Scientific, undeniable fact that proves God exists

[StevenCrum]

Before getting into this there are also eight factual science descriptions that also undeniably prove evolution is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to exist in science. With this post, I am entirely describing ONLY the science FACTS that fully counter the standard baloney that there is no science that can prove God exists. Real science is that God is provable by science, and the natural selection and evolution is also factually proven to be scientifically impossible, and BOTH being fully and undeniably all by science.

As for proving God's existence, there are other ways that I can and will provide, but in this thread I will provide the true science concept of "Directional formation". And, directional formation is obviously observable science fact that is so ultra-incredibly easy to understand that it is absurd to even think of denying the science facts involved.

The foundational thinking is seen in the following example.

If a company was going to build for the first time a new object they were then going to call a Buick, but before even one car or anything even like that was even known, something unique needed to be accomplished first. To point out what that is, let's put an object on the ground in the general area of where what would eventually be a Buick plant where they are made, but aren't yet because no one even has the foggiest idea what they are yet. The point is you need to set your mind into the factual evolution viewpoint situation of initially being totally clueless about anything at all like or similar to the idea of a Buick.

At this point of science truth and fact, directional formation is then a reasoning process of going in a developing direction. The point in our Buick example is that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE or a Buick to even be thought of to be made unless and until someone THINKS of going in the ultra-complex direction of making one. And, in truth, it is impossible for nothing to go in a directional formation direction.

So, the original thinking part of going in a particular direction is one part of this. A second and totally impossible situation also involves the FACT that all of the foundational components in the universe are FACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to be started without incredible amounts of another type of directional formation also occurring. And, that is that there are a total blockade of science foundational objects that are scientifically impossible for evolution or natural selection to overcome. It is also solid, undeniable fact that it takes directional formation entirely to be able to accomplish every single one of those items, and those items are equired fully to be in place for every single following thing that comes in any later assembly of everything that exists in reality.

This second part is the huge amount of energy and directional intent it takes to make atoms bond in their cores, and the ultra-complexity of the entire design of the atoms so they self-operate by themselves.

It is a FACT that nuclei of atoms have like-charged protons in them and it takes "intent" and "force" to cause the objects in every single atom thatt exists to be compressed and bound together. And, for all diehards, quantum mechanics slop is totally proven to be the total garbage it is, and I can and will provide the full, factual science that describes every single thing about how science exists in formation of all elements in the periodic table and how atom nuclei are forced together in real science instead of the ignorant quantum mechanics slop. Believe it, it's dead-on right fact about that being able to fully be done right in front of any nose that wants to see the factual science involved.

In the end here, it is absolute, solid, science FACT that there is observable science fact of full "directional formation" in every single thing that exists in the universe, and the universe itself that fully and factually proves the science law it is. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the foundational objects exists WITHOUT directional formation. THAT is factual and undeniable science truth.

It also FACTUALLY proves that an extremely intelligence was and is fully involved in all of the foundational things, and without the ultra-high intelligence involved it is THEN scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for anything to exist at all.

NO Directional formation means factually no formation, and that means nothing can exist. And, this is not anywhere near being just opinion, but solidly and totally science truth and fact. And, anyone stating now to the contrary is then doing so in complete science hypocrisy and denial of true science observation, analysis and truth.

For further information, I know factually how matter came into existence from the start point of "NOTHING", and also how atoms self-operate in their continuous running, and how "living life" is also accomplished by using the non-living atom and sub-atomic atomic objects. So, if I need to get into the real science down deep and fully that is exactly where I can and will go in proving the ultra-complexity that exists where it is factually also IMPOSSIBLE for the "just-dumb-luck" slop of evolution and natural selection don't have one chance in 386 trillion of making even a dent in the real science involved.

One last fact is that I can describe real science that is FAR ABOVE world-class physics and other sciences, and where the ULTRA-SCIENCE of God's level of science exists. His science is light years above any and all scientists on this meager planet, and I can prove every single shred of this statement made. And, anyone not believing the fact, just try me.

[Doodler]

Incoming wall of text crits Doodler for 666 points of damage.

Doodler dies.

[Murff]

I would think this would be moved to another section....

[hhEb09'1]

And, for all diehards, quantum mechanics slop is totally proven to be the total garbage it is, and I can and will provide the full, factual science that describes every single thing about how science exists in formation of all elements in the periodic table and how atom nuclei are forced together in real science instead of the ignorant quantum mechanics slop. I know that science sometimes uses ordinary terms to mean something specific and technical, but I don't think I've ran across those before. Is "total garbage" something like total entropy?

[Eckelston]

I would think this would be moved to another section....

How about /dev/null ?

[ToSeek]

Moved from Astronomy to ATM. Y'all have fun now.

[Doodler]

This should be interesting, but will likely last something less than a page of "discussion" before being dismissed for what it is, a blatantly religious tirade. Any more fire and brimstone in a run like that, and the Leonid meteors will be out of a job.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Steve, I know FACTUALLY that unless you read the rules of this board pertaining to topics such as religion and politics your stay here will be short and unproductive. And that's no slop! ;)

[phunk]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the foundational objects exists WITHOUT directional formation. THAT is factual and undeniable science truth.


so uh... who or what created God?

[Dragon Star]

@OP, your basis on what is possible is very elementary, go read up and learn something.

Sorry to say you have come to the wrong place. Go hit up GLP or some other Woo-Woo/creationist site.

[ToSeek]

You are welcome to report StevenCrum if he violates the forum rules, but it's impolite to publicly announce that you expect him to do so. (So far as I'm concerned, he's not over the line yet.)

[Dragon Star]

so uh... who or what created God?

That has been my argument for as long as I knew about "God". God couldn't have come from nothing! :razz:

Oh wait, he is everything, riiiight....:rolleyes: In that case God is also my toilet, which I take a crap in every day.:lol:

[Dragon Star]

You are welcome to report StevenCrum if he violates the forum rules, but it's impolite to publicly announce that you expect him to do so. (So far as I'm concerned, he's not over the line yet.)

Noted, my apologies. I am going to go now so I don't get myself into serious trouble...

[Doodler]

If there's no evolution, if life makes no change without intelligent direction, if no process can occur without a guiding hand, the observer begs to question why so many variations on a theme exist.

Wouldn't a perfect deity get it right the first time?

Explain supermassive stars. They don't last long enough to allow life to rise up. What purpose do they serve, be it that they are intelligently designed?

Why do stars then die in the first place? Wouldn't an intelligently designed star not burn out? You'd think in a universe designed to promote life, you'd make its most abundant harbors eternal, would you not? What good is a universe where perpetuality is an impossibility? What cruel bugger would put something as devastating as entropy into play?

What rationally thinking intelligence would create a star system with merely a 4 billion year window of viability over the course of a 10 billion year stellar life cycle? Seems a substantial waste to create a system with only a 40% operational efficiency.

