Creationists PWNED

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by trev

Try to think logically about how such a system could have evolved and the answer will be - This could not have evolved by accident.

Why not

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by trev
Try to think logically about how such a system could have evolved and the answer will be - This could not have evolved by accident.

That's funny, considering this thread is about a proof that irreductibly complex systems can arise from random mutations.

[Chemical Ollie]

PWND

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by trev

The incredible complexity of actions involved in short term memories and converting that memory to long term memory to me is extremely suggestive of an intelligent designer, it seems inconceivable that all the action sequences mentioned in the Scientific American article could have occurred through the random acts of evolution, the presence of a master designer is much more likely. Try to think logically about how such a system could have evolved and the answer will be - This could not have evolved by accident.

The reason you can't imagine it is because you start with the complex brain. Try instead to start with a simple with no long time memory - let this brain evolve to a larger with capacity to do long time memory. Then let two versions of this brain compete for survival - one with long time memory and one without. Wich one do you think will win ?

[trev]

let this brain evolve to a larger with capacity to do long time memory.

The Scientific American article shows that long term memory is an extremely complicated process that requires multiple series of complex molecular actions to achieve (And they do not understand yet some of the selectivity involved in the process). It is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to have evolved that way by accident, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was created by an intelligent designer.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by trev
The Scientific American article shows that long term memory is an extremely complicated process that requires multiple series of complex molecular actions to achieve

So does everything. The brain didn't start out with the goal of becoming really good at long term memory, but if each additional level of complexity evolved by accident and then just so happened to be good for something, anything, then it would stick around. And over time the brain became good at lots of things.

[Urban Ranger]

BlackCat and IW are right. After all, organisms had billions of years to evolve. Billions of years is a long time.

Saying something can't be evolved naturally just because you don't know how is at best ignorant.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by beingofone
SpencerH

If I postulate that thought is a function of brain activity I can then interfere with brain activity and observe the effects on thought. If there is a measurable effect then I deduce that brain activity effects thought. As importantly, I now have a testable scientific hypothesis that can be physically confirmed or refuted by others.

If I postulate that you are thinking of a unicorn, how do I measure that? Or could it be, you are thinking of beer

Whether the nature of a particular thought can be detected at present in no way invalidates the hypothesis that thought is a function of brain activity. Your comment merely demonstrates your ignorance of scientific method. Feel free to put forward a scientifically testable hypothesis that explains thought in another context than brain activity. If you dont have one, then postulate a hypothesis based on belief. Avoiding the question is not discussion.

How does one conduct a physical test for the presence of god?

Do you experience happiness, sadness, joy, fear(you might not considering you are a biologist)? Are these emotions a reality for you and your life?

Why would my being a biologist alter my ability to feel emotion?

How does one conduct a physical test of a reality that you experience called emotion?

As with memory, I can postulate that emotion is a function of brain activity and then test that. As with memory, we know that is true and there are no other scientifically testable hypotheses (that I'm aware of) to explain emotion.

The majority of the human race are skeptical of spiritual enlightenment and understanding because of ignorance. Scientists are also skeptical because of arrogance.

The majority of the human race believe in god, they're just not christians. Perhaps you're only refering to 'spiritual enlightenment and understanding' as defined by christians.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by beingofone
My post was not a game of one upmanship. You can have opinions about any subject. Many people have no formal education and yet are deserving of being listened to with respect.

Opinions based on blatantly erroneous information aren't, IMO, deserving of respect. I will listen to people and they certainly have the right to hold such opinions, but I also have the right to point out why their opinions are rubbish. Facts about geology, biology or physics aren't as subjective as interpretations of religious scripture, after all.

The point I was making is with all these posts it appeared to me this appeal to "authority" was being demanded, especially from Trev. Now I can understand if you doubt my claim especially with my spelling at times. (an anomally).

No, they aren't appeals to authority, because we have been presenting facts supported by evidence. These are facts that are known by the scientific community not because they just decided "this is the way it was," but because there has been an overwhelming accumulation of data to support the theories. Mentioning a coal deposit in Victoria--for which there are perfectly rational explanations--as proof of some superhuge flood is pointless, considering the abundant facts in geology and other fields that categorically contradict the notion of a worldwide deluge. Until all of those issues are addressed, bringing up unsupported what-ifs like trev is doing is not just pointless, it's exasperating ignorance.

I also decide to challenge the bold statements made that the scripture has no value at all. That is just ignorance and I issued a claim and challenge on that point.

Nobody said scripture is of "no value." It's just not of scientific value. That's because it's not a scientific work, it's a religious and philosophical one. It has value in such fields, not science. Likewise, Origin of the Species is an immensely valuable scientific work, but it does not address religion or philosophy and should not be used as such (Social Darwinism being an example of the wrongness of doing so).

Cud - gerah Hebrew - to scrape or massage the throat as in chewing any partially digested food .
This word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.

The writer was using word association.

The problem with what you claim is that Leviticus gives us several of examples of animals that "chew the cud" and those who don't prior to mentioning the rabbit, and they are all legitimate examples. So that one animal is mentioned out of the whole group that doesn't fit tells me they made a boo-boo about the eating habits of the rabbits. They weren't biological experts, after all. Dung eating isn't the same as cud-chewing at all.

Bats - You are suggesting that the writers in the scripture knew the phylums as a means of classification .Linnaeus was not born untill the early 1700`s. Perhaps they had another way of classifying species then we do?

It did not take until Linnaeus to realize that birds and bats were distinctly different classifications of animals. Birds have feathers and beaks, bats certainly do not. The phyla, while open to some flexibility, are not arbitrary classifications. Through genetic biology, we can tell that bats are far, far removed from birds. If the Bible were inerrant, you would think that the divine guidance would prevent the ancient authors from making such a mistake about claiming they are of the same category of animal.

4 legged insects- George Orwell's Animal Farm. In this story, Snowball the pig invented the slogan, "Four legs good, two legs bad" so as to exclude humans from Animal Farm society. The geese and other fowl objected, because they had only two legs. Snowball explained (more clearly in the book than in the movie) that in animal terms, the birds' wings counted as legs because they were limbs of propulsion, not manipulation, as a human's arms and hands were.

I can scarcely see how this is relevant to the Bible. Insects have 6 legs, not 4. How would the above account for the missing pair of legs that the Bible states is the case for insects?

You are trying to pick fly dung out of pepper.

No, I rather think you're engaging in stretched apologetic acrobatics to try and deny there are some mistakes in the Bible.

Do you value and cherish your existence? You must because you are still here. Sounds very close to worship . Why do you value your life so much?

Ever heard of a survival instinct? Creatures who have greater survival instincts do better when it comes to natural selection, after all. I don't see how this proves any point you have.

There are volumes of books written on this subject and we are still scratching our wooden heads.
Could it be you are the meaning to all existence?

I don't know who is scratching their heads over it. Who is confused as to the nature of why living beings seek to remain living? It's not a great mystery that I can see.

If we understand our own existence the seeming miraculous works of Jesus might not seem so extraordinary. In other words perhaps we have not yet fully "evolved" to understanding counscious awareness in its full cabability.

I don't pretend that we fully understand consciousness, but that's not the point. Our not fully understanding it isn't remotely evidence that it's the product of some supernatural work. Consciousness is, it seems, a product of our brains. Animals have it too, albeit, apparently, at a less-refined state. Given that, it's quite apparent that consciousness is simply an evolutionary trait that enables a species to thrive better.

I thought that was agnosticism.

No, agnosticism, as UR pointed out, is "not enough info to know for sure." You can, technically, have an agnostic theist. It just implies someone who doesn't believe you can ever prove the truth.

Some conclusions were that consciousness either effects reality or creates it. If a tree falls in the forest question.

As has been pointed out, you seem to be egregiously misreading what is written in the articles as some sort of "evidence" for god. That's you putting a subjective bias to the information, not the conclusion of the authors.

As you stated and I agree, with proper study and thought it could be explained. Same holds true for God. Maybe you have been looking in the wrong place for proof. Perhaps he is the substance of your very being ie. life.

