Six Simple And Reasonable Questions ...
Devils Advocaat
answer.
1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
theory?
2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
I await your answers ....
John Harshman
> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> answer.
Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> theory?
Goddidit.
> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
Goddidit.
> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
I don't got to show you no stinking predictions. Goddidit.
> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
See 4.
> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
See 5.
> I await your answers ....
Could be a long wait.
TomS
<c8a5d132-0331-40e0...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Devils
Advocaat stated..."
>
>... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>answer.
>
>1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>theory?
Let's take this slowly. No reason to get "complicated" by
asking about the evidence, before we find out:
What alternative is there to evolution?
What happened? When did it happen?
For example, why are the bodies of humans so similar to
the bodies of chimps and other apes, if it doesn't involve
evolution?
Is that complex pattern of similarities (including biochemistry,
anatomy, embryology, distribution, and, yes, even fossils) just
a matter of coincidence - "pure chance"?
Or is it because it serves some purpose?
Or is it because of the way that the laws of nature work?
Or, maybe, there is nothing that we can infer from the
existence of a complex pattern in the world of life?
>
>2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
>3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
>4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
>5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
>6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
>I await your answers ....
>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Devils Advocaat
wrote:
Maybe, but I don't mind as I am genuinely interested in what answers
they come up with.
Ken
wrote:
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
>
CreationNUTS love one word answers.
It's something they can usually understand
Mark VandeWettering
They aren't interested in coming up with any more sophisticated
than Harshman's simulation. Did you find his answers "genuinely
interesting"? If not, then I suspect you'll probably not find the
actual responses any more interesting, if any creationist dare give
them.
Mark
spintronic
I have some better questions.
1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
all the matter/energy come from?
Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
Eh?
2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
Eh?
3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
Answer: ??
Eh?
4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
Answer: ??
Eh?
5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
Answer: No.
Eh?
6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
"all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
"knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
Eh?
7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
Answer: We haven't
Eh? thats a lotta faith.
Ron O
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> I have some better questions.
So you have no good answers?
Why are your questions better?
How does what we may or may not know at this time affect the
scientific problems that we have already solved? Really, is all of
atomic theory suspect just because we don't know everything about the
Big Bang?
If creationists really had any valid arguments why would guys as
pathetic as spinny, Ray, Pagano, [M]adman, and McNamless be the
shining stars of the anti-science creationist perspective?
This last question is a whole lot more relevant to the basic subject
of this newsgroup.
Ron Okimoto
> Eh? thats a lotta faith.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
DJT
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> I have some better questions.
>
> 1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
> all the matter/energy come from?
>
> Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
> Eh?
A more correct answer is, that since time began with the Big Bang,
asking what came "before" the Big Bang makes no sense. It's like
asking what's north of the North Pole.
>
> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
> Eh?
A more correct answer is that there isn't any reason why evolution
should explain abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is how life started.
Evolution is what happened after life began. While it's possible
that life began elsewhere than on Earth, that only puts the question
farther back. There are several promising lines of study to
explain abiogenesis, but the question does not yet have an answer.
That's not a problem for science, or evolution.
>
> 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
First of all, your "question" has several questionable assertions.
Who says a "minimul" cell needs 300 specific genes? What "specific
environment"? Who determined that "decreasing the number decreases
the environmental conditions where it can live"? Please cite the
sources for these assertions.
Also, no one studying abiogenesis claims that all parts of a cell
came together at once. That's a strawman.
>
> 4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
> enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
Ignoring the unsupported assumptions for a moment, the first cell most
likely survived in the environment it started in. Why would that be
a problem?
>
> 5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
> Answer: No.
>
> Eh?
Why do you feel that isn't possible? It may be difficult, due to
genetic swapping between bacteria, but why do you feel it can't be
done? More to the point, why would this be a problem for
evolution?
>
> 6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
> cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
> "all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
> Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
> "knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>
> Eh?
Why would such an experiment be necessary? Again, why would this be
a problem for evolution?
>
> 7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
> Answer: We haven't
>
> Eh? thats a lotta faith.
Since proteins don't require DNA to form, what "Chicken/Egg" problem
is that? Also, since abiogenesis and evolution are separate
issues, why would this be a problem for evolution? Why would it
require a "lotta faith", when the question of abiogenesis is still
being investigated?
Care to have a go ath DA's questions now?
DJT
Boikat
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> I have some better questions.
Typical cretinoid evasion. So, is the reason yuo didn't answer
Devil's Advocate's questions because you have no answer, or that you
have no balls?
<snip>
Boikat
TomS
<53100b28-7d10-4d04...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
>On Sep 28, 10:59=A0am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And the creationist answer is? Where does the creationist say
that all the matter/energy came from? How does denying that
life evolves contribute to the answer?
>>
>> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
>> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>>
>> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>>
>> Eh?
How does the creationist answer this?
>>
>> 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
>> in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
>> enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
>> cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>>
>> Answer: ??
>>
>> Eh?
Creationist answer:
>>
>> 4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
>> enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>>
>> Answer: ??
>>
>> Eh?
Creationist answer:
>>
>> 5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>>
>> Answer: No.
>>
>> Eh?
Creationist answer:
>>
>> 6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
>> cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
>> "all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>>
>> Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
>> "knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>>
>> Eh?
Do the creationist "predictions" work? Is the creationist
"knowledge" unlimited? Are the creationist "steps" known?
>>
>> 7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>>
>> Answer: We haven't
>>
>> Eh? thats a lotta faith.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Have the creationists solved the Chicken/Egg problem?
Stuart
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> I have some better questions.
Translation:
" I don't dare answer your questions, less I make a bigger
fool out of myself than I already have"
But I'll answer your questions. Cuz I'm not the intellectual coward
you are. That and I'm a truckload smarter and more knowledgeable.
"1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
all the matter/energy come from?
Answer: There was nothing before the big bang."
In canonical BBT, that is true. As its is sometimes stated, asking
what cam before BB, is like asking what is North of the North pole.
On the other hand, BB didn't come from nowhere, it came from the
BBSingularity.
Perhaps you might google "Chaotic Inflation"
Since the topic of this forum is evolution, can you explain
of what relevance is your question to TOE?
Eh?
"2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?"
Same reason nobody could explain what powered stars 100 years ago.
Tough problem.
3000 years ago, nobody could explain why the Sun rose and set, Why the
moon
went through phases or why it rained. I'm always amazed that
creatobabblers
somehow think that not having a definitive theory for every problem,
somehow
detracts from the power of TOE.
By the way, can you explain of what relevance abiogeneis is to lets
say,
the change in life during last 600 myr of Earth history?
Oh, and how many vaccines did Geebu$ give us?
Eh? None you say?
3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
Who says you need 300 specific genes? Is that for a modern
eucaryote to function?
Sidney Fox's micropheres didn't need genes at all to function.
"Answer: ??"
See above.
Eh?
"4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
Answer: ??"
Please state any evidence that the first cells were anything like what
you described.
Eh?
"5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
Answer: No."
Beats me. How does that question bear on the issue of hominid
evolution?
Eh?
6) "When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
"all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
"knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
"Eh?""
Eh? Our knowledge is limited. You finally got one right.
Eh indeed.
7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
Answer: We haven't
"RNA World"
Eh? thats a lotta faith.
"""
Not really.
It takes a lot more faith to believe that all of the evidence
for TOE, BBT, etc. is wrong despite all the benfits that science has
provided.
See?
I'm not a gutless coward like you are. I don't need faith, just
evidence. You
run from questions cuz your *faith* can't deal with them.
Eh?
Stuart
Boikat
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<Snip D. A's questions that spinny is too chicken shit to answer>
>
> I have some better questions.
>
> 1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
> all the matter/energy come from?
>
> Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
> Eh?
Nobody knows for sure that there was "nothing", since it does not
appear that any information prior to the "phase
change" (Expansion)survived.
>
> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
> Eh?
No, it's complicated, and we do not know all the details. Although
Panspermian may explain how life arrived on Earth, that still does not
explain how the "life" process began. Even at that, where does one
draw the line between a self sustaining biochemical reaction and life?
>
> 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
What makes you think the first "living organism" was anything close to
as complex as even the simplest modern cell?
>
> 4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
> enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
>
Because the environment, where ever it was, enabled it to come into
existance to begin with.
> 5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
> Answer: No.
>
> Eh?
>
Given the nature of bacteria, and their rapid evolution, so? But at
least they can be classified enough to understand which ones are
pathogens.
> 6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
> cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
> "all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
> Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
> "knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>
> Eh?
So what? Abiogenesis is an on-going field of study. How is that a
problem?
>
> 7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
> Answer: We haven't
>
> Eh? thats a lotta faith.
Again, this would be an area of on-going research, would it not? So,
where's the problem? "You don't have all the answers!"?
That's the nature of science in general. So what?
Now, if you are so damned smart, why are you afraid to answer Devils
Advocate's questions?
Boikat
geo...@hotmail.com
practically see the blade of grass moving in your mouth as you type.
> I have some better questions.
>
> 1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
> all the matter/energy come from?
>
> Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
> Eh?
That's your answer, dumbass.
>
> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
> Eh?
That's your answer, dumbass. Evolution predicts the pattern of life
under the conditions of imperfect replication and selection,
abiogenesis is a different field. Your question is like going up to a
geologist and asking 'since geology is a science that makes such
accurate predictions, why can't you explain where babies come from?'
DUMBASS.
>
> 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
spin, you total dumbass, even creationists have stopped using this
failed argument. Only hillbillies like you still believe that that a
model 'minimum cell' is a real entity, and that the first life WAS a
cell, and that it used DNA, etc.
>
> 4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
> enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
?? indeed, dumbass. This makes no sense, since you seemed to have
pulled a premise out of that dumb ass of yours.
Why am I even bothering? You don't understand what you're talking
about, let alone others.
>
> 5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
> Answer: No.
>
> Eh?
Praise Jaysus! And of course ignore the fact that bacteria do not
fully obey the laws of Darwinian inheritance, and can pass DNA between
themselves, etc, which scientists not only know about, but which
actually puts a shotgun to the dumbass earlier question of the
'minimal cell'. Because spin is incapable of much more than chewing
his blade of grass and repeating creationist claims like some freaky
Christian speak n spell, he can't see that the fluidity of DNA at that
level makes chemical evolution a whole lot more likely - the earliest
lifeforms would not have had to come about by the strict Darwinian
mechanisms which creationists claim make the first cell impossible.
>
> 6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
> cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
> "all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
> Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
> "knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>
> Eh?
Twat. Scientists have not claimed to be able to synthesise a living
cell. So you're a liar, as well.
>
> 7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
> Answer: We haven't
>
That problem whereby because creationists are so dumb, they can't see
that DNA is not the be-all and end-all of genetic material? Mmm, I'll
have to agree, they are pretty dumb.
