Statistical Impossibilities of Evolution

[michel]

Snowbear, you're not understanding. It can't be 'generated' from anything if it was always there.

O.K Ceridwen; this is the 'stopping point' I always get to with my son; If it's allways been there, you're talking infinity, yes? Parallel lines meet at infinity; there surely must be a point at which things 'appeared' - remember the old 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed' (By man, obviously). How do you still justify your stance in view of that ? - I'm really interested; this has always been the argument I can't understand.

 

[Valjean]

Technical definitions often differ from colloquial ones, Snowbear. It's always good to clarify terms before a serious discussion, otherwise you end up talking at cross purposes. As far as proof, there is no proof in science. Proof is a mathematical term. Scientific facts are theories with enough backup that reasonable people accept them as true.

 

[linwood]

Parallel lines meet at infinity; there surely must be a point at which things 'appeared'

I`ve heard this a few times, does anyone know what it means?
If parallel lines meet anywhere they`re not parallel lines.
Are they?

Is this more quantum physics mysticism?

 

[Ceridwen018]

O.K Ceridwen; this is the 'stopping point' I always get to with my son; If it's allways been there, you're talking infinity, yes? Parallel lines meet at infinity; there surely must be a point at which things 'appeared' - remember the old 'matter can neither be created nor destroyed' (By man, obviously). How do you still justify your stance in view of that ? - I'm really interested; this has always been the argument I can't understand.

No one is asking you to understand infinity. Think of it this way--your alternative would state that god has "always been". It's the same idea. Why are you allowed to say that but not be, or your son for that matter?

Also, parallel lines NEVER meet--that doesn't make any sense. Even by saying that they meet at infinity is suggesting that they meet at some point, which they do not.

 

[painted wolf]

sigh.... yes in higher orders of mathmatics like upper physics parallel lines can meet. As I've said my physist friend loves to watch the expression on my face as he gives me these tid-bits to work my brain around. I don't know all the math behind it (naturally) but he has done the math allong with several of his and my shared friends.
Yes, linwood this appears to be more Psycics 'mystisism' wich you could test and prove if only you could do the math... Gads I wish I had taken (or had the option to take) more math in high school... I'm going to have to take some physics in collage anyway, maybe then when I hear about such ideas, my head won't feel like its going to explode.

Anyway back on the subject...

Is there any evidence to back up the probability figures that the ID proponants keep cherry picking out of thin air?
Big numbers sound impressive but they are meaningless without some sort of backing evidence.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

Yes, linwood this appears to be more Psycics 'mystisism' wich you could test and prove if only you could do the math...

But math is not reality.
You should see what my accountant can do with math.
It`s amazing but it`s most definately not "truth" as far as reality goes.

This is just more proof of my ongoing point that cosmologists aren`t always dealing with reality in their models but they still insist on directly relating those models to reality.
It doesn`t work.

The very definition of "parallel lines" prohibits them from ever touching in reality.
If they touch they cannot be parallel.
In mathmatics they can touch and still be parallel while totally ignoring the stipulations of their definition.

Mysticism.

Edit:
umm..sorry, off topic.

 

[Pah]

I'm not belittling, just pointing out that a thory is not scientific proof of something, but an attempt to explain it.
American Heritage Dictionary:
Theory:

1. A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
2. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

• Biology, a Journey Into Life, by K. Arms and P. S. Camp - Saunders College Publishing: a hypothesis supported by many different lines of evidence and after further testing it comes to be generally accepted.
• Modern Biology , by Albert Towle - Holt, Rinehart and Winston publishing: In the glossary, the most probable explanation for a large set of data; in the body of text, If a hypothesis continures to be supported by evidence gathered by many different scientists, it may come to be called a theory. A theory is the most probable explanation for a set of data, based on the best available evidence. ... However, if new data or a rreanalysis of existing data indicates that a theory is unacceptible, the theory may have to modified or discarded. The tentative nature of scientific theories leads scientists to constantly weigh evidence, examine inferenc es, and modify hypothesis.
• Health Biology by J.E. McLaren and L. Rotundo - D.C. Health and Company publishing: In the glossary, A hypothesis that is supported by experimental evidence; in the body of the text, When a hypothesis expalins many observations and leads to predictions that are contunually supported by experiments, it then may be called a scientific theory. ... People often use the word to mean an idea that is uncertain. A scientific theory, however, is an idea that is widely accepted as a correct explanation. Theories continue to explain new observations.
• Biology by Miller and Levine - Prentise Hall publishing: In the glossary, time-tested concept that makes useful and dependable predictions about the natural world; in the body of the text, When a hypothesis is tested and confirmed often enough that it is unlikely to be disproved by future tests, it may become worthy of being called a theory. ... In science, the word theory means a great deal more than it does in common speech. Scientific theories are not just hunches or hypothesis. The are powerful, time-tested concepts that make useful and dependable predictions about the natural world.

