Thread Tools
Old April 20, 2002, 11:47   #421
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Information is created constantly from inanimate objects, usually through the application of energy. For instance, a snow flake is not a random collecton of particles, but a delicate crystaline structure. Storms in the atmosphere are another type of organization which spontaneously occurs. Of course, there is no violation of thermodynamic laws as the Sun provides the energy. (In any case, keep in mind that abiogenesis is not a feature of the Theory of Evolution.)

Geology is the proof of Evolution. Fossils of dinosaurs only exist in rocks of a certain age. Fossils of hominids only exist in relatively recent rocks. To counter Evolutionary Theory, one would have to attack the geological record. This would be difficult as it is well-researched and quite transparent even to the casual observer. Indeed, geological sciences are used to find mineral deposits. Creationists do not find oil. Geologists do.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 11:50   #422
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Lincoln> Just to get your answer to number 10 out of the way....

Do you believe in a flood as per the bible?

Yes as a matter of faith


====


Would you be able to answer the following questions:

Was an ark constructed?
.If the ark was constructed, how did the designer know how big to make it?
.How was such a vessel completed when significantly more experienced ship builders working on empirical knowledge of ship building have been unable to build massive wooden boat structures (the use of iron was ultimately necessary to build massive boats) ?
.How did a manufacturer of such a vessel incorporate all of the ecological and climactic conditions?
Since the polar water ecology would have been ruined by such a worldwide flood (through massive amounts of rain), wouldn't whales have needed to be bred in ecologically suitable conditions, in the ship?
.How did all of the necessary animals, such as penguins or those on Australia get to the boat?
.If Noah was breeding termites on board, and there was all this wood around, wouldn't that have been a problem?
.How did Noah get the bacteria and virii on board? They exist, and many would have likely been destroyed by a significant flood.
.How did Noah deal with inbreeding. Two animals are insufficient in most species to propagate the species.
Why isn't there clear evidence of a global flood in ice flows or tree rings world wide?
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 11:51   #423
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
"The fact is Gitt was referring to all information."

You should actually read his book. I posted the essence of it but he gave a very precise definition of the type of information he was referring to. He makes a definite distinction between the two view of information which I tried to explain. He is not to blame if I have not clearly explaine the parameters of his theorems.

In reality what he put in more scientific terms is only the obvious.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 11:53   #424
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Would you be able to answer the following questions:

No.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 11:55   #425
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Maybe I am missing something, as I have not read the mammoth entirety of the thread, but what point is trying to be proved. That Big Bang theory is wrong?
I am not sure. That came from a .doc file posted by Jack. It is a copy of something from New Scientist Magazine. I believe that was the idea of the poster however. If not to show it wrong then to show it could be wrong.

The late Sir Dr. Hoyle never exactly fell in love with the Big Bang either and I still respect him. So showing the Big Bang could be wrong is an entirely reasonable endevour.

Sure would make the universe more interesting long term if Sir Freddy was right.

Quote:
If so, there are a number of big bang models that incorporate isotropy, and others that include none. Finding the amount of anisotopy only serves to eliminate some models. Doesn't it?
Seems that way to me. No variation at all however would be very hard to fit into any expanding universe model. As I recall the variation COBE found was near the limit of the sattelites capacity to detect it. Especialy you consider the amount of data filtering that had to be done to account for foreground objects.

Quote:
Also, some anistropy is created by the motion of the Earth through the substratum. We are travelling at ~620 km/s with respect to the CMB., so doppler shift causes the CMB to be colder in one direction than the other. Although I think that has been corrected out of the COBE results.
Yes it was part of the data filtering. The entire swath of the middle of the galaxy had to be ignored I think due to all the stars and gas clouds. There have been more observations made since than with balloon mounted instruments that had more sensitive and precise equipment that have been able to show variations on a smaller scale than COBE could but they could only look at small sections of the sky.
Ethelred is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 11:56   #426
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Would you be able to answer the following questions:

No.
How about this one then? Are there significant scientific problems with global flood / ark concept in the bible?
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:00   #427
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Zacherial and everyone,

Read this article and get back to me so that we are talking about the same thing. If the link doesn't work I will post some excerpts from it. Snow flakes etc. do not contain the same type of information contained in DNA. Please don't waste my time if you don't understand the problem. It is spelled out here:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...rspectives.pdf
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:03   #428
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Lincoln... randomness can explain the beginning... comment on these statements.

Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.

If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)

If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.

Do you agree with these statements?
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:07   #429
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:09
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
No variation at all however would be very hard to fit into any expanding universe model
No variation at all would contradict the very presence of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. So the results would either be flawed or not sensitive enough.
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:07   #430
mactbone
Prince
 
mactbone's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IGNORE ME
Posts: 728
Quote:
I said “fraud and incorrect interpretations.” I don’t have the faith that you do to believe 200 years of confusion, fraud and subjective interpretation as fact.
So instead you rely on a book written by someone who was imperfect? You rely on the same teachings that claimed a flat Earth, that claimed everything revolved around the sun? On teachings that are never to be questioned?

Do you know why scientists argue? It's called dialectic, someone presents a thesis, someone else presents an anti-thesis and eventually they should come up with a synthesis. So, I post an article with evidence that extra-terrestrials landed and are living here in the form of dogs. Other scientists know this is false and publish an article detailing why I am false and providing concrete facts. When was the last time any Church allowed that?
__________________
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"
mactbone is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:11   #431
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
You should actually read his book.
Its not exactly well reviewed from what little I can find about it. He gets about the same amount of respect as Michael Behe. Not much but more than the norm for books on creationism. Its much easier to get information on Behe's stuff. I guess it more popular.

As far as I can tell he thinks that information requires an inteligence. I am not going to buy a book on irriducible complexity which is all this really is. No one has shown the existence of such yet.
Ethelred is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:12   #432
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred


Well that is a bit of topic but I would LOVE to discuss this abberant faith with you. I was pretty sure that was your answer. I figured you for a stealth creationist. That is, one that does want to admit that the Bible rather than science is the basis for his beliefs.

Just to be clear and to not be a stealth operator. I was raised Catholic. I am agnostic not atheist but some would call it a soft atheism I suppose. I see no reason to believe in a god but I can see no way to disprove the existence of a general god so I take no position on the existence of creator except that I don't see the need for one. A desire for a afterlife is the not the same as reason for believing in a god. Wishfull thinking is not reason.

Note that I said general god. Jehova is a specific god with specific properties including actions described in Genesis. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Genesis.

You don't have to respond to this Lincoln. Its just information to show where I am coming from and to make it clear I don't think stealth creationism is a intelectually honest manuever. Its part of the present effort to yet again sneak the Bible into the US public school system by trying to pass off Genesis as creation science.
First of all I am not a "stealth creationist" I have posted on this forum for over a year and my religious views are public knowledge except for the newcomers. I do generally seperate my personal beliefs from scientific discussions because it avoids the quagmire of mixing faith with science. That is why I am not going to discuss "termites" in the Ark etc.

On a personal note to you, I should say that I appeciate your input on this topic because you seem to be sincere and honest in your approach. That is a refreshing change from the usual creation/evolution debates that end up in name calling and ridicule from both sides.

I am not trying to "sneak the Bible into public schools" nor am I trying to teach the Genesis account of creation in school. My reason for debating here is to show credible evidence for Intelligent design in the formation of the DNA code. That is a valid argument which has nothing to do with Genesis.

Anyway, let's be friends
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:15   #433
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
"I am not going to buy a book on irriducible complexity which is all this really is."

Believe me it has nothing to do with irriducible complexity. It is an entirely different field of science.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:20   #434
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Lincoln... I am beginning to think you aren't answering this argument, because doing so would disprove your belief of intelligent design.

Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.

If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)

If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:35   #435
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Lincoln... randomness can explain the beginning... comment on these statements.

Information IS the container. The container IS information. The gene sequence is just a series of atoms. There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms.

If I were able to precisely form DNA at the atomic level like lego (and could deal with the complexity) from scratch, then I could, provided I implanted the target DNA into a suitable host medium, grow a human or a dinosaur, and providing I exactly duplicated the sequence of genes (of a human or dinosaur)

If I formed (using the above method) an endless amount of DNA sequences without any knowledge (operating without Intelligence) and placed that target DNA into a growth medium suitable for primal bacterial, eventually primal bacteria would grow.

