← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 14772 | Posts: 65 | Started: 2004-08-21
2004-08-21 17:48 | User Profile
Nice resource list at the following:
[url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml?main#creation_vs_evolution]Reasons to Believe FAQ[/url]
2004-08-21 22:52 | User Profile
The challenge I have for anyone who claims that Evolution is a fact is for them to show me it. This inability alone makes Evolution intellectually untenable.
The Evolutionist's first anti-intellectual attempt to demonstrate Evolution is to pass off any selective variation as Evolution. They point to something like the shift in the population of Peppered Moths from predominantly light moths to predominantly dark moths. Sorry, a change of frequency of existing genes does nothing to show how the genes to turn pond scum into people developed in the first place.
The Evolutionist's next anti-intellectual attempt to demonstrate Evolution is to pass off degenerative mutational changes with fortuitous benefits as Evolution. The often point to acquired drug resistance in bacteria. Dismissing drug resistance acquired by non-mutation changes, this results from a gene being broken. Sorry, breaking things will not turn pond scum into people.
The Evolutionist would like you to think my decision to say a mutation broke a gene rather than evolved the gene is arbitrary. When a gene otherwise causes a decrease in fitness of an organism or when the gene simply no longer functions, for intensive purposes it is broken and cannot explain how pond scum turned into people. An organism cannot evolve by becoming increasingly unfit.
The anti-intellectual Evolutionists then fall back on claiming that Evolution is too slow to observe. I hardly think the inability to observe something is any reason to lower the standard of establishing something as an absolute fact. But, we have had time to observe. We observe organisms accumulating deleterious mutations and devolve over time. And, we have observed thousands of generations of rapidly reproducing organisms without any evidence of evolutionary progression, even under artificial conditions to accelerate evolution, enough generations to fill in the gaps of Punctuated Equilibrium (The Evolutionist's theory that Evolution is too fast to leave many transitional fossils).
The anti-intellectual Evolutionist may be motived by anti-God prejudice, but they're not dumb. They know Evolution cannot be intellectually defended so they rely heavily on censorship of criticism (a fait accompli in public schools) of Evolution as well as every logical fallacy in the book (such as irrelevantly defining Evolution as a change in allele frequency.)
2004-08-30 22:47 | User Profile
[url=http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-269.htm]A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography[/url]
2004-09-03 03:27 | User Profile
The concept of biological " evolution " was merely a product of its Age. In the latter 19th and early 20th century, the overlaying mode of thought was " Progress ". The advancements and inventions of the Age facilitated among the scientific community an unbridaled impetus to apply the " Progress " concept to all things, even to things which they are not applicable, such as the biological history of Life on Earth. Scientists were provided with grant money to do study after study all with the presupposed theory of " Progress ". There is nothing scientific about evolution at all. It's just a crackpot theory which manifested as an offshoot of the predominant concept of Progress in the Age of Enlightenment. Misapplied, extrapolated, fed with money, never trying to discover the Truth, only seeking to apply the dominant Concept which it was a Product of.
2004-09-03 16:00 | User Profile
You guys are trying to challenge evolution theory by attacking against it. But what do you have for replacement of it? The same old "GODDIDIT" argument.
And that is the achilles heel of creationism. Evolution theory has its flaws but it is compatible within laws of physics etc...Contrary creatinistic explanation needs unnatural miracles to work. AND especially young earth creationism challenges everything we know from biology, geology, archeology, physics of radioactivity, astronomy. So are ALL these areas of modern science completely wrong? Or is it so that old hebrean creation myth is not so accurate? Not even modern versions of it.
Believing to so vast conspiracy is impossible to me, and I don't think that dissmissing ALL evidence of OLD Earth and old and vast universum is intellectually honest.
There is vast evidence supporting modern sciences stance on age of world, size of universe, and evolution of life.
AND after all opposing theory is not quite believable.
Personally I have not ever been able to understand fundamentalism, Christian or not. And I cannot understand their view of of world which is so small and I think simple. If one believes God, he can still support evolution and even big bang theory. One can always think that God has made universe so that life can bewgin and evolve there, God can made Universe so that He doesn't have need to brak His own rules (laws of physics) by doing so called miracles. I personally think that need to do those miracles is equal in need to use for example cheat modes in games. God who can play HIS game without cheating is automaticly greater than GOD who needs to cheat.
2004-09-03 18:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]..... AND especially young earth creationism challenges everything we know from biology, geology, archeology, physics of radioactivity, astronomy. So are ALL these areas of modern science completely wrong? Or is it so that old hebrean creation myth is not so accurate? Not even modern versions of it.
Believing to so vast conspiracy is impossible to me, and I don't think that dissmissing ALL evidence of OLD Earth and old and vast universum is intellectually honest.
There is vast evidence supporting modern sciences stance on age of world, size of universe, and evolution of life.
AND after all opposing theory is not quite believable.
Suomi, I haven't read many of these specific links, but I think you are making a mistake when you conflate creationists in general with young earth/young universe people. There are many different types of creationists, some old earth, some new earth.
Personally I have not ever been able to understand fundamentalism, Christian or not. And I cannot understand their view of of world which is so small and I think simple. If one believes God, he can still support evolution and even big bang theory. One can always think that God has made universe so that life can bewgin and evolve there, God can made Universe so that He doesn't have need to brak His own rules (laws of physics) by doing so called miracles. I personally think that need to do those miracles is equal in need to use for example cheat modes in games. God who can play HIS game without cheating is automaticly greater than GOD who needs to cheat.[/QUOTE]
Like I said there are many different types of creationists, and orthodox/fundamentalists for that matter. And you can be orthodox I think and in a certain sense acknowledge certain aspects of even evolution. Pretty much in line with what you're saying here. Shute, the Catholic Church recently approved the entire theory of evolution as (paraphrasing slightly) the way God created this world. I'd agree partially - it in part was almost certainly one of the ways.
I appreciate your thoughts, but to have a really productive exchange I think you, like many people discussing evolution - pro and con, need to be more specific and concise in your inquiries and observations. There are a lot of different categories these discussions fall into.
2004-09-03 19:51 | User Profile
...but I can't do that in understandable way in foreign language.
Yes there are sites and sources supporting creationistic views and sources supporting evolutionist views. Both are so large that any real discussion in evolution vs. creationism degenerates to quoting long articles.
Main arguments can be divided to following categories... 1. Validity of fossile evidence 2. Validity of radiometric and other timig methods 3. Definition of macro and microevolution 3. Validity of genetic evidence 4. Validity of astronomical evidence (on scale and age of universe) 5. Intellectual integrity of scientists both sides.
And these discussions are nearly non-ending. I have discussed whit one Jehovah's witness and another fundamentalist, and we all were very stubborn and no-one acknowledged his loss.
Personally I'll become quite irritated when creationists(especially young earth ones) will announce they had won, and accuse all evolutionists dishonest persons, hating God. Usually their so-called evidence is not even new and usually it is quashed long way ago.
Why I especially don't like young earth view: First many geological processes take some time. Himalaya is growing even today, it's rate of growing is so slow that millions of years are needed to elevate mountains so high, and greater rate means vastly greater forces which are unprobable, there are some marine life fossiles onm those mountains which show that some times ago areas of modern Himalaya vere beyound sea level. Also erosion of meteor craters is one thing, it takes some time, when one compares our moon with earth here are very few craters even though it is probable that we got even more hits.
Second radioactive timing methods give consistent timings wihin their margin of error.
Universe: When one looks to night sky one looks to past. Light from moon bounced here roughly one second ago. It radiated from Sun 8 minutes ago. Light from nearest another star started it travel towards us about 4 years ago.
Light from Andromedeas Galaxy started it journey 2 MILLION years ago.
How are those distaces measured: To nearer stars using parallax method, which is in fact triangulation. One measures differences in stars position between different times in year, and so uses diameter of Earth orbit as baseline.
For greater distances one uses so called standard candle method. Certain types of stars are evenly bright, by measuring their visible brightness, and comparing it to types absulute brightness one can measure distance between us and star. Greater distances use measuring of supernova explosions.
So called red shift measuring is calibrated against standard candle method, and standard candle method is calibrated against parallax method.
Red shift method uses shifting of spectral lines towards red end and Hubble's constant which tells how fast universe is expanding to determine distance of really far objects. Hubble's constant is measured by calibrating redshift measuring against standard candle method.
Hubble's constant tells us how fast object will go away if one knows it's distance, and redshift tells us how fast object goes. If one knows correct value of Hubles constant one can tell from redshift distance of object. The catch is that correct value is not known so estimates vary. But their magnitude is known.
So universe is billions of years old or God is cheater.
Also Earth is billions of years old or God cheats us.
2004-09-03 20:01 | User Profile
....personally I believe in Him, I have al reasons to do so. But I don't believe to same God as fundamentalists, be they christian, islamic or jewish.
After all modern science describes an vast, complex and rich Universe, which is beyond human capability of reasoning, I think that it is the Universe worth of God honour.
Fundamentalist religions tell about small and simple Universe, just like poor fiction writers, and angry God, with bully mentality, which one must appease. They tell from Universe and God whom people can understand. They tell from God who is image of MAN.
I'd like more God who is ruler and maker of vast and disunderstandable Universe, God who is really beyound our imagination. God who has made all living creatures in way or another images of Him.
2004-09-03 21:12 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue] - "So universe is billions of years old or God is cheater.
Also Earth is billions of years old or God cheats us."[/COLOR]
OR then, men in their present fallen state have a tendency to interpret geological and biological evidence at hand in a misotheistic (God-hating) fashion.
Always, always, when you think you are seeing some defect in the image of God, suspect first that there might be a defect in your own perception instead
The Bible teaches that if men would only honestly look into the Creation, they would see in it evidence of its Creator.
Romans 1:[COLOR=Red]
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.[/COLOR]
Petr
2004-09-03 21:17 | User Profile
Suomi, check out this site:
"Creation-Evolution Headlines"
It'll teach you the art of "reading between the lines" - of SCIENCE NEWS.
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0904.htm[/url]
I promise, you won't ever look at the Evolutionist propaganda in the same manner again.
Petr
2004-09-04 01:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]You guys are trying to challenge evolution theory by attacking against it. But what do you have for replacement of it? The same old "GODDIDIT" argument. [/QUOTE]
How can you logically defend the theory of evolution simply by not being able to believe in Creationism ? Regardless of your opinion of Creationism, it has no bearing on evolution. Just because there is not an adequate replacement in your opinion does not mean the the theory of evolution is real at all. Logic 101. Also, your attempts to connect the theory of evolution with astronomy and genetics are ridiculous. Adaptation is not evolution, neither is mutation. And the infant science of astronomy is riddled in assumptions.
2004-09-04 14:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]How can you logically defend the theory of evolution simply by not being able to believe in Creationism ? Regardless of your opinion of Creationism, it has no bearing on evolution. Just because there is not an adequate replacement in your opinion does not mean the the theory of evolution is real at all. Logic 101. Also, your attempts to connect the theory of evolution with astronomy and genetics are ridiculous. Adaptation is not evolution, neither is mutation. And the infant science of astronomy is riddled in assumptions.[/QUOTE]
But creationism has itself many problems. Quite many philosophical ones, and especially classical YEC has really many practical ones. One of creationisms problems is origin of God. One explains origin of simpler things by assuming all powerfull most complex thing, and doesn't teel anything about it's origin. Does God have an Creator, one can logically assume so? If all simpler things must be created by more complex things, then chain of creation goes to infinity.
Genetics tells us more interesting tale. It shows us that all life in Earth is certainly related. It supports evolutionist explanation. Yes I know that it doesnät falsify creation either. But here is a catch: Creationism is not an valid scientific theory, because it cannot be falsified by any logical way. Falsifiability is one of requirements of scientific theory. Evolution theory can be falsified by numerous ways. One of them is to prove that for example Earth is not enough old for evolution to happen.
Creationists had tried them all. All they can do is to complain for small irregularities for example in geological timing. Yes they can falsify measuring or two by that way. But never all of them.
BTW. Astronomy is one of oldest sciences on Earth. And it can certainly measure distances way greater than 6000 light years with some kind of accuracy. Standard candle method is not so accurate than parallax method but it is enough for quite accurate estimates.
2004-09-04 16:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]1. Because creationism is only reasonable alternative to evolution. If species had not evoluted over time, then only alternative is that they have appeared as finished. And evolution is the only "reasonable" alternative to creation.
