Welcome to Gaia! ::

Anything I missed, I will discuss later because this post has already taken me close to an hour to go through... xp


I am going to assume you mean how I can understand the basis for Sir Fred Hoyle's experiment, and if you mean something else, just let me know. Okay, so Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of chemicals coming together to form a single protein was some insanely small number (you can look in my previous post to find the exact number). First of all, there are very specific "rules" for how molecules join together. You can't just stick two chemicals together and assume that something will form (example: oil and water). There are some calculable ways to know whether or not two molecules will react: Gibb's free energy, solubility constant, enthalpy, and some others. You can (and I have had to) determine whether or not two chemicals will react based on these principles and can even determine what kind of conditions are necessary for two chemicals to react. Hoyle could have used a principle like this. Or, he could have taken a more physics oriented approach and looked at the probability of two molecules hitting each other in solutions based on their speed and the pressure of the solution. I am not sure which exact process he used, but I do know it is possible to make such a calculation.


Exactly. It was based on a preconception. All the work afterwards that "supported" his theory was still based on this preconception. Especially, since many of the scientists who would later take up the work already believed in evolution. They did not come up with the idea for themselves, which means they were not only working on a hypothesis that had little proof at the time, but also one that they did not come up with on their own.

Tell me this. Why do you believe in evolution? Did you look out the window as a child and automatically think that a bird must have evolved from a lizard? What experiments have you done personally for evolution? In that sense, your science is in no way superior to my beliefs; however, nor are my beliefs superior to science. I make no claim that they are. I believe in the works of my pastors and family just as you believe in what you have been told about evolution, then we both look to science to support our hypothesis.


Thus, you are the one bringing truth into this discussion. Science is not free of culture and philosophy because it is still humans doing the work. There are some great examples of scientific "truth" being altered by human culture (I am studying the idea now in Anthropology).


Basically, I mean the principle that there are standards that hold universally true for all people. By this, I mean that something science says holds true for all people everywhere. In regards to this argument, I would ask if you believe something as true simply because a scientist said it? If not, how can you know that all the facts you are told from science are actually true?


To reiterate my above point, it is scientists who determine what is evidence and scientists are people. It is not as easy to separate science from philosophical ideals, as you seem to think. That is the whole idea behind being a "well rounded" individual and why schools make you take all different kinds of classes regardless of which field you choose.


Black holes. They change the rules of physics and if they are caused by the collapse of stars, then it means that that space was not always ruled by the laws of physics of black holes. At the point when the star is still there, there is one set of rules of physics, then when the star implodes, there is another set of rules of physics.


What evidence? The fact that we see it now? That goes back to my point of what we observe now does not have to hold true for all of time.

So, my point still stands. If A, B, and C were all thrown off by the same thing because they are interconnected, then D is still wrong. It doesn't matter how many letters you throw in there.

Um.... Yeah they do, just because you saw one cat beat up one coyote doesn't mean the cat is always going to win, especially since I was talking about a wounded cat. There are reports on the news all the time about coyotes eating house pets. One attacked my aunts dog, luckily the family was around to scare the coyote away. Another one also attacked my other aunt's cat, again thankfully my aunt was around to grab the cat and bring it indoors. Both animals, by the way, were fully healthy and capable to fight (I have the scars to prove it).


Well, first of all bears are omnivors and typically prefer the food of humans over the humans themselves. Bears are a lazy hunter because they don't have to eat meat to survive. So, not the best example. Also, you had brought into the argument how harsh times were (saying how important a couple of grams of meat are), which would have made the animals much more fierce. A bear will attack a human if it is desperate for food.


Again, what determines what traits are only "unique" to a species and which traits are "similar general anatomies." Birds have eyes. Human have eyes. What makes the wing more relevant than the eye? It supports the hypothesis the scientists have already created. I could just as easily say that God choose to give birds and lizards similar anatomies because obviously these traits work well, then choose to vary these creatures with "unique" traits.

Well, ignoring the rudeness of that statement, I will say that so far my knowledge of radioactive decay comes from a chemistry standpoint, which deals more with the generalities of the theory rather than the specifics. What I do know is that radioactive decay is the process by which chemicals emit alpha particles (i.e. a proton), and that this process varies from chemical to chemical. We calculate the half-life of a chemical based on what we can observe in a lab. These experiments obviously do not last for thousands of years, but scientists do assume that what they observe in a lab for a few years holds true for all of time. Also, humans can simulate radioactive decay in labs, which is a basic principle behind nuclear reactors, and some of the processes they use can be done in nature, through events of great pressure or energy.

And, as I have already stated, those scientists could not know the atmospheric conditions for every single day of a chemicals life.

To zz1000zz,
I will say this one last time and then I am seriously going to drop this line of argument. First, I do not concede to you just because I choose to drop an irrelevant point. Second, words have different connotations depending on how you use them. Evolution does not always refer to the modern evolutionary synthesis, nor does Intelligent Design always refer to creationism. I have made it quite clear, since you brought the point up, that I am arguing for Biblical Creationism and will be using the word Creationism, which is a type of Intelligent Design. I have also assumed that whenever you use the word evolution, you will be referring to the modern evolutionary synthesis because you have not said otherwise. If you want to argue semantics, find someone else for that is hardly the issue here. Finally, I would really like to see some of your "facts."

Do you not even read the parts of my posts that are not quoted directly to you? I have been debating with Lethkar more with facts because he actually gives me some facts to work with.


Just as you dodged answering my question on "the Rydberg-Ritz combination principle."

