Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 424
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Coral Springs, Florida
    Posts
    10,790

    Mathmatical Problems with Darwinism

    This is not an anti-Darwin post or religious post but there is a very interesting interview on Youtube with the Hoover Institute. The panel are three very distinguished professors (a biologist, computer scientist, and a philosopher/mathmatician). A very interesting watch and they discuss the Cambrian explosion and the mathematical odds of the number of new species appearing in a relatively short period of time. The point they make is that Darwin explained the fine tuning but the math does not account for the emergence of new species during this time period. A very interesting video with a different perspective. It is not a right or wrong thing but it is good to watch just for a different perspective. It is about an hour long but I really found it interesting. Figured I would share this in case anyone else was sitting at home with time on their hands They do appreciate the contributions of Darwin so this is not a creationist video but they look at the theory from the perspective of 21st century science and question it from that perspective.

  2. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pleasureville, Kentucky
    Posts
    412
    #2
    Hugh Ross has a lot of interesting stuff on this also. He has a really good book on the subject called Improbable Planet. Origin of Life scientists who are trying to get an amino acid to form are pretty much just proving that the only way to form one simple amino acid is for an intelligent being to create it.

  3. Banned
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,641
    #3
    Quote Originally Posted by NitroZ7 View Post
    This is not an anti-Darwin post or religious post but there is a very interesting interview on Youtube with the Hoover Institute. The panel are three very distinguished professors (a biologist, computer scientist, and a philosopher/mathmatician). A very interesting watch and they discuss the Cambrian explosion and the mathematical odds of the number of new species appearing in a relatively short period of time. The point they make is that Darwin explained the fine tuning but the math does not account for the emergence of new species during this time period. A very interesting video with a different perspective. It is not a right or wrong thing but it is good to watch just for a different perspective. It is about an hour long but I really found it interesting. Figured I would share this in case anyone else was sitting at home with time on their hands They do appreciate the contributions of Darwin so this is not a creationist video but they look at the theory from the perspective of 21st century science and question it from that perspective.
    link?

  4. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pleasureville, Kentucky
    Posts
    412
    #4

  5. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    NW Georgia
    Posts
    32,810
    #5
    I am not an evolutionist, but I do think given long enough time organisms can adapt to survive the slow environment changes. I have read that under laboratory conditions scientists can recreate what they believe the atmospheric gasses were and introduce an electrical spark and create the components of nucleotides the building blocks of DNA.

    I do believe creationism. Can either be proven? No. That is where faith comes in and some reason our date system is based on the death of Jesus. Why was that the date chosen? I think something special had to happen then. Science can only provide probabilities they an event or occurrence happens. Every organism has only four bases for nucleotides adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. The difference is the amount and order they occur. Everyone has their own belief on the topic and that’s fine.

    Some interesting ideas are out there. If I’m wrong I have not lost anything but if I am right. Hmmm.
    Praying for a Cure

  6. Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Lees Summit MO
    Posts
    7,970
    #6
    Quote Originally Posted by wildturkey View Post
    I am not an evolutionist, but I do think given long enough time organisms can adapt to survive the slow environment changes. I have read that under laboratory conditions scientists can recreate what they believe the atmospheric gasses were and introduce an electrical spark and create the components of nucleotides the building blocks of DNA.

    I do believe creationism. Can either be proven? No. That is where faith comes in and some reason our date system is based on the death of Jesus. Why was that the date chosen? I think something special had to happen then. Science can only provide probabilities they an event or occurrence happens. Every organism has only four bases for nucleotides adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. The difference is the amount and order they occur. Everyone has their own belief on the topic and that’s fine.

    Some interesting ideas are out there. If I’m wrong I have not lost anything but if I am right. Hmmm.
    Have you ever listened/watched Kent Hovind's videos on You Tube? Interesting stuff to me.

  7. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pleasureville, Kentucky
    Posts
    412
    #7
    Quote Originally Posted by wildturkey View Post
    I am not an evolutionist, but I do think given long enough time organisms can adapt to survive the slow environment changes. I have read that under laboratory conditions scientists can recreate what they believe the atmospheric gasses were and introduce an electrical spark and create the components of nucleotides the building blocks of DNA.

    I do believe creationism. Can either be proven? No. That is where faith comes in and some reason our date system is based on the death of Jesus. Why was that the date chosen? I think something special had to happen then. Science can only provide probabilities they an event or occurrence happens. Every organism has only four bases for nucleotides adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. The difference is the amount and order they occur. Everyone has their own belief on the topic and that’s fine.

    Some interesting ideas are out there. If I’m wrong I have not lost anything but if I am right. Hmmm.
    I agree that faith is required to believe either side of the argument. What is becoming clear is that it takes a bunch more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.

    https://www.reasons.org/explore/blog...origin-of-life

  8. Member KellyJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria, TX
    Posts
    6,845
    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by RangerBob52O View Post
    I agree that faith is required to believe either side of the argument. What is becoming clear is that it takes a bunch more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.

    https://www.reasons.org/explore/blog...origin-of-life
    It's a really good read for the open-minded.

    https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Eno...s%2C571&sr=8-2

  9. Banned
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Near Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,772
    #9
    Not taking sides here but either side can make a convincing argument when they are the only one speaking. This applies to so many things all the way to the moon landing. If you knew little history of our space program and someone showed you one of the "documentaries" that said we never got there it would seem believable.

    look up the formal debate between Bill Nye (noted scientist) and Ken Ham (creationist Author). Two reputable experts going head to head is interesting.

  10. Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,186
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by imbatman View Post
    Not taking sides here but either side can make a convincing argument when they are the only one speaking. This applies to so many things all the way to the moon landing.

    Funny You mentioned the Moon. All One really needs to do is study the Moon and it's presence (orbit) around Earth..

  11. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Donaldsonville
    Posts
    18,172
    #11
    Many scientists have changed their minds trying to disprove creationism.
    All sheep are eventually led to slaughter

  12. Maybe one day........ TRCM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA
    Posts
    14,899
    #12
    I always thought it humorous that so many people can believe so readily that aliens have visited earth....and helped with it's progress in some way....................but they refuse to believe in God & creation even one little bit.
    <img src=http://www.bbcboards.net/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=22881&dateline=1499547502 border=0 alt= />
    Daiwa / St. Croix / Abu Garcia / Sufix / Humminbird / Motorguide
    T & H / Power Pole / BlueWater / Loc-R-Bar / Bravo 1 / MercMonitor

  13. Banned
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Near Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,772
    #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff La View Post
    Many scientists have changed their minds trying to disprove creationism.
    And many have lost their mind trying to prove it. That is just bad logic. Disprove something before it has been proven? If you have a theory of any type it should be you trying to prove it not calling on people to disprove your unproven THEORY...

    Below is the debate I ref'd. Two very reputable experts. If you really want to see the real argument for each. One sided articles are useless.

    Last edited by imbatman; 10-13-2019 at 07:36 AM.

  14. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Florida/Minnesota
    Posts
    1,198
    #14
    I stopped debating folks in politics and religion long ago -
    I acquiesced to the position that they have the right to be wrong ...
    Do not take your half in the middle ....

  15. Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    25,533
    #15
    and a ... Because no one is changin' sides... Dan

  16. Member Jeff Hahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Alliance, Ohio
    Posts
    31,327
    #16
    Quote Originally Posted by imbatman View Post
    And many have lost their mind trying to prove it. That is just bad logic. Disprove something before it has been proven? If you have a theory of any type it should be you trying to prove it not calling on people to disprove your unproven THEORY...

    Below is the debate I ref'd. Two very reputable experts. If you really want to see the real argument for each. One sided articles are useless.

    In science, the most efficient way to test a theory is to attempt to disprove it. It’s called falsification. For example, you developed a theory on the cause of crime. You theory states that baldness in men causes their children to commit crime. To prove your theory you must study criminals and see if their fathers were bald. Similarly, you would have to study non-criminals to make sure that their fathers were not bald. So, how many people would you have to study to “prove” your theory beyond any doubt? The correct answer is that you would have to study every single person. If you didn’t study every single person, there’s always a chance that you missed a criminal whose father had a full heart of hair or missed a law abiding person whose father was bald, each of which would disprove you theory.

    Falsification is far more effective and efficient. In this process, you set up your research to look for a single case that, if found, would disprove your theory. When that case is found, you examine it carefully and revise your theory accordingly or throw it out and start over.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    In essence, according to falsification, nothing in science can ever be “proven” beyond any doubt. However, one negative case does disprove a theory. The theories that have been repeatedly tested and have not been falsified are the ones that science believe to be accurate, of course, always being open to any new data that would prove them wrong.
    Last edited by Jeff Hahn; 10-13-2019 at 08:13 AM.
    "The man of system is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it…He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chessboard.” Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

  17. Member yanknbass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Groovyland, Ma.
    Posts
    16,400
    #17
    cool subject.
    Fart proudly. Author, Benjamin Franklin.

    1998 SKEETER ZX 202-C
    150 V-Max TRP
    MinnKota Ultrex-112. All paid with cash of course!

  18. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pleasureville, Kentucky
    Posts
    412
    #18
    There was a time when many scientists believed that the universe had always existed. Now evidence clearly shows that there was a beginning - they call it the Big Bang. Question: where did all the material that makes up this universe come from?

  19. Banned
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Near Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,772
    #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hahn View Post
    In science, the most efficient way to test a theory is to attempt to disprove it. It’s called falsification. For example, you developed a theory on the cause of crime. You theory states that baldness in men causes their children to commit crime. To prove your theory you must study criminals and see if their fathers were bald. Similarly, you would have to study non-criminals to make sure that their fathers were not bald. So, how many people would you have to study to “prove” your theory beyond any doubt? The correct answer is that you would have to study every single person. If you didn’t study every single person, there’s always a chance that you missed a criminal whose father had a full heart of hair or missed a law abiding person whose father was bald, each of which would disprove you theory.

    Falsification is far more effective and efficient. In this process, you set up your research to look for a single case that, if found, would disprove your theory. When that case is found, you examine it carefully and revise your theory accordingly or throw it out and start over.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    In essence, according to falsification, nothing in science can ever be “proven” beyond any doubt. However, one negative case does disprove a theory. The theories that have been repeatedly tested and have not been falsified are the ones that science believe to be accurate, of course, always being open to any new data that would prove them wrong.
    I am familiar with falsification, Popper was way out there on more than just this (he believed in the democratic socialism also). If you look at this in that light doesn't it once again fly in the face of being asked to disprove creationism? Falsification is the debate of scientific facts about the theory and trying to disprove those facts and that that is where some will argue creationism falls short. They argue there is very little fact to debate. Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

    The debate I posted actually addresses falsification very well. It is really worth the watch. It is not about taking sides it is about debating the theory/fact of each.

  20. Lead sled driver 11pounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Broken Arrow Oklahoma
    Posts
    11,370
    #20
    Quote Originally Posted by RangerBob52O View Post
    There was a time when many scientists believed that the universe had always existed. Now evidence clearly shows that there was a beginning - they call it the Big Bang. Question: where did all the material that makes up this universe come from?
    As stated in the Bible it came from nothing.

Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast