slate.com — The creationists invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones. How, they demand to know, can such a sophisticated organ have gone through clumsy evolutionary stages in order to reach its current magnificence and versatility? The salamanders of Planet Earth appear to this layman to furnish a possibly devastating answer to that question.
Jul 21, 2008 View in Crawl 4
varzJul 22, 2008
Yeah well that's the problem, no matter how much evidence you offer they'll just ignore it and believe whatever they want. There is MORE than enough evidence to prove Creationism wrong, it's safe to assume that anyone who believes Creationism either hasn't done any research on the topic or is an idiot.
zer0upJul 23, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------No. Geometry didn't exist before the universe existed, -------------------------------------------------------------------Thankyou.I am going to give you a moment to realize what you just said.. . .Now, Where did the Universe (and all the physical laws) come from?-------------------------------------------------------------------------Squirming again? I never stated this. In fact, my first post in this thread was made specifically to point out that evolution is NOT random, despite your strawman attempt to classify it as such in order to dismiss it.-------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry, but that was a FAIL. This mathematical theory isnt meant to prove that chaos canarrange itself into order. The only thing it can say is that real chaos is notpossible. You know why? Because this is a mathematical theory!! By definition,you can NOT simulate true chaos or randomness through math!!! (think about it)And I know you didnt say that randomness can not arrange itself into order. I did.I asked you to prove otherwise. I already know that this is an impossibility.I just want to see you admit this so we can move on to our next phase of discussion.
apokalypsenowJul 23, 2008
@fx666Stop trying to cite Friedman - he's a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist or population geneticist. Further, in his book, he frequently confuses the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis. His credibility on the subject is highly suspect.
fordiJul 28, 2008
"Have you read Plato's republic?Or any philosophical literature?Everything that modern civilization is based on "hearsay".am merely using deductive logic."Actually, modern civilization is based on pragmatic application of policy, which is essentially a precursor of science. Do what works until it doesn't work anymore."I am a Muslim. Nothing in the Quran contradicts scientific observations.(no the earth was not created in 6 days)"The Quran is fundamentally an extension of the Torah. As such, its base material is contradicted. Mind you, lack of contradiction doesn't imply truth - there's no real evidence for anything in the Quran either.
zer0upJul 29, 2008
p.s. WAIT A SECOND !!!!Not only did you misunderstand the argument,you did it in such a way that you even confused me!The conclusion (3) that there is only One God,is suppose to rule out (1) that a disordered polythiestic universeexists. Duh! That was the whole point! 3 is the conclusion derived from 2 canceling out 1.
zer0upJul 30, 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#2 is a conclusion that has been proven false by all forms of chaos theory. Order can come from randomness. You can even see that in the formation of crystals.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is not true at all. It seems you have misinterpreted Chaos Theory.According to Chaos theory, true randomness exists no where in the universe.Even the most complex and seemingly random proccesses (crystal formation)are dependent on ordered sub-patterns and the initial conditions. Here is the quote on Chaos Theory again, you might have missed it:"the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved." <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory</a>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BTW, easy explanation for ordered laws of physics, infinite universes where every variation of laws is tried and we exist in one where the laws make sense (kinda hard to make life in a universe with laws that vary all the time).---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#1: You are assuming that disorder exists within these parallel and extra dimensional universes.But this is an unfounded assumption. Bubble Theory (one sub division of Multi Verse theory)states that each of these parallel universes would have its own set of physical constants.Meaning: Even if these parallel universes exist, there would be order in all of them.#2: The existence of these universes is itself dependent on the principles of mathematics.And this by definition is an example of order.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Seeing as athiests are perfectly happy until that point and since we can't read their minds, the best assumption is they're still perfectly happy. You are assuming based on no empirical evidence. There is no increased heart rate or respiration or release of epinephrine or any physical sign of distress at the moment of death in atheists vs christians vs muslims etc. Without any physical signs we can't assume anything else.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You said you are a Christian, so what do you believe happens after a person dies?Does his eyes not truly open to the reality after he dies? I said the last phase is actually dying. You can not measure their responses if they have already died.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------uh... you referenced Einstein for his belief of god. You said that is why other people should believe in god, because this smart guy in math believes.