Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Intelligent Design is Anti-Evolution (support rebuttal)

-
Joe, if you were banned from my blog, then how come we’re having this debate? And how come you can still post here?

I have no quibble with the definitions of evolution that Joe presented. They are all reasonable.

Joe, then ignores the definitions of Intelligent Design as present on the various websites that support ID and instead jumps straight to a quote from Behe. The problem is that Behe admits that he is not all of ID. He also has some, shall we say, issues with maintaining a consistent story.

Next we have Dembski and Wells quoted.

ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.

So ID thinks there are limits, yet they have never (to my knowledge) said what those limits are or why they exist. Evolution says that there are limits, but those limits are only constrained by the evolutionary history of the organism (in other words, a population of cats, no matter how long you let them breed, will never, ever produce a bird).

So, in principle, ID and evolution are OK with each other here. However, in practice, they are not.

Here’s the next quote from Dembski that Joe uses:

The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation.

But that’s not correct; at least it’s not correct with the prevailing view of evolution that new species and novelties can come about without intelligence. If, Demsbki (and Joe for that matter), think that biological novelties require an intelligence, then they should examine the Scottish fold breed of cat. It’s a novel structure, novel mutation, simple dominant allele, no designer seen. In fact, I predict (this is how science works) that if you examined the genes between siblings (one with the fold and one without), then you could show which gene contains the novel mutation. I further predict that you could back trace that novel gene to find the mutation and I further predict that the allele in question would result from a known type of mutation that is perfectly reasonable from an evolution point of view.

No designer required. Except that IDists will insist there was a designer there.

ID says that biological novelty cannot come about except by a designer. Evolutionary theory says biological novelty can come about without a designer. ID and evolution are opposites. They can’t both be correct. They are rivals. The very definition of ‘anti-‘.

It’s really funny how Joe’s own opening support the ‘anti-‘view more than the ‘not anti-‘view.

The next quote that Joe uses continues in the same vein.

ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design;

Evolution excludes design. There is no version of evolutionary theory that supports any design. It’s that simple. Review the definitions of evolution that Joe provided in his opening. Do any of them say anything about ‘design’? No, they are purely based on chemistry, physics, and biology (“materialistic” according to Joe). Therefore evolution is against ID, an alternative to ID, anti-ID if you will.

Whether evolution is true or ID is true is immaterial to the discussion here. I want to make that point clear. We’re not actually discussing the validity of Intelligent Design or Evolution and any attempt to do so, is automatically wrong. This discussion is about whether the notion of Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.

Joe thinks that Intelligent Design is OK with Common Descent and mutation and differential reproduction and horizontal gene transfer. Then, the very next statement is a quote from Dembski (not cited) that I will copy here:

As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)

Wait, I thought you said that ID was OK with all of that stuff. It seems ID is OK with natural selection as long as the designer is doing the selecting. ID is OK with random variation, as long as the random variation is front-loaded by the designer. ID is OK with mutation, as long as the mutations are hand selected by the designer.

In other words, ID is OK with all of the aspects of evolution, but it’s not OK that it happens naturally without a designer being present. At least, that’s what I get out of it.

Here’s the difference (and this is a critical point here):

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

Gould, Stephen J., Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantine Publishing Group, NY, 1999) (my emphasis)

That’s it. That’s the whole discussion in a nutshell. Materialist evolution says God wasn’t involved in evolutionary processes. ID says God (excuse me, a designer) was involved (see my quotes from Dembski in my opening statement).

Intelligent Design would be OK with evolution if everyone would just admit that God is behind the whole thing. That’s why Intelligent Design is indeed, anti-evolution. ID cannot, will not admit that purely natural forces (chemistry and physics) are responsible for the diversity of life around us today.

Even those that may be materialistic evolution proponents can freely believe in the god of their choice. There is nothing in evolution (or any science) that says you can’t believe whatever you want. However, if you want to get into science, then you must support your statements with evidence.

Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. (I assume Joe’s emphasis.)

Since Joe pretty much described the entirety of the Theory of Biological Evolution (barring drift, founder effect, epigenetics, etc) previously, then ID is Ok with all of that. The only thing ID wants to talk about is the “mechanisms”.

Let me requote from Behe here (as speaking under oath in a court of law)

Q. And before we leave the blood clotting system, can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?

A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one important factor in the production of systems, and that is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was involved.

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html

So the same guy who describes ID as “just argues about the mechanisms” has told a federal judge that “intelligent design does not say, a mechanism.

For some reason, I am reminded of a classic children’s game. “You sank my battleship.”

Rumor has it that Joe will use another set of Behe’s testimony from the Kitzmiller/Dover trial (I keep calling it Dover, it’s really the Kitzmiller Trial). And that this is what Michael Behe (A) wrote in Of Panda’s and People.

Q Now, you say you would have written it differently. Is there another reference or another section in Pandas that you could direct us to to emphasize that point?

A Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there’s a section entitled “A Characteristic of Intelligent Design.” And it begins, “Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence.”

Q And why did you direct us to that particular section?

A Because I think it more clearly conveys the central idea of intelligent design, which is the purposeful arrangement of parts.

Q Do you see that then as a, perhaps a better characterization, or more accurate characterization of intelligent design?

A Yes, I like this a lot better

OK, Behe likes that definition of ID better. That’s fine. He can. I don’t like using ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’. That’s OK too.

“Intelligent Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts.” There is nothing about a mechanism in there. There is nothing about information in there. There is nothing about the designer in there. So, you might like this better Joe, but how does it help you?

It doesn’t. It’s just another definition of ID that doesn’t actually mean anything. There’s no definition of parts (proteins, amino acids, alleles, genes, collections of proteins???). There’s no definition of purposeful (non-coding DNA isn’t designed? What’s the purpose? How do you know?)

It’s just another way for Behe to avoid actually having to do anything like test or support ID and to try to avoid getting in trouble with the court.

I’ll begin the end with one last quote from Joe’s opening.

Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.

Of course you can’t Joe, because ‘materialistic evolution’ is the exact same thing as ‘evolution’. The defining characteristic of ‘materialistic evolution’ vs. ‘deistic evolution’ vs. ‘evolution’ is not evolution. It’s god.

Joe and my readers, look very carefully at what the various ID proponents have said, both in my opening and Joe’s opening.

If ID is perfectly fine with every part of evolution, as Joe says, then why are virtually all ID arguments, anti-evolution arguments? If ID is perfectly fine with every part of evolution, then why does Joe say “to disprove ID, you have to prove evolution” (paraphrase)?

The answer is that assumption is wrong. Intelligent Design is NOT fine with evolution. In fact, it is anti-evolution.

original here

117 Comments:

  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So OgreMKV equivicates "evolution" with the theory of evolution.

    What a moron...

    Ogre:
    Of course you can’t Joe, because ‘materialistic evolution’ is the exact same thing as ‘evolution’.

    Not according to the definitions I provided. And seeing you failed to provide any definitions off evolution YOU CAN'T SAY!

     
  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ogre:
    But that’s not correct; at least it’s not correct with the prevailing view of evolution that new species and novelties can come about without intelligence.

    No shit dumbass- that is the DIFFERENCE between the THEORY of evolution and ID. However we were discussing "evolution" not the theory- there is a difference you dolt.

     
  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ogre:
    There is no version of evolutionary theory that supports any design.

