Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Current Events Current Events
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > > >

Val's Evolution vs. Creation (*4)


(!)

lotuseclat79's Avatar
Member with 20,583 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -71.45091, 42.27841
08-Jun-2007, 05:57 PM #31
Ok, folks, this ought to get this thread rolling again:

Scientists propose the kind of chemistry that led to life
Article here.

Before life emerged on earth, either a primitive kind of metabolism or an RNA-like duplicating machinery must have set the stage – so experts believe. But what preceded these pre-life steps?

Whew - scientists to the rescue - again! Even answers the question of complexity!

-- Tom
__________________
The independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction
between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. - Einstein 1944
Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Einstein
lotuseclat79's Avatar
Member with 20,583 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -71.45091, 42.27841
09-Jun-2007, 09:17 AM #32
No takers? Ok, then here's another take on Creationism:
Controversial Islamist author slams Darwin.

-- Tom
Stoner's Avatar
Account Disabled with 44,931 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dayton,Oh
09-Jun-2007, 10:53 AM #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotuseclat79
No takers? Ok, then here's another take on Creationism:
Controversial Islamist author slams Darwin.

-- Tom

The link you posted contains incorrect information.

Quote:
His teachings echo those of Christian fundamentalists in the United States, though he said he had no formal ties with them beyond "the exchange of information."
BAV, of which Oktar is considered the leader, was funded early on by millions of US dollars donated by the California creationist group, ICR, also known as the Institute for Creation Research, lead by the Morris family.

The connection seems to have been hushed up since 911 as BAV's purpose is an overthrow of the secular Turkish government in favor of an Islamic Theocracy and had at one time even been described as terrorist oriented.........I doubt Homeland Security approves of such funding _
lotuseclat79's Avatar
Member with 20,583 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -71.45091, 42.27841
11-Jun-2007, 08:59 AM #34
sy2's Avatar
sy2 sy2 is offline
Member with 2,821 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Midwest USA
Experience: [Insert witty comment here]
11-Jun-2007, 09:52 AM #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotuseclat79
You can pretty much stop reading after this:
Quote:
The argument is this: Any novel function in a protein that requires two simultaneous amino acid changes is so unlikely to occur by chance that the novel function must have been designed.
Evolution is NOT chance. Pretty much all ID arguments hinge upon brushing evolution off as random chance and it simply isn't the case.

If this guy actually found a legitimate case of irreducible complexity the science world would be going crazy about it. By Darwin's own admission that would blow the theory of Natural Selection out of the water.
sy2's Avatar
sy2 sy2 is offline
Member with 2,821 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Midwest USA
Experience: [Insert witty comment here]
11-Jun-2007, 10:04 AM #36
I'm posting this again from thread #3. This is the passage that I'm alluding to in the above post re: irreducible complexity.

Quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.
Just think about that for a minute. Nearly 150 years later and no one has been able to find that mysterious complex organ that would destroy Darwinian Evolution, and it certainly isn't because of a lack of effort.
sy2's Avatar
sy2 sy2 is offline
Member with 2,821 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Midwest USA
Experience: [Insert witty comment here]
13-Jun-2007, 09:13 PM #37
I had to post this here....



....
sy2's Avatar
sy2 sy2 is offline
Member with 2,821 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Midwest USA
Experience: [Insert witty comment here]
13-Jun-2007, 09:47 PM #38
This is a really interesting article - I think you need a log-in for NYT Select, though...

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AA0894DF404482

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

.....

Dr. de Waal's views are based on years of observing nonhuman primates, starting with work on aggression in the 1960s. He noticed then that after fights between two combatants, other chimpanzees would console the loser. But he was waylaid in battles with psychologists over imputing emotional states to animals, and it took him 20 years to come back to the subject.

He found that consolation was universal among the great apes but generally absent from monkeys -- among macaques, mothers will not even reassure an injured infant. To console another, Dr. de Waal argues, requires empathy and a level of self-awareness that only apes and humans seem to possess. And consideration of empathy quickly led him to explore the conditions for morality.

.....

Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape.

These four kinds of behavior -- empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking -- are the basis of sociality.

.....

Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal's view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion. ''I look at religions as recent additions,'' he said. ''Their function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them, which is what religions really do.''

--------

Really good article - I wish I could post more but I don't want to push it
LANMaster's Avatar
Account Disabled with 55,854 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
14-Jun-2007, 09:21 AM #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sy2
I had to post this here....



