Author Topic: The Probability of the Big Bang  (Read 29309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4847
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #203 on: March 14, 2012, 08:14:26 PM »
So you admit that you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats not enough to convict someone in a murder trial so its not enough for me.
First off, I see you carefully neglected to answer my point about the nature of this site, meaning that this accusation is a strawman.  You're pretending that someone admitting that they can't explain the step-by-step process of one organism evolving into another is important, despite the fact that they made it clear that there were other sites and people to go to which could explain that process in much greater detail.  Second, your analogy is bad.  We aren't talking about a murder trial, which operates under different rules to begin with.  Third, your argument boils down to the idea that someone who has a basic familiarity with criminal justice laws but hasn't studied them formally should be able to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt or else the evidence wasn't sufficient, even though someone who has formally studied criminal justice law would be able to do so much more handily.

Quote from: jakec47
I like how you use theory..."a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Dictionary.com. So you can't prove anything, you can only theorize.
This is such a common fallacy of creationists that it's actually amusing to see someone doing it so ineptly.  Also, it's blatantly obvious that you're cherry-picking definitions, since you skipped the first one on the list on the very site you linked to.  Theory:  "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity"[1].  Come on, did you really think I wouldn't notice?

Quote from: jakec47
God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.
You do know what an "analogy" is, right?  Go look it up if you don't.

Also, your idea that God created the universe is a postulate.  That is, an idea you have which is based on nothing but an assumption (and has never been based on anything but an assumption no matter who says it).  It is also a synonym for the definition of "theory" you just quoted.

Quote from: jakec47
Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?
The depths of ignorance you reveal by this absurd statement do more damage to your own case than any rebuttal I could possibly have made.  You just clearly and unambiguously demonstrated that you don't have even the first idea of how evolution works.  And to think, you actually believe you can counter evolutionary theory with such nonsensical arguments as comparing evolutionary theory to a murder trial, deliberately citing the wrong definition of the word theory and expecting people to believe you, completely misunderstanding an analogy to be serious, and pretending that evolution should grant invulnerability because people get wounded.

Also, I note that you dodged answering my questions about probability (implying that you can't answer), even though you responded to most everything else.  I'll restate them, to give you the chance to show that you are not ignorant about probability, as you have clearly proved yourself to be about evolution:

1.  How many people do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 50%?
2.  How many do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 99%?
3.  How high do the odds need to be for you to consider them to be impossible?
 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory]]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #204 on: March 14, 2012, 08:18:15 PM »
I think it was Aaron who called it earlier; he's arguing from incredulum. God of the gaps. He cannot fathom being wrong, because he doesnt understand how small his gaps really are in the light of science. He's hopelessly brainwashed to see only what he's been told he should see.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #205 on: March 14, 2012, 08:23:04 PM »
^^Agreed. It is why I think he should start at the beginning. Obviously his statement in the When Is the Return of Christ  thread which is similar to the op of this thread, indicates confusion as to what evolution is.

If we can take things one point at a time, starting at the most basic level, maybe we can help him and rock get a better understanding.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #206 on: March 14, 2012, 08:33:24 PM »
The problem with that, mm, is that I suspect neither of them wants or expects to learn anything. They already believe they have all the answers.

Tragic, really.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #207 on: March 14, 2012, 08:38:36 PM »
You may be right, and I suspect you are. Thought I'd give it a try, anyways. Not one single creationist since 2009, that I have seen, will walk through it from the beginning. But there could be a first.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jakec47

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Darwins +4/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #208 on: March 14, 2012, 08:47:42 PM »
Quote
First off, I see you carefully neglected to answer my point about the nature of this site



I didn't neglect anything, you weren't talking to me.

This is such a common fallacy of creationists that it's actually amusing to see someone doing it so ineptly.  Also, it's blatantly obvious that you're cherry-picking definitions, since you skipped the first one on the list on the very site you linked to.  Theory:  "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity"[1].  Come on, did you really think I wouldn't notice?
[\quote]

Very good, I have to commend you for that, I really didn't think you would actually go and check that, but nonetheless, it is still a definition of the word, and notice inside your definition "commonly regarded as correct" so it is regarded as correct not actually correct. But seriously nice job, I'm going to have to give you some karma points for that.

