Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)|
|"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.|
"Goddidit" is not.
What is your explanation for "why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos"?
1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.
2) Of course "God did it" is not a scientific answer. Do you expect scientific answers to non-science questions? Can science tell you if the person you love really understands you? Can science to tell you it is an act of compassion to feed the hungry? Not all questions are scientific questions. Some questions are historical, or emotional, or testimonial, etc. The origin of life may very well not be a scientific question. If life was started by a supernatural cause then all the looking in the world will never turn up a natural one (which is basically where we stand now).
3) I believe the universe has laws because it was created by a Lawgiver, a Mind who instilled order in the universe and who also gave us the rational capacity to understand that order, to analyze it, and to control/use/maintain it. I believe this because of rigorous philosophical examination, not as a simple whim. For more on this topic I suggest Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Norman Geisler, and others.
|Hey, you know what would be great fun at parties? Line up a nice transitional series of fossils, then bring the creobots in one at a time and have them point to where they draw the micro/macro this species/that species line. We could start one end with an extant species, at the other end another extant species, and gradually meeting at the common ancestor in the middle.|
That'd be a barrel of laughs. I'm sure there'd be a drinking game involved.
You could use the alleged evolution of the horse and then explain how the toes kept evolving forwards and then backwards until it ended in one giant toe with a huge nail. Of course, that would be a case of animal LOOSING complexity rather than gaining it so that doesn't really explain how animals have evolved from "lower" forms to "higher" more complex forms.
By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION. In fact, can anyone here tell me what takes place genetically when dogs are bred to exhibit specific traits? Are those traits created through breeding or are all the unwanted traits simply eliminated? Does a doberman have more genetic potential than say a mutt?
1) Actually, "I don't know" is an answer. It may not be a satisfying one, but it gives the limit of current knowledge (at least of the speaker). To be honest, knowledge of ignorance is knowledge as well - just not the best kind. There is so much we are ignorant of that in some areas we are only just discovering what we don't know, but scientists are steadily filling the void. The best answer, short of actual knowledge is "I don't know, but I will try to find out." This is the step that creationists jump over, going straight to "I will make shit up."
2) you spelled "non-science" when you meant "nonsense" - just fixing that for you. Considering advances in neurology and the scientific study of ethics, perhaps some day those questions can be answered (albeit not to some people's satisfaction) - we can look for chemicals and effects in the brain that might indicate "understanding" - if our knowledge progresses that far, or we can look for other cues (body language, etc). I doubt it's as reliable as asking a person, but we can design a study that does just that. But trying to define "really understands you" in a meaningful way would be the difficult part, but it can probably be done. However, the problem you have is that we are actually making progress into the mechanisms by which life may have risen, but if you want to postulate a "supernatural" (whatever that means) cause that started it all, but left no proof...well, why bother with it at all? If it leaves no proof, then we cannot detect it, and if we can't detect it, then how can we distinguish it from nothing at all? Waste of time.
3) Gak. Judge Dread uses a Lawgiver. The Orangutan on the ape planet was a Lawgiver. Non-existent mental constructs that appease people's egos and fears...not so much. We've come a long way since those people (except Geisler, who appears to be another in the long line of apologist hacks - from a quick review that I did, he seems to repeat the same tired and debunked arguments that others of his ilk do). "yawn"
It's amazing that the hole is perfectly shaped for the puddle. Must be Intelligently Designed.
Goody - genetic information. Please define what you mean by information. This should be interesting.
You may want to scan the board and look for this topic, since it really comes up with the IDiots who have no understanding of it, and you want to be sure not to make the same mistakes they are making. (You might also want to avoid the inane "ALL CAPS" - they do not add emphasis, but make you look a bit of a noob, and it's "losing" complexity (although even that claim may or may not hold water depending on how you define "complexity." You may also want to drop the idea of lower/higher completely and just stick with the terms "simpler" and "more complex" (in the popular usage of the terms) - or say "unicellular to multicellular" - since evolution is not on any direct arrow, as things evolve they can indeed lose features and become "less complex" (common usage). Nothing in evolutionary theory that says they shouldn't.
You might also want to look a little bit more into genetics before making such insipid claims about dogs. Dogs that exhibit certain traits (that arise through mutation) are selected for those traits, and bred with similar animals so that the trait solidifies (more or less, this is pretty simplistic). The traits are not created by the breeding, although they are refined. And, no, all unwanted traits are not simply eliminated, since there are atavisms occasionally and the inbreeding that produces some breeds can have negative consequences - physical and mental. I have no idea what you mean with "genetic potential" - are you assuming some sort of Ideal that dogs must go towards, or are you referring to the potential for genes to mutate, or what?
Damn, that's a lot to write. Any critiques from anyone else reading - did I screw anything up?
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G