Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 535

Thread: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

  1. #301

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Where did I say that you personally believe in Noah's Ark and the Biblical creation of ever species? I didn't. My thoughts were not directed at you in any specific way whatsoever.

    Lot's of people do, apparently, believe in such things. That fancy new creation museum in Kentucky, with its ark replica, is reportedly wildly popular. The fact that it is a popular destination for school field trips is something I find troubling, however. College students taking courses in pseudoscience might benefit from a visit, though.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  2. #302
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    19,944

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Where did I say that you personally believe in Noah's Ark and the Biblical creation of ever species? I didn't. My thoughts were not directed at you in any specific way whatsoever.

    Lot's of people do, apparently, believe in such things. That fancy new creation museum in Kentucky, with its ark replica, is reportedly wildly popular. The fact that it is a popular destination for school field trips is something I find troubling, however. College students taking courses in pseudoscience might benefit from a visit, though.
    So you're just generically addressing arguments that no one in this thread is making, so you can debate points with people who are arguing a completely different idea? What purpose does that serve? It's an awful lot like KStat coming in and saying that there isn't a single Creationist, out of the billions of us that walk the Earth, that addresses dinosaurs. It seems like you're bringing up extreme positions to associate them with arguments being made here in order to respond.


    Oh, and there is archeological evidence that supports the story of Noah's Ark.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2273143.html

    Here we are supposed to be relying on scientific evidence, while we are mocking and dismissing scientific evidence...

  3. #303
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,005

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here's my problem with the whole intelligent design movement: 90% of those articles you linked and that evolution news blog are focused on discrediting and exposing the incompleteness of evolution theory. Where is the argument for ID? It is claimed to be a scientific theory, but where is the evidence? Disproving one theory does not prove the other.


    The argument for Intelligent design is all around you, in the things made. Romans 1:20 speaking of God says, "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. [NRSV]

    My argument is the intelligent design movement is made up mainly of scientists that can see the theory of Evolution isn't possible because life doesn't start off simple, it's complex right from the beginning. Thus they acknowledge that things are intelligently designed, but they don't or won't give the credit to God.

    GrangeRusHibbert
    The scientific method is commonly described as a fourstep process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). . . . When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. If a natural object is designed (by an intelligent agent), then it will contain complex and specified information.
    2. Life is complex and specified
    3. Therefore life was produced by an intelligent agent.

    It's a fallacy. Just because intelligent agents have the ability to produce complex and specified information does not lead to the conclusion that all complex and specified information was produced by intelligent agents.
    That’s like saying just because someone can build a car doesn’t mean he built a bicycle. Which is true, but it’s also obvious. However, irreducible complexity in biology is what’s being talked about and every living thing is complex.

    To those having problems following this argument I’ll try to catch you up to date.

    Charles Darwin said, To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Origin of Species (1859) p.186

    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Origin of Species (1859) p.189

    Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system." An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996.

    Such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex."Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.

    As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap. “It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.”

    “An irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.”

    How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell.

    Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011...fossil-flight/

    It also seems to me that the male and the female reproductive organs would of necessity be a type of irreducibly complex system. They don't reproduce without each other. How did Evolution evolve two separate systems that only work together?

    That also gives rise to the question, if we evolved , how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

    I don’t know how many types of life we have on earth, but it seems all the ones that reproduce sexually would be irreducibly complex systems. So how did all these evolve separably? Evolutionary scientists of course give answers, highly unsatisfactory answers.

    “Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . . . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . . . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?”—The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell.

  4. #304

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ... while we are mocking and dismissing scientific evidence...
    I certainly oppose all such efforts.

    Let's see if his "evidence" is published in any peer-reviewed journal, which is the test of it actually being science, or if rather it only appears in such fine forums as the Huffington Post, next to anti-vaccine scares and updates on the status of Bat Boy.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  5. #305
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    19,944

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I certainly oppose all such efforts.

    Let's see if his "evidence" is published in any peer-reviewed journal, which is the test of it actually being science, or if rather it only appears in such fine forums as the Huffington Post, next to anti-vaccine scares and updates on the status of Bat Boy.
    Yes, because that's the bar that dictates whether or not it's actually science. Anyways here you go, here's an article about the evidence supporting a flood in a peer-reviewed journal. I have a feeling that you're not going to accept that journal, and come up with another reason why it's no good.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...gy-of-israel-2

    Scientists talking about creationism from a scientific POV. No way....

