1 edit
Originally posted by finneganThis should be named the theory of genetic change by natural selection for none of it is evolution. There is no proof of evolution at all. You guys keep relying on long periods of time to make up for the failure of evolution to take place.Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you will find the following video informative and worth your while in viewing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN1dy1lHcC0&feature=related
Why do I rise to the bait you may ask? Maybe just to show I am prepared to listen and not be bigoted. Maybe for the entertainment value when I spot the lies and the rhe herwise they go uncontested.
Thread: Chance or by Design ? Forum: Spirituality
You paid no attention at all about what was said about information not being able to arise on its own by chance. Do you really think you could put a lot of random junk in a computer and it would do something useful. I don't think you are stupid enough to say, yes. It is obvious that it would require someone who had really thought about what he wanted to accomplish and write a coded language that the computer could understand, so it could perform the action. That is exactly what the language code stored in the DNA molecule is doing. Who is that programmer? How else could that information code get there? There is no man smart enough to do it, so who else could it be other than the God of the Holy Bible, who told us He did it?
P.S. And you still did not respond to tell me what is wrong with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
Originally posted by RJHindsScience cannot test and explain everything . It has however created an increasingly comprehensive model of the universe . Your God is the 'God of the gaps' filling the ever decreasing gaps in human knowledge , like the Zuni bird which flys in ever decreasing circles eventualy disappearing up it's own arse.
You are trying to mix truth with lies. It is true that science can test things, but they can't test everything. When they have created granite and a living thing then come back and then you might be able to teach me something. Right now, you are nothing but a child trying to teach a grownup something he knows more about than that child. I reccommend that the child go away and get an education and then come back with his head out of his arse.
Originally posted by RJHindsAll that shows is creationism is a male dominated political movement. 3 women in that whole bunch. That says something right there.
This so-called nonsense is from people who have more education, experience, and knowledge on these matters than you will ever how. The discovery that granite must have bee created almost instantly is from the work of Robert Gentry, PhD Nuclear Physics.
http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/funstuff/na_gentry-bob-plutonium-halos.htm
The following people are ...[text shortened]... ert L. Whitelaw M.S. Engineering science
http://creationwiki.org/Template:Creation_scientist
Originally posted by kaminskyGaps? I only see one big gap in evolution from the start to where it claims to be adaptation. All the stuff in between is fairy tales for grownups.
Science cannot test and explain everything . It has however created an increasingly comprehensive model of the universe . Your God is the 'God of the gaps' filling the ever decreasing gaps in human knowledge , like the Zuni bird which flys in ever decreasing circles eventualy disappearing up it's own arse.
Originally posted by sonhouseAre you one of those women libbers? Did you know that the only kind of books women are interested in are checkbooks? So you better keep an eye on yours.
All that shows is creationism is a male dominated political movement. 3 women in that whole bunch. That says something right there.
Originally posted by RJHindsP.S. And you still did not respond to tell me what is wrong with this video:
P.S. And you still did not respond to tell me what is wrong with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
What is wrong is that it presents as a Creationist expose material that is in fact well rehearsed and which comes out of the scientific community and not from biblical scholarship let alone Creationist Science (which is a hoax and contributes nothing novel at all). So we do not watch it in wide eyed wonder at the wisdom of its presenters. We are bored by their tiresome misuse of half baked thinking. No decently educated audience would be impressed so it is clearly not targetted at such an audience, but at credulous, weakly educated people eager to be assured that they have no need to exercise their tiny minds. It is propoganda.
This video simply restates the well known Anthropic Principle. This has opened up many interesting discussions and can be approached in diverse ways. I am not going to debase this interesting topic by declaring that it has one definitive answer which either suits my arguments or (as the video declares) suits your argument. If you read through the full Wikipedia article then you will find many different expressions of the theory and some interesting criticisms of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
For today I will just make the point that the universe is as it is and observes the natural laws that it does and we live here. These laws are not described in the Bible and could not be deduced from the Bible. A minority of fundamentalists insist that they are all atheistical nonsense and the Bible is infallibly right and is all we need to know. You often take that position yourself. Jaywill takes the view that it is not healthy for us to go around asking this kind of question and it would be better if we all just restricted our reading to the Bible for moral and spiritual reasons. More intelligent Christians and people of other faiths take this as an interesting challenge to update their cosmology and reconcile it with their faiths.
