|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/15/2007 6:22:40 PM | A couple examples of what I perceive to be strong indications of creation:
1) after fertilization, a mere 4-cell being flowers thereafter into all of the disparate cells of the human body, all the organs (kidney, liver, heart, brain, intestines, stomach, pancreas, testicles or female organs, hypothalymus, thyroid, gall bladder, etc etc etc), all the millions of anti-bodies, the various constructions utilizing hundreds of millions of cells in proscribed positions, the eyes, the nervous system, the vascular system. PLUS they are laid out in a specific order.
2) consider some anti-bodies: The fact that the human body (and animal bodies) produce several million specificities of B lymphocyte antibodies, as well as types of T lymphocytes, to fight off millions of strains of bacteria, should be informative to a rational person. Like, this aint no accident of nature, selective breeding or not.
The match-ups of specific immunity is only the beginning of amazements, the tip of the iceberg. And this is done with only a handful of genes. This indicates that our approx 35k linear proscribed-location genes have trillions of prescribed functions, as is manifested in so many other aspects of the human body.
The handful of genes for the blood vessel proscribed construction, for example, is impossible through random construction, even over a billion generations of selectiviity and survival necessity. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/15/2007 9:37:22 PM | This is just a strong indication that you haven't studied physiology or embryology. All that complexity is the by-product of simple processes.
To give an example which is of particular relevance to embryology [if you had studied it and knew what I was talking about]:
Make a two by two square. Label the top "A" and "a". Label the left "B" and "b". If you combine one half of Aa with one half of Bb, you will get four possible results. Fill in the squares with the two letters they align with. From two original pairs, you got four possible results. Make the square a cube, and three pairs produce 8 results. Replace pairs with quartets...or octets...or an entire genome. Here's a hint - a two by two matching of genomes [ie, a square] only 4 genes long produces 16 variants. A dividing, growing zygote works similarly, the growth and division being determined by chemical concentrations in synergy. The original cell has its chemical constituents distributed unevenly when it divides. The different concentrations determine what parts of the genes in each resulting cell function, thus affecting further development and division. Likewise, each cell influences the adjacent cells. One cell divides in two. Two become four. Four become a cube of eight...and the more they divide, the more they diverge and specialize. It's an incredibly simple way of creating a great deal of complexity, but unless you study the mechanisms, you just won't see it. Hell, even when you DO study it, it's remarkable. That's a big factor actually - scientists study what fascinates them, in order to understand more. It has nothing to do with "disproving God".
For the record, the oft-repeated comment that "evolutionists would like nothing more than to prove evolution wrong" is largely a myth. There are two reasons for this. First, the term "evolutionist" implies a faith, and the faithful do not wish to be proven wrong. Second, few have any interest in proving or disproving evolution. It's just a fact of life and is accepted. As such, it's integral to complete understanding of just about everything in biology. Every "why" asked by a biologist comes back to an answer with an evolutionary context. I do not have faith in evolution, I am not an "evolutionist". I believe in evolution because the evidence is unassailable. I have no interest in disproving it, I'm not Don Quixote. I'm more interested in understanding how particular things came to be, and evolution is required in that explanation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/16/2007 10:25:10 AM | Back to it, eh? Let's see what I got.
<div class="quote">I am trying hard to comply with the OP. I have been posting what I consider to be mathematical proof that an INTELLIGENT director.
Potentially fair, I'll give you. Issue I've got with this, though, is not that there isn't necessarily "proof" in the minds of some for some intelligent creator, director, designer, call it what you will. What gets me is there seem to be a lot of folks out there with their eyes on two specific points: what they want to be true, and what supports that possibility.
In the instance of an intelligent director, someone wants to believe that, that's fine. Problem is, without any objective, non-circumstantial evidence to directly support that specific hypothesis, and in the absence of an objective definition for that designer (with concomitant bases for being able to detect its cause-and-effect relationship with the world), there's no way to scientifically test its existence.
<div class="quote">Feral chooses to call this intelligent director Evolution. I believe most creationists have agreed among themselves to refer to him as God.
And, here's the second problem I've got with the whole gig. And this is the big one. See, first quote I pulled here says essentially, "we're hypothesising that there might be an intelligence at work in the fundamental rules of the universe", and I'm cool with that, because I don't for a moment disagree with the statement.
But then, I get racked in the mental fork with something that can pretty much be summed up as saying, "now that we've got the hypothesis out of the way, we'll assume it's true and set it up as a straw man for what Feral's trying to say." Bollocks. Here's the ticket: The intelligent designer/director/creator gig IS NOT axiomatic. That's what we're trying to establish, not whether one should call it by a particular deity's name or scientific terminology. We all agree to back away from our assumptions, and we might get somewhere, yeah?
<div class="quote">...but rocket science is not as hard for laymen to grasp as religious dogma.I'm sorry, but this just makes me laugh.
<div class="quote">It is a relatively short program which expresses the concept in the strict mathematical language required to tell computers how to calculate and graphically display results.
Honestly, this would be cool to view. The point that you're making with it, however, seems a leap.
In the instance of the computer program, you're essentially dealing with, as you say, a short list of variables, factors to be taken into account for the purposes of that specific program. The possibility, even the probability that the systems involved reflect likely scenarios similar to those postulated by an hypothesis that the solar system "came together" is a valid point. If the likelihood of this hypothesis is called into question or invalidated, that's cool, too. That's the way science works, right?
However, the issue doesn't just stop there and turn around to supernaturalism. I'm afraid it simply doesn't work that way. If the hypothesis is invalidated, science doesn't reach out and grasp the first omnipotent cosmic straw available to "deus ex machina" it all back to happy reasonable math. If the solar system couldn't have coalesced from a supernova, then science seeks another explanation. 'S the way it works, man.
<div class="quote">I am not scripture thumping here, I'm illustrating proof of Creation vs. Evolution.
Fair enough. No worries, there. But, you're not seeking alternate explanations, either. The distinction was made between me and a creationist above, but it's not accurate. The "true" distinction is that, while I and a number of other logical thinkers are perfectly willing to discard a pet hypothesis when it proves untenable, the vast majority of creationists seem to be more intent on finding that point where the answers aren't readily available through observation, so they can say, "See? We can't explain it, so it had to have been done by God."
<div class="quote">1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
Nah, that's a pretty good definition, at least as good as mine for science. Point is, the fact that such processes occur is observable, and the proposed mechanisms for such a process are testable. Hence, science.
The OP doesn't ask anything about that, though. The man was asking where the facts, the observable evidence, the testable mechanisms are with regard to creationism/ID. I'm asking the same thing. All I want to see is someone with a coherent statement of what creationism/ID says from a scientific standpoint, other than simply "God did it". Meantime, all one seems to find is stuff akin to this:
<div class="quote">I point out that this definition conflicts with the scientific concept of entropy:
Standard creationist "but, evolution's wrooong!" argument. Inapplicable, particularly in this thread, where it has nonetheless popped up multiple times. I'll say it again: We're not questioning the "truth" or "falsity" of evolution, here. The question was,
<div class="quote">Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
So, seriously, where is the scientific validity, or at least underpinning of the argument for creation/Intelligent Design? Other than simply saying either "God did it" or "Evolution's wrong"?
Aaand, since this isn't nearly long enough, I'll move on to some more. Yay, right?
<div class="quote">This gives a random construction probability in a singe generation of 1/ 10 to the trillionth power. I.E. impossible.
Right, so I'll get to the part specifically addressed to me, but this is interesting. I'll break it down, as I understand it.
Essentially, the argument here is that it's highly unlikely that the cardiovascular system of a higher order mammal, such as man, could come about as a result of a random process, yes? Fair enough, if what we were looking at was the instantaneous appearance of such a system.
I'm sure the creditable scientists among us here can go into the details of the systems involved, but I see nothing that precludes the initial formation of a rudimentary nutrient transport system in a primitive animal (admittedly given the availability of life initially) that, over succeeding generations becomes more complex due to survival value. The basic argument that such a thing happening "all at once" is unlikely makes sense, but we're not talking about instantaneous appearance. Rather, it's the evidence that suggests a continuum of complexity from more primitive organisms to higher, more complex creatures. The evolutionary hypothesis of common descent offers a means to understand these observations. And, again, that's science. Yay.
