Ophiolite

DNA synthesis through the application of well established and commonly used techniques hardly requires excessive amounts of talent or intellect. (Which is not to say <r Skeptic does not possess these attributes in spades.) What makes you think it does? Indeed why are you using your ignorance as the basis of an insult?

The post addressing extant fish did not claim that the extant fish were ancestors of anything. The point being made was that some fish, today and in the past, have demonstrated an abilty to breathe air. It is therefore entirely plausible that one such ancient fish could have further evolved to become fully airbreathing. In short your argument here was an attack on a strawman.

Nice one jcarlson: the perfect way to persuade a creationist as to the inaccuracy of their beliefs - simultaneously insult their intelligence and their integrity. Brilliant! For a follow up why don't you tell us, without consulting any reference books, or internet sites, did the swim bladder evolve from the lung, or did the lung evolve from the swim bladder. I'm sure you are aware the answer is blatantly obvious. (Although it is curious how long it took biologists to work it out. Do you suppose they were being dishonest?)

Two points, in reverse order from how you have rasied them. 1. You are being self contradictory. You apparently do not get the total extent to which I do not know. My ignorance is total. I am equally persuaded that there is a God, (there is certainly enough evidence) and that there is not, (given the vagueness of the evidence). This is a separate position from that of a theist, or an atheist. It is a position which I and others choose to call agnosticism. It is an active avoidance of either position. 2. I really don't need to explain what I am doing, but what the hell? The OP asks why all the anger? I gave him a demonstration of an analagous situation that might arouse anger. I showed him the consequence of it. I illustrated how that anger would escalate if 'ignorance' from the other side was maintained. You didn't find the demonstration valuable, fine. I dare say not everyone on the forum has found everyone of your posts valuable, and I'm left thinking - so what?

Exactly and if ydoaPs continues with his infantile ravings on this point I shall go ballistic. Why the anger, the opening post asks. for me it is because I hate stupidity. Now back off ydoaPs. Put down the dictionary, move slowly away from the thesaurus.

I could easily get incensed and thrown off the forum for my reaction to such ****ing nonsense. An atheist belives there is no God. I don't fucking know. I don't know either way. I am completely, utterly, undecided. My wave function of belief/disbelief has not yet collapsed. Now leave it there or I get violent.

There are two points here, perhaps. First, a general point: that humans are uncomfortable with people who hold contrary views. This can usually be overlooked or accomodated, but when this contrariness is aired, prehaps flaunted, as it is on a discussion forum, then this becomes threatening. I suspect this underpins, to some degree, many of the negative responses. The second one is simultaneously deeply emotional and profoundly intellectual. I have suffered from it repeatedly. I am not agnostic on evolution. Evolution is a reality. The Modern Synthesis is a fairly good stab at describing much of the process. The evidence for it is so enormous, so interweaved and self supporting, so brilliant in its detail, so exciting in its complexitty, overlain by simplicity, that anyone who rejects it is - in my far from humble opinion - a ****ing idiot. I simply cannot conceive how anyone with a functioning brain and an honest heart can ignore this. Yet some do and it frustrates me, saddens me, and so enrages me. Sometimes I express that rage. I think then of the words of Oliver Cromwell - "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken?" (Which was pretty rich coming from Cromwell, but that's another story.)

Say it as often as you like, it won't make it true. I am an agnositc, a devout agnositc, because I don't fucking know. I don't know if there is or if there isn't. I am certain of my uncertainty.

I have observed the evidence for macro evolution. I have gathered evidence that supports macro evolution. I have considered scores of detailed studies that confrim macroevolution. I have seen no explanation for the evidence and observations that explains them better than macroevolution. I have not yet been convinced of the existence of dark matter. I am convinced that there are anomalies that need to be explained that dark matter can apparently address. But I am not yet satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for dark matter, thought it remains a better alternative at present to any of the other options. That would be a faulty assumption. I find the Big Bang hypothesis unacceptable on philosophical grounds. However, I know of no other theory that provides such a good explanation for our observations of the universe. I hope, rather than expect, that a better explanation will emerge before I die, but until that time I shall adhere to the Big Bang explanation because it is the best available explanation. No. But I haven't observed life from life either. My children were, allegedly, born by cesaerian section without me present. I don't garden. I've never seen a live birth of anything. As far as I know, based on what I have observed, life forms just sort of appear. So, based on observation alone I should believe that God is continuously creating new life all over the place. If I am going to restrict myself to direct observation, then that is the only logical conclusion I can reach. You will not be surprised to hear that is not the conclusion I have reached. I am willing to accept indirect observation and inference based upon various forms of indirect observation. As a consequence I am quite comfortable with the notion of life from non life, and reasonably comfortable with that of life from life. No. I very clearly did not state that I believe. I stated that "I accept evolution as the best explanation by far for the diversity of life on this planet based upon evidence." That means that if a better explanation turns up, or further evidence changes the balance, then I would likely move from acceptance of evolution to that better explanation. I doubt this is going to happen, but my philosophy has me prepared not only for that eventuality, but to be alert to is possibility.

