|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Unexpected Dates. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days)  Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ************************************************** Which (true) scientific discoveries would those be? Which are the false ones? How did you make your determinations? I would not take the bet that you know more about science than Joe knows about religion. Cheers,Mammuthus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Greetings Hanno
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hanno:
[B]Well, I did say if one is wrong, one has to admit it, so here goes. Seems like I went to war, leaving my amunition(sources) at home. I must admit that was pretty stupid.  . I'm not going to reply to everyting, but here is what I feel I need to clearify.1. With "Unscientific insult", I mean it's not a proper scientific response to through insults. And, if it appears as if I have done so too, I appoligise. It was not my intension. I admit to having been to heavy handed in my responses as well and likewise apologize. 2. It's pretty silly to propose Jesus never existed. The Apostiles based their teachings on witness accounts, and when you read the first chapters of the book of Acts, you'll notice there were quite a view wtnesses. If Jesus did not exist, it is doubtful that Christianity would've existed. It's like saying Mohammed never existed. I don't believe his teachings, but I'm not going to pretend he was a mirage. I don't necessarily buy this argument. Biblical text cannot be used to validate biblical texts. However, I admit using the absence of direct evidence for jesus to get a rise out of you  3. You say the bible is totally unsupported? So too the believe that there is no God. The proof of the existance of God cannot be proofed or disproofed by the natural sciences. Nuture is Gods creation, not God Himself. Similarly, you will not find the proof that a car was manufactured by, say, BMW by examining how it works. You'll just have to trust the label. I think proving the bible true and god true are two different issues. However, one cannot prove something is true. One can find supporting evidence. Once can find contradictory evidence. That is how science works. i.e. you can never prove a theory is correct, for example a theory of gravity cannot be proven. Only supported. However, regarding god, there is no testable hypothesis so it is outside the realm of science. I have never seen any evidence for god and therefore do not believe. 4. I DO know my history, by the way. Evolution and communism was invented in the 19th century. And if you want to be technical, the Soviet Union wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. Communism require that the government to disolve. I placed Evolution after communism, because it was in this order that these ideoligies became intolerant toward ideas chalenging it, while enjoying dominance. (I.e. in America, it is a criminal offence to speak of Genesis in public schools, but evolution is taught to everyone, whether you like it or not. (At least, that is the perseption.) Actually, evolutionary theory in various forms has been around for several centuries. Darwin basically brought them all together. I see no link between Darwinsim and Communism however. One is a theory of speciation and the other is a social political system. Secondly, under Stalin, Darwinism was flatly rejected and Lysenkoism supported. Anyone disagreeing with Lysenko (who was a neo-Lamarkian dingbat) was either censored or killed. As to not teaching Genesis in schools as a mandatory subject, speciation is part of biology which is science. Genesis is a component of a group of religious worldviews. They do not belong in the same class in a school. America is free partially(for the time being) because no one religious ideology (or lack thereof) is taught over others in school. I many people would be outraged at their children being forced to learn native American creation stories in their chemistry classes. 5. Crackheads see elvis, but Elvis doesn't miraculously make crippledpeople walk. He could make everyone dance 6. "I have no vendetta against you either". I'm glad. Now we both know this is not a game of personal insults. However it would be more appearent if you do not use phrases like "Only if by open minded you mean your brain fell out of your right ear." Oh, and ofcause this place is for disagreement. I like to disagree. Point taken. The reason I was wondering why an atheist would be interisted in this debate, is that you know before hand, you cannot be convinced. Likewise, I wouldn't expect someone that believe Genesis 1 is absolute to bother with this debate. (Unless you, like me, enjoy a good argument.) I think you got it with the last sentence in part. I do enjoy a good argument. In addition, I am facinated with other peoples views on life. I also see a grave danger to accepting philosophies based on faith over hard scientific inquiry. It is equally dangerous to religion...Lysenkoism (which was in essence a state sponsored religion) absolutely crippled Russia's biology programs. I am more open minded than what you credit me: I do not have any specific believes on the details of creation, I just have a frame work. I happen to believe in the Big Bang, because it fits into this framework. It might not be your idea of an open mind, but it's more than you'll get from fundementalist creationists. Do you take the bible literally or as a metaphor? There are also christians, muslims, etc who believe in evolution. I am a minority as an atheist evolutionary biologist. Now for my arguments.Acording to the dean of microbiology of the University of Pretoria, Genes has a number of cromosones.