Why male and female?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are sure this is a debate?

I had wanted it to be a discussion about evolution and how it works. I am still waiting for you to give a serious issue that you have with evolution so that we can discuss it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I think you were challenging what I was saying about time and relativity because of our disagreement over evolution. If I had started out agreeing with your beliefs I doubt you would have 'misinterpreted' my comments at the Galaxy board.

Not at all. I challenge anyone over anything if I disagree on that point. I even challenge people criticising Christianity sometimes if I think their particular criticism is wrong. I challenged you in that thread solely on what you said in that thread about that topic. I just wanted it to be clear to everyone that time does not go faster or slower as some posters were saying (as it is meaningless to say that time goes faster or slower) but rather that time is relative and is faster or slower relative to some other timeline.
One cannot for example say that a metre is getting longer, because the only way we have to measure it is using a metre ruler (which will also get longer). However one meter can be relatively longer than another metre when measured in certain ways.
If you understand all this, then I have no argument with you on that point.

Originally posted by lemon lime
There scientists who are no longer atheists but now call themselves pantheists because of their investigation into evolution, but they can't be called creationists.

That may be so, but I have never heard of one, nor seen one criticize the theory of evolution. The only people I have ever heard criticize it are creationists. So if a pantheist comes to this site I will gladly discuss their concerns, just a I am happy to discuss creationists concerns if they are genuine concerns. However it is clear that you and kelly do not have genuine concerns but rather other reasons for disputing it you do not want to discuss.
You mentioned:
1. Blood flowing out of a dinosaur bone. You are yet to prove any reference, nor explain how this is in any way contrary to the theory of evolution. I suspect you think it provides evidence for a young earth.
2. You mentioned something about information not being able to arise in inorganic matter, yet again, you have failed to explain why this is important given that your definition of 'information' requires that it have a pre planned purpose, which is something not required by either evolution or abiogenesis.
3. You suggested that evolution requires abiogenesis, but that abiogenesis has been discredited, neither of which assertions you have been able to substantiate.
4. You made some claims about moths in England, some of which I showed were flat out wrong, and others are unprovable, and in fact unknowable, so you must have been just making them up.
5. Then there was mention of a gorilla skull, but no clarification was given as to what you were talking about.

None of the above seem like genuine objections by someone who understands evolution, but rather someone who has other reasons for objecting to the theory and is looking really hard for 'problems'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That may be so, but I have never heard of one, nor seen one criticize the theory of evolution. The only people I have ever heard criticize it are creationists. So if a pantheist comes to this site I will gladly discuss their concerns, just a I am happy to discuss creationists concerns if they are genuine concerns. However it is clear that you and kelly do ...[text shortened]... who has other reasons for objecting to the theory and is looking really hard for 'problems'.

DNA only lasts so long, even if frozen.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/02/dna_testing_richard_iii_how_long_does_dna_last.html

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't know at first if you were pretending or didn't understand it yourself, until you did the same thing when we were talking about time at another thread. It was obvious to me you understood the concept of time being a variable and not a constant, but you assumed I was saying time varies, like a clock that speeds up and slows down for no apparent rea ...[text shortened]... "Grow up" or "Man up", but apparently you need to have everything explained to you.

Time is variable, there is no doubt about that. But the amount of change in time compared to Earth is extremely tiny. If you live in Death Valley compared to someone living in the Alps, the one in Death Valley would live longer but that would be measured in microseconds over a 100 year lifespan. Maybe milliseconds. We would not want to be in a situation where time flowed say, 1,000,000 slower. We would be crushed inside a black hole. That is the ONLY way time could change, be deep inside a huge mass or go close to the speed of light. That NEVER happened on Earth so using variable time as a defense of some kind of young Earth is not going to fly. No way no how.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That may be so, but I have never heard of one, nor seen one criticize the theory of evolution. The only people I have ever heard criticize it are creationists. So if a pantheist comes to this site I will gladly discuss their concerns, just a I am happy to discuss creationists concerns if they are genuine concerns. However it is clear that you and kelly do ...[text shortened]... who has other reasons for objecting to the theory and is looking really hard for 'problems'.

I didn't say blood was flowing out of a dino bone, I did not say abiogenesis has been discredited. I did suggest evolution requires abiogenesis, not to explain or validate how evolution works, but to explain using evolutionary principles how life began before it evolved.

I made "some claims" about moths in England based on literature I read about 20 years ago. I wasn't actually making claims, I was telling you what I had read about it... the original claims about mutation were based on ignorance of genetics during the time of the industrial revolution.

If the only people you've heard question evolution are creationists it means you've only talked to or read about what creationsists say. It's nonsense to talk about vast volumes of literature and studies, and point to accredited scientists who all support your point of view. You haven't bothered to read literature and studies written by scholars and scientists who do not support your view... you probably don't even know they even exist.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Time is variable, there is no doubt about that. But the amount of change in time compared to Earth is extremely tiny. If you live in Death Valley compared to someone living in the Alps, the one in Death Valley would live longer but that would be measured in microseconds over a 100 year lifespan. Maybe milliseconds. We would not want to be in a situation whe ...[text shortened]... using variable time as a defense of some kind of young Earth is not going to fly. No way no how.

I've already explained how our perception of time is able to skew calculations of the age of the universe. I used an example of a movie starting off fast and gradually slowing down. The characters in the movie calculate the length of their own existence based on their perception of time, which only the outside observer (you) is able to accurately calculate by his clock. If that example cannot be applied to the age of the universe then fine, I have no disagreement with you about the age of the universe.

It wasn't a defense of a young earth argument, it was my observation of how relativity might apply to the age of the universe and our own particular perception of time. If you recall, when I first brought this up at the Galaxy thread I proposed the universe could be older or younger, but not necessarily the age we perceive it to be.

