Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 83 (12640)
07-02-2002 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Joe Meert
07-02-2002 10:44 PM


Joe
I can imagine some reasons why you should expect some vast correlted non-marine beds. Glacial melting perhaps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Joe Meert, posted 07-02-2002 10:44 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 83 (12643)
07-02-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 11:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What's your point about the main epeiric deposit type?
The Mancos Shale question. If your flood deposits generate such high velocity, highly polarized currents, then where are they in the shales that are so characteristic of epeiric seas? You have said that the flood generated these currents and that the seas were related to non-marine sedimentation. I'd just like to see this cleared up. And just where did the terrigenous sediment come from in the middle of a global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 11:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 12:07 AM edge has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 48 of 83 (12646)
07-03-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 8:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Pamboli
I'm not trying to prove a God like higher intelligence. I'm simply wanting to say that the existence of a God-like higher intelligence is one possibility and should be stateable in the scientific literature.

Higher intelligence - no problem. Perfectly comprehensible within science as a testable hypothesis which if proved could be colligated under general laws, but not on the table at the moment due to lack of evidence. Christian supernatural God-like higher intelligence - not comprehensible as not a testable hypothesis, and not capable of colligation under general laws.
It's not that difficult to understand, really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 8:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 12:09 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 83 (12649)
07-03-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by edge
07-02-2002 11:51 PM


Edge
The paleocurrents presumably are mesured from non-shales. The shales formed during intermediate calms. The sediment origin was from highlands or terrain in the path of very fast surges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by edge, posted 07-02-2002 11:51 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 07-04-2002 12:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 83 (12650)
07-03-2002 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Mister Pamboli
07-03-2002 12:03 AM


Pamboli
IC is evidence of 'God' whether conclusive or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-03-2002 12:03 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 51 of 83 (12651)
07-03-2002 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 8:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Pamboli
The IC arguement is that most cellular and physiological systems examined at the molecular level display 'irreducible complexity'. That after it is reduced to it's essential components there are no examples in the literature, at the molecular level, demomstrating the discovery or even hypothesis of conceivable gradual steps of evoltuion that maintain some selectable function all the way.
It proves nothing but is highly suggestive of a higher intelligence.

I see. My misunderstanding - I thought you meant "valid argument" in the logical sense rather than just "a reasonable point of view." Not that I think it is the latter, either, but that is a different discussion.
[b] [QUOTE]Behe examined the moelcuar evolution literature and in 1995 no studies address this issue. 80% cover evolution within protein families, 15% cover chemical evoltuion experiments and 5% cover mathematical treatments but no (out of tens of thousands) papers identify gradual steps of evoltuion. The story sold to the layman is a bluff.[/b][/QUOTE]
Behe read 10's of thousands of abstracts in 1995? 28 a day minimum to read 10000? In enough detail to get all this info. And held down his day job? Never mind an intelligent designer - I think I'm beginning to believe in superman!
[b] [QUOTE]At the organismal level eveoltuionists have got away for years with just so stories (feathers were used for catching prey etc) [/b][/QUOTE]
Really? Do you have that reference? I can't believe the execrable "Walking with Dinosaurs" overlooked such a ludicrous reconstruction - they seemed to go out of their way to include this sort of thing.[b] [QUOTE]but at the molecular level Darwin's 'Black Box'is opened and these arguements fall apart because we see all of the components and discover that a certain minimal subset is required for function.[/b][/QUOTE]
I have no idea what this means, except perhaps that the intelligent designer wasted their time as a minimal subset would have done - 43 species of parrot, nipples on men, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 8:34 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 12:25 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 83 (12653)
07-03-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Mister Pamboli
07-03-2002 12:13 AM


Pamboli
Behe categorized 10,000 abstracts and read the ones that had any chance of containing detailed accounts of the evotluin of molecualr systems. I don't know what your area of expertise is but if you are a molecular biologist you should know that almost no molecular details are known or even hypothesised about the origin of any cellualr system.
The feather thing is a well known example that I'm pretty sure is a peer reviewed idea.
The 'minimal subset' is required for the thing to work at all. The rest of it makes it work much, much better. You can be the first to ditch any of your genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-03-2002 12:13 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-03-2002 12:39 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 53 of 83 (12655)
07-03-2002 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 12:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't know what your area of expertise is
Still trying to work it out myself
[b] [QUOTE]but if you are a molecular biologist[/b][/QUOTE]
Heaven forfend![b] [QUOTE]you should know that almost no molecular details are known or even hypothesised about the origin of any cellular system.[/b][/QUOTE]
I hear this now and then, and then and now I see replies which seem to indicate there is a fair bit of work going on in just such areas. Of course, research follows money and in the current genome-obsessed climate, I'm sure the molecular biologists have more lucrative pathways (o the pun!) to explore.[b] [QUOTE]The feather thing is a well known example that I'm pretty sure is a peer reviewed idea.[/b][/QUOTE]
If you could find it, I would appreciate it. It must be a good laugh.[b] [QUOTE] The 'minimal subset' is required for the thing to work at all. The rest of it makes it work much, much better. You can be the first to ditch any of your genes.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Gotcha. Picked up the wrong sense from the original, sorry. Still it did allow me to get in the "43 species of parrot and nipples on men" line - one of the strongest arguments against an intelligent designer, with a sardonic twist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 12:25 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 83 (12675)
07-03-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
07-02-2002 8:26 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

Obviously one possibility for that is God and that should be stateable in the literature!
Science is an evidence-based inductive exercise guided by the scientific method. If through this process you can arrive at the conclusion that "God-did-it" then by all means include it in the primary literature.
You have embarcked upon an odd process that requires either people to convert before they can become convinced, or science to change its very nature to include theories not based upon evidence.

