Reading books is a good way to learn things, which is great with physics and math today because some of the authors make it really easy to understand something really hard, without actually having to do it. what ive learnt about gauge boson is that they are related to the carriage of the fundamental forces of nature rather than anatomy of matter. Whatever they do they don't fulfill the requirement to be present in matter. Just because they sit on a table that contains the elementary particles that make up all matter doesn't mean they are matter. I also read this about the study of some of them
quote: Their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science
So im surprised to see you venturing away from the world of concrete evidence and dipping your toes into conjecture, welcome it makes the world a softer place don't you think?
Obviously we can both agree that physics is a pretty awe inspiring science, the things it has discovered through the brains of some very clever people make me very excited indeed. I think we should get back to the topic at hand?
Reading books is a great way to learn. As a beginning.
Going to University and study the subject , then do some research, then publish it, where every specialist in the world can read it reject it or accept it, would be a lot better than just reading books and claiming that all those specialists are all wrong.
Reading books is a good way to learn things, which is great with physics and math today because some of the authors make it really easy to understand something really hard, without actually having to do it. what ive learnt about gauge boson is that they are related to the carriage of the fundamental forces of nature rather than anatomy of matter. Whatever they do they don't fulfill the requirement to be present in matter. Just because they sit on a table that contains the elementary particles that make up all matter doesn't mean they are matter.
Here's a little hint for you: if you don't know what you're talking about, you look smarter if you don't talk about it than if you do.
I also read this about the study of some of them
quote:Their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science
So im surprised to see you venturing away from the world of concrete evidence and dipping your toes into conjecture, welcome it makes the world a softer place don't you think?
I too find your hallucinations about me surprising.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
Okay, what would evidence of unplanned changes look like? In my opinion, a change could be considered unplanned if it happen spontaneously (note that doesn't mean "instantly"). Would you agree?
I would agree in the extent that unplanned changes can cause variation between species, which doesn’t support evolution nor refutes the Bible
1. Re-roll all the dice that you have not set aside. 2. Set aside all rolled dice that have the number 6 3. If there are any dice that have not been set aside, go to step 1. Okay, now imagine I've just handed you 100 dice and you're going to follow the steps. You roll them all, set the 6's aside, and keep rolling the rest. Eventually, all of the dice will be sitting there rolled as 6's. Now I walk in and proclaim that because it was impossible for that to happen by chance (100 rolls of 6's), then you must have intentionally place all those dices with the 6 facing up. Realize that all of the dice were rolled and randomly ended up on their 6's by chance. It was the selective process, not the random rolling, that produced the effect that looked like it was planned. So no, evolution is not supposed to happen by random mutation, it is that plus the selective process that makes evolution happen. Because the fittest survive, in hindsight it can look like it was planned so that they would, but really those fitnesses did arise through random chance, its just that they were selected for.
Does each dice in that example represents an individual? Every time you roll the dice one generation goes? If so, how can you have natural selection without affecting the population? Wouldn’t does dices that aren’t number six, the less fit ones, perish in the process, leaving you with, say, 18 survivors (number sixes) after many times rolling the dices? Doesn’t natural selection takes its toll on the less fit?
Or do the 100 dices represent an individual and each time you roll the dices one generation goes? If so, let’s say you have in the beginning a non-winged individual, and after many times after you have roll the dices and many generations (thousands of years if you wish) have passed, when all the dices are number six, you have a winged individual which for some reason is fitter for a given environmental condition. How could in the beginning natural selection favor the individual that has got some dices with the number six (step two in your example) setting aside those dices with number six? Would natural selection, the mechanism to set aside the dices with number six, select an individual with a wing starting to appear? Wouldn’t that be a burden and a disadvantage compared to those individual that didn’t have any dice with number six?
I don't have the same genotype as my parents, I got some of my genes from each of them. And the process that replicates DNA is imperfect, so the copies that are made are not going to be exact, so my DNA couldn't be the same anyway. The phenotypic variety that we see comes from changes to the genotypes. The changes to the genotype that come from replication errors are spontaneous. And that means they are unplanned.
So some of the variety we see is certainly not planned.
