Page 23 of 100
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:27 pm
by suggs
Its important to expose bollocks like creationism for the bollocks that it is. To be technical about it, its just bollocks.
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:24 pm
by Guiscard
Neoteny wrote:As a biology major, I have to say that reading these threads is one of the most painful, depressing experiences. Observing such disrespect and closed-mindedness to my field of study, not to mention individuals much more intelligent than I, is nothing short of breathtaking. The distortions of facts and red herring tactics are amusing, albeit overused.
However, the masochist in me loves coming to these threads and reading the creative arguments that make for good conversation.
I'm going to go ahead and preempt WidowMakers fossil argument as follows: I don't know where that "less than 0.1% of fossils are vertebrate fossils" statistic comes from but it doesn't sound improbable so I'll use it. If every organism died today and fossilized, I would bet that vertebrates would make up about 0.1% of the fossils. There are probably enough arthropods (insects, spiders, etc) in the world to dwarf vertebrate fossils to such a small statistic, and that's not including other inverts.
Additionally, if you, for some unknown reason, broke down and decided that the earth really is billions of years old, you might see that the amount of time that invertebrates have been around is much, much, much, much longer than vertebrates have been around, leaving plenty of time for those invertebrate fossils to build up. But then again, all that evolution nonsense is based on faith, right?
Best post yet.
Please keep contributing.
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:44 pm
by Carebian Knight
That's the thing about these two, some things can help prove both theories.
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:16 pm
by Carebian Knight
WidowMakers wrote:Carebian Knight wrote:
Just wondering, are you still working on that? They've re-opened the thread and I don't have much time to argue with them.
Yes I have about 12 pages done. with about 12 more to go. I have had a lot to do with the foundry lately and outside of CC.
Here are the topics I will be discussing
DNA
Laws of Thermodynamics
Probability
Mutation Types
Micro Evolution vs Macro evolution
Irreducible Complexity
Rock Layer Ages
Fossils
Radiometric Dating
Plus some others.
Feel free to post this PM in the thread
WM
You guys wait, it's coming.
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:02 pm
by Neoteny
WidowMakers wrote:Yes I have about 12 pages done. with about 12 more to go.
Whoa! Does he mean 24 pages of anti-evolution goodness? WidowMakers could probably write out an intro, throw in a bibliography, and get published if that's the case...
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:06 pm
by unriggable
My only concern is that if radiometric dating supports itself in the many types it comes in, how will it be disproved?
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:22 pm
by Neoteny
It should be interesting to see, especially since radio dating is supported not only by itself, but by biological clock dating, stratum dating, and common sense. I'm more curious about the DNA topic. Genetics and molecular biology are my forte, as well as microbiology.
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:24 pm
by unriggable
A common argument against DNA resemblance is the introns, which is full of holes.
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:41 pm
by Neoteny
Oh yeah. I forgot about "junk" DNA. That's actually pretty technical stuff. I can see where some misunderstandings might come in to play. The problem with introns (and why it's so readily seized on by creationists) is that there is not a full scientific consensus on intron theory. Because we don't yet understand it fully, it is just assumed by fiat that the alternative (usually god) is responsible. Irreducible complexity and similar arguments (like junk DNA) where the opposing argument is just declared the winner are my least favorite to hear because they encourage intellectual laziness and irresponsibility. If we were to throw up our hands at everything we didn't know we would be without modern medicine, air conditioning, and ::gasp:: even computers.
"You don't understand the evolutionary patterns of antibiotic resistance in E. coli? It's ok. God will heal you. All the rest of us will look for ways to avoid shitting ourselves to death while you pray."
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:08 am
by Stopper
I am quivering with anticipation to see exactly what Widowmakers has to say about the laws of thermodynamics, and how they (probably the Second) contradict evolution because I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY MAKE THAT LINE OF ARGUMENT BEFORE!!!
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:26 am
by Jehan
you can only make the second law argument if you have a good definition of the number of available states, which is consistent, I'm not sure how one would apply this on a macroscopic level. so though the argument has been made before, i would like to see if this can be done properly.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:02 am
by MeDeFe
Could someone (preferably Neoteny who seems to know about it or unriggable who mentioned it) explain this "junk DNA" to me? I'm assuming that it's DNA that does not fulfill any function per se. But I also assume that the chance that I'm dead wrong is about 99%.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:54 am
by unriggable
MeDeFe wrote:Could someone (preferably Neoteny who seems to know about it or unriggable who mentioned it) explain this "junk DNA" to me? I'm assuming that it's DNA that does not fulfill any function per se. But I also assume that the chance that I'm dead wrong is about 99%.