  6. #306
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    19,944

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    The issue isn't even settled in the scientific community. Let's stop pretending that if you disagree with the concept that all life evolved from the same beginning that you're somehow dismissing science, when scientists in the very fields this discussion is revolving around are torn.

    http://www.livescience.com/379-scien...iscipline.html

  7. #307

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    where did the water for the global flood come from, and where did it go?

    Earth’s water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth’s surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth’s surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth’s atmosphere as moisture. The last component, 0.001% of earth's water, is the immediate precursor of what we call rain. Sudden complete depletion of the atmosphere of all of its moisture could raise ocean levels by a little over an inch. It can wreak tremendous havoc, locally, and do next-to-nothing, globally. Until magic gets involved, I guess.

    Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.

    It's a great story, apparently. So is Star Wars, IMO. I don't plan on launching a "journal" for the purposes of vindicating the "facts" of Star Wars.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 01:43 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  8. #308
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,005

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,995 of them neutral, 4 harmful, and 1 beneficial.


    That's more in line with reality.


    Every once in a great while a beneficial trait emerges. If it's a real doozy and gives a survival advantage, then of course it becomes dominant, often in only a few dozen generations.


    We see such survival mutations happening all the time even on our timescale of almost nothing. A species of yellow butterfly has a mutation to make a brown version, but the brown version isn't recognized by a predator for whatever reason (maybe it lives near a sooty factory?),


    then a few dozens of generations later later you just have oldtimers showing you yellow butterflies they captured when they were kids, but having the same genome as a whole species / population of living brown butterflies that were descended from them.

    What you are describing could just as well be natural. If you have a predator that sees yellow butterflies better than brown of course the brown ones will have a better chance of surviving. But the question is do mutations really produce entirely new species?

    Was life Created - Evolution Myths and Facts, 2010, p 19-20.
    In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently.


    “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.” In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.


    Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants ... died or were weaker than wild varieties.”


    Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
    So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, by Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, “Expectations in Mutation Breeding,” 2005.


    Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

  9. #309
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    19,944

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    where did the water for the global flood come from, and where did it go?

    Earth’s water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth’s surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth’s surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth’s atmosphere as moisture. The last component, 0.001% of earth's water, is the immediate precursor of what we call rain. Sudden complete depletion of the atmosphere of all of its moisture could raise ocean levels by a little over an inch. It can wreak tremendous havoc, locally, and do next-to-nothing, globally. Until magic gets involved, I guess.

    Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.

    It's a great story, apparently. So is Star Wars, IMO. I don't plan on launching a "journal" for the purposes of vindicating the "facts" of Star Wars.
    Kind of what I thought would happen. You want scientific evidence, when it's presented you want it in a peer-reviewed journal, when that's presented you simply dismiss all of it.

    Here is scientific evidence of a flood covering the area, and you don't want to talk about the science, you want to talk about myths just because it doesn't fit inside your predetermined view point.

  10. #310

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What you are describing could just as well be natural.
    It is! Hence the term, natural selection.

    So we try like we can in a 1/10 of a second (relatively speaking) to "speed up evolution" that we witness having gone on for eons, and we claim failure, it means the whole idea is woo?

    I guess it depends on what you call failure.

    Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts all were "evolved" from the exact same plant, by the smarts of their human handlers. They are in fact the exact same genetic species, differing only in what genes are expressed at what times in the plant's life cycle.


    Is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job?


    Given hundreds of millions of years, rather than 40 years using a misguided protocol of gamma radiation to induce all change, absolutely and emphatically yes.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  11. #311

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You don't want to talk about the science, you want to talk about myths just because it doesn't fit inside your predetermined view point.
    I asked you two very straightforward scientific questions you chose to ignore. Where did the water come from and where did it go?

