Mangetout, he’s already blown his cover in his other thread, which I linked to a moment ago.
And James, if you’re sincerely interested about exposing yourself to evidence for evolution, I would suggest that you start here, although I have grave doubts as to whether or not you will actually read the darn thing. For copyright reasons, I can’t print the whole thing here.
Atreyu - Are you trying to profit off it monetarily, are you claiming it to be your own, where’s the copyright problem?
The SDMB has a rule about posting large extracts of copyrighted material (as you discovered in your other thread); this is (apart from simply ethical considerations) to try to fend off the likelihood of litigation from the copyright holder.
James - Posting an entire copyrighted article would be a violation of copyright. Didn’t you notice the moderators removing most of your OP from the “Complexity of Life” thread for exactly that reason?
QUOTE]Theory: before applying the processes of science, the scientist assumes, guesses, and speculates based on a belief about the facts.
[/QUOTE]
Do me a favor and tell me how a theory differs from a hypothesis? Do you have an objection to atomic theory? Heliocentricity? Plate Tectonics? Are these in different catagories to you? If so, why and how? Your definition of a theory is not the one that scientists use. The definition you provide is, however, an adequate one for a hypothesis. If you wish to say “Evolution is just a hypothesis,” you’d at least be dealing with the correct definitions.
Humanistic? I can seeing you’ve been reading our good friend Phillip E. Johnson who makes the weird mistake of saying that somehow secular humanism and materialism are connected. Well, that’s a different debate for a different venue. The fact of the matter is one can be a scientist in the evolutionary fields and not be atheistic or secular humanistic. Materialism is an epistemologial model that needs its own definition. But seeing as you didn’t even address this, it appears to me you have gotten all of your scientific philosophy from a lawyer (Johnson) who has just about as much sensibility when he talks about science that a scientist has when talking about, say, constitutional law.
To say I’m an expert in all these areas would be a lie. But I do know a thing or two about the predictability over time of the following… chemical reaction and interations, atomic activity, solar activity, energy fields, cosmic radiation, motion, time, etc.
These are subjects that are in the domain of astronomy and physics. I can tell you that they are thoroughly tested and probed for evidence as to whether or not their variability can be measured. Indeed, there are changes that are noticed through time. First of all, that phenomena are predictable is within the purview of science. If you wish to say that “God” or some “external force” (the cosmic computer programmer, for example) has set up the world to “trick” us into believing that the world is predictable. Instead, this vindictive deity is playing an “aha! Gotcha!” game with the evidence that does exist in the world, then you have a quarrel with all of science, and not the “science” that you outline. In which case, you need to say “Science is only religion.” There have been some threads on this message board on that very topic. I happen to disagree with that opinion, but it may yet prove to be a supportable opinion. In any case, it is not justified from your statements.
Now onto the evidence against “degradation” or “variability” of phenomena. One of the remarkable things about the universe we live in is that there are a lot of laboratories that are basically set-up with the same ingredients. We can observe these laboratories in the sky and learn about the different ways physical processes manifest themselves in the sky. This is all done from a few simple (relatively, they’re fairly difficult to understand without the proper backgrounds, but who said the universe had to be easy to understand?) paradigms (in the areas I listed). The first paradigm is the quantum mechanics. This is an incredibly powerful paradigm that takes into account time-variation, place variation, energy variation, and the like. Another paradigm is the metric formulation for the phenomenon we call gravity. This is also known as GR or General Relativity. From these two considerations and given a-priori forces that are probed in current physical models (namely the standard model, supersymmetric string theory, and the FWR-metric) that hold up no matter if we are looking here on earth or if we are looking at a galaxy billions of light years away. The fact that we can claim that energy fields are invariant over the universe and indeed over time stems from the fact that we have placed in the universe these amazing laboratories where these effects are constantly tested and the results are sent to us speeding along at the speed of light for us to analyze in our telescopes. If you wish to deny that any of this evidence, then you need to tell me what, exactly it is. Specifically, all evidence (yes, that’s ALL evidence) to date indicates that the paradigms are correct. This evidence, however is somewhat separate from evolution, as evolution exists as a biological paradigm. Currently, there is plenty of research being done to marry the origins of biology and the material theories of physics, and progress is forthcoming. However, this is also not evolution. Evolution is specifically a theory that deals with biological development and not (strictly) physical processes.
Let’s take the areas that I do study one by one…
-Chemical reaction and interations, atomic activity, solar activity
So these processes are completely determined by the physical paradigms I outlined. These phenomena are extremely complicated and subject to complexity issues, but they are not indeterminate as you would have them. They are observed to follow the laws we have derived from them EVERY TIME… yes, that’s every time.
-Cosmic radiation
What is this, your backhanded way of rejecting the CMB? This is rich. No so-called “creationist” has ever been able to come up with an explanation for the CMB that makes any sense. The only reasonable conlusion to come to is that the Big Bang model works. You see, the stuff is so uniform. Right now we have satellites at Lagrange points studying its uniformity (and incredibly precisely measuring its diverging from that uniformity which fit into the present model as the origin of “structure” in the unverse – sturcture being you, me, the world, the galaxies, etc). In order for a creationist to explain a pheonomena that is cosmically uniform over the entire four-pi steradians of sky without appealing to the Big Bang would be to dismiss it out-of-hand, which is what you did. However, you offer no other plausible explanation for this. What, God is spending his time creating this false big bang echo to mislead scientists? In effect, you have declared that you don’t believe in cosmic radiation as an invariant process, then what strange variable process would create a background so UNIFORM? I eagerly await a cogent and meaningful response.
-motion, time: What world do you live in? Did time move differently for you yesterday than it did today? Is the world changing its laws of motion? Are you dismissing Newton? You cannot get away with making proclamations against invariability of phenomena without presenting any counter evidence.
You want evidence for these phenomena? Well, You can simply roll balls down inclined planes if you wish. You can work in a chemist’s or physicist’s lab and watch the evidence pile up. Or you can read the journals. PRL and ApJ are the ones I read the most. You can, of course, evaluate all the claims at http://xxx.lanl.gov/archive/ . That would be an excellent place to start. Explain to me how all this evidence is indicative of a religious (or secular humanist) bent and how it can be explained in ANY OTHER way than the current scientific model, and you’ll have a case.
If you would like to be bored to death with the litany of evidence, I and others on this board will be happy to oblige. My experience with dealing with folks such as yourself, though, is that you’re not really interested in trying the case fair and impartially… rather you’re interested in presenting a weak defense in a criminal trial that ultimately loses. You wish to say there is “no evidence” despite the fact that there is. Well, let’s throw this before a civil jury. What do the preponderance of the facts say? What do the observations indicate? They are available for you to evaluate. I eagerly await your response.
Mangetout and Mr2001 have beaten me to the punch when it comes to explaining the issues of how the SDMB regards the issue of copyrighted material. As you have already discovered in your other thread, the practice of reprinting large sections of copyrighted material is frowned upon here.
To directly answer your questions, I have no connection whatsoever with the site that I linked to in my earlier post.
Now, are you going to examine the link I gave you? After all, it is in direct response to your request for evidence. And if you find it lacking or unconvincing, please explain why.
—Who produced the hybrid an intelligent being (man) intervened.—
How disingenous. The most one could assert in these cases is that man provided the particular selection pressure: which in no way invalidates its validity in demonstrating how evolution works.
The idea of comparing that to an intelligent designer actually constructing a new species, merely by using a play on words in describing the source of the selection pressure, is ludicruous.
I love the idea of evolution (our children can be better than we are; all life is a noble struggle toward perfection) but I find it hard to summon the effort required to write a 150-line rebuttal of the op’s close-minded position, as some posters have.
Refute the facts given in my first post, as well as the conclusion drawn from them. Then we’ll talk. Otherwise, it’s pretty clear that you’re doing your best imitation of Jim Carrey here.
no response unless the evidence is posted here with no link to another site.
The big bang is old science and has been disproven.
[Material cut because it was taken from a copyrighted source without attribution. – David B]
Translation: I’m going to ignore compelling arguments and deal only with the ones I can defeat.
Would you care to post your own treatise on evolution as a religion? As of yet you’ve said, effectively, “nyah nyah evolution is a religion and I won’t listen to facts. Nyah Nyah.”
You might be surprised to learn that this is not as immediately respected on this board as you might hope;)
Haven’t you already said you wouldn’t accept evidence?
Give me evidence that shows that one species has become another.
Give you evidence? Hey, I ain’t made of fossils! Go to your local natural history museum.
The theory of evolution and the Big Bang are two separate things, addressing two separate phenomenon. One is an explanation of how life developed and evolved on this planet, the other is a theory of how the universe began.
They are two…separate…things.
And you still haven’t responded to a single question put to you by me or anyone else in this thread, and you still have not explained what is lacking in the evidence that I and others have pointed you towards earlier in this thread.
In short, you’re doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you, na na na na NA NA!” every time someone tries to answer a question that YOU posed.
It’s like talking to a damn brick wall.
James Jensen, I’ll just say that I’d be happy if you could provide some evidence for claim #3 on Killer Fig’s list. Forget all your other unsubtantiated statements for the time being. You’ve claimed several times that there is no evidence that evolution takes place. Do you have any evidence yourself to back up this claim?
I don’t think anyone here is looking for incontrovertible proof, we’d just be happy if you followed your own rules of evidence, that is:
What do you say?
Sorry to nitpick, but evolution is merely a gene shift in a population in response to environmental pressure. Imposing a teleogical purpose on a purely natural process is not warranted. There is no “struggle toward perfection.”
You’re not going to get it because it doesn’t happen. Here’s the deal-- a population, through geographic or ecological isolation, is divided into two or more reproductively separated groups, which we call “species.” The working definition of a species is a genetic group that can only reproduce with its own members.
That you so completely do not understand the concept of speciation only shows that you lack the background to have a competent discussion of the process of evolution.
Go read the links and come back.
Jenna Jameson, or whatever your name is, evidence has been presented over and over and over. Your refusal to accept it does not make it go away. There it sits, quickly providing more than sufficient evidence for evolution, while you sit ignoring it.
You’re not going to get it because it doesn’t happen. Here’s the deal-- a population, through geographic or ecological isolation, is divided into two or more reproductively separated groups, which we call “species.” The working definition of a species is a genetic group that can only reproduce with its own members.
That you so completely do not understand the concept of speciation only shows that you lack the background to have a competent discussion of the process of evolution.
Go read the links and come back.
Folks, obviously this guy is only interested in jerking a few chains.
Mr. Jensen, it is not the personal responsibility of any member of this board to explain every facet of evolutionary theory to you, especially since you can’t even seem to grasp the obvious differences between the Big Bang theory and natural selection. If you are unsatisfied with the responses you have received so far, your basic choices are to ask for clarification or to provide factual material that supports your objections.
You have claimed that speciation has never been observed. You have specifically rejected evidence presented to you, by your request, that shows speciation has in fact been observed. You have neither explained why you object to this evidence, nor have you proposed an alternate explanation.
In my opinion, your only purpose in starting this thread was to troll for responses. Trolling tends to get one banned around here, but I imagine you knew that when you started. Enjoy what is likely to be a very short remainder of your stay.