Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution
wj
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 299 (84867)
02-09-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by wj
02-05-2004 10:51 PM


^ bump ^
A response to message #242 willowtree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by wj, posted 02-05-2004 10:51 PM wj has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 257 of 299 (84869)
02-09-2004 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by wj
02-05-2004 10:51 PM


George C. Williams said information and matter are two separate entities and must be discussed as such.
Information exists in or upon or is contained in DNA.
Are you arguing that DNA does not contain specialized information ?
I only want to say that a large amount of scientists believe generically that DNA contains information. If this is true, then by what evolutionary process might have produced the information step by step ?
If the information can be represented mathematically would you generally believe it to be less eligible to be falsified ?
Look, lots of books are emerging that are trying to refute Behe's Black Box. The crux of these books simply declare that the alleged information contained in DNA can also emerge randomly. But they fail to say how. Yet this isn't the issue. The issue is the origin and the inteligence qualities of the information.
If I say the organism and its DNA were the result of a random mutation, then I ascribe the entire event to be the ultimate creation of a Creator, YOU cannot objectively disagree unless your personal beliefs come into play ?
I can deduce a Designer from the scientific evidence, some cannot.
How can order constantly emerge from fluke ?
What is the rational basis to believe the key to the past is the present ? Isn't this a subjective hope necessary for evolutionary theory ?
Here is the reason why I reject the main concepts of evolution :
Man started from an ape like ancestor and gradually became upright and improved over eons of time.
The Bible says Adam-kind was created and he was extremely smart, but man got real dumb and only now is getting his ultra-intelligence back again.
These two scenarios are far far apart. Only one can be correct.
The intelligence of the ancients and their wonders is a slice of proof in favor of the Biblical record.
The mathematical genius incorporated into the Great Pyramid of Giza is irrefutable. This immutable fact in itself sinks the evolution scenario by itself.
I am perfectly content with taking the scientific discoveries and ascribing them to the work of a Creator. If your ilk is honest when you claim the evidence is presented as Divine neutral then what possible objection could you raise ?
If you claim the evidence points to no Creator then isn't this a contradiction to the claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by wj, posted 02-05-2004 10:51 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2004 12:19 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 267 by Loudmouth, posted 02-13-2004 12:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 258 of 299 (84880)
02-10-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Cold Foreign Object
02-09-2004 10:50 PM


evidence?
The mathematical genius incorporated into the Great Pyramid of Giza is irrefutable. This immutable fact in itself sinks the evolution scenario by itself.
Just exactly what convoluted chain of so-called logic would allow you to make the above statement?
There are two parts to it:
1)There is some special genius in the building of the pyraminds. If you wish to show that this is true you should open a new thread because I suspect it will go on for awhile.
2)That the egyptians were smart somehow sinks evolution. This one you can do here if you can show it is actually scientific evidence against evolution. For this thread we will take the egyptians as being as smart as we are, though clearly not as knowledgable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-09-2004 10:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-12-2004 11:05 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2004 2:38 AM NosyNed has not replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 259 of 299 (84881)
02-10-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by q3psycho
02-06-2004 6:11 AM


So a kind is now defined as a superorder? Great! Now an ostrich is the same kind as a hummingbird. (Under recent taxonomic revisions, Aves is a superorder.)

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by q3psycho, posted 02-06-2004 6:11 AM q3psycho has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 260 of 299 (85943)
02-12-2004 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by NosyNed
02-10-2004 12:19 AM


The statement that you cut and pasted (from my post #257), a statement that strikes you as convoluted, confirms the straightness of it in my eyes.
The evolutionary scenario says mankind today evolved from an ape-like ancestor. This theoretical scenario has an unintelligent animal slowly and gradually evolving into an intelligent upright human being.
Sarcastically said, ape eventually became this very low intelligent cave man, which gradually improved in physical stature and intelligence. This progession of improvement was continuously progressing and improving.
The Biblical record says man was created. Adam-kind and his descendants were ultra-intelligent having been closer to the Source of Life. This " ultra-state " gradually diminished as man under the influence of Satan misused free-will (sin) which incapacitated his ability to " relate to his environment ". That environment was/is
the nearness of the Source of Life/God.
Adam-kind gradually became less in length of life AND intelligence. The Flood resulted in the disappearance of the watery firmament and exposure to the sun which dramatically decreased life-spans. This long descent of man's decline in intelligence suddenly ceased when the Renaissance exploded.
From the Renaissance on man has taken enormous steps in regaining his " ultra-state ". But man is still far away from being as great as he first was.
In sum, the Bible has man created and starting out real smart, and then getting real dumb and only now is re-obtaining his former glory.
Evolution has man evolving upward from an animal into his present state.
Like I said in post # 257 these two scenarios are far far apart and only one of them can be correct.
My point about the Pyramid is as follows :
How does the evolutionary scenario provide for the intelligence of the Pyramid builders ? If man slowly and gradually goes up in stature and intelligence then what accounts for the genius of the design and construction of the Pyramid ?
If the Pyramid was built between 6 and 7 thousand years ago then we have a micro burst of ultra intelligence that the evolutionary processes cannot explain, but the Bible does.
The Pyramid was built having pi incorporated into it. How many of thousands of years elapsed before western minds discovered pi ?
It is wrongly assumed that Egyptians built the Pyramid. The Suez Canal is in Egypt but everyone knows that the British built it.
Isaiah 19:19 is the great Bible verse referring to the Pyramid. Take the numerical value of each Hebrew letter in that verse and add them up. The sum totals the exact height of the Pyramid from its base to the apex. ( using the sacred inch which is one fiftieth of an inch different from the British inch ). The exact geographic location of the .... " Pillar "/Pyramid has it built in the exact center of Egypt AND on the border of Upper and Lower Egypt. {source : E. Raymond Capt, author of "The Great Pyramid Decoded "}
As per your # 2 sentence : The design and building of the Great Pyramid is a monumental hammer smashing the evolutionary scenario previously outlined. This is SOME evidence against evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2004 12:19 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Asgara, posted 02-12-2004 11:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 262 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2004 11:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 265 by MarkAustin, posted 02-13-2004 4:25 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 275 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-16-2004 1:19 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 261 of 299 (85950)
02-12-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
02-12-2004 11:05 PM


Ah...Pyramidology, Adam Rutherford...
shades of Von Daniken and Velikovsky.
Anyone else think it's funny? first we have our new little friend waiting on the aliens from Nabiru, on the outskirts of the solar system, and now WT is espousing pyramidology.

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-12-2004 11:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 262 of 299 (85952)
02-12-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
02-12-2004 11:05 PM


How does the evolutionary scenario provide for the intelligence of the Pyramid builders ? If man slowly and gradually goes up in stature and intelligence then what accounts for the genius of the design and construction of the Pyramid ?
Why would you think that there has been significant change in intelligence in only a few 1,000 years in the evolutionary scenario.
They egyptians were clearly as smart as we are. However, it is also clear from the pyramids that they were not all that much smarter. They were less knowledgable. Why do you think they built a pyramid instead of a skyscraper?
A couple of things:
1: demonstrate accurately that the pyramids had pi built in. I know about games played with "pyramid inches" and such guff.
2: You need to be more knowledgeable about what you go on about. It is getting to be astonishing how little you know.
The great pyramid was built about 2500 BCE.
It seems the first time that pi was for sure (but roughly) known to the egyptians was about 1,000 years later.
Less than 1500 years later the Greeks had it right to a couple of decimal places.
[qs]It is wrongly assumed that the Egyptians built the pyramids...{/qs}
You may open another thread to cover this if you actually have a scrap of real evidence. Otherwise it is simply a red herring here.
You have yet to provide any real evidence of anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-12-2004 11:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 299 (85955)
02-12-2004 11:39 PM


Any chance of seeing any supporting scientific evidence to go with these fantastic fantasies? Or has the concept of providing scientific evidence been completely abandoned?

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 264 of 299 (85987)
02-13-2004 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by NosyNed
02-10-2004 12:19 AM


Re: evidence?
What is this "Bible" you are talking about - it certainly isn't the book that is usually known by that title. Is it something you made up ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 02-10-2004 12:19 AM NosyNed has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 265 of 299 (85994)
02-13-2004 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
02-12-2004 11:05 PM


Pyramidology
quote:
saiah 19:19 is the great Bible verse referring to the Pyramid. Take the numerical value of each Hebrew letter in that verse and add them up. The sum totals the exact height of the Pyramid from its base to the apex. ( using the sacred inch which is one fiftieth of an inch different from the British inch ). The exact geographic location of the .... " Pillar "/Pyramid has it built in the exact center of Egypt AND on the border of Upper and Lower Egypt. {source : E. Raymond Capt, author of "The Great Pyramid Decode
All of these theories relating to the size of the pyramids founder on one inescapable fact: we do not know the original dimesnions of the pyramid. The pyramids were originally sheathed in stone, giving smooth sides, and not the stepped sides seen today, which represent the undersurface. This cladding was later removed piecemeal for oother building work (easier than quarrying). Since we do not know how thick this cladding was, we cannot tell how big the pyramids were originally, so any calculatations based on size are just plain wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-12-2004 11:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2004 10:48 AM MarkAustin has not replied
 Message 269 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-15-2004 7:10 PM MarkAustin has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 266 of 299 (86063)
02-13-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by MarkAustin
02-13-2004 4:25 AM