    There is intelligent design evolution, front loaded evolution and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis. That is three versions that support design right there.

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW seeing that you failed to provide a definition of "evolution" you cannot say it excludes design. Not one of the definitions I provided makes that claim. And you aren't in any position to make that claim.

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ogre:
    If, Demsbki (and Joe for that matter), think that biological novelties require an intelligence, then they should examine the Scottish fold breed of cat.

    Artificial selection- there was a designer involved.

     
  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ogre:
    In other words, ID is OK with all of the aspects of evolution, but it’s not OK that it happens naturally without a designer being present.

    Wrong again- the designer(s) need not be present. Are computer programmers present and at theb ready standing by your computer? Or can it function without their presence?

     
  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ogre:
    If ID is perfectly fine with every part of evolution, as Joe says, then why are virtually all ID arguments, anti-evolution arguments?

    They're not. They are anti-blind watchmaker arguments and there is a difference.

    It appars that I was correct and Ogre "learned" about ID from reading the trial transcripts and reading evotard sound bites.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    ogre: In other words, ID is OK with all of the aspects of evolution, but it’s not OK that it happens naturally without a designer being present.

    Wrong again- the designer(s) need not be present. Are computer programmers present and at theb ready standing by your computer? Or can it function without their presence?


    The fossil and geologic records show there were at least five major extinction events in Earth's history, and many more minor ones.

    Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction 65.5 MYA

    Triassic–Jurassic extinction 205 MYA

    Permian–Triassic extinction 251 MYA

    Late Devonian extinction 360 MYA

    Ordovician–Silurian extinction 440 MYA

    In each case a majority of all species on the planet went extinct suddenly.

    Joe, please explain exactly how, if the Designer wasn't present, the design was 'front loaded' to handle these events? Were the events planned? How did the Designer decide which species lived and which died? How did the Designer implement which species lived and which died?

    Evolution explains the extinctions and subsequent re-population of the vacant ecological niches quite nicely.

    Since you have repeatedly stated that Humans were the Designer's goal (i.e. the 'Privileged Planet'), how did the design manage to navigate through all those unforeseen extinction events?

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    There is intelligent design evolution, front loaded evolution and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis.

    Can you propose a test that would determine which of those three (four including Darwinian evolution) best concord with observed reality?

    I.E. how can we start to rule them out as possibilities?

     
  • At 2:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    The fossil and geologic records show there were at least five major extinction events in Earth's history, and many more minor ones...


    Joe, please explain exactly how, if the Designer wasn't present, the design was 'front loaded' to handle these events?


    Built-in responses to environmental cues- wide open niches after such events and living organisms would be programmed to fill them as best they can. IOW a built-in recovery system.

    tardtard:
    Evolution explains the extinctions and subsequent re-population of the vacant ecological niches quite nicely.

    What "evolution"? Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't explain anything beyond breaking existing structures.

    Since you have repeatedly stated that Humans were the Designer's goal (i.e. the 'Privileged Planet'), how did the design manage to navigate through all those unforeseen extinction events?

    There is another possibility- the interpretation of the fossil and geological records is wrong.

    Look at it this way:

    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” TPP

     
  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Can you propose a test that would determine which of those three (four including Darwinian evolution) best concord with observed reality?

    Maybe after this issue is resolved.

    First things first.

     
  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    T: Since you have repeatedly stated that Humans were the Designer's goal (i.e. the 'Privileged Planet'), how did the design manage to navigate through all those unforeseen extinction events?

    There is another possibility- the interpretation of the fossil and geological records is wrong.


    Your evasion and non-answer of the question about ID noted.

    But since you brought it up, how are the fossil and geologic records wrong in showing those mass extinctions? Be specific.

    If you have a better explanation for the observed KT boundary layer and the observed pattern of fossils above and below it science would love to hear it.

    Well?

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    Your evasion and non-answer of the question about ID noted.

    I answered you. You just ignored it because you are ignorant.

    OTOH YOU failed to answer:

    What "evolution"? Blind watchmaker evolution doesn't explain anything beyond breaking existing structures.

    tardtard:
    If you have a better explanation for the observed KT boundary layer and the observed pattern of fossils above and below it science would love to hear it.

    If the KT boudary was the extinction event we would expect to see organisms in it and above it then dying out.

    Also as I have said if the biology doesn't fit th interpretation of the fossil record that interpretation has to change.

    And there isn't any evidence to support your position.

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    T: If you have a better explanation for the observed KT boundary layer and the observed pattern of fossils above and below it science would love to hear it.

    If the KT boudary was the extinction event we would expect to see organisms in it and above it then dying out.


    Another evasive non-answer noted. Sad for you and the rest of the IDiots though , the KT layer and the distribution of fossils above and below it is still there whether you try to hand-wave them away or not. So is the evidence for the other four mass extinctions.

    I accept your admission that ID has no explanations and that the only thing you can do with the damning evidence of fossil distribution is ignore it.

    For such a hot 'theory', ID sure has trouble explaining even the most obvious empirical observed phenomena.

     
  • At 3:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard,

    YOUR position doesn't have any explanation for anything except diseases and deformations.

    If the KT boudary was the extinction event we would expect to see organisms in it and above it then dying out.

    tardtard:
    Another evasive non-answer noted.

    Your ignorance doesn't make that an evasive non-answer.

    Howeve YOUR refusal to answer my question is duly noted.

    Fossil distribution? The vast majority of fossils are of marine invertebtrates (>97%) and there isn't any evidence for the evolution of new body plans and body forms in that vast majority.

    How many of these mass extinction events did alligators and crocs survive?

    As for your "theory" it can't explain the biological evidence so it has to look elsewhere. Yet fossils can't say anthing about a mechanism.

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard, you're too funny!

    The five mass extinction events I listed above are some of the most well documented and well studied in all of paleontology. There have been thousands of papers written on the subject.

    mass extinction events

    All I did was ask for the ID explanation for the observed patterns and you go apeshit, screaming and yelling and flinging your poo.

    You've got a whole lotta nothin' JoeTard. ID can't explain the simplest things, and everybody knows it. Even dumbass you.

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    The five mass extinction events I listed above are some of the most well documented and well studied in all of paleontology.

    And how many did alligators and crocs live through?

    And it's sort of a weird coincidence that through all that intelligent observers appeared at the right time.

    That is evidnce you choose to ignore.

    tardtard:
    All I did was ask for the ID explanation for the observed patterns and you go apeshit, screaming and yelling and flinging your poo.

    Actually I provided an ID explanation and you went apeshit and obtuse.

    OTOH all your position can explain are diseases and deformations. And you are having a hard time dealing with that. Boo-hoo...

     
  • At 3:56 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    T: The five mass extinction events I listed above are some of the most well documented and well studied in all of paleontology.

    And how many did alligators and crocs live through?


    Hey retard, try reading the scientific literature. Not every last family and genus died in the extinctions, just a large portion of them. Not all local environments were affected by the events.

    And it's sort of a weird coincidence that through all that intelligent observers appeared at the right time.

    You haven't provided any evidence that it wasn't a coincidence except the completely circular argument of defining now as "the right time"

    In fact, you have zero explanation from an ID perspective of how the Designer caused human ancestors to make it through all the extinction events.