Originally posted by RJHinds
DNA only lasts so long, even if frozen.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/02/dna_testing_richard_iii_how_long_does_dna_last.html

The Instructor

Yes, that is true for DNA outside living cells.
So what does that got to do with anything?

Nobody disputes that DNA outside a living cell has a definable limited shelf-life with a length of time that depends on the physical conditions it is in.
Obviously, the same is not true for DNA inside the genome of living cells in a living thriving reproducing species (because of such things as DNA repair by enzymes and DNA replication during cell division both in meiosis & mitosis) and the link you showed says nothing to contradict that fact.
So what relevance does DNA having a limited shelf-life outside a living cell have to do to whatever it is you are trying to claim here and exactly what is it you are trying to claim here which would be supported by the evidence of DNA having a limited shelf-life outside living cells?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Time is variable, there is no doubt about that. But the amount of change in time compared to Earth is extremely tiny. If you live in Death Valley compared to someone living in the Alps, the one in Death Valley would live longer but that would be measured in microseconds over a 100 year lifespan. Maybe milliseconds. We would not want to be in a situation whe ...[text shortened]... using variable time as a defense of some kind of young Earth is not going to fly. No way no how.

I wasn't talking about tiny variations of relative time on or near the earth. But even if I was, I would still note that our perception of time now in the year 2013 doesn't necessarily reflect a true perception of time that can be applied to the distant past. I've already defined what I mean by true perception of time by an observer who is looking at a true clock, so I don't want to rehash that part of my argument.

If we can agree that the initial expansion of the universe (the big bang) started as a rapid expansion, then I would point out that the word "rapid" is a relative term. In other words, rapid compared to what? Compared to now?

If the initial expansion was not rapid, but began slowly and picked up speed, then my point is moot and I've been wasting intellectual capital reflecting on this...

Maybe I'll go join that wino in his place of residence near the railroad tracks.


By the way, if galaxies appear to be accelerating away from where we sit (our point of reference), it doesn't necessarily mean the entire universe is accelerating away from the original point of origin (the singularity). I'm not ready to join that wino until I've heard all possible objections... which means I'll probably never get a chance to join that wino in his place of residence near the railroad tracks.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Check out Karl Popper, he says a theory has to be 'falsifiable' to be a real workable theory, otherwise it is metaphysics or in the realm of supernatural.

So evolution is theoretically falsifiable, for instance, if we find a 200 million year old fossil lion then evolution is in deep doo doo.

But so far the only 'evidence' against it is based on so-cal ...[text shortened]... class. There is BIG problem teaching so-called creation science in a biology science class.

You ever find anything you claim is a million years old that you connect to
a current living creature you've made a leap of faith. You connect dots and
make any claims about things you claim are millions of years ago and in
some cases billions of years ago, that is faith and cannot be proven wrong,
so you've moved into the metaphysics. The justification for many of these
claims are just other claims that are also being made, a little circular for
my liking.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Check out Karl Popper, he says a theory has to be 'falsifiable' to be a real workable theory, otherwise it is metaphysics or in the realm of supernatural.

So evolution is theoretically falsifiable, for instance, if we find a 200 million year old fossil lion then evolution is in deep doo doo.

But so far the only 'evidence' against it is based on so-cal ...[text shortened]... class. There is BIG problem teaching so-called creation science in a biology science class.

I have never made the claim that things of faith are science, I've made the
claim that something that people claim is science are really matters of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by humy
as usual, show a Creationist good evidence for evolution and he just simply demands more and, in this particular case, totally irrelevant evidence at that because the theory of evolution doesn't predict that a monkey would ever "turn into a man" and that is just a stupid comment. We and modern primates share a common ancestor. Obviously, species X and Y ...[text shortened]... conflicts with your current beliefs. That means, just like him, your have a delusional mind.

Claiming we have a common ancestor is faith on your part, another thing
that could be said we share the same design. You just have something you
want to promote and claim science is justifying your beliefs.
Kelly

Originally posted by lemon lime
I wasn't talking about tiny variations of relative time on or near the earth. But even if I was, I would still note that our perception of time now in the year 2013 doesn't necessarily reflect a true perception of time that can be applied to the distant past. I've already defined what I mean by true perception of time by an observer who is looking at a tr r get a chance to join that wino in his place of residence near the railroad tracks.

"If the initial expansion was not rapid, but began slowly and picked up speed, then my point is moot and I've been wasting intellectual capital reflecting on this..."

That wasn't right. If the universe started off slowly and has been picking up speed then the universe is older than it appears to be.

My point is moot if expansion has always been uniform, from the singularity until today. If so, then our clock today would represent a true age of the universe, because all clocks along the way would be moving at the same constant speed relative to one another.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I had wanted it to be a discussion about evolution and how it works. I am still waiting for you to give a serious issue that you have with evolution so that we can discuss it.

The issue is that there was no single common ancestor that lived billions of years ago that turned into every kind of creature we have today. There are common ancestors for each kind of creature we have today, but they do no not go back to a common ancestor for all the different kinds as some evilutionists make belief in their fairy tale world of long, long ago and far away.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy
Yes, that is true for DNA outside living cells.
So what does that got to do with anything?

Nobody disputes that DNA outside a living cell has a definable limited shelf-life with a length of time that depends on the physical conditions it is in.
Obviously, the same is not true for DNA inside the genome of living cells in a living thriving reproducin ...[text shortened]... uld be supported by the evidence of DNA having a limited shelf-life outside living cells?

This would put a limit on the age of the dinosaur bones or other bones still containing blood and DNA.

The Instructor