Posted on 10/15/2005 3:44:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
But the thing that I have said many times(and I think they truly do not get) is that even a heathen Wolf can see that cosmo-evo is nothing
Wolf
1. Ice cores don't have annual rings, they have layers. Those individual layers are evidence of yearly cycles of snow deposition. Taken in groups, those layers provide evidence of extremely long periods of time and hold records indicating long-term climatological changes.
2. Trees have annual rings. Those individual rings are evidence of yearly cycles of growth and dormancy. Taken in groups, those rings provide evidence of extremely long periods of time and hold records of long-term climatological shift as well as local events such as fire and drought. These punctuating events allow a scientist to accurately synchronize the rings from a relatively recent tree to an older tree. This allows the ring-counting dating method to progress even farther back in time.
If you have difficulty comprehending and keeping distinct these two sources of information, it does not surprise me that you are susceptible to the fallacies put forth by the YEC crowd.
so?
each side of a tetrahedron (D4) is flat, so it fits the statement
something just occured to me...
do trees growing within a degree or two latitude of the equator have growth rings? If yes, why? If yes, do they appear different (less distinct?) than the rings of trees in the temperate latitudes?
a problem with the term "irreducible complexity"
it seems a bastardization of a valid engineering concept properly called "irreducible simplicity"
In a well-designed machine:
1. there are present the smallest possible number of components to accomplish the design objective
2. each component is required for the machine to function
3. each component is specialized for function within the machine, and poorly suited for use elsewhere outside of the machine
*Engineering for reality is more complex. For one example: in the theoretical extreme, the machine and all its parts are suited for one application and a single use. In reality, durable repeat function is desirable, so components tend to be made to be more robust than the absolute extreme simplified form would allow. As another example, also stemming from desirable durability, the requirements of maintenance often cause the engineer to include far more parts (fasteners, pins, access ports, etc...) than the design purpose of the machine itself requires.*
The ID crowd seem to have deliberately parasitized a legitimate engineering ethos and warped it for their own ends.
The classic "illustration" they use, the mousetrap, is a good indicator of what I mean.
A spring-jaw mousetrap is indeed a nearly perfectly simplified piece of engineering. Each component is required, no extra components exist, each component is poorly suited to other applications. It is an elegant example of irreducible simplicity.
However... the IDers disingenuously call it irreducibly COMPLEX, and then dance semantic jigs to imply that biological systems display the same characteristics as a deliberately engineered and aggressively simplified mechanical device.
It seems to me that we have had enough of this nonsense.
It is time to slap them with the real and valid concept: Irreducible SIMPLICITY.
While biological features and systems are complex, and while it may be very difficult (or impossible) for random mutation and selective-pressure driven population changes to explain how such features and systems could directly evolve from simpler components, it seems to me that the ToE *can* explain such systems as irreducibly SIMPLIFIED results of evolutionary processes.
Looking at parasitism, symbiosis, and cellular organelles is instructive. Multifunctional features and organisms gradually (as populations) lose features and complexities needed for independent function as they become more specialized for interdependent function. Some features become adapted and combined during the simplification process.
I'm not a biologist, so I turn this over to the Big Dogs for a full flesh-out.
I'm tired of hearing this "irreducible complexity" bullpiuckey.
funny how that works, ain't it?
Essentially the crushing DNA evidence coming in over the last few years appears to have shocked the scientific ID luminaries such as Behe, Denton, and Dembski. If they ever honestly believed in special creation of "kinds" they cannot have expected the molecular evidence to so completely refute it. So they have redrawn the ID map in Behe's case to "Somewhere, somehow, the Designer did something though Behe cannot say what or how", and in Denton's case reversed the claim from "Evolution is so unlikely that a Designer must have intervened at every stage" to "Evolution is so likely that the Designer must have set up the Goldilocks universe to make it that likely". Dembski is largely silent on the issue, but has publicly admitted that the evidence supports common descent. This must have been a bitter pill for them to swallow. Had the molecular evidence come out differently they would have been declaring "I told you so" to the scientific world and collecting their Nobel Laurels. Curiously however they have not shut down the Discovery Institute in their embarassment.
Why was this thread moved to the Blogger forum?
Ergo, the annual layers could be ~ 5.5 ft thick, adding up to just 48 layers.
Just to assume that 268 ft of ice have to represent 200 years at any place in Greenland (not the tiniest of islands)seems to be illogical.
"Yeah, I read Plato. I wasn't impressed."
I'm certain that's true.
This message was automatically generated by Darwin Central Archives
It seems to be almost personal doesn't it?
Well, it's flat up until you fall into one of the engraved numbers.
well, okay then. glad that's settled
That's not fair. You did the arithmetic Rather than jump to conclusions.
Every time "Havoc" posts, the thread moves one step closer to the garbage can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.