|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Applying Science to Past Events | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
> Robert, there is an assumption that underlies all of science. It is that the
> physical laws we know are the same throughout the entire universe and > across all time. Not completely. We can even test for that in many cases. "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Just a nitpick... that's a bad example, because celcius is defined around the freezing and boiling points of water at one atmosphere Or at least, it originally was; perhaps they've quantified it with some more absolute physical constants (after all, "one atmosphere" changes).
"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
... of course, to be fair, the "eat eggs/don't eat eggs" wasn't an issue of scientists getting the data or framework wrong. It was a benefit/risk analysis issue. Each time a new piece of data came in, it shifted the balance toward either the benefit side or the risk side. That is why you kept getting the back and forth. It's not really applicable to a discussion of evolution in which you are challenging the framework. The framework for the egg studies was consistant and reliable.
A good comparison for evolution would be, say, "Are megachiroptera and microchiroptera two separate evolutionary lines that branched before flight was achieved, or are they evolved from the same early bat species?". In this case, the framework is that of common descent with modification. Each piece of evidence that comes in can hint to one or the other, but unless the evidence contradicts the other evidence, the framework stands. For example, when a genetic study comes in that says that megachiroptera are evolved from early bats and do not represent a separate route to flight, this doesn't contradict a morphological study that points out the fact that the membranes of their wings don't extend down to their feet, since this could happen as well under a scenario where they branched after already being flying mammals. Now, if the genetic study had indicated that megachiroptera was more closely related to lizards than to microchiroptera (or even contained a *single* lizard gene that is not found in mammals and was unlikely to just be randomly created), this *would* be a big blow to the framework (descent with modification). Back to the eggs. If an early study comes in and determines "Eggs have lots of vitamins, minerals, and protein", and a later study comes in and says "Eggs have lots of cholesterol", the second study doesn't change the fact that eggs *do* have lots of vitamins, minerals, and protein. Now, if a study came in and said that eggs *don't* have lots of protein, then there would be a conflict, and people would have to reanalyze the accuracy of their protein tests. I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Debates over the implications of new evidence means only challenge a framework if the new evidence doesn't fit into that framework. The simple fact that there is a debate caused by new evidence does not, in the slightest, challenge the framework. This message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2004 12:18 PM "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
It depends. What are you calling "non-intelligent life", and what are you calling "intelligent life"? Give me as narrow of a cutoff as you can, please (i.e., don't just say "bacteria vs. human", if you think "frog vs. dog" is "non-intelligent vs. intelligent".)
"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: But the engineering *didn't* miss it! You missed it! The people on-site who changed it without re-doing the engineering analysis missed it. This is why we do structural analysis before building - because common sense is just way too unreliable. Otherwise, you get extreme tensile stress where you don't expect it, a part fails, and the whole building comes down. "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Wait, you call an amino acid "life"? Interesting concept there. Ignoring that, what do you think about the following, in terms of "non intelligent vs intelligent" Virus vs. bacteriaSelf replicating RNA or protein vs. virus Poorly functioning, sometimes erroneous self replicator vs. well functioning self replicator RNA or protein that tend to catalyze the creation of molecules "similar" to themselves but not necessarily the same, vs poorly functioning self replicator Catalytic RNA or protein that doesn't necessarily create similar molecules, vs. one that does. Noncatalytic RNA or protein vs catalytic one Amino acid vs. noncatalytic protein or RNA "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: And do you know the easy way to identify what age's rocks you're digging in? You guessed it - the fossils. They're consistant the world round,so it's very convenient (note: Archaeologists tend to be a lot more discerning than that). Now why, persay, did the flood order species irrespective of size, density, shape, etc, but only in morphological trends?
quote: They know very well why a given set of rocks hold oil. Different types of rock have different capabilities to hold a liquid like oil. Basement granites, for example, can hold limited amounts of oil in fractures. Most resevoir rocks, however, have high degrees of porosity and permiability which is based on the grain size and shape. Now, whether a layer of rock that *can* hold oil *does*, is based on the history of the region.
quote: And I'm sure you're prepared to demonstate to us where *anyone* has created oil through a flood or by simulating floodlike conditions, or even a mechanism that is chemically valid for doing so.
quote: Do you have any clue what information you can get from a piece of pottery? BTW - why do you never find pottery in coal seams? Or tools, or human bones or anything of the sort? Ever? Care to enlighten us on this one? This message has been edited by Rei, 09-27-2004 04:17 PM "Illuminant light, illuminate me." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote:quote: Well, you really should think about that, now shouldn't you? Because you scoffed at the idea that intelligent life couldn't come from non-intelligent life. If you can't define what is intelligent and what isn't, how can you declare that there's a cutoff? Did you not stop and think about the fact that there are running debates on just where life ends? Initially, science viewed organic and inorganic as distinct worlds; inorganic chemistry could never produce organic molecules. With the synthesis of urea in 1828 by Freidrich Wohler, this notion was put to rest. However, it still was typically seen that you had to have full, complete "cells" to have life. In 1892, Dimitrii Ivanovsky showed that the infectous agent in Tobacco Mosaic Virus could pass through a filter too small for even the smallest bacteria. In 1900, Walter Reed showed the same thing with Yellow Fever. There was an ongoing debate over what really was going on; I have an encyclopedia from 1902 in which they discuss the controversy over what causes rabies - a as-of-yet unknown microbe, or some kind of toxin. In 1911, Peyton Rous demonstrated the use of a virus to cause tumors in chickens, and in the 1930s, the electron microscope allowed direct visualization of virii. People were forced to admit that virii blurred the line between life and non-life. But! They still had DNA/RNA. So, there still was a life/non-life cutoff. Since then, that line has been cut down severely. The SunY self replicator, the Ghadiri group, and about a dozen others are simple molecules that can replicate themselves, given suitable input materials. Some are more tolerant than others, requiring any of a wide range of amino acid combinations; others require very specific inputs (a good example of this would be BSE, which needs a whole properly formed prion as input). Some are more accurate at self-replicating than others, and almost always produce a perfect copy, like SunY; others, like Ghadiri, can mutate and form associated complexes. Etc. In short: What once seemed like a distinct boundary has fallen to tatters. Where do you draw the line? "Illuminant light, illuminate me." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: I hope you will grace us with one.
quote: Not any more. People don't just go randomly dig.
quote: One which they strangely cannot demonstrate.
quote: Exactly which of the three requisites can we not put an experiment to test the hypothesis: 1) Plant and animal tissue2) Water 3) Pressure ?
quote: How hard is it for you to read about oil prospecting? Do you want me to sum up the process for you? Oil from margins is prospected for as follows: a geological survey is conducted in a region with plate activity. The following are looked for: 1. Old layer subduction. 2. "Resevoir rocks" near them. 3. cap rocks (such as muds and clays) above them. 4. A nearby divergent margin, to induce folding/faulting, and thus oil traps. Why has no creationist company come up and blown all of the other companies out of the water by using a flood-geology basic for prospecting? Some of the most oil-rich parts of the world are very religious, after all, and oil companies - especially new startups - are famed for taking risks on where to drill. Why haven't we seen flood-geology-driven wildcatters striking it rich? BTW, it is up for *you* to show that your hypothesis - that oil can be formed in flood conditions - is real. Why has no creationist organization done it? Could it be the fact that the chemistry doesn't work?
quote: I didn't ask you whether information can be drawn from pottery. I asked you *what* information can be drawn from pottery. *gasp*! Don't tell me you're debating about something without knowing anything about it??? This message has been edited by Rei, 09-29-2004 02:21 PM "Illuminant light, illuminate me." |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024