Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122 LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 535

Thread: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

  1. #476
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I suppose this may be the ultimate question to the evolution doubters, what, to you, would sufficient evidence look like to establish that evolution is actually true? What would it have to be? And why?

  2. #477
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,248

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Of course germ theory is its own thing, but the idea here is that even though we don't call it a law everybody basically accepts it as true and factual despite 'only' being a theory. Therefore pointing out that evolution is a theory doesn't really do anything to change anybody's mind one way or the other.
    I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. I was just objecting to the comparison between evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus.

  3. #478
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I suppose this may be the ultimate question to the evolution doubters, what, to you, would sufficient evidence look like to establish that evolution is actually true? What would it have to be? And why?
    I doubt the Darwinian account of evolution, which doesn't mean I find the entire concept of evolution incredulous.

    For me, the answer's pretty simple: Darwinists claim their mechanisms are capable of explaining every feature of every biological organism, past and present. In order to demonstrate this as true, they'd have to demonstrate that their mechanisms possess incredible creative power.

    In my opinion, they've not even come close to doing this.

    What they've done is offered up underwhelming things like finch beaks slightly changing size and shape, and butterflies changing colors. Considering the amount of time and money that's been poured into Darwinism, and how strongly people want -- NEED -- it to be true, that's very telling.

    If they can show that their mechanisms are capable of producing complex new traits which demonstrate enough creative power to reasonably explain all of biology, and they can demonstrate that these mechanisms aren't rooted in an intelligence, then I'll accept Darwinism as true.

    This is why the origin of life is such an important question. People try to argue evolution against design, yet for all we know, evolution could be a designed event. It sure as hell looks that way to me. When I say that biology is software (the genetic code) being read and processed by hardware (organelles; machinery within the cell), I'm not blowing smoke. It's instructions encoded in DNA which are then decoded and developed into... well, all of biology. It's amazing, and it's absurd that so many people make flimsy excuses to forbid the design explanation.

  4. #479

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    A physicist who studies relativity is not an Einsteinist.

    A biologist who studies vaccines is not a Salkist.

    A astronomer who studies black holes is not a Hawkingist.

    I know of no such thing as a "Darwinist" and in 30 years of being a practicing scientist I have never heard any scientist use that term. It seems to be an invention of the anti-science lobby intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult. No one has ever worshiped Darwin. On the contrary, for >150 years scientists have sought hard to test many of his proposals. Proving any aspect of them wrong is a powerful incentive!

    Some of his proposals have indeed been proven to be ridiculous, such as pangenesis, evidence that science must stand on its own legs by what the evidence establishes. Not, ever, by opinions such as "gee, it sure as hell looks that way to me, not based on any evidence, but I just feel that way and you can't tell me how to feel"

    If ID offers up testable and potentially falsifiable ideas and offers up scientific support for ANY claims, it can be considered a science. Until then IMO it is rightly viewed as a movement created out of whole cloth directly from the creationist movement in the late 1990s, as a strategic initiative to step around the church and state issue, by declaring creationism to be a science with no religious content.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013 at 08:54 AM.
    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. The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  6. #480
    Can see thru wooden doors dal9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,909

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    ^ ^so basically you want to sit down in an auditorium, have a monkey on stage turn into a man in front of your eyes, have that man solve a math problem or something, and then have God step out from behind the curtain to sign an affidavit saying He had nothing to do with any of this.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dal9 For This Useful Post:


  8. #481
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by dal9 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^ ^so basically you want to sit down in an auditorium, have a monkey on stage turn into a man in front of your eyes, have that man solve a math problem or something, and then have God step out from behind the curtain to sign an affidavit saying He had nothing to do with any of this.
    I asked for valid scientific evidence. That you, Slick, and PacerDude seem to find that unreasonable is rather telling.

    The religious motivations of Darwinists couldn't be any more obvious if they created and started wearing their own religious symbol to proudly show off their faith.

    Oh, wait...




  9. #482

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I asked for valid scientific evidence. That you, Slick, and PacerDude seem to find that unreasonable is rather telling.
    Whoooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaa Nellie. Other than the occasional sarcastic comment, you'll find nowhere in this thread that I've shared my thoughts / beliefs / ideas / etc... on this subject.

    I have them, but I'll keep them to myself. That way, people will just continue to think I'm an idiot instead of confirming it to 1/2 of them.

    But I DO think that the chick on the Big Bang Theory is pretty hot. I think that's something we can all agree on.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to PacerDude For This Useful Post:


  11. #483
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Personally, I can totally see why some people think the universe was designed by an intelligence. The divide, as I see it, is that there's not enough concrete evidence to prove that it was, even though I think it's a reasonable philosophy or otherwise a reasonable interpretation.

