Sisyphus

No, they are not. Random would mean there is no reason the volcanic eruption occurs at a particular time and place. However, this is not the case. They are the result of consistent natural laws, and are predictable. If you want to call that "random," fine. Just understand that you are using a different definition of "random" than everyone else, and don't get mad or accuse people of "dodging the argument" if they ask you to define how you are using a word. Now, it seems that by "random" you just mean something that nobody wanted to happen ahead of time. Right? Moving on. "Aided eye." You seem to think it's beneath you to define what you mean by that. However, nobody seems to know what you're talking about, just like with "random." You say certain things are not "observed," where "observation" includes the "aided eye." However, all of those things are observed with the "aided eye," inasmuch as that is vague enough to possibly include pretty much any information gathering whatsoever. So: A - Address the questions asked of you: 1) Explain what you mean by "aided eye." 2) Explain why that is the limit of "observation." 3) Explain why things that fall outside that limit are not science, in your opinion. OR B - Demonstrate maturity: Concede that your initial proposition was incorrect.

Your questions were ill-defined and hence could not be addressed directly. "Does indirect observation make it not science?" Well, what does "indirect observation" mean? Etc. Alright. Ok. If the ball is too confusing, go with the Earth's orbit. Given the Earth's current position and velocity, what will its position and velocity be 3 days from now? There is only one possible answer, because its path is determined by the laws of physics, not by random chance. What's an "aided eye?" What is the alternative? What is the significance of the difference, and why would one not qualify as science?

So what's the equivalent to the surface tension holding the raindrop together?

Your argument that things are not observed are semantic arguments. What? How is that random? It has to follow an exact path, as determined by physical laws. It seems you're using a different definition of "random" than everyone else. Because it has been observed many times: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Don't just say "no it hasn't." We're talking about facts here. What does? No, he falsified a more specific hypothesis. Nobody is currently suggesting that anything like that kind of spontaneous generation occurs. They don't assume that. They hypothesize that, and then they falsify it. They're doing science.

Because the objections you raise are semantic. No, it is either random or deterministic. If I toss a ball in the air and it follows a parabolic path back to earth, that path wasn't random, it was the result of natural laws. It was deterministic.

It isn't, though. Sometimes distinctions that seem intuitive are, upon closer examination, actually just arbitrary or meaningless. For example, in ordinary speech it seems like it makes sense that you directly observe a table but not a black hole or an electron. But in the examination in this conversation, it becomes clear that the distinction is arbitrary. In all three cases, you're just taking in sensory data and inferring the existence and properties of some object of contemplation.

No. The difference is between it happening over time as a result of natural processes, and a bunch of matter being tossed together and a living thing popping out. "Intent" is not the opposite of "random." It is observed in nature. Why do you keep saying it isn't? Yes, we did cover it. Literally everything is observed through "indirect evidence." I believe there was a discussion about a table. Yes, of course. Yes. Or rather, more specific hypotheses can be falsified. "Life arose from nonlife" is a very general statement. Abiogenesis is still poorly understood. There is an ancient Greek comedy called The Clouds, by Aristophanes. It is a parody of Socrates and the philosophical schools of the time. The title comes from the hypothesis among the natural philosophers of the time that lightning was caused by natural processes in the clouds, because they noticed predictable patterns in the weather. Aristophanes portrays this hypothesis as ridiculous. The implication is that since the philosophers don't have a complete explanation, then they must be wrong, and of course lightning is really Zeus throwing thunderbolts. Do you see the analogy?

