|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/25/2006 07:10:55 AM · #476 |
Originally posted by crayon:
here I am with a serious problem wondering who removed my profile pic, |
Act of God
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 07:28:43 AM · #477 |
It's been a long time since I saw this thread on the front page. However, idnic, you have occluded what was one of my better thread killing posts!
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 08:03:58 AM · #478 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
This is a controversial point of view, I know... but; into the breach.
While I accept that many people do believe in a god, it always seems to me to be a slightly lazy way of explaining the universe. No matter to what degree you accept scientific theory, to suggest that whatever is beyond the scope of your accepted understanding is "down to god" is akin to explaining everything by reference to "magic". Uncontestable, but also unhelpful.
Any explanation that includes "because god willed it so" is very unsatisfactory. In particular, there are a number of ancient mysteries that with the passing of time and greater understanding we have been able to explain. So why do we believe that the remaining mysteries can only be explained by reference to god? To suggest that there is no discoverable rational phenomenon for today's many mysteries is to suggest that we have reached the pinnacle of understanding - a claim made many times before and always proven wrong!
This is not to cast stones at the benefits that religions have provided over the centuries, in providing moral and ethical codes and support systems. It just seems that these roles could nowadays be provided through non-religous means, avoiding some of the pitfalls with which religion is burdened. I think that we may have outgrown the need for a religion.
Anyway - highly off topic, and probably going to make few friends. |
Very eloquently put, legalbeagle, and I’m in full agreement. To constantly attribute things we do not yet understand to a divine being is lazy, and after several thousand years, I should like to think that we are moving past the need to continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 03:19:32 PM · #479 |
Oh ... what the heck. I've been bored and there hasn't been any excitement around here for an age. I'm sure I’ll regret it later. (I hope all the links still work, because I’m too lazy to check them.)
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
I did NOT say that you seem to take on the authority to define what "THEORY of evolution" means. I said that you seem to take on the authority to define what "evolution" means. HINT: the part within the quotes is a single WORD ("evolution"), not a PHRASE or TERM ("THEORY of evolution").
It is only YOU, and NOT the scientists who say "In the future, when I talk about evolution, I'll be referring to the entire theory, macro- and micro-."
The Wikipedia sums it up nicely thus:
"Evolution, strictly speaking, is the change in frequency of genetic occurrences within a given gene pool over time."
(To me, that pretty much defines MICRO-EVOLUTION ONLY.) |
1) Define how large the gene pool is. How large is the gene pool according to the quote you posted? Does the above quote cover gene pool of a single population of organisms or does it cover the gene pool of all living things on the planet? Every living thing has genes. 2) Define time. Is it one year? Ten years? Ten million years? Or is it 400 million years? |
I, of course, cannot answer your questions. They should, instead, be addressed to one, lepercolony, the author of the statement in Wikipedia. |
So now (or over one year ago to be more precise) you either (1) don't agree with the definition you supplied for evolution, (2) realize you misunderstood the definition you supplied for evolution or (3) decided to evade the question? Some other reason?
Originally posted by RonB:
But, for what it's worth, TalkOrigins describes it thusly:
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species...Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes." |
And it still all falls under the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
If you or any other person finds mistakes within their archives, they welcome feedback to help them correct their errors. |
Sure they do. About as much as do you. |
Here's a link to the Talkorigins feedback section if you feel they've published an article or page in error.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Secondly, since you can't define length of time or how large the gene pool is based on the first quote you posted, the two secondary quotes are not significantly different than the first. |
Another interesting observation. If I can't put distinct parameters around the definitons, supportive evidence is insignificant. But if the scientists cannot put distinct parameters around their definitions of time and size, it's perfectly acceptable. They are permitted endless time ( well, not endless, just 4.5 billion years more or less). |
You gave a definition that was open-ended in terms of the definition of “time” and “gene pool” and claimed that the definition provided defined “microevolution”. I pointed out that the definition your provided covers both micro- and macroevolution and now you’re equivocating. What exactly do you mean by “If I can't put distinct parameters around the definitions, supportive evidence is insignificant”?
Evidence suggests an approximately 4.5 billion-year-old earth and 13.7 billion-year-old universe. Do you think these numbers were pulled out of thin air? I would really like to know how you think geologists and cosmologists arrived at these numbers.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Do you disagree that the mainstream scientific community uses the phrase "the theory of evolution" to include both micro- and macro-? |
Originally posted by RonB:
Nope. The THEORY of evolution, does, indeed, refer to both.