My point is that you believe in God without having seen him. In contrast I accept evolution as the best explanation by far for the diversity of life on this planet based upon evidence. You use faith, I use observation.

So Emilio, when did you see God?

One of the apparent weaknesses of the creationist arguments against abiogenesis is the great depth of ignorance science has about the process. While many plausible schemes have been proposed in outline, we actually have no idea of which of these, if any is valid, I we quite lack any detailed understanding of the environment, mechanisms, process and timing by which they developed. Therefore, if life were found to be commonplace as you suggest it might, it would strongly indicate that the laws of nature were so attuned as to encourage, perhaps assure, its emergence whenever conditions were right - and that such conditions were not too stringent.

We can compute, with astonishing precision, the detailed behaviour of black holes. From this computation we can make predictions as to things we should and should not observe. When we find, and we do, that the observations match the predictions then we have a heightened sense that our hypothesis is correct. We may then refine the hypothesis further, or come at it from another angle, again with a suite of associated predictions. Once more those predictions will be borne out and our confidence in the hypothesis is strengthened. Sometimes the predictions will not be borne out. Conflciting evidence will be found. This offers a rich opportunity to scientists. The anomaly is investigated. The hypothesis is then either abandoned or modified. (Occasionally the apparent anomaly turns out to be an obervational or intrepretational error.) At every stage a careful structure of observation, hypothesis formation, prediction, and further observation, builds up a network of ideas, formulae, experiments, and observations that substantiate the underlying thesis. The same is even more true of evolution and much less true of dark matter, and not true at all of God. That is the difference.

Certainly that is less common, but it is acknowledged as being important. Since it is a comparatively new field of research we can expect examples of it to multiply. It is still probably to early to say how important it has been, but - as noted - I sense the consensus is that it has been of some importance. Your OP suggests you think its importance is being overlooked. If this is what you meant I would disagree - I think it would be more accurate to say its importance is still being assessed. Of course it is twisted. But that is exactly what you were doing with your original statement. Continuing your logical thrust i would say that the cars are dependent on us to get them from A to B, not the other way round.

I am a long time member. That might count for something. I have trounced many a creationist in threads here, back when that a more popular game. That might count for something. I am a wholly committed evolutionist - horrible word - who is made,literally, physically ill by the intellectual contortions of some creationists. That might count for something. I was, for a short time, a moderator on this forum. That might count for something. Still, this is only an opinion. But for the foregoing reasons, I hope some of you might ponder what I say. forufes is correct. Allowing an inaccurate number - and it is inaccurate, or at the very least highly debatable - to stand uncontested in a locked thread is not scientific, it is not objective, it is not ethical. It shows the forum in a bda light. It suggests to waverers that scientists are just as dogmatic as the religious. It serves no one well. That is simply rectified by a short post that notes some of the variation in polls and summarises some of the excellent points made by several posters in this thread.

Hello needimprovement, I can't provide an exhaustive analysis of the linked article, but here are some thoughts that occur to me as I work through it. (Since an individual's background can effect their take on any issue you may wish to have a capsule summary of mine. I am a devout agnostic who fully accepts the reality of evolution, but is intrigued by the uncertainties surrounding abiogenesis. I do not doubt that a natural explanation for this will be developed, but we are still a considerable distance from that point, with many more questions than answers.) Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. At the outset the paper seems to be addressing an irrelevant strawman. The smallest, simplest living organism is thought to be considerably more complex than the first life. Life did not begin with something as complex as the current simplest organism, so assessing the probability of life arising in comparison with such is just meaningless. The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time. I have seen exactly the same calculation attributed to Francis Crick. Either way this smacks of quote mining. If Sagan calculated this figure, then he was taken out of context. I imagine his argument would be something along the lines of ".....however, life did not emerge by chance. Certain chemical pathways are favoured over others. There is a tendency for chemical systems - in the right environment - to become more complex. The laws of chemistry and physics drive reactions in particualr directions." The author of the article, in taking those words out of context is guilty of manipulation and is, frankly, lying. The author then launches into a pointless exercise of calculating how many events could have occured since the universe began, at which point the link fails for me and I am left unable to read the rest of the article. This is doubtless a blessing since the author clearly has a) a simplistic view of the world B) no knowledge of science c) serious issues of morality. Needimprovement, you have absolutely no reason to trust me on this, but the linkage is a very large barrel of hokum. Since you do have no reason to trust me, I would be happy to answer any and all quesitons you may wish to ask about specifics in the paper or in my reply. Ophiolite

I'm not even comfortable showering with myself.

