|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2001 : 20:46:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
-------Well Dr. Slater you must be trying to duck the real issue.I quoted a world renowed ,former evolutionist,chemist.
As Garrette aptly shows, this is mere rhetoric. In any case, I think evolution can safely claim most of the best and brightest among its proponents.
quote:
Whether I am an expert is irrelevent.In my quote Dr. Smith points out a very simple chemical law(one which you claimed didn't exist).Namely,that when random chance is the controlling agent ANY supposed order is equaly reversible.
Y'know, you're right. Good thing random chance (is there another kind?) isn't the controlling variable. You might want to learn more about natural selection and genetic drift.
quote:
This is similar to
random typing on your keyboard(you can do a controlled experiment ),while you are typing away by total chance the word "cat" may pop up but then the next two million lines will look like /dfkjvsdiufvfdhvldf/conveying no useful information whatsoever.
Well, no, it's nothing like this at all. Blind keystrokes are not self-replicating molecules. Perhaps you would like to explain how selection pressures relate to typing?
quote:
But you reply"I'm not talking about the a test tube I'm talking about the ocean"thats why I put your last posting next to mine because so was Dr. Smith(Check it out). Now concerning my so called lack of respect for science you folks couldn't be further from the truth.I firmly have confidence that my senses don't deceive me and in the regularty of the universe.
That's great but I don't see what it has to do with your respect for science.
quote:
I believe in thr law of rational inference(like an archeologist who finds a piece of pottery or arrowhead and rightly concludes that its the work of an intelligent being).
Now, you know there's no such 'law of rational inference.' And your analogy is silly. We know pottery and arrowheads are designed for a number of reasons; I, for one, have seen pottery made before. How many universes, galaxies, planets, self-replicating molecules, etc. have you seen made lately? And no nonsense about 'obvious complexity' or 'apparent design' or whatever is the phrase du jour.
quote:
Also I accept the law of cause and effect ,and with it the truth that no effect is greater than its cause.
This isn't a law unless you are a Buddhist.
quote:
Therefore,I reject any view that states that the"I"the person is the result of blind impersonal chance.
Good. You made the right choice.
quote:
You however,have a diffrent view.
Actually, we are in agreement here.
quote:
When for example,you repeat your blind FAITH in "somehow eons ago in a land faraway racemates became peptides,then amino acids ect...".There is no repeatable scientific verification for your view its just what you want to have happened,in other words its your philosophy.   
Your failure to either read or understand my previous response to this nonsense is not going to lend it any more credibility, no matter how many times you repeat it.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 21:06:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DAlogos, this is the statement by Slater to which you refer.
sea (s)
.... It also could be an inland sea whether fresh or salt water.
When I say Seas, I mean Seas. The ocean...even a "world ocean" would be fine too.
Smith seems to be working on the fallacy that it is one big homogeneous mass. He mustn't spend the time that I do on and underneath it.
All that is required is a spot with the right mixture of chemicals, deep enough to filter out the harmful rays (and DAlogos Genesis says nothing about any harmful rays so why do you bring them up?) and an external source of energy. Tide pools are in the sea, trenches with volcanic vents are there, mountains plains, you name it--it's under the sea.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 04:31:33 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Slater you still haven't provided " scientific proof" for your "faith" that life began in ocean.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 06:03:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dr. Slater you still haven't provided " scientific proof"
Please provide for us your definition of "scientific proof", so that we may be on the same page here.
You are actually interested in this, right? Not just being contrary for the sake of being contrary?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 10:49:22 [Permalink]
|
My "faith"?
Are we to now understand that besides not knowing the meaning of such words as "theory" that you do not understand the meaning of the word "faith"?
No wonder you want to throw out your son's science books. You think science is a pagan religion.
Of course my proof is in the fossil record. Would you like to know a good book to read about the Burgess Shale? Perhaps I could tell you of a location near where you live where you can find Trilobites?
Or are you going to bring up Noah? You remember that story--the one that tells how men EVOLVED into different races from common parents?
Speaking of proof--we're still waiting on your proof that god exists.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 10:09:49 [Permalink]
|
 To Phd,would you be saying that the 'universe,isn't complex?And there's Dogmaticlly 'No design' apparent or otherwise? quote:
'no nonsense about obvious complexity and apparent design'
 
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 12:47:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Phd,would you be saying that the 'universe,isn't complex?And there's Dogmaticlly 'No design' apparent or otherwise? quote:
'no nonsense about obvious complexity and apparent design'
Allow me...
an'thro•po'mor'phism' n. an attributing of human qualities to things.
OR--
Is God very, very simple or complex?
If complex, who designed him?
If he does not require a designer then your rule obviously does not apply to the universe either.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/18/2001 : 16:26:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Phd,would you be saying that the 'universe,isn't complex?And there's Dogmaticlly 'No design' apparent or otherwise? quote:
'no nonsense about obvious complexity and apparent design'
Like I said, dude, soon as you show me a universe that's verfiably not designed, for reference, we can compare and then you can start talking about design in this universe.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2001 : 10:33:10 [Permalink]
|
D'Alogos:Lets see my son's evolutionary text book, Dr. Slater, and about 500 PBS specials equipped with "eyewitness animation
That's right Rat, the general consciences is that life started in the sea.
Of course "Doctor" Alogos has presented us with his theory that life was started by a giant, invisible, superman who lives in the sky. His justification is that it looks like somebody made all this stuff, to him. And life couldn't possibly have started in the sea because it's too wet.
But back in the real world all of the earliest fossils are from a marine environment. The very oldest that we have found in unmetamorphosed sediments are 3.5 billion years old from Africa (Knoll & Barghoorn in 1977) and 3.6 billion from Australia (Walter in 1983, if I remember correctly). These are things called stromatolites. They were mats of sediment trapped and bound by bacteria and blue green algae.
Bacteria from this time were weird things called Prokaryotic--no nucleus, no paired chromosomes, no chloroplasts. Much more primitive than even the Amoeba of high-school biology lab fame. They were found in association with volcanic vents in what were formerly in deep-sea trenches--down where it was dark (no radiation from the sun) and hot (external source of energy), with hardly any current (no "mass action"). If these were not the first life they were damn close. And are the earliest that we have found so far, less than a billion years younger than the Earth itself. (All the rock that is older than 3.6 billion has been metamorphosed-altered by heat and pressure-so no luck in finding fossils in it)
A close relative of these guys, some weird shaped primitive bacteria, were thought to be extinct. Until virtually identical bacteria were found next to a castle wall in Wales at a spot where people had been relieving themselves for about 900 years. This may give you a clue about what conditions in the "Garden of Eden " was really like.
You have to keep in mind that although the "invisible superman in the sky" theory has fully grown aardvarks popping into existence at the saying of a magic word, the PBS version of history is much less dramatic--animation or not.
Eukaryotic cells start showing up in the fossil record 1.4 billion years ago, and that was a major advance in the complexity of life. But multi-celled animals just didn't follow in their wake. They don't show up until the very end of the Pre-Cambrian in what is called the Ediacara fauna.
For two-thirds of the entire history of life on Earth all organisms were single-celled creatures of the simplest, or prokaryotic, design.
Multi celled life has only been around for 570 million years. Single celled 3.6 billion. (Australian readers: when I say billion I'm talking American billion or a thousand millions; and not the English billion which is a million millions)
3,600,000,000 vs 570,000,000 yrs. That's only one sixth of the time that life has been on Earth have we had more than a single cell. If the entire history of Earth were a 24 hour day single celled life would have been alone until eight PM.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2001 : 11:33:25 [Permalink]
|
 Wow!You write it down so "orderly" one would think you were there
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2001 : 11:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wow!You write it down so "orderly" one would think you were there
Ah, yes, the appeal for eyewitness testimony. I will suggest to you the very latest forensic research regarding the accuracy of eyewitness reports (being & seeing) vs. circumstantial evidence (fossils, geologic columns, etc.). Your local university psych department might very well have this information; if not, I'll see what I can find. For the time being, perhaps you would like to comment on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in the bible?
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2001 : 11:50:47 [Permalink]
|
D alogos, still just making cute comments instead of offering an argument of your own I see. You are not going to impress anyone by answering well thought out posts the way you do. What is and has been obvious is that you have no argument.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2001 : 16:32:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wow!You write it down so "orderly" one would think you were there
I'm older than I look.
If by there you mean, if I have personally examined a stromatolite under a microscope, the answer is yes.
Still waiting on that proof of god's existence though.
I'll settle for a lesser heavenly being if that would make your life easier. A small angel would do. A fallen one is fine, it doesn't matter.
Anything "super" natural at all would be a good start.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 03:39:05 [Permalink]
|
To Atomic:Stop being such killjoy;To Phd:To show you what you want would be like showing you a square circle,however,here's a try.The Late Great Carl Sagan asked a question in his famous COSMOS(I believe it was eph#10 and I'm paraphrasing).He asked'what kind ofUni-Verse would make science possible?', He went on to say basicly that it couldn't be a static one with no change because science couldn't measure any differences;also it couldn't be a'herkey jerkey' one because there wouldn't be any stability to formulate theories about the Cosmos.He ended by stating that to be able to "do science" we need Universe just like we have(now i know this sounds similar to the Goldie Locks myth but so far we haven't found any historical evidence to link Sagan to a Goldie cult).Now as theist I have a metaphyisical foundation for a UNI[ty]-[in di]-VERSITY.A rational God created a rational cosmos and endowed us with rational soul whereby we could investigate His Universe(ie Kepler,Newton).Gotta go
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 07:03:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Atomic:Stop being such killjoy;To Phd:To show you what you want would be like showing you a square circle,however,here's a try.The Late Great Carl Sagan asked a question in his famous COSMOS(I believe it was eph#10 and I'm paraphrasing).He asked'what kind ofUni-Verse would make science possible?', He went on to say basicly that it couldn't be a static one with no change because science couldn't measure any differences;also it couldn't be a'herkey jerkey' one because there wouldn't be any stability to formulate theories about the Cosmos.He ended by stating that to be able to "do science" we need Universe just like we have(now i know this sounds similar to the Goldie Locks myth but so far we haven't found any historical evidence to link Sagan to a Goldie cult).Now as theist I have a metaphyisical foundation for a UNI[ty]-[in di]-VERSITY.A rational God created a rational cosmos and endowed us with rational soul whereby we could investigate His Universe(ie Kepler,Newton).Gotta go
Sagan was quite the philosopher, at times, as well as a sharp astronomer, eh? Now, it's been 6 or 7 years since I read the copy of Cosmos I picked up at a yard sale in Tallahassee for $1.00 and I don't recall exactly the passage you paraphrase. For the sake of argument, I'll assume your cite is accurate, although I'll check it out when I get home. Now, we all know Carl wasn't much of a god-guy, so what do you suppose he was trying to say? Not likely your bastardized derivative, which explains precisely nothing. I might be wrong, but I think Carl was speaking in limited scope, about the universe as we know it and science as we know it. I don't think he would have a problem with the idea that a universe with a different set of laws/principles (if such a thing is possible) would need a different science. Your universal absolutism is wholly unwarranted.
Now, consider your conclusion from above:
quote:
A rational God created a rational cosmos and endowed us with rational soul whereby we could investigate His Universe(ie Kepler,Newton).
First, you are using at least 2 definitions of 'rational.' Do you mean to say that God is sane or that it(he?) is logical? I assume by "rational cosmos" you mean 'logical cosmos.' And what is a "rational soul"? Is that a soul 'of sound mind' or a soul with the ability to reason? Whatever, your description of God as "rational" is curious because 'rational' is quite obviously a relative term. I suppose you could try to argue that God is perfectly logical but that's obviously not true, unless you have a good reason why a logical being would design the human eye such that the photoreceptor cells are oriented the wrong way. Gaffes such as this abound; my "investigat[ion] of His Universe" leads me to the conclusion that this "rational" designer is a cosmic clown. Or at least it(he?) would be if it(he?) existed.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
