1. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78675
    02 Aug '13 19:49
    Can we please have all future debate on this matter in this thread. With a possible second thread for Cosmology vs Creationism if that takes over. The problem is that half of the rest of the threads are being taken over by this discussion and it belongs in one place. If someone starts a thread on some new aspect of evolution then it would be nice to discuss the evidence on scientific terms rather than in comparison with a religion. There should be a debate as one clearly exists - so can we have it here?
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    02 Aug '13 20:52
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Can we please have all future debate on this matter in this thread. With a possible second thread for Cosmology vs Creationism if that takes over. The problem is that half of the rest of the threads are being taken over by this discussion and it belongs in one place. If someone starts a thread on some new aspect of evolution then it would be nice to d ...[text shortened]... rison with a religion. There should be a debate as one clearly exists - so can we have it here?
    I dispute that there should be debate here as there is no SCIENTIFIC debate
    about whether evolution is correct/real/proven/ect.

    However if we are going to have that debate here then yes, lets keep it in one thread.

    Otherwise I was going to go with plan A and just boot RJHinds threads into spirituality...
    [as he is not at all interested in any kind of reasoned scientific debate or discussion]

    But sonhouse keeps egging him on...
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    02 Aug '13 21:005 edits
    forwarded from the "Best single book on evolution for layman?" thread:

    You mean he wants to be indoctrinated in evolution and not really learn about it. That book is an indoctrination into evolution.

    RJHinds

    No, I mean he wants to learn about it. I hope he will do so with a critical mind -a book that simply explains the proven scientific facts and/or shows the evidence is NOT an “ indoctrination”. This contrasts with the Bible when it is used to indoctrinate.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    02 Aug '13 21:10
    forwarded from the “Turning evolution on its head:” thread:

    Then he says, "The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction." Maybe this is referring to the time of the worldwide flood.

    RJHinds

    Don't be silly. It obviously cannot possibly be referring to a worldwide flood. All those mass extinctions are known to result from things like climate change and volcanism and asteroid impact etc but NOT a worldwide flood. The mass extinctions also occurred several times -each in a very different period in history AND with millions of years between them. Obviously this fact logically contradicts any notion of a single worldwide flood causing all those mass extinctions -your suggestion makes no sense at all.
    That is why the article says evolution is being turned on its head.

    So what if it does? The theory of evolution evolves by being modified with any new evidence -just like any good theory should do to remain scientific. This is just how science works.
    The article doesn't say/imply “millions of years of evolution is not true” like you said in the post before this one.
  5. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148591
    02 Aug '13 22:49
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Can we please have all future debate on this matter in this thread. With a possible second thread for Cosmology vs Creationism if that takes over. The problem is that half of the rest of the threads are being taken over by this discussion and it belongs in one place. If someone starts a thread on some new aspect of evolution then it would be nice to d ...[text shortened]... rison with a religion. There should be a debate as one clearly exists - so can we have it here?
    My question is where did everything come from, near as I can tell only
    creationism addresses that not the other two.
    Kelly
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    03 Aug '13 00:16
    Originally posted by humy
    forwarded from the "Best single book on evolution for layman?" thread:

    You mean he wants to be indoctrinated in evolution and not really learn about it. That book is an indoctrination into evolution.

    RJHinds

    No, I mean he wants to learn about it. I hope he will do so with a critical mind -a book that simply explains the proven sci ...[text shortened]... ce is NOT an “ indoctrination”. This contrasts with the Bible when it is used to indoctrinate.
    Well, I just gave him a link to a review of the book. I think this book might be a book that could indoctrinate someone, because from what little I have read of it, I get that impression. I haven't read it all, so I might be wrong, but I just wanted him to be aware of it before he reads it.

    The Instructor
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    03 Aug '13 01:143 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    forwarded from the “Turning evolution on its head:” thread:

    Then he says, "The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction." Maybe this is referring to the time of the worldwide flood.

    RJHinds

    Don't be silly. It obviously cannot possibly be referring to a worldwide flood. All those mass extinc mply “millions of years of evolution is not true” like you said in the post before this one.
    There were never any extinctions of the kinds of creations of God. The only mass extinctions were of species belonging to the kinds. That was probably at the time of the worldwide flood from the YEC worldview. I can't see how normal floods would cause mass extinctions. It seems that there was an event that did cause mass extintions among certain species of dinosaurs. However, don't forget that originally the name "dinosaur" was given to species of large reptile lizards.

    From the creation model of the worldwide flood, there was climate change and possibly underwater earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that might be the cause of the fountains of the great deep to burst open with the floodgates of water from the sky as is recorded in Genesis. There seems to be another big event in which valleys sank and the mountains rose so that water could no longer cover the entire Earth according to the Holy Bible.

