|Evolution.Page 26 of 64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)|
FYI... the person who unfolded DNA was of the same opinion as I am....... life forms can not/did not evolve
Which is perfectly fine, people are entitled to their opinions. But an opinion is not evidence.
There's also nothing wrong with anyone wanting to believe & accept the creation as described in the Bible.
But when people want to take the Biblical creation and teach it in the classrooms ( and include it in textbooks) then there's a problem. Particularly when they want to call it something like "Intelligent Design", claim it is a science and then say it ( ID ) doesn't have to follow the same criteria ( experimentation, observation, etc) that a true science must follow.
If a scientist was to study Intelligent Design as a hypothesis they'd get to the part where the designer created something ( stars, planets, life or whatever) and start to ask "How?". Then they'd get the the designer itself & start to ask "How did the designer come to exist?" and "who created the designer ?".
Supporters of ID are perfectly happy with getting to those points and not even contemplating the questions but just leaving the answers as "god did it" and "he always existed".
Posted: 3/8/2010 11:33:52 AM
Have you heard of the Fermi paradox? "Where are they??" This galaxy is old enough that there's been plenty of time to criscross, explore, and catalog all of it, many times over. But we've never been visited or communicated with. That's convincing evidence that there's no one there
Actually, I would disagree with this statement for a variety of reasons. However, Timothy Ferris has a very good example of the flaw with this logic in his PBS two-part series Life Beyond Earth.
In it, he sets out an experiment. In it, he decides to have lobster for dinner. He sets up his dinner table and leaves the door open in anticipation of a lobster arriving and crawling up onto his plate. From the fact that the lobster doesn't show up and crawl on his plate, he asks whether we can infer from this that lobsters don't exist.
Well, of course not. The supposition that one would fails to take into account the willingness and the capability of a lobster to do so. As Jill Tarter says, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Posted: 3/8/2010 11:42:25 AM
You can't be serious. You (correctly) want to keep religion out of science, but you think that science is going to prove or explain religion?? Krebby, they're different subjects. Science is only about the physical world and its mechanisms.
Actually, the two aren't mutually exclusive. IF the universe had a "designer" then evidence for that designer should be obtainable as the universe is a physical thing. If there is a "designer," then certainly it is not unreasonable to find evidence for such, is it?
Remember, "religion" is an institution and a series of beliefs which may or may not have anything to do with "ultimate" reality.
Faith has a role in science, when a scientist works on a theory because he has some faith in his assumption that it's a good theory, one that will be borne out by evidence.
But that's not "faith." That's just following an idea to its inevitable conclusion from hypothesis to experiment. If it isn't borne out by the experiment, it is abandoned. If the experiment yields unexpected results...which frequently occurs...then a new hypothesis and then theory formulates.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Science can't move forward without evidence.
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:21:57 PM
... its call genetics.... nothing to do with evolutional theory
Genetics nothing to do with evolutionary theory??
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:30:21 PM
Not if your religion is one that say that the Creator would leave physical evidence for us, such as enscribed tablets, etc. Is that your belief?
Actually, I'm not espousing any particular belief. Quite the contrary. What I was simply pointing out was that you were incorrect in your interpretation of Krebby's statement that somehow science is inclined or intent on "proving" religion." If I interpret Krebby's point, we are at an early-enough point in our understanding of the physical universe that - if the universe had a designer - then we might still be yet to find evidence for that. Evidence is, after all, the stock and trade of science or, as you like to term it, the material of "scientific materialists."
As I pointed out, something physical exists. Therefore, something that was responsible for that physical thing existing might also have left evidence for Its existence, don't you think?
But, otherwise, I don't kow exactly what kind of evidence you'd expect to find. Structural bolts, etc. dating from pre-human times? A metal plate, riveted to a planet, that says, "Made by the Creator"? Chisel marks on lunar mountains? I can only guess what you'd expect, without knowing what your religion is.
As I've frequently identified myself as "agnostic" in the popular definition of one who neither believes or disbelieves in the presence of a supreme being a.k.a. God, I have no "religion" per se.
But expecting to find a particular form of evidence is certainly missing the opportunity for serendipity. Any effective attempt to find evidence of a "creator" would first require a plausible definition of said creator or a hypothesis of what might characterize that creator. That, at least, sets up a framework on which to test and observe those characterizations.
Consider the search for gravity waves. There is a framework - general relativity - that allows for them to exist and yet, despite best efforts to date, they have yet to be observed. That doesn't mean general relativity is wrong. It just means that we've constrained the limits of their detectability.
However, if we accept that the universe is "real" and that there may be a "creator" behind it, does it not make sense that said creator must therefore have left evidence behind?
No, faith also has a secular meaning, a more general and milder meaning.
But the problem arises when people attempt to use "faith" in the scientific context, especially when they are attempting to paint science in the same schema as religion. The two are disparate in their approach and in their ultimate goal.
To quote Galileo..."The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:44:19 PM
|no worries, mate!|
Posted: 3/8/2010 4:24:50 PM
Fair enough. Maybe no one would bother. Why should they? I'm not intersted in humans exploring the galaxy. So yes, you're right, the fact that no one has contacted or visited us could just mean that no one has any inclination to explore the galaxy, or at least no inclination to contact us.
Or perhaps they were here 50 million years ago, did a quick survey & moved on, having found nothing particularly noteworthy about our planet ( Earth: Harmless.... to quote Douglas Adams).
Posted: 3/8/2010 7:12:40 PM
I'd expect that all of the exploration would be entirely unmanned and automated.
One radio astronomer suggested that a super-advanced civilization could send out self-replicating fully automatic probes that would make a number of copies of themselves at each star they arrive at, so as to more quickly explore the galaxy. He said they'd leave automatic reporting devices at any promising planet that they find, to monitor it for developement of more advanced life or civilization.
Seth Shostak, in his book Confessions of an Alien Hunter proposes a similar speculation, noting of course that it is purely speculation and may have absolutely no reflection on reality.
I trust you offer the same notation...that your proposals are strictly speculation with absolutely no evidence.
Posted: 3/8/2010 8:28:27 PM
No. 50 million years ago they'd have found fairly advanced life here (dinosaurs, etc.). That, of itself, would be a rare find.
How do we know it'd be a rare find? Perhaps advanced life exists thrupout the galaxy.
And we're talking about a hypothetical alein race here, who knows what they would find noteworthy? ( maybe they were a mammalian race & viewed the dinosaurs as blasphemy so they eradicated them.... that could be what wiped out the dinosaurs )
And, if they were curious enough to explore the galaxy in the first place, they'd then leave behind some sort of automated device that would inform them in the event of some sort of indication the developement of more advanced life here.
Well, a) they may not have explored the galaxy because they were curious, they could hav ebeen searching for somemineral that wasn't here so they moved on ( or removed the mineral & moved on) & b) we ( humans) might leave behind a device for the purpose you described, but how can you attach human actions to an alien culture?
Besides, maybe they DID and we haven't found it yet, or did find it but didn't recognize it as being such a device or maybe there hasn't been any sort of life here yet that they would consider "advanced".
I'd expect that all of the exploration would be entirely unmanned and automated.
One radio astronomer suggested that a super-advanced civilization could send out self-replicating fully automatic probes that would make a number of copies of themselves at each star they arrive at, so as to more quickly explore the galaxy. He said they'd leave automatic reporting devices at any promising planet that they find, to monitor it for developement of more advanced life or civilization
Again, this is assigning human characteristics to an alien race. Perhaps this hypothetical alien race is extremely long-lived & has no problem with the thought of exploring interstellar spave using solar sail vehicles.
Posted: 3/8/2010 8:38:14 PM
|Not to put too fine a point on things - but 50 million years ago, the dinosaurs were extinct already.|
Posted: 3/9/2010 12:37:37 AM
Not to put too fine a point on things - but 50 million years ago, the dinosaurs were extinct already.
Nitpicker ( not my fault, Appreciative9809 brought up the subject 0
Anyway, the coealanth is still around ( I know, not actually a dinosaur ).
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:02:08 AM
The problem would probably be solved if Science and Philosophy had separate forums.
I sincerely doubt it. Yanking religion from the science/philosophy forum hasn't done a damn thing to reduce religious nuts' posting of BS screed in purely scientific threads.
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:23:22 AM
Wasn't Earth "Mostly Harmless" ?
No, it was going to be listed as "mostly harmless" in the updated edition of the Guide but before Ford Prefect ( he was doing field work on the new edition) could submit the reclassification the Earth was demolished so it became a moot point.
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:33:03 AM
No, just talking about what would likely be consistent with exploratory curiosity.
That's assuming they have curiousity.
So maybe they crossed interstellar space just to observe us unobserved?
??? not sure where I implied that in mypost... I said they my have come here for reasons we couldn't fathom, and they may not view the human race as noteworthy.
But if they took the trouble, and found an interesting planet, one with life that had the promise of further developement, then it's reasonable to suppose that the same curiosity that led them to explore might lead them to leave a reporting robot.
Maybe life isn't rare at all, perhaps finding a planet with NO life on it would make them sit up ( assuming they sit) and take notice. And thinking they would leave a reporting robot is again giving a totally alien race human morivations.
Anyway as I said they may have left 1 and we don't know about it; it could be extremely sensitive & in orbit somewhere in the asteroid belt or farther out.
Assuming because we haven't been able to find a hypothetical probe left by hypothetical alien race that hypothetically may have visited the solar system 50 million years ago proves we haven't been visited is a huge stretch.
Posted: 3/9/2010 3:27:27 PM
it tempting to believe that they'd want to come and mentor us if they existed?
Could be they're having too much fun watching our ( alleged) civilization & laughing their tentacles off.
Or maybe they don't see any point in mentoring us; why would they want intelligent cattle?
Posted: 3/9/2010 6:19:56 PM
Maybe most Scientific Materialists are pretentious wannabe scientists like you, Stargazer.
Well, so much for your pretensions toward having an intellectual and reasoned discussion. Clearly, you lack sufficient maturity to resist your baser instincts. Or perhaps you just can't stand the possibility that everybody might be able to see that you actually do not know what you're talking about.
I could make a suggestion...I'm sure you can guess what it is. In the meantime, might I also suggest you learn to get over yourself.
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:33:35 PM
I could make a suggestion...I'm sure you can guess what it is.
Wow, maybe I was all wrong about psychic abilities being bee ess... I read this post & got a sudden strange vision ...
stargazer was thinking about eclipses
... I think... I may not be utilizing my new-found psychic ability to it's full potential...
Anyway, it's something about eclipses... or a place where the sun doesn't shine.
( I'm no astronomer, so I can't figure out how a solar eclipse would include Uranus ....)
Posted: 3/9/2010 11:16:15 PM
If your still around, check this fairly short one;
I just repeated this part;
We have taken a look at the state of affairs in the evolutionary theory. Their proponents have been allowed to speak for themselves to indicate where we need to look. In the preceding material, I have named and gone over every (!) example from reality which they used and which I could find in the sources I had. If you think about the gigantic, complex genetic task which is necessary for Evolution to happen, the distinctly disappointing results of these examples, and the impossibility for proteins to take on the new specialized functions which are necessary for macro-evolution, only one conclusion remains: there is no macro-evolution. The Mutation family is capable of only two things, causing variation-on-the-same-genetic-theme and degeneration.
Posted: 3/10/2010 12:01:06 AM
If your still around, check this fairly short one;
If you don't understand the basics as they've been repeatedly described in these fora, how on earth would you understand them on the site you've provided?
