Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 436 of 687 (523353)
09-09-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by ICANT
09-09-2009 2:23 PM


Re: Talking about
I can't adjust the pulse rate.
I know. But you didn't earlier today. You wrote immediately before:
To adjust my clock to operate on a satellite I have to adjust the pulse rate to account for the environment it is going to be in.
Now you realize you can't adjust the pulse rate. Good, you learned something.
Is time running faster on the satellite?
Or
Does gravity/acceleration and relative velocity change the pulse rate to make time appear to run faster on the satellite?
Both, except it's not "appear to run faster". It does indeed run faster.
{ABE} These are only true only from the point of view of an observer on Earth.
So whatever causes the difference all I am doing is adjusting the satellite clock so it will sync with the stationary clock on earth
Yes.
In 1949, Godel postulated a theorem that stated…
In a formal deductive system, a [postulate is a] proposition accepted without proof, from which other propositions are deduced by the conventional methods of formal logic.
A postulate is an unproven assumption. If he had proved his postulate, now, that would be interesting.
It's the four-dimensional continuum that forms the Universe and, to us, is most easily described mathematically by three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.
Nice opinion. But I had rather been given the scientific answer which is:
"what is space-time?". Alas, there is no answer, at least not for now, and maybe never.
Why is that answer better than mine?
I'm not impressed by your rebutal either.
What's wrong with it? I pointed out that he used the wrong transformation between coordinate systems, and I explained why the transformation was wrong. If you think I'm in error, explain why.
Still waiting for an explanation.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 2:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:12 PM JonF has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 437 of 687 (523361)
09-09-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 7:17 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
First you have to understand my arguments.
Indeed. First, you have to understand your arguments.
quote:
What you do is jump down my throat.
Because you show that you don't understand your own argument. You cannot justify it, you cannot answer the most basic and simple questions about it, and you will run a thread out spinning in the wind to the point of contradicting yourself simply so that you can continue your automatic response of gainsaying everything that isn't acquiescence.
quote:
Call me odd, but the names od biology books don't strike me as particularly memorable.
But surely you can look it up. If you're going to claim that there is some grand conspiracy to lie to students of biology, it would help if you could provide at least one example of it. It would seem that you are of the opinion that comparative embryology is a debunked concept in and of itself and thus any mention of common developmental pathways among chordates is tantamount to fraud.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Ontogeny may not recapitulate phylogeny, but the mark of evolution is all over embryological development.
quote:
If you think this makes my claim bullshit, that's your opinion, it won't change the truth of the matter.
Indeed. All I am asking is that you justify your claim. If you cannot, why should we accept it as valid?
quote:
It is hard for me to find the books but I can name them if the seminar is repeated, and then I guess you will apologize? No>? I thought not.
Oh, so close. It is not enough that you name the texts, though that's a start. The request was that you provide the titles and the complete context surrounding the references. Again, you seem to be indicating that comparative embryology is a fraudulent enterprise. Since the exact opposite is true, especially in the study of evolution, we should not be surprised to find mention of the work of Haeckel. An accurate textbook that does discuss Haeckel would explore the concept of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, show it to be false, and then indicate how comparative embryology actually works.
But you seem to think that if the word "Haeckel" appears in the text, then it's immediately to be discarded.
This is precisely the same argument that traderdrew is trying to make with regard to Sternberg. Well, Stenberg claims that he was discriminated against due to his publishing of a non-reviewed article in an inappropriate journal. But investigation shows that such simply isn't the case. You're trying to say that there is some Vast Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth , but you can't provide a single example of it happening.
quote:
The branchial arches are not therefore "gill arches".
Who has said they did? Be specific. Names, dates, and complete quotes in full context, please.
You need to explain why mammals have the same gill arches as fish. The fact that they develop into different structures in mammals is indicative of evolution.
quote:
You can term them what you want
Huh? I didn't come up with the term. Biologists did. It's a physical structure:
On February 29, 1980 (enough of a rarity in itself), E. J. Kollar and C. Fisher reported an ingenious technique for coaxing chickens to reveal some surprising genetic flexibility retained from a distant past.
