17 Oct 14
Originally posted by josephwNo, just that Springer Spaniels didn't exist 6,000 years ago, so your statement that nothing that exists now did not exist then is contradicted by things like dog breeds. Also dog breeds show that forms can vary considerably from a common ancestor, even if speciation hasn't happened.
Are you trying to say that "forced breeding" is evolution?
[b]"Are you actually claiming mind matter dualism?"
I seriously doubt it. I asked this question in another thread; how/when did matter become self aware? In the evolution context, please explain how matter became aware of itself. How did matter develop a conscientiousness?
No doubt there's a whole bunch of theories about it.[/b]
Your other question is more interesting though. You appeared to be arguing in favour of mind matter dualism, since you seemed to be saying that imagination was not a product of the brain. In systems like that there are two substances, matter and mind, so that the brain would be a way for the separate substance of mind to interact with the material world. Relatively few people believe that now.
I think you have two issues merged in the same point. The first is how can matter think at all? The second is how can it evolve? The latter, really is just a matter of increasing complexity after the first specialized neurone has been produced. Cells are known to signal each other so within the theory of Evolution it is quite logical that specialized cells should emerge which would take over signalling. The more interesting question is how can matter think? The scientific answer is connected with emergent phenomena due to increased complexity.
17 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessYes, that is the nature of theories, it is what they are! I'm quite sure we
What are you talking about? Theories can change when new discoveries are made, as they should. And theories can only change to explain all the evidence thus far acquired. It's not like the core of evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin's time. Only what we understand about the mechanisms behind it change as new observations are made.
The only one making things up, selecting what to accept and not accept, is you.
have been spot on quite a bit of things with respect on how we view them.
Our trouble is that we have been spot on, on quite a bit on how we view
them so that we don't see the possibilities of grand errors as we should.
Darwin's theory explains a lot, we also had to change quite a bit due to we
were wrong on several parts and we were forced to admit the errors. That
said, there are still people here who will view evolution as a factual
explanation for things they cannot verify and assume they are factually
correct.
I'm more incline to believe what we can verify and not accept on face value
that which we cannot, and people like you can say I'm acting "high"
because of it. If I do buy into something that I cannot prove, I admit what I
have is not science, but faith. Those who believe in evolution as you have a
lot of faith, but many of those who believe like you do, believe in things
they cannot prove or disprove reject the use of the word faith, mainly
because they feel it puts them on equal footing with those that believe in
God.
We are all people, who are talking about things we are putting our trust in
that we cannot prove, so I don't see that as an issue, but many here do.
17 Oct 14
Originally posted by KellyJayDid you look at my link about ocean sediments?
Yes, that is the nature of theories, it is what they are! I'm quite sure we
have been spot on quite a bit of things with respect on how we view them.
Our trouble is that we have been spot on, on quite a bit on how we view
them so that we don't see the possibilities of grand errors as we should.
Darwin's theory explains a lot, we also had to change qui ...[text shortened]... e putting our trust in
that we cannot prove, so I don't see that as an issue, but many here do.
17 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat currect rate may or may not be correct. I believe that is a guess too. However, even if it is correct, that does not mean the rate has always been the same or that God did not make a bunch of them in the beginning. Like I said, it is all about speculating and guessing, nothing more.
RJ I do know this and I'm not just guessing. sonhouse gave the current rate of deposition at around 1cm per millennium. This means that either the sediments should be no more than a couple of inches thick compared with 1.6 miles, or that there was a vastly greater rate of deposition in the past. There is no convincing explanation for this other than an old earth.
17 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessYou are just talking nonsense.
No, they're not by definition parasites. They're single-celled organisms, and your body is kitchen, livingroom and toilet for a select group of these little buggers. Your human cells and microbiome live in symbiosis. You look in the mirror, and what you're in fact looking at is a huge part bacteria, viruses, and eukaryotic microorganisms, and a small portion ...[text shortened]... 's just a fact. It's all explained in the links I provided. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.
