|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 622/1184 (12-Aug-2003 at 05:24) |
OK. So for my assertion number 1, this is what I am getting (please correct me if I am wrong).
Not science, but deductive reasoning has brought us to this conclusion. Be it due to the supposed long time that it takes or whatever, it is not something that is empirically supported by science... which was my point. Which means you base this whole issue on 'faith'. |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 623/1184 (12-Aug-2003 at 06:02) |
Assertion 2:
First let me say the point I was making is that, we all know you won't get a chicken from a lizards egg (or whatever!). The fact remains though that for evolution to have occurred, then in theory something like this had to happen - ie a reptile had to mutate into something that mutated into something else etc until a bird came about. so for this to happen, these mutations had to add information. But I will come back to this issue and what you raised later. As for assertion number 3 it was supposed to be open ended - that way it would generate some discussion! like what about dating methods... But like I said, I shall get back to this later. I don't have time at the moment, so as hard as it is, you will have to wait!! |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 624/1184 (12-Aug-2003 at 06:06) |
But cos I don't want you to be bored...
Can you tell me an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information? |
||
|
|
Posts: 167/317
(12-Aug-2003 at 09:09)  |
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
But cos I don't want you to be bored... Can you tell me an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information? "To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs "'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 626/1184 (12-Aug-2003 at 12:57) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by TheTitan)
Didn't you read my previous post? I gave one. but without actually going and reading the article (which I'm sure would put me to sleep - even if I could get it online!) I take it that 'Drosophila melanogaster' is the common fruit fly, so i assume you are talking about the whole fruit fly mutation experiments? |
||
|
|
Posts: 169/317
(13-Aug-2003 at 07:44) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
I take it that 'Drosophila melanogaster' is the common fruit fly,
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
so i assume you are talking about the whole fruit fly mutation experiments?  I can't get onto the site right now, and I just found that post at EvC so I would assume it could have been from that; not sure though.You have to admit though. That was a pretty cool experiment they did.  "To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs "'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
||
|
|
Posts: 170/317
(13-Aug-2003 at 07:50) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
Which means you base this whole issue on 'faith'.
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
First let me say the point I was making is that, we all know you won't get a chicken from a lizards egg (or whatever!). The fact remains though that for evolution to have occurred, then in theory something like this had to happen - ie a reptile had to mutate into something that mutated into something else etc until a bird came about.
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid) As for assertion number 3 it was supposed to be open ended - that way it would generate some discussion! like what about dating methods...
You’re just going to have to generate some discussion. "To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs "'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 630/1184 (14-Aug-2003 at 03:57) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by TheTitan)
Um, actually I'm not too sure. I can't get onto the site right now, and I just found that post at EvC so I would assume it could have been from that; not sure though.You have to admit though. That was a pretty cool experiment they did.
The experiments started in like 1910 and they did a whole lot of bombing these flys with radiation to speed up the process of mutation. From memory, they have now simulated a time frame greater the the suspossed age humans have been on the earth. The result? As far as I know there were stacks of mutations - extra legs, wings, heads etc. But the thing is they are all still fruit flys. Plus these flys are also a lot weaker compared to the other 'normal' fruit flys, so when some were released back into the general population they did not survive. |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 631/1184 (14-Aug-2003 at 04:00) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by TheTitan)
That is the unfortunate side effect that occurs when we need to patch up the "holes". I would say that is an oversimplification. There would have been many small mutations before we arrived at a bird. yep I agree, but it was spose to be an oversimplification The only problem is that all of us trust the dating methods. You’re just going to have to generate some discussion. Ok so let me start the ball rolling. All dating techniques are based on assumptions. As such when a date is arrived at, it is not a fact but an interpretation. Agree? [/quote] |
||
|
|
Posts: 184/317
(14-Aug-2003 at 08:20) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
So if I was to say that evolution is based on faith you couldn't argue...
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
All dating techniques are based on assumptions. As such when a date is arrived at, it is not a fact but an interpretation. Agree? "To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs "'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 633/1184 (15-Aug-2003 at 04:04) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by TheTitan)
In it's essence, no, evolution is not based on faith. The theory that pertains to how atoms got together to make the first cell is a theory in and of itself; this theory is based on faith, evolution, however, is a different theory. I was wondering when we would get round to this! And yes technically you are right - the theory of evolution does not deal with where the atoms came from... but as convenient as that may be, it doesn't change the fact that your whole belief system as to how we became man is based on faith. Sure, but if you want to play like that, then everything is based on assumptions. It is my assumption, for example, that the next time I look up at my ceiling, King Kong will not be tearing the roof of. Deciding between good and bad assumption is something else all together. So yes, it is more of an interpretation than a fact, but no more so than it is my interpretation that King Kong isn't coming for me. I wasn't saying that it is a bad thing that it is based on assumptions - scientifically speaking, it is a necessary thing (so I'm not going to go into your example!). Take Carbon dating. The ratio of C14 to C12 takes just over 40,000 years to stabilise, so for Carbon dating to be accurate the first thing you have to do is to assume that the world is older then that. If it isn't then all your dates will be wrong. Now I realise that there are numerous dating methods, but they are all based on similar assumptions. So tell me why do evolutionists believe that the world is 'old' (as opposed to a young world)? |
||
|
|
|
Well for starters we have found dinosaur bones that date hundreds of millions of years ago. And we have come to the fact that there has been 7 major earth catastrifies, that each erased atleast25% of the life on Earth, and all these happend millions of years ago.
And then theres the fact that we have signs of early settlements that date hundreds of thousands of years back. |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 640/1184 (18-Aug-2003 at 05:02) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by Nimon)
Well for starters we have found dinosaur bones that date hundreds of millions of years ago. And we have come to the fact that there has been 7 major earth catastrifies, that each erased atleast25% of the life on Earth, and all these happend millions of years ago. And then theres the fact that we have signs of early settlements that date hundreds of thousands of years back. |
||
|
|
Posts: 15/58
(18-Aug-2003 at 10:04) |
With regards to the age of the Earth, and carbon dating techniques and such:
I'm no expert on the subject, but this thought occurred to me out of the blue, so I'm going to post it here and see what you guys think. What about the shape of the contitents? I think most scientists are agreed that it was all one massive landmass at some point in time - you just have to look at the coasts of various continents to see some fairly convincing evidence in support of this. Also you can find similar fossils in two places that are thousands of miles away from each other. Now, we can reliably measure how much the continents, or, more accurately, the plates they rest on, are shifting around per year. As far as I know, it is something like a matter of a few centimetres per year. Now, it is fair to say that the contitents have probably moved thousands and thousands of miles, so it if you multiply it out and divide by the rate of movement, I think you see that the age of the Earth is quite old - at least 40,000 years. According to an earlier statement, carbon dating presupposes that the Earth is at least 40,000 years old, if it wasn't, then all the dates would be wrong. Since we can use the landmass argument to get to 40,000 years, and then we can use carbon dating in conjuction with the movement of landmasses to work out the age of the Earth, or at least to prove that the Earth is very very old... I think that sufficiently shows that the Earth is quite old, without using "current" dating techniques. Of course, it assumes that the rate of movement over the years has been reasonably consistent, but common sense would seem to indicate that the continents wouldn't have been moving very fast at any point in time. That was a bit all over the place, and as I said, I am no expert on the subject, but that's something that occurred to me, and I came up with using my general knowledge. |
||
|
|
|
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
So I see... your whole basis of the earth being millions of years old is our current dating techniques? |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 641/1184 (19-Aug-2003 at 03:44) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by Snaga)
With regards to the age of the Earth, and carbon dating techniques and such: I'm no expert on the subject, but this thought occurred to me out of the blue, so I'm going to post it here and see what you guys think. What about the shape of the contitents? I think most scientists are agreed that it was all one massive landmass at some point in time - you just have to look at the coasts of various continents to see some fairly convincing evidence in support of this. Also you can find similar fossils in two places that are thousands of miles away from each other. Now, we can reliably measure how much the continents, or, more accurately, the plates they rest on, are shifting around per year. As far as I know, it is something like a matter of a few centimetres per year. Now, it is fair to say that the contitents have probably moved thousands and thousands of miles, so it if you multiply it out and divide by the rate of movement, I think you see that the age of the Earth is quite old - at least 40,000 years. According to an earlier statement, carbon dating presupposes that the Earth is at least 40,000 years old, if it wasn't, then all the dates would be wrong. Since we can use the landmass argument to get to 40,000 years, and then we can use carbon dating in conjuction with the movement of landmasses to work out the age of the Earth, or at least to prove that the Earth is very very old... I think that sufficiently shows that the Earth is quite old, without using "current" dating techniques. Of course, it assumes that the rate of movement over the years has been reasonably consistent, but common sense would seem to indicate that the continents wouldn't have been moving very fast at any point in time. That was a bit all over the place, and as I said, I am no expert on the subject, but that's something that occurred to me, and I came up with using my general knowledge. |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 642/1184 (19-Aug-2003 at 03:45) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by Nimon)
well, I think its more reliable than your little story book anyhow. I said at the start this was an evolution debate, not a evolution v creation debate. so please go somewhere else unless you want to contribute to the discussion |
||
|
|
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 643/1184 (19-Aug-2003 at 03:51) |
Anyway... here are some thing that I believe point to a young earth:
Continental erosion Sea floor sediments Salinity of the oceans Helium in the atmosphere Carbon 14 in the atmosphere Decay of the Earth's magnetic field Feel free to correct me! |
||
|
|
Posts: 172/8194
(19-Aug-2003 at 09:49) |
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
Anyway... here are some thing that I believe point to a young earth: Continental erosion
Quote:
Sea floor sediments
Quote:
Salinity of the oceans
Quote:
Helium in the atmosphere
Quote:
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Quote:
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
Quote:
Feel free to correct me!
The conventional view of an old age can match lots of independent measurements of the age: sedimentation rates, radioactive decay, accumulation of mutations in DNA, speed of continental drift etc. Creationist "science" has to postulate new science for everyting. IMHO it is just stupid. A more reasonable religious explanation is just claiming that God created the Earth with all the fossils and sediments already laid down 6000 years ago. This may not be science, but it is also impossible to disprove. |
||
|
|
|
All hail Bernel!
Great work Bernel |
||
|
Linear Mode