Also, your idea that God created the universe is a postulate.  That is, an idea you have which is based on nothing but an assumption (and has never been based on anything but an assumption no matter who says it).  It is also a synonym for the definition of "theory" you just quoted.
[\quote]

I wouldn't say I didn't base it off anything, however I can base it off the Bible, but using logic I can see that it makes sense. And correct again it is a definition of theory.

The depths of ignorance you reveal by this absurd statement do more damage to your own case than any rebuttal I could possibly have made.  You just clearly and unambiguously demonstrated that you don't have even the first idea of how evolution works.  And to think, you actually believe you can counter evolutionary theory with such nonsensical arguments as comparing evolutionary theory to a murder trial, deliberately citing the wrong definition of the word theory and expecting people to believe you, completely misunderstanding an analogy to be serious, and pretending that evolution should grant invulnerability because people get wounded.
[\quote]

Perhaps if I said natural selection, maybe not I've never really studied to much on the theories. So many words. The only words the Bible says are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Why couldn't the scientific theories on the origin of the world be so simple.

Also, I note that you dodged answering my questions about probability (implying that you can't answer), even though you responded to most everything else.  I'll restate them, to give you the chance to show that you are not ignorant about probability, as you have clearly proved yourself to be about evolution:

1.  How many people do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 50%?
2.  How many do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 99%?
3.  How high do the odds need to be for you to consider them to be impossible?

Again I did not dodge your question because you were not asking me. However I'm sure that the amount of people needed in a room to have those probabilities is probably not very high. And I generally consider impossible to be a 0% chance. If I have a box with 6 green balls in and I try for a yellow ball it is impossible for me to get it. (Note I did not give such an elementary example because I think its all you could understand I just added it for ease of reference to what I was thinking, simplest way I could put it).

You may be right, and I suspect you are. Thought I'd give it a try, anyways. Not one single creationist since 2009, that I have seen, will walk through it from the beginning. But there could be a first.

Oh and I'd be very grateful if you would explain that to me, in a message would be the most effective.

And excuse the horrendous looking quote mess. I don't know what happened to it and i tried to fix it but whatever.
 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory]]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 08:52:43 PM by jakec47 »

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #209 on: March 14, 2012, 08:51:44 PM »
^^^I'm referring to the fact that not one single creationist that I have seen will start at the basics and work through it a step at a time. This way we can see where there is a misunderstanding.

Let's start with the basics.
There are three main components of evolution.

1) heritability
2) mutation
3) natural selection

Which of these would you deny, and why?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #210 on: March 14, 2012, 08:57:46 PM »
And to think, that's the edit of his post...

Jake, you might want to fix the quotes there.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6371
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #211 on: March 14, 2012, 09:02:47 PM »
Of course its stupid, just like your theories. But in reality, small guns wont kill a Grizzly Bear because of how thick their skin is, if you hit a Grizzly Bear in the head with a baseball bat it would do nothing, their skulls are harder. So if they have such hard skulls does that mean that in order for that to happen they had to have been two mutations one with hard skin and one with soft and the soft skins died and no we only have the hards. So what of humans, why do defects still exist, why aren't they being put out like the other problems. Humans have been here for a long time and yet it seems we have not gotten stronger but in fact weaker then our ancestors.

Okay, you need to bear with me on this. And that's not a pun.

I just accidentally gave you a thumbs up when I meant a thumbs down. So you owe me.

What you wrote in the above shows that you have no idea what evolution is. You seem to think it is a process that has defined purposes, like making humans more invulnerable. That's for comic books, not real life. Before a human could become safe from gunshots and baseball bats, we would have to slowly evolve some sort of thick skin that protected us. And that developing thick skin would have to be at least neutral in it's effect on the life of the individual who underwent the genetic change. If it made them more vulnerable for other reasons (made cracking noises while trying to cut in line at the grocery store or caused incredibly more obvious tan lines and turned the girls off), then the thicker skin would be detrimental.

And that thicker skin would be an accident, not a response to bullets and bats. And such a variation would have to occur at a time in history when we're shooting each other and wielding large wooden clubs. If it evolved right after the hippies won the culture war and all we did all day was hug each other and have sex, it probably wouldn't take long for folks to decide that old thick-skin Eddie is no fun in either activity and he probably wouldn't get a chance to reproduce.

