What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, and we should test natural selection by predation on you, perhaps! Oh damn, that was already done to the Christians by you lot, back in the first century.

by you lot? What does that even mean? I've never fed a Christian to a lion, nor have I seen a scientist or evolution supporter do it. It sounds harsh, but not as bad as the dark ages torture devices that were implemented on non believers.

I was talking about doing an actual scientific test with your whale survival hypothesis, which is obviously silly or you you'd be happy to try it out. Natural Selection is already proven. No need to experiment further. Now a human surviving in a whale for a few days, I'd LOVE to see. You really believe the blowhole provides oxygen to the stomach?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Great points! I think we should put your theory to the test. Lets go find a sperm whale and then we'll send you inside his belly and see how long you last. Science in action, followed by evolution in action. It's perfect!

Sorry, why are you so pre occupied with a whale, the bible does not state the big fish that swallowed Jonah was a whale.

The bible states it was "a big fish", and animals in the ancient language were categorised differently as to today. Any creature living in the ocean was labelled as a "fish', I understand it doesnt make much sense in todays language but a better translation would be "a big marine creature".

Your sperm whale argument is invalid

I apologize. Now that I know it was a big fish, instead of a sperm whale, it's totally plausible. Thanks for clearing that up.

BTW Chr0naut brought up the sperm whale in defense of the Jonah story, not me. It's funny how you selectively read things.

originally posted by: Barcs
I apologize. Now that I know it was a big fish, instead of a sperm whale, it's totally plausible. Thanks for clearing that up.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Great points! I think we should put your theory to the test. Lets go find a sperm whale and then we'll send you inside his belly and see how long you last. Science in action, followed by evolution in action. It's perfect!

Sorry, why are you so pre occupied with a whale, the bible does not state the big fish that swallowed Jonah was a whale.

The bible states it was "a big fish", and animals in the ancient language were categorised differently as to today. Any creature living in the ocean was labelled as a "fish', I understand it doesnt make much sense in todays language but a better translation would be "a big marine creature".

Your sperm whale argument is invalid

I apologize. Now that I know it was a big fish, instead of a sperm whale, it's totally plausible. Thanks for clearing that up.

BTW Chr0naut brought up the sperm whale in defense of the Jonah story, not me. It's funny how you selectively read things.

Sorry, I assumed it was your point.

I think you are both off course with the whale

Still whats the point with arguing with Chron or myself, we both believe this story is possible, both in the natural and through Gods power.

So we dont know the finite details of Jonahs story, well lets talk about the 5 problems that exist in my opening post, the finite details of the different evolutions, the topic

Yes, ours is a faith because we cant answer the details and admit as such
Yours isnt a faith because you dont have answers and yet believe, and then believe some more that your belief in scientists will provide the answers

a reply to: borntowatch

1) It's not possible with naturalistic explanations. You cannot survive in a hostile, anaerobic underwater environment (i.e. a whale or fish's stomach). Period.

2) "Through God's power", funnily enough, is not an explanation. "Therefore, magic" is never an explanation.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The paper is four years old and is based only on microlensing data from the years 2002-2007, so it is hardly the latest, as you described.

You have any newer data that disproves this study?

It is limited to the Milky Way galaxy only, not all stars, as you stated.

Are you familiar with the Cosmological Principle?

In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is an axiom that embodies the working assumption or premise that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.

In other words, any slice of the universe should look mostly like any other slice of the universe. Therefore it reasons that whatever holds true for the Milky Way, should also hold true for other galaxies. This is far from absolute proof that most stars in the universe have planets orbiting them, but it is certainly quite compelling.

It is a statistical approximate based only on specific microlensing data collected at the time, a total of only 43 candidates whose criteria they accept. Compared against current data of 1795 detected exoplanets and the estimated 300 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, it is a very early and inaccurate estimate.

The Cosmological principle suggests otherwise.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: borntowatch

1) It's not possible with naturalistic explanations. You cannot survive in a hostile, anaerobic underwater environment (i.e. a whale or fish's stomach). Period.

2) "Through God's power", funnily enough, is not an explanation. "Therefore, magic" is never an explanation.

Its not possible according to you, as is rising from the dead
Magic is not an explanation for you, your finite mind, I dont see the world so black and white

We disagree, why preach your unbelief at me like an atheist evangelist

I accept your view and understand why you believe what you believe

Gods power is an explanation that I find acceptable, why cant you accept that from me. Am I suppose to conform to you and why



So we dont know the finite details of Jonahs story, well lets talk about the 5 problems that exist in my opening post, the finite details of the different evolutions, the topic

originally posted by: borntowatch

Its not possible according to you, as is rising from the dead

Well, yeah. Funnily enough, I don't believe that people can rise from the dead. But hey, you read it in a 2,000 year old book so it must be true.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: borntowatch

1) It's not possible with naturalistic explanations. You cannot survive in a hostile, anaerobic underwater environment (i.e. a whale or fish's stomach). Period.

2) "Through God's power", funnily enough, is not an explanation. "Therefore, magic" is never an explanation.

Its not possible according to you, as is rising from the dead
Magic is not an explanation for you, your finite mind, I dont see the world so black and white

We disagree, why preach your unbelief at me like an atheist evangelist

I accept your view and understand why you believe what you believe

Gods power is an explanation that I find acceptable, why cant you accept that from me. Am I suppose to conform to you and why



So we dont know the finite details of Jonahs story, well lets talk about the 5 problems that exist in my opening post, the finite details of the different evolutions, the topic

We'll skip the fact that magic/the power of a bearded bloke in the sky is not testable, is not provable and has never been seen in laboratory conditions. However - you seem to think that we're still debating you. We're not. We're wearily reiterating the problems with your original post and you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shout about how wrong we are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Cosmological Principle has qualification that variation in physical structures is overlooked. This means physical structures like stars, planets & galaxies are explicitly excluded.