That seems comprehensive. How rare do you think Horizontal Gene Transfer is? My impression is the exact opposite of yours. The role of HGT in evolution of the prokaryotes is widely recognised and is, I understand, argued by some to be the dominant form of gene transfer. So are you suggesting it is even more prevalent than dominant? No. It is completely illogical. If you apply the same twisted logic then I serve my car: I provide it with nourishment, I groom it, I guide it arounf the country; I am it's servant and slave. B)

You need to abandon the diagram you have used. It is not exactly relevant to your question. You have the heart of the matter in your statement "the earth curves away from them". Let's take it back a little further with a thought experiment. Imagine you are at the top of a tower, beyond the Earth's atmosphere. You throw a ball so that its initial flight is parallel to the Earth's surface. The ball moves forward in the direction you have thrown it, but it also falls downward because of gravity. Eventually it hits the surface of the Earth. Now through the ball faster. Again it falls in a curve, but this time it gets further from the tower before it hits the Earth. Instead of throwing the ball fire it out of a powerful cannon. If you make it move fast enough it will move forward just as far as it moves down, so that its curve will match the curvature of the Earth. It is now falling around the Earth. The spaceship is falling around the Earth. Its occupants are falling around the Earth. Both are falling at the same rate. Does this help, or have I just confused you?

You have it the wrong way round. Without the Big Bang time could not have happened.

OK. NASA are either using a slighty smaller diameter - 245m, rather than 270m, or a considerably lower density - 2.62 versus 3.5 g/cc. I can see no obvious justification for a value that is substantially below even that of carbonaceous chondrites, so I suspect they have used the smaller diameter. I just checked the link you gave and NASA also quote the 270m diameter. I don't altogether buy their density number - I see they say they have used 2.6 rather than 2.62 - I'll put that down to significant figures quoted. It has an Sq spectrum so it ought to be an olivine or pyroxene rich rock, with densities in the 3.0 to 3.5 range. However, on reflection, we should be looking at bulk density and asteroids are now thought to very porous. Moreover there are a handful of bulk density measurments of S type asteroids I've tracked down that are in the 2.6 range. So going with 2.6 g/cc and 270 m and an impact velocity of 12.59 kms/sec does indeed give us a mass of just under 27,000,000,000 kgs and an energy of 511 MT. You US taxpayers will be pleased to know NASA are not wasting your tax dollars with inaccurate calculations.

Where did you get the figure of 500 tonnes? Based upon a diameter of 270m and a chondritic composition (reasonable given its Sq spectral classification) then the mass of the object would be around 40,000,000 tonnes. You seem to be out by about five orders of magnitude. Further, if we assume a minimal impact velocity of 15 kms per second then the total energy released would be around 4 x 10^18 joules. That's just under 1,000 megaton, or roughly 17,000 times the blast at Hiroshima.

Suicide is Painless (Mash Theme Song) An extract The game of life is hard to play, I'm going to loose it anyway, The loosin' card I'll someday lay; So this is all I have to say... That suicide is painless, It brings on many changes And I can take or leave it if I please. Copyright © 1970 by Twentieth Century-Fox Music Corporation If man is in the process of bringing about another Great Extinction and if his misguided exuberance leads also to the extinction of our species we can at least expect a brilliant explosion of biological innovation in our wake.

Like moths to a flame.

For the umpteenth time, no one is denying that large earthquakes can change the length of the day. This can be an increase or a decrease. Are you claiming that earthquakes only increase the length of the day? Next: the primary objection is to your claim that this lengthening of the day simultaneously causes the moon to recede. That is wrong. You are conflating and confusing two separate things. 1: Earthquakes can change the length of the day (+ve or -ve). No change in the Earth's angular momentum. 2: Tides increase the length of the day. Earth's angular momentum increases. On a side topic it has pointed out already, IIRC, that quoting lists of researchers or research institutes in support of your arguments is a logical fallacy: argument from authority. What matters are the facts, not who does or does not support them.