    T: All I did was ask for the ID explanation for the observed patterns and you go apeshit, screaming and yelling and flinging your poo.

    Actually I provided an ID explanation and you went apeshit and obtuse


    Of course you didn't provide an explanation Joetard. You started nattering on about the moon's recession rate and totally ignored the main qiestion:

    What is the ID explanation for the observed patterns of mass extinctions leading to humans?

    Think you can give a straight answer to that question for once?

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    Hey retard, try reading the scientific literature. Not every last family and genus died in the extinctions, just a large portion of them. Not all local environments were affected by the events.

    I know. And my point is that is what re-populated the earth- by design.

    And it's sort of a weird coincidence that through all that intelligent observers appeared at the right time.

    tardtard:
    You haven't provided any evidence that it wasn't a coincidence except the completely circular argument of defining now as "the right time"

    Hey retard, the evidence has been provided as hs the definition of the right time- everything has been explained and supported by peer-reviewed scientific papers.

    OTOH all your position can say is "it just happened".

    tardtard:
    In fact, you have zero explanation from an ID perspective of how the Designer caused human ancestors to make it through all the extinction events.

    Attacking ID won't provide positive evidence for your position.

    Also our ancestors most likely hung out with crocs and alligators- or went deep down in some caves.

    But then aain there still needs to be BIOLOGICAL / GENETIC evidence that supports the interpretation of the fossil record.

    Then there are all those marine inverts YOU have to ignore.

    tardtard:
    What is the ID explanation for the observed patterns of mass extinctions leading to humans?

    Built-in responses to environmental cues- wide open niches after such events and living organisms would be programmed to fill them as best they can. IOW a built-in recovery system. IOW they evolved from the survivors, just as planned.

    What is your position's explanation? "It just happened"?

     
  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    T:What is the ID explanation for the observed patterns of mass extinctions leading to humans?

    Built-in responses to environmental cues- wide open niches after such events and living organisms would be programmed to fill them as best they can. IOW a built-in recovery system. IOW they evolved from the survivors, just as planned.


    How can humans be the intended result of the Designer's original 'plan' when each of at least five major mass extinctions was a random event with a random distribution of surviving lineages, then with each lineage evolving 'as best it can' until the next extinction took place?

    You just stuck your foot in your mouth again there JoeTard.

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    Also our ancestors most likely hung out with crocs and alligators- or went deep down in some caves.


    LOL! Man, that's some first rate tard there Joe. Human ancestors hung out with crocs and alligators to avoid mass extinction events.

    Just who or what were our ancestors when the five separate major extinction events occurred over the last 440+ million years Joe? What species, and what did they look like?

    Real science has answers based on the evidence. What are your ID answers?

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    Human ancestors hung out with crocs and alligators to avoid mass extinction events.

    Not to avoid them, that is just how it worked out. Also there are caves- you ignored that.

    tardtard:
    Just who or what were our ancestors when the five separate major extinction events occurred over the last 440+ million years Joe?

    Just who verified that timescale?

    tardtard:
    Real science has answers based on the evidence.

    Then why is it keeping those answers a secret?

    What is that biological evidence that supports your position? We know your position can explain disease and deformations, but that is about it. So if the present is the key to thepast your position is belly up and peeing on itself.

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    How can humans be the intended result of the Designer's original 'plan' when each of at least five major mass extinctions was a random event with a random distribution of surviving lineages, then with each lineage evolving 'as best it can' until the next extinction took place?

    Evolving HOW? You are an equivicating coward.

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    T:Just who or what were our ancestors when the five separate major extinction events occurred over the last 440+ million years Joe?

    Just who verified that timescale?


    All of the sciences of professional geology and radiometric dating.

    Why did you ignore the part about who or what you think our ancestors were? Another bad case of IDchickenshit-itis?

    T:How can humans be the intended result of the Designer's original 'plan' when each of at least five major mass extinctions was a random event with a random distribution of surviving lineages, then with each lineage evolving 'as best it can' until the next extinction took place?

    Evolving HOW? You are an equivicating coward


    "Evolving" was your word, dumbass.

    Joetard: "IOW a built-in recovery system. IOW they evolved from the survivors, just as planned.

    How did the design accomodate the random nature of the mass extinctions and still come up with the supposed targeted goal of Humans?

     
  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joetard said...

    T: Real science has answers based on the evidence.

    Then why is it keeping those answers a secret?


    It's not JoeTard. You can find the answers in any good library, or natural history museum, or college level science textbook, or the primary scientific literature, or online with a minimum of effort.

    Of course in your case you first have to pull your head out of your ass and want to find them.

     
  • At 8:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    You can find the answers in any good library, or natural history museum, or college level science textbook, or the primary scientific literature, or online with a minimum of effort.

    I can find stories but no science.

    Ya see there isn't any evidence for genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to construct useful functional multi-part systems. And evo-devo has been a bust.

    So you are a lying fuck.

     
  • At 9:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just who verified that timescale?

    tardtard:
    All of the sciences of professional geology and radiometric dating.

    The "science" that cannot produce a testable hypothesis? That science?

    tardtard:
    Why did you ignore the part about who or what you think our ancestors were?

    Why do you ignore just about everything I post?

    tardtard:
    "Evolving" was your word

    Umm YOU used it- but that still misses the point- you are an equivocating coward. You don't have any evidence to support your position. There isn't any science to call upon.

    tardtard:
    How did the design accomodate the random nature of the mass extinctions and still come up with the supposed targeted goal of Humans?

    1- You don't know if they were random nor their nature

    2- You don't know anything about any timescale

    3-Don't have to know how- just have to compare to your sorry ass position of "it just happened"

     
  • At 10:36 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Ogre: "...ID is OK with all of the aspects of evolution"

    Ogre: ID is "non anti-evolution".

    True as these statements are, werent you supposed to arguing the opposite? A rather unique approach to debate is to agree with your opponent and provide quotes further agreeing with your opponent.

     
  • At 11:01 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Lol, your full statement does show further ignorance. Ogre: "In other words, ID is OK with all of the aspects of evolution, but it’s not OK that it happens naturally without a designer being present. At least, that’s what I get out of it."
    It happens naturally, but not by "standard chemistry and physics". Just ask the wanna-be Frankensteins who have spent decades trying to create life from non-life. No chemicals, without the intelligent agency evident in life, move around purposefully and learn from intelligent deduction.
    The intelligent agents or agent must intelligently form and move matter, as Behe said in your quote, in order for evolution to occur, not merely be "present". I do NOT subscribe to the "front-loaded" concept of intelligent agency at all. It is scientifically impossible for any aspect of life or evolution to occur without intelligent agency.

     
  • At 11:32 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Ogre asks about the "limits" of Darwinism. Without question, Darwinism is an extremely powerful destructive force. It is entirely lacking in creative power, however. Darwin foolishly believed he had discovered a perpetual creation machine, in Random Accident and what he called Selection.
    They taught you in Biology class that random accident causes functional order, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing is more destructive to order than unbridled randomness. The powers of entropy are thorough and overwhelming when chaos enters the equation, quickly and without fail causing a mess even if you start with ordered arrangements. Mathematically it is inconceivable that anything as complex and specified (functional) as a hand crank canopener has ever self-formed by random accident.
    Ah, but selection, say the Darwinists, how much does that boost our chances? In a word, zilch. Selection is nothing more than a subtractive filter, incapable of constructing anything that isn't already created. It is a bit like saying "We live because we didn't die." Sadly, for the hapless Darwinists, "lack-of-death" (selection) does not cause life.
    Random chaos turns order into a mess and selection kills, but intelligent agency works against the damage of Darwinism quite efficiently and purposefully.

