 |
 | 2 Likes | Search this Thread |
| 06-01-2010, 06:36 AM | #256 |
|
Hi Jeffkrol,  Quote: Actually without "faith" that is strictly hearsay (not heresy) From there you can look at the historical evidence of various creation accounts, which ofcourse add to the evidence for special creation. Quote: Something made everything does not preclude evolution. Quote: Actually I find a "God" that started a plan and have it "evolve" on its own merits is more "wondrous" then a slam bam thank you man creation of a species... What I mean by that is where the information in the genome is increased through mutation and natural selection, which is what evolution requires. Quote: That we can only envision an either or at this time is more a reflection on our own limited understanding... Quote: On a lighter note I see a wonderful evolutionary picture of dinosaurs begetting chickens....... Ornithology Lecture Notes 1 - Introduction to Birds & Flight No actual dino-feathers have been found? Also, I'd like to ask your opinion on the image of Haplocheirus sollers entitled "EARLY BIRD". Besides the 'proto-feathers' and the stork-like paint job, which is obviously artistic embellishment, what's the thing that is most bird-like about thge animal in the drawing? It's the feet right? Those look like chicken's feet. What's missing in the diagram of the remains that were discovered? The feet. Don't you think that's misleading? Afterall if you painted that thing dark green, dropped the proto-feathers, since they're not actually part of the fossil find, and left out the feet (obscured behind a rock perhaps). How would that affect the credibility of that being a bird ancestor? Quote: Every religion has a creation mythos.. teaching everyone would be impossible and really left to the parents or private concerns. Teaching creationism alongside the secular theories at it's root level (ie "something" created matter/energy) is fine but once you inject things like "the true God" you run into major problems of a cultural bias and it becomes more divisive then unifying in the global context.... The Abrahamic religions, i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have the same creation account. So by teaching evolution as well as special creation you've covered about 85% of all people in the world. That's not half bad. Just the Abrahamic religions make up more than 55% so if cultural bias is the motivation then actually Special Creation should never have been removed. | |
| 06-01-2010, 06:38 AM | #257 |
|
JeyesFluid: Quote: So evolution is directionless, then. I fully agree, which is actually yet another argument against the falsifiability of evolution. So if your dates don't match up well with regard to the geologic column, you can postulate reverse-evolution for a while and then some more positive-evolution. Anything's possible afterall. To say evolution is directionless is to say there's no end-goal, or none that we can perceive at this point. This doesn't mean that the mechanics of evolution aren't directionless, nor that evolution isn't falsifiable. A deeper, more complete understanding of evolution moves you away from 'survival of the fittest' and 'the selfish gene', though these concepts do play a role. Rather, every species constantly occupies and presses against its ecological niche, and co-evolves with its fellow species. To a human sometimes the process and result seems counter-intuitive, yet it exists and can be demonstrated. The history of science is full of mistakes, errors in thought, false premises, and plain stupidity. This is its strength. As difficult as it is sometimes, falsifiability and the generation of hypothetical theories is an intrinsic part of the scientific method. And yes, human emotions and ambition leads to over-enthusiastic identifications and pronouncements that in the long run prove false. Again, this is not a flaw but a purposeful aspect of the methodology. | |
| 06-01-2010, 06:46 AM | #258 |
| 06-01-2010, 06:58 AM | #259 |
Originally posted by JeyesFluid  I'm sure God could do that if He wanted to, but as yet we haven't really observed evolution happening. What I mean by that is where the information in the genome is increased through mutation and natural selection, which is what evolution requires. Perhaps that should suffice to refute what you assert. However, what's happening is that gradually, with new knowledge and experiments, the traditional 'gene only' model itself is undergoing... evolution. The 'junk DNA' and mitochondrial material, etc. is beginning to be appreciated. Just as important to the appearance and function of a living organism, if not more so, are the control mechanisms that sequence the turning on or off of gene expression. Originally posted by JeyesFluid Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the pantheistic religions such as Hindu generally accept evolution, so they're already covered? The Abrahamic religions, i.e. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have the same creation account. So by teaching evolution as well as special creation you've covered about 85% of all people in the world. That's not half bad. Just the Abrahamic religions make up more than 55% so if cultural bias is the motivation then actually Special Creation should never have been removed The cultural bias comes in when it's other people's beliefs: these are primitive stories concocted by primitive people to deal with a dangerous and unknown world. However, our stories are true, given to us by the one true God. The popularity argument is also a false one - for popularity doesn't make something true. If e=mc2 is true, it doesn't matter how many believe or understand it, and it was true before Einstein. The same goes for religious belief: would a Christian not argue that the Word of God is true even if only a very few people believed it? And, it was true before anyone wrote it down or collected it in a book. Since you bring up the Hindu - we should be teaching reincarnation as a theory, as the majority of humans over time have believed in reincarnation. Reincarnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Overall 22% of respondents in Western Europe believe in reincarnation. According to a 2005 Gallup poll 20 percent of U.S. adults believe in reincarnation" __________ Some interesting polling results are here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm Last edited by Nesster; 06-01-2010 at 07:13 AM. | |
| 06-01-2010, 07:14 AM | #260 |
| Originally posted by JeyesFluid . no feathers.... Falcarius, Killer Dinos Turned Vegetarian - Utah Geological Survey Quote: Skin impressions from the type specimen of B. inexpectus indicated that the body was covered predominately by downy feather-like fibers, similar to those of Sinosauropteryx, but longer, and are oriented perpendicular to the arm. Xu et al., who described the specimen, suggested that these downy feathers represent an intermediate stage between Sinosauropteryx and more advanced birds (Avialae). Creation "myths" are not as unified in the Christian/Abrahamic world as you make them out to be Quote: Demiurge Main article: Demiurge A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in Bernard de Montfaucon's L'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures may be a depiction of the Demiurge; however, cf. Mithraic Zervan Akarana [46] The term Demiurge derives from the Latinized form of the Greek term dēmiourgos, δημιουργός, (literally "public or skilled worker") and refers to an entity responsible for the creation of the physical universe and the physical aspect of humanity. The term dēmiourgos occurs in a number of other religious and philosophical systems, most notably Platonism. Moral judgements of the demiurge vary from group to group within the broad category of gnosticism - such judgements usually correspond to each group's judgement of the status of materiality as being inherently evil, or else merely flawed and as good as its passive constituent matter will allow. Like Plato does, Gnosticism presents a distinction between a supranatural, unknowable reality and the sensible materiality of which the demiurge is creator. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the Supreme God: his act of creation either in unconscious and fundamentally flawed imitation of the divine model, or else formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil. In the Apocryphon of John (several versions of which are found in the Nag Hammadi library), the Demiurge has the name "Yaltabaoth", and proclaims himself as God: "Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come." "Samael", in the Judeo-Christian tradition, refers to the evil angel of death, and corresponds to the Christian demon of that name, one second only to Satan[citation needed]. Literally, it can mean "blind god" or "god of the blind" in Aramaic (Syriac sæmʕa-ʔel); another alternative title is "Saklas", Aramaic for "fool" (Syriac sækla "the foolish one"). Gnostic myth recounts that Sophia (Greek, literally meaning "wisdom"), the Demiurge's mother and a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or "Fullness", desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place. The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia's power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See Sethian Gnosticism.) Some Gnostic philosophers identify the Demiurge with Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, in opposition and contrast to the God of the New Testament. Still others equated the being with Satan. Catharism apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism. Quote: The opening passages of the Book of Genesis consecutively contain two creation stories. In the first story God progressively creates the different features of the world over a series of six days, resting on the seventh day.[4] Creation is performed by divine incantation: on the first day God says "Let there be light!" and light appears. On the second day God creates an expanse (firmament) to separate the waters above (the sky) from those below (the ocean/abyssos). On the third day God commands the waters below to recede and make dry land appear, and fills the earth with vegetation. God then puts lights in the sky to separate day from night to mark the seasons. On the fifth day, God creates sea creatures and birds of every kind and commands them to procreate. On the sixth day, God creates land creatures of every kind. Man and woman are created last, after the entire world is prepared for them; they are created in the image of God, and are given dominion and care over all other created things. God rests on the seventh and final day of creation, which he marks as holy. In the second story the creation of man follows the creation of the heavens and earth, but occurs before the creation of plants and animals.[5] God takes earth (adamah, ochre) from the ground to form a man and breathes life into him. God prepares a garden in the East of Eden and puts the man there, then fills it with trees bearing fruit for him to eat. The man is invited to eat the fruit of any tree but one: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God commands man not to eat of that one tree "for when you eat of it you will surely die."[6] Birds and animals are then created as man's companions and helpers, and God presents them to the man. The first man gives names to each one, but finds none suitable to be his helper, so God puts him into a deep sleep and removes one of his ribs, which he uses to make the first woman. "For this reason," the text reads, "a man will leave his father and mother for his wife, and they shall be joined as one flesh." | |
| 06-01-2010, 07:29 AM | #261 |
| 06-01-2010, 08:07 AM | #262 |
| Originally posted by Nesster I could see, with Rupertian glee, making these two creation stories the next lizard! Can someone repeat that wolf/whale story, Mr Kitty is asking for it.....he likes it better than the Lizard fiasco! After that line of crapola, I'm surprised you guys even show up here! Regards! | |
| 06-01-2010, 08:18 AM | #263 |
| 06-01-2010, 08:29 AM | #264 |
|
Mr Kitty loved the story and thanks you profusely! He asks if you have the one where God took a pig and crossed it with a pigeon brain to make a Rush man? He knows it must exist, but hasn't heard it yet? Regards!  | |
| 06-01-2010, 08:36 AM | #265 |
|
Hi Nesster, It's great reading a clean eloquent response. The problem I have with the directionlessness of evolution is that you can literally take a group of species, sort them into various orders based on which particular criterium (be it bone structure, the inner ear, number of fingers, wing design) you choose to look at, change the order to ascending, descending or any combination and claim that it happened that way, and there isn't much that'll prove you wrong based on the existing paradigm, even though your particular model may have a herbivore, becoming a carnivore, becoming a herbivore again. Don't you find that problematic? It is this very phenomena that cause drastic ancestry changes, from wolves to hippos in the field of whale evolution. Evolution has no pattern, no definite beginning and no definite end. Can you think of any imaginable species that could possibly be discovered that could falsify the theory of evolution? I've asked RatMagicLady this question as well. Quote: Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection Perhaps that should suffice to refute what you assert. I fully agree that there are beneficial mutations. Wingless bug don't get blown into the sea. Sickle cell anemia prevents malaria attacking red blood cells. Both these examples are mutation that are beneficial, but it shows a decrease in genetic information or the use of existing genetic material. But for evolution to be true, you need an increase in genetic information. You need the code for a wing in other to have a wing, or the code for an eye in order to see. For primordial soup to become people like you and me, you need an enormous amount of information to be added to the bacteriums genome. Let me talk about some of the beneficial mutations in the list that you've posted: With regard to temperature resistance. The e.coli genepool contains bacteria with various temperature resistances already. By decreasing or increasing the temperature you're causing the ones that have the more suitable resistance to thrive and the others die off. You've culled the unsuitable ones and selectively bred the more suitable ones, but you haven't added any genetic information that wasn't in the genepool to begin with. With regard to adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas Notice this sentence, "This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light." I presume that these algae possibly already possess the capability to synthethise acetate because they already grow in almost dark conditions. No new genetic information has been added. Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas Typically this sort of thing is caused by a malfunctioning growth inhibiting gene, in which case this is a decrease of genetic information causing a beneficial malfunction. I hope you understand where I'm coming from with this, but I'd like to comment on gene duplication as well, because many times people will say Down's syndrome shows an increase in the genome, but duplicating existing information doesn't add new information. In the list of beneficial mutation there are some that mention gene duplication as well (6 and 7). Point 8 refers to intragenic recombination. Again this doesn't add information it's a reordering of certain genetic elements. It can have beneficial mutations in the sense where a digestion selector would fail allowing things to be absorbed as food that aren't normally allowed. This would be beneficial under certain conditions but in the wild such a feature would be disadvantageous because of toxins etc. This is how bacterial resistance to antibiotics works. The bacterium pumps the antibiotic into it's system as food and the anti-biotic kills it. Some bacterium have malfunctioning pumps so they're less likely to pump the poison that kills them into their system. Again you don't have an increase in genetic information, but a decrease causing a malfunction. In an anti-biotic rich environment these bacteria are fitter, because they don't get poisoned, but in the wild they're at a disadvantage because their food intake is decreased. Quote: The 'junk DNA' and mitochondrial material, etc. is beginning to be appreciated. More importantly this is a prediction of evolution shown to be false. If evolution is true most of all creature's genomes should really be junk, right? The the fact that we're discovering function shows that the entire genome seems to be in use. Natural selection wouldn't select against harmless junk so there won't be any mechanism to strip away useless genetic material. I believe this is a big problem for evolution, but is quite consistent with design. Quote: The popularity argument is also a false one - for popularity doesn't make something true. If e=mc2 is true, it doesn't matter how many believe or understand it, and it was true before Einstein. The same goes for religious belief: would a Christian not argue that the Word of God is true even if only a very few people believed it? And, it was true before anyone wrote it down or collected it in a book. Quote: Since you bring up the Hindu - we should be teaching reincarnation as a theory, as the majority of humans over time have believed in reincarnation. 'Reincarnation' is not the answer to: "Where did everything come from?" Kind regards | |
| 06-01-2010, 08:47 AM | #266 |
| Originally posted by Rupert Mr Kitty loved the story and thanks you profusely! He asks if you have the one where God took a pig and crossed it with a pigeon brain to make a Rush man? He knows it must exist, but hasn't heard it yet? Regards!  That Rush man thing gave me the biggest laugh all week, thanks!---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 12:16 PM ---------- Originally posted by JeyesFluid The problem I have with the directionlessness of evolution is that you can literally take a group of species, sort them into various orders based on which particular criterium (be it bone structure, the inner ear, number of fingers, wing design) you choose to look at, change the order to ascending, descending or any combination and claim that it happened that way, and there isn't much that'll prove you wrong based on the existing paradigm, even though your particular model may have a herbivore, becoming a carnivore, becoming a herbivore again. Don't you find that problematic? It is this very phenomena that cause drastic ancestry changes, from wolves to hippos in the field of whale evolution. Evolution has no pattern, no definite beginning and no definite end. Can you think of any imaginable species that could possibly be discovered that could falsify the theory of evolution? I've asked RatMagicLady this question as well. Another issue here - many alternative classification methods are possible, and to be desired. Imagine a library or book store with only one way to find a given book. The fact that various physical methods can yield different results doesn't necessarily undermine evolution, only those methods.\ Quote: I get this response fairly often, and I fully blame Kent Hovind for it. He claimed there are no beneficial mutations and so whenever creationists talk about an information increase people automatically reach for a list of beneficial mutations, but that's not what we're arguing. I fully agree that there are beneficial mutations. Wingless bug don't get blown into the sea. Sickle cell anemia prevents malaria attacking red blood cells. Both these examples are mutation that are beneficial, but it shows a decrease in genetic information or the use of existing genetic material. But for evolution to be true, you need an increase in genetic information. You need the code for a wing in other to have a wing, or the code for an eye in order to see. For primordial soup to become people like you and me, you need an enormous amount of information to be added to the bacteriums genome. More specifically, it is a test for one of the proposed mechanisms - one that seems to be the most widely held as valid, currently. There are a couple of problems with this: our incomplete and perhaps mistaken standard genetic model may not be congruent with the true way things evolve. Also, the underlying assumption here is an analogy to text - prose - and computer science. The only source of new information is if you create new words, new 0's and 1's. This however is probably not how nature operates, as pointed out by the study of complexity and chaos. Consider a couple of the simpler atoms, hydrogen and oxygen. One may argue that the 'text' of H2O has no new information, yet the combined molecule has emergent properties. When I think about these things, there's one obvious direction to existence: for light and matter to recombine so as to occupy every stable (and many unstable) configuration possible. Thus I think e.g. carbon chemistry and life based on it is inevitable. As I mention stability - there's some evidence that this is something that occurs in life, not just chemistry and physics. So a given form tends to a stable biological structure, and once pushed off this stable oasis, may then fairly rapidly swing to a different stable structure. There's also the role played by sexual selection - Darwin's other theory that doesn't get the press it deserves. It works sort of like the shorthand conservative and liberal jibes we get here - an 'artificial' differentiator that ensures a given population doesn't interbreed (Carville and Matalin aside) with another. It also drives a huge amount of behavioral and structural variation. Quote: I'm glad you mention this, because I believe this is one of the big problems in evolution that are now being rectified. Misunderstood genetic code was simply written off as junk DNA. Belief in evolution in this instance has actually slowed research of this. More importantly this is a prediction of evolution shown to be false. If evolution is true most of all creature's genomes should really be junk, right? The the fact that we're discovering function shows that the entire genome seems to be in use. Natural selection wouldn't select against harmless junk so there won't be any mechanism to strip away useless genetic material. I believe this is a big problem for evolution, but is quite consistent with design. If anything, Nature seems to be conservative and parsimonius. If you can get the same mechanism to do 100 things instead of 1, you have an advantage. | |
| 06-01-2010, 01:41 PM | #267 |
| Quote: Mr. Kitty and Mrs. Rupert look alike, I think. Both very fetching. Best Regards! | |
| 06-01-2010, 02:41 PM | #268 |
| Originally posted by JeyesFluid Likewise, I look at the universe and I posit a Creator, because I don't see that the material universe can explain its own existence. Originally posted by JeyesFluid Unfortunately the peer review process has become an excuse for rejecting anything with a hint of creationism out of hand. This is why you'll find creationists publishing only evo-friendly or evo-neutral papers in mainstream journals. BTW, do you happen to have any interest in photography or are you here just for P&R? ---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 04:03 PM ---------- Originally posted by Nesster On the other hand, science hasn't settled on a comprehensive explanation and mechanism for gravity either. And I can't off hand think of anything that could be discovered to falsify the theory of gravity. | |
| 06-02-2010, 08:23 AM | #269 |
|
Hi traderdrew, Thanks for posting the YouTube debate link. I've seen the argument before and I agree, mathematically the odds against whales evolving from hippo's, pigs, wolves or any such creature are simply staggering. Quote: Evolution has explained certain things. Darwinian evolution still seems to be the mainstream explanation embraced by the scientific community. Quote: Accoriding to the scientific community, science MUST seek totally materialistic explanations for phenomenon. Quote: Not all scientists are proponents of Darwinian evolution. Dr. Richard Sternberg who had a small part in the movie "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" believes in some kind of evolution but says Darwinian model falls way short of explaining things such as the evolution of whales. Kind regards ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi Jeffkrol, Quote: Quote: no feathers.... Skin impressions from the type specimen of B. inexpectus indicated that the body was covered predominately by downy feather-like fibers, similar to those of Sinosauropteryx, but longer, and are oriented perpendicular to the arm. Xu et al., who described the specimen, suggested that these downy feathers represent an intermediate stage between Sinosauropteryx and more advanced birds (Avialae). If the fibres on Beipiaosaurus are similar then we can only conclude that those are probably also collagen fibres. I'm not going to respond indepth to your other comments regarding creaton myths and the like, otherwise it's going to become a discussion on Biblical inerrancy etc. I'm going to give you the super condensed answer. Similarities between Christianity is often a case of: a) Totally made up nonsence like in Zeitgeist. b) That Christian elements were introduced into these other religions. Quote: The opening passages of the Book of Genesis consecutively contain two creation stories. Kind regards ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi Nesster, Quote: True enough. On the other hand, science hasn't settled on a comprehensive explanation and mechanism for gravity either. And I can't off hand think of anything that could be discovered to falsify the theory of gravity. "I have to agree with David Berlinski: It's amazing how often evolution is said to be just as real as gravity, but you won't often hear physicists saying gravity is as real as evolution The difference is ofcourse that I can go into a lab and test gravity or in my backyard, we have yet to see mutation and random selection actually increasing the amount of information in a species' genome, which is what evolution requires." The comment by David Berlinski may seem a little flippant, but the point is that also evolutionary theory and gravitational theory are both called theories they clearly in seperate categories. Evolution falls under origins science, whereas theories on gravity fall under operational science. Operational science can be called 'real' science. This is the everyday stuff you can test in a lab, and even unproven theories such as those relating to gravity or Boyle's law etc. fall under this category. One can make predictions, conduct tests etc. using these theories. Evolution, on the other hand, falls under origins science, which deals with history. Obviously history cannot be tested and isn't repeatable. Quote: OK, fair enough. So added information or additional genetic material is a test for evolution. Quote: More specifically, it is a test for one of the proposed mechanisms - one that seems to be the most widely held as valid, currently. There are a couple of problems with this: our incomplete and perhaps mistaken standard genetic model may not be congruent with the true way things evolve. Also doesn't that show that the evolutionary paradigm is accepted a priori? Which again underlines how evolution is actually held dogmatically. If I understand you correctly you're appealing to a solution that may be discovered in the future. Quote: Also, the underlying assumption here is an analogy to text - prose - and computer science. The only source of new information is if you create new words, new 0's and 1's. Quote: This however is probably not how nature operates, as pointed out by the study of complexity and chaos. Consider a couple of the simpler atoms, hydrogen and oxygen. One may argue that the 'text' of H2O has no new information, yet the combined molecule has emergent properties. And it's one thing combining molecules such as H2O, but it's a whole different thing combining something as insanely complex such as DNA. Quote: As I mention stability - there's some evidence that this is something that occurs in life, not just chemistry and physics. So a given form tends to a stable biological structure, and once pushed off this stable oasis, may then fairly rapidly swing to a different stable structure. Quote: There's also the role played by sexual selection - Darwin's other theory that doesn't get the press it deserves. It works sort of like the shorthand conservative and liberal jibes we get here - an 'artificial' differentiator that ensures a given population doesn't interbreed (Carville and Matalin aside) with another. It also drives a huge amount of behavioral and structural variation. I'd like to know your thoughts on this: Natural selection would promote features that are pro-survival. Sexual selection would promote feature that are contra-survival. Where natural selection produces camoflage, sexual selection produces bright colours. Doesn't this also show that anything is possible for evolution, thus making it unfalsifiable? Quote: If anything, Nature seems to be conservative and parsimonius. If you can get the same mechanism to do 100 things instead of 1, you have an advantage. Unless there is some mechanism that strips useless DNA, given the mechanisms of evolution being mutation and natural selection we should really see a lot of junk DNA. This is exactly why evolutionists originally predicted junk DNA. Kind regards --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Laurentiu Cristofor, Quote: Quote: Likewise, I look at the universe and I posit a Creator, because I don't see that the material universe can explain its own existence. Here's an excerpt: "...We argue by default not from ignorance. The argument is: If there are only two possible causes for a certain effect and one possibility is shown to be insuffient, then the other possibility is true by default.... So, either something made everything or nothing made everything (it made itself in other words). since nothing is an insufficient cause for the universe, by default, I believe Something made everything." Quote: BTW, do you happen to have any interest in photography or are you here just for P&R? You know, that comment amazes me. What exactly am I promoting? Religion? Most religion related comments came from folks other than I myself. I've been focusing on the theory of evolution...the very topic that you started. Quote: And to bring the "Matrix" example - is the world real, or an illusion? We live under the assumption it's real, but that isn't falsifiable either. Also note that by saying, "...but that isn't falsifiable either" you're actually affirming that evolutionary theory isn't falsifiable. ciao Last edited by JeyesFluid; 06-02-2010 at 08:37 AM. | |
| 06-02-2010, 03:06 PM | #270 |
| Originally posted by JeyesFluid Hi traderdrew, Thanks for posting the YouTube debate link. I've seen the argument before and I agree, mathematically the odds against whales evolving from hippo's, pigs, wolves or any such creature are simply staggering. Hi. Popping in. No, the *odds* aren't *staggering,* ...the *scale* is staggering. The 'odds' are only 'staggering' if you believe in the kind of small, young universe you admit to believe in a priori. *Odds* are that whales and wolves and we are inevitable many millions of times. Even before you stop pretending it's all about some confluence of separate dice throws, which is of course a straw man. Quote: Determining that science must seek only materialistic explanations for everything is a philosophical decision. That's what it's for. Making it less what it is wouldn't make it better at its job. If you want better *metaphysics,* then you want the physics-physics to improve on your Bible's attempt to usurp materialistic claims as 'truthy' ...holding us back further than getting the materialistic part of reality right ever could. You still think 'science' is a prophecy. No wonder you can't think. Quote: I've actually discussed this with RatMagicLady already and pointed out that it's not an argument from ignorance but rather arguing from default. Here's an excerpt: REeeeeallly? I can't wait to see *this* while I've been away... Quote: "...We argue by default not from ignorance. The argument is: If there are only two possible causes for a certain effect and one possibility is shown to be insuffient, then the other possibility is true by default.... So, either something made everything or nothing made everything (it made itself in other words). since nothing is an insufficient cause for the universe, by default, I believe Something made everything." Not understanding that you are using *semantics* to make it seem bigger than it is cause you only lnow one *language...* Doesn't make it smarter. By the way, you guys *act* like willfully-obfuscating understanding of science and promoting these ignorances makes you more spiritual. It doesn't. It makes your *spirituality* more retarded, developmentwise. Not more advanced. More retarded, because it's still trying to batter down real understandings, prevent knowings, not actually to expand people's knowings beyond the material. Frankly, you can't go beyond the material until you know what the material *is.* And the Material is bigger and older than you are willing to think by many orders of magnitude. So don't tell me about the *odds.* Odds are, this is *inevitable.* Spirit says, this is *special.* So stop acting like it is nothing but something poofed into existence by fiat, and as easily disposable. To us.. This is bigger than you can seem to conceive. Even if the universe is bigger than you're ever willing to admit. | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| algorithm, evolution, ideas, mechanism, model, population, science, solution, solutions, theory |
Post #414 by traderdrew 
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Macro My macro evolution: a series | EdMaximus | Post Your Photos! | 7 | 11-12-2009 02:39 PM |
| Evolution (in lenses) | bdery | Pentax SLR Lens Discussion | 11 | 04-24-2009 12:13 AM |
| Evolution | spyglass | Post Your Photos! | 6 | 03-27-2008 10:26 AM |
| K20D - Evolution or Revolution | Katsura | Pentax News and Rumors | 7 | 01-26-2008 03:35 PM |
| Pentax Evolution | benjikan | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 54 | 02-08-2007 11:19 AM |