That's why it is a false teaching. |
An assertion you have yet to provide evidence for. |
And one that neither you nor the "scientists" have provided hard evidence to disprove. |
Is this your version of the Monty Python Department of Arguments sketch? "That is not an argument!" "Yes, it is!" "No, it isn't!" "Yes, it is!" "No, it isn't!" "Yes, it is!"
Originally posted by milo655321:
CONCLUSION:
I'm disappointed in your most recent posting. Of all the things written in my last post written toward your argument, you chose only to address definitions. You could have addressed my assertions that you used several quotes taken out of context which appear to have been used to lead a reader to a conclusion not intended by the original author. |
Originally posted by RonB:
1) It would be against copyright laws to post the ENTIRE speech, so I cannot do that. So, it would appear that ANYTHING less than breaking the law will result in having quotations taken "out of context". |
It's not necessary to quote the entire article, but it is necessary not to misrepresent what the author wrote by using a "mined quote".
Originally posted by RonB:
2) It would be unfair for me to have to go to extreme lengths to determine what the author/speaker MEANT if he/she is unable to articulate their positions clearly. |
So you quoted from an article which you now (one year previous) admit you didn't understand? And then blame the author? Did you even read the article from which you quoted?
Originally posted by RonB:
3) Do I hear an outcry from the anti-religious folks when Judith posts several quotes taken out of context to disparage God? Anyone? Anyone? No, I didn't think so. |
That conversation is between you and Judith. I’m more concerned with the misleading quotes you provided in response to me.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
You asked for evidence for the theory of evolution and I referred you back to my earlier post regarding the predicted existence of extra telomeres and centromeres on human chromosome 2. You've ignored that twice now. |
Because it is irrelevant. I could with certainty predict that twenty years from now computer chips will contain binary switching devices. And sure enough, you will find that to be a true prediction. |
The prediction which I presented is a structure which already existed before the existence of said structure was verified. Your prediction is a forecast of future events or states which do not presently exist using present and near-past indicators to predict trends. It's apples and oranges and most certainly not irrelevant.
Originally posted by RonbB:
All of the evidence for the similarity of mammal structures being "shared" across species is easily dismissed as part of God using similar structures for similar functions in multiple creations. Like using wheels on both automibles and airplanes, or propellers on both airplanes and boats. If it does the job, use it where it makes sense. |
“Easily dismissed”. I like that. Retroviruses? (Viral “insertions” in the genetic code shared within and across species.) Easily dismissed. Pseudogenes? (“Broken” genes, such as the broken Vitamin C gene in all great apes including humans, shared within and across “closely related” species.) Easily dismissed. Vestigial organs (such as the useless bundle of nerves that don’t quite reach the roof of the mouth leading to endings that don’t quite reach the brain, atrophied - for most people – ear muscles, or the useless hair erector muscles in humans – think goosebumps)? Easily dismissed.
The major problem with the “common creator” answer is that a creator can do anything and is not limited by genetics. Evolution is limited. If we found similar genetic structures in two different species, it is possibly the work of a “common creator” or evolution. If we found a genetic structure in one organism but a structure consisting of miniaturized peanut butter sandwiches, shoe polish and rubber bands in the other, a “common creator” could explain it while evolution couldn’t. If we found a genetic structure in one organism but a structure with little tags on it reading “Inspected by Angelic Supervisor No. 12” in another, a “common creator” could explain it but evolution couldn’t. That the problem with your “common creator” argument, a omnipotent creator is not limited in the materials or methods used and, therefore, can but used to explain anything, making that explanation worthless.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Within the context of this debate, you've presented conclusions based on circular logic as evidence that the creation story within the Bible is to be taken literally. |
And the scientists use circular logic to "date" thier "evidence". They
date rock layers from the fossils found in them, and they date fossils
from the rock layer they were found in. |
Hey, sure, go ahead, change the subject to distract the reader from your use of circular reasoning. As to your assertion that geologist use circular reasoning to date rocks, it is, forgive me, Talkorigins, I know, wrong.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
You've also proposed bizarre and unsubstantiated migratory patterns for flightless birds and extreme plate tectonic movements without one shred of physical evidence. |
1) Kon-Tiki. Constructed of nine balsa logs collected from Equador, a crew of six men sailed the raft from Callao in Peru the 28th of April 1947 and landed on the island of Raroia in Polynesia after 101 days. This successful voyage of c.4300 miles proved that the islands in Polynesia were within the range of this type of prehistoric South American vessel.
