"Darwin Day" Topic

"you science guys admit you cannot know everything, therefore THIS BOOK answers all questions". A basic syllogism.

You're not talking about me, since I don't hold up any BOOK.

But I am saying that "science guys" only offer the difference between one kind of believing over another. If we can't tell why the universe didn't remain eternally in its state of full entropy, then we implicitly accept an outside cause acting upon it: religion and science are equally baffled to explain how, much less why, existence didn't just remain as it was (IF it ever was just inert, all of it)….

I've been thinking about the math, and how gibberish it is to me (and at another, higher level, even Ralph, Rocky and Asimov): and of how priggishly dismissive some "edjumacated" persons are of people like me, who claim to grasp concepts but don't have any formal education and certainly no math skills to speak of: and this comparison came into my mind (thanks Rocky for the musical analogy):

music can be illustrated/explained using math only, because music has an essentially math-only component (everything that music IS can be shown mathematically without playing/sounding a single note). But to someone only introduced to music mathematically, and never hearing the actual tones, let alone variety of musical instruments and voices, a person possessing musical talent (even at the top end, with perfect pitch) could not possibly communicate what the vast variety of music actually IS to the math-only "musician". Visa-versa, the math-only "musician" would be a fool to denigrate the musical understanding of the math boob who happens to experience music ONLY through the hearing/playing of it and doesn't understand the first principle of the mathematics defining musical meter and pitch.

Likewise, the theories and laws of thermodynamics, quantum physics, relativity, various definitions of entropy, etc: I can't possibly, at this point in life, grasp the mathematical formulas that define what is being talked about. But when a scientist who also happens to be a good grammarian "dumbs it down" into prose (actually, translating the concepts from mathematical into linguical forms), I CAN understand the concepts that the formulas are "saying"; just as I can very much understand what the composer is "saying" when his mathematical language is turned into audible music by applying instrumentation (analogous to written words, for the physicist explaining, what formulas are "saying", to the non mathematical mass of human readers).

So I don't in any way feel inadequate to discuss these scientific topics and comprehend what is being discussed: as long as someone competent (and interested and patient enough) "translates" the mathematic formulas into prosaic English. I'm very, very good with English….

All the DNA on this planet isn't the same.

I didn't say it was; my recollection of the amount of difference probably relates to mammals, then; so what, it doesn't change what I meant when I said, "All DNA in the universe is the same."

Your sentence contradicts itself and my previous statement stands.

The total variance in DNA is probably a constant everywhere.

What could possibly be meant by that? What is "everywhere" in this sentence? So far DNA has only been found on earth. And you do know that some viruses only contain RNA, not DNA? These may be the vestiges of the first proto-life forms. Like I tried to explain before, the base pairs and sugars are the same in all DNA. The arrangement of the information coded within is unique to all of us. There is little variation between closely evolved organisms, and little similarity between distantly evolved organisms.

I don't know what Scifi has to do with the hypothesis: since the elements of other suns observed via the light spectrum tells us that our solar system is typical.

If you mean, "are the table of elements and the laws of physics uniform throughout the universe?", then the answer is yes. It is Sci-Fi fantasy to then expect all life forms in the universe to be DNA based.

Or are you saying that there are virtually limitless compounds out there?

Yes. There will even be classes of complex compounds (like carbohydrates and proteins) that do not exist here on earth. Even if we find that other planets have the "sugar" class of compound, it would be idiotic to expect the alien sugars to be exactly the same as all earth sugars (sucrose, glucose, not even the aptly named galactose). On the flip side, simpler compounds such as water, carbon dioxide, etc., are known to be ubiquitous. Meteorites have even brought samples of amino acids to the Earth, some of which are the 20 amino acids that make up all terrestrial proteins.
Remember, just because the elemental building blocks are the same, we can't expect the infinite number of compounds possible to be exactly the same everywhere. Again, all English novels are not the same even though the same alphabet and words are the building blocks found within them.

Wouldn't one protoplanetary mass be much (or even the same) as any other?

You should know the answer to that yourself. Proto-planetary masses formed all the planets (and moons) in our solar system. Are all the planets and moons in this solar system much the same, or even the same? What does this have to do with DNA?

"Better" or just newer? I wonder if scientists, being human after all, like new things as much as the rest of us: and the old stuff/explanations get mundane.

If you truly think Science changes because scientists get bored with the status quo and want a new "flavor of the month" theory just because it is new then, once again, "You are not right, you aren't even wrong"! Kindly submit any example of this phenomenon that would support your hypothesis. (I won't be holding my breath).

"Therefore, following the same reasoning but considering the whole universe as our "room", we reach a similar conclusion: that, at a certain point in the distant future, the whole universe will be a uniform, isothermic and inert body of matter, in which there will be no available energy to do work. This condition is known as the "heat death of the Universe"."

The question remains: If there is a "heat death of the Universe" approaching, and it will remain "dead" for all eternity, whatinheck outside influence caused the BB in the first place?

1) Yes, it remains dead for all eternity. That's what "uniform, isothermic and inert" means in physics. Life cannot exist or continue in this state.

2) Why suppose it was an "outside" influence? We don't know that. We don't know what was before the creation of time-space? How can there be a "Before" before time begins? You can call it God if this gives you some comfort. Any gap in current knowledge….well let's deify it. This "God of the gaps" predeliction is something you share with the IDiots.

If the universe is eternal in itself, and BB's are apparently spontaneous resulting in dynamic energy/matter, which then "runs down" only to be slapped awake again by yet another BB: then how can we, the only sapient species in the universe that we know of, assume that our very intellect and purpose is without origin?

The first part of that line is conjecture. To "slap awake" another BB all the spread out components of the entire Universe would have to come back together into a singularity. At our current knowledge the only force to do this would be gravity. Even factoring in the amount of "dark matter" that exists, the current consensus is that there is insufficient mass spread over too great a distance to form a "Big Crunch".
The second part of your sentence has nothing to do with the first. You are trying to link your "pet idea" of anthropomorphing the universe with speculation that is in direct opposition to what cosmologists believe. On Sept. 17th, 4:05 pm you responded with:

What am I speculating about without evidence?

This was because Rocky took you to task for idle speculation masquerading as a proper argument. All I can add is QED.

How can the eternal universe (which is constantly "banging" itself) NOT be intelligent and yet produce intelligence?

I'm sorry, when did this become a fact? You are continuously confusing the scientific understanding and reality, with your own fantasies and wish fulfillments. Let me explain this again. The concept of the "Big Crunch" is simply an idea, without the backing of any shred of corroborating evidence. The current evidence all points to an unchanging and eternal "latent heat death". On a personal level I would like to believe in an endless cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, each creating a new and different universe. I just find the idea appealing. However, based on current understanding, that doesn't seem to be how things turn out. Wishing doesn't make things real.

Ralph

So I don't in any way feel inadequate to discuss these scientific topics and comprehend what is being discussed: as long as someone competent (and interested and patient enough) "translates" the mathematic formulas into prosaic English.

It's not just a lack of math that makes these conversations difficult. For example, I have to explain the most basic principles to you to point out why your "speculations" are off the mark.

For example, I was on the "Painting" board looking up the threads on airbrushes. Air brushes are something I want to get into and know very little about. THEREFORE, I will not go on the board and challenge a veteran airbrush user about the most complicated issues of airbrush use, when I have no experience in their use myself.

Then, if I make sweeping ignorant generalizations about airbrush users (as you have made about scientists, BTW) it shouldn't come as a surprise as some would consider me simply as a dolt.

If you are truly interested in these topics, avail yourself to the great variety of learning opportunities that surround you. Take a high school or college level introductory Biology or Physics course. Do some distance learning if you don't want to physically go to school. Get some CD's from the Teaching Company and play them every time you are in your car. In fact listen to them when you feel the need to waste time on the Blue Fez nonsense. Subscribe to Scientific American, Nature, Science, etc. Look at the Skeptical Inquirer too, (you could use that). You will be so much farther ahead and the world will never look the same to you.

