The Big Bang and Evolution

[JustWondering]

Nice. And 'godbot' makes the leap from topix to here.

I like that term, been debating a christian on another thread about free will. I don't know why christians try to use the free will arguement when the bible doesn't even support their own argument.

 

[JustWondering]

There is no list. Just general classifications. It is all in the first chapter of Genesis.

What happened to sticking to science? The bible certainly isn't a science text book.

I'm still waiting for you to provide that "real science" you were talking about earlier that disproves evolution.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I like that term, been debating a christian on another thread about free will. I don't know why christians try to use the free will arguement when the bible doesn't even support their own argument.

Indeed. Free Will cannot co-exist in the same Universe with an all-powerful or an all-knowing (or both) being.

The exercise of free will is an exercise of power--however small it may be. All-Powerful means all the power--not just some-- if this being has given some away, to allow free will? How limited is the new God 2.0? Is it even capable of defeating Evil? It would seem not-- as the bible's Anti-God seems to have all the real power anyway (forcing people against their will, by possessing them... for starters).

As for All Knowing? That also eliminates free will-- because free will absolutely depends on the future being uncertain. An uncertain future contravenes All Knowing. To really have Free Will, god has to be as surprised at our choices, as we are sometimes.

Those are the most damning arguments against gods and free will that I know.

 

[JustWondering]

Indeed. Free Will cannot co-exist in the same Universe with an all-powerful or an all-knowing (or both) being.

The exercise of free will is an exercise of power--however small it may be. All-Powerful means all the power--not just some-- if this being has given some away, to allow free will? How limited is the new God 2.0? Is it even capable of defeating Evil? It would seem not-- as the bible's Anti-God seems to have all the real power anyway (forcing people against their will, by possessing them... for starters).

As for All Knowing? That also eliminates free will-- because free will absolutely depends on the future being uncertain. An uncertain future contravenes All Knowing. To really have Free Will, god has to be as surprised at our choices, as we are sometimes.

Those are the most damning arguments against gods and free will that I know.

Gods regret at causing the great flood shows he can make mistakes and hardening the pharoahs heart so he would not release the slaves when he would have otherwise (certainly doesn't seem to care about free will there) are two arguments against the free will argument I use that uses the bible itself against them.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Gods regret at causing the great flood shows he can make mistakes and hardening the pharoahs heart so he would not release the slaves when he would have otherwise (certainly doesn't seem to care about free will there) are two arguments against the free will argument I use that uses the bible itself against them.

Oh, but it's worse than that-- the bible clearly outlines why poor old Pharaoh's free will was usurped: to give glory to god, when Pharaoh and his army are brutally murdered. It literally says that killing Pharaoh will glorify bible's god.

Which is pretty sickening, in and of itself--but before that happens, all the first-born babies have to be killed...

... and apparently god is nearsighted or something, as the poor Israelites have to paint bloody icons on their door frames... apparently god is incapable of telling which folk belonged to him, without the smell of fresh blood...

 

[QuestioningMind]

This was a Statistical Scientist writing the book. I do not recall if there was a formal paper.

You are right that the guy could not possibly know everything about the universe, however he could figure out the odds of random occurrences and the possibility of something complex being generated within a given time frame.

If I recall, I think this guy was an atheist. How does that change the picture? Instead of working on random beliefs, this guy was using math. When the math adds up, it's usually right.

Sorry, but without complete knowledge of how something was generated, it's impossible to accurately calculate how long it would take to generate. Math can only be as accurate as the variables involved. With so many unknown variables concerning how the universe came about, any mathematical calculations this individual made would be filled with so many unknown variables that it would essentially be worthless. Which would be why he'd have to get his findings published in a book instead of any sort of respected journal. I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the introduction this author even claims that his findings are so Earth shattering that the scientific establishment has refused to take his work seriously. Crackpot scientists who are forced to publish their findings in books because they're methods don't meet the standards of scientific journals usually do.

The fact that he claims to be an atheist doesn't change the picture one iota. The scientific method doesn't care about a person's religious beliefs or lack there of.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes i can and do, your deliberate ignorance is not my problem.

Then defend mutations are a mechanism for a change of species.

Your ignorance of real science will be proven by your inability to defend a basic evolution doctrine preached by the disciples of Darwin.

I can show you where it is scientifically false.


There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

 

[Thumper]

This was a Statistical Scientist writing the book. I do not recall if there was a formal paper.

You are right that the guy could not possibly know everything about the universe, however he could figure out the odds of random occurrences and the possibility of something complex being generated within a given time frame.

If I recall, I think this guy was an atheist. How does that change the picture? Instead of working on random beliefs, this guy was using math. When the math adds up, it's usually right.

