Scitso's thread of questions

[scitsofreaky]

Since lately I have found xians that are challenging evolution and the big bang, I figure I might as well just start my own thread for all of these questions. Anybody can use this thread to post random science questions since, at least for me, these "debates" (although only one person has ever responded) are great tools for learning because they bring up questions I never even though of.

 

Angular Momentum and the big bang. A person claims that if angular momentum holds true(which isn't being disputed), then all of the galaxies in the universe should be rotating in the same direction. I did some research and I the only arguement I found at talk origins dealing with planets and moons and not galaxies. They basically say that since the big bang is an expansion, angular momentum does not apply to planets and moons. Does this also apply to galaxies? Can you give a link to a source?

 

Ok, and now for the fun[dy] question of the day:

Why aren't the laws of gravity and enertia still evolving?

Scroll down to read all the fun

[Asimov]

Angular Momentum and the big bang.  A person claims that if angular momentum holds true(which isn't being disputed), then all of the galaxies in the universe should be rotating in the same direction.  I did some research and I the only arguement I found at talk origins dealing with planets and moons and not galaxies.  They basically say that since the big bang is an expansion, angular momentum does not apply to planets and moons.  Does this also apply to galaxies?  Can you give a link to a source?

 

Ok, and now for the fun[dy] question of the day:

Why aren't the laws of gravity and enertia still evolving?

Scroll down to read all the fun

 

I don't see how they could state that Angular Momentum should apply to the Universe since the universe wasn't spinning in relation to anything.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momen...ngular_momentum

 

And what? I don't understand the question....

 

Why would laws evolve?

[Asimov]

Scitso...I'd like to write something to that dude, could you post it for me when I'm done?

[scitsofreaky]

Yes, I will put it up for you. Hmm, I'll let him know that the debate you tried to start with Razor is open if he would like.

Oh, and thanks for the link.

[Asimov]

Almost done.

[scitsofreaky]

Ok, same person, different claim (had to dig for this one):

DNA, RNA, and proteins needed to appear on the earth at the same exact time

What is he talking about? Why would they all need to appear at the same time?

[Asimov]

Ok, same person, different claim (had to dig for this one):

DNA, RNA, and proteins needed to appear on the earth at the same exact time

What is he talking about? Why would they all need to appear at the same time?

 

Because they only think in terms of life now. They don't stop to realise that basic life only needs a basic replicator in order to reproduce.

[Asimov]

Well, it can show a lot more than that. We can see how old they were, how fast they grow, how they died (in some cases), what they ate (in some cases). The statement that the fossils are hardly ever found together in order of animal to animal, or time will needed to be expanded upon a bit, with some examples provided. Number 3 is just juvenile argumentation, such is the general argument of Kent Hovind.

 

The statement that the Geological column is found no where in Earth is a blatant lie. North Dakota has a very well structured column, thus the argument is disproved. How can trees be found in multiple layers? I don't know about the brains where you live, but where I live, we use them. This problem was solved in the 1800's, another testament to the fact that Creationists have no new arguments, and never will:

 

"As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not."

 

Once again, the argument in regards to Noah's Flood explaining "everything" is just ad hoc rationalization. Rather than concluding from the evidence, Creationism has a presupposition that the Global Flood happened, then look for evidence that possibly fits it. Creating stories is fun, but you gotta do better than that.

 

Clams: This has to be possibly the weakest argument for a Flood. I'd like a little statistic to be provided on the Clam shells mostly being found closed. Ever been to a beach? Some beaches are comprised entirely of shells...open shells....Creatures are buried all the time in localized events, to say that this is evidence for a flood that happened all over the world at the same time is logically fallacious.

 

Oil: "Oil can be made in a matter of minutes." So? Anyways, your point is entirely irrelevant. It's hilarious that an example provided is what one sees in a movie. What are we, ten years old here? Why do we still have oil? Well, could it be that hundreds of tons of rock can handle the pressure? Could it be that maybe pressure is released slowly until is leaks out (as happens sometimes)? Selective evidence is fun, but you gotta look at some other options rather than focusing on one that fits your preconceived worldview.