They took epithelial (outer) tissue from the first and second gill arches of a five-day-old chick embryo and combined it with mesenchyme (inner embryonic tissue) of sixteen- to eighteen-day old mouse embryos taken from the region where first molar teeth form. A fascinating evolutionary tale lies hidden in this simple statement as well. Jaws evolved from bones supporting the anterior gills of ancestral fishes. All vertebrate embryos still develop the anterior gill arches first (as ancestral embryos did) and then transform them during development into jaws (as ancestors did not in retraining the forward gills throughout life). Thus, if the embryonic tissues of chickens still retain any capacity for forming teeth, the epithelium of the anterior gill arches is the place to look.
-- Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes
It is very difficult to evolve by altering the deep fabric of life; any change there is likely to be lethal. But fundamental change can be accomplished by the addition of new systems on top of old ones. This is reminiscent of a doctrine which was called recapitulation by Ernst Haeckel, a nineteenth-century German anatomist, and which has gone through various cycles of scholarly acceptance and rejection. Haeckel held that in its embryological development, an animal tends to repeat or recapitulate the sequence that is ancestors followed during their evolution. And indeed in human intrauterine development we run through stages very much like fish, repties and nonprimate mammals before we become recognizably human. The fish stage even has gill slits, which are absolutely useless for the embryo who is nourished via the umbilical cord, but a necessity for human embryology: since gills were vital to our ancestors, we run through a gill stage in becoming human. The brain of a human fetus also develops from the inside out, and, roughly speaking, runs through the sequence: neural chassis, R-complex, limbic system and neocortex.
The reason for reacpitulation may be understood as follows: Natural selection operates only on individuals, not on species and not very much on eggs or fetuses. Thus the latest evolutionary change appears postpartum. The fetus may hyave cahracteristics, like the gill slits in mammals, that are entirely maladaptive after birth, but as long as they cause no serious problems for the fetus and are lost before birth, they can be retained. Our gill slits are vestiges not of ancient fish but of ancient fish embryos. Many new organ systems develop not by the addition and preservation but by the modification of older systems, as, for example, the modification of fins to legs, and legs to flippers or wings; or feet to hands to feet; or sebaceous glands to mammary glands; or gill arches to ear bones; or shark scales to shark teeth. Thus evolution by addition and the functional preservation of the preexisting sturcture must occur for one of two reasonseither the old function is required as well as the new one, or there is no way of bypassing the old system that is consistent with survival.
-- Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden
A series of embryos of different vertebrates at comparable stages of development. The earlier the stage of development, the more strikingly similar are the different groups. Note that each of the embryos begins with a similar number of gill arches (pouches below the head) and a similar vertebral column. In later stages of development, these and other structures are modified to yield the various different forms. (The embryos in the different groups have been scaled to the same approximate size so that comparisons can be made between them.) (From Romanes, adapted from Haeckel.)
-- Janet English, Evolution/Comparative Anatomy
Modern scientists do not subscribe to the biogenetic law as postulated by Haeckel. However, there are elements of recapitulation that are important in comparative embryology. In 1828, Karl von Baer pointed out that vertebrates share common characteristics during development (see Fig. 3). Examination of vertebrate embryos reveals that during corresponding stages of early development, the embryos appear to be very similar. For example, all vertebrate embryos pass through stages in which they have gill pouches. The pouches eventually develop into the gill apparatus in fish; in later-evolving vertebrates that do not have gills, the gill pouches undergo further refinement and develop into structures associated with the head and neck. Similarly, all early vertebrate embryos have tails, which persist in some animals but regress during the later stages of development of humans. Thus, the individual development of an animal occurs through a series of stages that paint a broad picture of the evolutionary stages (phylogeny) of the species to which it belongs.
-- Suzzette F. Chopin, Biology Reference
Are you seriously saying that because that drawing is adapted from Haeckel's erroneous claim that during fetal development, humans actually become fish and birds, then that means the entire concept is without merit? That there is absolutely nothing to be learned from comparative embryology?
When was the last time you cracked open a book dealing with comparative embryology?
quote:
they are irrelevant rudimentary shapes.
Huh? You mean the structures that become gills in fish and jaws in mammals are "irrelevant"? Are you saying your ears are irrelevant? Your mouth is irrelevant?
quote:
If I need to keep up with science, why do you ask that I proclaim something isn't true if you assume I didn't know about it?
Huh? This isn't the first time that you've been told about the ability to create homochiral molecules. But still, you continue to proclaim the falsehood that chirality is a problem.
But on top of that, you have displayed a common trait among people who are anti-science in general and are creationist in particular: Making statements without bothering to do any research beforehand to validate your position.
Tell us: When you made your claim that chirality was a problem for evolution, did you do any research on the subject at all? When I challenged you on it, did you bother to look anything up? When was the last time you were in a library looking at the journal articles? Heck, did you even bother looking at PubMed?
Now, I'm hardly saying that the entire question regarding chirality with regards to biochemistry is complete and done with nothing to investigate. We still don't know why we have the specific chirality pattern that we do (most everything is left-handed). However, we can create biological molecules in a process that results in homochirality. Thus, chirality in and of itself is not a problem.
quote:
You can do many things in the lab because it is a place designed to make correct conditions, and manipulate the variables.
And thus, you completely miss the point. Last time I checked, we don't happen to have an empty planet untouched by any outside influence and a hundred million years to wait for the results. Of course we're going to do it in a lab. Those results will lead to new questions, new experiments, and new results showing how things can happen.
You're shifting the goalposts. First, you claim that it is impossible to come up with chirality and then when shown that it isn't that hard, you complain that it's being done "in a lab" and hope to high heaven that nobody notices your change in position.
I get the feeling that there is no evidence that could possibly persuade you other than a videotape of the entire 4.3 billion years of earth history showing every single molecule in every single reaction.
quote:
This doesn't evidence abiogenesis in the least.
Nobody said it did. Chirality in and of itself isn't biogenesis. However, it shows that your claim of abiogenesis being impossible due to the impossibility of homochirality is false. You're stuck in a black-or-white mode of thinking: That if any piece of any structure is incorrect, then the entire structure fails and thus the only possible alternative is what you perceive to be the opposite.
Just because we can achieve chirality doesn't mean we have achieved life. Instead, it shows that your claim that life cannot be explained due to the inability to achieve chirality is false.
quote:
quote:
Your argument is that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.
Not surprisingly, that is not my argument at all. I didn't make much of an argument.
(*chuckle*)
You do realize that you just made that argument right now, yes? That your whine about "You can do many things in the lab" is precisely the argument that because we don't know everything, that means we know nothing. Look at your conclusion, "This doesn't evidence abiogenesis in the least." That is precisely what you are arguing: Because we cannot provide you a twenty-minute, step-by-step process to take some simple chemicals and have a complete cell pop out of the reaction chamber, that means we know absolutely nothing, none of the research into biochemistry that shows self-replication, auto-catalysis, and homochirality is worth anything, it teaches us nothing, and provides no new clues into where we might look to find out more about how life started.
Because we don't know everything, you're insisting that we know nothing.
quote:
If you can't see how numerous topics were related to me in yopur initial response, then I question your comprehension.
Huh? I responded to your post. You were the one who raised the issue of chirality, not me. I asked you to provide what you describe as a "logical problem" for evolution and you were the one who said that chirality is a problem.
You will note, I didn't respond to your false logic. Specifically, you said in Message 375:
Evidence is a weak consequent because of the modus tollens
Do you even know what "modus tollens" is? It's known as denying the consequent and it's a valid argument: If P, then Q. ~Q, therefore ~P.
As an example: All squares are rectangles. This object is not a rectangle. Therefore, it is not a square. I'm not sure what you're confusing modus tollens for. Methinks you might have confused it with affirming the consequent: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.
I didn't want to get bogged down in this, so I stuck with the main point: Can you provide a single "logical problem" for evolution?
quote:
You didn't merely respond to my post, you jumped to many conclusions about many different topics.
Name one.
quote:
Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?
Yes. I dare you. I double dare you.
quote:
Can't justify what?
Your claim that chirality is a problem for evolution.
Again, a very simple question: Before you made your claim that chirality is a "logical problem" for evolution, did you do any research into the subject at all? If so, what did you do? What resources did you avail yourself of? What was the process you used to find the materials by which you came to the conclusion that chirality is a "logical problem"?
Will you finally put your money where your mouth is?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:17 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:47 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 438 of 687 (523366)
09-09-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 7:41 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Oh, so the fossil record is bullshit? There is absolutely nothing to learn from examining the remains of the life that existed before we were here?
THIS is why I don't debate you. You are almost lying about me here. Why would I state tthat the fossil record is bullshit
Because your argument requires the fossil record to be bullshit. Your claim from Message 376 was:
I believe the bible's literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts, I only have "doubts" against this, no reasons, other than weak ones that require giving natural processes a 0% interest rate.
But the fossil record clearly denies this. As I said in my response:
Unfortunately, the literal reading of Genesis directly contradicts the observations that we see. For example, Genesis claims that fruit-bearing plants appeared before insects. The fossil record clearly shows that it's the other way around: Insects first, then fruit-bearing plants.
So for you to insist that "literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts" requires that the fact that we do not see any flowering plants in the fossil record until long after the rise of insects to be false. It requires that the fossil record showing the evolution of plants over time after the rise of insects to develop structures that exploit pollinators such as insects to be false.
The literal reading of Genesis requires denial of the fossil record. Therefore, the obvious question is whether or not you think the fossil record is bullshit and provides us absolutely nothing to learn from the remains of the life that existed before we were here.
quote:
I don't deny science
Yes, you do. Insisting upon a literal reading of Genesis requires denial of science.
Genesis says fruit-bearing plants first, insects second.
Science says insects first, fruit-bearing plants second.
quote:
I deny naturalism.
You mean there is no natural explanation for anything? We're back to the question nobody ever answers! Yea!
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote:
So you don't ask questions at all, you simply twist things in all almost immoral capacity.
(*chuckle*)
Since what I do is quote your own words back to you, what does that say about your morality?
quote:
I don't trust you at all.
I don't ask you to. That's why I provide references for my claims. And it's because I don't expect you to trust me that I also ask you to provide the references for your claims since I don't trust you.
quote:
Your motive is to twist everything I say to suit you own hate-agenda
Oh, that's so precious! You think I hate you! You actually think that I have feelings for you. That I actually spend time thinking about you. My word but your sense of self-importance is quite large.
Sweetie, honey, baby, pussy-cat, I don't know you from Adam. I couldn't care less about you. You are not that important.
quote:
I'm afraid your example did not show life coming from none-life in the least.
And where did I say that it did? Be specific. Quote me the exact words I used that even hinted that anything I said could possibly be interpreted to mean that we had a viable model of abiogenesis. As you said yourself in Message 421, "Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?" Yes.
Yes, I do.
I really want you to show me exactly where I said anything of the sort.
quote:
I do believe it is reasonable for me to assume Genesis
Since the fossil record contradicts the timeline of Genesis in pretty much every detail, how can it be reasonable to assume Genesis?
I thought you said you didn't deny science.
quote:
Believe it or not, you do not have to think the worst of me because of this.
Oh, darling, don't worry your pretty little head about that.
I don't think of you, period.
quote:
when we look at the facts of design
Could you please provide a single "fact of design"? So far, we haven't been able to find any. Every single example that has been proferred has been shown to have evolved.
quote:
I concede that an example of a transitional could be a species such as neaderthal man.
Did I just say that Rrhain?
Well, if you were someone who actually followed science, you would wish you hadn't since Neanderthal isn't transitional.
The problem is not that you don't allow for any transitionals. Where did I ever say that you didn't? Be specific. For all your talk about "jumping" and "strawmen," you seem to think you can read my mind. Physician, heal thyself!