    The flat-Earth society has their own self-proclaimed scientific journal. How does it stand up? Is it worth my time reading it? I think not. Same as the drivel you linked. saying they are scientific and using sciency-sounding words does not make their journal scientific.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  12. #312
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    19,944

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The flat-Earth society has their own self-proclaimed scientific journal. How does it stand up? Is it worth my time reading it? I think not. Same as the drivel you linked. saying they are scientific and using sciency-sounding words does not make their journal scientific.
    But it's in a peer-reviewed journal, so it passes the test of actually being science.... That's your standard, not mine, and now you want to turn your back on your standard.

  13. #313

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But it's in a peer-reviewed journal, so it passes the test of actually being science.... That's your standard, not mine, and now you want to turn your back on your standard.
    No it's not, unless you consider a room full of like-minded self-proclaimed scientists to be peers.

    Again, the flat-Earth society has a journal, with editors from the flat-Earth society as the peer reviewers. What person would call it a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a straight face? You would, I guess...

    the top 153 journals in the field of geology, by citations and impact factors:

    http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1907

    And don't tell me that anything controversial will not be published in any such journal. It will, if it's well-reasoned and scientific. Einstein was jeered off a few podiums for relativity being "out there" until he laid it all out logically and pointed people toward yet-untested consequences of relativity that would either support it or tear it apart. The big bang hypothesis also was an out-there idea published with great controversy ("big bang was actually a derogatory term poking fun at what some thought a silly idea).

    If you publish a journal of Pacers Digest and three of your buddies comprise the editorial board, please don't call it peer-reviewed science. Isn't it clear that it's not?
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 03:17 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  14. #314
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,005

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Where did the water for the global flood come from? and where did it go?

    Earth’s water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth’s surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth’s surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth’s atmosphere as moisture. The last component, 0.001% of earth's water, is the immediate precursor of what we call rain. Sudden complete depletion of the atmosphere of all of its moisture could raise ocean levels by a little over an inch. It can wreak tremendous havoc, locally, and do next-to-nothing, globally. Until magic gets involved, I guess.

    Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.

    Where did the water for the global flood come from?
    No magic. The Bible explains during the second creative period, or “day,” when the earth’s atmospheric “expanse” was formed, there were waters “beneath the expanse” and waters “above the expanse.”


    Genesis 1:6,7, says, And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse.”

    The Bible at Genesis 7:11,12, describes the flood thus, In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12And the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nights.

    It appears obvious from the Bible’s account that there was a lot of water above the expanse since it says the downpour went on for 40 days and 40 nights.

    Where did the water from the flood go?
    Since it’s apparent there is no water above the expanse nowadays, the water evidently is still here on earth. Today there is about 1.4 billion cu km (326 million cu mi) of water on the earth. It covers more than 70 percent of the globe’s surface. The average depth of the oceans is 4 km (2.5 mi); average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above sea level. If the earth’s surface was smoothed out, it would all be covered with water to a depth of 2,400 m (8,000 ft)

    Water is heavy and as you yourself wrote can cause tremendous havoc locally. It therefore logically could cause tremendous havoc worldwide if their was enough of it. Since the Bible says the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened there was likely enough to cause worldwide havoc.

    Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles deep at the plate boundaries. It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

    Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.
    Ask yourself why virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. Wouldn’t that actually lend credence to the fact there really was a worldwide flood? If any of your relatives went though a worldwide flood wouldn’t the story get told by your family generation after generation? Sure it would, and after a time wouldn’t the story become distorted. Yes again.

    I believe it very reasonable to believe a real worldwide flood caused virtually every ancient culture to have a flood myth.

  15. #315
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    19,944

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No it's not, unless you consider a room full of like-minded self-proclaimed scientists to be peers.

    Again, the flat-Earth society has a journal, with editors from the flat-Earth society as the peer reviewers. What person would call it a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a straight face? You would, I guess...

    the top 153 journals in the field of geology, by citations and impact factors:

    http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1907

    And don't tell me that anything controversial will not be published in any such journal. It will, if it's well-reasoned and scientific. Einstein was jeered off a few podiums for relativity being "out there" until he laid it all out logically and pointed people toward yet-untested consequences of relativity that would either support it or tear it apart. The big bang hypothesis also was an out-there idea published with great controversy ("big bang was actually a derogatory term poking fun at what some thought a silly idea).

