Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Subduction Zone]

You know what's wrong? It's the idea that you actually think yo

Amazing, isn't it? I don't know how many times this thing goes back to immaturity and then rejuvenates, do you? But anyway, they can die, I see, if they get consumed by another fish (I'd hate to eat jellyfish) or if a disease strikes the jelly.
The article also says, "While the process of reverting from its adult-phase to a polyp was observed several times, it hasn’t been observed yet in nature, only in laboratory environments."

I would suggest an edit and an apology. You went way over the line there. I am not the one that is having a difficult time reasoning here. But then fear will do that to creationists.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, just evolutionary biology. And geology. And chemistry. And nuclear physics. And Genetics. (Which all either use or provide dating methods.) And science in general as the axiom "the present is the key to the past” is a rephrasing of one of three basic axioms of science: "the universe is orderly". You can't do science without.

Lol.

You twist meanings, why?
“And science in general as the axiom "the present is the key to the past” is a rephrasing of one of three basic axioms of science: "the universe is orderly".” ??
Such an equation is, besides inaccurate, not what I meant.
(Thanks for addressing the fact that the entire universe appears orderly. How does that happen, in a closed system?)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you get time read this. Since you believe in a creator, why didn't he create all species this way?

Turritopsis dohrnii is now officially known as the only immortal creature.

Immortal Jellyfish – The creature that defies death

4.5 mm! That is tiny!

The info is fascinating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol.

You twist meanings, why?
“And science in general as the axiom "the present is the key to the past” is a rephrasing of one of three basic axioms of science: "the universe is orderly".” ??
Such an equation is, besides inaccurate, not what I meant.
(Thanks for addressing the fact that the entire universe appears orderly. How does that happen, in a closed system?)

The universe as a whole is a closed system. It's entropy is also always increasing. There is no problem with what little order that we do observe.

 

[We Never Know]

4.5 mm! That is tiny!

The info is fascinating.

So why didn't your creator god create us all that way?

 

[We Never Know]

Lol.

You twist meanings, why?
“And science in general as the axiom "the present is the key to the past” is a rephrasing of one of three basic axioms of science: "the universe is orderly".” ??
Such an equation is, besides inaccurate, not what I meant.
(Thanks for addressing the fact that the entire universe appears orderly. How does that happen, in a closed system?)

In reply to a response you received, how is the universe as a whole a closed system? It's expanding faster than the speed of light every day. Expanding into what, we don't know. So how is the universe as a whole a closed system?
A closed system would slow down or stop. So far there is no evidence of either happening.
Now it could be closed within its expansion but as vast as it is, how do we know there isn't anything spilling into it, aiding its expansion?

 

[Heyo]

Lol.

You twist meanings, why?
“And science in general as the axiom "the present is the key to the past” is a rephrasing of one of three basic axioms of science: "the universe is orderly".” ??
Such an equation is, besides inaccurate, not what I meant.
(Thanks for addressing the fact that the entire universe appears orderly. How does that happen, in a closed system?)

I didn't intend to twist the meaning. I just wanted to convey how I interpreted your objection.
When you said that the present is not the key to the past (and you discard dating methods) I read: "The laws of nature were different in the past.". That is in contrast to an orderly universe. In an orderly universe the laws of nature are valid at any location and at any time. (Or there is an overruling law that explains the changes.)
So, to come to a mutual understanding, please explain how you meant "the present is not the key to the past" without disturbing the order of the universe (and still doubt the validity of dating methods).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In reply to a response you received, how is the universe as a whole a closed system? It's expanding faster than the speed of light every day. Expanding into what, we don't know. So how is the universe as a whole a closed system?
A closed system would slow down or stop. So far there is no evidence of either happening.
Now it could be closed within its expansion but as vast as it is, how do we know there isn't anything spilling into it, aiding its expansion?

Some experts consider it an isolated system.

I agree, I believe it is expanding. As one would expect, from it apparently having a point of origin. This also points to a creator, when considering the four extremely finely-tuned forces that’s keeping it orderly to support life.

 

[Heyo]

He said “it was possible”:

And that is "promoting"?

And btw: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia is a propaganda piece promoting a conspiracy theory. (But we already agreed that you are a conspiracy theorist.)
Stein misled Dawkins into participating and Frankowski cut the material to totally misrepresent what Dawkins was saying.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He said “it was possible”:

Because literally ANYTHING is "possible". If you watch the full interview, you see that he immediately says afterwards that it wouldn't even be a true explanation of origins. He is categorically NOT "promoting" panspermia.

Do you or do you not understand this?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I didn't intend to twist the meaning. I just wanted to convey how I interpreted your objection.
When you said that the present is not the key to the past (and you discard dating methods) I read: "The laws of nature were different in the past."

Fair enough.
But you misunderstood me. The Laws of nature / physics haven’t changed. But Dating methods rely on Carbon-14 decay for organic matter, and other radioactive isotopes for other items.
However, this depends on the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the Earth, never changing. That is an erroneous assumption! And scientists know for a fact, that the rate has varied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough.
But you misunderstood me. The Laws of nature / physics haven’t changed. But Dating methods rely on Carbon-14 decay for organic matter, and other radioactive isotopes for other items.
However, this depends on the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the Earth, never changing. That is an erroneous assumption! And scientists know for a fact, that the rate has varied.

And corrections for varying amounts of radiation exist. Also carbon dating is only used for very young samples. Other dating methods are not affected by such low energy events.

