Treeees!!!

[BubbuClinton]

Re: Treeees!!!

Harte Said:

That being said, it is unreasonable for you to demand someone point out a creature that is turning into another creature, given the time frame involved. If you want good examples of transition of species, you should look at the whales. There is a lot of good evidence out there regarding the evolution of whales from a land species to a marine one.

Also, there is a lot of good evidence out there about how horses evolved.

I agree with you that there is evidence that species evolve within selves and can change characteristics. The whale evidence is a good point. They changed sizes got bigger and smaller. They changed teeth and such. But they were still whales. The same with horses. I know it was unreasonable to ask for the sample. I was just making the point that Darwin is not fact. I am willing to accept the evidence that things change and do not discount that a form of evolution was and is involved in the development of Earth. I just have a fundamental disagreement with it being held as the only possible answer to the riddle. It think there are a lot of flaws in it, but I am willing to accept it as a "theory" and work with it. But it is only a "Theory".

I don't believe that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. I cannot bring myself to blindly believe that, for example, two of every animal on Earth, even those unknown to the eastern hemisphere, were brought on to an ark by a man named Noah. I am absolutely positive that the Earth never stood still for a time, not even to allow the defeat of the Lord's enemies. And in my opinion it is ridiculous to believe that the Earth was created with fossils in place just to fool us. I mean, what is the purpose in that?

I understand you have a bias against anything that goes contrary to Uniformitarianism. But for the most part I agree with you. The bible while having some information about the physical nature of things, is really a spiritual book that was intended to relay spiritual teachings. I do not take literally the ark, or many other aspects of the old testament or new testament. I would not spend time looking for evidence of Noah's flood or for a Gopher wood boat. However, I do believe the story of Noah or Gilgamesh or what ever version you wish to pursue has some symbolic meanings and don't discount the spiritual nature of them. But I have not been addressing religion or creationism in this thread. I agree that creationism and evolution are probably not mutually exclusive.

As for the earth standing still, you really hate Velikovski don't you.

Who knows. I simply am willing to look at catastraphy are a part of Earth's development also. If there is a demonstratable catastrophic event that coincides with a biblical claim, I think it is cool. And I would be willing to look at it and consider it. I don't base my view on science or bible as absolute truth.

My point is, just because there's a bible story about it doesn't make it true. The bible is a collection of writings by various different people at various different times. The old testament is taken from the Torah, but Torah differs from the old testament. Why would this be? There's not a single story or event in the Bible that was chronicled at the time it occurred. Everything that happens in the Bible had occurred years before it was written about, sometimes even centuries before (and in some cases thousands of years.)

I think we are the same mind here. I am well aware that the Tora was verbal tradition for thousands of years. Then it was codified in various languages some of which are dead today. Then it was translated over and over and copied and copied for thousands of more years. Then various books were selected by Constantine the Roman emperor to support his view of religion and to enforce his view of christianity. So I do have some issues with its accuracy.

Just because the bible story differs from the scientist's theory is not a logical reason to say that the theory excludes God. To my mind, being that we are of God, our theories must either bring us toward God, or be disproven.

I don't see why God can't be using evolution as a machine of creation. Our ignorant ancestors didn't know some things that we take today as a given, like the size of the Earth, or the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. Of course they couldn't adequately explain something like the creation of the universe, the Earth, Man, etc. Why should we limit ourselves to their world view? I think since God created the universe, he created conditions that made it inevitable that Man (and other intelligent life elsewhere) would appear.

Actually I think there is evidence that ancient man had knowledge of the size of the earth, that is round and it revolved around the sun. But I won't argue about that here. I agree that science is not mutually exclusive of God and if contradicts the Bible it does not disprove God. I think God is the ultimate Scientist.

Religion and science have different goals. Religion for the most part is intent to improve man spiritually. To help him to understand and eventually become or return to the divine or to God (i.e. heaven, valhalla, paradise, etc ...)

Science is trying to invent a language to describe the physical nature of things. It is intended to be tested and changed as knowledge develops. Very few concrete things can be established. and most of these are mathematical. Even the law of Newton are becoming questioned with Relativity, new relativity, quantum physics, string theory, membrane's, what ever) Science should be fluid enough to change with the evidence. Therefore, it should not be treated or taught like a religion as if it is absolute truth. That is where my beef is. No where in this tread have I said that creationism is the absolute truth. I have only said that I lean toward some sort of intervention. I do not support dinosaurs on an ark. I really don't support an ark at all as far as all living things being on it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a truly ancient shadow of a space craft migration rather than something that actually occurred with the breaking of the wall for the black sea. But there is no real evidence of any of it. Like I said earlier, I think it is probably more symbolic than physical.

