't prove the earth isn't that old)
Here is another rebuttal of it -
#20 taken from this page - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html
Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19). At least Dr. Hovind doesn't use the horrendous rate of 1 second per year which Dr. Walter Brown employed as a result of a total misunderstanding of time keeping. I believe that Dr. Brown discarded that argument upon realizing his error, but don't expect it to disappear from the creationist literature. Only a towering optimist could expect that!
The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.
Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:
((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
= (21.4 days)/Year
Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.
The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day
If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:
...the correct present rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is excessively high, because the present rate of spin is in a resonance mode with the back-and-forth
motion of the oceans' waters in the ocean basins. In past ages when the rotation rate was faster, the resonance was much less or nonexistent, resulting in a much more gradual slowing of the rotation rate. The most recent calculations indicate that the earth could be 4 to 5 billion years old and not have been spinning excessively fast or requiring the moon to be any closer to the earth than 225,000 kilometers (140,000 miles).
(Sonleitner, 1991, file=MOVIE2.WP)
A study of rugose corals from the Devonian (370 million years ago), initiated by John W. Wells of Cornell University in 1963, indicated that the year then had 400 days of about 22 hours each. For a discussion of coral clocks see Dott & Batten (1976, pp.248-249). Subsequent work with corals of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and modern origin have produced highly revealing, if approximate, results.
Determinations of the same kind were made for algal deposits (stromatolites) of the Upper Cambrian (-510 m.y.) (Pannella et al., 1968). Plots of the collected data for the entire time span from Recent back through the Paleozoic Era showed a nonuniform increase in days per month going back in time, and from this it is inferred that tidal friction has not been uniform in that period.
(Strahler, 1987, p.147)
Studies of the chambered nautilus, for a time, was also proposed as a geologic clock by Kahn and Pompea. However, that effort ran into problems. Creationists still cite it in their efforts to discredit the coral clocks. Each case, of course, has to be judged on its own merits. The nautilus is not a coral, and the coral clocks are good enough to destroy the young-earth claims.
From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.
These facts spell "Old Earth."
You have completely ignored what my brother did post on the subject. It also gives more crediability to radiometric dating.
"From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.
These facts spell "Old Earth."
-
How about you ? You can say all you want about the Earth's rotation, but can you disprove all the 140+ years of experimentally and empirically observed evidence in these subjects ?
1 ) Fossils
2 ) Anatomy
3 ) Paleontology
4 ) Geology
5 ) Geochronology
6 ) Genetics
7 ) Radiocarbon dating
8 ) Phylogenetics
Don't worry, once I have more time then I do now for reply-on-the-fly I'll get back to your rotation argument.
Would you like to start with fossils then? By all means, show us all the evidence from fossils!
At the very least, please quote it from your essay. It's very long and you know it better than me.
And, sure I'll wait for you. No rush. You have all the time in the world.
Edit (to your second post):
What other evidence shows that the earth is old? Please don't hesitate to share.
Also, don't forget about the moon argument that you keep avoiding/forgetting.
2nd Edit (to beerbustard):
Maybe you don't understand the difference between the piles of evidence evolution has vs absolutely no evidence you have.
I can site genetics, comparitive anotomy, biology...the list goes on that show proof of evolution in one way or another and it all fits together.
Where is your evidence of this intelligent being?
As for the moon, the proof doesn't lie on us. It lies on you. To prove 2 things.
1. That the moon has always orbited the earth.
2. That the speed at which the earth is slowing down, would mean the earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. (if it just means 4.5 billion years ago our days were 16hours long, it doesn't prove the earth isn't that old)
Then please, site this irrefutable evidence that I was unaware of.
"Where is your evidence of this intelligent being?"
It's all around us. Take for example, chlorophyll, the substance which makes plant leaves green.
Chlorophyll is vital for photosynthesis, which allows plants to obtain energy from light.
Chlorophyll molecules are specifically arranged in and around pigment protein complexes called photosystems which are embedded in the thylakoid membranes of chloroplasts. In these complexes, chlorophyll serves two primary functions. The function of the vast majority of chlorophyll (up to several hundred molecules per photosystem) is to absorb light and transfer that light energy by resonance energy transfer to a specific chlorophyll pair in the reaction center of the photosystems. Because of chlorophyll’s selectivity regarding the wavelength of light it absorbs, areas of a leaf containing the molecule will appear green.
The two currently accepted photosystem units are Photosystem II and Photosystem I, which have their own distinct reaction center chlorophylls, named P680 and P700, respectively.[2] These pigments are named after the wavelength (in nanometers) of their red-peak absorption maximum. The identity, function and spectral properties of the types of chlorophyll in each photosystem are distinct and determined by each other and the protein structure surrounding them. Once extracted from the protein into a solvent (such as acetone or methanol),[3][4][5] these chlorophyll pigments can be separated in a simple paper chromatography experiment, and, based on the number of polar groups between chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b, will chemically separate out on the paper.
The function of the reaction center chlorophyll is to use the energy absorbed by and transferred to it from the other chlorophyll pigments in the photosystems to undergo a charge separation, a specific redox reaction in which the chlorophyll donates an electron into a series of molecular intermediates called an electron transport chain. The charged reaction center chlorophyll (P680+) is then reduced back to its ground state by accepting an electron. In Photosystem II, the electron which reduces P680+ ultimately comes from the oxidation of water into O2 and H+ through several intermediates. This reaction is how photosynthetic organisms like plants produce O2 gas, and is the source for practically all the O2 in Earth's atmosphere. Photosystem I typically works in series with Photosystem II, thus the P700+ of Photosystem I is usually reduced, via many intermediates in the thylakoid membrane, by electrons ultimately from Photosystem II. Electron transfer reactions in the thylakoid membranes are complex, however, and the source of electrons used to reduce P700+ can vary.
The electron flow produced by the reaction center chlorophyll pigments is used to shuttle H+ ions across the thylakoid membrane, setting up a chemiosmotic potential mainly used to produce ATP chemical energy, and those electrons ultimately reduce NADP+ to NADPH a universal reductant used to reduce CO2 into sugars as well as for other biosynthetic reductions.
Reaction center chlorophyll-protein complexes are capable of directly absorbing light and performing charge separation events without other chlorophyll pigments, but the absorption cross section (the likelihood of absorbing a photon under a given light intensity) is small. Thus, the remaining chlorophylls in the photosystem and antenna pigment protein complexes associated with the photosystems all cooperatively absorb and funnel light energy to the reaction center. Besides chlorophyll a, there are other pigments, called accessory pigments, which occur in these pigment-protein antenna complexes.
It's unthinkable to believe that a system as complicated from this arose from chance.
Also, if plants are a common ancestor, why has chlorophyll been discarded from the animal kingdom? I know some very good instances in which chlorophyll would be helpful (energywise).
-
How about you ? You can say all you want about the Earth's rotation, but can you disprove all the 140+ years of experimentally and empirically observed evidence in these subjects ?
1 ) Fossils
2 ) Anatomy
3 ) Paleontology
4 ) Geology
5 ) Geochronology
6 ) Genetics
7 ) Radiocarbon dating
8 ) Phylogenetics
Don't worry, once I have more time then I do now for reply-on-the-fly I'll get back to your rotation argument.
Would you like to start with fossils then? By all means, show us all the evidence from fossils!
At the very least, please quote it from your essay. It's very long and you know it better than me.
And, sure I'll wait for you. No rush. You have all the time in the world.
Edit (to your second post):
What other evidence shows that the earth is old? Please don't hesitate to share.
Also, don't forget about the moon argument that you keep avoiding/forgetting.
We both addressed the moon arguement. We can't have a rational scientific debate if you just refuse to even acknowledge when we address something you post.
-
"Hey, do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? YOU DO? But do you have absolute proof? YOU DON'T?
Wait wait wait..
isn't that..
..faith?
So really, your guess is as good as mine and it's a race to see who can come up with the more solid evidence.
Maybe you don't understand the difference between the piles of evidence evolution has vs absolutely no evidence you have.
I can site genetics, comparitive anotomy, biology...the list goes on that show proof of evolution in one way or another and it all fits together.
Where is your evidence of this intelligent being?
HOWEVER, Christians like myself try to associate things like this with the Bible instead of trying to conjugate a guess from what we see now. So you see, we do have an idea of what we believe and we don't have "blind faith" in the Bible. God doesn't ask that much of us and anyway, it's irrational.
And I also haven't said a single word about "intelligent design". Rather I said that I believe the moon (not to mention the entire universe) was put into motion by an intelligent being, which is perfectly acceptable.
Edit:
Also, Beerb!itch, you have yet to explain the moon evidence.
As for the moon, the proof doesn't lie on us. It lies on you. To prove 2 things.
1. That the moon has always orbited the earth.
2. That the speed at which the earth is slowing down, would mean the earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. (if it just means 4.5 billion years ago our days were 16hours long, it doesn't prove the earth isn't that old)
Here is another rebuttal of it -
#20 taken from this page - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html
Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19). At least Dr. Hovind doesn't use the horrendous rate of 1 second per year which Dr. Walter Brown employed as a result of a total misunderstanding of time keeping. I believe that Dr. Brown discarded that argument upon realizing his error, but don't expect it to disappear from the creationist literature. Only a towering optimist could expect that!
The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.
Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:
((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
= (21.4 days)/Year
Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.
The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day
If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:
...the correct present rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is excessively high, because the present rate of spin is in a resonance mode with the back-and-forth
motion of the oceans' waters in the ocean basins. In past ages when the rotation rate was faster, the resonance was much less or nonexistent, resulting in a much more gradual slowing of the rotation rate. The most recent calculations indicate that the earth could be 4 to 5 billion years old and not have been spinning excessively fast or requiring the moon to be any closer to the earth than 225,000 kilometers (140,000 miles).
(Sonleitner, 1991, file=MOVIE2.WP)
A study of rugose corals from the Devonian (370 million years ago), initiated by John W. Wells of Cornell University in 1963, indicated that the year then had 400 days of about 22 hours each. For a discussion of coral clocks see Dott & Batten (1976, pp.248-249). Subsequent work with corals of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and modern origin have produced highly revealing, if approximate, results.
Determinations of the same kind were made for algal deposits (stromatolites) of the Upper Cambrian (-510 m.y.) (Pannella et al., 1968). Plots of the collected data for the entire time span from Recent back through the Paleozoic Era showed a nonuniform increase in days per month going back in time, and from this it is inferred that tidal friction has not been uniform in that period.
(Strahler, 1987, p.147)
Studies of the chambered nautilus, for a time, was also proposed as a geologic clock by Kahn and Pompea. However, that effort ran into problems. Creationists still cite it in their efforts to discredit the coral clocks. Each case, of course, has to be judged on its own merits. The nautilus is not a coral, and the coral clocks are good enough to destroy the young-earth claims.
From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.
These facts spell "Old Earth."
You have completely ignored what my brother did post on the subject. It also gives more crediability to radiometric dating.
"From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.
These facts spell "Old Earth."
You didn't even read my post, why don't you try and post some evidence.
-
And you have no evidence for this "intelligent designer", therefore it isn't science. Something looking like it could be "intelligent" isn't prove of intelligence. You have just stated your belief, a belief without evidence, which means based on faith. Faith means you believe in it in absence of proof.
You are assuming the Moon has always been there.
Hey, do you believe that the theory of evolution is true? YOU DO? But do you have absolute proof? YOU DON'T?
Wait wait wait..
isn't that..
..faith?
By that reasoning pretty much every single thing in the world would be faith (hint, it's not.) There is plenty of evidence for evolution if you look, and I suppose you also think that it's only faith that keeps us from floating away from the ground. (Gravity is still relativly unknown.)
-
Winnie - can you please clarify this statement :
Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).
Exactly what slow down rate are we talking about here ?
-
By that reasoning pretty much every single thing in the world would be faith (hint, it's not.) There is plenty of evidence for evolution if you look, and I suppose you also think that it's only faith that keeps us from floating away from the ground. (Gravity is still relativly unknown.)
Hey, Moose, do you know what habits are?
Habits are built from doing something the first time over and over again.
For example, If I decide to bungee jump, it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe that you are not going to die the first time har har har. But the second time around, it takes less faith doesn't it? By your 20th bungee jump, you should be very confident and used to the scary feeling.
Your faith has sewn a habit.
Hey, when you turn on the car, do you have faith that it's not going to explode when you turn the key? Of course! But it's subconscious. That's why you don't even think about it.
First times require faith. After it becomes a habit, faiths is subconscious.
@Beerb!itch: He's referring to the rate of the slowing of the rotation of the earth. E.G. Leap second.
Sorry for the unclearness but you know.. Lord Kelvin is kind of old and I don't expect you to take 19th century evidence as evidence for a 21th century world.
-
By that reasoning pretty much every single thing in the world would be faith (hint, it's not.) There is plenty of evidence for evolution if you look, and I suppose you also think that it's only faith that keeps us from floating away from the ground. (Gravity is still relativly unknown.)
Hey, Moose, do you know what habits are?
Habits are built from doing something the first time over and over again.
For example, If I decide to bungee jump, it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe that you are not going to die the first time har har har. But the second time around, it takes less faith doesn't it? By your 20th bungee jump, you should be very confident and used to the scary feeling.
Your faith has sewn a habit.
Hey, when you turn on the car, do you have faith that it's not going to explode when you turn the key? Of course! But it's subconscious. That's why you don't even think about it.
First times require faith. After it becomes a habit, faiths is subconscious.
@Beerb!itch: He's referring to the rate of the slowing of the rotation of the earth. E.G. Leap second.
Sorry for the unclearness but you know.. Lord Kelvin is kind of old and I don't expect you to take 19th century evidence as evidence for a 21th century world.
I just want a number. You say its a simple matter of math, well then lets see the numbers. Am I asking too much ? What is the rate of declining rotation according to Thomas G. Barnes ? And has this number been agreed upon by modern scientists today ?
Sorry for the unclearness but you know.. Lord Kelvin is kind of old and I don't expect you to take 19th century evidence as evidence for a 21th century world.
I will if its valid evidence. There is a high chance that data from that time was updated or revised though, which is what I'm trying to figure out otherwise how can I come up with a rebuttal ?
Saying "Thomas G. Barnes said this in a book, now counter" is not going to fly all by itself you know.
-
It's unthinkable to believe that a system as complicated from this arose from chance.
Also, if plants are a common ancestor, why has chlorophyll been discarded from the animal kingdom? I know some very good instances in which chlorophyll would be helpful (energywise).
This is a good example of an Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) which is a Logical Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy)
These are not meant to be insults, that's actually its name :)
-
Perhaps a simple Google search could have helped answer this question :
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution%20of%20animals%20and%20chlorophyll
-
@Tuple: That's one of the reasons I believe in intelligent design: Because my mind has accepted the fact that something so complicated can't arise from chance and I urge you to consider it too.
Edit:
@Beerb!itch:
Sorry, but what are you trying to prove about my chlorophyll fact?
A google search to understand what?
You're confusing me.
-
@Tuple: That's one of the reasons I believe in intelligent design: Because my mind has accepted the fact that something so complicated can't arise from chance and I urge you to consider it too.
Edit:
@Beerb!itch:
Sorry, but what are you trying to prove about my chlorophyll fact?
A google search to understand what?
You're confusing me.
I saw a snowflake under a microscope once, and it sure looked complex. But I know it was formed using a natural process and can be explained as such.
-
@Tuple: That's one of the reasons I believe in intelligent design: Because my mind has accepted the fact that something so complicated can't arise from chance and I urge you to consider it too.
Edit:
@Beerb!itch:
Sorry, but what are you trying to prove about my chlorophyll fact?
A google search to understand what?
You're confusing me.
Apologies, the Google link has studies related to chlorophyll and its evolution, and I bet if you looked really hard using the Scholar search feature you could find some studies done about animals and where we diverged from plants in this regard.
Like this one :
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5848/245
-
The way I look at it is: The snowflake was designed beautifully and is created easily through natural processes. That a design like that comes from chance is not likely. Of course, it happens all the time so there's not much to argue about here. I just look at it as another fact that this world was intelligently designed.
Edit: I g2g, sry dun tink ai ehm teh chickeningz outzorz k?
B B L
-
The way I look at it is: The snowflake was designed beautifully and is created easily through natural processes. That a design like that comes from chance is not likely. Of course, it happens all the time so there's not much to argue about here. I just look at it as another fact that this world was intelligently designed.
Edit: I g2g, sry dun tink ai ehm teh chickeningz outzorz k?
B B L
Btw, I want some free bacon. >:(
-
@Tuple: That's one of the reasons I believe in intelligent design: Because my mind has accepted the fact that something so complicated can't arise from chance and I urge you to consider it too.
Ironically, that is what an argument from ignorance is. That one theory lacks evidence is not evidence of the validity another theory.
This is the whole problem of the evolution/ID argument. Evolution theory rests on a large amount of empirical evidence. ID belief (it is not technically a theory as I have yet to see empirical evidence for it) relies on punching holes, or more appropriately pointing out existing holes in the theory of evolution. BUT, lack of proof of evolution is not proof of ID in and of itself.
This rhetorical problem is not unique to the evolution/ID arguments and in fact ALL scientific theories are held to this standard. It is not proof that your argument is true because I don't have proof of my argument. We could both very well be wrong.
-
@Tuple: That's one of the reasons I believe in intelligent design: Because my mind has accepted the fact that something so complicated can't arise from chance and I urge you to consider it too.
Ironically, that is what an argument from ignorance is. That one theory lacks evidence is not evidence of the validity another theory.
This is the whole problem of the evolution/ID argument. Evolution theory rests on a large amount of empirical evidence. ID belief (it is not technically a theory as I have yet to see empirical evidence for it) relies on punching holes, or more appropriately pointing out existing holes in the theory of evolution. BUT, lack of proof of evolution is not proof of ID in and of itself.
This rhetorical problem is not unique to the evolution/ID arguments and in fact ALL scientific theories are held to this standard. It is not proof that your argument is true because I don't have proof of my argument. We could both very well be wrong.
How does that saying go ?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
-
Ironically, that is what an argument from ignorance is. That one theory lacks evidence is not evidence of the validity another theory.
This is the whole problem of the evolution/ID argument. Evolution theory rests on a large amount of empirical evidence. ID belief (it is not technically a theory as I have yet to see empirical evidence for it) relies on punching holes, or more appropriately pointing out existing holes in the theory of evolution. BUT, lack of proof of evolution is not proof of ID in and of itself.
This rhetorical problem is not unique to the evolution/ID arguments and in fact ALL scientific theories are held to this standard. It is not proof that your argument is true because I don't have proof of my argument. We could both very well be wrong.
You're right, that whole chlorophyll thing isn't exactly evidence for either of our theories, I was just sharing a window into how I think.
Also, I haven't presented any evidence for the ID theory mostly because most of my time is spent striking down the evidence these guys bring up.
-
Ironically, that is what an argument from ignorance is. That one theory lacks evidence is not evidence of the validity another theory.
This is the whole problem of the evolution/ID argument. Evolution theory rests on a large amount of empirical evidence. ID belief (it is not technically a theory as I have yet to see empirical evidence for it) relies on punching holes, or more appropriately pointing out existing holes in the theory of evolution. BUT, lack of proof of evolution is not proof of ID in and of itself.
This rhetorical problem is not unique to the evolution/ID arguments and in fact ALL scientific theories are held to this standard. It is not proof that your argument is true because I don't have proof of my argument. We could both very well be wrong.
You're right, that whole chlorophyll thing isn't exactly evidence for either of our theories, I was just sharing a window into how I think.
Also, I haven't presented any evidence for the ID theory mostly because most of my time is spent striking down the evidence these guys bring up.
I still want some free bacon. I can has bacon ?
I think, evidence aside, we may end up just having to agree to disagree on the whole ID thing.
Revi gave me some good links to read of Behe's work which I was going to check out, then perhaps I will have more to say on the subject.
-
Cut the little kid some slack! Obviously the Space Shuttle and other complex obejcts only exist in our imagination, how else can something as complex as those machines exist? Oh wait, right, god created them.
How can people be so ignorant and blatantly dumb?
Hey Winnie:
Guess what:
From simple to medium complex to very complex -> self organizing systems. In your arguing there can't be higher math, its just too complex for your little inferior brain.
Winning the jackpot in the lottery isn't likely either, still it happens. God, how can someone be so simple minded and BLIND.
-
Point 1: Just because y'all dont agree with Winnie doesn't mean you should flame him.
Point 2: The nature of science today is that when we want to believe in something, and refuse to believe in a different theory, then we will find any and all evidence we can to support our theory, but ignore any evidence for the other theory, therefore making it seem like out theory has all the evidence. This is just such a case. So, in all reality, we aren't gonna convince anyone here of anything, so this can possibly do is degenerate into a flamewar sooner or later.
P.S. I am a firm believe in Intelligent Design btw, and If I could find that book I have that has a bunch of evidence for it, I'd post some of the stuff, but I seem to have misplaced it......Anyways, please try to stop trolling/flame anyone else who isn't interested in a serious discusion.
-
...Anyways, please try to stop trolling/flame anyone else who isn't interested in a serious discusion.
While I agree less flame in this thread would be nice, would you not agree that people are somewhat setting themselves up for flames if they post in this thread "[not] interested in a serious discusion."
-
...Anyways, please try to stop trolling/flame anyone else who isn't interested in a serious discusion.
While I agree less flame in this thread would be nice, would you not agree that people are somewhat setting themselves up for flames if they post in this thread "[not] interested in a serious discusion."
Yes, lets please keep it civil if possible. :police:
-
Point 1: Just because y'all dont agree with Winnie doesn't mean you should flame him.
Point 2: The nature of science today is that when we want to believe in something, and refuse to believe in a different theory, then we will find any and all evidence we can to support our theory, but ignore any evidence for the other theory, therefore making it seem like out theory has all the evidence. This is just such a case. So, in all reality, we aren't gonna convince anyone here of anything, so this can possibly do is degenerate into a flamewar sooner or later.
P.S. I am a firm believe in Intelligent Design btw, and If I could find that book I have that has a bunch of evidence for it, I'd post some of the stuff, but I seem to have misplaced it......Anyways, please try to stop trolling/flame anyone else who isn't interested in a serious discusion.
Your point two is not what science does, it's what believers of Intelligent design. Real scientists have something called the scientfic method, then peer review. Before anything even makes it in for a chance at being published. You prove our case with this.
"The nature of science today is that when we want to believe in something, and refuse to believe in a different theory, then we will find any and all evidence we can to support our theory, but ignore any evidence for the other theory,"
That isn't what science is doing, it's what the creationist/intelligent designers do.
Let me fix your sentence so those who don't know you are lieing about science understand.
"The nature of creationists/ID today is that when we want to believe in something, and refuse to believe in a different theory, then we will find any and all evidence we can to support our theory, but ignore any evidence for the other theory," (What you really said)
P.S. I am a firm believe in Intelligent Design btw, and If I could find that book I have that has a bunch of evidence for it, I'd post some of the stuff, but I seem to have misplaced it......Anyways, please try to stop trolling/flame anyone else who isn't interested in a serious discussion.
An alleged "book" doesn't prove anything. This book has to be credible, scientifically published. A theory backed by evidence(not a hypothesis). And it can't have not been refuted with new scientific evidence. I doubt you have such a book.
-
People aren't inherently stupid.
Most of you who agree with the concept of evolution will not have seen the evidence for yourself.
It would be very difficult to come to modern scientific conclusions without 'taking their word for it' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) somewhere along the way. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution) is a good place to start as it usually provides citations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citations) throughout the article.
Keeping your post short is sometimes tough when you have a lot to say but is worth considering since then people will actually read it.
-
People aren't inherently stupid.
Most of you who agree with the concept of evolution will not have seen the evidence for yourself.
It would be very difficult to come to modern scientific conclusions without taking 'taking their word for it' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) somewhere along the way. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution) is a good place to start as it usually provides citations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citations) throughout the article.
Keeping your post short is sometimes tough when you have a lot to say but is worth considering since then people will actually read it.
As a rule of thumb, when I'm researching something like biology or evolution I try and read publications that reference or cite related scientific studies that I can also read. When reading sites like AiG it gets pretty easy to see they are opinion pieces since they don't actually publish any peer reviewed studies and often don't even reference them.
-
Of course I take others' words for good many times. Every time I open a textbook that's exactly what I'm doing. The question becomes "whose word is worth accepting?" I place my bets on science, seems how religion is a crock of shit.
-
Of course I take others' words for good many times. Every time I open a textbook that's exactly what I'm doing. The question becomes "whose word is worth accepting?" I place my bets on science, seems how religion is a crock of shit.
I agree. There are varying degrees of trustworthiness attached to what we read, and science has a very high degree of trustworthiness.
To say otherwise in favor of a theistic explanation on the same topic implies that science is conspiring against religion or that the scientific process is somehow flawed.
If the scientific community has it out for theism, it would be obvious.
If the scientific process is flawed, then how are we flying around in jets and using computers ?
Theists can't have their cake and eat it too, but I see them try all the time in this debate.
-
An interesting aspect of the arguments from religious circles is that they often see science as yet another religion. Most likely this is because that's all they know from personal experience.
Let me highlight the key difference.
Religion is about having faith in what you're told.
Science is about not having faith in what you're told.
Both of these have thier uses. For example, religion is good for controlling a large number of people.
-
People aren't inherently stupid.
Most of you who agree with the concept of evolution will not have seen the evidence for yourself.
It would be very difficult to come to modern scientific conclusions without 'taking their word for it' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) somewhere along the way. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution) is a good place to start as it usually provides citations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citations) throughout the article.
Keeping your post short is sometimes tough when you have a lot to say but is worth considering since then people will actually read it.
That is why the scientific method is so emphasized and important to science. So when something is hypothesized. It isn't taken into consideration until it's been researched. The difference between a hypothesis and a proven theory is huge. Yet we get tons of people linking 30 year old books where someone tossed out an idea(hypothesis) and didn't prove it. They try and link this as proof. It isn't.
Some of us have gone that extra step to ask things like. Why are the odds of humans,chimps, and apes having 6 identical markers from an ERV so astronomical. It takes an understanding of what DNA and RNA are. I was learning this on my own, and it coincides with what I am learning in Micro biology.
New york times article about our DNA being composed of Viral. (Guy they talk about won noble prize)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08angi.html?_r=1&em&ex=1199941200&en=3bd96f63379d275d&ei=5087%0A
-
An interesting aspect of the arguments from religious circles is that they often see science as yet another religion. Most likely this is because that's all they know from personal experience.
Let me highlight the key difference.
Religion is about having faith in what you're told.
Science is about not having faith in what you're told.
Both of these have thier uses. For example, religion is good for controlling a large number of people.
Exactly.
Also science when proven wrong goes "oh we were wrong,lets make sure we have the best understanding again based on the evidence"
Religion claims never to be wrong.
-
Of course I take others' words for good many times. Every time I open a textbook that's exactly what I'm doing. The question becomes "whose word is worth accepting?" I place my bets on science, seems how religion is a crock of shit.
Exactly!
It's like the "fear" argument from religious believers:
"But what if hell DOES exist! You wouldn't want to risk going to hell would you?"
They are all scared and can't manage life on their own. In the past years I have seen lots of such people and they make me sick. If you can't take life and live it, then what the hell are you doing here?
-
...Anyways, please try to stop trolling/flame anyone else who isn't interested in a serious discusion.
While I agree less flame in this thread would be nice, would you not agree that people are somewhat setting themselves up for flames if they post in this thread "[not] interested in a serious discusion."
Sorry, my wording is off, I meant if you aren't interested in a serious discussion, shut up and go away(In more civil terms)
Anyways, For ID:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. (From http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)
Proof of God - Nature
So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!
Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)
When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.
Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)
The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)(From http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm)
Also: @ The Religion Bashers: This isn't exactly about religion vs atheist, so dont start please, also, as for your claims for religion being false, evidence? or just personal conjecture.
-
falsifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)
^this^ is what separates scientific inquiry from other forms of seeking knowledge
religion is inherently non-falsifiable, as it demands unquestioning acceptance of the supposed "word of God" (as interpreted, of course, by those who "speak for God")
also, if God is truly infinite, why are the usual conceptions of God so limited, limiting, and infinitesimally small?
acceptance of the theory of evolution has little or nothing to do with accepting God (it usually has to do with accepting an Iron Age, pre-scientific view of God)
as for those who would hope to gain all knowledge from one holy or sacred tome, i would remind you of the Roman adage: "beware the man of one book"
if God is representative of truth, then rejecting evidence which would lead us away from ignorance would seem to me to be a rejection of the immanent and numinous nature of God, in favor of believing some a particular flavor of mythology, which we have been taught is somehow more relevant than another
-
God doesn't give a fuck about the truth. (S)He's an egomaniac. (S)He loves you if you worship him. That's all (s)he cares about.
-
I know this has already been lightly touched but I thought I'd re-emphasize that a scientific theory is not the same as the english word THEORY.
In order to make it to the state of "theory" in a scientific experiment it means to have had a hypothesis which is what the english word theory transcibes to. Its a concept, an idea, or as commonly referred to, "a guess." Most scientific thoughts or procedures don't make it past hypothesis, because in order to become a scientific theory it must go through countless steps and repitition of malicious attempts to prove your own hypothesis wrong. Since guess and check is really the only way we have to prove stuff, we have to keep repeating something until we are left without doubt that it is the correct answer and under said circumstances will always be the correct answer. At which point, undeniably if we've proven we can't prove it wrong, it becomes a theory. It then remains a theory until society as a whole accepts it, and under societie's acceptance only can it become a law.
Consequently, most theories even though proven to be 100% true in hundreds to thousands of experiments and tests from multiple people and as many view points as possible will never reach the state of law, because the ignorant masses refuse to accept them due to their own "faith" or views.
So just because Evolution is a theory, does not mean its not true. Every step that has been taken to disprove evolution has been countered and on a regular basis we continue to prove its truth. Now, because creationism and religion in a whole are so largely apart of this world, undeniably Evolution will NEVER become a law, but just because its a theory and not a law doesn't mean shit. It's still just as liable and has to be looked at respectfully in the same manner as you would a law.
Just a thought to nibble at, think before you consider saying evolution is just a "theory" because in the case of scientific experiments, inventions, and discoveries, a theory is not a theory (http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory), its a theory (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm).
-
Right right... the word theory is actually one of the first things I mention in my essay.
Actually, most of what is in the first 2 pages of my essay eliminates many of the asinine semantic Creationist arguments from the get go, but naturally the Creationists are probably not going to read my essay since its "too long" based on some responses I've seen here.
Thanks for elaborating on the concept though. We do hear from the Creationists about that word a lot don't we ? As if redefining a word can somehow make all the empirical evidence vanish.
The other favorite tactic the other side uses is a direct attack on the messenger's character, in other words, the classic ad hominem. You can see a good example of this on the original thread on our clan forum I linked to.
I could be an evil spawn of Satan and that would still not make the empirical evidence vanish. I'm just the messenger :P
-
Regarding Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis):
the work is purely anti-evolution and does not mention intelligent design
Denton himself was involved with the intelligent design movement but has since left. Denton's later book Nature's Destiny contradicts many of the points of A Theory in Crisis.
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertations accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."
... his second book Nature's Destiny is his biological contribution on the Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) debate which is dominated by physicists. He argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life.
from this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html) page: ... these long discussions seem to amount to little more than saying: "We haven't told an evolutionary story for it yet, and it seems difficult to me to believe that such a story could exist, therefore there is not one." This is the type of reasoning that Richard Dawkins has dubbed the "Argument from Personal Incredulity"(Dawkins, 1987, p. 38). Dawkins notes as well as any evolutionist that "anti- evolution propaganda is full of alleged examples of complex systems that 'could not possibly' have passed through a gradual series of intermediates"(Dawkins, 1987, p. 86), and he goes to great lengths to show that accounts can definitely be formulated that explain the development of structures and processes as sophisticated as the human lung and bat echolocation. Perhaps if more evolutionary theorists were around, we would have accounts about every single structure Denton could incredulously point to. But Denton really should be able to formulate such stories himself. The point is, pointing out how impossible it seems, at first glance, for a structure to have evolved gradually, does not constitute evidence that gradual macroevolution is impossible or improbable - it says something rather about one's failure to give hard thought to the possible means whereby complex structures could be generated.
see also (http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml)
from this (http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm) page: Because of the errors and the bias, I cannot recommend [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis] to those with little biological training, unless endowed with a sound critical attitude. Especially since Denton adopts the evolutionary view of life in Nature's Destiny.
"Undoubtedly, one of the major factors which contribute to the immense appeal of the Darwinian framework is that, with all its deficiencies, the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change."
from this (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html) page: The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.... in light of the organized complexity and apparent “design” of the flagellum, the very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations might be required.
from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella) page, see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella#The_bacterial_flagellum) subheading: An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to the Type III secretory and transport system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system).
All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. It is also a possibility that the flagellum could have evolved from a currently undiscovered system with similar flagellar traits or a currently extinct organelle/organism.[citation needed] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system.
-
Anthropic principle, nuff said.
-
Anthropic principle, nuff said.
We can say more... how about string theory and the multiverse ?
-
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
This is the whole failure of ID. As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven. A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise. If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.
A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature. A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.
Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.
-
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
This is the whole failure of ID. As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven. A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise. If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.
A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature. A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.
Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.
Quit making sense, its hard for faith.
-
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
This is the whole failure of ID. As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven. A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise. If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.
A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature. A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.
Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.
On top of that, if intelligent things need an intelligent creator, what then created the creator? >.>
-
...
This is the whole failure of ID. As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven. A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise. If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.
A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature. A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.
Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.
On top of that, if intelligent things need an intelligent creator, what then created the creator? >.>
I'd like to be the first to say: Check-fuckin'-mate.
-
...
This is the whole failure of ID. As a higher intelligence cannot be "proven", therefore a process designed by a higher intelligence cannot be proven. A premise must at least have the possibility of being proven to be a valid premise. If it cannot, then the theory is based on a false premise and is not actually a theory.
A best explanation must be based on evidence, not the lack of evidence which is needed to describe something as "too complex" to arise from nature. A theory by definition is a premise supported by evidence, not the lack of evidence.
Saying that we haven't found an explanation for something isn't evidence.
On top of that, if intelligent things need an intelligent creator, what then created the creator? >.>
I'd like to be the first to say: Check-fuckin'-mate.
Oh there is always a way out of that one. God is "eternal" or other such nonsense.
-
Sorry, but this was too well-researched and offered with too authoritative an air not to be totally taken to task, quote for quote. "A" for effort. "F" for totally buying into the party line, and completely being taken in by an unsubstantiated case of the Argument from Silence.
Anyways, For ID:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
Saying that natural selection is an undirected process is a sort of non-statement. If there is a creator God, why can't evolution, mutation and natural selection be the "mysterious ways" in which s/He works? Also, it is possible to believe in evolution and believe in "design" in the morphology and processes of living systems. That "design" is the combination of mutation and natural selection in producing beautiful and functional organisms, well in harmony with the environment with which they have co-evolved. The chief failure of the whole ID argument is its need to anthropomorphize these multitudinous systems into a "personal" Creator God, to euhemerize Nature into a particular figure, usually the favorite "Daddy God" of a specific creed.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
In a broader sense, ID is about recognizing patterns: patterns mostly present in the biases, prejudices and pre-conceptions of those why try to obfuscate an understanding of basic evolutionary principles with a lot of bad science and nonsense.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. (From http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)
ID is not controversial. It is a load of malarkey, which seeks to traffic in the lack of evidence, not any actual evidence, as pointed out above, and adequately refuted below.
Proof of God - Nature
So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!
While I'll stipulate that I personally see God in every sunrise, the following argument will prove no such thing, except that the author has taken - hook, line and sinker - the wholly unsupported claim that somehow God and evolution are incompatible, and yet this God also somehow is representative of "Truth" with a capital "T". Remember, when you see exclamation marks, somebody thinks something is important!
Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)
Wow! Isn't evolution wonderful? Life is indeed mysterious. Belief in God and belief in evolution still have no quibble. (Unless of course you only want to believe in a specific, limited, finite way of defining God. Oh wait, I thought God was infinite and eternal. And yet s/He can only be defined by your tiny mind, which seems unable to hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time.)
When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.
Indeed we do not find it reasonable to infer the presence of intelligent design; instead it appears to be axiomatic to the ID argument and not open to question. Just because nature has designed systems over billions of years which we recognize (or more to the point, categorize) as machines does not mean that they were "designed" by a specific creator; what it means to me is that they were "designed" by the self-organizing systems of evolution, which produce forms of life that adapt to their environment, through mutation and natural selection.
Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)
This is a bald assertion, unsupported by any evidence, and completely debunked in the linked matter that I have provided in my above post, all of which I found on the first Google search I did.
The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)(From http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm)
All the more reason to argue for an "old" dating, and a slow and incredibly complex process occurring and recurring under a wide variety of conditions. Michael Denton may be a brilliant molecular biologist, but not only has he done a complete flip-flop on evolution (to fit his new infatuation with the anthropic principle), he seems more interested in finding things that he can't believe, instead of doing the hard work of actually researching the evolutionary links that others have been able to point out. This book should have been titled, Michael Denton: What I Don't Know About Evolution.
Also: @ The Religion Bashers: This isn't exactly about religion vs atheist, so dont start please, also, as for your claims for religion being false, evidence? or just personal conjecture.
People find spirituality useful in their lives or not, belief in a particular "brand" of mythology or religion useful or not, and one's belief in God alternatively silly or comforting, depending on the personal reality tunnel from which they perceive the world that they themselves create.
I bid you a good day sir, and hope that in future you will not be so taken in by silly arguments without researching them further. Cheers.
If you'd like to see a more spiritual, beautiful and wonderful side of evolution, I would recommend the works of Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould) and David Quammen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Quammen) (especially the "Natural Acts (http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Acts-Sidelong-Science-Nature/dp/0380717387)" column that the latter wrote for Outside magazine).
-
-snip-
I bid you a good day sir, and hope that in future you will not be so taken in by silly arguments without researching them further. Cheers.
Good to see that Player1 still has some of the "totally annihilating someone's argument" left in him. ;)
-
The only thing that I have to add to Player1's statement is, that we as human beings find nature and it things to be "beautifully designed" because we are part of it and as such it is only natural that we should appreciate it (well, except for mosquitos and dog turds maybe).
-
Because people only now (20th century) have the tools to examine nature on the molecular level and gain a better understanding of it, religious folks advocate natural design as intelligent design. Prime example: the E. coli bacterial flagellum as mentioned above.
-
What bissig said in another set of words; people see the world as if it was made special for us, but as it turns out we evolved to fit into the world as it was.
-
how did a woodpecker evolve ???
-
how did a woodpecker evolve ???
By reaching level 20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo8nxqG54Wo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo8nxqG54Wo)
-
Proof that not only is God real, but so is the devil. (http://www.cracked.com/article/125_13-real-animals-lifted-directly-out-your-nightmares/)
((Yes, the devil tried to make a sheep but if didn't have life or something, I don't actually believe that but the article is cool.))
-
The only thing that I have to add to Player1's statement is, that we as human beings find nature and it things to be "beautifully designed" because we are part of it and as such it is only natural that we should appreciate it (well, except for mosquitos and dog turds maybe).
Indeed.
Dogs sure appreciate their own dung though, seeing as how they often eat their own (evolved to for avoiding predators who can smell it)
-
Proof that not only is God real, but so is the devil. (http://www.cracked.com/article/125_13-real-animals-lifted-directly-out-your-nightmares/)
I enjoyed that! (even if it got the size of the granrojo jellyfish wrong by a scale of 4)
When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design.
What are these 'general principles of detecting specified complexity'? They sound really useful.
I think you meant to say 'when I find something I don't understand which looks like someone made it, someone must have made it'.
Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source.
Flagella are indeed incredible things and pehaps hard to imagine coming about by chance. Then again, we are talking about an organism cable of evolving in front of our eyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment). The trouble with your argument is not that you point out an evolutionary step that is hard to explain. It's that you don't TRY to explain it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Flagella)
No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
Funny you should say that when the evolutionary model includes humans too.
A long time ago, early human ancestors developed in thier brains a proficiency in the use of tools. Where other creatures might take in calcium carbonate and from within themselves build a shell, humans would now start to build things using thier hands. Brains that were adapted for tool construction were more successful than brains that were not. The outboard motor is just one of many tools which are just as much the result of evolution as we ourselves are.
-
I would just like to add regarding the flagellum that you can do a simple Google search and find all kinds of studies done on it that show how it evolved using modern genetics as proof -
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=flagella+genetics
-
Ask yourself these questions:
what is Intelligence? what is Design? What are we talking about? Cross-reference with:
What is Artificial Intelligence? Does quantumphysics imply the universe can be described
as a discrete system?
If the theory of intelligent design is correct, then the universe was designed
in such a way that the Theory of Evolution would be true.
-
http://books.google.com/books?id=yd61229NHUgC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=flagellum+and+protons&source=bl&ots=zBPDEuM9ln&sig=qL4r_pbbTsExQZKJbXUb_vie9k4&hl=en&ei=O6u6SujXMonssQOMqcyPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=flagellum%20and%20protons&f=false
This is the most common idea, and what I learned in Micro biology.(it was stressed we think and are testing this more) Although I am not sure where this is on the hypothesis -> proven theory scale. I don't personally know the evidence and experiments done to test this idea.
-
how did a woodpecker evolve ???
-
how did a woodpecker evolve ???
Well maybe if you spent more time actually learning about the subject and not just trying to come up with arguments you might learn something. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html)
My guess is you won't bother to actually read all the evidence there, but trust me, it makes more sense. And until I see creationists actually coming up with real evidince themselves instead of thinking of ways evolution doesn't make sense, I believe in evolution, not intelligent design. (It just makes sense.)
-
But NO!
If I can't understand it, it must be supernatural! It looks intelligently designed and I am the smart enough to decide what is too complex to be natural.
/end sarcasm
Seriously, I felt I had to do the /end sarcasm or creationists would think im on their side.
We are evolved animals, therefore we can't decide what "too intelligent to be natural is" sense we ourselves are natural.
If you think science is a conspiracy and doesn't have every ones best interest at heart, let me remind you where you go when you are sick.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxo38DIR74k
::)
-
But NO!
If I can't understand it, it must be supernatural! It looks intelligently designed and I am the smart enough to decide what is too complex to be natural.
/end sarcasm
Seriously, I felt I had to do the /end sarcasm or creationists would think im on their side.
We are evolved animals, therefore we can't decide what "too intelligent to be natural is" sensesince we ourselves are natural.
If you think science is a conspiracy and doesn't have every ones best interest at heart, let me remind you where you go when you are sick.
See, you can't even use the proper words in your sentence. So therefore god must be true and you are wrong. ;)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxo38DIR74k
::)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=marjoe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjoe_Gortner
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I'm still waiting to see amputees get their limbs healed by a preacher.
-
(http://encefalus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/evolutionofman.jpg)
-
..PIC..
Classic !
-
Or along similar lines...
(http://www.srhuston.net/junkpile/evolman.jpg)
Only bit of "on topic" I can add is Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments on ID: "Who would put a sewage treatment plant next to a playground? That doesn't seem very intelligent..."
-
"Who would put a sewage treatment plant next to a playground? That doesn't seem very intelligent..."
bahahahaha
-
Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive.
I am Catholic.
I believe God used Intelligent Design to create the organisms we see around us. How did he do this? I don't know.
But why couldn't he have used evolution?
-
Sorta-kinda-ish On Topic: (I Know y'all are gonna be all "EVOLUTION != BIG BANG THEORY!!1!!!', but lets be honest, if you believe in Creation, you aren't likely to Say god Created the Earth, but then everything Evolved.) To All those saying "EVOLUTION MAKES MORE SENSE!!!!", And Since I'm putting Evolution and Big Bang theory in the same boat, I have this to say:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4s5pmFL_ZlQ/SGen1IchY2I/AAAAAAAAAhk/kjXylbqGyzk/s320/bigbangtheory%2Bbig%2Bbang%2Btheory%2Bwww.motivationalpostersonline.blogspot.com%2Bdemotivational%2Bposters%2Bmotivational%2Bposter%2Bfunny.jpg)
Does that really make any sense to you?
-
To be honest, spork, no not really, but I'm much more comfortable saying "idk wtf happened" than I am saying "Musta been God."
-
Big bang stuff.
Now, I'm not going to bother responding to this silly post as much as I could, but I will say these things:
First off, the big bang was not nothing, if you actually bothered to learn something about the idea of the big bang (instead of just trying to play up the confusing aspect of it, ((yes it is confusing)) you might see how it worked.) To you I present Wikipedia's article on the big bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) which while not commonly accepted as a certifiable resource, can certainly give you a general understanding of the topic.
You may also want to note the url of the great picture you posted, most noteably: demotivational and funny.jpg.
The thing that disapoints me about ID design arguments is I have yet to really see much in the way of anyone presenting decent proof of how this could be. Most everyone seems to try to make arguments (usually unfounded and ignorant) on aspects of evolution that they do not understand, that is if they don't just loudly show everyone how they misunderstand the scientific definition of 'theory.' Note the typical "how did a woodpecker evolve ???" (Your Face 5) and the "demotivational" picture posted by Spork, who clearly would rather say that because something that does not make sense to him, it must be wrong, rather than doing research himself. This is obvious because if he had attempted to learn about the subject of the big bang, he would not have used those words.
Also @KamikOzzy, that was my first reaction to, but you realize you are taking science on faith about this the same as you would God's creation. ;)
-
That may be, but I don't see many people fighting wars or banning books or changing their lives out of faith in science. I do view the big bang as more of a simple "theory" in contrast to the way I view evolution as a fact, though. The origins of this universe are just out of reach of explanation at this time, but I couldn't say "we cant tell how it started, so we know God did it, and he wants us to do this and that."
-
Shouldn't religion be more concerned with ethics than cosmology?
-
Also @KamikOzzy, that was my first reaction to, but you realize you are taking science on faith about this the same as you would God's creation. ;)
Both good points; though having worked beside some of the people who put the WMAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP) satellite in orbit and did much of the work on the data it brought back, I feel closer to believing science than religion in this one. While many have claimed that God spoke to them, rarely was it overheard by someone else at the same time (if ever, but I won't say never because I don't know personally). Meanwhile I see data on studies of the beginning of the universe all the time, and see it ever changing and our knowledge of it ever growing - that's something which I can more readily believe in.
-
Shouldn't religion be more concerned with ethics than cosmology?
which religion?
-
Shouldn't religion be more concerned with ethics than cosmology?
which religion?
any religion, every religion, all religion, Religion with a capital "R"
Any system of belief is useful insofar as it produces a somewhat consistent set of ethics.
I wonder if the guy who said, "Let this be the whole of the Law" would be enthralled at the mental backflips required to believe ancient Canaanite cosmology in the light of current evidence. I think he would be inclined to say "Pharisees, hypocrites, vipers..."
-
In the spirit of this topic: a short story. (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)
On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.
-
In the spirit of this topic: a short story. (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)
On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.
The reason we squabble, is because religion wants to force laws onto all of us, and convert us all to their beliefs under what we consider to be false pretenses. I don't need someone judging me for drinking coffee, or making chili's bar and grill change their name to chili's southwest grill.(literally, my town made chili's change their name because they don't allow "bars" in this state.) Religions are also out causing wars, and middle eastern extremists believe killing people is a straight way to heaven with rewards. I mean, religion brings more hate and discontent than anything else in this world, and those of us that have common sense, want the ignorant masses to just understand HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY ARE.
-
In the spirit of this topic: a short story. (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)
On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.
The reason we squabble, is because religion wants to force laws onto all of us, and convert us all to their beliefs under what we consider to be false pretenses. I don't need someone judging me for drinking coffee, or making chili's bar and grill change their name to chili's southwest grill.(literally, my town made chili's change their name because they don't allow "bars" in this state.) Religions are also out causing wars, and middle eastern extremists believe killing people is a straight way to heaven with rewards. I mean, religion brings more hate and discontent than anything else in this world, and those of us that have common sense, want the ignorant masses to just understand HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY ARE.
I'm glad you are not hateful, but have a clear head, so you can see exactly what's happening.
I'll say this again: science and religion are not at odds with each other. Some scientists say religion is evil, some religious folk say science is evil, but do you judge the entire human race by the people who think turtles shed their shells? No.
I've seen this (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/31/atheism_good_enough.gif) picture a few times. But Max Planck, Louis Pasteur, and many other great scientists were religious.
I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.
-
I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.
Because sometimes your beliefs might come into conflict with your profession, if indeed you are going to be a scientists. That shouldn't stop you from searching for knowledge in either direction. Props to you for breaking the status quo. :)
-
In the spirit of this topic: a short story. (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)
On topic: Whether God is real or not, should be a matter of personal belief, even though both sides (religious and non-religious) choose to squabble over who's right, and who's stupid in believing something different. Even if God were real it still would not explain how this world works, which is what science strives to do. Until God shows himself to me, I'll try my luck with science.