(I'm not sure if that is the correct term, but I think you'll know what I'm talking about.) It is (according to him) scientifically impossible for the offspring to have a different number of chromosones than it's parent. It is thus not possible for one animal to have evolved from another animal with a diffirent number of chromosones. Not entirely true. You can cross plants and animals with different numbers of chromosomes and get viable hybrids..this is particularly true of plants. There is plenty of evidence from the various genome projects for large scale duplications and changes of chromosome content even among mammals. Marsupials for example, have an entire portion of the eutherian X chromosome as an autosome. The dreamed up man from a tooth was Hesperopithecus. I'm sure, being an expert in the field, you know about this incident. It incidents like this that made me say evolusionists are over confident. Think about it. If cosmologists found a theory to reconcile Relitivity with quantum phisics (Which is the workings of gravity) It would be thoroughly investicated before being accepted as fact. Very much unlike this incident. Actually, the fraud was discovered by scientists and the data thrown out. It invalidates that data point without disproving the theory. I think it is reassuring that fraud in science is usually vetted out rapidly by the scientific community. Science is not faith based so we do not necessarily just trust each others results...especially if the claims are extraordinary. Then I printed an article of Hansruedi Stutz. (http://www.answersingenesis.org) Now, before you lol, just remember his personal believes is not evidence against him if he does a scientific experiment. He went to Magenwil (Swizerland) and collected sandstone with fossilized mussels from the Upper Tertiary era. Along with this, he also took some samples of coal right next to it. Theoretically, an evolusionist would've assumed it to be 2 milion years old of where it was found. But he went and carbon dated it, and found it to be 36000 years old. Now I do not necesarily agree with his conclusions, but the point is this: I'm not sure if this is true, but sometimes you make age assumptions based on where an item was found. If you work thorougly, however, you sould date every single item you extract. I agree...I find dating surroundings of fossils to be poor in many cases. I work with fossils from the Siberian tundra from time to time and the ground there shifts so much I would never trust a date of a fossil taken from the surrounding soil. And tell me. The human footprints that were found in limestone along with dinasaur footprints near the Paluxy river in Texas. Has that been explained yet, or was it simply ignored? To date, every single example has been shown to be a falsification. Lastly. The dating techniques I still not sure one way or the other. It is based of the deteriation cicles of certain elements in the bones, but how can you be sure what the element ratio was in the beginning? A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year. This must be because there were already of the deteriated material in the Mollusk.(Science, Vol 141 (1963) pg 634) Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801. (Journal of Geophysical research Vol 73 July 15, 1968, Pg 4601) You would note, not all these are creationist sources. As I said, I'm not going one way or the other on the dating techniques. Not yet, anyway. Can you explain these contradictions? Please don't tell me this is Creationist hog wash. If it is, please proof it then with more rational explanations than "this is the work of a crank". Somehow, if you say that, I get the feeling you've got something to hide. Actually, as a molecular biologist I will let the geologists answer your questions about the various dating methods as that is not my expertise so any information I would provide you would be less thorough...Joe Meert..this is your cue Please exscuse my spelling. If there is typing mistakes, it is because I'm typing in my lunch hour. No problem...I am sure I a great many spelling and grammatical mistakes throughout most of my posts. Cheers,Mammuthus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hanno:
[B]Really, old chap. It's elementary really. I did not want to put it quite so harsh, but since you insist that i clarify this, I will. Simmilar to Communist in Russia, Evolution today is forced down our troughts, whether we like it or not, just as Communist was forced down on the poor Russians. To you it might be a fact, but, for heaven sake, don't force it down on people that doesn't want to hear it. *****************************************************************+ Grammar is also forced down our throats whether or not we want to hear it. The theory of gravity to. Geography for that matter goes counter to what the flat earth society "believes". Supported science is taught. Relgion should not be.__________________________________ Chemistry and Biology is very closely related, yet it is two different subjects on school, and is hardly ever mixed in documentaries. **************************************** Biology is ultimately chemistry. Ever heard of biochemistry? Chemists have to take classes on this subject to. Most documentaries do not go into any detail so I fail to see how this is relevant. An education in science is not built on watching television.________________________________ Why can't Biology and Evolusion not be seperated into two different subjects as well? That way, anyone interested in nature do not have to listen to evolution if he doesn't want to. And foalla, everyone is happy. *************************************************** Because evolution is a part of basic biology. Anyone interested in nature should actually LEARN about it rather than ommitting the parts they do not like. Allowing education standards to deteriorate and voila nobody is happy...everyone is uneducated. ________________________________________ Unlike other sciences, evolution does not contrubute very much to the modernisation of society, so why is it important anyway? Astronomy, on the other hand, will one day become very useful when we start colonizing other planets.***************************** LOL!!!!!!!Ever heard of biotech, the human genome project, molecular medicine...no evolution and these subjects go bye bye. Evolution contributes much more to modernasation of society than religion does. Religion keeps society from progressing because it attempts to supplant science with church dogma based on myths regardless if those myths are false.__________________________ There is to date still no rational explination as to HOW evolution occurs in the first place. Don't tell me it's mutations. No random mutation can be positive. I'm a programmer. If someone who doesn't know a thing about computer languages come and randomly change something in my code, the chance is 99.999999999999999999999% that it will case an error. Now the human gene is a billion times more complex than my computer programs.*********************************************** Why should I have to tell you what evolution is? Obviously if you are here to criticize it you have read up on the subject extensively and are aware of the current state of the field Since you MUST have please show all the citations to experimental support that "no random mutation can be positive".____________________________________________ What is more, unlike my program, each gene control many parts of the body.************************************** Sorry Hanno but that is incorrect thus the rest of your paragraph is also incorrect.________________________________________________ So in the very rare occurance that a gene has a positive change, it will also have quite a few negative effects. The overall efect will be negative. Also it still has to be proven how a mutation in one animal, can be transfered to the entire specie. Usually, they disappear or fade in following generations. There probably is a nice sounding theory, but has it been proven on large animals?************************************** A) why would it have more meaning if it is demonstrated in a large animal versus small? DNA has the same molecular weight in both.B) If I give you references will you read them? _____________________________________ The process of exactly HOW evolution occures is pure speculation, and there is no experiment performed to date that successfully demonstrated this process. There is also no explanation why evolution would simply stop in some species, such as the shark and jelly fish.******************************************************** Evolution has not stopped in sharks or jellyfish. You keep making statements that are false Hanno. Have you actually ever researched any of the subjects you are bashing or does it just feel good to make incorrect and false assertions? Are you that unsure of your beliefs that you have to misrepresent evolution?**************************************************** Why is there not a single shred of evidence of a transitional form, both today or in the fossil records************************************ Would that single shred mean the thousands of fossil finds? Or what do you mean by transitional? Define the term.______________________________________ I know that the newest theory says that evolution happens in leaps, but surely not within a single generation? ************************************************* Punctuated equilibrium is niether the newest theory nor does it propose that the "leaps" occur in a single generation....the actual theory is easily accessible if you chose to actually read what it proposes._________________________________ Then with all the millions of changes there was in animals, surely some of those must have been preserved? Surely, at the very least there sould be one?******************************** Not sure what you mean here....99% of our genome and a huge number of morphological and behavioral features are shared between us and chimpanzees...this is a lot more than one (this is also just one example among thousands).