Acceptable Science

[monkeypsycho62]

.

 

[arunma]

.

Well, that's a post with a point if ever there was one.

 

[Skaloop]

Alchmey was the "science" of trying to turn one element into another.. most noted to be Lead into Gold.

Secondly, We can not validate that Hydrogen produices gravational forces that would exceed the expansion properties of Hydrogen.

IE: Gas will not form into balls, in a Vacuum, it will expand uniformly though the vacuum. As such, to say that it would collect, then that contradicts what we know of the nature of Gas. It will in fact, not "lump together" either by gravity, or other wise, and even if there were variances in density of the hydrogen atoms, it would not be substantial to attract over nature of Gas in a void, (and we at this time left the field of Quantum Physics, and even in the off chance, that they could have attracted, enough additional other hydrogen atoms to form some type of cluster, the "extreme pressure" required to ignite it, would not be a feasibility, as we have nothing today that can even simulate the same or even a small scale effect that would hint that this could happen.

So, beyond being a nice sounding Theory, it does not have any support, and in several cases, requires things to happen, that we can test, and the result is that it does not behave in that manner.

This was addressed by someone else. The hydrogen was not in a gaseous state.

Even if there were different density in the atoms themselves, and different "formations" of the atom clusters, the end result would not be them "clumping" but spread out to fill the void.

This is pure Theory, as we can only validate the mass, the "open space" of the universe, we have no way to gauge or test it's limits, or age. As such, we can not conclude any thing beyond pure speculation about the "space" of the Universe. The mass on the other hand......

So if you chose to accept this, then that would be something you would have to just take on faith, or believe in. As it stands, it is a fabrication of someones imagination.

It may be true, but, then again, it may not, we don't really know anything in that regards. I am just as valid to say it was a void, as you might be to say it was space time creation at this moment.

if it was a void, then the current model, can not work. if the Spacetime is the reality, then there is a possibility, but that means that the Theory is dependent on a fictional or purely hypothetical idea being true, for the Theory itself to have any validity.[/quote]

You are arguing against the "explosion into a void" theory, which is not the position I hold. You are finding ways in which that theory is untenable and invalid. I couldn't agree more. Which is why the expansion theory is superior, as it does not face those same flaws. You keep saying how the BB couldn't have happened the way he says it did. Since I agree with that, why not point out how the BB couldn't have occurred according to the theory I am presenting?

I have heard many Theories about the "space" of the universe, but as it stands, despite the many models and ideas that do float to the surface, there is no way we currently possess to even hint that we might have an idea of the reality of the situation about the "space" the mass, again, I say it.. is a whole different matter.

Well, we know that space must have been small, because as you've mentioned, if it were a void the size of the current universe, there is no way the matter could have been condensed into a tiny region of energy. The universe itself was tiny, containing that energy. And observations have shown that spacetime itself is expanding, primarily the red-shift seen from distant galaxies.

As it really stands, we can only "Theorize" about the "space" of the universe, as we have no evidence to work from, other then "Look, there it is.. space.."

We have red-shift.

No, I did not say that, I said, we have no idea if Simple polymers will even beget the starting steps of life, nor do we know the transition steps that may or may not be required to go from simple polymers in water to a living cell, or even protocell.

Which means, we can not even validate if this is (a) the starting step, to the beginning of life.

No we don't know the starting point or the steps, but there are viable possibilities. Of course, this doesn't say for sure that any of them happened, but it certainly allows for the possibility.

For one, it is not an awful long time to work with. That is one problem. You only have a few billion years of a planet to start with.

A couple of billion years is quite a bit of time. Along with many many moles of particles. The number of trials occuring would be huge.

Of which, we have no idea at what point it could sustain life, to which it life had a chance to "become" after you factor that in, you then need to factor in what where the "attempts" and what were the success, IE: Even if Life was formed, IE: a Cell was started, there is no guarantee that it would survive to reproduice.

Life would not start with a cell. At the point we're talking about, reproduction wouldn't even be an appropriate term. Molecules would rather act as catalysts for formation of more molecules, increasing the number of successful attempts.

And this number, this vastly long number , it just the chance for the Amino Acid frequency to be provided, this does not include the chance for the rest of the situation to be provided for the cell to form.

Again, you have no reason to presume that the chances for "the rest of the situation" are in any way slim. There's a wide range of variables over which basic molecules of life could form.

So, sadly, this becomes a very big problem for feasibility

I disagree. Perhaps the odds of our specific form of life arising in any random set of circumstances is slim, but there are ways to form life that differ from what happened here on Earth.

Could it happen.. well.. with out God, anything is not possible... sadly.

You're right, anything is not possible. But plenty of things are. We're living proof of what is possible without God.

Sure it is, it is a possibility, not a sure thing. And just as Evolution, and Big Bang, despite the chances against it, it "could have" which is enough to keep it on the table.

And again, you are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Nothing we have discussed addresses the diversity of life, so evolution is not part of this. Whatever questions are left regarding abiogenesis, even if it is proven totally and completely impossible, evolution is still an observed, measurable, evidenced fact. To lump the two together is like saying that because we don't know the absolute specifics of how matter formed in the universe, gravity is only a slim possibility.

Evolution is not a "could happen" It is a "does happen." It's not kept on the table because of a slim chance it may be true, it is kept on the table (is in fact the only possibility even on the table) because of the reams of convergent evidence supporting it from several different disciplines.

 

[Key]

This was addressed by someone else. The hydrogen was not in a gaseous state.

I believe the idea was they had to have been in a plasma like state, due to heat. (however, where this heat comes from, I guess we will never know)..

You are arguing against the "explosion into a void" theory, which is not the position I hold.

No even in the expanding spacetime model, which has space literally grow between mass, this would equally cause problems, as it would be a force acting on the Hydrogen to literally "pull it apart" at the start.

As opposed to letting the nature of hydrogen happen, it would act upon it, in a direction that would still work against the clumping theory.

You are finding ways in which that theory is untenable and invalid. I couldn't agree more. Which is why the expansion theory is superior, as it does not face those same flaws.

The problem is that each model has it's own flaws, even the expanding space model has issues with it, explained above.

Well, we know that space must have been small, because as you've mentioned, if it were a void the size of the current universe, there is no way the matter could have been condensed into a tiny region of energy.

No, we don't KNOW, we make an assumption, based on what we understand to have been a necessity for something to work in a manner we have currently proposed.

This is little more then a desire to make a concept work, as opposed to having any true knowledge of the situation.

The universe itself was tiny, containing that energy. And observations have shown that spacetime itself is expanding, primarily the red-shift seen from distant galaxies.

The odd part of that, is that is seems that space itself, is coming between the planets itself. Which means more then simple velocity is acting upon the mass in the universe, this would spell doom form anyone hoping that something would just clump.

But thank you, yes, it seems that the Space itself is literally growing between the planets, however, this still does not tell us anything about the outer limits, or how much overall space there might be.

There have been theories that the universe is like a cylinder concept that it links upon itself. Some that propose it is like the skin of a ball, not the inside of the ball.

No we don't know the starting point or the steps, but there are viable possibilities. Of course, this doesn't say for sure that any of them happened, but it certainly allows for the possibility.

Possibility, it can happen,, probability, and feasibility, have not been, IE: It is so improbable that it can not be possible.

A couple of billion years is quite a bit of time. Along with many many moles of particles. The number of trials occuring would be huge.

6.4 billion or something like that form inception. Not that long at all really.

Life would not start with a cell. At the point we're talking about, reproduction wouldn't even be an appropriate term. Molecules would rather act as catalysts for formation of more molecules, increasing the number of successful attempts.

Life, as defined requires cellular structure. IE: Why a virus is not truly a life form, as it does not have a cellular makeup.

Again, you have no reason to presume that the chances for "the rest of the situation" are in any way slim. There's a wide range of variables over which basic molecules of life could form.

at this point, that is purely speculation.

I disagree. Perhaps the odds of our specific form of life arising in any random set of circumstances is slim, but there are ways to form life that differ from what happened here on Earth.

Well we can't validate life on other planets (yet), given we are talking about life on earth as it is, this would then be the point of discussion.

You're right, anything is not possible. But plenty of things are. We're living proof of what is possible without God.

This is an open jab to start a debate, I do not believe I shall bite, however.

You have only provided pure speculation in your statement, where I have provided only fact in my statement.

In the end, if I was to consider ether of us, logical and rational, and able to divide fact from theory, I would be left to conclude that it was the Christian, not the atheist that had the ability, judging from this little snippet of yours.

And again, you are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Nothing we have discussed addresses the diversity of life, so evolution is not part of this.

Evolution is prone to many issues of improbably, that are also part of the problems with the other Theories, as well, on that platform, they are linked.

Evolution is not a "could happen" It is a "does happen." It's not kept on the table because of a slim chance it may be true, it is kept on the table (is in fact the only possibility even on the table) because of the reams of convergent evidence supporting it from several different disciplines.