I think you really have a prooblem here because your standard for "reasonable" is quite subjective. In reality it is based on presuppositions. If you presume the lack of a higher power, yes evolution is perhaps a reasonable explanation, maybe the most reasonabloe, explanation for the origins of life on earth. (But not the only one mind you - I'm sure you must recognize that).
But the problem with that from a logical standpoint is, you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. A classic error which you are making here, not recognizing your own prejudices and presuppositions, while criticizing those of others. Admittedly such is hard often to do, even though such lack of prejudice is culturally that's one of the things modern multiculturalism is supposed to do (but with respect to our historic Christian heritage of course does not.)
But creationism has itself many problems. Quite many philosophical ones, and especially classical YEC has really many practical ones. One of creationisms problems is origin of God. One explains origin of simpler things by assuming all powerfull most complex thing, and doesn't teel anything about it's origin. Does God have an Creator, one can logically assume so? If all simpler things must be created by more complex things, then chain of creation goes to infinity.
Skipping YEC, the question "does God have a Creator" is a question that reveals your postmodernist philosophical presupositions against absolutes. Absolutes are things thast are not dependent on other things for their existance. And yes, God is an absolute. What is not absolute is not God. One of the Biblical name for God is explicit in this regard "I Am". Elaborated this is interpreted "I Am because I Am".
You clearly it seems to me have incalculated a certain philosophical prejudice against the idea of God, typical of the modern relativistic/ postmodern mindset, which colors your perception of issues in ways that you perhaps don't fully realize. When such strong unrecognized biases exist, it makes objective people realize how hard it is to use "reason" as a standard for determining truth.
2004-09-04 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] I think you really have a prooblem here because your standard for "reasonable" is quite subjective. In reality it is based on presuppositions. If you presume the lack of a higher power, yes evolution is perhaps a reasonable explanation, maybe the most reasonabloe, explanation for the origins of life on earth. (But not the only one mind you - I'm sure you must recognize that).[/QUOTE]
Evolution theory doesn't say anything of God or origins of Life itself. Evolution theory tries to explain how simple life, once it has started evolved to myriad of less or more complex life forms.
And yes, scientific theory which doesn't need "miracle" to happen is automaticly more robust than one which needs. Still the fact is that evolution, be it controlled by higher power or not does not need any supernatural miracles to work. Creation is by definition supernatural miracle. Which btw. no one living person has not ever seen.
I do not take any stance about reality of God, but rather than believing in straightforward creationism, I believe that God may have controlled evolution, whit little adjustments there and there over time. That doesn't need any supernatural things to occur, and I think is more philosophically beautifull way, of doing things
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] But the problem with that from a logical standpoint is, you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. A classic error which you are making here, not recognizing your own prejudices and presuppositions, while criticizing those of others. Admittedly such is hard often to do, even though such lack of prejudice is culturally that's one of the things modern multiculturalism is supposed to do (but with respect to our historic Christian heritage of course does not.)[/QUOTE]
I am not trying to prove anything of reality of God, or reality of creation, but I insist that evolution is not incompatible with possible God, and it is probably more accurate explanation of origins of species than standard biblical creationism.
I say that lot of facts supports evolution, and less facts creationism. I also think that evolution is philosophically stronger argument.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Skipping YEC, the question "does God have a Creator" is a question that reveals your postmodernist philosophical presupositions against absolutes. Absolutes are things thast are not dependent on other things for their existance. And yes, God is an absolute. What is not absolute is not God. One of the Biblical name for God is explicit in this regard "I Am". Elaborated this is interpreted "I Am because I Am".[/QUOTE]
Absolutes are philosophically difficult subjects. And logically also. There are many logical paradoxes in All-Powerfullness, and in capability to know all. Also there will be question free will, etc.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You clearly it seems to me have incalculated a certain philosophical prejudice against the idea of God, typical of the modern relativistic/ postmodern mindset, which colors your perception of issues in ways that you perhaps don't fully realize. When such strong unrecognized biases exist, it makes objective people realize how hard it is to use "reason" as a standard for determining truth.[/QUOTE]
I have some prejudice against all-powerfull, all-knowing absolute God. But it is not impossible to me to believe in near-all-powerfull, near-all-knowing God. Which even is not vulnerable to usual logical paradoxes and moral questions.
2004-09-04 17:45 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red] - "And it can certainly measure distances way greater than 6000 light years with some kind of accuracy." [/COLOR]
Just what exactly would that prove? Think about it.
All of it could have been created in a blink of an eye, instead of being spread around during billions of years.
You must INTERPRET everything according to your presuppositions.
Petr
2004-09-04 19:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr] Just what exactly would that prove? Think about it.
All of it could have been created in a blink of an eye, instead of being spread around during billions of years.
You must INTERPRET everything according to your presuppositions.
Petr[/QUOTE]
Yes, Universe could really be created in the way it looks like billions of years old. So coulb be Earth. Species could even be created in the way it looks like they have been evolved over millions of the years.
But there is a little catch. Let's suppose that they who do not believe YEC explanation of creation (strictly biblical version) are all infidels going to eternal damnation. So if Universe is made to look old, and life was made to look evolved, then God is missleading and wants purpotedly to get as many people to hell as possible. To people like me who are not buying everything establishment wants, Universe itself is more powerfull source than any old collection of some Middle Eastern tribe's religious legends. And if Universe lies to us, then God is a liar. Which I think is not the way it is.
If I must choose which is wrong, God or some parts of Bible, I choose Bible.
God is not liar, and Bible is not dictated by Him, inspired but not dictated.
2004-09-04 20:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]BTW. Astronomy is one of oldest sciences on Earth. And it can certainly measure distances way greater than 6000 light years with some kind of accuracy. Standard candle method is not so accurate than parallax method but it is enough for quite accurate estimates.[/QUOTE]
The Big Bang violates every applicable law of physics. It is a scientific absurdity, regardless of the circumstantial evidence it is based on. The existence of God does not violate any natural law because God is outside of nature. Likewise, no cause is needed to explain the origin of the eternal God.
As we don't know the starting point of the universe, we are really in poor position to date it. No viable natural explanation has been provided. God is not constrained to creating an exploding dot but could have well created a fully functional universe ready for man to inhabit it. Any false naturalistic assumptions about origin of the universe would create false conclusions about age.
You may object and declare that God has then been deceitful and made the universe look old. I haven't said the universe is young. And, I don't mean for anyone to throw out scientific evidence. I'm just warning against unjustified assumptions, especially those made on the faith that the universe evolved from a tiny dot.
Consider if the universe is bounded and Earth is at the center. Time dilation due to gravity is a commonly accepted phenomenon. This time dilation would be in direct proportion to the distance from Earth. Thus the universe could be ancient, light would be shifted red and have time to get to Earth, but the Earth could still be thousands of years old and paradoxically created at the same time as the rest of the universe.
False assumptions about the origin of the Earth would also create false conclusions about age. Suppose there were a global flood. Many of the slow processes that shape the land now now would be residual effects of that flood. Those same processes would have been operating exponentially faster in the past. But, if one assumes the processes have always happened at the same speed, a false conclusion is reached.
Is there a conspiracy by scientists to claim the Earth is ancient? People bring up the c-word to try to marginalize beliefs outside of the mainstream. But, as a matter of fact, part of the peer-review process for mainstream scientific journals is to exclude those beliefs outside of the mainstream. Conspiracy or not, it's a fact. Likewise, government schools across the nation teach Evolution while Creationism is banned. Even mere criticism of Evolution often is not allowed in public schools. Conspiracy or not, it's a fact. Many Evolutionists are militant in their faith and they have the government behind them.
Would you have charged Galileo with claiming there was a conspiracy? Yet, you do the same thing today.
2004-09-04 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The Big Bang violates every applicable law of physics. It is a scientific absurdity, regardless of the circumstantial evidence it is based on. The existence of God does not violate any natural law because God is outside of nature. Likewise, no cause is needed to explain the origin of the eternal God.[/QUOTE]
Big Bang is consistent within laws of physics. If Big Bang theory won't fit to known laws it would have been scrapped long time ago. After all there has been rival explanations. But I think this field of discussion goes far away of my and perhaps your capabilities. Modern physics is after all extremely complex.
Also it is uncertain if Laws of physics will allow messing with Universes business outside of it. It can be so that nothing from outside of Universe can affect it and remain outside.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]As we don't know the starting point of the universe, we are really in poor position to date it. No viable natural explanation has been provided. God is not constrained to creating an exploding dot but could have well created a fully functional universe ready for man to inhabit it. Any false naturalistic assumptions about origin of the universe would create false conclusions about age. [/QUOTE]
What you mean as knowing "starting point of universe". Universe doesn't have any spesific starting point at space, but it certainly has one in time.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]You may object and declare that God has then been deceitful and made the universe look old. I haven't said the universe is young. And, I don't mean for anyone to throw out scientific evidence. I'm just warning against unjustified assumptions, especially those made on the faith that the universe evolved from a tiny dot.
Consider if the universe is bounded and Earth is at the center. Time dilation due to gravity is a commonly accepted phenomenon. This time dilation would be in direct proportion to the distance from Earth. Thus the universe could be ancient, light would be shifted red and have time to get to Earth, but the Earth could still be thousands of years old and paradoxically created at the same time as the rest of the universe. [/QUOTE]
Universe probably isn't 3d ball which could have any centerpoint in space. And Univere certainly doesn't have "edge" from which one can fall. If you really want to understand shape of the Universe you need to imagine 5 dimensional shape. 3 space dimensions, one time dimension, and one dimension to where universe expands. That expansion leads to growing distances between every point of space, just like expansion of balloon grows distances between every point of its surface. Just like there is no spesific centerpoint of space, there are no universal time coordinates. Earth time is not more decisive than anything other time. Yes, time slows compared to earth time when one distances more and more of Earth, because expansion of universe grows distance with greater and greater speed. But also time here in Earth runs more slowly when one compares from distant galaxy.
These are kind of things which are impossible to understand whit normal reasoning, also serious cosmological theoretizing means using of advanced mathematics, which I don't even try to understand.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]False assumptions about the origin of the Earth would also create false conclusions about age. Suppose there were a global flood. Many of the slow processes that shape the land now now would be residual effects of that flood. Those same processes would have been operating exponentially faster in the past. But, if one assumes the processes have always happened at the same speed, a false conclusion is reached.[/QUOTE]
Erosion speed is not the only way when one tries to measure Earths age. For example there are many radiological ways to do it. And they give compatible results.
And perhaps it is not needed to start discussion of numerous problems in flood theory.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Is there a conspiracy by scientists to claim the Earth is ancient? People bring up the c-word to try to marginalize beliefs outside of the mainstream. But, as a matter of fact, part of the peer-review process for mainstream scientific journals is to exclude those beliefs outside of the mainstream. Conspiracy or not, it's a fact. Likewise, government schools across the nation teach Evolution while Creationism is banned. Even mere criticism of Evolution often is not allowed in public schools. Conspiracy or not, it's a fact. Many Evolutionists are militant in their faith and they have the government behind them.
Would you have charged Galileo with claiming there was a conspiracy? Yet, you do the same thing today.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they censor which articles are published. And sometimes they even go wrong, while doing it. If there isn't any censorship then crebility of those publications will be at stake. Ok, lets pass creationist articles. Then what about new age articles? Or UFO articles, ETC.? Publication is soon full of all kind of junk when every weird person from world can publicize his/her belivings as credible science. After all there are many credibility and methodological problems in creationistic research.
So in your schools they don't teach creation? Here in my school times (at 80's) we vere first taught the biblical story of origins of Universe and Life, as an fact. Only years later scientific version of origins of Universe, and Life was taught. Also flood story was taught as an fact.
I don't know if they do so also nowadays. Here also was an morning prayer in use at public schools.
There is a reason behind it. Finland is officially christian country, whit freedom of religion, here are two Churches of state, Lutheran Church (which I still belong to) and Orthodox Church which is an minority religion. And teaching of religion is required by the law.
Now I'm going to sleep, good and enjoyable discussion, better than with couple of Finnish Jehovahs Witnesses, thy can be quite annoying, good arguments also.
I hope I haven't been arrogant, my expression capabilities in English are limited and so style of text can be quite attacking. :)
2004-09-05 03:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]Evolution theory doesn't say anything of God or origins of Life itself. Evolution theory tries to explain how simple life, once it has started evolved to myriad of less or more complex life forms.
