Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Ft century is about 1 of 12 early (1950's +) GREENLAND ice cores that were collected as part of the US nuclear program. (When we got the ideas about "fallout" they began "melting out" various cores using "A" and "N" diameter coreboxes in order to look at radioactivity in the atmosphere that was deposited into the Bergsgrunde of the ice sheet).

Im a geologist, Ive known about these sites since I was in grad school, this is not "new news" (maybe it is to you ). The US AEC had collected and published core data and photos in non-classified pubs that were used as training volumes for geologists, glaciologists, frigid climate engineering, climatology etc

Quote:

I also said that.

Well, parados and I just said it so that others would know of what the hell ypu were trying to get at.
Remember the "peppered moths"Bistun betularia of England that showed mostly those species that were dark colored to match the "dirt and grime" deposits that covered the trees during the early industrial age? The species also has a light color phase (the range of color variability included several color schemes). During the dirty times the white and light colored moths were eaten by birds and the dark phases were spared (they were camo'd) . Then when the industry went away , the white moths reappeared as they once again reached their equilibrium of colors and the dark moths were predated just as much.

That's not an example of evolution , but it is an example of a MECHANISM of evolution, (isolation, adaptation etc)

When Ehrlich forst posed the peppered moths as an example of evolution it was back in the 1940s when we didn't have ny means of DNA testing and evolution determined species primarily by morphological factors.

Quote:

There is no way for one species of beetles (cold resistant) to be transformed ... by evolution into another species of beetles (hot resistant) - without any DNA correlation?! - and after some period of time, when the whether collapses back again the hot resistant species to evolve by regression into the old cold resistant species ... unless you have some special theory of evolution driving along closed cycles ... which will be no wonder having in mind the speed at which you read and interpreted the data of the ice cores of Fort Century.

Noone except you stated that this WAS a demonstration of an evolved species of species. It was merely a demo of variability within a species.
I didn't hve to look anything up, your argument (Im assuming wasn't the product of your mind) It was cherry picked from some Creationist site. Id run into this "argument" several times before and Im always amused at how little you guys really understand about natural selection.

Years ago, at a "church gathering" at Highland Baptist Church in Chester County I nd a fried payed admission to listen to this guy "Dismiss the evils of Evolution " by giving a bogus talk full of all these arguments . My friend and I asked questions at the end of the talk and were asked to LEAVE . the fellowship hall because we were obviously not "OF THE BODY". I asked for my money back (and wasn't given it.)

What a bunch a hypocrits

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

I also said that. There is no way for one species of beetles (cold resistant) to be transformed ...

Wow.. do you always talk out of both sides of your mouth?
The beetles weren't transformed and your attempt to use this to refute evolution is ludicrous and shows ignorance of how evolution works.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I asked for my money back (and wasn't given it.)

What a bunch a hypocrits

You was not entitled to your money back. You paid for entrance and entered. You saw the show. And you were only "asked" to leave. Couldn't you have chained yourself to some large object or at least sat down sanctimoniously?

Your friend was your wife I think you have said. Perhaps you have failed to explain to her that without Christianity she would have been fetching water from the river in a pitcher balanced on her head. You should be ashamed of allowing her to think that atheists could have delivered her the indulgent life style I trust you provide her with just to get you some moral support. Were she married to a devout Catholic millionaire I expect she would be in the front pew of a church every Sunday morning and be receiving Holy Communion. And planning a pilgrimage to Rome.

Thanks for reminding us yet again that you are a geologist and have been to grad school. Such entries on your CV sets you apart from the rest of us wallies and enjoins us to allow you a credibility denied us. For anybody daft enough I mean.

1 Reply

@spendius,

How was that for a fly on the windscreen fm?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

And furthermore fm you are asking us to agree that the Highland Baptist Church in Chester County is of some relevance to the topic here.

As it isn't you are trolling in the service of informing us all, again, that you are a geologist and have been to grad school. In other words one of A2K's elite members.

You're actually a diddico of the purest strain.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im a geologist, Ive known about these sites since I was in grad school, this is not "new news" (maybe it is to you ).

Your knowledge ... and omissions on the said sites are not exactly the point here.
The point is the history record of the rapid changes in the average annual temperature ... of the Earth, that didn't cause evolution ... of the species.
Very different is the issue what are the actual causes of these rapid switch-overs between hot and cold climate, and why is that switch-over not reflected in the species (in the DNA, or whatever), if the development of the species tracks & traces the changes in the environment ... as the theory of adaptation & evolution – that you are so keen on – claims.

2 Replies

@Herald,

The climate changes are measured by Oxygen isotope ratios, and these are clearly recorded in that "rapid climatic changes" like the Dryass occurred over a few hundred years, wheres the really big ones like the 4 glacial stages of the Pleistocene occurred within a thousand years or so.

As I stated about spotted skunks and striped skunks, they are both members of Mephitis each has a favored niche which includes temperatures, the skunks were evenly adapted and evolved from a common ancestor . They live in overlapping ranges except the striped skunks favor the more boreal climate and striped skunks favor more temperate. As the climate changed over the late Pleistocene, one of the species dominated as each climate zone made manifest as glaciers came and went. The same thing happened in industrial England with the peppered moths, . I don't see any difference tween the peppered moths and your beetles from within cores, as the climate changed one of the species dominated. ILL BET that within some of the cores, there were examples of BOTH species at any given time. REmember, much paleontology is a game of statistics not mere "presence or non presence"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

RE: ... were evenly adapted and evolved from a common ancestor.

FM, do you know what is your greatest problem – that you have set up in your mind s.th. in advance and you start attaching (by cherry picking) the next 'evidence'.
You assume a priori that evolution is 'naturally happening' and is 100% valid and try to attach to it as many facts as you can find.
Let me illustrate this. As you know the mirror 'flips' left to right and does not 'do anything' with up and down. You take a glass of whatever ... with rocks, stand up before the mirror, and accept the 'next evidence' - did you see that, I said you that the mirror flips left to right ... and so it came with the glass of rocks as well.
Then some guy comes and says you that the mirror is not flipping anything, especially left to right, and if you don't believe this you may bend your head (together with your upper part of the body) at 90 deg. sideways in front of the mirror to see that your upper part of the body is 'flipped' up and down, and the lower part is flipped left to right.
The mirror is not flipping anything. Your vision system rotates the image vertically at 180 deg when projecting it onto the brain. It is your vision system, not the mirror ... and it doesn't matter how much evidences you may find and present before the mirror, you cannot see from these 'indisputable evidences' what actually happens ... unless you accept the things as they actually are ... and not as you think they should be.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I suggest that you start by brushing up on optics as well as biology.
heres what Richard Feynman said in one of his televised lectures

Quote:

Stand in front of a mirror, and note which direction you're facing. For the sake of this thought experiment, let's assume you're facing North. Point due East with your right hand, and your reflection points East as well. Point due west with your left hand, and your reflection gestures in the same direction. That's because these directions both lie along a plane parallel with the mirror. Similarly, point up or down and your reflection will follow suit, motioning in the same direction.

But deviate from that parallel plane even a little and thinks go

wonky. Remember: your image has been reversed along the axis perpendicular to the mirror. Try pointing directly at the mirror, such that your fingertip is now directed due North. Your reflection is now pointing directly at you — not North, like your finger, but South.

Basically, a mirror flips around the reflection from FRONT to BACK, like pulling a glove inside out.

Quote:

You assume a priori that evolution is 'naturally happening' and is 100% valid and try to attach to it as many facts as you can find

Unlike Creationism, evolution is a conclusionry state of information. Science finds facts and displays them and discusses and parses them till you puke. SO FAR, ALL THE EVIDENCE only supports a system of natural evolution (first off-no IDer or Creationist hs YET been able to verbalize what a piece of supportive evidence would be to underpin their "worldview").
So---ALL the evidence supports naturl selection and NOTHING refutes it.

Bet you cant say that, you have this antisocial "divine being" that sits in the middle of the road.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

We don't "assume" evolution occure, we conclude it based upon all the evidence from all the ntural sciences. You've been trying as best s you can nd hvent yet mde any compelling arguments for your case. Id given you a real gem of debate for your side that COULD possibly support ID, that would be CONVERGENT EVOLUTION. The fact that but a few "end member" forms seem to develop in some species makes a philosophical argument that "could these end members be planned?"

Id see that as decent rgument but you've voided it for these (mostly) higgledy piggeldy mind dumps that often don't even make sense

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

The point is the history record of the rapid changes in the average annual temperature ... of the Earth,

I don't think that is the point at all Herald. It is like going into the ring with your hands tied. The science and the temptations combined can wipe the floor with it. You play into their hands which is why they are so happy to take you on. They won't be putting you on Ignore any time soon.

Here is what their leader said about the other side's leader--"Before I have done with that mendacious humbug I will nail him out, like a kite to a barn door, as an example to all evil doers."

Darwin wasn't their leader. He was as nervous as a puppy. He wouldn't rule out life being "created" and accept spontaneous generation. Darwin was a wimp but a very convenient one.

The project was to free science from what they asserted was reactionary theology and from aristocrats and place an intellectual scientific priesthood at the head of English culture. And 150 years later the church bells are still ringing.

And they forfeit all intellectual credibility by using the term "reactionary theology" because their definition of science conveniently excludes the science of orderly, strong government of free people. It has no concern with human behaviour. It will have though when it is at the head of the culture.

By using "mendacious humbug", "evil doers" and "reactionary theology" they have produced a circular argument.

Huxley had said that he had no intention of doing any deals with the "enemy" and would accept nothing but unconditional surrender and uncontrolled dominance over every thing.

The assumption was that theology had nothing to offer a modern industrial society gripped by what Harold Wilson called "the white hot heat" of technology. Or somesuch shite.

Average annual temperature have nothing to do with the matter. Those sort of things play into their hands. As you can see.

But I am the first to admit that modern industrial society might need a scientific elite at the head of affairs. I could easily think so if there were no men and women in it. Alas--that won't be the case.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I suggest that you start by brushing up on optics as well as biology.

FM, you may think that you are very good, but you have to become better. BTW this is neither optics, nor biology, but rather cognitive science.

further wrote:

... here's what Richard Feynman said in one of his televised lectures ...

Can you live at least 10 nonseconds without citing some book or some prominent scientist. I can explain this in much more comprehensive way.
Suppose you have the image in the mirror. Divide it into pixels at the edge of perception, when each pixel is perceived as monochromatic point (the whole pixel is in one and the same colour, it does't matter which).
Now perform 'quantum rotation' (each pixel is rotated on the spot, where it is, at 180 deg along the vertical axis and voilà! ... you have the 'morror image'.
Just don't ask me how does the vision system perform the quantum rotation of the light ... with your polimer understanding of the things.

further wrote:

Unlike Creationism, evolution is a conclusionry state of information.

You are surrounding the question. Do you have a priori conviction that the evolution is truth of the last resort and your assignment is simply to find the 'missing evidences'. An answer with 'Yes' or 'No' would be enough.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You play into their hands which is why they are so happy to take you on.

What do you mean by 'in their hands'. FM and the other guy claim that they are experts in any science. They are talking on behalve of 'science', as if having powers to represent all the scientists on the planet ... incl. Theologists.
Besides that FM said that Fort Century is evidence of the 'Creationists' and he is well acquainted with their arguments ... whatever this might mean.
... Let them talk, in the end they will undertangle in the contradictions of their own claims.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Your reading comprehension skills are also a bit lqcking aren't they. Hers actually what I said about the century site ice cores

Quote:

he he. The old "ice cores are proof of the flood" has been debunked as just the most simplistic of "evidence".
The Century cores and all the others in the same references used by Creationist "Scientists" were collected by melt core techniques back in the 1950's and early 1960's, the newer cores collect different kinds of isotopic data including C14 /C13/C12 v N13 s well as O16/O18 . The bugs tht show up in cores are examples of the species variablility , not evolution as Parados said.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

What do you mean by 'in their hands'.

I mean on their own chosen territory. I agree that they will "undertangle in the contradictions of their own claims" but I'm not up for giving them a chance to demonstrate it because it will be very messy.

Having expertise in primitive organic life and ancient sedimentary formations shifting around is entirely insufficient for running a social organism of any sort never mind one as complex as ours is.

The argument now is exactly the same as that which took place after Darwin published his theory and I am pretty familiar with its front lines.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

... Let them talk, in the end they will undertangle in the contradictions of their own claims.

But when they do nobody will have time nor inclination to remember you warned them. The evidence that talk leads to action is all around us.

If the action undertangles we are in the ****. All of us.

Better to prevent it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Can't you get it into your head, fm, that what some self-styled Creationist "Scientists" do with melt cores has no bearing on the topic. They are your favourite Creationist "Scientists" aren't they? Just sitting ducks for you to pot whilst showing off your erudition with a load of flannel culled from one of those magazines blokes like you subscribe to.

What would you do without them? Blimey!!! You might have to answer more important questions in that event. Or be silent.

1 Reply

@spendius,

why don't you get yourself a cat

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Your reading comprehension skills are also a bit lqcking aren't they.

Some are lacking reading comprehension, others have problems with memory retrieval ... that is life.
The theme of this thread was ... and still is ID, not the Flood.
In the beginning of this thread I said that a lot of things in the living matter are too complex and too improbable to have happened by stochastic processes and FA asked me why. I can explain this but I would like to ask you now: Why do you think that the bio-complexity and improbability happened by stochastic processes ... driven by the casino saloon of the big bang, or whatever?

RE: the complexity and improbability
If we try to model some of the bio-processes by a computer, the complexity would be measured by the computational resources (time of processing, storage, program, communication, etc.) & engineering design and facilities needed (calculations, power supply, machinery, technology, etc.) required to model and execute the task.
Let's find now some elementary bio-task - decomposition of CO2 (by the leaves of the plants). Let's find the constraints to this task. The bond energy of C=O is 187 kcal/mol (2 x 93.5), so our facilities should not waste more than that ... for otherwise we will run out of energy sooner than expected.
Can you design now overall facilities (computer control, industrial machinery, power supply facilities, etc.) using not more than 187 kcal/mol man-made energy for the decomposition of CO2. You may use the power of the Sun for the purpose, for without it we are DOA.
Can you now see how much complex a common leaf is ... or you will need more subtitles.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Your whole argument rests on what you deem to be "too improbable to have evolved without intelligence".

But that is not logical. If we were to just dismiss everything that seems improbable most science text books (despite all evidence to the contrary) would just say "god did it, the end".

I'm studying to get my bachelors in evolutionary Biology right now. I can tell you one thing, if there's anything I've learned in my time studying this fascinating subject it's that mutation/evolution is anything BUT intelligent. Mutations are almost ALWAYS negative (this is one of the first things you learn in Biology). Every now and then you get a mutation that is actually beneficial and organisms are almost always evolving to their environment via natural selection. But animals are most certainly not "intelligently" designed. Humans alone have so many anatomical/biological flaws it's hard to begin.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know