Re: TheChosen
Originally posted by Adam
This entire paragraph is without substance, without backing or supporting evidence of any kind. Just wild and uneducated claims. Now, in response, and for your edification, I have provided some very interesting and useful links. The first in particular has some very interesting information.
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html
http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/index.html
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
http://www.brembs.net/gould.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Well, the heading for this point is in itself a falsehood. You can not produce a valid argument running from one point to the next if the initiating point is false. Why do I say the point is false? Again, look to those links I have provided. In particular, you might find this page and this page useful.
I believe he should be talking here about cells rather than molecules. I see no reason the molecules required for life would be present in very different amounts in either of the two atmospheric models provided.
Perhaps you could explain precisely what is meant? Which reactions for which molecules would be damaged by the presence of molecular oxygen?
Utterly false. Again, read through those links.
3) The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations.
Again, for your edification, try these links:
http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.bitesizebooks.co.uk/evolution_by_natural_selection_2.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
4) The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis.
That is 100% silly and has never been an assumption of evolution. Here he misrepresents it all quite deliberately. Nature does not produce a whole chain of favourable mutations needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. Rather, nature produces countless mutations and gradual changes which do all sorts of things. Only one such change might produce wings from forelimbs, or maybe several million such changes occurred and only a few survived.
This is just meaningless babble. I suggest you have a look at fossils of creatures such as Pterodactyls. Tell me what you notice about their wings.
So, what he's saying is:
artificial selection = a
foresight and planning = b
natural selection = c
no foresight or planning = d
And:
Since a relies on b, and c relies on d, then a can not prove c.
Fair enough. Now you might just as easily replace those terms with:
a = horse
b = four legs
c = humans
d = two legs
And then say that horses have four legs therefore and humans have two legs so humans don't make sense. Notice this is completely nonsensical.
In other words, he says that artificial selection relying on foresight disproves natural selection which doesn't rely on foresight. No sense at all.
5) The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
Read those links I provided at the start of this post. Evolution theory as proposed by Darwin has been continually refined over the years. You may wish to take particular note of Stephen Jay Gould, who died quite recently. I have also provided a link to some of his work. There are indeed transitional fossils, but migration and sudden, drastic environmental changes also produce sudden changes in species in any given area/time. Again, this is all covered quite extensively in those first links.
Actually, I think you'll find many "evolutionists" are quite happy to talk of these long-lasting forms of life. There is no clause in evolution theory, as far as I'm aware, which states that all things must evolve at an equal rate. If a certain type of tree develops to the stage at which it can perfectly survive in its environment, then it will face fewer pressures of natural selection and from that point on any changes in that type of tree will be very minor if they occur at all, unless there is some major environmental change - which would account for sudden changes in fossilised populations of that area at that time.
Again, this is 100% false. There is much more evidence today than in Darwin's time. Again, the evidence is described in those first links I provided.
Punctuated Equilibrium was "inserted" into evolution theory a while back, as a refinement. Many theories undergo such refinements over the years. We would be a sorry bunch if we accepted a theory one day and then never again examined it or improved it.
WOW
You must be quite an intellect also. Are you a scientist/biologist or something of that sort?
As for those claims, you rebunked them alright, with all those links - I'll make sure I'll read them. The problem with that article is it was published in 1993.
Alright Adam, you've convinced me more about evolution!!
Please provide any evidence to support your ideas about life on other worlds. Anything.
Well, there are
parameters. I need someone here who is an expert and very well-educated to answer such claims as...
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly
if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly
carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: insufficient greenhouse effect
ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would become too low
if less: surface temperatures would he too high; too much uv radiation at surface
And so on, there are many many parameters. Check the link at my very first post considering those parameters. Are they just voodoo science? Or they make sense. (they only problem I have is where the hell did he get those numbers, he could have exagerated quite a bit.) - that is why i'm asking people's opinion here.
Judging from what I already know I think most of them make sense -
not all
To simplify it, of any planet in the universe originates at the wrong position in its respective solar system, it won't be capable of life. Also if its too small, an atmosphere would not be possible. But if the planet were any bigger the planet would contain free hydrogen like Jupiter.
Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.
My point is, back in 1960 they found some parameters. Today they find more and more. Until it keeps in that direction.
Question is: Do we know of all possible parameters?
Answer: of course not
So, because you don't understand what you have been told or what you are saying, you leap to the conclusion it must be supernatural? That's just great.
Um, no. I accept the
inferiority of science and human's. Science isn't God
so it's not capable of answering everything.
Do you accept this inferiority? Or you letting your ego drive you?
First of all we won't get to the bottom of "what matter really is" How do we know there isn't more other than quarks and gluons? Then if we do discover something else, what's after that? after that?
You see?
I shall try to explain something for you. Use the Sun and Pluto as a model of the nucleus and electron of an atom. If we did not know the actual path of Pluto, what would be the probability of it being at any point in space within the gravitational inlfuence of our Sun at any point in time? Without knowing its path, can you guess? It is the same with atoms and such. Since we do not know the exact path of an electron, but have some general idea of its size or area in relation to the maximum area it inhabits, we can only say that the region it occupies is the maximum area it inhabits divided by the size or area of the electron, and that region could be anywhere within the maximum area. This is what is meant when people say that it is 99.99% empty space. There is no "nothing" involved there.
Yep almost "nothing" now as for that 0.01% something, there's more space within the quarks and gluons. Keep going and when % * % * % = very very very low %
What the hell is space anyway?
Very odd. Every university professor and researcher I know of has nothing whatsoever to do with Intelligent Design Theory. In fact, I recall hearing a cosmologist from the USA saying quite clearly that fewer and fewer scientists in that country give any credence at all to Intelligent Design or Creationism. Perhaps you could provide some form of evidence supporting your claim?
Odd, the ID movement is growing, correct?.
The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
Origin of the universe - you don't know if it's natural or not. I don't either.
If the Big Bang were true, dimension-less? explosion creates space-time and so forth, Thed knows.
Let's get something straight.
1) I'm cre-evolutionist and embrace science every bit.
2) I don't believe in creation as in "poof" it appears, there is not one proof that you can "create/poof" something out of nothing. Not any system we know of. Matter being created would defy the conservation laws.
3) God is responsible for
organizing the Universe, you can call it creating also, but not in the sense that He "poofed" everything there.
4) Just because I believe in a God, does not mean I am handicapped in some way regarding science
5) I accept human inferiority.
However, the supernatural stuff has not a single shred of evidence, whereas all the commonly accepted scientific theories do have supporting evidnce.
Ok, ok, I rest on
FAITH! Great Cthulhu! Does having faith in something handicap my intelliegent potential!?
Stop criticizing me
It's all boils down to
how you look at things to become close-minded and restrictive in learning.
JamesR and other are more suited to the task, being far more knowledgable about physics and such.
Yep I hope they answer to either validate the claims or invalidate them.
Wonderful crystal ball you have there for seeing the future. Science is the pursuit of understanding the universe. It is occurring every day, all around the world. Can you actually give some reason why we might never understand the origins of the universe?
Human inferiority. All we can do is theorize. That's it, we can't go traveling around the universe and finding information. (unless you can warp space) but still, that won't be enough to discover the origin of the Universe.
Plasma to Big Bang, we don't know for
sure if those theories are absolutely correct.
Can you give me a
reason why we might understand the origins of the Universe?
Not at all. I have never absolutely discounted the possible existence of any single god or any pantheon of gods. It is simply very unlikely and has no supporting evidence and so does not take up any of my time.
Good, you don't dwell on questions like "What is God waiting for?" LMAO
