An awesome new science show

[EverGreen1231]

The bookshelf was a good analogy like using a family tree.

No, it wasn't.

Use math and physics to explain Genesis.

There's no need to. It's explained in plain english.

 

[MiGGeLLo]

I understand the "science" behind evolutionary biology. Fortunately for me, and not-so-fortunately for evolution, I also understand mathematics and physics, as well as one can in certain areas, and so I find it difficult to take evolution seriously.

I'm curious as to what you mean by this, although I don't want to fall into the trap of appeal to authority, and do not have the requisite knowledge to discuss mathematics or physics in much detail, the most prominent mathematicians and physicists I know of have no qualms with evolution as the driving force behind Speciation.

What facts from mathematics or physics do you have that disprove evolution? You do know if you presented these 'facts' you would likely win a nobel prize right?

 

[MiGGeLLo]

No, it wasn't.



There's no need to. It's explained in plain english.

I respect skepticism until an idea is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is something very disingenuous about the way you require evidence born out through the theoretical fringes of advanced mathematics and physics to believe something with as much evidence from other areas to accept evolution, but are willing to lay all of this skepticism aside when presented with an ancient religious text and believe all of its primitive presumptions as truth.

If I explain evolution in plain English, will you accept it also? Heck we could probably even collaborate and get it translated into Hebrew for you.

 

[drippin' rock]

Hardly.
Bullet has a lot of knowledge,but Israel has wisdom.
No comparison.

It was a light hearted poke. That's all. I was referring to the flowery use of prose.

Your posts lately have a certain butt-hurt quality. Maybe you should pray about it.

 

[EverGreen1231]

I respect skepticism until an idea is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is something very disingenuous about the way you require evidence born out through the theoretical fringes of advanced mathematics and physics to believe something with as much evidence from other areas to accept evolution, but are willing to lay all of this skepticism aside when presented with an ancient religious text and believe all of its primitive presumptions as truth.

If I explain evolution in plain English, will you accept it also? Heck we could probably even collaborate and get it translated into Hebrew for you.

I require scientific evidence for something claimed to be a scientific principle. I require anything presented to me as a scientific fact to have an enormous body of evidence spanning several disciplines, and I certainly expect some agreement with mathematics and physics; this is not asking too much. If you can't provide those things in quantities sufficient to the claim, then it's possible that the theory doesn't hold water; it certainly means it should not be treated as dogmatic fact.

 

[EverGreen1231]

I'm curious as to what you mean by this, although I don't want to fall into the trap of appeal to authority, and do not have the requisite knowledge to discuss mathematics or physics in much detail, the most prominent mathematicians and physicists I know of have no qualms with evolution as the driving force behind Speciation.

What facts from mathematics or physics do you have that disprove evolution? You do know if you presented these 'facts' you would likely win a nobel prize right?

Mathematical principles do not bear out the grand evolutionary claim. The sheer enormity of the numbers required are such that they're not even useful or meaningful. I could imagine one may be able create a theory of canalization through a higher dimensional abstract vector space to predict how the evolutionary process began or proceeded after beginning, but, so far as I am aware, there has been no such attempt.

Evolutionists also completely ignore laws of physics that don't mesh with their chosen dogma. What use are the laws of thermodynamics anyway?

Mathematics is a paradigmatic example of a science and is founded and a great deal of intelligibility. Everything is clearly defined and every single principle, no matter how seemingly small, has been proven rigorously. Physics is similar though to a lesser degree. When compared, they make evolution look like nothing more than a story. I came to the conclusion that that is exactly what it is; a story, and nothing more.

At any rate, I've de-railed another thread. My apologies, ambush.

 

[MiGGeLLo]

Mathematical principles do not bear out the grand evolutionary claim. The sheer enormity of the numbers required are such that they're not even useful or meaningful. I could imagine one may be able create a theory of canalization through a higher dimensional abstract vector space to predict how the evolutionary process began or proceeded after beginning, but, so far as I am aware, there has been no such attempt.

It sounds like you are talking about predicting the paths that evolution would take... whether or not we can predict it has very little to do with whether or not it is occurring. If you cannot predict my future posts word for word, does that mean I haven't posted in the past, or that most posting is an illusion? I may just not be following here.. please clarify.

Also we do not have to determine how life could have began to describe the process through which life on earth has evolved. The proof is in the pudding on that.

Evolutionists also completely ignore laws of physics that don't mesh with their chosen dogma. What use are the laws of thermodynamics anyway?

By thermodynamics I must assume you are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).. this is not a new way of trying to poke holes in evolution, and has been thoroughly discredited.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate

Mathematics is a paradigmatic example of a science and is founded and a great deal of intelligibility. Everything is clearly defined and every single principle, no matter how seemingly small, has been proven rigorously. Physics is similar though to a lesser degree. When compared, they make evolution look like nothing more than a story. I came to the conclusion that that is exactly what it is; a story, and nothing more.

You are correct that math and physics are 'hard' sciences to a greater extent than biology, with less uncertainty and less messiness. Although you may find that quantum mechanics introduces many more uncertainties than you seem to like. However that doesn't mean that biology is any less useful for describing the world around us, or that its findings are less valid. You are free to believe whatever you will, but I must tell you your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand.

 

[MiGGeLLo]

I require scientific evidence for something claimed to be a scientific principle. I require anything presented to me as a scientific fact to have an enormous body of evidence spanning several disciplines, and I certainly expect some agreement with mathematics and physics; this is not asking too much. If you can't provide those things in quantities sufficient to the claim, then it's possible that the theory doesn't hold water; it certainly means it should not be treated as dogmatic fact.

This is laughable, you apply this skepticism to a well supported (although somehow you deny this) scientific theory, but are perfectly willing to believe in omniscient space fairies, virgin births, and divine resurrections which have no scientific backing to speak of. That's the whole point of my previous message.. you clearly do not apply the same burden of proof to your religious beliefs as you do to scientifically supported ideas.

It is my position that you are selecting which ideas you are skeptical about based on your religious beliefs rather than their scientific merit. You are unreasonable.

 

[bullethead]

I require scientific evidence for something claimed to be a scientific principle. I require anything presented to me as a scientific fact to have an enormous body of evidence spanning several disciplines, and I certainly expect some agreement with mathematics and physics; this is not asking too much. If you can't provide those things in quantities sufficient to the claim, then it's possible that the theory doesn't hold water; it certainly means it should not be treated as dogmatic fact.

And in your next breath you refer us to Genesis which meets none of your own criteria.

 

[EverGreen1231]

This is laughable, you apply this skepticism to a well supported (although somehow you deny this) scientific theory, but are perfectly willing to believe in omniscient space fairies, virgin births, and divine resurrections which have no scientific backing to speak of. That's the whole point of my previous message.. you clearly do not apply the same burden of proof to your religious beliefs as you do to scientifically supported ideas.

It is my position that you are selecting which ideas you are skeptical about based on your religious beliefs rather than their scientific merit. You are unreasonable.

If one applies only scientific merit to evolutionary theory, he will arrive a conclusion that is very far removed from the present blind acceptance.

And in your next breath you refer us to Genesis which meets none of your own criteria.

It's by faith I say God framed the universe. Science has no part in faith, though faith has a significant part in science.

If you say "This is scientific," I say, "show me how."

 

[EverGreen1231]

It sounds like you are talking about predicting the paths that evolution would take... whether or not we can predict it has very little to do with whether or not it is occurring. If you cannot predict my future posts word for word, does that mean I haven't posted in the past, or that most posting is an illusion? I may just not be following here.. please clarify.

The idea of evolution is it is a path by which one singular organism gave rise to all the rest. If it is true, it would have a predictive nature and one should be able to assign probabilistic weights to said path and its variations. This predictability could be described mathematically.

Also we do not have to determine how life could have began to describe the process through which life on earth has evolved. The proof is in the pudding on that.

Sure you do. It is entirely necessary to describe how atoms and molecules arranged themselves to form something that is "living;" in fact, it'd be nice to know what they mean by "living organisms." The processes would not be different.

By thermodynamics I must assume you are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).. this is not a new way of trying to poke holes in evolution, and has been thoroughly discredited.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate

Not hardly. The principle of the 2nd law is that order decreases because systems, open or otherwise, do not naturally move to less probable states. If they do move to a state of greater "order," they do so in a way that is predictable by causes that are real and measurable; still lending itself to the idea that improbable things don't occur.

Saying that "because the sun gives the earth energy, the earth is not a closed system" is obviously true; no system is closed. But it is another thing entirely to say that because the sun gives the earth energy, and the earth isn't a closed system, order can increase in this local area without violating the 2nd law. How did the order increase? Natural selection. What's that? Um... natural selection. How does it affect organisms, precisely? It selects them, naturally. Ah, I understand now.

If I take books to the moon the "order" on the moon has increased, but I have to use a rocket to get there. It's absurd to say, "because the sun shines on the moon, the books appearing naturally is not puzzling at all nor does it violate any natural laws."

You are correct that math and physics are 'hard' sciences to a greater extent than biology, with less uncertainty and less messiness. Although you may find that quantum mechanics introduces many more uncertainties than you seem to like. However that doesn't mean that biology is any less useful for describing the world around us, or that its findings are less valid. You are free to believe whatever you will, but I must tell you your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand.

Of course it means their findings are less valid. Science is spoken and interpreted in the language of mathematics. If something cannot be described in mathematics, it is not scientific until that changes.

As far as being embedded in sand; given many posts here, made by you and others, there's a complete lack of ability to even understand what the sand is, much less if someone is buried in it.

 

[Flatlander]

^Bam.

 

[660griz]

, and the earth isn't a closed system,

Yea. Basically it is.

 

[bullethead]

If one applies only scientific merit to evolutionary theory, he will arrive a conclusion that is very far removed from the present blind acceptance.



It's by faith I say God framed the universe. Science has no part in faith, though faith has a significant part in science.

If you say "This is scientific," I say, "show me how."

By faith I say evolution has framed life on earth.

Regarding your framer of the universe, what are the mathematical odds that an asteroid or black hole or the sun ceasing to exist wipes humanity out in the future?

 

[bullethead]

The idea of evolution is it is a path by which one singular organism gave rise to all the rest. If it is true, it would have a predictive nature and one should be able to assign probabilistic weights to said path and its variations. This predictability could be described mathematically.



Sure you do. It is entirely necessary to describe how atoms and molecules arranged themselves to form something that is "living;" in fact, it'd be nice to know what they mean by "living organisms." The processes would not be different.



Not hardly. The principle of the 2nd law is that order decreases because systems, open or otherwise, do not naturally move to less probable states. If they do move to a state of greater "order," they do so in a way that is predictable by causes that are real and measurable; still lending itself to the idea that improbable things don't occur.

Saying that "because the sun gives the earth energy, the earth is not a closed system" is obviously true; no system is closed. But it is another thing entirely to say that because the sun gives the earth energy, and the earth isn't a closed system, order can increase in this local area without violating the 2nd law. How did the order increase? Natural selection. What's that? Um... natural selection. How does it affect organisms, precisely? It selects them, naturally. Ah, I understand now.

If I take books to the moon the "order" on the moon has increased, but I have to use a rocket to get there. It's absurd to say, "because the sun shines on the moon, the books appearing naturally is not puzzling at all nor does it violate any natural laws."



Of course it means their findings are less valid. Science is spoken and interpreted in the language of mathematics. If something cannot be described in mathematics, it is not scientific until that changes.

As far as being embedded in sand; given many posts here, made by you and others, there's a complete lack of ability to even understand what the sand is, much less if someone is buried in it.

The earth resides in a closed system which is the universe.

 

[MiGGeLLo]

The idea of evolution is it is a path by which one singular organism gave rise to all the rest. If it is true, it would have a predictive nature and one should be able to assign probabilistic weights to said path and its variations. This predictability could be described mathematically.

I don't know for certain that all life originated from the same organism. For all I know there may have been multiple original sources dropped off by a passing comet. In evolution one singular species can give rise to others over many generations. This is probably what you meant, just making sure we are clear that this is not a single organism turning into something else in its lifetime. We are talking about biological evolution, not pokemon evolution .

On your other point, while with a sufficient model for what will lead to greater reproductive success in the current world we could certainly attempt to assign probabilities for what mutations will result in a more fit individual, we simply do not have an adequate model for this that I'm aware of. We can (and do) observe evolution without being able to predict what paths it will take in the future.

Sure you do. It is entirely necessary to describe how atoms and molecules arranged themselves to form something that is "living;" in fact, it'd be nice to know what they mean by "living organisms." The processes would not be different.

I'll state first that discovering how life started is not necessary to understanding how life has progressed since then as I stated before, but I'll indulge you for a moment here:

We have not discovered how life could have first risen yet. However when/if we do discover it, I promise there will be much gnashing of teeth from young earth creationists, and you will be able to attack it from inane and thoroughly unscientific positions then as well as you can evolution now, and to folks who do not know better it may even sound like you have a sensible position.

Not hardly. The principle of the 2nd law is that order decreases because systems, open or otherwise, do not naturally move to less probable states. If they do move to a state of greater "order," they do so in a way that is predictable by causes that are real and measurable; still lending itself to the idea that improbable things don't occur.

Nope.. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is specifically for closed systems, not 'open or otherwise' as you erroneously state. Also while I agree that life as we see on earth seems to be extraordinarily improbable, your insinuation seems to be that because life is improbable it violates the laws of nature. I propose that this is because you have an overly simplistic (and incorrect) idea of the laws of nature, and are misrepresenting the 2nd law of thermodynamics to match your beliefs.

Saying that "because the sun gives the earth energy, the earth is not a closed system" is obviously true; no system is closed. But it is another thing entirely to say that because the sun gives the earth energy, and the earth isn't a closed system, order can increase in this local area without violating the 2nd law.

Yep.. thats pretty much what I'm saying. We are more ordered than a random assortment of the elements we are composed of, and yet here we are. If your stipulation is that order cannot increase, there is no reason we should be here. Perhaps you think this is because God can violate the laws of nature, but I think it is more likely you misunderstand the laws of nature.

How did the order increase? Natural selection. What's that? Um... natural selection. How does it affect organisms, precisely? It selects them, naturally. Ah, I understand now.

The fact that you clearly don't have a grasp on what natural selection is is not my problem. You should go read up on it.

If I take books to the moon the "order" on the moon has increased, but I have to use a rocket to get there. It's absurd to say, "because the sun shines on the moon, the books appearing naturally is not puzzling at all nor does it violate any natural laws."

Come again? The book being on the moon does not violate any natural laws. Otherwise the book would not be there. We know exactly how it got there. Here you are misrepresenting the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Did you read the link I posted?

Of course it means their findings are less valid. Science is spoken and interpreted in the language of mathematics. If something cannot be described in mathematics, it is not scientific until that changes.

I want a mathematical proof for the 3rd hair back from your wrist on your left arm. Go! My point is while math is important for describing the universe, and to some degree we can describe the universe using math, but other sciences are still necessary if we want to do useful things through scientific inquiry.

As far as being embedded in sand; given many posts here, made by you and others, there's a complete lack of ability to even understand what the sand is, much less if someone is buried in it.

Would you like to have a discussion on what sand is? I doubt my knowledge on it is on par with a geologist or someone similarly trained in it, but I'll be happy to borrow from their knowledge and give it a shot? We probably should do it in a separate thread though, we're getting seriously off topic at this point

 

[ambush80]

Evergreen,

Did you watch any of the programs?

 

[EverGreen1231]

I don't know for certain that all life originated from the same organism. For all I know there may have been multiple original sources dropped off by a passing comet. In evolution one singular species can give rise to others over many generations. This is probably what you meant, just making sure we are clear that this is not a single organism turning into something else in its lifetime. We are talking about biological evolution, not pokemon evolution .

On your other point, while with a sufficient model for what will lead to greater reproductive success in the current world we could certainly attempt to assign probabilities for what mutations will result in a more fit individual, we simply do not have an adequate model for this that I'm aware of. We can (and do) observe evolution without being able to predict what paths it will take in the future.



I'll state first that discovering how life started is not necessary to understanding how life has progressed since then as I stated before, but I'll indulge you for a moment here:

We have not discovered how life could have first risen yet. However when/if we do discover it, I promise there will be much gnashing of teeth from young earth creationists, and you will be able to attack it from inane and thoroughly unscientific positions then as well as you can evolution now, and to folks who do not know better it may even sound like you have a sensible position.




Nope.. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is specifically for closed systems, not 'open or otherwise' as you erroneously state. Also while I agree that life as we see on earth seems to be extraordinarily improbable, your insinuation seems to be that because life is improbable it violates the laws of nature. I propose that this is because you have an overly simplistic (and incorrect) idea of the laws of nature, and are misrepresenting the 2nd law of thermodynamics to match your beliefs.



Yep.. thats pretty much what I'm saying. We are more ordered than a random assortment of the elements we are composed of, and yet here we are. If your stipulation is that order cannot increase, there is no reason we should be here. Perhaps you think this is because God can violate the laws of nature, but I think it is more likely you misunderstand the laws of nature.



The fact that you clearly don't have a grasp on what natural selection is is not my problem. You should go read up on it.



Come again? The book being on the moon does not violate any natural laws. Otherwise the book would not be there. We know exactly how it got there. Here you are misrepresenting the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Did you read the link I posted?



I want a mathematical proof for the 3rd hair back from your wrist on your left arm. Go! My point is while math is important for describing the universe, and to some degree we can describe the universe using math, but other sciences are still necessary if we want to do useful things through scientific inquiry.



Would you like to have a discussion on what sand is? I doubt my knowledge on it is on par with a geologist or someone similarly trained in it, but I'll be happy to borrow from their knowledge and give it a shot? We probably should do it in a separate thread though, we're getting seriously off topic at this point

My "simplistic" explanations are for your sake. I suppose they're not simple enough.

You brought up the sand, I only used it to give a very accurate illustration, as is made apparent by your above statements.

 

[EverGreen1231]

Evergreen,

Did you watch any of the programs?

No, I prefer reading books over watching science shows. There's much more detail in the books than the shows.

 

[ambush80]

No, I prefer reading books over watching science shows. There's much more detail in the books than the shows.

That's funny....

psst. you can do both.