|
2 registered members (firecrest, AndrewAMD),
387
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69091
05/12/06 03:56
05/12/06 03:56
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
I cannot argue any of this from any real level of science.
What a coincidence, neither does evolution.
Quote:
How does evolution explain the existance of symbiotic relationships like this exampled in the deep sea giant tube worm?
My goodness, they dont know! Do you know what your asking here? They have No_Clue. Whoosh! It will fly right over their heads.
Nobody knows too much about these worms. Some people think that these undersea "black smokers" represent the very cradle of life. There is a hypothesis circulating among them about ALL life evolving from around undersea volcanos. In other words, they think the original abiogenesis occured here.
They will talk about Microsporidia as possible precursors to eukaryotes via a symbiotic relationship.
But they will most likely talk about cellular life forms which couldnt live without engulfing other cellular life forms. They will point to these early procaryotes as the beginnings of symbiosis (Perhaps chloroplasts). Then they will attempt to show you pictures of creatures with graduating orders of complexity towards that of the tube worm. They will attempt to say that the cells in the bodies of tube worm diverged and remained conserved during the millions of years which the tube worm evolved. Who knows what absurdities they will bring up in reply to that question. But I imagine they will all be pretty general in nature because apparently not much is known about these creatures.
What I think is interesting about the relationship expressed between this worm and its bacteria are the bacteria themselves. Because there is no sun down that deep photosynthesis is out of the question, so the bacteria use a process called chemosynthesis, which breaks down the sulfur from the undersea vents into food. The reason why chemosynthesis is such a strong case for abiogenesis to evolution is because it deals so directly with non-living substances, and thus begins to help experiments like Miller and Urey's life in a testube experiment. Heres some information on the subject web page On this URL you will find another scientist attempting to blunder through an explanation...
Interesting set of questions. I feel bad for jcl and company:) I think they will probably use the famous and convincing "la la la I cant hear you la la la" argument  
Or if you catch them in a period of great enlightment they will simply call you crazy, ask why God created the Devil if He's so smart, and say that natural selection did it
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69092
05/12/06 06:40
05/12/06 06:40
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Uh oh! Evolution is REALLY starting to run into trouble now. It looks like mutations aren't necessarily random after all. http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs017.htmlWhat's that? Creationists outside the US? I know what you're thinking, "Oh no another creationist website." But considering that this one was called, "A well presented site and one of the very few creationist sites to provide links to sites with opposing views." by No Answers in Genesis, I think speaks well for it (in a sense). At least evolutionists seem to have some respect for the website. If this is true, we might see the end of evolution within the next ten years. I'm definately going to keep my eyes on this field of research.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/12/06 06:40.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69093
05/12/06 14:34
05/12/06 14:34
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
@ Dan:
Thanks for the nice examples, Dan. I didn't hear about them before. The variaty of the nature surprises again and again.
Octopus' behavior:
The question is about intelligence. My opinion: looking at fitness (in the sense of assimilation to a fast changing environment) evolution is very slow when you compare it to intelligence. In consequence, when a species got more not pre-determined neurons than others, it gives a competitive edge.
Considering the octupus' intelligence and the shapes of the birds' nests and the symbiosis of the tube worm and the bacteria, there is this high improbability that such complex systems could develop.
Science, or scientists are aware of this. Improbabilities are a common term within science as far as I know.
The mentioned theories of neg-entropy and self-referential systems, or call it cybernetics or theory of deterministic chaos, IMHO give answers.
@ Irish Farmer:
On doubts in science:
Doubts are normal in science, they are the base of science. Doubts and curiosity. Develop a theorie, and you'll have a doubter! That means, to find a doubter of a theory doesn't mean that a theory isn't true. Within science there is a competition of theories. But wether a theory establishs depends on observations and investigations, and on the simplissity how the theory integrates them into a coherence of explanations.
