Why I like to Debate things

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Your definitions of primoridal soup, rocks, water, "wet", explosion and universe are ill-defined, ill-informed, and ill-used. You aren't debating at all, Todd, you're reacting.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

For example: "Wet" is caused by the reaction and behavior of H2O with the compound molecules in other matter. It has nothing to do with how the individual elements of hydrogen and water "feel".

"Primordial soup" was not the creator of life, but an environment on earth that allowed molecules a place to interact, exchange energy, and generally do what is in their nature to do when not impeded by vaccum, extreme cold, extreme heat, or distance. There was no "spark" that brought nothingness to life. Life is a chemical process, like turning bread into toast, not a magical "awakening".

And don't even get me started on the whole animals evolving from rocks thing...

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Todd? You didn't read what I wrote.

Your eyes looked at it, yes. But you did not "think about it."

Which is why you really are not.....

researching/learning/interested in other things.

 

[DevilMayCare]

...You aren't debating at all, Todd, you're reacting.

The church saves sinners, but science seeks to stop their manufacture.

Elbert Hubbard

DCL, I'm sure you know the term "sink." To quote the American Heritage Dictionary, one definition is as follows - "In thermodynamics, the part of a system from which heat, or more generally, energy is removed from the system."

Conversing with Todd on subjects such as evolution is pouring energy into a sink which is bottomless. Todd will absorb every bit of the energy you put into a conversation and nothing in the system will change. Your initial entry into this thread suggests you understand this completely. I marvel at the fact you continue to participate. I can only assume you're having fun. In that case, go for it!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Why I keep doing this I don't know...

Question: Where did the universe come from?
Answer: An explosion of nothing into everything.

First of all, Evolution does not examine the creation of the universe, but, what the hey, let's mix up our sciences by all means...

Secondly, the current model in physics describing the Big Bang does not say there was "nothing", only that the physical laws of the universe did not yet exist. All the matter in the universe did exist in a pinpoint of infinite density.

Question: Where did Primordial soup come from?
Answer: The explosion of nothing and the rocks that it formed.

I've already answered the "nothing" and the "primordial soup" thing (you don't think it was actually, like a sea of soup, do you?). Now, what is with you and rocks? Can we just say "elements" created by the furnaces of the stars?

Question: Where did man come from?
Answer: A series of natural selection that took place in the primordial soup.

That's a wild over-simplification akin to saying a comet is an ice cube. Natural selection was not stuck in the "soup". It's on ongoing process. It's happening today. And homo-sapien did not evolve out the the early earth environment in which life first blossomed, but a good 4 billion years later.

Question: What is that process called?
Answer: Not Evolution.

You did not define a process, just a series of scientific gobble-de-gook, so your sarcasm is wasted.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Sheesh. They said Lewis Carroll was dead.

 

[Todd]

For example: "Wet" is caused by the reaction and behavior of H2O with the compound molecules in other matter. It has nothing to do with how the individual elements of hydrogen and water "feel".

Why did you offer me an umbrella then?

[Edited by Todd on 04-16-2001 at 01:56 PM]

 

[Todd]

Re: Why I keep doing this I don't know...

Question: Where did man come from?
Answer: A series of natural selection that took place in the primordial soup.

That's a wild over-simplification akin to saying a comet is an ice cube. Natural selection was not stuck in the "soup". It's on ongoing process. It's happening today. And homo-sapien did not evolve out the the early earth environment in which life first blossomed, but a good 4 billion years later.

So man just popped up 4 billion years ago? You mean the billions of years prior of natural selection had nothing to do with getting a life form to the point where it could pop up homosapien 4 billion years ago? WOW thats incredible!!

 

[DevilMayCare]

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

Euripides

 

[Todd]

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

Euripides

Yes very true the more I talk sense to People the more they keeps calling me foolish

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Todd, your math is way off. It took about a billion years for life to emerge on earth, and another 4 billion before man emerged. That, in case you're adding, is TODAY. Earth is only 5 billion years old.

And, again (Jesus, I KNOW I've explained this before) Natural Selection isn't linear. You don't start from simple and go to complex. That isn't how it works. It didn't take 4 billion years to make a man. Man is not the pinnacle of evolution. Evolution works in fits and starts and has frequent dead ends and do-overs. It goes back and forth from simple to complex, from big to small, from dumb to smart and back again.

And may I also say AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Todd]

Natural Selection isn't linear.

You had molecules then you had man there has to be a line there somewheres

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

No, that's a passage of time (which some scientists are now saying doesn't even occur at all). It's more than likely that life started and stopped many times on earth before "taking". There is certainly a connection between early bacteria and man, just as there is a connection between the butterfly in Central Park and the Monsoon in India -- but that doesn't mean that man's evolution followed a straight line. For example, we did not evolve from Neanderthal, although we share a common ancestor. (Think of a tree. It has a common trunk, but many branches. We're the end of one branch. Neanderthal is the end of another.)

In a debate truth is not determined, however, winners and losers are. I'm assuming everyone here will agree that given the arguements put forth in this and past debates the evil "Evolutionists" and I have won, and you have lost. So, until you either concede, I'm done debating this particular issue with you.


