Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,146 Year: 5,403/9,624 Month: 428/323 Week: 68/204 Day: 10/34 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Honest Question for someone new here
SNGX1275
Guest


Message 1 of 20 (27710)
12-23-2002 2:43 AM


So many of the threads here are several upon several pages long. Which do you recommend to read before I begin posting? For background on me:
If I register I'll be SNGX1275 (unless I already registered and forgot)
I'm a 5th year senior in Geology and Geophysics at the University of Missouri-Rolla
I graduate in May 2003
I in no way claim to be an expert in any area, I'm just going to use what I have learned and read to form opinions, and will take into consideration anything I read here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 12-23-2002 9:06 AM You have not replied
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2003 11:00 PM You have not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22686
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 2 of 20 (27724)
12-23-2002 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SNGX1275
12-23-2002 2:43 AM


You don't have to read the entire thread to contribute. Usually just reading the last few posts is sufficient. When that's not enough then just read backwards until you have enough information and context - there are forward and backward message links at the bottom of each message to assist you in navigating around the messages of a thread. If you click on the message icon, which appears in the left-hand column of thread lists and at the top of each message, you'll get a list of all messages for a thread. And if you click on any registered member's name you'll get a list of the most recent message in each thread from that member.
Since your major is geology and geophysics you might first try the Geology and the Great Flood forum.
Welcome aboard!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SNGX1275, posted 12-23-2002 2:43 AM SNGX1275 has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5701 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 3 of 20 (28345)
01-03-2003 8:57 AM


Why do creationists feel the need to greatly increase rates of biological and geological processes derived by mainstream science in order to proove their claim that the earth is a few thousand years old?
Accepting creationism does not necesariliy imply that natural processes have been profoundly different in the past. It implies, instead, that the duration of time is limited to a few thousand years. With this in mind, the universe may have been created a few thousand years ago, in a state very similar to the present, with rates of sedimentation, continental drift, fossilisation, genetic mutation, very similar to present rates.
In this context the debate between creationists and evolutionists is pointless. The former believe in creationism, the latter describe nature as best as they can. Creationism is sustained by faith, science does not imply any form of belief.
Tom

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 01-03-2003 5:08 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 5 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 04-25-2003 5:27 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2003 7:59 PM johnfolton has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 20 (28368)
01-03-2003 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
01-03-2003 8:57 AM


One, Calculus may not be the method and this comes from Evolution slanted views
Two, Philosophy in Einstein's sense may have a more detrimental impact on the progress IN science than any creationist broading of the discussion involves (by ommission of thought due to ideological regimes for instance)
Three, acceleration may not have a carte blanche reality one tends to not critically attend to when discussing large areas in science
Four-other creationist alternative s exist mainstream or not in interactivity at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2003 8:57 AM johnfolton has not replied

Flamingo Chavez
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 20 (38069)
04-25-2003 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
01-03-2003 8:57 AM


I've accepted both Creationism and evolution. Evolution doesn't make any metaphysical claims, and religion SHOULDN'T make claims on science. I really don't see the big deal.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2003 8:57 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2003 7:56 PM Flamingo Chavez has not replied

Gemster
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 20 (56368)
09-18-2003 7:46 PM


evolution makes no metaphysical claims
My dictionary says that metaphysics is..'The branch of
philosophy that investigates principles of reality
transcending those of any particular science'.
I would have thought that the theory of evolution is
very metaphysical as it supposes to call upon processes that
are not part of any observable scientific laws, such as
laws of thermodynamics etc. The only laws that evolution
follows are those theoretical laws that are not
verified by other branches of scientific investigation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2003 7:54 PM Gemster has not replied
 Message 17 by nator, posted 09-28-2003 8:39 AM Gemster has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 20 (56369)
09-18-2003 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Gemster
09-18-2003 7:46 PM


Re: evolution makes no metaphysical claims
gemster, could you itemize the "processes that
are not part of any observable scientific laws, such as
laws of thermodynamics etc. " and how "evolution" calls upon them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Gemster, posted 09-18-2003 7:46 PM Gemster has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 20 (56371)
09-18-2003 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Flamingo Chavez
04-25-2003 5:27 PM


Flamingo, as used in this forum "Creationism" does make claims that it "shouldn't". Here it (big C creationsism) attempts to refute biology, geology and physics to start the list. Therefore, given the definition we seem to be useing you can't have both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 04-25-2003 5:27 PM Flamingo Chavez has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 20 (56373)
09-18-2003 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
01-03-2003 8:57 AM


This idea, that god is a pratical joker is being discussed in another thread.
EvC Forum: Questions Creationists Never Answer
Questions Creationists Never Answer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2003 8:57 AM johnfolton has not replied

Gemster
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 20 (56380)
09-18-2003 8:15 PM


laws
what laws does evolution call upon to confirm its' theory
when it comes to something like thermodynamics it doesn't say
that the law of thermodynamics confirms evolutionary theory,
only that it doesn't discredit evolution.please tell me
some laws of physics that would correspond to a history
of ever incresing complexity of lifeforms.
Have a good day