In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.
The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. Douglas Adams used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly). Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.
In 1961, Robert Dicke noted that the age of the universe, as seen by living observers, cannot be random.[9] Instead, biological factors constrain the universe to be more or less in a "golden age," neither too young nor too old. If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity (levels of elements besides hydrogen and helium) especially carbon, by nucleosynthesis. Small rocky planets did not yet exist. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white dwarfs, aside from the dimmest red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end. Thus Dicke explained away the rough coincidence between large dimensionless numbers constructed from the constants of physics and the age of the universe, a coincidence which had inspired Dirac's varying-G theory.
Dicke later reasoned that the density of matter in the universe must be almost exactly the critical density needed to prevent the Big Crunch (the "Dicke coincidences" argument). The most recent measurements may suggest that the observed density of baryonic matter, and some theoretical predictions of the amount of dark matter account for about 30% of this critical density, with the rest contributed by a cosmological constant. Steven Weinberg gave an anthropic explanation for this fact: he noted that the cosmological constant has a remarkably low value, some 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the value particle physics predicts (this has been described as the "worst prediction in physics" ) However, if the cosmological constant were more than about 10 times its observed value, the universe would suffer catastrophic inflation, which would preclude the formation of stars, and hence life.
The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life. [13] A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water and the long-lived stable stars essential for the emergence of life as we know it would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life.
Originally posted by RJHinds
This should be named the theory of genetic change by natural selection for none of it is evolution. There is no proof of evolution at all. You guys keep relying on long periods of time to make up for the failure of evolution to take place.
You paid no attention at all about what was said about information not being able to arise on its own by chance. ...[text shortened]... is wrong with this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=O2eIF9h0tus
You guys keep relying on long periods of time to make up for the failure of evolution to take place.
Correct. Without such long periods of time the theory of evolution by natural selection would not be viable as it would not fit the evidence. However, the theory is coherent subject only to that condition. So for most of the time the debate can proceed as long as you concede as a thought experiment the notion: what if there was enough time, would this then be possible?
You paid no attention at all about what was said about information not being able to arise on its own by chance. Do you really think you could put a lot of random junk in a computer and it would do something useful. I don't think you are stupid enough to say, yes. It is obvious that it would require someone who had really thought about what he wanted to accomplish and write a coded language that the computer could understand, so it could perform the action. That is exactly what the language code stored in the DNA molecule is doing. Who is that programmer? How else could that information code get there? There is no man smart enough to do it, so who else could it be other than the God of the Holy Bible, who told us He did it?
I have answered that many times. Your analogy does not hold. DNA is not a manufactured product, produced in the Far East by low paid workers. It is a biological object which is the product of millenia of evolution as described often. What is it also NOT is the product of pure chance. It did not get there in one step - from raw materials / ingredients assembled randomly. Human DNA got there by relatively minor though important changes from the DNA of our immediate ancestors, who in turn .... Not only was it built up by tiny steps over countless generations, but it includes and retains mistakes, waste or redundant material and stuff recycled for new uses from old ones. The marks of its long history are clearly visible.
Natural Selection is NOT RANDOM. Diversity is random within the constraints of the organism: taller or shorter along a random distribution within a range for example. Environmental change is random in the sense that it is not predictable to the organism (though not totally random in the sense that it conforms to physical principles). Selection is not random: the environment favours some individuals within a species and discriminates against others. Less successful individuals are less likely to reproduce and their DNA is less likely to be transmitted. A lucky chance mutation may give a boost to one DNA line of inheritance, yet for most others any mutation is more likely to be a hindrance. Only the fit survive. That is not in itself random.
5 edits
Originally posted by finneganYou guys keep relying on long periods of time to make up for the failure of evolution to take place.You guys keep relying on long periods of time to make up for the failure of evolution to take place.
Correct. Without such long periods of time the theory of evolution by natural selection would not be viable as it would not fit the evidence. However, the theory is coherent subject only to that condition. So for most of the time the debate mutation is more likely to be a hindrance. Only the fit survive. That is not in itself random.
