Evolution and extra-terrestrial life [Archive]

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 02:27 AM

Jinx72 wrote:"Evolution" in this poll refers to macro-evolution - i.e. one species changing into an entirely different species over time (e.g. one-celled organism to human). ”Then "Woman" replied (rather like Italian Gold who is also a woman, she tells us):That's an interesting leap you made there. I mean, even fundamentalist creationists are no longer denying "evolution" which means difference species emerging from a common ancestor or "kind."One day anti-creationists might surprise us all and tell us when mainstream creationists ever taught fixity of species. After all, the "biological species" is a modern concept, while "kind" is Biblical. And at least as far back as 1941, creationists have used hybridization as an additive criterion, so any two creatures which can hybridize up to the point of genuine fertilization are members of the same baramin (coined by Dr Frank Marsh from Hebrew bara (create) and min). This was promoted in the classic book by Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood in 1961, widely regarded as kickstarting the modern creationist movement. So the teaching that "kinds" are broader than today's "biological species" has been mainstream creationist thinking for decades! It's about time that evolutionists stopped misrepresenting us as believing in "fixity of species".

And it's crass to claim that evolution is just "change", because that has never been in dispute. After all, the Bible clearly teaches that all human "races" or people groups come from Adam and Eve!

Woman then says something accurate:
By the way the term "macro-evolution" has fallen out of favor with creationists as a way to disparage evolution. AiG can fill you in.But since most evolutionists are too intellectually lazy and dishonest to represent their opponents correctly, I'll have to post it on this board from their "Don't Use" page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp) www.answersingenesis.org/dont_use :

‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

RufusAtticus

March 16th 2003, 02:45 AM

Thank you, Socrates, for demonstrating that creationists like AiG can't even use scientific terms correctly. "Information" has nothing to do with the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So in linking information theory to evolution, one must consider the information in the population, which creationists do not do. Biologically, information can refer to different things. Pseudogenes, contain information about evolutionary history but not information that can be selected upon. In the context of this discussion, it would be best right now to consider the genetic information underlying traits, with an interest in adaptable traits. It is difficult to determine a way to measure the amount of this information, but one possibility is the size of the proteome. This is the number of unique proteins produced in the population and includes all loci and alleles. Whenever a mutation produces a novel allele, it adds information to the population. In other words, there is a new trait for selection to act upon. Here are two examples of the effects of information in a population.

Jeff knows something about Gina: "Gina is neat." Thus he has information about Gina. Before he leaves town, Jeff replicates this information by telling it to two people, Nick and Randy. Because neither of them pays attention, they don’t replicate the information exactly. Nick thinks "Gina is sweat," and Randy thinks "Gina is near." We can measure the about of information about Gina by the number of non-redundant attributes people ascribe to her. Here, the amount of information about Gina has doubled: from "neat" to "sweat and near." Clearly when we remember that it is the population that’s important to evolution, it is obvious how mutations can add information for selection to act upon.

Take this example retrieved from LocusLink [1], the only difference occurs in the 7th codon (6th amino acid because the first one, 'm,' gets cut off). The letters refer to amino acids [2].

Human Beta-hemoglobin (HBB)
1 mvhltpeeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

HBB-S
1 mvhltpveks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

HBB-C
1 mvhltpkeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

Each allele does not encode the exact same information since each one produces a distinctly different product. A single point mutation has enough effect on the information contained in the genome that it can determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. In the presence of malaria, HBB-S is maintained because of heterozygote advantage. However, HBB-C also offers resistance to malaria, but the most fit genotype is the homozygote.[3] It is expected to become the most common allele in parts of Africa if the environment stays the same. These mutations have clearly added new information to the population. Selection then acts on this new information, changing the make up of the population. Thus, evolution happens.

It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gained or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution. In fact, the actual claim, when applied to biology, is that the information capacity of an individual's genome cannot increase. However, this claim is false because there are known types of mutations that can increase the length of the genome and thus its capacity to hold information. Ernst Mayr discusses this origin of new genes in his latest book:

Bacteria and even the oldest eukaryotes (protists) have a rather small genome. . . . This raises the question: By what process is a new gene produced? This occurs, most frequently, by the doubling of an existing gene and its insertion in the chromosome in tandem next to the parental gene. In due time the new gene may adopt a new function and the ancestral gene with its traditional function will then be referred to as the orthologous gene. It is through orthologous genes that the phylogeny of genes is traced. The derived gene, coexisting with the ancestral gene, is called paralogous. Evolutionary diversification is, to a large extent, effected by the production of paralogous genes. The doubling sometimes affects not merely a single gene, but a whole chromosome set or even an entire genome.[4]

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/
2. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html
3. Modiano D. et al. (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature: 414 pp 305-308
4. Mayr E. (2001) What Evolution Is. Basic Books.

Woman

March 16th 2003, 02:58 AM

Socrates...most evolutionists are too intellectually lazy and dishonest to represent their opponents correctly...

Don't MAKE me sic Italian Gold on you. Just kidding. But is this a fair statement? I think that the majority of people in the US believe in evolution. You really want to say most are intellectually lazy and dishonest? Maybe you mean the ones who argue against creationism. And keep in mind that millions of people believe in both a supernatural design AND evolution. They just aren't mutually exclusive beliefs.

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 03:17 AM

Thank you, RufusAtticus, for demonstrating that evolutionists can't provide logical arguments but instead resort to unsupported assertions, equivocation and elephant hurling. And he shows once again that he can't understand the fundamental concept of information.

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 03:29 AM

Socrates:
..most evolutionists are too intellectually lazy and dishonest to represent their opponents correctly... ”
Woman replied:
Don't MAKE me sic Italian Gold on you. Just kidding. But is this a fair statement? I think that the majority of people in the US believe in evolution.As before, I'm talking about goo to you via the zoo. Not the trivial fact of change that no creationist has ever disputed. You really want to say most are intellectually lazy and dishonest? Maybe you mean the ones who argue against creationism. Yeah, the ones who keep misrepresenting creation as denying all change, and using examples of informationally downhill change such as blind fish in caves and many cases antibiotic resistance as an argument against Biblical creation.And keep in mind that millions of people believe in both a supernatural design AND evolution. They just aren't mutually exclusive beliefs.I know. What are mutually exclusive are Biblical creation and go-to-you evolution, although some people manage to hold two contrary ideas in the same skull. See Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp

TenDimensions

March 16th 2003, 04:57 AM

You quoted from AiG this:
Today @ 01:27 AM
Socrates quoting AiG:
‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Socrates, please forgive me as the Christian you are for perhaps missing your reply to my post in another thread, but could you please explain how you and I have missed each other on these points?

1) You and I agree that duplication of genetic material is possible in an organism. This is merely duplication and does nothing for evolution - we both agree.

2) Once additional genetic material is added into a system it can then be shuffled allowing for natural selection to act upon it. In this we also both agree since this is essential to diversification of life.

So then please tell me how those two things do not contribute to the "new information" everyone keeps screaming about? With additional raw genetic material (through basic duplication) and then through normal reshuffling additional information can arise! It is the most common fallacy to think of evolution as an "uphill" process as the two points above clearly can bring about new information without appearing to be "uphill" in the least!

Of course, for the record evolution can occur through a variety of processes, but this particular one seems extremely difficult to ignore given that you accept both principles as far as I know.

flipper

March 16th 2003, 06:29 AM

I can't really vote on this without more information. If by extraterrestrial life you mean like the possibility of bacteria on Mars, or maybe on Europa, then I believe that such things are reasonable.

But this doesn't say anything about whether such things independently evolved, or whether they were "seeded" by a common ancestor.

If, by extraterrestrial, you mean the gray guys who are supposed to be visiting us in flying saucers, then I can't completely rule out the possibility but find it highly unlikely.

WinAce

March 16th 2003, 08:25 AM

I voted 'no' on both because I echo RufusAtticus' sentiments on 'believing in' anything.

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 08:58 AM

10D:

Goo-to-you evolution has to be informationally uphill, simply because the hypothetical first living cell had no information for eyes, nerves, brain, muscles, hair, bones, blood, etc.; yet "higher" forms of life do. This is what goo-to-you evolution must explain, and simply pointing out "change" won't do.

I think I covered the gene duplication thingy before by quoting from this AiG rebuttal to Scientific American (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#mutations) http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#mutations :

Scientific American:
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism’s DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features.Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help — they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example).

In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type—this is called polyploidy. Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the breeding isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book. (Brave students of evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the same assignment.)

Duplication of a single chromosome is normally harmful, as in Down’s Syndrome. Insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes. Biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner in his book Not By Chance (see graphic, right) analyses examples of mutational changes that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information (which is to be expected from information theory).

The gene duplication idea is that an existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed. Therefore it is free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it) . However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information. Dawkins et al. point out that natural selection is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the immense design in nature (not a good one, as Spetner et al. have shown). The proposal is that random changes produce a new function, then this redundant gene becomes expressed somehow, thus comes under the selective process and is tuned.

It’s all a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutated to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it.

Furthermore, mutations do not just occur in the duplicated gene; they occur throughout the genome. Consequently, all the deleterious mutations have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit. Mutations in the target duplicate gene are extremely rare—it might represent only 1 part in 30,000 of the genome of an animal. The larger the genome the bigger the problem. This is because a larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that can be sustained without error catastrophe, which means one has to wait longer for any mutation, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene. There just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.

Dawkins and others have recognised that the ‘information space’ possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function. There could never be enough experiments (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4^1000 possibilities — that is 10^602 (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at ‘only’ 10^80). If every atom in the universe were an experiment every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10^100 of the possibilities. So such a ‘neutral’ process cannot find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that there may be more than just one sequence that is functional to some extent.

So Dawkins and company have the same problem as the neutral selection theory advocates. Increasing knowledge of the molecular basis of biological functions has exploded the known ‘information space’ such that mutations and natural selection, with or without gene duplication, or any other known natural process, cannot account for the irreducibly complex nature of living systems.
Scientific American:
Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.This is an inference from similarities interpreted under the materialistic paradigm. There is no actual demonstration that hemoglobin (with four polypeptides) evolved from myoglobin (with one polypeptide), or any adequate explanation of how the hypothetical intermediates would have had selective advantages. In fact, it’s far more complicated than Rennie implies. The á- and â-globin chains are encoded on genes on different chromosomes, so they are expressed independently. This expression must be controlled precisely, otherwise various types of a disease called thallassemia results. Also, there is an essential protein called AHSP (Alpha Hemoglobin Stabilizing Protein) which, as the name implies, stabilizes the á-chains, and also brings it to the â-chains. Otherwise the á-chains would precipitate and damage the red blood cells. AHSP is one of many examples of a class of protein called chaperones which govern the folding of other proteins.12 This is yet another problem for chemical evolutionary theories—how did the first proteins fold correctly without chaperones, and since the chaperones themselves are complex proteins, how did they fold? See The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf) (PDF file).

TenDimensions

March 16th 2003, 11:08 AM

Today @ 07:58 AM
Socrates:
Goo-to-you evolution has to be informationally uphill, simply because the hypothetical first living cell had no information for eyes, nerves, brain, muscles, hair, bones, blood, etc.; yet "higher" forms of life do. This is what goo-to-you evolution must explain, and simply pointing out "change" won't do.

Okay, fine. I won't argue the uphill thing for now.

And I read through the link you posted and it was interesting. However, I am still insisting that my simple two points are more simple than what you're trying to refute.

My question is simple: Do you agree that after duplication the shuffling in that new genetic material and the natural selection process on that new material could lead to new information?

I'm not asking about how complex our genes are and how amazing it is that proteins could only be encoded if somehow fifty different mutations occurred all at the same time, blah, blah, blah... I understand that if you admit "yes" to my question it doesn't necessarily mean all the other miraculous design so evident in our genetic code could have arisen through this process. I'm just asking this simple hypothetical that seems completely in line with statements you've already made. I'm really just trying to take this conversation in a series of small steps rather than trying to tackle the whole thing at once.

Based on your accepted school of thought that you've already stated it seems to me that it is acceptable that duplicated genetic material, subsequent reshuffling of such material, and the natural selection process upon that information could yield new information that previously didn't exist. However simple that information may be - no interconnected parts to other genes or anything - just stand alone new information on that newly duplicated material.

Can you agree to that?

RufusAtticus

March 16th 2003, 12:34 PM

Today @ 02:17 AM
Socrates:

Thank you, RufusAtticus, for demonstrating that evolutionists can't provide logical arguments but instead resort to unsupported assertions, equivocation and elephant hurling. And he shows once again that he can't understand the fundamental concept of information.

Yeah, I figured that the only way you could respond to my post would be through rhetoric. But obviously science isn't done from a pulpit. Care to actually address what I said instead of lobbing accusations at me?

Care to back up any of your statements? Specifically how I can't understand the fundamental concept of information.

Woman

March 16th 2003, 04:56 PM

Socrates,

In light of the fact that in the last few years (1998 the most recent I'm aware of) several more high-quality fossils similar to the Archaeopteryx have been found, what is the creationist response? Clearly, these critters are neither fully therapod dinos - reptillian NOR fully bird "kind." Isn't this just the sort of accumulating evidence that is making fellas like Gish pull the covers over his head?

The Laughing Man

March 16th 2003, 06:18 PM

Alright. So should we continue SETI? If so, why? What reason do we have to believe that this will result in anything? Should we also start up SIPU - the Search for Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? What's the difference? And why is faith in the existence of extra-terrestrial life considered more acceptable than faith in God?

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 10:52 PM

Woman wrote:
In light of the fact that in the last few years (1998 the most recent I'm aware of) several more high-quality fossils similar to the Archaeopteryx have been found, what is the creationist response? Clearly, these critters are neither fully therapod dinos - reptillian NOR fully bird "kind." Isn't this just the sort of accumulating evidence that is making fellas like Gish pull the covers over his head?Woman, this is called "elephant hurling". Please check out the AiG website under Did birds really evolve from dinosaurs? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp#birds) www.answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs.asp#birds. This deals with claims as recent as this year.

For example, you will find that the "evidence" for dino-bird evolution is NOT adding up, but in many cases is contradictory.

E.g. the fashionable theory is cursorial, but Microraptor is now being used to support the arboreal theory.

The "dates", even granting the validity of the evolutionary dating methods, are hopelessly out of order, because the fully beaked and feathered bird Confuciusornis is "dated" millions of years OLDER than the "feathered dinos" that are supposed to be ancestral to it.

The embryonic development in dino and bird digits is completely different, and this is strong evidence against common ancestry. This has severe ramifications for bigger picture ideas, because the development of amphibian and mammalian digits is also completely different http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp.

No evolutionist has a plausible theory for the evolution of a reptilian bellows-type lung into the avian flow-through lung http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4217cen_s1999.asp

Woman

March 16th 2003, 11:12 PM

Jinx: Alright. So should we continue SETI? If so, why? What reason do we have to believe that this will result in anything?Yes - because it is man's nature to explore. Because, wondering whether there is live anywhere else in a universe of millions of galaxies is a reasonable question.
Should we also start up SIPU - the Search for Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? What's the difference?No - because wondering if there are invisible pink unicorns ANYWHERE is NOT a reasonable question. And why is faith in the existence of extra-terrestrial life considered more acceptable than faith in God?I am unaware of any faith based on the belief of extra-terrestrial life. Exploring the cosmos is a scientific and intellectual line of inquiry. Belief in God is a personal theological issue.

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 11:22 PM

Jinx:
Alright. So should we continue SETI? If so, why? What reason do we have to believe that this will result in anything?
Woman:
Yes - because it is man's nature to explore. Because, wondering whether there is live anywhere else in a universe of millions of galaxies is a reasonable question.Then explore it yourself, rather than coercing taxpayer dollars to so it!
Should we also start up SIPU - the Search for Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? What's the difference?

No - because wondering if there are invisible pink unicorns ANYWHERE is NOT a reasonable question. Well, I guess invisible and pink are mutually exclusive, but I think you see what Jinx was talking about. There is equally little evidence that ETI exists. It is rather an aspect of faith.
And why is faith in the existence of extra-terrestrial life considered more acceptable than faith in God?
I am unaware of any faith based on the belief of extra-terrestrial life.Oh yes there is. There is no EVIDENCE, therefore the assumption that ETI exists is blind FAITH (and not the Biblical kind which is NOT divorced from evidence). The nlogic is: life evolved here (more blind faith), the Earth is only one of billions of planets capable of supporting life (again, no evidence), therefore life evolved elsewhere. And finding life elsewhere would back up this idea, a deduction from materialistic philosophy. Exploring the cosmos is a scientific and intellectual line of inquiry. Belief in God is a personal theological issue.A huge amount of question-begging here, ASSUMING that belief in God has no relation to the real world.

Tycho

March 17th 2003, 12:26 AM

Today @ 08:22 PM
Socrates:
Woman:
Yes - because it is man's nature to explore. Because, wondering whether there is live anywhere else in a universe of millions of galaxies is a reasonable question.Then explore it yourself, rather than coercing taxpayer dollars to so it!
For one thing, just where do you think the funding for SETI comes from? Please provide a citation. Additionally, why shouldn't taxpayer monies be used?
No - because wondering if there are invisible pink unicorns ANYWHERE is NOT a reasonable question. Well, I guess invisible and pink are mutually exclusive, but I think you see what Jinx was talking about. There is equally little evidence that ETI exists. It is rather an aspect of faith.
While there's no reason to suspect that there is the IPU, there is reason to suspect that there might be extra-terrestrial life. Your use of faith is disingenious: don't try to compare your unsupportable religious ideas with a genuine search.
I am unaware of any faith based on the belief of extra-terrestrial life.Oh yes there is. There is no EVIDENCE, therefore the assumption that ETI exists is blind FAITH (and not the Biblical kind which is NOT divorced from evidence). The nlogic is: life evolved here (more blind faith), the Earth is only one of billions of planets capable of supporting life (again, no evidence), therefore life evolved elsewhere.
What is it that makes you believe in your interpretation of the Bible against all evidence, but which also makes you so hyper-skeptical regarding science that you absolutely refuse to accept valid ideas backed by evidence? Do you somehow believe that "science" is some kind of alternate religion that threatens your own? Do you have some sort of bizarre bias against evidence so that you can accept things on faith and only faith?

Woman

March 17th 2003, 12:54 AM

Jinx: "Alright. So should we continue SETI? If so, why? What reason do we have to believe that this will result in anything?”

Woman: "Yes - because it is man's nature to explore. Because, wondering whether there is life anywhere else in a universe of millions of galaxies is a reasonable question.

SOCRATES - Then explore it yourself, rather than coercing taxpayer dollars to so it!

Not relevant - that's a political/fiscal issue

Jinx "Should we also start up SIPU - the Search for Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? What's the difference? ”

Woman "No - because wondering if there are invisible pink unicorns ANYWHERE is NOT a reasonable question."

SOCRATES: I think you see what Jinx was talking about."

Not really

SOCRATES: "There is equally little evidence that ETI exists. It is rather an aspect of faith."

One of us is confused. Space exploration and SETI research is the search FOR EVIDENCE. I am unaware that scientists involved in either space exploration or SETI research are evangelizing.

Jinx "And why is faith in the existence of extra-terrestrial life considered more acceptable than faith in God?"

Woman: I am unaware of any faith based on the belief of extra-terrestrial life.

SOCRATES: "Oh yes there is."

There is?

SOCRATES: "There is no EVIDENCE, therefore the assumption (WHAT assumption?) that ETI exists is blind FAITH (and not the Biblical kind which is NOT divorced from evidence).

Now you've got ME confused.

SOCRATES: "The nlogic is: life evolved here (more blind faith), the Earth is only one of billions of planets capable of supporting life (again, no evidence), therefore life evolved elsewhere. And finding life elsewhere would back up this idea, a deduction from materialistic philosophy."

Well, I suppose that finding life elsewhere might be evidence for evolution...but so what? Despite your belief to the contrary, scientists do not think they have to find life out in the cosmos to support the theory of evolution. They are searching because it is a fascinating possibility!