[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 04-16-2001 at 02:25 PM]

 

[Mischka]

Originally posted by Todd Then turn a rock into a human if its repeatable.

I'm reading this thread, and in the background, my mind is playing (in my best pop star voice) "I am a rock... I am an ISLAND."

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Whispersecret]

...So, until you either concede, I'm done debating this particular issue with you.

Also, because of the wounds he got while beating his head against the wall, he's gotta go buy bandages.

 

[Todd]

No, that's a passage of time (which some scientists are now saying doesn't even occur at all).

What happened to testatbel retestable, reprovable, repeatable observed process? The Scienctist are changing their minds? Why would they now change thier minds? Was thier testable, repeatable, reprovable theory wrong? Say it's not so

It's more than likely that life started and stopped many times on earth before "taking".

So it stopped and it sttarted again? So we should have a jagged line it doesn't have to be a straight line there should be ups and down and big to small to big line even if it isn't straight there should be a line

There is certainly a connection between early bacteria and man, just as there is a connection between the butterfly in Central Park and the Monsoon in India -- but that doesn't mean that man's evolution followed a straight line.

I am not asking for a staraight line, you can say molecule to from to neth. man, to dog to bird, to man what ever way you want it, just show. by saying there is none, is defeating your own arguement.

For example, we did not evolve from Neanderthal, although we share a common ancestor. (Think of a tree. It has a common trunk, but many branches. We're the end of one branch. Neanderthal is the end of another.)

In a debate truth is not determined, however, winners and losers are. I'm assuming everyone here will agree that given the arguements put forth in this and past debates the evil "Evolutionists" and I have won, and you have lost. So, until you either concede, I'm done debating this particular issue with you.

 

[Todd]

...So, until you either concede, I'm done debating this particular issue with you.

Also, because of the wounds he got while beating his head against the wall, he's gotta go buy bandages.

ROTFLOL

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[lazarus UK]

Just a theory ...

Isn't that enough, Todd?

Sorry to butt in, but you seem to miss the point here. So here is my two penn'orth.

"I like to debate because I often find out what my views are on a subject by arguing about it. This makes me think through a subject in a more logical and objective way than I would usually."



The nature of scientific reasoning is that a theory is capable of refutation. In other words, it can be disproved by testing it against the real world..

A theory, by definition, cannot be proven to be correct. Essentially a theory is a useful model of a situation. It offers a description of a system which permits prediction of future behaviour of that system. Only if the model fails in some way is it rejected.

(If you are prepared to accept a theorem from systems theory:

No system can be completely modelled by a system less complex than itself

- hence all theories must be ultimately false)

William of Occam proposed a heuristic principle,"Occam's razor", which stated a preference for simplicity over complexity. Simple theories are preferred to more complex ones until the simpler theory fails to explain the situation.

For example, Newton's physics were never proven correct and a single observation of a transit of Venus showed them to be incorrect. Even so, Newtonian physics is quite good enough to be useful - it got a man on the moon.

I think we'd both accept the world is round, but to simplify even further, you can get from one side of town to the other using a "flat earth" model - I've never needed spherical trigonometry to use a street map.

The strength of a theory is measured by the number of possible refutations. If it passes lots of tests against objective reality it may have some merit.



Religious ideas are similar in some ways, in that they are also not susceptible to positive proof. Indeed such proof would be antithetical to faith and is not to be desired. Religious ideas are not however subject to refutation - there is no test that could be applied that would, for example, refute the existence of God.

On a simpler level, you might have a problem refuting Odin or Amun-Ra - even though they lack significant numbers of worshippers.

Interestingly, psychoanalysis is a religion on this basis. (A view I share with the late Josef Stalin , just to demonstrate no-one's completely wrong all the time)

You either believe or you don't, that's all there is to it.

(It's actually quite reasonable to argue that a search for proof of religious ideas is essentially heretical, or at best shows a lack of faith)



Of course evolution is "just a theory", creationism isn't. That is the weakness of creationism , not the weakness of evolution from the scientific viewpoint.

You are not arguing on the same ground or with a compatible mind-set in any religion vs. science argument. It's simply not possible.

If you'd care to disagree, can I suggest you come up with a possible refutation for the existence of God?

Alternatively, some of us have a touching "faith" in science ...

 

[DevilMayCare]

The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.

Albert Einstein

Lazuras - Loved your disquisition. Another cogent, thoughtful presentation down the drain, I'm afraid. Watch closely how Todd finesses out of this one.

[Edited by DevilMayCare on 04-16-2001 at 02:58 PM]

 

[alexander tzara]

Hey, Lazarus. You've quoted me above and I'm not sure why.

 

[lazarus UK]

Hey, Lazarus. You've quoted me above and I'm not sure why.

So I did, oops ...

My best guess for a reason would be simple stupidity on my part. A tiny mistake there, it was such a concise expression of what one might hope for in argument. Sadly, not from the appropriate source.

May I offer a sincere apology?

 

[alexander tzara]

May I offer a sincere apology?

Only if you concede that I won the argument!

Whatever it was.

 

[Deborah]

What I want to know is what Todd is debating with.