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2003 11:06 PM Gemster has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 20 (56396)
09-18-2003 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SNGX1275
12-23-2002 2:43 AM


read your own!
I suggest you read the one you started. I am going to try*
quote:
So many of the threads here are several upon several pages long. Which do you recommend to read before I begin posting? For background
quote:
enough then just read backwards until you have enough information and context - there are forward and backward message links at the bottom
quote:

Tom
Why do creationists feel the need to greatly increase rates of biological and geological processes derived by mainstream science nature as best as they can. Creationism is sustained by faith, science does not imply any form of belief.
quote:

One, Calculus may not be the method and this comes from Evolution slanted views
Two, Philosophy in Einstein's sense may have a more detrimental impact on the progress IN science than any creationist broading of the discussion involves (by ommission of thought due to ideological regimes for instance)
Three, acceleration may not have a carte blanche reality one tends to not critically attend to when discussing large areas in science
Four-other creationist alternative s exist mainstream or not in interactivity at least.

quote:
I've accepted both Creationism and evolution. Evolution doesn't make any metaphysical claims, and religion SHOULDN'T make claims on science. I really don't see the big deal.
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
quote:
Replies to this message:
Message 8 by NosyNed, posted
quote:

gemster
My dictionary says that metaphysics is..'The branch of
philosophy that investigates principles of reality
transcending those of any particular science'.
I would have thought that the theory of evolution is
very metaphysical as it supposes to call upon processes that
are not part of any observable scientific laws, such as
laws of thermodynamics etc. The only laws that evolution
follows are those theoretical laws that are not
verified by other branches of scientific investigation.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Re: evolution makes no metaphysical claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gemster, could you itemize the "processes that
are not part of any observable scientific laws, such as
laws of thermodynamics etc. " and how "evolution" calls upon them?
quote:
Flamingo, as used in this forum "Creationism" does make claims that it "shouldn't". Here it (big C creationsism) attempts to refute biology, geology and physics to start the list. Therefore, given the definition we seem to be useing you can't have both.
quote:
This idea, that god is a pratical joker is being discussed in another thread.
Questions Creationists Never Answer
quote:

laws
------------------------------------------------------------------------
what laws does evolution call upon to confirm its' theory
when it comes to something like thermodynamics it doesn't say
that the law of thermodynamics confirms evolutionary theory,
only that it doesn't discredit evolution.please tell me
some laws of physics that would correspond to a history
of ever incresing complexity of lifeforms.
Have a good day

I read, $Epistemelogically changes and/or differences parastitic or symbiotic with Einstein's worldview ontologically is unbelievable cardinally ought the thought claiming what it should not even if blind but able to recall science without religion but as for what was seen it BOTH didn't metaphysically as to the complex seeable in the gem that has not been cashed either in this or another thread.$
I do not think this reads on "in tongues" and this IS NOT tongue in cheek. I can actually write something on the basis of this metareading but first is this something we can support to do here? I doubt the admins would like to see every thread in this form????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SNGX1275, posted 12-23-2002 2:43 AM SNGX1275 has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 20 (56397)
09-18-2003 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Gemster
09-18-2003 8:15 PM


Re: laws
Gemster
You said
The only laws that evolution
follows are those theoretical laws that are not
verified by other branches of scientific investigation.
I asked what those laws are.
now you ask (instead of answering)
please tell me
some laws of physics that would correspond to a history
of ever incresing complexity of lifeforms.
This seems to be an odd question -- all laws of physics allow for this, just as you point out thermodynamics allows for it.
Secondly, lifeforms are not of "ever increasing complexity". SJ Gould's "Full House" is an excellent explanation of why this is a misspreception.
I doubt that I've answered you in the way you want. It is very hard for me to figure out what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Gemster, posted 09-18-2003 8:15 PM Gemster has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Gemster, posted 09-19-2003 4:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

Gemster
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 20 (56541)
09-19-2003 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
09-18-2003 11:06 PM


ever incresing complexity
If life forms are not of ever incresing complexity then are you saying that the step from a non web making spider to a web making spider is not complex?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2003 11:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2003 6:13 PM Gemster has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 20 (56566)
09-19-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Gemster
09-19-2003 4:48 PM


If life forms are not of ever incresing complexity then are you saying that the step from a non web making spider to a web making spider is not complex?
You've misunderstood what he's saying. He's not saying that life never trends towards the complex. He's saying that life doesn't always get more complex.
For instance a cave fish adapting to darkness by losing it's eyes would be less complexity.
Think of it this way. Pretend you're the least complex life form possible. Likely you've just been born in primordial soup or whatever. Because it can't get any simpler than you, any change to you or your decendants is going to represent greater complexity. You can't get simpler, and you're not likely to never change, so it's guaranteed that you're going to get more complex in the future. It's like the Gambler's Paradox, or a Random Walk. Pretty simple mathematical concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Gemster, posted 09-19-2003 4:48 PM Gemster has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 09-20-2003 10:43 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 09-26-2003 11:25 PM crashfrog has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 20 (56649)
09-20-2003 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
09-19-2003 6:13 PM


quote:
For instance a cave fish adapting to darkness by losing it's eyes would be less complexity.
This is not really a reply to you crash, but Gould's ( I think ) discussion of parasite evolution is a real eye opener on the subject.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2003 6:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024