Woman: "Exploring the cosmos is a scientific and intellectual line of inquiry. Belief in God is a personal theological issue."

SOCRATES: "A huge amount of question-begging here, ASSUMING that belief in God has no relation to the real world."

I don't even know what the question IS anymore.

I'll say this in the most respectful way I know how. I think you both are against space exploration and the search for life in the universe because it might be found and would somehow undermine YOUR faith. Most of us do not feel that way, whether we believe in extra-terrestrial life elsewhere or not.

Woman

March 17th 2003, 01:01 AM

Tycho,

Looks like I was busy composing my response and didn't see yours. We've mirrored a lot of points, but that's fine :smile:

Socrates,

I'll get back to you regarding the AiG info on archaeopteryx and other more recent "missing links."

Socrates

March 17th 2003, 01:21 AM

Socrates:

Then explore it yourself, rather than coercing taxpayer dollars to so it!
Tycho wrote:
For one thing, just where do you think the funding for SETI comes from? Please provide a citation. Additionally, why shouldn't taxpayer monies be used?
Thomas Jefferson said
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
What is it that makes you believe in your interpretation of the Bible against all evidence,More elephant hurling. but which also makes you so hyper-skeptical regarding science that you absolutely refuse to accept valid ideas backed by evidence?I'm not against anything backed by science. I'm against only ideas that are a deduction from materialistic philosophy that masquerade as "science". Do you somehow believe that "science" is some kind of alternate religion that threatens your own?Nope, especially as real operational science is not the issue. Do you have some sort of bizarre bias against evidence so that you can accept things on faith and only faith?Do you have some sort of bizarre bias against evidence so that you can accept things on faith and only faith, such as goo-to-you evolution and ETI?

Woman proclaimed:
I'll say this in the most respectful way I know how. I think you both are against space exploration and the search for life in the universe because it might be found and would somehow undermine YOUR faith. No, I'm against tax dollars being used to search for something that has no evidence for it, and is believed only because of a materialistic philosophy. I'm not at all afraid of finding anything contrary to my faith, because it hasn't been (despite billions of $$ pumped into SETI) and won't be!

Stratnerd

March 17th 2003, 01:24 AM

S-
For example, you will find that the "evidence" for dino-bird evolution is NOT adding up, but in many cases is contradictory. E.g. the fashionable theory is cursorial, but Microraptor is now being used to support the arboreal theory.

The evolutionary models make predictions that dinosaurs and birds either share a common ancestor and are "sister groups" or have direct ancestor descendent relationships. Thus organisms that are either one of these is predicted to have existed at some time in the past.

If you consider special creation as a third model: Birds and dinosaurs are separate creations then such organisms may or may not be expected in the fossil record in the words of Sarfati "We have often pointed out that there is nothing in the creationist model that states that dinosaurs could not have feathers (or fur, for that matter)". Creationism is essentially speachless and pointless on these matters.

The "dates", even granting the validity of the evolutionary dating methods, are hopelessly out of order, because the fully beaked and feathered bird Confuciusornis is "dated" millions of years OLDER than the "feathered dinos" that are supposed to be ancestral to it. since the dating methods are useless to creationists this isn't even a valid point. But ancestral does not imply ancestry. In a phylogeny, these specimens are representatives of lineage - not the ancestors Fedducia has made this point and it's worthless. Bacteria are ancestral but they're still here.

The embryonic development in dino and bird digits is completely different, and this is strong evidence against common ancestry. it would be strong evidence IF we knew the embryonic development of dinosaur digits... do we?

Woman

March 17th 2003, 02:19 AM

SOCRATES quoted Thomas Jefferson:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And you expect me to support withdrawing NASA & SETI funding because Thomas Jefferson's quote gives you the right to pick and choose which government projects you want to pay taxes for? The same Thomas Jefferson who said this?

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Let's don't get into a founding fathers belief/quote war, okay?

Woman:
"I'll say this in the most respectful way I know how. I think you both are against space exploration and the search for life in the universe because it might be found and would somehow undermine YOUR faith."

SOCRATES: No, I'm against tax dollars being used to search for something that has no evidence for it, and is believed only because of a materialistic philosophy. I'm not at all afraid of finding anything contrary to my faith, because it hasn't been (despite billions of $$ pumped into SETI) and won't be!

Well, I can understand being angry about what you consider to be irresponsible government spending. I feel the same way about the multi-billion dollar military complex and grants for studying the mating habits of Northern Illinois aphids in leap years. But, Socrates - SETI Government funding in my country ended in 1994. In the first place, SETI has not been a national program for most of its history, and is not one now, in that it is not being operated or funded by the US government.

Most SETI experiments have been conducted at university-operated radio observatories and supported by such piecemeal grants as could be found for them or by internal slush funds or excess dollars out of other budgets. In other words, they have been operated much as any scientific observing program would be, that did not enjoy a line-item federal budget allocation.

But this thread is actually about belief in evolution and extra-terrestrial life...isn't it??

Tycho

March 17th 2003, 02:48 AM

Today @ 10:21 PM
Socrates:
Thomas Jefferson said [snip]
In other words, you have no idea where SETI funding comes from, you have no idea how much, and you believe that taxes shouldn't be used to pay for scientific research.
More elephant hurling.
Thank goodness you couldn't actually respond! You might have subjected us to another round of "Creationists Discard Inconvenient Evidence."
but which also makes you so hyper-skeptical regarding science that you absolutely refuse to accept valid ideas backed by evidence?[/list]I'm not against anything backed by science. I'm against only ideas that are a deduction from materialistic philosophy that masquerade as "science".
Materialistic philosphy? Like the heretical idea that gravity holds the planets in their orbits, thereby eliminating the need for God to constantly supervise the planets?

Why don't you specify just what ideas are "deductions from materialistic philosophy that masquerade as science," and precisely how they differ from "operational science?"
Nope, especially as real operational science is not the issue.
Actually, "real science," is the issue. You seem to believe that only science that doesn't threaten your religious ideologies is "real science." Unfortunately for you, science isn't determined by what is and isn't threatening to religion--it's determined by the evidence.
Do you have some sort of bizarre bias against evidence so that you can accept things on faith and only faith, such as goo-to-you evolution and ETI?
Do you even have the slightest idea as to what evolution really is, or are you incapable of saying anything other than "goo-to-you," and variations thereof? If extra-terrestrial intelligence was taken on faith, we wouldn't be searching for it, would we?

Once again, we see that you have little idea of what actually constitutes belief by faith and even less idea of what constitutes science.

Socratism

March 17th 2003, 10:35 AM

Tycho,

It would be helpful if you would cease from emotional outbursts when your pet theory is attacked. You sound like a Christian defending the deity of Christ against an atheist.

Socrates makes a valid distinction between operational science and historical science for with the former experiments can typically be designed to test the validity of theories. This increases the likelihood that incorrect theories can be discovered and invalidated.

The "goo to you" theory can probably never be tested in this way and so its validity must always remain more a matter of philosophy than science. It is sort of in the category of "given enough time anything can happen", which sounds nice but is not strictly true.

Socratism

March 17th 2003, 10:54 AM

Stratnerd,

The evolutionary models make predictions that dinosaurs and birds either share a common ancestor and are "sister groups" or have direct ancestor descendent relationships. Thus organisms that are either one of these is predicted to have existed at some time in the past.

You are correct that evolutionists make predictions, but there are two, usually unstated, problems with this.

[1] frequently the prediction does not follow in a natural way from the theory, There is nothing inherent in the theory that would make birds the inevitable descendents of reptiles. This failure of large scale predictability is the natural consequence of the assumption that random mutations plus natural selection is the ultimate driving mechanism for evolution.

[2] if a prediction fails this does not affect the overall theory (goo to you) in the slightest for all that would happen is that some explanation for the failure would be proposed and added to the large collection of subsidiary explanations (sub theories) which comprise the hodgepodge that goes by the name ToE.

It is often said of creationists that they do not "understand" the ToE, which is hardly surprising because there is really nothing coherent in it once you get beyond simplistic slogans like "descent with modification" and "mutation plus natural selection" and "change over time" and their ilk.

The Laughing Man

March 17th 2003, 11:30 AM

Tycho:

While there's no reason to suspect that there is the IPU,

Why not?

there is reason to suspect that there might be extra-terrestrial life.

Why?

Your use of faith is disingenious:

Well, no one has yet provided a rational, logical reason why we waste time, energy and resources searching for something that we don't know and can't even suspect exists (ETI). The search sure seems to be based upon faith.

don't try to compare your unsupportable religious ideas

Please tell me this statement is due to ignorance. Please?

with a genuine search.

:rofl: Then start searching for invisible pink unicorns, my friend. It would be a "genuine search," would it not? After all, there is as much reason to search for IPUs as there is for ETIs. Of course, it's obvious you think searching for God or evidence of God is not a "genuine search." Nice double-standard.

The Laughing Man

March 17th 2003, 11:39 AM

Jinx: Alright. So should we continue SETI? If so, why? What reason do we have to believe that this will result in anything?

Woman: Yes - because it is man's nature to explore. Because, wondering whether there is live anywhere else in a universe of millions of galaxies is a reasonable question.

Why? Why, with no evidence whatsoever, is it a reasonable question?

Jinx: Should we also start up SIPU - the Search for Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? What's the difference? ”

Woman: No - because wondering if there are invisible pink unicorns ANYWHERE is NOT a reasonable question.

Why not? There is as much evidence for IPUs as there is for ETIs. Please explain in detail what the difference is. Everyone seems to be dodging that issue (which is not surprising).

Jinx: And why is faith in the existence of extra-terrestrial life considered more acceptable than faith in God?

Woman: I am unaware of any faith based on the belief of extra-terrestrial life.

Then why search for it? Without faith or evidence, what's the point? It's a waste of time, just as searching for IPUs would be.

Woman: Exploring the cosmos is a scientific and intellectual line of inquiry.

Except when specifically searching for ETIs. Then it involves faith.

Woman: Belief in God is a personal theological issue.

Yes, and?

Socrates

March 17th 2003, 11:47 AM

SOCRATES quoted Thomas Jefferson:
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

But "Woman" once more goes out of her way to miss the point!!

And you expect me to support withdrawing NASA & SETI funding because Thomas Jefferson's quote gives you the right to pick and choose which government projects you want to pay taxes for? The same Thomas Jefferson who said this?

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Let's don't get into a founding fathers belief/quote war, okay?I was quoting one of your founding fathers on a political matter, since that is his claim to fame in your country. His pathetic arguments against the Bible are not germane to the discussion, especially as they merely came from a decree from on high that miracles can't happen. Don't expect any proof -- Christians believe in miracles because of evidence for them; anti-Christians reject miracles because of a DOGMA against them.

Socrates

March 17th 2003, 11:57 AM

Socrates:
For example, you will find that the "evidence" for dino-bird evolution is NOT adding up, but in many cases is contradictory. E.g. the fashionable theory is cursorial, but Microraptor is now being used to support the arboreal theory.

Then Stratnerd showed his ignorance in this area too:
The evolutionary models make predictions that dinosaurs and birds either share a common ancestor and are "sister groups" or have direct ancestor descendent relationships. Thus organisms that are either one of these is predicted to have existed at some time in the past.Please be more specific. Did birds evolve from dinosaurs or didn't they?

If you consider special creation as a third model: Birds and dinosaurs are separate creations then such organisms may or may not be expected in the fossil record in the words of Sarfati "We have often pointed out that there is nothing in the creationist model that states that dinosaurs could not have feathers (or fur, for that matter)". Creationism is essentially speachless and pointless on these matters.What nonsense (and I noticed no refutation). A dino with real feathers (which has yet to be found) would not disprove creation any more than a mammal with a "duckbill" and which lays eggs -- oh that's right, such a thing exists in my country!

The "dates", even granting the validity of the evolutionary dating methods, are hopelessly out of order, because the fully beaked and feathered bird Confuciusornis is "dated" millions of years OLDER than the "feathered dinos" that are supposed to be ancestral to it.
since the dating methods are useless to creationists this isn't even a valid point. Slap Stratnerd with a wet noodle :dufus: for not realising that it's perfectly acceptable to grant an opponent's assumptions for the sake of argument, and show that even then the conclusion doesn't follow. It's called reductio ad absurdum :doh: But ancestral does not imply ancestry. In a phylogeny, these specimens are representatives of lineage - not the ancestors Fedducia has made this point and it's worthless. It's Feduccia, and it IS a good point. The whole point of evolutionary paleontology is to track the alleged evolution through the fossil record, yet they are out of sequence. Bacteria are ancestral but they're still here. An enormous amount of question-begging here. But you would have an even harder time proving this goo-to-you claim if the only record of bacteria was from Holocene strata.

The embryonic development in dino and bird digits is completely different, and this is strong evidence against common ancestry.

it would be strong evidence IF we knew the embryonic development of dinosaur digits... do we?Read his flippin' papers!! The references are given in the article I cited www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp so you can check them (as I have done).

Woman

March 17th 2003, 01:06 PM

Socrates: But "Woman" once more goes out of her way to miss the point!!
You know that isn't true. But, perhaps if you really believe I'VE missed the point - you'll be so kind as to tell me what the point is? It's obviously not SETI funding - I've dismissed that. Just what IS it?
Socrates:Don't expect any proof -- Christians believe in miracles because of evidence for them; anti-Christians reject miracles because of a DOGMA against them.
Oh dear - miracles? When did they become part of the topic?

I see it's time to point out clearly one of your favorite strategies for arguing with evolutionists.

1. You "borrow" scholarly terms and use them inaccurately to describe religious and theological ideas. Thus we have the now infamous oxymoron "Creation-science."

2. THEN you insert religious terms into science to insinuate that somehow the academic world relies on "beliefs and emotion." And voila, we have evolution DOGMA. Sorry - the definition for "dogma" is:

"1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.

*deep sigh*

Jinx - et al. see above...at least Socrates argues cleverly!

The Laughing Man

March 17th 2003, 01:10 PM

Woman:

Jinx: Should we also start up SIPU - the Search for Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? What's the difference?

Woman: No - because wondering if there are invisible pink unicorns ANYWHERE is NOT a reasonable question.

SOCRATES: I think you see what Jinx was talking about.

Woman: Not really

Obviously.

Please explain what the difference is between searching for ETIs based on no evidence and searching for IPUs based on no evidence. Why is the former "reasonable" and the latter not?

SOCRATES: There is equally little evidence that ETI exists. It is rather an aspect of faith.

Woman: One of us is confused.

No question about that! (See below.)

Woman: Space exploration and SETI research is the search FOR EVIDENCE.

But we have reason to explore space. We can see/detect it and experience it. We have actual evidence to search for. There is no evidence of ETIs.

Woman: I am unaware that scientists involved in either space exploration or SETI research are evangelizing.

Other than a veiled insult, what does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that faith and evangelism are unequivocally linked? That one cannot exist without the other? Sure seems like it.

Jinx: And why is faith in the existence of extra-terrestrial life considered more acceptable than faith in God?

Woman: I am unaware of any faith based on the belief of extra-terrestrial life.

SOCRATES: Oh yes there is.

Woman: There is?

Um... Have you been living in a cave in the mountains for the past few years? Remember the Raelians and their cloning claims? They are an ETI-based religion. Or how about that group that committed suicide in California when that comet came around a few years ago? Also an ETI-based religion. I have no doubt that there are more.

But beyond that, any belief in ETIs (or even the possibility of their existence) is faith-based. It may not involve a religion (just as many people who believe in God are not religious), but it is still faith.

SOCRATES: There is no EVIDENCE, therefore the assumption...

Woman: (WHAT assumption?)

The assumption that ET life (intelligent or not) exists.

SOCRATES: ...that ETI exists is blind FAITH (and not the Biblical kind which is NOT divorced from evidence).

Woman: Now you've got ME confused.

See? I was right. (See above.)

SOCRATES: The nlogic is: life evolved here (more blind faith), the Earth is only one of billions of planets capable of supporting life (again, no evidence), therefore life evolved elsewhere. And finding life elsewhere would back up this idea, a deduction from materialistic philosophy.

Woman: Well, I suppose that finding life elsewhere might be evidence for evolution...but so what? Despite your belief to the contrary, scientists do not think they have to find life out in the cosmos to support the theory of evolution.

I've often wondered if they do think that. Consider Crick's "theory" of "directed panspermia." He had to fabricate it because the evidence for the evolutionary genesis of life here on earth just wasn't adding up.

Woman: They are searching because it is a fascinating possibility!

Well, so is the existence of IPUs! Why not search for them, too? I personally find the idea of $50 million in gold buried in my backyard a "fascinating possibility" as well. Should I start digging? There's no evidence for it (just as there is no evidence for ETIs and IPUs), but wouldn't the "fascination possibility" be enough justification to destroy my property, ruin the value of my home and probably tick off the neighbors?

Of course, the "fascination possibility" of the existence of God is not enough for unbelievers to search for Him. Quite hypocritical.

Woman: Exploring the cosmos is a scientific and intellectual line of inquiry. Belief in God is a personal theological issue.

SOCRATES: A huge amount of question-begging here, ASSUMING that belief in God has no relation to the real world.

Woman: I don't even know what the question IS anymore.

More confusion, I see.

Woman: I'll say this in the most respectful way I know how. I think you both are against space exploration and the search for life in the universe because it might be found and would somehow undermine YOUR faith.

And I'll say in the most respectful way I know how that that statement is foolish, ignorant and just plain stupid. I am not against space exploration and I highly doubt that Socrates is. I know of very few people who are against space exploration at all and even fewer (none, in fact) who are against it for the reason you state. Contrary to what you falsely claim, many people (myself included) are in favor of space exploration because it strengthens our faith. One of my favorite Bible verses says a lot about this:

Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

As for SETI, "undermining [OUR] faith" is the least of my concerns. In fact, it is no concern at all.

[/QUOTE]Woman: Most of us do not feel that way, whether we believe in extra-terrestrial life elsewhere or not. [/QUOTE]

I don't know if I'd be too sure of that. It seems to me that lots of people are hoping beyond hope that we find ETIs in order to justify their faith in evolution.

[Editted because I used "in fact" too much in one paragraph. :bonk: ]

Tycho

March 17th 2003, 01:48 PM

Today @ 07:35 AM
Socratism:
It would be helpful if you would cease from emotional outbursts when your pet theory is attacked. You sound like a Christian defending the deity of Christ against an atheist.
Nice to see that you are once again unable to address my actual post and must resort to unsupported insults.
Socrates makes a valid distinction between operational science and historical science for with the former experiments can typically be designed to test the validity of theories. This increases the likelihood that incorrect theories can be discovered and invalidated.
Do you still not understand what the scientific method is? Do you think think that there is some kind of magical barrier that prevents us from generating data about past events from the evidence that we have today?
The "goo to you" theory can probably never be tested in this way and so its validity must always remain more a matter of philosophy than science. It is sort of in the category of "given enough time anything can happen", which sounds nice but is not strictly true.
Once again you demonstrate a near-complete lack of knowledge regarding science in general and evolution in particular. Why don't you learn even the tiniest bit about common ancestory before you you start whining about philosophy and science. Or is your use of "goo-to-you" supposed to imply that while you accept that humans and other apes share a common ancestor, you do not accept that humans and, say, bacterium, share a common ancestor?

Tycho

March 17th 2003, 02:01 PM

Today @ 08:30 AM
Jinx72:
Why not?
Why?
For one thing, while we have ways of searching for intelligent life, we have no way of searching for the IPU, even in principle. Since we've seen one intellignet, tool-using species, it's at least in the realm of possibility that there may be other such species. On the other hand, we've never seen any unicorn, pink, invisible, or otherwise.
Well, no one has yet provided a rational, logical reason why we waste time, energy and resources searching for something that we don't know and can't even suspect exists (ETI). The search sure seems to be based upon faith.
It's really quite rational to suspect that ETI may exist. Furthermore, the seach for extraterrestrial life in general is hardly an expensive marginal decision f we're going to send a probe to a planet anyway. After all, most of our experience is limited to Earth itself, and it would helpful to explore some of the rest of the universe.
Please tell me this statement is due to ignorance. Please?
Perhaps you could be more specific in just what relgious ideas are supported?
:rofl: Then start searching for invisible pink unicorns, my friend. It would be a "genuine search," would it not? After all, there is as much reason to search for IPUs as there is for ETIs. Of course, it's obvious you think searching for God or evidence of God is not a "genuine search." Nice double-standard.
The search for a god is indeed a geniune search. Unfortunately, people try to foist off pathetic emotional appeals insteast of actual data.