....
Simple ..... It had a smaller brim around the inside of the top.



The brim must have been .070795 cubits in thickness.
lotuseclat79's Avatar
Member with 20,583 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -71.45091, 42.27841
14-Jun-2007, 11:13 AM #40
Ref Gospel of Reason [extract]:

The Quote

“And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and…a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about….And it was an hand breadth thick….” — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

There is a similar description in Second Chronicles 4, verses 2 through 5.

Hiram and the Phoenicians

The Phoenicians lived in what is now Lebanon. They were the creators of “royal purple”, made by boiling a particular sea snail. While they did not invent glass, they did invent glass-blowing. They invented the first alphabet, from which we derive our own Latin alphabet. And they were skilled builders and artisans who exported their talents along with their legendary wood products, the fabled “cedars of Lebanon”.

Hiram was the Phoenician artisan recorded as having been hired by King Solomon to design and supervise the building of the Jewish temple. The bowl (”sea”) at issue was used within the temple.

The Measurements

The text refers to dimensions measured in “cubits” and “handbreadths”. Back in those days, measurements were not standardized as they are now. People used seat-of-the-pants measurements. Have you ever estimated the length of a bookcase by seeing how long it was compared to your outstretched arms? And then walked over to the spot where you wanted to move the bookcase, and stood against the wall, making sure that the length you’d just measured against your own body would fit in the open space? If so, then you have used “measurements” similar to those that ancient civilizations used.

The cubit was the length from the elbow to the tip of the outstretched fingers. It is commonly “standardized” today as being about eighteen inches (or about forty-six centimeters). To measure the length of, say, a desk in cubits, you would put your elbow at one end of the desk, with your hand outstretched toward the other end of the desk. Put the index finger of your other hand on the desk where your outstretched fingertips end, to mark the end of that cubit. Then move your cubit-arm over your index finger (which is marking the first cubit) so your elbow is now at your index finger, with your outstretched fingers still aiming at the other end of the desk. This measures “two cubits”. Continue laying out cubits until you run out of desk, counting as you go. My desk, being seventy-two inches long, comes out to being about four and a half cubits long, as measured by my forearm.

A handsbreadth is the “hand” used to measure horses. It is the width of the palm of the person doing the measuring, and is “standardized” as being four inches (or about ten centimeters). To measure, say, the height of a desk, start at the floor. Open your left hand with your palm facing you and your thumb up in the air (so it’s out of the way). Rest your hand on the floor, with the back of your open hand against the desk, your palm still facing you, and your “pinkie” finger on the floor. Now open your right hand (again sticking your thumb up in the air so it’s out of the way), and rest it on top of your left hand (so your right “pinkie” finger is across the top of your left index finger). This measures “two hands”. Continue alternating hands up the side of your desk, counting as you go. My desk, being thirty inches tall, comes out to being about eleven handbreadths, as measured by my skinny little hands.

Since cubits and handbreadths are measured against a person’s body, and since bodies vary, actual measurements (as opposed to “standardized” measurements) will vary from person to person. Your desk might be thirty inches tall, just like mine, but you might have bigger hands, so you might get a body-measure of only ten handbreadths. This variation is normal. Since we have no idea what Hiram’s body measurements were, we’ll have to approximate by using the standardized values for cubits and handbreadths.

Some Reasonable Assumptions

If this discussion of a “sea”, or large bowl, had been referring to what is called an “ideal” bowl (a mathematical object, not existing in a physical sense, and having no thickness that could be felt or handled), then the text would indeed be claiming that the value of pi is three. But the text is referring to a real-world physical object, having the thick sidewalls necessary to support its own weight.

Now that you know how to measure cubits, can you see that it would be rather difficult to measure the curved surface of a bowl in cubits? Instead, a straightened rope would be used to measure the length. The rope would then have been moved to outline a circle with the desired circumference. Also, Hiram would not have just tossed some brass in the furnace and waited to see what came out. He would have designed the piece and would have given his workmen instructions.

To make a “sea” like this would likely have required a mold. The outer mold would have one dimension, and the inner mold would have another. Hiram would have given his workmen instructions regarding these measurements.