You are not taking into consideration several things. Time, measured in millions of years and including tens of thousands of generations, at least. And you're not taking into consideration all the failed alterations. The frogs born with stronger legs but no webbed feet, the cows with bigger udders but fewer lactating glands so they make too little milk, the genetic change that might cause an elephant or a cat have fragile cartilage, which would fail when too much pressure was put on it by muscles. Scads of critters had potentially evolutionary changes, but they didn't survive long enough to procreate, or if they did, their kids didn't do so well. The changes that we are talking about were completely random, and just like being lucky and having some dude accidentally give you a thumbs up, at times it works out to the individual's advantage. Most of the time it doesn't.

So the short answer. Vulnerabilities still exist in humans because a) no random mutation that would make us less vulnerable to various threats has yet occurred and b) in those rare instances where a mutation might be advantageous (six fingers, so you can grab a sword blade swung at you and still have one or two fingers left) might happen in the wrong environmental conditions. Six fingered people might die of frostbite because they can't get gloves that fit. (There are six and seven fingered and toed people, by the way. They evolved. A change that is generally neutral. Or slightly less so, if potential mates are put off by the extra digits.)

Evolution is not guided. It is a by-product. Until you can understand that basic fact, you are easy to confuse with creationist drivel. And evolution does not have a purpose. Sh*t happens, and sometimes it doesn't stink as bad and we benefit. Most of the time it is useless, if not downright bad. The only thing going for us is sheer numbers, both in population and time, measured in years and generations.

A god that put you on a planet that is 75% water, has high cliffs and big predators and didn't take that into consideration when he gave you air breathing lungs, non-gravity proof bones and skin, nor built in 50 caliber machine guns isn't much of a god. If he wants me to love him but I drown in the tub when I'm three, he's out one loving soul. If he wants me to love him but I fall off the roof when I'm 15, he's lost another. If he wants me to love him and a bengal tiger has me for lunch, he's out of luck again. But each of those vulnerabilities is completely understandable in a world that was created without purpose. It just happened. Hence you just happened and I just happened. And we each have enough genetic differentiation that you can envision and believe in a god and I can't.

/end of lecture

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #212 on: March 14, 2012, 09:44:59 PM »
rockv12

What is your explanation for the many hundreds of thousands of biologists and geologists and paleontologists and archaeologists and other scientists all around the world spending their entire career working on something that you consider patently ridiculous?

It took me less than fifteen seconds to find a number of sources that describe how flight seems to have evolved.

Because nobody wants to believe in a God.  And there must be an answer!  Anything but God!  Numbers mean nothing to me.  The majority of people watch Fox News.  Do you?  Why not?  Most people do.

You found a website?  Great.  So did I.  I just read one actually.  NO answers, just theories.  They show a couple pictures of flying dinosaurs and speculate that these must have been where birds came from.  Nothing about the "real" questions...about the little steps.  And they bring up "why?"  Why did animals develop wings.  Think about the beneficial mutations that started the whole thing.....  We don't see any half winged creatures....not enough to make an ascertation about proof of evolution.  Just because there are different kinds of animals that have different features, means nothing. 

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4847
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #213 on: March 14, 2012, 09:55:19 PM »
I didn't neglect anything, you weren't talking to me.
I was trying to make a general point about the nature of this website, which is that it isn't made up of evolutionary biologists.

Quote from: jakec47
Very good, I have to commend you for that, I really didn't think you would actually go and check that, but nonetheless, it is still a definition of the word, and notice inside your definition "commonly regarded as correct" so it is regarded as correct not actually correct. But seriously nice job, I'm going to have to give you some karma points for that.
Most people on this site do actually at least look at the sources of someone's information, something to keep in mind.  And while you are correct that it is a definition of the word theory, that does not mean it is the correct definition used for scientific theories (which includes facilitated variation, evolution, and other such theories).  Also, "commonly regarded as correct", in this case, is the same as using 3.14 as the value for pi.  It is commonly regarded as correct, even though it is possible to be far more accurate than that (for example, a calculator will give the value 3.14159265, and pi has been calculated past a million digits), but for everyday practical purposes, 3.14 is correct enough.  The same principle applies to scientific theories.

