|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debating evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Just for laughs, concede that maybe God created life on earth by fiat three and a half billion years ago. Then start going on about the evidence that life evolved after that.
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SR71 Member (Idle past 6244 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
By fiat? Wouldn't that mean that God was commanded to create us? LMAO
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
yet sirius is an example of a red star becoming a white within the past 2,000 years. Ancient astronomers described Sirius as glowing red in the sky, Yet now it is categorized as white he doesn't know his astronomy too well, does he. check it out on your own, but the star sirius is actually a binary star system. Sirius A is the red giant, and sirius B, the pup, is the white dwarf. Sirius A's apparent and absolute magnitude are much greater than B's is, which is why the ancients say it as a red star.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It is not a red giant. (IIRC). It is blue white.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Nope. Sirius A is spectral class A0 - white or bluish white. The companion is far too faint and close to it to see naked-eye - a ten-thousandth as bright.
The description of Sirius as "red" very likely is because it looks red when it's just rising over the horizon, just like the Sun does. The first pre-dawn rising of Sirius was what told the Egyptians that the Nile was about to flood - the most important astronomical event of their year. It was red at the important moment, but once it was up in a dark sky it was the same color 3000 years ago as now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
thank you for correcting my assumption that it was A was red. astronomy isn't quite my forte, but I find it interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"but my source is NASA and your source is just scientists." NASA is scientists plus political appointees that have no clue about science. There was a recent broohaha about one that was pushing creationist propoganda. Thus just citing "NASA" doesn't mean anything -- he could be citing janitors at NASA for all you know. "Just scientists" - that cracks me up. How about scientists in the field of study that you are debating? A PhD in astrophysics does not mean they know jack about evolution. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I disprove his main points so instead of continuing to defend them, he simply brings in more. This is a common tactic when the argument itself has failed. Note (to him) that every attempt to change the topic is a failure to defend his previous argument. Point out to him that he has abandoned his previous unsubstantiated and now undefended assertion and is now making more of the same. This must mean that he does not have any answer to your points, or he would have presented them. Tell him you will be happy to move on to the next topic if he will acknowledge that. Make it a stock response to his attempts at "the gish gallop" and number them. When you get to 42 let me know what the question was ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How can I go about proof that non-living materials can come together and form a living organism? He keeps telling me that I skip it every time he brings it up. (1) this is not part of evolution. Evolution can start with a single reproducing cell from {elsewhere} over 3.5 billion years ago, and still proceed to the life we know on this planet. (2) this is abiogenesis -- do a google for a lot of information, try wikipedia, etc (3) for my take on the possibilities of abiogenesis see Columnist's Corner ’ RAZD - Building Blocks of Life} {abe} ps -- some references are from NASA ... {/abe} Edited by RAZD, : added info we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
How can I go about proof that non-living materials can come together and form a living organism? He keeps telling me that I skip it every time he brings it up. You can tell him that that particular discussion is waaaay beyond the scope of conversation. It requires an understanding of complexity theory, dissipative structures, and emergent systems. Then throw this paper, Crtuchfield JP, Gornerup O, 2004, Objects That Make Objects: The Population Dynamics of Structural Complexity, as an example. It's acceptable (or should be) to simply say, "I personally don't know - but here's an example of the kind of work being done on the subject. Maybe you can explain it to me." Or words to that effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Have you asked him to explain, in his own words, what he thinks the ToE states and what the basic mechanisms are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4087 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
SR71's Christian friend writes: Some, a verry small few, actualy look to find answers. Those are the ones that end up realizing after comparing the facts that evolution is false. Let me suggest the web site of Glenn Morton, at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm. He's a Christian who used to argue against evolution, but then he had to admit it's true by looking at the facts. He's still a Bible-believing Christian, and a literalist(!), but he believes in evolution. That happens much, much more often than anyone turning the other way, because the evidence backs up evolution, so the actual evidence is only going to turn people one direction. He's a geologist for an oil company. Interesting fellow. I emailed him a bit after I first saw his web site. Very personable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cthulhu Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: |
quote: This is easy to respond to. First, science doesn't claim that humanity has been around since the beginning of the Earth. In fact, studies indicate that Homo sapiens appeared approximately 40,000 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In fact, studies indicate that Homo sapiens appeared approximately 40,000 years ago. Make that 160,000 to 200,000 years ago.160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans There is also evidence that humans went through a "bottleneck event."The new batch - 150,000 years ago There have been several "population explosions" in the course of our past, one associated with clothes, one with refined hunting tools, one with agriculture, one with domesticated animals, one with industry ... in each case a technological innovation allowed greater productivity or greater adaptability. The other thing to note is that population growth is an expotential curve -- not linear -- and only when there is no balancing force. Thus the hominids could have existed for millions of years in balance with the predators and deaths from disease and elements, etc, and then when a technological innovation (say clothes) allowed greater numbers to survive (and breed) longer. Usually when math says something could not have happened which has, it is based on false assumptions and bad calculations. Here we have both. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5777 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Each of my skin cells is probably only a few weeks old. Obviously, I can't be older! Thus, I am less than a month old.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024