The evolution of computers

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That is impossible to tell. Only one major cellular plan made it though (we can, for all intents and purposes ignore the Archae, I think). So, let's say one "type" of organism, possibly having a single precursor, or being the amalgamation of two proto-life-forms there is not sufficient evidence for definitive statements.

Okay, so we believe we know how much time we have. We don’t know
what kind or how many of the first type of organism there were.
I imagine that means the reproduction rate and how fast they could
have mutated into something else is also a mystery. So far the
foundation on which you are building your belief system of evolution
seems to be on faith to me. When do we move into the rock solid
evidence and how far back in time does this rock solid evidence first
appear?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, so we [b]believe we know how much time we have. We don’t know
what kind or how many of the first type of organism there were.
I imagine that means the reproduction rate and how fast they could
have mutated into something else is also a mystery. So far the
foundation on which you are building your belief system of evolution
s ...[text shortened]... ock solid
evidence and how far back in time does this rock solid evidence first
appear?
Kelly[/b]

No. We KNOW how much time we have (to within a couple of % ). We KNOW what the likely precursor to all modern organisms was like (although not intimiately enough). We KNOW whhat what physical and chemical conditions it encountered.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with evolution though.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, so we [b]believe we know how much time we have. We don’t know
what kind or how many of the first type of organism there were.
I imagine that means the reproduction rate and how fast they could
have mutated into something else is also a mystery. So far the
foundation on which you are building your belief system of evolution
s ...[text shortened]... ock solid
evidence and how far back in time does this rock solid evidence first
appear?
Kelly[/b]

Rock solid evidence? What do you mean by this? All the evidence surrounding the origin of life is in the form of very, very solid rocks.

Ultimately, in science we never say something can never ever happen, which is why we work with statistics all the time. We can say, however, that we are so sure that evolution is right we have granted it special status as a theory.

In science we are malleable to change when new evidence comes along. The only place you'll find black and white cannot be refuted stuff on the origins of life is in that book of lies you keep harking back to.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. We KNOW how much time we have (to within a couple of % ). We KNOW what the likely precursor to all modern organisms was like (although not intimiately enough). We KNOW whhat what physical and chemical conditions it encountered.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with evolution though.

You know how much time we had for evolution within a percentage,
and I take it that is not faith for you too right? That is part of your
evidence you don't worry about, because you are certain you cannot
be wrong! There can simply be no way what so ever you are wrong
about this time thing within a percentage. I guess this is a good
thiing, that nothing could possibly come along and change your
mind on what this time range was.

Okay, you know what the "likely precursor" to all modern organisms
was like. I'm not sure I follow you here, the "likely" doesn't sound
like you know, it appears to be your best guess at the moment.
I take it this isn't on as solid ground as the time issue where you
'know' and you cannot be wrong.

You 'know' what the physical and chemical conditions it encountered.
I guess you had space station scan the area and give you the
data while it was there? How do you 'know' these things when you
think you have the 'likely' precursor? What filled the atmosphere
at the time of life being formed for the first time? What filled the
oceans, or were there oceans, and was there dry ground, do you
have this knowledge because it was observed, or did it just fall
out of the sky, or did someone come up with this, and you are
simply putting your faith in their logic and conclusions?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Rock solid evidence? What do you mean by this? All the evidence surrounding the origin of life is in the form of very, very solid rocks.

Ultimately, in science we never say something can never ever happen, which is why we work with statistics all the time. We can say, however, that we are so sure that evolution is right we have granted it special annot be refuted stuff on the origins of life is in that book of lies you keep harking back to.

Ultimately in science you can never say something can never happen.
I see, so science is like sifting sand when it comes to being a solid
foundation to build anything on, since what is believed today could be
shown to be wrong tomorrow? Except that time thing?

I'd like to point out to you, you bring up scripture in this more than I
do. If you want to talk about scripture, I'd be willing to discuss it with
you. Basically, I'm of the opinion that creation is a special event and
there is no way it can be proven, it must be taken on faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Basically, I'm of the opinion that creation is a special event and
there is no way it can be proven, it must be taken on faith.
Kelly

So when you look at the evidence that shows that the Earth is billions of years old what do you see? Is something wrong with the data? Are the conclusions incorrect? You can't just claim something is wrong without a basis. And no faith is not a basis to deny scientific data.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ultimately in science you can never say something can never happen.
I see, so science is like sifting sand when it comes to being a solid
foundation to build anything on, since what is believed today could be
shown to be wrong tomorrow? Except that time thing?

I'd like to point out to you, you bring up scripture in this more than I
do. If you want to ...[text shortened]... n is a special event and
there is no way it can be proven, it must be taken on faith.
Kelly

I see, so science is like sifting sand when it comes to being a solid
foundation to build anything on

The earth is made up of techtonic plates. These cause earthquakes. The largest urban area on the planet is built on the join of three plates. It's called Tokyo. Apparently there is nothing wrong with building on unsolid foundations.

Let's say science is more like a diamond. Every atom in a diamond bonds with 4 others, making the hardest material in the world.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know how much time we had for evolution within a percentage,
and I take it that is not faith for you too right? That is part of your
evidence you don't worry about, because you are certain you cannot
be wrong! There can simply be no way what so ever you are wrong
about this time thing within a percentage. I guess this is a good
thiing, that nothing ...[text shortened]... s, and you are
simply putting your faith in their logic and conclusions?
Kelly

And you put your faith in heresay and superstition.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So when you look at the evidence that shows that the Earth is billions of years old what do you see? Is something wrong with the data? Are the conclusions incorrect? You can't just claim something is wrong without a basis. And no faith is not a basis to deny scientific data.

I see the same thing you do, but I don't accept the meaning put on
the universe as you. Conclusions can be inncorrect, just as they can
be correct, and when you are left with no way of testing them and
proving them false you are left with faith and belief. The tests we
have gone round and round about are in that area, they cannot be
proven wrong. I have never told you or anyone that the dating
methods were wrong, merely they must be taken on faith, you and
others have taken that as a slap against science, and twisted the
meaning to mean it is in error. My point is that it is just faith, and
you and others just simply don't like that word being applied to your
belief system.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And you put your faith in heresay and superstition.

I take it you are responding with the howardgee methodology of
debate. Is this something you plan on doing from here on out or
can I expect a rational response to my statement some time soon?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]I see, so science is like sifting sand when it comes to being a solid
foundation to build anything on

The earth is made up of techtonic plates. These cause earthquakes. The largest urban area on the planet is built on the join of three plates. It's called Tokyo. Apparently there is nothing wrong with building on unsolid foundations.

L ...[text shortened]... mond. Every atom in a diamond bonds with 4 others, making the hardest material in the world.[/b]

Until an earth quake occurs that destroys everything people thought
was safe.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I see the same thing you do, but I don't accept the meaning put on
the universe as you. Conclusions can be inncorrect, just as they can
be correct, and when you are left with no way of testing them and
proving them false you are left with faith and belief. The tests we
have gone round and round about are in that area, they cannot be
proven wrong. I hav ...[text shortened]...
you and others just simply don't like that word being applied to your
belief system.
Kelly

So the observations are correct but the conclusions are wrong? Tell me, how does that work? What could possibly explain the fact that different tests will give the same ages for an object? What mysterious multiplier changes billions of years of history into a few thousand?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So the observations are correct but the conclusions are wrong? Tell me, how does that work? What could possibly explain the fact that different tests will give the same ages for an object? What mysterious multiplier changes billions of years of history into a few thousand?

Yes, you can measure something and come up with the wrong
conclusions based on your findings. Reason this can happen is
because it is possible you do not have all the necessary information
required to reach the proper conclusions.

Which is why measuring a piece of string or two points with a ruler
is different than applying a test that supposedly gives a result that
must then be interpreted so that we can translates the readings into
years. The ruler is what it is, the points are there for all to see and
distance is divided according to the ruler, while checking a rate
assumes a great deal, one of which is that nothing is being left out
of the process that could factor into giving a bad conclusion, since
consistent results don’t necessarily mean correct interpretation, it
only means consistent results.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, you can measure something and come up with the wrong
conclusions based on your findings. Reason this can happen is
because it is possible you do not have all the necessary information
required to reach the proper conclusions.

Which is why measuring a piece of string or two points with a ruler
is different than applying a test that supposedly giv ...[text shortened]... results don’t necessarily mean correct interpretation, it
only means consistent results.
Kelly

So what are we missing?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So what are we missing?

That is the point isn't it, there is no way to know. To assume you
have all the necessary data points is just again faith, and blind
faith at that.
Kelly