RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4382
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,05:55   

People who can't manage topicality elsewhere can always be topical in a thread devoted to them.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4382
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,06:06   

Does "forastero" want to talk about punctuated equilibria?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,06:20   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2011,12:06)
Does "forastero" want to talk about punctuated equilibria?

Only as part of a pantheist communist mode of belief designed to destroy free markets and oppress designers, you Freemason.

Or something.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,07:47   

Quote (forastero @ sometime)


Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized? Nice try but that lie dont fly. So recheck your cite big guy

You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.

We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID


Here, let's get the party started.

That last quote is very interesting.  So, what you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that everything is designed.  Everything from the stars to the planets, to the tiny bacteria and viruses that infect our designed bodies and render them useless.

If that is the case, then we are at an impass and no science can be done.  The reason is that if everything is directly designed, then there should be no patterns in anything in the universe to observe.  Every solar system could have their own unique set of Kepler's Laws.  Every organism could have a radically different macromolecular system.

The FACT that we don't see this and instead observe distinct patterns that come from physical laws that are constant throughout the known universe tends to lead us to the conclusion that these natural laws are the designer.

If you are willing to accept that 'The Designer' ™ is actually the natural laws of the universe, then I'm willing to accept that.

If you are not willing to accept that, then the only logical conclusion is that 'The Designer'™ is trying to hide its existence from us.

Fortunately, the ID people are willing to help the designer hide by expressly refusing to even consider the designer, much less look for evidence that supports him.

I am afraid, that you don't have a clue about how the world works.  You appear to be stuck in the late 1400s, when a statement to the church would be taken as absolute truth, up to and including the torture and death by torture of the subject of the statement.  

Since then, however, there was this movement we call The Enlightenment.  During this movement, some members of the species to which you may or may not belong, began to use these powerful computing organs called brains.  They worked out a series of steps that could only be true.  They called this 'logic'.

Then they worked out a system for determining the answers to questions where logic didn't work so good.  They called this process the scientific method.  Now, given that everything that has been invented in the modern world is a product of the scientific method, I would venture to say that it works, as a system for knowing, pretty well.

You however, (hypocritically) say that the scientific method doesn't work.  I say 'hypocritically' because you are using tools and processes developed by the scientific method to deny that the scientific method works.

I know that you are attempting to only talk about biology, but what is biology founded on? Chemistry.  What is chemistry founded on?  Physics.  What is physics founded on?  The fundamental laws of the universe that were discovered using the scientific method.

So basically, what you are attempting to not say is that you believe that all the knowledge, tools, and processes developed by man in the last 200 years don't actually work.

The reason you say this is because you don't like the implications for your pet deity.  However, one of the hallmarks of the scientific method, which you seem to know as you have made demands of us, is that of evidence.

Yet you (again, hypocritically) demand a level of evidence from us, that you cannot provide about your own, competing notions.  In fact, you refuse to even talk about your own notions, just that ours (backed up by mountains of evidence) are wrong.

Let me explain in the simplest terms I can.

Even if you prove evolution, chemistry, and physics wrong.  It still doesn't mean your designer exists.

Yet you and your ilk refuse to even speculate*, much less seek evidence.  Why is that?

Given the above, I am at your service to discuss with you the topic of your choice.  

If you have evidence for the designer, then, I'm sure, we would all be thrilled to hear it.



__

* Everyone knows of course, that the designer is God.  It is expressly stated by every single one of the main ID proponents.  It is in their writings and speeches.  Yet, when confronted by science or courts, they try to refute that.  Unfortunately for them, there is as much evidence for God as there is for Intelligent Design of living things.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:37   

Most of the world's greatest scientists were creationists. So what? They were also sexist, moneyed, white males pursuing what was then a hobby.

Darwin was a creationist bound for the seminary at one time. Something (actually a series of things) changed his mind.

If everything is designed, then Behe's "we can distinguish design from non-design, Mount Rushmore versus mountains" argument collapses.

(shug)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:40   

Ogre,

We didnt say that "everything is designed"

Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.

Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.

Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far.  The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.

No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:44   

Hmm..Keeping me confined like a caged King Kong

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:52   

more like a retard on a leash, it looks to me.

werner von braun, heard of him?  he invented your precious rocket.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
rossum



Posts: 167
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:01   

So, lets have a closer look.
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

Was your "superior designer" disordered?  If so then you are making order from disorder, which is what you are claiming cannot be done by evolution.

Was your "superior designer" ordered?  If so then where did that order come from, how did it originate?  Was there an even more superior "superior designer" designer to create that order?

