is TIME a problem? Or is this guy retarded?

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, May 26, 2007 14:33
VIEWED: 10984
PAGE 10 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 4:54 PM

And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Not so sure. In the beginning, when there was nothingness.

Cosmology is where the (scientific) answers for where the universe came from, not evolution.

Quote:
For a particular particle to be made and start evolving into everything else, does it not have to be a particle that can replicate somehow?

No, particles don't evolve. We don't know exactly what happened during the Big Bang (or at least I don't) but since the Big Bang the number of any given particles has stayed largely (though not entirely) the same, there is no reproduction or evolution of particles though fusion and fission sometimes results in the conversion of some particles into energy.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

No. There are quite a few fossils and more than enough to fill a coffin. This is simply more Lying For Jesus.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

KANEMAN

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
And I read somewhere that all the bones we base human evolution on can fit in one coffin. Any truth to that?

No. There are quite a few fossils and more than enough to fill a coffin. This is simply more Lying For Jesus.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I gotta hand it to you...that is somekinda site....

FREDGIBLET

Friday, May 25, 2007 5:52 PM

Yeah, it is (or was there doesn't seem to have been much activity lately) run by a wide variety of people from the talk.origins newsgroup who decided to make a comprehensive site rebutting anti-evolution arguments. This "debate" has been going on for over a century, there's an enormous amount of material rebutting the arguments against evolution. That's what makes this so frustrating, so much of what you will hear against evolution has been disproved decades or even a century ago, yet the anti-evolutionist either don't or won't check their facts. Some like Hovind even use arguments so bad that other anti-evolutionists consider him a joke, but people still believe him. *sigh*

ANTIMASON

Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:57 AM

Quote:
posted by fredgiblet- That's what makes this so frustrating, so much of what you will hear against evolution has been disproved decades or even a century ago, yet the anti-evolutionist either don't or won't check their facts.

but at the same time, would you honostly take to heart any information which contradicted a current theory and indicated ID? its not that there are no intriguing arguments, but most people just cherry pick what they want to believe(myself included). i see plenty of evidence of evolution, but to deduce all life on earth, or the entire galaxy(and beyond)... i mean there are a lot of processes and cycles, and likely other un-discovered laws at work in the universe, that we arent even aware of right now. is this something we can agree on?

my whole thought is that when we talk about millions of years ago, i think we leave the realm of 'hard science', and begin to speculate more theoretically, and ID does have a place there. IMO we have such a small sampling of data from the universe, that i dont believe we can honostly claim to know half of what we say we do. i know ill get criticized for this.. but a lot of the time i feel we just take this small observable sampling, combined with some other choice data, and we invent all these models and theories around it, as if to suddenly explain everything away.. and i almost feel thats dis-ingenuous. there are enough things that we dont know yet, that in light of the uncertainty, i am more open to considering arguments put forth by IDs. even if the IDs platform consists mostly of attemps at contradicting proven theories, i am enclined to encourage the skepticism, because just maybe theyre not wrong 100% of the time(like many would have us believe). its a nice break from the attitude put forth by most evolutionists, which is that 'we already know everything' there is to know about the subject, and everything definately happened by random accident(despite what i consider to be a lack of corresponding fossil evidence)

AZRIEL

Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:03 AM

I think that Puppies made the universe.....so they could rule over it with an iron fist.

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but at the same time, would you honostly take to heart any information which contradicted a current theory and indicated ID?

If it came from a reputable peer-reviewed source? Sure, and if it held up and was confirmed later I'd be shocked but I'd accept it.

Quote:
i see plenty of evidence of evolution, but to deduce all life on earth, or the entire galaxy(and beyond)... i mean there are a lot of processes and cycles, and likely other un-discovered laws at work in the universe, that we arent even aware of right now. is this something we can agree on?

Sure but I don't think we'll agree on the nature of the processes and laws. I can't think of any reasonable reason why the rules that govern evolution and biochemistry here would be any different anywhere else. Outside of probability I don't see much chance of major processes or laws being found that would prove a serious challenge to evolution, but then there's a story I heard about a guy working in the patent office back around the beginning of the 20th century who said that they should close the patent office because there was nothing left to invent.

Quote:
my whole thought is that when we talk about millions of years ago, i think we leave the realm of 'hard science', and begin to speculate more theoretically

In some ways yes in others no. Geology is a science that deals with time frames exactly like that, physics deals with laws that have not changed appreciably in the time that we are aware of and as near as we can make out have never been significantly different then they are today. Certainly there is very little that we can know for sure from millions or billions of years ago. We can't say exactly how many of one kind of dinosaur there was, or even give a reasonable guess, but we can tell roughly when the were around and roughly when each species died out. We can't say for sure how long the days were, but we can look at coral that has specific behavior patterns and get a decent guess. But there is a lot that we can be reasonably sure of and as our knowledge increases the accuracy of the observations gets better and the number of things that we can expect to get reasonable answers for gets better.

Quote:
and ID does have a place there.

No, ID is not scientific, it never has been and likely never will be. This is not surprising considering that ID is not about science, it's about politics and religion.

Quote:
IMO we have such a small sampling of data from the universe, that i dont believe we can honostly claim to know half of what we say we do.

Most of what we know comes from the rules of the universe, to imply that because we have a small sampling we don't know what we think we know would imply that the rules of the universe are different elsewhere, this is an enormous claim that has never been sustained. In fact at present it's irrelevant whether or not things are different elsewhere as we can't go elsewhere in the first place, until we have the ability (which we will get by applying what you think we don't know) to go elsewhere it is perfectly reasonable to assume that things are the same everywhere because it makes no difference either way since we can't find out for sure and it has no effect on us right now. As an analogy, does it matter to someone in the Sahara (ignoring the butterfly effect for a moment) that it's raining in India? No, because rain in India has no effect on the Sahara.

Quote:
i know ill get criticized for this.. but a lot of the time i feel we just take this small observable sampling, combined with some other choice data, and we invent all these models and theories around it, as if to suddenly explain everything away

We are limited in our reach, until we can extend our reach we simply have to make do with the observations we can make. As for "choice data" we use the most accurate data we can get, that means that we throw out data as we get better readings, including old data or inaccurate data just keeps us from ref

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:33 PM

Quote:
Quote:
(despite what i consider to be a lack of corresponding fossil evidence)

You are free to disbelieve all you want, but the fossils are there.

I thought more on this before I went to sleep this morning (at around 2:30 (damn you brain, shut off for once!)). I'd just like to point something out, you seem to be saying that you don't like common descent because of a lack of fossils, were you aware that there are other lines of evidence for teh nested hierarchy of common descent?

1. Genetic. The genetic code for every living creature fits into a nested hierarchy, just like we would expect from common descent. The farther you get in the hierarchy the more genetic differences there are, humans are closer to chimps then to mountain lions, mountain lions are closer to housecats then to dogs, humans, mountain lions and dogs are closer to each other then to Gila monsters.

2. Biochemical. There are some chemicals that have hundreds of functional variants. These are distributed in a manner similar to the nested hierarchy. The variants that humans use are very similar if not identical to the variants used by the other great apes, which is closer to the variant used by mountain lions then the variants used by Gila monsters

3. Morphological. The evidence for this is admittedly much weaker as morphology (physical structure) can undergo huge changes (whales are closer to cows then tuna). However generally speaking creatures that are closer to each other on the nested hierarchy formed by the fossil, genetic and biochemical evidence have a greater tendency to look alike then creatures farther apart. Mountain lions, tigers and housecats share morphological similarities that set them apart from baboons, humans and chimps which also share traits.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10