|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 3, 2007 16:31:55 GMT -5
I never claimed to have much knowledge of geology, but that does not mean my points are invalid. Many scientists w/ PhD's in the field hold to catastrophism/flood model. I provided these points to show that there are plenty of reasons for an intelligent and scientifically honest person to think that a flood occured in Earth's history. Which field is this? Because I have yet to meet any scientist with a PhD (either christian or non-christian) that holds the idea of a worldwide flood. There are just no reasons that an "intelligent and scientifically honest person" would buy into a worldwide flood. All of your points have been stated from the grounds of ignorance, which you yourself acknowledge. Why, then, should misinformed points be taken as valid? My assertion that past events cannot be proved via the scientific method is not opinion. Although some recent events might be able to be definitively proved there is no way to prove events thats precede historical and certainly climatological data. So, basically, things that we prove today cannot be applied to the past? You're saying that nothing in the past was remotely similar to the present (which is a ridiculous claim). And you're stating as fact that past events cannot be proven, yet you're trying to prove the occurrence of a worldwide flood. You can't have it both ways. Here you're misstating facts in order to prove your point. Small changes like the ozone hole do not automatically alter every aspect of the earth. 50 years ago, rain still fell, rivers still flowed to the sea, and lakes still deposited layers. Those things do not change over time. This is a twisting of the facts by creationists. Catastrophism does not automatically mean "worldwide flood". It refers to any kind of natural disaster - hurricane, tidal wave, mudslide, etc. It is true that things are more likely to be fossilized by a catastrophe, but there ARE fossils that are definitely not the result of a catastrophe. I guess you're unfamiliar with the concept of "mathematics" and "modeling". We know that 1 L of H2O has a mass of 1 Kg and a volume of 1 cubic decimeter. Thus, we can empirically determine how much water would be needed to cover the earth, and how much that water would weigh. We then apply certain tensile/compressive strengths of average objects to determine the amount of stress that would have been on the earth. We do the same thing when we construct buildings. Well, you've once again twisted what I've said. Congratulations. I NEVER said there were both tall mountains and short mountains. I said that the sedimentary rocks on mountaintops indicated that the mountaintops were at sea level prior to their uplift by tectonic forces. When they were at sea level, they were OBVIOUSLY not "mountaintops", but rather simple sedimentary layers. Do you understand now? This statement rejects your belief in a worldwide flood, as during such a flood, the mountains would have been beneath sea level (sea level meaning the level of the sea). You better grant this for the sake of reality. Continents haven't always looked how they do today. They were different sizes, shapes, and elevations. Also, due to varying levels of polar ice, sea level has also changed. Continents were also at times covered by shallow epieric seas. Where's your proof of this? Oh that's right, there isn't any. Simply put, sediments cannot be deposited on an angle. It just can't happen. "Millions of tons of water" would only serve to force the sediments to the valleys. It simply adds to the force of gravity. You can't just rule out/omit laws of physics in order to validate your viewpoint. According to Genesis, rain fell for 40 days, and water remained for 150 days. This is from biblical scholars and historians. Corals grow very slowly. There is no way the amount of corals that is found on mountaintops could have grown in 150 days. Furthermore, corals need relatively clear water in order to filter food. Too much sediment (like the kind that is stirred up by a flood) kills them. The same catastrophe causes the same effects on the same substances. You can't say that only certain things would be eroded, while other identical things would stay the same. Also, as for "erosion before and after", there was supposedly no rain before the flood, so no erosion there. After, they've been subjected to very similar amounts of rain. So should have been very similar erosion there. Even if the amounts of erosion varied, you shouldn't see the drastically different amounts of erosion that you see in the Rockies and Appalachians. All the evidence points to the Appalachians being older than the Rockies, due to tectonic uplift. And each of these layers was deposited by a distinct event of the eruption. The "worldwide flood" was one event, not a series of floods. In this case you get a gradation of sediments, and not the distinct layers separated by unconformities which you find in the stratigraphic record. So this claim is invalid. "mud/water would not hit...the same way" - so one single event works different ways? This just isn't possible. "Only those instantly buried" - not true. Anoxic conditions also can lead to fossilization. "The prevalence of fossils" - this is blatantly wrong. I have seen many, many outcrops of sedimentary rock that have zero fossils in them. Recent studies have found that recent brachiopod shells can remain on the seafloor for thousands of years. This is ample time for it to become buried. You forget the simple organisms that can swim, and the more complex organisms that cannot. Furthermore, we find more complex organisms fossilized along side less complex ones. Your argument here just doesn't hold water. There are many. You just choose to ignore them. Why are some coal beds separated by sedimentary layers? Why aren't they all at the same level? How does a flood get sediments into the middle part of the United States? Rocks don't float. Things would get washed to lower elevations. This is how water works. Flooding doesn't make coal; swamps do. All in all, you're calling for a flood that is not the same worldwide. it does one thing here, another thing there, and yet another thing a little further over. You're just counting on this flood to do all kinds of things to explain what geologists find, in order to preserve your belief system. You've just got no case here. You present data that you clearly don't understand, and expect it to be flawless. You can't do that when you're dealing with someone that works with some of these principles every day. You just waste my time. Here's a doozy for you: how the hell are there still marine organisms? The flood would have mixed rainwater and seawater. Sea organisms don't like freshwater, as it tends to kill them. Freshwater organisms dont' like seawater for the same reason. And no, they can't live in some "perfect salt level". Certain extant organisms are extremely sensitive to variance in the saline level of the water in which they dwell. Finally, how are there extinct organisms if Noah took two of every creature (and more of certain others) on the ark? Did all these thousands of organisms die off immediately after the flood? Did god just say "screw you" to the trilobites?
