[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

They are all realists. What is 'real' is determined by each individual. There is no such thing as a Universal 'real'.

Yes there is. If a piano fell out of a building on to me then everyone would think it was real. Nobody could determine the piano away.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

They are all realists. What is 'real' is determined by each individual. There is no such thing as a Universal 'real'.

What is real is that there is no empirical evidence for or against the existence of a creator, just as there is no way to know for certain whether it will or will not rain a week from now.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

If the Earth is the center of the universe then why did god wait billions of yours before he created us?

OH, no, only six days, remember?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Gravity is universally real. The elements are universally real.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

And the other examples?

Here's an interesting one: Is a polar bear the same species, or a different species from the grizzly bear? The two, er, types of creatures are separated by about 70,000 years of evolution.

Not long enough for the polar bear to no longer be a bear, but long enough that the two specie,... I mean types of animals can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

OH, no, only six days, remember?

Yes but a day can be millions and millions of years!

 

[Logicman]

Re: Darwinism Descending

No, it is YOU that kicking the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the curb. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy must always increase or stay the same in any given system.

Wrong. Entropy is continuing in the universe.

Our biology textbook in college ("The Unity and Diversity of Life") stated that entropy is continuing to occur in the universe, and it will until total entropy ( final entropy) has occurred, with stars dying out, etc. At that time the mean temperature of the universe will approach absolute zero. The text estimated that will occur in 10-15 billion years from now.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Here's an interesting one: Is a polar bear the same species, or a different species from the grizzly bear? The two, er, types of creatures are separated by about 70,000 years of evolution.

Not long enough for the polar bear to no longer be a bear, but long enough that the two specie,... I mean types of animals can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring.

Actually the 2 species can and do interbreed in the wild occaisionally.

The real world does not fit into our definitions smoothly.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Wrong. Entropy is continuing in the universe.

Our biology textbook in college ("The Unity and Diversity of Life") stated that entropy is continuing to occur in the universe, and it will until total entropy ( final entropy) has occurred, with stars dying out, etc. At that time the mean temperature of the universe will approach absolute zero. The text estimated that will occur in 10-15 billion years from now.

You have no clue about what you speak.

Entropy is increasing. Continuing to increase. It cannot be otherwise.

Temperature is s sort of entropy. Sort of.

The expansion of the universe will result in a very cold state at the end of time which will be considerably beyond the time frame you have given.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Actually the 2 species can and do interbreed in the wild occaisionally.

The real world does not fit into our definitions smoothly.

That does happen now and again. So, are they two species, or sub species? There is a lack of agreement on that one.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You have no clue about what you speak.

Entropy is increasing. Continuing to increase. It cannot be otherwise.

Temperature is s sort of entropy. Sort of.

The expansion of the universe will result in a very cold state at the end of time which will be considerably beyond the time frame you have given.

Let me guess, someone said that 2LoT says that Entropy increases so Evolution is impossible because it reduces Entropy?



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Here's an interesting one: Is a polar bear the same species, or a different species from the grizzly bear? The two, er, types of creatures are separated by about 70,000 years of evolution.

Not long enough for the polar bear to no longer be a bear, but long enough that the two specie,... I mean types of animals can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring.

But are they of the same "kind" ?

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Due to the length of your posts, I must cut out much of your rant. Please shorten your posts....

Then shorten yours.

You mean of course, you cut out the bits you didn't understand...now to address your rants...

...the Theory of Creation is a theory, just not a scientific one....

There is NO theory of creation, to Christians/Jews/Muslims, it is a truth, a fact.
"God did it in 6 days (the end)"

...you are describing fundamentalists of Christianity. The Theory of Creation is not falsifiable....

If it is not scientific, how can it be a "theory". Do you actually know what "theory" is ?

This is because of the way everyone uses the word "theory" - like a general guess or assumption.

...there are many creationists that have never even read the Bible and who do not believe in Jesus Christ at all....

Correct, these include orthodox Jews and Muslims.

Other religions have their own creationist myths but I was speaking specifically about Christians.

...the Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. That intelligence need not be a god or gods at all. Christianity is only one form of this theory....