Quote from: jakec47
I wouldn't say I didn't base it off anything, however I can base it off the Bible, but using logic I can see that it makes sense. And correct again it is a definition of theory.
Indeed.  One of the key mistakes many creationists make is the assumption that the Bible is an accurate depiction of events, when in fact many of the stories in it are metaphorical in nature.  Parables were a common thing in that day and age, and many stories commonly accepted as true in the Bible were the equivalent of parables - metaphorical stories meant to make a moral point, rather than literal retellings of history.

Quote from: jakec47
Perhaps if I said natural selection, maybe not I've never really studied to much on the theories. So many words. The only words the Bible says are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Why couldn't the scientific theories on the origin of the world be so simple.
First off, I'm glad for your honesty.  You have no idea how many people pretend that they understand something, when in fact they don't.  Being willing to admit that you don't understand something is one of the hardest things that anyone can do.  You deserve credit for being willing to make such an admission, especially in front of people who you disagree with so dramatically.

In answer to your statement, I actually do understand where you're coming from.  I work with a lot of people who don't really understand computers beyond how to use them, so I'm faced with the dilemma of trying to explain concepts which I understand because I've studied them, but are so much Greek to them.  What usually works is to relate the concepts to simpler things that they already understand, because they can then make the connection.  It isn't perfectly accurate, but it's good enough for someone who'll never have to make a living with computers.  Same thing goes with scientific theories like evolution which don't seem like they can be explained as simply as, say, gravity.

Quote from: jakec47
Again I did not dodge your question because you were not asking me. However I'm sure that the amount of people needed in a room to have those probabilities is probably not very high. And I generally consider impossible to be a 0% chance. If I have a box with 6 green balls in and I try for a yellow ball it is impossible for me to get it. (Note I did not give such an elementary example because I think its all you could understand I just added it for ease of reference to what I was thinking, simplest way I could put it).
For what it's worth, it takes only 23 people to have a 50% chance of two matching birthdays, and 57 to have a 99% chance.

Now, as for your example, that's a good way to define impossible.  And since simple examples are usually good, because they avoid ambiguities that cause confusion, let me compare evolution to a jigsaw puzzle.  Now, imagine that the pieces to the puzzle aren't all in a convenient box, but instead, they got scattered all over the place.  Many of them were destroyed - burned up, washed away, crushed into pieces, even eaten - and most of the remainder are buried underground and hard to find.  So, you've found some of the pieces, enough to start trying to put the puzzle pieces back together.  But you don't have the box, so you don't know what the picture is supposed to look like.  The only way you'll get anywhere is to start trying to put the pieces together, knowing that you might get it wrong and the pieces won't fit, but you can fix that once it happens.

Does that make sense?

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #214 on: March 14, 2012, 09:58:15 PM »
It's not necessary to throw your brain out if you are a scientist and still believe in some god.

See for example Francis Collins.

Science is a trade. You learn tools, you use them.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6371
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #215 on: March 14, 2012, 10:07:32 PM »
I can pretty much guarantee you dude, that atheists don't watch fox news. We prefer actual information. And luckily, we can find statistics to prove you are wrong about the majority of people watching it. Otherwise, Hitler would have been cloned and installed as president for life.

Luckily, more people watch CNBC. Not that they're great. But they aren't fox.

And since only about 20% of the US population is atheist or undecided on the god issue, it is unlikely that all of those scientists are atheists. Those that believe don't mind their god at all. They just want to know things too.

We are obviously not going to get you to give any serious consideration to evolution. Funny how a person who lives a life based on faith can demand absolute proof from those he disagrees with. Science doesn't demand absolute truth because we can never have enough information. Every week new discoveries alter old ones, in every field. Some new structure is found in cells, or a new instrument gives us more accurate and insightful readings of neuron activity in the brain. If we were so stupid as to think we knew everything, we would rebel against the new findings just as adamantly as you do with every fact you see. Instead, we learn to incorporate new knowledge, not hate it. We use it to adjust our version of reality to fit the new information. And we always keep an open mind about the new, because we know it will appear, regularly.

The only thing new that you will accept is your own interpretation of your religion. Each christian does it. Has their own version, that makes them feel best. Sometimes they keep it a secret and go to a church they don't entirely agree with. Other times they start their own version of worship and sometimes start their own church. Some count up to 38,000 different versions of christianity.