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 3, 2007 16:37:18 GMT -5
This one was especially interesting to me because they found not one, but two common ancestor points for humanity. Creationists long ago identified two such points, Noah and Adam and Eve. Noah they put at about 4400 years ago, and Adam about 6000, which coincides rather conspicously with the dates given in this article. Unfortunately for you, "common ancestor points" does not equal "points of origin", a fact that they point out in the article. You laugh out of ignorance. You laugh for the same reason that the church laughed at the thought of a heliocentric solar system: because it directly refutes your beliefs, and rather than accept it, you laugh it off as foolishness. Which is sad, really. I pity you.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on May 4, 2007 10:13:22 GMT -5
First off stop tying the Bible to the anti-heliocentric universe sentiments of the Middle Ages, the Bible said nothing about the Earth being the actual center of the universe, if some Catholic bishops had a problem with a heliocentric universe what does this have to do with the overall state of religiosity?, religious types werent the only ones misinformed about science in that time, scientists were throwing around crazy ideas like spontaneous generation (which amazingly resurfaced in the form of cells originating by themselves to start intelligent life), this inevitable march of science to make everything natural (or should I say explain everything through random chance) is an arrogant modern construction
most of my assertions were borrowed from Henry Morris Ph.D, there are plenty of Ph.D's that hold to a worldwide flood
the whole thing about proving past events: I never said you could prove a worldwide flood. I said there are plenty of reasons to think this flood occurred. Certainly the past is similar to the present, but this doesnt exclude catastrophic events. What about the ice age? This was a one time event that must have affected the earth is unique ways. If you assumed that current rates of deposition remained constant throughout history you would not be accounting for events like the ice age. Also what about the disaster global warming is supposed to bring about? That will be a one time event and will forever change the planet. YOU CANNOT prove that all the layers in past millenia were layed at a uniform rate without any flood.
So, let my get this straight. Many scientists hold to catastrophes like hurricanes,tidal waves, etc. Many scientists think these events are necessary to explain the composition of our planet. So, how do you know only these types of events occured and no flood is possible? Hurricanes and mudslides involve a lot of water. All this water everywhere violently shaping our planet/making fossils sounds a lot like a worldwide flood. A worldwide flood is just another catastrophe(which many scientists think necessary to explain the natural history).
You said, "Continents were also at times covered by shallow epieric seas."
So, the world was covered by water. Youre practically a flood person already. Why couldnt this water have been placed by a flood?
Most of your problems with the flood come from misunderstanding. You are clearly unfamiliar with how scientists(with Ph.D's) think the flood might have worked. You say that the flood had have one generic affect on the whole earth, but nobody who holds to the flood model believes that.