I'm surprised that a Biology major would use a dictionary - which would give short-shift to the word. I'll still call a theory a fact because evidence, in science, is a fact with a high degree of truth (Coherence - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=35 ) But it should be noted that strings, in particular, do have mathematical proof.

OK - they're little. But if not Created, how did they get there? Did they just "pop" into existance?

Re-read posts #50 and #58. You commented on #50 and I am commenting on your response to #58

Yeah - probably the same Christians who believe God is in control, thus appropriate everything as an act of God, including human discoveries into the workings of nature

You don't find it strange that God would not teach us about strings and we have to discover it oursleves? And when discovered, immediately it becomes a God thing. He felt confident in expaining cosmology (even if it was wrong) but the correction we put upon God's cosmology was then taken to be God's realm?

BTW - not that it really matters, but I am posting as one who is not completely oblivious of the sciences ~ My college edumacation was in the Biological sciences.

Oh I think it matters - we can come to you for an expanation of what a "kind" is - it was mentioned in this thread. And I'll certainly call upon you when the topic of animal homosexuality appears again. I think I remember you saying you were a zoologist.

 

[Godless Dave]

Actually No*s, to a certain extent, 'species' are naturally classified by whether or not they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

But only in the animal world and with several exceptions (cattle and bison can mate and produce fertile offspring, for example, even though they aren't the same species or even the same genus). "Species" is a man-made distinction based on natural criteria.

 

[Pah]

But only in the animal world and with several exceptions (cattle and bison can mate and produce fertile offspring, for example, even though they aren't the same species or even the same genus). "Species" is a man-made distinction based on natural criteria.

A species, according to the biological species concept, is a group of related individuals or populations that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Members of different species cannot produce fertile offspring together.

...Cattle and bison: Domestic cattle (Bos taurus) and American bison (Bison bison) can be crossed to produce beefalo. Female hybrids are usually fertile, while males are sterile (Steklenev 1995, 1997).
http://www.ratbehavior.org/Hybridization.htm

With a male being sterile, the crossbreeding fails to produce a reproductive species

The reference has other information about interspecies mating

 

[Snowbear]

I'm surprised that a Biology major would use a dictionary - which would give short-shift to the word. I'll still call a theory a fact because evidence, in science, is a fact with a high degree of truth (Coherence - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=35 )

OK.

Re-read posts #50 and #58. You commented on #50 and I am commenting on your response to #58

?? Sorry - I'm not seeing what you're getting at....

You don't find it strange that God would not teach us about strings and we have to discover it oursleves?

No. There are many things people have discovered or learned.... Why would those things not be from God?

I think I remember you saying you were a zoologist.

No, I don't think I said that.

 

[yourdogisonfire]

I don't mean to jump on anyone's shoes here. I have my own personal belief on whether evolution or intelligent design is the answer. This is the probem I am running into. Currect me if I'm wrong (and unlike many, I'm actually open to be corrected), but doesn't Intelligent Design claim the Earth is only a few thousand years old? Or is that Creationism? But I really thought it was Intelligent Design. How, then, do designists take into account the fact that we have recently discovered the strong possibility of life on Mars? Or what about ancient fossils, here on Earth? Wouldn't that, at the very least, throw a kink in the concept? Additionally, sort of related, on both sides here - mainly intelligent design, because evolution supports what I'm about to say - do we really think we are the only intelligent beings in the entire, endless universe, and that God has nothing to do but to look over us? He's omnipotent! Why just us? And why are we so special? I'm not arguing against God, I'm a firm believer in him and his Son Jesus - it's just that there is so much we don't know about him - why are so many claiming that they have the whole thing figured out? It's impossible. We are HUMAN. We can't, under any circumstances, understand God or God's plans. So why do we spend so much time trying, while in the meantime, becoming hateful and intolerant of those who live different lives than ours? Thank you. Aaron Cropper, [email protected], [email protected]. Feel free to contact me. I'm not some anonymouse figure spouting crap. I truly believe what I believe. And I would love to get into a debate with those who don't. Email me! Please!