Introns are DNA that are completely unused. For anything. Since they serve no purpose, they are prone to mutation much faster. We use introns to know what genetic background you are from...people with a lineage in the middle east will have introns that resemble each other. People from france, same. Creationist scientists use introns to make the similarities in DNA between humans and animals lower to about 94%. The used DNA is still 99% identical.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:56 am
by unriggable
The whole '2nd law of thermodynaimcs' is used to apply to atoms, not to organisms. I think siamese twins disprove that.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:35 pm
by Neoteny
Another creationist argument regarding introns is "if they don't do anything, why don't we 'evolve them away?'" The short answer is that just because we don't know of anything they do doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose, and even if they were useless, evolution wouldn't take effect on an organism unless it was actually hurting the organisms reproductive success somehow. If the introns aren't killing us, there's no pressure to get rid of them. I imagine that it isn't impossible for a useful mutation to arise in introns as well.
I do enjoy the thermodynamics arguments. They tend to indicate a total lack of understanding of the laws.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:38 pm
by Neoteny
Stopper wrote:I am quivering with anticipation to see exactly what Widowmakers has to say about the laws of thermodynamics, and how they (probably the Second) contradict evolution because I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY MAKE THAT LINE OF ARGUMENT BEFORE!!!
For the record, I actually had to read that twice before I caught the sarcasm.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:50 pm
by Snorri1234
Neoteny wrote:Oh yeah. I forgot about "junk" DNA. That's actually pretty technical stuff. I can see where some misunderstandings might come in to play. The problem with introns (and why it's so readily seized on by creationists) is that there is not a full scientific consensus on intron theory. Because we don't yet understand it fully, it is just assumed by fiat that the alternative (usually god) is responsible. Irreducible complexity and similar arguments (like junk DNA) where the opposing argument is just declared the winner are my least favorite to hear because they encourage intellectual laziness and irresponsibility. If we were to throw up our hands at everything we didn't know we would be without modern medicine, air conditioning, and ::gasp:: even computers.
"You don't understand the evolutionary patterns of antibiotic resistance in E. coli? It's ok. God will heal you. All the rest of us will look for ways to avoid shitting ourselves to death while you pray."
I'm gonna second guiscard on this.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:34 pm
by Bavarian Raven
...what really gets me about this arguement is the basic facts...if the world was only created, what, 6 thousand years ago, how did so much errosion (sp) take place in that time???
i'm studying bio right now in first year and just by using common sense you can see that evolution is the more 'fact based' theory...
as for why didn't we evolve away from something not needed? look at your appendix (i don't know the proper way of spelling its name but i think u get the idea). some animals have uses for it, some don't...go figure...proving that at one time it was actually useful...
sigh...i could write more but i have to leave...
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:05 pm
by Carebian Knight
Bavarian Raven wrote:...what really gets me about this arguement is the basic facts...if the world was only created, what, 6 thousand years ago, how did so much errosion (sp) take place in that time???
I really hope you aren't talking about water erosion, because if you are then I feel sorry for you.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:06 pm
by Frigidus
Carebian Knight wrote:Bavarian Raven wrote:...what really gets me about this arguement is the basic facts...if the world was only created, what, 6 thousand years ago, how did so much errosion (sp) take place in that time???
I really hope you aren't talking about water erosion, because if you are then I feel sorry for you.
I really hope you aren't referring to the biblical flood, because if you are then I feel sorry for you.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:48 pm
by Carebian Knight
No, I'm not, but that's a good point as well. I'm talking about the fact that under creationism, everything is made like it is. Meaning that just because there's erosion that has made rivers wider and such, doesn't mean that's it's taken billions of years to do so.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:38 pm
by Bavarian Raven
...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:45 pm
by Carebian Knight
Bavarian Raven wrote:...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...
That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:50 pm
by Neoteny
Carebian Knight wrote:No, I'm not, but that's a good point as well.
"Flood geology" is never a good point... picking "facts" to support a hypothesis is not the way science is done.
Carebian Knight wrote:Bavarian Raven wrote: wrote:
...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...
That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.
Bavarian Raven is referring to the infinite regress that a god causes. If you need some power to create anything, then you need something to create that power, and another something to create that something, etc etc. Then we have to assume multiple god creating gods. It's just more logical to assume a gradual rise from simplicity to complexity, especially when we've found a convenient mechanism to explain how that complexity arose.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:53 pm
by Carebian Knight
Neoteny wrote:Carebian Knight wrote:No, I'm not, but that's a good point as well.
"Flood geology" is never a good point... picking "facts" to support a hypothesis is not the way science is done.
Carebian Knight wrote:Bavarian Raven wrote: wrote:
...but an even bigger issue would be "who created god?" for nothing can exist for ever...
That doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand what you mean.
Bavarian Raven is referring to the infinite regress that a god causes. If you need some power to create anything, then you need something to create that power, and another something to create that something, etc etc. Then we have to assume multiple god creating gods. It's just more logical to assume a gradual rise from simplicity to complexity, especially when we've found a convenient mechanism to explain how that complexity arose.
Aha, you've basically contradicted scientific idea. You say power must be created through other power. Meaning that God can't exist because something else would've had to create God. But yet, the science you are agreeing with as far as evolution, says that the universe was created by a cosmic event, The Big Bang, are they not the same thing.