 

Salt: "Check out the dead sea"....check out your problem solving skills. Once again, selective evidence is used. Salt does enter the ocean, but it is ALSO being taken out. Unless one is willing to provide facts that ocean is getting saltier rather than statements, naysaying is all I need to do. It is interesting though, that Kent Hovind is against Uniformitarian beliefs regarding geology, yet he uses it in almost every single one of his arguments.

 

Big Bang: Oh, so now we are on the Big Bang? When are we going to get to what Evolution actually is....that is, Biological Evolution? So far we've gone over Geology....and now we're at Cosmology. Both of which have nothing to do with Evolution.

 

Any statement about the big bang that contains "first there was nothing, then that nothing exploded" builds upon a false premise and then expands upon that false premise. So any statement about the big bang following from that premise is false. It's not circular reasoning you moron. There are 116 different elements, therefore stars (which are made of mostly hydrogen) form other elements as a byproduct of becoming stars.

 

"Also, you can start with hydrogen, and fuse all the elements possible, only up to FE(iron, # 26.) It's impossible to fuse past iron. Where did the other elements come from?"

 

The other elements come from supernovae. Honestly, do you even read?

 

http://ultraman.ssl.berkeley.edu/nucleosynthesis.html

 

"Why aren't the laws of gravity and enertia still evolving?"

 

What kind of question is this? Asking that is like asking why Jesus isn't evolving...it's pointless.

 

"If you were to stumble across a painting the in the woods. No one was around, and just you and the painting, you would know that someone painted it. If you found a house, you would know that someone built it. If you saw a watch in the same forest, you know that some one made that as well. But, if you see a creation, you don't see a Creator?"

 

This is the most fallacious argument I have ever seen, and you didn't even come up with it. Do you have any original thought? Let's see...we know paintings are designed because we see them being made. We know watches are designed because we see them being made. How does that correlate to God? It doesn't. You have to presuppose a creator in order to even call the universe Creation, therefore you're putting the cart before the horse. In order to even say that argument stands is to actually view more than one universe being made.

 

"This conversation is great! i am enjoying letting people know what God has given me in the knowledge of creation VS. evolution."

 

Ah yes...the "knowledge". That's not what I'd call it. Willfull ignorance? Stupidity? Selective Evidence? Shifting Goalposts? You're going all over the place and not even addressing evolution. That's just sad.

[scitsofreaky]

Now we see if he will respond.

Oh, and my next english essay is about ID, using a couple of example arguments (agriculture took too long, and history is too short from AIG). For once I'm actually excited to write a damn paper.

[scitsofreaky]

This is not really a question, but a comment.

I'm getting really tired of people (YECs mostly) saying that evolution says that animals are getting "better." "Better"? Where does evolution say that? From my understanding, evolution is a change from less to more complex, not from worse to better. I think my main issue with this is that it lacks any sort of qualifier or refrence point. Maybe if they started giving a qualifier I would actually be able to respond to what they are saying, like if they said evolution says that animals are getting better adapted to their enviroment. Then I could say something like, actually that would be natural selection, where the animal that is best suited for a given enviroment survives.

Am I totally off base on this?

[scitsofreaky]

Ok, sorry about the rant.

Back to science

how do species in symbiotic relationships (eg bees/flowers) evolve together?

Bees need flowers to produce nectar. Flowers need bees to spread their pollen. The two cannot survive without each other. How did this symbiotic relationship 'evolve'?

 

 

how do complex systems with various distinct parts (eg a snake's venom system) evolve gradually?

A snake's venom system needs the following in order to be of any use:

- some way to produce venom

- somewhere to store venom (ie venom sac)

- some way to inject it into prey (ie fangs)

- venom ducts to carry venom from sac to fangs

- immunity to own venom

These are all required for the venom system to work. If any one is missing, it's useless. To suggest that this 'evolved' gradually is nonsensical. It's an all-or-nothing job.