Im not going to take the time to answer each one of your numerous objections because it would be too time consuming and would allow you to skirt the main issue. The heart of the matter is that you cannot prove that a worldwide flood did not happen and I cannot prove that it did happen. A worldwide catastrophe is a plausible explanation (better than most) for the Earth we have today. There is infinitely more than the "zero evidence" you claimed there was for the flood and absolutely no reason for Christians(w/ a capital C) to conclude that the flood was metaphoric and plenty of reasons to believe it happened just like the Bible said it did.
|
|
|
Post by interzone on May 5, 2007 23:40:30 GMT -5
I've always had to wonder if it wasn't because of all that water, that we had a ice age.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 7, 2007 11:10:36 GMT -5
First off stop tying the Bible to the anti-heliocentric universe sentiments of the Middle Ages, the Bible said nothing about the Earth being the actual center of the universe, if some Catholic bishops had a problem with a heliocentric universe what does this have to do with the overall state of religiosity? This belief stemmed from the bible passage that stated that the sun rises and sets. This was taken literally to mean that the sun actually moved - it rose and set. When astronomy proved this wrong, the church refused to accept it at first. Then when they saw there was irrefutable evidence, they changed their interpretation of what that passage meant. This is history, Fan101 - I'm not making any of this up. *sigh* You do realize that there are many, many fields in which one can earn a PhD, right? That doesn't mean that such a person is the expert in all knownledge. Your Henry Morris had a background in civil engineering and hydraulics - a far cry from most aspects of geology. I would take anything he says on the subject of geology with a large grain of salt. Each of which I have shot down/explained away. The most recent ice age had several periods of advancement and retreat of glaciers. And this was not actually a one time event - there was at least one other major ice age in the earth's history. An ice age only covered about 30% of the northern hemisphere. Further south, things continued "normally". Futhermore, lakes dont' last forever. Say we find fine layers in rocks of Cretaceous age (this is during the end of the dinosaurs, and before the Pleistocene glaciation). Those layers would be unaffected by the ice age, unless they were in an area where the glaciers scraped away the early Cenozoic sediments, in which case the Cretaceous rocks would also likely be destroyed. Calm down there dude. We can prove that there was no worldwide flood, due to the lack of worldwide evidence for one. Example: when the bolide struck the earth at Chixulub, it caused a worldwide deposition of a fine layer of iridium, an element not common on earth, but found in higher levels in asteroids/meteors. This layer occurs at the same level around the world. The layer has also been dated to the same time using various dating techniques, in various locations around the world. A worldwide flood would be, by nature, significantly more devastating than a bolide impact. As such, it should leave a larger "mark" of its existence. However, there is no such mark, which leads us to reason that there was no single devastating worldwide flood. These events occur frequently in todays' world. Are we currently experiencing a worldwide flood? Or it sounds a lot like we live on a world that's ~3/4s covered by water. There's a reason earth is called a "blue marble" or the "water planet". *applauds*Yet again, you twist what I say. Good job. This is why I dislike discussing matters with hardcore christians - they don't have a complete knowledge of the background material, but they think they do, and refuse to acknowledge that they don't. Let m e give you a brief lesson on geology: -Isostasy - the earth's crust "floats" on the layers of magma of the mantle. The thicker the crust, the higher the continent seems. there is more crust beneath a mountain than there is beneath the plains. -Sea level - is not constant. It varies depending on the amount of polar ice, and varies relatively due to placement of the continents. -Polar Ice - forms more when there is a land mass over the poles. During and before Pangaea, there was little to no polar ice, hence higher sea level. -Tectonics - the continents are on plates that move about on the mantle (see Isostasy, above), due to thermal currents. When continents collide, they can form mountains and merge together. So, prior to the slight uplift of the interior US, obviously the continent sat lower (elevation relative to the earth's core). Also, as there was less polar ice, sea level was higher (we know there was less polar ice because of paleomagnetism - rocks preserve their latitude via the orientation of fine grains of ferro-magnetic minerals preserved in them). As I said in a previous post, epieric seas (shallow continental seas) were quite common in the past. More or less, there was nothing to prevent seawater from transgressing into the midcontinent. Thus we had a shallow sea. This is the only explanation for things like the Thornton reef and the Permian reef complex of Texas. That amount of carbonate material simply could not form in the limited extent of time that the biblical flood supposedly lasted. This is because my hydrological background is meaningless? All I see is creationist scientists grasping at straws to try to validate their beliefs. I never said the flood would have one generic affect; but one event SHOULD have SIMILAR effects around the world. These similar effects just aren't there. Actually, that statement is a convenient ploy to allow you to skirt my arguments. A worldwide catastrophe is actually a very, very poor explanation for the earth we have today. It explains very little about what we see around us, and requires many circumstantial events to even begin to approach plausibility. Fan101, it's ok to admit defeat on this one. There's a reason why many modern christians no longer hold the belief of a worldwide flood, and that reason is that such a belief simply doesn't hold water.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 7, 2007 11:13:01 GMT -5
I've always had to wonder if it wasn't because of all that water, that we had a ice age. Nope. If that much water formed the ice age, then all the world would've been covered by ice. A mass of ice has a greater volume than an equivalent mass of water. All the ice from the ice age was formed from water currently in existence on the earth.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on May 7, 2007 15:58:58 GMT -5
Firstly, virtually everyone in our day of modern enlightenment still says sunrise and sunset. It is true from the human vantage point that the sun does rise and set. I fail to see how the misinterpretation of a single Bible passage which was using common language has any relevance on our discussion of the Flood.
