Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your lack of a rebuttal is unsurprising.

 

[CycloWizard]

Your lack of a rebuttal is unsurprising.

I asked you a direct question which could put this whole matter to rest if you would either propose a suitable hypothesis or admit that you cannot do so. You chose option C (neither). What am I to rebut?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I asked you a direct question which could put this whole matter to rest if you would either propose a suitable hypothesis or admit that you cannot do so. You chose option C (neither). What am I to rebut?

Your argument and your question are based on a false premise. I have pointed out why it is false. If you hope for this discussion to continue your only task right now is to acknowledge your false premise and revise your argument.

 

[CycloWizard]

Actually everything that I wrote in my post is true, and I'm sorry that you aren't seeing that your desire to pick some arbitrary time (and initial conditions) as a starting point for science isn't consistent with science as the rest of us define it.

Take a look at this link and pay particular attention to the third bullet on consistency of the causes.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

This simply proves my point: you're not grasping my concept. Perhaps I'm explaining it incorrectly. Using an example from your link, consider the following scenario. In case 1, you look up and see a villain cutting the rope holding the safe above your head. In case 2, you look up and the safe is falling. You can't say with certainty why it's falling or what its initial velocity was (someone could have flung it with non-zero initial velocity along the same trajectory, for example). In case 2, you can only speculate as to what the initial disposition of the safe might have been: perhaps, as in case 1, someone cut a rope from which it was suspended; perhaps someone carried it in the room and threw it. How can we make such a determination?

Mathematically, the velocity v of the safe at time t would be
v(t)=g*(t-t_0)+v_0
regardless of whether 1 or 2 was the initial state. The only things we can measure are (t,v) from the time we begin our observations. We are therefore unable to determine (t_0,v_0) except by assumption - an inherently philosophical excercise.

You can also look at this link about conservation of energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

which says in part:

And the open question is answered with a "no" if the universe is in fact expanding and has a positive cosmological constant; both these seem to be true based on recent observations.

Your own source says that this is an open question, yet you previously claimed, "Conservation of energy was undermined by general relativity and is pretty clearly not conserved in an expanding universe with a positive cosmological constant." I've spent enough time freezing my ass off while borrowing space in European labs where they are looking for Bose-Einstein condensates to pick up a little bit of modern physics knowledge. Many modern theories posit that matter is simply a specific manifestation of energy which has resting mass.

 

[CycloWizard]

Your argument and your question are based on a false premise. I have pointed out why it is false. If you hope for this discussion to continue your only task right now is to acknowledge your false premise and revise your argument.

You were never interested in a discussion. Your initial response to my initial post in this thread was something to the effect of, "Bullshit!" On the middle school playground, that's how discussions started, usually followed by a punch or two. Here, you feign intellectualism periodically using inane verbiage to distract everyone from the fact that you came on a mission and can't allow alternative explanations. You bat at strawmen, e.g. that same initial response wherein you stated that, "YEC, in contrast, is has been scientifically falsified through multiple lines of independent evidence, i.e. tree rings, radiometric dating, astronomical triangulation." Yet clearly those arguments have nothing to do with the problem as I've posed it. If you want to drive the discussion, then stop flinging poo everywhere and discuss. This is a problem I've thought about since I was a child and would be more than happy to find someone who can rationally discuss it. So far, all you've shown is that you don't like the position you assume I hold and all I've done is ask whether we can even know whether any such position is objectively knowable or whether we can only see the natural progression following some unknown initial state.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You were never interested in a discussion.

There's nothing to discuss until you acknowledge your false premise and revise your argument.

Your initial response to my initial post in this thread was something to the effect of, "Bullshit!"

Yes, I think that is a pretty fair assessment of your false premise.

On the middle school playground, that's how discussions started, usually followed by a punch or two. Here, you feign intellectualism periodically using inane verbiage to distract everyone from the fact that you came on a mission and can't allow alternative explanations.

You haven't put forth any alternative explanations. Moreover, you do not appear to understand what an explanation is.

You bat at strawmen, e.g. that same initial response wherein you stated that, "YEC, in contrast, is has been scientifically falsified through multiple lines of independent evidence, i.e. tree rings, radiometric dating, astronomical triangulation."

And that is a fact.

Yet clearly those arguments have nothing to do with the problem as I've posed it.

You haven't posed any problems. You have merely engaged in baseless flights of fancy that have literally zero scientific validity.

If you want to drive the discussion, then stop flinging poo everywhere and discuss.

Physician, heal thyself! Heretofore you have utterly failed to even acknowledge the fact that nothing about what you have suggested is in the least bit scientific, allthewhile claiming -- falsely -- that your inane little fantasies are "scientifically indistinguishable" from actual science. It isn't my fault that the discussion hasn't progressed beyond this point. Here it will remain until you confront the facts. Your fantastical delusions are actually scientifically distinguishable because they are not science.

his is a problem I've thought about since I was a child and would be more than happy to find someone who can rationally discuss it.

Maybe you should worry less about a child's rampant imagination and instead confront the cold hard reality of the facts like an adult.

So far, all you've shown is that you don't like the position you assume I hold and all I've done is ask whether we can even know whether any such position is objectively knowable or whether we can only see the natural progression following some unknown initial state.

I do not assume your position. I deduce it from your very own statements. The fact of the matter is that the only explanation for our observations of the age of the earth and the universe is that the former is some 4.5 billion years old, and the latter is some 13.5 billion years old. Period. It looks old because it is old. Anything which denies that inference is fundamentally solipsistic.

 

[PowerEngineer]

This simply proves my point: you're not grasping my concept. Perhaps I'm explaining it incorrectly. Using an example from your link, consider the following scenario. In case 1, you look up and see a villain cutting the rope holding the safe above your head. In case 2, you look up and the safe is falling. You can't say with certainty why it's falling or what its initial velocity was (someone could have flung it with non-zero initial velocity along the same trajectory, for example). In case 2, you can only speculate as to what the initial disposition of the safe might have been: perhaps, as in case 1, someone cut a rope from which it was suspended; perhaps someone carried it in the room and threw it. How can we make such a determination?

Mathematically, the velocity v of the safe at time t would be
v(t)=g*(t-t_0)+v_0
regardless of whether 1 or 2 was the initial state. The only things we can measure are (t,v) from the time we begin our observations. We are therefore unable to determine (t_0,v_0) except by assumption - an inherently philosophical exercise.

If I look up and see a safe falling towards me, then just on the basis of its current height and velocity I can calculate both the height at which it started falling and how long ago it started falling. I don't have any information about why the safe started falling. The rope could have just frayed to the point of breaking or your villain may have cut it. The "why" it's falling question does not change the description of how the safe falls.

I think you really want me to consider the possibility that your villain might have actually given the safe some added (initial) velocity. If I wasn't aware of that, then I'd calculate the wrong (higher) starting height and wrong (longer) time. I agree. However, I think you'll agree that a modified theory for the motion of safes that included an additional villainous term would not be a better scientific description of the laws of motion. It seems to me that your villain can not be considered among the "natural causes for things that happen in the world around us" (the first assumption in my link).

I'll take the risk of trying to apply this "villain" analogy to the question of the earth's age. What mainstream science holds is that everything we now see around us was produced by natural processes that required long times to complete, somewhere in the neighborhood of four billion years. What you want us to consider (as equally likely?) is that there was villainous activity (by a creator?) that produced what we see (through unnatural/supernatural processes) in a much shorter time (6000 years?). If so, then I still contend what you are suggesting is not a scientific theory. No "villains" (gods or Dr. Pizza) are allowed.

Your own source says that this is an open question, yet you previously claimed, "Conservation of energy was undermined by general relativity and is pretty clearly not conserved in an expanding universe with a positive cosmological constant." I've spent enough time freezing my ass off while borrowing space in European labs where they are looking for Bose-Einstein condensates to pick up a little bit of modern physics knowledge. Many modern theories posit that matter is simply a specific manifestation of energy which has resting mass.

As I said, the sanctity of conservation of energy as a law of nature has been thrown into question by general relativity. I'll stand by my contention that a positive cosmological constant coupled with an expanding universe strongly suggests that energy is not conserved. I'm a little surprised, however, that I can't google a reputable citation right now. This doesn't conflict with general relativities equivalence between mass and energy or your characterization of matter as energy with a resting mass.

 

[schmuckley]

A note irrelevant to the topic of this thread: In my opinion, there aren't nearly enough separate threads started in this forum, when the diverse variety of topics that have come up in the forum's largest thread are considered.

Anyway...

In another thread, it became apparent that there is at least one and perhaps several members that hold some unusual beliefs about reality, and the theory of evolution in particular. I think that subject deserves its own thread, and I will begin it by addressing a a post or two that appeared in that aforementioned thread.

To begin, let me provide a link to a superb master document to which many references will be made:

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Now...


This is a peculiar claim, in that the fossil record 1.) extends history by orders of magnitude into the past when compared to the Biblical literalist interpretation of the Bible, and 2.) quite clearly exhibits a phylogenetic history at odds with the literal interpretation of Genesis.

In a similar fashion, this claim seems very duibious, given that in a specific example the Bible describes a completely factually incorrect idea about trait inheritance in goats in Genesis chapter 30.

I'm quite sure you are not. Ring species exhibit the continuity of biological diversification, and the malleable nature of species classifications. They represent a mid point in the completion of the emergence of a new taxon.


Drawings are "fabricated" by definition. I'd be very curious what your idea of an "unfabricated drawing" looks like.

Regardless, how did you miss this collection of photographs -- not "drawings" -- from your own link?

I'd like you to detail exactly what part of the following image represents "theory and conjecture" -- note that this image was also acquired by following the link that you supplied:

They take incomplete fossils and manufacture the rest to fit the theory.
Notice this is just a drawing;If it were the real fossils the picture would look like some torsos,some skulls,a couple of femurs..

http://vimeo.com/30921402

The good stuff is about 5 mins in.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

They take incomplete fossils and manufacture the rest to fit the theory.

Your say-so is worth less than nothing around here. That is to say, the fact that you would assert something actually lends credence to the direct negation of that assertion.

Notice this is just a drawing;If it were the real fossils the picture would look like some torsos,some skulls,a couple of femurs..

Is it your contention that these are not reasonably accurate representations of the actually existent organisms?

What about the image containing actual photographs?

http://vimeo.com/30921402

The good stuff is about 5 mins in.

A bunch of bullshit. No wonder you don't understand evolution.

Where are your responses to the other half of my post?

 

[JEDIYoda]

What needs to be understood by those whose opinions differ from Cerpin Taxt is that cerpin never honestly expected any real meaningful discussion. This was all a ruse to get you to post. If you agree with him then you win the boobey prize....if you disagree with him then in his mind he gets to try to educate you to persuade you to think his way.

When he cannot answer your question he reverts to typical atheists talking points...
1) accusing you of not presenting evidence.
2) If you do present evidence he questions the source.....
3)lastly he accuses you of only answering half his question..lolol

Beware the Cerpint!!

This post is more of a personal attack, and certainly does not add to the discussion. Not appropriate for DC. -Admin DrPizza

 

[sandorski]

The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

A 17 Part, each 10ish minutes, dissection of Creationist claims. Pretty much covers every Creationist argument and gives a lot of the evidence supporting Evolution.

Skip #2-5 as they don't deal directly with Creationism/Evolution

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What needs to be understood by those whose opinions differ from Cerpin Taxt is that cerpin never honestly expected any real meaningful discussion. This was all a ruse to get you to post. If you agree with him then you win the boobey prize....if you disagree with him then in his mind he gets to try to educate you to persuade you to think his way.

When he cannot answer your question he reverts to typical atheists talking points...
1) accusing you of not presenting evidence.
2) If you do present evidence he questions the source.....
3)lastly he accuses you of only answering half his question..lolol

Beware the Cerpint!!

I'm sorry. I'm here to engage in a battle of wits, but it seems that you've arrived unarmed. It'd hardly be sporting, wouldn't you agree?

Likewise, no personal... counterattacks. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Retro Rob]

The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

A 17 Part, each 10ish minutes, dissection of Creationist claims. Pretty much covers every Creationist argument and gives a lot of the evidence supporting Evolution.

Skip #2-5 as they don't deal directly with Creationism/Evolution

...that's because the very first one uses argumentum ad populum out of the gate (obviously used as a tactic to intimidate the unscientific to discourage questioning "experts") and he spends time, pretty much padding his argument, showing how ordinary citizens who doubt or dare question any part of the theory of evolution are scientifically ignorant, a false dichotomy....while various details are hotly debate among scientists who fully support it, which probably makes him out to be a liar -- or either ignorant himself.

My recommendation: listen to someone who is much more objective than this buffoon, and can remove his personal hatred of religion.

 

[JD50]

...that's because the very first one uses argumentum ad populum <snip>

You keep saying this, but I don't think you actually understand what it means. No one is saying that evolution is true simply because all of these people believe it's true.

 

[Retro Rob]

You keep saying this, but I don't think you actually understand what it means. No one is saying that evolution is true simply because all of these people believe it's true.

I understand what it means, and he pointed out the consensus about 25 seconds into the first video before introducing any scientific evidence.

At any rate, my point is to look into this issue for ourselves...I don't bother listening to either extreme (atheism nor fundamentalist Christianity) because these extremes influence how we interpret and present evidence.

 

[JD50]

I understand what it means, and he pointed out the consensus about 25 seconds into the first video before introducing any scientific evidence.

At any rate, my point is to look into this issue for ourselves...I don't bother listening to either extreme (atheism nor fundamentalist Christianity) because these extremes influence how we interpret and present evidence.

Yes, he brought it up to show that there is a consensus, so what? Did he not follow up with evidence?

 

[alzan]

The one thing I see over and over in some of the posts in this thread is the inability (refusal?) to look at the subject from an open-minded POV. Early on the fact that a lot of scientists are theists was brought up. Scientists would be unable to do their jobs effectively if they did not suspend their biases and open their minds. When we seek to understand a subject, be it evolution or something else, we must suspend our belief or disbelief, else we do ourselves and others a grievous disservice.

 

[sandorski]

...that's because the very first one uses argumentum ad populum out of the gate (obviously used as a tactic to intimidate the unscientific to discourage questioning "experts") and he spends time, pretty much padding his argument, showing how ordinary citizens who doubt or dare question any part of the theory of evolution are scientifically ignorant, a false dichotomy....while various details are hotly debate among scientists who fully support it, which probably makes him out to be a liar -- or either ignorant himself.

My recommendation: listen to someone who is much more objective than this buffoon, and can remove his personal hatred of religion.

Oy vey.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, he brought it up to show that there is a consensus, so what? Did he not follow up with evidence?

Doesn't matter -- the initial video first documented how there is a consensus, then immediately after, called Americans ignorant of science if they doubt or question it...effectively erasing all doubt before getting into the details. How can I trust that anyone would be objective with that sort of premise?

It's a clever from of mental bullying, and why I watched the first video. It's not uncommon for sandorski to post heavily biased information as "educational".

 

[sandorski]

Doesn't matter -- the initial video first documented how there is a consensus, then immediately after, called Americans ignorant of science if they doubt or question it...effectively erasing all doubt before getting into the details. How can I trust that anyone would be objective with that sort of premise?

It's a clever from of mental bullying, and why I watched the first video. It's not uncommon for sandorski to post heavily biased information as "educational".

The Consensus amongst Mathematicians is that 2+2=4. Did I just commit a fallacy? Are people who deny that not ignorant?

I assume you stopped right there, because you are not really interested in hearing the Evolutionary side of the debate. The rest of the series backs up the Why there is a Consensus.

 

[JD50]

Doesn't matter -- the initial video first documented how there is a consensus, then immediately after, called Americans ignorant of science if they doubt or question it...effectively erasing all doubt before getting into the details. How can I trust that anyone would be objective with that sort of premise?

It's a clever from of mental bullying, and why I watched the first video. It's not uncommon for sandorski to post heavily biased information as "educational".

I don't really care if the video offended you, that's not what I was commenting on. You continue to claim that things are argumentum ad populum when they clearly are not. So you don't like the order in which he presented, duly noted. Now how about discussing the actual facts?

 

[Retro Rob]

The Consensus amongst Mathematicians is that 2+2=4. Did I just commit a fallacy? Are people who deny that not ignorant?

I assume you stopped right there, because you are not really interested in hearing the Evolutionary side of the debate. The rest of the series backs up the Why there is a Consensus.

Oh, I watched them, particularly the one about phylogenetics -- but this is why I don't watch someone's synopsis or whatever....I'm infinitely more interested in debates because having counter-information forces critical thinking.

If you only listen to your one-sided youtube links, you will be ignorant of other information.

...oh and someone's personal hatred of religion does make a difference in how information is presented, and how counter-arguments are presented as well.

I could clearly see his hand-waving of other information that didn't agree with his views.

 

[Retro Rob]

Now how about discussing the actual facts?

I did look at the videos and had no issue with the "facts", but they [videos] seem to treat all questioners as opponents -- continue with this philosophy, and science will lose.

Just sayin'....

 

[schmuckley]

Your say-so is worth less than nothing around here. That is to say, the fact that you would assert something actually lends credence to the direct negation of that assertion.


Is it your contention that these are not reasonably accurate representations of the actually existent organisms?

What about the image containing actual photographs?


A bunch of bullshit. No wonder you don't understand evolution.

Where are your responses to the other half of my post?

Ok..There's no sense in posting any truth;you plainly refuse to see the facts.You sir,need to cease inspecting your own colon.
The actual photographs show that appendages that are in the "transitional" phase are missing completely from actual fossil.
AKA They drew it in.
Yes.
Actually:You meet all the criteria for this:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml
This is you.
+inspecting your colon.

 

[Paratus]

The Consensus amongst Mathematicians is that 2+2=4. Did I just commit a fallacy? Are people who deny that not ignorant?

I assume you stopped right there, because you are not really interested in hearing the Evolutionary side of the debate. The rest of the series backs up the Why there is a Consensus.

Well somebody would be in here arguing that you can't distinguish the right answer because there's an infinite number of correct answers:

4, 8/2, 12/3, 16/4, etc.

Of course there's no effective difference in any of those answers but some how people use "magical" thinking to incorrectly assume that leaves the opening needed for god.

It doesn't matter if a " wizard " thinks science can't differentiate between a universe that's 13.7 billion years old and one that only looks like its. Or that we only look like we evolved because of an intelligent designer.

The fact is the data and observations only point one way, an old earth and common decent. Much like 2+2 indicates 4 is the answer and not 8/2.