mooeypoo

I am sorry, I have to interject again with a drip of reason here. blood_pardon, how are we going to have a decent debate about the evidence (or lack thereof) of evolution if you don't seem to be willing to go by evidence, and instead prefer to stick to claiming you don't believe anything? We don't just put forth claims, we back them up with links and evidence; if you have a specific problem with such links or evidence, then please argue against them, but if you keep claiming that you just don't believe X is X when we just showed you proof for it, then there won't be much of a common language in this debate, will there? Here is (again, from the same site that has answers to the majority of the claims you've raised) a good resource for transitional vertebrate fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html We're obviously willing to listen to your concerns, but have the least bit of intellectual honesty to - at the very least - look and examine the evidence we give you. ~moo

blood_pardon, science isn't about belief, though, it's about evidence. YOu might not believe in "macro evolution", but your lack of belief does not negate the massive amount of evidence that are supporting it. You should really read the links we posted... at least see if there's any claim in there that isn't answered, or that you have a specific problem with. Talkorigin has extensive answers with sources and citations to most of the points you're raising.

I misunderstood, I thought you mean the process can't be repeated. Which is partially true in the sense that the millions-of-years long process that resulted in human evolution is not something we can repeat in a lab, which make it much harder for many people to understand. I agree with all that you said.

Don't confuse "not knowing the cause" with "having no cause", yes? While god is often claimed to not have a cause by definition, that's not the case with the big bang.

Then why not the big bang? If you say the big bang must have a cause, but God doesn't need to require a cause, then you are special pleading. BTW, I don't mean to open a theological argument.. some people claim God is above the laws of nature (which, btw, makes her absolutely irrelevant as a scientific subject, even if possibly relevant for moral/subjective arguments) in which case special pleading is obvious -- god's outside of space and time (and therefore outside of physics) which is why god is special. That's a special pleading with a reason (that turns it non-scientific discussion), but it's still special pleading.

Actually, Sisyphus, aren't we repeating the process by breeding horses and dogs? Some dog species are absolutely the creation of human intervention, using the principles of evolution.

If you take a "snapshot" of the variety of life today, it's true that they don't *seem* to be related. Dogs don't give birth to sheep, obviously, so how can such a variety of animals all stem from the same ancestor? I can totally understand this confusion. But we're not talking about a snapshot of life today. That's not evolution. Evolution doesn't work in this scale (with a few exceptions); it works over millions of years, and seeing as you stated in your other post that you don't believe the Earth existed that long, it might be even a harder thing to imagine for you than for many others. Still. If instead of taking a "horizontal" snapshot and look at the variety of seemingly unrelated life forms on Earth, you look at a vertical cut over time, things look a bit different. So, if you track backwards the ancestors of the horse, you do not have *any* missing links - the transition is extremely clear - to a dog-like creature 55 million years ago. There are no missing links if you look at ancestry. It's pretty much like looking at the international space station today and not believing that the big structure started with small screws and panels. If you take a 'snapshot', it looks static. If you track back the process, it's quite clear.

While your links seem useful, please try to participate in the debate other than planting links to the same article over and over again. In most cases this can be seen as spam. It would be much better if you participate in the debates and stop injecting the same link over and over in multiple threads.

It doesn't work. Are we going to spend our time arguing like children? "yes it does! no it doesn't!" Stomping your feet on the ground, covering your ears and singing "LALALA" loudly will not make your ideas correct. You STILL haven't read the (multiple) explanations. They *have brought* the math forward. You're just ignoring it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis thread is temporarily closed for review. Vuquta, I recommend you take the time to go over the posts that were made for you and consider them. Whether we open the thread or not, it will serve as a good exercise either to continue refuting the claims or - perhaps! - learn from them. Thread closed, for now, until further review.

Alright, fair enough. It's late here, and I need to go to sleep, but I suggest we start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html seeing as it covers the VAST MAJORITY of the usual misconceptions and claims about the age of the Earth.

That might be true, but this philosophical question goes endlessly. No matter what 'entity' you propose came the first'est first, there had to be something before it. If not, then it is nothing more than special pleeding, where *EVERYTHING* must have a cause, except X. Just because. Comfortable, but not science. I warned you not to talk about religion because I knew that you would say that. That's not to say this can't be logically refuted, we are just not getting into these things in this specific forum. In this forum, we debate scientific evidence and follow the scientific method. Obviously, following a written book blindly stands in contrast to these concepts. So, moving on, I recommend you form an actual question we could debate, rather than reverting to arguments that are bound to produce repetitive logical fallacies instead. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, it is a scientific claim, however it is so absolutely preposterous that it's hard to know where to start. Should we discuss the geological evidence that show us for a fact that this isn't so? Should we, perhaps, go over our observation of the universe that show without a shadow of a doubt that this just cannot be? or should we discuss the philosophical implications of a god that insists on doing everything in his power to cheat us into thinking he can't possibly have done what the bible said he has done just for the sake of feeling big and strong? The moment you get into the actual evidence, you can't argue logically that the world is 7thousand years old without ignoring evidence or suggesting the evidence was planted by a supposedly benevolent god. Neither of those are a valid conduit for a scientific discussion, and judging from blood_pardon's other posts, it's doubtful to lead anywhere. Where do we start? Pick one.

What missing stages do you mean, blood_pardon? reciting claims you've heard from knowledgeable people does not constitute a valid knowledge of the fact. The theory of evolution is not only well supported, it provides testable predictions that turn to be correct again and again. And again and again. There are no "missing links"; the suggestion is usually made by those who never really took the time to actually study the theory they're trying to refute. So. I ask you -- what exactly do you deem as missing?

You're right, it explains how the singularity expanded and not where it came from. True dat. It's also well evidenced in observations and mathematics. Just saying. ydoaPs, you know better, and if you forgot, then the rules are clear. Stop trying to stir the pot. There's a reason why we don't discuss religion. If the poster would like to post scientific evidence as to whatever alternative theory, he's welcome to, but the issue of 'God', bein completely outside the laws of physics is therefore *non scientific* and not a valid topic for debate. In any case, this is a science forum, not a religious one. Claims should be supported by valid evidence. ~moo

Also, you might do well to search the forum for "big bang" theories and read the threads. We've had TONS of discussions about the theory's viability and the evidence for it.

That's because the "big bang" theory speaks specifically about the creation of the universe, and not about other phenomena. We don't discuss religion in this forum, there are plenty of other forums that will oblige such discussions. We're not one of those. So.. once again, but with science now. Do you have a scientifically relevant theory worth discussing?

You say the operation is legal. You were told it's not. swansont explained the problem. I gave you an example. If you have a problem with my example, you're welcome to ask, but at the very LEAST you should go over it. The formulas used in SR have been derived, they were not just spewed onto a piece of paper randomly. The formulas have meaning. you can't just inject whatever you want into them, be inconsistent in yuor definitions, and claim that disproves the math. You seem to either need to go over the definition of a formula in mathematics, or some basic mathematical rules. ~moo

Bill, this is a discussion forum, not a soundstage to promote your own blog. If you have something to discuss, you're welcome to post the topic or question here. Posting links to your blog for back-link SEO purpose is not something we care to encourage. Seeing as the topic is scientific and that you have more posts here, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on a post that otherwise would've been discarded of as spam. Please post discussion topics rather than backlinks to your blog.

It's not valid. I explained why. swansont explained why. ajb explained why. Klaynos explained why. Until you deal with our ACTUAL explanations and not your partial-description of our straw-manned explanations, we have nothing to discuss further.

It's not hard if you ignore the REST of what I said, as you did. Look at my "F=ma" example. I won't answer anything else until you stop answering partial questions and nitpicking what you're comfortable with answering. I'm done going in circles with you. We're going to do this point by point and relate to the *full* points made, or not at all. Make your choice. ~moo

How about you tell us how you think it came into existence? seeing as we are not likely to answer this question to your satisfaction, let's jump straight to the crux of matters and see if we can discuss a possible theory you may have.

You either have a language problem, vuquta, and you didn't UNDERSTAND what I wrote, or you have an attitude problem and you ignored what I wrote. Either way, this isn't the first time. You need to stop dismissing valid claims just because you feel like it. It does in science. And you can measure it with equipment, and you can measure its direct and indirect results. It affects reality. You can measure its effects on reality, hence, it's measurable. But the general effect is accumulative and is detected. Case in point: we detect (and know quite well on the operations of) photosynthesis. Your point just made the opposite case of what you claim. Yes, until we were able to measure this, it was uncertain that the phenomena exists. We are not claiming that measurements *MAKE* reality, we are claiming that measurements make what we KNOW OF reality. If you claim something totally new, you need to propose not only a way to observe it, but to observe its effects on other things. We've never seen or observed a Black Hole either, but we can detect its effects on other objects and explain it. The problem with your assertion is not that there's no observation to prove it, it's that there are observations and mathematical data to disprove it. You're just insisting on ignoring them. You didn't show anything, you only insist on ignoring what people explain to you, give faulty mathematics, claim you know all and take us on a circular path of redefined definitions. This thread is going in circles; you had ajb explain it to you in a geometric perspective, Klaynos from an experimental perspective and swansont from a theoretical perspective, and that was after I spent half a thread with you trying to convince you to stick to the proper definitions for the sake of a clear debate. It's time you stop lecturing and take a breather to actually read what people write to you. And don't you dare say that your questions were unanswered. They were. Multiple times, you just ignore them or dismiss them and then wait enough time to hope we forgot, so you can ask them again and claim we have no answer. How many more people do you want to prove to you that you are wrong (and from how many angles) before you start considering the possibility? If the answer is "infinite" or "never" then you're in the wrong forum, and the wrong profession. ~moo

You are not making sense. The definition of x=vt. That's where you start from, no matter what. That's its definition. If you want to set x=vtλ/(1+λ)\ then it means that you changed either t or v to equal something other than their original selves. You can't have BOTH t=t' AND x=vtλ/(1+λ)\ If x=vtλ/(1+λ)\ and therefore t=tλ/(1+λ)\ Let's take a more 'basic' equation for example. F=ma. I can, mathematicall, claim that F=bsm/x but that would make my a=bs/x by definition, which would then lead you to some very awkward problems with the definition of a(acceleration = [math]dx^2/d^2 t[/math]) You can't just arbitrarily change the formulas that were derived mathematically and then exclaim you found an error. Yes, but I do not know why math is the best language for the universe. Just because it works is not an answer as to why.

since x=vt by definition, by setting x = vtλ/(1+λ) you essentially said that your t is equal to tλ/(1+λ) which is not what you wrote above. If x=vt, how is it legal to arbitrarily choose a value for x and then be all surprised when the equation fails? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Because it's very clear, very objective, you can't really interpret anything twice (assuming you do things right and you're well-defining everything) and it has powerful predictability values. That's why.

If something is proposed to exist but it cannot be detected by any machinery, and it has no effect on its surroundings, how do you distinguish between it existing and not existing? The electrical signals of our brains are detected by machinery through contact with the skin. If you go 10 cm above and around your head, you can no longer intercept anything. We didn't say it was a stupid idea, we explained why it's not a valid statement to equate "Dark Matter" with "Thoughts".

Actually, ajb, the reason researchers are excited when water is found is not quite because of it being a "requirement" for life, but rather because finding water usually means having the right (and unique) range of temperatures that might allow for the chemical reactions that support life. The temperatures in space are usually extreme, so water isn't found in its liquid form - it's either ice or vapor. When water's found (the liquid), the implication is that there might be an atmosphere guarding the surface of the planet and distributing the heat, etc. It's true that our definition of life stems out of what we KNOW, and we narrow our search down by looking at what might be similar to what we already know, but in the case of water, it's more about the temperature (and in the case of the moon, the prospect of living there).