We will have to disagree on the actuality of the Biblical flood. I believe the flood happened as the Bible said it did. I did not expect to convince you on this matter but I wanted to portray as best I could some of the major reasons why many people(including a minority of Ph.Ds) hold to the idea of a universal flood. I will pick up one of the other topics at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by Destined on May 7, 2007 20:01:00 GMT -5
Hey, uno pregunta. What IS your degree, Carnage? You have a ton of knowledge, you claim you're a scientist, or at least that's what I gathered from earlier messages, don't rip me a new one if I paraphrase a bit.
I was just wondering. You seem to know a lot, and Fan seems to be learning as he's going, which is fine, but...errr...anyways, just a question. What's your degree in, and all the little tidbits that surround it, including any experiences in any fields. You've got me interested.
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 8, 2007 13:22:40 GMT -5
To Destined: I am a paleontologist (background in geology and ecology), currently working towards my M.S. I'm fairly familiar with the majority of earth history, and intimately familiar with certain eras. I also have a well-rounded mind that allows me to recall bits of information fairly readily. I've also worked as a teacher in various educational levels. I am aware that Fan101 seems to be learning as he's going; I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is that he doesn't seem to realize this. He takes information he's heard from others and regurgitates it without really knowing/understanding where the information has come from; he presents as fact statements that he's been told are fact, not that he himself actually know are fact. Additionally, some of his sources aren't experts in the fields, so the validity of their information is questionable. Firstly, virtually everyone in our day of modern enlightenment still says sunrise and sunset. It is true from the human vantage point that the sun does rise and set. I fail to see how the misinterpretation of a single Bible passage which was using common language has any relevance on our discussion of the Flood. I am not debating the usage of the words "sunrise" and "sunset". But allow me to clarify my argument: the church misinterpreted that passage, then refused (at first) to acknowledge their misinterpretation. They believed the bible is infallible/perfect truth, thus it had to be right, no matter what other evidence showed. So, who's to say that the church isn't doing the exact same thing today regarding the flood? Who's to say they're taking something literally (like sunrise and sunset) that the original writer(s) meant to be taken metaphorically? There is plenty of evidence of periodic localized flooding on the Tigris and Euphrates, and Persian Gulf areas in the time the bible was written. There are accounts of similar localized flooding events in numerous other historical records dating to that time. It is highly probable that Noah's flood was one of these events, a conclusion agreed upon by many scholars who study that time period ( including biblical scholars).
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 11, 2007 23:41:48 GMT -5
You laugh out of ignorance. You laugh for the same reason that the church laughed at the thought of a heliocentric solar system: because it directly refutes your beliefs, and rather than accept it, you laugh it off as foolishness. Which is sad, really. I pity you. No I'm laughing even more now because you didn't even get my point. How can you get more turbulent than a global flood?
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 11, 2007 23:50:17 GMT -5
Yes, the "church" has often been wrong. That is not, however, proof or even an indication that they are wrong now. Science has also been wrong quite often, but you won't hear me saying that science is wrong now about something because it has a long history of spectacular mistakes (which it most certainly has).
|
|
|
Post by Destined on May 12, 2007 19:49:50 GMT -5
I believe Fan101 understands it, to a degree. I think, more or less, he's just trying to create reasonable doubt. Not doubt in science, but that absolute positivity that science is god. It's alright if you believe that. It's your call.
Of all the things stated, yes, I do believe you, Carnage, have stated more facts, if you don't mind me getting all philosophical. Facts that are scientifically, and mathimatically certain. I do believe that if something can be proved mathmatically, and can pass the scientific method, then it is, by definition, a fact.
That being said, whatever can NOT be proven by those two criteria, are considered truths. Which, is KINDA, if I may paraphrase, the common belief of mankind. The sky being blue is one. If someone sees the sky as green, and they actually see green when they look up, then can you call the guy who sees green, wrong? No, but a majority of people call it blue, so then that green-seer, might just interpret his green as blue. THEN you gotta ask, does his calling his green, blue, in fact, make what green(through light...reflection...something-yadayadayada) he sees, blue? No, of course not. He sees green.
Anyways, what I'm getting at are that facts and truths have very much to do with what you're both talking about. When you say something that is measurable, and has been proven, that is a fact. When you start assuming what happened because of that fact, then it STILL may be considered a fact, even when it's only a truth.
If the scientific community gets their hands on something, and it's measurable, that's cool, that's fact. When they start assuming, and creating scenerios, and bias, based on that fact, then it's a truth, which may, or may NOT be correct, so, assumptions are made until facts CAN be ascertained.
I've kept pretty up to date on BOTH your posts, even from the previous area that got erased, and neither of you are innocent of this. Creating facts where it's convienient for both of you, when it's NOT QUITE facts that you have, but truths. I'm supposing you're both wanting evidence of this, but I'm not gonna get into that until one of you demands it of me. Carnage by FAR has the upper hand, though, in being convincing.
Besides. Evolution and Creation? Both being truths, it seems really interesting to argue about them, but at it's best, it's pointless unless you ARE a scientist CREATING those academic journals based on field experience. Then it becomes MORE interesting, but probably still not fact. Yes, it is truly, one of the most heated, and confrontational debates between humans (See, there's another truth. You just can't avoid them. The way I stated it, it sure SOUNDS like a fact, though.), however, I think there'll be evolutionists in heaven, and creationists in hell.
I think Jesus, His claims to divinity, His life, His death, and His resurrection, would be the main focus of an arugment trying to prove one thing, or another. THAT would be interesting. Ok, ready, GO!
-The King Of Run-On Sentences
P.S. The definition of "truth" being used is: Truth = conformity with reality. Agreement with the standard.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on May 16, 2007 23:07:43 GMT -5
a quick response to some recent criticism:
Ive never claimed to have a high level of scientific learning and Ill be the first to admit that carnage has far more knowledge and training than me in a multiplicity of scientific fields(however much I hate Michigan football as an OSU fan I must admit their academics are top shelf), however, brilliant people are often wrong especially when they have strong motivation to prove certain points, carnage's passionate desire for a godless universe and hatred of Christianity combine with similar biases that saturate the scientific community to create a skewed perspective of history(and dont say I tell myself that bias exists so I can sleep better at night at least rephrase your critique), if the Bible is true and Jesus was raised from the dead, then these facts have implications on carnage's life that make it impossible for him to be truly objective on these issues, also I am learning as I go, I learning not to overstate my points and generalize especially in areas Im am not proficient in, even if carnage has demolished me in this debate(which i dont grant because he has only provided other explanations for the evidences I present and has not shown that his understanding is a necessary explanation of the facts or even a better one) why would I jettison my faith?, Im a 19yr old English major debating a scientist with training from a good university, my shortcomings hardly mean that better evidence/presentation of evidence dont exist for a flood, I rest my faith on God's faithfulness to give me truth in the Bible(not very objective I know) and this faith is also corroborated by the study of brilliant men who are a small minority in scientific modernity
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on May 17, 2007 0:02:21 GMT -5
carnage said on pg. 1 of how be it??? that the overwhelming evidence for evolution shows that the Christian God is a fabrication, is that true?
Firstly, Id like to agree that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Species speciate and adapt over time creating more species in response to their environments. I dont know anybody(even the most adamant Baptist preacher) who disputes this point. However, there is no proof for the molecules to man model of evolution which traverses the ground from non-life to complex humanity by virtue solely of random chance
Some comments on the overhwelming evidence for evolution:
1. The Galapagos finches. The fact that evolutionary scientists have spent years trying to prove evolution by analyzing minute differences in birds illustrates the weakness of the theory. Different colors and beak sizes show adaptation to a changing environment and not the progressive/creative type of evolution necessary to turn microscopic cells into all the complex life we see today. Just think about the bird to dinosaur transistion that is alledged to have taken place. Scales to feathers, teeth to beak and etc. is a huge change. Why dont we see any of that going on? Does variation in beak size give us enough evidence to prove that these larger transistions are historically actual? The answer is no. Instead of proving evolution, the study of the finches shows how desperate evolutionists are to provide an example of modern evolution that is simply not there. If there is smoking gun evidence for macroevolution why waste time with finches that are still finches albeit darker brown and with a longer beak?
2. There are many huge gaps in evolutionary theory that are currently unexplained. Not only are they not proven, an adequate explanation via evolutionary naturalism has not been made(to the best of my knowledge).
a. life from non-life. another name for this phenomenon is spontaneaous generation which was discarded centuries ago, but has resurfaced in our supposedly scientifically advanced age. How did all the building blocks for life come together of their own volition? How did all the proteins necessary come into existence? Im not even asking for evidence for this because we both know it doesnt exist, but I dont think you can offer a viable scenario for how this must have occured.
b. single celled organisms to multicelled organisms. How did individual cells coalesce into a more complex organism? Why dont we see single cells doing that now? Why should we assume this happened in the past?
c. plant life to animal life. How did stationary plants turn into animals with active motion? The very idea is ludicrous.
d. single cell to all the complexity we see today. How did a single cell produce all the various life we now have. A single cell has a certain type of genetic info that allows it to carry out its functions. A human has millions of cells and complex organs that function via DNA. Multiply this by the various genetic info in millions of animal species and that is virtually an inifinite amount of genetic information. All this information was not included in the first basic cell that supposedly started the evolutionary process. Where did this vast amount of DNA come from? Evolution requires that this specific and amazinginly coherent genetic information came from nothing which doesnt make sense.
Conclusion: These are just a few holes in the "overwhelming evidence" for evolution that were on the top of my head. It is essential to seperate speciation within a certain type of animal group from the unlimited malleablitity and creative capticity needed to prove evolution of all modern species from a single cell. There is ample proof for natural selection, adaptation, speciation but all these mechanisms cannot explain how a single cell morphed into all of modern life. Why would a cell have this unbounded progression? I assert that the Biblical idea of creatures reproducing acccording to their kind is a much more valid explanation of our world than molecules to man evolution. What a kind is exactly is not totally clear because the Bible is not a scientific handbook, but what is clear is that in a Biblical worldview there is not inifinite changeablity between animals. Whatever a kind is, a finch with a slightly larger beak is certainly still whithin this categorization. The proof of evolution merely explains how species change but not why we have species in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 17, 2007 21:57:54 GMT -5
Destined: Had you seen the threads that were deleted, you would've seen me present facts from my field: biochemistry. The problem there is that Carnage and I are in different fields, so we naturally have a hard time communicating. I think because of this it's better to argue philosophy, but I'm prepared for facts as well if I thought Carnage would listen to me, which previous experience has given me some doubt about that.
You have a good point about the difference between facts and "truths" though in science these "truths" are usually called "theories". Evolution is a theory. Naked observations of beak sizes in finches are facts. The latter does not lead directly to the former without some interpretation and theorizing. It is the same for creationism, intelligent design and even Newtonian physics or any other scientific theory. I would go so far as to say that applying math to science at all turns whatever you're doing into a theory. Who's to say that math perfectly models nature? We know of many cases where it doesn't. Proofs can only be found in mathematics. In no other field can one nail down all the variables with absolute certainty. In science there is always the possibility of unknown variables or even that math itself doesn't model nature correctly. I personally believe that math applies to science exceptionally well because nature was created by a Mathematician, but there can be no assurance this is so in all cases, whether you believe in God or not. When philosophizing about science, one must keep that in mind or one begins to think that proofs are possible in science which is most certainly not the case.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 17, 2007 22:12:58 GMT -5
fan101:
1. Studies have been done on the Galapagos finches since Darwin's time and have found no gradual trend in beak sizes. In fact, beak size has been found to vary with the dry and wet cycles, as different food is available in different cycles. You can call this evolution if you want, I have no problem with that, but you cannot extrapolate this data into a trend of any sort. It is a cycle that follows the cycle of weather patterns, not an overarching evolutionary trend leading gradually to more and more fit species.
