|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe
I can imagine some reasons why you should expect some vast correlted non-marine beds. Glacial melting perhaps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7605 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Pamboli
IC is evidence of 'God' whether conclusive or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7605 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: 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! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7605 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Still trying to work it out myself 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Tranquility Base writes: 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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024