|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:20 pm
Goldenlici Lethkar Are you perhaps suggesting that if matter can be neither created nor destroyed, then the big bang couldn't have happened? That doesn't make any sense to me, since as I've already told you the big bang says nothing about the creation of matter. First of all, I was combining my two points about the laws of chemistry and the laws of physics. To believe in the big bang, you have to say that something created the matter or that it always existed (not arguing God here) and that something had to set the forces in motion or the forces always had to be in motion (again, not directly referencing God at this point). And I'm saying the matter was always there and was always in motion. Now how does this disprove Big Bang Theory? Quote: Lethkar I can show you the mathematical process behind carbon dating, though. It's a common textbook problem in algebra. I could also look up the method Sir Fred Hoyle used. The point is that you did not give me the process for carbon dating, but then criticized me for not giving the process for his experiment. I never used carbon dating as evidence for my argument. I merely responded to your criticism of it. I would ask that you outline Sir Fred Hoyle's process for me, because I cannot fathom how he actually came up with an accurate probability for an occurrence in which he doesn't know all of the variables. Quote: Lethkar Of course it's able to happen. If something has a possibility to occur, then it is able to occur. That's what probability is all about. There are a lot of things that you can calculate that don't exist. Calculus will show you that. For example, I can calculate the velocity of a ball as it drops. If I drop the ball from 10 feet in the air, I can still calculate the vertical velocity the ball will have after 15 feet, but in reality, the ball will have no vertical velocity (or negative) because it has hit the ground. To use an example with probability, I can calculate the probability that a metal ball will bounce 20 times based on its mass and the force put into the bounce, but if that ball were over a magnet, it would not bounce at all. However, the probability calculated before the experiment is still valid; it is just not able to happen in reality. The probability calculated is not valid, because it is a probability calculated for an entirely different situation (A situation without a magnet). What you're doing would be like me saying that the chances of getting heads on a coin is 50%, then putting a weight on the tails side and maintaining that the probability is still 50%. Quote: Lethkar Because time exists and in the presence of energy matter changes over time. First, eternity changes our definition of time. Oh? What's our definition of time? Quote: Second, matter does not change at a constant rate because there are other factors to consider. No, but it does change. We're still talking about the Big Bang. Quote: Lethkar No, it went something like this: 1. Hm...Light patterns suggest that everything is getting farther away. 2. I hypothesize that there was a single point from which everything came from. 3. Light pattern angles support my hypothesis. 4th point may just be a misuse of a word, but you know what I mean when I say the word, so the word still holds value.First of all, people were working under the assumption of evolution and so did not attempt to explain the idea in other means. I know you are going to attack me for this, but there is another way to explain the light that I don't remember at the moment. My dad (who works with this light for his job and did his ph.d on this kind of light) told me about it. I will ask him the next time I have a chance (which may be a while because I no longer live with him as I am at college). Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory have absolutely nothing in common. I would avoid trying to suggest otherwise to avoid being seen as ignorant. Let me know when you're dad tells you. There are other hypothesis out here as to why things are getting farther apart, but completely denying the Doppler Effect is something new to me. Quote: Lethkar What about fossil evidence, gene variation between generations,and obvious examples of natural selection? Most of that was after Darwin's book and by another person entirely, but Darwin still stated his theory with little evidence and Darwin's ideas were considered absolutely true because people liked the idea. I'm not arguing for Darwin's evolution. I'm arguing for modern evolutionary theory. And honestly, as a believer of Intelligent Design I find it hilarious that you're accusing me of finding evidence with the intent to back an unsupported hypothesis that is accepted as absolutely true. Quote: Lethkar I'd love to see your source, since you didn't change it to plants last time. And scientists often take things like natural disasters into account when dating. Ice cores help a lot. Honestly, my source is my dad who lived in Washington at the time and learned all about it. I trust my dad the same way you trust your teachers, but I could go look it up. So could you. I have before. I've head of this mysterious experiment numerous times, though it's always involved rocks. Quote: As for ice cores, they can be thrown off just like anything else. Of course, but that's not the only way to collect information about historic geology. When the ice cores, layers of sediment, and fossils all agree with each other then it's a pretty convincing set of data. Quote: Lethkar Flimsier scales, maybe. But they do get more surface area covered in scales. Their stomachs become less vulnerable, since as we know birds are covered in feathers whereas reptiles' stomachs are not covered. And the longer scales would probably be more intimidating to a predator. They would not be intimidating at first, but would hinder movement quickly. If the change took hundreds of years, Try millions. Quote: the predators would have killed off the crippled lizards long before their scales got large enough to be intimidating. Also, lizards are still very small and there are a lot of predators that would not have been intimidated by a few extra inches of scales. Yes, but given an option between running a little bit faster for an easier prey and having to fight for your meal, running takes a lot less energy. Plus, the other lizards are much easier to eat