 

 

how did reproductive systems evolve when evolution cannot happen without them?!?

This is the killer question as far as I'm concerned. Macro-evolution, by definition, depends on species' reproduction. But how did the first life-forms (wherever they came from) learn to reproduce? They couldn't have evolved it, because that would require them to already be capable of reproduction.

Link

I did respond, but I was wondering what people know about what he brought up because I don't know much. My response is pretty much just meshing what I know about natural selection mixed with logic. (Any issues with my response is greatly apprecitated).

[Asimov]

This is not really a question, but a comment.

I'm getting really tired of people (YECs mostly) saying that evolution says that animals are getting "better."  "Better"?  Where does evolution say that?  From my understanding, evolution is a change from less to more complex, not from worse to better.  I think my main issue with this is that it lacks any sort of qualifier or refrence point.  Maybe if they started giving a qualifier I would actually be able to respond to what they are saying, like if they said evolution says that animals are getting better adapted to their enviroment.  Then I could say something like, actually that would be natural selection, where the animal that is best suited for a given enviroment survives.

Am I totally off base on this?

96289[/snapback]

 

Evolution is about change...animals are changing, not getting better or worse or less complex or more complex.

[Asimov]

Ok, sorry about the rant.

Back to science

 

I'll write something later about this, I'm at work.

 

A few things to consider is that animals were not the same as they were in the past...so symbiotic relationships could form and then as the population evolves it would then become dependant on the other population.

 

In terms of snake venom, this is just another "IC" system argument (like the eye) that Creationists bring up. Of course we don't exactly how this system evolved, but it would probably come from a basic system and then as more things got added would lead to the venomous snakes we have today.

[Lizard]

Your last link is broken or out of date..at least that's what it told me..

[Asimov]

hmmmm.....I think I'll join this "Bible Truth" discussion forum.

[scitsofreaky]

Your last link is broken or out of date..at least that's what it told me..

99007[/snapback]

Hmm, I guess you need to register to read that forum.

 

A few things to consider is that animals were not the same as they were in the past...so symbiotic relationships could form and then as the population evolves it would then become dependant on the other population.

I brought up this point. Also, didn't plants in general evolve before animals because animals are dependant on plants, but not vice versa.

Venom I gave a short answer "Who said they evolved separate?" Basically an "I don't know" in disguise.

As for the reproduction "problem," I had to agree that it didn't evolve, but what was able to reproduce became life. Sort of an "I don't know" but with some speculation thrown in.

[Asimov]

Hmm, I guess you need to register to read that forum.

 

A few things to consider is that animals were not the same as they were in the past...so symbiotic relationships could form and then as the population evolves it would then become dependant on the other population.

I brought up this point. Also, didn't plants in general evolve before animals because animals are dependant on plants, but not vice versa.

Venom I gave a short answer "Who said they evolved separate?" Basically an "I don't know" in disguise.

As for the reproduction "problem," I had to agree that it didn't evolve, but what was able to reproduce became life. Sort of an "I don't know" but with some speculation thrown in.

99056[/snapback]

 

In terms of reproduction...early life was probably just an early primitive replicator system. Reproduction doesn't mean to have sex...cells that split or divide reproduce.

[scitsofreaky]

In terms of reproduction...early life was probably just an early primitive replicator system. Reproduction doesn't mean to have sex...cells that split or divide reproduce.

That is what I was refering to. And I assume that is what nsr was also talking about. He was/is [likely] going to argue that there is such a low probability of replication happening that it must have been created. Just like someone else is argueing with me about metamorphosis(forgive my spelling). He claims that every "reasonable intelligent[sic]" person can see that it is too complex to have developed.

I think you should join Asimov, the christadelphians are an interesting group to say the least. And you can learn about really True Christianity.