• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Dover Penn ID trial

Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper. Today's editorial cartoon?


dickwright.gif



So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?
 
Melendwyr said:
Write in and complain. Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance. It's the perfect setup, after all.
Click to expand...
I've already been looking online to do so. Looks like I actually have to put pen to parchment, though...but thanks for the Dawkins tip--I had gone a completely different direction.
 
These zealots sicken me. This is just ignorance. that link about the discovery institute makes me VERY angry. All the valid arguement goes out the window in the end and the final say is because of their belief. Belief based on assumptions. I do not like religions.

Welcome to the dark ages.
 
ID/Evolution/Big bang

My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?
:boxedin:
 
The one I tend to think is easiest is the "always there" for matter. Of course, the closer you get to t=0, the weirder t gets. As I understand it, the idea of creation ex nihilo having a place in science is a creation ex nihilo by religion.
 
teacher said:
My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?
:boxedin:
Click to expand...
Very Very quick response...the beginnings of the universe are not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

The formation of Stars & origin of heavy elements...is not something that is covered by natural selection.

The Origin of Life is not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term...

Teacher...each of these areas has scientific hypotheses attempting to explain them. They may be strongly supported, they may not. What they absolutely are not, is relevant whatsoever to Evolution by Natural Selection.

I don't know whether I addressed your question, but I thank you for letting me vent just a little bit more about mine...
 
Many thanks Bronzedog, that would make sense. Hope to join in a lot in future threads on various topics, and you seem to be a regular (2164 posts). Have some particular favourite topics, e.g. healing.
 
Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959. To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God. Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.
 
teacher said:
Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959.
Click to expand...
Mostly limericks, I assure you.
To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God.
Click to expand...
"Explains"? I think "I don't know" is the best that we have, although there are some promising possibilities. The possibilities are, IMO, plausible enough that the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of some supernatural force, but that is just my (correct) opinion.
Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.
Click to expand...
I (and most probably, "we") would love to hear your story!
 
Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?
 
Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion.










But I digress.

Another trippy thing I suddenly remembered hearing: Creation ex nihilo might be possible scientifically, after all: When you add it all up, the universe is nothing: All the forces and such cancel each other out. So, even starting with nothing, the universe still obeys conservation. Of course, I don't know if that's really true, or just one of those things some people randomly think up.



All this time and cosmology stuff makes my head hurt.
 
teacher said:
Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?
Click to expand...

It's 1.44 in the afternoon here (and a slow day), so I'll see if I can help.

a) Also interested in your story - perhaps the Forum Community one or even this one on how you came to be so many things! :)
b) The search function up the top is useful, although the
Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology forum area is good too as a start.
As for other theists, there's quite a nice bunch around here... I'm certain if you started up a) you'll find some reply to you. :) Otherwise I'll prod them with a stick or something, being a teacher myself and all. ;)
 
teacher said:
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Click to expand...
Hi, welcome.

As far as "healing" goes, that word covers a lot of things. Are we talking crystals? homeopathy? magnetic insoles?

Lots of things are called "healing" by their practitioners.
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?
Click to expand...
There are various theists and deists who post here: for example, I believe that a couple of the heros of the Homeopathy Wars have faith.

"Skeptics" is a loose term. I think that the mood of the forums is much more pro-science than anti-religion: and so as long as people find science to be compatible with religion, they're on my side.
 
BronzeDog said:
Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion
Click to expand...

I just didn't want my compliment of your lovely avatar to detract attention from my birthday present to you, a large iron coathanger. :) It's currently strung over the Sydney Harbour, let me know when you're coming to collect it! :)
 
Merc, don't forget to mention that the "complete void in space" has nothing to do with how we think our universe happened. So the artist must be talking about a different universe. Perhaps in that universe Swatches do evolve.

Hi, I'm an idiot. I have no idea about any of this stuff, so I think I'll draw a cartoon illustrating my ignorance. Then we can all laugh at ... evolution!

~~ Paul
 
Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.
 
Melendwyr said:
Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.
Click to expand...
What definition of natural selection are you using? Certainly not any that I am familiar with. Darwin's summary is:
IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

So...I don't see how this can possibly apply to the beginnings of the universe, the formation of stars, metals, etc., or even to abiogenesis. Only after these things have happened can we possibly have the IF conditions which define natural selection.

I look forward to your explanation.
 
Upchurch said:
How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.
Click to expand...
As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars.

I wouldn't use the term natural selection for this, just because it causes confusion with a term that already has the world confused. But it's something similar to selection. I'd also avoid using the term evolution in other contexts.

~~ Paul
 
Upchurch said:
How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.
 
Melendwyr said:
No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.
Click to expand...
So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.
 
Mercutio said:
So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.
Click to expand...
Or anyone else's, for that matter, since it completely leaves out the mechanism in natural selection that interrupts "the persistance of arrangements".

Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?
 
Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.

Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?
Click to expand...
In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul
 
What I noted was the very first sentence of the cartoon:

Once upon a time, there was a complete void in space.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any currently supported theory that includes this. Any that I have heard of make it quite clear that time, space, and matter are all related. Time could not exist without the other two, therefore there was no time before the existance of matter.

It's just bad form to begin any point with a faulty model of the opposing view. I believe there's a word for that, starts with a straw- and ends with a -man :)
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.


In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.

Living organisms persist only if they can continue to accrue energy. The original competition was in who could actually reproduce, and at that time the only energy was in other organic molecules. The original was chemical evolution by sustained reaction. The more molecules that accrued, the more chance of persisting; rather the antithesis of rocks being beaten down. It would be as if rough rocks had a better chance of washing downstream; you would end up with more rough rocks than not in a given environment. The rounding is not a selection pressure; the differential is.

Now, this is not to say sedimentation is evolution; it represents a selection pressure. A sieve in sand is similar in this regard, as there are some grains that get past while some do not. But this is only part of the equation; it is selection pressure, it is not evolution. Evolution comes about when there is more than one molecule vying for available energy as a means of survival. The larger ones persist, then the ones that can fold so they are harder to break apart, then the ones of those that can more efficiently fold and unfold with temperature changes to both guard and assemble more energy. Eventually, some have folding sequences that curve and actually cover other sequences during vulnerable times, or that form a ribozyme that clips at other sequences (the first predator).

From there it is steps along the way, with selection pressure being the gate, but mutation and reproduction being the driving force to create a new generation. Without change, a new selection pressure could cause an end to this process. Without reproduction, the process stops.
 
Mercutio said:
Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper. Today's editorial cartoon?


dickwright.gif



So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?
Click to expand...
They left out the last line: "That one REALLY shows my total ignorance!"
 
PatKelley said:
I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.
Click to expand...
Well, the ones that can't see above themselves are beaten down by falling rocks, right? Yes, I understand that "selection pressure" does not mean physical pressure.

~~ Paul
 
Mercutio said:
So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.
Click to expand...
(raises eyebrow) Darwin was addressing the subject of change in biological organisms. Not surprisingly, he was concerned with selection pressures that operate on biological organisms.

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.
 
I gave several examples above. We are not saying that other forms of selection are exactly the same sort of thing as biological natural selection, but they are forms of pressure and selection. Dust and rocks in the appropriate orbits are selected to become planetoids. The other dust stays dust. Water that follows depressions collects into rivulets and then streams. The other water simply evaporates. The right sort of crystals replicate; the rest crumble apart.

It must be the case the non-life undergoes pressure and selection, or life would not have gotten started in the first place.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom