let me pull out a good 'ol Popper from the philosophy bag of all things spectacular:
tuffloud: what would it take for creationism to be proven wrong?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
“Why doesn’t the atom fly apart?” Scientific knowledge says it should, but it doesn’t. Some scientists are wondering what puzzling power, completely unknown to them, is holding it together. The Bible says that mysterious power is the Creator, God Himself.
[/quote]
Sorry to contradict you, but this is not the case. Scientific knowledge says that the atom should not fly apart, because it is held together by the strong nuclear force.
The Bible comes up way short as a science textbook. For one thing, it is not very big on equations. For another thing, and I think I tried to tell you once before: when the answer to every question is “God” you get a very dull and useless sort of science.
So instead, in science we say we’d like to understand better what the strong nuclear force is, and where it comes from.
Sure it comes from God, but we’d like to know a little more about exactly how God does it. You don’t mind, do you?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
We will mention three items only
[/quote]
Is that a promise?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
We will mention three items only
[/quote]
That’s a rather suspiciously editorial “we” there. Are you just cribbing this stuff from elsewhere on the net, then?
Big Bang. But WTF was before?
And WTF was before WTF was before Big Bang? You know, everything must have a beginning… Can’t anyone see this all makes no sense?
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
True science is always in harmony with the Bible because God is the author of both.[/quote]
This is the most retarded thing you have posted yet. And that’s saying something. You make me feel like I’m picking on a handicapped person when I answer your questions in my usual snarky style.
GOD DID NOT INVENT SCIENCE!!
LOL you are so goofy!! Please cut and paste from some other source, I have to do abs today, and you’re pre-exhausting me from laughing at the lunatic crap your posting.
The talkorigin.com guys already had their way with little Robert. Gentry is dead wrong. Just like the rest of the creationists… what a shocker.
You (or rather, the guy you cut-n-pasting from) have no idea about molecular biology. At all. We have known that the cell was “vastly complex” for a very very long time now. Your arguments against complex order arising from chaos have been, and will continue to be debunked:
This is reality. Sorry it’s not what you wanted, but tough.
[quote]3. The widely different ages now being assigned to the Grand Canyon layers by current scientific measurements, as opposed to those assigned previously, make evolutionists and their prior measurements seem reckless and irresponsible. The atheistic theory of evolution that humans and apes came from common ancestors scorns the concept that people were created in the image of God. It denies the existence of God, totally disavows Jesus as Saviour, negates the Bible, and ridicules the truth of an eternal home in heaven. Satan loves the evolution theory because it destroys the credibility of salvation. Communists are learning. Will we?
[/quote]
Again with not wanting to be a monkey. Do you understand what the heart of your argument really is? You are conceited. You cannot fathom the idea that you are just another type of animal, can you?
BIG HINT: We are not the only sentient animal on this planet. The bottlenose dolphin is sentient, and we have more and more evidence to point to the orangutan and chimpanzee to be sentient, as well.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
You are not special. Sorry. Good luck with that pride thing, I’m not going to be on the forums for the next few days. Try not to bump into anything pointy, okay?
Tuffloud,
could you at least stick to claims neodarwinists actually make?
-
Who says life started with a single cell? Complete with DNA (digitally encoded, with a double helix?)?. Err, actually noone except creationists creating an argument that was never made, that can be ridiculed easily.
-
Can we show one single macromutation. Actually, no. Dawkins, someone you might have come across in your research on evolution explains in detail why. BUT, neodarwinists claim that a LOT of micromutations can pretty much look like a macromutation in the course of time.
-
You might even find a theory there why it is sometimes impossible to find a missing link.
-
As for the argument “the bible speaks the truth, because it says that it speaks the truth…” …sigh…
-
As for the theory of evolution is crumbling… I hate to be the one to tell you this, but no. A very small part of America thinks that it is, but America is actually a rather small part of the world and I can personally guarantee you that in Europe it is still going strong. In most other non-christian countries christian creationism it is not even an issue…
Theory: “tuffloud” is actually an A.I. program written by some aspiring doctoral candidate, possibly at Stanford, UCI, Carnegie Mellon, or M.I.T. Or maybe we are talking a bored Summer intern at Microsoft Research.
Harking back to the “Parry” program created by Colby in the seventies, the general approach has been sharpened up with modern conveniences: an improved natural language front end and a connection to the Google search engine.
Like Parry, “tuffloud” is a brilliant set piece that exploits a carefully limited domain of discourse and a relatively small repertoire of behaviors, made more believable with an accompanying story that explains diminished capacity.
Wow, tuffloud, you damn near passed the Turing test.
What about the Challenge of Complexity to Evolution
One of many problems challenging today’s scientists involves the sheer complexity of the world around us. Common sense tells us that the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Consider an example.
There are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life. Three decades ago Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life. The calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny that it is considered mathematically impossible.He assumed that this molecule had the opportunity to develop by natural chemical reactions on 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1020) “hospitable” planets over a period of four billion years. What are the chances that a single DNA molecule formed? By his estimate, one in 10415!
Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts. Let us focus on the example of reproduction.
According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent’s reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.
Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the “first mother” of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed “first father”? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?
In even a single species, the odds against this reproductive interdependence coming about by chance are beyond measuring. The chance that it arose in one species after another defies reasonable explanation. Can a theoretical process of evolution explain such complexity? How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning?pointing to an intelligent Planner.
Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.” Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”
and once again…
Evolution is not random, and not purposeless and yes the chance that a DNA doublehelix emerges suddenly are infinitely low…
Since neodarwinism never stated that evolution is random OR purposeless, and since noone ever said that DNA appeared spontaneously, what?s your point?
You are debunking arguments that allready have been debunked by scientists (or have never been made in the first place) and are no longer part of the theory.
[quote]Black Thorn wrote:
Big Bang. But WTF was before?
And WTF was before WTF was before Big Bang? You know, everything must have a beginning… Can’t anyone see this all makes no sense?
[/quote]
Sorta like the sound of one hand clapping, eh?
No prior time exists, would be the best way to put it, possibly. Remember that time is merely another dimension, and that the universe is finite - though unbounded. It is bounded toward the past by the Big Bang event, but any bound in the direction of the future is unknown at this point.
So you don’t need to worry about those WTFs.
[quote]rancho wrote:
Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life.[/quote]
Since we don’t know yet what the process looked like, a calculation of the odds is premature to say the least. Chances are good that the step just prior to spontaneous formation looked very, very different from what Dr. Salisbury assumed.
One would like to see some input from elsewhere than Utah State, but elsewhere they have more sense than to go on record in the face of such gaps in knowledge.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
tuffloud wrote:
Lothario,
You just can’t seem to answer my question. I’ll make it really simply, a one word answer.
Human evolution in the science community is proven to be fact. True or False.
I’m at work right now. Give me a second, okay?
An answer to your question:
Evolution, in the science community, is the most tangible reason for the origin of species, the development of life over time, and the best possible explanation for how and why the human being came to be.
It is not a fact in the scientific sense, but in common sense. There is a difference between the two, which you seem to not understand. The mechanism to describe Gravity, as pointed out by endgamer and Xvim, is not even a so-called FACT in the scientific sense, and yet, if I let go of my beer, it will drop on the ground and I will be pissed off. Just like if I let some planet in the right conditions somewhere hang around for a few billion years, I will come back and find life everywhere. It happens. What we are trying to figure out, much like Newton and Einstein, is how exactly it does.
As I have posted a bunch of other times, there is some debate still raging in the genetic research fields about this. Whether or not evolution actually takes place is a given.
This is the part where I say “Duh!”[/quote]
You could have just said “false” and made it a little easier on yourself.
Also, I am currently on paid family leave. How in the world do you and endgamer come up with all this time to sit on the internet and try and prove someone you don’t even know wrong.
My reason is that I have the time right now given my current situation, and spreading God’s word is a great thing to do.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Theory: “tuffloud” is actually an A.I. program written by some aspiring doctoral candidate, possibly at Stanford, UCI, Carnegie Mellon, or M.I.T. Or maybe we are talking a bored Summer intern at Microsoft Research.
Harking back to the “Parry” program created by Colby in the seventies, the general approach has been sharpened up with modern conveniences: an improved natural language front end and a connection to the Google search engine.
Like Parry, “tuffloud” is a brilliant set piece that exploits a carefully limited domain of discourse and a relatively small repertoire of behaviors, made more believable with an accompanying story that explains diminished capacity.
Wow, tuffloud, you damn near passed the Turing test.[/quote]
What?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
rancho wrote:
Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life.
Since we don’t know yet what the process looked like, a calculation of the odds is premature to say the least. Chances are good that the step just prior to spontaneous formation looked very, very different from what Dr. Salisbury assumed.
One would like to see some input from elsewhere than Utah State, but elsewhere they have more sense than to go on record in the face of such gaps in knowledge.[/quote]
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another.
The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."
tuffloud, read at least dawkins books before you attack claims YOU THINK neodarwinists have made.
Because, and you might be surprised, in a lot of things he agrees with you.
Those ideas you attack and find hard to believe either never were part of neodarwinism or have been debunked decades ago.
You do not disagree with the theory of evolution but with your idea of it. That would be like me critizising the bible by simple making stuff up and citing passages that were never in the bible in the first place and then critizising those passages I made up myself.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Theory: “tuffloud” is actually an A.I. program written by some aspiring doctoral candidate, possibly at Stanford, UCI, Carnegie Mellon, or M.I.T. Or maybe we are talking a bored Summer intern at Microsoft Research.
Harking back to the “Parry” program created by Colby in the seventies, the general approach has been sharpened up with modern conveniences: an improved natural language front end and a connection to the Google search engine.
Like Parry, “tuffloud” is a brilliant set piece that exploits a carefully limited domain of discourse and a relatively small repertoire of behaviors, made more believable with an accompanying story that explains diminished capacity.
Wow, tuffloud, you damn near passed the Turing test.[/quote]
I nominate that as the funniest post of the entire thread.
[quote]tuffloud wrote:
lIf everything is so definate like you say, why isn’t evolution excepted as a fact in the science community? If everything is spelled out so clearly in the fossil record, why is it still not a fact even in science?[/quote]
Because scientists aren’t closed minded like creationists…
[quote]rancho wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
rancho wrote:
Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life.
Since we don’t know yet what the process looked like, a calculation of the odds is premature to say the least. Chances are good that the step just prior to spontaneous formation looked very, very different from what Dr. Salisbury assumed.
One would like to see some input from elsewhere than Utah State, but elsewhere they have more sense than to go on record in the face of such gaps in knowledge.
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another.
The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."[/quote]
The fact is that evolution is accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and the only “controversy” about evolution among scientifically illiterate folks in school boards and other elected offices.
What about frogs that can spontaneously change sex when one gender becomes overly dominant? Isn’t this a form of evolution based on environmental conditions?