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the Phoenicians, being the renowned craftsmen that they were, had discovered a “rule of thumb”? Perhaps something along the lines of, “If a bowl is made with a three-to-one ratio between the inner circumference and the outer diameter, the bowl will have a desirable wall thickness that will support its own weight”? When Egyptians and Babylonians came up with rules of thumb or accidentally discovered formulae like this, we credit them with being clever. Can’t we do the same for the Phoenicians, even if they were — gasp! — friendly with the Jews?

Now that you have some background information, let’s look at the numbers:

——————————————————————————–

The Calculations

Here again is the quote being referred to:

“And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and…a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about….And it was an hand breadth thick….” — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

The bowl is said to have had a circumference of thirty cubits and a diameter of ten cubits. The diameter is said to be “from one rim to the other”, so this would be the outer diameter; that is, the diameter of the outer mold used to make the bowl.

The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but since using the outer circumference would give us the “ideal” bowl (with no width or thickness), let’s instead use the inner circumference, which also, reasonably, would have been the circumference of the mold used to form the inside of the bowl. That is, we will use the two measurements which were necessary for the casting of the piece.

Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:

outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches

To find the “Jewish” or “Bible” value for pi, we need to have the inner radius. Once we have that value, we can plug it into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches.

Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:

90 – 4 = 86 inches

Let’s do the calculations:

inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches

The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:

540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)

Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837…, or about 3.14.

Um… Isn’t “3.14″ the approximation we all use for pi? Hmm…. I guess the Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all.
Phoenician - June 13th, 2007 at 7:17 pm

[end extract]

-- Tom
sy2's Avatar
sy2 sy2 is offline
Member with 2,821 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Midwest USA
Experience: [Insert witty comment here]
14-Jun-2007, 11:33 AM #41
Well I think the point of the article I got that from was aimed at folks who claim that the bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, not subject to interpretation and "modernization."

Sure, we can rationalize and make all sorts of assumptions to make the numbers fit the way that we know they're supposed to (thanks to modern mathematics), but the gist of it is that the bible verses say that the radius was 10 and the circumference was 30.

To get around that we need to start making assumptions and tweaking things so that we get the numbers that we want. In the example above, for instance, we're assuming that the measurement is being made from the inside rim, we're assuming that a "handbreath" is 4 inches and we're assuming that a cubit is 18 inches.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that you can't take what's written at face value - it requires subjective interpretation and assumption which is a pretty critical hit to the theory that the bible is inerrant and that it can't be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on what conclusion you want to reach.
LANMaster's Avatar
Account Disabled with 55,854 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
14-Jun-2007, 11:54 AM #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sy2
Well I think the point of the article I got that from was aimed at folks who claim that the bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, not subject to interpretation and "modernization."

Sure, we can rationalize and make all sorts of assumptions to make the numbers fit the way that we know they're supposed to (thanks to modern mathematics), but the gist of it is that the bible verses say that the radius was 10 and the circumference was 30.
Diameter, not the radius.
But WRT the top circumference, it's not clear enough to claim a contradiction, IMO.

Quote:
To get around that we need to start making assumptions and tweaking things so that we get the numbers that we want. In the example above, for instance, we're assuming that the measurement is being made from the inside rim, we're assuming that a "handbreath" is 4 inches and we're assuming that a cubit is 18 inches.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that you can't take what's written at face value - it requires subjective interpretation and assumption which is a pretty critical hit to the theory that the bible is inerrant and that it can't be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on what conclusion you want to reach.
Yes. We are assuming. We could be wrong.
lotuseclat79's Avatar
Member with 20,583 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -71.45091, 42.27841
21-Jun-2007, 04:35 PM #43
Our Genomes, ENCODE, and Intelligent Design
Article here.

-- Tom
jmosmith's Avatar
Member with 6,091 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hurricane Alley!
22-Jun-2007, 03:34 PM #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster
Diameter, not the radius.
But WRT the top circumference, it's not clear enough to claim a contradiction, IMO.

Yes. We are assuming. We could be wrong.
...or the Bible could be!!!
lotuseclat79's Avatar
Member with 20,583 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -71.45091, 42.27841
26-Jun-2007, 07:55 AM #45
Braking news for creationism
Article here.

"Creationists who bang the pulpit about the Universe being young tend to use old, outdated, and long-debunked arguments. [...] One argument has to do with angular momentum. This is a tendency for a rotating object to stay spinning unless acted upon by a force of some kind [...] This was theoretical… until now. It’s been observed." (Ref digg.com 447)

-- Tom
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