____________________________________ And when we take the evolutionary tree. You have skeleton thats 200 million years old and then one totally different 150 million years later, and then they are charted as relatives. What proof do you have of this?***************************************** If you would bother to learn anything about morphology you would not have to ask this.__________________________________________ Is there still some dna left in the bones? Maybe, it evolved from something totally different, something that was never fosilized.************************************** In some fossils (up to about 50,000 years old) DNA has been retrieved i.e. mammoths and neandertals. The basic principles of comparative DNA analysis and morphological comparisons are the same. I also think you are mis-using the term evolved from. They are similar because they shared a common ancestor....we did not evolve from neandertals...we shared a common ancestor. Elephants did not evolve from mammoths. Loxodonta africana (African elephant), Elephas maximus (Asian elephant) and Mammuthus primigenius (woolly mammoth) evolved from a common ancestor in Africa approximately 5 million years ago.______________________________ So there has been experiments which describe how the first molecules found in live were formed. But that is still a huge leap between organic molecules and a singe cell live form. On the transition from dead molucules, to single cell organisms, there is quite a bit on explaining to do.******************************************** Yes, and this has nothing to do with evolution...the topic you are referring to is abiogenesis. The "huge leap" is evolution over a "huge" amount of time. _______________________________ Let us discuss how the creatures with two sexes evolved from something that can procreate on its own. What does a creature look like with one and a halve sex? Surely this transition must have been a long process. But then why would creatures have developed two sexes in the first place, if the original form could've procreated on its own? And why two sexes, and not more?************************************** This is an entire research discipline...even a cursory database search will turn up hundreds of hits on this subject. As to a third sex...ever hear of hermaphrodites? C. elegans ( a worm) can reproduce sexually or clonally by self fertilization. Organisms that reproduce sexually have a huge advantage in that they can generate and transmit variation by recombination of genes. Bacteria cannot due this but supplement their clonal expansion via a (pre-sex if you will) mechanism called conjugation by which they can transfer genetic information horizontally i.e. antibiotics resistance.__________________________________________- Lets talk about that one thing many people that believe only in the laws of science want to avoid. Your self conciousness. Surely if you would arange (dead) atoms in some magical way, they become not become self aware?************************************** If a computer A.I. is developed that is self aware then dead atoms have been "magically" arranged to be self aware. Again, another entire field of research with literature you could look up and read and inform yourself on. And are you sure you are self aware _________________________________ People that believe in the New age movement says everything, even rocks lives. In that case, I can understand. But if atoms are dead (which I believe they are)? If you could make atoms self aware, why am I, I? Why was my "awareness" born in this body, and not in another? Yes the brain is incredibly complicated, and it's programmed with several processes, BUT If I program a computer to ACT human, it doesn't mean it IS alive. It is still just a bunch of variables, unaware of itself, moving around as it was programmed to do. If that is what was going on in my brain, I would ACT self aware, but would I BE self aware? The point I'm making is the evidence of a soul. Something that can not be the result of the organisation of matter. You can understand new agers that think rocks are alive? Since you say it is not possible and do not define your terms there is not much to say here.____________________________ Just a bunch of thoughts. Use it, don't use it... I look forward to your reply to them. Oh, and I just thought of something else: The larger and complicated someting is, the less likely it is that a random change would be positive. Therefore, it can be argued, since evolution is explained by rare positive changes, it could be expected that the more complicated a creature, the slower it would evolve. But, instead, if we look up the evolution table, evolusion seems to accelerate rhe close you get to now. Why is that?***********************************************+ What evolution table? What evidence is there that evolution is more rapid now than before? Define "more complicated". Of the 3 billion base pairs of human DNA only about 3% seems to do anthing...8% is made up of endogenous retrovirses...random mutations in those usually have no effect on phenotype and are neutral. Why would a mutation in an Alu element cause problems? No offense but you really should research the topics you are interested in debating before stating that the answers are unknown or impossible. Good luck with your deadline and hope to hear from you next week. Cheers,Mammuthus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
