)Why the hell do so many people trying to use creationalism and the theory of evolution to disprove one another. Creation should be topics in religious or philoshophy classes and evolution should be in science classes. One is based on faith and they other is based on facts. Or to put it even more simply religion answers why and science answers how (or at the very least tries to answer it). Conservatives and liberals should just recognize that and let it be.
Here's a site where I found to have some people passionalty speaking for one or the other viewpoints.
------------------
"It's good and well to leave the government in the hands of the perfect man but what happens when the perfect man gets a bellyache?" - Belgarath the Sorceror by David Eddings
[This message has been edited by Holst (edited August 12, 1999).]
The Universe is simply to inefficient to have been designed by an omnipotent, omniscient being. Especially if, as the Fundies say, it was all for us. Then, why put so much of it so far away? And make what's close uninhabitable? If they're right, then 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is a waste of space. Doesn't sound like the actions of a wise Creator to me.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx
------------------
Don't you hate it when you can't think of a signature?
------------------
"S`io credessi che mia rispota fosse
A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,
Questa fiamma staria senza piu' scosse.
Ma perciocche` giammai di questo fondo
Non torno` vivo alcun, s`i`odo il vero,
Senza tema d`infamia ti rispondo."
- Dante`
99% of the matter in the solar system is in the Sun, and most of the rest is in the gas giant planets. What good does it do there?
Over 99% of the solar system's volume is wasted empty space. You're telling me God couldn't design and build a Dyson sphere?
No plant or animal can convert sunlight OR matter into energy with any real level of efficiency. The human body is only about 24% efficient.
And orderly? Obviously you've never seen an exploding galaxy. Check out some Hubble shots sometime. And then, within our own solar system, there exist over 10,000 bits of leftover rock which may some day slam into our little Globe, with widespread devastation. This is not orderly.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
(Yes, I'm just trying to make all this bickering stop. So sue me. )
------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 12, 1999).]
99% of matter in the solar system is in the sun and gas giants. Now there's a goal for you. how do you harness all that energy and matter, and what do you do with it once you can, build a Dyson's sphere of your very own. (of coarse we can't use other planets, we'd upset the delicate balance that holds our planet in place, the gravity thing).
99% wasted space. I see it as room to build. I would say breathing room, but it's a vacuum. (don't you hate words with two u's)
24% Efficient converting matter or solar power into energy. Give us time, we're evolving.
Orderly. I'm talking about the dance of the planets and galaxies. ever expanding, it's art, and a beautiful thing. You know, the sun, moon and Earth, all tied together. Heating the planet, working the tides, in and out, rain to help clean the atmosphere, volcanic activity to renew it all. People are a by product of this work of art. If an asteriod strikes tomorrow, Earth would survive and grow again, with or without us. It will keep going till our big yellow timer runs out.
------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx
Is the universe breathtaking? majestic? astounding in its wonder and complexity? Yes.
Is it efficient, clockwork, and utilized to the maximum possible potential, as we would expect it to be if it were run by a vastly superior intellect? No.
(BTW, The sun, and all the other suns, cannot heat the universe. Even the consideration is ludicrous. If the suns heated the universe, pluto would be a lot warmer than nearly absolute zero.)
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
Honestly I can see how Creationist and Evolution Theories can co-exist (actually not Evolution because it doesn't cover the Creation of Cosmos just the Creation of life, it more like a Creationist belief in Creation, vs. a supporter of Chaotic belief in Creation). Well the way I see it if we are dealing with an all powerful being that exists beyond space, time, and all physical laws, mostly because he created them (BTW God isn't really male or female, more like he is genderless, because gender is something that is only used by mortals that use sexual reproduction [not all do], with God would have no need for), then the way he would create the Universe really wouldn't matter, just the fact that he did would. Or as a T-shirt I read said on the relation to the Big Bang Theory and God "God spoke, and bang it happened".
To First: Hey I didn't know that God was Vulcan 
. No really if God truly made us in his image and likeness isn't logical that in some ways that God would think like us, so that he would have emotions as well as logic. If that is true (I know that assumes a lot, first that there is God, second that he created the Universe, third that he has emotions, any one of those could be untrue, but play along), that he could create a Universe that isn't a 100% efficent, or is exactly perfectly orderly and logical. Well that assumes that God is perfectly orderly and logical, or it assumes that God is uses human logic (hey if you exist outside of time then decision making must be really tough and easy at the same time).
------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
Oh, and the universe becoming more disorderly (increase of entropy)? God created a perfect universe, we're the ones that screwed up. And if entropy always increases, there must have been some point at which entropy was at zero.
Dyson sphere? You think Dyson's idea is better that God's? OK, first of all, there'd just be a constant day. Next, there would be no stars, which, to counter another one of somebody's points, are "lights in the expanse of the sky to seperate the day from the night", to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years". (Genesis 1:14). Third, a Dyson sphere would be inherintly unstable. One good asteroid and, boom, no more world.
Looks like it's just me versus everyone else, but that's the way I like it. : )
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited August 12, 1999).]
------------------
The Molybdenum Home Page
------------------
Josh: I think they're getting to know each other a bit too well, if you catch my drift.
Me: Oh, I agree. I think they're spending too much time together, that is of course, if you catch my drift.
Asher: I think he's *ucking her, and he's cheating on his wife, and he's risking his marriage, and if his wife finds out about it she'll leave him and take their son, and his life will be ruined. If you catch my drift...
------------------
The Molybdenum Home Page
I think that evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but simply that there is not yet an adequate theory to unify them. The possibility that "nature, red in tooth and claw" was the means God chose to create the universe contradicts the theory that nothing was carnivorous prior to the fall. The theory that all creatures were created in seven days contradicts the fossil record.
I'm of the opinion that how things got here is less important than who's here and how we treat one another. A vitriolic debate between two groups of people who do not share the same basic assumptions nor recognize the right of others to disagree in a civil fashion says more about their own asinine stupidity than it does about their theories.
Would you stage a debate between a group that only spoke German and a group that only spoke Spanish?
--Baloo
------------------
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
and as for Omega...
"This was mathematically disproven by a man named Maxwell well over a century ago. And then there's the formation of the galaxies in there. Also mathematically impossible."
I daresay Maxwell lacked the complex mathematics over a century ago to know for sure whether or not he was correct, not did he have a background in astrophysics, I'll wager. I'll bet another scientist of the same period would have proven it "mathematically impossible" to fly to the Moon. Now we know better.
"That leaves the hypothesis of Evolution (I call it hypothesis because a theory actually has evidence in it's favor, and Evolution has none. Also, the theory has a capital "E", whereas the verb has a lower-case "e".).This theory is so laughable, I don't know where to start. Anyone else care to try?"
Okay, a couple of things you can't refute:
1. Natural selection happens. Individuals better able to survive in a particular situation survive, while the others do not.
2. Genetic mutation and variation within a species happens.
3. Lifeforms in similar environmental niches, which yet are different types of life, have the same characteristics.
4. Time passes.
5. The effects of change are cumulative.
That's enough. Apply the above premises, all of which are true, and you;ll likely get a true conclusion, which just happens to be the Theory (soon, Law) of Evolution. Trust me, I've run logic rings around bigger fish than you.
"Oh, and the universe becoming more disorderly (increase of entropy)? God created a perfect universe, we're the ones that screwed up. And if entropy always increases, there must have been some point at which entropy was at zero."
The first part of your statement is nonsensical non sequitur. One, man is not powerful enough to affect the entire universe. Two, the assertion that the universe was ever perfect is unprovable.
The second part is correct. There was a time at which entropy was at zero. It's called the instant of the Bang.
"Dyson sphere? You think Dyson's idea is better that God's? OK, first of all, there'd just be a constant day. Next, there would be no stars, which, to counter another one of somebody's points, are "lights in the expanse of the sky to seperate the day from the night", to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years". (Genesis 1:14). Third, a Dyson sphere would be inherintly unstable. One good asteroid and, boom, no more world."
Actually, I think a lot of my ideas are better than the ones you claim God came up with... at least I know enough not to put my Tree of Knowledge where a couple of fruit munching buffoons can get at it. Is Dyson's idea better than God's? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not arguing "better" But it IS more efficient.
As for your comments about the Sphere and it's integrity... well, SF writer Larry Niven has already shown us ways around those problems. Read "Ringworld," which is set on a ring with essentially the same properties as a Dyson Sphere, only smaller. An inner ring solves the sunlight problem nicely, an asteroid defense system takes care of any strays (if there were any left over after building the Sphere -- you'll remember it would take all the mass in the system to do it.) Plus, one asteroid would not likely damage a Sphere irrevocably anyway. Even the one that hit the Ringworld wasn't enough to do much more than affect the local climate.
Your quote from Genesis is pretty, but irrelevant. Much like most of Genesis. Besides, we all know that stars are more than that.
People who believe that matter and energy cannot come about "spontaneously" need to brush up on their theoretical physics. Zero-point energy, and so forth.
I can't help it I'm well-read...
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 13, 1999).]
However what was poorly understood at the time was the action of magnetic fields and turbulant flow of the gas which has the effect of transporting angular momentum away from the core to the outer parts of the cloud. When this is taken into consideration gravitaional collapse got only nicely explains the formation of solar systems but also galaxies and galactic clusters.
The fact that animals and plants undergo slight changes over time is well known. An example would be the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution theory predicts that such things should happen and an ability to predict events is a very powerful test of the validity of a scientific theory. The question remains then could humans have arisen in the way predicted by evolution. The answer is almost certainly yes. I say almost certainly because evolution (like all scientific theories is not perfect) however it is still more likely and self-consistant than the theory that the earth and everything on it was formed complete in 4004BC (at 9am one day in August if I remember correctly) as stated by some literal creationists.
Many opponents of evolution generally begin by stating something along the lines of 'I don't want to be related (or even descended from, hence showing a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory) to apes-do you?'. Unfortunately not wanting something to be true does not make it any more or less likely. Much is made of the the fact that we share 98% of our genome with the apes. In fact we also share 60% with the common housefly and about 40% with some plants. I must admit that I'm not a molecular biologist so these figures are just what I remember reading sometime ago-I certainly couldn't vouch for their validity or tell you where they come from. So far from evolution having no evidence in its favour there is actually a considerable in fact a vertually conclusive amount.
To me the Bible stories are myths, half-truths and badly translated and recorded oral traditions. But if anybody wished to believe they are true and, more importently, gain comfort from them then that's fine, indeed I would defend your rights to do so. However to attempt to base an understanding of the universe on them, attempt to use (selected) scientific methods of enquiry to back-up these claims and finally insist that they are just as valid as more mainstream theories and should be taught in schools as such is laughable.
Finally as I stated earlier I have no wish to force my beliefs on anybody nor cause any offence. I hope that none is taken.
The following is a one paragraph exerpt from a Stephen Hawking lecture. To read the entire lecture go to
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hawking/BOT.html
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theroy, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simple not defined, because there is no way to measure what happened at them. This kind of begining of the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a begining that is required by the dynamical laws that goveren the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
Someone mentioned the laws of Physics break down at a singularity. This is also discussed in the lecture.
------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx
------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"
)."Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb."
Anyway I still believe if we are dealing with an all powerful God (which I believe) he could create the Universe anyway he wanted, and the method of creation does not prove (or disprove) the existance of the Creator. Btw I support the Big Bang.
------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
And if you require any more evidence, well, you can study the myriad of fossils that have been dug up, both human and animal. Dead men (and animals) do tell tales.
People have been trying to explain the universe around them almost since human civilization began. The difference as time goes by is that we have greater and greater knowledge of the workings of the universe. For instance, we believed once that lightning was the creation of a god, that floods and disease and drought and such were the actions of angry gods, but now we know better. We know what causes lightning, we know much more about the weather. And we now know much more about our own origins. Let's not forget that when Genesis was written, the people of that time, even the most educated, had very little knowledge of the geologic history of the Earth, or of the sciences as we know it today.
P.S. Yes, I see the disease resistant bacteria was already mentioned. I seem to be repeating JEM on that point. My memory is short today, it would help if we could see other's posts when typing our own (hint hint CC or anyone else )
------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
[This message has been edited by Chimaera (edited August 13, 1999).]
"I daresay Maxwell lacked the complex mathematics over a century ago to know for sure whether or not he was
correct, not did he have a background in astrophysics, I'll wager."
Calculus and the laws of gravitation and kinetic energy have been around for centuries. Maxwell was late 19th century. And as for Astrophysics, irrelevant. That's just simply the law of kinetic gasses.
"1. Natural selection happens. Individuals better able to survive in a particular situation survive, while the others do not."
Irrelevant. The specimines within a single species that survive don't constitute a seperate species, and in the case that such a scenario did take place (say, some species moving to an area where food was only available in tall trees, and the ones with longer necks were the only ones that could reach it), the difference between the ones that would survive and ones that wouldn't would be very slight. Genetic variation within a species isn't that great.
"2. Genetic mutation and variation within a species happens."
See my previous statement about variation. In decades of experimenting with fruit flies, over 99% of mutations have been harmful, and no beneficial mutation has ever been found, anywhere.
"3. Lifeforms in similar environmental niches, which yet are different types of life, have the same characteristics."
That's natural selection. Certain types of life are better designed to live in certain areas, so it makes sense that many species that live in the same areas would have similar characteristics, which serve the same function (the fur on an Arctic wolf and that on a Polar Bear, for instance; gotta keep warm).
"4. Time passes."
Well, this statement is irrelevant without the first three, so...
"5. The effects of change are cumulative."
Your point being? The above three responses that I gave show that there are know known ways to produce changes large enough to be considered macroevolution (evolution upward, toward a higher form, as opposed to microevolution, which is "sideways", change within one species).
"That's enough. Apply the above premises, all of which are true, and you'll likely get a true conclusion, which just happens to be the Theory (soon, Law) of Evolution."
OK, let's review the definitions of "hypothesis", "theory", and "law", shall we? A hypothesis is a statement which may or may not fit the facts, and should be tested. A theory is a statement that fits the facts, but has not been (or, in cases like relativity, can not be) prooven. A law is a statement that has been prooven to be true in all cases. There is no evidence in favor of Evolution, and much against it, thus it barely deserves the title of "hypothesis".
"Trust me, I've run logic rings around bigger fish than you."
I'll take that as a challenge.
"The first part of your statement is nonsensical non sequitur. One, man is not powerful enough to affect the
entire universe. Two, the assertion that the universe was ever perfect is unprovable. The second part is correct. There was a time at which entropy was at zero. It's called the instant of the Bang."
OK, a little clarification. God cursed the universe because we did something He told us not to (well, more specifically, Adam and Eve did, but anyway...). You just agreed that the universe was perfect in the beginning. Zero entropy constitutes perfect in my book.
"Actually, I think a lot of my ideas are better than the ones you claim God came up with... at least I know enough not to put my Tree of Knowledge where a couple of fruit munching buffoons can get at it."
OK, so you're suggesting that God should not have put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden? Then there'd be no way we could sin, as that's about the only thing He told Adam and Eve to do, aside from "Be fruitful and multiply", and we'd all have no free will.
"Is Dyson's idea better than God's? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not arguing "better" But it IS more efficient. As for your comments about the Sphere and it's integrity... well, SF writer Larry Niven has already shown us ways around those problems. Read "Ringworld," which is set on a ring with essentially the same properties as a Dyson Sphere, only smaller. An inner ring solves the sunlight problem nicely, an asteroid defense system takes care of any strays (if there were any left over after building the Sphere -- you'll remember it would take all the mass in the system to do it.) Plus, one asteroid would not likely damage a Sphere irrevocably anyway. Even the one that hit the Ringworld wasn't enough to do much more than affect the local climate."
I know Ringworld, but I've forgotten some details. How exactly did that inner ring work? Some big hole in it for half the rotation period? Anyway, assume God created a ringworld. There'd only be two paths between any two points on the thing, making travel rather inefficient. Then think about how much damage we've done to Earth with all the atomic bombs we've set off. Not much, relative to the entire planet. But if you set off a nuclear explosive on a ringworld, you'd probably knock a huge chunk out of it, and residual radiation would make repairs impossible, even if you knew how to do it. I'd bet you that if you could actually build one, it wouldn't last five years. Of course, that's unproovable either way, so...
"Your quote from Genesis is pretty, but irrelevant. Much like most of Genesis. Besides, we all know that stars are more than that."
They may be more, but what purpose do they serve besides that which I stated?
"People who believe that matter and energy cannot come about "spontaneously" need to brush up on their
theoretical physics. Zero-point energy, and so forth."
With the operative word being "theoretical". The only evidence that I've heard of for zero-point energy is Hawking radiation, and personally I'd throw a theory that violates the law of matter-energy conservation out the window. Of course, why get rid of a theory just because it voilates a few natural laws.
JEM:
"The fact that animals and plants undergo slight changes over time is well known. An example would be the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution theory predicts that such things should happen and an ability to predict events is a very powerful test of the validity of a scientific theory. The question remains then could humans have arisen in the way predicted by evolution. The answer is almost certainly yes. I say almost certainly because evolution (like all scientific theories is not perfect) however it is still more likely and self-consistant than the theory that the earth and everything on it was formed complete in 4004BC (at 9am one day in August if I remember correctly) as stated by some literal creationists."
To use an example to disproove yours, there was (and, I assume, still is) a kind of moth in England, whose name escapes me. Most specimines of this moth would blend in perfectly with a certain type of tree with white bark (whose name also escapes me, although white ash sound right for some reason), thus making it difficult for predators to capture. I say most specimines, because there was also a black variety of this same moth. It was much rarer, as it didn't blend in to the white trees, and thus had no place to hide. Then the industrial revolution came along, and the white trees started turning black due to polution. The black moths now became plentiful, while the white moths are now rare. Some say that the white moths turned black, so they could blend in. Not true. The white moths were picked of and eaten more easily, leaving less of them, while the black moths now had a place to hide, and could thrive. The reasoning here is the same as for your bacteria: certain microbes were already resistant to the antibiotics, and thus, when the non-resistant ones were eliminated, these were the only ones left, thus making the antibiotics useless.
"Much is made of the the fact that we share 98% of our genome with the apes. In fact we also share 60% with the common housefly and about 40% with some plants. I must admit that I'm not a molecular biologist so these figures are just what I remember reading sometime ago-I certainly couldn't vouch for their validity or tell you where they come from. So far from evolution having no evidence in its favour there is actually a considerable in fact a vertually conclusive amount."
And this constitutes evidence because...?
Ziyal:
"Instead of saying how Evolution cannot be proven, why not explain HOW creation can be true and WHY you
believe that?"
Because you can't proove creation, but the only two possibilities are random chance and selective, intelligent creation, and as we all know, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbible, must be the truth. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If I can disproove even one part of the random chance sequence of events, and nobody can come up with a better theory, then I have effectively prooven the existance of God. And as for why I believe it, another reason would be Okham's Razor: "The simplest explination is probably the correct one", and random chance is composed of far too many coincidences for my taste. And, to once again steal Elim's quote, "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't TRUST coincidences."
Chimera:
Well, I just disproved your first point with JEM, so how about the fossils? Can you name a single example of a fossil that can be taken as evidence of Evolution that hasn't been prooven to be a hoax? And what part of the geologic history of the Earth can be taken as evidence of evolution?
And to all of you who disagree with me: None of you have yet presented any evidence in favor of Evolution, just tried to show how it is possible. And since most of you appear to have Theistic Evolutionary views, here's a question for you: If you think that the universe is an inefficient use of space, just think of evolution. Why create an entire universe in such a manner that you have to wait 11 trilion years for anything interesting to appear? And as for Christian Theistic Evolutionists, if any of you are reading this: If God created the universe through Evolution, then death was widespread before Adam and Eve. If death was widespread before Adam and Eve, then death was not a result of Adam and Eve's sin. If death is not a result of Adam and Eve's sin, then sin is fiction. And if sin is fiction, then what need is there for Jesus?