And you would certainly NOT understand how things are being deliberately misunderstood or misrepresented in order to provide a conclusion which contradicts reality and parsimony.
You have not sought understanding, nor objectivity. You have sought out someone who agrees with your point of view in spite of evidence. Not coincidentally, that's essentially what the site authors have done - shoehorned the evidence to fit their pre-determined beliefs.
Posted: 3/10/2010 12:07:29 AM
|I will read the evidence that refutes it's points.|
we don't seem to be really adding much to the discussion, froggy.
as long as you felt better, I guess.
which points am I to not believe, sir?
I don't know about others, but I don't want to start believing in erroneous information, having gotten so far.
the point that you are smart, and I am dumb, was taken.
and that you, of course are objective, and that I, and probably all of the other creationists are not.
Posted: 3/10/2010 12:27:30 AM
|Show you actually understand the basics of what is being discussed. I have seen many attempts at understanding, but NEVER an indication that you have the level of understanding necessary to know what that site is even talking about. You say you will read the evidence which refutes its points, but I seriously doubt you actually read and understood those points to begin with. You're simply throwing up roadblocks and parroting others, using the familiar old argumentum ad nauseum. You are not attempting to learn or understand anything if you simply quote material you don't understand and wait for others to waste their time arguing it against you.|
It would be pointless to "refute" anything provided, since:
1)you've made no actual points yourself,
2)you wouldn't understand the arguments you agree with,
3)and you wouldn't understand the arguments refuting them.
<div class='quote'>the point that you are smart, and I am dumb, was taken
That was not the point. The point was that you have made it obvious that you are not attempting to understand or learn honestly. You achieved that by acting as if you agree with an anti-evolution site which is written at a level which is clearly far beyond any level of understanding you have previously shown. That means you picked the source NOT because you understood it, but because it agreed with what you already believed. Copy-paste is a rather transparent and dishonest debating style. If you wish to make a point, at least make it YOURS, so that we can all appreciate both sides of the discussion
Posted: 3/10/2010 12:41:06 AM
|is that going to be your pathetic attempt at refuting the observation of many that there is no evidence of added information to make bones out of jelly?|
are you too important to 'waste' your time with me?
I am sure that I understand enough and much more than most, but, I am not here to prove any of that even though high and mighty foggo brought it up.
just the facts buddy!
you wasted 2 posts already, discussing your personal agenda.
hopefully someone else will properly refute that site so I will learn.
Posted: 3/10/2010 12:51:13 AM
|I'm not here to make you happy.|
that article was pretty plainly written.
you know my point.
information is in cells to do stuff.
where did the information to make eyes come from, when there were no eye making genes in the primordial soup?
if you don't want to tell everyone whats wrong with that last statement above, or with that article, so be it, stay out of the discussion.
don't know why I am bothering to defend myself.
I don't usually cut and paste, but that says it the way I would, and I have said it like that before.
take it, or leave it.
just quit your whining.
so if your done talking down to me, maybe we can get back on the subject here.
or just leave me alone.
Posted: 3/10/2010 2:01:14 PM
isn't it tempting to believe that they'd want to come and mentor us if they existed?
No. Earthlings at this time (the seeding phase) are aggressive and dangerous. Oh yes, annihilate them
It would probably sufficient to just quarantine us, and maybe continue observing us
Sounds kind of self-important. Perhaps the hypotheical aliens have visited ( in the distant past and/or in the present) and have written us off as an insignificant, unimportant smear on the surface of the Earth. We may be to them nothing more than gnats.
Posted: 3/10/2010 2:14:30 PM
The evolution thread is about science, but it necessarily also involves philosophy too, maybe sometimes including metaphysics
Okay - you're going to have to explain that one to me. How does a thread that talks about the scientific evidence for evolution involve philosophy and metaphysics?
Unless you're going to get into some kind of 'Science-as-Philosophy' angle, it just doesn't make sense...
64 (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)