Anything with PF in the background is good, even Mis South Carolina. 'Guess growing up with it helps.
My comment: I doubt Carl used "a" next to "insignificant" - it ruined the whole experience. One thumb up for PF, one thumb down for the author not using copy/paste. I rate this: Osam... South Africa.
Well, everything we see here is knowledge attained through the use of Satan's science, and is a lie according to the knowledgeable men of 200 AD, and so many religious groups today.
After all in 200 AD they were using some pretty sophisticated instrumentation themselves to probe the universe which stretched from the horizon to where they were standing at the time. They had Alcohol, Opium, and the reading of the internal organs of freshly slaughtered Sheep.
They truly were the wisest men that the world has ever produced, and thankfully they wrote down a great deal of their drug induced hallucinations in the good book, so that we can know that all science is bunk. This is why no one of a religious nature ever visits a hospital, or drives a car, or watches TV, or uses a computer, etc, where the demon sciences reigns supreme.
I wonder how I should code that algorithm? Oh wait, where is that goat?
pod...well spoken, as usual. off the mark, as not so usual. Not being a holy roller, but also believing in something afterward, I find no conflict with what Sagan has said. He was a brilliant interpreter of the awesomeness of our universe, being able to bring the busy, distracted, and perhaps not highly technical public, comprehensible views of the incomprehensible universe we inhabit. Yea Carl ! Yea us folks !
chaz - Well perhaps I'm a little oversensitive to this subject of science AS a new foundation for religion. I have been in the sciences all my life, and until about 10 years ago all I heard from religious groups was how I was joining with Satan in the sciences. It is difficult for me to forgive all of the murder and hatred that all discoverers, and enlightened men have undergone under the auspices of the religious mind throughout human history.
I hope this gets posted in the right place...long string here.
Pod....why you are even thinking of forgiving what has happened at other times in other circumstances is puzzling. You weren't there, and if you had been, you would have been the intelligentia of the time...not a thinker of today. It's not a "to forgive" deal. It's a critique of history...like monday morning quarterbacking.
Many have decried the killings in the name of this or that god. Early enlightened life was not that enlightened, and life was not valued at the same level as today in the US. Merely step into Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia...and so many other similarly inclined cultures, and you will find life hardly valued at all (not so, however, amongst the western enamored leadership or these areas).
It was what it was, and we all wish it were different...but those were "o tempus, o mores"...the times, and the customs....like we have now,but different. Can't get there from here, is my thought...different life, then.
For me, there is no barrier between Darwin and intelligent design...it's a matter of semantics. And Darwin provides the physical evidence...the rest is faith, for those who can't explain why the Big Bang happened,and what existed just before then.
This is not unlike past times...it is is not an issue of "to forgive", but of being able to see things through the spectacles of those who live at that time. They weren't like US folks then...they were like Sunni's, Shia's, today. Not good....passionate, but not good...but they didn't know it (as the warring islamics of today).
Chaz - Can you see that 'intelligent design' could be as offensive to a scientific mind as 'evolution' is to the 'religious' mind? And the past of religious behavior is closely linked to present behavior as you have stated. It is of concern to those of us who will face crucifixion when the faithful reach the next pinnacle of their desires.
Beliefs drive actions.
The beliefs are unchanged, so why should there be any change in actions?
I really haven't adopted the term "intelligent design" because it is sort of new on the discussion platform...but it seems to be the go-to term that denotes a belief in something before the big bang...and so there I am, believing in something before the so-called spontaneous creation of all life. Spontaneous...yeah....right. An instant of nothingness followed by the collision of...or the production of...well, something...a bunch of rocks colliding and later a rock grows leaves, then gills, then feathers, then...oh well.....sorry...it just doesn't work for me scientifically or logically.
I am not offended by your notions...I simply believe we end up at a common finality. You should not be offended by my notions...yours don't offend me. No magic wands or cutesy winged angels flitting around. Just a grown-up view of where we are and how things got started.
Enough !
Canadaduck...science proves nothing about god...sheesh....it has a hard time proving much about our physical surroundings, much less life.
chaz, did I miss something in the news this morning? Since when do the US value life?
The latest status I am aware of is that the US invade other countries for resources (not that this works terribly well...) and obscure beliefs of their president.
Yeah, I was about to say, i dont have a problem with the rest of your statement because that of course is your opinion and you hold the right to express it, but claiming (or even stating) that the US values life today, and that the middle east does not (which essentially is what you said even if not word for word) is the most unfounded BS ever.... yes there is war in the middle east, but the peace time countries there have a far lower murder rate than the US - saudi arabia for example, and many other places. Ok iran/iraq/israel/palestine have deaths every day, but during a time of war that is surely to be expected?? (terrible though it is)... And i'm quite sure than when the US has been at war people died and human life wasn't 'valued' as much... so please, keep statements like that to yourself or make it clearer that they are opinions only. The majority of people in the middle east follow the Qu'ran and believe fervently in the sanctity of human life, more so than in the US. It's only the extremists you see every day on CNN or whatever that give you that impression. No offense meant to you personally, by the way.
HAH ! English majors never get good jobs, but they do great resume's. Did I mention, "recovering", meaning four years of academic rehab leading to an MBA and a number of other things...including a great comfortability with our native tongue (OK, forget the erotic inferences from the "tongue" allusion).
Canadaduck....already replied...soooooooooo many threads, but you are so available to review them all. Where do you get the time?
Risking here some level of acceptability at this site, I will repeat....our north border barker, our hockey huckster, our frigid friend, our snow-shoed shouter, our canadaduckster, our wannabe whiner...gawd...there's no end to it...he is, in fact, fun to follow...but hardly enlightening. Bet me this, Canuck...the Red Sox win the east (despite a very good but underachieving
Totonto team...which should have been in the race), the Patriots win their division....and after the Sox win, you will admit that I am the superior poster. Failing the first test, I will retire from the forefront, having never quite arrived there in the first place.
In the incredibly unlikelyhood of failing at the second test,I will no longer be cogent anyway.
But winning at the first...your concession is that 'Chaz is a superior poster...winning at the second (Patriots,that is)....your concession is to describe your dream date with Condoleeza Rice. ..your hopes, your fantasies, your activities that compensate for her rejection of your attention. Or suffer the judgements of a cold and disimpassioned glumbert jury.
Chaaaazzzz my good man you did not just talk trash about the much (not feared) crash and burn Red Sox.
OMG LOL (we) will slip and slide, yet (we)shall be there when october cometh. toronto on the other hand being nine games out wont!!! and when i say we you know of whom i speak.
p.s
my father became a English Major and recived a masters attending s.u.n.y at Plattsburg at the age of 59. i wrote him letters and he would send them back corrected in red marker , alot of red marker. he tought English as a second language. it took him all over the world and barely made a living doing so.
but he loved to travel. lol :) its a Nobel skill , methinks at least.
Oh No.... Carl Sagan! One of the most hated men in the religious world. I really think Cosmos really freaked out the Holy Rollers at the time. The rest of us just sat in wonder and enjoyed it throughly.
Thanks, Carl. I'll be seeing you amongst the stars some day.
Wow, I saw strings and branes in there, maybe even a few extra dimensions as well. We are so insignificant in our observed universe! Finally a vid I can relate to.
The vast distnces represented in this video, may be a moot point.....if the theoretical principles of "wormholes" or such phenomena are explored/proven.
If sometime in the human races future, such anomalies are concretly established, then travelling a "parsec" would be akin to going to the corner store for a pack of smokes and a paper.
I think Stephen Hawking has already explored this theory.
Been a while, since I read "A Brief History Of Time."
In either case, none of us will be around to see if/when it does become a FACT.
C- We would be there already if not for the baser instincts of humanity. I have always wondered about the significance of a 2 AM bar fight. Does it really serve mankind well, and how important is it that it needs to take place over, and over again?
A conjecture - The real reason that the bar fight takes place is that reality is a daunting and extreme journey. Not many can take the ego crushing voyage into the insignificance of their own life. On the journey people usually break into two groups, the curious who want to go as far as they can, and their ego be damned, and all the rest who try to to deny the reality their nearly insignificant existence by using drugs, religion or both to drown it out.
If they only knew the wonders and awareness that the hard sciences can bring. But it requires a open and unbiased mind to REALLY GO TO THE EDGE. This was the point that Carl was always trying to make.
canuck, are you so sure we wont be around? Some theories have worm holes being the ultimate time travel vehicle, you could at anytime get a visit from your progeny! Who then could take you back to an earlier time, providing you with all the winning lotto numbers and better yet, the exact time that glumbert puts up new videos so you can exclusively be first poster on every single one!
pod...always interested in your comments. Here....sooooo passionate. Hope we'll see more development towards that end. At present, research on the needed technologies are in some closet while we spend trillions on new weaponry...GO RED SOX...sort of a placebo for (local) humanity, I think.
Just my opinion but after listening to PF and watching this I think it's the sheer immeasurable scale of the universe that has the religious nuts backing into their shells unable to comprehend.
Science helped us discover the true enormity of what surrounds us, and consequently tells us how massively insignificant we are. Guess the bible bashers don't like it.
'Tongue tied and twisted just an earth bound misfit' - great lyrics
I agree with that also - a very good point. Alot of religious people don't seem to like the scientific view of the planet because it makes our race an accident, an insignificant smudge on a speck of dust floating in a massive vaccuum... they like to think we are god's chosen race and therefore very, very special.... pfffff
ok, so this obviously proves that there is a single (male) God. That created all of this, to give life to just one planet. Where he knocked up a virgin to give birth to his male son. who died for our sins... and 2k years over 60 of the world's population haven't even heard of him. Dude faith is definately the opium of the masses.
Guten abend, fellow Glumberters!
Please - Vot is ze "coner" of vich zis man Sagan speaks?
Zis vos schonlich und ein most interesting video. I vish to congratulate ze cameraman. He must haf had tales to tel ven he came back down!
Ze last time I haf seen zes shapes and colours vos ven I vos attacked by ein herd von jellyfishes vile schwimming mit Albert Speer near Corsica in 1934. Zey ver vicious beasts mit huge tentacles und left me tingling in ein sore vay in ze genital area for two days.
Ze von ozzer occasion I haf seen such sights vos after Mengele gave me ein little pill at ein cocktail party in Dresden. Laugh? Ve laughed all night like geese!
Vell done Glumbert! Anysink you do zat make Herr Rabz put sings in perspective is to be applauded.
I await and am interested in the Holy perspective from the religious minds. Do they dare comment, or are they slaughtering a goat to divine the correct response?
Ok kids, space is FUCKING boring all it is is numbers that dont end and extend and gasses and radiation fucking boring, and no limits whats so ever it just goes and goes and goes and goes. K gotta go to work! TTYL
gay, its never ending, soon as they find something big they find something a trillion times bigger, just repeat that never ending. id worry about how many different kinds of tits are here on earth or who has a greater cock than me. or some shit. none of that out there
....astounding....just one after another of insightful, well ordered, intelligently phrased, instructive, almost prophetic, observations from our ass, that is, ace (like there's a difference here). I can not possibly express my true feelings on the stunningly blighted comments this vacuous slug posts.
Hmmm. Run that by me again. How does the fact that we find a bigger and bigger and more wonderful universe "scare" the religious folks? Most in fact embrace it as we continue to merely scratch the surface of something incredible. The more we find, the more respected scientists turn to "creator" theories. In fact, there's a scientific traffic jam on the road to creationsim. Few travel the road the other way.
WTF though, canuck and others must know more than the thousands of PhD scientists that have studied this first hand for decades and made an informed decision to choose "creator" as the most likely reason for existence. Canuck's sources afterall are more reliable and trustworthy.
yes unbelieveable which brings (me) right back to ......I SEE GOD.... this is my personal belief and i dont expect any one to stop drop and roll what ever thier doing and follow me in this .
i do believe God created the ALL AND EVERTHING. but i also believe it wasnt
a star fart ago. but many star farts ago. let alone 6 to 10 thousand years ago.(once again my opinion) backed up by well over 90% of the people who work or have worked in this field, alive and dead.and not under the threat of death from the Church.
a star fart being one hundred billion years in time . this measurement is all scientific of cource. in the wink of a super nova, the burp of a Quasar or in the time of a star fart.
when it all gets so overwhelming ,let go let God baby.
i actually agree with what you are saying here randal, i use to be more on the religous side of things that is until i started seeing the more scientific part of it. at this point in my life i am torn between both sides, b/c though science explains a lot about the universe and how a lot of thigs happen, they can never explain the miraculous events that take place. i have seen things no one that i know has ever seen, not even the elders. these things that i have seen and been through are the reasons why i can never stop believing in god. just like you this is just my opinion and i'm not trying to push this on anyone, but when you go through life constantly seeing things that can called miraculous at a very young age it's hard not to believe. i guess it's like they say "seeing is believing."
damn traveling about the universe, while listening to pink floyd.... perspective on the vastness of the universe..... maybe the most awe inspiring video on glumbert..... really clicks with me.......
creation is not against science. i hear too many people saying that. science is good. fantastic. what is bad is science mixed in with HUGE false assumptions. the end result is evolution. pop-science. hi-jacked science.
We have discussed before, so you know I am not too much of a idiot. Why would you accept some things science has to offer, and not others? What part of evolution is against the word of God?
Goodshorts-good call.
Read some of these posts and you will see a blind faith in completely untestable matters.
Science cannot help but arrive at metaphysical places but it cannot address them. Size and scope of the universe, formation of stars, formation of planets, Big Bang hypothesis...none of these things are testable or observable. But, with faith in scientists, they are spoken of with the same confidence that leads one to the assurity of gravity. Sad, really. I acknowledge that what I believe is just that: based on faith.
(I encourage anyone to read about time dialtion and its application to the universe.)
You are right...creationism is not "against" science. Thousands of Ph.D's around the world have had their faith affirmed in science. Irreducible complexity, lack of fossil evidence, infomation science...the list goes on.
Someone above suggested Darwin supplied physical evidence (presumably for his evolutionary hypothesis). Again, very sad. Enormous lack of understanding of what Darwin observed and how much of it has been turned on its head.
Darwinian evolution has about as much supportive evidence as UFOs. It is really now a religion.
But, science and religion have their adherents.
Chumpstream would you care to qualify your statement / opinion that Darwinian theory of evolution has as much evidence in it's favour as UFOs studies do?
I'm interested in how you come to hold that opinion (for that is all it is - not fact), as well as the evidence you base it on
Alternatively, let's do slight switch of this opinion and suggest that Creationism has more in common with UFO studies than Darwinian evolutionary theory does...
I would just like to say that Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't wipe out the idea of god (i'm a science person rather than a religious person but i like to be mindful of both sides as often as possible)... Darwin didn't actually suggest how life came to be in the first place, just how things developed from there.
If you're arguing about god creating the universe then, technically, evolution has nothing to do with it - its a whole new kettle of fish, so to speak.
The big bang is what you should be arguing about - a spontaneous event sparked by pressure and maths stuff (lol i dont know the details only GCSE physics 2 years ago...) But not evolution :)
Chumpstream - once again making wildly incorrect and poorly thought through statements based on nothing more than your own opinions.
Evolution as religion hey? My, my you are getting a little desperate now aren't you...
Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion.
Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998).
Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion.
Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
Seriously Chumpy - your lack of credibility is... incredible
You never seem to post your thoughts without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge
i doubt that science is incapable of explaining important issues. our perception of sciences' power to reveal, is limited by our knowledge. that point is consistently proven with our expansion of what we discover through science.
the video is enlightening because it effectively creates an emotional wonderment for learning, and the universe in which we dwell. it was well made in that sense, to me anyway.
Good point, Steve
For the first half of the century, Darwinian evolution suggested a certain heirarchy of development...from "simple" one celled organism up to "complex" man. However, the idea of simplicity as a root or baseline of early life can no longer be accepted; single-celled life has more complexity than any computer we could even conceive.
The more we observe through science, the more humble we should become. It is not the case, though.
This universe does not care for a couple organisms on a planet in a rather insignificant solar system. Assuming that there is a superpower that created you and cares for you is a gross overestimation of your person.
Streamlined - "Darwinian evolution has about as much supportive evidence as UFOs. It is really now a religion". I am guessing that you studied biology somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line, right?
There are a raft of articles that address the supposed irreducible complexity arguments of creationists. I am talking about peer reviewed articles, not bible club newsletter articles.
Science cannot answer the big questions of how the universe started, or what existed before that. But neither can anyone point to their religion for answers to such questions. As you state, your belief is based on your faith. By definition your beliefs do not have any provable basis, and stem from your own personal view of the world. It impossible to prove the basis of your faith to anyone, so stop wasting your breath and our time in trying to convince anyone that you faith is correct. If you are content to believe that you have the answer, that is wonderful for you. Myself, I recognize that science does not have the answers, - yet. But it is going forward, exploring the universe. Religion and faith offers only a static, safe, pat "answer" for those too lazy, frightened, or ignorant to actually try and view the universe.
What is "irreducible complexity"? Going into details you don't understand?
Amino acids form themselfs if you have an earth like environment. Anything beyond that takes too long to obseve in a human life span, actually takes longer than anything resembling civilisation existed.
Amino acids don't do that, by the way.
Long ago refuted as original conditions are disputed.
Second, even if they did, you have a monster hurdle to go from big protein to life. In fact, a virtually impossible hurdle.
Yeah right, likely he thinks this video here shows kind of a sponge and he wonders why people think a bathing implement is cool just because someone plays Pink Floyd in the background.
It's late, and I am on my third wine...so I have the final answer to all belief systems (remarkable how that can happen under these circumstances, eh?).
Darwinism, creationism, big bang theory.....Who gives a crap, now pass me a beer.
I don't think we will solve the great mysteries of life on Glumbert. Wait, Canuck's word is gold. Canuck, how did we come into the world as we now know it?
Gros Gott!!
Mein fellow Glumberters - zer is only von philosophical kvestion vorth asking, und here it is.
Should I kill meinself or not? In ozzer vords, shit or get off the pot, as you Americans say!
Und as ein supplementary, should I first kill Herr Rabz?
You are kvite right Herr Skidmarks!
Vith Glumbert, ein bottle von Schnapps, ein few dusky maidens fur ze hand relief und ein picture of Herr Rabz on ze vall to throw darts at - vot more could ein person vish for!!??
IRONY - Definition: Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is a conservative Republican who has voted against gay marriage and opposes hate crimes legislation that would extend special protections to gay and lesbian crime victims.
Great to hear the lively debate.
Here are some basics that need to be understood before going forward:
1) The scientific method relies 100% on observability and testability. (Darwinian evolution and mathematical models provide neither.) Sciences' strengths and limitations are in the method.
2) Peer review is not the panacea many think it is. FYI- many creationsists have published in peer reviewed journals. (Ignorance of that fact is no excuse.) What good is peer reviewing if one is preaching to the choir? Often times the science is good but the conclusions differ from the "peers'" current ideology and therefore does not get published. I know this from first hand experience.
3) The fossil record stands in stark contrast to what Darwinian evolution predicts. (See Burgess Shale)
4) Irreducible complexity does not stand alone as an argument but does shut the door on people like Richard Dawkins who accept Darwin's model without any support.
5) Up until the last 125 years or so, western scientists were also very religious. There is no reason one contradicts the other.
6) Because one argues against a particular point does not necessarily mean he is in favor of the opposite. (Logic 101). Castigating someone for anti-Evolutionary positions as one who is doing so only on religious grounds makes you (whoever you are) less than intelligent. Even less intelligent are those who believe that to reject Darwin, one must be from the South.
7) Anyone...please name ONE, just ONE, proven Darwinian fact.
it would take less faith to believe in what i see with my own eyes and what most learned Scientist's have explored reseasched and Documented in no less then 400 years .
then say a book that was written over 2000 years ago , and touched up many tmes over since .
perhaps i have read some text from the disciples of the one true great Chipmunk.
in the books of Alvin,Theodore and Simon .
you may find what you seek there my child. go now and never return.
go and gather the nuts of life and please dont pick those on Glumbert for they are the forbidden nuts.
Here are some more basics to balance those suggested above:
The use of the scientific method relies 100% on observability and testability - this is so we have proof and can justifiably claim good science has been carried out.
Now given that evolution began millions of years ago – observability is impossible. Testability (dating etc) IS possible but creationists will dispute this as it tends not to help their argument.
In fact the Creationist view often disputes the veracity of many claims made by scientific methods and proposed methods of its own that tend not to stand up to peer review. It is part of a the creping PR campaign on behalf of the creationist movement that is steadily gaining traction across the US
Peer review IS held in high regard and those who may have first hand experience, but who imply discredit to the peer review process, have normally performed badly when held to account. Those creationists who HAVE published in peer reviewed journals may well not have been publishing creationist papers and hence would have been using good scientific methods. Alternatively they may have been publishing Creationist literature in journals with a Creationist agenda so we must be careful of those who say that Creationism is becoming widely accepted by scientists in general. It is not.
We must also be clear that The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is exactly that - it IS a theory.
However it is a theory we really CAN use in order to create a far more accurate framework on which to build up and assimilate a very complex puzzle that is life.
In other words it is the best that human kind has come up with thus far. Creationism can offer nothing approaching the depth of accurate analysis and 'best available knowledge' - this statement is crucial because 'best available knowledge' assumes a desire to find out more.
Creationism wishes to shut the book on the quest for knowledge and provide an answer NOW.
Evolution has been proven as much as gravity, thermodynamics, erosion or continental shift is. However, proponents of evolutionary theory are often told "we have not witnessed evolution taking place, thus it cannot be proven". Very little in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty apart from death and taxes. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. And that is where this thing called good science can come in
In the case of evolution, huge data fields exist from diverse sources and each new piece of evidence helps tests the rest - building up further our image of this 'tree of life'
1. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
2. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
3. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
4. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
5. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
We also see the the attempted use of creationist science to disprove peer acknowledged factual science. The peer review process is often seen in a bad light by those who espouse creationism primarily because true scientists tend (in the main) tend to view creationism with some skepticism. This is due to the lack of empirical scientific data to support the claim for Creationism.
Examples would be the cretaceous-tertiary extinction event which has been measured at 65.5m years ago. It is characterised by a line of Iridium (the most corrosion resistant of all the elements) and can clearly be seen in rock patterns the world over and (using scientific methods and knowledge gleaned from analysing meteor samples) is deemed to have been deposited by a major meteor which caused a mass extinction event globally.
One creationist view is that the dinosaurs died in a flood - this is easily explained by the fact that MANY sedimentary deposits (by definition water borne) will obviously build up large numbers of fossil deposits over time. Animals drown. Water tends to be found in specific areas. Hence the concentration of fossils in sedimentary areas.
Creationists trend not to focus on the KT Line too much, nor on the millions of years of fossil deposits found prior to and after the KT Line
Techtonic plate movement allows us to see the divergence of species over time – with fossils found to have been evolving away from the forms they took when these land masses were connected.
Those who claim that scientists USED to be very religious… hmmm are they in essence advocating a return to days of yore when science was (in comparison to the information age we find ourselves in now) relatively slow moving? Or are they simply bringing in a moot argument as many more people were also intensely religious outside scientific circles.
The advent of decent education tended to allow those who undertook to learn, to begin to question the concept of religion ergo a drop in numbers of highly religious people generally.
That science has advanced so much in the last 175 years is almost certainly BECAUSE scientists began to look outside the realms of religion in order to explain the world and universe – this quest should continue and should not see us, as a species, begin to regress.
My main worry is that scientists today tend NOT to even debate the issue as it carries such little credibility – they wish not to get involved in such politically charged issues.
This is worrying and it is dangerous.
This then leads Creationists to easily begin to sell the idea in to those sections of population predisposed to wanting an answer to their existence but not wanting to work too hard for it. In many cases these more radicalised believers may not be the sharpest knives int eh drawer, they may be somewhat mentally pliable. Nonetheless to them it gains credence on the basis of poor science and that theory then becomes an acknowledged fact. It’s scary
Whilst Evolution Theory is also a theory – it is a much more elegant solution than that posed by Creationism which uses faith to answer those questions that its own ‘science’ cannot.
Evolutionary theory is not even close to being finished yet – and THAT is its beauty.
It is a jigsaw puzzle that we as a race imho have a duty to attempt to put together piece by piece, using factual, decent science to do so. Our knowledge base increases each year and will help us answer questions even as more are posed.
To use Creationsim to explain away these questions seems to hand over responsibility. It takes bravery to try learn things we don’t understand. It takes blind faith to simply believe.
"Those who claim that scientists USED to be very religious… hmmm are they in essence advocating a return to days of yore "
Science in the days of extreme religion had to be hidden if done at all at the risk of the Learned Men being executed by Gods law. In fact religion was worn by most of these men a rhetorical armor against persecution. They feared for their lives, to even speak that the earth was not the center of the universe, etc.
The creationists wish to link to science by perverting the truth, because science may one day become a more accepted form of human philosophy, and thus reduce the power of the religious sector. Religion is the easy way out of the reality debate. The religious extremists who desire Theocracy for all, are seeking power. Extremist religion has caused a technological collapse of every society in which it is applied.
Thank you, Pod...for the irrelevance of your article.
I have restricted my question to western science and the past...you addressed neither, but did show your willingness to find anything to buttress your ignorance. Yep...western civilization--just like Saddam's regime.
At this point, pods, you are making a fool of yourself.
What sort of hoops are you trying to get me to jump through in order to try and compare gravity to evolution. You are certainly not addressing evolution's weaknesses, only playing a semantics game we used to play in the 8th grade. ("Prove" you are here, type thing) But I will sum up the obvious: Gravity is observed (remember it is a phenomenon observed by its effects...like wind) and tested. You are still devoid of a refutation.
It is like asking me to prove you to be a dunce and all I have are your posts...which, I suppose, are the effects of your duncedom.
Thank you.
You make so many of my points...let me illustrate.
First dating methods is NOT testing. If one scientist gets a result with dating method (A), while another scientist gets a different result with dating method (B), which one is most reliable? In order to accept certain dating methods, one must first accept the assumptions of those methods. The assumptions, of which, are UNTESTABLE. The refutations of these methods and results are on scientific grounds.
Second...please read what I wrote about peer review so that you don't create strawmen to defend the indefensible. By the way, what scientific methods do creationists use. What is the difference in a creationist bias and a materialist bias? I assume we should toss out the last 1000 years of western science since a significant numer of those scientists were creationists.
Darwinian Evolution does not rise to theory status...it is a hypothesis. You cannot explain the difference.
You have uttered absurdity before, but have outdone yourself with the following: "Evolution has been proven as much as gravity, thermodynamics, erosion or continental shift is." You then followed it up with, "...it cannot be proven." Just because you wish it so, doesn't make it so.
Regarding your points:
1. Yes
2. No we do not. We infer it. Or, as I like to say, "We make it up." Common decent is inferred, not observed.
3. Absolutely, unequivocally FALSE. You are very much in the dark here. Morphology, biochemically and genetically...evolution vis a vis random mutations, etc is confounded routinely, by atheist scientists, by the way.
4. You find ZERO transitional forms in the fossil record. Those that are supposed to be, are currently in great dispute. Name one. (For those following along--remember that millions upon millions of transitional forms would have to be seen to justify believing in molecules-to-man evolution.)
5. No they ABSOLUTELY do not. Read about the Cambrian Explosion. Rudimentary or vestigial characters do not support Darwinian evolution.
I am glad you brought up a line of argumentation about what is supposed to have happened 65.5m years ago. You are referencing highly contested data that is at best, speculative. Your language of certitude undercuts what is actually being done. I suggest some research on your part...a lot of it...into reliability of dating methods, assumptions about mass extinctions of dinosaurs, and what you beleive about tectonic plate movement.
You are very wrong about how we arrived today at a staunchly materialist scientist versus a religious scientist. You should read about the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment and what happened to scientists then. (Speed of information does not mean days of yore were primitive.)
So, as evolutionary hypothesizing continues as an elegant explanation of life (remember: life came from non-life (never ever been observed and no plausible mechanism suggested), and random mutations that favored the existence of the next generation have lead us to where we are now (key word: random)) we are left with my original question...name ONE, just ONE, proven Darwinian fact. (Gravity: observable, testable. Thermodynamic laws: observable, testable. Erosion: likewise. Darwinian Evolution: Neither and therefore should be relegated to philosophy class.)
The basic problems when arguing with creationists are: a) No facts will be accepted unless they are stated in THE BOOK. b) No comprehension of scale. c) If you don't accept my harebrained theory then yours is evil!
The universe unfortunately is so fucking large that everything is likely to have happened somewhere. The fact that we can have this argument here is simply due to life having evolved on this planet. There is nothing special about this place or the beings on this planet, it is just something that statistically had to happen.
Proof: As I fell from the tree, I cried, "God help meeeeeeeeee! (oof)" QED.
Commenting on the both #3's above: The "Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species" classification system is undergoing a re-work based on DNA. What once (up until last year) was "proven" to be neighbors on the biological family tree, now aren't even living in the same forest. The classification headings of Kingdom and Phylum have been allowed to stand, as was "bigger than a breadbox."
F(Gravity)= Mass (1) X Mass (2)/ dd
Go test earth's gravity on your own...you will, over and over and over again, get the same results. Test and re-test.
That is the Effect of gravity. Much like the origin of species is the effect of evolution. I will say it again prove gravity, do not offer what you think gravity is ,offer facts.
Thank you Stream, for the irrelevance of your High School formula. I have restricted my question to the proof of Gravity you have not addressed it at all, but did show your willingness to find anything to buttress your ignorance.
Pods- do you have a point? Please read the sentence after the formula. Or, got throw a rock in the air and watch it return to the earth in a manner expressed in the formula.
"origin of species is the effect of evolution"? Sure about that, doctor?
I know there must be something more than this to your argument(s).
If you want intelligent discussion, feign intelligence for this thread's sake.
You state that you believe in Gravity. Is it because you have enough of a understanding of science to confirm this. Or is it just a belief? You seem to believe that a falling rock is Gravity. That is the effect of Gravity. If you have a scientific reason for your belief in Gravity, then prove it!
At this point, pods, you are making a fool of yourself.
What sort of hoops are you trying to get me to jump through in order to try and compare gravity to evolution. You are certainly not addressing evolution's weaknesses, only playing a semantics game we used to play in the 8th grade. ("Prove" you are here, type thing) But I will sum up the obvious: Gravity is observed (remember it is a phenomenon observed by its effects...like wind) and tested. You are still devoid of a refutation.
It is like asking me to prove you to be a dunce and all I have are your posts...which, I suppose, are the effects of your duncedom.
"Gravity is observed (remember it is a phenomenon observed by its effects...like wind)"
Sounds very logical, Stream.
But also very paradoxical coming from a person who argues for the belief in an all-encompassing supernatural boogeyman.
(PSSST!! Podster! Ask him if he believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago...watch'em dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge that one, without a simple straightforward answer)
If one 'believes' in Gravity, and yet has no scientific knowledge to prove it, then how can one declare evolution invalid, using that same system of 'belief' as the basis. You have no scientific knowledge of Gravity, so I guess you have no knowledge of evolution. I cannot detect any scientific knowledge from you at all. If you mistake the simple question of Gravity for Gravitation, your science knowledge is about the sixth grade level, and you should show greater restraint in stating 'Scientific Facts' in the future. Stick to religion!
If I'm a ignorant fool, and you are the one out to make points of fact in this science thread, then you are a very poor science teacher. I'm just trying to learn from your great depth of scientific knowledge, so that evolution can be disproved, and Gravity proved.
To laugh at men of science is the privilege of fools. (Had to paraphrase there, but it makes the point)
Glad you could stop by, C.
Why is my statement paradoxical? I have always argued that science has reached its limits in the observable. After that, it is inferential at best, and becomes as much a matter of faith as the belief that the earth is roughly 6K years old. No paradox there...just a lack of undertsanding on your part. (Again with the nuanced argumentation.)
Yes, I do believe that, by the way. There is a lot of evidence supporting my belief...not that you would ever care to lool or think about anything that contradicts your worldview.
No ducking or dodging here.
C- Since he did not answer immediately, I guess he is off to Google or Wikipedia the difference between a gravitational field, and gravity. It will take some time.
But I think he will now only respond to your comment now.
I think we are getting a little to nit-picky on gravity.
There are things you simply cannot prove. Can you see, hear, touch, taste, or grasp gravity? No. Is it there? Yes. Gravity is only a word that describes its effects, as it is not physical in nature so it cannot be "proven." Only its effects can be tested. This is a semantical argument.
Love is the same way. Can you prove love? No. Is it there? According to this reasoning then no, only the effects of love. So what is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.........Whoa thought I was at the Roxbury for a sec. Anyways, I think we should all be able to agree thus far.
Canuck was diplomatically agreeing with Stream, however in order to keep in Pod's good graces, he tried to pull a switch-a-roo.
Streamlined, as I said before you lack perspective just as any creationist does. You guys are just overestimating your importance to the universe, which actually is zero.
The fact that you lack understanding aspects of modern science does not mean that science has reached its limits, it just became more complex than you can comprehend (or are willing to acknowledge since it interferes with your objectives).
Creationists are either not sufficiently educated to understand or they have evil intent.
whew... all this heavy talk about God and Evolution and all that crap!!! Just get me a beer, a gun, my woman, and I'm good to go!!! Who gives a shit who created all this? Does it help me get laid?
Bug-
Please read my post. You simply made stuff up (a habit among some here).None of what you said did I argue.
Better double-check that old "statistically had to happen" statement. Do you even know what statistics to which you refer?
Streamlined, are you a scientologist? With your method of discussion I am really waiting for you to start asking "what is your problem?".
You are either so uneducated that you would have through run to school again to be able to grasp the scientific concept (which I doubt as you are quite capable of dodging any fact thrown at you) or you are one of the guys who support creationism because they think they have something to gain from it.
Your point is as valid as the earth is flat. And it is obviously pointless to argue with you as you just reject anything based on faith.
Streamlined - Here is a link to an article in Scientific American. No, I am not going to give you an annotated bibliography on the many papers that have utterly destroyed many of the comments that you makein your posts here. I have a job, kids, life, etc. and cannot devote much time trying to save you from wasting your intellectual capital on creationism. Which is a pity as you obviously have education and intelligence, of a kind. This article does a competent job of addressing many of the usual creationist claims about the end of evolution, gaps in the fossil record, and irreducible complexity.
Ummmmm.....This would not hold a whole lot of credibility as it is not from a peer-reviewed journal. It may have some valid points, but looks like it is based on opinion and without credible explanations.
Try using a reference WITHOUT a spelling mistake in the first paragraph (unless your country spells "do not" - "donut." Maybe the whole .PDF was a joke, as was using the Infinite Monkeys as "proof," and they meant to write "donut holed." Really, spelling does count toward credibility.
Canuck-
Using "Inherit the Wind" to make a claim. Proving me right all along...you get your "facts" from the media...unfiltered, uncritically. I beg you to bring it on anytime. You have yet to cut me to ribbons, ever.
Unp-I can only assume you did not read the article you just cited. If you have a specific question, ask it. Those are very easy arguments to upend. (There are a few strawmen in there as well...but, one would have to well-versed in biology to know that.)
Pods-Keep trying with your "gravity vs. gravitation" soliloquy. Until you have something to offer...
Happens to have been one of my all-time favourite plays since my early teens, which was ....GASP!!....based on a TRUE EVENT!!:
The Scopes "Monkey Trial", Tennessee, circa the 1920's.
Now ya see what those fine CHRISTIAN FOLK tried to do to that school teacher only doing his JOB??? Friends of yours, Stream? Y'know, the same lot who believe as you do? 6,000 years? Uh-huh.
Canuck- You never cease to amaze me with your unbridled passion for things that ain't so.
There is virtually nothing...and, buddy, I mean NOTHING, in the play that resembled or happened in the Scopes Monkey Trial. (I did research on it and recently completed another history of that event.)
It was contrived and hate-filled...most of which never occurred. But, you would, again, have to look into the matter. Since the play fit your stereotype of Christians, why bother, right?
You don't know a thing about the trial or wha lead up to it...just a play. I see clearly how you have been educated.
COURT IS IN RECESS!! THE DEFENDANT WILL BE SILENT!!
BAILIFF!! TAKE HIM AWAY!!
(and a whisper: your old "it's a vicious lie-it never happened-its propaganda-and it was twisted by the media to make us look bad-its a liberal conspiracy" argument is getting stale, Bro. You can only use that so many times, before you really ARE convicted, y'know? And you have used it an awful LOT. Smarten up, and I'll see you when court resumes in the A.M.)
Inherit the Wind is fiction and was intended as such from the beginning. Like Arthur Miller's The Crucible, it was inspired by the events of the McCarthy era, particularly the suppression of ideas then prevalent (ClassicNote 1999). T
he authors tried to emphasize its fictionality by using fictional names for the characters. In the print version of the play, they write,
"Inherit the Wind is not history. The events which took place in Dayton, Tennessee, during the scorching July of 1925 are clearly the genesis of this play. It has, however, an exodus entirely of its own.... The collision of Bryan and Darrow at Dayton was dramatic, but it was not a drama. Moreover, the issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed at the Rhea County Courthouse. So Inherit the Wind does not pretend to be journalism. It is theatre. It is not 1925. The stage directions set the time as "Not too long ago." It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow. (Lawrence and Lee 1955)"
Unfortunately, the drama has been treated as history by others, particulary by the movie promoters. This does a disservice to both the history and the drama. The history is recorded elsewhere (e.g., Larson 1997). The drama is about attitudes and ideas. The fact that the drama remains popular through the decades shows that the ideas are still relevant today.