Recognition of transitionals isn't an indication of an acceptance of science. Instead, it can quite easily be another manifestation of the creationist insistence on "microevolution/macroevolution." That is, it's nothing more than grudging acceptance of things that can shown right before your eyes and thus would be foolish to deny.
quote:
because you hate everything about me.
Mike, I'm not going to have sex with you.
Please stop asking. I know, I know. And I really am sorry about your penis, but you really need to stop obsessing about what I think of you and simply accept the fact that I just don't care about you.
quote:
I reiterate, I do not trust you
I never asked you to.
And you shouldn't. Don't ever accept anything I say simply because I say so. That would be the argument from authority and not only is it a logical error, but also I hardly claim to be an authority.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:36 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 439 of 687 (523374)
09-09-2009 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 8:28 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
Your argument is that because you don't know everything, then that lack of knowledge means I should believe in abiogenesis
I didn't say that. Where on earth did I ever say anything that even implies such a thing? I certainly don't think we have a viable theory of abiogenesis, so why would I demand that you believe in it? We certainly have some interesting experiments in organic chemistry regarding chemical process that take place in things that we consider to be "alive," but that is hardly abiogenesis.
What I have said is that the literal description of Genesis is not borne out by observation.
What I have said is that Genesis doesn't mention any method by which life arises. Instead, it simply says that life happens.
What I have said is that evolution is perfectly compatible with all methods of origins you could name.
So please tell me: Where did I ever say anything anywhere that even hints that I insist anybody believe in abiogenesis?
What part of, "We don't know," is so upsetting to you?
quote:
which is proven through information you don't have?
Huh? If we don't have the information, how on earth could it possibly be proven? The fact that we can make self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve doesn't mean we've created life (though that does bring into question what the definition of "life" is).
What I have said is that my personal feeling is that resolving the question of origins will be an extremely difficult task. However it happened 4 billion years ago, it likely happened on a very small scale (meaning on the scale of molecules) and since the earth is geologically active, the remnants of that process will probably have long since been scoured over, never to be retrieved.
Even if we do manage to show a way to start with some various organic compounds and process them in a way consistent with what we know regarding the geology of the earth at the time that results in things like RNA synthesis, that still doesn't mean that that's how it happened here on earth. To make that conclusion, we need to find remnants of that process and I highly doubt there are any to be found.
I could be wrong, though.
Note, this isn't an advocacy of abiogenesis. I haven't mentioned a method for how life arose. I simply said that whatever that process was, it was small and the traces of it have been wiped away.
quote:
You think that because you don't know "how" abiogenesis happened, or there is not evidence "yet" of your theory, that I should believe this lack of something favours such a theory?
Huh? Where did I even imply any such thing? As you said in Message 421, "Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?"
Yes.
Yes, I do.
I want you to quote my exact words in complete context that leads you to believe that I am advocating you "believe" in something for which I handily and readily agree we have no evidence for.
Where did I ever say that abiogenesis was a reality? That we have a model for it? That we have any theories regarding it?
quote:
That is perhaps the most stupid argument I have ever heard.
Well, since it came out of your own head, what does that say about your method of argumentation?
quote:
How would objective information as yet undiscovered have a name-tag on it saying, "the theory Rrhain wants to be true", on it?
Tell us, mike: When you read minds, do you have to concentrate upon the person you're channeling or do the thoughts just appear unbidden? Is there a cacophany of voices that you have to isolate?
I love being psycho-analyzed over the internet. I always learn such interesting things about myself!
Since you seem to have the inside scoop on my thoughts, why don't you tell us what the "theory I want to be true" is? Since I know I haven't mentioned it here, I'll be fascinated to see if you have guessed correctly.
quote:
You have forgotten that YOU reject science because you don't believe in steady state or spontaneous generation or monera.
Huh? How is the failure of hypotheses to withstand scrutiny become "rejection of science"? That's the entire point behind science: New observations that shed more light upon reality will cause us to re-evaluate our description of things so that we can have a more accurate picture of what is going on.
Sometimes, such as with steady-state and spontaneous generation, that new information will cause us to reject the entire structure outright. The observations were crude at best and when we finally managed to get decent observations, it became clear that our gross interpretation was based upon highly limited information.
Sometimes, such as with monera, all we need to do re-work things. The previous observations were sound yet incomplete. After all, the division was made because the genetic material isn't in a nucleus. When we found that not all cells with no nucleus have the same evolutionary history, a new division was made. We didn't even know of the existence of Archaea until recently.
quote:
I do not deny any experiments or facts of science.
But you have said that you find the literal Genesis reading to be the most compatible. This is clearly false as even a cursory examination of the fossil record contradicts Genesis pretty much at every point. So since science and Genesis do not agree, why do you reject science in favor of Genesis?
quote:
what I deny is a "claim" that this pathetic little adaptation somehow relates to a claim that every design came from such processes
And if that were the argument, then you might have a point.
But instead, the argument is that since you are the one claiming that there was a designer involved, then it is your responsibility to show the evidence for this designer.
Evolution is not an assumption. It is a conclusion. That's why we investigate evolutionary pathways: It's what allows us to conclude evolution.
And you seem to miss the point: The claim by Behe was that the flagellum could not possibly have evolved in any way, shape, or form; that to remove any part of the process makes the entire thing fail and be of absolutely no use no matter what.
Instead, we find that the flagellum is reducible and does provide function in this reduced state.
So where is your evidence of design?
quote:
even though the facts shows that such bacteria are fossilized, despite replicating thousands of times faster than humans.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
quote:
So basically, your problem is that because I don't share your belief in naturalist theories rather than say a baramin theory, I should reject gravity?
Incorrect. My problem is that because you reject science that contradicts your religious dogma, you are unable to justify your claims.
quote:
Friend, that's so dumb
Indeed. And since that argument came from your head, what does that say about your method of argumentation?
quote:
Why should I go one further and accept unproven things such as abiogenesis
Indeed, why should you? I certainly haven't said that you should. Again, you seem to have a black-or-white response: That the only possible choices are god and abiogenesis and that if even one trait is out of place for one, that means the entire concept is a failure in every possible way and thus the only other option is the other.
But lest you forget, please remind yourself: I do not claim that abiogenesis has been shown, that there is any model for it, or that there is any theory regarding it.
quote:
Why would I deny facts of design I have been shown?
What would these "facts of design" be? So far, you haven't shown any to us. Why are you holding back?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 8:28 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:28 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 440 of 687 (523376)
09-09-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 11:12 AM


mike the wiz writes:
quote:
Now, you get a radio control helicopter with full 3D flight, but at best the energy per-flight ratio is astoundingly poor compared to a hoverfly.
And you don't see anything different between the environmental conditions of a helicopter compared to that of a hoverfly?
Here's a hint: Suppose you found yourself in the same situation as the Incredible Shrinking Man. Do you really think you'd be able to turn the pages of a book? If not, what would be the problem? Would it be a question of the weight of the paper or might there something else going on? Some sort of "dynamics" (and yes, that is a festive clue) that would have a much larger impact at that scale than it does at human scale?
quote:
I think evolution tries to deal with the problem of design but doesn't actually tell us anything useful about such wonderfully different yet brilliant design.
Huh? You mean explaining the process by which the physical traits came into existence, were selected for, and diversified isn't useful?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:12 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 441 of 687 (523380)
09-09-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by JonF
09-09-2009 5:35 PM


Re: Talking about
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
Both, except it's not "appear to run faster". It does indeed run faster.
{ABE} These are only true only from the point of view of an observer on Earth.
I understand the clock runs faster.
I will rephrase the question.
Does the velocity and gravity cause the pulse to change?
What difference would it make if you were on the satellite with the clock?
JonF writes:
A postulate is an unproven assumption.
You mean like the universe beginning to exist 13.7 BYA.
What happens to time when you exceed the speed of light?
JonF writes:
Why is that answer better than mine?
What is spacetime? Is one of the top 10 unanswered science questions.
That makes your answer your opinion which is OK, everybody has one.
JonF writes:
Still waiting for an explanation.
I never looked at the numbers and still haven't. All I looked at was the picture. You got satellites going in very different directions, even crossing each others path's. All the examples with clocks going in opposite directions keep different time. That is all I was looking at and is what I said.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by JonF, posted 09-09-2009 5:35 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:26 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 459 by JonF, posted 09-10-2009 8:33 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 442 of 687 (523383)
09-09-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:12 PM


Time changes
Does the velocity and gravity cause the pulse to change?
What difference would it make if you were on the satellite with the clock?
The pulse timing changes to us on earth.
If you are with the clock it is running perfectly normally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Sasuke, posted 09-09-2009 9:29 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 445 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 443 of 687 (523385)
09-09-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by NosyNed
09-09-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Time changes
nosyned,
this is not going to change his perspective. He is going to be a die hard "born again" christian the rest of his life....

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 444 of 687 (523387)
09-09-2009 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Rrhain
09-09-2009 7:11 PM


Genesis Literal Facts
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
So for you to insist that "literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts" requires that the fact that we do not see any flowering plants in the fossil record until long after the rise of insects to be false. It requires that the fossil record showing the evolution of plants over time after the rise of insects to develop structures that exploit pollinators such as insects to be false.
Since you can't remember the literal Genesis facts I will repeat them for you.
In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In the same light period God created man first.
In the same light period God created plants second.
In the same light period God created all animals, creaping things and flying things. third.
The problem with evolution is you don't have life to evolve.
It is a fact life produces life.
It is a fact that non life has never produced life.
There is life on this planet.
Therefore there had to be a lifeform to beget life.
It is a scientific fact life produces life.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Rrhain, posted 09-09-2009 7:11 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2009 9:44 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 449 by Sasuke, posted 09-10-2009 1:34 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 450 by Rrhain, posted 09-10-2009 2:36 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 445 of 687 (523389)
09-09-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by NosyNed
09-09-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Time changes
Hi Ned,
NoseyNed writes:
If you are with the clock it is running perfectly normally.
So I don't make any adjustments to my clock. I take my clock on the satellite into orbit and it will keep perfect time with the clock on the ground.
Is that what you are saying?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by JonF, posted 09-10-2009 8:38 AM ICANT has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 446 of 687 (523390)
09-09-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:36 PM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
It is a scientific fact life produces life.
Nonsense.
This is an assertion, not a documented fact.
If one discounts the hundreds of thousands (or more) purported deities, for which there is no empirical evidence, then life is not required to produce life.
Rather than arguing that "life produces life" and using this as evidence for one or more of these purported deities, perhaps you could come up with empirical evidence for these deities?
Document that they exist and then we can argue about their purported characteristics, inclinations, and table manners, and whether one or more of them created life somewhere.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 10:58 PM Coyote has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 447 of 687 (523399)
09-09-2009 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Coyote
09-09-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
This is an assertion, not a documented fact.
There are over 260 humans births per minute in the world.
Those are the offspring of human parents.
I think that alone would prove my assertion as you put it.
Do you have one documented account of non life producing life?
Life produce life whether you like it or not.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2009 9:44 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Coyote, posted 09-09-2009 11:32 PM ICANT has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 448 of 687 (523401)
09-09-2009 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by ICANT
09-09-2009 10:58 PM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
There are over 260 humans births per minute in the world.
Those are the offspring of human parents.
I think that alone would prove my assertion as you put it.
Do you have one documented account of non life producing life?
Life produce life whether you like it or not.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it as empirical evidence.
What human parents do now has no relation to the question of origins. What human parents do now doesn't prove anything about origins several billion years ago! You should be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing! Freshmen in science courses have been failed for less than that.
As to whether "non life produces life" -- unless you can produce empirical evidence for one or more deities who could handle the job of producing life, what is left as an alternative?
And as for empirical evidence for deities, so far there is none. Belief doesn't constitute empirical evidence, so beyond that what've you got?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 10:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 7:52 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 449 of 687 (523403)
09-10-2009 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:36 PM


Re: Genesis Literal Facts
ICANT,
icant writes:
It is a fact that non life has never produced life.
It is not a fact, it is assumed. There has never been any evidence to suggest life can't come from non life. Affectivly in much the same way we can presume life came from life we can also safely presume life came from non life. There is no reason to conclude one or the other as true or false. If I am wrong prove me wrong. Prove that life can't come from non life.
Edited by Sasuke, : edit

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 8:32 AM Sasuke has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 450 of 687 (523404)
09-10-2009 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:36 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Since you can't remember the literal Genesis facts I will repeat them for you.
(*chuckle*)
I notice that you didn't actually quote from the Bible. Why is that whenever you and I get into a discussion about the text of the Bible, I am the one that quotes it, not you?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Now, do you or do you not agree that this direct statement of the Bible indicates that flowering plants ("the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself") came along on the third day?
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Now, do you or do you not agree that this direct statement of the Bible indicates that insects ("every thing that creepeth upon the earth") came along on the sixth day?
Thus, flowering plants first, insects second, according to Genesis.
However, the fossil record shows the exact opposite order: Insects first, flowering plants second.
Therefore, for you to insist that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the best explanation of the facts requires that the fact that we do not see any flowering plants in the fossil record until long after the rise of insects to be false. It requires that the fossil record showing the evolution of plants over time after the rise of insects to develop structures that exploit pollinators such as insects to be false.
quote:
The problem with evolution is you don't have life to evolve.
Huh? There is no life? You're not alive? Are you saying that nothing is alive?
Oh! I see! You've confused evolution with origins. Once again, evolution is compatible with all methods of origins you care to imagine. Be it chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing, interdimensionally through rifts in space-time, extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia, evolution doesn't care one whit how life got started. Evolution is only about how life diversified after it came into existence.
Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?
quote:
It is a fact life produces life.
Indeed. What does that have to do with anything? You're in danger of affirming the consequent which is a logical error: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.
If I drop the plate on the floor, it will shatter.
The plate is shattered, therefore it was dropped on the floor.
Well, no...no, it wasn't. Instead, it was carefully placed on the floor and then struck with a hammer.
Just because life can generate life doesn't mean life can't arise from other means. After all, by your claims god created life from non-life. Life had to come from somewhere and thus there is some sort of process by which something that isn't life is converted to something that is.
In the most trivial of senses, we see that every single day simply by the acts of respiration and digestion: Molecules that are not alive are converted into living organisms. All of this happens chemically (or are you saying that there is something going on inside a cell other than chemistry?)
The point is that the process of origins is not the same as the process of replication. Back to the example of the creation of water. When you take two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and mix them at STP, no reaction will take place. It needs a spark to get it going. But once it gets going, it won't stop so long as there are reagents to feed it: The very act of the previous molecules of hydrogen and oxygen reacting to create water provides the reaction energy required to drive the next molecules to react.
The fact that life replicates itself is insufficient to claim that life cannot come from non-life. Unless you are going to insist that there has always been life, then you necessarily declare that life does come from non-life.
We just don't know how.
quote:
It is a fact that non life has never produced life.
Then where did life come from? Your own book indicates that life was created from non-life:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
According to your own book, humans were made from dust.
Are you saying that dust is alive?
Are you saying that life has always existed? That there has never been a time in the entire history of the universe that hasn't had life in it? That the only reason that life is here on this planet is because it came from somewhere else? That would be an advocation of panspermia. Is that what you're saying?
If not, if you claim that there was a time when there was no life and then there was a time when there was, then you necessarily claim that non-life can produce life.
We just don't know how.
quote:
There is life on this planet.
Therefore there had to be a lifeform to beget life.
So you're advocating panspermia?
Was there ever a time when there was no life? If so, then you necessarily claim that non-life produces life.
quote:
It is a scientific fact life produces life.
Nobody has ever denied that.
The Denver mint makes US coins.
That hardly means the Philadelphia mint doesn't exist.
Just because life makes life doesn't mean that is the only way to get life. In fact, your own book indicates that life comes from non-life. Humans are made from dust.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Are you saying dust is alive?
Are you advocating panspermia?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:36 PM ICANT 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