Originally posted by NyxieWell, Nyxie, let's back up a page and try to be back on track: It is a good forum question, Nyxie. I know of no scientific alternative to evolution. Perhaps one will evolve as we learn more about the quantum universe and perhaps relate those findings to biology. Darwin's TOE isn't all that old, and, after all, science is but one of many ways of trying to understand the universe. And many of those ways are much older than the scientific method. Evolution by no means explains everything concerning life and like you, I am left wanting more information. Lately the scientific community has discovered a plant that puffs pollen onto bees that get close to it. Personally I can't imagine that such plants have had enough time to evolve in such a sophisticated way through natural selection. Venus Fly Trap plants would be another example. The evolving of crawling reptiles to flying birds is another example. Natural selection can explain many things, but puffing plants and reptiles to birds leaves me wanting more information.
Actually I thout this thread was about finding a scientific alternative to evolution. I'd like to here more on that subject myself. What if you've listened to evolution and creationism, and they both have big holes, and sound a bit far fetched?
Originally posted by no1marauderI have it on good authority that the train was created a few miles outside Albany, and all the folks who might have seen it in NYC are dead or "interested parties" (analogous to biased scientists). Those photographs youhave of the train sitting at the terminal in NYC are probably fakes, especially since they contradict my authorities, who point out that the train is too shiny and clean to have travelled through 150 miles of overpopulated, industrialized terrain. The train shows clear evidence of recent creation.
You are, of course, wrong. Let's say that a brand new train runs from New York City to Albany. Let us say that Albany is exactly 150 miles away from NYC. Let us say that we know that trains always travel at the speed of 50 mph.
Given those facts, which are exactly analogous to the example you gave, when the train arrives at Albany w ...[text shortened]... ce and travelled at 50 miles an hour for three hours to reach a point where we could observe it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungUltimately, the question how life can to be as we know it, is a philosophical one. The science follows from philosophical presuppositions. There is plentiful data for either theory, and big empirical holes in both. And neither can be answered empirically. Although, if you limited yourself to empiricism, TOE is the only reasonable, if incomplete answer. If you allow for theism, Creation makes more sense.
Does anyone want to challenge the claim that the TOE is scientific?
Originally posted by ColettiI agree to an extent. The TOE is based on inference not observation. We see a collection of fossils that show a progression of changes. We cannot or ever will be able to observe these changes so we have to infer that the species evolved. Unforunately, when we use the fossil record, there is no scientific basis in assuming that evolution took place. Actually, Creationism whether biblical or not is the only theory that is really supported by the fossil record.
Ultimately, the question how life can to be as we know it, is a philosophical one. The science follows from philosophical presuppositions. There is plentiful data for either theory, and big empirical holes in both. And neither can be ans ...[text shortened]... plete answer. If you allow for theism, Creation makes more sense.
That doesn't disprove evolution or prove creationism but it should keep people from getting so attached to the TOE. People should not treat the TOE like it is their religion and get all offended when other people question it.
kelly: The light from the star that left one billion years ago only gives how far away it is, one billion light years by definition, the distance light travels in one year: 5.8 trillion miles times one billion means the star is 5.8 E12 plus 1 E 9 = 5.8 E 21 miles away. Thats all you can say without further analysis of the light, but you gave that as a given. The way you figure the distance to a star is you have known stars that vary in brightness in a known way so in a galaxy that is say, one billion LY away, the standard candle stars would be such and such a brightness but that method poops out at about 100 million LY so other methods have to be used, but the way you figure a stars age is to chart the thorium/uranium ratio, they have extremely long half-lives but a lot differant from each other and the relative abundance points to a chart that we can figure with reasonable accuracy how old it is, from that we can judge its distance. The way we tell the uranium/thorium ratio is the fact that the star will have a certain set of lines indicating what atom is present in the corona and either blocking a certain wavelength or shining at a certain wavelength, either way you see either a line or a gap in the spectrum. The spectrum is incredibly intricate and tells a whole bunch about the star in question, but it has to be close enough to give enough for a spectometer to work with. The way they do that is with very large scopes pointed for very long periods of time which keeps adding up individual photons till a good signal is present, something which can take hours or days, sometimes you might only get one photon per minute or so from the target star or galaxy so you need to integrate thousands of photons together to get a reliable reading of its spectrum. Does that help?
BTW, the bit about the pollen hitting the bee as being not possible in the amount of time we have is wrong, life has been around for half a billion years and has gone through at least 5 or 6 major extinctions and very quickly in geological terms come back, maybe with differant forms but always recovered from a disaster like the one which offed the Dino's, probably volcanism and the finishing touch of the asteroid which left traces in the ground of a layer of Iridium all over the earth at exactly the same depth right at the time of the end of the dino's.