    As I have pointed out before, the millions of years time spans seem to be based on speculation or calculations based on assumptions that may not be true. Many assumptions that have been used in dating has already been proven wrong and there are still many that are doubtful. There are also dating methods that support the idea of a young Earth that is only a few thousnad years old.

    I think the idea of a worldwide flood causing mass extinction of certain species is a possible explanation that makes sense. It could also account for the drastic reduction in length of life, because there would be no more greenhouse effect all over the Earth for better plant growth and to prevent freezing at the poles and no protection from the harmful rays of the sun that is now known to cause damage to the DNA coded information for making new proteins and cells to keep all our organs healthy and free of disease, like cancer.

    Video of underwater volcanic eruption:

    http://news.discovery.com/earth/videos/earth-underwater-volcano-caught-on-video.htm

    The Instructor
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    03 Aug '13 02:39
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There were never any extinctions of the kinds of creations of God. The only [b]mass extinctions were of species belonging to the kinds. That was probably at the time of the worldwide flood from the YEC worldview. I can't see how normal floods would cause mass extinctions. It seems that there was an event that did cause mass extintions a ...[text shortened]... s.discovery.com/earth/videos/earth-underwater-volcano-caught-on-video.htm

    The Instructor[/b]
    "Assumptions that may not be true". So you are implicitly saying it also MAY be true. So now you are swinging on the gate.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    03 Aug '13 02:501 edit
    TO: humy

    On another thread concerning DNA and RNA, I stated that there is no way to account for how all the precise information is encoded other than by an intelligent designer.

    You asks the following question:

    In what sense“ no way to account for” and how do you KNOW this?
    And why would the information have to be “ precise” in particular?
    And why cannot “all” the required information be nothing other than what can be represented in the sequences of bases in a very short simple strand of RNA-like molecule?


    I don't know what kind of science background you have, but from an engineering and computer programming point of view to make a simple cell is a huge undertaking. The engineer must make all the design drawings or blueprints for every part needed and design machines to perform certain functions and provide the assembly instructions for each of the machines needed in the cell.

    These machines must somehow be programmed to do these functions automatically. So the programmer must be able to make a program that can be read by certain machines that are already programmed to read the main program and operating system for the cell stored in the DNA memory molecule.

    The main program stored in the DNA memory molecule must have all the information for making and assembling every part in the exact sequence. That is why I say the information assembly code must be precise so everything is made and put together in the right order with the right parts, just like putting together a television, an automobile or a computer.

    It turns out that the so-called simple cell is much more complex that a televison, an automobile, or a computer. So this simple strand of RNA-like molecule would require a large amount fo programming information, if the programmer is even able to do it. However, a program has been made, probably by some super intellect, to do this, but even though it is small in size, it is not very small in information. I can not imagine how else a program that even Bill Gates of Microsoft marveled at could have gotten there other than by a super intelligent programmer and a super intelligent designer.

    The Instructor
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    03 Aug '13 03:02
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    "Assumptions that may not be true". So you are implicitly saying it also MAY be true. So now you are swinging on the gate.
    Since some assumptions have not been proven false, it is possible they are true. However, I suspect more of these assumptions will eventually be proven wrong. That is the opinion of some YEC scientists and I hope they are right, of course.

    The Instructor
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    03 Aug '13 06:591 edit
    TO humy

    This is in reply to my post about the following four assumption made in dating rocks transfered from the thread - New ideas on how life started on Earth.

    Most rock dating methods rely on the following basic assumptions:

    1. Initial conditions are known
    2. Initial ratio of daughter/parent isotopes is known
    3. A constant decay rate
    4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes

    Concerning assumption 1 and 2.

    No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. They just assume there are none.

    For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater that had been observed to form and cool in 1986 was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated age of 350,000 years. Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yields ages of up to 3.5 million years.

    Another example is the dating of Grand Canyon’s basalt rocks formed by lava cooling at the earth’s surface. In dating the basalt rocks on the North Rim where volcanoes erupted after the Canyon was formed, a date of 1 million years is obtained based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. However, when using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, an age of 1.143 billion years was obtained. This is the same age that was obtained for the basalt layers at the bottom of the eastern Grand Canyon. These same basalts that flowed from the top of the Canyon yielded a samarium-neodymium age of about 916 million years and a uranium-lead age of about 2.6 billion years.

    concerning assuption 3.

    Physicists have measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories for over 100 years and found them to be relatively constant. There is evidence that this assumption is wrong.

    For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead age of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking.

    Concerning assumption 4.

    It is known that rocks are open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes.

    This may be there reason that less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand yields a rubidium-strontium age of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium age of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead age of 3.908 billion years.

    The above information was obtained from published works by Gunter Faure, Teresa Mensing, Andrew Snelling, Steven Austin, and Don DeYoung.

