|
Author
|
Topic: Upside-down Day
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: The Cardinal difficulty of TOE
I don't think the first living forms had minds. How is it that we do? The evolution of intelligence is merely the result of biology adapting to an existing ordered world. The potential for intelligence thus existed due to the fact of an ordered world and the ability for biological adaption to occur via natural selection. In one sense, you could say it was inevitable since genetic changes conferring intelligence would be a selective advantage. As far as in-born intelligence or IQ, we know how it gets here. It arrives via genes, and a better genetic combination due to variation acted upon via selection produces more intelligence provided intelligence is a selected advantage. The brain or any biological system has parts adapted for processing information, as simple life forms became more and more complex, more complex processing arose until we see the human brain.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by robinrohan, posted 08-23-2005 10:45 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 62 of 83 (236389)
08-24-2005 10:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
08-23-2005 5:34 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
So you are saying with a world-wide flood with huge amounts of waters mixing, that we should not see human remains, artifacts, etc,...mixed in with dinosaurs and mammals? Surely you are not serious about this. If your scenario were true, we would see dinosaur bones in some areas mixed in with human remains, and see no geologic column but all the different layers jumbled up, with sometimes humans at layers below dinosuars and sometimes vice versa, but nothing even approximating a geologic column.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2005 5:34 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 10:42 AM | | randman has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 63 of 83 (236392)
08-24-2005 10:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
08-24-2005 10:19 AM
|
|
Re: irreducible complexity
So you still can't explain why our "natural bridge" are "irreducibly complex" nor can you deal witht he fact that the Type III secretion system developed from the flagellum.
quote:
But since you are claiming ID will replace ToE, can you show us some ways that ID offers a testable mechanism
ID isn't the sort of theory that produces detailed explanations. But design is certainly testable - Dembski has shown how to detect Design in his lauded - and peer-reviewed - work The Design Inference.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 10:19 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 64 of 83 (236394)
08-24-2005 10:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by randman
08-24-2005 10:27 AM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
quote:
So you are saying with a world-wide flood with huge amounts of waters mixing, that we should not see human remains, artifacts, etc,...mixed in with dinosaurs and mammals?
You shouldn't see creatures that didn't live together mixed up together.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 10:27 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 10:48 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 65 of 83 (236397)
08-24-2005 10:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
08-24-2005 10:42 AM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
You shouldn't see creatures that didn't live together mixed up together. Prove it, and more to the point, why in the world would mammals not occupy the same habitat as dinosaurs? You are just making wild, unfounded claims. Certainly today, we see crocs and gators occupying the same habitats as mammals. If these creatures lived at the same time, they would occupy some of the same habitats and be buried together in the Flood.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 10:42 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 11:10 AM | | randman has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 66 of 83 (236410)
08-24-2005 11:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
08-24-2005 10:48 AM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
Crocs and aligators aren't dinosaurs. And to dney that different animals are found in different places would be foolish. Even in the modern world that is not true (how many marsupials do we find outside of Australia ?). And we can't be sure that the pre-Flood world was like the modern world. It's your argument that they must have mixed together - prove it !
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 10:48 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 3:11 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 67 of 83 (236497)
08-24-2005 3:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
08-24-2005 11:10 AM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
Can you show me an environment where reptiles do not coexist with mammals? Keep in mind the entire surface was flooded. So we should see massive areas inundated with lots of fossils. I have heard YEC claims on large whale fossilization events and other claims, but I have never heard you guys explain why dinosaurs would not be buried with mammals. The claims they lived in different environments is bogus because we don't see that today. Hippos, for example, live in areas with crocs and other reptiles. What you are saying does not make sense? What is the YEC defense here?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 11:10 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 5:08 PM | | randman has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 68 of 83 (236544)
08-24-2005 5:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
08-24-2005 3:11 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
quote:
Can you show me an environment where reptiles do not coexist with mammals?
I can show you lots of environments where dinosaurs don't coexist with mammals ! Can you show me one where they do coexist ? And an you show that the pre-Flood world would have been the same ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 3:11 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:19 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 69 of 83 (236552)
08-24-2005 5:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by PaulK
08-24-2005 5:08 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
PaulK, all you are doing is dodging every point raised. Show me the current environment containing living dinosaurs where no other modern species live. Show me where large reptiles live today and no modern mammals or even modern fauna? You are just dodging here. You also are ignoring the bridge example, restated below.
Michael Behe claims that many biological systems could not have evolved because they are irreducibly complex: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Darwin's Black Box, p.39 This wooden arch comes from Edmund Scientific. By this definition, a Roman Arch is impossible to build, because it would always fall down before being completed. Yet it is clear that such arches could form in nature without an intelligent agent. For example, a landslide could put a pile of rocks onto a stream bed. The stream may then erode the pile to leave an arch. There are spectacular large arches carved out of stone in the South west of the United States at Arches National Park. (google: Arches National Park Likewise, "Biochemical scaffolding" could have once existed that is now gone. One might imagine that the scaffolding does not have an advantage and therefore the scaffolding must be externally directed, but that would miss the point. In a biological system many variations can appear that have no significance, such as a duplicate gene, but sometimes the variations become advantageous. Eventually they may become required and at this point they would no longer be "scaffolding".
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/behe/ So here is an irreducible complex system that arose out of natural means. Take away part of the arch, and it is no longer a bridge, but the bridge arose not piece by piece, but as a whole as the surrounding area changed and gave it a new function. This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 05:20 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 5:08 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 5:27 PM | | randman has replied | | | Message 71 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 5:29 PM | | randman has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 70 of 83 (236556)
08-24-2005 5:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
08-24-2005 5:19 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
You're mixing up two seperate sub-threads. So far as this thread is concerned. you've presented no evidence that the pre-Flood world would have to be like the modern, post-Flood world. And you've presented no reason to suppose that dinosaurs would coexist with mammals. So you haven't proved that the fossil evidence is against the Flood. Anyway how else do you explain why so many animals should suddenly, catastrophically die all over the world ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:19 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:47 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 71 of 83 (236558)
08-24-2005 5:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
08-24-2005 5:19 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
So you are arguing that a pile of rocks could fit Behe's definition. The rocks in a naturally-formed pile are not well-matched so they fail to meet Behe's definition. The Roman Arch is just another example of design proving that design can produce IC systems. If you know of any natural bridges which DO fit the definition, bring them out.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:19 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:57 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 72 of 83 (236565)
08-24-2005 5:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
08-24-2005 5:27 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
PaulK, it's not up to me to prove or disprove your wild theories. If you cannot explain the data by using the real world, that's your problem, not mine. If you want to claim the pre-Flood world had angels keeping all the dinosuars from mixing with the mammals, and btw, separating the fauna as well, stopping plants from mixing with different habitats, that's your business. You can believe that, but it's not science because you have no evidence of it. As far as mass extinctions, comets, calderas erupting and disease can cause mass extinctions. You have no leg to stand on there. But there is no evidence all these fossils occurred at once, and quite a lot of evidence, such as scientific dating, that these fossils are often millions of years apart in age. This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 05:49 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 5:27 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 6:04 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 73 of 83 (236571)
08-24-2005 5:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
08-24-2005 5:29 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
They look well-matched. Have you looked at them? They are perfectly formed arches, even better than man-made arches in one respect, because the rocks match up better as one continuous arch. The problem with the claim of irreducible complexity is that you can have irreducible systems that emerge naturally, as the natural bridge example shows. So ID theorists have to conclusively prove that there are special types of irreducibly complex systems that could not arise naturally, and ID theorists cannot do that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 5:29 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2005 6:06 PM | | randman has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 74 of 83 (236576)
08-24-2005 6:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
08-24-2005 5:47 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
YOu said that you coudl disprove the Flood. Now you claim that I have to prove that your assumptions are wrong. No, you have to prove your point. Radiometric dating doesn't work. It relies on numerous assumptions - assuming the amout of daughter product originally in the rock, assuming the rate of decay is constant and so on. There are numerous anomalies reported in radiometric dates.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:47 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 6:08 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17827 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 75 of 83 (236577)
08-24-2005 6:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
08-24-2005 5:57 PM
|
|
Re: ToE evidence
Most natural bridges - especially arches are not piles of rocks. If you've got an example that is a pile of WELL-MATCHED rocks, that will FAIL if one rock is removed then produce it and explain how it formed. Until you do that you have't got ANY examples of irreducibly complex systems that formed naturally.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 5:57 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by randman, posted 08-24-2005 6:11 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2