RufusAtticus

March 17th 2003, 03:05 PM

Yesterday @ 11:34 AM
RufusAtticus:

Yeah, I figured that the only way you could respond to my post would be through rhetoric. But obviously science isn't done from a pulpit. Care to actually address what I said instead of lobbing accusations at me?

Care to back up any of your statements? Specifically how I can't understand the fundamental concept of information.

Socrates,

I'm still waiting. . . .

Woman

March 17th 2003, 05:49 PM

Since we seem to be all over the place on this "issue" - I'd like to summarize my own position and impressions. I invite the rest of you to do the same.

1. Initially the questions for this thread were "Do you believe in..."
a. evolution or
b. extra-terrestrial life

2. There is a poll set up which allows posters to indicate they believe in either, neither or both.

3. Generally I would expect to find split opinions with personal reasons and arguments for and against.

4. What has happened instead is that religion was introduced, the inference being that, if one is a Christian then belief in either of the other two scientific inquiries (indeed even curiousity about the extra-terrestrial question) was somehow not compatible.

5. I accept this opinion as a Biblical literal inerrant belief. I do not accept it as anything BUT that.

6. The assertion that funding SETI research was somehow immoral and un-American was made. Since that is a non-issue, that part fizzled.

7. The contention from the non-Christian posters seems to be that evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory. It is possible that life exists somewhere else in the universe and they support the search for evidence. There is no correlation between evolution and the possibility that we're not alone in the cosmos.

8. The non-Christian posters see no real issue here and no conflict.

9. The BCI are angry or indignant at the non-Christians for some reason and really want them to use the word "faith" to describe their beliefs/non-beliefs. They also resent the intellectual open-mindedness of anyone who is curious about the possibility of life existing in a universe consisting of billions of galaxies.

10. One poster wants a scientific expedition launched to search for evidence of unicorns, both invisible and pastel colored. It is not clear whether this investigation is to be privately funded or if it is to be confined to earth or include the universe at large. He also has not indicated whether he would also support search for evidence of the existance of any other mythical beasts such as cyclops, fairies or leprachauns. (which might be appropriate today)

Have I misrepresented anyone's basic understanding of the questions or the basic viewpoints so far expressed?

The Laughing Man

March 17th 2003, 07:01 PM

And STILL no one is willing to explain why searching for ETIs is "reasonable" and "rational" but searching for IPUs is not. Tycho tried, but failed to say anything other than what amounts to "it just is." This is just absolutely fascinating. Why are people dodging my questions?

Today @ 03:49 PM
Woman:

9. The BCI are angry or indignant at the non-Christians for some reason and really want them to use the word "faith" to describe their beliefs/non-beliefs.

Please refer to the definition of "faith" that non-Christians (skeptics, particularly) often throw in Christians' faces.

They also resent the intellectual open-mindedness of anyone who is curious about the possibility of life existing in a universe consisting of billions of galaxies.

There's having an open-mind to things, then there is having a mind so open that one's brain falls out. Guess which one fits the SETI supporters.

10. One poster wants a scientific expedition launched to search for evidence of unicorns, both invisible and pastel colored. It is not clear whether this investigation is to be privately funded

It doesn't matter one way or the other as long as someone is throwing away time, money and resources that could be better spent improving life here on earth.

or if it is to be confined to earth or include the universe at large.

IPUs, like the $50 million in gold buried in my backyard, are confined to earth.

He also has not indicated whether he would also support search for evidence of the existance of any other mythical beasts such as cyclops, fairies or leprachauns. (which might be appropriate today)

Was I supposed to indicate such a thing? I didn't get that memo. In any case, sure. Why not search for those other things, too? What's the difference between searching for those and searching for ETIs?

Sheepdog

March 17th 2003, 07:29 PM

Yesterday @ 12:35 AM
RufusAtticus:

I don't believe in evolution, no more than I believe in gravity or believe in nuclear power.

I don't believe in evolution, no more than I believe in a Aristotlan Geocentricity or believe in perpetual motion machines.

:teeth:

Woman

March 17th 2003, 08:42 PM

Jinx whines: "And STILL no one is willing to explain why searching for ETIs is "reasonable" and "rational" but searching for IPUs is not. Tycho tried, but failed to say anything other than what amounts to "it just is." This is just absolutely fascinating. Why are people dodging my questions?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jinx, the question is going unanswered because it's stupid. However, on the off chance that you really don't understand, I'll explain it to you. Man has an abiding curiousity to "know the answers." It is our nature. From the time we first gazed at the moon and later through telescopes at other worlds, we have made up stories that reflect that curiousity about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. As more and more becomes known about the almost unbelievable vastness of the cosmos AND about the ability of life to exist in places we never dreamed it could, that curiousity grows. Only recently has life been discovered teeming in ultra deep-sea hydrothermic vents with temperatures over 700 degrees. This environment is full of toxic gases and the surrounding ocean water is just a few degrees above freezing. According to previous notions of what constitutes an environment conducive to life, scientists were shocked to find different species of critters not just surviving but thriving here.

**I had to look up the details of temperature as I couldn't remember, so I looked at a National Geographic article. One of the side panels accompanying the story says:

Life based on chemosynthesis (thermal and chemical energy) exists in the deep sea. How do you think the existence of such unusual creatures affects the probability of finding life on other planets?"

I thought it was interesting that this was on the first site I found. Do you see that it is reasonable to keep an open mind about generic LIFE on other worlds and NOT about what was it..."invisible, pink unicorns?" Come on, Jinx.

Woman:
9. The BCI are angry or indignant at the non-Christians for some reason and really want them to use the word "faith" to describe their beliefs/non-beliefs.”

You responded: "Please refer to the definition of "faith" that non-Christians (skeptics, particularly) often throw in Christians' faces."