     
  • At 12:46 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joetard said...

    T: Why did you ignore the part about who or what you think our ancestors were?

    Why do you ignore just about everything I post?


    Chickenshit Gallien avoids the tough questions again. What a surprise.

    T: How did the design accomodate the random nature of the mass extinctions and still come up with the supposed targeted goal of Humans?

    1- You don't know if they were random nor their nature


    I know that if the KT asteroid that hit Chicxulub had arrived just a few hours earlier, before the Earth could rotate a bit, it would have hit central Africa. It could have very easily wiped out all the early African mammals that went on to later evolve into hominids. Then maybe cowardly lizard Joe G would be here banging on about how his Designer created the planet just for intelligent lizards to make discoveries.

    Did the Designer plan to have the rock hit Central America at that exact location, exact mass, and exact speed to somehow lead to humans? HOW Joe?

    2- You don't know anything about any timescale

    LOL! Wrong again JoeTard. I and science know a helluva lot about time scales.

    Fingerprinting the K/T impact site and determining the time of impact by U-Pb dating of single shocked zircons from distal ejecta

    Latest studies have the Chicxulub impactor at 65.5 +/-0.3 MYA

    Just because you're a dirt ignorant dumbass doesn't mean the rest of the world is too JoeTard.

    3-Don't have to know how- just have to compare to your sorry ass position of "it just happened"

    The evidence shows the Chicxulub impactor did indeed 'just happen'. Your ID horseturd can't explain it any better.

     
  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    Gallien avoids the tough questions again. What a surprise.

    You avoid all of my questions- what does that make you?

    For example you refuse to answer the following:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


    Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.

    So why are evos so afraid of those questions? I say it is because by attempting to answer them they will expose their position as the bullshit it is.

    tardtard:
    I know that if the KT asteroid that hit Chicxulub had arrived just a few hours earlier, before the Earth could rotate a bit, it would have hit central Africa.

    That "impact" isn't settled science.

    2- You don't know anything about any timescale

    tardtard:
    Wrong again JoeTard. I and science know a helluva lot about time scales.

    No, you don't. You can't even produce a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth and solar system.

    3-Don't have to know how- just have to compare to your sorry ass position of "it just happened"

    The evidence shows the Chicxulub impactor did indeed 'just happen'.

    Actually it ain't setteles science and as for what happened after your position sez "it just happened".

    Your position's laims are untestable.

     
  • At 7:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any evidence for genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to construct useful functional multi-part systems. And evo-devo has been a bust.

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    You don't know anything about any timescale

    T: Wrong again JoeTard. I and science know a helluva lot about time scales.

    No, you don't. You can't even produce a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth and solar system


    LOL! Joseph A. Gallien, Young Earth Creationist.

    No matter how you try and hide it, your YEC agenda always oozes through.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, you don't. You can't even produce a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth and solar system

    tardtard:
    Joseph A. Gallien, Young Earth Creationist.

    Couldn't say, however questioning untestable materialistic dogma doesn't make one a YEC. YEC is specifically linked to the Bible and I know I am not.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are an equivocating coward.

    Come back when you can answer these questions:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    T: Joseph A. Gallien, Young Earth Creationist.

    Couldn't say, however questioning untestable materialistic dogma doesn't make one a YEC. YEC is specifically linked to the Bible and I know I am not.


    How old does science think the earth is?

    How old do you think the earth is Joe?

    When does science think the KT boundary layer was deposited?

    When do you think the KT boundary layer was deposited Joe?

    How old does science think the oldest fossils of multi-cellular life are?

    How old do you think the oldest fossils of multi-cellular life are Joe?

    Time for you to make a stand here spineless jellyfish Joe.

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And speaking of spineless:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


    Still waiting...

     
  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And what is the testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth?

    When does rad decay start?

     
  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, we have been around this corner a few times. Remember the nebular hypothesis?

    As to decay, the clock starts ticking as soon as a nucleus forms. The process is probabilistic, however, so even if the half-life time passes, there is only a 50% guarantee that a given nucleus decays. Of the remaining nucleus, 50% will decay after another half-life period, and so on.

     
  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    As to decay, the clock starts ticking as soon as a nucleus forms.

    Yes, I know and that is my point. The nucleus is formed in a supernova- the star, one it "makes" iron, is doomed, but it's dooming gives birth to all the other elements.

    So we have these elements floating around and the unstable elements can start decaying at that time, billions of years before becoming part of a planet.

     
  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    It does not matter for how long nuclei made by an exploded star have been floating around in the free form. Radiometric dating methods are insensitive to that portion of their history.

    The radiometric methods measure the time since radioactive isotopes become trapped in a solid. All of the decay products remain in the rock and one analyzes the relative amounts of these products to extract the date when the solid has formed. With several decay channels, one even gets a consistency check for these dates.

     
  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oleg:
    The radiometric methods measure the time since radioactive isotopes become trapped in a solid.

    Which can be any time after it is formed and long before it made it to earth.

    oleg:
    All of the decay products remain in the rock and one analyzes the relative amounts of these products to extract the date when the solid has formed.

    When the SOLID was formed, not the PLANET.

    Magma Opus

     
  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Earth-sized planets form by accretion. Collisions of the merging fragments are pretty violent (thanks to gravitational attraction) and the energy released in such collisions is high enough to melt the planet entirely. Which means that there were no solids when the Earth was forming. The radiometric clocks started only when the crust solidified.

    The age of the oldest material in the Earth's crust is 4.4 billion years. In contrast, the oldest meteorites are 4.57 billion years old. That's consistent with the idea that the Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago by accretion.

     
  • At 7:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Earth-sized planets form by accretion.

    I am aware of the story.

    How can we test the claim that the earth formed by accretion- ie cosmic collisions and accidents?

    oleg:
    Collisions of the merging fragments are pretty violent (thanks to gravitational attraction) and the energy released in such collisions is high enough to melt the planet entirely. Which means that there were no solids when the Earth was forming. The radiometric clocks started only when the crust solidified.

    And just how do we test any of that?

    All the factors required for our existence argues against any accidental origin.

    oleg:
    The age of the oldest material in the Earth's crust is 4.4 billion years. In contrast, the oldest meteorites are 4.57 billion years old.

    Except they used one to get the other. So if that one is wrong...

     
  • At 8:12 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    The physics of the Earth formation is so simple that you don't need a detailed picture to understand that the newly formed planet must have been in the molten state.

    A chunk of material falling to the planet's surface would have a high speed on account of gravitational attraction, on the order of the escape velocity, which is 11 km/s. A piece of silicon crashing into the Earth at that speed will heat up to a temperature of half a million degrees! That's more than enough to melt any material.

    There is just no way for an Earth-sized planet to form without melting.

     
  • At 8:13 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    And no, the ages of the rocks and meteorites are determined independently of each other.

     
  • At 8:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    The physics of the Earth formation is so simple that you don't need a detailed picture to understand that the newly formed planet must have been in the molten state.

    So you don't have any way to test your claims. Got it.

    Also solid crystals can float around in molton rock.

    oleg:
    A chunk of material falling to the planet's surface would have a high speed on account of gravitational attraction

    More like a bunch of chuncks colliding into each other at various speeds and angles.

    oleg:
    A piece of silicon crashing into the Earth at that speed will heat up to a temperature of half a million degrees!

    A fully formed earth. Not the stuff earth is made from.

    oleg:
    There is just no way for an Earth-sized planet to form without melting.

    There isn't any evidence this planet formed by accidental cosmic collisions.

    oleg:
    And no, the ages of the rocks and meteorites are determined independently of each other.

    That is not my understanding but I will look for the reference.

     
  • At 8:36 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Feel free to present a theory of the Earth's formation that does not include a molten state. You'll need to explain how the chunks managed to come together at very low speeds (below 1 km/s). Was gravity switched off or something? That's just silly.

    And yes, read some references about radiometric dating.

     
  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Feel free to present a theory of the Earth's formation that does not include a molten state.

    Feel free to provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    And again crystals don't have to melt. So you could have a mostly molton mass with chunks included.

    It take you never played with play-dough nor clay.

    You're just silly and apparently unable to think beyond your bias.

    oleg:
    And yes, read some references about radiometric dating.

    I have read many. I just need to find the one that supports my claim.

     
  • At 8:51 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    The hypothesis makes testable predictions. I have already mentioned one of them: the oldest rocks on the Earth should be younger than the oldest meteorites. That is precisely what we observe.

    So now it's your turn to present a workable theory of the Earth's formation in which collisions are gentle and do not generate the enormous heat that melts everything.

    And no, at those temperatures any solid immersed in the molten rock will itself melt. Numerical simulations published in the literature show that the heat from collisions was enough to melt the Earth many times over.

     
  • At 10:28 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Ogre's tautological fallacy is a little too obvious. Simply adding the word "materialistic" to the unrelated word "evolution" does not change the abundantly clear defintion of evolution. I suggest a dictionary, perhaps.
    To change, modification, ie the act of evolving. Nope, no exclusion of any cause of evolving nor any mandate that an unrelated topic be attached. You should be a politician adding pork to an unrelated bill.
    Gee, let me try it... I hereby define evolution as intelligently guided evolution to the exclusion of random chaos and anything else that can hinder evolution. You and your Darwinism are anti-evolution. Actually, since Darwinism is a counter to evolution, it could truthfully be said that Darwinism is anti-evolution. The next debate can be my position (intelligent evolution) vs yours (random mess). Random accident is anti-evolution!

     
  • At 10:37 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Most of the comments here are WAAAY off topic. Mass extinction events have nothing to do with whether ID opposes or supports evolution.
    They dont have anything to do with intelligent evolution either. The environment is the random part in the equation, but nothing within living things has ever been random.
    The Space Shuttles are being retired or blowing up. Does this prove they were not designed? Ken Miller's false argument has already been shot down: extinction does not contest the design inference, since all things designed are predicted to have an endpoint. Intelligent agency is not contingent upon permanence.

     
  • At 6:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    The hypothesis makes testable predictions.

    What hypothesis? You have refused to produce one.

    oleg:
    I have already mentioned one of them: the oldest rocks on the Earth should be younger than the oldest meteorites.

    But that doesn't have anything to do with accidentally forming the earth via cosmic colliions.

    oleg:
    So now it's your turn to present a workable theory of the Earth's formation in which collisions are gentle and do not generate the enormous heat that melts everything.

    I am still waiting for your hypothesis pertaining to accidentally forming the earyh via multiple cosmic collisions.

    oleg:
    And no, at those temperatures any solid immersed in the molten rock will itself melt.

    What temperatures? And how do you know that?

    Also we have crystals in the molten earth now. So you must be mistaken.

    oleg:
    Numerical simulations published in the literature show that the heat from collisions was enough to melt the Earth many times over.

    Still waiting for that testable hypothesis.

     
  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Once AGAIN:

    Magma Opus: Hopkins Geologist Reveals Earth's Plumbing, Momentous Theory in Earth Science Topples

    Also strange that we find meteorites that did not melt when flying through the atmosphere nor when impacting the earth.

    Imagine that...

     
  • At 7:03 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    What hypothesis? This one. It has been sufficiently well developed to predict in detail how planets form. Let me spell out one more time a particular testable prediction that follows from it.

    In particular, the hypothesis predicts that accretion in the latest stages produces an ocean of molten rock. The surface solidifies later, so radiometric dating will show the oldest material in the Earth's crust to be slightly younger than the oldest meteorites that formed in the solar system. That prediction has been confirmed by radiometric measurements.

     
  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    You are linking to the JHU press release for the second time, but I don't see how it is even relevant to the discussion. Maybe you should summarize its significance in a paragraph or two.

    As to the current meteorites falling to the Earth without melting, thank the Earth's atmosphere for that. It slows down the rock and takes away most of the heat in the process.

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    What hypothesis? This one.

    Ahhh the bullshit materialistic "hypothesis" that cannot be tested. Got it.

    oleg:
    It has been sufficiently well developed to predict in detail how planets form.

    Under an untestable materialistic framework.

    oleg:
    In particular, the hypothesis predicts that accretion in the latest stages produces an ocean of molten rock.

    That has never been observed nor is it testable.

    Also crystals can survive in molten rock.

    And then there are all those unmelted meteorites that keep hitting the planet.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    You are linking to the JHU press release for the second time, but I don't see how it is even relevant to the discussion.

    Crystals in the magma.

    oleg:
    As to the current meteorites falling to the Earth without melting, thank the Earth's atmosphere for that. It slows down the rock and takes away most of the heat in the process.

    Then you don't have any observations to support your claims.

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Whether you like the nebular hypothesis or not, it makes predictions and these predictions have been tested. Radiometric dating (did you read up on that?) shows that the chondrite meteorites formed about 4.57 billion years ago and that the Earth's crust solidified a few hundred million years later.

    The JHU press release does not help you. Crystals can exist in magma now because magma's temperature varies between 600 and 1300 degrees Celsius. Iron's melting point is 1530 degrees, so it can exist as a crystal in that environment.

    In contrast, the early Earth was much hotter, as hot as 2000 degrees Celsius.

     
  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The nebula hypothesis is still a hypothesis for a reason. The "predictions" really aren't exclusive to it.

    There isn't any way to verify rad dates.

    There isn't any way to verify your claim for the temperature of the proto-earth.

     
  • At 7:59 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    If the predictions of the nebular hypothesis (more precisely, the Solar Nebular Disk Model in its current form) are not exclusive to it, I'd like to see what the competing hypothesis is. Would you mind spelling it out? We can then compare other predictions the two make and see how they stack up.

    The radiometric dating methods have internal consistency checks. For example, U-Pb dating involves four different isotopes of lead. Concentrations of different isotopes must line up in order for the dating to work. You don't seem to understand that, Joe. Read up. There is a nice book for the lay audience written by Matthew Hedman from Cornell, The Age of Everything. It explains the dating methods in understandable terms.

     
  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What predictions does it make oleg?

    oleg:
    The radiometric dating methods have internal consistency checks.

    Along with some assumptions.

     
  • At 8:21 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    I have mentioned one prediction already. Give me an alternative hypothesis and we can compare their predictions. So far you haven't.

    And of course any physical theory is based on assumptions. Newton's theory of gravity assumes that the force of gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between bodies. It assumes that the force is proportional to the masses.

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    I have mentioned one prediction already.

    What was that?

     
  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have already mentioned one of them: the oldest rocks on the Earth should be younger than the oldest meteorites.

    That doesn't have anything to do with accretion via accidental cosmic collisions.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Of course it does, except the cosmic collisions were not accidental. Gravity pulled solid chunks of matter together inducing their collisions. Immense heat resulting from the collisions melted the planet. As the planet cooled, solid rocks formed again.

    This model unequivocally predicts that rocks on Earth formed later than rocks in the solar system. That is a testable prediction, Joe. And a tested one. Period.

    If you wish to argue that other theories lead to similar prediction, name these theories. So far you have not mentioned even one.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Of course it does, except the cosmic collisions were not accidental.

    They sure as hell ain't planned.

    oleg:
    Gravity pulled solid chunks of matter together inducing their collisions.

    Gravity was slinging debris every which way and the collisions happened when paths crossed and some debris over-took other debris.

    oleg:
    Immense heat resulting from the collisions melted the planet.

    Again, I understand the story, but it ain't bedtime.

    oleg:
    This model unequivocally predicts that rocks on Earth formed later than rocks in the solar system.

    It ain't the only model that does so and that ain't the only explanation for your story.

    oleg:
    If you wish to argue that other theories lead to similar prediction, name these theories.

    Theory? Give me some time to think about it but I am sure I can come up with a competeing story- one that doesn't rely on sheer dumb luck.

     
  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    When your opponents try to replace what you said with what you did NOT say, it is a sign that they don't think they can beat you in the debate.
    The entire debate is a prime example of that. Darwinists know their theory has no merit. Ogre admitted he doesnt understand the math. They insist we must believe in random accident but they dare not debate it, because they have no facts or figures to back up the impossible.
    So they change what you say into a strawman you never said.
    The thinking in Ogre's mind is as simple as this: He knows we support evolution. He knows we do not support random accident cause for it. But he has evidence for evolution and he does not have evidence for accidentalism.
    So he has to say that ID is anti-evolution even though he is repeatedly told it isnt.

     
  • At 8:40 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    So, Joe, you don't know of any alterative theory but are sure that you can come up with one. Is that a fair statement?

     
  • At 9:04 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    So, Joe, you don't know of any alterative theory but are sure that you can come up with one.

    Your position doesn't have a theory so I do not need an alternative theory.

    All you have is "it just happened now let's devise a story to make it fit our world view".

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Oh, of course we do have a theory, Joe. It is called the Solar Nebular Disk Model. It is a quantitative theory. Read the primary literature.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now you are lying. The Solar Nebular Disk Model is not a theory. It can't even be tested.

    Do all sun-like stars have the same solar system as ours? No.

    You've got nothing. You can't explain how all the factors required for complex biological organisms occurred beyond saying "it just happened".

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Strange how "Solar Nebular Disk Model" brings up "the nebula hypothesis".

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Are you even familiar with the model you are criticizing? Have you read any reviews in the literature? Which ones, if any?

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: You've got nothing. You can't explain how all the factors required for complex biological organisms occurred beyond saying "it just happened".

    LOL! We are not discussing biology here, Joe! You and I are talking about the formation of the Earth.

     
  • At 12:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Are you even familiar with the model you are criticizing?

    At least as familiar with it as the link you provided.

    oleg:
    Have you read any reviews in the literature?

    Yes, if you think you have something other than "it just happened", present it.

    How is it going with those other sun-like stars and their systems?

    You've got nothing. You can't explain how all the factors required for complex biological organisms occurred beyond saying "it just happened".

    oleg:
    We are not discussing biology here, Joe! You and I are talking about the formation of the Earth.

    LoL! All those factors are evidence for the earth being designed.

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    You've read reviews, Joe? How cute! Which ones?

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you think you have something other than "it just happened", present it.

    How is it going with those other sun-like stars and their systems?

     
  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    SNDM does not say "it just happened." No one even remotely familiar with the theory would say that. Admit it, you have not read a single review of the literature.

     
  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    SNDM does not say "it just happened." No one even remotely familiar with the theory would say that.

    Are you saying they are in denial?

    Their story could start with "Once upon a time there was this molecular cloud, that, for one reason or another started to collapse..."

    oleg:
    Admit it, you have not read a single review of the literature.

    Admit it, you don't have anything so this is your tactic.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    I asked whether you had read any reviews in the literature and you replied:

    Yes, if you think you have something other than "it just happened", present it.

    Your reply indicates that you are utterly unfamiliar with the model of planet formation because it does not reduce to your silly phrase "it just happened." The theory is quite detailed and distinguishes several stages of planet formation.

    If you wish to criticize the actual theory (rather than your stupid "it just happened") give some indication that you are familiar with it, at least superficially. And then criticize its specific points. But I bet you can't. You haven't read anything on the subject aside from creationist websites. All hat an no cattle.

     
  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: Their story could start with "Once upon a time there was this molecular cloud, that, for one reason or another started to collapse..."

    Joe, this is silly. We know why molecular clouds start collapsing. Here is a hint. The name of the force triggering the collapse has 7 letters, starts with a G and ends with a Y. Give it a try, Joe.

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Joe, this is silly. We know why molecular clouds start collapsing. Here is a hint. The name of the force triggering the collapse has 7 letters, starts with a G and ends with a Y. Give it a try, Joe.

    Is that why most scientists, if not all, call on a supernova blast wave to help trigger the collapse?

    What reviews have YOU read?

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Your reply indicates that you are utterly unfamiliar with the model of planet formation because it does not reduce to your silly phrase "it just happened."

    If it wasn't planned then it just hapened, as in it was a chain of accidents.

    oleg:
    The theory is quite detailed and distinguishes several stages of planet formation.

    Except there isn't any theory.

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Here is a recent review article that should help dispel your misconceptions: C. F. McKee and E. C. Ostriker, "Theory of star formation," Ann. Rev. Astron. Astroph. 45, 565 (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602. Here is a popular article discussing some aspects of the review.

    An excerpt from the review:

    Stars are the “atoms” of the universe, and the problem of how stars form is at the nexus of much of contemporary astrophysics. By transforming gas into stars, star formation determines the structure and evolution of galaxies. By tapping the nuclear energy in the gas left over from the Big Bang, it determines the luminosity of galaxies and, quite possibly, leads to the reionization of the Universe. Most of the elements—including those that make up the world around us—are formed in stars. Finally, the process of star formation is inextricably tied up with the formation and early evolution of planetary systems.

    The problem of star formation can be divided into two broad categories: microphysics and macrophysics. The microphysics of star formation deals with how individual stars (or binaries) form. Do stars of all masses acquire most of their mass via gravitational collapse of a single dense core? How are the properties of a star or binary determined by the properties of the medium from which it forms? How does the gas that goes into a protostar lose its magnetic flux and angular momentum? How do massive stars form in the face of intense radiation pressure? What are the properties of the protostellar disks, jets, and outflows associated with young stellar objects (YSOs), and what governs their dynamical evolution?