Surely, if six men can travel 4300 miles in 101 days, a small flock of
cormorants can travel several thousand miles in 100 years. |
Yes. They could. So flightless cormorants walked/swam to the Galapagos Islands, dodos walked/swam to Mauritius and kiwis walked/swam to New Zealand? All monotremes and all but one species of marsupials walked or were taken to Australia?
Originally posted by RonB:
2) Don't argue with ME about Pangea. Argue with your
scientist buddies. They are the ones who came up with the "Continental
Drift Theory". Oh, does the word THEORY in that phrase mean that it's
NOT just "hypothesis" or "conjecture". |
I don't reject Pangaea, Gondwanaland, Lurasia or Continental Drift. Where did you get that from? (And they aren't my "scientist buddies"; I thought we covered that ground before.)
Originally posted by RonB:
By the way, you can review that theory at this site maintained by the U.S.Geological Survey |
You don't see the irony of you posting a link for my benefit that shows the earth in terms of being hundreds of millions of years old as support for your position?
Incidentally, here is a link to the Affiliation of Christian Geologists who accept current geology that the earth is billions of years old.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
I'm assuming, since you haven't proposed
anything else more in line with standards of evidence, that these are
the best arguments you have. |
So, are you saying that you want it both ways? I should accept the
THEORY of evolution but you should reject the Continental Drift
THEORY? |
Where did I ever even hint of suggesting I rejected Continental Drift? Where did you get that? You are aware that when I wrote "extreme tectonic plate movement" I was referring to your proposition that the plates could have moved in a matter of years or decades rather than the geologically accepted millions of years, correct?
(There. I’ve been looking at this thread for the last two days. It feels good to get it out of my system.)
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 03:30:02 PM · #480 |
"Evidence suggests an approximately 4.5 billion-year-old earth and 13.7 billion-year-old universe. Do you think these numbers were pulled out of thin air?"
More or less. Dating techniques give an 'age' of an object that can't be verified. For example, I can carbon date a rock in my back yard and 'scientifically' find that it is 43,768 years old but I have nothing that I KNOW is 43,768 years old to validate the result against therefore it is just a best guess.
Dating methods that rely on the decay rates of isotopes are also flawed in this regard (if you consider this a flaw). Giving a liberal estimate of 300 years within which scientists have been measuring the decay rates of isotopes, for them to extrapolate that the decay rate has remained constant over millions of years is pretty bold. It is as if someone walks into a movie theater, views 3 seconds of a 4 hour saga, and then comes out and tells everyone how the movie began, how it ended, how long it was, etc.
edit: I am bored too ;)
Message edited by author 2006-07-25 15:30:37. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 04:00:44 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Dating techniques give an 'age' of an object that can't be verified. For example, I can carbon date a rock in my back yard and 'scientifically' find that it is 43,768 years old but I have nothing that I KNOW is 43,768 years old to validate the result against therefore it is just a best guess.
Dating methods that rely on the decay rates of isotopes are also flawed in this regard (if you consider this a flaw). |
However, there is more than one way to date a rock as well more than one method of isochron dating. Not only is there more than one method, they correspond with each other to get approximately the same dates marking the earth as billions of years old. Even pre-Darwin naturalists had come to the conclusion the earth was far older than 10,000 years. And as for “recent” geological history, there are varves, ice cores, carbon dating and tree rings dating back tens of thousands of years.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Giving a liberal estimate of 300 years within which scientists have been measuring the decay rates of isotopes, for them to extrapolate that the decay rate has remained constant over millions of years is pretty bold. |
Radioactivity has only been known for the last hundred years or so from radioactive materials that were left on a photographic plate – not three hundred years.
Nuclear reactors use the same model of decay that are used for dating rocks. Operators, while concerned with safety, don’t seem to be too concerned that rates of decay will be changing anytime soon.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
It is as if someone walks into a movie theater, views 3 seconds of a 4 hour saga, and then comes out and tells everyone how the movie began, how it ended, how long it was, etc. |
Not a great analogy, but I would put more like this. Dating is more akin to someone walking into a movie theater being shown 78 different frames (3 seconds) from different sections of the movie, seeing which layer they once fit into on the spool on the reel and then trying to put them in chronological order and then placing new frames into place as they continually come in.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 05:51:15 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Not only is there more than one method, they correspond with each other to get approximately the same dates marking the earth as billions of years old. |
But still there is no 'control' to validate against.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Even pre-Darwin naturalists had come to the conclusion the earth was far older than 10,000 years. |
I'm not arguing against the idea that the earth is ancient (I'm not actually arguing any of this, I just like the discussion), but this is putting the cart before the horse. These scientists (and current scientists) will espouse all sorts of assumptions that are required to make their current theory on something feasible. It is still an assumption. I have theory XYZ that only makes sense if the Earth is 1 billion years old. Therefore, I say the earth is 1 billion years old. Prove me wrong. Can't? I'm off to the publisher...
Originally posted by milo655321:
And as for “recent” geological history, there are varves, ice cores, carbon dating and tree rings dating back tens of thousands of years. |
Again though, determined to be of these ages based on what analysis? From a statistical point of view, the smaller your sample set the more likely that any conclusions you draw from it and apply to a much larger set will be wrong. Let's say these guys are looking at what truly is 10,000 years of geological data and extrapolating from that. They are arriving at the conclusion that the planet is 1,000,000,000 years old. Orders of magnitude in difference. No telling what may have happened in the other 990,000,000 years that could affect the data they are looking at. Accelerations, deccelerations, catastrophic events, etc, etc.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Nuclear reactors use the same model of decay that are used for dating rocks. Operators, while concerned with safety, don’t seem to be too concerned that rates of decay will be changing anytime soon. |
This is again a matter of scale and scale is the crux of what I am saying. They aren't worried because over a very small chunk of time (relative to the massive chunks of time being bandied about for age of Earth, the universe, etc), they have a much greater confidence in the decay rates of the materials involved.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Not a great analogy, but I would put more like this. Dating is more akin to someone walking into a movie theater being shown 78 different frames (3 seconds) from different sections of the movie, seeing which layer they once fit into on the spool on the reel and then trying to put them in chronological order and then placing new frames into place as they continually come in. |
I guess. Still seems like a crap shoot to me. Especially considering over 99% of the film (using 10,000 years out of a billion) are lost forever.
The real question to me is - other than headlines, what is gained by these scientific declarations about how old the planet is? |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 09:39:30 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Not only is there more than one method, they correspond with each other to get approximately the same dates marking the earth as billions of years old. |
But still there is no 'control' to validate against. |
Agreed. No group of individuals has sat around with a rock in their possession for a million years. But when several different methods of dating a rock appear to be agreement with each other, I need a better reason than that for not accepting the rock may, in fact, be one million years old. No one has ever seen the internal structure of the sun either, but why should that keep people from hypothesizing it and then testing that hypothesis against what we see on the exterior of the sun? If we can’t see or directly test the interior of the sun, does that preclude us from making some definite predictions regarding it?
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Even pre-Darwin naturalists had come to the conclusion the earth was far older than 10,000 years. |
I'm not arguing against the idea that the earth is ancient (I'm not actually arguing any of this, I just like the discussion), but this is putting the cart before the horse. These scientists (and current scientists) will espouse all sorts of assumptions that are required to make their current theory on something feasible. It is still an assumption. I have theory XYZ that only makes sense if the Earth is 1 billion years old. Therefore, I say the earth is 1 billion years old. Prove me wrong. Can't? I'm off to the publisher... |
Well, you can hypothesize all you like but you still have to address the facts and evidence. You say the earth is a billion years old. Why? What’s your line of reason and evidence? You can’t just say the earth is a billion years old, prove me wrong. If you think that’s how science is conducted, you should really read some books on the scientific method. Theories explain facts. If you don’t accept the facts, then a theory is useless to you.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by milo655321:
And as for “recent” geological history, there are varves, ice cores, carbon dating and tree rings dating back tens of thousands of years. |
Again though, determined to be of these ages based on what analysis? From a statistical point of view, the smaller your sample set the more likely that any conclusions you draw from it and apply to a much larger set will be wrong. Let's say these guys are looking at what truly is 10,000 years of geological data and extrapolating from that. They are arriving at the conclusion that the planet is 1,000,000,000 years old. Orders of magnitude in difference. No telling what may have happened in the other 990,000,000 years that could affect the data they are looking at. Accelerations, deccelerations, catastrophic events, etc, etc. |
Then you need to gather more evidence. You seem to have that dreaded post-modern sense that if we can’t know something fully, we can’t know anything about it.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Nuclear reactors use the same model of decay that are used for dating rocks. Operators, while concerned with safety, don’t seem to be too concerned that rates of decay will be changing anytime soon. |
This is again a matter of scale and scale is the crux of what I am saying. They aren't worried because over a very small chunk of time (relative to the massive chunks of time being bandied about for age of Earth, the universe, etc), they have a much greater confidence in the decay rates of the materials involved.