Creationism is not a theory - because it is not scientific. Those who believe in a creation event believe in it as FACT not "theory".

And if there was an intelligence capable of creating the universe, what is the difference between that and a god ?

...I never claimed that the Theory of Creation is a theory of science....

If it's not scientific, it's just a religious belief....a belief of FACT

Calling it a "theory" is disingenuous.

...science is not scientists. It is not any credential, university, government agency, society, academy, peer review board, or even people at all. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Anyone can form such a theory and test it. There is no 'elite' voting on whether a theory is a scientific one. The only requirement is that the theory must be falsifiable and be able to withstand tests upon its null hypothesis....

No, science is a METHOD

It is the means to forming theory.

Sure anyone can think up a hypothesis...but unless they are capable of using scientific method (ie be scientists) they can't produce anything meaningful.

Today, what we call scientific theory has broad, global support before textbooks worldwide are printed supporting it.

...this is showing that you are a fundamentalist, for you are continually making circular argument fallacies about these theories. These theories are concerning past unobserved events. The only test for such a theory is to go back in time to see what actually happened. They are not testable. They are not falsifiable....

Wrong!

Just because they are based on past events does NOT mean we can't form theory on them. It does not mean we can't gather and study evidence from them.

You don't have the understanding of what scientific theory is much less what the Big Bang and Evolution theories are.

Both are DEFINITELY falsifiable. We could find evidence that falsifies either.

Just because you're incapable of understanding this, doesn't make you right. You and your rants are completely wrong....on everything you've said so far.

...then it's falsified. Everyone has TWO parents. Oops....

OMG you don't even understand what "common ancestor" means.

And you accuse me of "ranting".

...are ancestors all had chromosomes that are not present in any of us....

No they don't...if we somehow "lost" a chromosome, it would be fatal.

Your rants produce yet another fallacy

...the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. It is not a theory of science. All theories of science must be falsifiable.

All scientific theories MUST be falsifiable.

That is why the theory of evolution is scientific - because it is falsifiable (along with meeting other scientific criteria).


You are just ranting about something you don't actually know anything about.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

This forum has space limitations on posts. Please shorten your rants....

It seems to have space enough to accommodate your many, many rants.

When you post rubbish (of which all your posts seem to be), be prepared to be rebuffed.

...they must. Otherwise there is nothing worth investigating. The investigation centers around linking a suspect with the crime (or finding a suspect in the first place). These investigations involve a whole set of theories. They must be falsifiable ones. How the crime and suspect are linked must be speculated. The event was not observed. It is for the jury to decide. That's why we HAVE juries....

A CSI investigation never makes an assumption that a crime has been committed. Although I grant you it is frequently self-evident.

The investigation is there to help determine how an event occurred. It could be that the event was the result of an accident.

Juries don't decide what happened - they are a very flawed part of criminal justice - they decide if enough proof exists to support the prosecuting case.

Indeed the USA is one of the few places in the world where the archaic jury trial is still retained and even then in many, many cases no trial or jury is required.

...not supporting evidence, no. Only conflicting evidence is used in science....

You are a joke.

Supporting evidence not used in science!!!!!!
So if a scientist performs an experiment and the reults support his hypothesis...he ignores them ?

You have zero idea of what you're talking about Mr Rant.

...Redefinition fallacy. An agnostic believes, but cannot describe the character or nature of any god or gods. They ARE a theist....

An Agnostic believes ?
SMH

You don't understand what the "A" means ?

An Agnostic is a Theist ?

You really don't know what you're talking about. FYI - an Agnostics doesn't know if there is a god(s)...he//she wonders if god exists. A theist believes 100% (in their own mind) that god exists.

...anyone that attempts to prove any religion or even no religion is making a circular argument fallacy. They are fundamentalists.

No
By that standard, every theist is a fundamentalist

Again more uninformed ranting from you.

...it is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods...

Yes it is.

For instance if god came back to Earth...that would be proof enough for most.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Darwinism Descending

...

Our biology textbook in college ("The Unity and Diversity of Life") stated that entropy is continuing to occur in the universe, and it will until total entropy ( final entropy) has occurred, with stars dying out, etc. At that time the mean temperature of the universe will approach absolute zero. The text estimated that will occur in 10-15 billion years from now.