The reason we squabble, is because religion wants to force laws onto all of us, and convert us all to their beliefs under what we consider to be false pretenses. I don't need someone judging me for drinking coffee, or making chili's bar and grill change their name to chili's southwest grill.(literally, my town made chili's change their name because they don't allow "bars" in this state.) Religions are also out causing wars, and middle eastern extremists believe killing people is a straight way to heaven with rewards. I mean, religion brings more hate and discontent than anything else in this world, and those of us that have common sense, want the ignorant masses to just understand HOW FUCKING STUPID THEY ARE.
I'm glad you are not hateful, but have a clear head, so you can see exactly what's happening.
I'll say this again: science and religion are not at odds with each other. Some scientists say religion is evil, some religious folk say science is evil, but do you judge the entire human race by the people who think turtles shed their shells? No.
I've seen this (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/31/atheism_good_enough.gif) picture a few times. But Max Planck, Louis Pasteur, and many other great scientists were religious.
I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.
I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe, the problem with religion is that they can't just believe it to themselves. They have to force it on everyone, and judge those who aren't a part of it. My neighbor thinks his dog is jesus's sister, but he doesn't shove it down anyone's throat, so good for him. He can think whatever the fuck he wants after he's had way to much vodka (http://bible.cc/genesis/9-21.htm), shaved his prisoner wife's head (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:10-14&version=NIV), beat his son to death publically for staying out to late (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21&version=NIV), or whatever else may have you. It's not like he's strange or dilusional or anything, right?
-
I fail to see why I cannot be both a faithful Catholic (or almost any other modern religion) and a scientist.
While indeed, you can be both and never run into any conflict, it's mostly the principles that are the issue here.
For a scientist, you need to be able to prove what you believe, and have good evidence for life around you and your beliefs on them. While in American court, the suspect is "innocent until proven guilty," in science, ideas are often "bullshit until backed up with evidence and case studies." This is good for many reasons, not the least because I don't want someone designing medicine, bridges, or what have you without completely understanding how they all work.
Pretty much all religions on the other hand, need you to take faith in God and his power, and in fact, sometimes questioning God's validity (which is the sort of thing a scientist needs to do everyday ((not just in God but in everything)) can be considered considerable offence, both to God and those who believe in Him. One of the most important characteristics of a Catholic (I was raised one) is faith, in God, in His son, and in the thousands of saints. This sort of belief often runs completely contradictory towards the scientific princibles, thus the reason why many people would say you can not be both.
Now, like I said earlier, you can be both fine, contrary to that picture you posted, Einstein actually did believe in God, however his belief was much different than that of most Jews. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein)
Also, of course, there are many scientists who do not follow the "question everything" method, indeed if you did that to everything your life would most likely be very troubling. There are people on every range of the spectrum, from questioning everything (you'll know what this is if you have read Stranger in a Strange land,) to people who do scientific jobs just following what their bosses tell them.
This is my view on how it can be troubling to be a strong Christian and scientist, but like I said, you can do both and feel fine, but I hope you understand what I said.
-
I saw this today and think that the explanations on this page and the next page will really help clarify some things in potential debates. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140/page/1)
Really, please do read both pages. Both sides of the argument.
-
I saw this today and think that the explanations on this page and the next page will really help clarify some things in potential debates. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140/page/1)
Really, please do read both pages. Both sides of the argument.
Thanks a lot whale. Now I want a crocoduck! >:(
-
Just had a moment to point out that science and philosophy may have that reconciliation yet.
Process philosophy enters the field of biology.
Organisms are processes in the state of becoming adapted to their ever-changing, co-evolving environments.
In plant morphology, Rolf Sattler developed a process morphology (dynamic morphology) that overcomes the structure/process (or structure/function) dualism that is commonly taken for granted in biology. According to process morphology, structures such as leaves of plants do not have processes, they are processes.
emphasis mine
from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy)
-
I knew this thread would just keep on going. (Bet it's going to fill up 10+ pages, it's a wonder that this thread hasn't been derailed yet)
-
This guy has spent a lot more time thinking about the subject than I so I will defer to him. I agree with him.. Don't try to shove a world view on me without any proof beyond I believe it and masses of people before me also believed it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=0)
I also do not think it is right to indoctrinate children into a religion by default. If it was such a great idea wouldn't we all come to that conclusion naturally without being taught? Anyways I will not be taking part in this debate beyond this link. Hopefully someone gets some use out of the video format. Be warned: it is a long rant
Edit: Fixed the link so it gives the whole playlist.
-
Watched it Janev, good points made in it.
Believing in evolution doesn't make you an atheist. Likewise believing in god doesn't mean you can't believe in evolution.
-
I've been reading Dawkin's new book on this subject and I highly recommend it, especially to those "history-deniers" who don't believe there is evidence for evolution.
;D
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416594787?ie=UTF8&tag=thericharddaw-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1416594787
-
Great links, dudes. Got a feeling imma be reading some books by Dawkins, and I know imma watch the rest of that ut00b stuffz. Mahalo, and thank you for your kokua.
brief video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoZW7-3YSns)
-
Mahalo, and thank you for your kokua.
???
Believing in evolution doesn't make you an atheist. Likewise believing in god doesn't mean you can't believe in evolution.
i still think that religion and science are incompatible unless you are a very moderate theist. but i guess both things rely on faith a lot
-
Science doesn't rely on faith Jedarus. It has evidence.
One place they are incompatible is
To be a good scientist you have to be evidence driven.
To be good at a religion you have to have faith.(believe lack of evidence)
Almost polar opposites.
-
Faith is not necessarily religion. I know people who have faith that there is a god or creator of some kind, but aren't necessarily religious in the common sense (e.g. they don't attend church, pray, etc).
It's not a bad thing to have a little faith as a scientist too. The human mind can't process all of the facts that are necessary for some decisions.
-
Faith is not necessarily religion. I know people who have faith that there is a god or creator of some kind, but aren't necessarily religious in the common sense (e.g. they don't attend church, pray, etc).
It's not a bad thing to have a little faith as a scientist too. The human mind can't process all of the facts that are necessary for some decisions.
"Belief should scale with evidence"
and
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
-Carl Sagan
My point being that we should try harder to resist the impulse as humans to substitute a good conspiracy theory or myth in place of our ignorance.
-
Richard Dawkins on the Colbert Report (http://www.hulu.com/watch/99389/the-colbert-report-richard-dawkins#http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hulu.com%2Ffeed%2Fshow%2F903%3Fenclosures%3D1)
sry bout teh ad
-
"On the sixth day, God created the platypus. And God said: let's see the evolutionists try and figure this one out."
-
On which day did God make all of the fossils?
-
On which day did God make all of the fossils?
A few days before a talking snake tricked a woman into eating a fruit that condemned humanity forever after. Lilith wasn't falling for that shit, but poor dumb Eve did. :angel:
-
Actually what I posted was a bumper sticker I saw once. :P
http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/which-day-did-god-make-all-the-fossils/138670959
-
OK, OK, fine, what I didn't mean was that scientists rely purely or mostly on faith whenever they conduct experiments and whatnot. It's just that there's always going to be a certain amount of uncertainty in whatever experiment that's undertaken, so it helps to have a bit of spirit and drive to succeed.
And many important scientific discoveries happened by serendipity, including penicillin