    Gunter Faure is a geochemist and Professor Emeritus in the School of Earth Science of Ohio State University. He holds a Ph. D from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Teresa Mensing is a Professor in the School of Earth Sciences of Ohio State University. She holds a Ph. D from Ohio State University

    Andrew Snelling holds a Ph. D in geology from the University of Sydney

    Steven Austin holds a Ph.D. in Geology from Pennsylvania State University

    Donald DeYoung holds a PH. D in Physics from Iowa State University

    The Instructor
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Aug '13 11:311 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    TO: humy

    On another thread concerning DNA and RNA, I stated that there is no way to account for how all the precise information is encoded other than by an intelligent designer.

    [b]You asks the following question:

    In what sense“ no way to account for” and how do you KNOW this?
    And why would the information have to be “ precise” in particular?
    ther than by a super intelligent programmer and a super intelligent designer.

    The Instructor
    from an engineering and computer programming point of view to make a simple cell is a huge undertaking

    engineers and computer programmers don't make living cells -at least none do so yet although some will eventually. So this isn't relevant. You are making the assumption and the premise here that the first cells where made by an intelligence and then you point out that fact this would be “a huge undertaking” which I do not dispute. But I presume you only mention that fact in the hope of re-enforcing the first assumption and premise of your 'argument' here which is it was created by an intelligence. But this is circular reasoning because you haven’t yet confirmed your premise which is also your conclusion here i.e. the cell must have be created by an intelligence.
    These machines must somehow be programmed to do these functions automatically.

    Are your preforming equivocation here by equating the standard meaning of the word “programmed” here that involves an intelligent programmer with a possible non-standard meaning meaning here of the word “programmed” that doesn’t involve an intelligent programmer but rather is “programmed” by either unintelligent evolution or by a chance abiogenesis event? I strongly suspect you are attempting to confuse the two.
    But, if you insist that there is no such non-standard meaning meaning here of the word “programmed” (which is sure false because, if someone means that by the word, then that meaning exists and somebody is bound to give that word that meaning ) , then I will simply state the fact that, the default assumption we should adopt according to Occam’s razor is that the first genetic code and all genetic code that followed was NOT 'programmed' (at least not with what you mean by the word ) and you have no physical evidence to indicate that it was 'programmed'.
    The main program stored in the DNA memory molecule must have all the information for making and assembling every part in the exact sequence.

    The first protocell surely didn't have DNA thus this is irrelevant.
    It turns out that the so-called simple cell is much more complex that a televison, an automobile, or a computer.

    it “It turns out “ according to which observation or what physical evidence? -answer, none. You just made that up. No such revelation has ever “turned up”.
  13. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78675
    03 Aug '13 11:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    TO humy

    This is in reply to my post about the following four assumption made in dating rocks transfered from the thread - New ideas on how life started on Earth.

    Most rock dating methods rely on the following basic assumptions:

    1. Initial conditions are known
    2. Initial ratio of daughter/parent isotopes is known
    3. A constant decay rate
    4. Th ...[text shortened]... rsity

    Donald DeYoung holds a PH. D in Physics from Iowa State University

    The Instructor
    Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking.

    Have you got a reference for this? I mean to the paper not a video. I want to know why too little helium is a problem; why can it not just have leaked away?

    I really don't think this is possible. The theories would have to be more wrong than they can be. Decay rates are determined by the strengths of the various couplings in the standard model, which are parameters that have to be measured. They do not depend on time in the standard model, the bare couplings are constant parameters. The renormalized couplings do depend on the energy scale due to something called the Renormalization Group, but that is only really relevant in a high energy collisions and that isn't happening here. We've tested Quantum Electro-Dynamics to very high precision and the Weak force and Strong force have also been tested. We have no indication from experiment that they are anything but rigorously true. If the coupling strengths could change that would indicate physics beyond the Standard Model which is completely different to what anyone in the field expects.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Aug '13 11:574 edits
    To RJHinds

    I will be very busy for a long while so will have very little time to read or respond to your posts and probably will not respond to most of them and my even stop responding altogether -please forgive.



    To anyone:

    Since I will not respond to most posts specifically directed at me personally, please feel free to respond to them instead in my place.
  15. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    317143
    03 Aug '13 12:441 edit
    The idea that you could quarantine RJHinds to one thread in the Science Forum is laughable. The man is a religious nutter, he can't be reasoned with, he can't understand scientific concepts, he can always find something to quote from one of his dodgy creationist sources. He contaminates every single thread in the Science forum. He just doesn't belong in Science, full stop. Sonhouse, please don't argue with him in here. Go to Spirituality where all matters religious are supposed to be discussed.

    I've been thinking of alerting every single post which presents rubbish science in the Science Forum, but my friends in the moderators wouldn't thank me for the deluge of work.

    It's a strange thing. I would not have considered myself an atheist before I came across RJHinds, but he's done an absolutely brilliant job of convincing me that there isn't a god running the show.
Back to Top