This is adaptation that is supportable, the diversity of life, is not, at least, not at proposed, as in the macro sense, it depends on way to much improbability, in the micro, yah, it's all good.

And this seems like this might be going down into a debate, so I will have to end this hear.

I hope I have explained some issues, that were brought up, and given you some things to think about.

God Bless

Key

 

[Skaloop]

IThis is an open jab to start a debate, I do not believe I shall bite, however.

You have only provided pure speculation in your statement, where I have provided only fact in my statement.

In the end, if I was to consider ether of us, logical and rational, and able to divide fact from theory, I would be left to conclude that it was the Christian, not the atheist that had the ability, judging from this little snippet of yours.

You're the one that brought God into it. Besides, I was being facetious. I've contributed several lengthy posts, as have you. Let's not let one little theological snippet interfere with the scientific discussion.

Evolution is prone to many issues of improbably, that are also part of the problems with the other Theories, as well, on that platform, they are linked.

This is adaptation that is supportable, the diversity of life, is not, at least, not at proposed, as in the macro sense, it depends on way to much improbability, in the micro, yah, it's all good.

It's all the same process! Adaptation, microevolution, macroevolution; they proceed along the same pathways. It's like saying one can walk to the front door, one can walk to the next block, but one can't walk to the next town. Micro/macro is what creationists started calling it because they had to accept the "micro" part of it. In the actual science of it all, it's all evolution.

And evolution is improbable? When you have imperfect replicators competing in an environment of limited resources, evolution is entirely too probable; it's practically inevitable.

But, OK, no evolution debate here. Starting...... now.

I hope I have explained some issues, that were brought up, and given you some things to think about.

Indeed. And I you. Out of curiosity, do you have any formal education in biology or physics, or is it a personal study and interest? Not questioning your knowledge , as my own schooling on these topics is fairly limited, but you do seem to have more general scientific awareness of the issues than many IDers, even if you disagree with the scientific conclusions.

 

[Key]

It's all the same process! Adaptation, microevolution, macroevolution; they proceed along the same pathways. It's like saying one can walk to the front door, one can walk to the next block, but one can't walk to the next town.

You have touched a very good point here, and even in the realm of Physics, this is understood. that the Rules governing one scale, do not apply to all sales.

Using travel for example:

You can walk out the door (Assuming the door is not locked, blah blah blah).

You can walk across the street. Now the method and rules that govern crossing the street are diffrent then say walking out the door. IE: You do not have to wait at a cross walk, you do not have to look both ways for oncoming cars, there are new rules applied, because the scale and situation have changed.

Then to Walk to the Next town, new rules apply there, as there is dynamics of travel, how do you walk along the road, how many crossing you have to make, do you have to cross railroad tracks, there are routs you can not walk on (but can drive on). Crossing 6 lane highways on foot, require different rules of travel, then simply going across the street. Also, there might be overpasses for pedestrians, etc, etc, etc.

And again, we see that the rules change by scale, this is a very strong aspect of science. And is not to be brushed aside, sipmly because one wants to.

Just as you would say "Well Quantum Physics is not the same as Physics" but both deal with matter. Just diffrent scales, the Rules governing the situation change. So it would be viewed as misinformed to say that just because something happens on one scale, that it would equally apply to all scales. This mentality has been proven false. Any one that truly embraces science and it's nature would equally embrace that concept.

So, just because we have micro, we can not validate from this scale, that it would apply to larger scales, or even smaller scales.

Micro/macro is what creationists started calling it because they had to accept the "micro" part of it. In the actual science of it all, it's all evolution.

Not really, it started out as Adaptation, and Evolution, and they were two opposing Theories, as such Darwin Won, but equally assimilated several aspects of the Adaptation Theory into the "Evolution Theory"

And evolution is improbable?

Yes, but this is not a debate, so I shall not provide more then that.

When you have imperfect replicators competing in an environment of limited resources, evolution is entirely too probable; it's practically inevitable.

All of those things are nice, but, which model is this that you are putting forth, there are a few.

And off the top of my head, I do not truly recognize this one, as stated in this manner.

I can see this is not the Caustic Model, (Which is my personal favorite, only because it offers the most probity), this might be the Punctured Equilibrium, or is this the Gradual model?

Anyway, you did not mention the three Signature aspects of Evolution, which are:

Genetic Drift : Which might be the Imperfect replicators that you mentioned.

Natural Selection: Which may be the part of competing for limited resources, but that is not complete truth, that is an aspect of natural selection, but is only one aspect of it. Which may be what threw me. There are other factors involved regarding natural selection.