 

[Heyo]

Fair enough.
But you misunderstood me. The Laws of nature / physics haven’t changed.

Sorry to have misinterpreted you and glad to have found a bit of common ground.

But Dating methods rely on Carbon-14 decay for organic matter, and other radioactive isotopes for other items.
However, this depends on the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the Earth, never changing. That is an erroneous assumption! And scientists know for a fact, that the rate has varied.

Only C14 relies on cosmic radiation and it has been calibrated for the span it can be used (max 75000 years into the past).
As for other dating methods (radiometric and others), how far away from scientific consensus are you?
Age of the universe - 13.8 by ± 0.2 by
Age of the earth - 4.5 by ± 0.1.by
Age of life on earth - 3.7 by ± 0.3 by
Age of human life on earth - 1.1 my ± 0.9 my
What are the numbers you'd accept?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He said “it was possible”:

You might want to read about the backstory of that clip and how it was edited and cut to make it seem as if Dawkins actually believes, or even only considers it a real possibility, that aliens engineered life on earth.

In reality, he was asked to bend over backwards and assume that life on this planet had no natural origins but instead was designed, and try to come up with a hypothetical scenario in wich such was the case.

He responded by saying that in that case, perhaps aliens bio-engineered life here, and subsequently added that those aliens themselves would then have had to come about in some darwinian way on their home planet.

It's actually a prime example of creationist "honesty".

Not only was Dawkins' answer dishonestly edited and cut to make it seem as if he actually believes any of that, he was also flat out lied to concerning the purpose of the interview.

He was told it was for an educational science program for students, while in reality it was a creationist propaganda flick. Had Dawkins known what the purpose of the video was, he would have NEVER agreed to the interview. Or at the very least, he would not have entertained those silly hypotheticals and would have made sure that they wouldn't have been able to engage in such dishonest editing.



It should tell you something that your creationist heroes feel the need to resort to this kind of disrespectfull dishonesty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand, I have back problems.

yeah, common problem in humans. About 70% of homo sapiens have to deal with backpains at some point in their life. You know why? Because our spine evolved to walk on all fours... It was "tinkered" with by evolutionary processes in order to accomodate for our bipedalism, but it's not really that fit for bipedalism. It's "just fit enough" for humans in their young fertile years. After a while, the strain is too much and problems surface.

So you may thank your evolutionary ancestry, at least in part, for your back problems. ;-)

The Bible does, though.

It doesn't.

(Why did those people who existed long ago, according to the Bible, live for centuries?

They didn't.

Because they were only a few generations removed from Adam & Eve

They weren't. And biblical adam and eve are fictional people. Human kind never consisted of just 2 individuals, as our genetics demonstrate.

Their genetic makeup was closer to A & E’s perfection

Fictional perfection?

. As people were born and more generations removed, lifespans declined.)

All of historical evidence suggests otherwise..

 

[Polymath257]

Some experts consider it an isolated system.

I agree, I believe it is expanding. As one would expect, from it apparently having a point of origin. This also points to a creator, when considering the four extremely finely-tuned forces that’s keeping it orderly to support life.

No, it does NOT expand from a single point of origin. This is a very common, but wrong description of the Big Bang. In fact, the universe is expanding in such a way that *every* point *looks* like a center. Every place in the universe will see other galaxies moving away with essentially the same relation between rate of movement and distance.

And, your fine tuning *assumes* that life is the goal. That is an unsupported assumption. It may be that the 'constants' are such that they maximize compelxity.

 

[Polymath257]

Fair enough.
But you misunderstood me. The Laws of nature / physics haven’t changed. But Dating methods rely on Carbon-14 decay for organic matter, and other radioactive isotopes for other items.
However, this depends on the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the Earth, never changing. That is an erroneous assumption! And scientists know for a fact, that the rate has varied.

Several problems here.

1. Carbon-14 is far from being the only dating method. In fact, C14 only works for the last 50-100,000 years because the decay rate is so fast.

2. For older materials, we use K-Ar, U-Pb, or Rb-Sr, which both have longer half-lives and are not affected by the rate of cosmic radiation. These are the methods used for dating up to billions of years.

3. The changing amount of cosmic radiation is why we correlate C14 dating with other dating methods. In fact, this is how we know the rate of cosmic radiation has changed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry to have misinterpreted you and glad to have found a bit of common ground.

Only C14 relies on cosmic radiation and it has been calibrated for the span it can be used (max 75000 years into the past).
As for other dating methods (radiometric and others), how far away from scientific consensus are you?
Age of the universe - 13.8 by ± 0.2 by
Age of the earth - 4.5 by ± 0.1.by
Age of life on earth - 3.7 by ± 0.3 by
Age of human life on earth - 1.1 my ± 0.9 my
What are the numbers you'd accept?

I have a question about the last one. How is human life defined?

 

[Heyo]

I have a question about the last one. How is human life defined?

Pretty much how ever you want. I put a very wide error margin (200,000 to 2,000,000 years) to accommodate for every scientific view of how human life can be defined.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pretty much how ever you want. I put a very wide error margin (200,000 to 2,000,000 years) to accommodate for every scientific view of how human life can be defined.

Thanks. That seems reasonable, given the range of possibilities. When I asked, it was from the very narrow basis of Homo sapiens. Only after posted did it occur to me that I was being arbitrarily restrictive.