The real question to me is - other than headlines, what is gained by these scientific declarations about how old the planet is? |
A better understand of the universe around us? Knowledge is its own reward.
Though I haven’t read it, this book, The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple, is supposed to be an excellent introduction to why professional geologists accept that the earth is billions of years old.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 10:53:50 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Not only is there more than one method, they correspond with each other to get approximately the same dates marking the earth as billions of years old. |
But still there is no 'control' to validate against. |
Against what "control" do you compare the Biblical version of Genesis?
To me, a series of independent scientific experiments which all yield similar results has more of a "control" factor than reading an English translation of a Greek translation of tales mostly originating in Aramaic ... no data, no pictures -- just a bunch of fragments of 4000 year-old stories ... yes, very "scientific" and, of course, repeatable and independently verifiable.
Either decide the the process of scientific inquiry is valid, or forget about it -- "evidence" and "controls" seem to be concepts incompatible with and unnecessary (if not anethema) to theories of faith. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:05:29 PM · #485 |
I don't believe in fairy tales.
At the same time, I don't blindly accept what other people tell me is scientific fact.
At any rate, I never mentioned religion. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:15:51 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Knowledge is its own reward. |
I agree. But while I don't ascribe to the post-modern view you mention, I do think practical application should be the motivation behind any research. Especially government funded research.
If/When the majority of our current problems are solved - the need for renewable energy, cures for major diseases, ample food and water supplies for all, etc - then perhaps we can tackle the more mysterious questions about the universe. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:19:20 PM · #487 |
What rational reason can you give for radioactive decay to vary significantly from what's observed? If every piece of radioactive material ever studied decays at some steady rate, doesn't it make more sense that it would continue that way, than to speculate wildly that it could drastically change by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism?
Our whole world is built on predictability and repeatability of natural phenomena. Surely you'd be upset if someday you turned your car key and the engine blew up because the combustability characteristics of gasoline has suddenly changed ... if natural laws work differently at different times and different places, then prove it. Cite even one example of a verifiable "unnatural phenomenon" which violates the laws of physics and chemistry. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:23:10 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Knowledge is its own reward. |
I agree. But while I don't ascribe to the post-modern view you mention, I do think practical application should be the motivation behind any research. Especially government funded research.
If/When the majority of our current problems are solved - the need for renewable energy, cures for major diseases, ample food and water supplies for all, etc - then perhaps we can tackle the more mysterious questions about the universe. Just my opinion. |
The problem with your "opinion" is that it disallows for the possibilty of solutions that aren't curently known.
By using the understanding of the universe gained through pure research, later research will take that knowledge and apply it to practical problems. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:38:32 PM · #489 |
"What rational reason can you give for radioactive decay to vary significantly from what's observed?"
Background radiation can accelerate the release of electrons from atoms, thus accelerating their rate of decay. I looked just for fun, the latest greatest age of earth estimate is 4.5 billion years. I can think of all sorts of ways in 4.5 billion years that overall background radiation has fluctuated, that local sources of radiation have been introduced around the planet, etc, etc.
I'm not arguing with you. If you believe in what you are reading, great. If you believe God is out there pulling the strings, great. I believe that in the short life of scientific study there have been a long, long string of scientific theories offered as all-but-fact that have later been disproven. I don't see any reason to believe this trend has now stopped. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:40:11 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem with your "opinion" is that it disallows for the possibilty of solutions that aren't curently known.
|
Yes, by encouraging research into problems that have a real effect on people living on this planet I am disallowing the possibilty of solutions that aren't currently known. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 05:39:08 AM · #491 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem with your "opinion" is that it disallows for the possibilty of solutions that aren't curently known.
|
Yes, by encouraging research into problems that have a real effect on people living on this planet I am disallowing the possibilty of solutions that aren't currently known. |
We'd still be rubbing sticks together to make fire and clubbing each other with tree branches had your approach been adopted from the beginning. |
|
|
|
07/26/2006 07:57:37 AM · #492 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I can think of all sorts of ways in 4.5 billion years that overall background radiation has fluctuated, that local sources of radiation have been introduced around the planet, etc, etc.
|
I don't pretend to understand all of the technical details, but I think that there are a couple of valid points in what you say (though I would put them differently). Looking back does require us to make some assumptions. These include assuming that the laws of physics have not fundamentally changed over time or distance.
