Zelaron Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Demosthenes

mjordan2nd said:

THEY HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEIR THEORIES. The electromagnetic force can't be put together piece by piece. That doesn't mean we don't have significant evidence towards the existence of an electromagnetic force in the natural world. That was the whole point of my "building a computer" analogy. I guess you missed it. What I was trying to say is you don't need to know something piece by piece to put together something working, whether that be a working computer or a working theory.

Lets try another, less subtle analogy. Though legal vernacular and scientific vernacular are significantly different, I think the American government attempts to use the scientific method in their judicial system, so I think this is a valid, and far less subtle analogy.

Lets say you're a homicide detective. It's 8 AM, you get to work, and find out you have a new case. A woman was murdered last night at 10:22 PM in a hotel. You go and investigate the case. You discover that the woman was killed by blunt force trauma to the head. After the autopsy is performed, you discover by the shape of the indentions in her skull that the most likely weapon used to kill her was a baseball bat. You also find that she suffered vaginal tearing. This indicates that she was most likely raped. Luckily for you, the medical examiner also find semen on the woman. After running the DNA sample through the database, you find that it is a perfect match to a John Doe, a registered sex offender. You go back to the hotel and get security tapes. You don't see the murder itself, but at 10:24 PM you see John Doe on the same floor as that woman with a bloody baseball bat walking towards the elevator. You get a search warrant, go to John Doe's house. You find the baseball bat. After running the residual fluids on the bat through some testing, you find that the blood on the bat matches our victim's blood. John's shoes also have some traces of her blood on them.

Here, any logical person would deduce that John murdered our young woman. There is apodictic evidence pointing towards it.

The evidence:
- indentions in the victim's head
- vaginal tearing
- John being a registered sex offender
- the DNA match of the semen to that of John
- the seucirty tape
- the bat
- the blood on the bat
- the blood on the shoes

Though detectives have a good outline of how the murder was performed, they can not put it together piece by piece. They can not show the jury how John swung at the woman. They can not show the jury exactly how she was raped. They can not tell the jury what went through her head while she was being raped. They can not tell the jury just what went through his head while he was beating her with the baseball bat. But any reasonable person would conclude that John Doe killed our young woman. It would be lunacy to assume that she raped and bludgeoned herself to death, or that the four year old across the hall raped and bludgeoned her to death. Which is, for all practical purposes, what you are doing. Lunacy.

The sad thing is, the evidence towards John Doe's guilt in this case is far less conclusive than the evidence we have pointing towards the validity of evolution.

Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...

mjordan2nd said:

Evolution does not happen by accident or chance. It is stupid to assume it does. It is very precise. That does not, however, mean that there is some intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent force guiding it. You really should do some reading on evolution. You seem to be grossly misinformed about how it works.

So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...

mjordan2nd said:

[
Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...

mjordan2nd said:

[
That's the entire point. Most transitional abilities are not vestigial. They are useful to the animal. These traits make them more fit to survive in their given environment. After further evolution, they will become even more adept at surviving in their environment.

Negative. Photons are quanta of light, or energy. By light I mean anything on the electromagnetic spectrum. Light, of course, observes the phenomenon of wave-particle dualty. When an electron is excited it moves to an outside orbital. This gives the electron more potential energy. This extra energy comes from absorbing a photon of particularly the right frequency. To calculate the right frequency, you divide the increase in potential energy by Dirac's constant. When an electron moves back to an inside orbital, it emits a photon. The frequency of this photon can be calculated in a similar manner. Don't take my word for it, though:

But natural selection makes it very different from rolling a die with a trillion different sides. Evolution is not random. It is precise. Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically? I believe if you look at it objectively, you will find it has far more flaws.

Like I said before, if everything happened so perfectly wouldent it be in the DNA of everything to come out so perfectly?

mjordan2nd said:

[
I do not know much about meteorology, however I have a friend who will own you, chew you up, and spit you out on this topic. If you would like, I can get her. However, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss global warming. You can create another one if you like, and I will have her post on behalf of myself, or her give me the facts anyway.

I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them?

Also, you never answered my original question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...

I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...