On the other hand, there's no explanatory power to simply saying, "that's just the way things are", as creationism/ID appears to say. What, if anything, does the "alternate hypothesis" put forward as explanation for the similarities and diversities in structure and function that we observe in the natural world?
<div class="quote">Feral: the OP indeed does seemingly restrict the argument of "creation" as that of a strictly biblical account.
Not at all. Simply put, the OP attempts to restrict the discussion to scientific/empirical concepts, rather than merely operating on the basis of what effectively boils down to dogmatic hearsay.
<div class="quote">But if that is the case...would not this call for another thread, which is not restricted to "creation VS evolution", and would have less stricture as far as content?
I am so not following, here. Why would we need another thread to discuss precisely what this one explicitly addresses? The point is that we tend to get off-track. All the time. The issue is that both the OP and myself are repeatedly asking for simple, scientific support for the concept that there might be an external, apparently supernatural influence on both the initial incidence and subsequent development of life on Earth. No evidence, empirical, concrete, or otherwise has yet been forthcoming. Honestly, that makes me sad.
I've been hoping for some stimulating debate on this subject, but in 155 pages, the vast majority of "arguments for" creationism/ID have materially consisted only of criticisms of the methodology, lack of evidence, and subjectively (read dogmatically) judged "erroneous" conclusions relating to aspects of the dominant theory. No offence, but seriously, dragging down the one does not bring up the other, no matter what angle you look at.
So, again, where is the beef? The money? What scientific value does "so-and-so (whom I consider to be 'holy') told me" have?
<div class="quote">Because although the title of this thread is "Creation vs Evolution", it is in fact very tightly bound paradigm-wise:
I see where you're going with this, but come on. Surely you can think outside the box, yes? Dig it: "To me, creationism is X." Then, you explain it, right? How tough is that, honestly? And, to focus (need it be said?) dogmatically on the thread title, even to the exclusion of the question the OP is really asking... Seriously, come on.
<div class="quote">Msg: 3841
Yeah, so. He put it more concisely and understandably than me. So what? 
Anyway, either this is long enough, or I wanna read ahead. We'll see. Peace out, folks! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/16/2007 4:49:10 PM | I would like to add some general points:
If the Bible asserts Creation and we believe in the validity of Creationism on that basis alone, we must also believe whatever else the Bible asserts, on the same basis, or we are completely inconsistent.
The Bible clearly asserts, repeatedly, that the Sun and all the planets, and the Heavens themselves, revolve around the earth. Therefore, Creationists reject Copernicanism. Hopefully even the minimally educated among us know what happened there.
There are many other examples - thousands - of course. We know that Rooster Eggs exist, and if properly handled, produce the****trice, a serpent that kills with a glance.
Creationism bases it's claim in the Book of Genesis - but which one, Genesis I or II? They are in severe conflict - in G. I, the animals are created, and then man and woman are created simultaneously; in G. II, man is before woman, and the animals are created only when God calls out Adam to name them - and so much more.
There is no Science that determines the desired Conclusion, and collects evidence to fit; therefore there is no Creation Science. The term "science" is only used to falsely legitimize Creationism. This is a clear case of Intentional Theft.
Furthermore, if you are Catholic (the Majority), you should know by now that the Pope declared Evolutionary Theory valid in the 1950's - so stop running around telling folks you're Catholic and Creationist, or I will nominate you for Excommunication.
And I will not debate with a Cheater. The only purpose of debate is pursuit of Truth - it is not the assertion of your Ego.
An Dats da Trut. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/16/2007 5:13:35 PM | You seem to miss in all this the basic points -
Your basic assertion is that "Complex things require more Complex Creators." However, if this Rule be true, we must then conclude that each Complex Creator requires a More Complex Creator - Ad Infinitum.
Thus the premise is not merely implausible, it is False, Reductio Ad Absurdum.
A further fault is to assert that if Darwinism is False, Creationism must be True. This is a ruse - there are an infinite number of remaining possibilities, and one is that We Just Don't Know - and no, I have not stopped beating my Wife.
The argument is 1.) a False Dilemma, 2.) Argument from Ignorance, and 3.) Argument from Lack of Imagination.
Learn a little Classical Logic before you explain the Universe for me - please. You may be stunned at how simple life becomes. Mr. Irving M. Copi wrote very accessible source texts - and I ate them all in 10th grade. Surely you may, too.
- But the above does not place you in a position to argue much in the way of Molecular Genetics expertise.`Cut that out. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/16/2007 9:48:50 PM | I will respond to the question, Why it Matters what You Believe.
I propose that all thinking beings pursue the Good. Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Dung, Joseph Stalin, Paul Pot, all deeply believed they were correct - and this was greatly reinforced in them by those who also believed they were correct, in vast numbers, motivated by their Logic; and these Tyrants had most excellent facility of Logic by and large. To achieve their Power, they could be no fools.
But the premises were False.
If our Logic is perfect, but our Premises False, then our conclusion is False. If we act upon our conclusion, then our action is False - or, more commonly, EVIL. The motivation, a False belief, is the Root of Evil.
All such things are Evil, it is only a matter of degree based upon effect; but if there is no action, only thought, this thought displaces Truth - and this is the Essence of Evil, the displacement, or denial, of Truth.
I do not fear your thought, I merely fear all your action - which must perforce be motivated by your thoughts. Therefore I only fear you if you act - but frankly, I don't see how you can avoid action and live long, and I further believe you will continue to strive to live, based upon continuous previous performance. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/16/2007 10:42:48 PM | Feral appears to be seeking the same thing the OP asks for, Proof, Evidence, and perhaps some text book from which Creation may be taught in school or outside of Sunday school.
A reason why creation should be taught outside Sunday School.
I guess what I am trying to do is point out that the currently taught evolution has just as many contradictions with Scientific Observable evidence as Creation in its Biblical Form.
What seems to be sought is a text book which will be acceptable to both sides with irrefutable evedence rather than speculation and conjecture.
Let me try to respond to Tom Scharle’s
Creationism
FABNAQ (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)
”1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism? “
YES
”1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect. “
The Bible is incorrect because people have misunderstood it. The original intended audience for the Bible was a bunch of newly freed slaves who were very poorly educated and had a very limited attention span. It is not so much that it is incorrect as incomplete. To put the whole truth before a bunch of newly freed uneducated slaves would have been futile. Better to give them the simplified version and let them try to disprove it.
I’ll try to keep this brief but will elaborate to death if necessary. It has been pointed out recently that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 conflict with one another over the order of creation. In the first account, Man came last while in the second account man came first and the other animals were brought to Adam to be named.
The restored gospel resolves this conflict by regarding the first creation as spiritual and the second physical. An analogy of two dimensional house plans may be used in which the roof is drawn first and the supporting structure is drawn afterward. So it is in an intelligently controlled Genetically engineered biological development system. Imagine a software program where Genetic code can be played with like words in a word processor. The end result being instantly shown in a graphic image.
”1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists? “
This has been well answered by the assertion that the Pope approved evolution.
”1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists? “
This issue has also been resolved by the reiteration of 1000 Post Adamic Fall years being equated to a single day in the presence of the fathers/designers (Eloheim is hebrew plural and should have been more accurately translated as Fathers). The false concept that: Adam brought death upon all by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Being refuted by the fact that all was given to Adam for food and all food must die when or before being eaten. In actuality the death curse was imposed upon only Adam and Eve by depriving them of access to the other important tree, The Tree of Life. Partaken of freely prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had another important side effect. It was an oral contraceptive. They lived a very long time without having children. Long enough for the Dinosaurs to have come and gone. Long enough for the fossil record to have frozen footprints of both humans and Dinosaurs in the same soft muck. (See Creation Evidences Museum)
”1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists? “
The young-life creationists simply have not been exposed to or have rejected the above scriptural facts.
”1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge? “
Scientific Evolution does a disservice to Science when it teaches as fact things which are not fact. Regardless of whether the theory of Evolution is fact or not, Some parts of Evolution theory have been subsequently been proved false. The whole concept of nuclear physics and Nuclear energy is that the natural decay rate of certain isotopes of certain elements is not constant as is required for calculating the age of earth based upon it. A Nuclear reactor takes what is assumed in theory to be millions of years for the half life of Unranium and in a mere 20 years, its nuclear fuel is spent. I also recounted the modern cow bone household oven baked and planted at a dig site. The students carbon dated it as 1200+ years old.
