Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:09 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, LamarkNewAge, Tanypteryx (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,505 Year: 3,542/19,786 Month: 537/1,087 Week: 127/212 Day: 43/14 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Debating evolution
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 11 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 76 of 91 (311626)
05-12-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by SR71
05-12-2006 8:49 PM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 8:49 PM SR71 has not yet responded

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 4291 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 77 of 91 (311629)
05-12-2006 9:28 PM


By fiat? Wouldn't that mean that God was commanded to create us? LMAO
Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 05-15-2006 8:05 AM SR71 has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 78 of 91 (311660)
05-12-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by SR71
05-12-2006 11:23 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 11:23 AM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2006 11:20 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 05-12-2006 11:26 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 79 of 91 (311666)
05-12-2006 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by kuresu
05-12-2006 11:05 PM


Sirius A
It is not a red giant. (IIRC). It is blue white.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 11:05 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 80 of 91 (311668)
05-12-2006 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by kuresu
05-12-2006 11:05 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 11:05 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 588 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 81 of 91 (311671)
05-12-2006 11:34 PM


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
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 82 of 91 (311705)
05-13-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by SR71
05-12-2006 10:49 AM


"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.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 10:49 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 83 of 91 (311707)
05-13-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by SR71
05-12-2006 11:23 AM


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 ...


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 11:23 AM SR71 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 84 of 91 (311710)
05-13-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by SR71
05-12-2006 8:49 PM


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 ... :D {/abe}

Edited by RAZD, : added info


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 8:49 PM SR71 has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3947 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 85 of 91 (311717)
05-13-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by SR71
05-12-2006 8:49 PM


Non-living to Living
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 8:49 PM SR71 has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 91 (311900)
05-15-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by SR71
05-12-2006 9:28 PM


So?
Have you asked him to explain, in his own words, what he thinks the ToE states and what the basic mechanisms are?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by SR71, posted 05-12-2006 9:28 PM SR71 has not yet responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 87 of 91 (312059)
05-15-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by SR71
05-09-2006 6:29 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 6:29 PM SR71 has not yet responded

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 88 of 91 (312077)
05-15-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


quote:
(3)The population itself is evidence of a young planet. In 1810 the population was 1 billion. within less then 200 years the population grew to 6 billion. This meants that according the rate at which population grows at a certain rate according to poplation size. Through this study the earth can't even be a million years old.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2006 9:30 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 89 of 91 (312614)
05-16-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cthulhu
05-15-2006 4:26 PM


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.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cthulhu, posted 05-15-2006 4:26 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 90 of 91 (313305)
05-18-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by SR71
05-11-2006 10:50 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2006 7:15 PM Alasdair has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019