As far as I heard within a discussion with a biologist, there is a lot discussion among biologists about the details within the evolution theory, but not about evolution in general.
Another word about doubts: As everything in our modern world science can only work because of division of labour/distribution of tasks, that means that scientific recognition depends on a huge amount of information which no single person can validate on his own. And this in addition means that it relies on trust that the other researchers did their job well, and that other scientists proved there work etc.
In your posts, Irish Farmer, your are not only doubting of evolution, you doubt about results of the geology, and you doubt about results of astronomy and physics.
You are doubting of millions of man hours of investigations of competiting men and women - you seem indeed to construct a conspiracy theory.
@ Nitro:
I will try to get the book of James Gleick, but it is not available in Europe at the price as in America. I'm too busy until end of next week to buy it.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#69094
05/12/06 15:36
05/12/06 15:36
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
You all use computers and the internet which only are there because of the same scientific methods which also get used for evolution theory. If you deny science so much it maybe would be more logical to lead a mormon lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with that! Sometimes I also would find a life without too much technology nicer. Dan Silverman, I really hope your son will study marine biology (at a good university) and then teach you what he learned there. 
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
#69095
05/12/06 15:51
05/12/06 15:51
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
You all use computers and the internet which only are there because of the same scientific methods which also get used for evolution theory. If you deny science so much it maybe would be more logical to lead a mormon lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with that! Sometimes I also would find a life without too much technology nicer.
Thanks for patronizing us. I couldnt hear the actual science behind your post however, I guess thats because I was too busy with my stone tools and flint trying to create fire. Next week Im thinking about trying out these various wheel designs I have been thinking of.
Why dont you try answering the questions Mr. Silverman presented instead of giving us a quick "DR.Science Man" cameo?
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
#69096
05/12/06 16:11
05/12/06 16:11
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
You all use computers and the internet which only are there because of the same scientific methods which also get used for evolution theory
I thought the internet was actually here because Al Gore invented it. 
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69097
05/12/06 20:07
05/12/06 20:07
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
As far as I heard within a discussion with a biologist, there is a lot discussion among biologists about the details within the evolution theory, but not about evolution in general.
The other half of biologists wouldn't listen to the creation half because evolution is generally accepted. So creation scientists have to work within the box for now.
Quote:
In your posts, Irish Farmer, your are not only doubting of evolution, you doubt about results of the geology,
I don't doubt geology, I doubt the assumptions made from the evidence.
Quote:
and you doubt about results of astronomy and physics.
Once again, I doubt the wild assumptions that are made based on shaky evidence. For now, we don't know for sure what causes red shift. Though scientists will say that stars are moving away, they say that celestial bodies that are further away have more red shift cause they're moving faster. Isn't it possible that light shifts red because it has to travel so far, and that's why bodies which are further away have more red shift? You see how the same evidence can be interpreted two different ways, and neither one has proof, but one biased opinion is called more scientific than the other?
Quote:
You are doubting of millions of man hours of investigations of competiting men and women - you seem indeed to construct a conspiracy theory.
No, it takes longer to do actual scientific work than it does to come up with assumptions based on that work. I don't doubt the work, I doubt the assumptions.
You guys obviously aren't arguing on the same level here. All you're doing is questioning our motives, while on the same token you're completely avoiding actual scientific discourse. I don't think I need to waste any more time on this.
The only real competition to evolution is creation, but we're not allowed to compete. Why is that? Evolutionists don't want competition, they just want to work with the idea that they're right. Now...I'm done for now.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69098
05/12/06 22:03
05/12/06 22:03
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
All you're doing is questioning our motives, while on the same token you're completely avoiding actual scientific discourse.
How could I discuss things I didn't even had time to read enough about them, and never will have time in my life to investigate them on my own.
Let's take your example of redshift as an index for speed versus as an index for distance:
my knowledge is not high enough to say anything about light waves, at least I have an analogy from our daily experience:
What can I hear when an ambulance drives past?
Sound, wether it comes from near or from far, it can change its loudness but not its wavelenght. While it changes relating the point where I'm standing when the ambulance comes in my direction and when the ambulance leaves.
Please keep in mind that this is an analogy, that means it isn't a proof, it explains only why to me the version of redshift as an indication for speed is more plausible than your suggestion that the scientists had no reason to prefer one option against the other. Saying they prefer one option against another without reason is the assumption that they don't know how to do their job.
Quote:
The only real competition to evolution is creation, but we're not allowed to compete. Why is that? Evolutionists don't want competition, they just want to work with the idea that they're right.
Creation is IMHO not a competition to any serious theory because it not even tries to stay within the conditions of a serious theory.
A 'deus ex machina' like a creator means the destruction of a consistent balance of correlating parts of that whole, that a theory should aspire to.
To carry God into science, means to objectivate him, means to reduce him to mechanisms which don't deserve the name God anymore, ... doesn't the bible say that God is inscrutable?
Quote:
"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Romans 11:36, 33)
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#69099
05/13/06 06:56
05/13/06 06:56
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
How could I discuss things I didn't even had time to read enough about them, and never will have time in my life to investigate them on my own.
You've apparently had enough time to come to the conclusion that I'm a conspiracy theorist. Which I doubt you've spent more than a second on formulating.
Quote:
Sound, wether it comes from near or from far, it can change its loudness but not its wavelenght.
Except that ambulance is never millions or billions of miles away. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make 'accurate' distances off of assumptions. We should just admit that we don't really know for sure, instead of cramming down everyone's throat that we do.
Quote:
Creation is IMHO not a competition to any serious theory because it not even tries to stay within the conditions of a serious theory.
Yes it does. It makes predictions about modern biology that we can observe in the modern world. Nearly all of its predictions come true, whereas more and more of evolution's predictions are starting to fall apart.
Quote:
A 'deus ex machina' like a creator means the destruction of a consistent balance of correlating parts of that whole, that a theory should aspire to.
Do you even know what this means?
Quote:
To carry God into science, means to objectivate him, means to reduce him to mechanisms which don't deserve the name God anymore, ... doesn't the bible say that God is inscrutable?
Oh, ok. Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me. Doesn't the bible also say that we inheritely understand God's creation just by looking at it? I don't have time to dig up the verse because its late and my brother is getting married tomorrow. But it says it, trust me.
Evolution says that we should understand natural causes for life, which we see no evidence for.
Please, don't quote the bible to try and wedge me out of the argument. There are plenty of verses in the bible backing up my side, and it really is pointless to even consider them. They aren't proof, they're just little comments on the nature of people and how they allow themselves to be fooled into believing lies...like say...oh...evolution. God's ways are inscrutible, but is his creation? We're in it right now. He built us to understand it.
Good night! See you guys tomorrow or the day after.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69100
05/13/06 07:34
05/13/06 07:34
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
"Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me." Does one need the permission of a God-believer to read the bible? I grow up with the bible, within a christian family and a parish, the fact that I don't believe your believe doesn't mean that I didn't read the bible with the same seriousness as you. "It makes predictions about modern biology that we can observe in the modern world. Nearly all of its predictions come true" Have there been examples within the discussion in this thread? I must have missed them. "Evolution says that we should understand natural causes for life, which we see no evidence for. " Biology says, that all we CAN look for are natural causes, that's its base. Quote:
A 'deus ex machina' like a creator means the destruction of a consistent balance of correlating parts of that whole, that a theory should aspire to.
"Do you even know what this means?"
You don't? Maybe, it is a bad grammatical construction. I should cut it down in clearer pieces. Later, when I have more time.
"I don't have time to dig up the verse [...] But it says it, trust me. "
No problem. I digged for my quote only because I didn't know wether 'inscrutable' is the right term for the word that I only know in german.
|
|
|
|