Not when you start with unsubstantiated assumptions. Without a sample from which to first measure outcomes, any guesstimate about probabilities is a WAG (wild a$$ guess). Or in this case a SWAG (scientific wild a$$ guess) - the difference being a decimal point.

 

[omega2xx]

Let's dive into the differences between artificial selection and natural selection later, if you don't mind.
In short - there is a big difference.


Read this carefully, please...

How can you make the above statement after you cited a study that objectively demonstrates how environments change species...? Were it not for the geographic differences and environmental factors weighing on the expanding populations and causing them to change both in genotype and phenotype, then what was it?

Geography and environment CANNOT overcome the laws of genetics. I don't thek they demonstrated HOW thosoe 2 elements were responsible. It was speculation. The most likly cause for the inability to breed was excessive interbreeding.



There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

I certainly called that response, didn't I? You are right - they are still salamanders... But they are salamanders that have markedly changed due to natural causes. They've changed so much, both physically and socially that the two reconnected populations now can no longer mate with one another. The natural development of a new subspecies is part of speciation. I'm sorry that this fact doesn't mesh well with your arguments. But that does not make it any less true.

What is so hard to accept that salamanders remaning salamanders is not evidence of evolution?

Starting at the bottom left, and then going clockwise around Central Valley, you'll see drastic color changes among these varying salamanders. Which factor, or force, caused those adaptations to change? You're saying that it wasn't environment - And if you want to stick with that - that's fine. I do expect you, however, to tell me what it was that caused those changes. (Remember, the original population looked like the eschscholtzii)

Also, you've not addressed the crucial question of my last post, which asked what limiting biological factor keeps small changes over time, which you've admitted take place, from continuing indefinitely, eventually creating large changes over longer periods of time. What biological mechanism limits those changes?

That is a beautiful well done exhibit, but it proves my point----They are still ALL salamanders.

Time cannot overcome the laws of genetics and you have no evidence small changes over time will change a species. That is pure, necessary speculation. To have a nose become a blowhole needs some major changes, plural, not many small ones. In fact that is genetically impossible.

 

[omega2xx]

Omega, you're wrong here, you've been told you're wrong yet you keep making the same wrong statement. Science disproves hypotheses. It never proves them. You're confusing it with mathematics.

You can tell me a gazillion times, but until you offer some evidence, it is of no value.

Name a single hypothesis science has ever proved.

Google "Nobel prize for science. They have a list.

You keep demanding evidence, proof &c. You refuse to look at the evidence presented, then you insist there is no evidence.
Don't you see the problem, here?

Balderdash.

Evidently you don't understand what evidence is. Be specifica and post some evidence I have been presented. Hint. It can be duplicated and observed.

 

[ratiocinator]

The most likly cause for the inability to breed was excessive interbreeding.

Oh, do pay attention! The result is different populations that don't breed with each other - not the loss of the ability to breed within each population.

 

[ratiocinator]

Time cannot overcome the laws of genetics and you have no evidence small changes over time will change a species.

What would stop the accumulation of small changes from making a change that is arbitrarily large?

Once you admit that mutations can cause advantageous small changes (like the examples given and the classic peppered moth example - the exact mutation for which has now been identified and dated), then it's down to those who think there is a limit to explain what it is...

 

[omega2xx]

It's a tool among many. You need to know how many folks out here won't even start to deal with you without the threat of force Your science and evolution denial is no problem in and of itself. What's at real issue here is what kind of a person you really are.

Do you not have the intellect to do that without being inslting?

Know why?
You conform to a pattern of past interactions i've had with unreasonable people who have often demonstrated a threatening response to being opposed on anything, not just science.

If you think asking for evidence for what you said is threatening, that is your problem, and it is irratgional.

My immediate autonomic physical response to you is a feeling of suffocation.

That is also your problem and should not play a part in this discussion.

I watch those "feelings" very closely because, to my astonishment they are very accurate. Anyone who wallows in their own ignorance, then tries to force that on others will draw a real life response from me in which there's no way I/m going to share my knowledge of evolution or any other science with you. Instead, you will see my real life response to what i've seen so far in your posts. I'm speaking to you here as if you were physically standing in front of me and that's how i deal with everyone anywhere, any time.
I know of a certain route to speciation that especially fascinates me, but you have to earn your right to be educated as far as i'm concerned. Not rude, just real life. I think, had you seen me at the store the day Nat Geo came out with the story on Homo Nedali. you would have been ready to fight or run for your life. I really had some big fun that day here in my little town full of creatard lazy-brained christians, doped by a sermon or by excessive buybull (bible) consumption.
I see this now. I say lazy-brained because it's no different than people who smoke so much pot they lose their motivation to learn and challenge themselves to betterment.
I am evolution and i am a fact.
Welcome to LIFE In Living Color, little man.

You continue to show your rudeness, so have a nice day. If you ever acquire the intellect to discuss without being insulting, get back to me.


There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

 

[Thumper]

You can tell me a gazillion times, but until you offer some evidence, it is of no value. ...

NSTA News

 

[omega2xx]

But there is not more than one side to biology anymore than there is more than one side to astronomy. We don't teach astrology as an "alternative" to astronomy, and we don't teach creationism as biology for the exact same reason.

Unless your can explain, scientifically of course, the origin of matter, energy and lie, there is another side.

You want creationism taught in school as a science, then it need to have some science to support it. Not just words and empty ideas, but real independently verifiable evidence.

I don't care where it is taught as long as the students are made aware of its possibility. You want evolution too have a monopoly, yet therfe is nothing in the ToE that can be scientificaly proven. Why is that.

Any "alternatives" must address all aspects of our current knowledge of the subject and help us move our knowledge forward in some measurable way.

How has the ToE done that?

You want creationism as biology,

Whee have i said that?

then explain how creationism accounts for the fact that 99% of all species that have ever lived have become extinct?

That sounds like a evo claim that has no support. Give me your source.

You want creationism taught as biology, then explain how creationism can be used to develop new biological disease modifiers to improve human health outcomes? (I'm out of a wheelchair today because of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.)

Itg can't' and neither can the TOE.

In fact, why not show us all any healthcare, agricultural, or other biological innovation based on "creationism" research that can improve our lives in any way? Any? Until then you've got squat.

Your train has jumped the track. Creationism is not about any of those things, It is about HOW the things we have in the universe came into being.


There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

That's like saying a slang term or mispronunciation does not change language. Accumulate enough of them and you have a new language.

Sorry but real science does not work on the same principles as language. Slang or a mispronuncement of a word does not result in a new language. Give me an example of mutations, and take as many as you need, that caused a change of species.

Your defense is mostly disparagement of the opposition,

Is that what you call asking for evidence?

and you admittedly refuse to look at the evidence linked to.

I have looked at evo links for 40 years. They NEVER have any evidence. Prove me wrong. Cut and paste any evidence you cn find in any like you want to.

No it hasn't. It's amassed enough evidence to consider these facts, but it hasn't proved them.

What hasn't been proven is not a fact.

Which you steadfastly refuse to look at, while maintaining your position it does not exist.

In all these years why has not someone cut and pasted some evidence from a link? Why haven't you. It would take less time than you have spent typing this post. Then you would prove me wrong and be the evo hero of the year, but you would rather whine about me stop looking at links.



There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

 

[Thumper]

Unless your can explain, scientifically of course, the origin of matter, energy and lie, there is another side.

Not in the science class. Mythology class, maybe.

I don't care where it is taught as long as the students are made aware of its possibility. You want evolution too have a monopoly, yet therfe is nothing in the ToE that can be scientificaly proven. Why is that.

There's lots of science behind biological evolution -- over 150 years of scientific research worldwide by real biology and Earth sciences professionals. Just because it is over your head to understand any of it doesn't make it any less valid.

How has the ToE done that?
That sounds like a evo claim that has no support. Give me your source.
Itg can't' and neither can the TOE.

You have been shown this data repeatedly. Obviously it's too hard for you.

Your train has jumped the track. Creationism is not about any of those things, It is about HOW the things we have in the universe came into being.

The it has no bearing on biological evolution.

And you still just have your unsupported guess for any answer, which is worthless.

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. ~ Blaise Pascal

We view things not only from different sides, but with different eyes; we have no wish to find them alike. ~ Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

Oh, do pay attention! The result is different populations that don't breed with each other - not the loss of the ability to breed within each population.

That was not true in the salamander study. In fact, unless they checked every salamander in the the population, they don't know for sure that some them can't still breed.

 

[omega2xx]

What happened to sticking to science? The bible certainly isn't a science text book.

"After its kind" is science that is proved thousands of time every day and can't be falsified. The Bible is not a sciendce book, but where it touches on science it is right.

I'm still waiting for you to provide that "real science" you were talking about earlier that disproves evolution.

It is called genetics. What determines what characteristics the child will get?

 

[Thumper]

I said "...explain how creationism can be used to develop new biological disease modifiers to improve human health outcomes? (I'm out of a wheelchair today because of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.)

To which omega responded:

It can't' and neither can the TOE.

And yet our modern understanding of biology which relies on biological evolution does create all manner of biological disease modifiers, and enhancements in crop production, and countless other advances that help humans live longer, more productive lives. It's getting better at this all the time.

Results are what matters. If any other "alternatives" produced usable results, it would be worth consideration. But nothing else has ever produced one shred of actual results.

And if we don't get serious about teaching our children this difference, this country will continue to be left behind in all the scientific pursuits. Setting our children and grandchildren up to fail is child cruelty.