18 Oct 14
3 edits
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
I've heard about this argument for a young earth because of the moon's speed and orbit and rotation but this would be dependent upon the escape theory that the moon came from a young hot molten earth .....I know there are various theories on the earth-moon system. If your were to work things backwards in time that 4.5 millions years does not correlate with what we now see -- the idea simplistically like a top spinning over time it will slow down
Manny
18 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Here is the thing about the YEC view on that molten moon idea: If it only happened a few thousand years ago IT WOULD STILL BE RED HOT. Let me say that again: IT WOULD STILL BE RED HOT.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
I've heard about this argument for a young earth because of the moon's speed and orbit and rotation but this would be dependent upon the escape theory that the moon came from a young hot molten earth .....I know there are various theories on the earth-moon system. If your were to work things backwards in time that 4.5 millions years does not correlate with what we now see
Manny
A whole frigging MOON thousands of miles wide will NOT cool down in a mere few thousand years from the time when it was a molten rock flung from the Earth, which is one theory about how the moon got here with some evidence for that. One thing is this: our Earth has a pretty strong planetary magnetic field while planets like Mars has almost none.
This is because of the molten core, molten after BILLIONS of years. The theory goes that a mars sized planet made a glancing blow hitting the young Earth and naturally it got a bit toasty to say the least and stuff flew off and collected together to become our moon. But another big part of the stuff fell back to Earth and sunk to the inner core, and that core is a lot larger than can be explained by any other theory, the idea being part of that planet became part of Earth and generating a pretty strong magnetic field. Now we have a nice magnetic shield that keeps a lot of really nasty stuff from hitting the top of the atmosphere and carrying bits of it off like what happened to Mars that had a weak field that by now is mostly gone and so the solar wind literally knocked out bits and pieces of its early atmosphere and we are left with a desert probably lifeless planet. If Mars had a field like Earth's it would have never lost its atmosphere and it would be an entirely different place now.
And they say we owe our strong magnetic field to the debris that crashed down on the early Earth and was so hot it melted its way deep inside to add to the core which is one explanation for the rather large core we have.
But even a MILLION years after all that happened the moon would be WAY to hot to walk on. Here is why: When you have something hot on Earth, it gets cooled off by the atmosphere and cools off pretty fast. However, put that same thing in a vacuum environment and the cooling does not take place anywhere NEAR the rate of loss of heat if it was in the atmosphere.
Now the moon doesn't have an atmosphere and so all the heat loss HAS to take place with only radiation which is not very efficient in the way it gets rid of heat. If you look at the way a spacecraft sheds heat it is with large surface areas where radiation can cool things but nothing like the way it would if the same surfaces were in an atmosphere.
So the moon would stay red hot for eons and eons. The fact men have literally walked on the moon is proof positive the temperature of the surface is not so hot people cannot walk on it with some protection, it gets its heat now just from the sun so on the sun lit side, up to boiling point if there was water to boil there🙂 and the night side, down to 200 degrees below zero, it loses that surface heat because it is so shallow, that sun heats up a few feet deep max and so it doesn't take much to shed that heat when the sun sets on the moon. But when the entire moon is molten, a totally different story. Hot for eons. That destroys the young Earth idea right there. Of course there is the Hinds idea: Well, the young moon got cooled off by a planet sized wash of water. Good luck with that one.
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsR.J., you would need 5 orders of magnitude more diatoms to explain the depositions. There simply aren't the nutrients for them. The silicon cycle couldn't support that many of them. It just plain isn't explainable in your theory - unless you have God producing a young world made to look like an old world, which is in itself problematic for reasons I've discussed before.
That currect rate may or may not be correct. I believe that is a guess too. However, even if it is correct, that does not mean the rate has always been the same or that God did not make a bunch of them in the beginning. Like I said, it is all about speculating and guessing, nothing more.