Creationists

[UltimateReality]

"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids, says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."

"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem."

"The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.

Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." Kvenvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."


Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?

 

[UltimateReality]

From the same article, this is what YWC is always going on about, and its a HUGE problem for naturalistic explanations of origins...

"According to Bada, it doesn't much matter whether the amino acids that rained down on Earth in meteorites before life began had a slight left-handed excess. Once they arrived and mixed with the environment, Bada says, commonplace chemical reactions would have erased the left-handed signature."

 

[Hollie]

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.

In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.

Appeal to the masses.

But true, nonetheless.

I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.

There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc., required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation.

Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.

 

[UltimateReality]

That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.

In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.

Appeal to the masses.

But true, nonetheless.

I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.

There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc., required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation.

Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.

You mean like all the classes you took?

Hawly, you wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. All your science "knowledge" comes from Panda's Thumb.

 

[newpolitics]

NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...

Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extragalactic observations

The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do.

 

[newpolitics]

"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids, says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."

"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem."

"The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.

Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." Kvenvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."


Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

 

[UltimateReality]

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do.

Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.

 

[newpolitics]

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do.

Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.

Wow. That is one big genetic fallacy. Might want to look that one up. Where the knowledge we possess today came from has no bearing on the knowledge itself. Because a scientists was christian, doesn't mean the knowledge he/she uncovered is "Christian." Yet, this is what you are implying. If you are not, then there is no need for you to mention such an unimportant and widely understood point, and one which I have no reason to deny. Don't put words in my mouth. The modern scientific method was influenced heavily by Muslim thinkers almost a thousand years ago. I don't see how this has any bearing on the scientific method itself. We don't give credence to allah for this. Likewise, the fact that scientists of the past have been christian, doesn't vindicate the christian faith one iota. All it indicates is that the european populations until very recently, were heavily christian, because science had not yet uncovered so much. As science uncovers more and more, atheism becomes more viable, because god is no longer needed to explain anything.

 

[UltimateReality]

"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids, says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."

"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem."

"The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.

Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." Kvenvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."


Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life.

It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.

What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.

 

[UltimateReality]

I admitted openly when using these numbers that I "stood on the shoulders of giants" because I fully anticipated this very response from you. We all stand on the shoulders of those explorers who came before us. To understand everything humanity has uncovered to date it nearly impossible. In this sense, we must appeal to authority when using such measurements, because I am simply not an expert in a lot of these areas. i am okay with that, because I don't believe science is one big conspiracy theory as only creationists do.

Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.

Wow. That is one big genetic fallacy. Might want to look that one up. Where the knowledge we possess today came from has no bearing on the knowledge itself. Because a scientists was christian, doesn't mean the knowledge he/she uncovered is "Christian." Yet, this is what you are implying. If you are not, then there is no need for you to mention such an unimportant and widely understood point, and one which I have no reason to deny. Don't put words in my mouth. The modern scientific method was influenced heavily by Muslim thinkers almost a thousand years ago. I don't see how this has any bearing on the scientific method itself. We don't give credence to allah for this. Likewise, the fact that scientists of the past have been christian, doesn't vindicate the christian faith one iota. All it indicates is that the european populations until very recently, were heavily christian, because science had not yet uncovered so much. As science uncovers more and more, atheism becomes more viable, because god is no longer needed to explain anything.

Your inability to connect the dots in a debate shows your lack of maturity on such topics. You asserted that Creationists believe science is one big conspiracy theory. My post counters your extremely bigoted and small minded view. My point was that many Christians, and a few Muslims, are responsible for many advancements in science. Creationists embrace science. They just don't embrace your religious pseudoscience. And by the way, you are catching Hawly's disease. For the record for the upteenth time, I am NOT a Creationist.

Evolutionary Theory is a historical science. And most of it is based on un-provable and untestable claims. Your atheism has blinded you to the truth.

 

[newpolitics]

You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE&feature=related

Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.

Wrong. Naturalistic explanation rest on ignorance that chance could actually produce a functional protein.

This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.

Not in and of itself, but coupled with the processes currently in effect for creation of digital code, and the fact that dna contains specifiable information in digital code, Meyer makes a compelling argument for an intelligent agent being the source of the code.

He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.

not if that was the only information you had, but we have more. I have given you positive evidence. Intelligent agents are the only known source for complex, specifiable digital code. You continue to ignore this fact and have yet to note another source.

This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence.

You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.

But it is certainly useful in describing what DIDN'T happen, and included in that is any naturalistic chance explanation.

Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.

So it turns out your religion takes just as much faith as mine.

Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.

This is what most REAL scientist are saying about origins questions, but that is not what YOU were saying several pages back and that is not the trash propaganda being constantly pushed on the atheist agenda websites. Can you not see the tale wagging the dog relationship atheism has with modern science?

I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it.

Amino acids have been found on meteorites, demonstrating that they form elsewhere the universe, making the event non-unique to Earth,

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about amino acids. We are talking about extremely complex proteins that only function due to their specific 3D structures which include complex folds.

Fine.

which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.

Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?

Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!

 

[newpolitics]

"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids, says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."

"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem."

"The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.

Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." Kvenvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."


Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life.

It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.

What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.

Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out.

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:

1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.[2]

wikipedia.org

Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth. Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with. Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process.

You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it.

Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true.

It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.

Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.

 

[newpolitics]

NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...

Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extragalactic observations

The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with something . Anything, pointing to this possibility.

You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.

 

[Hollie]

Appeal to the masses.

But true, nonetheless.

I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.

There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc., required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation.

Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.

You mean like all the classes you took?

Hawly, you wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. All your science "knowledge" comes from Panda's Thumb.

I just gave you a lesson in science and I hope you will reflect and improve yourself.

You're offering more than the silly cut and paste that the other fundie has fumed in the board.

 

[ima]

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.

You got a link? Or are you just blowing more gas out of your starfish? Did you get your odds in Vegas?

 

[ima]

God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
That one is #1 flawed argument.

The Bible says God is Spirit. If he exists outside of matter, space, time and energy, what would ever make you think that he "looks" like anything you know or that he can "sit" anywhere. Have you been listening to Red Neck Theologians?

The bibble was written by men, not a god. So basically, your invisible dude is made up.

 

[ima]

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?

I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.

Class dismissed.

 

[newpolitics]

I just watched this, and this is not science. Meyer himself attempts to dodge this point by saying "it is a semantics issue," which means, he recognizes that there are differences between ID and the rest of the sciences, and is trying to reconcile this. I think this is where his PhD in philosophy of Science comes in, and relies on his degree to garner credibility for words that really don't mean much.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ima]

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?

I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.

Class dismissed.

But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?

At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.