Ralph

Hi

Hmmm. Doug, you Didn't say "this book". But, just like the universe, the discussions here are bigger than just you and now. TJ did peek in and the essence of the Darwin discussion is that odd idea that the body of scientific understanding is huge, but cannot explain everything therefore, TJ and others would say "thus this book has all the answers and even trumps scientific knowledge".

I am happy that you finally "got" my analogy about tone deaf. And you left out taste…how you can "hear" the art and beauty in a formal symphony, but not what I hear in blues and Jazz.

That mammals share most DNA is completely unsurprising. The actual concept is "mammilia". This is a branch of life sharing a common approach to life and, therefore most of the aspects would be the same. Like all autos use the same materials, all ford focuses use the same bits, but are not the same car. There are limited ways to do anything. And one way of looking at a brain is that each increase in size, fold and capability is merely layered on top of the previous efforts. We all have a common design to the brain stem going back to lizards and fish!

Anyway, an absence of explanation isn't "proof" of anything. And that is the essence of your current argument(but not TJ). You are correct, right now, the data looks like a universe spreading out and cooling off until a uniform level of absolute entropy. The vary fact, though, is that words are inadequate to describe what the math describes.

In previous parts of this, of course, you remember the harping on "theory" and the "big book" guys chirping in on the vernacular of "theory" rather than the mathematical or scientific version.

Thus, a couple decades ago, the model that looked good was a "rubber band" version, and now, the "death" version. The thing is that no one in the scientific community will turn out with pitchforks to suppress "heresy".

Speculation about God and Prime Mover is left with a simple point. You "KNOW" that there must be something. But you cannot demonstrate your vision to anyone one else! Science is about being able to demonstrate this objectively.

Using Ralph's airbrush analogy. I have been doing airbrush for more than 40 years. Won IPMS regional trophies for paint. I regularly am able to demonstrate how this thing works and how to get the effects. And the techniques are repeatable by others. Not everyone has your artistic sense, but the basics of the airbrush are facts, not art.

Rocky

Doug,
You (seem to have) made the same assertion that many ID/Creationists do "You don't know that, you just read it". The difference between Science and Religeon is that in science other peoples' assertions can be tested.

Science is testable (other people can do it), predictive (you can make an assertion about things based on history) and falsifiable (you can show a theory to be false by uncovering contradictory information)

ID and religeon are none of these things.

(Today's factoid- about 30 years ago a rather large book was published proving 1+1=2. It actually took a lot of work, and mathematicians were pleased, because if they could not prove it there would be serious problems)

"All DNA in the universe is the same."

Your sentence contradicts itself and my previous statement stands.

I didn't mean it that way: all DNA varieties are the same. DNA-based life would be the same anywhere in the universe. But…

What could possibly be meant by that? What is "everywhere" in this sentence? So far DNA has only been found on earth. And you do know that some viruses only contain RNA, not DNA?

I said it was hypothetical: that DNA life forms would be the same varieties or spectrum of DNA we find here on earth. But…

It is Sci-Fi fantasy to then expect all life forms in the universe to be DNA based.

I never said that the only "life" in the universe is DNA or even carbon based. I wouldn't expect that to be so.

…Remember, just because the elemental building blocks are the same, we can't expect the infinite number of compounds possible to be exactly the same everywhere. Again, all English novels are not the same even though the same alphabet and words are the building blocks found within them.

I wouldn't expect life to be exactly the same as earth's. But the differences of DNA-based life would be within the same range of variation.

Anyway the point was that just because homo sapiens is related DNA-wise to the rest of such life on earth doesn't prove that "we" originated here; because DNA isn't unique to this planet.We should expect a LOT of DNA out there. That's the hypothesis I am making.

Are all the planets and moons in this solar system much the same, or even the same? What does this have to do with DNA?

They are all within the range of compounds indicating the same origin; the variations don't matter, anymore than the variations in DNA matter. The point is that we expect the vast array of other protoplanetary systems throughout the universe to be more like rather than unlike our own solar system, ergo the DNA-based life found there would be more like than unlike the life on earth.

Kindly submit any example of this phenomenon that would support your hypothesis.

Locally, Ponds and Fleischman and their "cold fusion". It made an enormous splash; the Japanese hosted their research for another 2 or 3 years then let them go. Their hastiness in announcing their discovery is the closest to home example I know of to illustrate the "human" aspect of scientists getting all excited at the chance to be famous. (And it sure as hell wasn't boring, at first.) But this example isn't strictly what I was speculating. Wasn't the "invention" of quantum theory the result of astro physicists trying a new twist on relativity? The math took them in another (mutually exclusive) direction: and we now have two ways of explaining the origins of the universe that don't work together but can be shown mathematically. But how to get inside a theorist's head and prove his vanity and desire to approach the old questions with a fresh approach, just because: you know that isn't possible: I did say was possible, I didn't say that's HOW scientists are because I know.

Why suppose it was an "outside" influence? We don't know that. We don't know what was before the creation of time-space? How can there be a "Before" before time begins? You can call it God if this gives you some comfort. Any gap in current knowledge….well let's deify it. This "God of the gaps" predeliction is something you share with the IDiots.

See, this is what I keep talking about: you glibly toss out the entire question of "How can the universe be running down (approaching the great "heat death") if there is no cause shown for it ever breaking out of total entropy in the first place?" And then you finish with an equally self-indulgent denigration of believers in religion as IDiots; playing pots and kettles is not becoming any conversation.

There is no "God of the gaps" where I am coming from. I ask a simple question, again and again, and get nothing from you or anyone else: all I want is an admission that there is a huge question left unaddressed in BB theory (supposedly when space-time got started): that total entropy is what is theorized as the universe's ultimate fate, so how did the universe ever realize a state where it could run down at all?

…Even factoring in the amount of "dark matter" that exists, the current consensus is that there is insufficient mass spread over too great a distance to form a "Big Crunch".

Isn't it Hawking who speculates that black holes on "our side" might appear as new energy/matter appearing "out of nowhere" on "the other side"? And visa versa: because as I understand it, energy/matter has been detected in our universe where there apparently was nothing before. So we don't need to anticipate another BB from a singularity; but instead a bunch of "mini BB's" sustaining the universe as we go.

The second part of your sentence has nothing to do with the first. You are trying to link your "pet idea" of anthropomorphing the universe with speculation that is in direct opposition to what cosmologists believe.

Yes, I was asking two questions at the same time and it doesn't read well. Sorry about that.

I am not "anthropomorphing" the universe: unless an anthropod (me) can't be separated from his observation: in which case, science is also anthropomorphing the universe, and inescapably so.

The only direct oppostion I have to cosmology is my utter dissatisfaction with any theories I have heard explained: they ALL leave out any reasonable replacement for "God did it": they don't address the apparent impossibility of a total state of entropy changing without a cause, just so the universe can "run down" again. They speculate that somehow energy/matter has always existed in space-time but is at the same time losing energy to do work (what I call dynamic energy): and they expect me to just sit and nod as if nothing is missing with any of that?

On a personal level I would like to believe in an endless cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, each creating a new and different universe. I just find the idea appealing. However, based on current understanding, that doesn't seem to be how things turn out. Wishing doesn't make things real.

We exist; the universe can't have always existed as it is, because "always" means forever, and there must be a cause behind the emergence of dynamic energy from the eternal and total entropy (that theorists say is the ultimate fate of the universe). You are justifed in believing in a "remergence" of dynamic energy/matter; it's the only hypothesis that makes any sense of Existence in the first place.

Now, WHAT Existence actually is cannot be addressed with scientific examination. But existence is real. It can't be mindless and produce a process that achieves intellect (the old ex nihilo prohibition).

If you are truly interested in these topics, avail yourself to the great variety of learning opportunities that surround you.

All in good time. For now I get enough stimulation out of picking your brains. And pressuring you for answers to the couple of fundamental questions I have about origins of Existence.

And so: Since you prefer BC's and BB's sustaining the existence of this universe, what do you, an atheist, think is going on to cause such stimulating phenomena? What is behind the disruption of total entropy in the first place?…

I am happy that you finally "got" my analogy about tone deaf.

I got it the first time you used it on me years ago. I just finally found a use for it myself. :)

And one way of looking at a brain is that each increase in size, fold and capability is merely layered on top of the previous efforts.

So as I asked up there already: where are the stages of brain development below ours? Homo sapiens is the ONLY imagining, planning, environment-altering, SAPIENT species in the universe we know of: on this planet we are unique. If we evolved bigger brains (but not the biggest ones), where are the species of mammals that share the same (only at a lesser evolved level) qualities? Where are the mental developments between homo sapiens and the next "smartest" animal?

Anyway, an absence of explanation isn't "proof" of anything. And that is the essence of your current argument(but not TJ). You are correct, right now, the data looks like a universe spreading out and cooling off until a uniform level of absolute entropy. The vary fact, though, is that words are inadequate to describe what the math describes.

There isn't an absence of intellect: so I find it fallacious logic in the extreme to "explain" ours as an accident of complexity out of simplicity.

Ah, the old "Words fail me" excuse. The rest of humanity that depends on words to convey real concepts will wind up losing patience with these "sorcerers" who babble on chalkboards, and burn them on a pile of erasers.

In previous parts of this, of course, you remember the harping on "theory" and the "big book" guys chirping in on the vernacular of "theory" rather than the mathematical or scientific version.

Yes. And some years ago I was guilty of confusing theory with hypothesis. That's the trouble with a "vernacular" use of "theory": it fails to clarify that before a hypothesis can become a theory it must be testable: the very "theory of evolution" means that as we go along the increasing amount of revealed/discovered evidence continues to support the theory, ergo proving it to be more true and moving continuously toward enshrinement as a "law of the universe." Evolution is practically there, if it isn't already. So the IDers that harp "Evolution is only a theory" are really, ignorantly, agreeing that it is a set of proven truths!

Speculation about God and Prime Mover is left with a simple point. You "KNOW" that there must be something. But you cannot demonstrate your vision to anyone one else! Science is about being able to demonstrate this objectively.

So far, science has either shrugged its shoulders or dismissed the question as unimportant. I don't understand either response: except in the light of unbelievers WANTING a "Godless" explanation for Existence in the first place: thus they go looking for evidence to support that notion.

I KNOW Existence in the first place requires explanation: we may never get one, but to act as if there isn't even a question is imbecilic. You can pick whatever title/name for the Necessary Cause suits: but it must be. The concept remains the same, whatever it's called. You can't scientifically have a "great heat death" of the whole universe coming on without admitting that there had to be some way to cause the total entropy to become dynamic in the first place: the universe can't "return" to a total entropy state without having been in a total entropy state before the BB….

Science is testable (other people can do it), predictive (you can make an assertion about things based on history) and falsifiable (you can show a theory to be false by uncovering contradictory information)

ID and religeon are none of these things.

I am not disputing this. I am not an IDer, nor religious in any dogmatic sense (I remain religious in the sense that religion is, imho, a necessary part of the "glue" that has formed Western society: and also in the sense that religion is fundamentally personal).

But it doesn't take any religion whatsoever to question the Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place. All scientific claims that existence began with some purported BB are not testable. The mere questioning of such a hypothesis begins the falsification of it: the laws of thermodynamics won't allow total entropy to eventually occur, never to be reversed, without an implied Cause disrupting total entropy in the first place. This is the question where "God" comes in: not the God of the Bible or any other anthropomorphic concept, but a Necessary Cause behind the manifested dynamic energy in the universe where, without such a NC, there would only be total entropy eternally….

And then you finish with an equally self-indulgent denigration of believers in religion as IDiots; playing pots and kettles is not becoming any conversation.

You are putting words in my mouth, and it's obvious that your reading skills are lacking. Just for the record "IDiots" are believers in ID, not religion, get it? The term has been used over the last few pages, always directed at the ID movement. Please pay attention.

DNA-based life would be the same anywhere in the universe.

No it wouldn't.

Locally, Ponds and Fleischman and their "cold fusion".

Wrong again. They jumped the gun and published outside of the scientific literature before there was any corroborating studies. Therefore they are not a good example of your original assertion.

There is no "God of the gaps" where I am coming from. I ask a simple question, again and again, and get nothing from you or anyone else: all I want is an admission that there is a huge question left unaddressed in BB theory

Nothing from me? I told you the honest truth, that no one knows. Did you read or skim? Yes there are huge gaps in the current level of understanding. And that is where you want the supernatural answers to be. Hence the God of the gaps predeliction.

Isn't it Hawking who speculates that black holes on "our side" might appear as new energy/matter appearing "out of nowhere" on "the other side"?

It is speculation. I believe Hawking calls them "white holes". They spew out matter equivalent to what is lost through black holes. This is NOT a BB.

The only direct oppostion I have to cosmology is my utter dissatisfaction with any theories I have heard explained: they ALL leave out any reasonable replacement for "God did it": they don't address the apparent impossibility of a total state of entropy changing without a cause, just so the universe can "run down" again. They speculate that somehow energy/matter has always existed in space-time but is at the same time losing energy to do work (what I call dynamic energy): and they expect me to just sit and nod as if nothing is missing with any of that?

Ya, Doug, it's all about you. You actually want science to say "God did it"? That would make you happy? What exactly is the "missing part" from your last sentence? Matter and energy are different forms of the same entity, remember E=mc2? Latent heat death is when only matter exists, spread out so far as to not interact anymore, beyond the weak forces of gravity. No energy=no heat. Entropy is at maximum.

…the laws of thermodynamics won't allow total entropy to eventually occur, never to be reversed, without an implied Cause disrupting total entropy in the first place.

This is also nonsense. What does that mean? The laws of thermodynamics describe entropy, they don't prevent it at all. BTW, total Entropy is like infinity or absolute zero. It is a concept that can never be reached. It is an asymptote. But you knew that already, I'm sure.

Ralph

Why don't I believe in evolution?

I start by saying that I actually did believe in this "theory" once, and for a long time. Then I was challenged over it; so I set out to prove those pesky "creationists" wrong (my two older brothers). I approached the task with as much of an open mind as I could and with as much enthusiasm and zeal as most evolutionists show in defending their beliefs. Then, after about 3 or 4 years and a lot of reading and argument on both sides of the issue, I finally realised just how spurious this so-called "theory" really is.

I began my search by asking myself: Is the theory consistent? Does the evidence proposed line up with what the theory proposes?

So, off to what I believe are/were the best scientific resources available: the peer reviewed scientific journals. I trawled these journals and related books for some time looking at what they actually had to say on the subject. The results were surprising; some of the areas where I found that evolutionary theories had well documented inconsistencies and problems are:

1) Problems with the Big Bang Theory (or rather, the Big Bang theories).
2) Problems with the theories for the evolution of stars; the current theories are inadequate; one theory actually proposed some time ago required a star to produce a star! Now, think about that for a moment …
3) Problems with the theories for the evolution of galaxies; problems involving their rotation, their shapes, their apparent "early" formation, etc.
4) Problems with the evolution of planets and the solar system; problems with short term and long term comets.
5) Problems with red-shift and blue-shift interpretations versus the actual visible observations; problems with the cosmic microwave background observations.
6) Major problems with circumventing the Laws of Thermodynamics in all areas.
7) Problems with all radiometric dating methods; vastly inaccurate age estimates for samples of known ages; problems with isochron dating; the many valid scientific dating processes that are ignored that yield ages much too short for evolutionary theory.
8) Problem after problem with the chemical origins of life; this area is clearly a major stumbling block for evolutionary theory; the many and varied problems with proposed processes for the chemical origins of life (abiogenesis); problems with origin of DNA and the information contained therein; problems with origins of amino acids and proteins; the chirality problem; problems with explaining the Cambrian explosion; constant problems in explaining the apparent complexity of the earliest life-forms.
9) Problems with the explanations for the biological progression of life; problems with the proposed process of mutations plus natural selection now that much about genetics is known.
10) Problems with the origin of man and apes from a common ancestor; problems with all the proposed ancestors of man, not to mention the many well documented hoaxes and frauds in this area.
11) Problems with homologies; problems with reconstructions; mistakes with reconstructions; the documented hoaxes and frauds in this area as well.
12) Problems with lack of transitional forms; problems with interpretations of proposed transitional forms.
13) Problems with the so-called "geological column" and the actual geological observations and interpretations versus the theory.
14) Problems explaining why the "oldest" fossils show the organisms being already quite complex.
15) Problems with the explanations for the independent origin of flight in birds, insects, mammals and reptiles.
16) Problems with the explanations for the independent origin of echo-location in dolphins, bats and oil birds.
17) Problems with the explanations for the evolutionary progression of horses and whales versus the actual physical evidence.
18) Problems with the origins of vertebrates (eg, fish) from invertebrates; amphibians from fish; reptiles from amphibians; certainly birds from reptiles; and most definitely mammals from reptiles.
19) Problems with the explanations of polystrate fossils versus the geological observations and explanations.
20) Problems explaining most (if not all) of the many symbiotic relationships.

This list is not exhaustive, and there is a reasonable amount of documentation in the peer reviewed scientific journals highlighting the problems and inconsistencies in detail.

When I took into account the available evidence and information out there (such as in the good peer reviewed scientific journals and avoiding the likes of "Facebook") and weighed it, I couldn't help but conclude that there was virtually no way that the information that they contain supports evolutionary theory in the way that evolutionists hope for. For me, if any problems with evolutionary theory were isolated to just one area then maybe there could be something in it; but that is the problem for me; they aren't; there appears to be many problems in EVERY area of it.

Another area I found documented and an area that appears to be growing is this:

21) The loss of faith in "evolutionism" among scientists and researchers into evolution.

What I found was that those experts that really know and understand their fields are questioning and abandoning the theory in ever increasing numbers, hence the rise of the Intelligent Design movement.

Another unexpected thing that I discovered in my search was that the "theory" itself is actually so poorly defined (if it is even defined at all) or is defined in such a way that literally anything could be used as evidence for it. For example, I have read articles where the lack of evidence in some areas (eg, the often lack of intermediate fossils and the almost total lack of the textbook geologic column) are actually being proposed as evidence in favour of the theory. Now, I find that sort of reasoning to be simply wrong; how can the lack of desired evidence be deemed as evidence?

Further, because the theory is so "rubbery" and so "elastic", when some new piece of information comes along that doesn't quite fit in but could, you find that the theory is simply "stretched" a little bit more to fit it in; if it can't fit in somehow, or if it is just plain embarrassing, then it is simply ignored or explained away as being "irrelevant". I found that why it is irrelevant is rarely explained.

A simple question I asked myself a long time ago, and something that evolutionists should consider is this: Is there actually anything scientific about the processes of evolution that is known to be true?

Anything?

Now, before you rush in and answer, please consider this:

I have found that people often don't understand that accurate empirical science (the sort of science that puts probes on Mars and comes up with the computer and Internet you're using now) is ill equipped to deal directly with the past, especially the distant past. Only the present, the here and now, is available for direct scientific measurement and testing; the past, especially the distant past, is not nor has ever been available.

Thus, what supposedly happened millions of years ago can never be open to any form of direct scientific observation or experimentation. That means that the basic evolutionary idea of "molecules to man" is not strictly scientific by general definition; the process has never been directly observed; the process has never been explained; and the process has certainly never been demonstrated nor repeated. That means the evidence we have here and now must be interpreted in some way, and that introduces the biases of the interpreter.

Since direct scientific observation of the distant past is not possible, evolutionists (and creationists also I will point out) must make their observations here in the present and then extrapolate their ideas back into the past. It should be obvious to anyone who reads this that when it comes to that distant past and our understanding of what happened, we must ALL depend heavily upon our belief systems and their resultant premises to make our conclusions about what we think (or believe) happened. Obviously, we can never know for sure.

So, for me, if a theory fits the observations reasonably well then I consider it to be a good theory; for the reasons outlined above I have concluded that "evolutionism" as a theory or belief system doesn't. For me, I see evolutionary theory constantly being imposed onto the observations in an effort to find support for the theory; the theory doesn't come from the observations; that's why there are so many problems, so many modifications, why it's always changing.

These are just some of the many reasons why I no longer believe in "evolution". That's where I'm coming from.

Now, I find that sort of reasoning to be simply wrong; how can the lack of desired evidence be deemed as evidence?

from the same person who proclaimed (02 Mar 2009 7:14 p.m. PST):

The thing is, once you reach a boundary in your knowledge where there appears no known scientific or theoretical way around it, then there is no valid reason why one cannot proclaim "ID" at that point (for example, abiogenesis – still waiting on the evidence).

Pete

I useualy try to avoid calling people outright idiots, but TJRAYMONDs list is just so manye stupid proclamations I have problems finding other words for it.

I won't even bother aswering each point spesificly as you have a total lack of understaning not only of current science but also how science works, untill you educate your self to atleast a basic scientific understanding(at which point, that list will be gone) then we have nothing to talk about

This is typical of the Creationists, claim to be open minded then say the evidence does not add up then add all kinds of red-herrings:

1) Problems with the Big Bang Theory (or rather, the Big Bang theories).

Nothing to do with Evolution.

2) Problems with the theories for the evolution of stars; the current theories are inadequate; one theory actually proposed some time ago required a star to produce a star! Now, think about that for a moment …

Nothing to do with Evolution.

3) Problems with the theories for the evolution of galaxies; problems involving their rotation, their shapes, their apparent "early" formation, etc.

Nothing to do with Evolution.

4) Problems with the evolution of planets and the solar system; problems with short term and long term comets.
Nothing to do with Evolution.

5) Problems with red-shift and blue-shift interpretations versus the actual visible observations; problems with the cosmic microwave background observations.

Nothing to do with Evolution.

6) Major problems with circumventing the Laws of Thermodynamics in all areas.

Nothing to do with Evolution.

7) Problems with all radiometric dating methods; vastly inaccurate age estimates for samples of known ages; problems with isochron dating; the many valid scientific dating processes that are ignored that yield ages much too short for evolutionary theory.

Nothing to do with Evolution.

8) Problem after problem with the chemical origins of life; this area is clearly a major stumbling block for evolutionary theory; the many and varied problems with proposed processes for the chemical origins of life (abiogenesis); problems with origin of DNA and the information contained therein; problems with origins of amino acids and proteins; the chirality problem; problems with explaining the Cambrian explosion; constant problems in explaining the apparent complexity of the earliest life-forms.

Abiogenisis – nothing to do with Evolution.
Cambrian Explosion – never hear of the Ediaca Biota? 30 Million years is a damned slow explotion.

9) Problems with the explanations for the biological progression of life; problems with the proposed process of mutations plus natural selection now that much about genetics is known.

Challenged to well established biology.

10) Problems with the origin of man and apes from a common ancestor; problems with all the proposed ancestors of man, not to mention the many well documented hoaxes and frauds in this area.

Biology accepts a common ancestor and this is supported by DNA.
Fraud did happen and were exposed by scientists.

11) Problems with homologies; problems with reconstructions; mistakes with reconstructions; the documented hoaxes and frauds in this area as well.

Try doing a jigsaw with pieces missing and no picture.
Mistakes exposed by scientists.

12) Problems with lack of transitional forms; problems with interpretations of proposed transitional forms.

Scientists see transitional forms filling a gap. Creationists/IDiots see transitional forms as creating two new gaps.

13) Problems with the so-called "geological column" and the actual geological observations and interpretations versus the theory.

Nothing to do with the theory of Evolution.

14) Problems explaining why the "oldest" fossils show the organisms being already quite complex.

Oldest fossils are from the pre-Cambrian period and are really quite simple – see the Ediaca Biota.

15) Problems with the explanations for the independent origin of flight in birds, insects, mammals and reptiles.

Only problems to Creationists/IDiots.

16) Problems with the explanations for the independent origin of echo-location in dolphins, bats and oil birds.

Only problems to Creationists/IDiots.

17) Problems with the explanations for the evolutionary progression of horses and whales versus the actual physical evidence.

Nope – physical evidence supports Evolution. Only problems to Creationists/IDiots.

18) Problems with the origins of vertebrates (eg, fish) from invertebrates; amphibians from fish; reptiles from amphibians; certainly birds from reptiles; and most definitely mammals from reptiles.

Only problems to Creationists/IDiots.

19) Problems with the explanations of polystrate fossils versus the geological observations and explanations.

Only problems to Creationists/IDiots.

20) Problems explaining most (if not all) of the many symbiotic relationships.

Only problems to Creationists/IDiots.

21) The loss of faith in "evolutionism" among scientists and researchers into evolution.

Only in the dreams of Creationist/IDiots. Biologists – the people who study Evolution are not the ones have doubts. A PHD in Engineering may find it had to believe that there is no designer – so what? NOT THEIR FIELD OF EXPERISE.

Take a look at this on evolution:

YouTube link

TJ

If you are still interested in Abiogenesis you might like to follow the link below and watch the final part of the BBC series "The Cell". It was called "The Spark of Life" and recently aired in the UK. I am sure you will find it informative.

YouTube link

Pete

They speculate that somehow energy/matter has always existed in space-time but is at the same time losing energy to do work (what I call dynamic energy): and they expect me to just sit and nod as if nothing is missing with any of that?

What exactly is the "missing part" from your last sentence?

Any hypothesis about the Necessary Cause: because there is one required to show why the universe emerged from a point of singularity: with all that matter sitting in virtual stasis, an outside force is required to cause energy that can do work. We have a universe "running down", and no explanation as to why it is in such a degrading state, when it should have stayed utterly static forever.

Just for the record "IDiots" are believers in ID, not religion, get it?

Egregious semantics gaming, there, Ralph: non religious people don't push for Intelligent Design.

…the laws of thermodynamics won't allow total entropy to eventually occur, never to be reversed, without an implied Cause disrupting total entropy in the first place.

This is also nonsense. What does that mean? The laws of thermodynamics describe entropy, they don't prevent it at all.

Yes, I know thermodynamics describe entropy and don't "prevent" anything. What I mean is that the empirical laws of thermodynamics forbid violation: if the universe was just a mass of matter all at total entropy, WHAT CAUSED the change? Why would the universe be returning to total entropy, to remain so for eternity, if, for eternity, there was no energy in the first place?

BTW, total Entropy is like infinity or absolute zero. It is a concept that can never be reached. It is an asymptote. But you knew that already, I'm sure.

You're being sarcastic, but yes I did know that concept, but not the term. "Total" = Maximum, in this application. There's no absolute (total) end of anything measureable….

Hi

TJ, as above, almost all your "problems" are irrelevant to "evolution". The ultimate false syllogism is this: evolution has problems, therefore the bible which has even more problems must be true.

Doug, the false syllogism on your part is related to TJ. Not answering questions irrelevant to evolution doesn't have any thing to do with evolution as a process, or the facts of our evolution. Your "other brain" thing misses the point. There are earlier smaller less complex brains, and the really short version is obvious…our comman ancestor with the apes wasn't a massive change, but a small one. With time, there were, in the human lines, several species in parallel with intermediate abilities, some vegitarian, some omnivore..in short the big brain omnivores won out. Being human, we either by violence or just success drove the others to extinction.

A parallel, you had kids, we know people who didn't for some reason. THEY weren't killed, but their family died out. WE both know people too civilized to interrupt their careers with kids.

One thing on offer is that you know I regularly say "I just don't know". I can do aero math, but I am unsure and, therefore don't know what each molecule is specifically doing, or larger. My math skills won't answer a question on when, specifically, the Brandenburg C1 got the hotter engines. Not addressing the concept of "prime mover" is a courtesy. I don't know, I cannot prove your version correct or incorrect and, thus, won't argue that on a science board. If you insist on A prime mover, then it behooves you to suggest "which" prime mover. JWH or the flying spaghetti monster?

Thus, the discussion of evolution is irrelevent to the discussion just like most of TJs "problems".

Forced evolution explains why Pekineses are wolves rather than rats. Evolution explains why TJ gets vaccinated for new versions of "bugs" that evolved from bugs he is immune to. Evolution even explains how the word "unicorn" got in the bible!

I know TJ had parents. Also a fact of evolution, and evolution leads to DNA analysis that can prove who TJ is descended from, it cannot address which day, hour and minute TJ was conceived or if his parents liked each other.

Rocky

"non religious people don't push for Intelligent Design."

Quite. Creationism was forced by the US Supreme Court in case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) to evolve into ID when teaching 'creation science' was ruled unconstitutional.

Creationists had previously lost the following related cases

* Epperson v. Arkansas – 1968
* Daniel v. Waters – 1975
* Hendren v. Campbell – 1977
* McLean v. Arkansas – 1982

After each loss creationism evolved. If in allowing evolution to be taught, then by outlawing creationism leading to the creation of the so-called creation 'science' – an Orwellian term if ever there was one.

The disingenuous supporters and backers of ID – namely the Discovery Institute and The Foundation for Thought and Ethics – were exposed again by the courts in the case of Kitzmiller v Dover (2005).

The judges damning ruling against ID is a great read showing what depth Creationist/IDiots will sink to is exposed here:

PDF link

I'd also recommend looking at this Nova program on the Dover Trial.

link

Of particular interest is the transitional form of creationism in the book "Of Pandas and People" where the term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists." However, the proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the Kitzmiller trial, and "cdesign proponentsists" has been described as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."

I for one make no apology for using the expression IDiot to describe a proponent of Intelligent Design, because measured against the vast majority of those who professionally study biology that is what they are. Remember in science the way you make a name for yourself is to destroy an existing theory and replace it with another. Over 150 years, flaws in Darwin's examples have been exposed but after all those years the basic principle of the theory remain.

Then, after about 3 or 4 years and a lot of reading and argument on both sides of the issue, I finally realised just how spurious this so-called "theory" really is.

This is from someone who stated that evolution contravenes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

TJ, we are still waiting for your alternative theory. You know the one we asked for many, many times before. You know the one without the "21 problems".

21) The loss of faith in "evolutionism" among scientists and researchers into evolution.

What I found was that those experts that really know and understand their fields are questioning and abandoning the theory in ever increasing numbers, hence the rise of the Intelligent Design movement.

Like Michael Behe? Like his "theory" of irreducible complexity using the bacterial flagellum? Who else would you be talking about?

Also, how do you determine which experts "really know and understand" their fields of expertise, as opposed to the experts that only "somewhat know and understand" their fields? How do you personally gauge an experts "real" grasp of his field of expertise? That's some skill, TJ.

Ralph

Why would the universe be returning to total entropy, to remain so for eternity,…..

Doug, I could have picked any number of meaningless statements to choose, but I selected the one above. The universe is not returning to entropy. This means squat!

As the various processes go on throughout the universe, energy is lost and entropy increases. There was no previous time of "total entropy" that we are now returning to. I don't think you do understand these things. You certainly give that impression.

Ralph

With time, there were, in the human lines, several species in parallel with intermediate abilities, some vegitarian, some omnivore..in short the big brain omnivores won out. Being human, we either by violence or just success drove the others to extinction.

It seems a stretch to me, to dismiss intermediate brain development examples: there should be other species of mammals with "smarts" a lot closer to ours: there aren't any, at, all. We are way and ahead, unique in the thinking department. That is a huge "missing link" to me.

If you insist on A prime mover, then it behooves you to suggest "which" prime mover.

No, no, no, NO! Just admitting that such occurs to explain Existence in the first place is all that is required. We can't possibly KNOW anything more than that. Furthermore, I don't expect science (not even a hypothetical future metaphysical one) to "find God": imho, "God" is outside of "the world" and we cannot possibly detect direct evidence of specific manifestations, a la supernatural stuff: people make up and interpret a lot of stuff, but there is no way to prove "God" with any of it, much less a specific manmade concept "stolen" by religion.

The universe is not returning to entropy. …
…There was no previous time of "total entropy" that we are now returning to….

Really! Mysteriouser and mysteriouser!

What "state" was the matter/energy in, then, please do tell, BEFORE the BB?

Ah, but I have heard that all the matter and energy emerged from a point of singularity: before that it didn't "exist" as we can detect any practical definition of that word. Which just returns us to the same question, left unaddressed by most and unanswered by all: "What CAUSED the BB?" SomeTHING did. Something not subsequently (apparently) renewing the resulting universe: it's running down. Poor US! The CAUSE of our Existence is going to let us all DIE!

The very fact of our Existence isn't explained by a BB or BC; since that event needs a Necessary Cause. You can look for a Godless one, or not, depending on your expectations of the quest. It would be nice if those looking for a "Godless cause" of the BB admitted that their belief is just as premeditated as the religious belief in God the Creator is.

And I don't need to know what the Necessary Cause IS; I just know that things don't happen without causes.

I also trust that traits arising from "the soup" cannot be alien to or transcend the components from which they derive: that is why the Necessary Cause of Existence in the first place must be intelligent….

It seems a stretch to me, to dismiss intermediate brain development examples: there should be other species of mammals with "smarts" a lot closer to ours: there aren't any, at, all.

Hey Doug, remember when I was trying to tell you that our sapient abilities was our way to evolutionary fitness? So where are the other species with almost the same brain power as us? Well, they died out.

Doug, meet:

* Homo habilis†
* Homo rudolfensis†
* Homo ergaster†
* Homo georgicus†
* Homo erectus†
* Homo cepranensis†
* Homo antecessor†
* Homo heidelbergensis†
* Homo rhodesiensis†
* Homo neanderthalensis†
* Homo sapiens
o Homo sapiens idaltu†

* Homo floresiensis†

# Oreopithecus†
# Paranthropus†
# Australopithecus†
# Sahelanthropus†(hominid status highly problematic)
# Orrorin†
# Ardipithecus† (hominid status highly problematic)
# Kenyanthropus†

and some extinct great apes:

* Gigantopithecus†
* Sivapithecus†
* Lufengpithecus†
* Ankarapithecus†
* Ouranopithecus†

We are the inheritors and survived (so far) due to our smarts. That's the BIG PICTURE, that we survive.

What "state" was the matter/energy in, then, please do tell, BEFORE the BB?

Don't know about before (as I have explained about 5 times already). At the nanoseconds (actually much smaller) when inflation started Entropy would be close to zero. We WERE talking about entropy, remember?

Ralph

Entropy of WHAT? You just said matter wasn't in a total entropy state before the BB. What was IT doing then? This makes no sense: you have almost total energy and zero entropy at the point of singularity: how can that be measured against anything? And we observe a Necessary Cause "at work" in any case….

The missing link of brain development remains, because there are no other animals with remotely similar thinking capacity to ours. We should see other species with something intermediate: some animals would have "branched off" and not developed as much as homo sapiens, but still demonstrate similar thinking capability: all the animals are alot closer to each other than even the smartest of them are to us. There is this huge gap between us and every other species' lower order of thinking….

And I don't need to know what the Necessary Cause IS; I just know that things don't happen without causes.

Except in theology. Then it is a given.

Ralph

Jesus Christ.

Hi

Doug, you look for a sideways parallel evolution of the brain in others? Just why? I think you miss the second part of human which is "man walks". What does this mean? Before modern technology, man was still the animal that walked next door. No other animal, but our hangers on are world wide, and they are only so because we took them with us.

As an example, the house cat is a single species world wide, but only because we took that middle eastern wild cat with us around the world. The root stock still exists and does so only in Syria. There are other similar small cats everywhere, but all distinct.

If a population develops set of characteristics that fit a local niche, that stays local unless the advantage is so great that the that animal spreads to neighbroing niches. At a certain point, the advantage loses out and the spread stops. AND, with a lack of mobility, these populations through drift start producing sub species that become actual new species with time.

An example of this is the common english finch which, indroduced to Oz a few hundreed years ago, without being able to "stay current" with finches in england have become a seperate species. when birds migrate, they go north and south, not east and west and everywhere EXCEPT when attached to man.

Who walks next door.

Man developed walking first, and that ment that, largly good ideas walk next door and produce a more uniform humanity.

Thus, while drift produces minor changes, say skin or eye color, we became a world species that outcompeted the ones that drifted too far from the line. Apes stayed local species, and great apes, while closely related to us, are even more closely related to each other, they just don't have that communication to keep things equal.

Rocky

Good points about the walking, Rocky. All the dead "colleagues" of Homo Sapiens Sapiens walked in a similar manner too. They all had sapience. Some have brain volumes that rival ours.

Doug, as Rocky well knows, some were capable of abstract thought. How do we know? Because they had elaborate burial rituals. The deceased were buried with flower garland and their favourite implements, so that they were equipped for the afterlife. The well developed frontal areas indicate higher thought and the bulges at the Broca's areas indicate the potential for speech. However, we will truly never know that.

There is no missing link in brain development. It is just that signs of deep and abstract thought are difficult to extrapolate from the fossil record and from artifacts in a pre-writing society. And the fact that our last competitor died out thousands of years ago.

Ralph

I wasn't aware that only one "winner" could keep sapience. Many animals go for brief distances on two feet; so the distinction of walking seems syllogistic to me. Apes have FOUR opposable thumbs and are ambidextrous; but lack any capacity to think abstractly, to imagine, to plan for anything beyond the moment. All physiological features of Homo Sapiens are shared to some degree with the other mammals; the only one utterly unique is our brain power. I am not convinced.

…I just know that things don't happen without causes.

Except in theology. Then it is a given.

OLD theology; pre-science boom theology; modern, conservative theology (read as "hide-bound" traditionalist). You would judge modern theology to be regressive and stagnant? Then you are not looking at how religious people MOSTLY think today.

A Necessary Cause for Existence will always be with us. To call it "God" is my conceptual choice; it seems right to me. To attach personal, anthropomorphic traits to that concept is not my desire or purpose: the Existence of the NC is sufficient.

I know that such a NC cannot be measured, comprehended in total or perceived by the scientific methods extant in this universe. I know also that my own thinking cannot transcend that of the NC; no matter how paradoxical that can be made by my own thoughts to appear: the logic of the concept of the NC will not allow my existence to contravene, transcend or separate from the NC, since that would imply what you criticise: ex nihilo in religion.

My belief is the antithesis of ex nihilo: if I observe a thing in this universe, like (especially) sapience, then I must accept that the NC possesses the same trait -- otherwise the "creation" would be more than the "Creator" (ex nihilo indeed).

Existence in the first place is not arguable. To speculate that it ever had a NC itself, or could cease to be, is to open yet another door to look for the NC of Existence in the first place. Ultimately, we must accept our own Existence as having no origin or end transcending the NC….

Hi

Doug. Really, you dismiss walking but it is really important. My CATS can walk on their hind legs for a few feet as well.

Man walks for miles. No other ape had a "range" or migrated, men do. Thus, you have a limit to local variants developing, not the reverse. That is, all related anmimals have a common ancestor. that common ancester is the progenitor of whole lines of variants. Those variants develop fitting niches AND experiening some sort of isolation of the niche to become, over time, a separte species. Man developed walking first, then the brain. Thus any new development that worked is quickly transmitted.

Which means that you have limited ability for isolation long enough to perpetuate a change that leads to a separate species.

Ralph, I am not sure the "abstract thought" is evinced by burial rituals. Rather, I go further with ostiodontokeratic evidence among australopithecenes. My reasoning is this: modern apologists (man is bad, not natural) like to emphasis that apes use tools to get, say, termites out of a hive. Meaning they are more like us and, therefore, might have human rights.

A classic "observer bias". With austrolopithecenes, we have evidence of not just using a stick, but modifying rocks and basically having a "tool kit" that travels with the tribe. It is the idea that you prepare a tool for future use and carry it around that seems to me to be the evidence of abstract thought.

I have avoided, as you have not, a mystcism in this. But I should mention that as a lad, when the department head thought I was worth grooming (until he discovered that I did NOT want to dig up indians and argue with the locals) allowed me time in the lab with some actual, not casts, of australopithecene remains. I had a mystical experience!

I cannot describe it in another fashion. I "knew" who this was! But, my personal emotions, testimony is irrelevant to this discussion.

Reliving in god, having a mystical experience isn't mutually exclusive with science.

Rocky

I wasn't aware that only one "winner" could keep sapience.

As usual you have it wrong. The fastest large cat on the veldt, has more evolutionary fitness, feeds more often and therefore passes his genes on to more offspring. His lineage has a better chance for survival. The winner doesn't keep "fastness", he has it.

Same with us. More brain power (slightly) over our competitors allowed us to be here today to mull this question over. Unlike our colleagues who were not as smart and ostensibly therefore less fit. We didn't "keep" sapience to become the winners, we had a slight bit more than the others and therefore became the winners.

Many animals go for brief distances on two feet; so the distinction of walking seems syllogistic to me.

Novel use of the word syllogism here.

Apes have FOUR opposable thumbs and are ambidextrous…

But you need more than that to cause the brains higher centers to grow. Close focus stereo specific vision for one thing. Ask Rocky, he had the Anthro training.

………but lack any capacity to think abstractly, to imagine, to plan for anything beyond the moment. All physiological features of Homo Sapiens are shared to some degree with the other mammals; the only one utterly unique is our brain power.

How do you explain Neanderthal funerals? Are they not thinking of the future?

I am not convinced.

That says more about you than the evidence.

OLD theology; pre-science boom theology; modern, conservative theology………….A Necessary Cause for Existence will always be with us. To call it "God" is my conceptual choice; it seems right to me. To attach personal, anthropomorphic traits to that concept is not my desire or purpose: the Existence of the NC is sufficient.

Like the "unmoved Mover"?

Then you are not looking at how religious people MOSTLY think today.

Au contraire! I would suspect most religious people don't think God had a Creator. He is as sourceless as your always existing Necessary Cause.

Ralph

Ralph

Ralph, I am not sure the "abstract thought" is evinced by burial rituals.

Fair enough, Rocky.

With austrolopithecenes, we have evidence of not just using a stick, but modifying rocks and basically having a "tool kit" that travels with the tribe. It is the idea that you prepare a tool for future use and carry it around that seems to me to be the evidence of abstract thought.

Then why be buried with these tools, and pretty flowers, and pretty feathers, and beads, etc, etc…….?

Ralph

Hi

The problem is that none of our early ancestors seem "buried" but they are associated with midden kills where dead animals show tool marks not predator marks. Aubrey first pointed that out 40 years ago, Burial evidence is only offered with modern versions. I am not sure it proves anything one way or another. But evidence of tool making and keeping predate ritual burials.

Even in modern times, some societies do not believe in ritual burial with stuff like that.

Rocky

I would suspect most religious people don't think God had a Creator. He is as sourceless as your always existing Necessary Cause.

They say the don't believe in God having a "Creator"; then they go on and propose impossible traits for the NC, like Mormons insisting that God has a physical body as tangible as man's, and that this is his genuine form; he's a glorified man. Opens more cans of worms than answers any questions. And most dogmatic theology is riddled with this kind of thing: which ultimately becomes impossible to argue for and must remain "a mystery".

Existence is a mystery, but not arguable. It cannot have a Cause, it simply IS. But to argue that the manifestations of Existence somehow possess traits that Existence does not is where the godless arguments break down: you just can't stand the concept that Existence is INTELLIGENT. If you would admit that much, I reckon I would have departed to be boring somewhere else….

……you just can't stand the concept that Existence is INTELLIGENT. If you would admit that much, I reckon I would have departed to be boring somewhere else….

Sorry, I disagree. And I can show you a syllogism about it.

Existence is Intelligent (major premise)
A rock has existence (minor premise)
Therefore, the rock is intelligent (conclusion)

Ok, so it's not a good syllogism, but there you go.
It's a bad syllogism as the major premise is a crock.

So I'll just have to disagree. Intelligence is a manifestation of complexity that has become self aware and cognitive. The rest of the matter around the intelligent being is not intelligent by simply having existence. Am I reading you correctly?

Ralph

The problem is that none of our early ancestors seem "buried" but they are associated with midden kills where dead animals show tool marks not predator marks.

Rocky, a quick glance at the literature indicates that there is a consensus that Neanderthals and Homo Heidelbergensis were the first Hominidae to bury their dead. I'm simply stating what the physical anthropologists are saying about burial sites like Atapuerca in Spain, Shanidar in Iraq, Krapina in Croatia, Pontnewydd Cave in Wales and Kebara Cave in Israel.

Here's a description of a Neanderthal burials from the Gravettian (Upper Paleololithic) period:

"A little later still are the spectacular burials of two adolescents and an adult male at Sunghir, Russia, which were all accompanied by several thousand mammoth ivory beads, several hundred fox teeth pendants and a panoply of ivory artefacts. At Arene Candide Cave in North-West Italy a young male – the Italians call him 'The Prince' – was buried in the mid-Gravettian period with typical splendour. In addition to the usual red ochre staining, yellow ochre was used to cover a bite that had been taken out of his neck – presumably the wound that killed him. He was buried with a cap of mammoth ivory beads; four enigmatically-shaped, holed and incised antlers known as 'batons', a flint blade sourced from over 100 km away, and several other valuable possessions."
British Archaeology, 2002, #66

Ralph

Existence is Intelligent (major premise)
A rock has existence (minor premise)
Therefore, the rock is intelligent (conclusion)

You're snared in your "education": what does that little sillygism prove? Only that you don't REALLY know what a rock is all about. Using words to argue yourself away from a fundamental (NECESSARY) truth is unwise. The rock is a manifestation of Existence; we have inert, sentient and (ONE) sapient: why are you deliberately confusing "yourself" with a rock?

Intelligence is a manifestation of complexity that has become self aware and cognitive. The rest of the matter around the intelligent being is not intelligent by simply having existence. Am I reading you correctly?

"Has become self-aware" temporarily, even. The mere presence of intelligence makes the universe intelligent, since we are in and part of it.

I don't know anything about how many "secrets" the rocks can tell: as everything is organized on a subatomic level, of which we know absolutely nothing. And as there is no limit to the reduction (no absolute "zero") of anything measureable, I suspect that the manifesting universe is infinite in every conceivable way, including awareness….

Nothing to do with evolution

Ad nauseum.

If there was no "Big Bang" would stars exist? Planets? Life? Biolgical evolution?

As usual; simply dismiss any and all problems as irrelevant. The "how's" of evolution are (sometimes) negotiable but of evolution itself… one must never ever question it; ABSOLUTELY NEVER!

Yes… a very open minded belief system indeed.

So TJ, having had little or no luck with the Abiogenesis argument you push the parameters back and insist on an explanation of existence before you will accept evolution.

Classic!

Pete

TJ

If you can access BBC iPlayer have a look at this…watched it last night, its called "What Darwin Didn't know", very interesting:

link

Pete

It will also answer your problem with whales…that is the nice thing about science, it forever moves forward.

Pete

link

Hi

The syllogism goes this way:
God is perfect, therefore creation is perfect, therefore nothing changes, therefore evolution is wrong.

Now, if we accept the unproven first and second premises, TJ is correct. The problem being that neither premise is demonstrable.

The reason evolution is irrelevent to faith is illustrated simply by this syllogism with a similar null set in it.

The bible(King James version) is literally true, there is no number in Genesis bigger than 1000, therefore numbers bigger than 1000 don't exist, they are a myth.

As for "intelligent:rock" you realize that one major segment of religion is called "animism" which has that as it's basis. Most of us are familiar with this concept from watching old movies about cowboys and indians. Remember the wise old indian who talks about the wind and the land being living?

Or how in Star Wars "the force" infuses everything!

TJ, evolution is only false if the IDers have their assumptions and sums correct. These IDers produce their facts through a combination of observer bias, false assumption, unproven premis and then inductive reasoning. When the facts on the ground do not fit the paradigm, it is dismissed.

Questioning evolution is forbidden? In what way. Just making bald assertions isn't questioning in a "seeking truth" sense.

Rocky

Hi

And Ralph, you misunderstood my point. I am, of course, aware of burials in the last 50,000 years. The original point was "abstract thought". It is observed that many animals use tools of opportunity. The abstract thought comes in when taking an object of opportunity and then making modifications for a future use. This requires an absraction now. Not "hungry now, eat termites", but " i like termines I will make a tool and carry it for later when I get hungry".

Or "keep the antelope femur, makes a nice club for hitting things LATER".

Which was my point on abstraction, not spirituality.

Rocky

You're snared in your "education"….

Perhaps, but I at least know what a syllogism is, unlike yourself, as evident from your Sept 23rd comment, "Many animals go for brief distances on two feet; so the distinction of walking seems syllogistic to me."

….what does that little sillygism prove?

Sillygism………hey that's clever.
It proves the major premise is wrong, Doug.

Only that you don't REALLY know what a rock is all about.

Guilty. What are rocks REALLY about, Doug? LOL!

The mere presence of intelligence makes the universe intelligent, since we are in and part of it.

LOL, again.

I don't know anything about how many "secrets" the rocks can tell: as everything is organized on a subatomic level, of which we know absolutely nothing.

Of which YOU know absolutely nothing, you mean. Are you really trying to say no one knows anything about matter on a sub-atomic level?

That's news to Doctors who detect cancers by PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans.

That's news to Hidecki Yukawa who won the Nobel Prize for dicovering how the sub-atomic world is held together.

That's news to those who run the Tri-University Meson Facility (TRIUMF) in British Columbia, Canada, which is the largest Cyclotron in the world.

That's news to the roughly 10,000 scientists, engineers and researchers who work at CERN.

Need I go on?

Ralph

And Ralph, you misunderstood my point. I am, of course, aware of burials in the last 50,000 years.

I think you misunderstand, it's not the burials, Rocky. It's the burials with the personal possessions, pretty decorations, and artifacts included. This tells us that there was a belief in an afterlife and that the deceased would have a need for these accoutrements in the afterlife. That is not just future considerations, but future considerations in another realm of existence. I'd call that abstract thought. The physical anthropologists at these excavations seem to agree.

Ralph

If there was no "Big Bang" would stars exist? Planets? Life? Biolgical evolution?

As usual; simply dismiss any and all problems as irrelevant. The "how's" of evolution are (sometimes) negotiable but of evolution itself… one must never ever question it; ABSOLUTELY NEVER!

TJ, let me see if I have your logic down.

We do not fully understand the Big Bang. Therefore, everything we see around us (the stars, the planets, life, evolution, etc.) is ultimately the result of a poorly understood phenomenon. So why study or learn about anything? Surely there is no point in learning anything if, through an infinite regression of events, all things point back to the Big Bang.

Oh, and for your own interest: The theory of Evolution has been questioned by thinkers even before Charles Darwin's time, and continues all the way to the present. A bit of reading on the history of scientific thought will disabuse you of any notion to the contrary.

Ralph

About Sentience in other animals, untill we have a good way of realy mesuring it, and most of all, that everybody agrees on what exactly it is, it's very hard to say which animal is and isn't sentiencent.

We also don't know exactly how big the diffrence is bewteen non Sentience and Sentience.

While we can say with some certancy that a fly isn't sentiencent, its get harder and harder as we go into vertibrates, are some fish while others not? What about croccodiles, among Herpetology crocs are know to be very predictible, becasue they have a very basicy higher brain, it dosn't allow for much veriation, it rescives input and has only a few basic replies to it. this means croc experts can know almost all the time how a croc will act.
This is harder for mammals, especaly as their brain gets bigger, you can say the more personality it has, the more unpredicteble it becomes, so while you can say a croc is going to do this, it's harder to say the same thing for dogs, even harder for elephants and whales and almost impossible in humans(hence religion trying to limit variations, hence police phycietrist and profilers trying as best they can to decypher humman minds at their worst.
If humans were simply like reptiles they would never be a need for any of that.

And some times the lines bewteen what we call human behavior and animal behavior gets blurded, and will get more and more blured as we learn more and more about animals.
Elephants have sevral human qualities not even they great apes have.
They seem to be spiritual, the mourn for their dead, they have death rituals this has only been seen in elephants and the homo genius
Elephants are also one of the few animals togeather with whales that actualy have to learn to live, in elephants very little is instincts, just like humans they have some base instincts, but they have to learn how to live, they know nothing about life all has to be tought by mother and other elephants, infact it takes 15 years for a elephant to learn all it need to live. only humans have a longer childhood,
Why havn't elephants made a copel of cities? probebly becasue their brain is not wierd the same way as us, and becasue they only have a trunk, and not 2 hands with thumbs.
But to say they are stupider then us, simply becasue they are diffrent is not something that helps, they may be smart in other ways then us, they might not know math or physiscs but who can say they don't look up at the stars and think, what happens after I die?

…but I at least know what a syllogism is, unlike yourself, as evident from your Sept 23rd comment, "Many animals go for brief distances on two feet; so the distinction of walking seems syllogistic to me."

Here it is: Homo sapiens are unique because of sapience; homo sapiens are unique because they walk on two legs; homo sapiens are sapient because they walk on two legs.

Guilty. What are rocks REALLY about, Doug?

Other than apparently lying about, I DON'T KNOW; and that is why you can't draw any "proof of the error of the major premise" from something that you know practically nothing about.

You scoff at the notion that because WE are sapient that the universe, from which we spring, is also. Okay, then your brain, as part of your body, isn't intelligent? You can't be intelligent unless your whole cell network is?

Of which YOU know absolutely nothing, you mean. Are you really trying to say no one knows anything about matter on a sub-atomic level?

Yes, what I have read described is hypothesis only, and hardly forms any consensus on the subject of sub-atomic existence. Lot's of notions, no knowledge, yet. All you've mentioned is something that is sub-atomic, but not the smallest existing "stuff" that there is. Nothing measurable ever has an "absolute zero"….