You guys are evolving. Becoming different species, if you will. Not biologically, but socially. And denying any such process could exist under any set of circumstances. The irony is delicious.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #216 on: March 14, 2012, 10:32:27 PM »
Why couldn't God use evolution?  I suppose He could have.  I don't think He did, but He could have.  I don't see how science and natural causes could have brought about such complexity that we see.  Yet, nobody can give me a step by step of how things evolved.  Simply guesses.
This is not the site to go to if you want someone who can explain the evolutionary process in exquisite step-by-step details to you.  You do notice that this site is WhyWon'tGodHealAmputees.com, not EverythingYouEverWantedToKnowAboutEvolution.org[1], right?  Many of us here are laymen who know enough about science to understand the basics, but lack the specific knowledge of particular fields such as evolution to be able to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote from: rockv12
Again, how did the middle ear ossicles form?  Does it seem rational to believe that evolution accidentally mutated a million times to create the middle ear ossicles?  The tympanic membrane?  The cochlea?  The semi-circular canals?
When you make claims like "it took a million accidental mutations to create body structure X", you prove all over again that you don't really understand evolution and that you aren't looking to even try to.  Evolution is still a work in progress, as are all theories.  For example, there's a relatively new sub-theory called facilitated variation which shows that you have constrained processes (which are basic functions like cell division) which are not subject to anything but accidental mutations (and rarely change as a result), and deconstrained processes which rapidly combine based on environmental pressures to adapt to them.  In other words, it modifies the standard view of evolution so that you no longer need many accidental changes over a great length of time, and more importantly, it fits observed facts such as explosions in variety after extinction events.

 1. the name is made up, but I'll bet someone's made a site like that

So you concede the question.  It's ok.  You can't know everything.  But it seems like you should have a basic understanding of the theory that you believe with all your heart and be able to answer the question, "How did this or that evolve".  Too many tough ones I guess.

Accidental mutations did end up being "x".  Every mutation is accidental....nothing plans to create the semi-circular canals or our vestibular system... The middle ear ossicles.  Another mind baffler is it?  Step-by-step.  You can do it.  Seems like its only nice and convenient to think about the big leaps involved, but forget that those big leaps also took little steps. 

Offline ILOVEYOU

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
  • Darwins +5/-76
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #217 on: March 14, 2012, 10:35:38 PM »
The probability is looking good so far..... wife permitting.   :)

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #218 on: March 14, 2012, 10:37:06 PM »

We are obviously not going to get you to give any serious consideration to evolution. Funny how a person who lives a life based on faith can demand absolute proof from those he disagrees with. Science doesn't demand absolute truth because we can never have enough information. Every week new discoveries alter old ones, in every field.

I just think if it's a "proven" theory, that there should be a lot more answers and logical explanations for the theory.  I pose some questions, and get, "Well, we just don't know everything, we are still learning."  But I ask the simple questions about the theory, not even the hard ones!!  You say that every week, there are new discoveries.  Ever think that someday we may understand how the supernatural world exists?  Ever think that those un-answered questions about evolution could also be unanswered questions regarding God?  You say in one sentence that I'm foolish to believe in something that we can't understand fully, but then turn around and believe in something that we don't fully understand....  Seems like we are a lot alike!

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #219 on: March 14, 2012, 10:56:20 PM »
You state that some dinosaurs had feathers.  What would this do?  Why would even a mutation that formed a bump on the arm (on it's way to being a feather) have benefited anything?  The rationale is NOT there.

Get this through your thick skull.  FEATHERS ALREADY EXISTED BEFORE FLIGHT.  Feathered dinosaurs existed.  Period.  We have the fossils.  We don't know how they first formed, one theory is that they are mutated reptile scales.  They probably served as either thermoregulators (just as feathers and fur do today) or for display (just like they do today) or both.

Some species had feathers all over their bodies, including their arms.

They ran, feathers benefited in gliding.  Evolution co-opted existing elements of the creature into novel functions.  THAT'S WHAT IT DOES.  New parts don't suddenly grow out of nothing, something ALREADY there is co-opted for something new.  By virtue of it happening to be BETTER.


You know how many mutations would have been needed for "flight" or "gliding" to take effect?  Lots and lots.  So on the way to "gliding", you have these odd looking bumps on the arms that are evolving for some reason on their way to feathers.

Your attempt at mockery is surprisingly close to what happened.  Good job.


