Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

so does evolution, actually. the processes are actually inter-dependent, since both involve sexual reproduction. no, but if you give him a cookie everytime he types something from the bible in the right place, and a spanking everytimes he messed up, eventually, you'll have a very fat monkey, and the king james bible.(yes, there was a spank-the-monkey joke in there)

quantify complexity for me?oh, that's right. you can't.genes are made of four amino acids. all the information comes from the combination of the four. how many combinations of letters of any length are there, limiting the selections to four letter? an infinite amount. and you can get any one combination from a previous combination through duplication of a letter, or changing a letter one step at a time. it's simple mathematical fact.

and you are a prime example. i've given it extensive thought. i find it actually in line with a correct reading of the bible, and completely unchallenging to my faith. who cares what method god used to create? see, that's the fun part of being infinitally improbable. with an infinite number of quantum universes so basically infinite possibilities... it's bound to happen to at least once.and it does not take faith to "believe" in evolution. it takes education, and seeing the facts sometimes, yes.

don't ask me, maybe you're reading it wrong. on the contrary, and i think this opinion will be shared by a lot of people. the more i understand how god works, and how he did what he did, and how small and insignificant we are in the universe, the more i marvel at and appreciate creation. that's actually the cornerstone of my worship practices, appreciation of creation.so uh, your opinion is just frankly wrong on the matter.

quantify information and complexity.maybe you should look up basic genetics, see how variances produce more "information" book, chapter, verse?there's also good evidence in the bible that the earth is flat. how literally do you take it? it says satan showed jesus all of the earth from atop a mountain, and says a few times that earth has four corners. so does evolution. god made humans, who sin and are imperfect. kind of ruins your argument, doesn't it? besides, that's all belief, and not even accepted by all christian churches. were you around for the "paul hates women" discussion? i don't think it's god word that women are saved by childbirth, and so should shuttup and stay home and do housework. who said anything about random chance? natural selection is a SELECTIVE thing, that actually guides evolution. it's not random. blind, maybe, but not random.go pick up dawkins' book, the blind watchmaker, and a read a bit. then we'll talk. because he address most of your standard creationist "monkey-typing" examples. it'd have very little bearing on my faith. just because something is accurate in some sense does not mean it's divine.

here's a question. supposing god got things started, and created single-celled life.how does that say anything about evolution, exactly?

i agree whole-heartedly.

no it doesn't. not at all. that's a falacy of dualism. there are other possibilities, given that science shows that the earth is only 6000 years old. for instance, life might just evolve quicker. or maybe it evolved elsewhere, and crash-landed here in an inter-galactic ark. the second is equally as plausible as the creation story.however, science repeatedly shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. it fits all of the geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and dating methods. how does that prove god in any way? and why not more people who believe babylonian religions, which claimed the same thing? did you miss the part about working as a geophysicist? you think as a geophysicist, working on seismic data, he'd notice something like a giant pocket of water below the earth's crust. this simply ins't found in an evidence. one of the wonderful things about seismic data is that it tells us the composition of the earth. we know what the layers are, how thick they are, etc.one of the great parts about earthquakes is that s-waves do not travel through water, and p-waves don't do it very well. the fact there is a path from an earthquake's focus, clear through the crust, mantle, and back out the crust almost on the other side of the world, where s-waves can be felt, simply disporves that there is any kind of liquid layer beneath the crust.it does however prove that part of the core is liquid, since we don't get s-waves on the opposite side of the planet from an earthquake. but i don't think your flood was molten iron.here's morton's essay on the hydroplate theory, which clearly does show he knows about it: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm no self respecting person studying seismic readings and calling themselves a geophysicist would be ignorant of the process of liquefaction. but apparently the creationists are. here's what one of my basic geology textbooks says:

quote:

---

When unconsolidated materials are saturated with water, earth quakes can generate a phenomenon known as liquefaction. Under these conditions, what had been a stable soil turns into a fluid that is no longer capable of supporting buildings or other structures.

---

basically, it makes sinkholes. the only rock i'd say that we have in abundance that is particularly subject to liquefaction is limestone. the high water table here in sunny florida causes us a lot of sinkholes, something called karst topography. (note this was in his "transformation" essay as something creationists couldn't explain to him)it does not say anything about sorting by density. it just jumbles things up, basically. makes a wreck of things.that, and the fossil record is not sorted by density. the smaller things are on the bottom, so that means they must have weighed incredible amounts! try me.

oh yes, i know, i was just saying that it was closest process i could find that worked on rock. technically, liquefaction is only cause by earthquakes, and only happens to loose sediment. granitic crust, as stated by the hydroplate theory, is just not an option. this rock would not liquify unless you reconverted it to magma.the saturation of limestone in karst top. is caused by high water tables, and then having the water drained away to form air pockets.sorry, should have been more clear.

forgot to add this bit: so it would stand to reason that hydroplate theory says that water is no longer there? i'll take back my earthquake point, i suppose, if you tell me where the water went to.also... why would it be different than any other flood? by suspending rules you're basically setting up something which cannot be falsified. it was a flood, but it didn't look, work, act, or leave evidence of a flood. that's just not valid.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-13-2004 01:47 AM

well, not if you're all-or-nothing fundamentalist. in my opinion, dualism has no place in proper judeo-christian theology.it is the belief that everything in the bible MUST be literally true that causes all of these problems. the logic used to support this assertion is weak at best, especially considering history records many, many instances of humans writing, changing, and messing with holy texts. it's just simple willful ignorance of the facts of the matter. once people start learning about that, it all falls into place.see dawg, for people like us the bible has MORE meaning when you relaly pick at it and think about it. it's good know where stories came from and why, and what they're trying to say. it's fun to compare canonical texts with apocryphal ones. and more so, i think it gets us closer to understanding god.

no it doesn't. you ignored my other possibilities:

quote:

---

for instance, life might just evolve quicker. or maybe it evolved elsewhere, and crash-landed here in an inter-galactic ark. the second is equally as plausible as the creation story.

---

in both instances, life still arises by chance, and the earth is 6000 years old. both are possible without god. but evidence does not support a 6000 year old earth. it would add some validity to the literal interpretation of the creation story that it does not currently have, yes. but it would in no way PROVE it. sounded like it from the way he disproved it. and i proved that it can't possibly be the case today, but that doesn't seem to be what it's stating. it's stating something that cannot be verified in any way, which is not a theory. it's not even a hypothesis at this point, because there's no TEST FOR IT. until the point you come up with a test, it's a BELIEF. nor do people teach raelien theology. or the flat earth theory. what's your point, exactly? school teaches good, solid science. hydroplate theory is not among good solid science. you mean i have to buy something? ha! no. think maybe he's just in it for the money? hypocracy is fun! i read very little on hydroplate theory, and it showed a great misunderstanding of several very basic, observed natural processes. do i have to read more, if it's founded on bad misunderstandings? especially since evolutionary theory doesn't cover abiogenesis. thank you, this has been pointed out and corrected already. i was tryign to relate the process to rock, to give you an example, because that's what the hydroplate theory does. it's even more in error in this respect than i am. liquefaction works on soil. in a static, non-flooding environment, yes, it does. liquefaction is NOT this process. and neither the fossil record nor the geologic column is sorted according to density. no, not even somewhat. we have the smallest creatures in the middle, the biggest above that, and smaller things interspersed from about that range on up.how much do you think a paleozoic trilobite weighed, exactly? i've been interested in geology since the age of three. i'm currently in a required college earth science class. the professor routinely tells students to ask me things. i've been reading geology textbooks and paleontology journals and whatnot since i was a child.so lets talk basic geology.how does a flood lay down angular unformities? how does it create igneous dikes that stop at the unconformities? how does it lay down both the unconformity, and the flat layers on top of it? how does a flood lay down sedimentary layers in some areas, and not others, and still have all of the higher ones relate properly?talk to me when you understand a little more basic geology, and not just what creation "scientists" tell you.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-13-2004 10:21 PM

no, it states that granitic crustal plates floated on a pocket of water about ten miles deep. yes, and granitic crust is not sediment. how is it suspended? granite sinks, last time i checked. you're stating that a bunch of sediment was suspended, sorted by density (contrary to observation), and then rapidly solidified (which doesn't happen). where did the sediment come from?

no, i'm just providing evidence that i have more geologic experience than you do.please answer my questions regarding angular unconformities and prove my ignorance, though.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-13-2004 11:12 PM

well, i IMAGINE if jar is doing that he's a complete idiot since no intelligent person here has ever claimed that theories are absolute facts. i don't think jar has ever done this, and he seems quite competant and intelligent.in science, the only absolute facts are those that are observed. the fact that evolution happens and the theory of evolution are two very different things. the first describes a process that is known to happen, and the second is the model of how that process has shaped life on this planet.