Dramatic license with history is common in many other dramas, such as Bertolt Brecht's Galileo and the movies 1776, Spartacus, and The Passion of the Christ, to name just a few.
THIS IS IMPORTANT HERE GUYS:
Creationism is a multi-million dollar business with numerous speaking, publishing, and other publicity outlets. Complaints that it is suffering from undue propaganda, much less that it is being systematically censored, are pure paranoia.
This latter point is important and is why Richard Dawkins makes such sense... I will stand up and truly say proudly that I find Creationism a hugely flawed system. Evolutionary Theory is far less flawed.
Streamlined, your assertions that Evolutionary theory is only a hypothesis are asinine. Even though it is a theory, in itself there is nothing inately wrong with this.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based).
The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.
Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002).
Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact as has been suggested above
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
Rest that big brain tonight. Tomorrow ask some intelligent questions about the current topic and we can have a discussion. (Unlikely, but what the hey.)
Stream - I am really sad that you don't know how little you know. I wish I could explain it to you, but if I eat less, it doesn't make others loose weight I have ascertained that you and the chum squad inmates, will have to find their way without learning from others, but from religion. I hope it works for you (really), but if you are only willing to accept 'facts' from a select group of like minded individuals, and deny any truth can be garnered from others, then it will be a very long journey indeed.
I would recommend that first being humble before God, also includes his works as well, and his works include other humans outside of the 'Group'. If you are really humble before God, then science is the real book of knowledge, and the scientists are the priests in the great temple.
I wish you well, even after all of your vulgarities and put downs that you have directed at me. I hope you can find a way.
Maybe he did that gravity experiemnt a bit too often and did get hit in the head when the stone returned...
OK, since Stream asked for it here is one: Streamlined, you don't really make explicit statements, so here is a simple to answer question: How old in your opinion is earth and life on on earth?
S - Present facts. You formula describes the force of gravity, so stop dodging the question. Prove Gravity great wizard of science. Your answer is so wrong, that you don't even know how wrong it is. You understand nothing of Gravity or Gravitation. Your PE degree won't get ya through this one, so just keep obfuscating, and dodging. Maybe you could just be wrong?
This is a Equation: F(Gravity)= Mass (1) X Mass (2)/ dd (Notice the = sign) NOT a formula Mr. Wizard of science. I knew this in second grade, so perhaps your knowledge of mathematics is the same as the rest of your science.
Thank you Puds and Squashed- Gravity is a force. Hence the Big F. No doubt you are both familiar with big F's. So an equation cannot be a formula, Pud?
Hmmm--I have given you too much credit.
I don't really understand this statement, but were you just getting a little closer? "as to what gravity AND gravitation describe", and now you are just back to vulgarities, as usual. Where are the facts, and the proof of what you believe? I guess Gravity is just a belief with you.
You believe that God is the Force of creation, and you believe Gravity is the force of Gravity, (God is the force of God?). OK, thats enough hints for today.
At this point I would settle not for proof but, perhaps a single informed and scientific statement, to end this. Anyone well versed in science would have had the simple answer at the very first question. It is staring you in the face and you cannot see it. I have given numerous hints.
No, Mr. science a formula is not a equation, It was a test to see if you would regurgitate a word as another proof. I work in logic and science every day, it's like chess I plan my moves 10 to 20 ahead, and I don't think you play chess either.
Puds- Formulas cannot be an equation, huh.
Let's see--H20 = H H 0
This formula looks like an equation. Like gravity's description. (What do you suppose formulas and equations do, mr. wizard?)
Please go back and re-learn what you apparently failed in 2nd grade. That's the Big F's to which I referred.
Pud-
Go review Chem 101 and stoichiometry...you find that equations and formulas CAN be interchangeable terms. I am going to start charging you for Science and Vocabulary.
Why do you assume that I did not read the article I cited? Is it because that is a lazy, back-handed way for you to avoid addressing any of the arguments in the article. Why do you think that I have any questions of you? I am trying out of pity to educate you, and am certainly not seeking any enlightenment for myself.
I agree with you on one point with Canuck - Inherit the Wind was only loosely based on the Scopes Monkey Trial and some factual liberties were taken to make the Christians look like fanatical boobs.
Wow - from the awesome vastness of space and Floyd music, to the Scopes Monkey Trial. It is like playing Six Degrees of Glumbert.
Once again....missed the point...WHOOSH! Over your head.
Look:
Obviously, "Inherit The Wing" is loosely based on the Scopes Trial, and OBVIOUSLY what's in the play and movie is NOT EXCATLY how the real events played out. BUT...the "christians" in that situation DID look like fools because they decided to PROSECUTE this man, based on their own religious zealotry and under the Butler Act and ELECTED to go ahead and try to convict him under this statute. To make matters worse, the fine folks of Tennessee didn't even repeal the Butler Act until 1967!! If they looked liked "fools", it was their own stupid fault, for deciding to go this route in the first place. They became the laughing stock of the whole nation.
So, as a matter of OFFICIAL RECORD and FACT, here it is:
Thomas Scopes tried to do his job, and teach science, i.e., evolution; the "christians" of the community went fuckin' nuts, and wanted him prosecuted; they tried; he was found guilty, and given a $100.00 fine, mostly because they knew they'd look like even BIGGER dolts, if they locked him up; the media-of-the-day ran with it, and basically said "Are you people all for fucking real??" And that was that. Have other states adopted the principles of the Butler Act, i.e., "Banning evolutionary teachings"? Sure they have. But they're in the minority, and you'll find them in the south (now THERE'S a surprise). Now they're creeping back in, with this "intelligent design" nonsense, being advocated by The Commander Guy. Nice.
Yes, those "christians" DID look like "fanatical boobs"......but by their own hand. They hung themselves, and even gave the media the rope to do it with.
Shit, if they could have burned Scopes at the stake as a heretic and blasphemer, they'd have ran out to the hardware store, and got the kindling and kerosene in a heartbeat.
Unp- Apparently you didn't read it.
Thanks for the pity. If you have a specific question, ask. Throwing one big article into the mix and accepting it as fact makes you as lazy as Canuck.
Canucklehead-I see again your knowledge width and breadth is what is in the media. Without going into a long refutation of the misinformation you beleive, please go read: "Monkey Business"-Marvin Olasky.
You are in dire need of anti-establishment education.
You are still Glumbert's Number 1 Bigot. (Yes, you don't paint "all" Americans as bad...but, boy those southerners. Like that completely made-up story about West Virginia.)
Chumpstream believes the earth was created 6k years ago. This puts you firmly in the Literal Young Earth Creationist camp - likely to be THE most zealous in it's defense of the unworkable and most ridiculous in it's positioning of argument for that same defense.
You cannot seemingly back up that belief despite much evidence to the contrary and now appear to be:
1/ Throwing verbal barbs at people without actually responding to their comments - eg Pod who appears far more scientifically minded than you are
2/ Accusing people like Bug with no axe to grind that they are 'making up stuff'.
3/ Continuously asserting that creationist scientists abound in large numbers when they do not
4/ Using your standard tap-out tango to try and shift the arguement away from areas you feel uncomfortable discussing Of the wealth of info available... hmmm...
Let's talk ice sheets in Antartica or Greenland and the amount of scientifically described data which takes ice compression into account and allows for accurate claims of dating far further back than 6k years:
In July 1993, the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) completed drilling down 3,053.44 meters through the ice and 1.55 meters beyond into the underlying bedrock.
From this was recovered the deepest ice core record to date. One year earlier the European Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) recovered a core to a depth of 3,028.8 meters at a site 30 kilometers east of GISP2.
Comparative data between these two deep cores have allowed scientists to develop an ice core-derived paleoenvironmental record dating back greater than 110,000 years BP (BP means "before present" and "BP" is defined as 1950).
The establishment of this 100,000 year BP record of Earth's atmospheric history in the ice has been fairly well calibrated with proxy dating methods.
The annual layer counting of visible ice stratification, when compared to radiocarbon extracted from the CO2 gas trapped within the ice and other measurement techniques, has yielded an age error factor of about 2% from present to 11.64 years BP; about 5% to 17.38 years BP; and 10% to about 40,000 years BP.
In other words, the ice has been confirmed to be as old as the collective measurements indicate. These data alone destroy the core doctrine of the theory of Young Earth Creationism, of the Earth being only about 6,000 years old.
I'd also suggest that Darwinian evolution was essentially observed in action with some Chimpanzee troops being observed to use primitive tools (in the absence of interation with Man) whilst other troops did not - natural selection at work so it would seem.
Finally your comment on transitional fossil records is laughable. Knowing that you seldom read the evidence presented to you I’ll include it herein:
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another.
However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out. This is far more than the theory of Creationsim has found. Remember - we are talking BEST AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE here - that knowledge will continue to develop.
These are just some of the transitional fossils found in the record - knowing your dislike of reading articles through links I have listed them below AND APOLOGISE PROFUSELY FOR BORING THE CRAP OUT OF EVERYONE ELSE HERE - IT'S IMPORTANT TO TEACH STREAMY THAT HIS BELIEF SYSTEM IS SKEWING HIS SUPPOSED SCIENCE:
The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins.
The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45). SEE THIS - A NEW SPECIES EVOLVING
Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
Dinosaur-bird transitions.
Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997). WE STILL SEE SNAKES TODAY WITH VESTIGIAL LEG BONES
The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
You are a claimed expert zoologist Streamlined (but a practicing PE teacher so you say) therefore you SHOULD know this. But then your peer review performance and the views you espouse herein suggest you don’t want to.
I think Chaz in an earlier posting to you suggested you keep your views to yourself on the subject of religion - yet your zealotry means you can't resist it...
Mako-
Lot of stuff in there. Lot of stuff YOU DON'T KNOW. Your ability to regurgitate what you read is great...but, again, you have no earthly clue what you are talking about.
Science can only KNOW what it can observe and test. Beyond that, science must "infer" with language like "most likely", "probably", " in our best estimation", "possibly",etc. That is a basic understanding--something you do not have nor do you seem to understand.
Why this is so complicated, I do not know. (Actually, to put that large a chink in the armor of a completely material world is too much for some-so I do understand.)
You are in no position to speak of hurling verbal barbs.
Thebug did make stuff up. What's the big deal?
Creationists have been on a steady rise since 1994 (something pretty big happened then) and are in sizeable numbers...certainly, no where near a majority, but, the materialist worldview is meeting some tough critics.
The info you just cited about the ice sheet:
1) Does it support other dating methods? (No it does not)
*You see, as long as it doesn't support 6K, yu're fine with it. But, if other research doesn't support these results...it doesn't matter and you don't hear about it.)
2) What are its testing assumptions? (Uniformity of CO2 deposits, for one.)
3) What are the proxy method(s) assumptions?
4) Are these results contradicted anywhere? (yep)
You see, you want it to be cut and dry. You don't want to read the scientific papers that (should) show the data that was tossed out, or unconfirmed, etc. You want the Nat'l Geographic version. Good try...but, I choose NOT to trust those versions. I think I might read a research paper or two. (Not just the abstracts, either)
Use of tools as Darwinian evolution?! Sadly, your ignorance is showing. Why wouldn't a chimp use tools? (other animals appear to) Unrelated to Darwinian evolution, M. Natural selection is occurring...all the time. It was observed long before Darwin. Now, to make the leap that natural selection upon RANDOM genetic mutations has lead to new organisms is what cannot be observed. That is Darwinian Evolution.
Transitional forms: I never said you would need direct lineage. But, remember what is transitional...not just scales to feathers, for example. But, an entire morphology. There is no transitional discussion at the genus and species level...which is where we should find transitional forms, were Darwin correct.
A couple of points need to be made:
Evolution, that things can change within their genetic framework, is completely fine. Human beings have seen taller periods, shorter periods, hairier periods and these differnces are seen now between peoples. None of which supports Darwin. (See Darwin's finches and why the conclusions were all wrong.) Obviously, the material world has a range of expression in living beings.
Evolution, as a hypothesis that supports transition from one kind to another is what needs to be discussed. You see, atsomepoint, one kind of creature had to give birth to a different kind (you say the differences are very small, but the point remains) that was more fit than its parents due to that genetic change. So, the genetic information, from the mutation, increased to the next generation. How is that possible...all point mutations result in a loss of genetic info. (Magic, I suppose)
All your examples showed nothing but a good understanding of what you accept as true. All of them. You only showed your ability to uncritically accept magazine articles.
Define species, Mako. (You can't)
Do you have any idea the degree of dissention between scientists? You would if you spent more time reading differing opinions and scientists. Almost all the transitions you sggested are so hotly contested that I cannot beleive you mentioned them.
I have a zoology background. I was taught about the scintific method and have had to apply it. You hvae never seen it in action or even what it implies. Thanks for all the big words though. It was fun seeing them outside of my Frosh biology text.
I never said I was a PE teacher.
Whose the zealot here, mr. 3-page poster?
Now Stream, that was a good collection of fog, distraction, and bullshit. Basically you just said that you don't like what mako wrote, you did not bring up a single verifyable point against it. Maybe you should apply for a position with some marketing department...
Regarding the dating of the ice cores: You are totally wrong. This does of course prove the viability of radiocarbon dating.
The way radiocarbon dating works is rather simple (though requires quite some equipment to take a measurement, so you will probably argue you never have observed that in your living room).
C14 a radioactive isotope of carbon is constantly generate in the atmosphere by the radiation from our sun. While its concentration can change due to variations in sun activity and gas concentration changes in the atmosphere these changes more or less cancel out if you look at long time intervals.
C14 is used by organisms along with the non radioactive C12 and C13 to build their bodies. When the organism dies it stops taking in carbon. Knowing the average C14 to C12/13 concentration and the half life time of C14 you can make a very good estimate of the age of a fossil or (for shorter time spans) organic tissue.
The ice core projects provided CO2 samples encased in the ice as well as a very simple dating method for the ice cores: Counting seasonal ice layers. Though being a tedious job it should be easily understandable to anyone that in a long drill core from permanent ice you can count the years by looking for the layers which are formed by the fact that during the summer few or no ice is added so a discontinuity ca be seen. (Ice layer dating is a method that can be easily verified within a few years if you happen to live far enough north or south).
The comparison of the two dating methods showed a good matching of the results.
So what was your point?
Ah, yes, of course, there was a tolerance. A couple percent off. So that is what you have to live with. Anyone familiar with taking exact measurements of whatever physical dimension also knows that the value measured is not sufficient, you also have to state the error margin. Taking several measurements using different methods may allow to reduce the error.
But we are not talking about being off by a few percent (I don't really care that much if something happened 70 million years ago or 75, either would have been in the age of dinosaurs), we are talking about being off by a whole concept.
And your link to that artice about "irreducible complexity": That thing is old, has been disproven several times and again shows the total lack of perspective of the creationists. Of course you can not "observe" evolution, you are just not sufficiently patient. Go into a wilderness, pick some stone and sit on it for a couple 100k years while diligently observing the plants and animals around you. You may then have a chance to see a new species evolving.
Your argument about evolution not being observable is about as intelligent as stating that continental drift does not happen since it always takes about the same time to fly from Europe to America. Or like saying you don't believe in bacteria since you did never see any.
Thanks for not addressing any of the points I made by simply typing 'no. no. no'.
Very intelligent - yout tap out tango comes to the fore again.
By the way:
"I am a professional athletic coach with weird scheduling, allowing for some morning free-time to piddle around on Glumbert"
Your words Chumpstream. You're a PE Teacher, and a part time one at that.
And you claim you're a zoologist! Be honest now chumpstream...
I'd hazard a guess that your performance during the peer review defense of your zoology papers, coupled with your rather naive belief system, helped your peers come to the firm conclusion that it was not in the best interests of your chosen branch of science to have you involved in it.
Hence they may have politely and kindly suggested that teaching track and field would have been more a more suitablle direction for you to take.
They were certainly right dontcha think?
Hence you now teach PE.
And to think I thought you an intelligent interlocutor
You really are acting and sounding (again) like a flat-earther here...
Mako- No need to defend my career. Only in your very feeble mind does professional athletic coach=PE Teacher.
The tantrum you, theBug and Boy are throwing is both wonderful to witness and sad.
The earlier points I made to Canuck about logic can now be applied to you three. I have never, ever claimed proof for my beliefs about Creation. In point of fact, I have shown that science cannot ( CAN NOT ) prove either case and that we are left with metaphysical questions.
So, since science (not operational science) must rely heavily upon inference, we are left with a constantly changing framework. Developing technology and current observational techniques often send previous "facts" to obscurity. But, that does not mean adherents to the previous won't go down without a fight.
We are, therefore, not at an argument over science, but over Faith. Your faith rests upon something you only witness in your lifetime, that is constantly changing: new discoveries call to question previous knowledge, one realm of research contradicts another realm (routinely, by the way), and new people carry the message and help create a following.
My faith rests upon something I only witness in a lifetime, but is unchanging: New discoveries may test my Faith, but that is it. I may have to constantly look deep at differnt views...but, either there is a God who created as He said, or there isn't.
So far, science has not done what you all claim; that it has explained the universe and how it came to be. (Heck, in a few years the Big Bang will be replaced with a different theory because the holes in the Big Bang are simply too enormous to ignore...same goes for Darwinian evolution, but it will take longer. It is withering now.)
You seem to constantly demand proof but provide none. Please tell meyou understand the difference between inferential data/conclusions and proof.
Mako definitely doesn't. Boy-maybe.
Have you ever seen the data on C14 after a test? Frequently it is outright contradictory to substances of known age...even by orders of magnitude. What's a scientist t do with that data? Throw it out? Hide it? Yes- all because it doesn't fit the assumptions. (Boy-that is what we call circular and intellectually dishonest. I know personally some people who do just that.)But, you would have to look into it and not drink the kool aid with your eyes shut. (Many thanks to Boy for explaining C14. Do you know that it is disappearing in the atmosphere?)
Remember, please, what science can an cannot do. If you want to believe something that is fine. But, do not claim it as fact...like the age of the Earth via carbo dating. Feel free to believe it. But, claiming as fact what you do not know is the height of arrogance. The time I have argued on all posts has been spent showing the flaws and fallacies of some of the items tossed out as fact. That is all.
The challenge is not on me to prove Creation nor to convince you. The challenge is for you to hang on to your worldview while all your reasons to do so disintegrate.
squashedBug- Please show me where "irreducibly complex" has been disproven. I can find some arguments against it, but nothing that disproves it. Your age is showing.
Irreducible complexity is your straw man, it is your turn to explain why it is true. The article you pointed to does not prove anything but what I said over and over again: Creationists lack perspective. Humans simply don't live long enough to directly witness many of the effects happening in nature, evolution is one of them.
You said that you accept random mutation and natural selection. It is then outright stupid to deny the existence of evolution. If the fittest survive over time you will see life forms evolve, either to higher forms or to defined niches. Of course you will not see that happening over the weekend or in your lifespan unless you turn to viruses and bacteria which have fast enough generation cycles and even then it is unlikely that will get old enough to see a completely new life form. Asking for this is about as intelligent as trying to walk to Alpha Centauri.
Squashed- Your question about irreducible complexity: What is it you need explained? (Keep the name-calling coming, however, as it adds the much needed texture to the emptiness in your posts.)
When a structure can be reduced to its key components and that structure cannot function without those components in there and in there positions, it is irreducibly complex. Darwinian Evolution cannot account for what was the previously fittest survivor. Pretty simple.
Outright stupid. Please explain how newly generated genetic information can come from a random mutation...which, by definition eliminates information.
This will keep you busy for some time.
Oh Chumpstream...Yet another standard simplistic Creationist argument to be debunked.
You do come out with the cliches here and are rather fun to shoot down.
Good ol' irreducible complexity...
Basically you're saying that some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function.
Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed. Right?
Ok - take it slowly now so it gets into your little head:
Irreducible complexity can evolve.
It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function.
That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
1/ deletion of parts
2/ addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
3/ change of function
4/ addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
5/ gradual modification of parts
All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected.
In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail.
For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation. Look it up numpty-boy.
Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it.
Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis.
Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system.
Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
Ok - roll on the next spurious argument in your little campaign of nonsense...
c'mon, don't you have new crap to refer to? You already posted that link before.
That whole thing proves nothing, it just shows a lack of understanding. Sure a complex system can break down if you remove parts. Still that is no proof that the system did not evolve to the current state.
A random mutation can cause a change that gives a specimen a slight edge in survival, that will make this kind of genetic information more widespread. The next mutation can be fatal, but if it is that failure will be removed fast. Many will fail actually way more than you are capable of comprehending, since you seem to be inable to count beyond 6000 years.
Here comes the lack of perspective again, life on earth did take millions and millions of years to evolve from one level to the next. Of course that can not happen if earth is only 6000 years old and it is not older than that since nothing before that time is mentioned in the bible. Ah, when did humans develop script?
Let's try this again:
Please explain how NEW genetic information can be ADDED through a mutation, since ALL mutations necessarily remove genetic information? (This is a key component to irreducible complexity--that you simply do not understand. Please re-read that link as it addresses your open misunderstanding of what IC states and what it does not.)
Bug-
Everytime you write, your ignorance is wonderfully revealed.
I notice you did not, DID NOT, answer the question. I know you are looking it up on the web right now...take your time.
If you have a genetics question, ask it.
No need to look it up. A DNA string can of course get longer over time. I assume you are aware that various species have different length of DNA. Viruses (using RNA instead of DNA) have really short ones since they only need the part of the gene code that reprograms the attacked cell.
Changes due to mutation can be lethal for the organism but if you look at enough specimens there will be mutations that actually work and may result in an improvement.
Bug- DNA length does not address the additional information required for mutations (as source of darwinian evolution) to work.
Additional info is relative to its source.
Say again. That statement did not contain information.
You asked how information can be added to genetic material. The concept is simple: DNA does not have a fixed length. Mutation can simply add a couple base pairs and if they make sense in the genetical code they can result in changes to the organism. Also genetic material usually contains parts that are inactive, relatively small changes in the surrounding genes can cause them to activate.
Of course the time thing comes into play again, 6000 years are not enough for this.
You're right...but, new info has never been added to DNA via mutation. Mutations, by their very definition, corrupt or destroy genetic information.
The uphill climb needed by Evolution doesn't really seem possible at the genetic level.
"new info has never been added to DNA via mutation", do you have proof that it never happened? Mutation is also shortening and lenghtening of DNA.
"doesn't really seem possible", you old problem of lack of perspective and time, allowing only 6000 years for everything to happen is a little bit cramping your style.
Guten morgen Glumberters!
I haf just awakened from ein well-earned shlumber after ein night on ze schnapps und ein new favourite supplied by mein maid Conchita - 84% cocaine mixed vith mein chihuahua's vorming powder! - to read ze above comments on Gott und ze universe.
I do not understand any of vot you say, but I am most impressed! Perhaps your fuhrer Bush could join zis forum und share his views, und zen ve vood haf ze definitive answer? As ze most powerful man on ze planet, it follows zat he must be von of ze most intelligent.
I remember reading somevere zat he sinks Gott created ze vorld in 4000BC und zat ze monkeys und dinosaurs are, how do you say? - ein figment of our imaginations. But novere does he mention ze great architect of ze universe, ze mighty Skvirrel!
Von of ze great benefits of ze erudite posts on zis most fascinating subject is zat Herr Rabz has been frightened off by all ze big vords. Zis is ein great result! Congratulations!
Now I must shleep again.
Sehr geehrter Herr Vanker, irgendwie kann ich mich nicht des Eindruckes erwehren, dass Sie eigentlich garnicht wirklich Deutsch sprechen können, sondern nur so tun als ob. Alleine der Nichtgebrauch von Umlauten macht mich skeptisch. Oder ist dies nur eine zusätzliche Lage der Tarnung?
Just read every last word of the above and i am now late for everything today, or behind schedule as a motivational speaker advised to call it.
sounds like you had a great night adolf, sounds like you may have time travelled after all that stuff and you have a spanish? maid called conchita, my maid is from the local authority, who is summons by pulling a red cord next to the shitter, how she loves to find me on the floor overdosed on shake and vac.
Conchita is eine Puerta Rican. Or zo her fazzer told me ven he sold her to me. Coincidence!! - I too haf ein red cord, but I use it for ein different purpose - I find it strangely stimulating ven I hang meinself vith it vile listening to James Last's version of ze Horst Wessel Song vith ein pineapple in my mouth. You should try zis sometime if ze mysteries of ze universe become too much to comprehend.
Vot is zis shake and vac of vich you speak?
Ach so....
Ve live und learn, as mein schonlich mutti used to say. I haf vonce tried ein similar substance. It vos made in England, und called, I sink, Ajax. It vos claimed to vork like "ein white tornado", but I found only zat ven I shnorted it in mein nostrils I fell to ze floor und foamed at ze mouth vith no pleasant effects votsoever.
I vill send Conchita to buy zis "shake and vac" ven she has finished feeding ze capybaras und test it on her.
By ze vay, haf you tried zis new "crystal meth" I am reading of in ze newspapers? It sounds very interesting.
dam it would work on a dyslexic myself lol suprised i cought it , thoe i didnt know why Canuck would respond in such a dull fashion made me glance more than once and then take notice.
still you need to stay on your toes around here lol,lol
Will the real Canuck please stand up? Test to see who is the real Canuck - What is the capital of Toronto? What is a 24? Who is the current President of Canada?
I haf just realised zat zis Canuck is ein impostor!
Look, fellow Glumberters - ze numbers are not correct! Who can zis be I am vondering.... Herr Rabz, is zat you?!
Herr Canuck - you should know zat someone is using your name. It is probably Rabz - he is ze sort of schwein who vould do zis. Gott in Himmel, is zer no depth to vich zis masturbator vill not sink? If it is NOT Rabz, zen I apologise to him. But if it is - I hope all his teeth fall out on Sanksgiving Day!
OK I guess no one really got the point of my point earlier.
Here goes again.
Stream, Pod, Canucky, whoever...
Who actually cares what happens beyond the here and now? What matters is what we make of our lives in this moment, right now, right here. It doesn't matter where we came from. What matters is where we are going every day. (Randall: to Iraq)
You may think "oh... but is it heaven, hell, or oblivion?" do you really care?
Have you ever met anyone who actually remembers going to any of them and came back to tell about it? Does it actually affect your day to day life except to bring you comfort, or fear?
Instead of debating endlessly about whether God created the earth iln 6 thousand years or physics and biology created it in 6 billion, think about what you and your wife, kids, family are gonna do in the next 6 days or so.
Stream... your comfort is false. It comes from your ego asserting that you chose the "right" religion, and that this religion has all the answers... same with your science. Mako and Pod, same with your science. Our egos assert to us every day that we KNOW the answers!!! We don't actually know the answers. We would like to try... because humans naturally fear the unknown... which is why we try to control our environment... which is why we try to understand where we came from and where we're going, so that we can avoid PAIN as much as possible.
The idea of Heaven and Hell are just methods of pain avoidance and population control (pain avoidance by the ones in control).
All that really really really matters is that big, fat, corny term LOVE.
Wheter you're a creationist or evolutionist... all this mental masturbation is just that... MASTURBATION. it's not very productive, wastes a lot of time.
No why don't y'all go play a good game of soccer, or pool, or football, or ping pong together, and get yer families together and have a barbeque or something.
Because THAT is what really matters. What really matters is that most humans (in the US anyway) are afraid of each other and don't socialize anymore and don't know their neighbors... this leads to easier population control by TV and gov't, and more crime, and more fear.
So get out there and LOVE somebody!!! Life is too short to be unhappy or waste time discussing what to do next. That's what the French do. They spend all their time talking instead of doing.
(I know streamed... it's REALLY important to you what happens after life etc. etc. and you just want to save everyone's souls and it's about eternity and blah blah blah... really though. How do you KNOW FOR SURE that you picked the right holy book? Huh?)
And this video... it just proves my point. The universe is HUGE!!!! our lives are totally insignificant, won't amount to much besides what our puny little minds like to believe is important... so go have fun, do good works and stuff like that.
I'm sorry you believe all those things.
I have constantly asserted what I believe and why. Of course I believe Christianity is correct. You believe your assertions are correct. I have rarely said what is, in fact, correct. This is one of the misapplications of debate here: contradiciting (A) does not necessarily mean confirming (B).
Why does it matter what we do with the here andnow if it has no eternal ramifications?
Although, I do agree I could lower the level of sarcasm, etc. Easy to get drawn in.
Stream... just answer this one question for me. How do you know you picked the right holy book? Meaning, the Bible over say... the Quran or something else?
W-
Faith from a long time doubting. (Didn't choose a book so much as a choice to live life a certain way and submit it all to God...or, at least try to.) Often times, not necessarily you, the assumptions about Christians is that decisions are made in a vacuum and that their beliefs exist there as well. It takes a lifetime to come to terms with much of what is in the Bible and reconciling all of it with the same.
Which one do you choose? Why?
If none, why?
Christian Amanpour would put a slant on her mother's cooking for a story, and is one of "CNN's Warriors." Really, insert "journalist" every where she shrieks "religious" or "CNN" where she spits out "God" and you will have a true story, and just as creepy. Today's "need" for hype has replaced "news" with over-the-top, Armageddons-times, boobs-and-lips, junk. What was wrong with Huntley/Brinkley? "It doesn't sell." I like to listen to both scientists and theologists who know their stuff. I don't challenge their beliefs, I ask questions for information that is I am missing... like news should.
You must be an alias to Challenge Canuck's wisdom. It couldn't be the fact that he irriates more people to respond against him. Let's see, you must be me, throb, or chumm.
Guten abend. Zese religious maniacs are, how do you say, making mein prick hairs stand on end.
Zis link you haf posted is kvite interesting. Herr Goebells vould haf been proud to haf been associated vith it!
Und still, novone has answered mein kvestion about the Skvirrel - zey are running scared I am sinking. Only ze bigbadwolfman has any sense it seems. Mein only kvibble vith his ideas is on ze masturbation. I haf never found zis to be ein vaste of time. In fact, it is cheap, readily available und normally kvite satisfying. Und it does novone any harm - unless of course ze servants burst in at ein inappropriate time.
Zis is good news for Herr Rabz, ein man von solitary pursuits if ever zere vos von. Of course, ze masturbation can be overdone. Goering vos vell known as ein onanist, und he let it get in ze vay of his vork, vich vos to destroy ze RAF. Instead, he made all ze time vith ze bashing von der bishop, und neglected his duties.
Ze Yankee Clinton at least had ze decency to shpill his seed on "zat voman". I vunder if ze current fuhrer Bush does ze same, or if he just covers ze pages von Haliburton Veekly vith his unvanted shperm.
Ve vill never know ze answer to zis kvestion - but zen ve vill never know ze answer to how ze vorld vos created. Dank Gott!!
Ralph you can not become a Creationist, just because you can disprove Gravity, you must become arrogant, and obfuscate all truth, except those that keep you believing yourself better than everybody.
I'm now a true follower of the Squirrelnetics from now on. You and I will both become devout and well versed in the Squirrel church. All other religions are now false, because we have found the one true god.
Anyone else who wants to join may do so. To anoint yourself go outside and throw a nut into the air. If it falls back to earth, the Great Squirrel has accepted you. Be blessed all Squirrels!
The Great Squirrel has guided me to the Great Book of Squirrelnetics, which is made from birch bark. I as the holder of the book of truth shall reveal these truths to our congregation at the great falling of the Holy Acorns, known henceforth as Acorn Time (AT).
I haf ein rule ven on zis site, und I haf stated it before. I NEVER speak in mein mutter tongue. It is discourteous to ze Yankees und Englischer schweinhunds. Ze only time I haf broken zis rule is ven I lost mein temper vith the Masturbator Rabz, und for zis I apologise.
Herr Podman!
I vos only joking about ze Skvirrel. Of course ein Skvirrel did not create ze universe. It vos ein ferret.
Too late Adolf. I have found the way, and you were just a instrument of the Great Squirrel, that has lead me to the one Truth. You are cordially invited to be a member if you wish, but you must believe in Evolution, because it is one of out most sacred laws.
The Great Squirrel has descended from 'The Burning Bush' with the following laws:
1) Thou shalt eat Ice Cream (any flavor) and enjoy it, and in lieu of that, any other snack that brings contentment. 2) Thou shall hold Evolution as true in every respect. 3) Thou shall deny the existence of Gravity. Things fall by the will of the Great Squirrel. 4) Thou shall enjoy intoxicating beverages, cookouts, and sporting events. 5) Thou shall never declare any point, or structure on the earth or in the current brane as a sacred place of worship. 6) Truth, science, humor, and a happy life are given to those who follow the Great Squirrel. 7) Thou shall never force anyone to believe Squirrelnetics. 8) Thou shall never attend any meetings or congregate in great numbers for the worship of the Great Squirrel. 9) There is no Hell for the followers of Squirrelnetics. 10) The world, and universe is only 6 years old.
Can't really go with law 10. If it were about 20 and damn good looking I would convert immediately, but 6 is too messy, got one of those here at home...
Streamlined - I would be happy to refer you to some journals on biology, but I imagine the library you have at the zoology department of Bob Jones University won't have them in the stacks anyway. You can go check just for fun. Look alphabetically between "Bible" and "Creator of all Time and Space".
You could also try to find some scientific journals on geology, physics, sociology, or any of the other subjects that you seem to profess a deep knowledge of. There are literally thousands of people who have published material that is subject to scrutiny in their fields. Are you really so full of hubris that you think you can simply dispel all their work on no more than your say so? But maybe I should defer to your all-knowing expertise. After all, you did take a few courses in zoology. (Insert derisive laughter here).
If all you have is to say that science relies on only testable data and observation, save your time. There has been no direct observations of how the universe started (although physicists are kind of checking into that now) and no replicated tests. SO WHAT! You only have faith to go from the lack of observable data. How, in the absence of hard data, do you leap to the conclusion that some omnipotent being designed and created everything? Maybe YOU are the creator of all time and space - you know all, and have a knack for creating deep meaning out of nothing.
li'lBoy- When you take a break from your tantrum, please read the following from earlier.
Mako- No need to defend my career. Only in your very feeble mind does professional athletic coach=PE Teacher.
The tantrum you, theBug and Boy are throwing is both wonderful to witness and sad.
The earlier points I made to Canuck about logic can now be applied to you three. I have never, ever claimed proof for my beliefs about Creation. In point of fact, I have shown that science cannot ( CAN NOT ) prove either case and that we are left with metaphysical questions.
So, since science (not operational science) must rely heavily upon inference, we are left with a constantly changing framework. Developing technology and current observational techniques often send previous "facts" to obscurity. But, that does not mean adherents to the previous won't go down without a fight.
We are, therefore, not at an argument over science, but over Faith. Your faith rests upon something you only witness in your lifetime, that is constantly changing: new discoveries call to question previous knowledge, one realm of research contradicts another realm (routinely, by the way), and new people carry the message and help create a following.
My faith rests upon something I only witness in a lifetime, but is unchanging: New discoveries may test my Faith, but that is it. I may have to constantly look deep at differnt views...but, either there is a God who created as He said, or there isn't.
So far, science has not done what you all claim; that it has explained the universe and how it came to be. (Heck, in a few years the Big Bang will be replaced with a different theory because the holes in the Big Bang are simply too enormous to ignore...same goes for Darwinian evolution, but it will take longer. It is withering now.)
You seem to constantly demand proof but provide none. Please tell meyou understand the difference between inferential data/conclusions and proof.
Mako definitely doesn't. Boy-maybe.
Have you ever seen the data on C14 after a test? Frequently it is outright contradictory to substances of known age...even by orders of magnitude. What's a scientist t do with that data? Throw it out? Hide it? Yes- all because it doesn't fit the assumptions. (Boy-that is what we call circular and intellectually dishonest. I know personally some people who do just that.)But, you would have to look into it and not drink the kool aid with your eyes shut. (Many thanks to Boy for explaining C14. Do you know that it is disappearing in the atmosphere?)
Remember, please, what science can an cannot do. If you want to believe something that is fine. But, do not claim it as fact...like the age of the Earth via carbo dating. Feel free to believe it. But, claiming as fact what you do not know is the height of arrogance. The time I have argued on all posts has been spent showing the flaws and fallacies of some of the items tossed out as fact. That is all.
The challenge is not on me to prove Creation nor to convince you. The challenge is for you to hang on to your worldview while all your reasons to do so disintegrate.
Hey Chumpy, once again your paucity of thought comes through - failed zoology scientist and PE teacher status aside, you really CAN'T be as stupid as you sound right?
Think it's fair to say that LWBOY, Bug, Pod, Canuck, Unpronouncable and myself all understand and observe a lot more of the world than you appear to do.
You are in a definitive minority here. One which shows you to be a little behind in terms of current thinking and ability to convey thought in ways which help the debate. The funny thing is you genuinely don't believe you are coming across as subnormal, and your attempts to make out that you are winning any debate here are laughable.
There is no debate. We are humouring you.
As usual when dealing with a flat earth literal creationist like yourself, when pressed you show yourself to be all smoke and mirrors. It is fine to live your life this way, it is less fine to challenge others clearly more intelligent and worldly-wise than your naive little self.
Keep hold of your faith Chumpy, by all means, but please try not to imply that there is true science to back up that faith which tells us all that world is 6k old. Poor deluded child.
The challenge is ABSOLUTELY on you to attempt to prove Creationism. You are the one arguing in the face of many more learned people here...
Your ignorance and arrogance in assuming this burden doesn't lie with you simply shows how ill conceived your position is. Creationism is way, way outside the current paradigm of Evolutionary thought and hence requires peer review. You seem to think it has passed peer review status by the scientific community. It has not.
You keep saying that huge numbers of scientists are turning their backs on this theory. They are not.
It is very simple. The theory of Creationism has garnered absolutely NO support from learned science and as such is having to go outside the realms and into a wider arena of humankind. No real science tends to be found here.
Creationist science is poor and the proponents are normally insufficiently educated to carry the argument through without bluster and sidestepping - as you show here.
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil again?
What IS happening is a groundswell of people like yourself who have faith in bucket loads (nothing wrong in that per se apart from when YOU start trying to rabidly foist that faith on others), coupled with questionable education, are trying through volume and not sensible science to shout Creationism into existence as a serious challenge to Evolutionary theory.
An explosive combination here - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
It is not a serious challenge but it is worrying the route that creationists are attempting to take - a populist agenda based on garnering support from those with poor education, poor understanding of science and an increasingly radicalized Christian right.
As usual you will continue wailing into the wind long after the more sensible among us have left you to preach to an empty space.
You seem to have somewhat of an inferiority complex,which, given the 'arguments' you pose above, would seem fully justified.
Bottom line - we all spring from the apes - it would seem you didn't spring far enough.
Thank you for humoring me, Mako.
I re-assert, based on your above post, you only have 4-5 people who support your thinking and that is what is most important...being in that majority. I know it also makes you feel very smart to know that there are PhDs with whom you agree.
Stuart Smalley hs had a profound effect on you.
Keep putting your intelligence on the backs of experts, M. Remember, those experts said man would disintigrate if he travelled at the speed of sound, believed Piltdown man to be real, for a decade told us eggs were unhealthy, told us the Sun revolved around the Earth, told us we would never reach the moon, and that the Earth was flat.
By the way, you use a lot of words to convince people you are smart. Why?
Um, you should really start to get a bit more education into your head before you make up such stuff.
The people who insisted that earth is flat, thought travelling at high speed is killing you (which it actually does if you happen to stop too fast i.e. by hitting a mountain) etc. were either from a much (much much) earlier age or in the same league as you creationists. In case you did not notice: Creationism was one of those old concepts that got swept out by science, unfortunatley someone did dig in the garbage and liked what he found there.
Just remind me again, who was it who suppressed the concept that earth is not flat? Actually that earth is not flat had been a know fact among early scientists (or philosophers) in ancient Egypt and Greece.
I know looking stuff up isn't your forte as it would cause you to see nuance and context to human history. Your blanket assertion about the idea of flat earth being purely religious is less ignorant and more outright laziness.
Chumpstream - Fair point about using a lot of words and apologies if they gave you a headache (no apologies if they gave you an epiphany).
In fairness to others, I have also offered profuse apologies for boring the crap out of people, but explained how important it has been for you to see quite how tenuous your position is. That and the fact that the debate we are having draws on an almost infinite amount of collective knowledge. To this end your attempts to negate the wealth of information presented to you only serve to highlight your inability to deal with rational fact.
You would obviously prefer that it were not the case that realms of valid data are available, and that the universe could easily be explained away via Creationist theory nonsense and the shouting down of rational scientific investigation and discovery.
Whether people agree with me is moot. The fact that they ARE in agreement speaks volumes for their intelligence as well as it does yours. As for whether I feel smart – I have not been the one trumpeting about my background in ‘argumentation’, my failed attempts at zoology and my ‘professional athletics coaching’ employment. However I guess your inept attempts at debate tend to give me a little chuckle, and perhaps wrongly I can’t help but feel a little smug when dealing with the likes of you.
To whit, the reason for using lots of words is simple. They explained something which is anathema to you:
Evidence of observed and available scientific fact.
Not the blind faith or complete lack of empirical data which you bring to the debate
Something I’ve noticed of your style of argument. It's base of me to say, but you’re essentially full of shit!
A wiser man than me once said, ‘Of all the human qualities, the one I admire the most is competence. A tailor who is really able to cut and fit a coat seems to me an admirable man, and by the same token a PE Teacher who knows little or nothing of the thing he presumes to teach seems to me to be a fraud and a rascal.’
Streamlined- Above you say "Second, even if they did, you have a monster hurdle to go from big protein to life. In fact, a virtually impossible hurdle". You reject that it is possible for the universe to have somehow naturally created life. I know the argument - too random, not enough time has elapsed in the universe, no observations protein modifying to higher life forms, no ability to duplicate by experiment such modification, etc. There is no observable and concrete data for you to rely upon. I think there is plenty of such inferential data, but okay, that is no good enough for you. Okay. But there is zero data as to a Creator existing, or to explain how this Creator Created, or where the Creator came from, or how he can somehow do what is, by your comments, impossible for the universe to develop on its own, even over billions of years. As I said above, if you plan on pointing out that your faith does not need data or proof, as it is, well, faith, then you have the perfect circular argument, unique to religion. "I believe what I believe, and I know it is correct because I believe it. But you cannot prove it to anyone, so why are you posting at length in an attempt to do so?.
And one last thing - have you ever really listened to some Pink Floyd? Cause if anyone could really benefit from it, brother it is you.
"The challenge is not on me to prove Creation nor to convince you. The challenge is for you to hang on to your worldview while all your reasons to do so disintegrate"
This from the proponent of blind faith, who can try to nitpick every scientific fact about formation of the universe, life on earth, etc. but won't even try to offer a shred of proof for his own worldview, which as he admits is based on a simple personal belief. Sort of like believing in the tooth fairy, or the Spring Crucifixion Bunny, or fair U.S. presidential elections.
I like the comment about the worldview disintegrating the best. The worldview I have is based on observations from other human beings who will try to put forward their stated claims for independent scrutiny. As Streamlined is so fond of pointing out, those views won't always stand up to such scrutiny. So be it. But far from falling apart, science is nevertheless moving forward steadily. Streamlined, based on the video posted here, do you still maintain that the Earth revolves around the sun? This was a rallying cry for your ilk just a few centuries ago, but science has moved forward. We have now moved beyond such relatively simply scientific observations, while religion has crawled along, trying to catch up. Was your church simply wrong about that a few centuries ago, but is completely correct in its rejection of science at this time? Is there no parallel that you can see to any recent science that the church/creationists reject?
This progress is the antithesis of religious belief. You dare not challenge such beliefs, or you will be labeled a heretic non-believer, and lose any benefits that might otherwise accrue to adhering to such beliefs, or receive the disengenous pity from believers like Streamlined that we are risking our mortal souls in expressing such blashpemous rhetoric or are pitifully deluded in our worldview. Rather a harsh conclusion for just trying to exercise some independent thought, no?
My worldview is not based on fairy tales. I am not in the least concerned that it is fracturing or being shaken in any way. Streamlined, the majority of your posts are devoted to attempts (which I, Canuck, Mako, Unprounabale among others believe to be spurous) at bashing away at the science, or scientific method, involved in discussions of biology, geology, etc. But for your own beliefs, you offer only...faith. Please, stop the negative arguments. Instead, offer me a shred of positive proof in support of your position, or to Creationism, existence of God, Jesus, you name it. Anything at all. I think we would all be interested to hear that for a change.
Li'lBoy- If you read my posts, you will see the common logical thread is to show that the materialist worldview (that includes, but is not limited to, Darwinian Evolution, the BigBang) is so full of holes that they belong in philosophy classes.
But maybe I give your reading skills too much credit. I have made that mistake before...and, after further reading of your posts, that is what I can only conclude.
(If I read you right, and this is just a summation, you say...I do not believe because of fairy tales, but what I observe based on what others tell me...even though those things change and may be wrong. Boy-you really are smart. So, as you rip what you believe to be universally held church beliefs of hundreds of years ago (they were NOT, by the way), you would have been of the same camp, since, prior to Kepler, it was not just religious belief about the Earth's centrality to the Sun, but a scientific one based on observation. So, you would have likely been in the same camp, just for different reasons.)
*Note: Never bashed the scientific method, Boygenius. I simply know its limits and accept them.
Here are a few positive arguments for Creation:
1) Inference from Design due to irreducible complexity. (No one is claiming proof here, just strong, strong inference...especially when taken in the context of the lack of proof to the contrary.)
2) Time dilation (See Einstein)
3) The Geological column (Constructed on the ASSUMPTION of very slow deposits, but strong evidence suggests rapid deposition and supported by C14 profiles. Go figure.)
4) Human language development (Rapid origination suggests between 6K and 25K years ago...yet, man is supposed to have diverged from apes 5M years ago.)
5) Sea Salt values predict a very young Earth
6) Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
7) The Cambrian Explosion
These are a few and need explaining from materialists. It is instructive to note how much of the volumes of scientific research rests on the researcher's own assumptions. That is because researchers are human and subject to frequent error.
The Creationists and Materialists have the same data...just interpret it differently. As a former Darwinist from my college days, I can say without hyperbole, it was the basic questions that turned Darwinian Evolution on its head for me:
How can new genetic info be created? Mutations eliminate information.
How can life come from non-life? That is philosophical question. If the conditions in our primordial soup could do this, what were they?
Where are the billions of transitional forms?
Why do dating methods disagree?...often times within the same testing subject?...often times by orders of magnitude?
For Humans to have evolved from a common ancestor with apes, where are the thousands upon thousands of missing links needed for survivable traits to prosper?
There are more questions. Supposing answers for a couple of the above still leaves enormous gaps. As time marches on, lo these past 150 years, with technological developments and new ways of inferring, we still have the same basic questions left unanswered. Time for a revival of Aristotle, in our hubris-domiinated western world.
I would like to point out, based on what you and others have written: we both rely on Faith. Yours simply has to change as errant Human Beings change how they interpret things.
So you once did understand science? What happened then? Serious head injury?
The "Earth as the center" and "Earth is flat" belief has not been as continuous as you think. It was just that in some phases of human history scientific knowledge was either deliberately suppressed or just ignored. Just as you do ignore verifyable data and instead seem to rely on sources as reliable as the Weekly World News.
Dear, dear Chumpstream, it seems part of your unhappiness stems from ignorance and the rest of it from pure simple error.
It seems you hold onto your beliefs most strongly because you are incredulous about the universe around you. This helps you form your worldview and enables you to place a variety of arguments from incredulity in your postings…The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking. Along wth Chumpy’s ability to make a valid argument it would seem
Chumpy - I’ll take your points above and deal with them in the same order such that you won’t get confused:
1/ Chumpstream’s love of a complicated (excuse the pun) sounded argument of irreducible complexity which I had to explain to him earlier. His view is that systems are irreducibly complex if removing any one part destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity in organisms therefore indicates they were designed.
Irreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
Irreducible complexity suggests ACTUALLY a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000).
Stop bringing it up Chumpstream because it smacks of irreducible stupidity on your part
2/ Time Dilation debunked:
Creationists believe the earth is near the center of the universe, at the bottom of a deep gravitational well. Relativistic effects result in billions of years passing in the rest of the universe while only thousands pass near the earth. This explains how multibillion-year-old stars and galaxies can exist in a universe only a few thousand years old.
Gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor.
There is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.
Humphreys tried to use clocks in the earth's frame of reference. But the cosmos is much older than the earth. Judging from the heavy elements in the sun and the rest of the solar system, our sun is a second-generation star at least. Billions of years must have passed for the first stars to have formed, shone, and become novas, for the gasses from those novas to have gathered into new star systems, and for the earth to form and cool in one such system. The billions of years before the earth are not accounted for in Humphreys's model.
Humphreys's theory assumes that the earth is in a huge gravity well. The evidence contradicts this assumption. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. This notwisthstanding, as we have patently seen, there is a great deal of other independent evidence that the earth is much older than 6k years.
If there were any substance to Humphreys's proposal, at least some competent cosmologists would build on it and share in the Nobel Prize.
Instead, they dismiss it as worthless.
3/ Geological column
Chumpstreams view appears to state that the geological column is a fiction, existing on paper only. The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth. The entire geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution. The accepted scientific response to this faintly ridiculous notion is as follows:
The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts. Breaks in the geological column at any spot are entirely consistent with an old earth history. The column is deposited only in sedimentary environments, where conditions favor the accumulation of sediments. Climatic and geological changes over time would be expected to change areas back and forth between sedimentary and erosional environments.
There are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia (Trendall et al. 1990, 382, 396) and the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Morton 2001).
Chumpstream will now no doubt challenge the dating assumptions on the column however the geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.
Streamlined disputes the science of other many more credible people than himself and likes to bring in C14 dating methods etc etc etc. Change the record Chumpy – the science here works.
4/ Now onto perhaps the most easily debunked of your theories in support of Creationism:
That there is time enough in 6,000 years for all languages and religions to develop, consistent with a young earth creationist viewpoint.
The fact that something can happen in less than 6,000 years is not evidence that the earth is young. A TOTALLY STRAWCLUTCHING ARGUMENT HERE
Religions can indeed develop quickly. Witness Scientology, which arose in much less than one generation.
Languages also can develop quickly, in just a few generations. American Sign Language is an example. However, the evidence indicates that languages and religions (not to mention the earth itself) are substantially older.
For example, all the language families from North and South America except Eskimo-Aleut are distinct from Old World languages, and North America was not settled until 12,000 years ago at least. The earliest candidate for written language is about 8,000 years old (Li et al. 2003).
5/ Chumpstream talks of salinity and sodium in the world’s oceans:
A creationist scientist defined a test whereby an upper limit for the age of the oceans is obtained by dividing the amount of an element dissolved in the sea by the amount added each year by rivers. These calculations yield the following figures:
Sodium – 260m years
Magnesium 45m years
Silicon 8k years
Potassium 11m years
Copper 50k years
Gold 560k years
Silver 2.1m years
Mercury 42k years
Lead 2k years
Tin 100k years
Nickel 18k years
Uranium 500k years
Now the source of this information was a Creationist Scientist called Henry M Morris in 1974. Scientific Creationism . However what these figures refer to are RESIDENCE times, or the average time that a small amount of an element stays in the sea water BEFORE being removed.
Bad science here: They are NOT times that it takes the element to ACCUMULATE, and individual atoms may stay much briefer or longer than those times.
Elements in the ocean are in approximate equilibrium between sources adding them and mechanisms removing them. A detailed analysis of sodium, for example, shows that, within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed. Boom goes another argument Chumpy
Morris left aluminum off the list. It would show (according to Morris's reasoning) that the earth is only 100 years old.
6/ The polystrates argument that fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments.
Again easily and scientifically debunked:
Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades as the sediment around them hardens.
7/ Finally Chumpstreams love of the Cambrian explosion:
The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life.
Examples debunking this theory include:
Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000).
The Cambrian began 543 Mya, and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya. Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000).
There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998). Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician.
Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
And that just considers phyla.
Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago.
Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
There are many plausible explanations (FAR MORE SO THAN CREATIONISM) for why diversification may have been relatively sudden, and also help in explaining the increase in fossil records:
The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004).
Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).
During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian.
The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.
Those Precambrian fossils found ARE consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.
Chumpstream you seem to go from weakness to weakness in your argument
We’ll keep humoring you though. Keep ‘em coming my little Flat Earther.
I seem to haf started sumsink vith mein Great Architect Skvirrel theory. As I said, zis vos ein joke, und ein ferret in fact created ze universe. But if you vish ein Skvirrel, zen ein Skvirrel it vill be!
Zer is room for many different vermin in ze panoply of Rodent-theism,. Pick your furry creature und believe! I haf personally entered deep meditation at mein self-improvement class in Buenos Aires und tried to visualise ze Great Skvirrel, but only ein ferret appears. (It looks ein little like your songstress Britney Spears)
So, Herr Podman, I vill villingly become an acolyte of your new movement, but only if I am allowed to vear mein jackboots on special occasions.
Zis religion of vitch you speak sounds a most welkomen idea for it vill truly unite zee vurld
I for vun see zee dead dodo in my visions but as zeez are not rodents I have become a Ratist. Zees noble creatures fulfil all mine needs in the realm of religion.
Zee jackboots must be vorn and zere beautiful sounds vill ring out as zey march down zee streets
Idaho Sen. Larry Craig the conservative Republican as a Gay is not welcome because he tells the truth under oath, but not in public. Oops - I have been informed by the RNC that when Republicans are have same gender sex in airport mens room, that it is not considered Gay, and that only Democrats are Gay, and they also stated that all democrats are terrorists, because they are truthful, and against America, And are followers of Satan, and are spending America into debt, and are responsible for everything that goes wrong in Iraq, and are responsible for Potato Bugs.
I am bi-polar so I am my own voice of reason. My other screen name which negates one letter is my weaker side. ARGHHHH!!!!! Can't let him out. No, you will not control me!!!!!! I cannot even think of him...AHHHH!!!!!!!
He cannot join because he believes he can prove Gravity, and he does not believe in Evolution. He is one of the 'Others' , and he spiritually inferior to US. So all that he says is irrelevant, and only our beliefs are valid. (Squirrelnetics)
Because our god is truer than his, we will mock him with obfuscation, and bad 6 grade science knowledge.
Ach so....
You sink Herr Streamlined is ein lost cause? Could ve not make him "ein offer he can't refuse"? Ve could kidnap him und place him on ein desert island vith only Herr Rabz und Herr pcracist for ein fortnight. I am convinced he vould crack, as ze Englisch say. Or vielleicht ve could simply pull out his fingernails. Much more amusing! But, vot ze hell, ze Church of ze Celestial Skvirrel und His acolytes ze Ferrets of ze Firmament do not need his sort.
I haf a few old uniforms in mein attic vich I can dig out if you feel ve need to haf ein high profile campaign. (Vorn at Stalingrad und only slighty soiled).
Adolf - for your vision and loyalty you are appointed to lead our Holy Army of Squirrels to squash the unfaithful. Break out the uniforms, affix the Acorn emblem of our faith, and march forth.
LOL strummin i dont know what was funnier , that video or the fact that you knew of the link itself wow...LOLOLOL makes one wonder what your doing over there in KIDDIE land . please dont answer its not necessary!!
most likely a phys Ed training film .
you should not be so angry about your masters falling all over themselfs.
try to remeber its Gods Will that those people should be outed in just the fashion .
so Ironic dont cha think? LOL in all the guy bashers being not Gay but just down right
queers.
and Rove ,Gonzales just fuking shit heel liers. oh does the list go on and on lololol
and to top it all off Ching ming wang has a no hitter going into the 7th aganist Boston and perhaps a sweep, im going to the beach and then a holdem tabel at the Tropicana for 1/2 no limit poker. you suk im great and to top it all off God just told me im his favorate.
Thanks Stream. I'm beat. After watching that vid 20 times and following along, it was a heck of a workout.........Almost as good as Buns of Steel or Tai-bo.
If Elijah isn't embarrassed of this yet, he will be when he goes on a Letterman or Leno show in 10 years.
used- yeah, wore me out too. Jane Fonda's got nothing on Elijah Wood. (Wait- if they collaborated on a video, would it be called the Fonda-Wood Workout?)
Rf-Ignorance must be bliss.
And, God does love you. Especially when you type out the F-word, mr. spiritual. How are those vocab classes coming?
stummin you type out the word fuck and more all the time so try not to be such a outright hypocrite. man your a nut!! you try talking the mellow do good and take the high road christen then post as your alter ego putting down people name calling and cursing. LOL and you think what???? no one know? jigs up and has been.
any one here still refering to you as one person, well is just wasting thier time. perhaps one morning you can hit those knees and ask God to grant you a pair of balls . just big enough to admit your deception on this site . so untill then your fooling only you.
ps God loves the word fuck ..... you fucker LOL just kidding your not a fucker . and its to bad for you that your not !!!
ohh Strummin,, one more thing bud. jerking off to a Jane Fonda video does not constitute a workout .
but dont give up, your on the right course ...sort of..a.... well as long as your not on the kids site doing whatever i guess Janes quite a step up. LOL
Your questions above: the Little Person Who fears Me was actually correct on two of them....but only a REAL Canadian would know what a "two-four" is: it's a case of beer, also known in my day as a "Scarborough Suitcase". Simple tip: The One Who Fears Me will always have a slight variation on my name, sometimes subtle...sometimes dumb.
Yes, you picked out the only one of my questions that probably could not be googled quickly but any good Canadian boy would know by about age 18. I deem you to be the REAL CANADIAN. You are not just using the Canuck handle as a cyber version of the backpack flag. Good for you.
A 24 pack can of beers is not what us younger Canadians like. We like the duece dueces and the forties. We also like to smoke endo while sipping on gin and juice.
Such a potty mouth is my other self. Come here and put your mouth back on my lap. When you speak sweetie it ruins it.
Don't know why I went back this far, but glad I did. Lots of smarts here, and good to read (however lengthy) informed posts, passionately expressed.
Personally, I can't disallow extra-human intervention in the process. My limited exposure to the various sciences included something said to be a basic principle...one can not give what one does not posess.
The Big Bang theory, at least my primitive understanding of it, postulates the spontaneous appearance of all needed for what we now consider "life on earth"...plant, animal, and human existence, as well as the stupifyingly enormous wealth of mineral/chemical presence in the universe.
Okedokey...how did we get from point A to point B? From nothing to everything?
I think, once the ball got rolling, Darwin's notion is extant in it's explanation of a gradual process of improved life thereafter. But Darwin begins with the existance of life and works forward from there.
My problem is that his worthy thoughts, beginning where they do, do not address what had to happen first. That's OK with me...Darwin was not the beneficiary of today's advanced scientific capabilities.
Creationism is not something I understand, for lack of research...and interest. But I think we need a creator to explain certain basic issues. I also don't think such an imputed creator needed to do it all at once...I mean, there is intellectual room to think that there were occasional creative interventions at quite distantly removed times, starting with providing the initial materials for the so-called Big Bang....then perhaps a quick visit when life was needed to begin plant growth. After that, I'm pretty flexible...though it is troubling to consider that plant life at some point became animal life...troubling, but nowhere near as intellectually repugnant as the something-from-nothing (Big Bang) notion.
Well...that's a view from, I think, the middle (?). Neither wide-left creationist nor wide-right pure pragmatist...I just think we need to have an uncaused-cause.
Someone made a sarcastic note referring to those who needed to believe in a creator, that being a mark of bankrupt intelligence. On the other hand, what does it take to intellectually accept the notion of nothing, in one instant, and everything (in initial form, of course) the next. Nothing vs everything....and it just "happened" (? !).
OOOOOOOkay...where's the scientific process there? Seems to me to be just a "belief" on the part of those who so believe. This places them much closer to creationists in the spectrum of thought than I think they would enjoy.
Personally I have no problem with people who believe in a creator as long as they are not trying to contradict logic and fact or try to tell other people they have to live according to rules from an ancient book or something along these lines. Many people can properly differentiate between a religion and the real world, but unfortunately many can not.
If you want to put a creator at the cause of the big bang, fine. I rather stick with the position that we don't know enough about that yet but evidence is pouring in from various experiments and observations. Likely the final explanation (if we even live to see it being formulated) will be very complex and only possible to fully grasp in terms of higher mathematics. That does not mean you are too stupid, it just means that if you are trying to attack that concept you should be able to fully grasp it in the first place, otherwise you would look stupid.
I don't think many people can claim to understand the theory of relativity. Though I have never heard any religious group to challenge the time dilation effect. Most likely that is due to the fact than when the religious books were written nobody had any concept of lightspeed, time, and space, so they could not write about it in their book. But they did write about creation...
Your un-caused cause is the perfect warm water of logic needed.
(My reference to Aristotle was in hopes of a First Cause discussion.)
Great post, Chaz.
You are right...as I paraphrase, hopefully iterating your theme...faith is faith; just depends upon what you place it.
Bug-quickly, the reason no one religious is arguing against time dilation is because it is supportive of young earth creation and explains very well billions of years inside a literal 6-day creation (Einstein was very aware of this). That is why I have repeatedly cited it.
First Cause discussions as led by Chumpstream's world view:
Every event has a cause. The universe itself had a beginning, so it must have had a first cause, which must have been a creator / God.
Rational, normal response:
The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal.
The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions.
There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
This claim also raises the question of what caused God. If as Chumpstream will no doubt claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
IMHO The cause of the universe coming into being will probably remain one of life's unfathomable mysteries - with the Big Bang hypothesis currently holding most potential water (or matter!) as for HOW it did.
As to WHY it did, I am brave enough to understand that we may never find out, but I believe we should still continue to try through the scientific method!
Frankly the uncaused-cause questions opens up a much wider philosophical (some may also feel theological) arena for discussion and it's moving away from Darwin Theory.
Sorry Chumpstream but it would be a little more honest of you if you didn't attempt to try and divert away from the discussion at hand, even though you may be finding the pressure on your mental capacity at present.
I know this is frequently your wont so do try and stick oon topic.
As we go through life, if we work at it we learn more and more each day.
In your case though you seem to have been taking an unusually long holiday so some catch up is probably in order.
Well, thank god everybody has carried on so long. No one will see my lame comment. But for the record, I looked at this video 2 days ago and I can't shake it. I have had very weird occurences in my life which I can't begin to explain.....but they don't even make a blip in the true concept of our universe......what the f*$#@!
I'm a little timid right now, I can enjoy a beating as good as the next girl, but....when you watch people close to you die a violent death or you watch your grandpa detiorate (probably spelled that wrong, sorry) there is a surreal aspect to it. I know there is a layer to our existence that is undefined. I watched that video and I felt like what I have seen wasn't real but it was and I'm trying to understand what streamlined is saying...Oh fuck it... I'm being a typical girl....I can sum up the weird shit in one line....ever felt an urge or feeling to do or say something at a certain time in your life....do it....you'll look back on it (I'm 36 years old) and instinct is gold...you'll never go wrong following your gut...It might hurt at the time but trust me....you will never regret it....Luv Nikki.
Correction: Your 36 yrs. young. Instinct is gold especially whilst playing poker. Hanging tough through your grandpas death, much love. Best way of finding a meaning through the soup of life, (For me). To find a power Greater then myself or a God of my understanding. it helped. and continues to help. Now none of this is fact, its just my humble belief.
Streamlined, I have a straight forward challenge for you: Explain why time dilation supports the "young earth" idea. No links to external sources, explain it here.
(Important note: Time is measured in the present and does not need a known starting point. Age needs a know starting point. So, any observations of "age" we might make are limited to the present, and the assumptions that one makes have to based on what one believes happened in the past.)
Time dilation, as predicted in the theory of relativity, basically shows that time is relative to the point of reference or the observer. (Remember the classical illustration: If a person could travel at the speed of light for 40 years-let's say 20 years out into space and then 20 years back- that person would have aged 40 years while time on Earth would have elapsed thousands of years.)
So, the biggest problem in Creationism is: since the speed of light is known and it seems to have always been constant, how can starlight that is millions of light years away originate 6K years ago?
The first explanation is very simple: Everything was laid down on Creation at once (Day 4); stars, galaxies, light...
This is very simplistic and leaves holes...such as different observed ages for supernovae that are more than 6K light yars away.
Enter the theory of relativity and time dilation: (This was the 1994 event I mentioned before-See Dr. Russell Humphreys) The concept was well-known to Einstein (I never suggested he supported YE creationism.) and hs been tested many times. Here are the big points: (A) Time slows down when in the presence of strong magnetic fields, and (B) times slows at very high velocities with respect to an unperturbed frame (previous example).
We are accustomed to seeing time as a constant--but, Einstein showed space and time are both compressable, speed of light is the constant.
(There is book called Einstein's Universe and it gives a great illustration of what an astronaut might experience near a black hole, depending on the Black Holes size and the astronauts proximity to it...close enough, and he might experience time 1000X slower. Outside observers would need a week to record 10 minutes of his daily log, and it would arrive only once every three years. The astronaut would notice nothing unusual about his own experience.)
Since time is relative, we must then ask: whose clock will we use to assertain the universe's age? Time dilation allows for days to pass on Earth while millions of years pass elsewhere in the universe.
That is it in a nutshell.
Please look into it and do not take my word for it.
If a person could travel at the speed of light (which no matter which has a mass can since the energy required to accelerate it would be infinite, and that means really infinite, not just everything that is in the universe) he would not age at all no matter how long he travels at that speed as seen by an outside observer.
But basically what you state is the twin paradox that was postulated by Einstein and has been proven. Actually without observing the time dilation effect (any many others) GPS navigation would be much less accurate because the sattelites move fast relative to the receiver which still is laughably slow in cosmic scales but enough to throw off your navigation signal noticeably. It can also be observed in radiation created by the aurora borealis and in quite a few other effects.
Time (and space) is not influenced by magnetic fields (never heard of a twin paradox to happen in a MRT...) but it is influenced by gravity. Again this is a proven concept and also influences the GPS system.
Both of these points you made are true (though inaccurate) but I can not see how they support creationism. To allow the universe around earth to age faster than earth the whole planet either had to have travelled at extremely high speed and now slowed down to comparatively stand still, or it would have to have been in a very stron gravitation field.
Here are some figures: To while away 5 Million years outside time in 6000 years in the observer system you need to travel at 0.99999928c. That means within 0.000072% of lightspeed. I could not calculate the figure for 5 billion years since my calculator does only use 10 digits and I would have needed 15 or more (and did not really want to write a program that does this math for me). Time dilation is very low at speeds below about 90%c, it rises exponentially the closer you approach light speed (which cou can never reach). You can verify this by looking up the formula for dilation and then modify it so you get v/c.
I did not do the math for the energy you need to do the acceleration and deceleration (actually I did not include acceleration and deceleration phases at all, otherwise the top speed would have gone even higher), but I would estimate that if you start with a planet the size of earth using some kind if engine that converts matter to 100% thrust you will be happy when on the return from the trip you have as much matter left as you need for a large building or two.
So it seems unlikely that the earth or the whole solar system did travel at such ridiculous speed for 6000 yeras to allow the universe to age sufficiently. Besides there are other adverse effects when travelling at high relativistic speed, like matter that does not travel at your speed. Considering the high speed you traverse vast amounts of space so even a single atom each cubic meter does result in a dense gas which at that speed will not actually act like gas to you but more like super intensive hard radiation. This would be enough to thoroughly sterilize the whole planet likely even the side facing away from the travel direction. Not to talk about effects on atmosphere etc.
So we can rule out that earth has travelled at such speeds.
The second option would be a high level gravitational field. Such fields have the property of losing their strength to the square of the distance from the origin. This leads to the situation that objects falling into a black hole are exposed to a gravitation that is significantly lower on the objects side facing away from the black hole. This gravitation gradient tears about any object of significant size to pieces, first stretching it, then, as the gradient gets worse by that the stretching, breaking it.
I did not do the calculation for the necessary gravitation field to achieve the proposed time dilation but it is in the same ballpark as the required speed. So you can assume it requires a massive black hole to achive that kind of gravity. No object as big as earth has any chance to get into such a gravitational field not be smashed to pieces. And even if it could the question is how to get out again.
So no significant time dilation on earth as far as I can see. Do you agree?
Time dilation in the rest of the universe would not make any sense, this would make earth older than the rest of the universe.
And still it time dilation if had happened to earth it would not change the time on earth itself, just relative to the rest of the universe. Anything that has happened here still requires the same time relative to anything else on the same planet. Even if parts of the planet had travelled at high speed (now that is beyond ridiculous) the other parts would have aged however.
So either I did not understand your concept or relativity does not help creationism. Maybe you can explain a bit more detailed how you think it works.
And please don't again tell me to look something up, explain your concept to show that you do understand it yourself.
Hey thebug: I agree with you that the time dilation thing has nothing to do with proving creationism. But damn, did you slam the door on it being tied to 6K year old Earth. Nicely done!
Great post Bug - before I got down here I also put a time dilation bit in to see how Chumpstream reacted further back up the thread. Not sure how he'll try and sidestep that one
Just stuck it in here as well to make sure Chumpy reads it and sees that Humphreys was not quite on track with his science
Creationists believe the earth is near the center of the universe, at the bottom of a deep gravitational well. Relativistic effects result in billions of years passing in the rest of the universe while only thousands pass near the earth. This explains how multibillion-year-old stars and galaxies can exist in a universe only a few thousand years old.
Gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor.
There is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000.
Humphreys tried to use clocks in the earth's frame of reference. But the cosmos is much older than the earth. Judging from the heavy elements in the sun and the rest of the solar system, our sun is a second-generation star at least. Billions of years must have passed for the first stars to have formed, shone, and become novas, for the gasses from those novas to have gathered into new star systems, and for the earth to form and cool in one such system. The billions of years before the earth are not accounted for in Humphreys's model.
Humphreys's theory assumes that the earth is in a huge gravity well. The evidence contradicts this assumption. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. This notwisthstanding, as we have patently seen, there is a great deal of other independent evidence that the earth is much older than 6k years.
If there were any substance to Humphreys's proposal, at least some competent cosmologists would build on it and share in the Nobel Prize.
Bug-
You have raised a couple of very valid points.
I did mean gravitational and not magnetic at the beginning. Thanks.
However, why argue with the "traveller at the speed of light" hypothetical? First, you show great pettiness (it is just an illustration) and second you show error (20 years out and 20 years back at light speed is 40 years for the traveller, not zero.).
Onto the biggest points:
1) Materialists ASSUME the earth, solar system and universe to be millions/billions years old. We do not have a fixed and agreed upon starting point, so ALL data about the universe's age is inferential and hinges upon the assumptions of the researcher.
2) The same applies to a Creationist. He will see the same data and physics and will arrive at different conclusions. As a Christian, my assumption is that the word of God as written in Genesis is true. So, that is my framework and I readily admit that. I have been careful to use the proper language when describing scientific matters. That is why use of the words "facts" and "evidence" and "proof" and "known" should be guarded.
3) These larger notions about how we can come to KNOWing go back to Aristotle and western reliance on logic. (What is KNOWN vs. what is BELIEVED...What CAN be known vs. what is inferred...the difference between PROOF and EVIDENCE.) All these things are still true and apply now to modern science.
So, when we talk about time dilation and its application to Creation Science, it is not a smoking gun type of evidence. Time Dilation and relativity ALLOW for billions of years to pass at one point in the unverse while only a small amount of time pass at another. That statement is true. Now, you may not agree with the PhD astrophysicists who apply it that way, and that is fine. But, to simply say, that the interpretation of the same physics of time and space that Materialists accept is just wrong, is hubris and hubris only. Sad that science is so dependent now on materialism that it buries, ridicules and shuns any non-orthodoxy dissention. (This is why, in part, I left scientific/zoological pursuits. If you don't think like the science club members then you can't be a part. Your speech, your thoughts and your beliefs are suspended to be in the club. Even asking basic questions gets you labelled a heretic. Just read what others (who desperately need to be in a club) up here have said. That is in no way scientific.)
Now, in order to fully address how time dilation and relativity apply to Creation I would have to write 7-8 chapters worth because it is not as simple as your above post would have it.(Which is why, for anyone intersted, you should go look it up. Bug, Boy, Mako-Go read why a Creationist beleives that way. Not just a website or an article. There are a couple of great books-by PhD's no less-who can explain, in scientific details, why. "Dismantling the Big Bang" is one of the best) For example, Mako's googled criticisms of Humphreys is spot on, (even though his ensuing logic is not)but I only cited him because of the relevancy of his observations. Like much scientific hypothesizing, it is NOT perfect...like the BigBang...full of huge holes...and needs observation, testing etc to see if it is even plausible. John Hartnett has proposed an alternative to Humphreys and even takes into account Hawkings "pear-shaped time" model. Hawking would obviously come to a different conclusion about the age of the universe.
(A note to those who think the earth's and the universe's age are "known": For a clock to tell the correct time, specifically about the age of something, we MUST have the following: (1) a known starting point, (2) a reliable process of "ticking" to measure time's passage, and (3) knowledge that nothing has interfered with the clock since it was "set" against the standard, which are (1) and (2). So, with the age of the universe, we are left with inferences and those are interpreted through our assumptions. One cannot deny this.)
Finally, to address a few specifics: Time dilation is applied, Biblically, not to the Earth travelling at such a rate but to the process of "stretch(ing) out the heavens" on Day 4, when the Sun, moon and stars were created. This stretching out is precisely where time dilation is used; it would have made a time differential between the Earth and our Solar System and the outer galaxies. Hartnett's idea is that the earth would have experienced a 24 hour day while (in that same 24 hours) the rest of the universe would experience billions of years.
(This is where Hawking's Pear-shaped lightcone is applicable. However, he doesn't think the universe has a center, let alone that the earth might be near it, so he never has explored the implications of pear-shaped time.)
Time dilation does not prove Creation...but, it does provide a very credible explanation of cosmic time scales. (Of course, many details need to be sorted out...like the Big Bang.)
I am as guilty of the next guy for keeping the rancor high in this discussion and I really shouldn't. My frustration stems from my long experience with the "assumptions-are-facts" scientists who now dominate.
(Short story- when I was doing research in college, the working assumption in the majority of literature was that man's influence on the environment was only destructive. Still is. I studied a particular bird that seasonally foraged in a certain area of Belize and that bird's population had decreased in that area. The assumptions were that pesticides had killed off the snails that this bird fed upon and that this bird was dying out due to loss of food. I simply did a lit survey and bird count(to make sure the numbers were historically low-they were.) But, lo and behold, the birds numbers were only down in the area because they foraged somewhere else when foodsupplies were low. They weren't dying off. I was a heretic for my conclusions. I never said man was not impacting it...just that the birds moved somewhere else (all over the place, as it turns out). This is what happens when anyone challenges the orthodoxy...just look at Global Warming.)
It is fine when scientists disagree, but let one of them be a Creationsist and all of a sudden he can't be taken seriously. First, PhD's are demanded. When they are shown, they are dismissed. Then, peer review is demanded. When it is shown, it is dismissed. Finally, the orthodoxy simply refuses a Creationist a seat at the table out of pure bigotry.
That is where we are now.
Just because you believe in billions of years does not make you an idiot. But, not seeing the "log in your eye while decrying the splinter in mine" (paraphrasing here) is the problem.
Streamlined, go reread the theory of special relativity (it is much easier to grasp than general relativity and well sufficient for the high speed travel argument, general relativity is required for the gravity argument) and do the math for the Lorentz contraction (dilation factor) at 1c. The factor goes to infinite resulting in no time elapsing for the hypothetical traveller at lightspeed. I did not make an error there, you did, the example was inaccurate from the start.
The rest of your post is unfortunately not constructive as you just fall back to complaining about how everybody in science does not understand anything. What I could glean from your incomplete description of how time dilation had something to do with creation is that god made it happen just as he liked.
As I told you before I will not look up information about your theories, I expect you to provide a concept, like I did provide the information disproving the options to have a time dilation by speed or gravity on the order of magnitude you postulate.
So far it seems that you do accept that earth was neither moved at high relativistic speed, nor was it exposed to an extremely high gravitational field? So then how does time dilation come into play?
According to one of your statements a couple billion years were pressed into 24 hours on earth. That would result in a ridiculously high Lorentz factor. How did that work?
Bug-
The example I gave is, as far as I now, a classic one illustrating relativity.
And, I can see where I erred...travel at the exact speed of light versus near it. You are correct there. I was careless and rushed in my language.
Sad about the conclusions you arrived at via my post.
You are clearly educated. You understand physics. And yet, don't want to discuss the basics. There were some great points made and you glossed over them.
You, of all people, should know this is a complex matter and would not be illustrated effectively over a post or two. Years of study to gain a basic understanding are needed first before a fact vs. fact argument can proceed.
That is why, in the economy of postings, I suggested looking certain things up. You mind is shut and that is why you won't look into them. On the other hand, it is of the utmost importance to me to understand what is going on on your side of the debate...so, I have no problem looking things up and studying them. (Try re-reading my post...I explained how time dilation can be used in a Creationist view..."stretch(ing) out" sequence.) With regard to the Lorentz factor, I believe that would be dependent upon how fast and with what force the stretching occurred.
You are the problem in science, bug. Treating assumptions as fact and then accepting only those things that support your initial assumptions.
If you had no biases about the earth/universe's age, you could not draw the conclusions you do.
I accept my biases as they fit with my Creator and they fit consistently with what is taught in Christianity. I do not, however, dismiss the dissenters who might disagree on different grounds. Science is but one ground upon which to disagree...and it cannot test or observe the past. So, if science is your sole foundation of belief, then when the science changes, so must your beliefs.
For some perspective:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/electron.asp
Streamlined, I ask you again to explain how the huge time dilation came about to support your concept.
It should be rather simple to explain where it came from. You so far have only stated that it happened, but how? And where is the evidence that it did?
I can't help but to notice that you seem to lack basic understanding of the concepts you so ferociously defend.
And please, please never again refer me to that single source of enlightment of yours, answersingenesis is obviously a watering hole for dubious scientists who provide a smoke and distraction background for creationism. The Dr. Hartnett you quoted before starts his thesis papers by throwing out verified observations that would stand in his way. He came to the conclusion that our galaxy might be at the exact center of a finite universe by eliminating time from his equations!?!
Small wonder no reputed scientist even bothered to object to his viewpoint, they were not trembling in awe before his intellect, they were rolling on the floor laughing their asses off.
And also small wonder that people with insufficient scientific background take his words for granted: "The great Ph.D has given us another piece of support to our cause. Ah, he did set some variables to zero to make it easier to understand for the masses!"
His papers would be entertaining if he published them clearly labeled as thought experiments that intentionally disregard some aspects. But as it is he is just one big fake, exactly the type of person you constantly portray as being the ones who use dating techniques to date fossils: Bending facts to his liking.
Thank you for that compliment. Your ignorance is overwhelming. You use sources that you don't verify for their credibility. I repeat: Hartnett is a fake he makes up things be deliberately dropping details from his calculations.
Go and verify it yourself.
And again: How did the supposed time dilation happen during creation?
Bug- Where have you seen Hartnett's equations or his thesis papers? I would like to see them as I have only read his book.
(I'll take ignorance over arrogance any time...I will learn my way out of ignorance. You are stuck in your arrogance.)
You claim Hartnett makes things up...prove it? many papers on theoretical physics are thought experiments. Do you have a point? Dr. Hartnett, to my knowledge, says that about his very own theory.
I have, to my satisfaction, explained how time dialtion can be applied to young earth belief. Is it perfect, no. Is it proof, no. But, nothing, NOTHING, you have sited demostrates the opposite.
You are correct, generally, that the physics realm(particularly astrophysics and the like) are not my specialty and I am still learning. I have never claimed otherwise. However, your hubris blinds you. I see an enormous univere to be explored and discovered by errant human beings. Science islittered with people like you who reject, out-of-hand, any un-orthodox claims. If your beliefs and mine don't jive...so what. But, when your beliefs can't answer the basic questions, you are stuck. I readily admit that the biggest hurdle for creationists is the space-time one. Again, so what? Your side's explanations leave much to be desired. I state again: We see the same data and draw different conclusions based on our starting assumptions. Please admit that. You have strong science knowledge, B, but would make an awful researcher.
Where did you get your quote? ("...the great Ph.D..")
Right now, in the annals of science, the biggest fakes of all time are in the Evolution department and were known to be so: Haeckels embryo drawings (made up to prove something that isn't so), Peppered Moths (Moths were "stuck" to tree trunks for filming, Piltdown man (made up on purpose), Archaeoraptor and other fake fossils. Some of these still remain as "proof" of evolution.
Further, I must reiterate, I am not saying Hartnett et al are correct. They are part of ongoing research into our physical universe. He may be completely wrong. Fine. But, my worldview does not need immediate scietific support for it...yours does, completely.
AnswersInGenesis is not a single source, B. It is many sources in one location...citations are all included. I will continue to cite it as to relevancy. The details of their sources can be found there.
I do reiterate...I start from Genesis and go forward. I make no apologies for that. When you admit your biases and how they determine your take on science then an enormous burden will be removed from you...the burden of proof.
Keeping it as brief as possible, but responding to your asinine assertions of known hoax material still upheld as scientific fact.
Once again you seem incredibly able to throw idea after idea into the fray without realizing how much of what you say is pure and unadulterated stupidity. Once again, in response to your drivel:
Piltdown man was exposed by scientists as a fraud. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.
Many scientists from America and Europe did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and the hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.
When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence.
The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues - Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man et al. Chumpstream please plead your case here…
Chumpstream you claim Archaeoraptor was touted by scientists as the dinosaur-bird transition (Sloan 1999), but it was revealed as a fake, a composite of an avian body and a non-avian dinosaur's tail.
Archaeoraptor was indeed a fraud, but NOT a scientific one! It was put together by the Chinese fossil hunter who discovered it. The pieces were assembled to make the fossil more marketable to collectors, not to researchers. This worker may or may not have known that the tail came from a separate fossil (Simons 2000).
Archaeoraptor was published in the popular press, NOT in peer-reviewed journals. The main author of the article about it was National Geographic's art editor, NOT a scientist.
Nature and Science both rejected papers describing it, citing suspicions that it was doctored and illegally smuggled (Dalton 2000; Simons 2000). Normal scientific procedures worked to uphold high standards.
The two halves of Archaeoraptor (Yanornis martini, the body, and Microraptor zhaoianus, the tail) are valuable fossils in their own right (Rowe et al. 2001; Xu et al. 2000; Zhou et al. 2002). Again science learns and science can correct itself. Neither of which you seem capable of doing
You also bring Haeckel into the argument and how he faked his pictures of embryos to make them look more alike than they are.
Haeckel's pictures are actually irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos DO show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over.
When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science again tends to be self-correcting.
Finally you mention pictures showing moths on trunks were staged. This apparently invalidates the research that was based on the assumption that they normally rested on trunks. I believe Jonathan Wells was the supposed scientist who made this claim. No, unfortunately you are wrong again
Chumpy - Peppered moths do not rest exclusively on tree trunks, but they do rest there.
Of the forty-seven moths found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. (The other fifteen were on branches). The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher (Majerus 1998, 123).
Wells's claim that the moths do not naturally land on trunks is simply a falsehood.
Branches provide a background similar to trunks. Photos showing moths on trunks were indeed staged but ONLY for purposes of illustration. The photographs depict what is found in the wild, whether trunk or branch. Furthermore, the photos played NO PART in the scientific research or its conclusions.
Strawclutching AGAIN I see… It’s all getting a little pathetic now Chumpy.
Mako-no sense:
Please tell me you are not illiterate. I see from your response that you can search-engine the heck out of anything.
Here's what I wrote:
Right now, in the annals of science, the biggest fakes of all time are in the Evolution department and were known to be so: Haeckels embryo drawings (made up to prove something that isn't so), Peppered Moths (Moths were "stuck" to tree trunks for filming, Piltdown man (made up on purpose), Archaeoraptor and other fake fossils. Some of these still remain as "proof" of evolution.
Now, everything you wrote, EVERYTHING, is irrelevant, fool.
Haeckel's drawings are still in zoology texts and they are known frauds.
(No, professor, all vertebrates do not show pharyngeal gill pouches. And NO, they do not indicate common ancestry no more than a chassis on a truck indicates it evolved from Fred Flinstone's car. You must infer that from your starting point beliefs, which are NOT scientific.)
Peppered Moths: Good try, M. But, alas--British scientist Cyril Clark said, "But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere." referring to the research on the moth.
Further, Kettlewell's (peppered moth originator) moths were laboratory bred (there's some good science) and once, because they were so languid had to heated up on the hood of a car.
It has been shown to be false with respect to Darwin (the genetic info for both phenotypes already existed in the population), bad science, and a hoax since it is still used in zoology text as an example of evolution in action.
I only cited archaeoraptor as the hoax it was and Piltdown man as well. Hoaxes. How on earth do you counter that?
Calaveras Skull=probably a hoax and most creationists believe it is a hoax.
Paluxy tracks=strawman. Very few, if any, creationists beleive those tracks are erosion artifacts.
Moab-in what context
Malachite man-possibly an intrusive burial
These 3 things are not rallying points or teaching tools for creationists...at least not Creatonist scientist. It is to be a given that people will hold onto and disseminate info in and out of context. That is very different from perpetuating a hoax.
Boom goes another Mako argument.
The hoaxes you (re)cite I have dealt with – please re-read. Carefully this time. None of it is irrelevant. Your statements increasingly become so.
You keep citing these fakes ARE rather than WERE the biggest fakes of all time. The former suggests their veracity is still being pushed. It is not.
Whilst Piltdown WAS a long running debate (which I accepted science took too long to verify), many at the time were unconvinced and this became the established view once the remains could not be reconciled with – hey, get this… existing, factual and verified fossil records of other hominids! The argument was closed and has not been reopened apart from by people like yourself, longing for a time when science was less verifiable. Living in the past with that argument I’m afraid Chumpy.
Even more so with Archeoraptor – this was never even seriously debated as a scientific find (re-read again Chumpy, I’ve said this already) and for you to suggest it was is laughable.
Yes it seems we agree on something on these two hoaxes – science established their lack of authenticity and acknowledged the fact! Not sure what your point of mentioning them was given that they help bloster the argument for sound science and not Creationist bunk – which they may as well have been for all the value they added to the body of knowledge.
As I said before – science was self correcting when faced with properly classified evidence. Creationist science (the purest of oxymorons) offers no supporting evidence in the first place and simply looks to demean, as you do.
That photos of peppered moths were staged in no way decries the veracity of the research and observation carried out prior. Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999).
The peppered moth story is consistent with many other experiments and observations of crypsis and coloration in other species. Natural selection acting on the peppered moth would be the parsimonious hypothesis even if there were no evidence to support it. I will grant you the peppered moth story is not simple. The full story as it is known today fills thousands of pages of journal articles.
Of those familiar with the literature, NONE doubt that bird predation is of primary importance in the changing frequencies of melanism in peppered moths. Find me some proper peer reviewed AND scientifically published work which has created sufficient groundswell to refute the claim
Regards Haekel, if you wish to jump on one point regards pharyngeal gill pouches then fine - but do be aware that I made no reference to these being FUNCTIONALLY identical to those of fish. Embryonic pharyngeal arches are not gills and do not carry out the same function.
They are technically known as invaginations between the gill pouches or pharyngeal pouches, and they open the pharynx to the outside. Gill pouches appear in ALL tetrapod animal embryos. In mammals, the first gill bar (in the first gill pouch) develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus and the stapes. In a later stage, all gill slits close, with only the ear opening remaining open. Interesting that you do not dispute any of the other commonalities from which we can infer common ancestry. Re-read my post again my little cro-magnon, WHEN HAEKEL’S INACCURACIES WERE EXPOSED, modern science corrected itself and the literal and universal view he espoused was modified. Feeling stupid now?
Regards the Creationist hoaxes I am glad you see that most are exactly that. I am interested that you wish to know the context in which Moab was a hoax as this implies you believe it wasn’t.
I hope this is not the case. Read this – it’s very interesting and suggests one route that will have you in fits regards Malachite Man and Moab .
Basically the Moab bones were found fifteen feet deep in loose sand, not in a rock matrix. Their postures were similar to known Indian burials. The bones were unfossilized and partly decayed, and dating them yielded an age of 210 /- 70 years. In short, they were a fairly recent burial (Kuban 1998).
Who was it who cited that thing about splinters versus logs in the eye? Among millions of collected scientific facts there are necessarily a couple mistakes, hoaxes and outright fakes. That does not invalidate the whole concept.
On the other hand as far as I have seen the so called evidence for creation there seem to be only hoaxes and fakes.
John Hartnett may be the biggest hoax among them. I don't know enough about him, but either he was a fanatic before he started to study physics and nows tries to steam hammer physics to fit into the bible, or he knows exactly that what he is doing is fake and does it either as a big hoax or to gain some more recognition than he would get from his super-precise-clocks research.
To illustrate how he is doing his stuff, here is the link to a paper where he "proves" that the universe might be a finite structure with our galaxy at the very center: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0508367
In 1.1 he claims that the time dimension is irrelevant to the concept, but he fails to prove that by going through the whole thing again including time.
In 1.2 he sets a parameter to zero, claiming that this is essential to his theory, but again fails to prove that this is a valid assumption, in fact he even fails to explain why he thinks it is correct to set it to zero.
This is the typical way hoax thesis papers are written. You put an impressive title on the whole thing and make bold assumptions, though you cover them by references to other papers, some formulas, citation of peers etc. just drop a parameter and don't make much fuzz about it, someone not very critical or not fluent in the scientific methods will just read over it.
Go there, read it yourself, and then ask why he did this.
According to him his thesis is proof that you can not distinguish between an expanding infinite universe and an expanding finite universe with us at the exact center. I think his concept is a nice though experiment but he did not follow through actually proving it.
It is also interesting that when searching on the internet you find few references to Dr. Hartnett. Most of the links are to creationist sites or his university. If he actually made such break through discoveries, or if there were even viable though experiments, you would expect others to at least attack his work.
But I am still waiting for an explanation in exactly what way time dilation did take part in creation.
I thought that we agreed that we acknowledge and respect the theories of relativity which would give us a base on which to have a logical discussion.
Wow - mako and thebug, nice of you to go to the time to debunk streamlined's creationist "science". I am tired just reading all that. I just can't face another round of streamy's double talk and obfuscation and avoiding simple little questions. The one above was "Does he believe in the six thousand year old Earth?" Dead silence. More recently, no further explanation of how the time dilation was linked to creation. Dead silence, followed by "I have already answered that question". Soon he will have a creationist with a Bob Jones J.D. telling us that he is advising his client not to answer.
Und explain vy you are such ein total onanist! No matter how you try to explain your insane theories, you are still insane. I know zis, because I too am insane, but, how do you say?, I cannot be arsed to explain meinself. If Gott created ze vorld as und ven you say, vy are zer rocks zat are older? Zat is ze only kvestion you must ask yourself - apart from vy you are such ein idiot.
Streamlined- You say that my faith is based on errant human beings,and then give me a list of scientific facts which are discoveries of human beings. I honestly don't get how you can choose certain facts as being suspect, while others, like the Sea Salt thing, must be totally accurate. Why is it not possible that a centure from now, new scientific data will show that the sea salt measurements were wrong?
But in any event, the list of facts you gave does not prove that there is a Creator. If all the facts are accurate, it would mean that there are alot of questions or that we don't really understand how life began, developed, and so on. But again, you have nothing but blind faith to jump from the unexplained to some omnipotent creator behind everything.
So I am not going to get sucked into debating your list of so-called facts. They don't prove your case, even if they are bang on accurate.
Li'lBoy- Please re-read my post.
There is a difference in suggesting that something is "supportive" or "strongly suggests" and that something is factual or is proven. I know you can read so please don't change the argument.
You should read those things, Boy...and look into them. I know they cast doubt on your worldview, but that is the whole point.
strummin you and people like you are turing people away from god rather then bringing them closer which i thought was the whole purpose.
but no matter im sure you really dont care about the truth as much as not admitting your own fault. you seem to put your own ideals and beliefs along with your inflated self importance over the truth.
Iwboy Canuck, Mako,Pod could lay the facts down all day long and you would just refer to what your tribe has programed your thoughts to respond.
God itself could not change that closed mind of yours.( but we both know that not to be true )so i guess its up to you.
you see what you suffer from is what i like to call a large dose of contempt before investigation. oh by the way ddduuhhhh.....LMAO
I do run the risk of turning people away, RF. That is always true when the messenger is held responsible for the content of the message.
Sounds like you and the others have made up your mind already based on what you erroneously believe are facts. (I was an evolutionist all through undergrad zoology, so I have forgotten more about the subject than you will ever know.)
Streamy - Even if I looked into your points, and decided that it was all factually bang on, and the evolutionary biologists, and the geologists, and physicists, and so on were all wrong, this would not "strongly support" or argue in favour of or be probative in any way towards creationism. You keep saying on one hand that it is faith that you rely on, but then try to prove the underlying basis for your faith, but ultimately it always comes back to what you choose to believe.
What exactly do you believe? I think you kind of ducked that issue when someone above put it to you above. I can respect while disagreeing with those who believe in a creator - no one can truly prove, yet, how life or the universe got rolling. But if you are going to try and tell me that the Earth is 6K old, or any other patent nonsense from the bible ...well, then I think you are simply a fool and most of your above comments are pure hypocrisy.
lilBoy-I have not avoided any questions. In fact, I have laid out what I believe very clearly and specifically. (Just ask Mako-he has wasted the most space on this thread attacking what I believe. Canucks "longest thread" crown can be handed to Mako.)
Mako- get a life, buddy. Your google search engine must be worn out by now.
Chumpstream - Fair point about using a lot of words and apologies if they gave you a headache (no apologies if they gave you an epiphany).
In fairness to others, I have also offered profuse apologies for boring the crap out of people, but explained how important it has been for you to see quite how tenuous your position is.
That and the fact that the debate we are having draws on a huge amount of collective knowledge.
To this end your attempts to negate the wealth of information presented to you only serve to highlight your inability to deal with rational fact.
You would obviously prefer that it were not the case that reams of valid data are available, and that the universe could easily be explained away via Creationist theory nonsense and the shouting down of rational scientific investigation and discovery.
Whether people agree with me is moot. The fact that they ARE in agreement speaks volumes for their intelligence as well as it does yours.
To whit, the reason for using lots of words is simple. They explained something which is anathema to you:
Evidence of observed and available scientific data, some inferred, some fact.
Not the blind faith or complete lack of empirical data which you bring to the debate
Something I’ve noticed of your style of argument. It's base of me to say, but you’re essentially full of shit!
A wiser man than me once said, ‘Of all the human qualities, the one I admire the most is competence. A tailor who is really able to cut and fit a coat seems to me an admirable man, and by the same token a Zoology Professor who knows little or nothing of the thing he presumes to teach seems to me to be a fraud and a rascal.’
Mako-I am loathe to respond to you because you are afool. However, you bring up a good point..."...some inferred, some facts."
You cannot tell the difference.
Bug suffers the same. I have constantly been careful to construct my arguments in the following way:
1) Show flaws in Darwinian Evolutionary thought.
2) Show alternative ideas to Big Bang cosmology and cosmogeny.
3) Stay true to what is KNOWN vs. what is INFERRED or ASSUMED.
I have NOT said that what I believe is correct on the same grounds. Your inability to tell the difference makes you a fool...of biblical proportions.
For example...I just read one of your bloviating posts. (The enumerated one from a day ago) In it, you cited, among other things, a ton of research that at best "suggests" Darwin. Even your cut and paste lines literally said that. Do you understand the implications of "suggesting"? I do not beleive you do.
Bug makes the same mistake...treating assumptions as fact. This puts you outside of science. If you recognize that you are working under certain assumptions, then proceed forward. I do. I am assuming that a wonderful and merciful God made the Earth and Universe. No apologies here. I further recognize that in our presentstate of knowledge, all of our research, inference and data do no strictly support that view. From a theological standpoint, that is science's problem, not God's.
Specifically, the star-light/distance problem is the biggest one (currently) for Creationists to explain. (I believe the Big Bang theory will pass but not by the hands of Creationists, but inside the materialist camp). The current models by Creationists fall short, in similar ways to the Big Bang. But, Creationists accept that. They are not out there telling the world that their cosmological model is correct...just that their theological model is. TheBug, in his overwhelming hubris, misses that entirely. So do you.
The biggest Darwinian hurdle is the transferring of a net gain in genetic information from one generration to the next. We have absolutely no reason to believe it is possible through point mutations acted upon by natural selection. All your citations in the pointed post are volume over substance. You showed nothing, exccept maybe some classical misundertsandings and outright strawmen (Irreducible complexity being the strawman. I believe you know better.)
The bottom line is that i recognize our inability to completelyand scientifically explain our world. You do not. If we are spiritual creatures AND there is a God who made us, then we cannot rely ONLY on science(materialism) and ourselves to explain things. If you deny a God, we could argue that. If you deny our spirituality, we could argue that...but, if you accept either of them then science is but one tool to KNOWING.
Streamlined do YOU understand the implications of "suggesting" creationism without offering any support for it?
At least I and others on this thread can at least support our arguments with valid science which YES... CAN infer.
The reason for these posts being so long is simple. There is just so much damn good evidence out there with which to torpedo the little ark you seem to live on.
Your statement:
*The bottom line is that i recognize our inability to completelyand scientifically explain our world. You do not*
Think again Noah - I believe earlier I stated the following:
IMHO The cause of the universe coming into being will probably remain one of life's unfathomable mysteries - with the Big Bang hypothesis currently holding most potential water (or matter!) as for HOW it did. (This chumpy allows for science to evolve it's knowledge bank as and when more observable or inferred data becomes available)
As to WHY the Big Bang occured, I am brave enough to understand that we may never find out, but I believe we should still continue to try through the scientific method!
Frankly the uncaused-cause questions opens up a much wider philosophical (you may also feel theological and that remains your belief) arena for discussion and it's moving away from Darwin Theory.
You want God to have caused the Big Bang or whatever science will come to call it in years to come? Fine by me... just PLEASE.... for the love of mankind stop failing to show how bright you are in trying to demean Evolutionary Theory.
You have patently offered NOTHING as a CREDIBLE alternative and you HAPPILY hide behind your faith as a means of coming up with nothing?
Incredible.
Personally I beleive spirituality CAN easily dwell within a modern scientific environment, but should NEVER be the leading force in it. I see absolutely NO contradiction in us being spiritual creatures WITHOUT any God having made us - my view of spirituality being something that resides within us all privately. You feel the need to trumpet yours and demean others who do not adhere to your archaic worldview
Your outlook is really rather simplistic. I am glad for all our sakes that you remain a part time PE teacher and are not in a position more influential regards the direction the education system will take.
Interesting if you think about it. The regions in which the most fundamental creationists are to be found are also the regions in which most gene modified plants and animals exist. Also they were doing selection of crops and animals for better results for a long time.
But they say evolution is not possible.
They totally fail to see that what they do is a forced and directed kind of evolution, using favourable gene combinations to improve a species. In case of gene engineering even artificially induced mutation is used.
But the next thing that will happen now is that I will be scolded again for my arrogance/ignorance and that I simply not see the light.
(Fascinating) LMAO LOLOLOL how could i have known when i awoke this gorgeous morning that one simple word taken in context would bring tears to mine eyes. oh thank you Bug..... Fascinating LOL.
Just heard that preparations for a new Star Trek movie have begun, Mr. Nimoy will be among the actors and they are trying to get Shatner as well (will he introduce himself as Danny Crane or James T. Kirk?).
Zer is room for many faiths in ze pantheism of ze universe. It is just zat ze Skvirrel is ze greatest god of all.
Ve tolerate lesser gods, such as your Flying Spaghetti Monster, provided you pay us ein fifth of your income each week. If no payment is made, ve vill visit you in ze dead of nacht, und rip off your testicles.
Herr Vanka, please do not do zis to Herr Bug as he appears a substantially more useful member of zee uber race zan zee mentally bereft Herr Chumpstream.
Mind you it vud seem Herr Chump enjoys polishink his bratwurst viz Fraulein Fonda in mind so perhaps zee propagation of zee new und uberdumbkopf versions of zis little flat earther may not happen.
I mean no harm to Herr thebug. Ve haf not had ein gonad ripping seesion since 1937.
I see from your earlier posts zat you are ein expert on moths. Perhaps you can assist me? Last night, mein maid Conchita found ein huge specimen in mein unterpants (I vos not vearing zem at ze time). It had yellow vings, ein red head und black legs. She claimed it vos also speaking to her in einFinno-Hungaric dialect, but zis I do not believe. Conchita is prone to exaggeration, in common vith many Amerindian servants. I haf heard moths speaking in Latin - possibly only introducing zemselves - but never in Finno-Hungaric.
Can you enlighten me?
It is ver gut zat you haf decided not to inflict zee genital discomfort upon Herr Bug. However, perhaps zee gonad ripping kud be re-avakened for zee purposes of not allowing zee imbecile Streamlined to breed? After all, zis vud be zee 70th anniversary und ein apt time for zee restitution of zis noble und fun practice.
I digress. Let us speak of zee moth of your maid (Zis is funny as I sort she vas dead? Perhaps I am mistakun for your canine viz the resemblence to Condi Rice?).
Hmm, I am no expert on zis species of flugen insect but its chosen liebensraum of von unterpants vud suggest a liking for zee (forgive me) more fetid location. Zee southern americas are eine sveaty und somevat bacteria-prone area nein? Herr Vankas unterpants may have provided zee welcome respite from zee moth predators.
I cannot assist in zee identification and vud suggest zee hiring of ein Fino-Hungarian servant for zee purposes of future translation shud zee moth und unterpants situation arise again.
However I vud have zee maid Conchita severely vipped for possible exaggeration. I shall order mein juden servant Fiklestein to aid you in zis endeavour should you deem zis appropriate.
Heil to zee Scvirrel - I see you haf been on zee recruitment drive und haf apparently succeeded in converting Herr Skidmarks avay from zee following of zee Bat. Is zis true?
Conchita is alive, or at least she vos ven I vent to bed last night. I heard her pathetic moans in ze vee small hours, und zis usually means her Panamanian demon lover Pedro has climbed up ze poison ivy to her garret to perform his unspeakable acts upon her.
Mein chihuahua zat looked like ze Secrtary of State is dead. You are kvite correct. It vos flattened by ein skateboarder in Buenos Aires a few veeks ago.
Ze recruitment goes vell. Vill you not join us? Ve are ein small but happy band. Ze only kvolification for membership is zat you are insane und hate Herr Rabz und Herr Streamlined.
My apologies but please excuse mein lack of remorse upon zee death of zee Condi Canine.
You must be avare I am not a fan of zees beasties. Give me eine Dobermann or a fluffy little Rottwieller any day of zee week. Or zee Alsation but I stopped the keeping of zees after zey ate vun to many of my juden manservants.
Fiklestein has only vun leg as a result but zat sed it is kvite funny to vatch him do zee hopalong vunce I haf given him zee ten second head start before zee release of Tinkerbell my 200lb Mastiff / Rotti cross.
Sadly I have had little in zee vay of chatten und geshooten zee shitten viz Rabz so I haf little feelinks tovards him. I cannot offer to much in ze vay of hate for Streamlined but vill sincere pity do as eine acceptable substitute?
I am glad to learn you are, how do you Englisch say?, as mad as ein hoover.
You are very lucky not to have spoken with Herr Rabz. He is possibly ze greatest onanist und pompous arse on ze whole of Glumbert. Pity Streamlined if you vill - I prefer to loathe him.
Your collection of hunds is impressive! I cannot control ze big vons now, but Conchita's Latin lover Pedro has ein Pit Bull Terrier vich looks like ze pugilist Evander Holyfield - von ear only - und sounds like ze idiot failed politician Rumsfield ven he growls.
Mein chihuahua had his moments. He vonce bit ein customs officer in ze genitals und nearly got me deported from Chile. Zat vos ein close shave, I can tell you!
In ze meantime, mein best vishes to you, und Heil Skvirrel!!
To quote a great man from Glumbert "Miss a day miss a lot"
Bug - I liked your proof for the earth NOT being a black hole. Thanks for keeping the science going. You have been very patient with ChumpStream with all of his bizarre physics, and his understanding of relativity was very very funny to read.
Keep pushing I want to read much more of the creationist 'science' so I will have funny things to read tomorrow. I want to hear more about how "time slows in strong magnetic fields". I guess this is from the good book?
In a similar vein, I have talked to the Great Squirrel and I happen to know that brains are damaged by strong religious beliefs.
. aahhhh... Podman welcome back hope your vacation was nice. not to much amazement it seem strummin has also been posting as a canuck copycat. Busted by Syz on the Jackie Chan clip quite funny really. its the canuck(l963) by the way as far as we know. so now he is three in one whew... thats some work lol.
I want to know how Creationists deny all of the dendrochronological records. Yes! actual living things that extend dating of the Earth way back before 4000 years.
A ageless wind was blowing in from the cooler region of the planet. It was eroding fine multi-million year old sediments from the eroded mesas of gray, orange, and yellow, nicknamed the badlands of South Dakota. The grains swirled and nestled around the fossils found there every day.
When the storm ended, only the silence, the fossils, and the truth remained.
I wonder if it is the silence of contemplation, doubt, or scorn.
I deliberately did not include defeat as it is no defeat if a person starts to think himself and critically checks the source of so called wisdom instead of blindly accepting what is presented as truth by tricksters who make a card (or a paramter) disappear up their sleeves (or thesis papers).
BUG - No, defeat is possible in the land of blind faith, so perhaps too much input has caused a temporary stack overflow, data loss, and a churning CPU. Perhaps the three fingered salute, to reset the foundations of faith.
Anyway you did very very well in defending real science, and I thank you for that.
Been away a couple of days and just got back to see.... zip from Chumpstream? WTF?
Thanks Bug - and a big backatcha to both you and Pod on the Physics! I don't work in biology but would have loved to have done. In fact I had a massive desire as a callow youth to have been a vet - but swiftly found the joys of alcohol and girls which lead me away from the subject and to me doing other work which is far less morally rewarding. But pays more! :-)
It seems collectively that a number of us (you Pod, lwboy, RF et al) have maybe managed to get Streamy thinking rather than typing!?
You know I have scanned a lot of glumbert videos in the last month (anyone who looks will attest to. LOL) but I do believe this one has set a record for comments posted at 393, no 94 with this one.
Oh.... i got me an idea I'm gonna be mr. 400 LOL weehaa
my life will have meaning for once...oh happy me...
O.k this is it I,m so excited I cant wait! Well here goes ........400 YEA HIP HIP HOORAY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....HEArt....failurreee....argggg.....4o0..
. Well in actuality its a pretty scary thought, and more so realty when you think about or look at the documentation thats been recorded of galaxies colliding and the giant quasars the utter chaos that makes up our universe.
Yet if one thinks about it then you may surmise the opposite be true! (peace and perfection,precise order. )
Regardless, its mind boggling when in the mist of all this, We come to understand how fragile are existence truly is.
Stumchin is scared and I can see why!
Who doesn't want to believe the word of someone reassuring you that its all under control and so on...........
Hm, if your house is burning, would you want to have someone tell you everything is OK?
I think it is a good idea to know about things and be able to prepare for things that you can influence. In the long run from my point of view that includes spreading mankind into space and setting up an asteroid defense.
That does not mean you have to be scared all day, experience tells us that it is well possible to lead a mostly undisturbed life, but relying on a "higher instance" to look after you is stupid.
I couldn't agree more w/the former of your statement. answer:no i want the truth!
As for the later: for me, and I speak only from My own experience. That in my lifetime a force of unseen or unheard power has had a direct and great influence upon my life. I choose to call that power God.
My understanding of this power is very much different then most people who believe in God, or a God! (then again maybe not.)
Its also my belief that our progress through evolution has given us a brain!! Which some of us choose not to use( just look around you) and the means to think our way through things. science, love it! world history,love it! not much read in the sciences. Yet I read a lot of history.
Really don't think I need to be a learned man of science to sit out at evening and gaze at the stars....well, and just to know from the little (time) we send on this planet that all the above and all the here was not created in the minimal time Stremlined suggests !
And what seals it for me is the idea of infinite space! to try to wrap my head around that is some what intense. your part in these threads have been real good for me to read and i thank you along w/ the others who try and explain the science of all this around us.
If stream is not.. or just plain will not open his mind to it, Well hell I learned quite a bit! thx.
Thanks, all I wanted to do here was to make sure that the harebrained stuff of Streamlined does not go unchallenged and instead provide a more realistic view of the universe.
Being an atheist myself I do not question the right to believe in a god and/or religion as long as poeple stay on the sane side and not start to negate reality or tell other people to have to live according to their rules. The "dawkinsbishop" video had a quote that I liked, the bishop said something along the lines that god did a more fascinating thing than just create a world, he created a world that builds itself. That is a good view to combine spirituality and the real world.
Creationists demean their religion by stating that their god is a trickster.
Or combined understanding of the universe and everything is science. Our level of knowledge grows exponentially every day, In a hundred years the average man will look back at this time and laugh at how absurdly privative we are. We will seem as barbaric to them as people a thousand years ago seem to us. They will laugh and mock our ignorance. They will sit proud of their superior knowledge and giving no credit to those before them who thought and pondered the existence of all things and tried to add to the accumulative knowledge of the human race. Failing of course more times then they succed, each time mocking those that came before them for their ignorance. Eventually these great men of science will discuss how ignorant the people are who believe in a Grand Creator. The foolishness of faithful to disregard the advice of these men of science, instead looking into their own heart and soul and knowing with out a doubt, that there is a god, and he loves the faithful and the great men of science equally. And this great creator, the master of all things will be happy. He will be happy that we are free to choose and sad that some will choose not to love each other as he loves us. I am sorry if I am a man of science that also knows of a wonderful, generous god. I am also sorry if you have faced men and women of faith that treated you as poorly as some treat me. In all ways do i wish we could get along and in no way do I ever expect that to be a reality. If it makes you happy to ridicule and mock those who think differently then I am happy you are happy, but if it makes you sad, then don't do it. There is far to much pain in this world as it is. Don't add to it. Your all great and wonderful and I hope we can be friends.
mantion, you make some points there. But history does not mock those who seriously tried for a better understanding of the world but were hampered by the time they lived in. Nobody is laughing about Archimedes or Gallileo Gallilei. No one holds it against Newton that he did not know relativity or against Einstein that he at first doubted quantum physics, but people who against knowledge and logic disregard science and try to prove a belief model already proven to be invalid (like streamlined and Dr. Hartnett) are likely to be either totally forgotten or to become the laughing stock of a more enlightened future (except for its dark corners where the flat earthers lurk).
well i have no doubt that the number of killings done in the name of religion are astronomical..but what does that that compare to say.. self proclaimed agnostics?and actually read more into the religion in which they kill in the name of.. you will see that they are doing so in a misinturpreted extremist manor.. I have No Doubt that there is 1 GOD that created everything and that by our own damnation.. wont ever get to see all that was created for us.. Its our inherant sinning nature to destroy ourselves.. so we will never fully know what wonders are out there. Science only proves more and more that there is a God.. not disprove it. BIG BANG Blew up as fast as it was conceived. But arguing this point doesnt take away that this was an awesome tour of our corner of the universe..
Agnostics are religious people who have a problem with their church. Religion is the basic problem, not which church you run into.
You must be reading the same crackpot stuff as Streamy, or how do you get to the conclusion that science is proving there is a god? The contrary is true.
God is Nature , Nature is God
seing is believing . I believe in evolution
I see all God`s Creation s around me ,
Dont believe in some clown hanging in the clouds.
dont go to church to meet the devil .
When Mankind eventually travels to the farthest reaches of the universe, there will be no surprises. Sitting on a small, drooping toadstool will be a Glumbert poster called Infinity. He will be trying to read a comic strip, and struggling with the words that contain more than one syllable. He will believe he is witty, urbane and sophisticated. But he will be the victim of self delusion. He is, in fact, a FUCKING MORON!
Mankind will always strive to reach out to the farthest parts of the Universe.
But this is caused by a basic inferiority complex.
I have no desire to travel through space because I have an enormous penis and my life is complete because of that fact.
Perhaps it is just as well for us that Columbus had a tiny dick.
canuck 1963 is a boring shit. ever since he started posting on glumbert. let that be the warning to anybody thinking of getting involved in glumbert. the mysteries of the universe are interesting. canuck is not. he is a twat. be warned.
Hi guys, intervention is a best way to overcome the drug addiction. So, please encourage your family members or friends to go on with intervention if they drug addicted. _____________________________________________________________ Arabela Anya tennessee drug rehab
Comments (445)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.