Perhaps I will answer some other FABNAQ (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)
in a future post. I don’t want to post something too long.
I would post my program but undoubtedly it would merely be criticized and poo pooed. Most would find it difficult to run. I do not feel obliged to publish in a peer reviewed publication because the Math it is based upon is so well accepted and used that I doubt I could find one that would publish it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 9:59:51 AM | The fact is, your program doesn't reflect reality. The logical conclusion is that your program or the assumptions behind it are flawed. The scientific method should lead someone to observe reality, model it, hypothesize the causes, and test the hypotheses. If the test fails to reflect reality, your hypotheses are at fault and need to be revised until they work. What you have done is assume your model to be correct, regardless of the outcome. That's not indicative of an unidentifiable supernatural factor at work. It's indicative of your work being unscientific and wrong.
I would post my program but undoubtedly it would merely be criticized and poo pooed.
You bet. It fails the most significant test - it doesn't work. However, offering it up for criticism would give others the opportunity to tell you what's wrong with it. Odds are, you know what's wrong with it, but won't change anything because you've already decided that you're right and reality is wrong.
I guess what I am trying to do is point out that the currently taught evolution has just as many contradictions with Scientific Observable evidence as Creation in its Biblical Form.
This is false. Evolution has profuse evidence and no contradictions. Creationism has NO evidence. And I see you're STILL not offering any.
What seems to be sought is a text book which will be acceptable to both sides with irrefutable evedence rather than speculation and conjecture.
I'm guessing you meant "needs" instead of "seems"? If that's the case, such textbooks are already in widespread use. They teach evolution and omit creationism. That satisfies the irrefutible evidence part. Unfortunately, creationists don't find irrefutable evidence to be "acceptable".
The restored gospel resolves this conflict by regarding the first creation as spiritual and the second physical.
Ah...the "restored" gospel. I should have guessed. Not only is science shoehorned into creationism, but so is the gospel. Perfect. Science conflicts with the Bible as you wish to see it, so you reject science. The Bible conflicts with the Bible as you wish to see it, so you rewrite it. How did I not expect that?
Scientific Evolution does a disservice to Science when it teaches as fact things which are not fact. Regardless of whether the theory of Evolution is fact or not, Some parts of Evolution theory have been subsequently been proved false.
If and when parts of a theory are falsified, they are removed or replaced with parts which work better. Failure of some particular case does not invalidate the entirety. Interesting that you should point this out, but refuse to revise your program so that it works at all.
The whole concept of nuclear physics and Nuclear energy is that the natural decay rate of certain isotopes of certain elements is not constant as is required for calculating the age of earth based upon it. A Nuclear reactor takes what is assumed in theory to be millions of years for the half life of Unranium and in a mere 20 years, its nuclear fuel is spent.
This conclusion is wrong. Decay rate IS constant. It's measured in half-lives, which means a greater total amount is lost early than late. It decays into known elements, and the proportions of those known elements to one another allows elapsed time to be determined. The problem with this creationist argument is that nuclear reactors are assumed to depend on natural decay of uranium. They do not. Enriched [which is only 3% to 5% concentration U235 is bombarded with neutrons, which forcibly converts it to U236. The U236 decays MUCH faster, releasing much more energy than was used to start the fission reaction. I suspect that whoever wrote that little "factoid" about decay rates knew the truth, but deliberately obscured it in order to further the creationist agenda. Nuclear reactors need fresh fuel because they do not use the natural decay of U235 - they destroy it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
I haven't found anything on the microwave/C14 results. That doesn't leave much room for a conclusion, but if there were any valid science behind the conclusion, I shouldn't have trouble finding it.
Oh...one last thing [for now]:
I doubt I could find one that would publish it.
Probably not. It would get booted five minutes into peer-review because it has no predictive power.
edit VVV Ditto. I'm familiar with IBM basic, Apple basic, Integer basic, Apple assembler, TRS-80 basic, and C++. I may be rusty, but this a long way from rocket science. Good thing. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 10:12:44 AM |
I would post my program but undoubtedly it would merely be criticized and poo pooed. Most would find it difficult to run.
Post the code - I think you said it was written in Basic - while not everyone could run it - I can - I have Basic interpreters and Basic compilers. And for those that would like to try its very easy to get a basic interpreter up and running. It may even run in Visual basic in Microsoft Excel.
They do not. Enriched [which is only 3% to 5% concentration U235 is bombarded with neutrons, which forcibly converts it to U236.
I'm amazed bsofa that you could miss that - as an analogy - coal lasts quite a long time. Not so if ya burn it.. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 12:18:42 PM | Beyond the fact that evolutionary science (many many disciplines support one another) and creationism is "opposed" diametrically the main problem I have with "creationism" being taught in public schools, is that they are PUBLIC schools. Creationism, by definition, is a christian concept.. and is not shared by every family that uses public schooling. The fact that those who do use public schooling are not the top percetage of the wealthy elite also makes public schooling a "captive audience". No religion has the right to infringe on "government" institutions, or define it's policy... at least not in countries which have freedom of religion as part of their charter. Canada is one country who does...does not the Constitution of the US also protect this basic right? There would be no legal way to introduce "creationism" into the public school system without amending this right... unless the Constitution is more of a "guideline" than a guarded principle of American society. Unless creationism can show, as well as science does, or better I might add, that the theory is valid, testable and supported by ALL THE OTHER things we know, it does not belong in the public school system. It could be taught at the University level in the theology or philosophy departments. I highly doubt any science doctorate with tenure in an accredited educational institution would teach this as part of the science department...or would be allowed to.
Christians are welcome to educate their children as they see fit, as long as they can pass certain academic standards set by the country or state, or province. But to expect PUBLIC funds to support that is unconscienable and against the basic tenets of western society. I would not allow my child to attend such a school.. and I would refuse to pay taxes for it also. AND I would be causing a serious ruckus with my representatives.... all the way up the the Supreme Court. I'm not remotely the only person who feels this way.
It also points to christianity as a meme.
Just another facet of this | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 12:33:13 PM |
Glenn Grant: Meme (pron. meem): A contagious information pattern that replicates by parasitically infecting human minds and altering their behavior, causing them to propagate the pattern. (Term coined by Dawkins, by analogy with "gene".) Individual slogans, catch-phrases, melodies, icons, inventions, and fashions are typical memes. An idea or information pattern is not a meme until it causes someone to replicate it, to repeat it to someone else. All transmitted knowledge is memetic.
It also points to christianity as a meme.
Seems to me this is another bash.
but it would be nice if all posters could remember that this forum is not for ridiculing or bashing
Maybe you should remember that eh?? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 1:31:14 PM | FrogO_Oeyes appears to be attempting to cajole me into giving away hours of programming work for free to who knows how many users. My friend counseled me that I should be very indignant about this. He would be.
FrogO_Oeyes wrote: “This conclusion is wrong. Decay rate IS constant. It's measured in half-lives, which means a greater total amount is lost early than late. It decays into known elements, and the proportions of those known elements to one another allows elapsed time to be determined. The problem with this creationist argument is that nuclear reactors are assumed to depend on natural decay of uranium. They do not. Enriched [which is only 3% to 5% concentration U235 is bombarded with neutrons, which forcibly converts it to U236. The U236 decays MUCH faster, releasing much more energy than was used to start the fission reaction. I suspect that whoever wrote that little "factoid" about decay rates knew the truth, but deliberately obscured it in order to further the creationist agenda. Nuclear reactors need fresh fuel because they do not use the natural decay of U235 - they destroy it.”
U236 apparently has such a short half life that it is not even mentioned in my college text on the subject. The impact of a neutron on the nucleus results in the fission of the U235 atom into commonly Sr90 and Xe143 plus 3 neutrons. One of these neutrons, with the help of a moderator, triggers another U235 atom to fission while the other two escape the fuel mass.
What the College text leaves out is the extreme volume increase this results in. 1cc of U235 typically results in over 1900cc of byproducts. Fortunately the greater volume is the gas Xenon which is Nobel and vented to the atmosphere after the heat energy is used to produce electricity or destruction depending on wheter we are talking about generators or bombs.