Re: Pyramidology
To say nothing of making up an "inch" after the fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by MarkAustin, posted 02-13-2004 4:25 AM MarkAustin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-15-2004 7:33 PM NosyNed has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 299 (86088)
02-13-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Cold Foreign Object
02-09-2004 10:50 PM


quote:
I only want to say that a large amount of scientists believe generically that DNA contains information. If this is true, then by what evolutionary process might have produced the information step by step ?
By random mutation and natural selection. While mutations are random, selection by definition is not random. So an evolutionary process, while initiated by random events, is not random in its final results. Each mutation is filtered by its effect on fitness, which creates an accumulation of new information.
quote:
If the information can be represented mathematically would you generally believe it to be less eligible to be falsified ?
Computer models have been made to recreate random mutation and natural selection with DNA binding domains. Information was found to increase, sometimes in a punctuated fashion (similar to punctuated equilibrium). Reference here.
quote:
If I say the organism and its DNA were the result of a random mutation, then I ascribe the entire event to be the ultimate creation of a Creator, YOU cannot objectively disagree unless your personal beliefs come into play ?
Your personal beliefs brought in the Creator so how can you objectively agree for the presence of a Creator? I ascribe everything to natural mechanisms, YOU cannot objectively disagree unless your personal beliefs come into play. It is a two way street.
quote:
I can deduce a Designer from the scientific evidence, some cannot.
Therefore it is not repeatable, and hence not science. It is subjective in nature, not objective. Perhaps you can show SCIENTIFIC DATA that you used to deduce a designer, and how that data forces us no other interpretation than the presence of a Designer.
quote:
How can order constantly emerge from fluke ?
Smash some rocks with a hammer. The rock chips will be random in size. Pass these rock chips through a seive. The resulting rock chip piles, one that passed through the seive and one that did not, will have order from a random rock chipping process. This is a good analogy for random mutation and natural selection.
quote:
What is the rational basis to believe the key to the past is the present ? Isn't this a subjective hope necessary for evolutionary theory ?
Because physical constants are just that, constants. If the laws of chemistry and physics are maleable and changed over time it would be detectable when gazing at astronomical bodies billions of light years away. Astronomy has given us evidence that processes in the past are the same that affect us today. The evidence for mutation is written in each organisms genome, and the evidence for specialization and competition is written in the fossil record. Do you have evidence that what affects physics and chemistry today was different in the past? If not, this is an ad hoc hypothesis.
quote:
I am perfectly content with taking the scientific discoveries and ascribing them to the work of a Creator. If your ilk is honest when you claim the evidence is presented as Divine neutral then what possible objection could you raise ?
The objection that you are ascribing a creator for natural phenomena without evidence. This is how science is objective, it works with natural phenomena that everyone can experience, as compared to personal revelation. Science does not judge on the existence of a diety, but it does argue against supernatural causes for natural phenomena. The diversification of species is a natural phenomena, unless you can show the supernatural emergence of species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-09-2004 10:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-15-2004 7:34 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 276 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-19-2004 11:56 PM Loudmouth has not replied

q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 299 (86228)
02-14-2004 3:32 AM


What's so intelligent about the pyramids? They built a scale model and then did the real thing. It's impressive, but I think sending a space ship to mars is a little more challenging.
They show cave man paintings and talk about how smart the cave men were too. So why were they living in caves instead of apartments on fifth avenue? Maybe the opera is better over on the cave side of town.

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 269 of 299 (86498)
02-15-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by MarkAustin
02-13-2004 4:25 AM


Re: Pyramidology
Negative Mr. Austin :
The outer limestone block casings that made up the exterior of the Pyramid were stripped off by Moslems to make their Mosques with. These limestone blocks were found to extend beneath the base. Scientists discovered these blocks and projected up from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by MarkAustin, posted 02-13-2004 4:25 AM MarkAustin has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 270 of 299 (86507)
02-15-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by NosyNed
02-13-2004 10:48 AM


Re: Pyramidology
The point about the "inch" is that the Sacred and British/American inch are just one fiftieth of an inch apart. That is the variation over thousands of years.
For you to quickly accuse someone of making up reveals your ignorance in the subject.
You also failed to address the general evidence of the differences in the two scenarios (Evolution/Creation)
How does the evolutionary scenario of slow gradual improvement account for the ultra-intelligence of the Pyramid designer and builders ?
Did you know that the sides of the Pyramid are indeed slightly concave/curved ? If you extend this curvature into a circle the circumference of the circle drawn will be the exact circumference of the Earth.
When did modern man discover the exact circumference of the Earth ? I can tell you that until space flight we did not know for certain.
I do not want to go on about the Pyramid. My point is that the Pyramid and its wonders are accounted for in the Biblical record. The evolutionary scenario cannot incorporate micro burst of intelligence if it says man's ascent was always gradually upward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2004 10:48 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2004 9:26 PM Cold Foreign Object 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