Taken to its absurd conclusion, the Cosmological Principle tells us that matter doesn't exist in this universe, because compared with the infinite amount of 'nothing' out there, a finite amount of matter is insignificant and can therefore be discarded in all calculations. Similarly, a brief consideration of the boundaries of observational error when compared with this vanishingly small ratio would also indicate the dangers of mis-applying the Cosmological Principle.

a reply to: chr0naut



Overlooked, what, where??

Do you even know what are you talking about?

Please tell me that you will not tell us that Earth is not moving anymore...

johnhartnett.org...

Someone trying to use known scientist to promote his own idea of unique earth...god and creation.... while everything points that we are just little dot in universe...

OP, you forgot some types of evolution:

Carpet evolution - With a long history of adaptation and evolution, the tradition of Scandinavian rug-making is among the most storied of all European rug-making traditions. Carpets

Fishing hook evolution - Fish hooks have evolved many times in numerous cultures. The earliest known examples of bent barbless hooks are from the First Egyptian Dynasty (~ 3000 B.C.) and by ~1200 B.C. barbed hooks were in use in Ancient Egypt. We have to reach farther back into more primitive cultures to trace how the fish hook was born. Hooks

Car tyre evolution - Every rotation of my car wheels cause them to evolve less tread until they need replacing. You might call this revolution evolution.


The above are just as relevant to biological evolution as you're opening post - in which you deliberately confused biological evolution with anything which had the word 'evolution' in it.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: chr0naut
... snip, picture of cute kid removed because...

Overlooked, what, where??

Do you even know what are you talking about?

Please tell me that you will not tell us that Earth is not moving anymore...

johnhartnett.org...

Someone trying to use known scientist to promote his own idea of unique earth... while everything points that we are just little dot in universe...

Please refer to the third qualification of the Cosmological Principle on Wikipedia for a fairly simple explanation.

Apparently, I do know what I'm talking about.

Apparently, despite the cheezy pictures and links to irrelevant YouTube clips, you don't.

(hint: in discussions of Science, YouTube clips do not weigh particularly heavily)

a reply to: chr0naut

You know, looking at star formation, it actually makes sense that planets would be circling around every star. A star starts out as a giant cloud of dust and debris that eventually condenses into one giant mass that eventually ignites. However, to think that this mass absorbed ALL the dust and debris from this cloud doesn't make a lot of sense. Naturally, the remaining particles would group together to form bigger and bigger rocks until finally a solar system is formed. It actually makes a ton of sense if you think about it logically. Not to mention, everything I've provided up to this point corroborates this account of things.

I'm still waiting to see a study that refutes the one I originally posted.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's a gross misrepresentation of the third qualification. The wikipedia sums up the principle as such:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.[1]

Key phrase to pay attention to:

Viewed on a sufficiently large scale

Meaning that, yes the universe is mostly empty, but if you keep zooming out you WILL eventually start see physical structures. In fact the principle is suggesting that the zoom out should be about the size of the visible universe. Though that may be up for debate since scientists have also discovered this: Scientists Detect “Dark Flow:” Matter From Beyond the Visible Universe Meaning that even our visible universe may not be a sufficiently large slice of the universe to apply the principle for.

a reply to: chr0naut

You're sure working reeeeaaaaaal hard to misrepresent science here.

"I have no agenda"

"I'm just asking questions"

I think we can all agree your agenda is well and truly out in the open.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

You're sure working reeeeaaaaaal hard to misrepresent science here.

"I have no agenda"

"I'm just asking questions"

I think we can all agree your agenda is well and truly out in the open.

No, what I have been doing is really easy and I believe I have been pointing out others misrepresentation of Science.

I actually enjoy Science!

I never said "I'm just asking questions", nor did I say "I have no agenda".

My agenda is that sticking to any one theory or hypothesis, when there are alternates, is dogma, not science.

Truly out in the open. Clearly stated.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
OP, you forgot some types of evolution:

Carpet evolution - With a long history of adaptation and evolution, the tradition of Scandinavian rug-making is among the most storied of all European rug-making traditions. Carpets

Fishing hook evolution - Fish hooks have evolved many times in numerous cultures. The earliest known examples of bent barbless hooks are from the First Egyptian Dynasty (~ 3000 B.C.) and by ~1200 B.C. barbed hooks were in use in Ancient Egypt. We have to reach farther back into more primitive cultures to trace how the fish hook was born. Hooks

Car tyre evolution - Every rotation of my car wheels cause them to evolve less tread until they need replacing. You might call this revolution evolution.


The above are just as relevant to biological evolution as you're opening post - in which you deliberately confused biological evolution with anything which had the word 'evolution' in it.

OOops crikey, I must have overloo.....
Ahhh wait, are you saying they evolved from nature with out any design, intelligent design

I also like your revolution evolution but this supports entropy and each and every evolution you listed is repeatable observable and testable.
Those I listed, not so much.

Enjoy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

A star starts out as a giant cloud of dust and debris that eventually condenses into one giant mass that eventually ignites.

How does it do this and then why
My problem with this sort of stuff is it doesnt make any sense scientifically
Why does a cloud of dust form, then why does it condense when it should separate and then why does it ignite

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
is not provable and has never been seen in laboratory conditions.

Repeatable observable and testable, I bring forward the proof that I need to justify the belief that evolution happened.

If you cant furnish what is required by science then its almost a faith/belief....Magic, your magic.

The difference is its science accepted magic, taught by scientists who write the books you believe in, with out repeatable testable and observable evidence