I completely agree with that our ancestors could not completely explain the creation process of the universe. Neither can we.

Bubbu

 

[Observer]

Re: Treeees!!!

ID is simply creationism repackaged to dupe our children into believing quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo. Might as well teach babylonian creation myths, how about hindu? Or is the truth only western & Christian?

You wish to beleive in God, Santa Claus, Etc, fine. Before you try to pawn it on anyone else as a viable "truth" (My children in public school) have something to back your argument. This is a "theory" that belongs in Sunday school, right along with Noah, talking bushes, etc.

Evolution does have evidence that backs it as being most likely a correct interpretation of the fossil record and the current biodiversity on Earth. Will it evolve as more is learned? You betcha. Is it a proof? Nope. It is indeed a theory. So is gravity. Do you beleive in gravity? No?

ID is not even a theory it is what one would call speculation...no, a belief.

Intelligent design? Where is your proof? You "Feel" earth was prepared ahead of time? By little green men? God? Jupiter/Zeus? Maybe Satan Inc, but he charged too much on the contract and was fired? I mean, once you open up BS like ID, you can go anywhere with it. Just read my idle speculation in the ancient civilizations thread. Shall I promote that as a valid theory of evolution? It has just as much proof behind it (actually, more so..I have DNA evidence).

Yep, I am angry. People educated in the USA spouting nonsense. IF you had any idea what a laughingstock our nation is becoming due to this idiocy in Kansas...

Rant over.

BubbuClinton, please kick me with your size 12 boots. I deserve it for being so damn rude, but I cannot back of the complete lack of belief I have in this Intelligent design hooey. It is hard for me to ignore people that promote it. (Personal failing on my part) Probably something you may understand, though both of you were more civil about your viewpoint.

Jim

I am too wound up (at 0215 in the morning) to write a decent rebuttal. Please feel free to look at what more sane and sober minds (Than I) have to say on the subject.

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

(I edited out the major rants)

 

[BubbuClinton]

Re: Treeees!!!

Observer,

Like I said I lean toward a prepared earth. I don't spout it as a final truth. DNA is one of my arguments not the evolutionists. Evolution has a lot of merit in it. However, like you said it is far from conclusive. Like you, I don't think that either theory should be taught as a true but rather an idea or theory. To me to say that DNA spontaneously evolved is akin to the little green men, burning bushes an such you like to talk about on Sunday. DNA is a perfect example of an unexplainable evidence of something other than evolution. Chemical reactions don't spontaneously form life. That is like Douglas Adams spouting about a Whale and flower pot spontaneously forming out of tracking missiles. Very improbable.

As for God, or aliens or what ever you want to call it, I still feel to ignore the spiritual side of life is to throw away half of the evidence. Just because you don't want to consider it, doesn't mean it is irrational or wrong. Ancient records from all sources should be taught in school as evidence to the history of the thought of man. Nothing wrong there. Each person should be free to identify with the belief system they choose. Evolutionist, just tend to think they have the truth and refuse to acknowledge any sources that do not confirm their own theories.

As for gravity, this is interesting. I would ask you to define what gravity is and how it works. Even Newton could not define gravity or how it works, all he could do is describe its effects. How did gravity develop? did it spontaneously evolve after mass exploded from some mystical big explosion of all mass from nothing? Hmmmm, does this sound like science or some wacko belief system that should be taught on Sunday? More interesting is the nuclear forces. What makes them work. Not how do affect things, but how do they work? no one knows. If they spontaneously evolved what happened before they evolved? Did they always exist, then why was there a Big Bang and what could have existed before everything exploded from nothing.

No I don't know the answers either. My beef, like yours, was the spouting of a theory as truth. All are free to examine all things. Just don't shove things at me like 200,000 years ago man created primitive religion and worshiped the Sun because he didn't understand the world and this developed into modern religion. How in the world would anyone know this. Evolutionist make stuff up like that and call people who believe in a religion crazy. I think it crazy to make up stuff and believe it becaue I made it up. A classic is life spontaneously evolved from organic compounds and then formed complex DNA structures. Oh, do you have evidence of this? Well, no but that is the way it is because I say so.

I have no beef with you at all for having an alternative view, as long as you say it is a view or theory, go right a head and study it. That is how real science is done. I am not anti-science. I am fascinated with it. I am not anti-evolution. I just don't pin my believes on the changing whims of the science of the day. It evolves everyday (pun intended).

I disagree with your interpretation of the fossil record but respect your right to believe things spontaneously change species. That is a big logical leap that escapes me some how.

The whole world is not laughing at America because of its science or advanced education systems. Maybe the Germans are, but I won't go there. (I am unfamiliar about what is taught in Kansas). In fact, most of the world is running scared of our science. What scares them is not that we have developed things, but we have leaders that may be foolish enough to use them. Most of the world is more concerned about our politics rather than our science or education. I do admit that High school is a waste in most of the US school systems. But most Universities make up for the inadequate education in High Schools.

Rant away. I can take it. I don't get offended by ideas, I am not shaken by coherent thought. You may even convince me that I am off of my rocker. I probably am. I am the first to admit it. I do get irritated at people that think they are so smar that they think everyone who believes in a form of God is loony. I think that maybe they are missing the bigger point or life. I have never met a truly smart person who would not admit they didn't know everything.

Anyway, I guess I am ranting back at you.

Bubbu.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: Treeees!!!

Hi,

Sorry, I am jumping in the discussion. Please also refer to the thread "The Creation of Man", where similar discussions have been going on for about five months now. Let me make a couple of points. First: Calling ID creationism is just calling you names. ID is about the argument that only intelligence can create life forms, including intelligence itself; ID has not been affected by religious fundamentalism. Moreover, the creating agents are not specified in the ID theory: http://www.ideacenter.org/. I personally think life is created by advanced civilizations and then directed further with viral and bacterial upgrades from space. Second: evolution by random mutations and selection has been proven antiscientific from the hard science and pure logic basis (see L. Spetner "Not by Chance" and F. Hoyle "Mathematics of Evolution", also F. Hoyle "The Intelligent Universe"; also about Hoyle at http://www.panspermia.org/hoylintv.htm). It exists as a common misconception blind to the fact. Random mutations can only destroy information, not create it. It takes a while to consider, so please do not jump to conclusions such as that selection can do the trick; it has never done it because it cannot in principle. We have been taught it can, but it is simply false. Here I copy my post from the Creation of Man discussion:
Let?s get down to the root of the error. What the evolution theory proposes is natural selection on random variation resulting genetic change and thus new forms. The trivial simplicity of the following one gene model is the reason it penetrates minds starting from high school and does not go away easily. If ?A? gene variety has a higher survival probability than variety ?a? of the same gene, and no other variation exists, in a countable number of generations variety ?A? will replace variety ?a?. This is what most of population genetics is about. Where is the flaw? An organism does not have one gene only. And a gene is not just a few nucleotides long but it is much longer. What if the individuals with the good gene ?A? carry a bad gene ?b? with the bad effect overweighing the good of ?A?? What about the natural situation that the number of bad mutations significantly exceeds the number of good ones? The species dies very soon, life is impossible, or the theory must die. One may argue: natural selection can eliminate all bad ones, even when they are many, and keep the few good ones. Well, it cannot. You can either check the behavior of the function, or you can intuitively conclude the following. Suppose the genome size is 3 billion base pairs (close to ours), the non-neutral mutation rate is one per a hundred million base pairs, resulting 30 mutations per individual per generation. Most mutations are naturally neutral and do not affect survival. However, for those that are not neutral, we can hardly suggest a rate of more than 1:100 of good ones to bad ones (how many times do we have to drop a Swiss watch on a concrete floor for the watch to go a bit more accurately? ? and a bacterium is far more complex than the whole watch factory). For the selection to work to the advantage of the species there should be some individuals with at least 16 good to 14 bad mutations. The selection will not find this or better one. Even if it did, it would have to wipe the rest of the population in every generation. But it will not find it in a billion years anyway. Some biologists would argue: the mutation rate is lower; it is like one per the whole genome per generation. Well, what genetic change would you get with such a low rate? A new gene in a hundred of billions of years? ? Not even that soon. And natural selection would still have to kill 99% population. Darwin did not know about genes. Muller found the contradiction and termed it genetic load. Neo-Darwinians hid it, they do not want to talk about it, they get angry if you mention it, fun isn?t it? It is not just lack of evidence; it is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I can point a number of other insurmountable problems for the theory, but as Peter the First said to the firework attendant: -Why the cannons did not fire? ?Tsar, there were 7 reasons for that. ?What reasons? ?First, the gunpowder was wet. Then, ?I do not want to here about the rest.

Dmitri

 

[Observer]

Re: Treeees!!!

Dmitri,



ID is not being promoted (or was created) by religious fundamentalist? Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? Maybe you should research the Discovery institute.