I publish the following program on this site without warrenty or promises of any sort. It is merely presented as proof of the gravity mathematics which is used by NASA to “slingshot” Sattelites into faster velocities. The main principle was originally published by Sir Isaac Newton. I lay no clame to being the originator of the mathematics involved, I merely present them because readers of this forum have asked for it. Use of this program constitutes agreement that This site and the author shall be held guiltless of any dammage which may occur any time or any place now or in the future. It is presented primarily as an expression of the real world mathematical concepts. If the readers use it for any other purpose, The user assumes full responsibility for the consequences. No maintenance or other support of this program is offered or provided. No help file or other documentation will be provided. The claim has been made that the reader is familiar with the language in which it is written and able to understand it.
10 SCREEN 2:CLS:DEFDBL A-Z:LN=1:PI=3.14159265359#:C=180/PI:P2=2*PI
15 DQ=80:DIM X(DQ),Y(DQ):Z=2:MI=5280
20 PRINT,"MOON ORBIT"
30 X=1260295291#:Y=0:TH=PI/2:P=2360592#:V=2*PI*X/P:T=36000!
40 PRINT X/MI;:INPUT "X";A$:IF A$ "" THEN X=MI*VAL(A$)
50 PRINT Y/MI;:INPUT "Y";A$:IF A$ "" THEN Y=MI*VAL(A$)
60 PRINT TH*C;:INPUT "é";A$:IF A$ "" THEN TH=VAL(A$)/C
70 PRINT V;:INPUT "V";A$:IF A$ "" THEN V=VAL(A$)
80 PRINT T;:INPUT "T";A$:IF A$ "" THEN T=VAL(A$)
85 PRINT " S=1";:INPUT S:IF S=0 THEN S=1
90 R=SQR(X*X+Y*Y):H=1.5*R:VV=.8*H:WINDOW (-H*S,-VV*S)-(H*S,VV*S)
100 VIEW (320,199)-(639,0):R1=MI*3963:GOSUB 500
110 T2=T*T:D=PI/P*T
120 TH=TH+D:K=D:L=0:G=-1.408851115D+16*1.331065111# :C=1'.9999900017706253#
130 F=.5*T2*G/(R*R):E=F/2:X(Q)=X:Y(Q)=Y:W=V:A=2*D:B=R
135 J=Q:Q=Q+1:IF Q>DQ THEN Q=0
140 M=T*V*COS(TH):N=T*V*SIN(TH):X(Q)=X(J)+M+E*COS(K):Y(Q)=Y(J)+N+E*SIN(K)
150 LINE(X(J),Y(J))-(X(Q),Y(Q)):M=M+F*COS(K):N=N+F*SIN(K)
152 J=Q:Q=Q+1:IF Q>DQ THEN Q=0
154 U=Z:Z=Z+1:IF Z>DQ THEN Z=0
156 LINE(X(U),Y(U))-(X(Z),Y(Z)),0
160 V=SQR(M*M+N*N)/T*C:TP=TH:IF M=0 THEN M=-1E-38)
170 TH=ATN(N/M):IF M 1 THEN TP=TP+P2:GOTO 190
210 IF TD 1 THEN L=L+P2:GOTO 250
270 IF D<-1 THEN L=L-P2:GOTO 250
280 L=K:K=K+D:TH=TH+TD:B=SQR(X(J)*X(J)+Y(J)*Y(J)):C=1-1/(B*B)
290 GOTO 140
500 CY1=0:CX1=R1
510 WHILE I<3.15
520 CY=R1*SIN(I):CX=R1*COS(I)
530 LINE(CX,CY)-(CX1,CY1)
540 LINE(-CX,CY)-(-CX1,CY1)
550 LINE(-CX,-CY)-(-CX1,-CY1)
560 LINE(CX,-CY)-(CX1,-CY1):CX1=CX:CY1=CY
570 I=I+PI/20:WEND
580 RETURN
Have fun. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 1:40:43 PM | Thanks - usually nice to have a few comments and rem's in there esp when inputs are used, such as"X" for X/MI and input V - I'm assuming velocity???
Looks like it should run don't see any obvious syntax errors - yet - | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 2:07:52 PM | Not bashing at all (and anything I say about "christianity" I also would say about any other religion which holds exclusivity of truth as a tenet)
Just an observation and an interesting idea I came across lately. I apologize if it came across that way. I respect your posts, even if I don't agree all the time... even when they suggest that non-christians are patently wrong.
I do not believe my posts are intolerant... just a different viewpoint. Now, if I said something like, "you christians are all a bunch of ignorant and deluded redneck fools to even suggest that creationism can possibly be true, you are all intentionally trying to spread the meme of christianity" THAT would be intolerant, disrespectful and literally "bashing".
I haven't made any accusations... nor am I being intolerant. I am just tossing ideas around. Well.. I AM intolerant of creationism (which is weird really since I have no issue with ID) because I have yet to see any real factual basis for it. It is fantasy...to me, subjected to all the science I know of that refutes it... and I find it insulting for some people to try to use science to refute something that it overwhelmingly supports. Being scientifically minded I am always interested in new data... and will adjust my beliefs accordingly, yet I have not seen yet ONE hypothesis nor workable theory that supports creationism...especially young earth creationism. When information that is verifiable comes to light I will look at it... and consider it and watch how it is modeled and tested and cross-tested by the scientific community.... it's like forensics.. I love this line, Grissom on CSI, "We follow the evidence, nothing more, where it leads us are the facts... we do not theorize the outcome..just follow the evidence, that's where the truth is". Beautiful.
The only reason I can see for any religion to insist on teaching their philosophy in a public forum is to spread their philosophy.. when it concerns impressionable children in a publicly funded place where they are a captive audience... I have to wonder at the motive. It's a legitimate concern. If it was communism, or Islam, or Judaism or other philosophy.. even anarchism... I'd be as concerned, unless it was taught as a "history" subject.. or a philosophy subject in higher grades... maybe.. just maybe... some forms of religion have grown into something that has a life of its own...sociologically. I would never think that the average religious person would actually think this way.. that's silly.
I am strongly opposed to creationism being taught in our public schools.. it is an infringement of MY right to religious freedom, and my right to educate my child as I see fit. Religion does not belong in public school...period. You want to send your children to a christian school and be taught whatever...be my guest, I'm not paying for it, nor supporting it.
I wouldn't propose to teach magick to someone else's child.. and certainly NOT in a public school. That would be disrespectful.
Peace | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 3:28:15 PM |
FrogO_Oeyes appears to be attempting to cajole me into giving away hours of programming work for free to who knows how many users
Actually, I was counselling you to present evidence you claimed to have. I don't consider it to be much value regardless, since you made it clear that it doesn't reflect reality. Unfortunately, you made good, and now I have to look at the damn thing!
I agree with the comments on rem statements and the like. However, you weren't intending to present this to others, so fine. I'll begin looking at it from home, though I won't guarantee any speed. You COULD have your post edited or deleted, and just email us the code. That would limit public exposure while providing nominate independant review. My email has no restrictions. Hm...actually...I have to wonder how relevant a program, designed for calculating slingshots, is for calculating stable orbits. After all, this program assumes your intent is to NOT establish orbit.
Nonetheless, I thank you for providing it.
U236 apparently has such a short half life that it is not even mentioned in my college text on the subject
I noticed that as well, but didn't dig further. It doesn't affect anything here, since what matters is that U235 is destroyed in a fission reaction, and natural radiation is not the power source. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 6:25:07 PM | | I hope you guys got your copy before someone tampered with it. I see now that the copy on the forum is missing a couple of lines. That will definately generate a goto error. I just checked the original and it still runs on my computer and the lines are there. Obviously somebody doesn't want this truth known. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 6:51:20 PM | I picked it up straight after you posted it :- Posted: 12/17/2007 1 14 PM
I even have that page up as a separate Fire fox window - never closed it..
Both show 36 lines - I would doubt if it could have been tampered with in six minutes. Most likely the code you posted was missing the lines, earlier version you were working on?? - you can always email myself or Frogo - no restrictions on my profile for emailing.
In fact I was just gonna try running it..
I saved the file at "Today, December 17, 2007, 1 25 PM" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 11:17:55 AM | mpaul7172
the utter improbability of cellular alignment (hundreds of millions of cells in proscribed locations in our bodies, and all life) that seemingly could not occur in a billion or more generations of selective breeding, the interaction of glands, the nervous system, the recombinant occurrances of reproduction, etc
Clearly you do not understand Biology, Biochemistry or Genetics. The position of cells is not random, it is codded by the genes and controlled by chemical concentrations in the cells. It seems imposible because you mistakenly atribute it to random factors.
animal instinct
Codded for in the genes and controlled by chemical signals.
parallel and independent constructions, such as the independent arisal of eyes in mammals vs the eyes in insects (the eyes are of entirely different construction, each being exquisite)
Incorect, they are not independant constructions but come from the same root source of photosensative pigments in our comon ancestors. The difrent structures of our eyes and insect eyes is representative of the fact that we branched of from the same comon ancestor who had extreamly simple eyes.
parallel independent construction of wings, all apparently individually uniquely constructed (animals vs birds vs fish vs reptiles)
(fish do not have wings, Flying fish do not fly but skip acros the surface of the water)
And all with different constructs, surelly it would be better evidence if all winged animals had identically constructed wings? But infact all winged animals have vastly difrent wing constructions, due to thier seperate but convergent evolutions. (convergent evolution meens to evolve a structure that is ussed for the same purpose as a difrent structure in another species, for example seal flippers and shark fins)
Not all animals even use the same methods to fly. Dragonflies use thier wings to create a vortex of air curents on either side of them that provide lift, butterflys however use thier wings to create a vacume of air above thier body to create lift, and crane flys use their wings to create a diferential in air flows over the top and bottoms of thier wings to create lift.
Just because a structure seems similar dose not mean it is.
"I think therefore I am"
Philosophy, not biology.
I cannot fathom how the mind evolved sans Creator
I can understand how this PC works, so it must therefore be magic. Just because something seems increadible to you, dose not mean it can not happen, the world is not subjected to the limmits of your imagination.
several complex clotting mechanisms are automatically engaged (in other words, the blood does not simply "dry up"). We don't even realize it. We don't have to think about it.
Biochemistry. Very clearly understood and explained, to put it simply, a few chemicals in our blood become extreamly sticky and fibrus when exposed to cellular debis and air.
immunity responses are engaged. Specific immunities, and immuno-globulins (or whatever they are called), go into action. They fight for our survival (think about this: when you die, immediately your body starts to rot . That's what happens when our defenses stop working). We don't even realize the battle that is taking place by the immunity system, in our behalf.
Again this is very well understood and explained if you care to look for the answers.
Oh and by the way the body dose not start to rot instantly, it is a gradual proces that spreads out from the stomach. First the heart stops pumping blood round the body (death) then the cells stop replicating due to lack of nutrients (carried by the blood), when this happens the process of decay that our bodies are continuosly going through when alive, takes precedence. Without new cells replacing the old ones in the gut, the bacteria that we use to digest food continue to digest our bodies without any new cells replacing the old ones.
The bacteria eventualy spread througout the entire body, causing every tisue to rot. However, most of the tisue is not actually dead, many body tisues can be taken out of the bod before they rot, and placed into a neutrient bath and continue to grow. This is how we use cadavr skin to treat burn patients, by pealing off still living skin cells from a dead body and applying them to a living person to create a living bandage.
replacement cells are triggered for healing. Who told them what was going on????
The cells surounding them. Different concentrations of chemicals inform the cels when to stop dividing. (eg, every cell might produce 1 amino acid, and once there is a concentration of 10000 amino acids, the cells are no longer able to divide) aditionaly the release of chemicals in the cell when it is destroyed tell the surrounding cells to start healing, certain protiens are only contained in the cell, and when a cell encounters these protiens surounding it, it recives a chemical signal (the protien intself) to begin healing the damage that must have ocoured to release the protien from a cell.
replacement cells are notified, somehow, when they are adequate. I know this is so, because my scars on my bod are pretty much level with the rest of the body. Who tells these cells when to stop reproducing?
As stated earlier, chemical concentrations. The concentration of protiens and amino acids and other such chemicals, forces cells to stop reproducing or to produce another type of cell. It is not that the cells know when to stop, just that the concentration of chemicals prevents them from producing more of that type of cell.
I do not think that statistically life as we know it would have been constructed from random mutations, augmented by selective breeding, without "outside input" into the process.
Again I state, the universe is not constrained by your imagination. To belive so is to think yourslef vastly more important in the universe than you actualy are. We are all insignificant, stop beliveing that our insignifacnt minds constrain the boundries of the universe.
I'll use the relatively simple vascular system as an example:
the human body has approximately 40 billion capillaries, which would necessarily be constructed of trillions of cells, in addition to complementary 'coats' of vascular material. The cellular 'population' I think can conservatively put at 1 trillion vascular cells, with a VERY conservative subjective probability of consecutive proscribed cellular placement of .1 (e.g. 1/10) per cell.
Your math is inprecise and as such flawed. Your guesses could be off by trillions of cells.
This gives a random construction probability in a singe generation of 1/ 10 to the trillionth power. I.E. impossible. Even dividing by one billion generations would not even put a dent on this impossibility, still resulting in a probability of 1 / 10 to the 999,999,991st power. Impossible randomly, but possible by intention, e.g. created.
But evolution is not random. To belive so is to have no understanding of genetics. the genes (along with a bit of complex bichemistry) code for the placment of every cell and structuring of the entire body. there is no randomness in our bodies, just a simple set of rules that alow for emergent complexity (just as in chess, the rules are simple but the emergent complexity that results from them is increadibly dificult to get your head around) and so for the seemingness of random placement.
I contend that such a simplified notion is not factual, to wit, each of the following would preclude a 'repetition', and together, would do so multiplied:
I contend that this is rubish. It is an established fact that genes code for the shape and position of the capilories. they are not the only factor of course, the eniviroment plays a part in the placment as well, but it is the genes that tell the body what to do in any given situation.
the tapering of the vascular system downward from the heart's arterial side to capillaries, then reverse tapering upward to return to the heart
Is coded for in the genes by a response to blood pressure. Where blood presure drops (due to distance from the pump or division of the vascular system) the walls of the veins and artieries close in to establish an equlibrium of plood presure again.
In otherwords, the tapering is a direct resposnse to the presure exrted on the veins by the blood flowing around the body.
the 40 billion capillaries would necessitate that many branches of tubular design on each side of the vascular system (arterial and veinous). Not a mere repetition, by an stretch, as each fork requires an elaborate tubular separation
Please explain what this statement means? At present it is simply gobeldegook, i suspect as a result of typing to fast or some coppying eror. Please explain what 40 billion capillaries would necessitate the branches of tubular desighn to do or be?
veinous valve placement
What is significant about this? Theya re placed where they must be because of natural factors affecting thier growth. What is so unusual about that?
vessel specialized construction, e.g. *continuous capillaries in muscles, lungs, adipose, and CNS allows no passage of nutrients, gases, etc to penetrate at these proscribed areas
Actually nutrients flow from the capilliaries at all times. I asume that what you ment was infact the oposite of thie, that at certain points in the body, specialised strutures alow nutrients to flow into the blood (the lungs and gut for example) and at other points alow for waste products to be caried out (the kidneys and liver for example), but this is no great mysterie. These proccess ocour not where thier is some fundemental change in the structure of the veins and arteries, but where there is a greater concentration of nutrients outside the blood, and a greater concentration of waste inside the blood. It is mearlly the process of difusion that controlls this aspect of our bodies.
fenestrated capillaries (at kidneys, endocrine glands, etc) have pores *discontinuous capillaries (in bone marrow, liver, spleen) have sinusoid construction.
Capillaries come in three types:
Continuous - Continuous capillaries have a sealed endothelium and only allow tiny molecules such as water to diffuse.
Fenestrated - Fenestrated capillaries have openings that allow small molecules such as protiens to diffuse.
Sinusoidal - Sinusoidal capillaries are special forms of fenestrated capillaries that have larger openings in the epithelium allowing red blood cells and serum proteins to enter.
And these are codded for by the genes and controlled by chemical concentrations.
There are certainly other factors which preclude a simple repetion model of construction. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that the design was intentional, not random.
The only conclusion? I can come up with about for or five other posoble conclusions of the top of my head. Again I ask why the universe must be simple mearly because YOU canot conceve complexity?
The evidence points to the fact that the factors you talk off are not simply codded for repition. The genes do not simply code for the repetion of the cells, instead they code for the rules of cell placement, and it is the enviroment (of our bodies) that determines which rules are needed at which point. The genes simply code along the lines of, if blood presure is greater that X, increase cell production (making a larger tube) if less tha x, decrease cell production (making a smaller tube).
We do ourselves a disfavor in believing a notion that we are the result of some strictly random, mechanical design,
And you do yourself a disfavour in beliveing that the notion that Evolution is random.Evolution specifically precludes the posobility of any lifeform from being random in its constrution, everything has been desighned by its enviroment and its genes.
augmented by decisive breeding (which, in fact, is an argument for creation itself, being that the mind is so much more complex than simple construction of flesh).
Indead, it is so much more than just flesh... its acutally made of nerve cells rather than skin and fat cells as flesh is. We still do not know what most of the chemicals in the brain do, nor have we even identified them, or just seperated them out from the other yet. It is an increadibly complex piece of enginearing that makes me marvel at the increadible desighn that NATURE put into us.
after fertilization, a mere 4-cell being flowers thereafter into all of the disparate cells of the human body, all the organs (kidney, liver, heart, brain, intestines, stomach, pancreas, testicles or female organs, hypothalymus, thyroid, gall bladder, etc etc etc), all the millions of anti-bodies, the various constructions utilizing hundreds of millions of cells in proscribed positions, the eyes, the nervous system, the vascular system. PLUS they are laid out in a specific order.
Once again is state, this is due to the concentration of chemicals in the body. This can be seen in the fact that taking any one of those first 4 cells away dose not efect the eventual size of the child. If you take out a few cells from a developing embryo, new ones replace it, because it is codded for by the concentration of chemicals in difrent proportions in the body.
consider some anti-bodies: The fact that the human body (and animal bodies) produce several million specificities of B lymphocyte antibodies, as well as types of T lymphocytes, to fight off millions of strains of bacteria, should be informative to a rational person. Like, this aint no accident of nature, selective breeding or not.
Only because the antibodies follow simple rules for speciastion. If we have not been subjected to a certain bacteria or virus, then we can not produce the antibodies necesarry to combat it. Most of our antibodies are granted to us from our mother in the first few weeks of life, throught the placenta, the breast milk, spittle and through phisical contact.
The match-ups of specific immunity is only the beginning of amazements, the tip of the iceberg.
The only reason that they match up is because they have ussed the bacteria they are combating as thier blueprint, they are not codded for in the DNA. The DNA coddes for the rules of imune cells speciation, not for any individual t-cell or imune response to specific viral or bacterial attack. The evidence for this can be seen in the fact that we only have t-cells for bacteria we have already been exposed to.
And this is done with only a handful of genes. This indicates that our approx 35k linear proscribed-location genes have trillions of prescribed functions, as is manifested in so many other aspects of the human body.
No it is not. It is evidence of emergent complexity, that throught the use of simple rules the genes can code for complex outcomes. Look at the number of card games there are and how complex some of them are (such as poker) and yet there are few rules and only 52 cards in many of these games. Complex things can arise from the combination of simple rules.
The handful of genes for the blood vessel proscribed construction, for example, is impossible through random construction, even over a billion generations of selectiviity and survival necessity.
Acording to your statement, it would necicerilly be imposible for the genes to code for the creation of a human being. If this is the case then how are we made? Dose god decide the placment of every cell in our body? I would rather belive in the evidence of genetics than the imposable to prove fantasy of god.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 11:49:03 AM | bsofa
Playing with it has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that the number of possible successful initial conditions for orbital insertion are infinitessimal in comparison to the number of unsuccessful orbital insertions. What this shows me is that we cannot even have planets for Evolution to occur on without an intelligent director of the matter. This intelligent director is our Creator.
You are making the mistake of asuming that planets and moons require orbital insertion, but this is not the case.
Solar systems come about when a gas cluster implodes under its own gravity. When this happens a star is created in a fision explosion, this results in mater being thrown out from the star during its formation.
This debris is called an acreation disk and is comon to all stars. Sometimes when the gravity is right, the acreation disk contracts in on itself creating bands of debris at points of stable orbit, these debris bands can then form planets and moons.
The important point is that there is no orbital insertion at any point in the formation of plantes and moons. The banding of the acreation disk is a stabalising process and so is self sellecting.
The fact that we are on a stable planet orbiting a stable sun is due to the fact that (as far as we know) life could only evolve on a planet in a stable orbit around a stable star. To our knowledge, there are more stars where no banding of the acreation disk has occored that stars where it has not, and there are more systems where the banding of the acreation disk has not formed planets than those where it has. But there are still more plantes found every year in orbit around more distant stars. Our planet is not unique in the universe in any aspect (with the posible exception of life but we have no way to veriffy if life exists on other plants at this time) and our solar system is no difrent to countless others.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Evolution dose not necicerilly equate to becoming better or more complex. It could be that a more simplistic form of life is better suited to a new enviroment, and better sugests a higherachy of evolution, when it would be more apropriate to either state the lifeform to be better addapted to its enviroment, or to simply state eveolution as emerging diferance.
Aditionally, evolution is not a gradual proces, it is a proces that sees rapid change followed by long static periods.
this is the problem with the comon views of evolution and the actual science, they simply do not match up. The comon view on most things is about 50 years behind the scince really. It just takes time for things to filter down.
The odds against the accidental or unguided opposite of entropy movement toward organization rather then disorder is the strongest evidence that can be presented in support of intelligent creation.
And what odds are these? 1:1 perhaps? Because the fact is that entropy and complexity are related. The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
Entropy is the mesure of posible positions of atoms in system, so as entropy decreases, order increases (the positions of atoms become fixed into moleculs).
The second law of thermodynamics states that the formation of complex structures is infact an entropic ideal, with systems moving towards increaing order untill a balance is reached. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 4:27:17 PM | Bright1Raziel
I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses which must then additionally be decellerated and inserted into stellar orbits in order for the stars to be visible rather than obscured by debris from innumerable stellar explosions.
Modern astronomers have begun to accept that in order for these rocks we live on to have the heavier elements the Sun would have had to have once been a supernova or part of one. The absence of evidence of such heavier elements in the solar spectra is evidence that this is not the case. The alternative is planetary insertion. The rotational velocity required for debris to remain in orbit after such a local supernova is yet another factor refuting the accidental acretion into planets.
Yet another new evidence is the discovery of huge planets in the inner orbital positions of nearby stars. This also refutes the validity of the acretion disc theory.
The orbital plane of the Solar System provides yet another evidence of intelligent creation.
I wish the responders would resist the temptation to add the suffix ism to creation. It is not the established ism of creation that this thread is about as I read the OP. It is Creation evidence which is being sought. Most of that evidence cannot help but be the same evidence being used to support evolution. We are after all talking about the same universe. What we have is new observations which refute old theories and when the new observations are taken into account the old theories must be revised or discarded. Not everybody is keeping up with the new observations. We have put satelites in orbit brothers and sisters. Some of us are not ignorant of this fact. The process of doing it requires Rocket Science. Rocket Science is much more logical than Religious Dogma. It works in the logic circuits of computers. We may have all started out with well wired brains with strong instincts but many of us have cross wired and neutralized a lot of those instincts. Some with positive results like being able to handle flying and fire. While others have negative results like belief in a God that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and believing that these little rocks we live on could have happened by accident.
The meat that has been requested is the same meat being consumed by evolution proponants. It merely requires taking in the additional evidence and disgarding the false disproved notions of the past regarding it to be a creation proponent. We don't have to prove who or what the intelligence is to perceive the evidence of the works of that intelligence. We merely have to progress to the point of doing some of the things done by intelligence to see that most of the things we do observe are the result of intelligent intervention.
If the debris from observed supernovae is moving as fast as we can see that it is, and calculate that it must be in order to be there at all, then the observed phenomena do match the mathematical models and vice versa.
If you can quit saying in your mind : don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up. Then you might be able to perceive the facts which refute the old interpretations of the data. Quit holding on to obsolete science and get into Rocket Science. If you can't beat the nerds, you ought to try becoming one. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 5:31:06 PM |
I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses...
um..isn't it gravity that does that? 
The absence of evidence of such heavier elements in the solar spectra is evidence that this is not the case
AHA! The old "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" argument - we meet again. If you don't have evidence of something it doesn't mean it can't be true, nor does it prove an alternative proposition.
You haven't shown us anything that could not have happened naturally. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 6:09:02 PM |
I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses...
Newton actually had to deal with this same sort of crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling#Pre-Internet_sentiments_resembling_IF
Welcome to "intelligent falling"
I wish I could make this shit up. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 6:23:53 PM | I'm back! Celebrate and/or weep at your leisure.
Some interesting stuff going on here, I gotta say, but I think we're all kinda clamouring for pretty much the same thing, albeit in different ways. We all seem to want, in addition to a discussion of the topic at hand, simple clarity in understanding the topic at hand. Guess I'll try my hand at helping us out with that.
Because although the title of this thread is "Creation vs Evolution", it is in fact very tightly bound paradigm-wise I left off after tendering my comments on this, but folks still seem a bit confuzzled as to the OP's intent. Far be it for me to speak for the man, but I simply got the impression he's just asking to find out what scientific support and/or value creationism/ID has that it should count as a "viable alternative" to evolutionary theory. Even if that's not what he's asking, I am.
Moving on:
I have capitalized his words "facts" and "proof" and I suggest that herein lies the the problem. Fair enough, says I. Except. Except for the FACT that everyone with a handle on the word "theory" has had little problem picking up the gist of what was meant, even if the wording was colloquial in the initial post. Effectively, we're attempting to deal with concepts here, but do we really need to get bogged down in the specific connotations of words that, in context, are tangentially important at best?
Getting away from that digression, I'll digress on a different subject:
Since it is a well understood fact in the scientific community that one cannot prove a negative, It becomes necessary to prove the positive. So, I'll admit I may be a little off in my own understanding. That whole clarity gig again. However, my understanding of science and scientific method generally leads me to see this as a little backwards.
Essentially, science doesn't prove anything. What science does, when used properly, is disprove ("prove negative"?) those hypotheses that conflict with observed reality. Please, someone call me on this if I'm wrong, but it certainly seems to me to be more in keeping with the logic of scientific endeavour.
IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A PLANET WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION AGAINST ENTROPY, THEN YOU CANNOT HAVE BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION. Keeping that in mind, then, this statement seems all the more foolish to me. No offence intended. How about we consider altering the wording here to read: If you can't have a planet by the previously hypothesised model of planetary formation, then the hypothesis is faulty.
The apparent insistence that a solar nova had to be the impetus for planetary formation seems odd to me, to say the least. Particularly when this insistence seems to come from the very person claiming to have disproven that hypothesis.
To get back to "having a planet without intelligent intervention", let's just say that, with regard to the apparent philosophy of science being invoked by this poster, all that has been proven is the negative; that planetary formation is not due to orbital insertion. The positive claim that intelligent intervention is necessary has not been shown. To claim this as an "obvious proof" is blatantly erroneous and derives, at best, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the means and meanings of scientific proof.
The problem here seems to be what individuals accept as proof of anything. I entirely agree with this. The difficulty in my mind arises when, in direct contradiction of logic, someone insists upon accepting as proof of their own conviction any disproof of anything else.
What we have here is an unwillingness on the part of Evolutionists to see the evidence against their Theory. They want so much to deny the existence of God that they look for any excuse to deny the obvious. So, here I go, potentially getting off-topic in order to hopefully advance discussion of the topic. Ironic, no?
What we have here is a positive statement of someone else's beliefs/motivations. I'm only going to note that, in most instances where "evolutionists'" motivations or beliefs are concerned, this particular phrasing is never actually used by anyone who supports or accepts the modern evolutionary theory. Wonder why that is...?
See, when someone says "Muslims believe X" or "Christians say Y", I generally take it as a given that they're generalising on what they understand of the basic tenets of the belief system in question. This relates to our present discussion, I believe, in that, when one generally cites the reasoning or motivations of a creationist/ID proponent, they're extrapolating from the hello piles of statements of faith, religious underpinnings, Scriptural interpretations, etc. put out there by creationists/ID proponents. Again, I encourage anyone to set me straight if I've got that wrong.
However, to ascribe an idealism to an undefined, vaguely villified group of "evolutionists" without citing any evidence (Ooooh, there's that word again!) for this claim, seems to me to be just a touch mendacious, if not paranoid-reactionary.
Question: How does this observation tie in to the OP? Simply put, it's a pinpoint specific of an overall methodology: misrepresentation, misappropriation of terms, misapplication of concepts. Folks want a "Creation vs. Evolution"? Here it is:
Evolutionary theory: provides an explanation of observable reality, provides avenues of exploration to find out more about our world, successfully underpins and enhances studies in biology, medicine, genetics, and a host of other disciplines.
Creation/Intelligent Design: casts aspersions on legitimate science, upholds fallacious and spurious claims about evidence, misrepresents both the motivations and effects of legitimate science and scientists, seeks to "redefine" science so as to be broad enough to include such prestigious methods of information gathering as astrology and glossolalia, and insists that colloquial definitions of terms are "just as good" as the specific connotations necessary to exact science.
So, before I get myself booted or ripped a new one, let me just say that this is the state of the "debate" as I see it, right now. What I'm asking for, from someone who might actually have something constructive to say about ID/creationism, is a simple explanation of what it is and how it can be considered to be scientific, or at least not simply a statement of faith.
Speaking of proof, please tell us some proofs for creationism such that it can proven or disproven in an experiment. To include the "response". Thusly:
One proof is a set of footprints fossilized in a riverbed. Precisely how does this prove the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe? Assuming, that is, that the "proof" hasn't already been debunked (as in, multiple times earlier in this thread). And:
Another proof is the experiment of a Creationist putting a modern day beef roast in an oven and cooking it. Again, while it is evident that this anecdote pertains to some of the limitations of one specific type of radiometric dating (one of a multitude of methods that assists in evolutionary studies), in exactly what way does this conclusively "prove" the hypothesis that a specific supernatural entity planned and executed the formation of our existence?
Shall I continue? From the cited site:
THE FOSSIL RECORD Evidently no more than the testimony of "experts" on their opinions regarding the applicability of the fossil record to evolutionary studies. Hmm, nope. Nothing proving, supporting, or providing evidence for creation/ID.
DECAY Of EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD Interesting, but, lacking any evidence, the statement constitutes no what? Oh, right! Proof! Apparently, the gentleman in question also failed to take into account the periodic reversal of the Earth's magnetic field. But, again, while all of this truly fascinating information calls into question the timeline of the dominant scientific paradigm, it does absolutely nothing to materially support the one preeminent claim of creationism/ID: that a specific or non-specific intelligent force in actuality created the world.
THE GLOBAL FLOOD Having firmly established that aquatic disaster has a place in the majority of the world's mythologies, and provisionally accepting that someone looking hard enough can find evidence that they can construe as proving a massive, globe-spanning flood, how does this validate any one specific cultural account of a "great flood"? Additionally, how does it operate as proof for (you guessed it!) a single, powerful creator "out there" somewhere who made everything?
As for the radio halos and human artifacts, those have been dealt with extensively in this thread and elsewhere, and, while they're nice arguments one way or another for the potential invalidity for early-earth geology and anthropological curiosity, they still fail to act as evidence for the overall postulate involved in creationism/ID.
Once more, where's the beef?
Okay, I caught up to my other post. Just so folks know, if I didn't touch on something, it's because someone else got to it first, or I'm just fed up with the whole "if it calls evolution into question, it must prove creation" mindset.
Oh, and if I said something the wrong way, and someone took it as "bashing", none of it's meant that way. I just got a slight sarcastic streak sometimes. Peace! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 6:57:23 PM |
I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses which must then additionally be decellerated and inserted into stellar orbits in order for the stars to be visible rather than obscured by debris from innumerable stellar explosions
I can't see why you would make this assertion. It's not in accordance with astronomical models which work. Gravity is what cause the matter form into stars and the matter around them, as I already spelled out. The decelleration is just acceleration due to gravity. Stars would not be obscured by debris from stellar explosions [usually] because there've been about 14 billion years for numerous stars to form, collapse, explode, reform. The debris has had time to condense [due to gravity] and form new star systems.
Modern astronomers have begun to accept that in order for these rocks we live on to have the heavier elements the Sun would have had to have once been a supernova or part of one. The absence of evidence of such heavier elements in the solar spectra is evidence that this is not the case.