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Read my post again, I referenced Einstein in his belief in the God of Spinoza.And this was in response to Covertbadger's statement that no prime cause is needed.The God of Spinoza is the Prime Mathematical Cause of the universe.Like I said, you misunderstood the point of the Einstein reference.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------and he asked you for proof and you failed to provide it. and it really seems like you misunderstood what he said earlier too. you both have different views of the same theory yet you just say your point and move on assuming you'r right without even discussing what the other person has said about it. (he's done it too but you've done it more)Seriously. read the other persons thread and respond to it like an actual response---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Do you know why you have gotten this impression?There is another thread where half the discussion took place between me and him. He lost. Why do you think he is not posting anymore?On that thread he got pinned down because he realized thathe completely misinterpreted Ramsey Theory (his attempt at providing proof)as it actually ended up proving my point instead. He left the discussion as soonas he realized what happened. He was trying to use ramsey theory to prove thatrandomness can sort itself into order. This was my response:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Wrong Again! This is a quote about this exact formula from another website"a sufficiently large system, no matter how random, must contain highly organized subsystems."<a class="user" href="http://www.math.unh.edu/%7Edvf/532/Ramsey">http://www.math.unh.edu/%7Edvf/532/Ramsey</a>">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He did not reply and left the discussion.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oh and thanks for the clarification of absolute infinity. Not something I know much about so I won't discuss it much besides it seems to just be another mathematical theory to help describe stuff that currently has some "I don't know what the h*** is going on" about it. I'll leave it for other ppl to discuss.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------no problem
zer0upJul 30, 2008
p.s. The power of any argument vanishes when it is refuted.Your arguments have been refuted, therefore, it is as thoughthey have vanished. That is what is meant by those verses.
bobbi21Aug 9, 2008
…oh my gosh I just accidently pressed back and deleted my entire post to you…Sorry. I think I’ll have to just summarize because I wrote soo much..First I’ll explain ramsey theory. Another version is here <a class="user" href="http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/~yue/ramsey.pdf">http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/~yue/ramsey.pdf</a>Pretend you have a graph representing points in space. In each point you can put a red, blue, or green spot. What are the odds you’ll get 3 green dots in a row? 10 dots? 100 dots? It all depends on the size of the graph. With “a sufficiently large system, no matter how random,” you will get any number of green dots in a row, or alternating green and red dots. This must happen in any random system. It “must contain highly organized subsystems." Does this mean there’s any guiding force of order? Of course not. Is there a guiding force of order making the millions of lotto tickets that are bought to have 1 lotto ticket that EXACTLY matches that weeks lotto numbers? Of course not. If you flip a coin a thousand times you will get 10 heads in a row eventually. This is all ramsey theory proves, just in a bigger scale. In room of infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters you’ll get shakespeares greatest plays (disregarding monkey typing agility, which doesn’t really matter much but makes it easier to believe). You will get a highly organized subsystem eventually even if the initial situation is all “random”. Which means you have to have “order” in “chaos”, just like you have to have a bunch of heads in a row when flipping a coin a million times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>QUESTION: Where did these "highly organized subsystems" come from?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I hope I explained it well enough above (it was better before the delete). They came from the random trial of every combination of subsystem. Where did the 5 heads in a row come from? Random chance. Same principle.---------------Because in order to make that claim, you first have to provethat order can generate itself out of nothing. And where exactly have you proven this? -------------------Ramsey theory proves that. Your position also has to prove that order must be generated out of something. Remember the syllogisms we talked about. Order must be generated out of something = pancakes must be generated out of ice cream. You need steps in between/an argument before we can conclude that statement is true. --------------It means that at the core of every seemingly random system, there is an orderly system which is always in control. The question for you is: Where did this order (which exists at the core) come from?------------------Saying an orderly system is in control is misleading. It’s like saying at the core of every pizza there is cheese which is always in control. Pizza comes with cheese. Seemingly random systems come with order as stated by ramsey theory. The human genome will show up when throwing down an infinite number of cards that have a t g c on them. ------------------"the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics ARE FULLY DEFINED BY THEIR INITIAL CONDITIONS, WITH NO RANDOM ELEMENTS INVOLVED."-----------------Ok, simple chaos theory was created to work with a deterministic system. So obviously there won’t be random elements in it and it is fully defined by their initial conditions. That’s the exact definition of what a deterministic system is. Most of the macroscopic world is basically deterministic so simple chaos theory applies. There also exists a quantum chaos theory which deals with nondeterministic quantum systems (probabilities and such). This is not the exact opposite of simple chaos theory just because its based on unknown initial conditions and “random elements”. It’s simply a way to predict a future outcome in a nondeterministic system instead of a deterministic one. Neither theory says anything about the universe being entirely deterministic with no randomness or the opposite. It’s simply a way to analyze systems and make predictions about those systems. Even if the universe was deterministic it wouldn’t mean there was any inherent “order” which had to be created. All it means is the Newtonian laws of physics is true everywhere. Basic explanation of chaos theory <a class="user" href="http://www.zeuscat.com/andrew/chaos/">http://www.zeuscat.com/andrew/chaos/</a>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>QUESTION: Who set these "initial conditions"?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This just seems like a misconception about chaos theory. The initial conditions is just the location and momentum of every particle in the system you’re studying. This is how chaos theory works. You have a bunch of particles going everywhere. You could theoretically track each particle exactly and then predict the future positions of all these particles. In real life this is really hard and even slight errors in recording create totally wrong predictions (butterfly effect). Because of this, chaos theory was created where you could just input facts 1 2 3 and 4 about the system and predict major characteristics about the system in the future. You’ll never now where each particle is but you’ll know general stuff about the system.i.e. I can predict a city’s crime rate by, lets say, knowing the number of parks, avg income of the citizens, number of police stations. I can also know the crime rate by monitoring every persons actions in the city waiting to see them commit a crime. The 1st way is much simplier even though you’ll never know exactly who commits what crime but you know the basic information about the system. That’s all chaos theory is. A way to predict a system with minimal information without knowledge of the “initial conditions”. Since we don’t know/don’t care about the initial conditions (position of atoms or specific actions of the citizens) these conditions are basically random from our point of view. They can be almost any value. as long as facts 1 2 3 and 4 are constant, we can predict characteristics of the future system.---------------I am utterly astonished by your statement: "order is part of randomness"That statement is like saying "light is part of darkness". Or water is also dry.Do you not see the impossibility of these statements?---------------Actually water can be dry if it’s ice. But to your actual point, I hope my explanation of ramsey theory answered this for you already. It’s like how 5 heads will show up in a random flipping of a coin. Or the human genome will show up with random A T G & C’s given enough time. Each event is actually random. There is no guiding force whatsoever, you can accept that. Since you’re trying every combination though, you will eventually get an “ordered” combination, not because anything was trying to get there, but because It was just another combination in the random series. That’s what I meant when I said order is part of randomness. If I randomly type letters for all eternity I will eventually get shakespeares plays simply due to chance without any guiding force. -------------------------------But this does not help your argument because all the uncertaintiesof the quantum world only prove that we are not aware of all the factorsinvolved. And just because we have not figured everything out, is nota good enough reason to make the claim that there is chaos in thequantum world.-------------------------------Uh…, the mathematical proof for quantum mechanics states that it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict stuff in the quantum world (besides probabilities) even if you are aware of all the factors. That’s quantum physics 101. Even taught in school. If you want to argue that the entire basis of quantum physics is wrong then go ahead. Oh, and I was talking about quantum chaos theory (mentioned a bit about it above), not necessarily that there is “chaos” in the quantum world. The theory is just that you can still make predictions based on inherently unknowable initial conditions (aka some degree of randomness since it’s all just probabilities). ----------------There are only theories to prove that parallel universes function with a different set of physical laws--------------------Simplest example is the universe before the big bang. Physical laws were “created” in the big bang. Before it you had none. Level IV multiverses allow all kind types of physical laws and lack of physical laws is a type (i.e. instead of F=ma you have F = 0 x m x c, or m = infinity, or E = E, close enough to no laws to me when everything = 0 or infinity) . It’s not as popular as the others since, as you said, math laws kinda break down (obviously since math doesn’t really work in those universes so obviously it’ll be difficult to use math to prove they exist).-------The fact that 2+2 equals 4, is not something "we" decided.This is just the way the laws of the universe work.These laws are above us. And this is the order which I statedcan not be proven to have come about by itself.