Suggested late night reading:

http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery.htmhttp://www.texscience.org/files/discovery.htm
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cshttp://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_
http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Discovery_Institutehttp://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Discovery_Institute
http://www.nmsr.org/wrkshp6.htmhttp://www.nmsr.org/wrkshp6.htm

(There are many more...I have to go to work...damn)

Bubba,
[/color]
We will have to agree to disagree. You are too likeable and rational for me to rant at you any longer. I am reminded (Constantly) of a picture I saw on a website. It said a very profound thing, one that should be the header of each and every internet forum. It goes something like this "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics...Even if you win you are still a retard".

I am guilty of just that. Also I am not a German, I am a DoD employee and am off to Texas in June with my next PCS (Permanent Change of Station...though it never is permanent)

Regards,
Jim

 

[Dmitri]

Re: Treeees!!!

This is the last Darwinian resort - blaming religion to cover its own impotency and imagine yourself fertile, without a try though. Facts do not count: the great majority of folks of the same planet considered it flat because of their inability to look further than their noses stick out. Look up at the horizon; do you see that the earth is spherical? Times gradually change for the better, Darwinism still being the worst nightmare of the modern (mis)conception. Nobody has ever disproved Hoyle's -Spetner's - and mine, for that matter, line of argument, briefly sated in my previous blog. Give it a try.

 

[Harte]

Re: Treeees!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>

...evolution by random mutations and selection has been proven antiscientific from the hard science and pure logic basis...

...It exists as a common misconception blind to the fact. Random mutations can only destroy information, not create it. It takes a while to consider, so please do not jump to conclusions such as that selection can do the trick; it has never done it because it cannot in principle. We have been taught it can, but it is simply false...

...Neo-Darwinians hid it, they do not want to talk about it, they get angry if you mention it, fun isn?t it? [/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>

This is the last Darwinian resort - blaming religion to cover its own impotency and imagine yourself fertile, without a try though. Facts do not count: the great majority of folks of the same planet considered it flat because of their inability to look further than their noses stick out. Look up at the horizon; do you see that the earth is spherical? Times gradually change for the better, Darwinism still being the worst nightmare of the modern (mis)conception. Nobody has ever disproved Hoyle's -Spetner's - and mine, for that matter, line of argument, briefly sated in my previous blog. Give it a try.[/b]

Dmitri,

The factual information you present here is absolutely true. As far as your opinion about Dawinism as a nightmare, others can disagree.

The problem I have with your statements is you rant against natural selection and random mutation as if they are the current theories on the origin of species. As you said, these elements do not do the trick and this fact has been recognized by the evolutionists for decades. In fact evolutionists would consider the term Darwinist an insult if applied to them. I first read about the refutation of natural selection of "lucky" mutations in the seventies. I'm not certain how far back this refutation goes.

While it is true that these outdated ideas are currently taught in beginning biology classes, I am more forgiving than you of this practice. I equate it with the way that we learn of the Bohr model of the atom, an artifact with which I am much more familiar than with current evolutionist theory.

Anyone that has watched "Jimmy Neutron" or even the "Jetsons" can envision the atomic model, with it's clusters of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the swarm of electrons in nice regular steady "orbits" around the whole.
Has anyone ever wondered why the electrons don't just fall into the nucleus? After all, the nucleus has a positive charge (protons) and the electrons are negative. Are they not attracted? Yes they are very much attracted to each other. It is from this odd circumstance that quantum mechanics is born. They don't want to teach you about QM in high school, but that doesn't mean that you can't understand the principles of Bohr's atomic model. The unfortunate consequence of this method is twofold; many people are never exposed to the amazing wonders of QM, though they use it every day; and many people, upon being told about some of the fantastic findings in QM, go into complete denial to the point of ridiculing such ideas.

Similarly with evolution. Natural selection and random mutation work best in beginning biology experiments (anybody out there ever count fruit flies? How about pea plants?) Although Darwinian evolution is as old as QM, the changes in thinking about evolution are much more recent, mostly because it was only relatively recently that we had any good understanding about the nature of genetics. Serious study of evolution in this new paradigm involves study of many different drivers of species variation, and the last time I looked into it, nobody had come up with any specific mechanisms that drive evolution to the degree that natural selection and mutation were originally though to do. The unfortunate consequence of this method of teaching biology is that many people come away from it thinking that the Darwinian model is the only correct one. Why should they not? They have not been exposed to any other valid ideas, only outmoded ones (Lamarck.)

This does not, however, invalidate the idea of evolution. The fact that Darwin was wrong in his specifics is not enough to throw out the idea of natural species variation. There is no other theory out there that does not presuppose some influence "from beyond" in one way or the other. Were we to accept the idea that it is OK to rely on the Great Unknown (God, aliens, some future civilization etc.) to explain the things we see around us (like fire, wind, the moon, the sun, or patterns in the fossil record etc.) then no other explanation for anything would ever be necessary. That would be several steps backwards and a great loss to our species.