Do you agree with these statements?
I hope that you are reading the article that I posted. If you do then you will understand that "Information is [NOT] the container" anymore than a book as a container of information is the same as the information that was put in it by the author. DNA can be and often is simply randomness but it certainly is not now random. It contains coded information. If the container is the same as the information then utter randomness would fit the definition of information.

"There is no 'magic information' in DNA just a bunch of atoms."

There is no magic information in a book either it is "just a bunch of atoms." But the information contained in those atoms originated from an intelligent mental source. And no I do not agree with the above statements. If you are talking about cloning then yes, it works. If you are talking about "an endless amount of DNA seaquences" forming themselves into life then no, it must have intelligent input or manipulation so that a code could be formed and viable information can be placed within your theoretical bacteria.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:36   #436
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Because God also told him there was this guy called Noah.. who deforested the land for miles around, to build this boat, and he managed to get 2 of every creature, plant and bug and managed to sustain and breed them on this boat.........
Don't believe the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible! They often distort the Bible beyond all recognition, and give it strained interpretations that do nothing but confuse the truth contained therein.

There is good reason to believe that Noah was an actual person. His entire world really was flooded. There is new evidence to support the conclusion that a stone age civilization lived in the basin of the Black Sea. About 7000 years ago, this basin was flooded. Putting two of every animal on a raft is a time-honored tradition of all peoples during floods, or when traveling by sea. Here is the National Geographic expedition, in progress:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/flood.html

The point is that the stories in the Bible are truthfully told, but have been interpreted for us by fundamentalists who wish to distort the truth for their own purposes. For instance, in the Noah story, the Bible says the entire earth was flooded, but certainly they are not referring to the globe we know, but the world they knew.

PS. Upon landing his ark, Noah first offered sacrifice to God, then planted a vineyard and got drunk.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:38   #437
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
Sorry everyone I have to go to work. I will try and catch up later
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:54   #438
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I said “fraud and incorrect interpretations.” I don’t have the faith that you do to believe 200 years of confusion, fraud and subjective interpretation as fact.
Of course you do. You have the faith to accept the Bible on no evidence at all. Your repetition here of the term 'fraud' is highly disengenuous. That was what I called you on. There is EXACTLY one case of fraud in all of anthropology. It was ferreted out by anthropologists when it failed to fit scientific deductions.

The use of 'subjective interpretation' is also exceedingly loaded and of a highly dubious nature. Fossils are MEASURED not guessed at. The are inspected, cut, x-rayed, MRIed, subjected to chemical analyisis, compared with modern living animals, and subjected to mechanical analysis on computers to name just part of the battery of OBJECTIVE analysis.

Quote:
You solved nothing. But you did build a strawman.
I did no such thing. It was all fact. Facts even you have agreed are real in other posts.

DNA changes through mutation. Changes accumulate if they don't kill the life and not all changes kill. That is evolution. There is not one bit of speculation in this. To call it a straw man is to speak nonsense.

Quote:
If there was a god that created "God" then he would be God wouldn’t he? Is that the only mystery that troubles you?
Its an infinite regression. Its not a mystery its just evasion. It doesn't trouble me at all. You just keep evading it as you are doing right now. Were did the god come from however many you feel is enough to cover it where did the first one come from?

Quote:
I have not got the slightest idea how God came into existence.
Then its not an answer for how life came into existence. Its just a way to avoid thinking about things.

Quote:
Nor do you know where the material that you have assigned magical powers to came from.
I haven't assigned magical powers to anything. Just physics and chemistry.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of god.

Quote:
So if you want to get into a philosophical or theological discussion about the nature of God I am not interested. Maybe you can just answer the questions instead of evading the issue.
Nice evasion. Accuse me of evasion when I don't to cover up your evasion. I am not talking about any philosphical discussion about a hypothetical being as that is no answer for where life came from. The fact remains

IF life must have a creator
THEN the creator must have a creator
THEREFOR saying god did it is not answering anything.

Quote:
I intentionally skipped over your explanation of mutations because I do not dispute the process of micro evolution.
Except when we talk about information being gained in bacteria. That was what you carefully skipped over.

Quote:
It is a term that troubles you because you cannot separate speculation fron fact.
You don't know what evidence and deduction from evidence is apparently. Its not speculation.

Quote:
Macro evolution is speculation.
No its real. The evidence is clear. Calling it speculation is an attempt to hide from reality.

Quote:
It is not fact as you suppose. If you choose to use the same definition for it all then you have lowered the threshold. Separating fact from fiction is a necessary division in science.
Yes it is. I have not been using fiction. I leave that to creationists. They believe in the fiction in Genesis not me.

As long as you insist on the continued disengenous use of the term 'speculation' you are making it clear the you just want to evade any real discussion.

Quote:
I do not deny fact. I do not accept science fiction however as fact.
You deny facts every time you call scientific reasoning speculation. And thats not getting into the Flood where you clearly are denying the entire earth.

You deny facts all the time. Its the basis of your continued belief.

Quote:
No, I am saying that the obvious source of information (that I defined earlier several times) that is contained in coded form has ALWAYS originated from an intelligent mental source. You are saying in effect that there is an exception here “therefore evolution did it”..
If it was obvious you wouldn't have to define it into existence. Information does not require an intelligent mental source and that claim doesn't come up to the level of speculation since I have allready shown that information does not need an inteligent source.

You can't define a universal law into existence. That is what you are trying to do. Evolution is a fact. Even you have admited that change occurs and THAT IS evolution. Since we have now concurred that change happens I have every right to use change and natural selection as a cause of things.

Thats why more experienced creationists deny the real age of the Earth. Micro evolution over a few hundred years cannot be constrained to avoid the eventual Macro results that would clearly ensue over millions and even billions of years.
Ethelred is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 12:59   #439
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln

*snip*
There is no magic information in a book either it is "just a bunch of atoms." But the information contained in those atoms originated from an intelligent mental source. And no I do not agree with the above statements. If you are talking about cloning then yes, it works. If you are talking about "an endless amount of DNA seaquences" forming themselves into life then no, it must have intelligent input or manipulation so that a code could be formed and viable information can be placed within your theoretical bacteria.
Just plain wrong
If I go through a complete sequence of permutations of DNA then I will recreate the exact structure and sequence of you, every bacteria, and every other being.

To use your book example...

Given an infinite sequence, order and location of atoms for a book.. carbon... etc etc etc. Most of the permutations will not look anything like a book. Some will. Some will look like a book but contain gibberish. Some will contain the bible. Some will have an adendum saying... "I got that bit about creation wrong."

Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence.

In your document, everything relies on the probabilities being beyond the reach of chance. That just ignores QT. The truth is... in other quantum states, life didn't evolve. There are many such quantum states. We just don't happen to perceive those. In our perception it had to, otherwise we wouldn't perceive.

Last edited by MrBaggins; April 20, 2002 at 13:29.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 13:05   #440
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I am not trying to "sneak the Bible into public schools" nor am I trying to teach the Genesis account of creation in school.
Good. Of course that doesn't stop me from argueing anyway. I like argueing. Basicaly I wanted to get things clear.


Quote:
My reason for debating here is to show credible evidence for Intelligent design in the formation of the DNA code. That is a valid argument which has nothing to do with Genesis.

Anyway, let's be friends
Well it would be a valid arguement if there was evidence. Gitt wasn't evidence. It looked very much like an attempt to treat disputed definitions as laws.

Even friends can have heated arguements.
Ethelred is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 13:13   #441
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel


Don't believe the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible! They often distort the Bible beyond all recognition, and give it strained interpretations that do nothing but confuse the truth contained therein.

There is good reason to believe that Noah was an actual person. His entire world really was flooded. There is new evidence to support the conclusion that a stone age civilization lived in the basin of the Black Sea. About 7000 years ago, this basin was flooded. Putting two of every animal on a raft is a time-honored tradition of all peoples during floods, or when traveling by sea. Here is the National Geographic expedition, in progress:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/flood.html

The point is that the stories in the Bible are truthfully told, but have been interpreted for us by fundamentalists who wish to distort the truth for their own purposes. For instance, in the Noah story, the Bible says the entire earth was flooded, but certainly they are not referring to the globe we know, but the world they knew.

PS. Upon landing his ark, Noah first offered sacrifice to God, then planted a vineyard and got drunk.
*GASP*

You don't mean that the bible contained an incorrect mystically-based account of what was a natural event do you?

Why, this might mean that the authors could have gotten other parts of the Bible wrong too. Like... *GASP*... Genesis.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 14:07   #442
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
*GASP*

You don't mean that the bible contained an incorrect mystically-based account of what was a natural event do you?

Why, this might mean that the authors could have gotten other parts of the Bible wrong too. Like... *GASP*... Genesis.


"incorrect"?

Actually, the Bible is told truthfully from their own point of view. The writers were not scientists or even historians. I'm sure from Noah's point of view, it was the whole earth*.

It is our own modern perspective that thinks of pictures of the planet Earth that we have taken from space. That, and fundamentalists who manipulate the story for their own purposes, creating an impression of the Bible which is not accurate.


* Hebrew Ra, meaning land.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 14:15   #443
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Since these early people could not see or conceive of DNA, Quanta, Relativity or a myriad of other principals, wouldn't you say Genesis is their way of dispensing with creation 'as they saw it'.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 16:00   #444
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Since these early people could not see or conceive of DNA, Quanta, Relativity or a myriad of other principals, wouldn't you say Genesis is their way of dispensing with creation 'as they saw it'.
I believe that the stories in the Bible are truthful tellings of real events. But they can't be taken literally, in the modern sense. The writers have no concern for our notions of scientific reality.

It has already been demonstrated that the Black Sea was suddenly flooded about the time of the Biblical Noah (real science, not the creationist kind). Certainly, the basin would have been a warm spot for the development of agriculture at the end of the last Ice Age. If Ballard can prove there was "advanced" habitation there, well, that would be pretty dramatic. (For the record, this has not been confirmed as yet.)

Last edited by Zachriel; April 20, 2002 at 19:38.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 17:03   #445
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:09
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins

In your document, everything relies on the probabilities being beyond the reach of chance. That just ignores QT. The truth is... in other quantum states, life didn't evolve. There are many such quantum states. We just don't happen to perceive those. In our perception it had to, otherwise we wouldn't perceive.
That is one intrepreatation of current quantum theory, and by no means is it necessarily the true one. There may be infinite other quantum states or there may be none.

Aside:

There is an experiment designed by Roger Penrose being prepared to see if quantum physics actually applies to large scale objects (by which I mean the superposition of states), or whether it is merely a small scale approximation. The experiment due to be completed in ~18 months by two independent research teams should shed light on what causes the classical world to behave in a non-quantum fashion - and whether or not large scale objects can be kept in superpositions. If they can't then Schrodingers cat will be resolved.
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 18:23   #446
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
talk.origins
For those interested in a more in depth discussion of Creationism v. Evolution, see the news group talk.origins.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 18:33   #447
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
There is an experiment designed by Roger Penrose being prepared to see if quantum physics actually applies to large scale objects
He's the right man for the job.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 19:10   #448
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
A little food for thought below I will post several more disputed and fraudulent claims made concerning the fossil record if anyone is actually interested in something than rhetoric here:

Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. ”The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, “Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40

Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, “Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)

Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's. Originally, the evidence consisted of a single tooth which was declared to have characteristics similar to human and ape, and was named Sianthropus Pekinesis. Later, a skull cap was dug out of rock that the finder, Davidson Black declared that the skull size was about 960 cc, just between ape and human, and therefore a missing link. However, visiting scientists such as Grafton Elliot Smith, Marcellin Boule, and von Koenigswald believed that that size was much too large and that the skull was that of an ape. Additional evidence discovered through blasting included broken, shattered skulls with the base of the skulls broken off numbering no more than 14 total skulls, jawbones, portions of thigh bones, two upper arm bones, a wristbone, and 147 teeth and thousands of bones of animals including elephant and deer. Moreso, the skulls were mixed in with the animal bones inside the rock and showed no progression, no change over time even though the depth of the excavation was 150 feet vertically. Unfortunately, the human remains were lost during W.W.II. Clear evidence at the same site showed true man along with a 23 ft. deep ash pile and a limestone mine. All of the skulls of Sianthropus were broken in the same manner as those of monkeys who are eaten for their brains.(Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order", Toronto Canada, TFE pub. 1984 p. 234-241) Among the interesting facts surrounding these site, is that for the most part, only Skulls were found, not complete skeletons, until the finding of 6 almost complete fully human skeletons. Other evidences existed for fully human interaction at the site, for there were numerous other animal bones there inside the ash pit. The ash pit was used to a degree that minerals on the sides of the pit were fused due to the heat of the pit.

Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap dug up in 1891 on the banks of the Solo River in Java and a femur that was dug up 50 feet away and year later. It is claimed that the finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.(Eugene Dubois, “On the gibbon like appearance of Pithecanthropus Erectus", Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Vol 38 Amsterdam Koninklijke Akademie 1935 P.578). Additional questions arise from Dubois calculations. The date chosen by Dubois is suspect, for Dubois was a doctor, a self described anatomist, yet it is he that claimed the 500,000 year old date to make his fossil the missing link.
“Dubois claimed that the skull cap and femur came from a rock stratum known as the Trinil layer, named after a nearby village in central Java. He believed that these rocks were below what is known as the Pleistocene-Pliocene (Tertiary) boundary. Dubois was convinced that ‘real’ humans evolved later in the Middle Pleistocene. Hence, his dating of Java Man was quite appropriate for a missing link. however, his interpretation was not exactly straightforward, as the man who later found other ‘Java Men’ G.H.R. von Koenigswald, tells us:
“When Dubois issued his first description of the fossil Javanese fauna he designated it Pleistocene. But no sooner had he discovered his Pithecanthropus than the fauna had suddenly to become Tertiary. He did everything in his power to diminish the Pleistocene character of the fauna...”

“The criterion was no longer to be the fauna as a whole, but only his Pithecanthropus . Such a primitive form belonged to the Tertiary!”
“Dubois view...did not go uncontested. But there was no getting at him until he had described his whole collection and laid all his cards on the table. That was why we all had to wait for a study of his finds, and to wait in vain.” (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, Meeting Prehistoric Man, Michael Bullock, Trans. , New York, Harper and Brothers, 1956. 38-39).

Not all scientists at the time of Java man agreed that this was a transitional form of any kind, but truly human. “Sir Arthur Kent, the famed Cambridge University anatomist was asked to comment on Dubois paper. He replied that the chief question to be settled on was whether or not the skull cap was human. In answering that question, one had to determine the criterion of a human skull versus an ape skull. To his mind, there were two basic differences: first, the very large cranial capacity of human skulls as compared to ape skulls, and second, the large muscular ridges and processes, connected with the chewing apparatus, which ape skulls have compared to human skulls. On both points Keith declared that the Java man skull cap was distinctly human. (Alan Houghton Brodrick, Early Man, London, Hutchinson’s Scientific and Technical Publications, 1948, p85). The cranial capacity of the anthropoid apes never exceeds 600cc and averages 500cc. On the other hand, the cranial capacity of Dubois’ Java Man was estimated at 1000cc, which is well within the range of humans living today.”
“In 1938, Franz Weidenreich described several femoral fragments of Peking Man. (Both Peking Man and Java Man are now called Homo Erectus). Whereas the skulls of Peking Man and Java Man were quite similar, the Peking Man femora differed from the Java Man femur in the very places where the Java Man femur was similar to modern humans. Since the association of the Peking Man skulls and femora was undisputed, Weidenreich concluded that the Java Man femur was not a true Homo Erectus femur but was instead a modern one. (Bert Theunissen, Eugene Dubois and the Ape Man from Java, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989, p121).”
“The most recent assessment of the Java Man Femur comes to the same conclusion. Michael Day and T.I. Molleson compared the Java Man femur, the Peking femora, and the femur known as Olduvai Hominid 28 (OH-28) found by Louis Leaky in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in unquestioned association with other homo erectus material. They state that OH-28 and the Peking Man femora, although truly human, are much more similar to each other than either is to the Java femur. Their conclusion is that OH-28 and Peking Man represents a Homo Erectus anatomy, whereas the Java femur is more modern.”


The above is typical of the disputes and the outright fraud that pervades the "fact" of evolution. I have hundreds more...
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 19:30   #449
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Lincoln,

There are strata in rocks layed down over billions of years.
True?

Fossil lifeforms are clearly separated in these strata. Dinosaurs only found in certain levels; hominids, of whatever kind, only found in more recent levels.
True?

One more question. Why do so many Christians base their faith upon such tenuous grounds as the validity of a scientific theory concerning the material world?
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 20, 2002, 20:14   #450
Lincoln
King
 
Local Time: 23:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: TN
Posts: 1,864
I was addressing Etheired's claim that there was " EXACTLY one case of fraud". I do not dispute real evidence.
__________________
The Blind Atheist
Lincoln is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:09.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team