This, as far as I can see, is just gibberish gussied up as philosophy. Explain how studying "life" is somehow going to lead to an empirically valid proof of the existence of god. That's such a vague statement that is pretty much meaningless.

Hey you started it.

Beg pardon?

[Odin]

Originally posted by trev

The Scientific American article shows that long term memory is an extremely complicated process that requires multiple series of complex molecular actions to achieve (And they do not understand yet some of the selectivity involved in the process). It is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to have evolved that way by accident, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was created by an intelligent designer.

Circular reasoning alert!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by trev

No one has yet presented any arguments against my meteorology reasoning and methoology

Well, let me give it a try.

Originally posted by trev
I have no problems with the idea that water mostly came from underground to flood the earth, and it did not require 9km of water either. Although it is impossible to prove the true geography of the pre-flood world, the few hints given in the biblical account would indicate a very flat world where max elevation above sea level probably did not exceed 100metres, and therefore a metre of water from the sky and 101m from the underground would succeed in flooding the world sufficiently. The formation of mountain ranges etc after the flood would then allow the waters to drain to the oceans easily.
For those who question why I propose a flat world, the lack of rainbows (rainbows require rain droplets to form) and lack of mention of rain prior to the flood suggests rain did not occur prior to the flood. instead the bible states a heavy mist/dew watered the earth. Mountain ranges, because they cause uplift of air masses and precipitation are incompatible with a climate of mists/dew and no rain, and therefore could not have existed in the preflood climate described in the bible. Likewise a heavy blanket of water vapour in the upper atmosphere as described in the bible would limit temperature differentials through its absorption and reradiation of sunlight. This limitation on temperature differentials would prevent the formation of low/high pressure systems, frontal systems and storms. Therefore no rain would occur, but instead perpetual high humidity and nightly dews/mists globally. The whole world climate from pole to equator would be subtropical/tropical under this scenario.
Although my argument so far has been based entirely on reasoning from the bible, surprisingly there is some scientific support for it. This includes evidence from fossil records which show fossils of lush tropical/subtropical species being found from the equator right through to polar latitudes, which is exactly what would be expected from this climate scenario.

You claim that there could not have been any mountains because there was no rain and therefore the max heigth of the landscape must have been about 100 m. Well, I live in a country approx 100.000 sq km (including sea areas) with an average heigth of maybe 50 m, and I can gurantee you that it rains here. Rain isn't only created due to mountains but also by temperature differences between land and sea areas. In the summertime sea is colder than land and gives rain, and in wintertime it's hotter and gives snow when humid air goes from sea to land. Agreed, you try to get around this fact by claiming that the temperature is constant at approx 30 degrees, but if it should be so, then the sea areas should have the same temperature which would make it deadly for several species of fish that actually exists today.

Another problem with your claim is that if your theory should hold, then the arctic areas should have the same conditions. If not you would have serious temperature differences and thereby create weathersystems as known today. There are a couple of problems with this model. To maintain the temperature you claim there must come some energy from the sun, not all can be reflected - if that was the case temperature would drop dramastically during nigths and the balance will be gone. The problem is that the equatorial areas cannot avoid to get more energy than the arctic areas and thus give an temperature difference.

Further, what about the planet tilt and wobble ? Didn't that exist before Noah ? If it didn't, then the situation would be like described as above; if it did, then the situation would be even worse because areas in arctic and antarctic wouldn't get any energy from the sun in approx 6 months every year - actually they would send enourmous amounts into space and thereby make serious temperature differences.

Your model, how nice it may look, is in fact impossible to keep stable.

Originally posted by trev

Yes it would, but the tsunami did not affect ships at sea, and with all human and animal life cocooned in the ark, they were safe. Later the boat landed somewhere in the mountains of ararat and again they would have been safe from tsanamis because of their high altitude. It would have taken many years for the human race to multiply and recolonise coastal areas, and by then the tectonic activity would have subsided. It is interesting that there were periods in earths ancient history where many people resided in caves etc, this could equate to the early turbulent years after the flood when buildings would not remain standing due to frequent severe earthquakes

This puzzels me a little. Where did the moutain the ark landed on come from ? there should not be anything higher than 100 m, unless they of course was raised after the flood started. But then again, how should the ark could survive the tsunamis that would be the result of rising kilometer high mountains ? The claim that ships at sea isn't affected don't hold. Remember that the ark at best have some kind of sail and as large it must have been to contain it's cargo, it couldn't have made more than 2-3 mph (with a crew, but there wasn't any). At best it could then have started approx 4000 kilometers from ararat, but if you look at the map, there are several other mountains that should be rising in it's path. Since there was no crew to handle sails the actual speed must have been close to zero, so the ark should in some way have survived the eruption of kilometer high mountains - please explain how this should be possible.