Harte

 

[BubbuClinton]

Re: Treeees!!!

Observer,

Thanks for the discussion. Have fun in Texas it is hot and humid there in the summer.

Dmitri,

Good to have support on the issues. I agree with you entirely. It is hard to get evolutionist to understand the weakness of their position. Thanks for the info.

Bubbu

 

[Observer]

Re: Treeees!!!

I am truly sorry, but I would more likely give time to ponder whether Santa Claus and little elves created humanity so as to have a market for their toys than believe in an equally improbably diety (Insert name of favorite diety). Science deals with observable and replicable phenomena. ID is not a theory, it is speculation. There is no way to experiment to prove or disprove "God" or show "God" in the works. Science should not be in the business of trying to "Disprove" God and I am sure no one is. If something came along and screamed out, "I am proof of a divine being" "I am proof of alien seeding" etc...scientist would be slavering and working away to show how it was done, where they are now, how long ago, etc. Probably give a Nobel prize.

ID is religion, sorry. Do I think we know everything about the Universe? Goodness, I hope not. What fun would that be? But I think that mixing religion with science is the wrong path to follow. You will soon find your "Scientific" results following the nose of your religion in an attempt to verify your beliefs. Outcome and results pre-determined by expectations. When science has a "pucker" factor moment, when the worldview must change, it does. Grudgingly sometimes, but it does. Facts are facts. Scientist cannot wish them away or blame mythological beings that sport nifty wings. Do they argue points? Heck yes, Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Evolution has that track record. Read about the difference in DNA between us and chimpanzees. I bet you won't, as it would cause a moments doubt in your mind. Actually, why even look. Go and read one of the "Left Behind" books. Go to your happy place and be at peace.

Dmitri, I have no hope of changing your mind. As you have no way of convincing me that passing religious based ID off as science is correct. Belief in science, and evolution for that matter, is not religion. It is open to change. It has changed, since the first human wondered why it rained down to my wondering how our education system has failed so badly. It will change again. But you need to remember, our science is not new. It is based and built upon the work of thousands of years of human thinking. Trial and error. When something is replaced by a new reality, it usually involves a change in our worldview. Old theories die away, new ones take precedence. The thing is, Dmitri, the current theories are not changing fundamentally, they are fine tuning.

On a side note, can you tell me who you think the "Intelligent Designer" is? A divine being? An alien race? Neither?

That is a question I find interesting. I could possibly humor the thought of alien inteference, but not mythological beings. The odds in favor of the former are much better than the odds against the latter.

(My opinion, of course..as is all of my diatribe )

Jim

 

[Observer]

Re: Treeees!!!

Harte,


Your last post, last paragraph. Excellent.

I am not against gods, I think it is great people that need it can have a psychological crutch to make it through the day. Better than resorting to alcohol or drugs I am sure. What I am completely against is going back to 1820 with our life sciences. And people wonder why the US has a brain drain going on in regards to scientist leaving for greener (progressive) pastures.

Ah well....

Dmitri,

Another thing that I wonder about, what part of you being an animal, a hairless monkey frightens you? How can that fact negate the sheer wonder of our minds? Our existence? Why this need to feel special, and apart? Have you ever visited a zoo? Ever sat down on a bench and stared at a chimpanzee? Ever look one in the eyes? Ever look at their fingers, hands? Denial is a harsh mistress, isn't it. If you cannot see a relationship, well...what can I say. It is there in front of your eyes. Perhaps vanity and ego blind you?

Bubba,

Evolution in a weak postion? Did you even look at any of those site I posted (You know, the ones written by scientist..people educated, trained in science. People who actually DO SCIENCE). You obviously did not, or if you did you put on some very dark shades.

On a friendly note (and I want you and Dmitri and everyone else to know I draw a line between debating and how I regard someone) I have friends who are highly religious, and we toss this topic around a bit. We still BBQ and share tall tales afterwards. This reminds me a lot of philosophical arguments I had in college. No one ever convinced anyone then about souls (or any other bizarre topic argued over cokes and a pizza), and I am sure it is not possible with evolution vs ID. Hopefully the majority of Americans will have enough sense to bury this deep in the bible belt where it belongs...in Sunday School.

Thanks for the warning about Texas, I have heard this before. It can't be worse than Kuwait or Iraq. Never been anywhere so hot in my life, never want to again....but then again, it wasn't HUMID (Was under my kevlar, but that doesn't count)...hmmm..we will see what a "Wet Hot" is like. I am sure my kids will enjoy the air conditioning. (Half Swedish, not made for HOT) Then again, neither am I.

Jim