"To use an example to disproove yours, there was (and, I assume, still is) a kind of moth in England, whose name escapes me. Most specimines of this moth would blend in perfectly with a certain type of tree with white bark (whose name also escapes me, although white ash sound right for some reason), thus making it difficult for predators to capture. I say most specimines, because there was also a black variety of this same moth. It was much rarer, as it didn't blend in to the white trees, and thus had no place to hide. Then the industrial revolution came along, and the white trees started turning black due to polution. The black moths now became plentiful, while the white moths are now rare. Some say that the white moths turned black, so they could blend in. Not true. The white moths were picked of and eaten more easily, leaving less of them, while the black moths now had a place to hide, and could thrive. The reasoning here is the same as for your bacteria: certain microbes were already resistant to the antibiotics, and thus, when the non-resistant ones were eliminated, these were the only ones left, thus making the antibiotics useless."
Uh...so what exactly does this disapprove?
"Why create an entire universe in such a manner that you have to wait 11 trilion years for anything interesting to appear?"
Define interesting. I could say the forming of galaxies and solar systems are interesting enough. And who said it took that long for extraterrestrial civilizations to form?
"If God created the universe through Evolution, then death was widespread before Adam and Eve. If death was widespread before Adam and Eve, then death was not a result of Adam and Eve's sin. If death is not a result of Adam and Eve's sin, then sin is fiction. And if sin is fiction, then what need is there for Jesus?"
That is if you insist on taking Adam and Eve literally. I tend to agree with the Catholics and see Creation and the Garden of Eden as metaphors. Perhaps sin didn't happen when Adam and Eve supposedly ate an apple, but started from the beginnings of humankind.
One more thing. IF Creationism was true and IF we were created directly, why did God create dinosaurs, Neanderthals, trilobites, etc, and then make then extinct? (On the assumption that God doesn't make mistakes and didn't get rid of those creatures because they were mistakes.) To give archaeologists a job?
------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"
[This message has been edited by Tora Ziyal (edited August 15, 1999).]
Actually the way I like to think about God and evolution is God started the ball rolling and kind of let nature take it's couse, basically after the Big Bang. However when God finally Decided to create humans what he did was basically give highly intellegent apes an immortal soul and free will, which made us humans. And yes taking Adam and Eve literally would be foolish, what the story is about is humans thinking they are gods, and by that how they turned away from God, it's about arrogance, not about eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
The reason I stated that "time passes and change is cumulative" is to show that:
1. Yes, we only can corfirm microevolution through observation, but that's because we haven't been looking very long, comparatively speaking. Significant change doesn't take place within a single human lifetime, or within several. This, however, is no reason to deny that the latter is possible. (Remember, the Sky-Godders insist that their God is there, despite the fact nobody can see Him, either)
2. However, suppose there's a small change, and a small microevolution to deal with it. Then another small change, further in the same direction, and another small microevolution to deal with it. Then another. And another. And say this happens over the course of a couple million years. The end result is a life-form which, while somewhat genetically related, is COMPLETELY different in habits, and posibly even form, as its "parent" species. THAT is macroevolution.
As for your comments about my comments on the Tree of Knowledge, and your resultant statements about "free will"... you DO realize, I suppose, that the concept of free will is a JOKE when you're dealing with an entity which knows EVERYTHING that's ever going to happen. Omniscience DENIES free will, as does prophesy, angelic intervention, miracles, and every other "act of God" you can name.
And go reread "Ringworld" and its sequels. I don't think you quite grasp the SCALE of the design. A sea on the Ringworld contained an exact 1:1 scale model of the Earth's continents. The entire Earth was the size of a few small bits of island, compared to the vastness of the Ringworld.
You've also forgotten "scrith," of which the base of the Ringworld is formed, which is essentially Neutronium, and would ignore a nuclear blast like we ignore one of the microsopic animals that live in our eyebrows.
Incidentally, local paper reported on Friday that Australian scientists have found traces of eukariotic bacteria activity in shale that is 2.7 BILLION years old. Yep, that's right, now we even have the capability to find those "primitive, soft life forms" that most of the creationists say we can't find...
Oh, I noticed you mentioned "fossil hoaxes." Now, besides "Piltdown Man" and the Cardiff giant, neither of which were perpetrated by reputable individuals, can you name any offhand? I know of at least one Creationist hoax, the Juarez (I think) river fossils.
Back a few decades ago, they found this set of sauropod dinosaur tracks along a riverbed. Alongside the sauropod tracks were another set of footprints that looked strangely like human footprints. Well, needless to say the Creation Squad JUMPED on these tracks as "proof" that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together, while more reputable and level-headed folks said "no, it's almost certainly not the case." What the creationists WON'T tell you in their books, is that about 10 years later there was a small flood in the river valley, which uncovered a continuation of the tracks. It turned out that what LOOKED like human prints were actually distorted prints of a small theropod (like a raptor) which had been slogging through the mud. The later footprints showed this CLEARLY... but the Creationists ignored that and STILL use the river fossils in their arguments.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
"This isn't really going anywhere, is it? You aren't exactly calling us "moronic satan-worshippers", but a simple word like "Irrelevant" to start off some of your rebuttals is like saying, "I'm not even gonna listen to you because you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG but I'll just reject your every point to get it off my chest and try to offend you as much as possible without coming off as a jerk." I'm not even exaggerating."
I don't mean to come off like that. I do listen to my opponents arguments. I just like the word "irrelevant". Too many Borg episodes, I guess. : ) My sincere and humble apologies if I have offended anyone. I truely did not mean to.
"Uh...so what exactly does this disapprove?"
Sorry, I was being distracted by my brother as I wrote that first sentance. I sometimes start to write something, then change my mind, but I try to salvage as much of the original text as I can. I think "counter" would fit better. My point was that this isn't a genetic mutation. The genes have always been there, they just aren't apparent until they are needed. Well, now that I think about it, I can't proove that, but my point is that it isn't necesarily a mutation.
"Define interesting. I could say the forming of galaxies and solar systems are interesting enough. And who said it took that long for extraterrestrial civilizations to form?"
Now let's not bring ET's into this. We can discuss that in a seperate thread, or later. Got a point, here, though. I believe that God is love, and it's kinda hard to love an inanimate object, but that's not what I'm trying to proove. I'm just trying to show that God must exist, not any particular aspect of that God. Thus the bounds of this debate force me to concede to your point. See, I'm not completely pig-headed. : )
"That is if you insist on taking Adam and Eve literally. I tend to agree with the Catholics and see Creation and the Garden of Eden as metaphors. Perhaps sin didn't happen when Adam and Eve supposedly ate an apple, but started from the beginnings of humankind."
Ah, but then, who defines humanity? (Rhetorical question.) Even if humanity began through evolution, it would still take billions of years of death to reach that point, and my original point would still stand. Unless, of course, all life from the beginning of life could be considered human, and thus could sin, but that's a bit (understatement) of a stretch. And if the Catholics believe that Eden is a metaphor, what's to stop them from saying that the whole Bible isn't? It's not that much of a difference scientifically between believing that God, a non-corporeal entity, concieved Jesus' earthly body within a virgin (which they heavily emphasize) and to believe that He created the entire universe.
"One more thing. IF Creationism was true and IF we were created directly, why did God create dinosaurs,
Neanderthals, trilobites, etc, and then make then extinct? (On the assumption that God doesn't make mistakes and didn't get rid of those creatures because they were mistakes.) To give archaeologists a job?"
Who says they're extinct? The decaying body of a pleasaur that had been dead for about a month was found off the east coast of New Zealand by a Japanese fishing boat. It weighed two tons and was 32' long. One of the crew took five pictures and made a sketch. They also kept a piece of one of it's four flippers, but they had to throw the corpse overboard to keep from contaminating the fish they were carying (well, that and the smell). The flipper has been analized as being reptillian or ichthian, and the neck was too long to be a fish. It's neck also had vertebre, which are present in only a few sharks. A pleasaur is the only known creature to fit this discription. I personally believe that most dinos were killed in the flood, and the ones on the ark had trouble finding food afterwards. Of course, the flood is fodder for yet another thread. As for Neanderthals, Heidelberg man, Cro-Magnon man, and such: they're still around, too. The remains that were found were later confirmed to be those of humans with extreme arthritis and/or rickets (such as that caused by extreme old age, say in the neighborhood of 800 or so : )).
H.M.S.:
"To Omega: Well it actually cool that someone is taking the Creationist point of view, that's not popular here and I [think it's] brave to take an unpopular view, even if the view is hard to defend."
Well, thanks. It's nice to know that at least someone here doesn't think of me as a nut. : ) Of course, I'd say that YOU guys are the ones in the position that's hard to defend, but that's just my opinion. And the story isn't about people thinking they were gods, it's about people wanting to be LIKE God. Not even going to touch the interpretation, though. Not my field of expertise.
1 of 2:
"You just don't seem to be gleaning the fact that evolutionary change takes place over a LONG period of time. That's the biggest problem with Creationists, they think the Earth is young, and they therefore have to believe that all change takes place quickly. Personally, I think too many of them get their ideas about "mutation" from reading "X-Men" comics and watching bad SF movies."
No matter how much time you take, the original genetic material is still all you'll have to work with, with the exception of mutations, which, as I said, have NEVER been shown to be beneficial, and are almost always harmful. And the Earth is young. There are several dozen different ways of dating an object. One says a certain rock is two billion years old, another, six billion, another twelve billion. Almost all of the rest date the rock as being about 6000 years old (+- a couple millenia). You only hear about the ones that give the age evolutionary scientists want to think the rocks are. Radiocarbon dating is only reliable if you assume that the atmospheric ration of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has remained constant. Again, I'd be glad to go into another thread to discuss the age of the universe. I never touch X-Men, and I rarely watch Sci-Fi movies.
Omniscience doesn't deny free will. Just because God knows what's going to happen doesn't mean that He causes everything. The devine intervention part, too, does not defy free will. God told Jonah to go to (WHAT is the capital of Assyria?) Ninevah, and he didn't go. Well, he eventually did. Bad example. How about Moses. God told him to talk to the rock and water would come forth, but instead, he hit the rock twice. The water still came, but Moses was punished. This is yet another topic. Care to go to another thread? I don't mean to seem like I'm trying to avoid the issues, here, but I just don't want this thread to get shut down because it's too far off the subject. I like this kind of debate! : )
Well, there's your problem right there! People always recognize that neutronium would be practically indestructable, but no one notices that a handfull would be enough to knock the planets out of orbit. If the whole ring was made of neutronium, it would suck the photosphere of the star into the ring! I will check out Ringworld at my local library.
"Oh, I noticed you mentioned "fossil hoaxes." Now, besides "Piltdown Man" and the Cardiff giant, neither of which were perpetrated by reputable individuals, can you name any offhand? I know of at least one Creationist hoax, the Juarez (I think) river fossils."
There's Java man and Archaeopteryx, right of the top of my head. Java man was supposedly reconstructed from some parts of a jawbone, which were assembled in such a way as to look like a human jaw. As it turns out, the man who found the fossils had taken remains of four creatures which were obviously apes (gibbons, I believe), and removed them from the same site, so as to make the jaw fragments look authentic. The discoverer, one Eugene Dubois, later admitted to the hoax. I'll explain Archaeopterix if anyone is interested. There are also fossils that evolutionary scientists have jumped to conclusions about. The afore-mentioned Neanderthal, the Nebraska man (for which the only evidence was a pig's tooth), Peking man, Homo habilis (for which there was no evidence of human proportions, and evidence of apelike proportions was recently discovered), and Australopithecines (eg. Lucy). As for the riverbed hoax, I'd never heard of that particular story, but there are similar fossils is Turkmenistan and Arizona, and horse hoofprints were found in Virginia, alongside over 1000 dinosaur footprints, in rock that is dated to be around 300 million years old. Dinosaur, whale, horse, and elephant remains, and even crude human tools, have been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. And as for Creationists ignoring the newer evidence in the riverbed, maybe most just haven't heard about it. I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about passing along news that confirmed my beliefs to others than about news that conflicted something I'd said previously. Most people don't like to admit they're wrong.
Of course, evolutionary scientists have done the same thing. Whenever evidence is brought before them that contradicts their own pre-formed opinions, they refuse to even consider it. But let's ignore the mistakes of people with similar opinions to ours. This is a debate over facts, not the character of those who discover the facts. All I want is a civil discussion on Creation vs. Evolution.
As one state wanted to paste on biology textbooks, "No one was present at the beginning of time." That is then used as a platform from which to attack evolution. However, that argument leads one down the road of strict empiricism. And that inevitably leads to David Hume. Or, in layman's terms, the fact that there is not really any observational evidence that proves causality. That statement destroys all science. But it also wrecks the principle of religious faith. If I cannot believe that flicking the lightswitch turns on the lights, how can I possibly believe in a god?
To bypass that argument, most people take the Kantian approach. Longwinded explanations aside, it says that observational processes CAN be taken as proof of causality. That means that, even though no one has ever been to Alpha Centauri to study it directly, we can still prove certain facts about it by making what remote observations we can and applying that data to our hypothesis.
At any rate, I want to prove I can quote too. So hold on to your hats, everyone!
"Calculus and the laws of gravitation and kinetic energy have been around for centuries. Maxwell was late 19th century. And as for Astrophysics, irrelevant. That's just simply the law of kinetic gasses."
Certainly. Unfortunately, one of the basic assumptions of these calculations were quite wrong. They were dependant on most of the angular momentum of the solar system being in the sun, when in fact most of it is in the gas giants. A pattern that so far seems to hold true for the other planetary systems discovered.
"Ah, but then, who defines humanity? (Rhetorical question.)"
Not so. It is in fact an extremely timely and relavent question. On the future science front, we are probably not more than 50 years away from self-aware machines. If and when that day comes, will these machines be human? Of course, TNG already answered that question.
"It's not that much of a difference scientifically between believing that God, a non-corporeal entity, concieved Jesus' earthly body within a virgin (which they heavily emphasize) and to believe that He created the entire universe."
But both of those statements are clearly religious in nature, and hence are not applicable to an argument about the science of evolution or creation. If creation is truly a scientific process, then it must be able to stand alone, apart from any religious context. If it rests on a religious basis, teaching it means teaching the religion, and it has no place in a public school setting.
"The decaying body of a pleasaur that had been dead for about a month was found off the east coast of New Zealand by a Japanese fishing boat."
Complete fiction. For one, you already start out by assuming that it is a "pleasaur" without any evidence to that nature. What was actually found was an organic mass of unknown origin. Could it be a creature long thought extinct? Sure. But that's quite a long way from a fact.
"As for Neanderthals, Heidelberg man, Cro-Magnon man, and such: they're still around, too. The remains that were found were later confirmed to be those of humans with extreme arthritis and/or rickets (such as that caused by extreme old age, say in the neighborhood of 800 or so : ))."
For one thing, Cro-Magnon man is not a seperate species or subspecies, but a specific group of people in a certain geographic and temporal region.
As for the rickets thing, that's been mentioned time and again by creationists, but where is their evidence? Sources? Anything? And how does advanced age cause pronounced brow ridges, fundamental shifts in skull structure, and a larger brain case?
"And the Earth is young."
Again, you state this as a qualifying fact from which your evidence flows. That isn't how science works.
"There are several dozen different ways of dating an object. One says a certain rock is two billion years old, another, six billion, another twelve billion. Almost all of the rest date the rock as being about 6000 years old (+- a couple millenia). You only hear about the ones that give the age evolutionary scientists want to think the rocks are."
It seems odd that every dating system save the one or two that support your claims are "false." Far more likely that the majority of methods, which tend to agree on an age of the Earth in the vicinity of 4 or 5 billion years, are the correct ones.
Also, you claim that scientists jump to conclusions with a variety of different fossils. But what you fail to mention is that each and every case, (Save your example of archeopteryx, which is backed up by no reliable data I am aware of.) it was other scientists that disproved such leaps of logic. You seem to want to use science to attack it, but then discard it when it disagrees with you. That's rather paradoxical.
Science is constantly evolving. New evidence and new theories are always being debated, argued over, and eventually either accepted or disgarded. Scientists make discovers that fly in the face of earlier theories all the time. There is not a "mass conspiricy" of science trying to delude and confuse people. As creationists are fond of saying, many scientists are themselves religious.
------------------
"Hey Mr. Boo, fly away home. Your house is so lovely, your children so nice."
--
Hello (The Band)
My statement about who defines Humanity was intended toward Christians who attempt to harmonize the Bible with Evolution, in relation to my earlier argument, also directed toward said Christians, involving the inherant contradiction between the two beliefs (If Humanity evolved, then death existed before we did, therefore death is not a result of mankind's sin, therefore there is no evidence that sin exists, therefore Christ's death meant nothing, which is contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.).
In relation to Maxwell's calculations, that was the point his calculations prooved. Most of the system's angular momentum is in the planets, but if it condensed from a gas cloud, then most of the angular momentum should be in the Sun.
In relation to Mary, mother of Jesus, that was a religious point which, re-reading 1st of 2's message, may not apply. I misread. I seem to have assumed that if he agreed with the Catholic interpretation of Eden, then he would agree with the rest of their doctrine. In that case, my statement would apply to him quite well. Of course, as I said, I misread, and I apologize for any confusion.
In relation to the dating systems, I can't seem to tell what you're talking about. I'm saying that out of the dozens of different dating methods, four or five at most give an age for the Earth in the billions of years. You seem to think that I said the opposite: that out of the dozens of different methods, only a few agree with me, but that I think that all the rest are wrong. Thus, it would seem more logical to believe that, since most dating methods tend to agree with me, that they give the more correct age. As I said before, please create a seperate thread to continue the discussion of the age of the Earth or the universe.
Yes, scientists disprooved it, but the point is that some scientists jumped to conclusions that supported their on theories based on insufficient evidence. And as I said, Creationists may have done similar things. I'm not here to argue about the character of certain scientists. And my original point still stands that you can not produce any fossil remains that can be taken as evidence of Evolution.
I never said anything about a mass conspiracy. Only that on occasion, a scientist has deliberately withheld evidence that shows that what they have found is not evidence of what they personally believe.
And as for Archaeopteryx, do you mean that my claim is not backed by reliable evidence, or that Archaeopteryx it self is not?
OK, you have a point about me stating my conclusion, then the evidence supporting it. Perhaps I should state that a Japanese fishing boat hauled aboard a decaying carcas of a reptillian creature with four flippers, a long neck with vertebre, and that had been dead for about a month. Then I should have stated that there are five photographs and the eye-witness accounts of the entire crew to support this, and that the only known creature that fits this description is the pleasaur. Is that better? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic. My explanation was flawed, and I'm trying to correct it.) And I also should make similar changes to my statement about the Earth's age (maybe "I believe the Earth IS young."?). My apologies again. My explanitory skills obviously leave much to be desired.
You sure you're talking about Neanderthal? Doesn't fit what I know about them.
------------------
"Hey Mr. Boo, fly away home. Your house is so lovely, your children so nice."
--
Hello (The Band)
------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
(GEE, I wish I could see what I'm typing about at the same time I type it, it would make this all so much easier.)
I don't know where you heard about Archaeopteryx being a hoax, however, I have heard this from other sources, and heard it discredited, before. I do not believe there exists a single reliable source of proof for the hoax assertion. (which is what Sol was saying.) I am fairly certain that it's another Creationst-generated, self-perpetuated myth, such as the one that said that Darwin recanted the theory of evolution on his deathbed. (According to his children, who were with him and who had to come forth on more than one occasion to clear up the mess, he didn't.) I would be willing to bet that the same holds true for arthritic neanderthals, and so forth. It is a pity that the fossils of Java and Peking man were destroyed by bombs in WWII, before accurate testing could be done. All that's left for EITHER side from them is speculation.
As to the varying measurements of dating techniques... well of COURSE you're going to get way-off results if you use methods that are inappropriate for dating. For instance, you cannot date rock samples with Carbon-14, just as you cannot date organic samples with Uranium. The same goes for dating metamorphic rock, since, by its very nature, metamorphic rock is changed from what it was. (in fact, many creationists' reports of a young earth were obtained by these somewhat less-than-scientifically ethical measurements. When you KNOW how to fudge the data to get the results you crave, it makes it a lot easier.)
"(If Humanity evolved, then death existed before we did, therefore death is not a result of mankind's sin, therefore there is no evidence that sin exists, therefore Christ's death meant nothing, which is contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.)"
Ah, there's nothing like a string of unprovable assumptions on the way FROM a conclusion, is there? "This disagrees with our basic beliefs, therefore it must be wrong." But as another person who contradicted the basic beliefs of the church said, "Nevertheless, it moves."