 
I'm trying to get you to think about what you are saying.  But you take these enormous leaps and start talking about "gliding".  That's a million mutations beyond the first little phase that a creature would have taken on its long journey to flight.  Understand?  You make it sound soooo simple..."a lightweight animal spread it's arms and soon learned how to fly".  And where is this evidence?  Cuz' right now, it's simply a far-cry.

I do understand.  Your criticism is dead on.  Good job.  The only problem you miss is THAT WE HAVE FOSSILS OF FEATHERED DINOSAURS.  LOTS OF THEM, ACTUALLY.  It DID happen.  You might as well be incredulous of the Eiffel Tower.

Once you have gliding, you have a NATURAL SELECTION PRESSURE that rapidly pushes the population towards being better flyers.  Because gliding and eventually flying are HUGELY advantageous.  Better flyers survive much more often than bad flyers.

These small therapods had almost exactly the same bone structure as birds, and DID have modern flight-feathers, but they were dinosaurs.  A few million years later they were gone, and the first birds appeared.  Coincidence?
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #220 on: March 14, 2012, 10:57:58 PM »
<snip>
Ever think that someday we may understand how the supernatural world exists?
<snip>
Seems like we are a lot alike!

Before we attempt to understand a supernatural world, shouldn't we assert that such a world exists? A lot of members here, including myself, have been repeatedly asking you to prove the existence first and you were shamelessly dancing around evading the question. Emphasis is on the word "shameless".

We are not alike, we answer with honesty, if we dont know, we admit. You dont answer at all, if you dont know something or if you are simply stumped, you just do the shameless act of shifting the goal post.[1] Maybe being shameless is one possible evolutionary step, it is also referred to as being thick skinned.
 1. I can provide a dozen instances in this thread alone

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6371
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #221 on: March 14, 2012, 11:10:36 PM »
We are a lot alike, since we both evolved to this point  :D  Just kidding...

We are both human, but seem to have different brain cells firing. Or something. That's not all bad. If everyone was like me, I can assure you the death rate from boredom would be much higher. But it's too bad we are so far apart that some of us humans are willing to kill because of our beliefs. You and I don't fall into that camp, but it's always hard to know what the difference is between the civilized and the uncivilized.

One comment. Evolution, if true (and obviously I think it is) would inevitably be somewhere today. The ear could have formed some other way. We could all be deaf. We could have one eye or two more in the back of our head. We could have longer legs and T-rex arms, feathers for hair and pubic hair all over our faces. And you would be asking why we have pubic hair all over our faces with just much zeal as you ask now about bird wings. Where we are is where we are. It is the outcome of billions of accidental mutations. And also byproduct of many trillion more that didn't work, which means they had no affect on the present.

Perhaps when you are calmer about the subject you can read up on the Recurrent laryngeal nerve, a short and sensibly routed nerve in the fish it began in, and is a 15 foot monster of a nerve in the giraffe. In the early fishes, the nerve went from the brain, past the heart and to the gills. As critters that descended from that fish evolved, those of us who became mammals developed a rather nonsensical path for said nerve. It leaves our brain, goes down our neck, around our heart and back up to our throat. So we can do things like talk. Or in the case of animals, make throat noises of various sorts.

The same nerve, traced back through the generations, goes from being a short and sensible nerve that helped control the gills to a long, complex one that helps a giraffe go "huff", or whatever it is that giraffe's say. And it is 15 feet long, because it has to go down that long neck and back to the larynx. Very cool. Unless you insist on having a video. Which takes all the fun out of it. Though there is a video somewhere on the net showing a giraffe autopsy where they search out the show the entire nerve and where it travels through the animals body. I'm just not in the mood to link to gore.

Well, if I must: http://www.wimp.com/giraffenerve/

Anyway, don't worry about it. If my brilliance can't touch yours, nor your's mine, so be it. Either we evolved to be like this or god did it. It ain't our fault.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2026
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #222 on: March 14, 2012, 11:33:55 PM »
It's like pounding my head on a wall, but here I go again...

I just think if it's a "proven" theory, that there should be a lot more answers and logical explanations for the theory.

