Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,353 Year: 3,610/9,624 Month: 481/974 Week: 94/276 Day: 22/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ready When Made
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 73 (61113)
10-15-2003 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
10-15-2003 10:41 PM


Mike, there have been times of rapid environmental change, i.e., species 'need' to evolve quickly. And they go extinct a lot of the time. What do you expect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 10-15-2003 10:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 73 (61283)
10-16-2003 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
10-15-2003 10:43 PM


And we haven't survived millions of years. Species average a small number of millions of years before going extinct. So in that sense you are right, "we" don't survive very long.
But I should ask who is "we" in the above?
Does it mean all of life? In that case your point has some validity. How close, how many times has life been pushed to the line?
Snowball earth and a series of huge die offs; could one of them gone all the way? It maybe just good luck they didn't.
To counter that. Our knowledge of the range of conditions that bacteria can live under shows that it would not be easy to extinguish all life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 10-15-2003 10:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 71 of 73 (62157)
10-22-2003 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by defenderofthefaith
10-21-2003 5:22 AM


Defender, there are two possibilities here:
1) The concept of information increase and decrease you are talking about here is one of your own invention. In this case you need to explain rather fully what you are talking about. In particular you need to define the terms you are using. The word "information" without adornment in particular is a problem since many will presume you mean the definition of information that Claude Shannon put forward and is used in information theory a lot.
2) You took this idea form someone else. I have read a number of sources that attempt to use this agruement. In none of them is the term defined. If you took it from elsewhere it is possible that your source is deliberately misleading you since the flaws in the arguement have been pointed out over and over again.
Perhaps you could clarify which case it is? And, then, in any case, you could back up a bit and define your terms.
(a short note on your nickname, you are in no way defending your faith if you attempt to use spurious already refuted arguments to attack science. If fact to the majority of individuals, including Christians, you are doing your faith harm.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by defenderofthefaith, posted 10-21-2003 5:22 AM defenderofthefaith 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