Another possible explanation for this is that the finches are simply programmed to adapt beak sizes for weather variations. A system could be set up with certain temperature or moisture related stimuli, something we know occurs in nature already with alligator eggs. This could be called evolution only in the loosest sense, and certainly could not be called "Darwinism" because it is teleological, not chance driven. Another possibility is that the finches simply have the gene variability to adapt beak sizes. This is a smart way to design an animal. Give it options. Don't make it so set in stone that it can't adapt to at least some different situations. However this doesn't give the observer a blank check to extrapolate this one kind of change into all kinds of change. We are dealing with different genes for every different trait. Even in evolutionary theory it is widely acknowledged that some genes are less variable than others. What has been simply assumed by evolutionists is that all genes are ultimately variable to the greatest degree imaginable if simply given enough time and the necessary selective pressures. I believe there is reason to doubt that.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 17, 2007 23:13:58 GMT -5
2 a. This excerpt is from my biochemistry textbook, "Garrett and Grisham's BIOCHEMISTRY" Second edition, Saunders College Publishing, Fort Worth, Philadelphia, etc.., pp. 98: "The Murchison Meteorite - Discovery of Extraterrestrial Handedness: The predominance of L-amino acids in biological systems is one of life's most intriguing features. Prebiotic syntheses of amino acids would be expected to produce equal amounst of L- and D- enantiomers. Some kind of enantiomeric selection process must have intervened to select L-amino acids over their D-counterparts as the constituents of proteins. Was it random chance that chose L- over D- isomers? Analysis of carbon compounds - even amino acids - from extraterrestrial sources might provide deeper insights into this mystery. John Cronin and Sandra Pizzarello have examined the enantiomeric distribution of unusual amino acids obtained from the Murchison meteorite, which struck the earth on September 28, 1969, near Murchison, Australia. (By selecting unusual amino acids for their sutdies, Cronin and Pizzarello ensured that they were examining materials that were native to the meteorite and not earth-derived contaminants.) Four alpha-dialkyl amino acids - alpha-methylisoleucine, alpha-methylalloisoleucine, alpha-methylnorvaline, and isovaline - were found to have an L-enantiomeric excess of 2 to 9%. This may be the first demonstration that a natural L-enantiomer enrichment occurs in certain cosmological environments. Could these observations be relevant to the emergence of L-enantiomers as the dominant amino acids on the earth? And, if so, could there be life elsewhere in the universe that is based upon the same amino acid handedness?" Natural biological amino acids are nearly 100% L form. Synthesizing amino acids in a chemical reaction produces 50% L and 50% D, as in the famous Miller experiment. This has been such a puzzle for origin of life researchers that my biochem textbook seriously posits that amino acids from outer space with a mere 2-9% excess of the L form may give some clue as to why our amino acids are 100% L form. Seriously, it's time to give it up. How much money and time went into this? It's a ridiculous waste of time and effort all to prove a vanishing worldview is actually viable. This particular problem is only one of the myriad impossibilities of life arising randomly from some soup of fortuitous chemicals. Some of those problems are much worse than this one, which is why they aren't in my biochem textbook . From the same book page 116: "The Virtually Limitless Number of Different Amino Acid Sequences: Given 20 different amino acids, a polypeptide chain of n residues can have any one of 20^ possible sequence arrangements. To portray this, consider the number of tripeptides possible if there were only three different amino acids, A, B, and C (tripeptide = 3 = n ; n^3 = 3^3 = 27): AAA BBB CCC AAB BBA CCA AAC BBC CCB ABA BAB CBC ACA BCB CAC ABC BAA CBA ACB BCC CAB ABB BAC CBB ACC BCA CAA For a polypeptide chain of 100 residues in length, a rather modest size, the number of possible sequences is 20^100, or because 20 = 10^1.3, 10^130 unique possibilities. These numbers are more than astronomical! Because an average protein molecule of 100 residues would have a mass of 13,800 daltons (average molecular mass of an amino acid residue = 138), 10^130 such molecules would have a mass of 1.38 X 10^134 daltons. The mass of the observable universe is estimated to be 10^80 proton masses (10^80 daltons). Thus, the universe lacks enough material to make just one molecule of each possible polypeptide sequence for a protein residue only 100 residues in length." Keep in mind that this number is only for a protein of exactly 100 amino acids in length. A length of 99, 101 and other lengths would generate a similar number which has to be added to the one they state. That millions of functional proteins exist out of the literally larger than astronomical number of possibilities means we are very lucky, to say the least, if all these proteins came about through pure chance. Natural selection cannot help until random chance provides the raw materials, so this problem is real for evolutionary theory. But the problem for the chance driven origin of life hypothesis is even bigger. Various scientists have determined that the absolute smallest number of proteins required for a functional, living cell is about 500. No such cell has ever been found mind you. All specimens we know of have a much larger number. But considering that so many proteins out of such a large number of possibilities must coalesce into the space of a few microns, to say nothing of their being synthesized all at the same time (since proteins will degrade over a finite time period) without the intervention of any guiding intelligence whatsoever, it become not only internally inconsistent but absolutely insane to believe in a chance origin of life. Internally inconsistent because when natural laws are claimed to be all that is yet clearly demonstrate that they cannot account for all that is, the belief remains intact through some monumental exercise of faith. At least taking as a first principle a belief in an all powerful being is internally consistent. Both views of the universe are rather fantastic, but one is quite obviously at war with itself.
|
|
|
Post by Destined on May 19, 2007 0:41:00 GMT -5
I am completely sorry for the oversight. I guess I've ONLY paid attention to the Fan101, and Carnage dialogue. I don't know HOW, but it tends to happen, that when two people are going at it, and an outside source steps in, my mind and eyes, COMPLETELY overlook that source, no matter HOW exceptional it is, 'cause it is disrupting my train of comparing and contrasting TWO items It's like my mind says, "Two is ALL you can handle, NO! Don'T LOOK AT THAT THIRD ONE! TWO, is all you can handle." God bless, man, and I understood NOTHING until the last paragraph in that most recent posting. Hopefully smarter people, than I frequent this board, and had the convienience of understanding it completely Seriously, I have nothing but respect, sir. A true master in Apologetics is Ravi Zacharias. I would seriously, recommend him to anybody. From Carnage to Mishap. MASTER of logic and reasoning. In his speech titled The Anatomy of Faith and the Quest for Reason 2, he talks of this professor of Applied Mathmatics (Can't even BEGIN to type his name) who testified in front of a judge during the hearing in Arkansas over design, or accident. He was Buddhist, and his explaination for how the universe came about will floor you. Isn't Applied Mathmatics one of the most DIFFICULT majors to achieve in the world? This is PURELY a guess, but it's something I've heard. If that's true, then I think this man, who is a professor should be given a SOME consideration. www.rzim.org P.S. If you don't listen to him for the information, listen to him because of the voice. This dude has the coolest and most addictive voice EVER. So rad.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 21, 2007 13:12:48 GMT -5
carnage's passionate desire for a godless universe and hatred of Christianity combine with similar biases that saturate the scientific community to create a skewed perspective of history(and dont say I tell myself that bias exists so I can sleep better at night at least rephrase your critique) See, statements like this are precisely the reason why I ask myself why I keep wasting time with you. You constantly attempt to use emotion to make me appear to be the evil guy here. "passionate desire for a godless universe" and "hatred of christianity" are unfounded accusations, and frankly, speak very ill of you. Dont' blame me for the fact that there is no evidence for your religion being any more correct/real than any other religion. Actually, they have no implications one way or another, whether they are correct or not. They only have implications if I decide to let them. And I have decided not to let them - i.e., I could care less whether they were correct or not. If something has a natural explanation, then why should an individual pick a more complex supernatural explanation? See, the thing is that the evidence I've presented isn't that complex. Hell, I've taught this kindof stuff in an intro level (read: "freshman") geology course. So I know of many, many 19 year olds that are familiar with the evidence and principles I've presented. This isn't rocket science. This sortof sums up your entire point of view. You follow your faith, regardless of whatever other evidence comes up. Or maybe you follow your faith until a pastor/apologist tells you otherwise? Either way, your biases are more heavy than mine. In that last quote, you more or less state that you're going to go with the minority because it agrees with what you believe, not necessarily because you've actually analyzed the evidence and came to your own conclusions. This is a big, BIG pitfall of religion - just following a belief because your parents did, or because it's what the pastor says. Whatever you decide to do with your life, please, PLEASE don't just blindly follow. Actually know and understand why you believe what you do and why you live your life as you do.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on May 21, 2007 13:20:45 GMT -5
You have a good point about the difference between facts and "truths" though in science these "truths" are usually called "theories". Evolution is a theory. Naked observations of beak sizes in finches are facts. The latter does not lead directly to the former without some interpretation and theorizing. It is the same for creationism, intelligent design and even Newtonian physics or any other scientific theory. Do you even understand what the word "theory" means in science? A theory is not just a guess. A theory is something that has been shown to be true time and time again, and has a good deal of evidence supporting it. It is just before a scientific law in the hierarchy. So a theory is very, very close to what (I gather) you would call a truth. A scientific theory is VERY different than a theory such as creationism. Creationism has no physical evidence. A scientific theory actually has evidence.
|
|