Phi for All

It would be so gratifying to have someone with these anti-evolution views actually have the intellectual honesty to study the evidence at talkorigins.org instead of just listening to the anti-evolution side. How can anyone remain so adamant when they won't study both sides? Is it simply because creationism is quicker to study than the mounds of studies on evolution?

If you ignore Archaeopteryx, the transitional fossils recording the development of reptilian teeth to the differentiated teeth of mammals, the transformation of the reptilian stapes to the mammalian middle ear, and the thousands of other obvious pieces of evidence, then there's not much room for discussion. Claiming there is no evidence is a childish and uneducated argument. Using Darwin, a pioneer whose work has been expanded upon exponentially over the last 150 years, as a means to show evolution is flawed is like saying electricity can't exist because Ben Franklin's kite was flawed. In short, all your objections so far have been refuted many times over, but the people who insist as you do refuse to admit it. They keep saying there is no evidence, then they are shown the evidence, then they just keep saying there is no evidence.

"Character codes" and "lines" doesn't tell us enough to help. It's like telling the doctor you have marks on your body in the morning. He's not going to know what you mean or what's wrong with you without more detail.

Math is the language of physics. You will never be able to grasp the more complicated parts of physics without it. Don't worry, you're not alone. Many of us here, me included, will never have a complete understanding of physics, but we have learned not to dismiss what we don't fully grasp. You really need to stop referring to science as a "held belief". The scientific method ensures that evidence takes precedence over personal wishes and hopes. This is wrong. If a theory is valid, math can't be used to disprove it. Maths used in physics is not like statistics; you can't manipulate the numbers to give you the answer you want if it's not the right answer. Science wouldn't be the accurate methodology it is if one person's answers were just as valid as everyone else's. It's not so much about right and wrong as it is about the best working explanation of reality. You might try reading the work of the thousands of people who have worked and studied all their lives to produce answers their peers judge to be the best working explanation of reality before you start rewriting their work. No ridicule or condescension intended, EVER.

One model that has LOTS of evidence to support it is that about 13.7 billion years ago, all matter was compressed into a single point under tremendous pressure which then underwent cosmic inflation, resulting in an exponential expansion of what we now call space. This is a very simple explanation of the Big Bang theory. How detailed an answer were you looking for?

I also wondered why this explanation wasn't enough to satisfy the OP early on in the thread. Bacteria is ubiquitous. It lives where more complicated life can't.

"Phil" did NOT condone what you said, lucky45. Just the opposite, in fact. The first step is not to get licensed, it's knowing a bit about what you're doing in a dangerous field. And there are many steps before BATF will issue you a license, such as possession of an approved magazine for storage of your explosives and a spotless criminal record. Depending on where frankie lives, I would advise getting a job with someone who is already licensed and is in the business of putting on pyrotechnic displays. That way you get the training, the connections and the experience without the liability involved. If they also require you to be licensed, then they can probably help you with that as well.

What an interesting marketing concept. I'll bet it would either fall flat on it's face of take off like a rocket.

Wow. You know, there are species whose life spans are short enough to witness the changes in allele frequency within their populations and actually watch evolution at work. Do some checking on Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly. We share a great deal with them genetically, and besides that, we have fossil evidence of evolution within human populations.

The benefits of having a science forum that follows the scientific method is that we don't have to be "loose", we can be precise. Precise is better when it comes to knowledge and learning. What do you mean, "if we have not witnessed it before"? *You* haven't witnessed it, or science hasn't witnessed it? Why do you say "we"?

Are you expecting a meaningful answer? You are being vague and philosophical in a section that requires mainstream scientific topics. No offense, truly, but I think you have a misguided image of what science really is. You have a sharp mind and you communicate well but you seem to have latched on to some very "pop" notions of modern science, stuff that gets plastered on the web that appeals to those who don't really want to delve too deeply before they claim understanding. It's a lazy approach (I'm not calling you lazy); it's very common to latch onto something one hears and assume that the person who said it knows what they're talking about.

This is a common misconception. A theory is the highest achievement of the scientific method. An idea has to undergo rigorous testing and review many times from many people and show predictable results consistently over time before it can begin to be called a theory. When your ideas conflict with those of scientists who have done thousands of hours of research, performed hundreds of tests and passed multiple reviews by other scientists, who would you say is more believable? And remember, those scientists followed the scientific method so we know they reached their conclusions objectively, free from the influence of what they wanted to believe. But when you're faced with mounds of evidence that conflicts with what you want to believe, how smart is it to ignore it?

