 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> We know that God did survive,
Do we?
> so why not another form of life?
Because God isn't a form of life?
> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life
> must have started sometime after the universe was created to either that
> or macroevolution must exist?
Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth
actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the universe was
literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then macroevolution must
have occurred if God created all life at the start of the universe.
> this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.
Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is sufficiently
overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that evolution occurs
isn't going to be swayed by mere scientific evidence. There are already too
many people trying to show scientific evidence of their faith-based beliefs
that it's senseless to actually argue it with the intent of winning.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> We know that God did survive,
>
> Do we?
well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies
that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He survived.
(All from the perspective of someone that believes God exists of course).
>
>> so why not another form of life?
>
> Because God isn't a form of life?
That is an interesting position.
>> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life
>> must have started sometime after the universe was created to either
>> that or macroevolution must exist?
>
> Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth
> actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the universe
> was literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then
> macroevolution must have occurred if God created all life at the start
> of the universe.
I was merely pointing out that you now have two options. Either life
always existed and we have macroevolution or life was created later and
we may not have that. And that that is a problematic position. Not
because of the people with a scientific background that agree with your
POV but for the others that you call clueless but are in fact very
clever in breaking all rules of a normal discussion.
>> this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.
>
> Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is
> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that
> evolution occurs isn't going to be swayed by mere scientific evidence.
> There are already too many people trying to show scientific evidence of
> their faith-based beliefs that it's senseless to actually argue it with
> the intent of winning.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some examples of speciation occuring in nature include plants in the genera
Spartina and Tragopogon. Plants are kind of cool in that new species can
arise through polyploidy (instant speciation).
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:498874cc$1@news.povray.org...
> Halbert wrote:
>> I would be very interested in reading about this. When, where, who and
>> how?
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
>
> The number of species created in labs are too numerous to list. It takes
> about three or four weeks to make a new species of fruit flies, IIRC, just
> by taking a group and subjecting half two one set of environments and half
> to the other.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> "Ouch ouch ouch!"
> "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
> "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> We know that God did survive,
>>
>> Do we?
> well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies
> that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He survived.
> (All from the perspective of someone that believes God exists of course).
Interestingly, as someone pointed out, there is never any mention of God
"making" the sea, just breathing on one that was already there, as a
means of "starting" the whole mess... So, not much of a "all powerful"
god, if he had to start with something that was already there...
>>
>>> so why not another form of life?
>>
>> Because God isn't a form of life?
>
> That is an interesting position.
>
Technically true though. Life implies certain properties. With the
possible exception of "reproduction", which even crystals can manage..,
its a bit unclear what "life processes" he has, which qualifies him as a
"life form". But, maybe that is being a bit too nit picky. We are
talking about something you can't provide non-self referencing evidence
for "reproducing" either.
>>> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that
>>> life must have started sometime after the universe was created to
>>> either that or macroevolution must exist?
>>
>> Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth
>> actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the
>> universe was literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then
>> macroevolution must have occurred if God created all life at the start
>> of the universe.
>
> I was merely pointing out that you now have two options. Either life
> always existed and we have macroevolution or life was created later and
> we may not have that. And that that is a problematic position. Not
> because of the people with a scientific background that agree with your
> POV but for the others that you call clueless but are in fact very
> clever in breaking all rules of a normal discussion.
>
How about this rule. Before arguing that "macro-evolution", a term
"entirely" invented by creationists, is invalid, present a "plausible"
reason why so called micro-evolution "cannot" lead to the former, which
isn't based on, "Well, I just don't believe it!" So far, the best anyone
can come up with is the embarrassment of "Irreducible Complexity", which
has been disproved by both "explanations" for earlier transitions,
numerous examples of transitions, and even ridiculously simple computer
programs, which show that its not just possible, but under some
conditions, inevitable that such "irreducible" results come about. Its
really simple, really. You have something that does something 2+2=4, you
copy it, 2+2=42+2=4, you "tweak" it, 2+2=42+2=5, which still works,
because there are two copies. You have a deletion 2+2=4+2=5, it still
"works", since the original is still there. Then you have a "mutation",
2+2=4+1=5, now you have a whole "new" function, which partly does what
the prior one did, but also now does something completely different
(presuming here that any "valid" = is a "function". Yet, its now
"irreducible", since any "change" to any part will either kill the
"original" function, or the "new" function. In the program I saw, which
was insanely simple, irreducibility could happen within as "little" as
five changes, where no individual "change" was detrimental to the
"survival" of the artificial animal, based on the criteria given.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> According to his book, all the species that now exist were
>>> "programmed into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer
>>> first built them. Over time, these species came and went, according
>>> to the Designer's original plan.
>>
>> Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for
>> however-many aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things,
>> couldn't you say that, in a way, they were "programmed into" the first
>> things?
>
> He made it sound as if all the species that would ever exist, and the
> exact time that they would arrise and die out was pre-ordined in the DNA
> of the first lifeforms. In particular, that the "unused" parts of the
> DNA are actually the encodings for later lifeforms.