And yes, scientific theory which doesn't need "miracle" to happen is automaticly more robust than one which needs. Still the fact is that evolution, be it controlled by higher power or not does not need any supernatural miracles to work.
You're right - in theory it asserts it does not need any miracles to work. But that doesn't make asserted theory a reality.
It is actually, from a scientific standpoint, very easy to disprove evolution. Googles of googles of events had to happen, naturalistically speaking, to create life. All one needs to disprove naturalism is to show one could not have occurred by itself. You are once again back to needig a higher power - for which there are many arguments.
Creation is by definition supernatural miracle. Which btw. no one living person has not ever seen.
This can be argued. Miracles by nature implies seldom seen. If they were sen often, they wouldn't be viewed as miracle.
I do not take any stance about reality of God, but rather than believing in straightforward creationism, I believe that God may have controlled evolution, whit little adjustments there and there over time. That doesn't need any supernatural things to occur, and I think is more philosophically beautifull way, of doing things I am not trying to prove anything of reality of God, or reality of creation, but I insist that evolution is not incompatible with possible God, and it is probably more accurate explanation of origins of species than standard biblical creationism.
I say that lot of facts supports evolution, and less facts creationism. I also think that evolution is philosophically stronger argument.
Not far away from what many creationists believe with the exception of the tendency to downplay the supernatural.
Absolutes are philosophically difficult subjects. And logically also. There are many logical paradoxes in All-Powerfullness, and in capability to know all. Also there will be question free will, etc.
Difficult, but also essential. Even science needs absolutes. Re: the speed of light in a vacuum is a scientific absolute.
I have some prejudice against all-powerfull, all-knowing absolute God. But it is not impossible to me to believe in near-all-powerfull, near-all-knowing God.[/QUOTE]Maybe what you really mean is a near-all-powerful, near-all-knowing near God. Or god. But such is not god at all.
Thinking on God requires the use of many mental capacities, which modern thought stints on. Maybe that is due to the influence of people like Karl Marx
The idea of God is the key to a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed -Karl Marx
Weight volumes have been written on the subject throughout Western history. I can't do justice to them here, but you need to be aware of them. Sometimes I doubt that many people are anymore.
2004-09-05 05:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele] 2. Connection of evolution and astronomy is only in timescale. Astronomy tells us that Universe is old. Really old. It's exact age is unknown but it is certainly over 10 billion years old. Probably older. And that is way more than 6000 years of YEC's. Also geology tells us that Earth is certainly old. So they both tell that evolution has had much time. Which is needed for it. [/QUOTE] What you speak of is truly bad science. We do not know how old the universe is. We don't even know if it is indeed what we think it is at all. Scientifically speaking, there is no proof at all for Creationism. There is also no proof at all for " Evolution ". Is it possible to conceive that neither is the answer ? You think not, and so do I and everyone. Because you are correct to make the delineation. Can evolution coincide with Creationism ? Many believe so, but that is only a belief. Empirical evidence destroys the 150 year old theory of Evolution. It has no basis. Darwin brilliantly described what he saw to be adaptations and survival of the fittest, but there is no connection to a species adapting and the full theory of Evolution. None at all. Moreover, the calims of " adaptation " themselves are stewed in assumptions. If you look for something to prove it, you can continue that course. Those who promote the theory of " Evolution " have done so for 150 years, yet they offer no scientific proveable fact at all. Where is the Missing Link ? You must consider looking at this issue the way I said in my previous post. The theory of " Evolution " is merely a PRODUCT of its AGE. The Age in which all the best intellectual minds were hell-bent on seeing the Universe in terms of " Progress ". When you understand it that way, you can perouse all the studies done on " Evolution ", and still walk away with NOTHING. Does this mean that Creationism is the Reality ? Whether you believe in a God or not, these issues are beyond human comprehension. Our minds are small, limited in extreme degrees to the point where we seek so-called empirical solid evidence based upon our five senses. The mistake many scientists make is to ASSUME that anything they could ever perceieve even applies AT ALL to the Universe. There is no proof the Universe is billions of years old at all. Even trying to prove material artifacts on Earth is a total joke. Carbon dating. Carbon dating is ripped to shreds by real science. The fact of the matter is that there ARE no ANSWERS when we try to limit all possibilities by placing other facts of life unto our so-called science. The whole scientific community in many ways is nothing but a self-sustaining oraganism, in which men and women make MONEY to research these things. True study is indeed being conducted, but we hear about it only in drifts and shades. Because the fact is that science has been manipulated by the agendas of those who pay the salaries of its promulgators. They wouldn't be getting that funding if it didn't suit the already ingrained agendas of their benefactors.
2004-09-05 10:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]What you speak of is truly bad science. We do not know how old the universe is. We don't even know if it is indeed what we think it is at all. Scientifically speaking, there is no proof at all for Creationism. There is also no proof at all for " Evolution ". Is it possible to conceive that neither is the answer ? You think not, and so do I and everyone. Because you are correct to make the delineation. Can evolution coincide with Creationism ? Many believe so, but that is only a belief. Empirical evidence destroys the 150 year old theory of Evolution. It has no basis. Darwin brilliantly described what he saw to be adaptations and survival of the fittest, but there is no connection to a species adapting and the full theory of Evolution.[/QUOTE]
This same old trick creationists try to make. Playing whit definition of adaptation. Nearly all speciation happens through adaptation, one cannot point exactly when new species hve born. Normally species are differented by ability to reproduce. Ok there is common bird in Eurasia, and it has numerous subspecies, which live as an chain form western Europe to east Siberia. Each subspecies can reporduce whit its neighbours, but western European subspecies cannot reproduce whit eastern Siberian subspecies, they are by definition different species. Each subspecies had adapted to its living environment, and finally chain of adaptations create reproduce barrier, so speciation have occurred.
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Our minds are small, limited in extreme degrees to the point where we seek so-called empirical solid evidence based upon our five senses. The mistake many scientists make is to ASSUME that anything they could ever perceieve even applies AT ALL to the Universe. There is no proof the Universe is billions of years old at all. Even trying to prove material artifacts on Earth is a total joke. Carbon dating. Carbon dating is ripped to shreds by real science. The fact of the matter is that there ARE no ANSWERS when we try to limit all possibilities by placing other facts of life unto our so-called science. The whole scientific community in many ways is nothing but a self-sustaining oraganism, in which men and women make MONEY to research these things. True study is indeed being conducted, but we hear about it only in drifts and shades. Because the fact is that science has been manipulated by the agendas of those who pay the salaries of its promulgators. They wouldn't be getting that funding if it didn't suit the already ingrained agendas of their benefactors.[/QUOTE]
The observations of Universe, fit to our theories of physics quite nicely, if reasons behind our observations are totally different tahn our theories tell then our theories won't work. But if they don't work then numerous technical devices built using those theories wouldn't work. For example GPS positioning, computers, nuclear weapons, etc... Yes for example general relativity theory is not final word in that area, but more exact theory must give roughly same results as general relativity. Just like in normal conditions differences between Newtonian results and results of relativistic calculations are nearly same (though relativistic calculations are much more difficult).
About carbon dating. If it is proved joke why then it is used? And it's results are kept reliable in conventional archeology. Even in those timescales which are non problematic to YEC's. How dating method which is realiable for example in 2000 years scale, mutates completely rubbish in 6000 years scale, even if physics behind it doesn't require so? Could it be so that people who are saying it is rubbish don't like its results? Maybe for ideological or religious reasons? Are that kind of people really real scientists? Carbon dating results can be calibrated numerous ways. We can measure age of object which age is known allready certainly. And it can be calibrated using dendrochronology. (Grow rings in tree trunks).
I'm not able to believe in so vast conspiracy theories, that nearly all scientist ase part of conspiracy and known liars. In fact when one begins to talk conspiracies, my alarm bells start ringing, and I say to myself, that is porbably junkscience, or simply rubbish.
2004-09-08 00:50 | User Profile
Suomi.. I want to ask you a question. Think about it, you don't have to answer. I am not passing our discussion off. Just for now perhaps.
Do you think mankind ( us humans who now live, not in the past ) would be better served in this constant groping for the Real Truth to our Origin by our own brain crunching ? Is brain crunching and pointing to past experiments and proven empirically based physics the best we can hope for ? If so, we are in for millenia of false theory, so-called geniuses held forth in their day and in subsequent generations as scientific icons, into infinity. Because there will always be an infinity. I do not believe this is what mankind should be doing. You can pursue your interest in this area of science, I hope you graduate from a good school and get on a good career path and enjoy a good life, in the bubble of the scientific community at large. You said about carbon dating.. well the reason why it is " accepted " is purely because the CAREERS of HUNDREDS of practicioners and labs DEPENDS upon it. Carbon Dating is an antiquated tool, like trying to catch a fish with an unbaited pole. It has nothing to do with tree rungs. You can read tree rungs, but the element " carbon " is what we all contain, virtually every physical life form on Earth contains carbon. The cross-infiltration of molecules between life forms and even non-life forms over time renders ALL carbon dating ABSOLUTELY DOA - dead on arrival .
2004-09-09 11:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Suomi.. I want to ask you a question. Think about it, you don't have to answer. I am not passing our discussion off. Just for now perhaps.
Do you think mankind ( us humans who now live, not in the past ) would be better served in this constant groping for the Real Truth to our Origin by our own brain crunching ? Is brain crunching and pointing to past experiments and proven empirically based physics the best we can hope for ? If so, we are in for millenia of false theory, so-called geniuses held forth in their day and in subsequent generations as scientific icons, into infinity. Because there will always be an infinity. I do not believe this is what mankind should be doing. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I think that seeking Truth beyound our existence, origins and Universe is final mission of humanity. And only verifiable and honest way to do it is by using alraeydy collected data, and made experiments, and by collecting more data and doing experiments, there are some areas of science where we could not do verifications by experiments, most notably some areas of modern physics for example. (Energies involved are far too high). In those areas we must lay our trust in logic and mathematics, which are ultimate languege of nature and perhaps creation. Yes, I think that our seeking of truth is only at its firs steps, but ultimately if we have some time, maybe we even after all really can prove or disprove existence of God, and maybe we really can find final Truth, final Religion, final Theory, in some distant future. Even now most advanced areas of physics are nearing philosophical and religious ideas. And many cosmologists are considering if Big Bang was fine tuned to produce Universe capble of sustaining life. So many laws and constants of nature are just right for life, if they were different no physical life could exist in Universe. About evolutuion theory which you probably mean in talk of false theory, the classical Darwinist theory is no more in use, and even genetics could have some surprises reserved to us in future. So standard theory will probably be modifed, but basic premises which theory of evolution is based on are, or so I see, solid like granite.
New facts will modify theory, but always so that they include results and observations backing standard theory.
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]You can pursue your interest in this area of science, I hope you graduate from a good school and get on a good career path and enjoy a good life, in the bubble of the scientific community at large.[/QUOTE]
I'm not doing studies in area of any science actively, my studies are concentrated in area technology. I'm interested only from results of modern research. And philosophical considerations based on them.
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]You said about carbon dating.. well the reason why it is " accepted " is purely because the CAREERS of HUNDREDS of practicioners and labs DEPENDS upon it. Carbon Dating is an antiquated tool, like trying to catch a fish with an unbaited pole. It has nothing to do with tree rungs. You can read tree rungs, but the element " carbon " is what we all contain, virtually every physical life form on Earth contains carbon. The cross-infiltration of molecules between life forms and even non-life forms over time renders ALL carbon dating ABSOLUTELY DOA - dead on arrival .[/QUOTE]
Your statemnst doesn't remove the fact that many carbon datings can be validated by other ways, and they are consistent with them. Tree rungs, known archeological age of objects etc...For example in city where I'm living now there are archeological minings on many sites. Age of this city in known and also age of many sites is known because of style, and places where they are, and even because of archives (City of Turku is established at 1229A.D). And carbon datings of organical objects at those sites give consistent results. If dating method gives false results they are probably random, and so probability for getting result in right age range is low.
I know that carbon is common element and all living organisms contain it. But if some contamination by living organisms (for example micro organisms) has occurred it means that sample has more radiocarbon than it should have and so result is YOUNGER than samples REAL AGE. So even if radiocarbon dating gives us wrong results those wrong results does NOT help young Earth creationist in their claims.
2004-09-09 12:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]This inability [to show Evolution as a fact] alone makes Evolution intellectually untenable.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. To claim evolution as a fact is to misrepresent the Theory of Evolution as the non-existent Law of Evolution. Evolution is not scientific fact; itââ¬â¢s an intellectually coherent attempt to explain the phenomenon of bio-diversity based on observable facts. Evolution-as-a-factists and Creationists are both supporting articles of faith, therefore this is a purely religious debate.