So, to summarize, all of those things have been observed. It isn't a matter of observed or not, but just how much we are able to determine about them based on how we observe them. Evolution is predicted by theory and makes specific predictions that have been observed in many ways - in the laboratory, in paleontological evidence, in genetic evidence, etc. It is the most thoroughly observed of the three. Black holes are a prediction of the theory of general relativity, which itself has made countless accurate predictions that have been confirmed by experiment. They have also been detected by means of their gravitational influence, where the properties of specific black holes can be calculated. Dark matter is still the most mysterious of the three, though it has still been observed in various ways. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence) But the question was, "is it science?" Well, in order to answer that, you first have to ask what science is. Science is about noticing quantifiable patterns in the way the universe works, then making specific and quantifiable predictions based on extrapolation from those patterns, then testing those predictions. Patterns are never "proven," per se, they can only be falsified (disproven), by making predictions that do not come true. If two theories can both account for observations and both make accurate predictions, we devise an experiment that will go one way if one is accurate and a different way if the other is accurate. If a theory, like evolution or general relativity, makes a huge number of accurate predictions, then we consider it to be "true." At least until it is falsified, at which point it is discarded or modified, and the modified version then also has to make accurate predictions. There is never any "faith" involved. There are many differences between all of this and saying "god did it." For one thing, that explanation does not make quantifiable predictions that can be falsified. It isn't a quantifiable model. For another, it isn't looking for a model. It's giving up. Nobody is saying "we don't know where diversity of life comes from, so it must be evolution." They say, this explanation fits the observations, and the predictions it makes so far have all been verified.

No, it's the other way around. There are various reasons it is wrong, which is why most think it is not valid. Do you not understand Capn's argument? No, it is not how it is predicted and observed to occur. You said, one day, one will be born that isn't an elephant. That isn't how it works. Speciation is "macro evolution." It means the descent of two species from one species. Yup. Several examples have already been given in this thread.

Some think that is valid evidence, but most think it is not, due to flawed methodology. Capn' makes a good argument that it is observed. If you say it isn't, then you must be using a different definition. You're saying that it isn't "observed" unless you intercept a photon that is traveling directly from the object, right? Why is that the standard? That is not how evolution is predicted to occur. A new species does not appear all of a sudden like that, in one generation. Parents and offspring are never going to be a different species. If that's what you think evolution theory predicts, then I'm not surprised you find it implausible. ...however speciation as predicted has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory. Examples have been given already. Ok. We see evolution.

Say the average person has three children - higher than today, but a conservative assumption historically. Then, you have 2 siblings. You have 4 aunts/uncles, therefore 12 first cousins. You have 8 great aunts/uncles therefore 24 first cousins once removed, therefore 72 second cousins. You have 16 great great aunts/uncles, therefore 48 first cousins twice removed, therefore 144 second cousins once removed, therefore 432 third cousins. So, for number of nth cousins, it is 2^(n+1)*3^n. (To change average number of children, just change the 3 in this formula.) So for 6th cousins, that is 93,312. For 11th cousins, that is 725,594,112. (And remember that going back 11 generations, 3 children per couple would be a small family, so it's probably a lot higher than that.) You also have about 1/160000000th of your genes in common as a result of that relation. (Although you would actually have far more than that, obviously.) In other words, that degree of relatedness is meaningless. You and I are probably 11th cousins many times over. As for the probability of each, that would be a lot more complicated to figure out, and have to take into account size of populations, degree of interbreeding, etc. All you can really say about the probability is that it's "a lot higher than you would expect."

Indeed. The flaw in the problem is that the answer is too obvious before you formally solve it. Narrowing down to sensible guesses and using trial and error is a shortcut I've often used, but here there is exactly one sensible guess.

What's the "work instruction?" Is this homework? It depends on how you're measuring how long the hole is - how surface to surface on the original sphere, or surface to surface on the remainder. Since you only have enough information to answer if it's the latter, then go with that. And the hint is: think about what the remainder looks like as the original sphere gets smaller and the hole gets narrower.

I say raise them with the knowledge. When they ask where babies come from (or even before they ask), give two answers, and tell them which one applies to them. Don't say "and there's nothing wrong with that/and I love you just as much," because that just makes it seem like there is a stigma. If it's totally normal, it shouldn't occur to you that you might not love them just as much or whatever, so there's no need to say it. Don't wait to some later time (like age 18) to tell them - if there is nothing wrong with it, why were you keeping it a secret? I think when people get upset when they find out they're adopted, it's because they feel deceived, and because they feel they have to change how they think about themselves and their relationship with their parents, and because there is supposedly a stigma. None of those would be a problem if you tell them from the beginning and don't treat it as anything unusual. So, there are no good reasons not to tell them. But are there reasons to tell them? Yes. I agree with the OP that it is unethical to effectively deceive your children about their own medical history. It's also just a generally mean thing to do, since they will probably find out eventually anyway, and at that point it could be devastating. Since almost nobody figures out they're adopted without being told or discovering concrete evidence, I really don't think that's true.

It can't be evaluated, since the odds aren't explained. He just says "so and so estimates odds of 1/zillion." It's the method of determining those odds that would need to be evaluated, as that's the only substance in the paper - the rest is just arithmetic. If, for example, the odds are calculated based on (known simple life configurations)/(total possible arrangements of matter), then that isn't valid, for what should be obvious reasons. Life gradually arising as a consequence of natural processes is not equivalent to random molecules being tossed together and a bacterium popping out. Nobody believes the latter. There is also the matter of the size of the universe. It is still an open question whether or not the universe is infinite. If it is, then such probabilities become meaningless - anything that could happen has happened.

I clarified what I meant by that in post #23. Calling it "random" implies it is magically assembled from nothing, just by pure chance. In fact, it would be the result of natural processes. You should also remember that evolution and abiogenesis are two different topics. Abiogenesis is how life began, and it's not well understood. Evolution is how life changes once it already exists, and it is far better understood.

Any two sets of values for {t, x} with equal t1.

You're looking for an equation? You can translate between the coordinates of two different reference frames with the Lorentz transformations: [math] t' = \frac{t - {v\,x/c^2}}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\ [/math] and [math]x' = \frac{x - v\,t }{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\ [/math] where they have a relative velocity of v along the x axis.

If the requirements for passing medical school aren't any different, then what's the problem? It's not like there are going to be "humanities doctors" now. Medical schools are just betting that some students will make it despite unconventional undergraduate preparation. If they're right, they're right. If not, those students will fail out.

The entropy of a system always increases with time. Does the "measuredness" of a system always increase with time? I don't think so.

So the amoeba doesn't have "junk DNA?" It would accumulate "junk," yes, though it might also lose it depending on selection pressures. Bear in mind that the amoeba's lineage is no older than ours. It has certainly had a far larger number of generations, though, and clearly is capable of thriving with such a large genome, while organisms like us might not. So yeah: "older" and "simpler." Also, just because a part of the genome is noncoding doesn't necessarily mean it serves no purpose or has no effect, or that is not subject to natural selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

But repaying it Himself is also just Him getting something He already made. Seems like He should have just excused the debt and cut out the middle Man. If I'm a loan shark and I know you can't pay me back, what does breaking my own thumbs accomplish?

The rise of human civilization is indeed the primary factor in a global mass extinction event that we are currently in the middle of. It does bother me, too. Keep in mind, though, that most species in the history of the planet have gone extinct even without us around to inadvertently kill them off. Those that survive split into different species, and the total amount of biodiversity remains constant of gradually increases despite setbacks such as homo sapiens, or whatever killed the dinosaurs.

Yeah, that was funny. It does seem like those most publicly concerned with "family values" tend to be especially bereft of them, and Think of the Children stuff about popular music has always been silly. To be fair to the Gores, though, an apparently happy 40 year marriage followed by an amicable separation is pretty good, IMO.

! Moderator Note There are already several active threads about creationism. This thread was about a simple question that was answered. Please do not bring in OT debate and fringe claims in topics about mainstream science. I'm temporarily closing this thread, but kitkat, if you'd like it opened again, just private message me.