[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by goku

that is not the only way, but i'll let you think about it
cuz i think you know

You do realize, don't you, that what was suggested in that video was plainly wrong? I don't care the motivation you have for defending it, you're still defending lies (which seems obviously and obscenely counter to the good book in which you place so much importance).

Originally Posted by goku

i mean seeing how no one was there when the solar system formed
but it is hard to figure out cuz all we have is the end of the equation
ex. the answer is 911255, now give me the problem

It truly would do you great benefit if you learned about the things you wish to discredit, as right now, you are simply making a fool of yourself.


Tell me about milking cows. I want to hear you post about a subject which you truly undrestand. These posts on issues about which you need additional education is helping no one, and makes you look needlessly ignorant.

I have great confidence that you are not a stupid man, goku. I just sense that you are repeating the misguided ignorant comments of others, as opposed to speaking sincerely with your own voice.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

ex. the answer is 911255, now give me the problem

What is 182,251 x 5. And I Can prove it.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't argue against evolution, because I believe it is wrong. Rather I try to point out some of its shortcomings so it can become better. We can not use evolutionary theory to predict the future. At least one eye is blind. We try to ignore that limitation to the theory.

Here is an analogy. We find an alien space ship. The technology is all new but we take it apart and sort of figure out what is what. Then we convince everyone and ourselves we know how this baby works. All I am saying is fire that baby up and fly it around. The support theory for evolution can't go there.

Evolution is currently based on Monday morning quarterback theory. When the game is on, it is in the dark. They know someone will win. It is not until Monday, then they can go back, look at highlights and say they should have thrown the ball here. Once we can predict the future, it may not look the same way. We may lose some of the naturalists philosophy maybe it will stay but the force fit may be irrational.

[InfiniteNow]

So, are we supposed to accept that evolution presents itself as some sort of crystal ball into the future, or would it, perhaps, be more appropriate to accept that you, HydrogenBond, have AGAIN misframed what evolution is to fit with some preconceived, invalid, and inaccurate description of what it truly is?


Seriously... you should have your own smiley. It would be under the title :givemeafuckingbreakthatsnotwhatanybodyistalkingab outyouridiculousmoron:

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Here is an analogy. We find an alien space ship. The technology is all new but we take it apart and sort of figure out what is what. Then we convince everyone and ourselves we know how this baby works. All I am saying is fire that baby up and fly it around. The support theory for evolution can't go there.

Analogies are only useful when they connect disparate ideas in meaningful ways. In this case, it would be much better, imho, if you simply stated something like: "Evolutionary theory is not capable of being tested in the present". (at least this is what I think you meant...hard to tell sometimes)

Instead, you chose to use a paragraph to make an analogy between the gestalt of an alien spacecraft and evolutionary theory. This does not help the conversation along, but rather, befuddles it.

So I ask, why can't evolution "go there"?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by goku

that is not the only way, but i'll let you think about it
cuz i think you know

Touché. I should not have used the term 'only' when I can think of other mechanical means it could have happened, even if they are unlikely. The point remains that the narrators statement is still a lie. It is highly unlikely that planets formed from a series of collisions would not have any net rotational energy.

Originally Posted by goku

really? that's a purty good point

i mean seeing how no one was there when the solar system formed
but it is hard to figure out cuz all we have is the end of the equation
ex. the answer is 911255, now give me the problem

Yep, no one was there and we can't state factually any certain method of formation. The difference between science and the faithful though is that science will acknowledge the truth and say that we don't know for certain, that we are searching for the truth and its supporting evidence. The faithful will not, they claim creation is a fact. They claim that the lack of conclusive evidence for mechanical evolution is supporting evidence for their own belief when it is not. They are effectively lying to themselves and everyone else. If they really cared about the truth they would realize that a complete and total proof that the accretion disk theory was wrong would not be proof that their theory is right. That you cannot conclude that A is true just because B is false when A and B could both be false. In short they are close minded because they believe that there cannot be any true answer except the one they have proclaimed as true based completely on faith alone.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Evolution is currently based on Monday morning quarterback theory. When the game is on, it is in the dark. They know someone will win. It is not until Monday, then they can go back, look at highlights and say they should have thrown the ball here.

This is tantamount to claiming that you cannot make testable predictions from evolutionary theory. This could not be further from the truth. Evolutionary theory makes predictions about what additional supportive evidence from the past would look like if it is discovered and it also allows us to make predictions about the outcomes of experiments designed to test the theory.

It is not simply a static hypothesis based on observations of the past. It is a dynamic theory that is constantly revised through new observations of predictions of both the past and future. Perhaps you should consider this come Monday when you look back at what you said

[HydrogenBond]

I work under the assumption that evolution has goal in mind. When the solar system evolved, the goal was a star with conditions right for a secondary goal that involved making planets. Getting to that goal has some flexibility but since it is controlled by natural laws, such as gravity, there is a narrow range for final affects. We will not get cubic planets. The closer to the sun the hotter, etc. In terms of the evolution of life, if it was to happen again from scratch, the goal would use DNA all over again. Single cells would appear before multicellular. Nerve type cell will appear, then a brain. The brain will advance, etc. The environment is also changing with time, setting potentials that will meander life as it moves toward its own goals.

The reason evolution may look random, rather than have a sense of purpose beyond survival or adaptation, is the environment has its own direction or agenda. Being the dominate potential in nature, it adds a wild card variable forcing life to adapt and meander as it pursues its own long term goal.

An analogy is bush whacking up a mountain. The goal is to go from the base to the top of the mountain. Since you are bush whacking the terrain will cause one to follow a path that is not a straight path. If the terrain was favorable the path would be straight. When we breed animals we can take a straighter path. If we take the hike out of the context of the environment and the goal, the path looks like a drunken hiker. But if you take into consider both the goal and the terrain, the path of the drunken hiker now makes logical sense, as the path of least resistance.

If you ever tried bush whacking sometimes one may have to back track to get around some obstacles. In terms of a final goal, this could mean the need to de-evolve before continuing to evolve. But without a goal in mind it may look like forward progress. There is a difference in philosophy.

For example, four animal appendages, like four legs, and then two legs and two arms was the goal. Animals that fell off that fast track, forming additional appendages, reached a ceiling in terms of the evolutionary speed toward the highest possible goals. But without a goal in mind, one might assume eight legs could have also been the path of earth evolution. This philosophical orientation wanders in the dark not knowing where it is going. It can remember where it came from, but trying to look into the future all there is, is more wandering. Based on this blind wandering, we can look at the short term, and see life trying to optimize. But if we saw a goal then it is not always clear if this is heading up the trail. It could be a by-pass that is first needs to de-evolve. Selective advantage, at times, can mean using regressive traits to reestablish a solid baseline for another assault.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I work under the assumption that evolution has goal in mind.

And this is part of the reason you've been wrong about evolution so many times, using false premises and inaccurate understandings when discussing it in the past.

Evolution does not have a "direction" of "improving."

That isn't how evolution works.

An individual is either lucky or unlucky in the alleles with which it is born. If those alleles give it greater likelihood of exploiting the environment around it then the lucky individual lives better and has more offspring than the unlucky. After hundreds of generations (with more lucky individuals having alleles that can exploit the environment), you will have a population that is now better at exploiting.

Evolution does not have a "mind" nor does it have a "goal." Once you've wrapped your head around this, your conclusions won't be so far off base and out of left field.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I work under the assumption that evolution has goal in mind.

Evolutionary theory like all theories does indeed have a goal in mind, to attempt to find the truth and understand it. That is how science works. From an observation of a phenomenon one forms a falsifiable hypothesis that attempts to explain the underlying cause of that phenomenon, really nothing more than a guess. One then tries to test how accurate the guess or hypothesis is by making predictions based on the initial hypothesis and testing them to see if they support or refute the hypothesis. If they support it then the validity of the hypothesis is increased but if they refute it the hypothesis is tossed out or altered and tested again. In this way the hypothesis evolves toward an truthful explanation of the phenomenon. Ultimately the goal you speak of is to learn the truth without leaping to conclusions.