In science, a 'proven' theory is merely one that has stood the test of time without being falsified.  Such as the heliocentric theory.  The germ theory of disease.  The molecular theory.  What those theories do, and what evolutionary theory does, is explain how the facts of our world fit together.  It can never be 'proven' for 100% certainty, because if we finally go ahead and say that it is 'proven', then we are basically admitting that no evidence could EVER come along and dislodge it.  That is not how science works.  This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.  It's a self-correcting system.  No theory will EVER be proven, no matter how many facts come along that fit with it.  Not even the heliocentric theory will ever be 'proven', yet you do believe that the earth goes around the sun, right?  Even though we still don't call it 'proven'. 

Evolution has stood the test of time.  It explains how facts fit together perfectly. Here are a few.  Fact: Genetic information passes from parent to child.  Fact: Random mutations occur sometimes.  Fact:  These random mutations change how genetic information is formed and expressed.  Fact: Geological data points to a very old earth.  Fact: Expressed traits can be modified by intentional selective breeding.  Fact: There is massive diversity of life on the planet.  Fact: We have fossils that show up only in specific geological strata. 

If you want to falsify the theory of evolution, then all you have to do is present a single fact that counters it.  Here are a few possibilities.  Prove that genetic information does not pass from parent to child.  Prove that random mutations do not occur.  Prove that genetic changes have nothing to do with form and function.  Prove that the earth is young.  Prove that when we selectively breed for traits (lets say... in dogs), that it doesn't work. 

Disproving evolution does not start and end with "I don't see how that could happen; you can't prove that it happens down to the minute detail with video and witnesses, so there's no way it happens!"  You actually have to find a fact that counters it. 

I pose some questions, and get, "Well, we just don't know everything, we are still learning." 

That's not all you've gotten though.  What about the people who HAVE given you answers.  Are you too stubborn to admit that we could be right about them?  When we are asked things like "How could we know a whale came from land?" and we say things like, "It breaths air like a land animal does, it has residual hind limbs, it shares a crap ton of DNA with a Hippo, the tail moves up and down like a land animal runs whereas fish move their tales side to side" these things fit with the theory that this animal evolved from ancient ancestors that walked on land.  Evolutionary theory explains very, very well how those facts about whales fit together. 

We do not, nor can we ever know the exact evolutionary pressures that were being applied to the first animal that developed the first hint of a wing, but that does NOT disprove evolution rockv. Remember here, we are approaching the crime scene millions of years later.  Whatever selective pressures the animal was facing (and all it takes is a little creativity on your part to come up with one of a zillion possible scenarios), if a random mutation in the genetic code gave the animal any sort of statistical survival advantage over others of it's species, then it would have a better chance to mate and therefore pass on it's genes to the next in line.  This process happens still today, and there is absolutely no reason to think it did not happen millions of years ago too. 

You say that every week, there are new discoveries.  Ever think that someday we may understand how the supernatural world exists? 

Yes, that could happen.  We also might someday find out that the Tooth Fairy really does exist.  I'm not trying to be mean about that; I am just trying to show you the flaw in your argument here, which is the simple fact that we currently have no reason to believe in either of them.  Until we do, they are equally as improbable as anything else we could postulate. 

Ever think that those un-answered questions about evolution could also be unanswered questions regarding God? 

Sure, but only because people believe in lots of fictitious gods and those people force the rest of us to consider their ideas.  However, until someone shows a single piece of verifiable evidence that any type of god exists, there is no reason to think that the 'god' theory is of any use in explaining things anymore.  A long time ago, it was, because people were ignorant.  We stopped being that way a while back now.  God is not necessary to explain anything anymore. 

You say in one sentence that I'm foolish to believe in something that we can't understand fully, but then turn around and believe in something that we don't fully understand....  Seems like we are a lot alike!

It is foolish to believe in things for which there is no evidence.  Do you agree or disagree?  Common examples are... Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, etc, etc. 

I wish that for 5 minutes you could just remove your emotional attachment to your God belief and really engage in the learning process here.  If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.  But it seems like you just aren't capable of doing it.  If you could just stop thinking of this whole thing as 'bad' or 'evil' or 'stupid' and approach it as if you are not as well versed in these things as we are, this might actually be a beneficial thing for you.  It really might.  You won't though.  You think you already have the truth in your God theory, and nothing can touch that.  It's very sad.     

Let me ask you, rockv.  How do you think dog breeding works?  If a breeder wants dogs with a shorter tail, how would he go about doing it? 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6371
  • Darwins +751/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #223 on: March 14, 2012, 11:35:06 PM »
This just in! Something is evolving, even as we speak!