>
> All of which is *highly* implausible. How is the supposed Designer
> supposed to know how the climate of the planet is going to evolve over
> the next thousand millennia? Or, for that matter, how do you encode
> several hundred billion genomes into just one (deterministically)?
>
> Of course, he could be right... but it's not falsifiable.
Snort. Yeah, got to love the logic of these people. One babbles about
"front loading", claiming that it contains all the "patterns" for all
future animals (never mind the fundamental contradictions with actual
facts of what "is" in the code), but you can find similar fools babbling
about how "impossible" it is for humans to be "formed" purely via the
active genes in the human genome, in that, "Its just not enough of them!!!"
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
>
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change
> to read it... don't bother. Seriously.
>
> While reading this book, I was actually astonished that somebody could
> seriously present such obvious nonesense as "fact". I was simply amazed
> that anybody would agree to print such lies. Furthermore, the author is
> apparently paid to work as a "scientist", yet he seems to not comprehend
> the simple definition of what "science" actually is.
>
> Seriously... I wasted a week of my life! >_<
>
> (Although some of the stuff was interesting... Inbetween the
> thinly-disguised religious rantings, there was some interesting science.
> Like the cascade of chemical reactions that turn a photon impact into an
> electric potential.)
Actually, what is worse is that he is a math expert, but.. As near as
"anyone" that knows math can figure, the guy can't even manage to get
that right in his book.
There is another example of this from the same bunch recently. A Cdesign
Proponentcists got hold of an neat equation and wibbled a load of
fertilizer over it. His "first" magic trick was take what meant "total
number of possible combinations", and convert that too, "How many
attempts are made.", since he has no way to even "get" that number, he
imagines the number of "animals" that could have existing in 6,000
years, and uses "that".. Huh?? Not even close to the original.
Second trick was to take the part that is defined as "The total number
of possible combinations that 'can' produce the protein you want.", (
this is rather large really, there are multiple ways to "code for"
nearly every protein imaginable, like hundreds, if not thousands), and
says, "Well, there is only 'one' solution". WTF?
Then, the third slight of hand is to "declare" than any "winning" result
has to have an arbitrary limit in size. Same argument made with the
whole "macro/micro" BS, that there is some imaginary "limit" on how many
things you can change via random effects, before you magically stop
getting any sort of changes/information from it... So, he simply pulls
something out of his backside, and declares "that" as the limit.
So.. You have "Life has to have resulting in X attempts, with only one
possible correct result, and using only the 'allowed' amount of
information to get there.", which basically takes the original equation,
and doesn't just make shit up to lie, but puts the whole thing in a
blender, and hits "puree". Dumb people, i.e., those without someone to
explain the deceit, stair at the resulting blob of muck and go, "Ah,
right, what ever you say it is. I'll... take you at your word on this
one.", or so they "hope".
Basically, its Beheistic math. Use an equation in a way that makes "no"
sense, with just plain made up numbers in some places, and implausible
ones in others, then hope, knowing you will probably be right, that most
people won't have the slightest damn idea how incorrectly you "used" the
math, or how big a lie you just told, thus convincing them its a rabbit
your pulling out of the hat, not what's left of their brains:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is
> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that
> evolution occurs.
Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution. Let's say
that we evolved near a shoreline and that as a species we lost the
majority of our body hair because those without did better in water than
those with and that those without didn't have any problems with protecting
their skin as they were in water. However it is also possible to suggest
that a group suddenly lost their body hair and thus moved to the shore
because those that didn't suffered skin cancers (having lost their
protection) and that this was 'meant' to happen as the water allowed us to
attain our full upright posture which allowed us to utilise our hands more
etc. etc. The outcome's the same, but different cause.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Basically, its Beheistic math. Use an equation in a way that makes "no"
> sense, with just plain made up numbers in some places, and implausible
> ones in others, then hope, knowing you will probably be right, that most
> people won't have the slightest damn idea how incorrectly you "used" the
> math, or how big a lie you just told, thus convincing them its a rabbit
> your pulling out of the hat, not what's left of their brains:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php
OK, that's pretty impressive.
How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable
*lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against
deliberately trying to mislead people?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Before arguing that "macro-evolution", a term
> "entirely" invented by creationists, is invalid,
What's even worse are those that say "evolution *within* a 'kind' is OK".
And then you ask them the difference between "kind" and "species" and they
handwave. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake thusly:
>
>> Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is
>> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that
>> evolution occurs.
>
> Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution.
I think you'll find a whole bunch of the faithful who don't believe "we
descended from monkeys."
> However it is also possible
> to suggest that a group suddenly lost their body hair and thus moved to
> the shore because those that didn't suffered skin cancers (having lost
> their protection) and that this was 'meant' to happen as the water
> allowed us to attain our full upright posture which allowed us to
> utilise our hands more etc. etc.
So God miraculously caused skin cancers in order to get what he wanted?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