Personally I find Creation vs. Evolution less interesting than the fact there are people credulous enough believe in aliens. Obviously life does not exist outside of earth; the fact that not one single extraterrestrial lifeform has found its way here to sponge off our social welfare system irrefutably proves that.
2004-09-09 13:37 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Personally I find Creation vs. Evolution less interesting than the fact there are people credulous enough believe in aliens. Obviously life does not exist outside of earth; the fact that not one single extraterrestrial lifeform has found its way here to sponge off our social welfare system irrefutably proves that."[/COLOR]
Poor Gaeil, you are apparently not aware how evolutionists are more and more forced to rely on the ridiculous "panspermia" theory (life came to earth from outer space) to explain the origin of life on Earth.
Or why do you think they make such noise every time they think to have found some traces of bacterial life from meteors from Mars et cetera?
Petr
2004-09-09 18:37 | User Profile
...because possible life on Mars tells us that Earth is not only living place on Earth. BTW: There has been an interesting finding by ESA's Mars orbiter, it found significable trace of methane in atmosphere of Mars. Methane in rocky worlds come in practice only form two sources. First is volcanic activity, and second is biological activity. Also methane has low age in atmosphere, so there must be constant source to it. And observed volvanic activity is far too small on Mars. So methane can indicate possible life's existence there.
Personally I'd love finding of life beyound Earth, especially intelligent one. That would destroy completely fundamentalist myths of origins of universe, life, and intelligence.
2004-09-09 19:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele] Personally I'd love finding of life beyound Earth, especially intelligent one. That would destroy completely fundamentalist myths of origins of universe, life, and intelligence.[/QUOTE] No, it wouldn't. There could be a full-blown Star Wars-type civilization in the next galaxy over, and it would not destroy the case for creationism.
I find the whole Evolution vs Creation cagematch a little tiresome, because I think it somewhat misses the point. Either God created the universe and its inhabitants, or He didn't. If He did, then the specific method used in that creation is relatively unimportant. And if He didn't, then where did everything come from? Where did the matter for the Big Bang originate? What was the original energy source?
Basically, because both positions are unfalsifiable, it comes to down faith either way. Either you believe that God created the Universe, or you believe He didn't. If you can set up a double-blind study with repeatable, observable results that proves that God did not create the Universe, then let me know. Otherwise, I choose to believe in God and His creation. The rest is just details.
2004-09-09 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]Big Bang is consistent within laws of physics. If Big Bang theory won't fit to known laws it would have been scrapped long time ago. After all there has been rival explanations.
The Big Bang consistent with the laws of physics? That's absolutely absurd yet you believe it absolutely. The only defense you've offered is that it has beat out other [naturalistic] explanations. In the beginning, there was nothing, then it exploded, expanding faster than light and continually increasing in complexity in a closed system. . .
But I think this field of discussion goes far away of my and perhaps your capabilities. Modern physics is after all extremely complex.
Perhaps you could explain how the universe expands without violating the 1st-law of thermodynamics by increasing potential energy between objects? This is where you draw upon your vast understand of phsyics and just make up things, like there's an unknown and unseen repulsive force which is far stronger than gravity. . . Get back to me when this force is observed, until then, drop your absurd claim that the Big Bang is constant with the laws of phsyics. BTW, there are any number of such examples of the Big Bang being absurd.
Also it is uncertain if Laws of physics will allow messing with Universes business outside of it. It can be so that nothing from outside of Universe can affect it and remain outside.
God made the laws of physics. They serve Him. He does not serve them.
Just like there is no spesific centerpoint of space, there are no universal time coordinates.
It is your assumption that there is no specific center point.
Erosion speed is not the only way when one tries to measure Earths age. For example there are many radiological ways to do it. And they give compatible results.
Only compatible results would be published. A peer-review system that openly censors not just poor quality papers but also Politically Incorrect papers is hardly anything to point to if you wish to settle a dispute.
Old-earthers must dispute the reliability of any mechanical measure of the Earth's age. Radiological methods are far less reliable because often the only way to know if the date is correct and not a result of contamination is if it's the date your you're looking for.
2004-09-09 20:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]This same old trick creationists try to make. Playing whit definition of adaptation.
I accept that animal types can devolve into different species. The issue of Evolution isn't if you can have two different species of a given common bird, especially when the definition of species is so arbitrary. The issue of Evolution is if signficant amounts of new complexity can appear by natural processes. The absolute lack of even one observed example is pretty damning of Evolution.
The observations of Universe, fit to our theories of physics quite nicely,
You can chant that all day long and it would still not be true.
About carbon dating. If it is proved joke why then it is used? And it's results are kept reliable in conventional archeology. Even in those timescales which are non problematic to YEC's. How dating method which is realiable for example in 2000 years scale, mutates completely rubbish in 6000 years scale, even if physics behind it doesn't require so? Could it be so that people who are saying it is rubbish don't like its results?
If you assume and old earth, then C12/C14 levels in the atmosphere are at equalibrium throughout the useful life of C14 dating. If the earth is not old, this assumption is invalid and using this assumption will create exponential error, the older something is.
Even if the earth is old, or if it's young, there could be disturbances in C12/C14 ratios. Noah's flood and a possible vapor canopy, for example. Changes in solar activity. The current heavy use of fossil fuels. These would all affect C12/C14 dates, usually making things look older than they are.
Regardless of the age of the earth, there is what is known as the reservoir effect (which would be more significant with a young earth) which creates error. Simply, organisms consume older carbon making their dates appear greater. This is why living organisms often date very old.
C14 dating, like other radiometric dating is window dressing. It's an attempt to make assumped dates look like they are scientifically obtained.
Maybe for ideological or religious reasons? Are that kind of people really real scientists? Carbon dating results can be calibrated numerous ways. We can measure age of object which age is known allready certainly. And it can be calibrated using dendrochronology. (Grow rings in tree trunks).
Radiometric methods are often calibrated against each other. Carbon dating has the advantage that it can be historically calibrated. But, as carbon dating because naturally less reliable, the historical dates themselves become less reliable. Tree rings corrispond to growth periods, not so much years and, there aren't a whole lot of trees thousands of years old. . .
I'm not able to believe in so vast conspiracy theories, that nearly all scientist ase part of conspiracy and known liars.
In America, when Creationism is banned from every public school across the United States, it looks very stupid (actually, dishonest) for someone to bedismissive of a "vast conspiracy." Many Evolutionists don't need to join the legal conspiracy, their own religious faith and intolerance of freedom is their membership ticket to the vast conspiracy.
2004-09-10 09:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The Big Bang consistent with the laws of physics? That's absolutely absurd yet you believe it absolutely. The only defense you've offered is that it has beat out other [naturalistic] explanations. In the beginning, there was nothing, then it exploded, expanding faster than light and continually increasing in complexity in a closed system. . .[/QUOTE]
In the beginning there was singularity like state. And for space time itself faster than light movement is allowed in general relativity theory.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Perhaps you could explain how the universe expands without violating the 1st-law of thermodynamics by increasing potential energy between objects? This is where you draw upon your vast understand of phsyics and just make up things, like there's an unknown and unseen repulsive force which is far stronger than gravity. . . Get back to me when this force is observed, until then, drop your absurd claim that the Big Bang is constant with the laws of phsyics. BTW, there are any number of such examples of the Big Bang being absurd. [/QUOTE]
That kind of force is observed and it is accelerating expansion rate, ad. infinitum. And observation of that kind of force in normal scale can be quite difficult. For example observing gravitational effects in scale of atoms, would be difficult because there are vast stronger, yet range limited forces in action. This is probably same thing, in smaller scales (planets, solar system, galaxies, galaxy groups) gravitation (which is weakest KNOWN force) rules over stronger, yet more range limited, forces, and only in very big scales repulsive force which is probably even greater takes over.
That kind of force is part of still unresolved questions in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, but just like in case of dark matter observations tell that it must exist. Originally that kind of force was presented in general relativity theory, in the name of cosmological constant.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] God made the laws of physics. They serve Him. He does not serve them. [/QUOTE]
So this discussion is useless, whatever evidence, creationist claims cannot be falsified, because God still can cheat and make Universe seen like it is born naturally. That kind of non-falsifiability is one distinctive marks of theory being pseudoscientific.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] It is your assumption that there is no specific center point. [/QUOTE]
If there is one, then functionality and validity of general relativity theory is at stake, because there would one more valid coordinate system. Or so I assume. And how your theory explains 3K cosmic background radiation, one of central pillars of Big Bang model.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] Only compatible results would be published. A peer-review system that openly censors not just poor quality papers but also Politically Incorrect papers is hardly anything to point to if you wish to settle a dispute.[/QUOTE]
Even politically incorrect results get through if they are made goodly enough.
I think that in case of creationist research there is question about quality of their results not type of their results. As far as I have read those researches, they will usually repeat same old arguments and quote same old proven wrong theories. By giving publishing arena for their results publication will fall into publishing same old arguments over and over.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] Old-earthers must dispute the reliability of any mechanical measure of the Earth's age. Radiological methods are far less reliable because often the only way to know if the date is correct and not a result of contamination is if it's the date your you're looking for.[/QUOTE]
Radio isocron method has an in-built way to tell if contamination had occurred, observed spots wouldn't made any neat line, but they are scattered so that one cannot draw sensible line. (Age of object is calculated from angle of line) So one can see quality of age got. Most rejected results give too young result, so possible contamination younger an object, not makes it look older. (No too young does not mean 6000 years of age, but usually still hundreds of millions of years)
2004-09-10 10:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I accept that animal types can devolve into different species. The issue of Evolution isn't if you can have two different species of a given common bird, especially when the definition of species is so arbitrary. The issue of Evolution is if signficant amounts of new complexity can appear by natural processes. The absolute lack of even one observed example is pretty damning of Evolution.[/QUOTE]
Incresing of complexity is possibly according to laws of physics, usually creationists claim that Second law of Thermodynamics deny it. No it doesn't. It would deny it if Earth was an insulated system, but Earth is not that kind of system. Energy flows from sun, reflexes back to space, or mades smaller or longer circulation in various systems before it radiates back to space as low quality heat radiation. So nature doesn't fundamentally deny possibility of more complexity in systems. Your observed examples? You mean that examples in evolution process at work? In one life time, or at even historical time? I bet you wouldn't accept fossilical evidence especially their timings. If so you would not get your evidence because rate of natural evolution is so slow that even in historical scale one cannot see significable changes. If one looks at million years scale than changes start to occur, and even in hundred thousand years scale, but not in 4000-5000 years scale. Only in small organisms, like insects and even smaller, changes can occur fastly enough, because little age of generations. But you wouldn't accept antibiotics or pesticide resistance as an example.
One big example of growing complexity still could be found. And it is even natural. Civilisation. Human civilisation, which has become more and more complex over time, which evolves throughout of Lamarckian system, which is way faster than Darwinian one. Yes it is natural, it is results of behaviour of land mammals called humans. And they are perfectly natural beings.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]If you assume and old earth, then C12/C14 levels in the atmosphere are at equalibrium throughout the useful life of C14 dating. If the earth is not old, this assumption is invalid and using this assumption will create exponential error, the older something is.[/QUOTE]
There are other ways of dating when age of objects grows, and if your assumption is correct there would be growing systematical error in those datings, even in historical times.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Even if the earth is old, or if it's young, there could be disturbances in C12/C14 ratios. Noah's flood and a possible vapor canopy, for example. Changes in solar activity. The current heavy use of fossil fuels. These would all affect C12/C14 dates, usually making things look older than they are.[/QUOTE]
That vapor canopy theory is nice. And complete rubbish. Consequences of that kind of canopy would be interesting. Crushing surface pressures and surface temperature which nears melting point of lead. Or if canopy is farther away, what prevents sunlight of breaking water to hydrogen and oxygen, and what decreases its orbital velocity to point where it drops back. And even better, when it drops back what prevents it accelerating to speeds where friction genarated heat frys everyone on earth.
Problems in Noahs flood are so numerous I don't bother to write of them. The current heavy fossil fuels use invalidates measurings of less than 150 years old objects, but does not affect older.
And quoted response about C12/C14 ratio: "Response: The variability of the C14/C12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 [Dickin 1995, 364-366]. Calibration is possible by analyzing the C14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C14/C12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present [Becker et al. 1991; Becker and Kromer 1993]. C14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993], and to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments [Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998]."