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #224 on: March 14, 2012, 11:53:18 PM »

It is foolish to believe in things for which there is no evidence.  Do you agree or disagree?  Common examples are... Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, etc, etc. 


Correct.  Yet, we have evidence of God all around us.  Ever hold a newborn baby?  Ever study Biblical accuracy...I mean really study it?  Ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Ever seen a demon possessed person?  Ask Alister Crowley if God exists.  There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #225 on: March 15, 2012, 12:06:21 AM »
Ever hold a newborn baby?

Err...relevance?  As a matter of fact, I have.  A wondrous experience, yet what does it have to do with supernatural beings?

Ever study Biblical accuracy...I mean really study it?

If by "really study" you specifically mean "study until I believe it", then no.  I suspect that's precisely what you mean by "really study".  Just like to a holocaust-denier, if you "really study" the history of the holocaust, you'll come to the conclusion that it didn't happen.  To such a person, if you study the history and disagree, then you havn't "really studied" it.

Ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

Last I checked, people were baptized in water.  Please say what you mean, instead of deliberately saying what you don't mean.

Ever seen a demon possessed person?

I've seen a schizophrenic go crazy and have terrifying quasi-religious experiences, until he was back on his pills.  Does that count?

Ask Alister Crowley if God exists.

That would be exceptionally difficult to do, since he died in 1947.

There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.

I have.  It just turned out that I was wrong about it.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #226 on: March 15, 2012, 12:10:22 AM »

I wish that for 5 minutes you could just remove your emotional attachment to your God belief and really engage in the learning process here.  If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.  But it seems like you just aren't capable of doing it.

Trust me, I'm trying.  Easily see how it all works?  I've asked simple questions of how it works and get no answers.  That's the big problem.  "This animal has a short arm, this animal has a long arm...therefore, the long arm evolved from the short arm so it could grab the apple that was higher in the tree"......this is basically evolution.  I propose that both are different animals...One with a short arm, one with a long arm. 

I asked many times the same question....start thinking about it all.  Think about the first cell forming.  Think about sexual reproduction evolving.  Without an erect penis, sex is rather hard.  Without the eustachian tube, hearing doesn't work!  A half formed eustachian tube does nothing.  A transition would NOT work.  There are millions of examples of things having to work together to even work.  The honeybee evolved alongside the flowers?  A spider's first devolopment involving spinning a web...looked like what?  Every single species has so many questions, that it becomes absurd to believe that it all evolved.  A woodpecker just evolved a head to stand pounding?  Why not just eat like other birds do?  They do fine.  I could go all night....

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #227 on: March 15, 2012, 12:12:02 AM »
Correct.  Yet, we have evidence of God all around us.  Ever hold a newborn baby?  Ever study Biblical accuracy...I mean really study it?  Ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Ever seen a demon possessed person?  Ask Alister Crowley if God exists.  There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.

Yes (my daughter, the feeling is beyond words)
Yes, I mean really Yes (still wondering why people choose not to see the glaring discrepancies)
No
No (I am up to fourth season of Supernatural though, some of the demon possessed babes are super cute)

Now that I have answered your questions, answer mine. What is the point?

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #228 on: March 15, 2012, 12:13:02 AM »
If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.

Then "easily" explain the questions above.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #229 on: March 15, 2012, 12:44:14 AM »
Then "easily" explain the questions above.

Did you mean "answer the questions above"? ("above" would be too vague, you can add clarity by citing the post number or link to the specific post)

Though we would like an explanation, especially on how to have a conversation with Crowley.

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #230 on: March 15, 2012, 12:59:15 AM »
If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.

Then "easily" explain the questions above.
sigh, I learned this stuff when I was in grade school.
Old school Carl Sagan.

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #231 on: March 15, 2012, 03:31:18 AM »
So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 

The term is "idiot, liar and troll", actually. I was making a point based on what I assumed was your point. I have also posted several instances of evolution, as has everyone else. Some even posted the evolution of the wing.
From colonies turning into multicellular beings to bacteria adapting to antibiotics and developing the ability to metabolize new substances, evolution has been proven so many times it's not even funny anymore.

I don't get the "liar" part....but I digress. 

At least you won't dispute the "idiot and troll" part.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.