Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hank
    replied
    Originally posted by noguru View Post
    Well that is why he wants you to throw out all these mathematical formulas that frame the evidence into the naturalistic model.
    Of course, then the sun could rotate around the earth. lol

    Leave a comment:


  • CRMRC
    replied
    Originally posted by noguru View Post
    Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious? But there is no Nobel Prize awarded to explanations that replace mathematical formulas with "God did it".
    Of course, if someone was awarded a Nobel Prize for explanations that had no evidence backing them the prize would be pretty worthless.

    Leave a comment:


  • noguru
    replied
    Originally posted by Hank View Post
    I'm not so sure noguru. I haven't seen any of the creation "scientists" taking up this "stretching" of the universe to the present size in 7 days or less. It violates so much scientific evidence I don't think even the creationist want that monkey on their backs.
    Well that is why he wants you to throw out all these mathematical formulas that frame the evidence into the naturalistic model.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hank
    replied
    Originally posted by noguru View Post
    Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious?
    I'm not so sure noguru. I haven't seen any of the creation "scientists" taking up this "stretching" of the universe to the present size in 7 days or less. It violates so much scientific evidence I don't think even the creationist want that monkey on their backs.

    Leave a comment:


  • noguru
    replied
    Originally posted by Hank View Post
    But since you are all knowledgeable about cosmology, tell us what model YOU use to explain why this expansion would persist to the size of the universe today? You’ve got a lot of experimental evidence to overcome but it would be a Nobel Prize for you.
    Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious? But there is no Nobel Prize awarded to explanations that replace mathematical formulas with "God did it".

    Leave a comment:


  • Hank
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    Actually the particles were not moving at all! It was only the coordinates that were expanding.
    Actually the particles were moving, but space was expanding at a rapid rate.

    But the Big Bang proponents not only also believe that the expansion stopped abruptly (relatively speaking), but they also believe there are zillions of parallel universes being constantly created out of the "quantum foam".
    Do you have a problem with parallel universes?

    Big Bang proponents do not believe that. It’s just one possibility that could be happening based on the mathematical model.

    Why do you believe them? Apparently this "foam"must be their god.

    Oh, I know. They have equations that you don't understand but they must be correct since they are scientists.
    Could it be the same reason you believe you doctor when he says you need an operation? Or the same reason you believe an engineer knows enough about the science of materials to adequately design a building that will support you on the 90th floor? Of course not. Everyone knows there is a conspiracy of scientist in this field that are trying to fool everyone and Bob is our savior who can explain how they are wrong.

    But since you are all knowledgeable about cosmology, tell us what model YOU use to explain why this expansion would persist to the size of the universe today? You’ve got a lot of experimental evidence to overcome but it would be a Nobel Prize for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hank
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    Which it is. Newton said that a body in motion tends to remain in motion.
    When taken in context, immovable is not the same as doesn't move. It simply means that we can not change its motion.
    Bob you didn’t answer several of my questions so I’m going to take another stab at it.

    Are you seriously saying that the earth is not changing it’s motion? If so how do you explain it’s slowing down in it’s rotation speed as well as being pulled in different directions by the sun, planets, and every other object in our solar system.

    In the creation story, is the snake talking in the garden, figurative or actual?
    In the creation story, is the flaming sword figurative or actual

    You avoided answering the question Bob. If the earth is 6000 years old and the light from the explosion came from an object that is more than 6000 light years away, then according to your “evidence”, it must have been created and then immediately destroyed.

    Why was the Catholic Church right when they selected the books which are considered the word of God and not now?

    Leave a comment:


  • Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    The evidence already warrants it. Better look again. talk.origins naturally doesn't include the logic which destroys their conclusion,
    ... As if you have presented such conclusion-destroying logic!

    You're pretty funny sometimes, Bob!

    ...because they are by and large all atheists (a few theistic evolutionists).
    That's right, one must first become a theist, in order to understand your alleged conclusion-destroying logic.

    Here's your logic:

    Skeptic: "I'll believe it when I see it."

    Theist: "I'll see it when I believe it."

    Leave a comment:


  • aikido7
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    From Wikipedia, History of Evolutionary thought.

    Expanding Darwin's theory: the Mendelian-biometrician debates
    While the scientific community generally accepted that evolution had occurred, many disagreed that it had happened under the conditions or mechanisms provided by Darwin. In the years immediately following Darwin's death, evolutionary thought fractured into a number of interpretations, neo-Darwinism, neo-Larmarckism, orthogenesis, Mendelism, the biometric approach, and mutation theory. Eventually this boiled down to a debate between two camps. The Mendelians, advocating discrete variation, were led by William Bateson (who coined the word genetics) and Hugo de Vries (who coined the word mutation). Their opponents were the biometricians, advocating continuous variation; their leaders Karl Pearson and Walter Frank Raphael Weldon, following in the tradition of Francis Galton.

    An important issue in the debate between the Mendelians and the biometricians was the nature of variation in species. Darwin and Wallace believed that small variations were more important than large ones, since small variations hewed closely to an already-proven model. The biometricians agreed with this position, while the Mendelians insisted that discontinuous species were unlikely to arise from a continuous process of change. While the immediate issue of speciation was resolved in large part by the clear definition of a species as a reproductively isolated population, the rate of evolution would arise again as a point of contention in the late 20th century with the proposal of punctuated equilibrium. Most other questions resolving variation were resolved with the recognition that the size of a genotypic change did not always correspond with the size of the resulting phenotypic change.
    ...Then I guess footballs don't have feathers.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob b
    replied
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Bob is just making it up as he goes along. In fact, Mendel's work caused no stir at all. No one showed much interest in it, and if it wasn't for the kindness of the head of the Austrian Society, we'd never have heard of him. The article was placed in the journal, but not read, until Hugo DeVries rediscovered Mendel decades later.

    And then, rather than causing a crisis, Mendel's work cleared up a problem Darwin was never able to resolve. Critics asked how a new variation could be established when (if inheritance was like mixing two colors of paint, as everyone had assumed) such a new variation would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white.
    Mendel explained how Darwinian evolution was possible. It was particulate, caused by discrete genes, which can thereby reappear later, and which can spread through a population.
    Instead of being a crisis in evolutionary theory, Mendel's findings resolved an important problem.
    Nice try, bob.
    Neither Mendel nor any person citing his work came to that conclusion. Another bob fantasy.
    Darwin never stated that variation of living things was unlimited. In fact, he discusses some limitations of variation. Bob made that up, too.
    That's been directly observed. Would you like some examples, bob?
    From Wikipedia, History of Evolutionary thought.

    Expanding Darwin's theory: the Mendelian-biometrician debates
    While the scientific community generally accepted that evolution had occurred, many disagreed that it had happened under the conditions or mechanisms provided by Darwin. In the years immediately following Darwin's death, evolutionary thought fractured into a number of interpretations, neo-Darwinism, neo-Larmarckism, orthogenesis, Mendelism, the biometric approach, and mutation theory. Eventually this boiled down to a debate between two camps. The Mendelians, advocating discrete variation, were led by William Bateson (who coined the word genetics) and Hugo de Vries (who coined the word mutation). Their opponents were the biometricians, advocating continuous variation; their leaders Karl Pearson and Walter Frank Raphael Weldon, following in the tradition of Francis Galton.

    An important issue in the debate between the Mendelians and the biometricians was the nature of variation in species. Darwin and Wallace believed that small variations were more important than large ones, since small variations hewed closely to an already-proven model. The biometricians agreed with this position, while the Mendelians insisted that discontinuous species were unlikely to arise from a continuous process of change. While the immediate issue of speciation was resolved in large part by the clear definition of a species as a reproductively isolated population, the rate of evolution would arise again as a point of contention in the late 20th century with the proposal of punctuated equilibrium. Most other questions resolving variation were resolved with the recognition that the size of a genotypic change did not always correspond with the size of the resulting phenotypic change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hank
    replied
    Originally posted by Biglongscreenname View Post
    e=mc2 einstein? i think not. The first line in the bible! The first thing that ever happened was light . So i say - light = time = god. (god = infinite energy) hence god is the only possible time traveler.
    You may not be aware of this but e=mc2 has nothing to do with time travel.

    Just out of curiosity, how do you conclude that if god = infinite energy, that resutls in god being the only time traveler?

    Leave a comment:


  • aikido7
    replied
    Originally posted by Biglongscreenname View Post
    e=mc2 einstein? i think not. The first line in the bible! The first thing that ever happened was light . So i say - light = time = god. (god = infinite energy) hence god is the only possible time traveler.
    God Lite !!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Biglongscreenname
    replied
    e=mc2 einstein? i think not. The first line in the bible! The first thing that ever happened was light . So i say - light = time = god. (god = infinite energy) hence god is the only possible time traveler.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Barbarian
    replied
    Mendel's work with pea plants caused a crisis in evolutionary theory
    Bob is just making it up as he goes along. In fact, Mendel's work caused no stir at all. No one showed much interest in it, and if it wasn't for the kindness of the head of the Austrian Society, we'd never have heard of him. The article was placed in the journal, but not read, until Hugo DeVries rediscovered Mendel decades later.

    And then, rather than causing a crisis, Mendel's work cleared up a problem Darwin was never able to resolve. Critics asked how a new variation could be established when (if inheritance was like mixing two colors of paint, as everyone had assumed) such a new variation would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white.

    Mendel explained how Darwinian evolution was possible. It was particulate, caused by discrete genes, which can thereby reappear later, and which can spread through a population.

    Instead of being a crisis in evolutionary theory, Mendel's findings resolved an important problem.

    Nice try, bob.

    because it seemed to show that recombination led to variational limits,
    Neither Mendel nor any person citing his work came to that conclusion. Another bob fantasy.

    something that was not consistent with the unlimited variation ideas of Darwin.
    Darwin never stated that variation of living things was unlimited. In fact, he discusses some limitations of variation. Bob made that up, too.

    This crisis was "solved" by the introduction of the neoDarwinism idea (random mutation plus natural selection) which assumed that random mutations to DNA could extend the limits of sexual recombination that Mendel had previously established (for pea plants).
    That's been directly observed. Would you like some examples, bob?

    Leave a comment:


  • PlastikBuddha
    replied
    Originally posted by macguy View Post
    That's what mutations are but evolution is descent with modification. However, even that definition is rather vague... Just take a look at all the news stories, such as the dolphin's extra fin as "evolution". The definition in that regard is rather vague. Even Talk.Origins admits:
    The ambiguity results from the use of the word in a way that is not consistent with ToE- i.e. the "evolution" star systems, or the "evolution" of the automobile. Science doesn't trademark it's terminology. This is pretty much the same thing that happens when folks misunderstand the concept of a theory as being just an educated guess.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X