You do have the same genetic information that your parents in which they and you have all necessary information required to make a human. If was so in the past and will be in the future, regardless of that variety you mention. any variation will never account to make something different than a human
I agree, some of the variety is not planned, but like I said, not cumulative changes will ever create new species, nor they have done in the past, as evolutionists think
I agree, some of the variety is not planned, but like I said, not cumulative changes will ever create new species, nor they have done in the past, as evolutionists think
Publish your evidence and collect your Nobel prize.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
It sometimes takes a while for new people here to realise that they have to be quite careful about what they say, because we're an argumentative bunch and will pick at things that aren't accurate. It's annoying but necessary to get your arguments organised because at the moment you're saying a number of things that will make umpteen people want to jump on you for an easy kill
I honestly thank you and appreciate your advice. But I like argumentation too and am happy to read and reply those post that arise from thinks that are considered to be inaccurate. I have little experience participating in forums and English is not my first language, but is a good opportunity to learn to express opinions better, I’m not concerned about people trying to jump on me for an easy kill, I am more concerned about having a discussion on interesting topics
The way simple organisms developed into more complex ones is called evolution. The way the simple organisms got here in the first place is a totally different issue. [That is an inexact statement which would ordinarily get me criticised but it'll do for now.] The reason is that evolution happens regardless of how first life started. You can accept evolution and deny abiogenesis (the idea that life started here from chemical beginnings.) God could have planted life here, then buggered off to do something else. It could have come here from another planet by meteor or have been left here by aliens.
The two processes need to be separated in your mind - and your arguments
I see your point but still see them as interdependent theories and see evolution as based on a naturalistic view of origin of life. I know there are theologic evolutionist theories, but they aren’t accepted by mainstream scientists either, and if one believes something like that, still has to leave God out of the picture when dealing with science. If you deny evolution, abiogenesis/panspermia become helpless, no one would expect a mammal to appear from non-life. If you deny abiogenesis/panspermia, evolution loses its base. If a God could create life, why wouldn’t create it in all its variety, like we see in the world?
The other thing to be wary of is that many things that "are hard to get your head around" are also true. Like my wife and quantum mechanics
Evolution is perfectly understood and accepted or rejected by many. God on the other hand, is far beyond what any human can possibly understand
You do have the same genetic information that your parents in which they and you have all necessary information required to make a human. If was so in the past and will be in the future, regardless of that variety you mention. any variation will never account to make something different than a human
So I have all of "information to make a human" plus some more info my parents never had. What puts a limit on the information my future descendants will have? Because the process you describe seems to lead to something distinguishable from current humans unless there is a limit or barrier.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
I see your point but still see them as interdependent theories and see evolution as based on a naturalistic view of origin of life.
You may well see it that way but it's totally incorrect from a science perspective - and that's what evolution is, science.
The Theory of Evolution deals with the Origin of Species not the Origin of Life. That's why Darwin called his book 'On the the Origin of Species' and stopped at that.
If you deny evolution, abiogenesis/panspermia become helpless, no one would expect a mammal to appear from non-life.
Creationists do.
If you deny abiogenesis/panspermia, evolution loses its base.
Which is what creationists believe.
If a God could create life, why wouldn’t create it in all its variety, like we see in the world?
Which is also what creationists believe.
But you've missed out in all your scenarios the facts that simple life could have been put here by a God, by aliens, by a passing comet or - which is the general scientific opinion/hypothesis - it started by itself, naturally as a purely chemical reaction.
Logically the two processes are separate.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
I would agree in the extent that unplanned changes can cause variation between species, which doesn’t support evolution nor refutes the Bible
I'm not talking about supporting evolution or refuting the Bible... (though its telling that those two criteria determine what you're willing to accept).
You said that:
quote:the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance.
And by "chance" you meant "unplannd changes". But I'm still at a loss for what you mean by "evidence of unplanned changes"?
Say there's a coin sitting on a table, its heads; how do you determine if it landed on heads by chance or not?
I say we'd have to see how it got there. We can't just look at it after the fact and determine that.
Does each dice in that example represents an individual? Every time you roll the dice one generation goes? If so, how can you have natural selection without affecting the population? Wouldn’t does dices that aren’t number six, the less fit ones, perish in the process, leaving you with, say, 18 survivors (number sixes) after many times rolling the dices? Doesn’t natural selection takes its toll on the less fit?
No, the dice analogy does not adequately represent how animals evolve, that's not what it was meant to show. The point of it was to show you how a selective process can make chance look designed. If you saw 100 dice that were all rolled as 6's, then you would say that someone put them there like that on purpose, and that there wasn't any chance involved. But if the process I outlined was used, it would still include that chance element even though it would look like it was designed, and that's because of the selective process. That's how it relates to evolution: natural selection makes it look like the results didn't include any randomness even though it did.
So when you look at an animal that is well fit to a particular niche, I can understand how it would look to you like it was designed to be that way. Where you go wrong is assuming that there wasn't any chance involved.
How could in the beginning natural selection favor the individual that has got some dices with the number six (step two in your example) setting aside those dices with number six? Would natural selection, the mechanism to set aside the dices with number six, select an individual with a wing starting to appear? Wouldn’t that be a burden and a disadvantage compared to those individual that didn’t have any dice with number six?
If you want to get into the particulars of the way that things evolve, we should do it in another thread.
You do have the same genetic information that your parents in which they and you have all necessary information required to make a human. If was so in the past and will be in the future, regardless of that variety you mention. any variation will never account to make something different than a human
Would natural selection, the mechanism to set aside the dices with number six, select an individual with a wing starting to appear? Wouldn’t that be a burden and a disadvantage compared to those individual that didn’t have any dice with number six?
It doesn't seem to be a disadvantage for flying squirrels. They can only glide and do not have powered flight.
We could also point to seals which are in between terrestrial mammals and whales as far as their profeciency in water and on land goes.
We could also point to these little buggers, the mudskippers:
They don't have fully formed lungs, legs, or other features for moving about on land, and yet they seem to get along ok. They don't seem to be disadvantaged by having poorly developed adaptations for land dwelling.
My question is why isn't the human belief in God classed as scientific? When the most powerful computer network in the known universe comes to the answer 'God'?
Science : the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/science)
A belief is a feeling, hence not something physical or a method either. Since science on the contrary deals only with the physical world and methods, we can say than belief in god isn't scientific.
Also, no matter how complex the computer, if the programmation is bad or if it's its purpose then the result is wrong. The programming of our brain is done when we learn things, if you learn than 1+1=3 then you'll give that answer if we ask you that question. No matter how intelligent you are. Of course we won't take for granted something like that, but only because we learned than everything we are told isn't always true. If you take a child not knowing math yet and what a lie is, then you'll easily make him believe than 1+1 = 3.
May i know to what subject this topic derived to?^^
I agree, some of the variety is not planned, but like I said, not cumulative changes will ever create new species, nor they have done in the past, as evolutionists think
The problem here is the duration science existed. It has been around for a few centuries at most. But the evolution process takes milleniums to operate. Meaning we can't access to live examples yet and before a long time.
The closest thing we have from evolved species are drug resistant bactery or pesticide resistant insects. They prove than changing is possible for living beings. Another proof are the fluorescent and bigger organism we were able to create. From there to thinking some modifications like the color of the skin, the size and other such little details can happen naturally (which, by the way, we can see in humans themselves - do you think the albinos came from other albinos?), you don't need great effort. What keeps us from thinking than through cumulating, those alterations will end up forming new species from the ones already existing? What is the difference between a cat and a linx? A fox and a wolf? A rabbit and a hare? And a bird from another? I'm not very knowledgable about it, but at first glance only the size and color seems to differ, and probably some minor other details.
On a slightly different matter, the apparition of legs as well as lungs and other organs needed for terrestrial live little by little may seems impossible. That's right, how could an animal with such primitive and inefficient organs escape a wolf or any other predator? To answer that, you need to keep in mind than the first ones to ever aquire those caracteristics were also the first ones to get to land. Meaning no predator. So plants, not needing living food, were probably the first to get out of the water. Then came some herbivorous animals that could then escape their predators while still finding food. And finally the predator themselves could move onto land to escape bigger predator and still have some food. The faster runner would then escape the predator, the slower is catched, or the predator starve. The only one reproducing being the faster runner, the legs got optimised through years upon years of running.
Is such a way of thinking about how it happened that hard to accept?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