What does that have to do with THIS discussion? For the record I do know the definition you are talking about, I think. "Faith=believing in something for which there is no evidence" That one? Well, again I have to ask - what does that have to do with the discussion here? We didn't bring up faith at all! We tried mightily to keep the conversation about YOUR initial topic. It was you and Socrates mainly who turned it into something about religion AND who attacted us. Now if this was all a set-up to try to draw a comparison between how SOME skeptics attack SOME Christians, then you have failed. We didn't insist that you believe what we do. We didn't infer that you would be sorry if you didn't - or cackle that you'd burn in hell or not be saved or whatever. Furthermore, if that was your intent, then you entered the discussion in bad faith (no pun intended)

I know it must be frustrating as hell to have smug skeptics tell you that you are gullible and to insult what is Holy to you. But the best way to witness your spiritual convictions is with honest, compassionate statements of faith. Attacking will never earn you respect - or souls.

Woman: They also resent the intellectual open-mindedness of anyone who is curious about the possibility of life existing in a universe consisting of billions of galaxies.”

To which you answered:
There's having an open-mind to things, then there is having a mind so open that one's brain falls out. Guess which one fits the SETI supporters.

I don't know how to respond to that kind of statement.

The Laughing Man

March 17th 2003, 10:13 PM

You know, Woman, if you are going to call my posts "whining," then I'm not going to bother responding to you. There's no reason for you to state that I "whined." I asked a reasonable, rational, intelligent polite question that should be easy to answer, yet either no one can answer it or they don't want to. Perhaps I'm a bit indignant, but that's only because of the way I see Christians treated when non-Christians' questions are unanswered, dodged or called "stupid" or "whining."

Woman

March 17th 2003, 11:49 PM

Jinx,

I thought my last post to you was actually quite generous. I went out of my way to put myself in your shoes, to tell you that even though your arguments were off target, maybe I understood your resentment towards SOME skeptics. I used the word "whine" exactly correctly. After posing the same meaningless question over and over and paying NO attention to people's attempts to answer you, the fifth time you asked "why no is is answering me" was...well, it was whining.

Even so, I took the time to explain in great detail to you and I think I must have succeeded because now your only complaint is that I said you "whined."

You have ignored even the most basic rules of debate by refusing to stay on topic or to concede a point. (like SETI financing) It has become clear that you don't really even want an answer to your silly question. You don't want to understand why people are interested in exploring our universe. You just want to complain about how SOME skeptic have treated your beliefs in the past although this thread (which YOU started) wasn't about any of that.

I'm sorry you feel so frustrated. But I meant what I said. I think you should decide what your purpose is when you engage skeptics in debate. If it's to understand, to change their minds, to witness for your beliefs, etc. And that should dictate how you conduct yourself.

Peace

The Laughing Man

March 18th 2003, 01:21 AM

Today @ 09:49 PM
Woman:

Jinx,

I thought my last post to you was actually quite generous.

And yet you felt the need to use a disparaging remark right off the bat. Now, you can try to rationalize it as much as you want (and you do try below), but the fact of the matter is that it was unwarranted and unnecessary.

I went out of my way to put myself in your shoes, to tell you that even though your arguments were off target, maybe I understood your resentment towards SOME skeptics.

Most skeptics.

I used the word "whine" exactly correctly.

You used it to belittle and ridicule me.

After posing the same meaningless question over and over

It's not meaningless and I posted it over and over because it was being ignored or glossed over with "half-vast" answers.

and paying NO attention to people's attempts to answer you,

As I stated in an earlier post, only Tycho tried and he failed to state anything other than what amounts to "it just is."

the fifth time you asked "why no is is answering me" was...well, it was whining.

That's simply your rather snobbish opinion. What would've happened if I hadn't kept asking the question? You would have all continued to ignore it. I'm being genuinely generous in not giving up the search for an answer and giving people several chances to answer the question.

Even so, I took the time to explain in great detail to you and I think I must have succeeded because now your only complaint is that I said you "whined."

Quite honestly, I haven't bothered to read that post beyond the "whining" comment and the sentence calling my question stupid. I might have read it all if it was just one of those but I don't think I ever will read it all as long as those comments stand.

You have ignored even the most basic rules of debate

:rofl: Tell me, since when are disparaging personal remarks part of "the most basic rules of debate?"

by refusing to stay on topic

You're a fine one to talk.

or to concede a point. (like SETI financing)

That point was not directed at me and I really didn't care about it either. It doesn't matter to me where SETI financing comes from, just that funding is being blindly poured into a facet of junk science.

It has become clear that you don't really even want an answer to your silly question.

Yes, that's why I keep asking it. Thanks for reading my mind.

You don't want to understand why people are interested in exploring our universe.

More mind reading. You know, as I have already stated once before, I have no problem with anyone exploring our universe. In fact, I rather enjoy astro-sciences. What I have a problem with is people chasing after "little green men" based on nothing but their own science-fiction fantasies.

You just want to complain about how SOME skeptic have treated your beliefs in the past although this thread (which YOU started) wasn't about any of that.

Gosh, you know me so well. :ahem:

I'm sorry you feel so frustrated.

I'm far more amused than frustrated.

But I meant what I said. I think you should decide what your purpose is when you engage skeptics in debate. If it's to understand, to change their minds, to witness for your beliefs, etc. And that should dictate how you conduct yourself.

Peace

In applying that to you, it's quite telling in light of your comments I'm taking exception with.

Socrates

March 18th 2003, 02:05 AM

Socrates:
But "Woman" once more goes out of her way to miss the point!!Woman squeaked:
You know that isn't true. But, perhaps if you really believe I'VE missed the point - you'll be so kind as to tell me what the point is? It's obviously not SETI funding - I've dismissed that. Just what IS it?The point was that I cited one of YOUR founding fathers on a point about taxation, which was one of the triggers of the War of Independence. You bring up irrelevancies about his anti-Christian bigotry. I was perfectly well aware of this. The only people who selectively forget this are those who condemn his ownership of slaves -- then Jefferson is magically transformed into a Bible-believing Christian. :bonk:

Socrates:
Don't expect any proof -- Christians believe in miracles because of evidence for them; anti-Christians reject miracles because of a DOGMA against them.
Oh dear - miracles? When did they become part of the topic?Since YOU brought up Jefferson! :doh:

Then Woman squeals
1. You "borrow" scholarly terms and use them inaccurately to describe religious and theological ideas.Then DEMONSTRATE an inaccuracy!!Thus we have the now infamous oxymoron "Creation-science."As if you'd know, considering that you're five years behind the times with alleged dinobirds and lack scientific knowledge.

You sound just like Italian Gold. First pretending to be reasonable and questioning, then revealing that your mind is already made up so you refuse to consider the opposing view, preferring to make inflammatory comments.
2. THEN you insert religious terms into science to insinuate that somehow the academic world relies on "beliefs and emotion." When evolution is concerned this is true. Even debates between rival evolutionary views can be full of invective, e.g. dinosaur v non-dinosaur evolution of birds, the "Out-of-Africa" v multiregional view of evolution of man. And voila, we have evolution DOGMA. Sorry - the definition for "dogma" is:

"1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate groundsYup, that fits evolution!