and probably provide more sustenance. After all, birds are much lighter than reptiles. Quote: Lethkar You took that out of context. The guy asked if birds evolved from reptiles, why aren't there reptiles with wings today. I replied by saying that there actually were. And I could make an argument that this species could easily be yet another branch of birds' early ancestors. A correlation of wings between reptiles and birds is certainly evidence for them being related. Then you also have to say that because lizards have a tail, dogs must be related to them. And, because modern fish have eyes we have the same ancestor. This may sound good to you, but you have to consider the fact that you are calling for a direct ancestor because of one trait. This idea is not supported by evolution because it would require animals to have much more common ancestors then would be possible. It would be like saying that because my dog has two ears and I have two ears we have the same grandmother. Nonetheless: Wings are a complicated and major structure in the anatomy of birds. It's a defining characteristic of them. It's more like claiming that because kangaroos and koalas both have pouches that they might be related, since it's a characteristic unique to marsupials. If I then found fossils that supported this idea, I might consider them to be related.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:22 pm
Lethkar And I'm saying the matter was always there and was always in motion. Now how does this disprove Big Bang Theory? Because essentially, the big bang theory does not include these ideas of eternity. Adding eternity to the mix creates a whole new set of ideas, such as why there even has to be a "starting point" for eternity. Lethkar I never used carbon dating as evidence for my argument. I merely responded to your criticism of it. So? You still began to use the idea without detailing it. I am not saying it is necessary, in fact I am saying it is not necessary. We have a general understanding of the concept. I am assuming that Hoyle would have been a biologist who understood the chances of different molecules combining. I don't know the exact process because I could not do it. But I do know a similar formula used in chemistry, which looks at the average speed of molecules, the force required to fuse molecules, and the types of forces associated with each molecule. Lethkar I would ask that you outline Sir Fred Hoyle's process for me, because I cannot fathom how he actually came up with an accurate probability for an occurrence in which he doesn't know all of the variables. The probability calculated is not valid, because it is a probability calculated for an entirely different situation (A situation without a magnet). What you're doing would be like me saying that the chances of getting heads on a coin is 50%, then putting a weight on the tails side and maintaining that the probability is still 50%. First of all, the probability is completely valid because without the magnet that would be true. Have you taken calculus yet? If you have, you know that mathematicians can calculate all sorts of things that aren't realistic. As for not knowing all the variables, that is kind of my point. Scientists use carbon dating and other methods without knowing all the things in the past. There is no possible way for a scientist to know all the variables for something that happened thousands of years ago. Yes, through ice cores they can see some things, but they can not know everything. The magnet could be hidden, so to speak. Lethkar Oh? What's our definition of time? There are dozens of different definitions, but the basic idea is the relationship between two different events. Generally speaking time is measured by change: change of location of the sun, change of our bodies as we grow, change of place. Eternity would interfere with that idea because there would be no definite event with which to begin comparing other events and how would you know if something has changed if you do not know what it was before. For example, how do we know for sure that the light did not always exist as it did if we do not know how it started out as. Lethkar I'm not arguing for Darwin's evolution. I'm arguing for modern evolutionary theory. And honestly, as a believer of Intelligent Design I find it hilarious that you're accusing me of finding evidence with the intent to back an unsupported hypothesis that is accepted as absolutely true. Why is that hilarious? That is what all scientists do in one way or another. They find evidence for a hypothesis. Their hypothesis is based on some other knowledge or belief and then they try to support it. If they knew their hypothesis was true already, then they wouldn't need to go find support for it. I am not saying I don't do the same thing; I am only saying that science is much more similar to religion than most people want to admit. Lethkar I have before. I've head of this mysterious experiment numerous times, though it's always involved rocks. If what you say is true, then the experiments could not have been done on rocks because you can not do carbon dating on rocks. Lethkar Of course, but that's not the only way to collect information about historic geology. When the ice cores, layers of sediment, and fossils all agree with each other then it's a pretty convincing set of data. By what standard? I see a mountain in Asia, a mountain in Europe, and a mountain in North America, so I assume they were all created at the same time. Yes, there is more "science" involved in your examples, but the basic idea is still the same. Things that happen in one thing and in another do not always happen at the same time. And, even if they did, they could have all been thrown off by the same event, such as the flood of Noah. Lethkar Flimsier scales, maybe. But they do get more surface area covered in scales. Their stomachs become less vulnerable, since as we know birds are covered in feathers whereas reptiles' stomachs are not covered. And the longer scales would probably be more intimidating to a predator. Goldenlici They would not be intimidating at first, but would hinder movement quickly. If the change took hundreds of years, I was trying to show that even in hundreds of years it would be unlikely, but if you want to bring in millions of years, fine. That just makes it even harder to believe because then you are saying that these lizards had