The universe is perhaps 13-15 billion years old.

Whoooaaahh we're half way there
Oh-oh
Livin' on a prayer...

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

That does happen now and again. So, are they two species, or sub species? There is a lack of agreement on that one.

Yes, as I said, biology not fitting in with our definitions.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You have no clue about what you speak.

Entropy is increasing. Continuing to increase. It cannot be otherwise.

Temperature is s sort of entropy. Sort of.

The expansion of the universe will result in a very cold state at the end of time which will be considerably beyond the time frame you have given.

It's like I said, if entropy is presently occurring in the universe, the universe cannot be infinitely old.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Darwinism Descending

It's like I said, if entropy is presently occurring in the universe, the universe cannot be infinitely old.

1, You did not say that;

Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
Wrong. Entropy is continuing in the universe.

Our biology textbook in college ("The Unity and Diversity of Life") stated that entropy is continuing to occur in the universe, and it will until total entropy ( final entropy) has occurred, with stars dying out, etc. At that time the mean temperature of the universe will approach absolute zero. The text estimated that will occur in 10-15 billion years from now.

2, Yes, the universe is not infinitely old. Although if there were some process that reduced entropy that would not be the reason why. Although, again, our present understanding is that entropy cannot decrease.

3, Given that you understand that there is a general rate of increase of entropy you must thus understand that the universe is obviously neither infinately old nor all that young. You have just shown that you understand that the universe is billions of years old.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Darwinism Descending

1, You did not say that;
2, Yes, the universe is not infinitely old. Although if there were some process that reduced entropy that would not be the reason why. Although, again, our present understanding is that entropy cannot decrease.

3, Given that you understand that there is a general rate of increase of entropy you must thus understand that the universe is obviously neither infinately old nor all that young. You have just shown that you understand that the universe is billions of years old

tsk tsk...

In the end, entropy is going to decrease when it has finished its job and the universe is dead.

And so what if I understand that the universe is billions of years old? Why is that news to you?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Yes, as I said, biology not fitting in with our definitions.

There is not always a clear line between one species and a related species.

That's because of the gradual changes over time of course.

here's an example of an even rarer hybrid:

Last year, a team of scientists spotted what they believed was a hybrid animal off the coast of Kauai, Hawaii. A new report from Cascadia Research Collective confirms they did -- and the new sea creature is the result of two distinct dolphin species mating.

What the researchers discovered was a hybrid of a melon-headed dolphin (also known as the melon-headed whale) and a rough-toothed dolphin. In an interview with local newspaper The Garden Island, the head of the project said the discovery is their "most unusual finding."

 

[Daisy]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

There is not always a clear line between one species and a related species.

That's because of the gradual changes over time of course.

here's an example of an even rarer hybrid:

There is a very distinct boundary that God has set...when they cannot reproduce...a "kind" stays within its "kind"...

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

There is a very distinct boundary that God has set...when they cannot reproduce...a "kind" stays within its "kind"...

No, there is no distinct boundary. There is just a series of gradual changes.

Where is the boundary between blue and red in this illustration?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

There is no such thing as "theory of creation."

Yes there is. The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of an intelligence.

It is not a theory of science. It is about a past unobserved event. There is no available test of the null hypothesis of that theory.
A god or gods is not required to be the creator for the Theory of Creation either.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

There is so much nonsense above that it's not worth addressing it. I will, instead, just concentrate on the most obviously wrong bit of foolishness:


What in the name of Gaea and Allah do you think supports any scientific theory?

The theory itself. Science does not use supporting evidence.

Is that why you think there is a "theory of creation," because there is no supporting evidence for it at all?

A theory does not require supporting evidence. In the case of the Theory of Creation, life itself is supporting evidence. The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science, just like the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of Evolution. NONE of them are theories of science.

None of them are falsifiable.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

lol...that is a statement easy enough to prove wrong...ever heard of google?

https://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.php

The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. Nothing about this theory requires any god or gods. This theory is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable.

The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life arrived on Earth through the means of a sequence of random unspecified events. It is also not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable.

We can't go back to look and test the null hypothesis of either theory.