Not so. Again, I already elaborated on this. The heavier elements of our planet may be debris from novae past, but our sun is not. Non sequitur fallacy. It does not follow that because the planets contain heavier elements, so must the sun. That would apply to an old sun, which ours is not. The matter which condensed into the planets may be old, but the planets and the sun they orbit are not. A young sun formed of condensed hydrogen, and young planets formed of the heavier debris.
The rotational velocity required for debris to remain in orbit after such a local supernova is yet another factor refuting the accidental acretion into planets
Again, you are assuming solar systems, principly our own, form around an ancient star which has gone supernova. That's not the usual model, and it's obviously not a model which applies to our system. It is therefore fallacious to refute a model which was never used in the first place. Strawman. A supernova may create a new system around it, but this seems unlikley. Prior to a supernove, much of a solar system may be destroyed by solar expansion. Most of the rest will be annihilated by the nova. Anything which remains will be focused on a heavier and heavier star, including quasars, pulsars, neutron stars, and black holes. The debris ejected is likely to be captered by nearby star systems or will become part of a nebula which form entirely new stars and planets. This process is observable in various nebulae, which may contain an older, heavier nova remnant, as well as younger stars forming within the clouds of gas and dust. You seem to be advocating [and then refuting] a model entirely of your own making.
This also refutes the validity of the acretion disc theory
What it means is that the theory, as applied didn't properly account for all factors. That doesn't invalidate the theory, it only invalidates the method in which it was applied. Science is a quest for understanding. When an explanation fails to work for the first time, it makes more sense to investigate the cause of the exception, not throw out the 99% success.
The orbital plane of the Solar System provides yet another evidence of intelligent creation
Apart from the logical fallacy, there are actually rational explanations. In fact, there are two related ones: our solar system is not a natural part of the Milky Way, but part of another galaxy which merged with the Milky Way. That means the orbital plane will be influenced by the angle and age of merger, and by our orbital position within the original galaxy. There are many other more trivial influences, but this one stands out.
It is not the established ism of creation that this thread is about as I read the OP. It is Creation evidence which is being sought.
Sorry, but it can't be avoided. This is a critical semantic issue which is a by-product of a creationism fallacy. Evolution has nothing to do with "creation". The two or only equated by "creationism", because young Earth creationism defines the origin of species and the origin of life as one and the same. Old Earth creationism doesn't necessarily have a problem with evolution, and would thus have nothing to do with "Evolution vs. Creation". In order for it to be "Evolution vs", creationism MUST be the issue. The notion that species were created, not evolved, is creationism by definition.
and believing that these little rocks we live on could have happened by accident.
Whatever the "odds" may be, they don't even matter. We can only observe a positive outcome, and therefore cannot determine the odds with any reliability. If your coin is transparent when viewed from tails, then no matter how many times you flip it, you will only see "heads".
We don't have to prove who or what the intelligence is to perceive the evidence of the works of that intelligence.
Not true. The logical mathematical laws which describe the functioning of the universe could just as easily be considered "intelligence". Actually, they're better than intelligence - they're actually predictable and reliable. Since that puts intelligence into the class of data which cannot be predicted or decribed; it is now, by definition, "absence of evidence". Go figure. God of the Gaps.
If you can't beat the nerds, you ought to try becoming one.
Herbert!
Herbert!
Herbert! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 8:16:59 PM | I seem to see the basic arguement being based upon the assumption that if evolution (not abiogenesis..evolution) can be disproved that creationism is "proved". This is a false premise, and really bad logic.
But the two are not polar opposites. Evolution, by definition, does not concern itself with the "spark" of life.. it is only concerned with the changes in the biology of life, under pressure from the environment, to adapt itself in ways that support that life and to decline that which is inimicable to survival. It has been shown by the evolutionary records that this process ultimately results in orgnaisms which are uniquely suited to their environments...and it also supports diversity to fill the niches in nature where life can exist.. life begets life...the more "life" in an area...the more life, because life is a cycle that feeds and nurtures itself. Take the extreme examples of desert life as opposed to rainforest life, there are more "niches" created by the life cycle in the rainforest than in the deep desert, hence you will find more life, that is divergent than you will in the desert, but many of these life forms will be closely related because they don't need to specialize as much as they would in a more hostile environment. In the desert, you won't find as rich a variety and number of lifeforms, but they will be more specialized... because evolution supports that which makes life possible according to environmental pressures.
But Evolution does not claim to answer the ORIGIN of life itself.
There are other hypotheses that attempt to do so... none so far has been "granted" the position of a workable theory.
That I know of.
We come to the definitions of "intelligence" and "consciousness" when we begin to delve into these things. Intelligence is a tribute of consciousness, or sentience, as far as we know and define it. Since we are sentient beings with "intelligence" it is fair to speculate from a psychological point of view that we would attribute patterns of order by our own experience of sentience. This is the bias of being what we are... everything is coloured by how we perceive our own existance. Life itself, as a process, is still a mystery, but we are making headway, and there are many diciplines who are looking for the answer. Mathematical probability and the "order" in the universe may SEEM to be too beautiful to have happened by itself, but it's all a reaction to the basic laws which rule the universe as we know it. I have no real science background yet I find some of the even more technical aspects not that difficult to understand. Just for matter to act, as it does, required the 4 forces... electromagneticism, the weak and strong nuclear forces and the most mysterious of all... gravity.
We do not know where the original material of the universe originated... or as I like like to say we don't know when or how the original energy was converted into hydrogen (the simplest and most abundant element we know of) but all the first stars began as hydrogen clouds coalescing under the 4 forces.. and finally under extreme pressure igniting in nuclear reaction. The larger stars, under their immense gravity and reactions converted the hydrogen to helium... and as they became older the helium was converted to the next element...and on down the line to the denser elements... when these stars begin to die they expand, then contract rapidly.. and finally they either explode into a nova, or if large enough into a supernova... which spews out immense amounts of new converted elements into the universe... it may become a white dwarf, a neutron star..the nebulae are a testament to these incredible explosions... or I think in the case of pulsars.. join with other huge stars or star clusters. Yet this left over material is grabbed by the nearest gravitional force and incorporated into that "system"... and then the process begins anew.. as soon as there is enough mass in the newly formed "element" clusters..stars again are born. I wonder what occurs when the massive stars at the center of a galaxy supernova? I would think that the sheer energy would cause the heavier elements to escape the event horizon of the black hole suspected at the heart of every galaxy.
Sol is a yellow-orange, main sequence dwarf star (G2 V -- see spectrum). Born in our Milky Way galaxy's disk about 4.6 billion years ago, it may shine as a normal "dwarf" star for another five billion years. It is relatively rich in elements heavier than hydrogen created by primordial supernovas, and so is called a high metallicity, "Population I" star. Even so, Sol is composed of mostly hydrogen and helium (75 percent and 25 percent by mass, or 92.1 percent and 7.8 percent by the number of atoms, respectively). All other elements amount to only about one tenth of a percent, but this is changing slowly over time as Sol converts more hydrogen to helium then to traces of other elements at its core.
This is how all the elements are created....stars are element factories.. and I think at the beginning of the universe as we know it, the concentration of matter was much higher than it is now... these processes would have occurred more rapidly, in cosmic time. As the stars and galaxies moved away from each other the "forces" between them become weaker...
"life" itself.. is still one of the great mysteries.... but that does not invalidate evolution.
It can easily be argued that the physical laws of the universe could have been created by an intelligence or sentient being, but it would just be an hypothesis, there is no way to test that hypothesis under the scrutiny of scientific method, as I can see, not within physical science... I don't think mainstream physical science CAN answer that. Now...Quantum physics might, but not yet. The quantum world is as mysterious as life itself.
Sheesh, we have still to really understand why one thing is "alive" and another isn't... take the virus.. and the bacteria, both can create respiratory illness, and even feel similar to us in our bodies attempts to "oust" the intruder (certain specific strains) both replicate, yet one is "alive" a "being" if you will, and one is not.
Regardless... evolution does not refute nor support the existence of any sentient, or even non-sentient life (or even "creator"). It is not "proof" that there is no god, it is not "proof" that there is one either... it is only an explanation of the way things are observed to work within biology, here on planet earth, and in the universe we have seen so far.
peace | |
|
|
| Page 155 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