Indium is very rare on earth and there is no kind of earth made disaster like volcanoes that could deposit such a rare element in exactly the same layer over a big bunch of the earth at the same time, like within hours. The only thing that could do that is an asteroid impact. Indium is much more common in asteroids than on the earth so it proves a humungus crater was dug out and spread the stuff from an extra-terrestrial source. Between that and huge volcanoes (making Krakatoa look like a match going off) that ended the dino's. There have been others even more devastating, killing off 90% of life on earth but they always came back. The relative ease at which life recovered is to me a sign that life can develop anyplace it can take hold, like mars for instance, now there is a theory, unproven as of yet,
the same for mars life ATT, but this new theory says there may be life on Venus! not on the surface, that is as good a model of hell if there ever was one, atmosphere 1500 PSI of mainly sulfuric acid at 1000 degrees F! but in the upper atmosphere there may be bugs living high enough to escape that devastating surface but with some kind of ecology. There is evidence in the form of anamolous Ultraviolet spectrum data that indicates SOMETHING odd is going on there and one explain is life! Doesn't mean they are right but if they are, it could be evidence that life drifted into our solar system on clouds ALA Fred Hoyle, seeding all the planets seedable at the same time with bacteria surviving through interstellar journies on astroids which when coming close to the sun would spread its gasses far and wide, maybe enough to cast the seeds of life everywhere. The evidence for that would be say in 50, 100 years they actually find life on mars and maybe have scooped up enough of the upper atmosphere of Venus to analyze and find there is a genetic link between life on all three worlds, that would point to some kind of extraterrestrial influx of bacteria or such, or maybe even only the precursers to life, proteins, etc,. which may all a planet needs to cook that into life. If and when they find life on mars you can bet your boopie geneticists will be chomping at the bit to see if it is DNA based like earth life and if so, trace out when the branch points came, they can make predictions like that due to a constant rate of mutations in DNA or RNA. Myself, I would be very suprised if we found life on mars and it turns out to be based on Silicon or something besides carbon and I would bet it would be similar to our DNA, close enough to show a common ancester.
Originally posted by nickybuttWhat I mean is that the fossil record shows different species that "just appear". There is no way to observe that two species are related and that one evolved from another. We assume evolution through the observed similiarities but assumption should not be used to support a hypothesis or theory. My emphasis is on the OBSERVATIONS we make versus the ASSUMPTIONS we draw from them.
Could you expand on that statement, I'd be interested to here how you came to that conclusion.
Originally posted by jmonkeyI have a series of photographs of my daughter from new born to maturity. Each one of these pieces of evidence shows a person slightly different in size, shape and features.
What I mean is that the fossil record shows different species that "just appear". There is no way to observe that two species are related and that one evolved from another. We assume evolution through the observed similiarities but assumption should not be used to support a hypothesis or theory. My emphasis is on the OBSERVATIONS we make versus the ASSUMPTIONS we draw from them.
Woud you then conclude my daughter is the result of some fifty separate creation processes rather than a gradual change over time?
Originally posted by sonhouse"Personally I can't imagine that such plants have had enough time to evolve in such a sophisticated way through natural selection."
BTW, the bit about the pollen hitting the bee as being not possible in the amount of time we have is wrong, life has been around for half a billion years and has gone through at least 5 or 6 major extinctions and very quickly in geological terms come back, maybe with differant forms but always recovered from a disaster like the one which offed the Dino's, ...[text shortened]... s carbon and I would bet it would be similar to our DNA, close enough to show a common ancester.
I am well aware of how long life has been around and did not say that such a plant was impossible. I said that: "Personally I can't imagine that such plants have had enough time to evolve in such a sophisticated way through natural selection." Since you say definitely that I am wrong I assume that you can back up your statement with detailed scientific proof that: 1. such plants have evolved through natural selection in 500 million years and, 2. I can imagine that such plants have had enough time to evolve in such a sophisticated way through natural selection.
Originally posted by steerpikeIt would seem that you have also observed your daughter first hand and you are not dependent on the photos. However, the fossil record is not nearly so clear as your photo collection. We have to piece bones together and make some educated guesses about what's missing. And one can only guess whether thing A evolve from thing B just because they are similar. The bigger the difference, the harder it is to make the connection.
I have a series of photographs of my daughter from new born to maturity. Each one of these pieces of evidence shows a person slightly different in size, shape and features.
Woud you then conclude my daughter is the result of some fifty separate creation processes rather than a gradual change over time?
Take your baby picture, and a recent picture. Would anyone who did not know you be able to make the connection? The answer is they may guess correctly, but it's still a guess. Now mix in other peoples baby pictures with a bunch of other mature adult pictures. The situation gets worse.