Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Written by: spiralx
Which would put you apart from almost every physicist on the planet - steady-state theorists are vanishingly rare nowadays, relying on extremely speculative hypotheses in order to overcome fairly fundamental objections like Olber's paradox.
The Big Bang seems fairly solid, which implies that matter hasn't existed for an infinite time
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917This is a basic misunderstanding of nature. 'Species' is just a convienient grouping name, like genus or class, based on recent descent. After all some taxonomists insist that birds should be classified as reptiles, it's just historical reasons we class them in a group of thier own. It would be impossible for one organism to change into a completly different one, like a dog into a cat. Evolution only works through descent, like a wolf into a dog, to provide an example of one species becoming anouther.
First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriach917
A second prediction is that all humans have descended from a group of 8 common ancestors (and those 8 were descended from just two common ancestors a little further back.) If we could find that a branch of humans developed from a genetic source that is different from the rest of us (a different sort of monkey), this would disprove the creation account.
a:human's evolved from an ape. In fact we are still apes.
b:the most recent common ancestor of humans is reconed to have lived about 150 000 years ago, much, much later than our most recent relative with the chimp genus.
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917You're right, they would be crap for runnin' or swimmin'. But they would be freakin great for gliding. Really now.
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockham’s Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
Written by: jeff(fake)
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: Patriarch917
I find hard to believe
Written by: Patriarch917
We have not found any fossilized “brats,”
Written by: Patriarch917
I have great respect for the theory of evolution. I think that it is very clever, and it's proponents have done an admirable job of altering it when it is challenged by new discoveries.
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: Patriarch917
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
Written by: Patriarch917That would be the standard punishment for disobeying Moses. Rascist fascist git he was.Written by: jeff(fake)
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said “stone people who do not follow the golden rule.”
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: Mint SauceNor can a chihuahua and a great dane, and they're supposed to be the same species.
Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese.
yet wolf and Pekingese cant interbreed (it has been tried I cant find the article right now I will keep looking for it)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by:
Stuff about bats
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Written by: Drudwyn
You yourself admit that evolution can happen at small levels, and so you can see that organisms can change over time. In order to continue this debate, We must agree that the evidence pointing to the universe being 12-14 billion years old and the world being 4.5 billion years old is currently, by modern scientific methods, so incontrovertible that we'd have to believe that we were deliberately being fooled by a God who made the world 6002 years ago (by James Ussher's calculations).
Once we can accept that, we can move on.
Written by: Drudwyn
The next step is to see how fast observable, small scale evolution can take place. As Doc showed earlier, its possible to show resistances to antibacterials evolve in a lab. Using Darwins finches, the process of 2 distinct lengths of beaks evolving from one can be observed year after year.
Written by: Drudwyn
So if small changes can occur at such a high speed, over a few million years, those small changes can become huge ones. There are hypothetical and very plausible examples to this statement.
Written by: Drudwyn
But, back to the point, Patriach:
Evolution doesn't have all the answers, but it is open to conventional scientific methods of proof and disproof. If, for an example, an ape was to be found in the precambrian era, then Evolution would be instantly and irreversibly be disproved. But it hasn't happened!
Written by: Drudwyn
But, some aspects of belief systems can be tested. The Flood, for example. You choose a very strange point earlier, Patriarch, to prove this. The sedimentary deposits at the top of the mountains.
You must first answer the riddle you've just set yourself. Mountain growth and indeed creation is observable. Plate Tectonics are observable and as close to scientific fact as is possible.
So what proof do you offer that these mountains were at their current levels when you claim the flood occured?
Also, why do we not see constant sedimentary deposits at the levels you claim? Why is there not a sudden extiction recordable during the time of humanity?
Written by: Patriarch917
Your explanation about flying squirrels is reasonable, but not exactly on point. Bats wings are not flaps between the front and back legs, they are flaps between fingers. If the webbed forepaws appeared in a single organism in a form large enough to let them glide, rather than just impeding their ability to walk, the theory of gradual evolution could indeed take over from there.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I don’t know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just don’t have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Written by: TheBovrilMonkeyWritten by:
Stuff about bats
From newscientist.com..
Rogue finger gene got bats airborne
I'm assuming here that creationists will start talking about interpretation of evidence again and dodging around any particularly difficult questions.
*sigh* it's like trying to hold a conversation with a rock.
Written by: Patriarch917
It is “believed” that this could have happened in a radical way by a chance mutation, eliminating the need for a gradual series of transitional forms. This vindicates what I said in the earlier posts, you either need to believe that bat wings sprang up almost immediately in a fully functional form, or you can believe that they were “intelligently designed.”
Written by:
To me, this is like saying “because we can carve a statue out of stone, random chance can probably produce the Eiffel tower.” It’s far fetched, but it’s interesting to consider.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: Patriarch917
Your explanation about flying squirrels is reasonable, but not exactly on point. Bats wings are not flaps between the front and back legs, they are flaps between fingers. If the webbed forepaws appeared in a single organism in a form large enough to let them glide, rather than just impeding their ability to walk, the theory of gradual evolution could indeed take over from there.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I don’t know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just don’t have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
I think you're intellignet enough to know that your example of human finger flaps is highly weighted- however big human finger flaps got, flight would still be inpossible due to the weight of a human being.
As pointed out in a previous post, substitute 'tree-living frog' (or a number of other small creatures- possibly even 'bat-like 'ones?) and suddenly it's obvious how rudimentary finger webs can evolve into gliding wings, and then on to full flapping flight wings.
Having addressed that point, could I now ask why, when your previous posts indicate you are an intelligent and versatile thinker, you have attempted to divert a line of argument by introducing such a weighted and irrelevant example (human finger webs)?
Was it a genuine mistake, or are you falling into the use of the distraction and evasion tactics that seem so prevalent amongst many of those who support creationism?
Written by: DrudwynWritten by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
But that's the point I was trying to make. Bacteria with the mutation that allowed them to survive were favoured! Natural Selection is Evolution. Or at least a part of it.
It is time to go to bed for me, so I'll leave you with this.
I do notice, however, that in almost every single point you made against mine, you use the word "believe" or "faith".
Neither of these words have a place in a scientific discussion, because they can neither be proved or disproved. That, is the centre of the entire discussion, that ID should not be taught in schools in a science class room.
All of my points were backed up with large amounts of scientific process and evidence, while yours are based on your beliefs.
Therefore I cannot argue with you.
I am thoroughly impressed by your resolve, Patriarch, but I'm afraid the evidence, is weighted exceptionally against you. Look up all the centuries of scientific thought on the age of the planet, its geology, the decomposition of Carbon-14, and how ages can be deduced from that.
Oh and one more thing, what do you think the fossil record is if not "a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order"?
That one baffled me.
Believe what you will, I'll stick to believing that God would not test his loyal followers to the level he evidently is!
Written by: Sethis
Patriarch: Why would whoever is designing these things do so by changing them?
Say you have a plan for how the world is constructed. You make the world. It does not include bats. Why then would you think "Oh bugger, I forgot to put something in ecological niche X, lets give this rodent wings by modifying it's DNA and calling it a Bat."
Surely if you're God, then you don't need to modify your own ineffable plan? Surely you're omniscient? Why (after a prolonged period of time) would you inject wing DNA into rodents? Apart from the obvious amusement that would result from watching them try to run with big wings that they don't know how to use...
Also, note the use of the past tense in the article. They previously had no viable explanation for bat wings. Now they do. There is no more mystery about their sudden apparition.
Written by: Patriarch
This does nothing to explain where the new protein came from
Written by: Patriarch
why the elongated fingers were an advantage worth keeping
Written by: Patriarch
The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Written by: SethisWritten by: Patriarch
The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers
Wrong. It proves that naturally occuring genetic mutation can create beneficial changes to a creature's DNA.
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.