It is possible that some physical constants have altered as the universe has aged and expanded. There are some constants that it is hard to conceive having changed.
It should be possible to detect some of these changes, if they occurred, with the right equipment (especially if some constants have changed differently in proportion to each other). However, there has been no generally accepted observation of a change detected. We either do not yet have sufficiently sensitive equipment, or the changes are undetectable (possibly because they are insignificant), or the constants have not changed.
I would also note that while there may not have been a human group of people making observations for millions of years, we are swathed in various spectra (radiation, light, various other radio wavelengths) that have taken many millions of years to reach us. While we cannot observe a million or a billion years of our immediate surroundings, we can observe the universe a million or billion years ago by looking at frequency emissions that have taken that long to reach us. By inspecting different parts of the sky and spectra, with the right equipment, we can observe (directly or indirectly) pretty much any point in the universe's history.
Message edited by author 2006-07-26 07:59:05.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 07:04:26 PM · #493 |
I just read the first few pages of this thread, and admit I don't know where this has gone or where it is now. But just some interesting points I have.
In the Bible, the story of creation is actually a story of FILLING the creation... The first verse of the Bible is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." and then the traditional 6 days of 'creation' follows. It can be seen that maybe the earth WAS there for millions and billions of years before anything was done to it....who knows.
Also, I was told of this analogy once, and it really made me think "To believe in something besides a creative designer behind creation (HOWEVER it was done) is like taking a metal box, adding some dirt, maybe a little water if you want, and closing it. One million years later, open it and expect to find a fully functional computer with true AI trying to find a way out." I really liked that one. NOTHING became something very complex (the computer), but nowhere near as complex as a human being.
I must just say, that experiences I have gone through lead me to know that there is a God, no questions asked. I cannot deny that fact, and me believing so is not based on faith alone...but on actual things I have seen with my own eyes. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 07:43:23 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
... is like taking a metal box, adding some dirt, maybe a little water if you want, and closing it. One million years later, open it and expect to find a fully functional computer with true AI trying to find a way out." I really liked that one. NOTHING became something very complex (the computer), but nowhere near as complex as a human being. |
You leave out input of energy -- from billions of years of solar radiation, internal physical heat (volcanic), radioactive decay, cosmic radiation (before the ozone layer), and electrical discharges (lightning).
Take that box of dirt, expose it to liquid water and energy input for a million years, and I guarantee that you will have something more "complex" than a box of dirt.
For a modest, 60-year old example, refer to the experiments of Stanley Lloyd Miller, who produced organic molecules from an inorganic chemical mixture is just a few weeks, let alone millions or billions of years. Every experiement since has shown that given temperatures in the range of liquid water and a relatively constant level of non-lethal energy input, organization increases in complexity at ever-increasing rates.
Maybe you should think of God as the ultimate source of energy (under the current hypothesis, still (I think) referred-to the "Cosmic Egg"), and then we might find some common ground ...
Please read Isaac Asimov's excellent speculative story on this subject called The Last Question -- entertaining and thought-provoking at the same time : ) |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 07:58:31 PM · #495 |
not wanting to get into a debate here, but just some more points.
Don't theories that don't involve ID say there is a starting point? So why must I add input of energy? It should come of its own, no?
I'm still searching for my own answers, and am still trying to imagine HOW things were done. I really like your thought of viewing God as the source of energy that got the Big Bang going.