----------------What is the definition of 2? The definition of plus? The definition of 4? In quantum physics there is really no number 2. electrons can exist in 2 places at once, or an infinite amount of places at once. Saying there are 2 electrons really doesn’t’ make much sense when you if you look around you see 10 flying about 1 second and then 100 then 1 (figuratively looking. Actually looking messes things up, schrodinger’s cat and all). If quantum physics worked in the macroscopic world we’d never think up concrete numbers like 2 and 4 because they wouldn’t be useful. With that said, I’m not saying math is totally man-made. If there ever existed a concrete entity as a 1 2 and 3 in nature then it would always obey the rules of math. Math is pretty robust so it applies in most of the universe but they don’t always apply well in the microscopic world. Now if we take your idea that quantum mechanics actually is knowable, then that means it operates on a totally different type of math since our math says it can’t be known. Even using infinites is technically a different kind of math. 1 infinity +1 infinity = 1 infinity. Totally different type of math. Fortunately, we have the ability to tweak it so it works. If you want to be very general about math as in there are increasing and decreasing values which can interact in predictable ways then sure that’s totally universal and above humans. In my mind, I’d actually classify that under logic. So maybe we’re just talking semantics here. You can also say that’s a type of order (I do) but again theres no reason to assume that order is from god. Actually if it was from god, that’d mean god can probably go against it (since he “created” it) and I don’t think it’s possible to go against logic. Like that whole can god make a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it. I’d say he can’t cus it’s logically inconsistent (and therefore no restriction on omnipotence because logic is “above” that). If god created logic/math/order, whatever you want to call it, he could cus “f*** logic I’m god”. Don’t think I had much of a point in this one. Just me trying to explain what seems to be our different views on the same idea. Maybe…-------------It was a response to Covertbadger's insulting comment in which he said that I lived in aworld of delusion. I merely pointed out to him that the real illusion is the life of this world, but that is something he will not know until the illusion comes to an end.------------------Ok, granted. This is why I don’t get into petty insulting arguments with people. None of it makes any sense. Him saying you live in a world of delusion is baseless as is. You saying the life of this world is an illusion is baseless as is. To me anyway it just makes you both look like idiots. If your opponent doesn’t agree with your premise, why say things about what follows from that premise? You prove your premise first. If you want insult them about not realizing that specific premise. Whatever. Insults are stupid. Dag that took forever especially with the rewrite. Hope it makes sense.
bobbi21Aug 24, 2008
Hope you didn't forget about our discussion. I'd like to know what you think.
zer0upSep 21, 2008
I tried to send you a shout by adding you as a friend but it didnt work.
zer0upNov 6, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Evolutionary order is totally plausible to arise through random mutations and forces of natural selection. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, it is not. Because the odds of that happening are completely unrealistic.Just the simple math of a simple one cell organism generating itself on a rock such as earth (which is itself dependent on the odds of the right conditions in atmosphere)and then every further mutation of that organism taking place in the way that it did,are "impossible". The only way you can lessen those odds is if you assume there wassome sentient force guiding the mutational process. If you assume that it happened randomlythen you will have to assume that each mutation is a result of random chance, and the oddspile up from one mutation to the next. The odds of an amoeba evolving into a human...are impossible in finite time and space.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And in infinite time, the order in this universe can arise without a God.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No the order of the universe is dependent on finite time, because the universe is not infinite
mjazzguitarDec 13, 2008
I'm waiting to see the drawing of a mouse turning into a bat.
mjazzguitarDec 13, 2008
The headlights fell out of my car so that means no one made my car.
bobbi21Feb 22, 2009
1) Uh they have computer programs that figure out that evolution is probable mathematically. THey`ve done thousands of simulations going from 1 species to another and it`s totally possible and more than that it fits the time period that exists in the fossil record. They take the DNA differences between a few species and assume a common ancestor. They plug it into the computer with random mutations occurring however so often and calculate that the closest ancestor would exist however many years ago. And when they dig up the fossils they find out it matches. They`ve done simulations of natural selection to see how fast new mutations can spread through a population and it all works out. There was a debate about hard and soft selection but that`s been pretty much resolved. If you do the research you can see that all the math points to random mutations and natural selection causing the changes we see. Just look it upI`ve already told you situations where the universe can be infinite. I have repeated myself way too often and you keep going back to your original talking points. Don`t think we can continue this much more. Have a good day. This was fun