Quote
ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

Evolution does not rely on miracles, that is the province of creationists.  Do some calculations on the size of populations and the number of mutations an individual carries.  The appearance of a specific mutation is not that unlikely over a few generations.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1232
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:09   

forastero:
Quote
ID--superior designer made order from disorder


Thermodynamics was discovered by designers (humans) and found that there were some laws (the second in particular) that say this is not possible.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 931
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:25   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:34   

Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order



See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:37   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5354
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:44   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:40)
The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.

Moron.



--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:47   

Quote
See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock


D00D HAVE YOU LIKE I MEAN YOU KNOW LIKE REALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT YOUR HAND, MAN

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:49   

Quote
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms


ahh yes the ideal free genetic state.  how you doing, Joe?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Robin



Posts: 1422
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:56   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order


See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?

Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.

Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 931
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:02   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

Go back up and read the questions again.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:14   

one stupid meeting and I miss all the fun.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Gunthernacus



Posts: 232
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:21   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,05:28)
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,04:02)
We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID

How did they use ID - or is ID useless for doing science?  I won't ague about the 99.9% or who was/wasn't an IDer - I'll just note that they weren't expelled, and that their work is taught in public school.  You claim the vast majority of the greatest scientists, yet ID is a threadbare set of vague notions and your martyr complex is a sad little fiction used to sell movies and books to the gullible.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:36   

Quote
Ogre,

We didnt say that "everything is designed"


Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.

Quote


Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.


I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.

Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

Quote

Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.
Quote


Kepler, in spite of being a creationist, still used the scientific method and evidence to observe the laws that govern planetary motion.  He used math to codify those laws.

ID proponents have done none of this type of work.


Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far.  The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.
Quote


Can I just say "WTF"?  

I think I understand the problem though.  You are conflating modern creationists with historical creationists who actually understood how to do science.


No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:


Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder


evidence please...

Quote

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation
Quote


More evidence you don't really understand what's going on.  Once a living thing is created, then it begins to evolve.  Some definitions of life even have a requirement for life evolving.

Let's talk about chance a second.  Let's say there's a trillion to one chance of something happening.  That's a lot right?  Until you realize that there are something like 5 billion bacteria in a GRAM of soil.  In a metric ton of soil, there can be something like 500 trillion bacteria.  So, in a  metric ton of soil, your trillion to one chance... happens 500 times every generation.  oops.




ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli


again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?

Quote

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?



__
* Because scientists know exactly when it occurred, where it occurred, and how.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,17:34   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order

[snip image]

See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Wait a minute. You actually think that the deliberate misnomer "Big Bang" (Hoyle) refers to an actual explosion?

I get that a lot.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Cubist



Posts: 333
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,21:03   

I second Ogre's remarks above: If you're not claiming that everything is Designed, you must be claiming that some things are Designed and other things are not Designed... so how do you tell the difference? Given some arbitrarily-chosen whatzit, how can you tell whether said whatzit is, or is not, Designed?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:14   

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 21 2011,11:56)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order


See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?

Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.

Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.

Now you believe gravity created all that order presented in that image ?


Rumsfeld, first of all Guth and most others claim that the Big Bang went through initial hyperinflation and super symmetry but has slowed drastically partly do to gravity and entropy. However, a mysterious dark energy "seems" to be making the galaxy accelerate. Some scientist are bringing up relativity in that it only appears to accelerate from our vantage point but in my layman's view its kinda like a bullet picking up velocity as it leaves the barrel but finally slowing due to not only gravity but also entropy in that the energy behind the bullet becomes unorganized somewhat like accuracy; but then at a certain threshold, not only is gravity diminished but that energy that became unorganized earlier, is now concentrated once again as if the bullet suddenly went through a separate explosion. Some hypothesize that multiple supernovas are behind this dark energy but I am inclined to credit it to supernatural events.

Now concerning your insistence that the Big Bang explosion was a metaphor, it seems few scientists agree with you. For instance:

The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html


Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm


Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure. http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp

Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm

According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang

Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since. http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/in...sm....undance

The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:23   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,12:02)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

Go back up and read the questions again.

Wayne, the sins of mankind are known to mess with our genes big time via pollution, drugs, outbreaks, STDs, atmospheric degradation, etc etc..

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:32   

Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well

Quote
again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?


Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation


Quote
Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles

Quote
I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.


With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science  grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.  


Quote
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes

Quote
evidence please...

I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist

Einstein: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Einstein: “God always takes the simplest way”.

Einstein: “That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Einstein: Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

Einstein: What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

Einstein: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

Einstein:"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."


Quote
Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?


That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience.  For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:49   

Shit.

Why are you still here?

Disappear by crawling up your asshole. You are half-way there already.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,23:20   

Quote
Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles


that about sums this horseshit up in a nutshell

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,01:06   

(shrug) So, Bozo Joe thought up a new nym. (shrug)

SSDD.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4382
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,03:26   

The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:

Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder


The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]