this disadvantage for a longer period of time. Lethkar Yes, but given an option between running a little bit faster for an easier prey and having to fight for your meal, running takes a lot less energy. Plus, the other lizards are much easier to eat and probably provide more sustenance. After all, birds are much lighter than reptiles. Again, the hunters at the time would have been a lot larger than tiny lizards and would not have had to fight at all. Also, size is not always a big factor as far as carnivores are concerned. Many hunters go for animals bigger then themselves, and so something smaller would hardly pose any threat. Finally, an animal when given a chance between an easy meal that may not be as filling or a little bit more filling meal (probably only by a couple grams of meat) that you have to chase, the animal would probably take down the easy lizard. Lehtkar Nonetheless: Wings are a complicated and major structure in the anatomy of birds. It's a defining characteristic of them. It's more like claiming that because kangaroos and koalas both have pouches that they might be related, since it's a characteristic unique to marsupials. If I then found fossils that supported this idea, I might consider them to be related. How do you determine which traits are "a complicated and major structure"? I could consider a tail a major structure of a lizard because it helps it move. I could consider the pouch as an irrelevant structure because it is not complex. Birds also have many other anatomical parts that can not be so easily related to lizards, such as their beaks. zz1000zz Intelligent Design is supposedly a scientific theory. This means it is constrained to the realm of science. Science willingly states it cannot explain why existence exists. Science, and consequently Intelligent Design, does not deal with what was before the Big Bang. Intelligent Design is the theory that something designed the universe to be the way it is, and more specifically, that God created it. Intelligent Design does not even believe in the Big Bang, so technically yes, it does not care what came before something that it does not believe in. zz1000zz Science is apathetic towards what came before the Big Bang. If some God was around before then, it does not care, because it could not know. Discussing this issue is discussing a theological point, which is not part of Intelligent Design. It is irrelevant. If God was around before the Big Bang, then you would believe in God, which would include where he says he created the heavens and the earth in seven days. Intelligent Design is based on a theological point! However, if you would prefer I be more specific, I will say Creationism, but then I would suggest you use the correct term (the modern evolutionary synthesis) and not "evolution" because evolution is an entirely different word. Evolution is simply a change (you can check dictionary.com) and does not in itself imply all the ideas of Darwin and his successors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:50 pm
Goldenlici zz1000zz Intelligent Design is supposedly a scientific theory. This means it is constrained to the realm of science. Science willingly states it cannot explain why existence exists. Science, and consequently Intelligent Design, does not deal with what was before the Big Bang. Intelligent Design is the theory that something designed the universe to be the way it is, and more specifically, that God created it. Intelligent Design does not even believe in the Big Bang, so technically yes, it does not care what came before something that it does not believe in. No it is not. What you describe is creationism. Intelligent Design specifically states the universe as it currently exists could not have formed without divine intervention. Creationism believes in divine intervention, but does not state it is the only possibility. The two are not interchangeable, and Intelligent Design is not theological. Goldenlici zz1000zz Science is apathetic towards what came before the Big Bang. If some God was around before then, it does not care, because it could not know. Discussing this issue is discussing a theological point, which is not part of Intelligent Design. It is irrelevant. If God was around before the Big Bang, then you would believe in God, which would include where he says he created the heavens and the earth in seven days. Intelligent Design is based on a theological point! However, if you would prefer I be more specific, I will say Creationism, but then I would suggest you use the correct term (the modern evolutionary synthesis) and not "evolution" because evolution is an entirely different word. Evolution is simply a change (you can check dictionary.com) and does not in itself imply all the ideas of Darwin and his successors. As it happens, I would greatly prefer if you used the term creationism. It is the proper term. I happen to respect creationism as a legitimate set of beliefs. You have taken offense with my criticism of Intelligent Design by applying the criticisms to another topic. Intelligent Design is not what you claim it to be. Also as it happens, the term "evolution" is perfectly appropriate. Evolution is the scientifically accepted term. Some definition from a random dictionary could never change this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:14 pm
zz1000zz Goldenlici zz1000zz Intelligent Design is supposedly a scientific theory. This means it is constrained to the realm of science. Science willingly states it cannot explain why existence exists. Science, and consequently Intelligent Design, does not deal with what was before the Big Bang. Intelligent Design is the theory that something designed the universe to be the way it is, and more specifically, that God created it. Intelligent Design does not even believe in the Big Bang, so technically yes, it does not care what came before something that it does not believe in. No it is not. What you describe is creationism. Intelligent Design specifically states the universe as it currently exists could not have formed without divine intervention. Creationism believes in divine intervention, but does not state it is the only possibility. The two are not interchangeable, and Intelligent Design is not theological. Goldenlici zz1000zz Science is apathetic towards what came before the Big Bang. If some God was around before then, it does not care, because it