Friday, November 26, 2004

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm#time

I have never seen it claimed that left long enough DEAD things wwill eventually come to life, merely that certain sets of circumstances give abiogenisis a significant probability of occurrence


Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments



Plate tectonics

Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere


Known methods of removal

Carbon 14 in the atmosphere

I'll answer this one when I find out what the actual claim is

Decay of the Earth's magnetic field


This si based on the assumption that it is exponential, rather than oscillating as evidence suggests



The supposed incorrect ages are almost always from contaminated rocks, or rocks known not to have been created in the event claimed for them, which would not have been used to date those events if the important information had been checked.

Also many were dated to the bttom end off the dating method, the minimum age the test can give, and a result at which other tests would have been used

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm#create

It is not a rare event that DNA mutates, observations suggest that there is a level of mutation at every cellular generation

The claim that mutatoins are all deletrious, while couched such that it can be claimed to merely be a statement on public opinion, is unsupportable, as beneficial mutations have been observed

Mutations do not produce new "kinds" they produce slight variations of the parent, any reasonable definition of a "kind" would require saltation to change in one generation, or without grey areas


scales had to have mutated into hair
breasts had to have evolved from nothing
hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.
None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.



The expectation that processes that take hundreds of thousands of years be observed in a laboratory, when such labs have only existed for a few centuries, and such transitions may be only one of many possible adaptations, is not flund in a true understanding of the ToE

Evidence, for example from the monotremes, suggests that mammaries may have evolved from sweat glands, not nothing

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm#life

This section doesn't refer to evolution, but rather abiogenisis

It uses the strawman idea that abiogenisis requires a cellular lifeform with no precursors, and claim that if something too small to observe without specialist equipment in place, and even then a matter of a lack of firm borders, hasn't been firmly observed in current conditions within the few decades when the technology necessary to detect it have been in existance, it is entirely impossible that it happenned within a few billion years of varying conditions

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i11n.htm

I see no need to investigate the claim about these sparrows displaying rudimentary intelligence, as evolutionary theory doesn't require that man be in some way completely unique, while creationism generally does.

I see no reason to assume that the birds knew the manager could open the door, the may have been in a general state of agitation, leaading them to attack the manager who happenned to be around

Sunday, October 24, 2004

three basic options

there are almost always three options to this type of question, with or without supernatural involvement


IR= infinite regress, everything has an explanation/cause/whatever the particular debate I am copy pasting this into is about, aned nothing is its own E/C/W meaning there is an infinite regress of E/C/Ws

UB=unexplained/uncaused/unwhatevered beginning, one E/C/W didn't have an E/C/W

UL= unexplained/uncaused/unwhatevered looping, the first set of events is made up of events that cause themselves, and weren't created by something exernal making them do so

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The perverse master

A theoretiacl deity wihch defeatss pascals wager, as it will punish anyone who refuses to be an atheist

Closely related to the Meta-perverse master, who pnishes all those who believe in the perverse master, but leaves all others alone