Can you imagine how bizaree your POV is if God really did create?
I already believe "God really did create." I just don't believe any information about how he did it is recorded in any religion's mythic literature. We're going to have to figure that out for ourselves.
If a religious approach to understanding science were really valid then it would not lead to the widely conflicting views that reside under the Creationist umbrella. Add to this the origins myths of other religions and you have an extremely broad range of opinion with, for example, the age of the universe ranging from 6000 years to 6 trillion. Evidence from the natural world is all that the various world religions have in common, and it's the only way they'll arrive at consistent answers. We call following the evidence science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-02-2002 8:26 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 11:23 PM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 83 (12717)
07-03-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
07-03-2002 8:59 AM


Percy
Hundreds of thousands of scientists would be tempted to put in print that their evidence demonstrates a higher intelligence. They know it will cut the chances of the acceptance of the paper. Publish or perish is a fact for everybody.
I don't know which mythic writings you subscibe to, if any, but the Bible makes it very clear that God is evident from creation . . and it is evident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 07-03-2002 8:59 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John, posted 07-04-2002 11:55 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 83 (12757)
07-04-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 11:23 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Percy
Hundreds of thousands of scientists would be tempted to put in print that their evidence demonstrates a higher intelligence. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
TB: You can't talk for hundreds of thousands of scientists.
quote:
They know it will cut the chances of the acceptance of the paper. Publish or perish is a fact for everybody.
If anyone had a good demonstration of a higher intelligence they'd make a huge name for themselves-- riches, women, fame.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 11:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 8:31 PM John has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 58 of 83 (12758)
07-04-2002 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2002 12:07 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The paleocurrents presumably are mesured from non-shales. The shales formed during intermediate calms. The sediment origin was from highlands or terrain in the path of very fast surges.[/B][/QUOTE]
But you don't have time! There is no time for 'intermediate calms'. You have to surge water over hundreds of miles inland over millions of square miles of dry land, deposit all that coal, and then flush it back out 30 times in one year! This is silly. I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
And remember, you don't have highland terrain, this flood covered the earth... all of it. You have a choice. Either there is a global flood or there is not! If you call upon the no-mountains scenario to come up with enough water, there are no highlands. If you have enough water to cover the mountains, where does it go during all of these ebb periods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2002 12:07 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 8:35 PM edge has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 59 of 83 (12765)
07-04-2002 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2002 10:35 PM


TB, there is one thing that you have never answered, or if you have then I have missed it as your reply would have been to someone else. How do you explain the geological/chronological fossil deposition. I have looked at your statements re: paleontology and have not seen this addressed. A flood, by any hydrological models or theories that I am familiar with would result in far more of a jumble than is observed in the field. This by the way includes the models by Baumgardner at Los Alamos. Prior to serious discussion of the depositions of rocks maybe a complete discussion of this very important area of biology/geology would be prudent. As I am currently on vacation any reply from myself will be a little late in coming. Hope that you are having a good month.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by mark24, posted 07-04-2002 3:37 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 8:44 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 60 of 83 (12766)
07-04-2002 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
07-04-2002 2:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
TB, there is one thing that you have never answered, or if you have then I have missed it as your reply would have been to someone else. How do you explain the geological/chronological fossil deposition. I have looked at your statements re: paleontology and have not seen this addressed. A flood, by any hydrological models or theories that I am familiar with would result in far more of a jumble than is observed in the field. This by the way includes the models by Baumgardner at Los Alamos. Prior to serious discussion of the depositions of rocks maybe a complete discussion of this very important area of biology/geology would be prudent. As I am currently on vacation any reply from myself will be a little late in coming. Hope that you are having a good month.

Dr T,
TB believes that homology, hydrodynamic sorting, biogeography, & relative mobility are responsible for fossil ordering. At the time of writing he hasn't told us how these factors interact to produce the fossil record as we see it.
In fact he has produced relative mobility (based on size) to explain the ordering of the Equidae fossils, that is, the larger species could outrun the flood better than smaller ones. It is not to be, however as there are examples where the increasing size trends are reversed in certain clades. This means smaller Equidae are found above larger examples, in clado/stratigraphic order, but certainly not what is expected under the flood model.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=45&m=40#40 (latest at the time of writing).
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 07-04-2002 2:55 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by wehappyfew, posted 07-04-2002 8:10 PM mark24 has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 83 (12783)
07-04-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by mark24
07-04-2002 3:37 PM


That's silly, Mark...
If TB is retreating to relative mobility to explain Equidae, then TB's frantic hand-waving has finally unhinged his reasoning ability. I say that not because relative mobility in a Flood is a silly idea (although it is), but because TB has pegged the end of the Flood at the K-T boundary! All his Equidae are post-Flood variation in only a few thousand years - evolution faster than any observed. He has totally forgotten how his own model (fails to) fit together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mark24, posted 07-04-2002 3:37 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 07-04-2002 8:25 PM wehappyfew has not replied
 Message 66 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2002 8:48 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024