It sounds like you had it rough, but the whole idea of social services is also a very modern one. A century or so ago, you wouldn't have stood a chance at having the education level you have now, and would have been counted lucky to still be alive. Things are better than they have ever been, but that also means there are more rich kids around than ever before as well. Fair? Fair only counts in science when it involves inventions and prizes and misfiring volcanoes. For every person who thinks his life isn't fair, there's someone who would love to have it so good. I think if there's anything we have to learn these days, it's how to keep doing what we're doing, and keep trying to make life better for as many people as possible.

I think the assumptions that "life can form easily" and that it "appeared only once in Earth's history" are sloppy ones, but to answer your question, early life had a much different field to compete on. Perhaps life has tried to form many times throughout the ages but has merely been eaten or supplanted by the current overwhelming amount of life forms that have evolved to fill the various niches in the ecosystems.

It was pretty astounding for their culture, agreed, but not more accurate than what we have today, that's just wrong. And which Mayan "God" are you talking about?

If you don't use math to speculate, don't be surprised when it's used to prove you wrong.

Galindo, you seem to think we are hyper-stylized versions of what humans ought to be, simply because modern advertising techniques like to control what we think we like. Perhaps we are self-centered but we are reaching out to people and cultures all over the globe in a way that was never possible before. For every negative you can mention, there are 10 positives to counter them. And we don't evolve within a generation, not in the biological sense. I think you are talking about more about social adaptation, adjusting to the interpersonal and social demands our combined cultures place upon us. I actually think we are adapting nicely, just not fast enough for some to notice the changes, especially people who have only been aware of the need for change for a short time.

It's still more accurate than the 365-day year that used 18 months of 20 days and 1 month of 5 days the Mayans had. They didn't account for the extra quarter day per year like Pope Gregory did, so how is the Mayan calendar more accurate?

Great point. And much of the foreign aid sent today is in the form of modern medicine, which also wouldn't be available to 3rd world cultures without present attitudes of humanitarian concern. I do think we need a more long-term appreciation of what impact our actions can have on our environment, but that's about the only concession I'm willing to make towards "higher levels of consciousness" and "ancient morals". Trying to overlay behavior from several millenia ago onto today's societies is incredibly naive and unrealistic. You can't pick the train up while it's running and put it on a different track. But you can show people why they should switch trains at the next station.

And you're looking at it from only one perspective as well. You probably think not enough aid is going to some of those "hell" countries, but what if the aid they want is more weapons to defend themselves against their neighbors? Isn't that just supporting more violence? You complain that we don't see the big picture, yet you seem to think this can all be fixed in the blink of an eye by reverting to a less complicated time. I think it's been shown that modern communication and technology is helping to change attitudes gradually over time, the only realistic way things can be changed cross-culturally. If there is anything modern society is lacking in, I think it's the perspective that working hard to achieve goals can lend. In many ways the western need for speed and convenience strips away an appreciation for just how difficult some things can be. We expect things to be on hand when we want them, and often don't think about all the work it took to get them there. But that perspective is also gained gradually over time whenever something happens to threaten our comfort and convenience. So I think your fears that our neighbors will continue to live in hell are misguided. Things are changing for the better all the time. But we need to change our perspective that these changes have to happen quicker. Change that happens too quickly can catch us all unprepared, and cause more hardship than before.

Perhaps you should explain more fully, rather than in these single short teaser paragraphs that contain many classic indications that you have been less than rigorous in your approach to scientific matters.

The first step is not to listen to people who tell you the first step is licensing. The second step is education. How much chemistry do you know? What is your education level? What country do you live in? What is your experience level with pyrotechnics? Answers to these questions will help us give you a more effective answer to *your* question.

I think it's a good ploy to use with the Chinese government. Pulling out for reasons of honor is something the Chinese can identify with. I think it will gain respect for what Google stands for. Google now needs to throw them a bone so the Chinese can capitulate without losing face. If this was the Russians, you would stand up to them, call them out and not back down. That's something the Russians understand and respect, and it's basically why Bush's normally inept foreign policy worked with them but not the Chinese. I do think Google needs to downplay the "evil" part of why they're doing what they're doing. I know it's their company slogan but you won't get far with China if you color them evil. How do you back down honorably from that?

But if the original microorganisms all other life evolved from came from off planet, then it would be consistent and a viable hypothesis. But there's no reason we need to dream up aliens to do the seeding. The planet was hit by enough space debris to bring along plenty of hitchhikers, especially from the ice in comets.

All current evidence points to that conclusion. It's possible that life first originated on another planet and the Earth was "seeded" in some way, not necessarily by any intelligent process. While this is possible, it's not very probable based on current evidence. No. *All* of the UFO reports don't have some truth to them. In fact, there is currently no hard evidence that we have ever been visited by aliens. On a side note, the Science News sub-forum is for calling attention to news articles related to science. You have posted several threads here that don't relate or link to news items in any way.