What purpose to gas giant planets serve? They're huge, not very hospitable, and tend to cause problems for potential life bearing worlds when they migrate inward. Something God screwed up? This deity is looking awfully imperfect here. Sure it could be argued that they help regulate the orbits of terrestrial worlds, but if this deity had half a brain, they'd design their worlds to maintain their own orbits. And if its protecting us from the remnant debris, what omnipotent creator would finish his Solar System Kit and leave extra parts lying around. Very sloppy.

Its a mess out there, and we've not even touched on biological systems, because if there is an intelligent designer, I want to talk to this son of a gun about a few parts upgrades. :p

[StevenCrum]

To Murff

Concerning your "this should be somewhere else", it is factually science, and this is a science board.

[Jim]

... And, directional formation is obviously observable science fact that is so ultra-incredibly easy to understand that it is absurd to even think of denying the science facts involved. ...

This is the Emperor's New Clothes argument... "It's so obvious that you must understand, unless you're incredibly stupid." Doesn't work here.

... The point in our Buick example is that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE or a Buick to even be thought of to be made unless and until someone THINKS of going in the ultra-complex direction of making one. ...

Sorry, your assumption is incorrect.

As an example, take the photocopier. This was an idea in someone's mind long before anyone thought about how you'd make one. Every invention follows this same pattern... Think about something that would be really nice to have, then find a way to make it.

It's called "imagination." Children have it in great abundance; they spend a lot of time imagining things they do not know how to make.

... A second and totally impossible situation also involves the FACT that all of the foundational components in the universe are FACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to be started without incredible amounts of another type of directional formation also occurring. ... It is also solid, undeniable fact that it takes directional formation entirely to be able to accomplish every single one of those items, and those items are equired fully to be in place for every single following thing that comes in any later assembly of everything that exists in reality.

This sounds like an argument based on the Arrow of Time; that is, Time moves in only one direction. Since that's a basic tenent of science, I fail to see how it disproves science.

This second part is the huge amount of energy and directional intent it takes to make atoms bond in their cores, and the ultra-complexity of the entire design of the atoms so they self-operate by themselves. ... And, for all diehards, quantum mechanics slop is totally proven to be the total garbage it is...

Now you've presented the My Mind's Made Up, Don't Confuse Me With The Facts argument. This also doesn't fly here.

... and I can and will provide the full, factual science ...

Now that would be refreshing! Please start providing.

... It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the foundational objects exists WITHOUT directional formation. THAT is factual and undeniable science truth.

Again, you are arguing the Arrow of Time.

It also FACTUALLY proves that an extremely intelligence was and is fully involved in all of the foundational things, and without the ultra-high intelligence involved it is THEN scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for anything to exist at all.

I see lots of posturing, arm waving, and CAPITAL LETTERS, but nothing that could be called scientific fact.

... if I need to get into the real science down deep and fully that is exactly where I can and will go...

I think you will need to do this. So far, you haven't even started.

... it is factually also IMPOSSIBLE for the "just-dumb-luck" slop of evolution and natural selection don't have one chance in 386 trillion of making even a dent in the real science involved.

Considering the scales involved, 1 in 386 trillion is as close to a sure thing as the Universe has.

... I can prove every single shred of this statement made. And, anyone not believing the fact, just try me.

Okay, I'm calling you out. You've offered at least three times so, start presenting your proof.

[Doodler]

To Murff

Concerning your "this should be somewhere else", it is factually science, and this is a science board.

Science is subject to disproof. Can't subject an "ultrascientific intelligence" to disproof, therefore, its not science.

[Thomas(believer)]

Will this be the end of Believe?:think:

[captain swoop]

[pulls up chair and grabs a six pack] I love threads like this.

[PhantomWolf]

Why do I cringe when I see that sort of thing, loaded with caps. Really all it needed was a lot of bold red letters in size 12 and it'd have been set. *sigh*

so uh... who or what created God?

What was before the Big Bang? If God was responsible for the creation of the Universe be it triggering the Big Bang or something else, then it stands to reason He is outside of our universe, and thus our time. Hence the question "What was before God?", or "who created God?" is as totally meaningless as "what was before the Big Bang?" Not to get into religion here, but the Bible does support a view of God being outside of Time itself, and therefore neither having a begining or an end. (I'd also note this was even sort of prior to Einstein's revelations about time/space being inseparate. ;))

I love threads like this.

I don't, so I'm going elsewhere now.

[Tensor]

[pulls up chair and grabs a six pack] I love threads like this.

I'm with you Captain. I'm not even gonna bother trying to get into this, just sit back and watch. I'm thinking of Eta C's sig, the Pauli quote. I'm also inclined to think that all the explanations in the world are not gonna matter.

[ToSeek]

To Murff

Concerning your "this should be somewhere else", it is factually science, and this is a science board.

What he indicated was that your views don't reflect those of mainstream science and should therefore be in our Against the Mainstream section. I agree, which is why I moved this thread there. When you've convinced a majority of astrophysicists of your views, we can move it back.

[Tensor]

. I agree, which is why I moved this thread there. When you've convinced a majority of astrophysicists of your views, we can move it back.

You think you'll live that long? ;)

[DogsHead]

Jees, I dunno; he's using some pretty sciency terms there...
And, directional formation is obviously observable science fact that is so ultra-incredibly easy to understand that it is absurd to even think of denying the science facts involved.

I reckon he's onto something! After all Steve is using: Real science which sounds so much more manly, and emlpoys muscly sounding terms like ultra-complex
and the factual evolution viewpoint situation
and foundational thingsand the terribly exciting, all new, ULTRA-SCIENCE .
So don't mess with this guy - I think he may be related to George Crum.....
The potato chip was invented in 1853 by George Crum.

[Swift]

StevenCrum,
I too would like to see your evidence to support this proof.

You mention repeatedly about "directional formation". Would exactly does that mean, I have never heard such a term? The closest I can come to is directional solidification (http://milou.msc.cornell.edu/solidification.html).

You state that "quantum mechanics slop is totally proven to be the total garbage". Could you show us this proof? Quantum mechanics is extremely well tested and to date seems to be a well proven theory. It is also the basis for many practical devices, including the computer chips that you are using. Are you saying that all of microelectronics is based on an incorrect theory?

[AGN Fuel]

The point is you need to set your mind into the factual evolution viewpoint situation of initially being totally clueless about anything at all like or similar to the idea of a Buick.

At this point of science truth and fact, directional formation is then a reasoning process of going in a developing direction. The point in our Buick example is that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE or a Buick to even be thought of to be made unless and until someone THINKS of going in the ultra-complex direction of making one. And, in truth, it is impossible for nothing to go in a directional formation direction.

Let's start with this claim. What makes you claim that evolution is directional to a specific end? Your analogy implies that a Buick is the desired end product, but this shows a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is - effectively you are creating a Strawman argument by introducing a distorted version of evolution and then attacking that. Any claim that evolution has been deliberately 'leading up' to Homo sapiens over the past 3.5 billion years is anthropocentric hubris at best, and dishonestly misleading at worst.

