f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 16:05 |
 
|
My bad, take out the philosophers  , it was refuted often enough by science. In this regard, i appreciate the comments - scientists just come up with more proof, and the creationists pull back into another gap in which they spot the creator, as science can't explain it there.
Anyway, i took the same freedom (as s scientist) which i have seen being taken by philosphers from a short visit on a forum of the british Philosophical society (or named something along that lines):
Being a layman yet still claiming many things about the topic i have nearly no knowledge on. (i know how it hurts to have layman pretend they know more than you, eg philosphers who "know" more about the nature of quantum mechanics or physicists who "know" more about some part of philosophy.). My apologies. Now, you are a philosopher who claims to know things about science  ?
Anyway, there creationism is not science. It never was. |
|
|
xcver
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 16:18 |
|
Just read that the concept of angels and the devil and of heaven and hell was devised by Zorothaster and later implemented in Judaism and Christianism and subsequently of course in Islamism. |
_________________
"Power without perception is virtually useless and therefore of no true value!" - Ryouken - Master of the Hokuto no Ken Martial Arts |
|
xcver
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 16:21 |
|
Amen to that
| f_alk wrote: |
Anyway, there creationism is not science. It never was. |
|
_________________
"Power without perception is virtually useless and therefore of no true value!" - Ryouken - Master of the Hokuto no Ken Martial Arts |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 16:36 |
|
1. The irreducible complexity argument has been dealt with, several times. I direct you to http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html, because it's old hat to me. Simply put, complexity can be reduced. And it most likely was.
2. I know very little about this subject (Flood Geology), but it does make me curious. Could you please direct me to some information about this?
3. A chromosome is a large chain of genes that is (in certain circumstances) visible under a light microscope, as I understand it. The number of chromosomes is an inherited trait. It is very unlikely to change from one generation to the other (and if it did, you would probably have non-reproducable offspring).
I'll deal with addition first: Adding another chromosome would involve adding another chunk of genes to the existing ones - where would those come from, suddenly? If we are to believe that evolution is a slow process (and most biologists would agree), then adding another huge chunk of genes to the existing would make as much sense as humans suddenly sprouting wings from one generation to the other. Things don't suddenly come to be, and evolutionist don't make that claim. I would accept a gradual buildup of genes to a point at which a new chromosome could form, and it would probably take thousands, millions of generations for it to happen. So yes, you are correct in that statement (that chromosome addition has never been observed), but it is a nonsense argument.
As for the deletion, you are also correct that deletion of a chromosome would be disastrous.
4. The Watchmaker argument is really interesting. As I recall it, it is about one encountering of a watch and a stone in a field. A watch needs a lot of work to create, whereas a stone doesn't. If you are claiming that something complex had to be made by something even more complex, then we will end up in a non-ending upward spiral of gods, supergods, and superdupergods. Is that a testable hypothesis? Did it take time? Was it hard work?
The theory of evolution actually does address this argument, by accumulated design. Yes, it took a lot of work. It took a lot of time. Work isn't free. Paley's argument is one of extremes. Life didn't happen out of its environment. Nobody but creationists claim that it did.
5. I don't see how cosmology has anything to do with this.
I will deal with your question (What specific evidence are evolutionists bringing to the table and claiming to be concrete by the way?), later. Until then, could you please post what theory exactly creationists hold to be correct until further proof that it isn't? I have seen very little in terms of alternative theory, other than a vague "some deity was the cause of life, and by the way, it's probably the christian/judeo god". |
|
|
Gatts
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 17:34 |
|
Just wanted to send a quick thank you to torsoboy for answering for me when i was away, and since it's obvious even to me that he handles his english far better than i do mine, im going to leave further debating to him, unless i get really upset again and won't be able to answer fro my actions.
And Brad, I am fully aware that a majority of scientists have some form of faith in a higher being, but i sincerly hope that a majority of them do not make the misstake of mixing up their faith with their work, and if they do, I'll gladly and proudly be alienated from them. |
_________________
Players die, touchdowns are forever! |
|
IRSWalker
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 18:04 |
|
| Macavity wrote: | | @ IRS, I'm impressed! That's the closest anyone has come to a falsifying statement..... Seriously has taken asking a lot of people. My biology isn't perfect (which seems to be being used as an argument to ignore me) so explain further what that would look like. How in the world would you know where something came from, evolutionarily speaking? Categorically, one cannot prove something did not evolve wihtout a complete fossil record of all life. I'm still not convinced on this one, sorry m8. I WOULD like to keep discussing it, since it's been bugging me for 13 years or so. Can you flesh out the picture? |
Happy to do so, although I'm very much the "interested amateur", as a physicist and a humanist, rather than a biologist.
If we replace "evolutionary theory" with "the theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", the most mainstream current view of that theory (I believe - biologists are welcome to update me), then the theory states that (my own ultra-cut-down simplification) that all life on earth is derived from a common ancestor, through genetic variation from either mutation or combination, which gives rise to speciation when groups of individuals become separated, and that natural selection drives which individuals within each group survive to propagate the species.
So, a disproof of evolutionary theory would be to find an individual organism on Earth that fulfilled any of the following:
Not based on DNA (or RNA)
Containing DNA or RNA that is so unlike anything else as to preclude the possibility of a common ancestor.
Or alternatively, you could show the following:
That groups of interbreeding animals could be separated and subjected to wildly different conditions, and not adapt to fit the new conditions over a sufficiently large number of generations (more for asexual species).
Given that there are a significant number of creationist scientists around the world, it's surprising that none of them has managed any of the above, given that they would instantly tear down the theory of evolution at a stroke. Instead, they prefer to invoke the flawed "argument by design" fallacy over and over again. That's just not science, it's evangelism.
Also, even though evolutionary theory doesn't currently explain everything perfectly, does nto make it invalid, since future refinements by theory and experiment will either improve it's predictive power, or replace it. That's how science works.
To repeat my earlier example, take a look at the history of humanities understanding of the solar system. First, we saw the sun, stars and planets move in the sky above us, repeating every so often, so we imagined that they orbited in circles around us. As we built up a mass of data on their movements, we realised that this model was too simple, so we made it more and more complex. However, one person (Copernicus, by convention) noticed that you could get rid of all the complexity if you took the view that everything orbited the sun instead. Despite the religious protestations, and in some cases torture and imprisonment, Occam's Razor preferred the sun-centred solar system.
Next, we noticed that circular orbits still didn't fit the data quite right, and someone noticed that elliptical orbits would work better. Kepler showed that if the planets moved around ellipses in a particular way, then they fit the data really well. So the model became an almost perfect predictor. But there was no explanation as to why that model was such a good predictor, it just was.
A certain Mr Newton showed that the entire model could be derived if you assumed that the planets and the Sun had masses, and that they exerted forces on each other proportionate to the inverse square of the distance between them. Now we could predict the positions of the planets from a single mathematical equation.
But there were still problems with the model, notably that Mercury's orbit didn't quite do as it was supposed to. To do this, Einstein showed that gravity was actually produced by massive objects bending the very fabric of the universe itself. Einstein's equations can be reduced down to Newton's for most situations, but for Mercury, the proximity of the Sun means that we have to use relativity to accurately predict the orbit.
Back to evolution, it's probable that evolution is somewhere down a similar path. The point is that until Einstein, everyone accepted Newton as being the finished article, and things like Mercury's orbit could just be dismissed as anomolies. Darwin is probably the Newton of evolution, and there might be another 400 years before the Einstein of evolution turns up and pulls another layer of wool from our eyes. But creationism has nowhere to go, since it's central tenet is the argument by design, and is neither provable nor disprovable, and scientifically invalid.
In my opinion, these fantastic acheivements of human ingenuity and intelligence are far far more satisfying that an arcane belief in a rather dubious deity. How hard is it to accept that maybe the universe ticks along on a bunch of simple physical laws, and we have come to a point where we understand such a lot of it?
If you want a really good, readable book, I'd highly recommend "Almost Like A Whale" by Steve Jones. It presents Darwins original arguments, but updated with modern knowledge, and for the more casual reader. |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 18:15 |
|
| Quote: | | Once again, not claiming that science takes as much faith as religion, not, in fact discussing either. I'm talking about Creation and Evolution which, in my mind, are fully compatible ideas, and presenting the idea that a person who chooses to belief one or the other cannot be dissuaded. |
The theories of creation and evolution can be made compatible, yes.