I never said I knew his calculations. I very specifically said that I did not know the exact process that he used, but I knew of how he could have done it. Because I know it can be done, I used it. Frankly, did you honestly doubt that it could be done, regardless of the outcome, or were you just testing me?


Tell me what you know about carbon dating. You keep saying I don't understand the concept and make me explain it to you. I have. Now, you explain what you know to be the concept. Explain to me the physics behind light rays that apparently originated from the big bang. Explain the exact process by which scales turned into feathers. Explain to me the process by which proteins were formed in the Miller-Urey experiment. There is so much that should be reviewed and explained here, but it always falls on me.


True. I never thought otherwise. However, that does not change the fact that people go off of his theories. Well, technically, it was Lyell who first stated that the earth was really old and only once this idea became known did Darwin even have any basis at all for his theory. If Lyell was wrong about the age of the earth, then evolution does not work. The universe has to be old for all the concepts of evolution to even be plausible. Darwin needed Lyell's information for his idea to even be conceivable. Similarly, scientists today use Darwin as a basis for their ideas. However, if any one scientist was wrong, then every "fact" based off that idea is wrong.


So, I am a scientist and I work under the assumptions of the Bible, yet you won't believe me. Why? Because you don't believe in the hypothesis I work under. I don't believe in the hypothesis that the earth is millions of years old, so I don't believe in all that follows this idea. Scientists once worked under all kinds of crazy assumptions: the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is flat, and it was once a "scientific fact" that whites were the superior race on the earth. Which "scientific facts" of today will seem insane to people in a hundred years?

So explain them to me? I am not trying to be rude or sarcastic. I honestly want you to explain to me why you believe in evolution so completely. I have had to explain all my reasons for believing in facts. What experiments have you personally done that prove to you that birds could have evolved from lizards?



It absolutely pertains to this debate. If scientists are influenced by culture, which they are, then their findings are subjugated to cultural influences, such as the prevailing view that evolution is correct. Scientists believe that humans are related to apes because of similar genetics, but what about the differences? How come they don't go more in-depth into the differences? There are some very major differences between humans and apes. I would never see an ape and assume somehow I was related to them in the distant past, unless I had been told to believe so.


Yes

Yet, you state evolutionary principles as if they were completely true. If you don't believe that the laws of science are absolutely true, then how can you even believe the principle of evolution? You need to believe that your facts are absolutely true for all of time and without change or fault. What is the difference between believing in the laws of chemistry and the words of the Bible? Any facts for chemistry would just come from more chemistry. Is it easier to believe just because you can repeat a tangible process? There are several tangible things in the Bible that I can show you to be "true," in the same way that you prove facts for chemistry.

So, science has laws except for when the laws are wrong? Light travels in a straight line according to physics. Black holes can bend light. So, the laws of physics only work under certain conditions. That does not seem so much like a law anymore. If there is one set of laws for one condition and another set of laws for another condition, how do we know that there are only those two conditions. From what you are saying, I could easily say that when God created the universe, there was a different set of conditions for physics, which allowed for all the "problems" perceived in Creationism.


Back to some old "scientific facts" from before:
Scientists who believed the earth was flat observed that the earth was flat. The earth certainly looks flat from our human observations. We just had not yet found "evidence" for a round earth. There are plenty of instances on earth where ice cores and sediment levels are changed, so we know it happens. Yet, we are still so intent on applying what we see now to all of time. If scientists try to apply what they observe about these changes now, they are still only using what we have now to apply to the past. Not all volcanoes act the same way or all floods or any other natural disasters. Even if there is evidence for volcanic activity, how can we know how that particular volcano worked?


Hm... so you believe a toaster is orbiting Venus. Why? Because you are trying to make a point that your facts are above being wrong because my facts are so crazy? I find it insane to believe that a lizard spent thousands of years turning into a bird when it was thriving just fine as a lizard.

Sorry, as I said that post took me forever. I am sorry if I missed some little example.

Yeah, your point? You were the one who said that hunters of the time were desperate for a few grams of meat, not me.


God said that he would prove himself: prophecies. However, I don't want to mix that into this discussion. If you want to debate that, make a new forum for it and I'll meet you there.

As for scientific proof, I will just say that it does not make sense for the universe to be the way it is unless someone designed it to be that way. Go ahead with your criticisms, I'll argue them when they come up.

zz1000zz, you are several posts behind the argument. Anything you say about my original post has probably already been addressed by Lethkar.

However, I will take on some of the points on which you differ.


Okay, the idea that matter is neither created, nor destroyed through chemical processes is absolutely a basic principle of chemistry. The same is true of the physics law I state.


Why does it make no claims regarding things before the Big Bang? So, I am not allowed to question the big bang? I have already explained why eternity and the flow of time is an important principle for disproving evolution. Go back and reread my debate with Lethkar over the point.

So, by your definition, we can only make observations about things after the existence of humans. That means we can not make any observations at all about evolution and the theory falls apart.

Are you serious? This topic is all about how the universe was created or how what we see today came to be.

Your next couple arguments are completely irrelevant because all you say is that I am wrong, but you don't say why.

I just explained the process of carbon dating to Lethkar. Your turn. Why don't you explain it to me?


So just because I didn't explicitly say, "Will you please give me the Rydberg-Ritz Combination Principle?" you won't give me the principle. Fine: Weill you please give me the Rydberg-Ritz Combination Principle?

I would ask that you please answer my questions instead of just saying I am wrong; however, if you wish to prove me wrong, explain yourself. Just saying, "this is factually incorrect" or "the factual nature of these claims are wrong," does not really prove that I am wrong.