 

[scitsofreaky]

That is creationism (the few thousand years old stuff).
Creation and ID are like squares and rectangles, all creationists believe in ID, but not all IDers believe in creationism (I use this term meaning the story of creation in the Bible just to be perfectly clear).
There seems to be a little bit of a shift away from a completely literal use of the story of creation, but it seems to just involve the world being created in a week, nothing else really changes.

 

[yourdogisonfire]

I guess I came on a bit militant. I'm not trying to change anyone's belief. I'm not trying to prove I'm right and everyone else is wrong.... it's nothing of the sort. I just have so many questions. I could seriously sit on this site, and others, for HOURS, asking questions. The problems I find is that people tend to believe that I am attacking their beliefs. OF COURSE NOT. To each their own, I guess. And who to say I'm correct? I'm just curious. I would like answers. I'm not pigheaded. If someone gave me an answer that made sense, I drop my drivel and work with them. I dunno. I like your explanation, though. I'm going to have to keep coming to forums like this. My style might make me a few enemies... but in just the short time I've been here, I really feel I've earned a lot. And that's what this whole thing is about, isn't it? Thanks to everyone who helped out. Not to say I don't have more questions, but it's nice to find a place where people actually answer your qeustions instead of just attacking you for feeling different than them. Does anyone have any examples of other forums where people are open-minded and explanatory, as compared to defensive?
Thanks.

 

[michel]

I guess I came on a bit militant. I'm not trying to change anyone's belief. I'm not trying to prove I'm right and everyone else is wrong.... it's nothing of the sort. I just have so many questions. I could seriously sit on this site, and others, for HOURS, asking questions. The problems I find is that people tend to believe that I am attacking their beliefs. OF COURSE NOT. To each their own, I guess. And who to say I'm correct? I'm just curious. I would like answers. I'm not pigheaded. If someone gave me an answer that made sense, I drop my drivel and work with them. I dunno. I like your explanation, though. I'm going to have to keep coming to forums like this. My style might make me a few enemies... but in just the short time I've been here, I really feel I've earned a lot. And that's what this whole thing is about, isn't it? Thanks to everyone who helped out. Not to say I don't have more questions, but it's nice to find a place where people actually answer your qeustions instead of just attacking you for feeling different than them. Does anyone have any examples of other forums where people are open-minded and explanatory, as compared to defensive?
Thanks.

Not like this one (although I've never 'trawled through loads of forums') I guess I just hit 'lucky' when I found this forum.
As long as you are polite to people when you disagree with them, there's no problem; the emphasis here is on mutual respect, and not hurting others. But that doesn't stop us have little 'polite' differences of opinion; hey, if everybody thought the same, there would be no point in the forum!

 

[scitsofreaky]

I guess I came on a bit militant. I'm not trying to change anyone's belief. I'm not trying to prove I'm right and everyone else is wrong.... it's nothing of the sort. I just have so many questions. I could seriously sit on this site, and others, for HOURS, asking questions. The problems I find is that people tend to believe that I am attacking their beliefs. OF COURSE NOT. To each their own, I guess. And who to say I'm correct? I'm just curious. I would like answers. I'm not pigheaded. If someone gave me an answer that made sense, I drop my drivel and work with them. I dunno. I like your explanation, though. I'm going to have to keep coming to forums like this. My style might make me a few enemies... but in just the short time I've been here, I really feel I've earned a lot. And that's what this whole thing is about, isn't it? Thanks to everyone who helped out. Not to say I don't have more questions, but it's nice to find a place where people actually answer your qeustions instead of just attacking you for feeling different than them. Does anyone have any examples of other forums where people are open-minded and explanatory, as compared to defensive?
Thanks.

I don't see how anything you said was an attack at all. Like you said, you were asking questions, and good ones at that, and you should never apologize for asking a question. The diest forums I am a part of aren't bad, and for the most part are open to people of other beliefs. But, I have seen cases of defensiveness when directly confronted, but that is human nature. If you would like to ask questions about different things, and you want different perspectives, check out positivedism.com and click on the link to the forum. It is amazing what kind of discussions can start from the most simplistic questions.
Well, this has gone off topic, and I apologize. SO, back on topic...

 

[yourdogisonfire]

Ok, enough of topic. Thanks for all the help! You guys are great!