To my statement above you say,
Correct. Without such long periods of time the theory of evolution by natural selection would not be viable as it would not fit the evidence.
So the truth comes out.
1. The evidence fits a young Earth.
2. There is not enough time for the the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Proof the Earth is about 6000 years old:
A modern young David slaying the Goliath of evolution.
Therefore, the theory of evolution is false.[/b]
Now, to my question:
Do you really think you could put a lot of random junk in a computer and it would do something useful?
You admit that it can not be done by pure random chance.
You claim DNA "is a biological object which is the product of millenia of evolution as described often. What is it also NOT is the product of pure chance. It did not get there in one step - from raw materials / ingredients assembled randomly."
But then you go on to contradict your previous statement by this claim:
"Human DNA got there by relatively minor though important changes from the DNA of our immediate ancestors, who in turn .... Not only was it built up by tiny steps over countless generations, but it includes and retains mistakes, waste or redundant material and stuff recycled for new uses from old ones. The marks of its long history are clearly visible."
You go back to the long, long ago in a far away land fairy tale.
You completely ignore the rest of my questions which immediately folowed.
I contnued, "It is obvious that it would require someone who had really thought about what he wanted to accomplish and write a coded language that the computer could understand, so it could perform the action. That is exactly what the language code stored in the DNA molecule is doing. Who is that programmer? How else could that information code get there? There is no man smart enough to do it, so who else could it be other than the God of the Holy Bible, who told us He did it?"
A professor in the Computer Information Science Department would say that an information language code system, like that found in the DNA molecule, requires "intellegent contrivance" because it has meaning.
I ask again, who is the intelligence behind it?
P.S. The DNA information could not built up by tiny steps over countless generations, because not only is there not enough time there would never be a human being in the first place or any form of life.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou godda be kidding. Every argument is BS. The Sun, for instance, was not the size of Earth's orbit billions of years ago, in 4 billion years it lost about 5 E 23 tons of H2.
Proof the Earth is about 6000 years old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72h2R4FO0k
A modern young David slaying the Goliath of evolution.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
The sun has a mass of about 2 E 30 Kg. That is about 1 E27 tons. Since the sun loses or burns up in fusion, about 4 million tons per second, in 4 billion years it would burn up about 1E23 tons. That is about 1 part in 5,000 of the total mass of the sun, not even a blip. That is only one of his BS arguments.
Every one is like that, the moon recedes from the Earth at about 1 inch per year, in one million years at that rate, the moon would be about 15 miles closer to the Earth. So in 1 billion years it would at that rate only be about 15,000 miles closer and 4 billion years ago, 60,000 miles closer. That is not half like he seems to think for one thing, it would have been only about 25% closer, not that huge a deal.
Every one of his arguments is like that.
The comets losing all their mass in several thousand years is total BS.
I don't know why you think this mis-informed kid is your hero, maybe it's because he makes up crazy theories that happen to agree with your self cauterized brain view of the cosmos.
Maybe that is you and you only SAY you are 65 years old.
Maybe he is your grandson and you have carefully programmed his mind that way, if indeed he is in fact serious and not just playing a joke on you. You don't get the joke however.
Originally posted by sonhouseNice try, but I do not see any references to prove your theories. Where are they?
You godda be kidding. Every argument is BS. The Sun, for instance, was not the size of Earth's orbit billions of years ago, in 4 billion years it lost about 5 E 23 tons of H2.
The sun has a mass of about 2 E 30 Kg. That is about 1 E27 tons. Since the sun loses or burns up in fusion, about 4 million tons per second, in 4 billion years it would burn up about ...[text shortened]... ed he is in fact serious and not just playing a joke on you. You don't get the joke however.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen you are prepared to be that obtuse I can only assume you are illiterate and incapable of reasoned debate. As such it is a waste to my time to continue.
[b]You guys keep relying on long periods of time to make up for the failure of evolution to take place.
To my statement above you say,
Correct. Without such long periods of time the theory of evolution by natural selection would not be viable as it would not fit the evidence.
So the truth comes out.
1. The evidence fits a young Earth ...[text shortened]... t enough time there would never be a human being in the first place or any form of life.