By "choosing to believe" you seem to include a stubbornness rarely found. Few people choose to believe. You just naturally believe that which appears most plausible or least ridiculous to you.
A relevant question to you would be how many (do you think) so stubbornly believes in evolution that they would not be dissuaded if hard evidence should appear to support a conflicting theory, compared to the number of people who keep believing in creation? I think you're mistaken if you think the very different origins of belief (different types of "evidence") in these two cases wouldn't matter.
| Quote: | | Wowzers... I enter into a debate I don't care about out of boredom, and am magically accused of holding every bone-headed view on evolution present since the dawn of time. If you read carefully, I've never stated my opinion on it in this thread. |
Awww, c'mon! Everybody knows you'd do anything to raise you post count. |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
Buur
Joined: Apr 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 18:37 |
|
| Quote: |
@Everyone and their dog. Creationism is not synonymous with 6-day creationism, or a 6000 year old earth. Give people a break.
|
....
@macavity Well the creationists who try to make a pseudo scientific argument are worse than those who just say well the bibles says so... its like mixing water with oil...
-Buur |
_________________
For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes. |
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 18:50 |
|
| Brad wrote: |
"...and the willful ignorance of creationists to scientific research, that is insulting to scientists..."
- Please don't assume creationists are simply ignorant. If we were as misinformed as you seem to imply, would evolutionists still be debating this point? What is the point of arguing with the ignorant - as one fumbbl coach states "Never argue with an idiot - they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" - No some evolutionists, some scientists, still believe that creationists have something to contribute, even if it is only as a sounding board for them to refine their own views from. Whatever creationists are - especially those who can hold their own in this debate - is not ignorant. |
The reasons that scientists bothers with creationists are quite few and mainly related to poltics, not science. The number 1 reason is that they are infiltrating school boards and try to take out evolution from the schools. It's the number 1 reason that we actually care about creationists. The 2nd reason is that we hate ignorance. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage.
Last edited by Adar on %b %07, %2006 - %18:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Buur
Joined: Apr 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 18:54 |
|
| Quote: |
The only reason that scientist bothers about creationists is that they are infiltrating school boards and try to take out evolution from the schools. It's the number 1 reason that we actually care about creationists. The 2nd reason is that we hate ignorance.
|
So true .... course the most creationists i have debated with are not that fun to talk to or with....
-Buur |
_________________
For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes. |
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 19:24 |
|
| Brad wrote: |
Lets start with the controversial concept of irraducable complexity. IE - an ear needs hammer and drum, an auditory nerve to function, yet neither is useful without the other - thus all 3 must have evolved simultaneously - a massive challenge to Darwin's slow evolution theory. This is but one of hundreds of examples. Although Behe has identified many possible flaws in a sense that it merely complicates, but does not disprove evolution, it has forced a rethink of the already tenuous evolutionary pathways needed for evolution. |
Behe claims that but I know very few scientists who have heard of him. Most people are studying homologous organs or genetics when finding new evolutionary pathways. Heres an excellent refutal to your claim about the ear
And heres a short summary of some of the fossils we've found:
# Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
# Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
# Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
# Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
# Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
# Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
# Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
# Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).
References:
1. Hunt, K. 1997. (see above)
2. Kermack, K. A., F. Mussett and H. W. Rigney, 1981. The skull of Morganucodon. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 71: 1-158.
3. Luo, Z.-X., A. W. Crompton and A.-L. Sun, 2001. A new mammaliaform from the Early Jurassic and evolution of mammalian characteristics. Science 292: 1535-1540.
4. White, T., 2002a. Palaeos Vertebrates 420.500: Cynodontia: Probainognathia. http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/410Cynodontia/410.500.html
5. White, T., 2002b. Palaeos Vertebrates 420.300: Mammaliformes: Symmetrodonta. http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit420/420.300.html
| Brad wrote: |
Secondly Flood Geology causes problems for long earth periods neccessary for evolution. Objects crossing multiple strata challenge the view of multiple ELE in earth's history, impacting upon much of pre-historic time |
Are you talking about the whale story or the polystrate tree story? You need to put up references so we actually know what your claiming. Otherwise it's quite hard to discuss the issue.
| Brad wrote: |
Thirdly, DNA mutation, as observed, has never resulted in addition to the number of chromosomes, resulting in breedable offspring, only ever reduction. The generation of 1 chromosome would be against scientific observation - to generate 23 paired new chromosomes would be 46 events that are against what we have observed of science. Science is relying upon a pattern of events they have not observed even one of. |
A chromosome is just a way to package the DNA. If a chromosome grows too long will it be a quite great chance that the chromosome sometime within the next millenia will split up in atleast one individual in the next thousand years. The problem is that we have only been able to study chromosomes for less than 100 years and we can't really have all scientists sit and dissect small animals to see if their genes has split.
Also a nice example on rats who have gotten more chromosomes:
Nachman, M. W., S. N. Boyer, J. B. Searle and C. F. Aquadro, 1994. Mitochondrial DNA variation and the evolution of Robertsonian chromosomal races of house mice, Mus domesticus. Genetics 136(3): 1105-1120.
| Brad wrote: |
There is the the clockmaker argument, cosmological arguments about the chance formation of oxygen/hydrogen rich atmospheres which would even allow biology to form. Cosmological arguments even about where this matter would have come from. |
This doesn't have anything to do with biology which means that you should start a new thread about cosmology rather than throw it in here if you want any responses.
So instead of meddling with something that I haven't studied will I direct you to google
| Brad wrote: |
You may disagree with the theories, but one cannot say that creationists are the only ones who are ignoring evidence. (What specific evidence are evolutionists bringing to the table and claiming to be concrete by the way?) |
I know one very easily read and comprehensibly written book to start with. It's written using 19th century knowledge which means that you should be able to understand most of the arguments inside it. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
El_Jairo
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 19:28 |
|
Well the reason why I started this thread was to think about the creation/evolution of all. I understand that religious as whell as neo-liberal politicians try to get their point of view into the educational system. This is politics and only envolves people sticking to their belief and try to convince people to have the same belief.
As I see it science and religion are usefull to a certain extent but it will be more usefull if they would cooperate in a spiritual/liberal/serious way. People tend to look at the things that seperate them, overlooking what binds them.
IMHO what scientist call the Big-Bang can be seen as a start of crevolution. That was the cause which made everything evolve in the way it does nowadays. This is not predestined as there is the undeniable fact of free will.
If you look at all this from 'God's' (= All-That-Is) point of view: there is no such thing as time or space during the creation but inside the univesity we have time so we percieve evolution.
As Einstein once beautifully said: "Coincidence is the way of God to remain anonymus". Maybe everything is designed so well it is no longer clear is was designed in the first place. I am convinced that whole the universe is perfect in it's very essence, it is we who are too shortsighted to see it. See the bigger picture, the multidimensional one (cfr. Plato's Cave). |
_________________
By the way Pheadrus, do we need anybody to tell us what is good and what is bad?
NAF n°: 21249 |
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 19:31 |
|
| El_Jairo wrote: |
IMHO what scientist call the Big-Bang can be seen as a start of crevolution. That was the cause which made everything evolve in the way it does nowadays. This is not predestined as there is the undeniable fact of free will.
If you look at all this from 'God's' (= All-That-Is) point of view: there is no such thing as time or space during the creation but inside the univesity we have time so we percieve evolution.
|
Actually "free will" is an oxymoron. We always make the decision we think is the best (for whatever reasons even if it is for the pure purpose of proving that "I got a free will"). The real question is "how does our brains decide what the best choice is?". |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 20:16 |
|
| El_Jairo wrote: | | This is not predestined as there is the undeniable fact of free will. |
Are you sure about that? I'm quite happy to deny it any time you like.
In any case, there's probably nothing to be gained from arguing the point, since you are most likely predetermined to believe in free will come what may ... |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi  |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2006 - 21:48 |
|
Taffsadar:
Thank you for digging up the specific evidence on this one. I thought I had to pull up the standard counter to the "there is no such thing as half an eye"-argument typically brought forward by Jehova`s witnesses, when they show up on your door-step (usually 8am Saturday - practically in the middle of the night) and try to drag you into an argument over the bible.
Maybe when I have some time and really nothing better to do I can give you some examples about circuit evolution - fascinating.
For the casual reading I can really recommend "The Science of Discworld" by Terry Pratchet, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen - despite the title a nice uncommon approach to alot of scientific questions at every time perfectly understandable even for non-scientific folks. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blackbox Teams
Search
