The Big Bang and Evolution

[omega2xx]

Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to research whale evolution. I'll just say that it's not unusual for creatures to transform, nor to exploit new habitats and niches.

It is genetically impossible for a nose to become a blowhole, but I don't want to get one the evolution/creation merry-go-round again for a while.

Have a nice day.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is genetically impossible for a nose to become a blowhole...

I'll repeat my question: are the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

 

[omega2xx]

I'll repeat my question: are the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

I repeat my challenge---Cut and paste some evidence for an evolutoinary link.

 

[ArtieE]

Found an interesting article: There is No "Missing Link" in Evolution
Edit: And this one: Myth Of The ‘Missing Link’ In Evolution Does Science No Favors

 

[ratiocinator]

I repeat my challenge---Cut and paste some evidence for an evolutoinary link.

See #789.

Now, do you think the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

 

[ArtieE]

omega2xx is a Presbyterian. In light of that I thought this article is interesting. “No Contradiction” Between Evolution and Bible—PCUSA

"The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church has passed a resolution reaffirming its support of evolutionary theory."

"That the 214th General Assembly (2002) do the following:

2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.1

3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in Public Schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.

4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities and the public to understand what constitutes reliable [scientific knowledge].”2

"This recent resolution on teaching evolution does not come as a surprise—it is just more evidence of the continuing slide of major denominations that have capitulated to Darwinist/humanistic thinking."

 

[ChristineM]

What choice does he have? He has no direct constructive argument for a god, so he is constrained to sophistry directed against the only other competing hypothesis.

Have you thought about how you would handle the impossible task of the creationist apologist if you were a creationist trying to defend that position? Demand evidence that the thread sees you don't really want to consider or click a link to look at? Make claims about barriers between so-called micro- and macro-evolution that you have to ignore when challenged to support? Refuse to define what that line is or why it can't be crossed?

I guess the lot of the creationist is a difficult one, always having to stomp your foot in the face of evidence, facts and common sense. Blind faith is a hard task master.

 

[ChristineM]

It is for anyone with even a 5th grade reading comprehension level.

So you don't know and are too cowardly to admit you don't know, thanks for sharing.

 

[ChristineM]

It's the "axiom of infinity" from Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It says: there exists x such that the empty set is an element of x and for all y, if y is an element of x then the union of y and the set containing y is also an element of x. Basically saying that there is an infinite set.

Yes dividing by zero (empty set) always results in infinity.

 

[Dogen]

I was educated in the public school system of high school and college. They only teach evolution and the ALL teach it as proven. I did not accept evolution long before I became a Christian. After I became a Christian I started looking at the evidence offered to support evolution and found much of it is not supported by real science. For example there are no examples of mutations and natural selection being a mechanism for a change of species.

There is no way a rabbit can inherit stronger legs. Thee have the legs of it parents and that will not change. If natural selection was true, it might help the rabbit survive, but a new set of legs will NEV ER caused it to become anything other than a rabbit and it will never produce anything other than other rabbits. Natural selection is actually anti science.

This is simply not true. You obviously never seriously looked at evolution. This is a silly argument that a relatively cursory examination of evolution would dispell. I would challenge you to examine what evolution actually says and why. It is not fair of you to claim you understand something when you have never even read about the observations of speciation. This may seem harsh, but I am being honest here.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes dividing by zero (empty set) always results in infinity.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with it...

 

[omega2xx]

See #789.

Now, do you think the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

What is it about cut and paste from a link that you don't understand?

 

[ratiocinator]

What is it about cut and paste from a link that you don't understand?

I do understand - see #789.

Why are you too afraid to answer the question: do you think the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

 

[ratiocinator]

What is it about cut and paste from a link that you don't understand?

I'll tell you what, as you are obviously too lazy to even click on a link to a previous post, here it is again.

• You refuse to accept summaries - claiming they are only words.
• Papers that outline the detailed evidence cannot be pasted wholesale into a forum post both for practical and copyright reasons.
• Even if I pasted a whole paper into a post, would you be any more likely to read it all than if it was in a link? If so, why?
• Even when I have pasted extracts, you've ignored then - see #711 that refutes your assertion that the peppered moth was a fraud and #736 that showed that even ICR admit that natural selection is real, which contradicts your assertion that "nothing in the TOE has ever been proven".

Now: do you think the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

 

[omega2xx]

I do understand - see #789.<<

I did, you didn't cut and past anything from a link.

Why are you too afraid to answer the question: do you think the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

I will answer it wen you do what I ask.

 

[ratiocinator]

I will answer it wen you do what I ask.

Not only have I explained the problems but I have pointed you to two posts in which I have done exactly what you asked.

Just click here: #711, #736

Now: do you think the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics are idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

 

[ChristineM]

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with it...

An empty set is zero is it not?

 

[ratiocinator]

An empty set is zero is it not?

No, the empty is the set with no elements. It is defined by the empty set axiom: ∃x∀y(y ∉ x).

You can define the natural numbers (including 0) using any set that satisfies Peano's axioms. So, it is possible (but not necessary) to represent 0 by the empty set. However, the axiom of infinity has nothing to do with dividing by 0.

The axiom of infinity states the existence of a set x.

It explicitly states that the empty set is in x (∅ ∈ x). It then says: and (∧) for all y (∀y) if y is in x (y ∈ x) then (⇒) the union of y and a set containing y (y ∪ {y}) is in x (∈ x).

So, we can start with the element ∅ and apply the rule:-
∅ ∪ {∅} = {∅}
{∅} ∪ {{∅}} = {∅, {∅}}
{∅, {∅}} ∪ {{∅, {∅}}} = {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}}

So
x ⊇ {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}},...}

So x is a set that contains a set that satisfies Peano's axioms, which in turn can be identified with the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3,...}

So, we've created all the natural numbers form nothing - isn't maths fun!

 

[ChristineM]

No, the empty is the set with no elements. It is defined by the empty set axiom: ∃x∀y(y ∉ x).

You can define the natural numbers (including 0) using any set that satisfies Peano's axioms. So, it is possible (but not necessary) to represent 0 by the empty set. However, the axiom of infinity has nothing to do with dividing by 0.

The axiom of infinity states the existence of a set x.

It explicitly states that the empty set is in x (∅ ∈ x). It then says: and (∧) for all y (∀y) if y is in x (y ∈ x) then (⇒) the union of y and a set containing y (y ∪ {y}) is in x (∈ x).

So, we can start with the element ∅ and apply the rule:-
∅ ∪ {∅} = {∅}
{∅} ∪ {{∅}} = {∅, {∅}}
{∅, {∅}} ∪ {{∅, {∅}}} = {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}}

So
x ⊇ {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}, {∅, {∅}, {∅, {∅}}},...}

So x is a set that contains a set that satisfies Peano's axioms, which in turn can be identified with the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3,...}

So, we've created all the natural numbers form nothing - isn't maths fun!

Ok, to be honest such maths is beyond me, my limit is 3d vectors operator j and the like. I simply considered the empty set as zero.

Maths is exciting and wonderful, so I've been told by maths professionals.

 

[ChristineM]

What is it about cut and paste from a link that you don't understand?

What is it about clicking a link that you don't understand

Evolution 101 by the University of California, Berkeley

Welcome to Evolution 101!

Everything you should know about evolution but were too scared of your preacher to question him.