> Eh? thats a lotta faith.
What a scumbag.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> answer.
>>
>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> theory?
>>
>> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>>
>> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>>
>> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>>
>> I await your answers ....
>
>
>
>I have some better questions.
>
>
>1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
>all the matter/energy come from?
>
>Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
>Eh?
Correct, there was nothing whatsoever before the BB/ No matter, no
energy, no space and no time.
>
>2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
>predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
>Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
>Eh?
It is possible, but unlikely. The correct answer is that abiogenesis
has nothing to do with evolution.
>
>
>3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes,
Wrong.
> to function
>in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
>enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
>cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
It didn't.
>
>Answer: ??
>
>Eh?
>
>4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
>enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>
>Answer: ??
>
>Eh?
Not very good with English are you.
>
>
>5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
>Answer: No.
>
>Eh?
>
>
>6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
>cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
>"all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
>Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
>"knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>
>Eh?
>
>7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
>Answer: We haven't
>
>Eh? thats a lotta faith.
And a lot of stupidity on your part.
--
Bob.
adman
> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> answer.
>
> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> theory?
AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific hypothesis ".
Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or alternate
hypothesis?
>
> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> I await your answers ....
--
Voice like thunder, face of an Angel,
It is always wise to listen to:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim Miller
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> answer.
>>
>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> theory?
>
> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific hypothesis ".
Gee. I wonder why?
> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or alternate
> hypothesis?
What other kind IS there? Magical? We'll stick with real life...
raven1
>Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> answer.
>>
>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> theory?
>
>AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific hypothesis ".
So you admit that what you're pushing isn't science. Thanks for the
candor.
>Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted?
What part of "what alternative scientific hypothesis" was unclear to
you?
>Or just another or alternate
>hypothesis?
"It happened by magic" and "Goddidit" are not useful hypotheses, as
there is no way to ever test them. Nor are they necessary when natural
processes are more than adequate to explain the data.
Boikat
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific hypothesis ".
> Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
Why should science come up with an alternate "hypothesis" for a
*theory* that has been consistantly supported over the last 150 years
or so?
> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or alternate
> hypothesis?
Geeee..... I wonder what DA meant when he asked, " What alternative
##### SCIENTIFIC ##### hypothesis is there to evolutionary theory?
(Emphasis added)
<snip>
> --
>
> Voice like thunder, face of an Angel,
and the mind of a mushroom,
> It is always wise to listen to:
for a good laugh,
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
Steven L.
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> answer.
>>
>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> theory?
>
> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific hypothesis ".
> Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or alternate
> hypothesis?
If evolution is false,
then what hypothesis are you proposing to be true?
What is YOUR OWN theory of the origins of modern species?
Do you have one?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Tim Miller
> adman wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>> theory?
>>
>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or
>> alternate hypothesis?
>
> If evolution is false,
> then what hypothesis are you proposing to be true?
>
> What is YOUR OWN theory of the origins of modern species?
>
> Do you have one?
Yeah, he does. "Goddidit".
Steven L.
> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> answer.
Actually, "Answers in Genesis" does give some of those. I just went
there and saw for myself. Here goes:
>
> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> theory?
Theory: That scientific truth is relative to one's moral-philosophical
outlook. "Facts" are not objectively neutral. Truth cannot be
determined objectively outside of God. There are no truly objective
facts--a phenomenon such as a fossil or a scientific measurement, really
only exists inside our consciousness, which is affected by whether we
believe in God.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
>
> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
"Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’.
They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who
has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the
past about which we need to know.
"On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we
have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables
us to interpret the evidence of the present."
>
> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
Moses: "Behold His Mighty Hand...."
>
> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
See 4), below.
>
> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
The reason why evolutionists and creationists keep shouting at each
other is because they don't start with the same set of subjective facts.
If creationists and evolutionists look at a fossil or a scientific
measurement and just don't see it the same way, then naturally any
theories they derive from those will disagree as well.
(Example: I am an engineer. If a creationist engineer and I looked at
a voltmeter and saw two different voltages--with his faith, he sees the
meter reading 5 volts but I see it reads 10 volts--we are going to be
yelling and screaming at each other: "Are you blind? Don't you see
what I see? Etc.")
>
> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe?
adman
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:59:38 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>> theory?
>>
>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>> hypothesis ".
>
> So you admit that what you're pushing isn't science. Thanks for the
> candor.
Can you show where i have said otherwise?
run along now lil raven and let the adults talk, mkay?
adman
> adman wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>> theory?
>>
>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or
>> alternate hypothesis?
>
> If evolution is false,
> then what hypothesis are you proposing to be true?
>
> What is YOUR OWN theory of the origins of modern species?
>
> Do you have one?
The current theory is not the 'origin' either. Unless you suggest evolution
started life
Free Lunch
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<83742ae7-7122-4da9...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>:
>On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> answer.
>>
>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> theory?
>>
>> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>>
>> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>>
>> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>>
>> I await your answers ....
>
>
>
>I have some better questions.
No, you don't. You have decided to ignore real scientific questions that
show that your religious doctrines are foolish and wrong. Don't answer
your own questions, you failed your own quiz.
>1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
>all the matter/energy come from?
>
>Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
>Eh?
Physics doesn't require that there was nothing before the Big Bang
because we cannot tell you what the universe was like before the first
Planck interval, but there is the possibility that the net energy of the
universe is zero.
I'm a generous grader, so I'll give you half-credit for that guess.
>2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
>predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
>Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
Life is complicated, so it's no surprise that the beginning of life was
complicated. Scientists know that there are pathways that are completely
usable by life from prebiotic forms. The fact that scientists don't
know, and may never know exactly what the pathway was is not any help
for you.
Scientists don't really care where life started. Unlike religious
zealots and mystical fools, scientists are actually interested in how
life began, no matter where it began. The outer space thing is not an
answer scientists use.
I can't give you any credit for your answer. It shows no understanding
of science.
>Eh?
>
>
>3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
>in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
>enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
>cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
They didn't. No one claims they did.
You get no credit for that question. It is shows a profound lack of
understanding of science, even worse than your prior answer.
>Answer: ??
>
>Eh?
>
>4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
>enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
The first biotic chemical reactions were pre-cellular and were reactions
that were tied to the specific conditions in which they arose.
Again, you get no credit for the question since it shows a lack of
understanding of science.
>Answer: ??
>
>Eh?
>
>
>5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
>Answer: No.
You got one right, though you didn't explain your answer. Are you aware
that bacteria are able to swap DNA?
>Eh?
>
>
>6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
>cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
>"all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
>Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
>"knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
Even though you got two of three correct, I can only give you a generous
half-credit for this answer. The predictions are working fine.
Scientists, unlike you, are humble enough to know when they don't know
something and they are humble enough not to insist that they are correct
when they have been proven wrong.
>
>Eh?
>
>7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
>Answer: We haven't
Your question, again, was badly formed. What exactly do you think the
problem is? Presumably you think arches cannot be built.
>
>Eh? thats a lotta faith.
Not at all.
You get a 2 out of 7. Congratulations on failing the quiz you wrote.
Still, that is better than your zero on the other quiz.
adman
> On Sep 28, 12:59 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>> answer.
>>
>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>> theory?
>>
>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>
> Why should science come up with an alternate "hypothesis" for a
> *theory* that has been consistantly supported over the last 150 years
> or so?
STOP!! YOU ARE MAKING MY SIDE HURT FROM LAUGHING!!!!!
BWAHahahhhahaha!!!!!!!
>
>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or
>> alternate hypothesis?
>
> Geeee..... I wonder what DA meant when he asked, " What alternative
> ##### SCIENTIFIC ##### hypothesis is there to evolutionary theory?
> (Emphasis added)
THAT is a question that should be posed to a scientist then. Not a
creationist. OTOH if DA wants an hypothesis from a creation viewpoint, all
DA has to do is ask, right?
See how this logic thingy works?
--
It is never wise to argue with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
TomS
<b82c315f-3ec3-4d26...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, Boikat
stated..."
>
>On Sep 28, 12:59=A0pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> > answer.
>>
>> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> > theory?
>>
>".
>> Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>
>Why should science come up with an alternate "hypothesis" for a
>*theory* that has been consistantly supported over the last 150 years
>or so?
>
>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or alternate
>> hypothesis?
>
>Geeee..... I wonder what DA meant when he asked, " What alternative
>##### SCIENTIFIC ##### hypothesis is there to evolutionary theory?
>(Emphasis added)
I'd be interested in an alternative *non*scientific hypothesis.
Something which would tell us, for example, why the bodies of
humans and those of chimps and other apes are so similar, even
if it wasn't clear how to test the hypothesis.
Is it just a massive coincidence that anatomy, embryology,
biochemistry, genetics, distribution, fossils share so much?
"Pure chance" would be an alternative to descent with modification
from common ancestors, but I don't know how to test that.
Another alternative would be that the intelligent designers had
some common purpose in mind when they came up with the design for
humans, chimps, and other apes.
Another alternative would be that the intelligent designers were
unable to do things any other way, or that they weren't interested
enough to be bothered with thinking up new designs.
Caranx latus
> Boikat wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 12:59 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>>> answer.
>>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>>> theory?
>>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>> Why should science come up with an alternate "hypothesis" for a
>> *theory* that has been consistantly supported over the last 150 years
>> or so?
>
> STOP!! YOU ARE MAKING MY SIDE HURT FROM LAUGHING!!!!!
> BWAHahahhhahaha!!!!!!!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labile_affect>
You might consider seeing your doctor if you aren't already on
medication. *Prescribed* medication, I mean.
John Harshman
from AiG we've sen so far.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> Goddidit.
>
Yes, Divine casuation is the only alternative to unguided material
causation.
> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>
In addition, the observation of design and organized complexity seen
in every aspect of nature and in each organism corroborates God's
written word.
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> Goddidit.
>
True: Divine power operating in reality. The observation of design and
organized complexity logically corresponds to the work of invisible
Designer
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> I don't got to show you no stinking predictions. Goddidit.
>
Darwinism rejects prophecy and claims to interpret what when on in the
past; therefore the question is a non-sequitur.
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> See 4.
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
Another non-sequitur since design is an observation and since
evolution is deduced by interpretation.
> See 5.
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> Could be a long wait.
Of course Atheist John Harshman MUST interpret evidence in favor of
evolution (evolution-did-it) since Divine causation is not an option.
Ray
spintronic
<snip>
> > 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> > in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> > enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> > cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> > Answer: ??
>
> > Eh?
>
> spin, you total dumbass, even creationists have stopped using this
> failed argument. Only hillbillies like you still believe that that a
> model 'minimum cell' is a real entity, and that the first life WAS a
> cell, and that it used DNA, etc.
Who said "first life"? I said "first cell".
I am 100% sure that you can provide a link explaining how *it/they*
came
into existence, fully functional. DUMBASS.
Tim Miller
Even if he DID, you're be too fucking stupid to understand
it, you ignorant prick.
spintronic
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 08:59:48 -0700 (PDT), spintronic
> <spintro...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> >> answer.
>
> >> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> >> theory?
>
> >> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> >> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> >> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> >> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> >> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> >> I await your answers ....
>
> >I have some better questions.
>
> >1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
> >all the matter/energy come from?
>
> >Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
> >Eh?
>
> Correct, there was nothing whatsoever before the BB/ No matter, no
> energy, no space and no time.
Lol. You are stupid. And antiquated.
Talking as if you actually know, when there are a dozen theories to
choose from.
Much like religions I guess.
So go on, where did the energy come from?
Something from nothing? I bet you have a perpetual motion machine
in your garage too.
I suppose you based your mumbling on string theory, brane cosmology
and the ekpyrotic model?
Oh, no wait, they all say there was something before the BB.
Yet another example of big mouths making grandious claims
that "science" knows all, when science knows squat about the
question at hand. And more importantly, you know even less.
DJT
> On Sep 28, 7:48 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > > answer.
>
> > Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
>
> > > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > > theory?
>
> > Goddidit.
>
> Yes, Divine casuation is the only alternative to unguided material
> causation.
Since unguided material causation has been observed, and divine
causation has not, your alternative is inherently unscientific.
>
> > > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> > God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>
> In addition, the observation of design and organized complexity seen
> in every aspect of nature and in each organism corroborates God's
> written word.
However the appearance of design, and organized complexity are known
to be produced by natural events, and processes. There's no
observation of such being produced by a supernatural being. The
"written word"in this case, is of little use to science, as it's not
backed by physical evidence.
>
> > > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> > Goddidit.
>
> True: Divine power operating in reality.
This mechanism has not been observed, tested, or confirmed.
> The observation of design and
> organized complexity logically corresponds to the work of invisible
> Designer
Except that it doesn't . There is no observation of design, just the
appearance of design. No supernatural being has ever been observed
designing anything. No 'invisible designer" has ever been observed to
produce any known design. Both the appearance of design, and
organized complexity can be produced by natural processes, without
requiring the intervention of a supernatural being.
Therefore it's not logical to assume any appearance of design, or
organized complexity must be the result of an "invisible Designer".
>
> > > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> > I don't got to show you no stinking predictions. Goddidit.
>
> Darwinism rejects prophecy and claims to interpret what when on in the
> past; therefore the question is a non-sequitur.
Science in general has little use for prophecy, as it is not normally
reliable. Interpreting the past is common scientific practice, and
has been shown to be much more reliable. Scientific concepts must
make predictions, and if the predictions aren't confirmed, the
concepts must be modified, or discarded. Prophets who's predictions
don't pan out, make excuses.
>
> > > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> > See 4.
>
> > > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> Another non-sequitur since design is an observation and since
> evolution is deduced by interpretation.
Design has never been observed to be the result of a supernatural
being. Evolution is observed, not only in real time, but also can
be inferred from evidence. All of science is "deduced by
interpretation" including direct observation.
>
> > See 5.
>
> > > I await your answers ....
>
> > Could be a long wait.
>
> Of course Atheist John Harshman MUST interpret evidence in favor of
> evolution (evolution-did-it) since Divine causation is not an option.
Evolution is not the only option open to an "atheist". More to the
point, it's an interpretation that's open to theists as well.
Evolution is accepted because it's the best scientific explanation for
the evidence.
"Divine causation" is a religious belief, not a scientific concept,
and is sterile as far as investigation goes.
DJT
TimK
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7527306e-44eb-4896...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>Darwinism rejects prophecy and claims to interpret what when on in the
>past; therefore the question is a non-sequitur.
Bullshit. Modern biology has nothing to say about god(s) because it/they are
irrelevant to science. It realy is that simple.
>Another non-sequitur since design is an observation and since
>evolution is deduced by interpretation.
More bullshit. Design is a stupid idea that is utterly untestable. Evolution
is observation -ever hear of Hardy-Weinberg?
IDiot.
geo...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 28, 6:23 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> > > in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> > > enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> > > cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> > > Answer: ??
>
> > > Eh?
>
> > spin, you total dumbass, even creationists have stopped using this
> > failed argument. Only hillbillies like you still believe that that a
> > model 'minimum cell' is a real entity, and that the first life WAS a
> > cell, and that it used DNA, etc.
>
> Who said "first life"? I said "first cell".
In which case you are fully aware of the kind of life which existed
before cellular life, and therefore have no reason to assume that the
first cell had any minimum genetic requirement, let alone one you
pulled out of your dumb ass. Dumbass.
>
> I am 100% sure that you can provide a link explaining how *it/they*
> came
> into existence, fully functional. DUMBASS.
No, dumbass, because firstly, only a dumbass like you suggests that
they came into existence out of nowhere with three hundred fully
functional DNA-based genes, while more reasonable people suggest a
form of chemical evolution and then go and test that idea, and
secondly, abiogenesis is difficult to study, so no one has that
answer.
Did you want to answer any of my other replies?
Frank J
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > theory?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
> all the matter/energy come from?
>
> Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
> Eh?
>
> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
>
> 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
>
> enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>
>
> Eh?
>
> 5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
> Answer: No.
>
>
> 6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
> cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
> "all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
> Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
> "knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>
>
> 7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
> Answer: We haven't
>
So what do you propose that takes less faith?:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b05daede49e50c2e?hl=en
er...@swva.net
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> I have some better questions.
>
Those are not better questions; they are creationist questions. The
whole point of this thread is that creationists are bug on asking
questions, when they have no good answers to of their own to pertinent
questions.
(snip)
Eric Root
Steven L.
> Steven L. wrote:
>> adman wrote:
>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>>> theory?
>>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or
>>> alternate hypothesis?
>> If evolution is false,
>> then what hypothesis are you proposing to be true?
>>
>> What is YOUR OWN theory of the origins of modern species?
>>
>> Do you have one?
>
> The current theory is not the 'origin' either. Unless you suggest evolution
> started life
Stop dodging.
What is YOUR proposed alternative theory to evolution?
Can you state it in one simple paragraph?
Steven L.
You may not have,
but other creationists certainly have.
Henry Morris defined creationism as: The Biblical model, explained
*scientifically*. In fact, he used to call it "scientific creationism."
You disagree with him about that?
Steven L.
> On Sep 28, 7:48 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>> answer.
>> Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
>>
>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>> theory?
>> Goddidit.
>>
>
> Yes, Divine casuation is the only alternative to unguided material
> causation.
But there is more than one divinity.
What if the available scientific evidence pointed to Allah rather than
to the Judeo-Christian conception of God? Would you consider converting
to Islam?
Muslims very much believe in God (Allah), and many of them are
creationists too. *BUT* they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God
who got Resurrected. Since science doesn't know of ways to resurrect
someone who is clinically dead, doesn't that suggest that even if divine
causation is the correct alternative to evolution, that it's less likely
to be the Christian God than the Islamic God?
raven1
Just above. Can you not even read your own posts for comprehension?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
>On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> answer.
>>
>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> theory?
>>
>> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>>
>> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>>
>> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>>
>> I await your answers ....
>I have some better questions.
They're only "better" if you can answer the above six.
<snip irrelevant questions>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
William Morse
> On 28 Sep, 15:48, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> > answer.
>>
>> Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
Ray made a reply, but did not couch it in scientific terms. John did not
make a sincere effort to state the position of the evolution opponents. I
will try, although it is difficult.
>> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> > theory?
The original pre-Darwin hypothesis was special creation, but that was
pretty much dependent on a short geological time span and very few
fossils. I suppose you could check on how Agassiz rationalized his
opposition to evolution, since he was more aware of an extensive fossil
record and the length of the geological time span. But now that all other
scientific evidence shows a long span with significant change in species
composition, the alternative essentially has to be that there is some
force other than evolution that is causing the changes.
>> Goddidit.
>>
>> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
The argument is basically that from incredulity - that the observed
complexity is greater than can be accounted for by incremental changes.
>> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>>
>> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
The hypothesis is that the mechanism is not accounted for. This is not
completely unscientific, e.g. the prediction of the existence of Neptune
based on irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. The hypothesis is that
evolution cannot explain the observed complexity, so there must be some
other force at work - but we don't know the scientific nature of the
mechanism.
>> Goddidit.
>>
>> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
I think this is in fact the weak point of the argument. It is said that
the historical changes observed in populations are just microevolution,
and that we will never observe macroevolution that is explainable as a
series of small steps. It would also have to be true that all changes in
the fossil record are step changes - punctuated equilibrium - and that no
matter how complete the fossil record, the gaps will never be filled in.
Now remember that the science of evolution is long on correspondence to
historical evidence but short on predictions, although the prediction of
the existence of naked mole rats should certainly be counted as solid
evidence of its validity.
>> I don't got to show you no stinking predictions. Goddidit.
>>
>> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
Again this would appear to be the major problem - that as more DNA and
fossil evidence is accumulated, the gaps progressively disappear, and as
we accumulate solid historical evidence on populations, we see more
evidence of changes that would qualify as macroevolution.
>> See 4.
>>
>> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
The best chance to offer experimental proof at present is probably based
on computer simulations, which offer the chance of testing the ability to
recreate in human time frames the changes in species seen over
evolutionary time frames. Proving a negative is always difficult, but I
would think any serious scientific advocates of alternatives to evolution
should be running computer simulations with realistic parameters if they
want to show that historical observations require an as yet undescribed
force to explain the data.
>> See 5.
>>
>> > I await your answers ....
>>
>> Could be a long wait.
>
> Maybe, but I don't mind as I am genuinely interested in what answers
> they come up with.
I am also interested. I tried to put myself into their shoes, but it is
not easy for me, and I doubt I did a very good job of making their case
for them.
Yours,
Bill Morse
John Harshman
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:59:57 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>
>> On 28 Sep, 15:48, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>>> answer.
>>> Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
>
> Ray made a reply, but did not couch it in scientific terms. John did not
> make a sincere effort to state the position of the evolution opponents. I
> will try, although it is difficult.
I may have been terse, but I believe I was accurate. You, sadly, are not.
>>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>>> theory?
>
> The original pre-Darwin hypothesis was special creation, but that was
> pretty much dependent on a short geological time span and very few
> fossils. I suppose you could check on how Agassiz rationalized his
> opposition to evolution, since he was more aware of an extensive fossil
> record and the length of the geological time span. But now that all other
> scientific evidence shows a long span with significant change in species
> composition, the alternative essentially has to be that there is some
> force other than evolution that is causing the changes.
That's not an alternative. That's only a claim that there must be some
alternative. Creationists do assume special creation. Most of them
assume a single short creation event of separate kinds, because that's
what the bible says. There are a few progressive creationists who
believe in the separate creation of kinds a few at a time over a long
period. That about covers it.
>>> Goddidit.
>>>
>>>> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> The argument is basically that from incredulity - that the observed
> complexity is greater than can be accounted for by incremental changes.
You have confused ID with creationism. Though most ID is creationism in
disguise, the publicly stated arguments are not creationist. ID rejects
only the sufficiency of natural selection and other known mechanisms to
account for the history of life. ID purports to be agnostic on the
actual history of life. That's why Behe, who accepts common descent, can
be an IDer.
>>> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>>>
>>>> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> The hypothesis is that the mechanism is not accounted for. This is not
> completely unscientific, e.g. the prediction of the existence of Neptune
> based on irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. The hypothesis is that
> evolution cannot explain the observed complexity, so there must be some
> other force at work - but we don't know the scientific nature of the
> mechanism.
Again, you have confused creationism with ID. And ID does assume a
mechanism, or at least a general class of mechanisms, i.e. ID. They of
course have no expressed ideas on how this designer
operates/operated/whatever.
>>> Goddidit.
>>>
>>>> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> I think this is in fact the weak point of the argument. It is said that
> the historical changes observed in populations are just microevolution,
> and that we will never observe macroevolution that is explainable as a
> series of small steps. It would also have to be true that all changes in
> the fossil record are step changes - punctuated equilibrium - and that no
> matter how complete the fossil record, the gaps will never be filled in.
This would be the sort of prediction made by a progressive creationist.
But there aren't really enough of them around for them to have made such
predictions. Regular creationists, including YECs, have made this
prediction without noticing that it's incompatible with their worldviews.
> Now remember that the science of evolution is long on correspondence to
> historical evidence but short on predictions, although the prediction of
> the existence of naked mole rats should certainly be counted as solid
> evidence of its validity.
There are plenty of other predictions you may not have noticed. I
predict, for example, that orangutan genes we haven't sequenced yet will
maintain the same pattern as those we have, taking up the same spot in
the nested hierarchy of life. Microraptor gui is amazingly close to the
Proavis predicted in the early 20th Century. Etc.
>>> I don't got to show you no stinking predictions. Goddidit.
>>>
>>>> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> Again this would appear to be the major problem - that as more DNA and
> fossil evidence is accumulated, the gaps progressively disappear, and as
> we accumulate solid historical evidence on populations, we see more
> evidence of changes that would qualify as macroevolution.
>
>
>>> See 4.
>>>
>>>> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> The best chance to offer experimental proof at present is probably based
> on computer simulations, which offer the chance of testing the ability to
> recreate in human time frames the changes in species seen over
> evolutionary time frames. Proving a negative is always difficult, but I
> would think any serious scientific advocates of alternatives to evolution
> should be running computer simulations with realistic parameters if they
> want to show that historical observations require an as yet undescribed
> force to explain the data.
There has already been at least one attempt, though by IDers, not
creationists. But not with realistic parameters, because if you set
those it doesn't come out the way it's supposed to.
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke (2004). "Simulating evolution by gene
duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid
residues". Protein Science 13 (10): 2651–2664.
>>> See 5.
>>>
>>>> I await your answers ....
>>> Could be a long wait.
>> Maybe, but I don't mind as I am genuinely interested in what answers
>> they come up with.
>
> I am also interested. I tried to put myself into their shoes, but it is
> not easy for me, and I doubt I did a very good job of making their case
> for them.
That's OK, neither do they.
William Morse
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to answer.
>>
>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> theory?
>>
>> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>>
>> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>>
>> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>>
>> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>>
>> I await your answers ....
>
>
>
> I have some better questions.
You have some different questions.
>
> 1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did all the
> matter/energy come from?
>
> Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
> Eh?
This is,of course, a different subject than evolution. But see the
October 2008 issue of Scientific American (I haven't yet read it myself)
for a discussion.
> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
> Eh?
It is universally acknowledged that while panspermia is possible, it does
not explain the original abiogenesis. But as pointed out by others, this
is also a different subject than evolution.
>
> 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function in a
> specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original cell
> accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> Answer: ??
Good question, but again this has to do with abiogenesis, not evolution.
> Eh?
>
> 4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
> enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
You appear to be referring to the constructed minimal cell. But a real
"minimal" cell would by definition be able to survive in the environment
it experienced.Note that the parameters of this environment might also be
controlled by various external factors. So I don't see this question as
being much of a question.
> 5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
> Answer: No.
>
> Eh?
This has been addressed by others. To reiterate, the difficulty in making
a phylogenetic tree of bacteria is unrelated to the question of whether
there is an alternate scientific hypothesis to explain evolution in
bacteria.
> 6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living cell (in
> real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions, "all" the
> knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
> Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our "knowledge"
> is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>
> Eh?
Three different causes cited, and only the last two are correct. And it
is likely that the actual abiogenetic synthesis took several million
years. Recreating this in the laboratory might run into some practical
difficulties :-)
> 7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
> Answer: We haven't
Actually we probably have. RNA can serve as both enzyme and template. So
we can start off with RNA, and then develop proteins, and then have DNA
take over many of the template functions.
Yours,
Bill Morse
adman
more than one divinity eh? different conceptions of God eh?
I cannot believe some of the crap I read on Usenet these days. Allah and
YHVH are the exact same God, the exact same creator and God to the Jews, to
the Christians, and to the Islamics or Moslems.
There are two brothers. Isaac and Ishmael. One from Abram's slave woman, the
other from Abram's chosen wife. One the grandfather of the 12 tribes of
Israel, one the father of the 12 tribes of the Arabs. Abraham and his sons
worshiped the same God YHVH renamed 3000 years latter to Alla by Mohammad.
Wait, there is more:
The Arabs believe that Ishmael received the promise and the blessings from
God, yet the Jews believe that Isaac was the one who received it. And they
have been fighting for 4000 years because of this ever since. Thats right.
America is in the middel of an ancient family fude.
And since America sides with Israel, we are in the fight. Anyone that
denounces the Islamic version of Isaac and Ishmael is an infidel.
The only thing you got right is Islam respects Jesus as a great prophet, but
does not view him as a savior or as the Son of The Most High God YHVH.
Neither do the Jews. The Jews do not even respect Jesus as a great prophet.
They consider Jesus a heretic. A traitor. So they killed him.
Only the Christians accept Jesus as the savior. Islam accepts Jesus as a
great prophet. The Jews call Jesus a heretic.
What is wrong with that picture?
And all three religions worship the same and single God of gods. Lord of
lords. The Big one. The Single Creator AKA GOD.
--
Contemplate upon every spoken word, breathe a sigh of relief upon every
thought from:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
adman
> adman wrote:
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:59:38 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>>>> theory?
>>>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>>>> hypothesis ".
>>> So you admit that what you're pushing isn't science. Thanks for the
>>> candor.
>>
>> Can you show where i have said otherwise?
>
> You may not have,
> but other creationists certainly have.
>
> Henry Morris defined creationism as: The Biblical model, explained
> *scientifically*. In fact, he used to call it "scientific
> creationism."
> You disagree with him about that?
yes
--
Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
stupidity
adman
> adman wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>> adman wrote:
>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>>>> theory?
>>>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>>>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>>>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or
>>>> alternate hypothesis?
>>> If evolution is false,
>>> then what hypothesis are you proposing to be true?
>>>
>>> What is YOUR OWN theory of the origins of modern species?
>>>
>>> Do you have one?
>>
>> The current theory is not the 'origin' either. Unless you suggest
>> evolution started life
>
> Stop dodging.
> What is YOUR proposed alternative theory to evolution?
>
> Can you state it in one simple paragraph?
I can state it in one simple word.
DuhIdiot
worthy use of a keyboard:
<snip>
>> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
>> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>>
>> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>>
>> Eh?
>
> That's your answer, dumbass. Evolution predicts the pattern of life
> under the conditions of imperfect replication and selection,
> abiogenesis is a different field. Your question is like going up to a
> geologist and asking 'since geology is a science that makes such
> accurate predictions, why can't you explain where babies come from?'
>
> DUMBASS.
Indeed.
If evolution is good science and makes accurate predictions, then we should
be able to explain abiogenesis? Did Alice drag Spinny back from Wonderland or
something?
<snip>
--
J. B. Mashburn, the sad left tail of the bell curve
alt.atheist #2295, http://questioner.www2.50megs.com/list1.html
EAC Chief Of Maintenance for God's cloaking device - 14 billion years and not
one glitch!
"What a day, when you can look it in the face and hold your vomit." - Faith
No More
.
David Hare-Scott
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7527306e-44eb-4896...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>> > answer.
>>
>> Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
>>
>> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>> > theory?
>>
>> Goddidit.
>>
>Yes, Divine casuation is the only alternative to unguided material
>causation.
>> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>>
>> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>>
>In addition, the observation of design and organized complexity seen
>in every aspect of nature and in each organism corroborates God's
>written word.
This is a question which has bothered me for some time.
Aside from the creation story the bible makes quite a few statements that
are prima facie at odds with modern science. If God's written word is
infalible why is it that you feel the contradiction of creation and
evolution must be fought out to the last breath but the other disagreements
can be safely ignored?
David
Wombat
You don't believe in the Trinity then, unlike most mainline Christian
denominations.
Wombat
(still got the macro)
Devils Advocaat
So you offer as an alternative scientific hypothesis something called
“divine causation”.
And you suggest that the observations that led to this hypothesis were
the “design and organized complexity” that “corroborate God's written
word”.
The mechanism is supposedly “divine power operating in reality”.
You are unable to offer any predictions made by this hypothesis.
You are unable to confirm the verification of those predictions.
And finally you cannot offer any experimental evidence that supports
your hypothesis.
Doesn't sound like your alternative scientific hypothesis is very
scientific.
Tell me Ray, is this the basis of your work that is supposed to
“destroy the theory of evolution” and “ruin the life of every
evolutionist?
Baron Bodissey
> The Arabs believe that Ishmael received the promise and the blessings from
> God, yet the Jews believe that Isaac was the one who received it. And they
> have been fighting for 4000 years because of this ever since. Thats right.
> America is in the middel of an ancient family fude.
>
Uh, Islam is less than 2000 years old. That definitely makes it
difficult for Muslims and Jews to have been fighting for 4000 years.
And it is "middle" and ":feud."
Baron Bodissey
Never forget that for many folk, it’s always easier to believe than to
think.
– A. D. Foster
Baron Bodissey
> > So you admit that what you're pushing isn't science. Thanks for the
> > candor.
>
> Can you show where i have said otherwise?
>
Damn, an honest answer! Now, take the next step and admit the self-
evident, that you know nothing about science, and that all your
arguments boil down to personal incredulity.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Do grow up and put your fairy stories behind you.
ALL gods are the invention of primitive man.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
>stupidity
We know, we have tried with you for a very long time.
--
Bob.
adman
> <snip>
>> The Arabs believe that Ishmael received the promise and the
>> blessings from God, yet the Jews believe that Isaac was the one who
>> received it. And they have been fighting for 4000 years because of
>> this ever since. Thats right. America is in the middel of an ancient
>> family fude.
>>
> <snip>
>
> Uh, Islam is less than 2000 years old. That definitely makes it
> difficult for Muslims and Jews to have been fighting for 4000 years.
> And it is "middle" and ":feud."
They are the same people kook.
adman
>> family fude.
>>
>> And since America sides with Israel, we are in the fight. Anyone that
>> denounces the Islamic version of Isaac and Ishmael is an infidel.
>>
>> The only thing you got right is Islam respects Jesus as a great
>> prophet, but does not view him as a savior or as the Son of The Most
>> High God YHVH. Neither do the Jews. The Jews do not even respect
>> Jesus as a great prophet. They consider Jesus a heretic. A traitor.
>> So they killed him.
>>
>> Only the Christians accept Jesus as the savior. Islam accepts Jesus
>> as a great prophet. The Jews call Jesus a heretic.
>> What is wrong with that picture?
>>
>> And all three religions worship the same and single God of gods.
>> Lord of lords. The Big one. The Single Creator AKA GOD.
>
> You don't believe in the Trinity then, unlike most mainline Christian
> denominations.
I believe in one God, the one that created this dimention and others.(1) I
believe he sent many prophets to us including his Son in an attempt to get
physical mankind to live by some sensible values and to clue us in. All of
them murdered. Every last one of them.(2) I believe in God's spirit and
influence on earth. I believe his advasary has a spirit of influence on this
earth. This is evident in mankinds behavior. I believe the final prophet
Jesus was God's son and was showing us the way to be saved from final
destruction. Why have there been no more prophets for 2000 years? If you
killed my son, i would be pissed too. In fact, i would leave mankind to it's
own destruction and not bother to return as promised.
If some want to call that a trinity, i'm ok with that.
(1) Gen 1.1
(2)Matthew 21:33-46
adman
> geo...@hotmail.com, on 28 Sep 2008, in talk.origins, decided this
> was a worthy use of a keyboard:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
>>> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>>>
>>> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>>>
>>> Eh?
>>
>> That's your answer, dumbass. Evolution predicts the pattern of life
>> under the conditions of imperfect replication and selection,
>> abiogenesis is a different field. Your question is like going up to a
>> geologist and asking 'since geology is a science that makes such
>> accurate predictions, why can't you explain where babies come from?'
>>
>> DUMBASS.
>
> Indeed.
>
> If evolution is good science and makes accurate predictions, then we
> should be able to explain abiogenesis? Did Alice drag Spinny back
> from Wonderland or something?
>
> <snip>
Evolution is the one claiming to be responsible for how all species arrived
to presernt condition.
You therefore bear some responsibility as to how that first life came about
to show how that first life took it's first evolutionary steps.
ooops! never mind. We will let *real* science answer THAT.
adman
Do you have evidence for and an origin of said inventions? A time line of
when and how these stories came about would be helpful. Who started this
gossip, and why it has lasted so long?
--
It is all about truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Cheezits
> Steven L. wrote:
[etc.]
>> What is YOUR proposed alternative theory to evolution?
>>
>> Can you state it in one simple paragraph?
>
> I can state it in one simple word.
Yeah, "Duh". :-D
Seriously, you can not state a theory in one word.
> You can't reason people out of an incorrect position they reached with
stupidity
NO SHIT! This is why we still have creationists.
Hey, weren't you or you imaginary friend supposed to smite Lenny? I've
been looking forward to that.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Steven J.
traditionally trace their ancestry to Ishmael, or was that something
that Muhammed's successors taught them?
And certainly, while most Arabs are Muslims, not all are (there are
assorted Arab Christians), and most Muslims are not Arabs (e.g. the
Iranians are most definitely not Arabs, and neither are the Pashtun
Taliban). This is of some relevance to your claim that "America is in
the middle of an ancient family feud:" the quarrels among Sunnis and
Shi'ites owes nothing to the quarrels between either Arabs and Jews or
Muslims and Jews (though it may owe a bit to ancient quarrels between
Arabs and Persians), and one would think that the quarrel between
Arabs and Kurds (or Turks and Kurds) owes very little to it.
-- Steven J.
adman
[]
> Did the Arabs, who were mostly polytheists before the rise of Islam,
> traditionally trace their ancestry to Ishmael, or was that something
> that Muhammed's successors taught them?
Both actually. Mohammed put his spin on earlier events it seems.
The Arab people count their ancestry through Ishmael, Abraham's son. This
was on record before Mohammedan legends. Ishmael was not a prophet, neither
was Isiacc. Ishmael's decendents became polytheists generations after
Ishmael's death and then were brought into the islam fold thosands of years
latter.
During Ishmael's lifetime however, he and his 12 sons worshiped the same God
as Abraham, the Jews and Christians. Which was my point.My other point is
people do not fully understand the truths behind the religions they claim
are so wrong.
"...Abraham in Mohammedan Iegend; and Hagar. It may be added here that
Ishmael is designated a prophet by Mohammed: "Remember Ishmael in the Book,
for he was true to his promise, and was a messenger and a prophet" (Koran,
xix. 55). Ishmael is, therefore, in Mohammedan tradition a prototype of
faithfulness. He was an arrow-maker, and a good hunter. As a prophet, he had
the gift of performing miracles. He converted many heathen to the worship of
the *One* *God*. He left twelve sons. His son Kedar is said to have been an
ancestor of Mohammed. Ishmael is reputed to have lived one hundred and
thirty years; he was buried near the Kaaba. His posterity, however, became
pagan, and remained so until they were brought back to Islam by Mohammed"
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/ishmael.htm
This is the reason so many Christians think Mohammed was inspired by Satan.
Because the true (original) Arabs worshiped the same God as the Hebrews. The
thinking is God's adversary always puts a counterfeit of God's works in
place, with Islam being the counterfeit to Christianity. In actuality, all
three religions worship the same creator and God. Mohammed put his
particular spin on it. The Jews have their spin, And the Christians have
their spin. Nonetheless, the God they all worship is the same God. Although
I will admit, Islam is being used in the wrong way by today by fanatics. But
so was Christianity during the crusades.
>
> And certainly, while most Arabs are Muslims, not all are (there are
> assorted Arab Christians), and most Muslims are not Arabs (e.g. the
> Iranians are most definitely not Arabs, and neither are the Pashtun
> Taliban). This is of some relevance to your claim that "America is in
> the middle of an ancient family feud:" the quarrels among Sunnis and
> Shi'ites owes nothing to the quarrels between either Arabs and Jews or
> Muslims and Jews (though it may owe a bit to ancient quarrels between
> Arabs and Persians), and one would think that the quarrel between
> Arabs and Kurds (or Turks and Kurds) owes very little to it.
>
> -- Steven J.
The two peoples originate from the same family. The rest you describe such
as the persians and kerds are not of the 12 tribes of Ishmael and much has
changed in 4000 years. Inter-marriages and what-not. The only thing more
common to the people in that region other then having the same God is their
fighting. Which should be of a concern to us because fighting is the nature
of the way they live. Death for their paticular view means nothing to them
other then a greater reward.
So as i said, the crux of everything over there started with: The Arabs
believing that Ishmael received the promise and the blessings from God, with
the Jews believing that Isaac was the one who received it. Of course there
are other assorted disputes as well as disputes within disputes and within
sects.
Interestingly, the Persians were the only ones in the region to show
tolerance of religion and freedom of speech during their take-over and rein
of the area. Despite Roman crudity, the Romans also allowed religious
freedoms during their take over and rein of the area. The entire region has
been taken over so many times that it does not surprise me to read in the
book of revelation that Canna will be the place of a final battle called
Armageddon.
Never underestimate the power of a family feud eh?
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 7:48 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> > Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > > answer.
> > Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
> > > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > > theory?
> > Goddidit.
> Yes, Divine (sic) casuation is the only alternative to unguided material
> causation.
Evolution is not unguided.
Where did the gods come from?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Kermit
> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > theory?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> all the matter/energy come from?
>
> Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>
> Eh?
Some will say there was nothing before the Big Bang, since that was
the beginning of time. They also say there is nothing north of the
North Pole, but if you stand at the equator and point to the north
star, it is sensible to ask what is in that direction.
One answer may be that only higher math explains it. There is no law
that says the universe must be explicable to you, or even to me.
Another answer might be that it's really no problem if it appeared all
at once. Why do you think it would be? Our observation of the parts of
the universe we can see and partially understand do not constrain the
universe as a whole.
A very correct answer - if woefully incomplete - is that the universe
likely has always been here, and is cyclic in nature. It may be that
can never contact those other universes, the ones that came before and
will come later, if those words mean anything. The Big Bang was the
beginning of time. But that doesn't necessarily mean that this all
<waves hand> came from nothing.
The most important response to your question is that sometimes the
answer is "I don't know". It is never "God did it" unless you have
evidence for it.
>
> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
> Eh?
Abiogenesis is not yet part of evolutionary science. The beginning of
life involved chemistry and physics, but it is not until imperfect
replication of inheritable characteristics came about that evolution
played a role. A theory cannot necessarily answer all questions simply
because it makes accurate predictions. Is meteorology incorrect
because it doesn't know if it will rain at my house next January 30th?
>
> 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
Why do you think it did? Obviously, the first replicators were not
modern cells.
>
> 4) Since this cell can only live in a specific laboratory controlled
> enviroment, how did the first cell survive?
>
> Answer: ??
>
> Eh?
First life was not a modern cell. There were chemicals, then there
were replicating chemicals, then there were protocells, then cells.
Determining that the simplest cells of a modern type require ~300
genes tells us much, but nobody claimed it was "the first life"
Here's a link to overviews of current hypotheses and research on
abiogenesis.
>
> 5) Could you make a phyleogenetic tree of bacteria?
>
> Answer: No.
>
> Eh?
Bacteria, believe it or not, are not sexually dimorphic, sexually
reproducing animals. In a very real sense they are one organism with
many bodies, which has been branching out in different directions for
several billion years. That and horizontal gene transfer complicates
any attempt to follow any lineage very far. Why would you think this
is a problems for evolutionary science? It's only a problem for those
who like to pigeon-hole nature.
>
> 6) When was the experiment performed that synthesised a living
> cell (in real sittuations) by utilysing "all" the predictions,
> "all" the knowledge, "all" the known steps that you claim to have?
>
> Answer: We can't, because our "predictions" don't work, our
> "knowledge" is limited, and the "steps" aren't known.
>
> Eh?
>
Yes. When we know everything, we will stop doing science. Don't hold
your breath. I find it very curious that creationists have closed
their accounts with reality. Goddidit and that's all there is to say,
eh?
Have you noticed that science seems to learn more every year? How is
that possible, you ask? Why, by continually asking questions,
investigating the subject matter, sharing discoveries, and verifying.
> 7) How have you solved the DNA/Protein (Chicken/Egg) problem?
>
> Answer: We haven't
>
> Eh? thats a lotta faith.
Gosh. We don't know everything yet. Must mean we don't know anything,
then, right? You keep telling yourself that, and other folks will keep
discovering for you. By the way, where did you learn enough to ask
that question - scientists?
Please look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#RNAworld
You will note that there are several promising directions for
researchers, that the hypotheses listed here are testable, and
everyone is confident that we will know with a high degree of
confidence, in time, how this happened.
I'm afraid that they will still conclude there is not evidence that
you are special, however. Sorry.
Kermit
Baron Bodissey
> Baron Bodissey wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> The Arabs believe that Ishmael received the promise and the
> >> blessings from God, yet the Jews believe that Isaac was the one who
> >> received it. And they have been fighting for 4000 years because of
> >> this ever since. Thats right. America is in the middel of an ancient
> >> family fude.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Uh, Islam is less than 2000 years old. That definitely makes it
> > difficult for Muslims and Jews to have been fighting for 4000 years.
> > And it is "middle" and ":feud."
>
> They are the same people kook.
But until Mohammed came along there WERE no Muslims and they had no
special quarrel with the Jews, asshole.
Bill Hudson
> On Sep 28, 10:59 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
[snip]
>
> > 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
> > predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> > Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
> > Eh?
>
> Panspermian may explain how life arrived on Earth, that still does not
> explain how the "life" process began. Even at that, where does one
> draw the line between a self sustaining biochemical reaction and life?
>
At the risk of being accused of pedantry, I will point out that Hoyle
believed (incorrectly) that assembling the first self-replicating life
form 'by chance' would have been impossible on earth simply because
there was not enough time to have done so. (Nearly all biologists
think Hoyle should have stuck with astrophysics, but that's another
discussion.) Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were overtly hostile to the
idea of creationism.
So, Hoyle accepted abiogenesis, but believed that it happened
somewhere 'out there', which tied in with his belief in a 'steady-
state' universe. He exaggerated the odds of the first cell forming
by chance (i.e., the 'tornado in a junkyard' quip) and then resolved
the issue in his mind by claiming that the universe was much much
older than it is, and that life in bacterial form was spread
throughout it. The two ideas support each other, and we shouldn't
really consider one (panspermia) without also examining the other
(steady-state).
Unfortunately for Hoyle et. al., the evidence supporting their ideas
was not forthcoming.
Bill Hudson
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or alternate
> hypothesis?
>
You are ignorant of the history of the science. Science had other
theories before Darwin, and there were theories proposed after _Origin
of the Species_,
but the modern 'evolutionary theory' is what has withstood the ~150
years of testing.
>
>
> > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> --
>
> Voice like thunder, face of an Angel,
> It is always wise to listen to:
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
What's with the 'Burma Shave' signatures?
raven1
>I believe he sent many prophets to us including his Son in an attempt to get
>physical mankind to live by some sensible values and to clue us in. All of
>them murdered. Every last one of them.
So you don't consider Moses to be a prophet, then? He died a natural
death.
Ye Old One
Well of course, since man is the only animal that can invent religions
there is nobody else to blame.
>A time line of
>when and how these stories came about would be helpful. Who started this
>gossip, and why it has lasted so long?
Well you can look at one of the stories here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net>:
>adman wrote:
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>> adman wrote:
>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>>>> theory?
>>>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>>>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>>>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or
>>>> alternate hypothesis?
>>> If evolution is false,
>>> then what hypothesis are you proposing to be true?
>>>
>>> What is YOUR OWN theory of the origins of modern species?
>>>
>>> Do you have one?
>>
>> The current theory is not the 'origin' either. Unless you suggest evolution
>> started life
>
>Stop dodging.
>What is YOUR proposed alternative theory to evolution?
>
>Can you state it in one simple paragraph?
Can he possibly state it in some *other* kind of paragraph?
The evidence says no.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
adman
All the prophets save 2 died a natural death. Enoch and Elijah. So i stand
corrected.
William Morse
> William Morse wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:59:57 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 Sep, 15:48, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>>>> answer.
>>>> Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
>>
>> Ray made a reply, but did not couch it in scientific terms. John did
>> not make a sincere effort to state the position of the evolution
>> opponents. I will try, although it is difficult.
>
> I may have been terse, but I believe I was accurate. You, sadly, are
> not.
I agree that I was not terse. Since brevity is the soul of wit, I can see
why that might have made you sad. And I am glad to hear that you believe
you were accurate. The creationists believe that Goddidit ;-)
>>>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>>>> theory?
>>
>> The original pre-Darwin hypothesis was special creation, but that was
>> pretty much dependent on a short geological time span and very few
>> fossils. I suppose you could check on how Agassiz rationalized his
>> opposition to evolution, since he was more aware of an extensive fossil
>> record and the length of the geological time span. But now that all
>> other scientific evidence shows a long span with significant change in
>> species composition, the alternative essentially has to be that there
>> is some force other than evolution that is causing the changes.
>
> That's not an alternative. That's only a claim that there must be some
> alternative. Creationists do assume special creation. Most of them
> assume a single short creation event of separate kinds, because that's
> what the bible says. There are a few progressive creationists who
> believe in the separate creation of kinds a few at a time over a long
> period. That about covers it.
Understand I am trying to play devil's advocate, and come up with an
alternative _scientific_ hypothesis. As I noted above, YEC is essentially
incompatible with all of science. So some kind of force that influences
observed changes over time in the fossil record, apart from those
currently included under the rubric of evolution, would appear to be the
only other possibility.
>>>> Goddidit.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>>
>> The argument is basically that from incredulity - that the observed
>> complexity is greater than can be accounted for by incremental changes.
>
> You have confused ID with creationism. Though most ID is creationism in
> disguise, the publicly stated arguments are not creationist. ID rejects
> only the sufficiency of natural selection and other known mechanisms to
> account for the history of life. ID purports to be agnostic on the
> actual history of life. That's why Behe, who accepts common descent, can
> be an IDer.
You mean ID is not the same as creationism? Stop the presses! I never
would have guessed! I mean this is really news to me! (Have I made my
point?)
The ID proponents may have not made a point of accepting common descent,
to avoid alienating the creationists, but their argument is in fact that
from incredulity. As I said above, YEC is simply not a scientific
argument.
>>>> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>>>>
>>>>> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>>
>> The hypothesis is that the mechanism is not accounted for. This is not
>> completely unscientific, e.g. the prediction of the existence of
>> Neptune based on irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. The hypothesis
>> is that evolution cannot explain the observed complexity, so there must
>> be some other force at work - but we don't know the scientific nature
>> of the mechanism.
>
> Again, you have confused creationism with ID. And ID does assume a
> mechanism, or at least a general class of mechanisms, i.e. ID. They of
> course have no expressed ideas on how this designer
> operates/operated/whatever.
You keep saying that I have confused creationism with ID. I do not think
it means what you think it means :-) Again, what I am talking about is a
possible scientific alternative to evolution, and that would have to
include some of the tenets of intelligent design, with the caveat that
since they have not proposed any scientific mechanism, the specific
mechanism at present is, as I said, not accounted for.
>>>> Goddidit.
>>>>
>>>>> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>>
>> I think this is in fact the weak point of the argument. It is said that
>> the historical changes observed in populations are just microevolution,
>> and that we will never observe macroevolution that is explainable as a
>> series of small steps. It would also have to be true that all changes
>> in the fossil record are step changes - punctuated equilibrium - and
>> that no matter how complete the fossil record, the gaps will never be
>> filled in.
>
> This would be the sort of prediction made by a progressive creationist.
> But there aren't really enough of them around for them to have made such
> predictions. Regular creationists, including YECs, have made this
> prediction without noticing that it's incompatible with their
> worldviews.
Which is the point I was trying to get to. All of the arguments I have
seen against evolution that attempt to be scientific arguments, are based
on the falsity of gradualism. So they all make an implicit prediction
that further research will not narrow gaps, but will instead reveal step
functions.
>> Now remember that the science of evolution is long on correspondence to
>> historical evidence but short on predictions, although the prediction
>> of the existence of naked mole rats should certainly be counted as
>> solid evidence of its validity.
>
> There are plenty of other predictions you may not have noticed. I
> predict, for example, that orangutan genes we haven't sequenced yet will
> maintain the same pattern as those we have, taking up the same spot in
> the nested hierarchy of life. Microraptor gui is amazingly close to the
> Proavis predicted in the early 20th Century. Etc.
Actually I was hoping that some of you would jump in with more examples
of prediction. I did not include a personal anecdote - the question came
up a long while ago in sci.bio.evolution as to why an armadillo litter
are all identical, rather than being derived from separate eggs as is the
norm in mammals. I hazarded the guess that this was due to modern
armadillos being descended from armadillos that at one time only gave
birth to a single young at one time. Turns out I was right, although that
had already been discovered so it doesn't technically count as a
prediction.
>>>> I don't got to show you no stinking predictions. Goddidit.
>>>>
>>>>> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>>
>> Again this would appear to be the major problem - that as more DNA and
>> fossil evidence is accumulated, the gaps progressively disappear, and
>> as we accumulate solid historical evidence on populations, we see more
>> evidence of changes that would qualify as macroevolution.
>>
>>
>>>> See 4.
>>>>
>>>>> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>>
>> The best chance to offer experimental proof at present is probably
>> based on computer simulations, which offer the chance of testing the
>> ability to recreate in human time frames the changes in species seen
>> over evolutionary time frames. Proving a negative is always difficult,
>> but I would think any serious scientific advocates of alternatives to
>> evolution should be running computer simulations with realistic
>> parameters if they want to show that historical observations require an
>> as yet undescribed force to explain the data.
>
> There has already been at least one attempt, though by IDers, not
> creationists. But not with realistic parameters, because if you set
> those it doesn't come out the way it's supposed to.
Why to you keep referring to creationists? The original question was
about a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. It is obvious
that my reply is directed to ID. I thank you for the reference - I would
have expected more of this, since from what I have read about
computational evolution, under some constraints the initial evolution
comes to a halt. I think this is an interesting field, and may help those
of us who are interested in science rather than dogma to better
understand the physical constraints on evolution.
Yours,
Bill Morse
> Michael Behe and David W. Snoke (2004). "Simulating evolution by gene
> duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid
> residues". Protein Science 13 (10): 2651–2664.
>
>>>> See 5.
>>>>
>>>>> I await your answers ....
>>>> Could be a long wait.
>>> Maybe, but I don't mind as I am genuinely interested in what answers
>>> they come up with.
>>
>> I am also interested. I tried to put myself into their shoes, but it is
>> not easy for me, and I doubt I did a very good job of making their case
>> for them.
>
> That's OK, neither do they.
adman
> On Sep 28, 10:59 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 3:42 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <Snip D. A's questions that spinny is too chicken shit to answer>
>>
>>
>> 1) If there was noting before the big bang, where did
>> all the matter/energy come from?
>>
>> Answer: There was nothing before the big bang.
>>
>> Eh?
>
> appear that any information prior to the "phase
> change" (Expansion)survived.
>
>>
>> 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
>> predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>>
>> Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>>
>> Eh?
>
> No, it's complicated, and we do not know all the details. Although
> Panspermian may explain how life arrived on Earth, that still does not
> explain how the "life" process began. Even at that, where does one
> draw the line between a self sustaining biochemical reaction and life?
Panspermian ?
BWAHahahahaha!!!!!!!!
damn you are dumb.
adman
> On Sep 29, 11:45 am, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Baron Bodissey wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> The Arabs believe that Ishmael received the promise and the
>>>> blessings from God, yet the Jews believe that Isaac was the one who
>>>> received it. And they have been fighting for 4000 years because of
>>>> this ever since. Thats right. America is in the middel of an
>>>> ancient family fude.
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Uh, Islam is less than 2000 years old. That definitely makes it
>>> difficult for Muslims and Jews to have been fighting for 4000 years.
>>> And it is "middle" and ":feud."
>>
>> They are the same people kook.
>
> But until Mohammed came along there WERE no Muslims and they had no
> special quarrel with the Jews, asshole.
Read a book. Two would be better. The ancient arabs were the Muslims of
today idiot.
The Midianites, or any other tribe being called Bene-Ishmael were the ones
Moses stayed with when he left Egypt. The leadership of the Arab brotherhood
united under the lineage of Ishmaelite decendents.
When Moses set the hebrews free from Egypt, they needed to cross Midianite
territory. The Arab tribes they encountered are clearly identified and
located in their areas : Amalekites (Exodus 14:25, 24:20), Edomites (Numbers
20:14-18, 21:24) Moab (Exodus 21:10, 22:1), Ammonites (Exodus 21:24,
Deuteronomy 2:19-21, 23:3-6), Midian (Exodus 25:1-15). These Arab tribes are
all descended directly from Abraham's son Ishmael, or his nephew Lot.
God cursed the Midianite territory because the Hebrews had to fight to cross
this territory. A territory God said were hebrew relatives. And they were.
The Amalekites (decendents if ishmael)were the first battle the hebrews has
to go through after leaving Egypt.
Got it? Asshole?
adman
> On Sep 28, 10:59 am, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
>>> answer.
>>
>>> 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
>>> theory?
>>
>> AFIK Science has not come up with an alternative " scientific
>> hypothesis ". Which maks the rest of the questions moot.
>> Is a scientific hypothesis what you wanted? Or just another or
>> alternate hypothesis?
>>
>
> You are ignorant of the history of the science. Science had other
> theories before Darwin, and there were theories proposed after _Origin
> of the Species_,
> but the modern 'evolutionary theory' is what has withstood the ~150
> years of testing.
Gee. 150 years eh? Out of a suposed 4.5 billion year history
Boikat
So, you think humans have been around, doing science, for 4.5 billion
years? Are you that stupid? If not, sane people would like to know
what in the hell is your comment supposed to mean.
Boikat
Boikat
"Panspermian", as in the theory of panspermia. What's really dumb,
and telling, is that you a) think that is a misspelled word, b) have
the IQ of Beavis and Butthead (hee heeeh he said 'sperm' heh heheheh),
c) do not have a clue as to what "panspermai" means, or d), think the
theory of panspermia is a load of horse shit,
Either way, the "damn you are dumb" is you, mkay?
Boikat
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
How about correcting some of your other mistakes? I know you are a
very forgetful person, or at least you like to run away and try to
forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you failed to deal
with a number of items that were first listed by Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > On Sep 28, 7:48 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > > > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > > > answer.
> > > Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
> > > > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > > > theory?
> > > Goddidit.
> > Yes, Divine (sic) casuation is the only alternative to unguided material
> > causation.
>
> Evolution is not unguided.
>
> Where did the gods come from?
I get little plastic ones in my cereal boxes. :)
>
> --http://desertphile.org
spintronic
It's very hard for "some" to swallow their pride and realise how
little
they know. (not sayin you-I mean all the other tits in this thread
who
made out they knew the unknowable)
But that was my whole point. "All" the other "dimensions/universes"
remain
hid from the human experience. So saying "there is no God" is a
statement
can't possibly be true or known from current knowledge. Therefore it
makes
no sense.
You may as well say. "There is no 12th dimension". Since you can't
test you
don't really know.
> > 2) Since "evolution" is a science that makes such "accurate
> > predictions", why can't you explain abiogenesis?
>
> > Answer: Its complicated, perhaps it came from outer space?
>
> > Eh?
>
> Abiogenesis is not yet part of evolutionary science.
I should clarify. (not gettin at you here)
"Read for comprehension"!
E.G. "Since you know how an engine works, why cant you
explain how to build one?"
Is *not* saying "Engine working = Building Engine".
My question, was stating a simple fact.
"Evolution claims to be able to explain and predict, the
steps from B-C".
Yet with the same tools cannot explain A-B.
> The beginning of life involved chemistry and physics, but it is not
> until imperfect replication of inheritable characteristics came about
> that evolution played a role.
I think you miss the point. If life spontaniously arose, evolution
would be at work from day 1. No matter how far back you go.
Take "Clay" for example.
> A theory cannot necessarily answer all questions simply
> because it makes accurate predictions.
But a *FACT* can.
And since many idiots like "big Dick", say evolution is a
*FACT*, it should be able to answer all questions posed about
the subject it claims to have all the answers to.
> Is meteorology incorrect because it doesn't know if it will
> rain at my house next January 30th?
No.
1) Meterology is not fortune telling.
2) Meterology *CAN* tell you "why" and how it rained last week.
3) No matter how far back in time you go, Meterology *CAN* explain
how rain drops form.
> > 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function
> > in a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
> > enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original
> > cell accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>
> > Answer: ??
>
> > Eh?
>
> Why do you think it did? Obviously, the first replicators were not
> modern cells.
Like everyone who has *tried* to answer this one.
You try to answer by changing the question.
I dont care about before or after. I care about the very first ever
replicating cell, with a phospholipid bilayer.
There had to have been one, It had to have had DNA.
How many genes did it have?
How many to copy its DNA?
How many to selectively transport materials across the cell membrane?
How many could it not function without?
To give you a clue. The figure is about ~350. And it only survives
in controled environmental constraints.
The fewer the genes, the greater the environmental constraints.
spintronic
> > Eh? thats a lotta faith.
>
> Gosh. We don't know everything yet. Must mean we don't know anything,
> then, right?
So in short;
"don't ask me 6 questions you think I don't have the answer to,
and I won't ask you 6 I know you don't".
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sep 29, 9:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 8:59 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> > Eh? thats a lotta faith.
>>
>> Gosh. We don't know everything yet. Must mean we don't know anything,
>> then, right?
>
>
>So in short;
>
>"don't ask me 6 questions you think I don't have the answer to,
That would be easy since you have no answers to anything.
>and I won't ask you 6 I know you don't".
Now that would be hard for a dimwit like you.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>It's very hard for "some" to swallow their pride and realise how
>little
>they know.
But in the end you are going to have to do it.
--
Bob.
Rodjk #613
wrote:
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > answer.
>
> Since they are unlikely to answer, we must simulate their replies.
>
> > 1) What alternative scientific hypothesis is there to evolutionary
> > theory?
>
> Goddidit.
>
>
>
> > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
>
> > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
A better answer would be:
I predict that you will burn in *HELL* for those questions...
>
> > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
> See 4.
>
> > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> See 5.
>
> > I await your answers ....
>
> Could be a long wait.
Rodjk #613
John Harshman
It's not a scientific hypothesis. It's a claim of everything but with an
evolution-shaped hole in the center. "Something that's not evolution"
can't be tested.
>>>>> Goddidit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>>> The argument is basically that from incredulity - that the observed
>>> complexity is greater than can be accounted for by incremental changes.
>> You have confused ID with creationism. Though most ID is creationism in
>> disguise, the publicly stated arguments are not creationist. ID rejects
>> only the sufficiency of natural selection and other known mechanisms to
>> account for the history of life. ID purports to be agnostic on the
>> actual history of life. That's why Behe, who accepts common descent, can
>> be an IDer.
>
> You mean ID is not the same as creationism? Stop the presses! I never
> would have guessed! I mean this is really news to me! (Have I made my
> point?)
Well, the post was addressed to creationists, wasn't it?
> The ID proponents may have not made a point of accepting common descent,
> to avoid alienating the creationists, but their argument is in fact that
> from incredulity. As I said above, YEC is simply not a scientific
> argument.
Neither is ID. Now there are three reasons why IDers avoid rocking the
boat. One is that the rank and file are definitely creationists. The
second is that some (most?) of the prominent IDers are creationists. The
third is that vague claims present less of a target for critics.
Publicly, ID isn't creationism; privately, it mostly is. That makes it
confusing to decide.
>>>>> God said it. I believe it. That settles it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>>> The hypothesis is that the mechanism is not accounted for. This is not
>>> completely unscientific, e.g. the prediction of the existence of
>>> Neptune based on irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. The hypothesis
>>> is that evolution cannot explain the observed complexity, so there must
>>> be some other force at work - but we don't know the scientific nature
>>> of the mechanism.
>> Again, you have confused creationism with ID. And ID does assume a
>> mechanism, or at least a general class of mechanisms, i.e. ID. They of
>> course have no expressed ideas on how this designer
>> operates/operated/whatever.
>
> You keep saying that I have confused creationism with ID. I do not think
> it means what you think it means :-) Again, what I am talking about is a
> possible scientific alternative to evolution, and that would have to
> include some of the tenets of intelligent design, with the caveat that
> since they have not proposed any scientific mechanism, the specific
> mechanism at present is, as I said, not accounted for.
"Not evolution" isn't a hypothesis.
>>>>> Goddidit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>>> I think this is in fact the weak point of the argument. It is said that
>>> the historical changes observed in populations are just microevolution,
>>> and that we will never observe macroevolution that is explainable as a
>>> series of small steps. It would also have to be true that all changes
>>> in the fossil record are step changes - punctuated equilibrium - and
>>> that no matter how complete the fossil record, the gaps will never be
>>> filled in.
>> This would be the sort of prediction made by a progressive creationist.
>> But there aren't really enough of them around for them to have made such
>> predictions. Regular creationists, including YECs, have made this
>> prediction without noticing that it's incompatible with their
>> worldviews.
>
> Which is the point I was trying to get to. All of the arguments I have
> seen against evolution that attempt to be scientific arguments, are based
> on the falsity of gradualism. So they all make an implicit prediction
> that further research will not narrow gaps, but will instead reveal step
> functions.
I don't know why it is that so many people in this newsgroup think that
the fossil record is the main avenue of research into evolution. And you
should also know that saltationism is a sort of evolutionary theory.
>>> Now remember that the science of evolution is long on correspondence to
>>> historical evidence but short on predictions, although the prediction
>>> of the existence of naked mole rats should certainly be counted as
>>> solid evidence of its validity.
>> There are plenty of other predictions you may not have noticed. I
>> predict, for example, that orangutan genes we haven't sequenced yet will
>> maintain the same pattern as those we have, taking up the same spot in
>> the nested hierarchy of life. Microraptor gui is amazingly close to the
>> Proavis predicted in the early 20th Century. Etc.
>
> Actually I was hoping that some of you would jump in with more examples
> of prediction. I did not include a personal anecdote - the question came
> up a long while ago in sci.bio.evolution as to why an armadillo litter
> are all identical, rather than being derived from separate eggs as is the
> norm in mammals. I hazarded the guess that this was due to modern
> armadillos being descended from armadillos that at one time only gave
> birth to a single young at one time. Turns out I was right, although that
> had already been discovered so it doesn't technically count as a
> prediction.
Well, when I first sequenced the gene MYC for a bunch of birds, I
predicted that other genes would eventually show the same result, ratite
polyphyly. I didn't do it in print, but I could produce witnesses if you
really like who will attest that the eventual result came as no surprise
to me. Isn't every replication of a result the validation of a prediction?
>>>>> I don't got to show you no stinking predictions. Goddidit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>>> Again this would appear to be the major problem - that as more DNA and
>>> fossil evidence is accumulated, the gaps progressively disappear, and
>>> as we accumulate solid historical evidence on populations, we see more
>>> evidence of changes that would qualify as macroevolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> See 4.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>>> The best chance to offer experimental proof at present is probably
>>> based on computer simulations, which offer the chance of testing the
>>> ability to recreate in human time frames the changes in species seen
>>> over evolutionary time frames. Proving a negative is always difficult,
>>> but I would think any serious scientific advocates of alternatives to
>>> evolution should be running computer simulations with realistic
>>> parameters if they want to show that historical observations require an
>>> as yet undescribed force to explain the data.
>> There has already been at least one attempt, though by IDers, not
>> creationists. But not with realistic parameters, because if you set
>> those it doesn't come out the way it's supposed to.
>
> Why to you keep referring to creationists? The original question was
> about a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.
Yes, but with the expectation that the responders would be creationists.
If you know of any anti-evolutionists reading TO who are not
creationists, tell me. The post was obviously directed at creationists.
Creationists *do* claim that their alternative is scientific, you know.
This was a challenge to them.
> It is obvious
> that my reply is directed to ID. I thank you for the reference - I would
> have expected more of this, since from what I have read about
> computational evolution, under some constraints the initial evolution
> comes to a halt. I think this is an interesting field, and may help those
> of us who are interested in science rather than dogma to better
> understand the physical constraints on evolution.
There are many other references to evolutionary simulations. But that's
the only one I know of by IDers specifically attempting to show that
evolution doesn't work (or that it has limits that prevent it from doing
anything important).
Bill Hudson
Well, I thought we were talking about a specific scientific theory
proposed about 150 years ago, which has withstood various tests and
challenges and has emerged as the predominant theory in all of
biology. What are you on about?
My point is that science *has* come up with alternate hypotheses and
theories to evolution in the last 150 or so years. Some of them have
fallen by the wayside (phlogiston anyone?) and some of them have
improved, and strengthened the theory of evolution (like genetics) and
are now accepted as part of it.
So, by ducking that question, are you admitting you were wrong?
Devils Advocaat
> On 28 Sep, 22:34, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 7:48 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > > > ... That opponents to the theory of evolution should be able to
> > > > answer.
>
>
> > > > theory?
>
>
> > Yes, Divine casuation is the only alternative to unguided material
> > causation.
>
> > > > 2) What observations have led to this hypothesis?
>
>
> > in every aspect of nature and in each organism corroborates God's
> > written word.
>
> > > > 3) What mechanisms are described in this hypothesis?
>
>
> > True: Divine power operating in reality. The observation of design and
> > organized complexity logically corresponds to the work of invisible
> > Designer
>
> > > > 4) What predictions have been made in this hypothesis?
>
>
> > past; therefore the question is a non-sequitur.
>
> > > > 5) Which of these predictions have been verified?
>
>
> > > > 6) What experimental evidence supports this hypothesis?
>
> > evolution is deduced by interpretation.
>
> > > See 5.
>
> > > > I await your answers ....
>
> > > Could be a long wait.
>
> > evolution (evolution-did-it) since Divine causation is not an option.
>
> > Ray
>
> So you offer as an alternative scientific hypothesis something called
> “divine causation”.
>
> And you suggest that the observations that led to this hypothesis were
> the “design and organized complexity” that “corroborate God's written
> word”.
>
> The mechanism is supposedly “divine power operating in reality”.
>
> You are unable to offer any predictions made by this hypothesis.
>
> You are unable to confirm the verification of those predictions.
>
> And finally you cannot offer any experimental evidence that supports
> your hypothesis.
>
> Doesn't sound like your alternative scientific hypothesis is very
> scientific.
>
> Tell me Ray, is this the basis of your work that is supposed to
> “destroy the theory of evolution” and “ruin the life of every
> evolutionist?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Come on Ray, surely you can explain how your alternative hypothesis is
not even remotely scientific.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Hudson
<oldgee...@yahoo.com>:
It's worse yet; evidence *against* their ideas *was*
forthcoming; the microwave background supporting the BB was
the nail in the coffin. IIRC, Hoyle gave up sometime in the
early '60s, although I seem to remember he took it up again
later.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
And the fact that you believe this is even somewhat relevant
is...?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:
Addled's "every last one" should be compared/contrasted with
Raytard's "all Atheists".
William Morse
> On Sep 29, 9:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 8:59 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
>
>> The beginning of life involved chemistry and physics, but it is not
>> until imperfect replication of inheritable characteristics came about
>> that evolution played a role.
>
>
> I think you miss the point. If life spontaniously arose, evolution would
> be at work from day 1. No matter how far back you go. Take "Clay" for
> example.
>
>> A theory cannot necessarily answer all questions simply because it
>> makes accurate predictions.
>
>
> But a *FACT* can.
>
> And since many idiots like "big Dick", say evolution is a *FACT*, it
> should be able to answer all questions posed about the subject it claims
> to have all the answers to.
I would like to point out that on one level evolution is an observation
about the world. The theory part is what caused the observed evolution.
When Darwin was writing, it was only beginning to be commonly accepted
that evolution had occurred, that species had changed over time, that
geologic time was very long. So both the fact of evolution and the theory
of how it had occurred were addressed by Darwin. But now we can address
these as separate issues.
Ignoring for the moment neutral drift and sampling error, which together
can and do cause significant evolution, we get to natural selection, the
mechanism Darwin proposed to explain the observed evolution. And it is
very hard to argue the case against natural selection. If you have excess
reproduction, heritable variation, and a reasonably stable environment,
you will get evolution. What else could happen? This is the power of
Darwin's idea.
But note that these processes, while they were probably involved in
abiogenesis, did not work the same way as they do in the natural
selection of reproducing organisms.
>
>> > 3) Since a minimul cell requires ~300 specific genes, to function in
>> > a specific enviroment, and decreasing this number decreases the
>> > enviromental conditions where it can live, how did the original cell
>> > accumilate all of these genes in 1 fail swoop?
>>
>> > Answer: ??
>>
>> > Eh?
>>
>> Why do you think it did? Obviously, the first replicators were not
>> modern cells.
>
>
> Like everyone who has *tried* to answer this one.
>
> You try to answer by changing the question.
>
>
> I dont care about before or after. I care about the very first ever
> replicating cell, with a phospholipid bilayer.
>
>
> There had to have been one, It had to have had DNA.
>
> How many genes did it have?
>
> How many to copy its DNA?
>
> How many to selectively transport materials across the cell membrane?
>
> How many could it not function without?
>
>
> To give you a clue. The figure is about ~350. And it only survives in
> controled environmental constraints.
>
> The fewer the genes, the greater the environmental constraints.
The last statement is correct. But the first replicator is a very
different thing from the first cell. The first replicators were
undoubtedly very constrained as to the environment in which they could
exist. It is as they developed additional genes that they were able to
survive in a wide range of environments.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Baron Bodissey
You're still full of shit. Muslims are defined by their RELIGION,
which did not exist during Old Testament times. Some of the peoples
who eventually BECAME Muslims may have warred with the Jews 4000 years
ago but Jews and Muslims have only been warring for about 1400 years.
If you can't understand the distinction in this is it hard to
understand how you can't understand how science works?
Baron Bodissey
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
– Monty Python
adman
you did not ask a question.
raven1
Which leaves us up in the air on how you view Moses.
Just for shits and giggles, why don't you give us a list of who you
consider to be a prophet, and how they died. Please include the source
for the latter.
Wombat
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:44:32 -0500, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >I believe he sent many prophets to us including his Son in an attempt to get
> >physical mankind to live by some sensible values and to clue us in. All of
> >them murdered. Every last one of them.
>
> So you don't consider Moses to be a prophet, then? He died a natural
> death.
Don't forget Elijah as well. He was taken to Heaven in a fiery
chariot.
Wombat
Michael Siemon
<a759c9ba-f180-4fb3...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
Poor mr. adman _really_ needs to pick up a Torah (or, in his case,
probably a "Bible") and look up the prophets. His homework is to
give us a list of those who were murdered. (Hint to the homework
impaired -- it is _not_ "every last one", not by a long shot.)
In this, as in every one of his other sallies, adman simply exhibits
blind ignorance. He is the perfect example of the phenomenon that the
incompetent judge themselves (in excruciatingly obvious contradiction
to fact) to be somehow worth paying attention to.
Devils Advocaat
He did actually, go back and read his post.
Wombat
> raven1 wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:44:32 -0500, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> >> I believe he sent many prophets to us including his Son in an
> >> attempt to get physical mankind to live by some sensible values and
> >> to clue us in. All of them murdered. Every last one of them.
>
> > So you don't consider Moses to be a prophet, then? He died a natural
> > death.
>
> corrected.
What about Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Jonah,
Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Haggai.
All are in the Old Testament as prophets yet none of them seem to have
died a violent death, unless you know differently and can give
references proving it.
Wombat
(holding the macro)