[Maksutov]

[edit]One last fact is that I can describe real science that is FAR ABOVE world-class physics and other sciences, and where the ULTRA-SCIENCE of God's level of science exists....FADE IN:

INT. KOROVA RESEARCH FACILITY NIGHT

Tables, chairs made of nude fibreglas figures depicting strings and branes.

Hypnotic atmosphere.

Professor Alex, Associate Professor Pete, Assistant Lecturer Georgie, and GTA Dim, physicists and technicians are studying while drinking their milk-plus, their feet resting on textbooks, autoclaves, computers, occasionally admiring the fiberglas figures.

PROFESSOR ALEX (V.O.)
There was me, that is Professor Alex, and my three droogged reference frames, that is Associate Professor Pete, Assistant Lecturer Georgie, and GTA Dim (who really was, aren't they all?) and we sat in the Korova Research Facility trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Korova Research Facility was involved in high-energy accelerator technology, advanced plasma diagnostics, inertial fusion capsule implosion research, particle physics, cosmology, and just plain old astronomy, as well as selling milkplus, vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, milk-plus being what we were drinking, from vending machines. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-science. Our files were full of project documentation, our pockets full of grant money so there was no need on that score, but, as they say, money isn't everything.http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4751/professoralexaclockworkorangeuj1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Van Rijn]

so uh... who or what created God?

What was before the Big Bang? If God was responsible for the creation of the Universe be it triggering the Big Bang or something else, then it stands to reason He is outside of our universe, and thus our time. Hence the question "What was before God?", or "who created God?" is as totally meaningless as "what was before the Big Bang?" Not to get into religion here, but the Bible does support a view of God being outside of Time itself, and therefore neither having a begining or an end. (I'd also note this was even sort of prior to Einstein's revelations about time/space being inseparate. ;))


No, given the premise, it was a valid question. The assertion is: Y exists, therefore X must have created it. If this is so, then by the same logic, something must have created X. If you are going to exempt X from the chain of logic then you must also exempt Y. That is, if a creator can be exempted from creation than so can the universe. The existence of the universe only demonstrates the existence of the universe, not some supposed extrauniversal being or beings. Science cannot (at yet, at least) speak to this subject, even whether asking "what is the origin of the universe?" is a valid question. So this is a matter of belief, not science.


I love threads like this.

I don't, so I'm going elsewhere now.

Yeah. I could get into arguments like this twenty years ago, but it never changes, so now I just point people to http://www.talkorigins.org/

[hadji]

Belief in God is faith and religion, not science. I'm a Christian, so I believe that God created the universe. That means, however, that God is not a product of this universe. And that means that the nature of his existence is beyond the realm of science.

I think it's also a travesty claim that it's such an obvious scientific fact that evolution is false. This would mean one of two things. Either that every archaeologist, anthropologist, biologist, physiologist in the world is utterly and completely stupid, or that they are all involved in a worldwide conspiracy.

If you believe that they're all stupid, then I assume that you put no stock in modern medical technology and modern pharmaceuticals.

If you believe they're all involved in a worldwide conspiracy, well that's just whacked.

[TriangleMan]

At this point of science truth and fact, directional formation is then a reasoning process of going in a developing direction. The point in our Buick example is that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE or a Buick to even be thought of to be made unless and until someone THINKS of going in the ultra-complex direction of making one. And, in truth, it is impossible for nothing to go in a directional formation direction.
You appear to use the term "science" without understanding what it means. You call things that aren't scientific 'science truth or fact', refer to things as 'scientifically impossible' (as opposed to regular impossible things?) and the underlying premise of directional formation is not logically validated based on your example, thus nullifying the remainder of your arguement. For example the musings of Leonardo Da Vinci show that he proposed inventions that were impossible for hundreds of years, such as the helicopter.

Also, your directional formation concept does not appear to be a scientific hypothesis.

Also, the arguement does not support the existance of God. 'Evolution wrong' does not equal 'God proven to exist'. Many scientists are Christian and have no qualms with evolution, science and faith can coexist, as hadji had noted above.

[Gillianren]

Belief in God is faith and religion, not science. I'm a Christian, so I believe that God created the universe. That means, however, that God is not a product of this universe. And that means that the nature of his existence is beyond the realm of science.

I think it's also a travesty claim that it's such an obvious scientific fact that evolution is false. This would mean one of two things. Either that every archaeologist, anthropologist, biologist, physiologist in the world is utterly and completely stupid, or that they are all involved in a worldwide conspiracy.

If you believe that they're all stupid, then I assume that you put no stock in modern medical technology and modern pharmaceuticals.

If you believe they're all involved in a worldwide conspiracy, well that's just whacked.

Welcome to the board; you're absolutely right.

[V-GER]

I too agree with Hadji, if you're religious and believe in God then there's absolute no reason to try and proove his existance through scientific means. Nor should that belief be swayed by someone saying "you can't proove this or that." It's simply a matter of belief.

[Tensor]

hadji,
Welcome to the board. Stick around, you sound like someone who will enjoy it here (and we'll enjoy having you here).

[xylophobe]

If there's no evolution, if life makes no change without intelligent direction, if no process can occur without a guiding hand, the observer begs to question why so many variations on a theme exist.

Wouldn't a perfect deity get it right the first time?

This statement shows lack of clear thought or deliberation. If God is all-knowing and timeless then He obviously knows the future and knew that Adam and Eve would sin. Knowing this why would He want to create a universe where sin could continue unabated? Plus the Biblical phophecies foretell an end to the earth and the universe so why make an eternal universe if it is just going to be destroyed anyhow? Your whole post follows a similar vein and so my reply covers it all.

There is also one other reason for God to make an "imperfect" universe: because of choice. If God made creation obviously point to His presence then where would the choice be? By making the universe ambiguous He allows those who want to believe see His handiwork in everything and for those who do not want to believe His handiwork lets them comfortably believe every vane imagination they could desire.

[Lonewulf]

I too agree with Hadji, if you're religious and believe in God then there's absolute no reason to try and proove his existance through scientific means. Nor should that belief be swayed by someone saying "you can't proove this or that." It's simply a matter of belief.

Of course, my problem comes with that belief affecting me.

[antoniseb]

I'd like to remind everyone to be careful in how you express yourself here. This thread would be easy to take into forbidden areas. Please keep your comments friendly and unprovocative.

[Doodler]

This statement shows lack of clear thought or deliberation. If God is all-knowing and timeless then He obviously knows the future and knew that Adam and Eve would sin. Knowing this why would He want to create a universe where sin could continue unabated? Plus the Biblical phophecies foretell an end to the earth and the universe so why make an eternal universe if it is just going to be destroyed anyhow? Your whole post follows a similar vein and so my reply covers it all.

There is also one other reason for God to make an "imperfect" universe: because of choice. If God made creation obviously point to His presence then where would the choice be? By making the universe ambiguous He allows those who want to believe see His handiwork in everything and for those who do not want to believe His handiwork lets them comfortably believe every vane imagination they could desire.

Yeah, ok, whatever. A deity that apparently thrives on being recognized for his handiwork hides his handiwork so it won't be recognized.

Completely logical. :rolleyes:

[xylophobe]

Yeah, ok, whatever. A deity that apparently thrives on being recognized for his handiwork hides his handiwork so it won't be recognized.

Completely logical. :rolleyes:

So you would rather have been created a mindless robot without choice or conscious abilities?

[NEOWatcher]

So you would rather have been created a mindless robot without choice or conscious abilities?
If so, then how would I know it? :think:

[xylophobe]

If so, then how would I know it? :think:

You would not know but God would.

[ASEI]

As for the whole evolution thing, you might want to google genetic algorithms.
We're not only using evolution as an algorithm to explain the variation of biological organisms, or to understand how they developed certain functions.

Now, with cheap computational power to hurl at design problems (gotta love brute force :-P ), we can actually make use of evolution ourselves as a solution seeking algorithm to tune the characteristics of a proposed solution to respond to a simulated environment. It works, so it's not impossible that it has worked in the past for the development of life.

[Doodler]

So you would rather have been created a mindless robot without choice or conscious abilities?

Irrelevent question with regard to this discussion. My personal desires have absolutely no reflection on the nature I in which I developed after I was brought into being.

The challenge remains unanswered. I would like that challenge answered directly.

If it were intended by design that I worship the deity responsible for my creation, what purpose would it serve for this deity that I be given the ability to make that choice in the first place? Why would its creations be given the ability to arrive at any conclusion, through direct observation and analysis, other than that there is a guiding hand at work in the universe?

Tell me, really, what is it everyone who observes the universe objectively has missed?

[xylophobe]

Now, with cheap computational power to hurl at design problems (gotta love brute force :-P ), we can actually make use of evolution ourselves

You mean it takes computers and intelligence to cause evolution?

[xylophobe]

If it were intended by design that I worship the deity responsible for my creation,

You forgot the word "freely" in your question which means you do not understand what God wants: God wants people to freely worship Him because they want to not because they have no choice.

antoniseb, I am just trying to answer Doodler's question which of course involves theology/philosophy and logic.

[antoniseb]

antoniseb, I am just trying to answer Doodler's question which of course involves theology/philosophy and logic.

I understand what you are trying to do. Neither of you are in trouble yet, but this conversation is not going in a good direction. For you, I suggest that it is provocative simply to make a direct statement claiming to know what God wants. How can that be answered without trouble?

I'd like you guys to wrap this up, or take it to private messages.

[Doodler]

You mean it takes computers and intelligence to cause evolution?

A computer is a tool, and intelligence is far more than you give it credit for. Intelligence and sentience are two different concepts, you'll understand the logic of unguided evolution a lot more clearly when you learn to understand that.

Intelligence in presentient evolution is picking the best mate to produce the most successful offspring. Its knowing which offspring to reject as inferior. Its the struggle to be more successful than the generation that preceded us. Sometimes, its just dumb luck that leaves a species with an odd trait that gets passed on, or a form of natural selection that makes a certain trait desirable from generation to generation that moves the species forward in a direction uknown to its ancestors.

In postsentient evolution, the struggle changes. Instead of being defined by circumstances, a species now has the option to define the circumstances to suit them, what evolves then is the extent of their ability to do so. Because of a massive sympathetic streak that's developed in humans, we've moved beyond the rejection of inferior offspring, instead finding ways of overcoming their inferiority. Instead of selecting mates based on their superior ability to cope with the environment, we've learned to modify environments to suit our existing form. Human physical evolution has probably hit a pretty solid dead end for a while. But what evolves now is our ability to modify the world around us. Sometimes, that means learning when it isn't appropriate to do so.

Either way, it doesn't impress me in any way that either form of evolution requires any outside guidance. Life seems to be doing just fine on its own terms, for the most part. Human evolution in its current mode could do with a bit of improvement in collateral damage control.

[Doodler]

I'd like you guys to wrap this up, or take it to private messages.

Will do.

[Matherly]

You mean it takes computers and intelligence to cause evolution?

I believe you may have misunderstood ASEI's post.

I believe what he ment is that using "genertic algorithms", we can use the same methods that are present present in natural evolution. That is to say, we can make computer programs that mimic evolution to solve complex problems.

The computer program has no effect on natural evolution.

[xylophobe]

For you, I suggest that it is provocative simply to make a direct statement claiming to know what God wants. How can that be answered without trouble?

Doodler's post to which I originally replied was equally provocative because Doodler claims to know that God is illogical (or nonexistent). I addressed the illogical claim.

[antoniseb]

Doodler's post to which I originally replied was equally provocative because Doodler claims to know that God is illogical (or nonexistent). I addressed the illogical claim.

I asked you both to take it to PM, I said no one was in trouble. I'm not assigning blame, but both of you have shown examples of why we prohibit this sort of exchange.

[Doodler]

Doodler's post to which I originally replied was equally provocative because Doodler claims to know that God is illogical (or nonexistent). I addressed the illogical claim.

To clarify my position (hopefully):

If a supreme deity exists, its mode of operation makes achieving its desired outcome, being credited with having created everything and controlling its destiny, beyond the ability of its creations to divine rationally enough to state definitively that such a deity has actually done it. Given such a contradiction, should such a deity exist, its relative supremacy over the forces it set in motion is highly questionable.

Why would it, were it able to control everything and wanting to be recognized for such, set in motion forces which operate without obvious direct control?

That's extremely illogical to me.

[xylophobe]

I asked you both to take it to PM, I said no one was in trouble. I'm not assigning blame, but both of you have shown examples of why we prohibit this sort of exchange.

I understand but your post to me implicitly affixed the blame solely to me and so I am addressing you, in plain view of all, so that this misunderstanding can be corrected in front of all. Just asking for fair play.

[xylophobe]

To clarify my position (hopefully):

If a supreme deity exists, its mode of operation makes achieving its desired outcome, being credited with having created everything and controlling its destiny, beyond the ability of its creations to divine rationally enough to state definitively that such a deity has actually done it. Given such a contradiction, should such a deity exist, its relative supremacy over the forces it set in motion is highly questionable.

Why would it, were it able to control everything and wanting to be recognized for such, set in motion forces which operate without obvious direct control?

That's extremely illogical to me.

I have nothing against you, Doodler, I was just trying to point out an alternate view of things - whether you regard this alternate view as credible or total bunk is at your discretion.

[hhEb09'1]

That's extremely illogical to me.That seems extremely illogical to you. :) After all, you haven't proven it.

[Doodler]

I understand but your post to me implicitly affixed the blame solely to me and so I am addressing you, in plain view of all, so that this misunderstanding can be corrected in front of all. Just asking for fair play.

Not to worry, I caught that it was aimed at me as well. (Not the first time I've had this conversation, so it didn't need to be so implicitly stated)

[Doodler]

That seems extremely illogical to you. :) After all, you haven't proven it.

Correction noted. :)

To be fair, even science can seem bloody illogical to me. I still get a twinge in the temples when someone mentions c being constant in all reference frames.

And lets not even start with the four dimensional geometry of the universe explaining why there's no "center" in space somewhere. That'll bring me to tears, and I'll be all afternoon explaining to my boss why I'm under the desk in the fetal position.

[sts60]

And, for all diehards, quantum mechanics slop is totally proven to be the total garbage it is,

Hm. Quantum mechanics underlies things like solid-state and radiation physics, and as such is the ultimate foundation of literally hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce every year. That's pretty successful for "total garbage", especially without the benefit of saying "REAL" and "ultra" a lot.

and I can and will provide the full, factual science that describes every single thing about how science exists in formation of all elements in the periodic table and how atom nuclei are forced together in real science instead of the ignorant quantum mechanics slop.

Yeah, well good luck with that!

[Sticks]

I have just come in on this and to be frank, my eyes just glazed over with trying to follow the OP. :confused:

I tend to go by the five proofs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae) of Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas), although for the Teleological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument) I prefer the Antropic Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) to so called Intelligent design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design)

It tends to be simpler than the OP. Maybe I am just a bit dense at the moment.

[antoniseb]

your post to me implicitly affixed the blame solely to me and so I am addressing you, in plain view of all, so that this misunderstanding can be corrected in front of all.

I didn't intend to sound like I was aimed at you only. For that matter while there was a sense of you and Doodler being identified, I was really trying to address anyone who might be posting in this thread. The one example I cited just happen to have been the most recent. PLEASE take note that I'd said that neither of you were in trouble. I was requesting keeping the particular line of discussion out of the thread.

[Doodler]

I have nothing against you, Doodler, I was just trying to point out an alternate view of things - whether you regard this alternate view as credible or total bunk is at your discretion.

Nah, all I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense, as I see it. Whether I'm actually right or wrong is beyond my ability to subject to disproof and live, since its more philosophy than logic and the only real test I know is to die and see for myself, so I picked my pony and bought my ticket.

I'm otherwise quite happy to leave the question unanswered definitively for a good number of decades to come. :)

[SMEaton]

Why a Buick and not a Delorean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lorean_DMC-12)? Ironically the ill-designed vehicle is the namesake of a certain genetic mutation (http://www.gvsu.edu/biology/index.cfm?id=01489F21-FEF4-AFE2-7563A2175EB8F2EC) in flies. Lord of the Flies!

[hhEb09'1]

Why a Buick and not a Delorean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lorean_DMC-12)? Ironically the ill-designed vehicle is the namesake of a certain genetic mutation (http://www.gvsu.edu/biology/index.cfm?id=01489F21-FEF4-AFE2-7563A2175EB8F2EC) in flies. "delorean males are sterile" :)

[Cougar]

...in this thread I will provide the true science concept of "Directional formation".... The point in our Buick example is that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE [f]or a Buick to even be thought of to be made unless and until someone THINKS of going in the ultra-complex direction of making one.
This is apparently true when you're talking about a Buick automobile, which is a man-made thing. To jump from there and claim "someone must have thought up the idea of the universe" might be convincing to a simple-minded believer, but the Buick and the universe are not at all logically connected, and no scientist would consider that you have a well developed argument. There is simply no real logical connection in your argument.

Besides, what should we think if we happen to see a tornado? It's a very complex phenomenon. Did someone have to think of its creation before it formed? A silly idea, for sure.

A second and totally impossible situation also involves the FACT that all of the foundational components in the universe are FACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to be started without incredible amounts of another type of directional formation also occurring.
This is your claim. But simply stating your claim does not provide any empirical support for the claim whatsoever. In this forum, we require evidence when people make such assertive claims. You are simply making provocative and preposterous claims, but you are not providing any evidence or observational support for your claims. Your entire argument seems to exemplify the logical fallacy of "argument from incredulity." You cannot imagine how the universe could exist without some... supernatural being thinking it up and creating it (like some Buick automobile!) Well, SteveCrum, your personal lack of imagination is not much of an argument. The universe does not really care what you, SteveCrum, cannot imagine.

It is a FACT that nuclei of atoms have like-charged protons in them and it takes "intent" and "force" to cause the objects in every single atom thatt exists to be compressed and bound together.
See? More intolerant claims, but no evidence to back them up. Claims around here require hard evidence to support them. It appears you have no evidence. So your claims remain impotent.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the foundational objects exists WITHOUT directional formation. THAT is factual and undeniable science truth.
No, THAT is simply your claim for which you have provided no evidentiary support. In fact, your whole diatribe is just a bunch of provocative and unsupported claims. Claiming something, even with capital letters, does not make it so! Did you have any evidence, or do you only have unsupported claims?

[StevenCrum]

To Jim (#16)

Concerning your point about "imagination" you obviously missed the entire point of "directional formation". All thinking, imagination is a component in the "directional" part.

The entire thinking in the main post point is that "nothing" can occur in the two situation types unless their is an added directional element that involves intelligent choices to cause the formation to even start.

An example of this is that you can place two permanent magnets on a table and have like-charged faces being toward each other. This isn't even complying with the requirements because in this example there is the starting thinking involved of putting the magnets as described. But, it will do for this purpose.

The situation with the magnets first, is that they are in a position that makes the possibility of them ever being attracted together by just their own "whatever" as being something that is completely against the magnetic forces involved.

The situation then is that IF the magnets are ever to be rammed together and bound that way, it is a fact that there has to be a whole lot added to accomplish the situation. The first thing is to even come up with the idea of the fully-unnatural bonding situation of the magnets. This is your imagination part. Evolving doesn't have even one single shred of the imagination "directional" part of what is required.

The next part of the magnets is to figure out how to force the fully-opposing magnets together. This is directional thinking. The point is thinking in the needed direction of forcing the magnets together.

The next part is proceeding in the directional process of forcing them together. You also have to include the fully required opart about once you get them forced together, how can you then bind them into that extremely resisted situation that the magnets are fully opposed about getting into.

All of this is exactly waht is completely involved in getting all of the atom nuclei to be forced and bonded together, and in a TOTALLY unnatural force way that the component parts fight against in their like-charge existence.

The point is all of this is totally IMPOSSIBLE without added directional thinking, intent for the forced odd bond, and then causing the forced situation to happen.

Evolution and natural selection don't have even one thing that even comes close to this fully required science situation. With evolution the beginning atom parts wouldn't even exist in the first place, and even if they did there is no directional intent or "whatever" to cause them to go unnaturaly together. And, the situation doesn't change one single bit whether anyone waits for the situation to occur 36 billion years, 36 trillion ,or forver, they still factually will never do what is required without added thinking, planning, designing and doing. And, every single thing in existence in the entire universe is totally and factually seen by science observation to have the directional formation involved in the beginning of their existence.