could not know. Discussing this issue is discussing a theological point, which is not part of Intelligent Design. It is irrelevant. If God was around before the Big Bang, then you would believe in God, which would include where he says he created the heavens and the earth in seven days. Intelligent Design is based on a theological point! However, if you would prefer I be more specific, I will say Creationism, but then I would suggest you use the correct term (the modern evolutionary synthesis) and not "evolution" because evolution is an entirely different word. Evolution is simply a change (you can check dictionary.com) and does not in itself imply all the ideas of Darwin and his successors. As it happens, I would greatly prefer if you used the term creationism. It is the proper term. I happen to respect creationism as a legitimate set of beliefs. You have taken offense with my criticism of Intelligent Design by applying the criticisms to another topic. Intelligent Design is not what you claim it to be. Also as it happens, the term "evolution" is perfectly appropriate. Evolution is the scientifically accepted term. Some definition from a random dictionary could never change this. First of all, I do understand intelligent design and the points I made about it apply whether I was speaking of creationism or another type. Second, Creationism specifically comes from the Bible and states very clearly that God "created" the world and the term comes directly from the verse in the Bible. So, yes, divine intervention is the only way under creationism. As for the word "evolution," it has exactly the same problems as "Intelligent Design." "Evolution" as described by Darwin is actually pretty different from the modern theory. There are all sorts of holes in Darwin's evolution that have been modified by the modern evolutionary synthesis. I believe very much in the definition of the word "evolution," so whether we are talking about "evolution" or "the modern evolutionary synthesis" makes a big difference. Just because teachers incorrectly use this word to describe a very complex theory in class does not mean that it is the proper term. And, since you would prefer I be very specific, I only ask that you do me the same courtesy. Finally, if you have an actual fact to present or point to make, please make it. Attacking me is no way to go about a scientific discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:28 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:58 am
Goldenlici zz1000zz Goldenlici zz1000zz Intelligent Design is supposedly a scientific theory. This means it is constrained to the realm of science. Science willingly states it cannot explain why existence exists. Science, and consequently Intelligent Design, does not deal with what was before the Big Bang. Intelligent Design is the theory that something designed the universe to be the way it is, and more specifically, that God created it. Intelligent Design does not even believe in the Big Bang, so technically yes, it does not care what came before something that it does not believe in. No it is not. What you describe is creationism. Intelligent Design specifically states the universe as it currently exists could not have formed without divine intervention. Creationism believes in divine intervention, but does not state it is the only possibility. The two are not interchangeable, and Intelligent Design is not theological. Goldenlici zz1000zz Science is apathetic towards what came before the Big Bang. If some God was around before then, it does not care, because it could not know. Discussing this issue is discussing a theological point, which is not part of Intelligent Design. It is irrelevant. If God was around before the Big Bang, then you would believe in God, which would include where he says he created the heavens and the earth in seven days. Intelligent Design is based on a theological point! However, if you would prefer I be more specific, I will say Creationism, but then I would suggest you use the correct term (the modern evolutionary synthesis) and not "evolution" because evolution is an entirely different word. Evolution is simply a change (you can check dictionary.com) and does not in itself imply all the ideas of Darwin and his successors. As it happens, I would greatly prefer if you used the term creationism. It is the proper term. I happen to respect creationism as a legitimate set of beliefs. You have taken offense with my criticism of Intelligent Design by applying the criticisms to another topic. Intelligent Design is not what you claim it to be. Also as it happens, the term "evolution" is perfectly appropriate. Evolution is the scientifically accepted term. Some definition from a random dictionary could never change this. First of all, I do understand intelligent design and the points I made about it apply whether I was speaking of creationism or another type. That you refer to creationism as a "type" of Intelligent Design shows you do not understand what Intelligent Design is. Goldenlici Second, Creationism specifically comes from the Bible and states very clearly that God "created" the world and the term comes directly from the verse in the Bible. So, yes, divine intervention is the only way under creationism. Creationism does not come from the Bible. Creationism is a category of beliefs that exist in a multitude of theologies. Beyond that, creationism says divine intervention is responsible for the current existence, but it does not say this is the only explanation possible. It just says it is the "correct" one. Intelligent Design says it is the only explanation possible, and that is why Intelligent Design is wrong. Goldenlici As for the word "evolution," it has exactly the same problems as "Intelligent Design." "Evolution" as described by Darwin is actually pretty different from the modern theory. There are all sorts of holes in Darwin's evolution that have been modified by the modern evolutionary synthesis. I believe very much in the definition of the word "evolution," so whether we are talking about "evolution" or "the modern evolutionary synthesis" makes a big difference. Just because teachers incorrectly use this word to describe a very complex theory in class does not mean that it is the proper term. And, since you would prefer I be very specific, I only ask that you do me the same courtesy. Teachers do not use "evolution" incorrectly. The word's meaning has adapted over time, as do all words. Your argument here is silly. Goldenlici Finally, if you have an actual fact to present or point to make, please make it. Attacking me is no way to go about a scientific discussion. I have not "attacked" you. I have already presented the only facts that are relevant. The only issue here is your misuse of "creationism" and "Intelligent Design." Nothing you have said to me has any bearing on Intelligent Design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:32 pm
zz1000zz, I apologize if I have offended you in some way; that was not my intention. I only wish to keep the debate about the facts. Creationism: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. I am not saying that is the only so called "creation myth" out there, but the other ones are not typically called "Creationism" (capital "C"). And, if they are it was because that is a label that Europeans/Americans with backgrounds in Catholicism gave them. I am sure the other religions did not even have the English word "creation." However, I will state this now to avoid any future concfusion: when I say "Creationism," I am refering to the Biblical account and will make a distinction whenever I refer to anything else. As for evolution, the only reason I make the distinction is because in the other thread about this topic, Lethkar tried to convince me that I believe in the modern evolutionary synthesis because I believe in evolution. I can generally understand the places where evolution is referring to the modern evolutionary synthesis, but since you wanted to get into the semantics of our debate, I made the distinction. I don't particularly see the point except to show that while I believe in evolution by the dictionary definition of the word, I do not believe in the complex idea of the creation of the universe associated with the word. I really have no problem if you continue to use the word "Evolution." You were the one who started this particular debate. Now, we have both made our complaints about the other's semantics and argued the trivial details; therefore, I hope we can move on to more relevant ideas. Give me "facts." Period. You say that Intelligent Design is not relevant because it is not supported by facts, then you do not provide any facts for Evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:08 pm
Goldenlici, nothing in your post is particularly relevant, and very little is even correct. Creationism is a category of belief systems, of which Christianity is only one. Capitalizing the word does not change this, and it will only serve to confuse. That said, I will subscribe to your usage, as it is irrelevant.
I have stated what is wrong with Intelligent Design. You have never contradicted me on this, save your faulty complaints in which you brought up the irrelevant topic of creationism (or Creationism if you prefer). So long as my criticism stands, there is no need for me to say anything more. Evolution happens to be supported by evidence and enjoys the support of every scientific body. If you have issues with evolution, feel free to state them. Until you do, I am not inclined to provide evidence for what is readily known and available.
Again, you are wrong on the usage of evolution. Please stop redefining well-defined terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:28 pm
All we need now is popcorn...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:38 pm
zz1000zz Evolution happens to be supported by evidence and enjoys the support of every scientific body. Then give me some evidence. Stop saying there is evidence, but not giving any. zz1000zz If you have issues with evolution, feel free to state them. I have stated them. Look above. I have been giving them since you first asked me to do so many posts ago. zz1000zz Until you do, I am not inclined to provide evidence for what is readily known and available. What kind of logic is that? I am not going to give you any facts until you contest my facts with your facts ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:36 am
Goldenlici Lethkar And I'm saying the matter was always there and was always in motion. Now how does this disprove Big Bang Theory? Because essentially, the big bang theory does not include these ideas of eternity. Adding eternity to the mix creates a whole new set of ideas, such as why there even has to be a "starting point" for eternity. There doesn't. The Big Bang wasn't a "starting point". It's just a model for the universe. I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what the Big Bang Theory states. Quote: Lethkar I never used carbon dating as evidence for my argument. I merely responded to your criticism of it. So? You still began to use the idea without detailing it. I am not saying it is necessary, in fact I am saying it is not necessary. We have a general understanding of the concept. Unlike your mathematician's calculations, which I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand yourself. Quote: I am assuming that Hoyle would have been a biologist who understood the chances of different molecules combining. I don't know the exact process because I could not do it. But I do know a similar formula used in chemistry, which looks at the average speed of molecules, the force required to fuse molecules, and the types of forces associated with each molecule. Go on, then. Tell me why you believe this guy, other than the fact that he's a biologist. Because I could find plenty of biologists and mathematicians who disagree with him. Tell me why you believe him over anyone else. Quote: Lethkar I would ask that you outline Sir Fred Hoyle's process for me, because I cannot fathom how he actually came up with an accurate probability for an occurrence in which he doesn't know all of the variables. The probability calculated is not valid, because it is a probability calculated for an entirely different situation (A situation without a magnet). What you're doing would be like me saying that the chances of getting heads on a coin is 50%, then putting a weight on the tails side and maintaining that the probability is still 50%. First of all, the probability is completely valid because without the magnet that would be true. Have you taken calculus yet? If you have, you know that mathematicians can calculate all sorts of things that aren't realistic. I have taken calculus. However, calculus has nothing to do with what you've done. What you've done is calculated the probability for one situation and then tested that probability in a completely different situation. It's not that it isn't realistic; it's that your calculation and your experiment have nothing to do with each other. I would suggest that you reread what you said, because I think we're seeing two different fallacies. Quote: As for not knowing all the variables, that is kind of my point. Scientists use carbon dating and other methods without knowing all the things in the past. There is no possible way for a scientist to know all the variables for something that happened thousands of years ago. Yes, through ice cores they can see some things, but they can not know everything. The magnet could be hidden, so to speak. That's why you create margin of errors. The calculation of error is probably even more complicated than the actual data collection and interpretation itself. Quote: Lethkar Oh? What's our definition of time? There are dozens of different definitions, but the basic idea is the relationship between two different events. Generally speaking time is measured by change: change of location of the sun, change of our bodies as we grow, change of place. Eternity would interfere with that idea because there would be no definite event with which to begin comparing other events and how would you know if something has changed if you do not know what it was before. For example, how do we know for sure that the light did not always exist as it did if we do not know how it started out as. We wouldn't. But we would know that light is the same in point A as it was in point B in time. If it wasn't different at point B, and there is no reason to believe that it would have changed before, Occam's Razor suggests that it never was different. Sure, it could have been different, but there could also be a toaster orbiting Venus right now. What's your point? Quote: Lethkar I'm not arguing for Darwin's evolution. I'm arguing for modern evolutionary theory. And honestly, as a believer of Intelligent Design I find it hilarious that you're accusing me of finding evidence with the intent to back an unsupported hypothesis that is accepted as absolutely true. Why is that hilarious? Because the Bible is one of the biggest and most well-known unsupported hypothesis out there. As a Christian, you accept that as absolutely true, and because of that you support Intelligent Design and go out of your way to defend it. You accusing me of twisting evidence to support an unbacked claim is just clear hypocrisy, in my view. But we digress. Quote: That is what all scientists do in one way or another. They find evidence for a hypothesis. Their hypothesis is based on some other knowledge or belief and then they try to support it. If they knew their hypothesis was true already, then they wouldn't need to go find support for it. I am not saying I don't do the same thing; I am only saying that science is much more similar to religion than most people want to admit. Ah, but the vast majority of hypothesis are thrown out or majorly revised. After all, how can a hypothesis be completely right? That would be extremely lucky unless it was a very simple experiment. That's right; most scientists openly admit it when the evidence suggests that they're wrong. The goal of science is to find the truth; not to defend a preconception. Quote: Lethkar I have before. I've heard of this mysterious experiment numerous times, though it's always involved rocks. If what you say is true, then the experiments could not have been done on rocks because you can not do carbon dating on rocks. No s**t. stare That's what I just told you less than a page ago. Quote: Lethkar Of course, but that's not the only way to collect information about historic geology. When the ice cores, layers of sediment, and fossils all agree with each other then it's a pretty convincing set of data. By what standard? I see a mountain in Asia, a mountain in Europe, and a mountain in North America, so I assume they were all created at the same time. Why? How on earth do you know that? Because they're all mountains? Quote: Yes, there is more "science" involved in your examples, but the basic idea is still the same. Things that happen in one thing and in another do not always happen at the same time. And, even if they did, they could have all been thrown off by the same event, such as the flood of Noah. The difference is that in your case you just said "mountains". In my case it's "fossils found that date to 10 million years ago. The soil sediment under which it was buried supports this data, though there was obvious volcanic activity which made the layer larger than normal. Ice cores support volcanic activity." A flood be taken into account if there's evidence that it occured. Quote: Lethkar Flimsier scales, maybe. But they do get more surface area covered in scales. Their stomachs become less vulnerable, since as we know birds are covered in feathers whereas reptiles' stomachs are not covered. And the longer scales would probably be more intimidating to a predator. Goldenlici They would not be intimidating at first, but would hinder movement quickly. If the change took hundreds of years, I was trying to show that even in hundreds of years it would be unlikely, but if you want to bring in millions of years, fine. That just makes it even harder to believe because then you are saying that these lizards had this disadvantage for a longer period of time. And the advantages. wink Which, might I add, their natural predators were not suited for. Quote: Lethkar Yes, but given an option between running a little bit faster for an easier prey and having to fight for your meal, running takes a lot less energy. Plus, the other lizards are much easier to eat and probably provide more sustenance. After all, birds are much lighter than reptiles. Again, the hunters at the time would have been a lot larger than tiny lizards and would not have had to fight at all. Also, size is not always a big factor as far as carnivores are concerned. Many hunters go for animals bigger then themselves, and so something smaller would hardly pose any threat. Nonetheless: If you're a hunter accustomed to hunting faster prey with shorter scales then hunting spinier prey that look able to put up a fight is not going to be appealing. If you're suited to run and eat tenderer prey, you're going to prefer to run over struggling with a much harder-to-eat animal. Quote: Finally, an animal when given a chance between an easy meal that may not be as filling or a little bit more filling meal (probably only by a couple grams of meat) that you have to chase, the animal would probably take down the easy lizard. A couple grams of meat can mean the difference between life and death, especially considering the fact that you also use less energy to eat more food. Besides; for the first few thousand years, chances are it was luck more than any genetic difference. Their chances of survival were about equal to any other reptile's. It's only when the genetic difference became noticeable that the future birds would begin to see these advantages. By the time they were a different subspecies, the predators for the original subspecies would prefer to hunt their cousins over them, since they were more well-suited to hunting them. Quote: Lehtkar Nonetheless: Wings are a complicated and major structure in the anatomy of birds. It's a defining characteristic of them. It's more like claiming that because kangaroos and koalas both have pouches that they might be related, since it's a characteristic unique to marsupials. If I then found fossils that supported this idea, I might consider them to be related. How do you determine which traits are "a complicated and major structure"? I could consider a tail a major structure of a lizard because it helps it move. I could consider the pouch as an irrelevant structure because it is not complex. Birds also have many other anatomical parts that can not be so easily related to lizards, such as their beaks. Yup. A lot of animals have similar characteristics, and the difference between each animal is determinant on anatomical parts which are unique to them and which serve to preserve their niche. I'm still not seeing how this is putting a hole in evolutionary theory. Quote: zz1000zz Science is apathetic towards what came before the Big Bang. If some God was around before then, it does not care, because it could not know. Discussing this issue is discussing a theological point, which is not part of Intelligent Design. It is irrelevant. If God was around before the Big Bang, then you would believe in God, which would include where he says he created the heavens and the earth in seven days. Intelligent Design is based on a theological point! However, if you would prefer I be more specific, I will say Creationism, but then I would suggest you use the correct term (the modern evolutionary synthesis) and not "evolution" because evolution is an entirely different word. Evolution is simply a change (you can check dictionary.com) and does not in itself imply all the ideas of Darwin and his successors. That's what I've been saying this whole time, yet you continue to argue against evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:39 pm
Lethkhar, I'm gonna have to ask you to watch your language. If you're wondering why I'm asking you to watch your language, take a look at your last post, then go take a look at the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:24 pm
The dictionary defines Intelligent Design as "a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance"
The dictionary defines Creationism as "the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis."
The dictionary defines evolution as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. "
These are the definitions I will be going by.
I think ID and Creationism are both going against the hypothesis of evolution, mainly macro evolution which is the evolution of a species into a different species over a matter of time, supposedly taking thousands or millions of years.
Personally I believe in the doctrine of Creationism, that God created the world in 6 literal days, including all the plants, animals, and man. I do however combine this with micro evolution (basically in a word: adaptation). The world has gone through changes over the years: hot to cold to hot to cold etc. the space available in different environments (ie rainforest). certain prey becoming more scarce than others. I believe that animals have adapted to fit in with their environments. Those that did not do so successfully are dying out, or are already extinct. For example, a squirrel in New York would be different then a squirrel in Arizona. Their habitats are different, the food available different, the prey hunting them different. Therefore they must be different since they must survive in different ways. Yet they are both squirrels.
I do not believe that the hypothesis of macro evolution can be proven. fossils did not just gradually appear. In places such as the Grand Canyon, near the bottom there is nothing, then all of a sudden, in a layer of rock higher up, a magnitude of fossils appear. Plus Carbon Dating can be faulty, seeing as it is based off how carbon has changed from C14 to C16 (did I get the numbers wrong? I don't feel like looking them up. It's something like that though) and they are comparing it to how long they think Carbon takes to change. Plus they found a shark off the coast of Japan a while ago that was supposed to be extinct, or evolved (I don't remember which): why didn't it evolve? Plus I think the probability that two single celled organisms happened to come onto the land in an atmosphere they just happened to be able to breath, then evolved at the same exact time into two more complex creatures that just happened to be able to mate and extend the population of creatures just too unlikely to be true.
I think ID is the hypothesis that is used by scientists who have found another reason to explain the universe and it's complexity besides that of evolution, while not offending any religion specifically by naming one supernatural being. This hypothesis does leave possibilities open to aliens or other extra-terristrial beings, which I do not believe exist. I do however think that this hypothesis does have some credibility in the concept that the universe is too complex to have happened spontaneously.
I believe in God out of faith and out of my reasoning that the universe is far to complex to have just happened spontaneously and this perfectly.
I believe in God because he is intelligent enough to create the universe, powerful enough to control it, wise enough not to abuse or even really use his power, and loving enough to have done it all for us.