This part really is going to require another thread.
However, the answer to the above questions are all "yes." Humanity evolved. Death existed before we did. "Sin" as the Bible defines it does not exist. ( I would here claim, however, that sin of a sort DOES exist, and I define it as "that which hurts others unnecessarily.") And therefore, if you believe literally in the Christ legend, and if he did indeed die on the cross (though the gospel of Simon disputes this, and there are reasons to doubt a great deal of the Christ legend itself) then it was for nothing, or at least, not for the reason it is generally believed to be for. (Which, given the turbulent history of the early Church and the squabbles over which beliefs were canon and not, I would not find surprising at all)
When you check out Ringworld, see if you can find another book called "The Hiram Key." I'd tell you who wrote it, but I forget and my father has my copy. It's interesting.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
Well, I can't very well argue this point without using scripture, and I don't appear to have any Christian Thesitic Evolutionists to argue with. It's also irrelevant to the discussion we're having in this thread (there's that darned "i" word again), so again I suggest that we either drop it or move it to another thread. And how can you disproove the historical accuracy of the Bible?
1st of 2:
"...you cannot date rock samples with Carbon-14, just as you cannot date organic samples with Uranium."
Sorry. I think a lot faster than I type, so I went on to a different type of dating without telling anyone. What I meant was that, if the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has changed at any point in history (as it almost certainly has; few things remain constant for long), then the dates given by radiocarbon dating for organic material become unreliable.
As to Christianity being in conflict with Evolution, see my statements to HMS. If you wish to start another thread, I'll join you there. And you misquoted me. I never said that Evolution must be wrong because it contradicts Christian beliefs. I simply said that it contradicts Christian beliefs. Nothing more.
"I do not believe there exists a single reliable source of proof for the hoax assertion."
Will half a dozen or so do? Let's see if I can get this right this time. First, a little history. A man named Karl Haberlein found the first "Archaeopteryx" fossil with feathers in a fossil quarry in Germany in 1861, which he then sold for 600 pounds to the Brittish Museum of Natural History. His son Ernst found the second in 1877 and sold it for 36,000 gold marks. Four other fossils resembling Archaeopteryx were found in the same quarry, and were assumed to be Archaeopteryi (SP?), but there were no feathers displayed on any of the four. With the exception of the feathers "found" on the first two, and a furcula on the 1861 specimine (which shall be discussed later), the Archaeopteryx fossils are identical to those of a chicken-sized dino called a Compsognathus. None of the six specimines has a sternum, which all birds and bats require to attach their large (relatively) flight muscles. All following information is for the 1861 specimine. As for the fossil itself, the main slab and counterslab do not mate properly. The feather inpressions are almost exclusively on the main slab, whereas there are several "bumps" on the counterslab that have no corresponding indentation on the main slab. The raised areas, nicknamed "chewing gum blobs" (by whom, I don't know), are made up of a fine grained material that is only found elseware on the fossil under the feather indentations. The rest is a course limestone. Only this specimine has a furcula (wishbone). This furcula is larger relative to the body of the "Archaeopteryx" than any other bird. It's also upside-down. The opposite indentation in the counterslab is not smooth, as one would expect of a fossil, but rough, as though it had been chiseled out. Fossilized feathers are extremely rare, and that several complete, flat feathers would just happen to be at the slab-counterslab interface is too much of a coincidence for my taste. There's also no explination of how you can encase a bird in %80 pure Solnhofen limestone. Fossils of two modern birds have been found in rocks dated BY EVOLUTIONISTS (sorry, I'd put it in italics if I knew how) to be much older than "Archaeopteryx". Finally, in 1986, an X-ray resonance spectrograph (don't ask me what that is), showed that the material that contained the feather impressions and that composed the "chewing gum blobs" was completely different from the rest of the fossil. The chemistry of this "amorphous paste" was also different from anything found in the quarry in Germany where the six fossils were supposedly found. As there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers are frauds, and as the other four show no difference from the afore-mentioned Compsognathus, it seems logical to conclude that Archaeopteryx is a hoax, the motive being profit.
Did I do better this time?
I think I'll make my own point for once: there are many single-cell forms of life, but none with 2-5 cells, and those with 6-20 are parasites, which require something much more complex to survive. If macroevolution occured, then you'd expect there to be many forms of life with 2-20 cells. Any explination.
You may say it's hypocrphal, but I have no probles reconcilling creationsim and evolution.And that moth thing. The argument over genetic mutation holds becaue they are the same species. It's like different hair colour. If they were too species that happned to have different coloured wings, then I'd agree. But both types are capable of giving birth to both sorts of colours. The ones that are better suited to the environment survive (The white type has made come-back in recent years, as smog and pollution has decreased since the hay-day of the industrial revolution).
And for me, scientiffically their is a world of difference between a women getting pregnent without having intercourse (there are species in nature whcih can change sex. Plants can produce asexually. I'm sure there's a type of mutation that would allow for such a thing as Mary), and creating the universe.
One point. Baring a global disaster or somesort, it's been pretty much argreed that we've stopped evolving. So, are we at the point that God wants us to be? (BTW, saying that it's strage that God would create a universe where his 'people' for want of a better word don't come into being for eons is ludicrous. Do you really think that God would coform to time as we do? That all he could do for those billions of years is sit their and play solitare on his PC?)
------------------
Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish
-The Day Today
I thought I was the one who mentioned the Catholics. *shrug* Mary's a virgin no matter what version of the Bible you're reading, so what does it matter if the Catholics emphasize it or not? Besides, what makes you decide whether or not I should agree with it? I believe in God and I go to church. At times I even think my pastor's sermons are inspirational, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with anything he says about Evolution or homosexuality.
"And if the Catholics believe that Eden is a metaphor, what's to stop them from saying that the whole Bible isn't?"
Well, Jesus used lots of metaphors, so what's stopping you from taking all of his metaphors literally?
"Who says they're extinct?"
For the sake of simplicity, let's say you're right about the pleasaur. So where's the rest of 'em dead ones?
"The remains that were found were later confirmed to be those of humans with extreme arthritis and/or rickets"
I've heard of the story that the first ancient human they found had arthritis, so scientists thought that all ancient humans looked like that. But that was one case.
As for your Neanderthal confusion:
The solid model is homo sapien while the outlining model is Neanderthal. Doesn't look like any arthritis I know of.
(As credit should be given, some parts of the following argument comes from an article in Discover)
About Christians not wanting to be related to animals: The classification of humans in the Animal kingdom was in place a century before Darwin existed. It was the pious Creationist Carl von Linne who named the Mammalia and classed Homo sapiens amoung them in 1758. On top of that, the Old Testament itself states that human beings are beasts, and no nobler than any of the others (Eccles. 3:18-21).
The point of your linking Evolution to sin and Jesus is not irrelevant, but futile. As David Hume pointed out 250 years ago, you can't infer an infinite cause from a finite effect. Evolution is a finite effect. It has nothing to say about your moral values. Science, and in this case, Evolution, looks exclusively at the finite facts of nature, and unfortunately, logical reasoning can't carry you from facts to values, or from the finite to the infinite. The fact that science has nothing to say about the infinite doesn't prove that there isn't any infinite cause--or that right and wrong ar arbitrary conventions, or that there is no plan or purpose behind the world.
------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"
Ah, my worthy adversary from an argument of long ago...
"Mainly the old testement is taken to be stories, parables, metaphours that may or may not have happened. The New testement is taken to be (pardon the BAD pun) gospel."
The Catholic church is about as liberal as you can get and still be considered Christian. They assume things that were never mentioned by Jesus in any reliable record. If the OT is the stuff of legends, then why would Jesus refer to it so often?
"And that moth thing. The argument over genetic mutation holds becaue they are the same species."
Not that I can see. If people with red hair could better survive in cold climate (hypothetical situation), then, if the whole world's temperature suddenly dropped, you'd have mostly redheads left. I doubt that you'll say that red hair is a mutation that suddenly appeared at some point. Just like the immunity to the antibiotics. Some bacteria have always had the immunity, while other's haven't. It's not a mutation.
"And for me, scientiffically their is a world of difference between a women getting pregnent without having intercourse (there are species in nature whcih can change sex. Plants can produce asexually. I'm sure there's a type of mutation that would allow for such a thing as Mary), and creating the universe."
Are you suggesting that Mary was a hermaphrodite? Tell that to your Catholic friends and see how they react. In Jewish society of the time, if such a child was born, it would likely have been excized from society, and certainly nobody would marry her/him/it. Jews were strict about thing like that. My point was that, from a scientific point of view, there isn't much difference between miraculously creating the universe and miraculously conceiving a child. They both defy the laws of physics.
"One point. Baring a global disaster or somesort, it's been pretty much argreed that we've stopped evolving. So, are we at the point that God wants us to be?"
I'm assuming this isn't directed toward me.
"BTW, saying that it's strage that God would create a universe where his 'people' for want of a better word don't come into being for eons is ludicrous. Do you really think that God would coform to time as we do? That all he could do for those billions of years is sit their and play solitare on his PC?"
But what would be the point? As I said, why let the universe exist for trillions of years before something interesting finally shows up, having to tweak it almost constantly? By the time things were finally where God wanted them, God would have defied the natural laws of the universe quite a bit more than if He'd just spoken everything into existance. I know He could do it either way, but the question is, would He? I get the feeling that God prefers defying the laws of physics as little as possible to accomplish what He wants.
Oh, and God uses a Mac.
Ziyal:
I've already admitted that I misread what was said, but assuming that I hadn't and that the statement about whomever it was agreeing with the Catholics about creation being a myth also meant that said whomever also agreed about the virgin birth (irrelevant note: the immacualte conception is actually a Catholic opinion regarding Mary, in that from the moment of her conception, she was without sin; anyone care to tell me where they got this idea?) of Christ. In that case, it would make no sense to believe one while denying the other.
"Well, Jesus used lots of metaphors, so what's stopping you from taking all of his metaphors literally?"
The fact that he explained what most of them meant to the deciples.
"For the sake of simplicity, let's say you're right about the pleasaur. So where's the rest of 'em dead ones? "
I assume that you mean "How did they die?". I believe the original question was "why create a species that would eventually go extinct", or something to that effect. Well, as I said, I believe most died in the Flood, and the remaining ones that were taken on the ark had trouble feeding themselves. And again, if anyone wants to start another thread on the Flood, I'd be glad to present evidence there in it's favor.
OK, well I just dug out the book that I got my info on Neanderthals from. I guess it's wrong.
I'd agree with you here. We constitute animals. The only real difference is that we have a soul (another thread on souls, anyone?).
Again, I say that if you want to talk about that pointthat I made, start another thread, and I'd be glad to join you. It can't be discussed within the bounds of this one. Anyway, I'd have to proove that the story of Eden is true, and not just allegory, before I can adequitly defend the statement I made earlier.
I don't expect logic to carry me from facts to values or religious beliefs. That's why I keep saying that people should start other threads if they want to discuss things that can't be a matter of scientific fact. I can, however, scientifically proove that there is a God, in the way that I mentioned before.
Addressing everyone:
Well, I think that the best way I can proove my point of random chance being untrue is to proove that the Earth is young. I will now list various evidences at the end of each of my posts. I don't want my posts to get too long, though, so I'll only list a few at a time.
1: The radioactive decay of uranium and thorium alone would produce all the helium of the atmosphere in only 40,000 years. There is no known way in which large amounts of helium can escape the atmosphere. Thus, the atmosphere appears to be relatively young.
2: Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere every year. If this rate were constant, 10 times the amount of the sediment on Earth would be expelled in 4.6 billion years. Only about 25% of sediments are of volcanic origin, and erruption rates were much higher in the past. No process has been proposed that can remove or transform so much volcanic material. Thus Earth's sediments appear to be less than 100 million years old.
3: The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in less than 25 million years. Thus, assuming that the continents were significantly larger in the past, they can not be any older than 40 or 50 million years.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
"And how can you disproove the historical accuracy of the Bible?"
No, sorry. You're making the claim, you have to prove it. That's how it works.
However, if it will make you feel better, there are lots of historical things in the Bible. There are also lots of historical things in the Koran.
At any rate, when I started this debate, I was hoping it would go down the education system path, rather than the origin of life path.
In essence, my point is this: So-called creation science is not science at all, as it does not derive facts from observational evidence, but looks for evidence to confirm what it already holds as fact. This is not in question. Read the belief statement of the Institute for Creation Research.
Since it is not science, nor grounded in scientific principles, it cannot reasonably be taught within the confines of a science course. Not without endorsing the religion it is a product of, in this Christianity. Other religions have different creation stories. Heck, even different parts of Christianity itself have different spins on it, as we've seen here. And, as Omega has shown, you cannot defend or define a spontaneous creation without bringing the religious framework along with it. I do not think we want to set the precedent of allowing any religious dogma to overthrow our education system. Because there are people who believe that the Earth is the physical center of the universe, or that medicine is essentially a sin. Or several far more evil beliefs, ala Christian Identity. Fringe groups? Yes. But all it takes is a good PR campaign and some well-paid lobbyists and these beliefs could be thrust upon us all, assuming we open that door.
------------------
"Hey Mr. Boo, fly away home. Your house is so lovely, your children so nice."
--
Hello (The Band)
I'm too tired to go into an in-depth analysis tonight, so I'll leave this with a short observation.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
I never claimed that the entire Bible was historically accurate. HMS claimed that he can proove that it is not. I am challenging him and everyone else to present any evidence that the Bible is, in fact, NOT historically accurate. I may not be able to proove that it is, but it can not be prooven that it is not.
Regarding your statement that Creation shouldn't be taught in schools: EVOLUTION SHOULDN'T BE EITHER! (caps for emphasis; I'm not loosing my temper or anything) I am in the process of showing the universe to be no more than a million years old, which completely defeats the evolutionary theory. As I stated earlier, if the universe and life can be shown not to have formed by random chance, then there must be an intelligent design, and thus a designer. But you're right. You can't fairly teach that God created the universe through unknown means, and leave it at that. You should only teach what has been prooven as fact, and theories emphasizing the fact that they have not been prooven. Thus, if something must be taught, and nobody has a theory that actually fits the facts, then the only logical thing to do would be to teach the FACTS and ONLY the facts. (Well, public schools, at least. Private schools (and homeschoolers like me) can teach whatever they darn well please, and if the government tries to tell them otherwise, I will personally raise the charges before the courts.) Let the student draw their own conclusions. Might make for a good debate in the classroom...
And as for not being able to defend spontanious creation without bringing a religious framework, sure I can, but only as long a I don't try to proove any details or religious beliefs. I made a mistake by even mentioning religion. If I only try to proove that God created the universe, then I can do that, quite simply, by prooving Evolution wrong. In that case, unless somebody has an idea that actually fits the facts, the only possibility is that God created the universe within the bounds set by the observational evidence.
Again, I challenge anyone to present ANY evidence in favor of Evolution, or against spontaneous creation.
And, from here on out, how about NO discussion of any religious beliefs, aside from the existance or non-existance of God. Only the facts.
And in my continuing series on the age of the universe, I have realized the hidden assumptions in some that I already mentioned. The revised and expanded list is as follows:
1: The radioactive decay of uranium and thorium alone would produce all the helium of the atmosphere in only
40,000 years. There is no known way in which large amounts of helium can escape the atmosphere. Thus, unless the rates of decay of radioactive elements was much lower in the past, the atmosphere appears to be relatively young.
2: Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere every year. If this rate were constant, 10 times the amount of the sediment on Earth would be expelled in 4.6 billion years. Only about 25% of sediments are of volcanic origin, and evidence suggests that erruption rates were much higher in the past. No process has been proposed that can remove or transform so much volcanic material. Thus, unless such a process can be found, or volcanic activity was actually far lower in the past, Earth's sediments appear to be less than 100 million years old.
3: The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in less than 25 million years. Thus, assuming that the continents were significantly larger in the past, the continents steadily grow to counter the erosion, or the erosion has begun only recently, the continents can not be any older than 40 or 50 million years.
4: As tidal friction slows the Earth's spin, physics requires that the Moon recedes from the Earth. This recession has been observed since 1754. Even if the Moon began orbiting very near the Earth's surface, it would have receded far beyond it's present distance by now. Thus, either the rate of recession is not constant, and has only recently had any effect, or the Earth-Moon system is far younger than the 4.6 billion years claimed by evolution.
5: If the Moon was billions of years old, by now the dust that's accumulated on the surface should be AT MINIMUM several meters thick, with some estimates as high as a mile. Instead, it's only a couple of inches. Either the rate of impact was exceedingly low in the past, huge amounts of dust were removed or transformed by an unknown process, or the moon is far less than 4.6 billion years old.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
My observation:
First, we get: " if the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has changed at any point in history (as it almost certainly has; few things remain constant for long),"
And then we get:...
Well, cutting and pasting your last 5 points would take too long, but if you'll read them, they all depend on assuming that these rates: dust accumulation, continental erosion, etc, stay CONSTANT. That's a bit of having your cake and eating it too, don't you think?
Oh, and the reason for the Moon not being so dusty is the same as the reason for glaciers. If enough snow falls, it compacts and becomes ice. Similarly, if enough dust falls, it compacts and becomes akin to rock. Thusly, the low dust level.
And the reason the continents haven't eroded away is that mountains are being built at the same rate, among other reasons.
I'm going to bed now.
I've gotta start checking during the ^%#$% daytime...
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 17, 1999).]
Ah, but what you fail to notice is that my points about age require that a RATE remain reasonably the same, while my comment about Radiocarbon dating being inacurate requires that the RATIO changes.
As for the moon dust compressing into rock, why would there be only one or two inches of dust now? You're suggesting that the dust had piled up over bilenia, until it reached a certain, critical depth at which the dust could exert enough pressure on the dust below it to turn it into solid rock, say 20'. After that, the depth of the dust will remain constant, because as soon as another foot accumulates, a foot of dust at the bottom will be turned into rock. The only way that that would explain the fact that there are still only two inches of dust on the moon is if that critical depth is two inches, and the said 20' of dust isn't going to exert that much pressure, especially on the moon.
Getting late. Better get back to reading Jane Eyre.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
P.S. Jane Eyre is a cool book and tell me if you liked the end.
------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
Now, let us continue. First of all, to refute the idea that creation science is based on science, I present you with the belief statement I mentioned earlier:
"(1) The Bible is the written Word of God...all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of its original autographs....This means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. (2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occured since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. (3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly refered to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. (4) Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only thru accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."
That's a very nice statement of the orthodox Protestent view of Creation. But it isn't science. Science derives conclusions from observational evidence. Creationism clearly doesn't, as the first sentence points out. Therefore, it isn't science, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Now, I'm going to try and address as many of your points as I can.
"1: The radioactive decay of uranium and thorium alone would produce all the helium of the atmosphere in only
40,000 years. There is no known way in which large amounts of helium can escape the atmosphere. Thus, unless the rates of decay of radioactive elements was much lower in the past, the atmosphere appears to be relatively young."
Specifically, helium-4, and the date I've read has it as 'no more than 200,000 years.' The problem is, helium can and does escape the atmosphere. How? Two very technical sounding processes that I doubt I could adequately explain. But you can read about them yourself in these two papers:
Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.
Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201
"4: As tidal friction slows the Earth's spin, physics requires that the Moon recedes from the Earth."
Um...source? Because as it says in my high school physics textbook, the Earth and the Moon are tidally locked, and as a result the two bodies are gradually getting closer. Someday in the distant future, the Moon is going to get too close and be torn apart. Then we'll have rings! Unfortunately, the mass and orbit of these rings will suck the atmosphere off our planet. But it might not happen! Because the Earth might be consumed by an ever expanding sun before that time. As the old saying goes, damned if you do...
"5: If the Moon was billions of years old, by now the dust that's accumulated on the surface should be AT MINIMUM several meters thick, with some estimates as high as a mile. Instead, it's only a couple of inches. Either the rate of impact was exceedingly low in the past, huge amounts of dust were removed or transformed by an unknown process, or the moon is far less than 4.6 billion years old."
This one is easier to explain. The figures you're using for dust accumulation are simply wrong. Why? Because they were recorded using the assumption that all the nickel collected was the result of cosmic dust, when in fact most of it is from smog.
More accurate measurements from a variety of different detection methods give a much smaller amount. How much smaller? The orignal number used for your claim was 14,000,000 tons per year. The more accurate figure is 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Using those figures the amount of dust on the moon should be about a foot or less. Of that dust, only the first few inches would actually be dust. The rest is composed of harder and more packed material.
Also, for each meteorite impact, you don't just get its mass, but also the mass of all the rocks it vaporizes. Not all of the material is from meteorites.
I'm putting two and three down here at the bottom because I don't have as much detail to go along with them. So, feel free to tear me apart if necessary.
"2: Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere every year. If this rate were constant, 10 times the amount of the sediment on Earth would be expelled in 4.6 billion years. Only about 25% of sediments are of volcanic origin, and evidence suggests that erruption rates were much higher in the past. No process has been proposed that can remove or transform so much volcanic material. Thus, unless such a process can be found, or volcanic activity was actually far lower in the past, Earth's sediments appear to be less than 100 million years old."
First of all, this only works if you have volcanoes going all the time, constantly, for the entire course of history. This is obviously untrue. Some years we have volcanic eruptions, some years we don't. Second, where do you think the material ejected by a volcano goes? It isn't going fast enough to achieve escape velocity. Instead, it falls back onto the Earth, where it is eroded into the sea, falls back into the Earth, and comes up again. The process is cyclic in nature.
"3: The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in less than 25 million years. Thus, assuming that the continents were significantly larger in the past, the continents steadily grow to counter the erosion, or the erosion has begun only recently, the continents can not be any older than 40 or 50 million years."
Again, continents do grow, through a variety of processes, but mostly through volcanic action. You can fly to Hawaii or Iceland or the the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and witness this for yourself.
You seem to be implying, and I apologize if I'm misreading your statements, that eroded material simply vanishes from the surface of the Earth. This isn't true, any more than evaporated water vanishes.
------------------
"Hey Mr. Boo, fly away home. Your house is so lovely, your children so nice."
--
Hello (The Band)
The most interesting point about the lunar dust theory is that it's still being cited. Han Petterson's original assumpions which he made back in 1960 were discredited soon after. Peterson himself thought that his initial figure of 15 million tons per year was rediculously high and proposed that a third of that might be more reliable. As you say the current figure is 40,000 metric tons per year which would give an estimate of a few centimetres depth on the moon over a 4 billion year lifetime.
------------------
Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am not a politician) - Rene Descartes
What is really noticeable in this discussion is the way that the pro-Creationists here seem to cling to old theories and ignore new ones. The Juaqrez river footprints were later disproved successfully, but that rebuttal is ignored. The dust layer on the moon, at an estimated speed of laying, must be a certain depth if the moon is old. It's quite demonstrably not that thick, therefore the rate - estimated rather than observed - must be wrong. But you seem to want to stick to that estimated rate instead of adapting to new empirical evidence.
And the Ringworld's nights were caused by an inner ring of free-floating (or connected?) squares. Asteroid defense was provided by active weapons and the attitude controls of the Ring itself.
------------------
"Wait a minute - this isn't the Monsterometer, it's the Frog Exaggerator!"
- Professor Frink
Sorry about that. I assumed that the last part of the last sentance in your statement ("...to base one's faith on the absolute historic accurracy of the bible is silly, it's simply too easy to disprove.") was talking about the historic accuracy of the Bible, not the whole chain of logic. The problem is that I can't show that the logic works unless you believe in the Garden of Eden story, which is considered mith by Christian Theistic Evolutionists. Again, my apologies.
Sol:
Does that really matter? The evidence is still there, whether you're looking specifically for it or not. And this is only a statement of beliefs, not a statement of their mission. And there's a big difference between a belief and a logical conclusion.
The solar wind directly interacting with the upper atmosphere during a geomagnetic field reversal!? Ha! OK, problem here is that there is no evidence that the Earth's magnetic field has ever reversed, and no conceivable mechanism by which it could do so without frying the entire planet. All those "reversals" on the ocean floor, which are the ONLY evidence of geomagnetic reversal, are just locations in which the magnetic field was slightly weaker when the rock was formed.
See my comments to JEM about the receding Moon.
Sorry, but I've got a page long mathematical dissertation about moon dust sitting in front of me which is quite convincing. I'd post it, but I don't know how to get half these symbols into the keyboard. I think the problem with your numbers is that you only account for the dust from space, not for the pulverized moon rock, of which there is 67 times more. You mentioned that, but don't appear to account for it.
Volcanoes:
Sorry. I meant to say "on average". OK, it's going to fall back to Earth to become sediment, and most of it is going to stay there for quite a while before being eroded. Even if it did all fall into the ocean, there's no way it could get back into the mantle. And volcanoes couldn't account for that ammount of erosion all over the world. I localized places like Hawaii, sure, but not everywhere.
You are misreading me, but that's all right. I've done that often enough, myself. What I'm saying is that the eroded material is going to end up at the bottom of the ocean, leveling out the continents and raising the ocean floor.
JEM:
Thanks for your support.
As for the Moon, if the Moon wasn't there 2 billion years ago, how did it get there? It couldn't spin off from the Earth, as the relative amounts of the elements are too dissimilar. It couldn't have congealed from the same gas cloud as Earth, as it's orbit is too far inclined. It couldn't have been formed from particles orbiting the Earth, as there would be visible particles still orbiting within the Moon's orbit. It couldn't have been captured, as it's in a nearly circular orbit. Assuming nobody has a better theory, the logical thing to conclude is that it was created in it's present orbit, less than the 1.5-2 billion years ago afore mentioned.
See the evidence I gave Sol in relation to the Moon dust.
First:
Don't you mean pro-Creationist (singular)? I appear to be the only one here. OK, well, for one thing, I'd never even heard of the Juarez footprints until a few days ago, and as I said, I've got a large mathematical dissertation in my hand right now that shows that the numbers I gave for moon dust are correct. There have been cases where I was simply misinformed, and just because someone doesn't know about a rebuttal doesn't mean that they ignore it. And what about Archaeopteryx? Some Evolutionists still cling to that, despite the fact that it has been prooven to be a hoax.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
All right, I'm done. Essentially, every point of evidence I use you deny, ignore, or replace with your own unfounded speculation. That's fine. It doesn't constitute an argument, but that's fine. I could, of course, simply respond by saying that all of your "points" are based on several extreme misunderstandings of basic facts, but where would that get us, exactly?
Of course, you'll no doubt interpret this as a great victory for your viewpoint, when in fact all it really means is that I'm tired, and I have to go to work now.
At any rate, if anyone asks in the future, I am now a Jainist, and believe that the world has always existed as it does now. Unchanging and unchangeable. It is the most reasonable position, after all.
------------------
"Hey Mr. Boo, fly away home. Your house is so lovely, your children so nice."
--
Hello (The Band)
The latest figures I've been able to find for lunar orbital parameters are from 1994 and were obtained by laser rangefinding measurements. The curently accepted distance from the centre of the earth to the centre of the moon is 385,000km with a current recession rate of 3.7cm per year. Assuming a constant rate (which is dubious as at the moment the moon is almost at the right distance for the energy transfer to be in resonance with the movement of the oceans-in the past and in the future the energy transfer will be less)then the moon would only have moved a distance of 166,500km over its supposed lifetime of 4.5 billion years. This does not give evidence at all for a 'young' system
------------------
Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am not a politician) - Rene Descartes
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
).------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
Can we get a headcount of those that do and do not believe that God exists and created the universe?
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
Experimental Deism in a nutshell: God-being was bored / curious / lonely, and decided to create the Universe as an experiment. He/She/It/They formulated a universe bound by certain natural laws (Thermodynamics, Speed of C, gravitation and electromagnetism, etc.), as well as the potential for generating life (we assume, since we're here) and set it running: *BANG!*
And then left it alone, waiting to see what arose, with perhaps only occasional interference when things aren't developing. ("Okay, the big lizards on the Third Planet of Yellow Dwarf 1,345,264 in galaxy 26,252,753,828 just aren't getting any smarter. PROPS! Give me a 15-kilometer asteroid, drop it on that little peninsula there, we'll start over with those little furry critters, the.. um..." "Mammals, Boss." "Yeah, mammals. Run with that.")
In this worldview, the meaning of life would be to advance in knowledge until the species could talk to the God-Being on a near-level playing field, and discuss their experiences. Sin would be anything that hinders the growth of knowledge, thought, or endangers the species by harming its members.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
You know, I happen to own a book that has a visual and taxonomic comparison of Archaeopteryx and Compsognathus... and they're nowhere near identical. Similar, yes, but not identical.
Some major differences:
Archaeopteryx has:
finger bones far too long
clavicles joined in a "wishbone"
an "opisthopubic pelvis" (birdlike)
a backwards rotated and opposed big toe, forming a birdlike foot for grasping and perching
And feathers, of course.
It should be pointed out that these feathers attatch to the forearm with anchors similar to todays birds, and are detailed down to the microscopic level, which effectively removes any possibility of forgery... unless the finder was one of the greatest forgers of all time, in which case why bother making a bird when you could do a DaVinci?
I hate to suggest it, but the person who wrote the book you used as a source may be either short on facts, or deceived, or being intentionally deceptive. It's not that old faker Gish, is it?
In any case, focusing on Archaeopteryx does very little. I see you haven't (or your book hasn't) mentioned Sinosauropteryx, Unenlagia, Caudipteryx, Protoarchaeopteryx, or Eoalulavis, all of which are non-Archaeopteryx fossils found in varying places (mostly in China and Mongolia), all of which point to a change from reptile to avian.
You can check these out in the July '98 issue of National Geographic, should you be willing.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 18, 1999).]
. Actually I didn't say nothing was created on the 6 day, just the 7th day (I read the bible too). Hey I am just trying to reconcile Creationism and Evolution, so minor details don't matter, but my theory does try to use both methods and kind of makes sense. Sure Eden and Evolution matters, only two things really matter, one God gave man Free Will thus creating man, period, two that humans rejected God, period. Other than this all of the other events are unimportant in what order they happened, sure Eden could have been a really nice place that God sent up for his people because he wanted to share his love.------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
OK, I'll have to concede this point. I have more. Just out of curiosity, exactly when was/will the moon [be] in the right place for energy transfer to be in resonance with the oceans (assuming constant rate, of course)?
First:
My source is "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" by Walt Brown, the world's foremost Creation Scientist. It was written in '95, so it's bound to be a little out of date. Maybe I should see if there's a seventh edition or not.
Experimental Deism sounds like something out of Gentry Lee's Rama series (which I highly recomend that you do NOT read; first one's by Clarke, and it's OK, but the others are D-U-M dumb). And another thing: something I've heard evolutionists say over and over again is "We assume that, even though it defies laws of probibility and physics, it still happened. We're here, after all." And Sol says Creation Scientists are unscientific.
As I said, unless the've found more fossils in the past four years, only one fossil out of six has a wishbone, and it's an obvious forgery. And of course they look like modern feathers. They are. The forger applied some sort of "amorphous paste", such as rubber cement, to the fossil, placed feathers in the paste, and pressed the slab and counterslab together. There are also "double strikes" in the slab, where there is a softer indentation of a nearby feather, such as those that would be created by a minor slip or adjustment while the slab and counterslab were being pressed together. And there's still no sternum, which is prerequisite for flight. And it's still practically impossible to fossilize a feather. I'm no expert on dinosaurian anatomy, but excluding the feathers, isn't it possible that this was just other flying dino, similar to the Pteradactyl, with bat-like wings? And another thing: I thought that the evolutionary series supposedly went something like "fish-reptile-anphibian-bird-mammal" (simplified). If that's correct, then why didn't the Archaeopteryx turn into an anphibian first?
And in my ongoing series on the age of the world:
6: Calculations show that the large, high-rimmed craters on the moon should level out do to gravity in less than 100 millenia. On Mercury and Venus, where gravity is greater and temperature higher, the craters should level out in far less time. Most random chance theorists say that almost all of those craters were formed several billion years ago, when the system was supposedly formed. If that's the case, why are they still here?
7: The Moon has a hot interior, indicating that it is less than a billion years old. Again I refer you to my point that there is no known way that the moon could exist in it's present orbit without being created there in it's present condition.
8: As comets pass near the sun, some of their mass vaporizes. Comets frequently break up, or fall into the sun or other planets. Most comets break up and disintegrate after less than 1000 orbits, usually less than 100,000 years. There is no known way to add comets to the system in a manor that remotely approaches their rate of destruction, and planets' gravity tend to expel comets from the system, rather than capture them. As the chances of a comet being older than 100,000 are extremely slim, comets, and therefore the rest of the system, must be less than that age.
9: Small, icy comets strike the atmosphere at an average rate of one every 20 seconds. Each one releases, on average, 100 tons of water into the atmosphere. If this rate is constant, and the Earth is several billion years old, then we should have several times more water than we do now, and RC theorists say that the rate of impact was higher in the past.
Have fun!
On a side note, I just checked out Ringworld. Seems like a combination of Clarke and Adams. : )
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
There is an error in your data: The above statement assumes that most or nearly all comets have an orbital period of less than 100 years. In actuality, very few do. Most comets are in very long elliptical orbits which take millennia to complete. (Kohoutek, for example, has an orbital period of 75,000 years, and Comet West has a period estimated at 500,000 years (and it must be at LEAST half that old, having already made half its journey, from the Oort cloud in.)) So, if we assume that West formed and began its trip inwards IMMEDIATELY after the beginning of the solar system (which it probably didn't, it probably took a while), and is now only near the middle of its lifetime, the Solar System must be over 250,000,000 years old, and probably much older.
Nice try, though.
9: Small, icy comets strike the atmosphere at an average rate of one every 20 seconds. Each one releases, on average, 100 tons of water into the atmosphere. If this rate is constant, and the Earth is several billion years old, then we should have several times more water than we do now, and RC theorists say that the rate of impact was higher in the past.
Lately, the above theory of minicomets is being looked upon with greater and greater skepticism. I'm not sure, but it may have been discredited entirely earlier this year. And IF this rate is constant is a big "if." However, there are mechanisms by which water vapor can leave an atmosphere.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
Anyway, I just want to point out one of the strengths of science. My moon stuff was off. Now it isn't, because someone showed otherwise. I have now adapted my worldview.
"And another thing: something I've heard evolutionists say over and over again is 'We assume that, even though it defies laws of probibility and physics, it still happened. We're here, after all.'"
Sources? Even one?
6: Let's just talk about Venus. I like it 'cause that's where the ladies and self-help authors are. Anyway, there are very few craters on the surface, and none of them appear to be older than...what, a hundred million years or so? It's hypothesized that the entire surface of the planet melts now and then. No plate tectonics means little chance for the planet's internal heat to escape normally, you see. Nothing to do with anything, of course. Just neat.
7: "Again I refer you to my point that there is no known way that the moon could exist in it's present orbit without being created there in it's present condition."
Actually, there are three. The one most supported by the evidence, such as the moon's tiny core proportional to its mass, is the fission via collision hypothesis.
Besides, define "hot". The moon is a cold, dead world. It is far from "hot". No magnetic field. Partially solid mantle.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
Unfortunately, I don't have the thread in front of me, so I can't reference your specific quotes. However, some of the data used to disprove the hoax claim was: feather impressions underneath the fossil itself, ultragraphic photography indicating the surrounding rock and the fossil are identical.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
There's some interesting bits on why the Noah Global-flood story isn't likely to be true at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
The Ark would be unstable! The Ark would leak!
And of course, the fact that the total mass of all the animals that would need to be on the Ark, even if only genuses instead of species were collected, would far exceed the Ark's maximum capacity, ESPECIALLY if saurians were aboard...
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
"Sorry guys, but you're too damn big and you eat too much. Try to tread water as long as possible, okay?"
------------------
I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
I'm terrible at remembering names, but I've remember quite distinctly hearing a quote saying "I believe in Evolution because it's the only alternative to selective creation, and that's unthinkable."
As for Venus, I wasn't too clear. I should have said mountains and craters. If I recall correctly, there's a rather large mountain on Venus. Is that right?
As for the Moon, again, the relative abundancies of the elements are too disimilar. What are the other two? OK, not the moon. Try Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Venus. They give off far more energy than they recieve. Calculations show that the energy couldn't come from fusion, radioactive decay, or gravitational colapse. Unless someone has a better theory, the only conclusion is that these planets havn't existed long enough to cool off.
The fact still remains that the fossil (at least the one in the Brittish museum of Natural History) is one of only two specimines with feathers, and the feathers are forgeries, based on the evidence I mentioned before, as is the furcula (wishbone). And the surrounding rock and the fossil would be identical. The fossil's real. The feathers and furcula, which are the only evidence of any connection with birds, are not.
Age of the Earth:
10: Since 1836, over 100 different observers have made direct visual measurements that suggest that the sun is shrinking by about .1% per century, or about five feet per hour. Solar eclipse records show that this has been going on for at least 400 years. Several indirect techniques confirm the shrinkage, only the colapse rate given is only about 1/7 as much. Using the most conservative data, the sun would have engulfed Earth less than 100,000,000 years ago, and made it uninhabitable in far less than that. It would take an incredible change to change the rate of shrinking by two or three orders of magnitude.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
I say: "They took a look at the hoax claims and disproved them."
You say: "Well, yes...but it's still a hoax."
Anyway, there are a whole host of processes going on inside gas giants. They do not put out 'a great deal' more energy then they take in. They put out a BIT more.
And Venusian features are cool. *science gushing mode*
It gets so hot on the surface that a mountain's roots can literally melt, causing the whole mountain to just slide around the landscape. Despite lacking traditional Earthlike mechanisms for building up and tearing down land, Venus is pretty darned dynamic.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
On the sun...
Only ONE scientific paper has made the claim that the sun is undergoing a constant rate of "shrinkage." (I'm sorry, but all I can think of when I hear that is George Costanza.)
This paper, published by a guy named Akridge in 1980. He derived his data from a summary of a paper written by an Eddy and Boornazian.
In so doing, he made several misinterpretations of the data Eddy and Boornazian had presented. For starters, the 400 year figure was simple fiction. The paper only dealt with observations gathered from 1863 to 1953. Also, this original paper made no claims that the witnessed measurements were representative of a constant rate. Plus, not all the data from that time period records any shrinkage at all.
One reason for all this confusion is that the sun has no definite surface. Where do you measure the diameter from? One hundred years ago, accurate judgements on where the surface of the sun was were not available. Hence, different observers calculated from different starting points.
Data gathered since Akridge published his paper do not show any shrinkage in line with his calculations. We do know that the sun changes constantly, and is home to many great cyclic patterns.
Back to Archie...the entire skeletal structure is unique. The wings are fused where bird wings aren't, and unfused where reptile limbs are.
And the feather imprints could not have been faked as is claimed. For that to be possible, the rock would have had to have been much, much different from the fossil, unless the fossil is made out of concrete. (The claim being that the feather imprints were made by pressing chicken feathers into a thin layer of cement surrounding a reptile fossil. Unfortunately, the feathers don't have much resembelance to chicken feathers at all.)
Furthermore, Archie isn't even the only example anymore. There are, I think, two other species of similar animals. Even more importantly, the recent discover in China of a dinosaur species that, while not resembling a bird at all, appears to have had a coat or fringe of featherlike structures.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
Sinosauropteryx had feathery filaments.
Unenlagia had flapping ability and feathers.
Caudipteryx had primitive featers, although it couldn't fly.
Protoarchaeopteryx resembles Archaeopteryx but is more primitive. It has asymmetrical feathers. It is, essentially, the "missing link" between Caudipteryx and Archaeopteryx.
The arm 'wingbones' on these creatures become progressively more birdlike and less reptilian.
Also, if the Archaeopteryx feathers were only "impressions," why are they ANCHORED in the bones of the skeleton? And in fact, a glance at the fosil shows the feathers not as impressions, but as a raised area, exactly what you'd see if the feathers had fossilized.
Plus, feathers can't be that hard to fossilize, since numerous single feathers have been found in places like Bavaria.
secondary impressions? Not in MY full color actual sized photograph, and if there were, so what? You've never seen a bird flop around as it died?
Also, did someone say Archaeopteryx was discovered in the fifties? Nope. The first was found in 1855, the most developed in 1861. The one found in 1956 was the least-perfect and worst-preserved specimen. (So of course, that's the one the Creationists pick to study)
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
"I say: "They took a look at the hoax claims and disproved them.
You say: "Well, yes...but it's still a hoax.""
Maybe if you were more specific about how it was disprooven? And who said chicken feathers?
"Anyway, there are a whole host of processes going on inside gas giants. They do not put out 'a great deal' more energy then they take in. They put out a BIT more."
Over twice as much sounds like a great deal to me. And here are some of those referneces I was talking about: H.H. Aumann and C.M. Gillespie, Jr., "The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69-L72; M. Mitchell Waldrop, "The Puzzle that is Saturn," Science, 18 September 1981, p. 1351.; Jonathan Eberhart, "Neptune's Inner Warmth," Science News, Vol. 112, 12 November 1977, p. 316.
I've got references to the paper by Eddy and Boornazian, "Secular Decrease in Solar Diameter, 1863-1953", Buletin of the American Asteronomical Society, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1979, p. 437. There are also at least two others: G.B. Lubkin, "Analyses of Historical Data Suggest Sun is Shrinking", Physics Today, September 1979, pp. 17-19; David W. Dunham et al., "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius between 1715 and 1979", Science, Vol. 210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245. The basic explaination is this: if the sun's heat is generated by nuclear fusion, scientists should be detecting at least three times the number of nutrinos as they consistantly do. If, however, the sun's heat is generated mostly by gravitational colapse, the lack of nutrino's AND the shrinkage would be explained. See Carl A. Rouse's "Gravitational Energy Release Induced by the Nuclear Energy Generation Process: The Resolution of the Solar Nutrino Delema", Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 102, No. 1, September 1981, pp. 8-11.
1of2:
Sorry. Didn't mean to ignore it. I'm just having trouble getting my hands on that particular issue of "Geographic". Should be around here somewhere, unless my mom cut it up to get pictures for her toddler class at church, or threw it away. Do you think you could give me an online source?
And I've been talking about the one in the Brittish Museum of Natural Science, which was the one found in 1861.
The operative word being "single". The chances of multiple, whole, flat feathers just happening to be at the slab-counterslab interface is incredibly slim.
The test performed in '86 involved a milligram sample from a "feather" region, and one from a control sapmle from a non-feathered region. The Museum contends that the amorphous nature of the feathered region is an artifact explainable by preservatives that they have put on the fossil. If this excuse were correct, there would also be preservatives on the control sample. That's why control samples are tested to begin with: to dispel last minute excuses. The Brittish museum refused to allow further testing. Strange, for a scientific institute, wouldn't you say?
And the double strikes are very small. You couldn't see them without a closeup picture, which this book just happens to contain. The "echos" are just slightly off, not unidentafiable, as you would expect if the "bird" had flopped around.
And you still can't explain why the furcula is cracked, the wrong size, the wrong shape, the wrong orentation, and the indentation in the counterslab is rough, not smooth like the bone itself. Unless, of course, it doesn't belong there. Check out Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordal Bird: A Case of Fossil Forgery".
And am I correct in saying that there's no sternum, which is prerequisite for flight?
Age of the Universe:
11: The sun's radiation applies an outward force on extremely small particles orbiting the sun. Particles less than a tenth of a micron in diameter should have been "blown away" by now, if the system was billions of years old. Yet, these particles still orbit.
12: The rings of the gas giants are being rapidly bombarded by meteroids. Saturn's should be pulverized within 10,000 years. Most of the material is just deposited elsewhere in the rings, but if even a tiny fraction is lost, the rings could not exist much longer than that 10,000 years. Thus, the rings must be young. And before anyone mentions it, yes, I know the usual theory is that a moon was torn apart and the debris became the rings. Even then, it's an amazing coincidence that such a thing should happen just as we gained the ability to watch. See Jeffrey N. Cuzzi "Ringed Planets: Still Mysterious - II", Sky & Telescope, Vol. 69, Jan. 1985, p. 22
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
The half-life of a scientific article is about 5 years today. They taught us this in Database searching in Library Science school. What it means, essentially, is that papers are usually cited (50% or higher) most within 5 years of their writing.
paper published 1980
citations 1980 ***
citations 1981 ***
citations 1982 ***
citations 1983 **
citations 1984 **
citations 1985 **
citations 1986 *
citations 1987 **
citations 1988 *
citations 1989
citations 1990 *
citations 1991 *
citations 1992
citations 1993 *
citations 1994 *
citations 1995 *
citations 1996
citations 1997
citations 1998
citations 1999
This is largely due to the fact that rapid increases in scientific knowledge and refinements of that knowledge tend to render papers (at least, ones that don't represent giant turning points) obsolete within a very short time.
Nobody reputable today would cite a scientific paper older than 1993 if there were anything else extant.
Interestingly, subjects like history, psychology, and sociology half much longer half-lives. Probably because they're less exact sciences.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
Jupiter has a "surface" temperature of 124 K. That's 15 K hotter than would be expected from simple blackbody radiation. But those fifteen degrees fall rather easily under the amounts of energy the planet would be producing due to gravitational contraction.
(Jupiter is also a loud radio source, but that's due to its strong magnetic field.)
The sun: Gravitational contraction is an unacceptable answer to the question of Why Does The Sun Shine? (The answer of course being that The Sun Is A Mass Of Incandescent Gas.) It has nothing to do with creationism. The problem is, if the sun radiates via gravitational contraction, the same must hold true for all the other suns. Or, every star would evolve along the same pattern, from birth to death. However, that isn't what a real star's lifecycle looks like. As observed by Hertzsprung and Russell, those H-R Diagram guys, the lifecycle of stars lays along a pattern gravitational contraction cannot provide for.
The solar neutrino problem is just that, a problem. To cite a paper of my own, Hata & Langacker (1997) show that removing nuclear fusion as the sun's primary source of energy does not remove the neutrino problem.
There are a few possibilites.
1.) Our model of the sun is flawed. However, large amounts of research has gone into this one since the neutrino thing was discovered, only to find that the current solar model fits everything but neutrino emissions extraordinarily well. Were our model of the sun so deeply flawed as to include fusion where none, or rather very little, exists, there would be many more problems. There aren't. Which leaves us with...
2.) Our model of neutrinos is flawed. Given how little we know of them, this seems likely. The disparity between theory and observation can lay in one of three areas. A.) Fusion does not produce neutrinos at the rates we think it does. This seems unlikely, as experiments done in the lab agree with particle physics on this one. B.) Neutrinos are interacting with the detectors in odd and unknown ways. This is more likely, but there are a varity of neutrino detectors set up independantly, and none of them find anything that would satisfy the solar neutrino problem. C.) Something unknown is happening to the neutrinos between the core of the sun and the surface of the Earth. This is the position most scientists are leaning towards. Recent studies show a few anomalies in neutrinos traveling terrestrial distances, for instance, and the effects might be greater inside the sun or between there and here.
There are some quantum mechanical things which could explain the behavior of neutrinos, but they involve concepts that might make my head explode. Suffice it to say, they postulate that neutrinos are transforming themselves into different particles, a not uncommon occurance within the world of quantum effects.
Back to Archie...(Hey, it's cute and it stops me from having to look up the spelling every time, ok?)
First of all, the furcula isn't the only birdlike feature on the fossil. The pelvis is positioned like that of a bird's. (So is that of some dinosaurs.) The "opposable hallux is also an avian feature". I had to quote that one, because my knowledge of the internal structure of birds is rather limited.
Second, the crux of Spetner, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe and Magarits' second argument, published in '88, was that the feather impressions were forged onto the skeleton of a flying reptile. In other words, Archie is really just a pterosaur. But fossils of pterosaurs include the thin membrane they used for wings. No such membrane is present on Archie's fossils. It cannot be a pterosaur with faked feathers. It has to be an animal built to fly in a way wholly unlike them, based on the other observed skeletal structures.
I'm afraid the rest of this is starting to make my eyes bleed. I'm not really a paleontologist, by study or inclination. Lots of technical wrangling over directions of fracture propagation and the like. I will say this, Hoyle and company make no claims in their papers of falsified skeletal structure. I have not read the book you mention. Either they don't make that claim or they don't make it in a scholarly setting. If the second, why not?
Finally, you've said that we shouldn't be arguing over the scientists themselves, and you're quite right to say so. However, in the case of Hoyle, I feel I have to mention that he's well known for various "extreme" theories that are unsupported by the evidence. He believes that the Earth was seeded by extraterrestrials, for instance, and that insects are more intelligent than man but conspire to keep that knowledge away from us. (No, really.) This doesn't and shouldn't effect the accuracy of the paper in question, but in this case I think it's important to know where it's coming from.
Now, your other two points.
11: I'm going to have to work out the calculations and get back to you. Just for clarification, you're taking about particles larger than the atomic scale, yes? I'll go out on another limb and probably fall again here, but the solar wind blows particles our way all the time, yes, but more particles come up from the sun to replace them. Unless you're talking about the pressure of light, in which case I'm going to hazard a guess and say that your particles are too small to be hit by enough photons to move them very far, and too large to let the photons that do hit them have much of an effect.
12: Rings are indeed a transitory wonder. But I don't fully understand your argument. Constantly bombarded by meteoroids? Constant as measured how? Most of the free junk in the solar system has been swept up by now.
But you're right, the rings are a wonderful marvel, not so much that they exist (Every Jovian has them.), but that Saturn's are so brilliant. It is a unique and wonderful coincidence. But that doesn't imply any special meaning beyond that.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
"He believes ... ...that insects are more intelligent than man but conspire to keep that knowledge away from us."
Oh.
Really?
What makes you so certain this is not just disinformation fed to him by the cats to throw him off the trail?
------------------
I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
Now that I think about it, I seem to recall a good argument somewhere that neutrinos don't even exist, which makes the entire argument about them moot. Try autodynamics.org. Of course, you also have to toss relativity out the window, but...
"I'm afraid the rest of this is starting to make my eyes bleed."
Don't drip on the keyboard.
"Just for clarification, you're taking about particles larger than the atomic scale, yes?"
Hai.
"Unless you're talking about the pressure of light..."
Which I am...
"in which case I'm going to hazard a guess and say that your particles are too small to be hit by enough photons to move them very far, and too large to let the photons that do hit them have much of an effect."
Well, considering that they're what the solar wind is composed of, they pretty much have to be affected by photons.
Which brings me to...
13: There is a large, disk-shaped cloud of dust (by which I mean particles that compose the solar wind) orbiting the sun and other stars. When the suns rays strike them, they slow down (similar to a car slowing down slightly when it hits a raindrop on it's way to the ground), eventually causing them to spiral into the sun. Thus the sun acts as a giant vacuum cleaner, pulling in about 100,000 tons of various dust per day. The highest estimate is that no more than half is supplied by the disintegration of comets and asteroids. Since there is no significant source of replenishment, the cloud should be removed or destroyed in no more than 10,000 years.
"Most of the free junk in the solar system has been swept up by now"
Considering that there's a large cloud of free junk orbiting the sun, I'd have to say that there's still quite a bit left.
And as for Archaeopteryx (took me a minute to figure out that you wern't talking about a search engine : )), the only falsified skeletal structure claim in the book is about the furcula. Which is still wrong. And there's still no sternum. Can anyone tell me if it really is prerequisite for flying? Seems like it's just a pterosaur that's designed to perch in trees, except for the membrane and feathers. That I'll need some more info on. Is the membrane present in the four fossils without feathers?
"I'm not really a paleontologist, by study or inclination."
Nor am I. I'm more of a physics and astronomy guy, as I'd imagine most Trek fans are.
As for the rings, it's just an amazing coincidence, nothing more (much like the evolution of life from non-living matter). Think about it. Saturn has supposedly been around for four or five billion years (by RC theory), and it's rings couldn't exist for more than 10,000 years. The idea that they were created just before we started looking is just incredible. I'd steal Elim's quote again, but if he's reading this, I'd get a higher ranking on his list.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
But in reality, this kind of thing happens all the time (coincidences, I mean.) Like Columbus (or was it Cortez) using a Solar eclipse to frighten natives just at the right time.
You know, one of the things that holds Saturn's rings in place are its numerous "shepherd moons," which gravitationally affect the rest of the rings. It's also possible that these moons are at least partially a source of replenishment for the rings, as Jupiter's are replenished by Io and Amalthea, among others. Neptune and Uranus have similar shepherds holding their rings together.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
Yeesh..."new physics"? In such a context, new is usually another word for loony. Reminds me of this site. Of course, proof is not really necessary when your argument rests with Copernicus being an evil satanist, or a variation to that effect.
But, assuming neutrinos don't exist, what exactly do neutrino detectors detect? And if relativity isn't true, why does it work so well for every calculation, and why has it been verified experimentally? (Yes, I realize it doesn't hold true for inside a black hole, but that's what quantum gravity and its brethren are for.)
Ok, so let's deal with these particles, shall we?
You've oversimplified the situation a bit. For the smallest particles, the ones we would assume to fall fastest, radiation pressures tend to balance out the effect you mentioned, which does affect things as you describe. It's just not the only process in operation. You're also leaving out the effects of other gravitational fields, which have no small effect on orbits. Finally, we know that comets spew out rather large amounts of gas and dust during the period of time when they are closest to the sun. The exact rate of such outgassing for all comets is unknown, and it cannot be definitively stated as THE source for such particles. Regardless, it is a source, and data suggests a significant one.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
Well, at least look at the site before saying it's loony. A lot of it makes sense, at least to me. It also answers most of your questions.
As for the dust, the best estimate is that less than half the dust destroyed is being replenished. And the Pyonting-Robertson effect should make the smaler particles spiral in faster than the larger ones. If that's true, then there should be a visible segregation between the sizes of the particles, which is generally not the case. Check out Ron Cowen, "Meteorites: To Stream or Not to Stream", Science News, Vol. 142, 1 August 1992, p. 71.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
What I believe in is what I believe in. I've gotten into these arguments many a time, and it frustrated me. I've read both scientific material as well as Creationist material, and I can't tell you how many times the creationist (I dare say propaganda) either lied, used very old data, or just 'forgot' about certain facts in proving their side.
Now, if that didn't happen, I'd be more inclined to understanding the literal creationist point of view, but its difficult. Personally, I believe the two are one and the same, and, if you read up on Discover Magazine, you'll remember and article about where God comes into the whole picture.
But this is my first and last post here. Good luck to both sides.
------------------
"I will remember you...Will you remember me?
Don't let your love pass you by...Weep not for the memories..."
Sarah McLachlan
), are REALLY into this argument so much that they're coming home from work and poring over the boo sfor 7 hours, then coming on here and presenting their arguments, of they've had this argument before so many times in their lives that they just happen to have all the info to hand.Personally, all this is making my head bleed. Exactly HOW tough are your physics exams anyway?
------------------
Headmaster suspended for using big-faced boy as satellite-dish
-The Day Today
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
------------------
-Smooth as an androids butt, eh Data?
-Yes, and remarkably similar in appearance!
------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".
Somebody break out the champagne!
Oh, and the grapejuice (for those who do not indulge).
------------------
It's perfectly logical. Except for this little bit right here.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/
Sol:
I say again, the questions you raised about neutrino detectors not detecting neutrinos can be answered on autodynamics.org. You shouldn't ignore it without even reading it. And it isn't new. It's been around for fifty years. It also uses a few of Einstein's equations.
Age:
15 (I think):
Computer simulations of spiral galaxies show them to be highly unstable. They chould completely change shape in far less than several trillion years. David Fleischer, "The Galaxy Maker", Science Digest, October 1981, Vol. 89, pp. 12, 116.
16:
Meteoric dust is accumulating on Earth at a rate which should place about 16' of dust on Earth in 4 billion years. This dust is high in nickel, and no high concentrations of nickel have been found anywhere.
------------------
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.
KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'.
RANDOM: Ni!
Omega, pardon me for jumping onboard the other side... must be very lonely arguing against so many of us
In any case, if the Earth is 6003 years old, unless light moves at a different rate to what we've managed to clock it to now, there is no star more than 6003 light years away... indeed, literature has recorded stars in the sky dating back most of that time anyway, so does that mean the stars are all less than 1000ly or so away? Or is that pesky lumiferous aether slowing down light?
------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.
Light? slowing down? Gee, that would play havoc with all the things we know to be true about electromagnetism, not to mention making us all blind, since our eyes can only see in a small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwaves, X-Rays, radios, and television sets wouldn't work, either.
------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
At any rate, I believe this argument has come close to its end. We are not debating creation vs. evolution. Omega, you seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that if one bit of evolutionary theory is false, that confirms the truth of a spontaneous creation by God. That is not so. You have failed to present any evidence in support of such a creation. All of your points have attacked rather specific parts of certain scientifc points. But even if you were to somehow prove that ALL of the evidence in favor of evolution is somehow falsified, you would be no closer to proving creation, because you haven't presented any evidence specifically demanding a spontaneous creation by God for it to exist. The idea that this is an either/or argument is false. Assuming that I did not have any evidence in favor of evolution, and could prove creation false, that wouldn't make evolution true either. You cannot prove something by attacking what is perceived to be its opposite.
Having said that, your point 15 ignores any of the evidence for dark matter that has cropped up in the 19 years since your article was published. And point 16 assumes that A.) There is some uniform conformity present in interplanetary debris, and B.) That all the dust would somehow stay in one place and be immune to the scattering forces of erosion. If that dust had all been laid down at once, you might have something.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
On the contrary. I'm having fun over here. There's actually some pretty good evidence that the speed of light is decreasing.
Stopped laughing yet? Good. There have been over 150 published measurements of the speed of light over the past 300 years. See Trever Norman and Barry Setterfield, "The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time", self-published, 1987. In the seven instances where the same scientists used the same equipment to measure the speed of light years later, there was always a decrease, which was often several times greater that experimental error could possibly account for. M.E.J. Gheury de Bray published a paper in '27, one in '31, and one in '34. In the second, he stated that there were 22 coincidences that favor the speed of light decreasing, and not one against it. V.S. Troitskii believes that background radiation and most redshift is attributed to the decrease in the speed of light ("Physical Constants and the Evolution of the Universe", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 139, No. 2, December 1987, pp. 389-411). Setterfield came to the same conclusion via a completely different method.
There's also the problem that atomic clocks are slowing relative to orbital clocks (T.C. Van Flandern, "Is the Gravitational Constant Changing?", The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 248, 1 September 1981, pp. 813-816). Van Flandern showed that if atomic clocks are correct, then the orbital speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are increasing and the gravitational constant should be changing (which observation does not support), but if orbital clocks are correct, then atomic vibration is decreasing, along with the speed of light. If a planets orbital speed increased while all other parameters remained the same (as appears to be happening), then the law of mass-energy conservation would be violated. Also, if atomic decay is slowing, then radiometric dating would be much closer to other dating methods.
Before anyone brings up the fact that nobody's noticed a decrease in c since the sixties, that's when people started measuring with atomic clocks. If the rate of atomic vibration and c are changing at the same rate, then no change would be observed. And as for Einstein, he said that the speed of light is the same at all points in space, not time.
The method to test whether c is decreasing is to look at something a great distance away and see if it is traveling in slow motion (a binary star, for example).
1of2:
Could you elaborate a little? I can't tell if anything in that post made sense.
Sol:
Well, you're correct. I am assuming that you haven't gone to the site. You just say that the site is loony, not why it's loony. If I'd said that Evolution is wacko all this time, and not presented any evidence against it, you'd probably think I didn't know a thing about it.
"But even if you were to somehow prove that ALL of the evidence in favor of evolution is somehow falsified..."
You have yet to present any evidence in favor of Evolution. Even if Archaeopteryx isn't a hoax, for all you know it could just be a creature that God created that's extinct now. There are stranger things still alive (duck-billed platypus, for example), after all. And before someone brings up those fossils found in China, to which the same statements could apply, could someone please point me to a web reference, so I'll know what I'm fighting?
"Omega, you seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that if one bit of evolutionary theory is false, that confirms the truth of a spontaneous creation by God."
Seem to be? I've said it, flat out. My logic goes like this: there are two possibilities for the universe's existance: random chance (RC) and intelligent design (and thus a designer, God). If I can proove that the universe could not have come about by random chance, then I will have prooved that the universe had to come about by intelligent design, by virtue of the fact that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbible, must be the truth. Then I must set about prooving that God created the universe spontaneously, and not through the same sequence of events from the RC theory (which seems to be what most people here believe). The best way to do this is to show that the universe has not existed sufficiently long enough for the RC sequence to take place.
I'm not attacking the opposite. I'm attacking the only alternative.
You're right, though. This isn't just intelligent design versus RC anymore. It's RC sequence versus spontaneous creation.
As for your rebuttals:
What evidence for dark matter? I haven't heard of any, anywhere. Source?
Your statements about 16 are correct, however. I concede the point.
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
Out of all that I read, I never saw so many flaws and sometimes flat out lies in the creationist research. In many of them, the creationist 'researchers' would use old, outdated data, not mention valid data that would prove contrary to their point, or even flat out lie about it. For a time, I became very upset that these people would take science and twist it into a sort of pseudo-science. From there, I could no longer believe in the literal translation of the Bible. I still believe in it, in God too, but most of it as metaphor. And evolution has more scientific stability than literal creation.
So if you can, please present any scientific proof of literal creation, something that doesn't use the above stated techniques of propaganda.
------------------
"I will remember you...Will you remember me?
Don't let your love pass you by...Weep not for the memories..."
Sarah McLachlan
------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.
------------------
"I am just a worthless liar. I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you. Trust in me and fall as well."
--
Tool
Of course, light is only a SMALL part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which also consists of infrared (heat), microwaves, radio waves, X-rays, etc, most of which we need special equipment to "see." A change in the actual speed of light would necessarily affect ALL these things.
For instance, things that depend upon the frequency of particular electromagnetic waves, such as microwaves, X-Ray machines, and radios and televisions, would be useless if the frequency of their waves were to be changed.
That there is no effect belies the falsity of the "change of speed" hypothesis. Also, an EXTREMELY radical change in the speed of light would be neded to explain how things that are only 6000 years old can seem to be 10,000,000,000 years or more away. Minor variations couldn't account for this in any case.
It is vastly more likely that the perceived changes come rather from our ability to become gradually more exact in our measurements.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited August 25, 1999).]
Well, there ARE only two ways the universe could be created, RC and intelligent design. All theories are just subssets of these two. If I can show that the universe could not come about by random chance BY ANY MEANS, then I have prooven that God created the universe.
Tom:
It's not a minor shift. At this rate, the speed of light would have been billions of times what it is now, just several thousand years ago. Some have theorized that c was infinite before the fall, but that's unproovable.
Sol:
Steady-state doesn't constitute creation, IIRC. Just existance.
1of2:
As I said, experimental error is far from sufficient to explain the decrease. And if the speed decreases, and the wavelength decreases, then the frequency can remain the same. There's only been a .1% decrease in the last three centuries, but several curves fit the data points we have.
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
But steady state IS a theory of origins. It says there are none. It's even backed up by a few religions.
But I feel I must note that the idea of a decreasing speed of light has been dropped by the Institute of Creation Research as of 1988. (Acts and Facts, G. Aardsma, June 1988) The alleged curve it was based on was manipulated to fit the desired outcome, in this case an original date of 4040 BC. Not only was the math wrong and in some cases nonexistant, the two datapoints most important to the hypothesis came from measurements made in the 17th and 18th century.
------------------
"Something I can't comprehend. Something so complex and couched in its equation. So dense that light cannot escape from."
--
Soul Coughing
------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs
------------------
"I will remember you...Will you remember me?
Don't let your love pass you by...Weep not for the memories..."
Sarah McLachlan
------------------
"It's good and well to leave the government in the hands of the perfect man but what happens when the perfect man gets a bellyache?" - Belgarath the Sorceror by David Eddings
I don't care if they've dropped the claim. The data still stands, including the same scientists measuring c with the same equipment years later and getting a decrease greater than experimental error could account for, in seven seperate cases. Several mathematical curves fit the data points (or rather, zones, as you have to account for experimental error). I do withdraw the claim of billions of times higher, though. Without more accurate measurements of the rate of decrease, there's no way to how much higher c would have been whenever the universe was created.
Strawman?
1701:
I can't proove that there is no such thing as random chance. Quantum mechanics guarentees that there is (or at least that there's no way to take everything into account, so it may as well be random). But I can proove that the universe (or, more specifically, life) could not have come about by random chance.
Holst:
I think that the top five or so "scientific" theories of origins should be taught AS THEORY alongside the statement that some believe the universe to have been created by an omnipotent being, then giving all evidence for AND against each theory, and let the student decide what to believe. Only math should be taught as absolute fact.
There was a hole in my logic. Here's my revised tree:
The universe either does or does not exist. I think we all agree that the universe exists, so...
The universe either was or was not created.
If it was created, it was either created by an intelligent design, or by random chance.
If it wasn't created, then it has always existed.
Thus the three possibilities are steady-state, RC, and designed. If one eliminates the possibility of two of the three happening, then whatever remains must be the truth.
I'm pretty sure that steady-state has been disprooven for some time, but if I'm wrong, please tell me. If SS can not be true, then the universe was created. If it was created, it comes down to RC vs. design again.
Are there any other holes I should be made aware of?
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
Given Sol's statement, I doubt it can truly be said that "the data still stands." To me, it looks as though "the data" has been misrepresented at best, and falsified at worst. Of course, given my experiences with creation "science," I find this hardly surprising.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
But that's ok, really, because there isn't much left to say. In these sorts of arguments, scientists are handicapped, for several reasons.
1.) Evolution, as a scientific premise, is dependant upon and linked to almost every branch of science. Astronomy, physics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, biology, genetics, etc, etc. To adequately defend and define it, one has to delve into elements from ALL of these. Unfortunately, to attack it, one need only ignore all of the supporting evidence from every other branch of science, and concentrate on one or two relatively minor points. Arguments in favor of evolution then, are destined to be more complex and harder to understand, especially to those with little background in science.
2.) The fundamental strength of science is its ability to change and evolve. But this strength is also a handicap against those whose beliefs are based in faith rather than observation. There is literally nothing I can say to change Omega's mind. I can only hope to refute any claim that is of a spurious nature.
On the other hand, a scientist, at least a reputable one, is going to be open to new evidence and new interpretations. That's the basis of the scientific process. But this can be a weakness when arguing against those whose basis is in faith and unchanging monolithic belief systems. To that mindset, healthy discussion and change is viewed as evidence of scientific failure, when in fact it is exactly the opposite.
------------------
"Something I can't comprehend. Something so complex and couched in its equation. So dense that light cannot escape from."
--
Soul Coughing
It does mean that the data has been misrepresented in the case mentioned. But just because it has been misrepresented doesn't mean that the data does not exist. The data still exists in the form stated earlier, and stands, as I said. The curve mentioned by Sol was an interpretation of the data, and the one claiming c's value at 4040 BC was incorrect, and intentionally so. I had no prior knowledge of said curve. The data zones are still accurate, and several mathematical curves still fit them, albeit with less dramatic results.
And you have yet to explain how, in seven seperate cases, the same scientists measured the speed of light using the same equipment years later measured a decrease greater than experimental error can account for.
Sol:
I say again: WHAT supporting evidence? Someone, somewhere, please, present some. My first post in this thread asked the question "What scientific evidence in favor of Evolution?". I have yet to be answered, and I've been on the offensive this whole time.
You're right that you can't change my mind, though. The only way I'd believe that God didn't exist is if God Himself told me so! You can, however, try to show that Evolution is possible, working out your own arguments in the process, so that if you run into someone else, you will be ready to present your evidence. I've known that I couldn't convince any of you since this argument began, but I'm still arguing, as I hope to learn from the argument!
And someone brought up the second law of thermodynamics (increase of entropy) a while back. How did you explain away the fact that Evolution contradicts that? I don't think I saw the explaination.
Cool. I got the hundreth post!
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
That's one of my favorite paradoxes. If God didn't exist, he couldn't tell you that he didn't exist, and thus you'd have no way of knowing that he didn't exist. Unless he told you he didn't exist, but he couldn't do that because he wouldn't exist. Etc.
------------------
Frank's Home Page, which you've never seen before and want to visit right now
EVERY SINGLE POST of mine has presented piles of the evidence you claim to seek. I wish I could cleverly discount all the stuff you post too, but I'm bound by this nagging little sense of morality at the back of my mind that suggests I should explain myself.
Of course, by your logic, I've already disproved creation, as I've refuted the points you've laid out here. Unfortunately, rational thought doesn't work that way.
But, since we've come this far, why not continue? To quote R.E.M. "I feel like a cartoon brick wall".
First of all, let us actually define evolution, something no one has bothered to do yet. From a biology textbook...
"...evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
This is fact, pure and undisputable. You can measure it yourself, with the proper training and techniques. This is why evolution is science. Evolutionary theory, then, does not concern itself with whether evolution exists, as that has been handily proven. It looks at the mechanisms that drive this evolution, and these are not well understood.
Many antievolutionists no longer argue against evolution based on these principles, then, since they can be shown to exist everywhere in nature. Instead, they argue that such changes are confined within species, and cannot affect change outside of them. But there is no scientific reason for this to be so.
Thermodynamics: I'm certain someone has already pointed this out, but the nature of this UBB keeps me from checking.
First of all, this law only applies to closed systems. The Earth isn't. Instead, it receives huge amounts of energy from the sun, and varying amounts of "stuff" from space.
Second of all, it only applies to the overall entropy of a system. Subsets of a system can 'steal' energy from other subsets, increasing their own energy while not changing the overall energy amount present within the system.
Er...third of all, thermodynamics neither states or implies that complexity cannot arise out of chaos. Indeed, we see examples of such complexity every day. The formation of crystals from the random motions of atoms, for instance. Or the growth of a seed into a plant.
------------------
"Something I can't comprehend. Something so complex and couched in its equation. So dense that light cannot escape from."
--
Soul Coughing
------------------
"It's good and well to leave the government in the hands of the perfect man but what happens when the perfect man gets a bellyache?" - Belgarath the Sorceror by David Eddings
Yeah, I was hoping someone would like that. : )
Sol System:
"EVERY SINGLE POST of mine has presented piles of the evidence you claim to seek."
Such as? I've gone back through the entire thread, and have yet to find any evidence in favor of Evolution. I've seen evidence disprooving some (and only some) of my age points, but that is evidence that Evolution may be possible, not that it happened.
"I wish I could cleverly discount all the stuff you post too, but I'm bound by this nagging little sense of morality at the back of my mind that suggests I should explain myself."
Can't you do both?
"Of course, by your logic, I've already disproved creation, as I've refuted the points you've laid out here."
Well, by my logic, you'd have to proove Evolution to disproove creation, so by the definition of Evolution given in this post, sure. But that's not the evolution I'm talking about. The definition of Evolution that I've been using this whole thread is "a theory that the various types of plants and animals have their origins in other pre-existing types, and that thedistinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations". Your definition, unless I'm missing something, is quite different from this one.
It's also fact, pure and indisputable, that there's only a limited amount of genetic material available in any given cell. Any descendant or ancestor I may have has to be a reconfiguration of MY genes. Just the same thing in a different order. The only way new genetic material can show up is by mutation, and the chances of a useful mutation occuring, or even a non-useful one that isn't harmful, are rediculously slim, as over a century of experiments with fruit flies has shown.
By your theory, it would seem that, given enough time, different breeds of dogs in isolation would become unable to reproduce with other breeds, and therefore seperate species. But what could possibly cause this change? The same material is passed down from one generation to the next. No changes. Even under extreme circumstances, such as cold, where those with thicker coats would survive better, the genes for thick coats already exist. They are just more prevalent, as those without them die. I have yet to hear of a workable mechanism by which the change of one species into another could take place.
And you also have yet to explain how sexual reproduction came about. Or how that first cell could possibly have formed. Or how multi-cellular life came about. Or why there aren't any life-forms with between 6-20 cells.
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited September 02, 1999).]
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
The page on the slowing of c wasn't scientific in any sense of the word. They attacked the scientist and his curve, not the data, or its method of collection. The data STILL EXIST, even though they were misrepresented. Yes, the curve stated by that particular scientist was falsified, but the data he cited to create the curve (even though he didn't use it it all) is still accurate. Just because the scientist who discovered the fossils of the so-called "Java Man" falsified the evidence to make it appear human doesn't mean that he never found any fossils at all, now does it? And as for the speed of light ceasing its decay, try measuring with an orbital clock. If atomic vibration is slowing at the same rate as c, then of course you wouldn't measure any change since the 1960's. That's when people started using atomic clocks.
Ah, the English peppered moth. That's the name I was looking for. You have no evidence that it was a mutation that caused the change in color. To say that it is a mutation, you have to assume that all traits came from mutation, which would be Evolution. That would be reasoning in a circle. With the bacteria, there's no way to know that the gene for the immunity wasn't present in the original bacterium, and that the only change was that it became dominant. The nylon bacteria: can't proove that the substance doesn't exist in nature (universal negative), and can't proove that the enzyme to break it down doesn't serve some other purpose. Sickle-cell: No evidence it's a mutation. Lactose tolerance: same deal. Artheriosclerosis: Yet again, no evidence. HIV: Can you guess what I'm gonna say here?
All of this is based on the assumption that the gene is/was created by a mutation, when there are obvious other possibilities. That's not basing conclusions on observational evidence.
That other site is laughable. My response:
Long-period comets still don't explain why there are still comets. There is no known method of replenishment, there's no evidence of this "Oort cloud", and even if a comet has a period of a million years, it still couldn't possibly last more than 100 million.
My moon dust argument still works. Just because one scientist used flawed methods doesn't mean that the conclusion he reached was incorrect.
Look, any evidence you supposedly have, you have to assume that it supports Evolution. I have yet to see any that can be taken only in that way. The only way you can proove that Evolution is possible is by reproducing the process.
The links on that site are even funnier. I still say that there is no evidence that anything stated in the Bible did not happen, and that there are no contradictions. But we tried starting a thread on that, and nobody was interested in it, so...
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
"Just because the first scientist to believe that the Moon should be covered with a thick layer of dust made incorrect assumptions, overexagerrated his data, and was thusly proven wrong, that doesn't mean that it isn't true."
"just because the whole data set for the shrinking value of C is either flawed, unreliable, or ignored in his calculations, doesn't mean he's wrong."
It's the old " because you can't disprove it, it must be true" fallacy in reverse.
Heh. I have a teriffic bargain for you. Just pay cash, and in small bills.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
Falsified data on Java Man? That old lie? (I wonder when it'll begin to sink in that the guy who wrote your source of info is a bit free and loose with his quoting, sources, and factual data...)
The truth is here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html
As for the Oort cloud.. I don't know how much evidence you could possibly need, since we've found the Kuiper belt and at my last count at least 60 Kuiper belt objects, and the Kuiper belt was essentially the inner part of the Oort cloud.
We've also seen what are essentially Oort clouds around other stars, thanks to Mr. Hubble.
Oh, and if "atomic vibration" were slowing down - your own unproven assertion, btw - since atomic vibration is indicative of heat and changes in matter, I could see this wreaking havoc on a whole lot of things, not least of which is ionic and covalent bonds, and the tendency of matter to stay in one shape and solids not to suddenly evaporate.
Oh, btw and totally unconnected, that old saw about glass flowing like a liquid, and that's why old buildings' windows are thinner on top? It's wrong, too.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited September 02, 1999).]
One feels compelled to point out that Dubois did not support Darwinian Evolution, but instead supported his own theory, which is apparently rediculously complex. The only evidence of a "Java Man" was a skull cap (well, and a femur which was 39' away, but that was decided to be from a gibbon). Dubois also discovered fragments of an apparent human jaw, which he hid, in order to protect his theory. There are also charges that he hid obviously human skulls, 60 miles away from the site, but they are less convincing. You can't decide that an animal was bipedal from a skull cap. There were other fragments found in other locations, but there is no evidence that they're even connected, or, if they are, there's not enough evidence to draw a solid conclusion. And Homo Erectus wasn't any sort of missing link either. Look up "Homo Erectus Never Existed?", Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11. And, as the skull of the skeleton of the supposed Homo Erectus is almost identical to that of "Java man", it would make sense that they may be the same species.
Don't judge a book by it's cover. Buy the thing, or check it out at your local library. I've mentioned the name a couple times. Just dig for it.
Ah, ah, ah. What you ASSUME are Oort clouds. What can you REALLY see? Tell me when you can zoom in close enough to see the individual comets. Or even when you can do so in OUR supposed Oort cloud. Check "The Nonexistance of the Oort Cometary Shell", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, Dec. 1974, pp. 385-301. The reason it is believed to exist was a mathematical error. Well, that and the fact that it's the only way to preserve the idea that the system is gigayears old. Also see "Halley's Comet is Quite Young", Nature, Vol. 339, 11 May 1989, p. 95. As for the Kuiper Belt, ooh, 60 comets orbiting our star. You'd need thousands more than that to account for and Oort cloud.
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
But everyone was born you say. It's a simple fact. Walk into a maternity ward sometime.
Oh, I don't dispute that babies tend to congregate at such places. But I've never witnessed one of these so-called "births". Most damningly, I can't remember it ever happening to me. You'd think I would remember such a tramatic and life-changing event, wouldn't you? And yet, nothing. Not a trace of it, not an inkling.
Various misguided souls have tried to prove my birth to me, but I've handily refuted them every time.
1.) The hospital where this alleged birth took place doesn't even exist. You can travel to the town of Sunnyside and look for the hospital. You won't find it. Over the years, people have come up with complex theories as to why it isn't there anymore, such as "it was torn down". But what proof do they have? Absolutely none. Surely, if the hospital where I was born doesn't exist, I couldn't have been born, could I?
2.) The pictures that exist of me as one of these babies are obviously either falsely classified or hoaxed. Again, why can't I remember ever taking any of them? And isn't it nice that none of these pictures are from that mythical hospital? (Some have used the fact that my father has more hair in these pictures to suggest it had to occur at a certain point in time, but the catastrophism theory of hairloss fits all the facts better.)
3.) This birth certificate claims to include both feet and handprints of mine. But just look at them, and look at my shoes. Can you conceive of a point in time when my feet were ever that small? I certainly can't, and who would know better than I?
4.) The entire birth concept is against my belief system. Have you ever heard one of these "doctors" describe it? Disgusting! And clearly a physical impossibility.
------------------
"Something I can't comprehend. Something so complex and couched in its equation. So dense that light cannot escape from."
--
Soul Coughing
Assuming the universe was created all that is, was and is yet to be sprang into existance at the same moment, and it is through our perception of time that we see events. They can't actually happen in order, or they would be unfolding, or evolving. Right? *Gasp*
------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net
"The data set for the shrinking value of C is not flawed or unreliable. It WAS, however, completely ignored in the mans calculations. Someone could still take the existing data and make the correct calculations."
Except that it IS unreliable, given that the measurements were taken using different techniques, (they couldn't measure atomic fluctuation in the 18th or 19th or early 20th centuries, so they used other methods to guess the speed of light), and the disparity of the data is probably caused by changes and refinements in measuring techniques (and a paltry 2 measurements using the same techniques do NOT a reliable data set make.)
As for Dubois.. the article clearly states that he though the fossil was some sort of supergibbon.
As for the Oort cloud, comets, etc... I se again that NONE of your sourcedocuments were published within the last 10 years... wonder why? The Kuiper belt was confirmed SINCE then. Again, the use of outdated and obsolete data HURTS your case, rather than strengthening it. Get with the times.
Granted, that we don't have photos of the Oort Cloud or the Hills Cloud. Comets less than 40 miles in diameter would simply not show up even in the best telescopes at those distances. The fact that these comet clouds are "theoretical" does not mean that
they are based on wild guesswork and groundless speculation. Computer simulation, as already mentioned, matches the short-period comets to the
Kuiper Belt. Similar studies of long-period comets, even from the 1950s, pointed to their origin in the Oort Cloud. All in all, a great deal of computer work has been done in supporting and refining the above models. The astronomical community treats them, at the very least, as excellent working hypotheses.
Benningfield (1990, p.32) lists some interesting evidence which suggests that vast comet clouds exist around other stars, and which is the most reasonable explanation for the images returned by the Hubble, but we shall not pursue the matter further. The point has already been made. The creationist must prove that there are no reasonable sources for comet replenishment.
The reason we've only found 60 or so KB objects is due to numerous reasons, primarily:
1) They're small, not very bright, and very far away.
2) We haven't been looking very long.
3) We haven't been looking very hard.
Oh, and since you obviously misread or ignored my last post about comet periods entirely... Comet West's orbital period has been calculated at 500,000 years. This means, my friend, if it's gone around more than once before it was discovered, it HAS to be older than a million years, and then obviously the solar system must also be older. If it's on its last legs (using the data you proposed that a comet can last only a 100 or so trips, which is dubious data at best, taken from small samples and once again using OLD sources), then West (and the Sol system) must be at least 50,000,000 years old. (or was it 1000 trips, making the Sol System 500,000,000?) You see, the most fatal flaw in the short-lived comet theory is that it only really talks about short-period comets, (Halley, or Encke, for example) which were once long-period comets, but were nudged into their present orbits by gravitational interaction with, most likely, the Jovian planets.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited September 03, 1999).]
cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/lists/TNOs.html
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited September 03, 1999).]
Well, you have to admit that what you say is possible, being that you are a robot, or some other such construction, and thus never grow. The probability is extremely slim, though. You can not proove otherwise without having an autopsy performed on your body, at which point you will be dead, so it would defeat the purpose. If someone hypnotized you, or in some other way helped you retrieve the memory of being born, then you could just say that the memory was planted. You could also witness a birth yourself. You can deny the evidence all you want (pictures, certificates, etc.), but when it comes down to it, you have to accept that which is most probable (well, not HAVE to, but probably should). This is irrelevant to my case, however, as I have yet to see any evidence that shows that Evolution (as defined by Darwin) did, or even could have, happened that's anywhere near as conclusive as certificates or pictures mentioned. It's all based on assumptions that what you find can ONLY be explained by Evolution. Whereas you have much evidence against you, that can only be explained away as a huge conspiracy, I have very little evidence against me, which can be explained as misinterpretation.
Daryus:
If I understand you correctly, you're using yet another definition of evolution, this one being "the change from one state to another". That's not the Evolution we're arguing about.
1of2:
Well, then it comes down to which one of us is using the correct method to proove something. And I AM using old data. Gathered over two or three centuries. And no, I don't accept the answer you offer, as I don't believe YOU have the correct answer to give.
As for the methods used to measure c, margin of error was accounted for in the recent calculations.
"and a paltry 2 measurements using the same techniques do NOT a reliable data set make."
If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data points, eh? So how about seven sets of two? I say again, the same scientist using the exact same equipment a couple of decades later got a decrease in results greater than experimental error could possibly account for IN SEVEN SEPERATE CASES. Explaination?
Well, another species of ape, then. As I said, he still hid fossils to protect his theory. I believe that's what started this particular argument over Java man.
Well, if my data's obsolite, why don't you post a more recent document disprooving it? Might work better than your just claiming the data's wrong, simply because it's old. Sometimes the data doesn't change, even over decades. Look at Piltdown Man. That had EVERYONE fooled for 40 years. Archie has for 125! A paper written in 1929 about how Archie was a fake still stands six decades later.
And yet you still assume that it's there, with no evidence? Aren't you jumping the gun just a bit? Planets' gravitational fields would tend to expel comets from the system, anyway.
Actually, I didn't see that edited post. What I do is I get online, load the page with the posts on it, load the response page in a seperate window, then get offline to write my response. I then get back on to post my message, and go somewhere else, without hitting reload to see if anyone has posted in the interim. When I first got the message page, you hadn't edited your message yet. I wouldn't even have noticed it if you hadn't pointed it out. The comet you mentioned would have to last 10,000 trips to make the system the age you say it is, and typical comets are destroyed after only several hundred.
And I did post evidence that atomic clocks are slowing, and thus vibrations as well. Here it is again:
By atomic clocks, the orbital speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are increasing, and thus the gravitational constant should be changing. No study has shown any variation in it. This would also defy the law of energy conservation, as energy increases and all other orbital parameters remain the same.
Also, if atomic frequency is decreasing, then five properties of an atom (e.g. Plank's Constant) should be decreasing. Statistical studies of past measuremente of at least four of these show a change of the proper direction and magnitude.
It would also bring radiometric dating methods in line with other methods, and explain why no isotopes have half-lives of greater than 50 million years.
You may be confusing the vibration caused by radioactive decay (as used in atomic clocks) with molecular vibration caused by temperature. And even if they are the same, things would tend to solidify, not evaporate.
The decrease in c could also explain redshift. The redshifts of galaxies tend to differ by fixed amounts. This would indicate that galaxies can only travel at specific speeds (similar to electrons in an atom only being able to exist at specific energy levels). That really doesn't make much sense, unless redshift is not, in fact, caused by speed, but by the decrease of c. This theory would predict that the redshifts of certain distant galaxies will undergo abrupt decreases. If galaxies are not, in fact, moving away from us, then the big bang will fall (with a big bang). A decrease in c would also mean that binaries in distant galaxies should appear to orbit in slow motion.
I give up. Why IS old glass thinner at the top?
------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."
- Zaphod Beeblebrox,
`The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
False. Typical SHORT-PERIOD comets are destroyed after several hundred (assuming the depletion rate is constant and your depletion data is accurate, neither of which are confirmed), since they are closer to the sun more often, and are moving fairly slowly, as well as interacting closely with the larger planets, because they're inside the planets' orbits for so long. Typical LONG-PERIOD comets have a far slower rate of erosion, since their exposure to the destructive elements of the inner solar system is far less.
The reason the comets in the Oort cloud aren't ejected is because they're out of the range of most planetary gravitational attraction. at about 1.5 ly, isn't much to nudge them, except a tug from an occasional passing star.
Comet Life
1. Oort cloud (for ?? orbits)
2. *Nudge*
3. Kuiper Belt (for ?? orbits)
4. *Nudge*
5. Long-period comet (for 1-10,000 or more orbits)
6. *Nudge by Jupiter or other Jovian
7. Short-period comet (100's of orbits, depending on size and composition.
8. Collision, capture, ejection (into long-period again), or burnout.
And then, of course, one must remember that "old comets don't die, they just fade away" and become meteors and/or remnants, because the STONE bits aren't likely to be fizzled away by the sun's heat.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
).Still, one thing:
"As for hybrids, you may as well say that a dog that was half St. Bernard and half Chiwawa was a new species. It's possible that the two are capable of reproducing, but only under unusual circumstances. Or it's possible that they're the same species, just with very different appearances.."
You were joking here weren't you? I'm just not getting this point. Are you claiming that different breads of dogs are different species? Cause I thought that hybrids had to be different species, and since SB's and Chiwawa's ARE the same species, then that's hardly a new species. A child born of a black and white parents wouldn't be a hybrid, or a new species. An ass on the other hand...is.
"Sickle-cell: No evidence it's a mutation. "
Okay, what other explanation is there? Your other arguments about mutation revolve around the fact that the gene would have existed originally. So, what changed with the colour of the moth then? Did it always have the ability to change colour? And when the industrial revolution hit did the moths suddenly go 'hey ho, trees getting dark, better activate my "make my colour black" gene so that I don't stick out as much.' Or was there a variation produced by chance that caused a moth to be born melanic, which was then passed onto succeeding generations, as their new colour allowed them to surive better, so they reproduced more successfully, and gradually replaced the original peppered coloured moth? Right, that makes sense. That is called 'disruptive selection'. Selection as in "natural selection". As in "evolution".
Since it has been proved that these are the same species (they can interbreed with no trouble), then what is your explanation? Do we all have latent genes that can get activated by environmental pressures? Do our genes store information for thousands of different possible designs for every possible environmental outcome?
BTW, all genes appear to mutate naturally at a constant rate. In animals typically one or two mutations for each 100,000 genes in each generation. Certain agents increase this natural rate: high-energy radiation (X-rays, ultraviolet light, alpha and beta particles and neutrons) and certain chemicals(formaldehyde, mustard gas). And nearly all are harmless. Some are harmful. And a very small number are useful. Of course, under 'natural selection', you wouldn't notice the harmless ones, the harmful ones would not survive for very long (talking in generations here. Sickle cell is an unusualy case due to it's hepl preventing maleria), and the useful ones would allow the animal to mate more successfully that it's competition, and should take hold.
Talking in millions of years, that's a very few actualy useful evolutions that have to take place to produce the effects we've seen.
------------------
"Ray...the next time someone asks you if you're a god you say 'Yes!'"
-Winston Zeddmore
Just one of those little everyday things that happen to lend credence to the idea of all life descending from common ancestors.
At any rate, the way I see it, we have two options. One, that science really does indicate that life evolves, and religion will have to adapt accordingly. Or two, that almost every scientist in the world is an evil satan-worshipping fiend (possibly a Freemason) and is involved in a mind bogglingly complex conspiricy to discredit Christianity. Seeing as how many scientists are Christian themselves, and still do not see any problem with the concept that life has been around for billions of years, the first concept seems much more likely.
Now, I've got a counterproposal. Is there any evidence in favor of creation? This question cannot be answered by arguing with evolutionary theory. I want a piece of evidence that stands on its own saying that creation is the only viable explanation for its existance.
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
I've just edited this post. The full response is below.
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited September 04, 1999).]
1of2:
"Typical SHORT-PERIOD comets are destroyed after several hundred [orbits]..."
Well, the orbital period wouldn't make any difference as far as lost material would go. The factors would be distance from and time spent near the sun, and time near the sun would depend on speed. Speed can't be that different, or they'd fall or fly out of orbit, so that leaves distance. A long period comet would have to loose far less than 20% of the material that a short period does per orbit to maintain a 4.6 gigayear age. And you still have no evidence of the thousands upon thousands of comets that would have to exist in this Oort cloud.
Liam:
Thanks, and you're right. He can be loud.
My point was that the two plant species mentioned could just be the same species with such differing physical characteristics that it's difficult for them to reproduce.
"Okay, what other explanation is there [for sickle cell]?"
Well, maybe that the gene was created along with all the rest when God created Adam and Eve?
"So, what changed with the colour of the moth then?"
Nothing. There have always been black and white pepper moths. It's just that only one flourishes an any given time.
"...and the useful ones would allow the animal to mate more successfully that it's competition, and should take hold."
Only under the unusual circumstance that the gene helped the carrier survive in its immediate conditions better than its competition.
"Talking in millions of years, that's a very few actualy useful evolutions that have to take place to produce the effects we've seen."
YOU HAVE SEEN NOTHING!!!!! You ASSUME that what you have seen HAS TO MEAN that your theory is correct, and that's not scientific.
*deep breath*
OK. I'm better now. And it would take millions of useful mutations before you would have two significantly different species, and that would take far longer than millions or even billions, even at rates faster than you state.
Sol:
"At any rate, the way I see it, we have two options. One, that science really does indicate that life evolves, and religion will have to adapt accordingly. Or two, that almost every scientist in the world is an evil satan-worshipping fiend (possibly a Freemason) and is involved in a mind bogglingly complex conspiricy to
discredit Christianity."
And yet you completely ignore the possibility that almost every scientist in the world just might be WRONG? Almost everyone on Earth used to think the world was flat, you know.
"I want a piece of evidence that stands on its own saying that creation is the only viable explanation for its existance."
All I have to do is show that Evolution is impossible (well, unless you have a better theory of how life could appear by chance). You know my logic by now, and if there are any holes in my reasoning, say so.
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
No, I am not attacking you based on your religious beliefs. But your either/or premise highlights a very flawed understanding of the concepts which underlay logical thought.
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
*shrug*
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
1: The universe either does or does not exist.
I presume that everyone will agree that the universe exists.
2: The universe either did or did not have a beginning.
Any problems here?
2a: If the universe did not have a beginning, then the steady-state theory would be correct.
Anyone argue this point?
2b: If the universe did have a beginning, then it must have come about either by random chance or by intelligent design.
Again, any other ideas?
Conclusion: The final three alternatives are Steady-State, random chance, or intelligent design. If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbible, must be the truth. Thus, by showing any two of these alternatives to be impossible, the third has been logically prooven.
Does anyone reading this believe in Steady-State? I'd like to know if it's been generally accepted as being disprooven, or if I need to argue against it as well.
So, Sol, no, you didn't. Unless you can present a third alternative at any of my logical junctions (which you have not done), my logic appears to be valid.
Unless, of course, you choose to believe that the universe doesn't exist. That I can't do anything about. : )
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
First of all your "tree" is an arbitrary construction that has no bearing on this argument whatsoever. Guess what evolution says? It says that present species have developed from earlier ones. Guess where it says that this happened by random chance in a godless universe? Give up? Nowhere! Evolution isn't about whys, it's about hows. You aren't debating real evolution, you're debating the false effigy set up by many creationists.
You want some alternative theories? Fine, here's a bunch.
1.) Time flows backwards. There is no origin of the universe because such an origin hasn't really occured yet.
2.) The universe was formed from a great glob of putty spat out by the Great Greeblefinch of Oldua, a timeless entity. It was then formed by nanites working in chaotic but predictable patterns.
3.) The universe was created by time travelers from the the future, thereby creating a closed causality loop.
4.) The universe exists as a wave function of created/uncreated/other, and only takes form from moment to moment as observed by various independant sentient units.
5.) The universe is an independant sentient unit with a definite beginning and end, and we are merely products of its thought processes. We think the universe is all there is because the universe is not telepathic and the thoughts of other universes cannot affect us.
6.) The universe was created by a group of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons players, and so while our class was predetermined (Universe, chaotic good.), our attributes were decided by the role of the cosmic dice. (Dexterity 20,038,438, Charisma 12,739,939, if you're interested.)
7.) The universe is not a universe at all, but a naughty, naughty boy! He's been scribbling on the walls again, and the walls are us.
That's seven alternate universe scenerios for you.
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
Although you are quite correct. I am off the subject. I don't think anyone here has challenged the existance of God, prooving such being the entire purpose of the tree, thus making it a complete waste of time. I seem to forget that everyone here seem to be theistic evolutionists. I was arguing with someone who wasn't even here. Even though the logic works for prooving the existance of God by disprooving RC and S-S, it still can't extend to prooving theistic evolution incorrect. So if everyone acknowledges the existance of God, it would follow that we should determine in what manner God created the universe (spontaneous or pseudo-RC), not whether He did. My profuse apologies for dragging us so far off topic.
And you have yet to poke a hole in my logic. I was being general. You're being specific.
Just for fun, I'm going to respond to your taunting:
1) If time flowed backwards, the end would be the beginning, and as the end would have already occured, and thus the beginning.
2) That would still constitute a beginning, and an intelligent design, at that.
3) First, I don't recognize the existance of causal loops, and second, the universe would still have a beginning in intelligent design, or, from an external POV, no beginning, thus steady-state variant.
4) So would that mean that Baloo's cat used to belong to Schrodenger? You'd be talking about a single moment in time (that of creation). A wave would require time to change states.
5) If your only reality is an illusion, the illusion is reality, to quote a certain VR clown. That would determine the nature of the universe, not the origin.
6) I've never touched AD&D. I don't suppose you could tell me more about it?
7) Well, in this case, when the boy started scribbling, it would constitute the beginning of the universe.
I don't suppose anyone would be interested in going back to the intended subject of this debate: that of Creation vs. Evolution? I believe that the best way to go about that would be (once again) to debate the age of the universe. By showing the universe to be young, one could show that Evolution had no time to take place. By showing the universe to be old, one could deflate a good number of Creationists arguements against Evolution. How about someone presenting evidence in favor of an extremely old age? Nobody's done that yet.
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
You asked for alternate scenerios, I gave you some. That wasn't taunting. It WAS supposed to have a humorous bent, because I like to think that all human beings, despite their differences, can at least laugh together.
Anyway, I don't need to point out a flaw in your logic because you aren't using logic. Or, to put it differently, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can quote Holmes all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the universe does not conform to either/or hypothesizing, and you cannot prove one thing by disproving another. That's why one cannot disprove the existance of God, even though I could say "If God exists, he will stop this penny from falling" and then watch it fall, and claim that to be evidence of God's nonexistance. (I just tried, by the way. Everything's status quo.)
Now, since I lack good sense, I'll continue.
1.) The end cannot be the beginning. You're assuming that a reversal of time merely makes the end the beginning and the beginning the end. How...four dimensional.
2.) Not really. The putty came from an intelligent being, but it was formed by the random acts of tiny machines, which were not programmed for any specific goal.
3.) You don't recognize the existance? Why not? It's a logical result of time travel, and there's no real reason such a thing is impossible.
4.) Eh? Why are you assigning time to what would be a timeless event? Not to mention a continuing one.
5.) I didn't say it was an illusion. I said it was a creation of an entity's thoughts. As such, it is subject to change without our realization that anything had changed.
6.) My point is, in such an instance that which is being created is done so by a mixture of totally random events and guidance.
7.) When did I say the universe didn't have a beginning? I merely said that it was the product of scribbles. Does that constitute random chance or intelligent design? From what I know of young boys, it's a mixture of both.
And once again, the age of the universe is meaningless to this debate. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Evolution simply says that current lifeforms developed from previous lifeforms.
Furthermore, you constantly state that there is not one iota of evidence in favor of evolution. However, that requires that every scientist on Earth be a barely functioning imbecile. One or two or ten or even a hundred I can see. But all of them? Using techniques that are purposely designed to seperate the truth from personal bias?
It seems to me that you've already done a good job of presenting mountains of evidence in favor of evolution. (And of an old universe, the Big Bang, etc.) Why? Because if there was none, you would be presenting to us all the evidence in favor of creation. Unfortunately there is none. Instead, you merely point out percieved errors, that in many cases are not errors at all, within the structure of scientific knowledge. There's nothing inheriently wrong with that, it's what scientists do all the time. It's called peer review. But you present nothing which favors your own point of view. You just can't argue like that.
Now, in your favor, I'll make you an offer. If you want to disprove evolution, I know exactly how to do it. Show me a scientificly documented reason why the processes that seperate populations on the genetic level should automaticly stop before creating a new species. That's the basis of evolution right there. Show me that process, and you will put serious doubts into my mind as to the viability of evolution. That's all that's required. That's the heart of the matter.
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited September 06, 1999).]
I'm reminded of a story (probably apocraphal), I once heard. A student goes to see his tutor and asks "How can I choose between a number of competing theories?". The professor thinks for a while and says "Suppose I give you a choice of two clocks. One of them is completely broken, the other works although it tends to loose a few minutes each day. Which is the better timepiece". The student replies "I would choose the working clock". "Think again" says the professor, "that clock will never be correct but at least the broken clock is right twice a day".
"But what use is that to me?" says the student, "Yes it will be correct twice a day but I can't tell when that is, at least with the inaccurate clock I will have a rough idea of the time." "Very good", said the professor, "now you know what to look for in a good scientific theory. It may not be perfectly accurate and will need modification in the future but even a flawed theory is better than one which has no predictive abilities whatsover".
Get the point? A good theory should predict phenomena that can be tested for. If the phenomena don't appear then the theory is weakened-not necessarily disproved. The Steady-State theory of the Universe has not been disproven, however only the Big-Bang theory predicted the existance of the microwave background radiation which Steady State did not. When that was discovered it gave a strong boost to those who favoured the Big Bang explanation.
Now on this basis the Theory of Evolution makes a number of predictions that should be testable; that genetic mutations should be directly observable, large scale evolution should be observable and transitional fossils should exist. A large number of transitional fossils have been uncovered, Archaeopterix being the most famous but by no means unique. If any of these are genuine then it's a strong boost for evolution. Anybody have any arguements that spontaneous genetic mutation doesn't occur? I remember reading somewhere that each one of us has on average three mutated genes. But considering that there is considerable redundency in our genome in most cases they make no difference, (although the immunity to atherosclerosis in a small community near Milan due to a chance mutation in a gene in one of their ancestors is an interesting exception). Observing new species being created by evolution is tougher. However the theory predicts that the rate would be very slow so we don't really expect to see much anyway.
OK lets invert the situation, can creationism do better? i.e can it uniquely predict phenomena that can be tested for? If not then it can't be considered as a good scientific theory.
The best way to undermine evolution is indeed to demonstrate that the universe (or only the earth) is very young (say less than a billion years). Creationist naturally try to do just this and have come up with some interesting points in their defence but nothing that can't also be explained (to some degree, maybe not perfectly but that was my point of the little story above) by conventional theories.
Omega
Did you really mean to say that no isotopes have half lives of more than 50 million years? U-238's is 4.47 billion years while Rubidium-87 has a half-life of about 49 billion years.
About 10,000 postings (or so it seems) ago you queried the term 'strawman'. I don't know if you ever got an explanation but just in case; a strawman arguement is one that doesn't stand up to inspection or one that is irrelevent to the arguement. A example would be the old story that even Darwin didn't really believe evolution because he recanted on his deathbed. Other than the fact that this is simply not true, it's a strawman arguement because it doesn't matter what Darwin may or may not have thought at the end, the theory still exists and is just as sound.
'Nothing. There have always been black and white pepper moths. It's just that only one flourishes an any given time.'"
Actually, they are both thriving at the moment, depending on where in the country they are(picky, I know. Sorry).
The black version of the peppered moth wasn't around before the industrial revolution. When it first appeared, it was believed to have been a new species. Only (comparitevly) recently have they discovered that they can reproduce, and so are the same species.Okay, what other explanation is there [for sickle cell]?"
"Well, maybe that the gene was created along with all the rest when God created Adam and Eve?"
Okay, following your argument, why would God have made the gene to only be dominant in black people?
"'...and the useful ones would allow the animal to mate more successfully that it's competition, and should take hold.'
'Only under the unusual circumstance that the gene helped the carrier survive in its immediate conditions better than its competition.'"
You're right. The circumstances are unusualy. But since most evidence (shouted by Sol and 1of2 throughout this giant hoar of a thread) counts towards animal life on Earth being slightly longer than 10,000 years, then you do only need a very small number of beneficial mutations. If is was common, we'd get new species cropping up left, right and centre.
"YOU HAVE SEEN NOTHING!!!!! You ASSUME that what you have seen HAS TO MEAN that your theory is correct, and that's not scientific."
5 exclamation marks is bad English. Still, you assume that because you haven't seen it, then the theory is wrong. And that's not scientific.
And finally, long quote:
SOL:"At any rate, the way I see it, we have two options. One, that science really does indicate that life evolves, and religion will have to adapt accordingly. Or two, that almost every scientist in the world is an evil satan-worshipping fiend (possibly a Freemason) and is involved in a mind bogglingly complex conspiricy to
discredit Christianity."
OMEGA:And yet you completely ignore the possibility that almost every scientist in the world just might be WRONG? Almost everyone on Earth used to think the world was flat, you know.
And why did they believe that it was flat? Because the church told them so.
The difference in the two POV's is that scientists are forever searching for new answers, to strengthen old theories, or disprove them. In the cae of the flat Earth, the church new it was flat, told everyone, and that was that. They were not constantly searching for evidene that is wasn't flat. They weren't searching for evidence that is was flat. They just new. The two situations are completly different.
------------------
"Ray...the next time someone asks you if you're a god you say 'Yes!'"
-Winston Zeddmore
You're right. They were funny. And you have pointed out a third alternative: That the universe was created by an intelligent being, but that its form was determined by random chance. Thus we have another possibility. But this would go along the same lines as pure RC, as if you can show that the universe in its present form could not exist by RC, then both would be shown wrong.
"Now, since I lack good sense, I'll continue."
As shall I, and for the same reason.
1) Even if time did flow backwards, backwards relative to what? And if the beginning hadn't occured yet, then nothing in the past would have, and then why would we remember the past, but not the future?
2) Here's where that third possibility comes in.
3) It just makes no sense. I can not be responsible for my own existance.
4) You assigned time to it. Once a point in a wave is observed, it's attributes are fixed. We've already passed that moment in time, so it would be considered to be observed, thus it's attributes are fixed.
5) The analogy holds. It doesn't really matter about the nature of the universe from an external point of view. What matters is its nature from our POV, and for the purposes of this discussion, its origin.
6) Again, third possibility.
7) And yet again...
"And once again, the age of the universe is meaningless to this debate. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Evolution simply says that current lifeforms developed from previous lifeforms."
I don't recall anyone presenting a theory of how this could have occured in less than billions of years. If someone has a theory of how it could, let me know.
"Furthermore, you constantly state that there is not one iota of evidence in favor of evolution. However, that requires that every scientist on Earth be a barely functioning imbecile."
Not nesecarily. It just requires that they do not accept the evidence presented, or that they are never exposed to it. We both think the other is wrong, but I don't think either of us thinks of the other as a barely functioning imbecile.
"Why? Because if there was none, you would be presenting to us all the evidence in favor of creation."
Here you are commiting the falacy you accuse me of. Absense of evidence in a case that can have no evidence in any case does not constitute evidence it its oposition's favor. If you present evidence in favor of evolution, it would be evidence against creation (whatever remains...). Evidence against Evolution would be for Creation. But absense of evidence in one case can not be construed to be evidence against it.
"You just can't argue like that."
By disprooving all other posibilities, you can proove your own belief, regardless of how much or little evidence you have in your favor.
"Show me a scientificly documented reason why the processes that seperate populations on the genetic level should automaticly stop before creating a new species."
First, Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis. Life can not arise from non-living matter. Second, the definition of a species requires that the individual specimines can reproduce with each other, and only with other species in rare circumstances. So, if you take one small group of people, you say that eventually their reproductive systems will become incompatible with other humans, due to mutations. But herein lies the problem. If one person has a mutated gene that makes it incapable of reproducing with other humans, it won't be able to pass that gene along unless another of the opposite sex with the exact same mutation could be found, the chances of which are incredibly slim. Thus the mutation would die out as soon as it occured.
JEM:
"...no locked thread (at least not yet!)."
I've been worried about this, myself. What is required before a thread is locked?
"A large number of transitional fossils have been uncovered"
Really? Please, enlighten me.
"although the immunity to atherosclerosis in a small community near Milan due to a chance mutation in a gene in one of their ancestors is an interesting exception"
Again, you have no evidence that a mutation caused the immunity. You assume it was a mutation, when there are other possibilites that are equally viable.
"Did you really mean to say that no isotopes have half lives of more than 50 million years?"
I believe I said primordial isotopes, although I can't be sure without getting online to check previous pages, and I'm expecting a call right now, so...
Anyway, I can't find my source for that claim for some reason, so I withdraw the claim until I can find it.
Oh, and thanks for the info.
Liam:
"If they can't reproduce, then they're not the same species."
I didn't say "can't". I said "difficult for them to". A chiwawa and a St. Bernard find it difficult to reproduce, but they can. Just because two plants have radically different appearances doesn't make them different species. They may just have a physical problem reproducing instead of a genetic one.
"The black version of the peppered moth wasn't around before the industrial revolution."
I suppose you have evidence of this?
"Okay, following your argument, why would God have made the gene to only be dominant in black people?"
He didn't. He didn't make black people, either. Or white, for that matter. It's impossible to know what Adam and Eve looked like (although the Hebrew word for Adam is quite similar to the Hebrew word for "red", so some have theorized that he looked like native Americans). See the Adam and Eve thread for a discussion on the origin of human races.
"But since most evidence counts towards animal life on Earth being slightly longer than 10,000 years, then you do only need a very small number of beneficial mutations."
First, I have yet to see any evidence that the Earth itself is older than 10 or 20 millenia, much less life on Earth. Second, even if you assume that life has been around for the claimed 4.6 gigayears, you still have to have hundreds of thousands of mutations to change one species into another, and there are billions of different species on Earth. That's hundreds of trillions of mutations. At three per generation, you'd need a lot more than 4.6 billion years to explain how we ended up with all the species we have now. Of course, you could just extend the timeline yet again. For the past 130 years, the assumed "scientific" age of the universe has doubled every twenty years on average, and since 1900, has increased by a factor of 100.
"5 exclamation marks is bad English."
And writing most of your response in italics isn't? : )
"Still, you assume that because you haven't seen it, then the theory is wrong. And that's not scientific."
No, I don't. I BELIEVE (not assume) the theory is wrong because of the evidence against it. Assuming a theory is right with no evidence is not science, which was my point. You shouldn't assume that what you see is evidence in favor of your theories unless there are no other possibilities for it.
"And why did they believe that it was flat? Because the church told them so."
People thought the world was flat long before Christ, which is what I was refering to. The Catholic church (with whom I agree on almost nothing, by the way) kept people in ignorance for a long time, just because they didn't want to admit that they were not infallible. My point was that it IS possible for the majority of people to be wrong.
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
And sorry about the italics thing. i was trying to get the quote bits in italics. Damn HTML tags...
BTW, about not having seen any evidence that the earth is more that a few millenia old. I believe that Sol has swamped you with evidence. And has also discounted each and everyone one of your young Earth theories.
------------------
"Ray...the next time someone asks you if you're a god you say 'Yes!'"
-Winston Zeddmore
------------------
Frank's Home Page - free pencil with every visit!
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
What does that mean? It means that the idea that evolution is anathma to religion is false. Evolution makes no claims regarding the "first cause" of life. It's just a physical process. It is no more alien to religion then...fire. Or the water cycle. Or anything else. If the discovery that the Earth does not revolve around the sun didn't damage religion, I can't see why the discovery that life is a dynamic process should either.
(Of course, the Copernican turn DID damage religion, so far as religion as monolithic controller of all aspects of daily life is concerned. But I see few saying that that was a bad thing. Well, the Flat Earth people, but I'm surprised they can find their way out of bed in the morning without a roadmap and a team of Sherpas.)
I'd say more, but I have to go play StarCraft now and kill my friends for sport and profit.
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
Now why the hell would I do that This is just so much fun to watch.
(Besides, it keeps Sol busy, which is a good thing)
------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.
So, by that definition of Evolution, God could have created the universe in a manner exactly as stated in the Bible, but if He leaves it alone long enough, the species He created will become something else (assuming, of course, that Evolution actually works)? I've never heard of that before. It's interesting. Wouldn't contradict any religion I know of, either. Too bad we've been arguing about two different definitions of evolution this whole time. We might have made more progress.
"...life evolved from nonlife... ...That conclusion is borne out by other scientific findings."
Such as?
So should we start another thread on origins, or do we keep arguing that in here, too?
I would also point out that you did not refute my point on the same mutation in the reproductive system having to occur at the same time in two individuals of opposite sexes.
Tom:
We're breaking all the records, too. The thread is already two pages and fifty messages longer than any other I've seen.
What would constitute grounds for locking a thread? The debate turning into a shouting match, with me calling Sol an empty-headed animal food trough wiper, or something along those lines? : )
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
*runs away quickly*
ACK!
------------------
"If you will not have me as myself, Perhaps as someone else. Perhaps as you, I'll be worth noticing. Then even a eunuch won't resist, The power of one kiss, from such as me.
I'll be that girl: and you would be right over. If I were a field, you would be in clover. If I were the sun, you would be in shadow. If I had a gun, there'd be no tomorrow."
~ Barenaked Ladies
[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited September 07, 1999).]
And yeah, your locking examples are OK, I guess... as long as its entertaining, insult hurling mightn't even close this place.
------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.
Tom:
OK, first, why would they have any reason to believe that such substances as would be nesecary existed in the atmosphere of Earth? Second, assuming you meant that "bottle it up" literally, where would you get a container? Third, there are many different types of amino acid required for life, some of which are only produced at the command of DNA, which could not have existed before amino acids. Fourth, either amino acid or DNA can not exist in the presence of oxygen, I don't remember which. That would mean that there would have to have been no oxygen in the atmosphere. But if there was no oxygen, there would be no o-zone, and thus the life would be fried as soon as it was created.
And a single cell is a lot more than DNA, protiens, and carbs just mixed up. First, the DNA would have to contain all the information for metabolism and reproduction by random chance, and the probability of that would be along the lines of ten monkeys at ten typewriters typing the entire "Foundation" series, each with one book each. Second, you'd still have to figure out some way that the substances could organize themselves into JUST the right arangement. If it was that simple, scientists would be doing it all the time.
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw. The picture was of a scientist working with several test-tubes in a complex arrangement, saying "Just think: once I create life in this test-tube, I'll disproove that rediculous notion that intelligence was ever needed to do it in the first place!" : )
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
John Linnell, "Montana"
I find that quotation fitting. Actually, I just downloaded an MP3 of my absolute new favorite State Song, and have listened to it for...well, a long time.
Evolution DOES work. I wouldn't be arguing if it didn't. Species seperate into new species. The dialectic marches on. Observable.
"Too bad we've been arguing about two different definitions of evolution this whole time. We might have made more progress."
Excuse me for a moment. I need to scream and bother the neighbors.
Better. Now then, this simple little fact is something I've been trying to argue for, well, six pages now. Creationist arguments almost always use a "strawman" version of evolution. That is, it's essentially their own creation, stocked with lots of disagreeable things. Now, that doesn't mean these things aren't true. But it isn't at the heart of the issue.
"I would also point out that you did not refute my point on the same mutation in the reproductive system having to occur at the same time in two individuals of opposite sexes."
That's because I have no idea where it comes from. I assume you're familiar enough with genetics to understand the concept of recessive genes. Let's talk two parents, call them AA and Aa. Now, the a is the recessive gene for, oh, slighty more melanin, m'kay? These sorts of things creep into the genetic code all the time, because DNA cannot copy itself perfectly. So AA and Aa have a few kids, namely AA(2) and Aa(2). Aa(2) goes off and lives in the hills. While there, he meets a nice girl named Aa(3). Aa(3) is actually a distant relative of Aa(2). I don't know how, maybe a distaff cousin seven times removed. What have you. The two Aa's get together and have kids, namely a few more Aa's, an AA, AND...aa. The first child with slightly more melanin. And aa finds that this tiny advantage lets him go to warmer places.
Where's the problem? Genes propagate throughout populations, especially isolated populations (where a lot of evolution occurs), at a surprisingly rapid rate. Why? Well, because most things like sex. A lot. With lots of different things. Combining lots of different genes. Etc etc etc, badda bing, we've got intelligent reptile men.
"OK, first, why would they have any reason to believe that such substances as would be nesecary existed in the atmosphere of Earth?"
Because such conditions are found throughout the universe, and there is no reason to think the Earth is any different.
"Second, assuming you meant that 'bottle it up' literally, where would you get a container?"
A puddle would do nicely. Or, in the larger scope of things, how about a great big floating rock?
"Third, there are many different types of amino acid required for life, some of which are only produced at the command of DNA, which could not have existed before amino acids."
Modern life, and modern DNA. However, we aren't even talking about life as we know it, or even DNA. Just self-replicating molecules, which are "alive" perhaps in the sense that a virus is.
"Fourth, either amino acid or DNA can not exist in the presence of oxygen, I don't remember which. That would mean that there would have to have been no oxygen in the atmosphere."
Exactly. Oxygen doesn't like to be free. Luckily, oxygen is entirely unnecessary for life, especially exceedingly primitive and simple life. In fact, assuming that the deep samples we keep bringing up are representative of the planet as a whole, MOST life on Earth doesn't require oxygen.
"But if there was no oxygen, there would be no o-zone, and thus the life would be fried as soon as it was created."
Nope, no ozone at all. Curiously enough, most such lifeforms that I just mentioned can survive amazing amounts of radiation. How much? They put some bacteria into a radiation chamber and, well, fried it. The equivalent to spending millions of years out in space unprotected. The radiation tore the bacteria's genes all to hell. And you know what? The little buggers stitched their genes back together! They were absolutely fine, having survived where literally nothing should.
Also, this brings up an interesting side point. If we ever discover a planet with free oxygen in its atmosphere, odds are we'll have found life. Because there are only a few processes that produce free oxygen, and they're all rather rare. But life...well, life loves doing it, and keeps doing it, and thrives in the process.
And now, I've been waiting for this...the infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters argument. This goes back to the first point of my post, a misunderstanding of the processes which drive evolution. Evolution does not work by random chance. If it did, it wouldn't be science. Evolution does not randomly select genes. What it does do is keep what works and throws out what doesn't.
Let's say you want to type "tobeornottobe". If you do it randomly, it will take 26^13 trials. If, however, you do it as evolution works, by keeping the right letters and tossing out the bad ones, it takes only about 335 trials. (As demonstrated by a computer program written by Richard Hardison in 1988.) Since, by definiton, natural selection weeds out choices that don't work, sheer randomness is not a good complaint.
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
I once went by "Board Chaplain" here.
There are maybe 15 Christians on this board.
All of us (15) don't even agree on this subject.
I tried to minister to all these people, I still do a bit. When I am not supported on anything I turn to God and trust in His plan. Don't get hot over this, and don't let it bother you. Last time I checked my school did not offer a class on Internet Ministry!
------------------
It's all about the Pentiums, Baby!
"I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him Money for short
I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support"
[This message has been edited by bryce (edited September 07, 1999).]
------------------
"If you will not have me as myself, Perhaps as someone else. Perhaps as you, I'll be worth noticing. Then even a eunuch won't resist, The power of one kiss, from such as me.
I'll be that girl: and you would be right over. If I were a field, you would be in clover. If I were the sun, you would be in shadow. If I had a gun, there'd be no tomorrow."
~ Barenaked Ladies
------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants
note: SOME people. not all.
------------------
"If you will not have me as myself, Perhaps as someone else. Perhaps as you, I'll be worth noticing. Then even a eunuch won't resist, The power of one kiss, from such as me.
I'll be that girl: and you would be right over. If I were a field, you would be in clover. If I were the sun, you would be in shadow. If I had a gun, there'd be no tomorrow."
~ Barenaked Ladies
My school offers whatever classes I want. I homeschool. : )
------------------
"By all means, take the moral high ground -- all that heavenly backlighting makes you a much easier target."
- Solomon Short
"Alone, awesome, complete within herself, the Goddess, She whose name cannot be spoken, floated in the abyss of the outer darkness, before the beginning of all things. And as She looked into the curved mirror of black space, She saw by her own light her radiant reflection, and fell in love with it. She drew it forth by the power that was in Her and made love to Herself, and called Her "Miria, the Wonderful."
Their ecstasy burst forth in the single song of all that is, was, or ever shall be, and with the song came motion, waves that poured outward and became all the spheres and circles of the worlds. The Goddess became filled with love, swollen with love, and She gave birth to a rain of bright spirits that filled the worlds and became beings.
But in that great movement, Miria was swept away, and as She mobed out from the Goddess She became more masculine. First She became the Blue God, the gentle, laughing God of love. Then She became the Green One, vine-covered, rooted in the earth, the spirit of all growing things. At last She became the Horned God, the Hunter whose face is the ruddy sun and yet dark as Death. But always desire draws Him back to the Goddess, so that He circles Her eternally, seeking to return in love.
All began in love; all seeks to return in love, Love is the law, the teacher of wisdom, and the great revealer of mysteries."
Now.... I should also point out that this is one of MANY Wiccan creation myths. And are they all the exact truth? .... Prolly not.
I don't know the truth of how the world began. I wasn't there. And niether were any of you.
Yeah, I've been away for a few days, and missed all the good stuff. Sorry, couldn't be helped. Friend of mine was having serious problems, and she asked me for assistance.
**Word to the wise: Don't open doors you don't know how to close. Some of you will know what I'm talking about. The rest of you will think I'm babbling as usual. **
You know, the either/or concept is really especially silly, when you consider the thousands of creation myths held by the various religions around the world. Even arguing for the "truth of Creation" isn't a capable argument for the truth of your particular Story. And of course, there's always the option of "UNKNOWN MECHANISM." Something which is neither Creation nor Evolution as such, and has not yet been advanced.
(Incidentally, It was a Greek named Eratosthenes who is considered to be the first person to demonstrate that the Earth was spherical, roughly 2 centuries B.C. This knowledge spread, and was retained in some places even after the Christian Onslaught. Unfortunately, because Eratosthenes was a "pagan" according to the Church, what writings of his survived were either ignored, or more often, burned. -- As they did with the Library of Alexandria, the Mayan manuscripts, and anything else that stood in their way.)
I wish I had time to recap. Suffice it to say I feel that this thread and those like it are lost causes. Neither side will ever be able to convince the other. (well, that's not entirely accurate. Show a scientist compelling evidence which can only be explained by divine intervention, and you've got a shot at convincing him. Show a faithful person something which contradicts that faith, and you're most likely to end up with jihad.)
*Vorlonspeak* Itis a dying topic. We should let it pass.
------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.
The Magnificent Seventh shall be the last. It was a great record-breaking run, people...
*decommissions the thread*
------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.