    It's very tough to make a convincing case to the entire population. I mean, how exactly do we establish a benchmark for how complicated/complex the universe has to be in order for everyone to conclude that it has to be due a designer as opposed to having been the result of chaos in motion over billions of years? Particular when the designer appears to be invisible or perhaps non-physical consciousness?

    The flip side is, I don't think it's any more proven to have been purely from chaos, either. To me, we are just racking up evidence for the mechanisms and the configurations of all physical objects in the known universe, but whether that's due to pure chaos plus a sufficient amount of time plus survival of the fittest or whether that's due to an intelligent designer or perhaps to some extent both, that all seems to be unproven and a matter of opinion, no?

  12. #484

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I asked for valid scientific evidence. That you, Slick, and PacerDude seem to find that unreasonable is rather telling.
    we give it out the wazoo and you ignore it. We ask you for the same and you tell us what you "believe" and what you "feel", you wrap it up in a cute little bow, and you say it's science.

    It is not. It has never been.

    Evolution as a religion? That is the most laughable piece of baloney I have ever heard. Every single aspect of evolutionary theory is open to scrutiny by experimentation and by the data. If the data says it falls, if falls! There are no sacred cows.

    If the human & chimp genome project said that there is no evidence in the DNA for the fusion of chromosomes in the genome of a common human-chimp ancestor, many ideas would have been thrown out overnight. That's the way science works. You should learn about it sometime.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013 at 10:47 AM.
    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!)

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


  14. #485
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,305
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by dal9 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^ ^so basically you want to sit down in an auditorium, have a monkey on stage turn into a man in front of your eyes, have that man solve a math problem or something, and then have God step out from behind the curtain to sign an affidavit saying He had nothing to do with any of this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PejFLQ1ZxNA


    I'm a devout Catholic and retired microbiologist. (My credentials don't measure up to others on here though). This is my BELIEF. The Bible is devinely insprired, but the Book of Genesis is of the Old Testament and as a Jewish "book" was written in the style of the Jewish people....that of parables.
    Do I believe in evolution? Sure...now tell me where first man came from to evolve into what we are today. I look at amazement to the millions of genetic variants that had to occur to create our body and mind as it is. As I do so, I build my faith around my BELIEF in Intelligent Design.
    I do not believe that so many coincidences could occur as to create human life.


    Hey a question for all...........what spark created life in that primoidal soup that existed 10 billion years ago (whatever)? Tell me it was lightening and I'll challenge you to duplicate it in the lab.
    Last edited by indygeezer; 08-22-2013 at 11:14 AM.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  15. #486

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    "Darwinism" originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1]

    Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin's work.

    In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection....

    While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory. For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift for example...

    The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism").
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
    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!)

  16. #487
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    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 know of no such thing as a "Darwinist" and in 30 years of being a practicing scientist I have never heard any scientist use that term.
    We've been over this multiple times. Your ignorance is not a valid rebuttal.

    A Darwinist is a proponent of Darwinism.

    "What's Darwinism," you say? "Buy a dictionary," I respond.

    Darwinism - Oxford Dictionary
    Darwinism - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    Darwinist - Dictionary.com
    Darwinism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Darwinist - The Free Dictionary

    Notice that with the dictionaries linking to Darwinism, they list Darwinist as a noun/adjective derivative.

    In short:

    Darwinism = Specific theory of evolution.
    Darwinist = Proponent of Darwinism.

    Rocket science, it's not.

    Two of my favorite sites, Uncommon Descent and Evolution News & Views also tackle the myth that Darwinism/Darwinist are creationist-invented words.

    Uncommon Descent - Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design

    (it's a bit long, so I've added spoiler tags)

    Spoiler Spoiler:


    Busting Another Darwinist Myth: We'd love to take credit for "Darwinism," but we can't. - Evolution News & Views



    Selected Examples of Darwinists Calling Themselves “Darwinists”

    Spoiler Spoiler:




    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It seems to be an invention of the anti-science lobby intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult.
    Apparently, every major dictionary and encyclopedia in the world is in on the conspiracy, as well as other Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson. Or you're full of ****. Whichever.

    To be fair to Slick, that Darwinist is a creationist-invented term isn't something he's came up with. As the articles make clear, this is yet another lie Darwinists have been using to attack skeptics. Slick has just heard others use it, and has accepted it with nary a single ounce of critical thought. He's the puppet, not the puppet-master.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No one has ever worshiped Darwin.
    Darwin has his own religious symbolism, his own view of creation named after him, his own statue within one of the world's most famous churches, Westminster Abbey, has his own holiday celebrating his birth, is honored on money, and is defended fervently by his followers.

    I'd say that's enough to qualify as a certain degree of worship, but this is all subjective, of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On the contrary, for >150 years scientists have sought hard to test many of his proposals. Proving any aspect of them wrong is a powerful incentive!
    Yeah, right. Either you're a liar, or you know frighteningly little about science.

    Darwinists don't test Darwinism in hopes of finding it false; they test it in hopes of finding it true. And, surprisingly, they do, regardless of the finding. No matter what the research says, the interpretation will remain the same: "Darwinismdidit."


    As for the whole, "scientists WANT to prove Darwin wrong!" line of thinking, must I remind you about how long, drawn-out, and ugly the history of scientific revolutions has been? Certain individual scientists may want to topple the reigning theory, but scientific consensus, as a whole, fights against it. Why would the scientific consensus want something which most of them have believed in for decades, and in which they have much emotional, political, and financial investment, to be proven false? They wouldn't, and that, ladies and gentlemen, explains the aforementioned ugliness of scientific revolutions.

    Every tactic, every style of argumentation, everything we're seeing today from Darwinists is history repeating itself. It's all been done before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Some of his proposals have indeed been proven to be ridiculous, such as pangenesis, evidence that science must stand on its own legs by what the evidence establishes. Not, ever, by opinions such as "gee, it sure as hell looks that way to me, not based on any evidence, but I just feel that way and you can't tell me how to feel"
    Absolutely. From the perspective of discovering truth, all that matters is the evidence. Scientific consensus means nothing. Motivations mean nothing. Implications mean nothing.

    But, here's the thing: The evidence says design. The origin of life, which is the question that actually matters, says design, and evolution continues to gel with this evidence. It's Darwinists who must fight with dishonesty, censorship, and motive mongering; most I.D. proponents only want to discuss the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If ID offers up testable and potentially falsifiable ideas and offers up scientific support for ANY claims, it can be considered a science. Until then IMO it is rightly viewed as a movement created out of whole cloth directly from the creationist movement in the late 1990s, as a strategic initiative to step around the church and state issue, by declaring creationism to be a science with no religious content.
    We've been over this before. I.D. is one of the most tested theories in the history of science. Every single scientist attempting to prove an intelligence-free origin of life (abiogenesis) is attempting to disprove I.D.

    I.D. is based on three pieces of extensive knowledge:


    • Knowledge of what was required for life to form.
    • Knowledge of what nature can and can't do.
    • Knowledge of what intelligence can and can't do.


    The three above pieces of knowledge all point towards intelligence being the best explanation for the origin of life. Only intelligence has proven to be capable of doing what is required for life to exist, thus, on inference to the best explanation, I.D. wins.

    The origin of life OVERWHELMINGLY points towards design, and when viewed from a design-perspective, all of biology makes near perfect sense. It's all directed.

  17. #488
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    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
    First of all, Wikipedia should not be viewed as a nonpartisan authority on this debate. The pages on I.D. are notorious for their dishonesty, and for the watchdog basement-dwellers who make sure that dishonesty remains uncorrected.

    Secondly, your source doesn't even agree with you. You said Darwin-ist/ism is term made up by "creationists" as a part of a worldwide conspiracy, when the article you're quoting says otherwise.

    Thirdly, when using the term Darwinist, I, and everyone else I know, correctly refers to biology, not abiogenesis nor cosmology, so I'm not sure why you're underlining text in the paragraph referring to those things.

    Fourthly, Darwinism is a valid term. I've proven that. If Darwinists feel that the term Darwinism is a pejorative and that it makes them out to be religious nuts, then that's just too bad. It's a legitimate term, and I've used it in its proper meaning.


    Fifthly, and finally, I have to laugh at Darwinists whining over the correct usage of the legitimate term Darwinism when one of their go-to attacks (one used by Slick repeatedly) is to conflate Biblical creationism and I.D. for the sake of confusing the public and "winning" via slaying straw-men arguments.

    God, Darwinists are sleazy.

  18. #489

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Your ignorance is not a valid rebuttal...

    you're full of ****...

    Either you're a liar, or you know frighteningly little about science.


    I am tired of this crap!

    You are added to the ignore list, a select company, you and OldBlu.

    Yes it's hard to make my list.

    As to my scientific background, as of now it includes an AB degree (Wabash College), MS degree (Yale), M. Phil degree (Yale), Ph.D degree (Indiana), 23 years of post-Ph.D research, generating 26 published papers, and also 35 published patents or patent applications. Ask Geezer to verify... awhile back I sent him a PM with the basic info on exactly who I am.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013 at 11:36 AM.
    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. #490

    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
    It seems to be an invention of the anti-science lobby intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult.

    error on my part.

    It was a term that was not invented by, but rather was co-opted by the anti-science lobby, intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult.

    Final thought: this looks to be an EXCELLENT book, for those interested in the topic:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/025...epticblog08-20
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013 at 12:18 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. #491
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,305
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Slick I do have a question from that book. Because I believe in ID and have a disdain for the "science" in man-made global warming, am I lumped in with all to be called a "science denier?". That short intro into the book almost sounds as if one must agree with the author or be labeled a heretic and burned at the stake.

    Is there room for discussion or is it so ideological that one cannot disagree with one aspect without being labeled a radical?
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  21. #492

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    That's my one problem with many books that do lay out the straight scoop on issues such as evolution:

    None I have read succeed or even try well enough to refrain from also taking condescending potshots at the opposing views. I want them to tell us the facts, why they are passionate about disseminating those facts, and about why they think those who have opposing views went astray.

    That should not require name-calling or attempted humiliation of those who are on the other side, but it always seems to go at least a little into that area. It would be more effective, IMO, if it did not, but it takes a great deal of restraint that is also against human nature, it seems, in people who feel so strongly as to bother to go to all of the trouble to write a book.

    Yes, I see that attitude from the synopsis, and I see how it can detract from what might be a good effort.

    I wouldn't view the flip side of all of those topics as science denial.

    It has been very very easy to show convincingly that global warming, for example, is a real phenomenon. The extent to which any one factor, such as man's fossil fuel combustion, plays into it has been much harder to establish. Is it 10%, 40%, 70%, or 100% of the problem? Most I think accept it not to be 100% and not to be 0%. What percentage makes it definitively "the cause we most need to address"?

    Those are issues that should be debated without vilifying people who are reluctant to accept a given set of data, since all data does have some underlying assumptions and all studies are in some way flawed.

    Most every scientific breakthrough in some way showed that something previously thought to be impossible was indeed possible and understandable. That doesn't mean that the people who used to think something was impossible to do were "science deniers" before the breakthrough. Many (most?) of them just hadn't seen and digested the data that would come from the right set of experiments, or even pondered anything like the proper set of experiments in the first place. The science deniers are those people who will not ever consider any data or any experiments, because they view data and experimentation as irrelevant, because they have arrived at an unshakable contrary conclusion, for whatever reason.

    A cool part of working in science is when you're saying things like "Wow, I didn't expect that result... I was wrong... what's going on here?... what experiment should I do next to understand what just happened? The science denier would never allow such a thought to enter his/her head.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013 at 03:35 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!)

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:


  23. #493
    Nerd.
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Greenwood, IN
    Age
    33
    Posts
    5,068
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I am not getting in to this debate; I too am a scientist with a pretty good history and CV but that doesn't really matter here.

    Only thing I really wanted to mention is that I recommend a former professor's book pertaining to much of this topic: Children of God, Children of Earth. Very good read. Dr. Jim Curry from Franklin College wrote it several years ago. He was a highly respected professor of genetics.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stryder For This Useful Post:


  25. #494
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,305
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Tom (Slick)

    I have two problems with MAN MADE GW. If it is as serious as described and CO2 is now the major greenhouse gas, why do we allow the destruction of even one tree? And then secondly, Has the East Anglia data been scrubbed from all reports and tables where it might have been used? How can I be certain that some of their falsified data isn't imbedded in some long-ago calculation used by, say, NASA in their calculations?
    I recognize there are matrices that allow for calculations based upon small numbers within a model (N=64) but isn't 150 years a very small sample compared to even as short a time period as 10-11,000 years since the end of the ice-age?
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  26. #495

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    I'm not up on the 2nd, but as to the 1st, it's pretty clear that carbon sequestration by planting and growing large numbers of trees and/or other plants has real impact. The downside is it's hard to imagine the rate of increase in planting stuff ever matching the rate of increase in fossil fuel consumption, globally. Maybe large scale farming of algae or other efficient photosynthesizers can up the ante though.

    The only super-flattening of the curve for CO2 will be when fossil fuels are largely replaced with something else. Even more efficient fossil fuel use really just gives a small deflection in the trend IMO. We aren't going to succeed in telling the 3rd world that they shouldn't drive cars because it's bad, and then we do.
    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!)

  27. #496
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,305
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Driving downtown for my wife's bday dinner I noted a FedEx plane lifting and turning over downtown to head east. Why a flight pattern over downtown when lifting and landing are the periods of time when the engines produce the most pollution. There they are dumping all that over downtown how many times a day????

    Why? How does that affect Indy's air quality....and environmental standards? How do those pollution numbers look to businesses thinking of settleing here?

    I would think if this were a real problem (as opposed to a political problem) flight patterns would be altered and the cutting of trees regulated (heck even taxed!!). It makes me wonder how serious this really is.

    as for planting....first and easiest is to requlate cutting. Make anyone who wants to cut down a tree get a permit.....make them do and environmental impact study of the effects of their planned cutting. Etc. I'm only half serious because I don't believe in the government in my life anyway. BUT, if it's a real problem they would be doing something other than putting thousands of miners out of work (not gonna happen, we'll mine the coal and sell it to the Chinese who will use it come hell or high water.)
    Last edited by indygeezer; 08-22-2013 at 08:58 PM.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

  28. #497
    Member hoosierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,464

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by indygeezer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Tom (Slick)

    I have two problems with MAN MADE GW. If it is as serious as described and CO2 is now the major greenhouse gas, why do we allow the destruction of even one tree?
    Well, you try getting a law passed through Congress that would regulate the vegetation on every piece of property (public and private) in the United States. It wouldn't pass.

    Most land use is governed at the local level and even then it does not often wade into regulating the treatment of vegetation.

    Furthermore, there is no political consensus to do anything about global warming at any level of government because of the presence of deniers in positions of power.

    This reality is not a basis to deny the validity of man made global warming which has overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community. The only holdouts have a vested financial interest in denying global warming from the natural resources extraction industries.
    Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-22-2013 at 10:00 PM.

  29. #498
    Member hoosierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,464

    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 am tired of this crap!

    You are added to the ignore list, a select company, you and OldBlu.

    Yes it's hard to make my list.

    As to my scientific background, as of now it includes an AB degree (Wabash College), MS degree (Yale), M. Phil degree (Yale), Ph.D degree (Indiana), 23 years of post-Ph.D research, generating 26 published papers, and also 35 published patents or patent applications. Ask Geezer to verify... awhile back I sent him a PM with the basic info on exactly who I am.
    Don't be surprised that guy would treat you in such a disrespectful manner. After all, he does sickeningly maintain that Democrats are criminals and breed like rodents and his sig-line claims that atheism killed millions of people, as if rejecting belief in a divine entity has any correlation at all to mass murder. He is nothing more than an insult artist that wraps his debasing and absurd remarks in pseudo-scientific jargon and volumes of text.
    Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-22-2013 at 09:53 PM.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to hoosierguy For This Useful Post:


  31. #499

    Default Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by indygeezer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PejFLQ1ZxNA


    I'm a devout Catholic and retired microbiologist. (My credentials don't measure up to others on here though). This is my BELIEF. The Bible is devinely insprired, but the Book of Genesis is of the Old Testament and as a Jewish "book" was written in the style of the Jewish people....that of parables.
    Do I believe in evolution? Sure...now tell me where first man came from to evolve into what we are today. I look at amazement to the millions of genetic variants that had to occur to create our body and mind as it is. As I do so, I build my faith around my BELIEF in Intelligent Design.
    I do not believe that so many coincidences could occur as to create human life.


    Hey a question for all...........what spark created life in that primoidal soup that existed 10 billion years ago (whatever)? Tell me it was lightening and I'll challenge you to duplicate it in the lab.
    What comes to mind is a quote from George RR Martin about writing styles. He says that some writers are architects, who plan out everything and every little detail before they start. Others are gardeners. They start off with an idea and let it grow naturally and sees what it becomes. That quote is what I think of when people try to make a line between religion and evolution. I really don't see how evolution contradicts the idea of God. Everything outside of the first few chapters of Genesis is perfect with evolution, and like you said, Genesis works in parables.

  32. #500
    Member hoosierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,464

    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 not even sure what you're asking.

    Germ theory is completely independent to itself. Why it's a theory and not a law has absolutely nothing to do with why evolution is a theory and not a law. That's why there's no point in bringing up germ theory.

    Gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus are observable and they can be replicated. They stay constant throughout each observance and replication, which is why they're called laws. Evolution is not observable, nor is it replicatable, and that's why it's a theory. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus are very narrow. They break down to specific equations that can be mathmatically proven. Evolution cannot.
    My response is so what? Evolution explains something completely different than calculus or gravity but is no less valid. There is no scientific evidence invalidating evolution even with all that society has learned since Darwin. If there had been it would have been published in a legitimate scientific journal and the theory would have been modified but it hasn't.
    Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-22-2013 at 10:01 PM.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to hoosierguy For This Useful Post:


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
  •