Please note that everything I have said I have named as personal belief and thought. I have reasoned through this all before, and this is what I have come up with. Question me if you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:01 am
Sarcastic_Angel The dictionary defines Intelligent Design as "a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance" The dictionary defines Creationism as "the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis." The dictionary defines evolution as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. " These are the definitions I will be going by. I think ID and Creationism are both going against the hypothesis of evolution, mainly macro evolution which is the evolution of a species into a different species over a matter of time, supposedly taking thousands or millions of years. Personally I believe in the doctrine of Creationism, that God created the world in 6 literal days, including all the plants, animals, and man. I do however combine this with micro evolution (basically in a word: adaptation). The world has gone through changes over the years: hot to cold to hot to cold etc. the space available in different environments (ie rainforest). certain prey becoming more scarce than others. I believe that animals have adapted to fit in with their environments. Those that did not do so successfully are dying out, or are already extinct. For example, a squirrel in New York would be different then a squirrel in Arizona. Their habitats are different, the food available different, the prey hunting them different. Therefore they must be different since they must survive in different ways. Yet they are both squirrels. I do not believe that the hypothesis of macro evolution can be proven. fossils did not just gradually appear. In places such as the Grand Canyon, near the bottom there is nothing, then all of a sudden, in a layer of rock higher up, a magnitude of fossils appear. Plus Carbon Dating can be faulty, seeing as it is based off how carbon has changed from C14 to C16 (did I get the numbers wrong? I don't feel like looking them up. It's something like that though) and they are comparing it to how long they think Carbon takes to change. The rate at which Carbon-14 decays is a defined rate, and the original amount of Carbon-14 in an organism is defined. What makes you think it would be faulty? Quote: Plus they found a shark off the coast of Japan a while ago that was supposed to be extinct, or evolved (I don't remember which): why didn't it evolve? What are you talking about? confused I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. Quote: Plus I think the probability that two single celled organisms happened to come onto the land in an atmosphere they just happened to be able to breath, then evolved at the same exact time into two more complex creatures that just happened to be able to mate and extend the population of creatures just too unlikely to be true. It's a good thing that that's not the predominant theory. wink Quote: I think ID is the hypothesis that is used by scientists who have found another reason to explain the universe and it's complexity besides that of evolution, while not offending any religion specifically by naming one supernatural being. This hypothesis does leave possibilities open to aliens or other extra-terristrial beings, which I do not believe exist. I do however think that this hypothesis does have some credibility in the concept that the universe is too complex to have happened spontaneously. Why? If you say that the universe is so complex that a more complicated creator must have created it, that argument must apply to the creator as well. And that just starts a chain of creators whose end is a logical fallacy. Quote: I believe in God out of faith and out of my reasoning that the universe is far to complex to have just happened spontaneously and this perfectly. I believe in God because he is intelligent enough to create the universe, powerful enough to control it, wise enough not to abuse or even really use his power, and loving enough to have done it all for us. "People are not well made and ninety per cent of everything is rubbish. Whatever, while God is still away on his holidays, I am going to keep on spreading, such as I can, a smile and a scintilla of hope." -Peter Sinfield Sorry...I just got reminded of that quote, for some reason. What is "perfect"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:18 am
I am confused Goldenlici. There have been numerous points of contention between the two of us, and you seem to have dropped almost all of them. Does this mean you agree you were completely wrong with your usage of Intelligent Design and evolution? Do you agree Intelligent Design is not a theological argument? Do you agree with my criticisms of Intelligent Design, that you have never actually contradicted? I can only assume you agree with me on each of these, as you have stopped discussing each of them. Is this correct? If so, why have you not said so. If not, why have you ignored them? Goldenlici zz1000zz Evolution happens to be supported by evidence and enjoys the support of every scientific body. Then give me some evidence. Stop saying there is evidence, but not giving any. Are you willing to give me evidence supporting the Rydberg-Ritz combination principle? I doubt you would provide that, but I cannot dismiss it because you do not do so. I have no obligation to provide the evidence you demand. If you want it, it is readily available for you. You are the one challenging the accepted theory, so it is your responsibility to provide support for your challenge. Goldenlici zz1000zz If you have issues with evolution, feel free to state them. I have stated them. Look above. I have been giving them since you first asked me to do so many posts ago. I did not see any issue of yours which contradicted evolution. The only issue I noticed when rereading the topics was your absurd statements about Carbon 14 dating. If you have some reason for saying evolution is wrong, I will gladly address it. It is possible I missed some point of yours. If so, please tell me what it is so I can address it. Goldenlici zz1000zz Until you do, I am not inclined to provide evidence for what is readily known and available. What kind of logic is that? I am not going to give you any facts until you contest my facts with your facts ... I have not seen a single fact come from you. I have seen factually incorrect statements as well as numerous faulty claims (for which you seem unwilling to admit the falsity), but no facts. You have the burden of proof in this topic, and you have done nothing to meet it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