Last, ararat is a volcano - how does this fit into the theory ?

Oh, i forgot - you claim humans dwelled in caves in the turbulent years when the mountains was built - the very last place I would be when earthquake after eartquake shattered the ground would be in a cave, it would almost certainly end up as my grave !

[trev]

Likewise a heavy blanket of water vapour in the upper atmosphere as described in the bible would limit temperature differentials through its absorption and reradiation of sunlight.

To maintain the temperature you claim there must come some energy from the sun, not all can be reflected - if that was the case temperature would drop dramastically during nigths and the balance will be gone.

The word I used was reradiate of sunlight, not reflect. The vast blanket of water vapour in the upper atmoshere would absorb most radiation from the sun, warm up and then radiate it as heat like any other warm body., This radiation of heat is the major source of heating for the earth's surface during the preflood time. As heat would diffuse through this canopy of water, the heating at the poles would not be substantially different from the equator - less than 5 degrees is a reasonable guess. The high humidity and therefore lack of evaporation from the sea would mean the sea would be the same temperature as the land. With no significant temperature differential between sea and land, pole and equator, my statement that this is a climate without rain is reasonable.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by trev


The word I used was reradiate of sunlight, not reflect. The vast blanket of water vapour in the upper atmoshere would absorb most radiation from the sun, warm up and then radiate it as heat like any other warm body., This radiation of heat is the major source of heating for the earth's surface during the preflood time. As heat would diffuse through this canopy of water, the heating at the poles would not be substantially different from the equator - less than 5 degrees is a reasonable guess. The high humidity and therefore lack of evaporation from the sea would mean the sea would be the same temperature as the land. With no significant temperature differential between sea and land, pole and equator, my statement that this is a climate without rain is reasonable.

Five degrees is more than enogh to make pressure differences an goodbye to stability.

You forgot to comment wobble and tilt.

Icebears cannot survive at 25 degrees plus, so where do they come from ?

[trev]

Agreed, you try to get around this fact by claiming that the temperature is constant at approx 30 degrees, but if it should be so, then the sea areas should have the same temperature which would make it deadly for several species of fish that actually exists today.

As the climate had been constant for a long period of time prior to the flood, all species were adapted to that climate. This makes commonsense. After the flood, all life that remained were forced to adapt to the changed and variable climate. Some of these changes resulted in fish, animals that adapted to much colder climate and seas in the polar regions and these adaptions have made them now unable to survive in warmer conditions. But this is as a result of adaptions since Noahs flood, at the time of the flood, they were all adapted to warmer conditions.

Remember that the ark at best have some kind of sail and as large it must have been to contain it's cargo, it couldn't have made more than 2-3 mph (with a crew, but there wasn't any). At best it could then have started approx 4000 kilometers from ararat,

There is no mention of sail, rudder etc on Noahs ark, therefore the boat drifted on the sea until it landed somewhere in the mountain ranges that include Mt Ararat ( note location is described as mountains of Ararat). We have no starting location for Noahs ark in the Bible, so where has your knowledge of it starting location come from?

But then again, how should the ark could survive the tsunamis that would be the result of rising kilometer high mountains ?

Tsunamis over deep water are not much more than a ripple on the surface of the water, even if much larger due to the special circumstances of much larger earthquakes, they would still no necessarily sink a boat of a stable design.

[trev]

Five degrees is more than enogh to make pressure differences an goodbye to stability.

If this is so then the differential must have been less, but I suspect a 5 degree difference spread over 10000 miles or so would allow stable conditions under calm conditions