    If you publish a journal of Pacers Digest and three of your buddies comprise the editorial board, please don't call it peer-reviewed science. Isn't it clear that it's not?
    I'm being saracastic. You said it was the test for science, not me. I'm just pointing out that once that threshold of it being in a peer-reviewed journal is met, all of a sudden you change your position on it.

    I about started mentioning all the different topics that have been in peer-reviewed journals that have been found out to be not as scientifically strong as once though, like Global Warming, or mention how other articles are just flat out rejected after they've been published. But in the end, I figured getting you to stomp all over the standards that you laid out would prove my point a little bit better.

    I find it quite ironic that you mention about how Einstein was once thought to be "out there" as you try and call scientifically supported belief of a great flood a myth, just because it doesn't fit in your square box.
    Last edited by Since86; 05-07-2013 at 03:34 PM.

  16. #316
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,585
    Mood

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've given similar advice about the Bible.
    Fair enough, but they're very different books.

  17. #317

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm being saracastic. You said it was the test for science, not me. I'm just pointing out that once that threshold of it being in a peer-reviewed journal is met, all of a sudden you change your position on it.
    I'm not changing my position even one tiny bit. I just never thought that anyone would have me back up and explain what a scientific journal actually IS. The National Enquirer has editors. They can call themselves reviewers if they wish, accept outside contributions, and rename their publication the Journal of the National Enquirer. That does not make it a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Is this really THAT hard?

    ... you try and call scientifically supported belief of a great flood a myth, just because it doesn't fit in your square box


    No, I have no square box, or a box of any other sort. I am eager to such purported scientific support. Maybe I can set up a journal alert on those 153 aforementioned reputable geology journals, so I will get an e-mail when such a paper is published for the first time. Scifinder Scholar does a good job with such table-of-contents alerts.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  18. #318

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ask yourself why virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. Wouldn’t that actually lend credence to the fact there really was a worldwide flood?
    Not really. They wrote about what they thought to be true or what they feared could happen to end their existence. Mother nature and a flood would be a pretty powerful fear, and to a culture who may exist entirely within a walkable area, a local flood is every bit the equivalent of a global deluge. Local floods happen. They are facts. I can see stories of such floods passed down and embellished, passed to other cultures even, maybe with a call for "clean living to prevent the next one" attached

    Plus a great many ancient cultures at some point had a common myth about the Earth being supported on the back of a giant animal, such as a tortoise or an elephant. The prevalence of such myths don't really lend credence to their scientific validity.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 04:35 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  19. #319

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    National Geographic has in-depth info on the Ballard flood hypothesis (properly the Ryan-Pitman hypothesis, supported later by Ballard), which is not a global flood but a local flood caused by glacier melt at the end of the last ice age causing a sudden catastrophic rush of seawater into the Black Sea, inundating MANY local civilizations on the then-shore of the Black Sea. His mission is to look for evidence by combing the floor of the Black Sea in search of the remains of those ancient cultures on that pre-flood shoreline.

    An interesting hypothesis with some early data to support aspects of the theory but that suggest a somewhat limited scope of the flooding.

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

    general info here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...uge_hypothesis


    In a nutshell, the map here shows what was supposedly flooded out by the event, with the ancient shoreline in black.





    Further info on the local flood hypothesis provocatively named by the media as "Noah's Flood" but differing in most major respects such as scope (local) an how it would have heppened.

    http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013 at 04:32 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  20. #320
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    14,874
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    IIRC my Indiana History class detailed a flood myth for the Miami Indians in which they saw a giant turtle floating on it's back with mates of all types of animals riding on it's belly.

    But that's an old memory.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  21. #321

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by graphic-er View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why are the odds so bad? We are talking about a time period of billions of years. Thats a long time for whatever primordial soup to interact with lots of different things. How can it be ruled out that the other Amino acids were brought from outer-space? Things hit the earth all the time from outer-space. I think those chances over the course of time we are talking about here make it pretty good odds.
    You should familiarize yourself with the Universal Plausibility Metric/Principle...

    TBioMed | The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)

    Abstract Background

    Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ξ is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.
    Conclusion

    No low-probability hypothetical plausibility assertion should survive peer-review without subjection to the UPP inequality standard of formal falsification (ξ < 1).

    Keep in mind that this is just a set of rules designed to test whether or not something is plausible from a probabilistic point of view. There's still the huge question of whether or not nature is even capable of creating a programming language like that which is the foundation for life (genetic code). Empiricism says it cannot*; faith in abiogenesis says it had to.


    *to the degree that science can prove a negative based on a lack of observation after several centuries.

  22. #322
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,005

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by graphic-er View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why are the odds so bad? We are talking about a time period of billions of years. Thats a long time for whatever primordial soup to interact with lots of different things. How can it be ruled out that the other Amino acids were brought from outer-space? Things hit the earth all the time from outer-space. I think those chances over the course of time we are talking about here make it pretty good odds.
    Are amino acids alive by themselves? They are not. So even if you get all the correct amino acids together that doesn't mean you have life.

    The amino acids would need to be energized with life. What happens to cells when the body that hosts them dies? They die too don't they because their energy source is dead, and they had all the correct amino acids.

    The amino acids would need energized with life. The law of Biogenesis says life is only produced by prior life. Further, if you somehow energized a cell, it wouldn't do a thing because it has no genetic code to tell it what to do. Not only is life only produced by prior life, but the genetic code is only passed on by prior life.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 05-08-2013 at 11:54 AM.

  23. #323
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,005

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not really. They wrote about what they thought to be true or what they feared could happen to end their existence. Mother nature and a flood would be a pretty powerful fear, and to a culture who may exist entirely within a walkable area, a local flood is every bit the equivalent of a global deluge. Local floods happen. They are facts. I can see stories of such floods passed down and embellished, passed to other cultures even, maybe with a call for "clean living to prevent the next one" attached


    Plus a great many ancient cultures at some point had a common myth about the Earth being supported on the back of a giant animal, such as a tortoise or an elephant. The prevalence of such myths don't really lend credence to their scientific validity.
    In post 307 when you said that two of the flood myths were blended together by Bible authors you were talking about Noachian flood myths and how virtually every ancient culture has them. Noachian flood myths would not be Noachian unless some part of the myth resembled what is recorded in the Bible.

    And as you stated virtually every ancient culture has Noachian flood myths. Thus so many flood myths having elements of the Noachian flood would lend credence to their actually being a Noachian flood.

    So instead of two of the Noachian flood myths being blended together by Bible authors, it’s more likely it happened the other way around, the Noachian flood myths were derived from an actual Noachian flood.

  24. #324

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    The point was that flood stories were re-told for centuries, long before the Bible was written, by cultures that did not believe in God. Then later, essentially the same story was re-packaged with a religious spin put on it front and center.

    If the theory of sudden burst of the glacier melt-swelled Mediterranean into the Black Sea were true,

    and if I had survived somehow in a mountain or something while essentially the entire area of the Earth that I know about or that I had ever seen was inundated by 50 feet of water, I would (wrongly) have recorded it as a global flood too. Later re-tellers would further embellish it and spin it to their own purposes. What gets really odd that one of those later re-tellers would have his version of my story decreed to be the word of God!
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  26. #325
    I'm on a MAC! graphic-er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,793

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you're just generically addressing arguments that no one in this thread is making, so you can debate points with people who are arguing a completely different idea? What purpose does that serve? It's an awful lot like KStat coming in and saying that there isn't a single Creationist, out of the billions of us that walk the Earth, that addresses dinosaurs. It seems like you're bringing up extreme positions to associate them with arguments being made here in order to respond.


    Oh, and there is archeological evidence that supports the story of Noah's Ark.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2273143.html

    Here we are supposed to be relying on scientific evidence, while we are mocking and dismissing scientific evidence...
    OH GOOD LORD, This is the biggest tripe posted yet in this thread. Let us know when that guy actually finds his evidence, the act of searching for is not finding.
    We already know there was great flood and it happened way before Noah. Infact most ancient cultures have a great flood myth, that in no way supports Noah's Ark.
    But just so we are clear, the story of Noah's Ark revolved around rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The Theory that this Ballard is trying to prove is that the Mediterranean sea essentially overflowed into the Black Sea.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

Similar Threads

  1. The Evolution of Roy Hibbert
    By pizza guy in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 07:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •