Vatican deals blow to Intelligent Design

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by NUKE
because an infenitly small space (think about it) containing all the matter in the universe is impossible.

Relativity, which can be shown by experiment to be accurate to a high degree, and the expansion of the universe, which has been measured and verified, combine by the use of logic to imply the big bang.

When the universe shrinks to the point when quantum and relativity collide, the conjecture occurs.  There is no theory which shows what really happened at the first moment (what is it, t+10e-40 seconds or so), but theory is pretty sound until that point.

Why is an infinitely small universe any more mind bending than an infintely large universe?  I'll bet you can't get your mind around the thought that there is nothing before t=0, no space, no time...  I know I can't.

[Seagoon]

Before I go to bed, I must share one of my favorite sentences ever written by a Neo-Darwinist. I always get a chuckle from this 'un.  

Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.

For the benefit of those who don't understand what's so funny. It's an explanation for why we still haven't found the transitional fossils. It's a breathtaking statement of unshakeable faith.

They existed, we know that because they must have existed, because evolution is true. You see they just weren't preserved, their preservation was therefore rare. And you see, evolution was always happening in places we haven't yet looked, you know small populations unlikely to produce fossil beds. That's why they are so uncommon.

I have a theory that depends on evidence that hasn't been discovered, the evidence is there, just not in the places you'd expect to find it. In fact, nowhere where you might look. I also have a theory that explains why that is. Both of these theories are facts. You can tell that because you learn them in school, and we wouldn't teach something unsupported or nonfactual in school. This is after all not a church. Can I get an Amen?

- SEAGOON

[soda72]

Stephen Hawking might give someone a dollar if they can combine quantum mechanics with general relativity..  

[SOB]

What I find amusing is that you got all that from that one little sentence.

[Silat]

Lambo:These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.


No they are not looking at the same evidence.
Only one is looking at evidence.
The scientist.
The religious person is looking to a book.
Nothing more and nothing less.

Faith/Cult/Religious beliefs are philosophical and not scientific.
Creationism passes not one scientific test. Not one.
Evolution passes thousands of real world tests.

The Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact based on scientific requirements no matter how much the Christian Fanatics want it to be otherwise.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Before I go to bed, I must share one of my favorite sentences ever written by a Neo-Darwinist. I always get a chuckle from this 'un.  

Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.

For the benefit of those who don't understand what's so funny. It's an explanation for why we still haven't found the transitional fossils. It's a breathtaking statement of unshakeable faith.

They existed, we know that because they must have existed, because evolution is true. You see they just weren't preserved, their preservation was therefore rare. And you see, evolution was always happening in places we haven't yet looked, you know small populations unlikely to produce fossil beds. That's why they are so uncommon.

I have a theory that depends on evidence that hasn't been discovered, the evidence is there, just not in the places you'd expect to find it. In fact, nowhere where you might look. I also have a theory that explains why that is. Both of these theories are facts. You can tell that because you learn them in school, and we wouldn't teach something unsupported or nonfactual in school. This is after all not a church. Can I get an Amen?

- SEAGOON

Seagoon the missing LINKS are few. Because a few links are missing does not mean that evolution isnt fact.
The evidence of evolution is vast and universally accepted in all reputable scientific circles as FACT.

[SOB]

As FACT?  Really?

[Dowding]

governments are the biggest killers of all time... mostly your-0-peean governments and eastern and african.

Influenza, malaria and cholera are usurped by governments? Are you sure about that?

[Seagoon]

Hi SOB,

Originally posted by SOB
As FACT?  Really?

Of course its a fact, what are you a heretic or something?

(Lew illustrated my above point beautifully, albeit unintentionally. Clearly I'm not over-reading those sentences.)

- SEAGOON

[midnight Target]

"no transitional fossils?"

BS Mr. Seagoon.

There are hundreds.

But here is just a small sample:

Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)


Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (late Carboniferous) -- Amphibians apparently derived from the early anthracosaurs, but with additional reptilian features: structure of braincase, reptilian jaw muscle, expanded neural arches.
Solenodonsaurus (mid-Pennsylvanian) -- An incomplete fossil, apparently between the anthracosaurs and the cotylosaurs. Loss of palatal fangs, loss of lateral line on head, etc. Still just a single sacral vertebra, though.
Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles.

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html


- There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live

[lambo31]

Silat, I hope we can agree to disagree and still count one another as friends, even if it is an online friendship. Both were looking at the same evidence, but both are using different presuppositions to study the evidence. Unless a person believes in the Creator it would be really hard for them to see where Creationists have a leg to stand on. As my prior post states, it goes back to our presuppositions. Before I became a Christian Creationist didn't make sense to me either. But then neither did Evelutionist bacause they were constantly changing their "facts". Now that I am a Christian and look at things from a biblical stand point these  things make sense to me. I would like to go into this further but my little girl needs some attention



Lambo

[Maverick]

Seagoon,

Am I reading this right?

IDer Dinosaurs appeared, birds appeared. Birds are not the result of the mutation gradual or rapid of Dinosaurs, they are a new species.

The ID adherant does not have empirical evidence to their satisfaction, (I am assuming fossiles that have both reptilian features and feathers like birds are unacceptable), and therefore postulates an "Intelligent Designer" just "made" a new species. A lack of suitable evidence is therefor explained in a theological manner?

I'm not trying to denigrate this. I want to understand where the IDer is coming from, if there is another source of their impetus other than a biblical one. I state that as I cannot accept a biblical reference as a "scientifically based proof" just a theological one.

As to question number 2 it is a carry over from a previous thread where you declined to give a specific answer. Here you did, thank you.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi SOB,



Of course its a fact, what are you a heretic or something?

(Lew illustrated my above point beautifully, albeit unintentionally. Clearly I'm not over-reading those sentences.)

- SEAGOON

I think you are overreading those sentences...unless you have more insight into the individual who is being quoted.  Was it a quote from Silat?!  

[lambo31]

OK, my little girl is asleep for the moment and I'll try to add a little. I'm not trying to get into the Creation vs Evolution debate. Infact I will avoid it. I realize every individual has their own beliefs and I will respect those beliefs regardless even if I don't agree with them. I have been on both sides of this fence and have made some of the same arguments for evolution that I see here in this thread. Since getting a different pair of glasses, so to speak, I have made the same arguments for Creation.I have found that instead of winning this argument I tend to lose a friend. Now, I will not try to make you or anyone else swallow my beliefs and my "facts" as I see them.  Must I swallow yours??

[SOB]

I think you should find some better friends.