Thanks for your respectful reply. I've seen in other forums where people just bash the people with religious views, and the same toward those who don't. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 08:02:51 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For a modest, 60-year old example, refer to the experiments of Stanley Lloyd Miller, who produced organic molecules from an inorganic chemical mixture is just a few weeks, let alone millions or billions of years. Every experiement since has shown that given temperatures in the range of liquid water and a relatively constant level of non-lethal energy input, organization increases in complexity at ever-increasing rates.
|
Miller and Urey's experiment has since been shown to be irrelevent to our own situation on earth. The primitive atmosphere we now believe existed was quite different than the one he used and was quite a bit more "inert" (ie. difficult to coax organic molecules from).
|
|
|
|
08/02/2006 07:19:34 AM · #497 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
Also, I was told of this analogy once, and it really made me think "To believe in something besides a creative designer behind creation (HOWEVER it was done) is like taking a metal box, adding some dirt, maybe a little water if you want, and closing it. One million years later, open it and expect to find a fully functional computer with true AI trying to find a way out." I really liked that one. NOTHING became something very complex (the computer), but nowhere near as complex as a human being. |
This does overlook the astonishing size, power and complexity of the universe, the time scales involved, and the fact that life originated as something very very small, simple and barely significant.
Energy: you are right that the universe as a whole does not appear to have an external input of energy, but the Earth's biosphere is awash with an enormous input of energy from the rest of the universe (predominantly the sun).
In your box analysis, stick the box in middle of a nuclear reactor.
Timescale: It took more than 3 billion years (that is three quarters of the history of life onthe planet) for life to go from single cells (tiny fungi, bacteria, algae) to multi-celled organisms (tiny sponges, jellyfish then worms). But when this basic step occurred, the level of complexity of life was free to explode.
The interaction of so many organisms of increasing complexity resulted in a massively accelerated development. By way of indication, the earliest land plants (mosses) appeared only 450 million years ago. Pretty much all land life appears in the fossil record between then and now. Mammals appear at 200m years ago. Human like apes at 3 million years ago, and modern man only 100k years ago. The earliest permanent settlements are only 12k years old.
In your analysis, leave the box in the nuclear reactor for hundreds of millions of years before expecting to see anything, and don't expect anything more exciting than a simple cell for several thousands of millions of years.
Complexity: the universe is filled with massive explosions of energy, from which a huge array of types of matter are created and radioation and energy are flung around with tremendous force. The Earth is a large, dynamic environment in a relative location that enables there to be watery oceans, complex gaseous atmosphere, and land. Its magnetic field protects the planet against excessive radiation. Its distance to the sun provides a moderate climate.
In your analysis, the box would have to be transmuted into as suitable an environment for life as the Earth is.
Message edited by author 2006-08-02 07:20:17.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2006 11:32:43 AM · #498 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Miller and Urey's experiment has since been shown to be irrelevent to our own situation on earth. The primitive atmosphere we now believe existed was quite different than the one he used and was quite a bit more "inert" (ie. difficult to coax organic molecules from). |
The Miller/Urey experiments were the first – done in the 1950s. There have been other confirming experiments since then using “atmospheres” more in line with what is believed to have been around at that time. Here is a listing of several peer-reviewed papers which the authors of Talkorigins, representing mainstream science, believe address that issue:
Chang, S., D. DesMarais, R. Mack, S. L. Miller, and G. E. Strathearn. 1983. Prebiotic organic syntheses and the origin of life. In: Schopf, J. W., ed., Earth's Earliest Biosphere: Its Origin and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 53-92.
Miller, S. L. 1987. Which organic compounds could have occurred on the prebiotic earth? Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 52: 17-27.
Schlesinger, G. and S. L. Miller. 1983. Prebiotic synthesis in atmospheres containing CH4, CO, and CO2. I. Amino acids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 19: 376-382.
Stribling, R. and S. L. Miller. 1987. Energy yields for hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde syntheses: the HCN and amino acid concentrations in the primitive ocean. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 17: 261-273.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2006 09:56:52 PM · #499 |
ok. so say we add an energy input (which wasn' there when the universe came in to existence from nothing) and leave it for 10 billion years (assuming a metal box will last so long) and give this metal box a bit more size.....ok a LOT more size (enough for explosions, decay, breeding, expansion, etc.)
Can you really tell me you believe you could open it up after that amount of time and find a human in there?
Message edited by author 2006-08-02 21:58:13. |
|
|
|
08/02/2006 10:21:14 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
Can you really tell me you believe you could open it up after that amount of time and find a human in there? |
No one but the Bible claims Man originated from a single boxful of dirt. But a planetful of dirt, water, energy, and billions of years and I say yeah, that's where all the scientific evidence we have says we'd likely end up.
As compared some unknowable, undefinable, immeasurable, and incomprehensible force, which you nonetheless believe in because it formed part of the creation myth of some of your ancesctors 4000 years ago? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 03:16:57 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 03:16:57 PM EDT.
|