    Pay attention to the highlighted sentences, Joe. It's gravitational collapse, buddy.

    Now, which reviews have you read? Come on, don't be shy.

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: Except there isn't any theory.

    LOL! I have linked to a review article by McKee and Eve Ostriker. It contains 56 numbered equations, with more in the text. But no, there is no theory here! Mwahahaha!

     
  • At 11:12 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Here is another review that I bet you have not read, Joe. T. Montmerle et al., "Solar system formation and early evolution: the first 100 million years," Earth, Moon, and Planets 98, 39 (2006). doi:10.1007/s11038-006-9087-5. Here is the abstract:

    The solar system, as we know it today, is about 4.5 billion years old. It is widely believed that it was essentially completed 100 million years after the formation of the Sun, which itself took less than 1 million years, although the exact chronology remains highly uncertain. For instance: which, of the giant planets or the terrestrial planets, formed first, and how? How did they acquire their mass? What was the early evolution of the “primitive solar nebula” (solar nebula for short)? What is its relation with the circumstellar disks that are ubiquitous around young low-mass stars today? Is it possible to define a “time zero” (t 0), the epoch of the formation of the solar system? Is the solar system exceptional or common? This astronomical chapter focuses on the early stages, which determine in large part the subsequent evolution of the proto-solar system. This evolution is logarithmic, being very fast initially, then gradually slowing down. The chapter is thus divided in three parts: (1) The first million years: the stellar era. The dominant phase is the formation of the Sun in a stellar cluster, via accretion of material from a circumstellar disk, itself fed by a progressively vanishing circumstellar envelope. (2) The first 10 million years: the disk era. The dominant phase is the evolution and progressive disappearance of circumstellar disks around evolved young stars; planets will start to form at this stage. Important constraints on the solar nebula and on planet formation are drawn from the most primitive objects in the solar system, i.e., meteorites. (3) The first 100 million years: the “telluric” era. This phase is dominated by terrestrial (rocky) planet formation and differentiation, and the appearance of oceans and atmospheres.

    But no, there is no theory. None at all.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How is it coming with those other sun-like systems? Are they all like ours?

    oleg:
    Pay attention to the highlighted sentences, Joe. It's gravitational collapse, buddy.

    Then what about those supernova blast waves and other forces that are called upon?

    And again if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    No, Joe, other systems with sun-like stars do not have to be the same as ours. The chemical composition of a molecular cloud is not uniform and the resulting planetary systems will be different. That does not mean a failure of the theory. The atomic theory does not predict that all atoms must be identical, either. A hydrogen atom is different from a helium atom, which in turn differs from a lithium atom.

    But whether the theory of star formation is right or wrong, you have to admit first that the theory whose existence you deny actually exists in the first place. It's a small step, Joe, but you have to make it.

    Then what about those supernova blast waves and other forces that are called upon?

    The driving force of gravitational collapse is (surprise!) gravity. Matter experiences collapse when its compressibility becomes negative. Then a small increase in density at one location leads to a decrease in pressure, which sucks in more matter, leading to a further increase in density, which in turn yields lower pressure and so on. That's how a collapse happens. Most of the known forces of nature produce positive compressibility and so do the effects of temperature. Gravity is the lone force that leads to negative compressibility: the more matter there is in a given place, the more it attracts other matter to itself. Without gravity, molecular clouds would not coalesce into stars and planets. Gravity is the driving force here.

    Shock waves from exploding supernovae are one factor that may create variations of density in a cloud. So can turbulence (see the reviews) and even the mere random motion of the molecules. If the molecular cloud is on the verge of gravitational collapse, any fluctuation in density will grow exponentially in time. So it does not matter whether there is a supernova nearby. A cloud just should be ever so slightly nonuniform. In fact, it is much harder, essentially impossible to make a uniform cloud.

    Another factor affecting the collapse are the temperature of the cloud. As it cools down, compressibility due to thermal motion decreases and eventually becomes smaller than the negative compressibility coming from gravity.

    And again if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    Find me the phrase "it just happened" in any of those reviews, or any others. Read them first, by the way.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    No, Joe, other systems with sun-like stars do not have to be the same as ours.

    So ours "just happened" (to be the way it is), as I said.

    oleg:
    But whether the theory of star formation is right or wrong, you have to admit first that the theory whose existence you deny actually exists in the first place. It's a small step, Joe, but you have to make it.

    Except we were talking about the formation of the Earth you goalpost moving ignot. Being linked is not the same as being the same.

    And strange how a gravitational collapse didn't happen around the heavy elements in the molecular cloud.

    And again if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    oleg:
    Find me the phrase "it just happened" in any of those reviews, or any others.

    What are the options if it wasn't by design?

     
  • At 7:05 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: Except we were talking about the formation of the Earth you goalpost moving ignot. Being linked is not the same as being the same.

    Joe,

    Is your reading comprehension so low that you can't even understand the title of an article (to say nothing of its its contents)? The second review article I mentioned is entitled "Solar system formation and early evolution." Guess what, Joe, there are no separate theories dealing with the formation of stars and planets. What forms out of a molecular cloud is a solar system that includes a star and its planets.

    And strange how a gravitational collapse didn't happen around the heavy elements in the molecular cloud.

    If gravitational collapse happened at a single point in space then this would be a valid question. But it doesn't happen that way. Compressibility is positive for changes happening on very short time scales (roughly because rapid spatial variations of density have a high energy cost). Instead, the collapse happens in a fairly large area where matter consists of both light and heavy elements. And because molecular clouds are made mostly from hydrogen and helium, the local density of a cloud is determined essentially by these two gases. Heavy elements contribute very little to the density, so they do not influence the gravitational collapse.

    And again if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    This is silly. The theory goes into great details about how the formation of a solar system happens.

    I see that you still can't bring yourself to admit that astrophysicists have developed a theory of the formation of solar systems. I pointed out two reviews of the literature. The second review cites 161 articles from the primary research literature. You are in denial, Joe.

     
  • At 6:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg,

    There isn't anything about the formation of the molten earth in either of those articles.

    And again if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    oleg:
    This is silly. The theory goes into great details about how the formation of a solar system happens.

    And again if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    What part of that don't you understand?

    I see that you still can't bring yourself to admit that astrophysicists have developed a theory of the formation of solar systems.

    How can it be atheory if it can't be tested? And where in those papers is the molten earth?

     
  • At 7:47 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: How can it be atheory if it can't be tested?

    Joe, I don't think you have read the reviews. Here is an excerpt from Montmerle et al., Section 3.2:

    Can we test this model? The available tools to witness grain growth in disks remain limited. Observations can only probe the continuum, quasi- blackbody emission of grains with sizes of the order of the observing wavelength. Therefore, astronomers are basically limited to the direct detection of solid particles smaller than, at most, a few centimeters. Fortunately, disks become optically thin at millimeter wavelengths, which allows astronomers to probe the denser regions of disks where sand-like grains are expected to reside. At these wavelengths, the total disk flux directly relies on the dust opacity that is a function of the grain size, and it can be shown that grains several orders of magnitude larger than those found in the interstellar medium are required to explain the (sub-)millimeter observations (Draine, 2006). At shorter wavelengths, the disk mid-plane is opaque and only the upper layers, mostly consisting of small grains according to the models, are accessible. But as the opacity of disks inversely depends on the wavelength, observations should probe deeper and deeper regions as the wavelengths increases (Duchene et al., 2004). In practice, the interpretation of scattered light observations of disks at visible and near-infrared wavelengths is not straightforward as it strongly depends on the light scattering properties of the individual grains that are, unfortunately, hard to model properly. This type of study is also limited to a handful of objects, such as the circumbinary disk of GG Tau (Figure 3.12).

    In a word, Joe, we can test the model because we can observe stellar nurseries where other solar systems are forming right now.

    Joe again: And where in those papers is the molten earth?

    These two reviews are not the only ones dealing with the formation of the solar system. Go ahead and search the literature. Here is an excerpt from a review by B. J. Wood et al., "Accretion of the Earth and segregation of its core," Nature 441, 825 (2006). doi:10.1038/nature04763:

    By the end of the oligarchic growth stage the tens of surviving planetary embryos were no longer constrained in well-regulated orbits and began to interact gravitationally, setting up a final, cataclysmic stage of accretion by collision which lasted 10^7 years. Many of these objects had proto-cores of iron alloy. A large terrestrial planet like the Earth probably sustained a number of big collisions during accretion, and a late-stage giant impact between a Mars-sized object (10^26 g), sometimes referred to as 'Theia', and the proto-Earth (10^27 g) is the prevailing theory for the formation of the Moon. This would have provided sufficient energy to melt the proto-Earth completely.

    There are lots more articles out there, Joe. You haven't read one of them and you still argue against the existence of the theory. Pathetic, just pathetic.

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    In a word, Joe, we can test the model because we can observe stellar nurseries where other solar systems are forming right now.

    That doesn't mean they are forming as the papers say.

    And where in those papers is the molten earth?

    oleg:
    These two reviews are not the only ones dealing with the formation of the solar system.

    Seeing we were talking about a nolten earth why did you even post them if they don't cover that?

    oleg:
    Here is an excerpt from a review by B. J. Wood et al., "Accretion of the Earth and segregation of its core," Nature 441, 825 (2006). doi:10.1038/nature04763:

    Yeah words like "probably"- how can that be TESTED?

    And again if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW if you want to use gravity as an explanation then your position needs a scientific explanation for how gravity came to be the way it is.

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    Before we go any further, you have to admit that (a) a theory of the formation of the solar system (that includes the Sun and the planets) exists and (b) the theory is testable. I have given you multiple examples of scientific papers, both from the primary literature and reviews, which describe the model and explain how it can be tested. The model covers different aspects of the solar system formation, including the early stages of the Earth's evolution.

    So, Joe, do we have a model or not?

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: And BTW if you want to use gravity as an explanation then your position needs a scientific explanation for how gravity came to be the way it is.

    No. I don't. Newton's theory of gravitation was fully scientific even though it did not explain where gravity came from. Hypotheses non fingo.

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Before we go any further if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    And just how can that be tested?

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, you are an idiot. I have given examples of testability several freaking times in this thread. If you can't comprehend what you read, I can't help you.

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe: Before we go any further if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    Joe, this sentence makes no sense whatsoever. And no,"just happened" can't be found in any of those papers.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Before we go any further if it wasn't planned it is "just happened" and by a chain of accidents- is that in either of those papers?

    oleg:
    Joe, this sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

    You must be an idiot then.

    oleg:
    And no,"just happened" can't be found in any of those papers.

    So the papers say it was by design then. Cool.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW if you want to use gravity as an explanation then your position needs a scientific explanation for how gravity came to be the way it is.

    oleg:
    No. I don't.

    Yes, you d. You cannot use things that need explaining in the first place to do the explaining.

    oleg:
    Newton's theory of gravitation was fully scientific even though it did not explain where gravity came from.

    He didn't use gravity to explain gravity.

     
  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Joe, you are an idiot. I have given examples of testability several freaking times in this thread.

    oleg you are a fucking liar. You have not presented anything testable pertaining to the formation of the earth.

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: He didn't use gravity to explain gravity.

    Neither do astrophysicists. They use gravity (among other things) to explain the formation of a solar system.

    On a broader level, no physical theory explains everything. Bohr's theory of the hydrogen atom did not explain where the Coulomb force between the electron and the proton came from. It was still a highly successful scientific theory.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: You have not presented anything testable pertaining to the formation of the earth.

    Of course I did. The age of the oldest material in the Earth's crust is 4.4 billion years. In contrast, the oldest meteorites are 4.57 billion years old. That's consistent with the idea that the Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago by accretion.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You have not presented anything testable pertaining to the formation of the earth.

    oleg:
    Of course I did. The age of the oldest material in the Earth's crust is 4.4 billion years.

    That has NOTHNG to do with HOW it formed.

    oleg:
    That's consistent with the idea that the Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago by accretion.

    Yet that cannot be tested.

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He didn't use gravity to explain gravity.

    oleg:
    Neither do astrophysicists. They use gravity (among other things) to explain the formation of a solar system.

    As part of their "just-so" story.

     
  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, you make yourself look silly when you call a respectable astrophysical theory a "just-so story." You look especially pathetic because it is clear that you are not familiar at all with the theory, read none of the review papers that have been published, and not even the more popular accounts.

    If one needs another illustration that creationists are anti-science, you are a great example. In fat, you are a great specimen as you rail against not only biological evolution but also history of the Universe and even dating methods.

    Keep up the good job, kid!

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    Joe, you make yourself look silly when you call a respectable astrophysical theory a "just-so story."

    Respected? By who? How can it (the idea for solar system formation) be respected when it cn't be tested?

    oleg:
    In fat, you are a great specimen as you rail against not only biological evolution but also history of the Universe and even dating methods.

    Except I don't rail against biological evolution- just blind watchmaker evolution. And I don't rail against the hisory of the universe. I know it had one. I just don't accept untstable materialistic nonsense.

    As for dating methods they hae their own issues- too much helium anyone?

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    You're a closet YEC, Joe, aren't you?

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, what is the source of your "knowledge" about radiometric dating? The ICR?

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg:
    You're a closet YEC, Joe, aren't you?

    Nope, just an ordinary skeptic.

    oleg:
    Joe, what is the source of your "knowledge" about radiometric dating?

    Nope, I'm just an ordinary skeptic.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, you're being totally incoherent. See if this conversation makes sense in retrospect:

    Q: Joe, what is the source of your "knowledge" about radiometric dating?

    A: Nope, I'm just an ordinary skeptic.

    Try again?

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Sorry- I forgot part of your comment:

    oleg:
    Joe, what is the source of your "knowledge" about radiometric dating? The ICR?

    Nope, I'm just an ordinary skeptic.

    As for conversation you have avoided the fact that anything besides design and Creation = "just happened".

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe, your response still makes no sense. I asked you a simple question: what is the source of your "knowledge" about radiometric dating? Whay can't you give a straight answer? You have gotten the information from somewhere.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oleg- you asked two questions, one was in reponse to your first question.

    What is the source of my knowledge on rad dating?

    Brent Dalrymple(sp?) articles, essays and his book "the age of the earth"

    Kevin Henke- articles and essays

    Various other books, articles and essays- and yes have read what Creationists have to say about it.

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Brent Dalrymple, very good. What have you learned from his book and where do you think he went wrong?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home