Mutations: which may or may not have been also included in the part where you said "Imperfect replication" but, the mutation in it's form, is not simply imperfect copies, but truly a genetic change of the life from (one of which would have to improve the survivability of the Life form, for it to be of any value), However this would change it's code, either by addition or subtraction of genetic material, which would have an impact on the life form far more then simple genetic drift, which is variance in the code, or allele frequency.

Indeed. And I you. Out of curiosity, do you have any formal education in biology or physics, or is it a personal study and interest? Not questioning your knowledge , as my own schooling on these topics is fairly limited, but you do seem to have more general scientific awareness of the issues than many IDers, even if you disagree with the scientific conclusions.

Thank you for the Complement, it is appreciated. You also seem to have a very good handle on what you are talking about, and it seems have kept very much up to date on this issue, I would also like to say, that this exchange, has been relatively pleasant, and edifying.

However, I have been asked this question a lot, mostly in the Creation Evolution forum, and I have not given an answer then, and I do not think I will be giving an answer now.

But, I will say, that I was an Atheist, for a Long time. (over done, I know, but it is the truth)

I'm just a skeptic about it now.

God Bless

Key

 

[Skaloop]

You have touched a very good point here, and even in the realm of Physics, this is understood. that the Rules governing one scale, do not apply to all sales.

Using travel for example:

You can walk out the door (Assuming the door is not locked, blah blah blah).

You can walk across the street. Now the method and rules that govern crossing the street are diffrent then say walking out the door. IE: You do not have to wait at a cross walk, you do not have to look both ways for oncoming cars, there are new rules applied, because the scale and situation have changed.

Then to Walk to the Next town, new rules apply there, as there is dynamics of travel, how do you walk along the road, how many crossing you have to make, do you have to cross railroad tracks, there are routs you can not walk on (but can drive on). Crossing 6 lane highways on foot, require different rules of travel, then simply going across the street. Also, there might be overpasses for pedestrians, etc, etc, etc.

And again, we see that the rules change by scale, this is a very strong aspect of science. And is not to be brushed aside, sipmly because one wants to.

Just as you would say "Well Quantum Physics is not the same as Physics" but both deal with matter. Just diffrent scales, the Rules governing the situation change. So it would be viewed as misinformed to say that just because something happens on one scale, that it would equally apply to all scales. This mentality has been proven false. Any one that truly embraces science and it's nature would equally embrace that concept.

So, just because we have micro, we can not validate from this scale, that it would apply to larger scales, or even smaller scales.

But, even with all the overpasses and six-lane highways, there's nothing preventing you from walking across town. Yes, it may be more difficult, and yes, it may require more steps, but nothing prevents it. You could propose that there is some huge insurmountable wall in the way, but to apply that analogy to evolution, you'd need to show what that wall was. I have yet to hear what that "wall" to "macro" evolution might be, even from the most ardent Creationists.

Not really, it started out as Adaptation, and Evolution, and they were two opposing Theories, as such Darwin Won, but equally assimilated several aspects of the Adaptation Theory into the "Evolution Theory"

And why did Darwin's theory win out? It couldn't be because it was supported by the evidence, could it?

And off the top of my head, I do not truly recognize this one, as stated in this manner.

I can see this is not the Caustic Model, (Which is my personal favorite, only because it offers the most probity), this might be the Punctured Equilibrium, or is this the Gradual model?

It applies just as well to either punctuated equilibrium or the gradual model. Although the actual evolution probably had elements of both.

Anyway, you did not mention the three Signature aspects of Evolution, which are:

Genetic Drift : Which might be the Imperfect replicators that you mentioned.

Yep. In a way. It's different than mutation though, as I will explain below.

Natural Selection: Which may be the part of competing for limited resources, but that is not complete truth, that is an aspect of natural selection, but is only one aspect of it. Which may be what threw me. There are other factors involved regarding natural selection.

Indeed. However, by resources, that includes many factors besides just food. It includes reproductive resources, for example.

Mutations: which may or may not have been also included in the part where you said "Imperfect replication" but, the mutation in it's form, is not simply imperfect copies, but truly a genetic change of the life from (one of which would have to improve the survivability of the Life form, for it to be of any value), However this would change it's code, either by addition or subtraction of genetic material, which would have an impact on the life form far more then simple genetic drift, which is variance in the code, or allele frequency.