And, about whether things fly here, or not, real science truth as stated doesn't depend on here, or anyone's opinion here. And, the science fact of directional formation is still as solid fact as solid fact gets, and fully needing no one's approval.

[StevenCrum]

To AGN fuel (#26)

The directional formation involves the science impossibility of evolution to even start of its own. It factually cannot, and since it has to start on its own if it is to be a method of existence for living things, it then has to provide a start or have a starting situation that it then latches onto. And, having God do the intial start isn't allowed, because for one factual thing God wouldn't ever create a thing like evolution that porves He doesn't exist.

The situation involved is that a guy can rave on and on about how ultra-great his racing car is and all that it is going to do in making him rich, etc. and on to the stars in everything in the future. But, if he doesn't even have a racing car, his total spouting is just blowing in the breeze of fantasy and baloney.

The factual point is evolution doesn't have a start. No start - no evolution. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

[Sticks]

So are you talking about Abiogenesis?:confused:

[phunk]

so uh... who or what created God?

What was before the Big Bang? If God was responsible for the creation of the Universe be it triggering the Big Bang or something else, then it stands to reason He is outside of our universe, and thus our time. Hence the question "What was before God?", or "who created God?" is as totally meaningless as "what was before the Big Bang?" Not to get into religion here, but the Bible does support a view of God being outside of Time itself, and therefore neither having a begining or an end. (I'd also note this was even sort of prior to Einstein's revelations about time/space being inseparate. ;))


I think you misunderstood my point. Wasn't really about time, was about the fact that creationists use the complexity of our universe as a reason it couldn't have happened without a creator. Yet they allow for the creator, which by their belief is even more miraculous than our universe, to exist without someone higher up to create him/her/it. My point is, if something as amazing as God can exist without a creator, why can't something as simple (relatively) as our universe exist without a creator.

Keep in mind that I'm not debating the existance of God, only this particular line of reasoning being used as 'proof'.

[phunk]

No, given the premise, it was a valid question. The assertion is: Y exists, therefore X must have created it. If this is so, then by the same logic, something must have created X. If you are going to exempt X from the chain of logic then you must also exempt Y. That is, if a creator can be exempted from creation than so can the universe. The existence of the universe only demonstrates the existence of the universe, not some supposed extrauniversal being or beings. Science cannot (at yet, at least) speak to this subject, even whether asking "what is the origin of the universe?" is a valid question. So this is a matter of belief, not science.


Bingo!

[Swift]

<snip>
The directional formation involves the science impossibility of evolution to even start of its own. It factually cannot, and since it has to start on its own if it is to be a method of existence for living things, it then has to provide a start or have a starting situation that it then latches onto.
Why can't evolution start on it's own? Just because you state that you have to have "directional formation" (you still have not explained what this is, as I requested - see post # 25) doesn't make it so. Please show evidence.

Your analogies to Buicks or magnets are not good models of natural systems.

All of this is exactly waht is completely involved in getting all of the atom nuclei to be forced and bonded together, and in a TOTALLY unnatural force way that the component parts fight against in their like-charge existence.


There are several forces that can cause atomic and sub-atomic particles to come together. The strong nuclear force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_nuclear_force) holds nuclei together. Electromagnetism (for charged particles) and gravity can bring atoms together. There is nothing "unnatural" about these forces.

I would still like evidence that quantum mechanics doesn't work. As I and others have pointed out, it underlies all of microelectronics, so you need to explain how your computer works without it.

[ASEI]

You mean it takes computers and intelligence to cause evolution? No. I just wanted to point out that there's much ado about random mutation coupled with a selection mechanism, such as natural selection being able to generate complex information, such as that governing the development of an organism. A lot of people seem to think it's impossible, or that it couldn't possibly generate any useful information. Monkeys hammering on typewriters are regularly invoked. It would certainly take a monkey a very long time to randomly generate the work of shakespeare, granted. But the key to evolution is the selection algorithm - natural selection, which continuously cuts away at the harmful nonsense and makes sure that a population as a whole progresses in a benificial direction over the generations.

A genetic algorithm works as follows: You have a problem that you want to find an optimized solution for. This problem consists of a simulated environment, with "laws" governing how a set of parameters will behave. (A simulated wind tunnel with a simulated amorphous shape, for one example) Another example would be a simulated launch environment, with the earth's gravity, a simulated rocket and atmospheric drag modeled.

The second element is a series of parameters (it can end up being a very long series of parameters indeed). In my example, one such set of parameters could be the angular rate for the pointing angle of the rocket as it lifts off at each point in simulated time. You start with a population of trial parameters. These can either be randomized, or you could start with several very poor solutions (such as a string of zeros, or pi/2s).

Next, you run the simulation for each member of the population, and evaluate how each one did, according to what you want the final solutions to be able to accomplish. In my example, I wanted the rocket to end up as close to orbit as possible. I also set the score to some extremely negative number if the trial path ended up crashing the rocket into the ground. I also penalized for drag loss and gravity loss.

After each member is scored, the ones that do poorly are eliminated. The ones that do the best are copied to fill the population. (In some advanced GAs, there are cross-breeding and trait swapping routines as well between members).

Next, random mutations are applied randomly to random parameters across the population. They get hit with arbitrary modifications. (Sometimes you may want to include bounds. Mutation rules that are too extreme or numerous can lead to excessive noise in the end products.)

Next you loop and run the next generation.

Repeat for a few hundred generations. Come back after lunch, stop the computer, and see what you get: Usually the final products are very well adapted solutions to the problems that end up getting very high relative fitness scores.

I actually programmed my rocket ascent simulation. And it did give me an answer. In fact, the answer it gave was better than any trajectory that I just randomly guessed at, even though I used an extremely inelegant set of parameters to define this trajectory (just a huge list of pointing angle rates).

The programmer of a genetic algorithm doesn't have to guide the population towards the solution at all. He doesn't have to know what the solution looks like, or exactly how it will end up accomplishing the goal. He just has to set a scoring routine based on the end goal (defining what is "better" and what is "worse"), and set up the simulation environment.

Anyway, it just goes to show that natural selection acting on a randomly mutating population does push the population towards solutions to design problems. It doesn't prove that evolution is behind life developing (though it's just more behavior to correlate to the trend), but you can't say that evolution, as an algorithm, is somehow fundamentally flawed. It does work. That was my point.

[Dragon Star]

To AGN fuel (#26)

The directional formation involves the science impossibility of evolution to even start of its own. It factually cannot, and since it has to start on its own if it is to be a method of existence for living things, it then has to provide a start or have a starting situation that it then latches onto. And, having God do the intial start isn't allowed, because for one factual thing God wouldn't ever create a thing like evolution that porves He doesn't exist.

The situation involved is that a guy can rave on and on about how ultra-great his racing car is and all that it is going to do in making him rich, etc. and on to the stars in everything in the future. But, if he doesn't even have a racing car, his total spouting is just blowing in the breeze of fantasy and baloney.

The factual point is evolution doesn't have a start. No start - no evolution. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

OMG this guy is a super genius.

http://www.adelaider.com/forumimages/WTF/Clueometer.jpg

Oops, wrong meter...

[Cougar]

The directional formation involves the science impossibility of evolution to even start of its own. It factually cannot....
Again, you make claims but provide no evidence. Not only is yours an argument from incredulity, it is also an argument from ignorance, for you have obviously not read Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/?view=usa&ci=0195095995), which puts forward a very scientifically credible argument, backed by modeled chemical experiments. Dr. Kauffman shows that given nothing more than a certain threshold of molecular diversity, it is practically inevitable for living things to arise in simple form. It is abundantly clear from mountains of evidence that evolution then goes to work, naturally selecting those life forms best suited to survive and reproduce.

It is also apparent that you have neglected to read anything by Steven Jay Gould, who has pointed out:"Our world overflows with peculiar, otherwise senseless shapes and behaviors that function only to promote victory in the great game of mating and reproduction. No other world but Darwin's would fill nature with such curiosities that weaken species and hinder good design but bring success where it really matters in Darwin's universe alone -- passing more genes to future generations."

"Sexual selection is our most elegant confirmation of [Darwin's] central tenet that the struggle of individuals for reproductive success drives evolution... The proof that our world is Darwinian lies in the large set of adaptations* arising only because they enhance reproductive success but otherwise both hinder organisms and harm species."

* Such as the tail of the male peacock, as just one example.

[aurora]

And, having God do the intial start isn't allowed, because for one factual thing God wouldn't ever create a thing like evolution that porves He doesn't exist.


Strawman. Evolution proves no such thing.

The factual point is evolution doesn't have a start. No start - no evolution. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

Well, since biological evolution has been happening for over a billion years on Earth, I'd have to say that your belief that it is impossible is clearly incorrect.

Calling something that is clearly incorrect "factual" does not make it correct.

[hadji]

I'd just like to thank everyone for their welcoming me to the board. :-)

[AGN Fuel]

To AGN fuel (#26)

The directional formation involves the science impossibility of evolution to even start of its own. It factually cannot, and since it has to start on its own if it is to be a method of existence for living things, it then has to provide a start or have a starting situation that it then latches onto.

Curious. Who has made the claim that evolution "has to provide a start"? Evolution makes no claims about how life originally commenced. It describes the mechanism that drives biological variety.

By the way, I strongly suggest you read up on both the Strong Nuclear Force and the conditions present in stellar cores, before arguing that an atomic nucleus is an impossible assembly without supernatural assistance.


And, having God do the intial start isn't allowed, because for one factual thing God wouldn't ever create a thing like evolution that porves He doesn't exist.

This may be the most circular argument I have ever encountered (and possibly the most arrogant, given that to make this argument you must claim to know the mind of God). Let me paraphrase this line of reasoning: God can't start the process of evolution, because evolution would then disprove the existence of God, and He wouldn't want that.

So your 'scientific argument' that God exists boils down to that evolution must be wrong, because if it wasn't, then God wouldn't exist. Man, this belongs in a textbook somewhere on logical fallacies.

The situation involved is that a guy can rave on and on about how ultra-great his racing car is and all that it is going to do in making him rich, etc. and on to the stars in everything in the future. But, if he doesn't even have a racing car, his total spouting is just blowing in the breeze of fantasy and baloney.

Are we back onto your Buick?

The factual point is evolution doesn't have a start. No start - no evolution. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

Piffle. Sorry, that should be PIFFLE.

[Tim Thompson]

The situation involved is that a guy can rave on and on ...
Ain't that the truth.

[BigDon]

According to the post count Mr. Crum has 48 posts. Anybody know where the rest of them are? This is amusing.

[AGN Fuel]

This is amusing.

Runs in the family perhaps? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098645/) ;)

[hhEb09'1]

According to the post count Mr. Crum has 48 posts. Anybody know where the rest of them are? This is amusing.They're all available when you click on his username, and choose Find Posts from the dropdown box

[Celestial Mechanic]

According to the post count Mr. Crum has 48 posts. Anybody know where the rest of them are? This is amusing.
I performed the check as hhEb09'1 suggested, and with the exception of one post in the "Is Gravity Energy?" thread, all of his posts are in this thread and the "Einstein is Factually Wrong Thread". ;)

[Maksutov]

[edit]It is a FACT that nuclei of atoms have like-charged protons in them and it takes "intent" and "force" to cause the objects in every single atom thatt exists to be compressed and bound together.Incorrect.

Simply put, a hydrogen atom is composed of a single negatively-charged electron circling a single positively-charged proton which is the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. The electron is bound to the proton by the Coulomb force.

Coulomb's law defines the magnitude and direction of electrostatic force that one small, stationary, electrically-charged object exerts on another. It is a classic inverse-square equation. If direction is not important, then the Coulomb force can be defined as a scalar.

For more complex atoms, i.e., helium et al (Z=2 and higher positive whole numbers that comprise the set of atomic numbers), then there are multiple instances of protons in the nucleus. Once again, simply put, these, along with neutrons, are held together by the strong nuclear forces. More specifically, the strong nuclear forces hold quarks together forming protons and neutrons. The weak nuclear forces are the agents by which beta particles are emitted from the nucleus during radioactive decay.

These are the forces at work in an atom.

Re "intent" there is no evidence of any. If you have evidence of such a thing please provide it. But first, please define "intent" in precise mathematical terms such that it can be measured if it exists.

[Cougar]

It is a FACT that nuclei of atoms have like-charged protons in them and it takes "intent" and "force" to cause the objects in every single atom thatt exists to be compressed and bound together.
As Maksutov implies, your claim of "intent" is baseless, unsupported, and rather ridiculous. There is a "force" that causes like-charged protons to come together and form heavier atoms. What is this mysterious, supernatural force? Well, it's not mysterious or supernatural at all. It's basically just high temperature. Using this basic knowledge and measuring the abundance of elements in distant primordial gas clouds, scientists were able to provide further confirmation for the big bang theory -- that the very early universe was extremely hot but cooling rapidly because it was also expanding. Further, measuring the ratio of H to He allowed clever scientists to calculate the baryonic fraction in the early universe.

[pghnative]

To StevenCrum,

If you were afflicted with tuberculosis, would you want to take the medicine that was used 30 years ago, or would you rather take the medicine that's used to combat tuberculosis today?

You see, the TB germ has evolved in the last few decades to be resistant to the old drugs.

Do you still think evolution is FACTUALLY FALSE?

[Astrowannabe]

I wonder if SteveCrum would be interested in my "factual, 100% scientifically proven, your stupid if you don't believe me therefore I'm right", proof that God doesn't exist. Somehow I doubt it.

I also find it interesting that almost everyone who posts topics along this nature refuse to respond to any questions we direct back at them, and instead just repeat the exact same argument post after post. I would really love for Steve to respond to just a few points that people here have made. Not sure if he will though.

Edit: For instance, the post right above mine #83. Care to respond to that one Steve?

[Maksutov]

I'd just like to thank everyone for their welcoming me to the board. :-)Somehow I missed posting such a greeting.

Welcome to the BAUT BB, hadji! Be sure to check out the FAQs (http://www.bautforum.com/faq.php) and have fun! http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif

[Doodler]

I'd just like to thank everyone for their welcoming me to the board. :-)


Welcome aboard, please note the locations of the exits in the event of an emergency, be sure your strapped in (straightjackets are such a pain, aren't they?), and don't feed the trolls (unless its laced with something amusing). :p

[Cougar]

I wonder if SteveCrum would be interested in my "factual, 100% scientifically proven, your stupid if you don't believe me therefore I'm right", proof that God doesn't exist. Somehow I doubt it.
A very good summation of what we're dealing with here, Astro! It's always hard to figure out how best to respond to people like SteveCrum. I think you've nailed it for pertinence and efficiency.

[Doodler]

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060922_cricket_mating.html Evolution at work, my friends, evolution at work.

[Swift]

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060922_cricket_mating.htmlEvolution at work, my friends, evolution at work.
Doodler, your link isn't working. I wonder if this is the one (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060922_cricket_mating.html) you meant. Even if not, a good example of evolution in action and observed by scientists.
In just a few generations, the male crickets on Kauai underwent a drastic genetic change that rendered them incapable of belting out courtship songs, according to a new study.

[Doodler]

That's the one, damned website had a brainfart on me, and refused to do anything when I tried to fix it.

Thanks for the correction.

[Swift]

Doodler, your link isn't working. I wonder if this is the one (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060922_cricket_mating.html) you meant. Even if not, a good example of evolution in action and observed by scientists.
StevenCrum, I would ask that you review the article at the link and explain how these crickets changed if evolution does not exist.

[Grand_Lunar]

Any claim that evolution has been deliberately 'leading up' to Homo sapiens over the past 3.5 billion years is anthropocentric hubris at best, and dishonestly misleading at worst.

Indeed.
While our brains are highly powered, the rest of the body is not, and is exceeded by many animals.

For instance, there's the infamous fact that sharks are resistent to cancer, even when injected with carcinigens.
And recently, alligators have been shown to have an immune system capable of killing HIV.

If humans are the end product, why don't we share these characteristics to better ensure our survival?

[cjbirch]

For instance, there's the infamous fact that sharks are resistent to cancer, even when injected with carcinigens.


This is more along the lines of an anecdotal misconception, rather than scientific fact.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0820_030820_sharkcancer.html

CJ

[Grand_Lunar]

What's not mentioned are experiments in the 1970s, where sharks (or skates, I'd have to see the program again) were injected with known carcinigens.
They did not get cancer.

And note I said resistent, which is not the same as saying they don't get it.

I am also very much aware of one case of a shark caught that did have a large tumor.

[Gillianren]

There have been documented cases of sharks with cancer of the cartilage.

[Grand_Lunar]

Interesting.

Still, given those experiments in the seventies, it still seems those fish have something special about them.

[Bignose]

Can you document the study any better than "those experiments in the seventies" ? i.e. a citation in a peer-reviewed journal?

Otherwise, there is mountains of evidence that this is just myth:

Discovery of shark cancer" http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bz050/sharksgetcancer.html

"Alternative cancer cures are a myth"
http://www.pjonline.com/pdf/articles/pj_20...ancer%20myth%22

"Shark cartilage, cancer and the growing threat of pseudoscience." Ostrander et al. Cancer Research 2004.
from the article:

"The promotion of crude shark cartilage extracts as a cure for cancer has contributed to at least two significant negative outcomes: a dramatic decline in shark populations and a diversion of patients from effective cancer treatments. An alleged lack of cancer in sharks constitutes a key justification for its use. Herein, both malignant and benign neoplasms of sharks and their relatives are described, including previously unreported cases from the Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals, and two sharks with two cancers each. "


"Deflating the myth of sharks and cancer" by J. O'Neil. New York Times 18 April 2004

from the AAAS, (American Association for the Advancement of Science) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/288/5464/259d

from this "Gary Ostrander of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and John Harshberger of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., say they found at least 40 cancer cases in sharks and their close relatives after surveying scientific papers and fish tumor samples from the National Cancer Institute's Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals. The cases included three cartilage cancers. The findings were announced last week in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research."

At least 40 cases of cancer in sharks ... includ[ing] three cartilage cancers

There is a lot of evidence that sharks get cancer, and none that I could find from any reputable source that shows sharks do not.

[PhantomWolf]

StevenCrum, I would ask that you review the article at the link and explain how these crickets changed if evolution does not exist.

I think what'll you find is that he'll say this is a case of adaptation within a species rather than evolution from one species to another. The Crickets are still crickets, and still mate with others of their species, so all that has happened is that what had previously been a genetic minority in the species has become genetic majority due to the loss of a large amount of genetic information, something that would eventually lead to the extinction of this species, rather then a prolification of a new species. At least that's sort of what I'm betting he'd tell you, from a Creationist POV.

[Tensor]

[B]StevenCrum, I would ask that you review

...snip

At least that's sort of what I'm betting he'd tell you, from a Creationist POV.


Hmmmmm, seems you've been practicing. Thinking of switching side, hmmmmmmm. :p

[Celestial Mechanic]

Can this thread be said to have "jumped the shark"? ;)

[ggremlin]

Here you go:

Not just any Jump the Shark, THE ONE (http://www.jumptheshark.com/j/jabberjaw.htm)

[MrClean]

That's just great, Sharks didn't use to get cancer till we injected them, now they're riddled with it.

If thats not proof of a creator.....

[Grand_Lunar]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you document the study any better than "those experiments in the seventies" ? i.e. a citation in a peer-reviewed journal?


Not in a journal, no.
I got the info from a DVD that had an episode from 'Shark Week', entitled "Future Shark".

Well, I seem to have probably fallen for the myth as well.
Is it more correct to say then that sharks have a low incidence of cancer?

[captain swoop]

lower than what though? other fish?

[Jakenorrish]

So if evolution is impossible, can you explain the many millions of different fossils that we've found Mr Crum?

[Grand_Lunar]

lower than what though? other fish?


Humans, maybe.

Then again, they do live in a different enviroment than humans.

I think I know of the situation I'm experiencing. Cognetive disassociation? Having one's long held beliefs broken down?

Well, even with the new knowledge of sharks not really being immune to cancer, that doesn't make them any less facinating.

[Maksutov]

Hmmmmm, seems you've been practicing. Thinking of switching side, hmmmmmmm. :pNah, he can't do that. Think how lonely Sticks and SeanF would feel!

Rather than practicing, it's probably more a case of playing devil's advocate. After all, the base subject is Evilution! http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

[antoniseb]

I'm closing this thread, so that StevenCrum can focus all of his attention here on the 1905 Einstein paper.