Genetic drift arises merely because allele frequencies change with each new generation. It could be only slightly, but it changes. And if it continues, for some reason, to change in a certain "direction" then genetic drift can lead to overall changes in the population. It comes from the natural variation in reproduction. Mutations, on the other hand, are more in the realm of survival advantages. Genetic drift might lead to a population of blue-eyed creatures. Mutation might lead to a population with better vision due to a deeper light-sensitive pit being an advantage in hunting.

Thank you for the Complement, it is appreciated. You also seem to have a very good handle on what you are talking about, and it seems have kept very much up to date on this issue, I would also like to say, that this exchange, has been relatively pleasant, and edifying.

Yeah, it's been pretty good. We disagree on a lot, and we've butted heads before on less than congenial grounds, but I think we do well in an actual intelligent discussion.

However, I have been asked this question a lot, mostly in the Creation Evolution forum, and I have not given an answer then, and I do not think I will be giving an answer now.

Very well. I was just wondering.

But, I will say, that I was an Atheist, for a Long time.

So have I. Over 30 years now.

 

[climb8b]

Key and Skaloop,

Thanks for taking the discussion so far, while i understand the science that i started the discussion with i dont have the ability to discuss it to the extent you both have online.

I have found your knowledge inspiring and informative.

Regards

 

[Key]

But, even with all the overpasses and six-lane highways, there's nothing preventing you from walking across town. Yes, it may be more difficult, and yes, it may require more steps, but nothing prevents it. You could propose that there is some huge insurmountable wall in the way, but to apply that analogy to evolution, you'd need to show what that wall was. I have yet to hear what that "wall" to "macro" evolution might be, even from the most ardent Creationists.

This is not a debate, that looks strangely like debate material.

And why did Darwin's theory win out? It couldn't be because it was supported by the evidence, could it?

Yes, and some gross inaccuracy in the original proposed theory of Adaptation.

It applies just as well to either punctuated equilibrium or the gradual model. Although the actual evolution probably had elements of both.

Sounds fair.

Indeed. However, by resources, that includes many factors besides just food. It includes reproductive resources, for example.

Yah, and other things. it's not really, all that simple, It is not really cut an dried. But a process of elimination, might be the best way to look at it, as opposed to any other way.

Mutations, on the other hand, are more in the realm of survival advantages.

Not really. That is one part of it. But it's a bit more involved Imagine, Mutations are failures to produce a proper copy of ones genetic code, or corruption in genetic reproduction. The effect of this failure, or corruption, is then acted upon by Natural Selection, ( an Elimination process) , what happens after that, is the Mutation, falls into one of three categories. It is adverse, thus eliminated, it is neutral, and may or may not get eliminated, it is positive and thus may survive.

Genetic drift might lead to a population of blue-eyed creatures. Mutation might lead to a population with better vision due to a deeper light-sensitive pit being an advantage in hunting.

That is a fair example, of what a Mutation could do. That could, depending, also be a product of Genetic Drift. It would be an issue of the allowed variances of the life form and it's code, as to what can change, and not require a mutation. I could get into that, if you would like.

Yeah, it's been pretty good. We disagree on a lot, and we've butted heads before on less than congenial grounds, but I think we do well in an actual intelligent discussion.

Yah... that is very true.[/quote]

Key and Skaloop,

Thanks for taking the discussion so far, while i understand the science that i started the discussion with i dont have the ability to discuss it to the extent you both have online.

I have found your knowledge inspiring and informative.

Regards

Thank you.

God Bless

Key

 

[prophecystudent]

I have followed this thread from the beginning. I told myself that I was not going to post another response, and quit reading the thread altogether.

I must make one more, and final, response.

It seems to me that this whole discussion revolves around conflicting theories based on a variety of assumptions. Many of those assumptions are difficult, if not impossible, to accept due to current "standards" of physics and other sciences.

I fully realize that there are conflicting theories, but they are all supposedly based on SCIENCE.

I could care less about the semantics, or the heated responses regarding the perceived misapplicaiton of a word or phrase.

I am interested in responses to legitimate question from legitimate scientists. Like the issue of probability of spontaneous creation of life out of the primeval slime.

Scientists, many, have said that there comes a point at which an issue is no longer possible due to the extreme probability against the event.

I don't care what theory is involved by whoever is voicing their opinion. It all gets down to a single point.

Where did the material of which this universe is made come from?

One can argue that subatomic particles spring into existence from nothing, but that does not explain the motivating force that causes those particles to spring into existence, or to vanish.

In short, I believe that God created the universe and all that is in it. Until someone can show, positively, that He didn't, then I choose to believe. I could care less how He did it. He did it. In fact, as my mother says,

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Fred