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Regardless of the age of the earth, there is what is known as the reservoir effect (which would be more significant with a young earth) which creates error. Simply, organisms consume older carbon making their dates appear greater. This is why living organisms often date very old.
C14 dating, like other radiometric dating is window dressing. It's an attempt to make assumped dates look like they are scientifically obtained.[/QUOTE]
Reservoir effect happens usually only in places where main carbon source is fossilic, like in some lakes, and some areas of oceans, it is konwn poblem and limitation of method.
Quoted Response: "Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement which exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages not much older than 50,000 years. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess C-12 released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess C-14 produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950's, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon [Faure 1998, 294]. In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method.
Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 11,000 years. It has also been tested on items whose age is known through historical records, such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb [Watson 2001; MNSU n.d.]. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques [e.g. Bard et al. 1990].
References: Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410. Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. [url]http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html[/url] Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. [url]http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html[/url]
Further Reading: Higham, Tom, 1999. Radiocarbon WEB-Info. [url]http://www.c14dating.com/[/url] Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html#reliability"
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Radiometric methods are often calibrated against each other. Carbon dating has the advantage that it can be historically calibrated. But, as carbon dating because naturally less reliable, the historical dates themselves become less reliable. Tree rings corrispond to growth periods, not so much years and, there aren't a whole lot of trees thousands of years old. . .[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]In America, when Creationism is banned from every public school across the United States, it looks very stupid (actually, dishonest) for someone to bedismissive of a "vast conspiracy." Many Evolutionists don't need to join the legal conspiracy, their own religious faith and intolerance of freedom is their membership ticket to the vast conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
I don't know any sensible reasons to taught pseudoscientific theories to anyone as truth. As part of religious teaching they can be taught, but not as scientific truth. I think that it would be like poisoning of young minds.
2004-09-10 10:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]No, it wouldn't. There could be a full-blown Star Wars-type civilization in the next galaxy over, and it would not destroy the case for creationism.[/QUOTE]
I think that biblical creationism would be at difficult situation then.
[QUOTE=QuantrillI find the whole Evolution vs Creation cagematch a little tiresome, because I think it somewhat misses the point. Either God created the universe and its inhabitants, or He didn't. If He did, then the specific method used in that creation is relatively unimportant. And if He didn't, then where did everything come from? Where did the matter for the Big Bang originate? What was the original energy source?[/QUOTE]
That is completely different question, and in that question I'm on same side within creationists, ultimately I believe God has created Universe, and it's inhabitants. The argument is about methods.
[QUOTE=Quantrill Basically, because both positions are unfalsifiable, it comes to down faith either way. Either you believe that God created the Universe, or you believe He didn't. If you can set up a double-blind study with repeatable, observable results that proves that God did not create the Universe, then let me know. Otherwise, I choose to believe in God and His creation. The rest is just details.[/QUOTE]
As I said, above, I believe in God, atheism is not simply possible to me. I'm not trying to attack against God itself, but against ways of thinking which does more harm on christianity, and even to every believer of God than any atheists can ultimately do, or so I believe.
2004-09-10 12:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]I think that biblical creationism would be at difficult situation then. Yes, you already stated that. But why? God could easily have created the earth, and the universe, and life on other planets, as well. What's the problem? You may perhaps be interested in C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy. He was a very well-known Christian apologist, as well as a fiction writer, and he wrote a trilogy of science fiction books that deal with this very concept.
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]As I said, above, I believe in God, atheism is not simply possible to me. I'm not trying to attack against God itself, but against ways of thinking which does more harm on christianity, and even to every believer of God than any atheists can ultimately do, or so I believe.[/QUOTE] As I stated before, the Theory of Evolution (macroevolution) is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. We cannot prove that life spontaneously generated from the primordial soup, nor can we prove that single-cell organisms become elephants. Likewise, Creationism is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. We cannot prove that God directly created mankind, nor can we prove that God created the earth. If both, therefore, must be taken on faith, then why is it more unreasonable to believe in Biblical Creationism than in evolution?
2004-09-10 15:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, you already stated that. But why? God could easily have created the earth, and the universe, and life on other planets, as well. What's the problem? You may perhaps be interested in C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy. He was a very well-known Christian apologist, as well as a fiction writer, and he wrote a trilogy of science fiction books that deal with this very concept.[/QUOTE]
Biblical version tells exact tale, it does not mention life on other planets, in fact biblical version hints that there is only one world Earth, and stars and planets are only lights in the sky. There would be also numerous theological problems, as like status of humanity, sin, salvation, etc...
[QUOTE=Quantrill] As I stated before, the Theory of Evolution (macroevolution) is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. We cannot prove that life spontaneously generated from the primordial soup, nor can we prove that single-cell organisms become elephants. Likewise, Creationism is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. We cannot prove that God directly created mankind, nor can we prove that God created the earth. If both, therefore, must be taken on faith, then why is it more unreasonable to believe in Biblical Creationism than in evolution?[/QUOTE]
Evolution theory can be falsified. I can fastly imagine two ways, perhaps there are more. First by proving there haven't been enoough time for evolution (YE, or young life), secondly by proving that positively effected mutatations cannot exist, or they could not spread.
Biblical creation can also be falsified if one assumption is accepted. That is following: God has not meddled more than bible says within earth. Then one can shred flood geology to pieces, creation itself is still tough thing, and possibly non-falsifiable, I think only flood geology is good target. Also size of human population. Yes even modest growth rate is enough to make 6000 000 000 peoples of todays world, but population for example in Roman times, or at times when pyramids were build would be very small. But if one takes usual explanation and allows God to meddle everywhere then one cannot say anything reasonable against creationism execpt philosophical arguments.
BTW. One fact supporting evolution theory is speciation started in humans (Now sadly going reverse way). Why there are different human races? 6000 years of time is not enough for that kind of differences.
2004-09-10 15:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Poor Gaeil, you are apparently not aware how evolutionists are more and more forced to rely on the ridiculous "panspermia" theory (life came to earth from outer space) to explain the origin of life on Earth.[/QUOTE] No, Iââ¬â¢ve read the latest Dan Brown perversion-of-history-and-science-for-fun-and-profit-fest :D
[QUOTE=Petr]Or why do you think they make such noise every time they think to have found some traces of bacterial life from meteors from Mars et cetera?[/QUOTE] FUNDING.
2004-09-10 15:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]Biblical version tells exact tale, it does not mention life on other planets, in fact biblical version hints that there is only one world Earth, and stars and planets are only lights in the sky. There would be also numerous theological problems, as like status of humanity, sin, salvation, etc... It does not disallow the possibility of life on other planets either. I still fail to see the numerous theological problems you allude to.
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele] Biblical creation can also be falsified if one assumption is accepted. That is following: God has not meddled more than bible says within earth. I do not hold this belief. Probably the majority of those who believe in creation do not.
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]BTW. One fact supporting evolution theory is speciation started in humans (Now sadly going reverse way). Why there are different human races? 6000 years of time is not enough for that kind of differences.[/QUOTE] Perhaps true, but you are only arguing against young earth creationism. I am talking about creation, in general.
2004-09-10 16:04 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red] - "FUNDING."[/COLOR]
Good! We are making progress here! Many layman evolutionists have a ridiculously idealistic ideas about workings of the scientific community.
Most scientists keep a very close eye on the purses of their contributors while conducting their studies.
Petr
2004-09-10 16:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]In the beginning there was singularity like state.
Where did the singularity come from? Why did it expand? You've got nothing. If the Big Bang were an invention for a Star Trek episode, it would be one of their most idiotic contrivances the show had ever come up with.
And for space time itself faster than light movement is allowed in general relativity theory.
Yeah, it's also allowed under the city's no-loitering laws (if there are any). Which law do you credit for the faster-than-light expansion? As I've already pointed out, expansion itself violates the first law of thermodynamics because it creates potentional energy between gravitationally bound objects.
That kind of force is observed and it is accelerating expansion rate, ad. infinitum. And observation of that kind of force in normal scale can be quite difficult. For example observing gravitational effects in scale of atoms,
There is no such force. No such force has been observed. It is easy to observe gravity, even the gravity from an object small enough to carry. But, when it comes the the mythical expulsive force, a force which must be stronger than gravity, all you have is a lame excuse to why it can't be observed (incidentally, how does force-driven expansion jive with your claim that Relativity allows faster-than-light expansion.)
A small lab is big enough to measure gravity. Certainly, the solar system itself would be more than big enough to observe the repulsive force. But, it isn't observed because it doesn't exist. The next time an evolutionist needs to be a dogmatic fascist about his godless belief, he ought to feel the obligation to at least get a leg-or-two to stand on that doesn't depend on the incredible and fantastic.
That kind of force is part of still unresolved questions in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, but just like in case of dark matter observations tell that it must exist.
Another absolutely huge fudge factor. The more stuff Evolutionists make up, the more they think they know about reality.
So this discussion is useless, whatever evidence, creationist claims cannot be falsified, because God still can cheat and make Universe seen like it is born naturally.
God didn't cheat to make the universe look like it was born naturally. That's why your best natural explanation is such an implausible, anti-scientific joke. Excuse my hostility, but it's absoutely ridiculous to claim the unverse looks like it was born naturally when you have to violate every law of phsyics and imagine things like the universe's strongest force is undetectable and most of the mass of the universe is also undetectable. Detect these things first then promote your Big Bang.
That kind of non-falsifiability is one distinctive marks of theory being pseudoscientific.
Evolution (cosmic or biological) is unfalsifiable because Evolutionists will just make up a new and idiotic fudge factor to save it from the evidence.
And how your theory explains 3K cosmic background radiation, one of central pillars of Big Bang model.
It was once thought cosmic rays were Big Bang remnants. The background radiation is just diffused energy. Where do cosmic rays come from?
I think that in case of creationist research there is question about quality of their results not type of their results.
Excuses, but it's not true. For example, Robert Gentry, in his book "Creation's Tiny Mysteries" documents that he had a paper rejected by peers only because of his creationist conclusion. The peer review report said Gentry was a "competent technician" but that his conclusion doesn't fit mainstream science, and part of the scientific method is for conclusions to fit mainstream science. Once he changed his conclusion to remove the Creationist interpretation, the paper was published. Quality had nothing to do with the censorship.
Given the extreme hostility of many Evolutionists to Creationists and that even competant Creationist papers would be rejected by many Evolutionist peers. For you to deny that is dishonesty on your part.
Radio isocron method has an in-built way to tell if contamination had occurred, observed spots wouldn't made any neat line, but they are scattered so that one cannot draw sensible line. (Age of object is calculated from angle of line)
Something like Rubidium with a 49-billion-year half-life would still produce a pretty straight line and still be billions of years off because of contamination. And, anything in space that accelerates decay would leave the line straight, as well. It wouldn't take much nudging by extreme temperature variations and cosmic rays to get the clock to tick a little fater and produce errors of billions of years. And, you still don't know how these minerals were created in the first place. The creation process, even a hypothetically natural one, could build these unstable elements by building up what is normally a decay product, creating the isocron line from the start.
Most dating processes, of any type, work much better just creating upper limits of age, not exact ages because knowing the starting condition is so difficult.
2004-09-10 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Where did the singularity come from? Why did it expand? You've got nothing. If the Big Bang were an invention for a Star Trek episode, it would be one of their most idiotic contrivances the show had ever come up with. [/QUOTE]
We don't know. Physics cannot say anything beyound forst fractions of time AFTER Big Bang. One can only make wild assumptions, maybe good old GODDIDIT argument is usefull. (Remember I can also use it, I'm not an atheist.)
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Yeah, it's also allowed under the city's no-loitering laws (if there are any). Which law do you credit for the faster-than-light expansion? As I've already pointed out, expansion itself violates the first law of thermodynamics because it creates potentional energy between gravitationally bound objects.[/QUOTE]
Relativity theory only denies movement of masses and information against the matrix of space-time faster than light. It does not deny movement of space time itself, and expansion of space even does not move information faster than light, contrary all information flows between us and FTL region of space will cut off. If you are interested from possibilities of FTL movement of space-time itself I recommend studying research work of Miguel Alcupierre, it has not been proved wrong yet.
Yes potentional energy grows but, remember expansion has its initial power, which came from annihilation of most matter and all antimatter formed from singular mass, and even fusion processes which produced helium also to Universe. In fact calculations tell if I remember correctly that 99percent of Universes energy is in form of radiation, and only 1 percent in mass observable or non observable.
So there are enough energy to win potential energy needs. Much more. In fact even without expulsive force observed today garavitaional energy of masses (Dark or seeable) could not win expulsive momentum, so universe will expand ad infinitum, an according to newest observations pace of expansion will accelerate.
[QUOTE]There is no such force. No such force has been observed. It is easy to observe gravity, even the gravity from an object small enough to carry. But, when it comes the the mythical expulsive force, a force which must be stronger than gravity, all you have is a lame excuse to why it can't be observed (incidentally, how does force-driven expansion jive with your claim that Relativity allows faster-than-light expansion.)
A small lab is big enough to measure gravity. Certainly, the solar system itself would be more than big enough to observe the repulsive force. But, it isn't observed because it doesn't exist. The next time an evolutionist needs to be a dogmatic fascist about his godless belief, he ought to feel the obligation to at least get a leg-or-two to stand on that doesn't depend on the incredible and fantastic.[/QUOTE]
Do you remember way which is used to calculate gravity force in Newtonian system? There are TWO masses. And in usual gravimetric measurements second mass is mass of Earth which is not very small or portable. What I meant is that in small scale gravity is negligible small against other forces, in nuclear reaction calculations one doesn't consider gravitational effects because they don't affect to end result. in fact one cannot observe gravitational effect in that scale, even in much bigger scale like objects with masses in kilogram range gravitational effect between objects is so small that it can barely be measured. If repulsive force is as many times weaker than gravitation as gravitation is for example electromagnetic-force, we could not measure it. Not in solarsystem sacle, not in galxy scale or even in galaxygroup scale, only in bigger scales it occurs and CAN be observed like sometimes ago.
[QUOTE]God didn't cheat to make the universe look like it was born naturally. That's why your best natural explanation is such an implausible, anti-scientific joke. Excuse my hostility, but it's absoutely ridiculous to claim the unverse looks like it was born naturally when you have to violate every law of phsyics and imagine things like the universe's strongest force is undetectable and most of the mass of the universe is also undetectable. Detect these things first then promote your Big Bang. [/QUOTE]
BTW. Universes strongest force is strong nuclear force, which is billions of times more powerfull than gravitation, but it weakens rapidly.
And repulsive force is detected in observations of distinct supernovas. Today we could not validate our physical theories anymore in Earth based acclerators etc. forces and scales involved are far too high, so we must use universe as our laboratory. Those observations say that repulsive force must exist so it will exist.
[QUOTE]It was once thought cosmic rays were Big Bang remnants. The background radiation is just diffused energy. Where do cosmic rays come from? [/QUOTE] From supernovas, quasars, gamma explosions, Big Bang. Background radiation is diffused energy, diffused by very special way. It is nearly uniform, just like from black object at 3K temperature. It has only slight differences, just enough to fulfill desires ofmodern theories need.
[QUOTE]Excuses, but it's not true. For example, Robert Gentry, in his book "Creation's Tiny Mysteries" documents that he had a paper rejected by peers only because of his creationist conclusion. The peer review report said Gentry was a "competent technician" but that his conclusion doesn't fit mainstream science, and part of the scientific method is for conclusions to fit mainstream science. Once he changed his conclusion to remove the Creationist interpretation, the paper was published. Quality had nothing to do with the censorship.
Anyone with half a clue, and you must have at least half a clue, knows of the extreme hostility of Evolutionists to Creationists and that even competant Creationist papers would be rejected by many Evolutionist peers. For you to deny that is dishonesty on your part.[/QUOTE]
And everyone sensors UFO-believers, is there an big conspiracy against UFO-believers. Or Chakra-energists, or homeopaths.
[QUOTE]Something like Rubidium with a 49-billion-year half-life would still produce a pretty straight line and still be billions of years off because of contamination. And, anything in space that accelerates decay would leave the line straight, as well. It wouldn't take much nudging by extreme temperature variations and cosmic rays to get the clock to tick a little fater and produce errors of billions of years. And, you still don't know how these minerals were created in the first place. The creation process, even a hypothetically natural one, could build these unstable elements by building up what is normally a decay product, creating the isocron line from the start.[/QUOTE]
There are other isotopes, and one can expect from Rubidium analysis that most points need fit to line very neatly. And there are ranges of validity for each method. And radioactive decay rates are binded to many constants of nature, and even slight variation of those would be observed by looking to night sky. (When one looks there one sees to past time, more farth more ancient times, Alpha Centauri -4 years present, Andromeda -2 million years present, etc.) Variation in decay speeds would be observable from distant supernova remnants etc. Varitations of temparature or cosmic radiation will not afect in measurable quantities to decay rates of radio isotopes, they are binded to more fundamental laws.
Modern geology has much to say for ways minerals are build. And god who created false isocron lines is also cheating one, (I write god whit no capitels because I cannot think real God would cheat us) if there weren't sensibly reason to do it so.
[QUOTE]Most dating processes, of any type, work much better just creating upper limits of age, not exact ages because knowing the starting condition is so difficult.[/QUOTE]
Most dating methods give range of error. Also absolute uper limits, and absolute lower limits.
2004-09-10 17:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]Your observed examples? You mean that examples in evolution process at work? In one life time, or at even historical time? I bet you wouldn't accept fossilical evidence especially their timings.
Inferred claims is not the same as direct observation. I would accept the fossil evidence, which solidly refutes Evolution, but in the case of wanting the strongest and most direct evidence, the direct observation of Evolution, it doesn't quality.
If so you would not get your evidence because rate of natural evolution is so slow that even in historical scale one cannot see significable changes.
Bacteria and fruit fly generations are very short. If Evolution occured, even if slowely, it woudl be fast enough to observe in those rapidly reproducing organisms, expecially in contrived laboratory conditions to speed up Evolution.
Only in small organisms, like insects and even smaller, changes can occur fastly enough, because little age of generations. But you wouldn't accept antibiotics or pesticide resistance as an example.
Mutations cause antibiotic resistance by crippling an organisms so it no longer has the ability to kill itself with an antibiotic, not by giving the organism new complexity with which to fight the antibiotic. Evolutionists are so desperate for an observation that they pass off deterioration as Evolution, if it has any fortuitous benefit.
One big example of growing complexity still could be found. And it is even natural. Civilisation.
Civilization is the result of intelligence, not natural processes.
There are other ways of dating when age of objects grows, and if your assumption is correct there would be growing systematical error in those datings, even in historical times.
Nothing the Evolutionist's calibration curve can't fix.
Reservoir effect happens usually only in places where main carbon source is fossilic, like in some lakes, and some areas of oceans, it is konwn poblem and limitation of method.
There is almost always some reservoir effect. The carbon not gained from the air is going to be older carbon. Carbon gained from below the surface is going to be much older carbon.
Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 11,000 years.
The only problem is, because trees tend to have more rings than years, dendrochronologists depend on C14 dating of rings. But, as long as everyone one can reach a satisfactory date, they ignore the circular reasoning.
I wouldn't think C14 dating would be too inaccurate for the past could thosand years. BTW, do you have any reference to C14 dates of coal, oil, and dinosaur fossils, however inaccurate you may think they are?
2004-09-10 19:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Inferred claims is not the same as direct observation. I would accept the fossil evidence, which solidly refutes Evolution, but in the case of wanting the strongest and most direct evidence, the direct observation of Evolution, it doesn't quality.[/QUOTE]
So you want nearly impossible evidence? I think that convincing or other die-hart creationists is not worth of time or money.
[QUOTE]Bacteria and fruit fly generations are very short. If Evolution occured, even if slowely, it woudl be fast enough to observe in those rapidly reproducing organisms, expecially in contrived laboratory conditions to speed up Evolution. [/QUOTE]
And they can be evolved faster and faster, in special conditions one can create speciation effect even in larger animals, or do you think that Chihuahua can reproduce naturally with Irish wolfhound? One can create special insect breeds, and one can even create completely new micro organisms
[QUOTE]Mutations cause antibiotic resistance by crippling an organisms so it no longer has the ability to kill itself with an antibiotic, not by giving the organism new complexity with which to fight the antibiotic. Evolutionists are so desperate for an observation that they pass off deterioration as Evolution, if it has any fortuitous benefit. [/QUOTE] But Malaria flys resistance to pesticedes doesn't hinder its reproductive capacity. And Multiresistent streptococ A (MRSA) is spreading thoughout hospitals, not very crippled organism.
[QUOTE]Civilization is the result of intelligence, not natural processes.[/QUOTE]
And intelligence is natural process, so all its derivatives are naturall.
[QUOTE]Nothing the Evolutionist's calibration curve can't fix.[/QUOTE] And conspiraive official are hiding evedence about UFOs.
[QUOTE]There is almost always some reservoir effect. The carbon not gained from the air is going to be older carbon. Carbon gained from below the surface is going to be much older carbon. [/QUOTE]
But all land animals eat carbon derived from plants. And plants derive it form air. So datings of land animals are correct.
[QUOTE]The only problem is, because trees tend to have more rings than years, dendrochronologists depend on C14 dating of rings. But, as long as everyone one can reach a satisfactory date, they ignore the circular reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Usually trees have nearly exact rings as they are old in years, and dendrochronology uses many trees, whic levels out errors. And in northern regions ring of the trees equals growing seasons AKA year, because there is only one growing season in the year.
[QUOTE]I wouldn't think C14 dating would be too inaccurate for the past could thosand years. BTW, do you have any reference to C14 dates of coal, oil, and dinosaur fossils, however inaccurate you may think they are?[/QUOTE]
No because they are completely out of range, Origanal C14 has decayed nearly completely.
2004-09-17 02:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]We don't know. Physics cannot say anything beyound forst fractions of time AFTER Big Bang. One can only make wild assumptions, maybe good old GODDIDIT argument is usefull. (Remember I can also use it, I'm not an atheist.) sacle, not in galxy scale or even in galaxygroup scale, only in bigger scales it occurs and CAN be observed like sometimes ago. [/QUOTE] Oh Yes you are an Athiest, Mr. Finland. You are an Athiest because you have chosen the path of relegating your understanding and perception of all that is Universal based only upon the accepted Science of The Age, and although I know you will say that you do not, you then have to take a close look at your modus operandi.. your mode of thought, always seeking to disprove Creationism and DEFEND Evolution and your own BAD ASTRONOMY. Any reader going back to the beginning of this log will perceive your leanings and your pre-dispositions. You have to rid yourself of those same pre-suppositions before you can attempt to evaluate this level of reality. Very sad.. your own " perceptions " based on " empirical evidence " are a total joke. Btw in a former post I said that tree rings are true, but your science is not. There is not one SHRED of credible proof that anything you say is even REMOTELY connected to reality.
2004-09-17 04:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]We don't know. Physics cannot say anything beyound forst fractions of time AFTER Big Bang. One can only make wild assumptions, maybe good old GODDIDIT argument is usefull. (Remember I can also use it, I'm not an atheist.)
I don't invoke God to save antibiblical theories. I invoke God only to give Him credit for what he says he has done. Theories based on the assumption of naturalism need to stand on their own. And, what you mean to say isn't "Physics cannot say..." But, "We give up even trying to apply physics to this absurdity."
If repulsive force is as many times weaker than gravitation as gravitation is for example electromagnetic-force, we could not measure it. Not in solarsystem sacle,
Actually, inside a school lab room, you can observe/measure the force of gravity between two objects in the room, without the Earth being one of those objects. It is an absurdity to insist that the lab the size of the solar system isn't big enough to observe the alleged repulsive force, even if the repulsive force were as much weaker than gravity as gravity is weaker than the electromagnetic force.
Besides, it's not much of a scientific defense of something to claim that it exists but for whatever reason, you just can observe it.
And repulsive force is detected in observations of distinct supernovas.
I think you're confusing dorkus measurements of expansion as detection of repulsive force. Can you point to me anything, any study or observation of the magical mystery repulsivee forces unrelated to expansion of the universe?
Today we could not validate our physical theories anymore in Earth based acclerators etc. forces and scales involved are far too high, so we must use universe as our laboratory. Those observations say that repulsive force must exist so it will exist.
There is the Big Bang which atheists desire to salvage and so they must make up many huge fudge factors, such as the repulsive force that dominates all other forces. The Big Bang says the repulsive force exists. The absence of a repulsive force says the Big Bang is anti-science garbage.
From supernovas, quasars, gamma explosions, Big Bang. Background radiation is diffused energy, diffused by very special way. It is nearly uniform, just like from black object at 3K temperature. It has only slight differences, just enough to fulfill desires ofmodern theories need.
Just enough that Evolutionists had to invent the "inflationary" modification of the Big Bang... another huge fudge factor.
And everyone sensors UFO-believers, is there an big conspiracy against UFO-believers. Or Chakra-energists, or homeopaths.
Sorry, I'm not aware of any quality UFO paper being rejected by a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not aware of any teacher being punished or threatened for sharing a belief in UFOs because the government has decided that UFOs cannot be mentioned in the classroom.
Varitations of temparature or cosmic radiation will not afect in measurable quantities to decay rates of radio isotopes, they are binded to more fundamental laws.
Will not effect in measureable quanties? To accurately date a rock with something that has a 49-billion-year half-life, you're pretty much counting individual atoms if you don't want a huge margin of error. Any effect would be measurable.
How is 87Rb created in the first place?
2004-10-08 19:33 | User Profile
First sorry about not writing for a time. [QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I don't invoke God to save antibiblical theories. I invoke God only to give Him credit for what he says he has done. Theories based on the assumption of naturalism need to stand on their own. And, what you mean to say isn't "Physics cannot say..." But, "We give up even trying to apply physics to this absurdity."[/QUOTE]
No I mean what I mean. Physics cannot say anything of time in singularity or before it because, singularity is what it is. All our equations will be useless in those conditions, they will so infinite or zero values. It is like dividing any number with zero. Physics is afterall mathematics and so it cannot be used in reasonable way in those conditions where mathematics itself will crumble.
[QUOTE=Happy HackerActually, inside a school lab room, you can observe/measure the force of gravity between two objects in the room, without the Earth being one of those objects. It is an absurdity to insist that the lab the size of the solar system isn't big enough to observe the alleged repulsive force, even if the repulsive force were as much weaker than gravity as gravity is weaker than the electromagnetic force. [/QUOTE]
Really? I think that forces involved are far too small, for example kilogram massed objects in range of one meter between them, force which will be in effect between them is aproximately 6.7x10^-11 newtons, quite a small force. I think that no common scale is able to measure it.
[QUOTE=Happy HackerBesides, it's not much of a scientific defense of something to claim that it exists but for whatever reason, you just can observe it.[/QUOTE]
One can observe it within big enough scale.
[QUOTE=Happy HackerI think you're confusing dorkus measurements of expansion as detection of repulsive force. Can you point to me anything, any study or observation of the magical mystery repulsivee forces unrelated to expansion of the universe? [/QUOTE] There are observations involving supernova explosions and decay of their products which are the basis of expulsive force hypothesis.
[QUOTE=Happy HackerThere is the Big Bang which atheists desire to salvage and so they must make up many huge fudge factors, such as the repulsive force that dominates all other forces. The Big Bang says the repulsive force exists. The absence of a repulsive force says the Big Bang is anti-science garbage. [/QUOTE]
Big bang itself does not need repulsive force, but new observations tell that pace of expansion is accelerating so repulsive force is needed. Repulsive force or not, universe IS expanding. For ever.
[QUOTE=Happy HackerJust enough that Evolutionists had to invent the "inflationary" modification of the Big Bang... another huge fudge factor. [/QUOTE]
Theories will evolve to better match with facts. And besides you DON'T have REASONABLE alternative.
[QUOTE=Happy HackerSorry, I'm not aware of any quality UFO paper being rejected by a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not aware of any teacher being punished or threatened for sharing a belief in UFOs because the government has decided that UFOs cannot be mentioned in the classroom.[/QUOTE]
They all say they are quality products. And they are rejected too. Maybe testimony of creationist themselves is not enough to mean that tehy really are quality articles.
[QUOTE=Happy HackerWill not effect in measureable quanties? To accurately date a rock with something that has a 49-billion-year half-life, you're pretty much counting individual atoms if you don't want a huge margin of error. Any effect would be measurable. [/QUOTE]
They will not effwect because radioactive decay is controlled by weak nuclear force, which is not affected by heat or pressure. Even atomic nucleuses themselves are not affected by reasonable levels of them. (Pressure high enough will affect atomic nucleuses, but they are beyound any normal stellar or planetary levels.)
[QUOTE=Happy HackerHow is 87Rb created in the first place?[/QUOTE]
In supernova explosions and in their aftermatches, like all natural elements heavier than iron.
2004-10-08 19:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Oh Yes you are an Athiest, Mr. Finland. You are an Athiest because you have chosen the path of relegating your understanding and perception of all that is Universal based only upon the accepted Science of The Age, and although I know you will say that you do not, you then have to take a close look at your modus operandi.. your mode of thought, always seeking to disprove Creationism and DEFEND Evolution and your own BAD ASTRONOMY. Any reader going back to the beginning of this log will perceive your leanings and your pre-dispositions. You have to rid yourself of those same pre-suppositions before you can attempt to evaluate this level of reality. Very sad.. your own " perceptions " based on " empirical evidence " are a total joke. Btw in a former post I said that tree rings are true, but your science is not. There is not one SHRED of credible proof that anything you say is even REMOTELY connected to reality.[/QUOTE]
I'm not ATHEIST. To say so is insult to me. I have personal reasons to belive in GOD. He has testified His existence to me by numerous ways. Once in religious incident, and after and before that in lifew threatening accidents. As an child I got electcric shock from light bulb (220 volts 50Hrz), but managed to get out of circuit, which should not be possible, without any harm. At teen age I collided with car with my bicycle, cars speed was over 50 miles an hour(over 80Km/h), and I did not even got any bruise. When I struck with it time was like freezed and i felt enormous power lifting me from saddle of bike and lowering gently to the surface of the road opposite direction of crash).
I personally think that God is greater than any JEWISH creation myth or JEWISH tribal God. And He has played His game without CHEATING. I DON't believe in GOD of Old testament. AND I DON'T believe that Bible is completely word of GOD. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN that I don't believe in God.
BTW. MY bad astronomy is part of mainstream, and quite perfectly backed by physics and mathematics. YOUR version of it does not have more than backing of few lunatics. Also results of geology and biology, wihch I thnk are facts are backed by all REAL scientists. (Insult to insult is my princible)
2004-10-09 02:14 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red] - " MY bad astronomy is part of mainstream, and quite perfectly backed by physics and mathematics. "[/COLOR]
Oh, that's what you think...
Here's a nice, fresh article, (with a spicy commentary) from the "Creation-Evolution Headlines":
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1004.htm[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=4]Modern Cosmology Is Clueless, Astronomy Columnist Says [/SIZE]
10/06/2004
A letter to the editor in the latest (November) issue of Astronomy tipped us off to something we missed in the July issue.
The subscriber wrote, [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]Kudos to Bob Berman for bringing up the slipperiness of modern cosmology in ‘Theory chaotic’ (July 2004). He must be one of the first to do so. As he makes clear, a healthy skepticism can and should be a necessary part of the scientific method. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkRed]This we had to see, and Berman’s editorial surpassed expectations. In his monthly column “Bob Berman’s Strange Universe,” he was ruthless. After detailing the flipflops of cosmologists over the last ten years, and their parade of wacko pronouncements (see 07/27/2004, 02/10/2004, 01/23/2004, 06/20/2003 and 06/18/2003 headlines, for instance), he has had enough. Wit meets dead seriousness: [/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted.
In one sense, it’s very cool. Imagination rules! It’s a unique period in cosmology’s history. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking.
Unfortunately, cosmologists are starting to resemble naked emperors parading before the mass media. Hey, we love you, but you have no clue about the universe’s true origin or fate, and little knowledge of its composition. Yet each pronouncement is delivered with pomp and flair. Maybe you need a serious “time out.”
(Italics in original.)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkRed]Berman distances real astronomy, the kind that “deals with optics, gadgets, software, planets and nebulae, observations, beauty, and real science” – from the fantasyland that he feels modern cosmology has become. He suggests the following disclaimer before any cosmology articles in Astronomy: [SIZE=3]“Warning: The following contains contemporary cosmology. Reading it can produce disorientation and confusion. Nobody knows what’s going on and nothing you read here is likely to be true.” [/SIZE] [/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkGreen]
This is a howler; read the whole thing if you can get it. It encapsulates all you need to know about modern cosmology, because why study it in detail when it is like the weather in Cleveland – if you don’t like it, wait 5 minutes. Such bold honesty is refreshing. Dear Mr. Berman: would you like a side job as a guest columnist for Creation-Evolution Headlines?
Only one recent cosmological suggestion seems to have any staying power, the trend toward viewing information as a fundamental property of the universe (see 08/14/2003 headline). Otherwise, let this editorial be a lesson for all those who think Biblical cosmology should be linked to the secular cosmology du jour. One day you feel honored to be invited to the elite cosmological convention. Next thing you know, you’re at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, where you learn six impossible things before breakfast and the cosmic Cheshire Cat grins and disappears as everybody laughs. Only if imagination rules will you think this is very cool.[/COLOR]
2004-10-09 11:22 | User Profile
Standard cosmology is in good condition, there are no notable different opinions for happenings in most of universe's age. Nowadays they speculate and argue of conditions in first fractions of first second after start of universe. And it is and will be difficult topic. When quantum mechanics is involved difficulties increase fast, and explanations are insane looking. Why? Because world of quantum mechanics is insane indeed. Normal reasoning has nothing to do in those conditions. Universe is what it is, if it is non-understandable to human thinking in fundamental level, there is nothing what we can do.
Conditions on those first fractions of time were so hellish that quantum mechanics came involved, even in macroscopic things, and it is the aftermath of those conditions which modern astronomers observe.
THERE is NO reasonable other theory which could explain those observations, for example redshift of light. Or background radiation.
2004-10-09 15:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]THERE is NO reasonable other theory which could explain those observations, for example redshift of light. Or background radiation.[/QUOTE]
So, in summery, it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of matter in the universe is totally undetectable (cold/dark matter), that the dominate force in the universe is totally undectable (the repulsive force), that bodies in space can move apart faster than light (the inflationary Big Bang model), etc.
But, it is not reasonable to speculate that the undisputed phenomenon of gravitational time dilation could be the cause of redshift (a prima facie fact if the universe is bounded). And, it is not reasonable to think the background radiation is simply energy that has been diffused repeatedly by absorption and radiation of intersteller dust.
It also is reasonable to believe the scientific absurdity of the Big Bang is God-given fact but to simply say that the universe is still a mystery is an act of religious bigotry.
2005-03-06 06:49 | User Profile
Wow, I never knew there were such great scientific minds on this board. There are apparently people here who are smart enough to know that evolutionary theory and the Big Bang model are false without even needing to be educated in biology or physics. That is truly, truly extraordinary. All those scientists who work for years to get undergraduate and graduate degrees and then dedicate their lives to these fields must be green with envy that they don't have it "naturally" like you do.
To any of you who think you know enough physics to dismiss the Big Bang theory, please summarize and critique the following brief research article (PDF file) for me:
[url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0502/0502019.pdf[/url]
If you're so much smarter than all those physicists who think the Big Bang is a valid theory, it should be a piece of cake.
2005-03-06 08:58 | User Profile
Just wondering, is it possible for someone who rejects the theory of evolution to accept the ideas behind Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique? I.e. that the behaviour of Jews as a group in society can be explained as a "group evolutionary strategy".
2005-03-06 10:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red] - "And it can certainly measure distances way greater than 6000 light years with some kind of accuracy." [/COLOR]
Just what exactly would that prove? Think about it.
All of it could have been created in a blink of an eye, instead of being spread around during billions of years.[/QUOTE]
Even if the universe was created in the blink of an eye, with all the stars and galaxies in their current positions, the fact that there are celestial bodies more than 6000 ly away proves that the universe is more than 6000 years old, because the light has taken that long to reach us. Light from galaxies billions of light years away has taken billions of years to reach us (that's why it's called a light year after all), ergo the universe is billions of years old.
Of course, God could have created the universe with photons already 99.999% of their way from those stars to the earth, headed in exactly the right direction and in exactly the right numbers to order to give us the misleading impression that the light that we see actually originated from them, but that would seem like a blatant deception.
2005-03-06 11:16 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red][B][I] - "Just wondering, is it possible for someone who rejects the theory of evolution to accept the ideas behind Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique? I.e. that the behaviour of Jews as a group in society can be explained as a "group evolutionary strategy"."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
I myself am actually quite critical of [B]all[/B] kinds of "just-so" evo-babble, and I am more interested in historical factoids about Jewish involvement in different intellectual movements that Kevin MacDonald manages to present amidst his evolutionary theorizing. I do not consider him infallible.
Check out this essay by (a non-creationist) David Stove:
[B][SIZE=3]So You Think You Are a Darwinian?[/SIZE]
David Stove[/B]
[COLOR=Navy][B] Most educated people nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as Darwinians. [U]If they do, however, it can only be from ignorance: from not knowing enough about what Darwinism says[/U]. For Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person; [U]or at least by an educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism[/U].[/B][/COLOR]
...
[url]http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-03-07 02:51 | User Profile
I don't see what's so tough to accept about evolution. If organisms are placed into an environment, those that are initially best-adapted to that environment will tend to out-propagate their fellow organisms. Later generations will simply engage in a refinement of that process. If some subset of these organisms then migrates to another environment, then the process will continue under different environmental selection pressures, thus tending to create organisms with different characteristics. In time, the separate groups may become so distinct that they are no longer even able to mate with each other, should they later come into contact again.
It's all common sense to modern man, and it's backed up by mountains of evidence. All scientifically-knowledgeable people from cultures and religious traditions around the world accept the facts. The only exceptions I'm aware of are (1) Biblical fundamentalists and (2) Islamic fundamentalists. Both groups believe things that are every bit as silly as thinking the earth is flat. Both groups are stuck in the Dark Ages.
If you reject evolution, then you ARE a religious fundamentalist who is afraid that his religion forbids acceptance of evolution. It all boils down to that simple fact.
2005-03-07 03:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]If you reject evolution, then you ARE a religious fundamentalist who is afraid that his religion forbids acceptance of evolution. It all boils down to that simple fact.[/QUOTE]
I categorically reject it! :thumbsup:
But then again in many ways I've always been kind of a knuckle-dragger.
2005-03-07 12:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I don't see what's so tough to accept about evolution.[/QUOTE] Uh ... let's see.
It's junk science.
It's magical thinking.
It's not supported by the evidence.
2005-03-10 19:12 | User Profile
I found this article by Fred Reed at Lew's place. It's something all of you should read. He's certainly not a Christian fundamentalist, but he rips up Evolution and addresses the mentality of Evolutionists. His conclusion about Evolution is: "I bear no animus against the theory, and champion no competing creed. But don't expect me to accept fluid speculation, sloppy logic, and secular theology."
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html[/url]
2005-03-11 02:29 | User Profile
Evolution will probably always be with us, despite the fact that the theory is junk science, because it is practically impossible to get people to quit believing in their religion.
2005-03-11 09:35 | User Profile
If an evolutionist would stop believing in the allmighty evolution, he would soon have to believe in the Allmighty God [B]and[/B] the Last Judgment of Sinners instead, and that is something that most people, in their fallen state, simply [B]do not want to do[/B].
Petr
2005-03-11 10:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I found this article by Fred Reed at Lew's place. It's something all of you should read. He's certainly not a Christian fundamentalist, but he rips up Evolution and addresses the mentality of Evolutionists. His conclusion about Evolution is: "I bear no animus against the theory, and champion no competing creed. But don't expect me to accept fluid speculation, sloppy logic, and secular theology."
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Very interesting article, Happy Hacker. Thanks for posting it.
I consider myself and "evolutionist", however I see evolution as compatible with my (Catholic) religious beliefs.
Anyway, to respond to the points raised in the article: the author is correct in that "metaphysical" philosophical differences are at the heart of the schism between "evolutionists" and "creationists". At the centre of the issue is firstly, the question of what constitutes a "scientific" belief, and secondly (but related) what the boundaries of science should be. The first question is inherently a metaphysical/philosophical question, and deserves a metaphysical/philosophical answer. Reed seems kind of derisive of metaphysical arguments as being incompatible with rigorous scientific inquiry:
[QUOTE=Fred Reed]Second, evolution seemed more a metaphysics or ideology than a science. The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles.[/QUOTE]
However, assumptions about certain metaphysical questions underlie any "scientific" outlook. For example, the notions that a scientific theory should be based on empirical evidence, should in principle be falsifiable (see Karl Popper's Falsification Principle), and should as rule of thumb adhere to the principle of Occam's Razor, are all metaphysical, not empirical conclusions.
I believe in evolution because I believe that it adheres to Occam's principle of "don't introduce entities into your ontology beyond necessity" more closely than does Creationism. In principle, this is not a conclusion based on empirical evidence, but one based on metaphysical argumentation, so in that sense Reed is correct to say that I am arguing from a metaphysical or ideological standpoint more than an empirical one. That doesn't mean my metaphysics or my ontology is flawed, however. As I said, in a sense all scientific theories are "metaphysical" in the sense that assumptions of their validity depend on underlying metaphysical assumptions (e.g. that there is such a thing as objective reality independent of the observor, etc etc).
Reed says:
[QUOTE=Fred Reed]Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. (And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way.) Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened.[/QUOTE]
To this, I would have answer that in the case of Evolution versus Creationism, plausibility is equivalent to evidence in the sense that according to the principle of Occam's Razor, all that the Evolutionist is obliged to do is show plausibility, whereas the Creationist is obliged to provide evidence, since he is the one attempting to introduce new "ontologies beyond necessity".
Occam's Razor basically states that if there is some unknown phenomenon, an explanation that makes use of existing, known mechanisms (such as chemical interactions, random mutations etc etc) to explain some unexplained mystery (such as the existence of life on planet earth) is inherently preferable to an explanation that relies on postulating some hitherto unknown, unproven entity such as a divine Creator. So as long as there is a plausible explanation of the origins of life that does not rely on assuming an intelligent designer, this will be naturally privelaged over one that does. It's not a level playing field I agree, but that's the way it is I'm afraid buddy :)
As Laplace said of God, "there is no need of him in my ontology".
Coming back to my original point about the boundaries of science, my personal take on this is that God created the physical, but he is not of the physical. Therefore all explanations of natural phenomena should, in principle, be made only with refererence to other natural phenomena (apart from specific instances of divine intervention mentioned in the Bible, and even these should be open to figurative as well as purely literal interpretations). God has a role in science as a "first cause", but as science deals exclusively with the physical, the God is really outside of it's scope. That's not to say that he doesn't exist, because science does not hold a monopoly on truth or knowledge, since some truths are by definition "outside it's brief". That is to say, knowledge and theories about material science should be kept separate and apart from spiritual beliefs about God and religion, because to do otherwise is, almost by definition, an ontological confusion.
Further on in Reed's article, there is this:
[QUOTE=Fred Reed]I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use) – of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.
This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be a bit of a persecution complex, don't you think?
Personally, I believe that reasonable people can disagree on the question of evolution. It is, after all, something that hinges on several metaphysical beliefs, and is based on one's subjective judgement of what is the "most likely" explanation of observed facts. However, in the case of the age of the Universe, the scientific evidence for a universe older than 6000 years is a lot more rigourous than for the evolutionary origins of life on Earth. For this reason, I think that intellectually honest people are pretty much committed to some form of "figurative" interpretation of the Bible, that doesn't rely on the literal truth of the Earth being only 6000 years old. If you can accept that the Bible is not literally true in that instance, what is to stop you from accepting the possibility of evolution as the mechanism by which God created the profusion of life on this planet?
P.S. I had a few beers before I wrote this, so excuse the rambling nature. Also, my mates are about to drag me away from the 'puter and into town, so I won't be able to reply to any reply immediately :)
2005-03-11 18:33 | User Profile
Rowdy, to sum up your post: God is an unnecessary factor and plausibility is evidence.
Science is, and should be, the study of how nature, not God, works. But, good science doesn't claim nature works in a way contrary to how nature is observed to work. Abiogenesis and Evolution are both contrary to how nature is observed to work.
I reject Evolution because that's not how nature works. It may be plausible-sounding to explain that a brightly colored animal is bright because over generations brighter animals were more successful in attracking mates. But, it's meaningless and non-evidential. Evolution is nothing but the art of taking any circumstance and trying to imagine a plausible evolutionary explanation. And, while that explanation of a bright animal may sound plausible, Evolution itself is not plausible. Nature does not work that way.
If nature worked that way, the Biology textbook chapter on Evolution wouldn't be full of just-so stories about circumstances. The chapter on Evolution would be every bit a reflection of emperical observation of how nature works as is the rest of the biology text.
If nature worked that way, proponents of Evolution wouldn't feel such a need to be intolerant of criticism of Evolution nor would they feel the need to defend Evolution using metaphysical arguments.
2005-07-25 15:22 | User Profile
[quote="RowdyRoddyPiper"]I consider myself and "evolutionist", however I see evolution as compatible with my (Catholic) religious beliefs.
Precisely because you are a Catholic. Darwinism has been fought by the Church until 1961 (Vatican II concile) when alternative theories ceased to be considered heretical. But up to 1996, Roma continued to remain more or less creationist (in the american meaning of the term). The October 23, Jean-Paul II recognized that the theories of Darwin are more than an hypothesis (although it's always the will of God, of course). But opponents to the concil exist.
Change happened because Catholics have a less literal interpretation of The Book, while Protestants and especially some American churches are more bound to exact readings of the text, for historical reasons. For example, the Creation in six days means 6 x 24 hours for them (if I'm correct) but what those days really were stays free to be discussed within the range of acceptable thought among Catholics. So you can be into theistic evolutionism, which could be seen as God's programming, and therefore keep a logic with evolutionism and your faith.
To make an analogy, given their very literal view of Koran (albeit not always vindictive), many sunni muslims are prone to turn to the literal version of Creationism, particularly since the islamic revival of the 80s. It must be noticed that there are literal creationists in Germany, Netherlands, UK and sometimes in the Orthodox world (in which it won't last if the Patriarch of Moscow allows its refutal - same case as Catholics).
More deeply, I think that for many creationist academics, the issue is more about teaching in schools and the church/state separation than for the dogma in itself?
2005-07-31 16:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The challenge I have for anyone who claims that Evolution is a fact is for them to show me it. This inability alone makes Evolution intellectually untenable.
The Evolutionist's first anti-intellectual attempt to demonstrate Evolution is to pass off any selective variation as Evolution. They point to something like the shift in the population of Peppered Moths from predominantly light moths to predominantly dark moths. Sorry, a change of frequency of existing genes does nothing to show how the genes to turn pond scum into people developed in the first place.
The Evolutionist's next anti-intellectual attempt to demonstrate Evolution is to pass off degenerative mutational changes with fortuitous benefits as Evolution. The often point to acquired drug resistance in bacteria. Dismissing drug resistance acquired by non-mutation changes, this results from a gene being broken. Sorry, breaking things will not turn pond scum into people.
The Evolutionist would like you to think my decision to say a mutation broke a gene rather than evolved the gene is arbitrary. When a gene otherwise causes a decrease in fitness of an organism or when the gene simply no longer functions, for intensive purposes it is broken and cannot explain how pond scum turned into people. An organism cannot evolve by becoming increasingly unfit.
The anti-intellectual Evolutionists then fall back on claiming that Evolution is too slow to observe. I hardly think the inability to observe something is any reason to lower the standard of establishing something as an absolute fact. But, we have had time to observe. We observe organisms accumulating deleterious mutations and devolve over time. And, we have observed thousands of generations of rapidly reproducing organisms without any evidence of evolutionary progression, even under artificial conditions to accelerate evolution, enough generations to fill in the gaps of Punctuated Equilibrium (The Evolutionist's theory that Evolution is too fast to leave many transitional fossils).
The anti-intellectual Evolutionist may be motived by anti-God prejudice, but they're not dumb. They know Evolution cannot be intellectually defended so they rely heavily on censorship of criticism (a fait accompli in public schools) of Evolution as well as every logical fallacy in the book (such as irrelevantly defining Evolution as a change in allele frequency.)[/QUOTE]
Paragraph 1: You show me yours, and I'll show you mine. Paragraph 2: Evolution = random variatiion, genetic mutation, and natural selection. Paragraph 3: No drug resistance is the fact non-resistant bacteria are killed while those who had mutated survived. It's all about large numbers. Paragraph 4: Not all living things have an infinite evolutionary path. Some lving things stop evolving, or slow down and begin anew. We must take time into consideration,and not conveniently ignore it. Evoluton is mainly about large numbers of living things or change over a very long time. Besides, the concept of God was introduced by the ancients because people could not explain a lot about their life and world. The call to unverified ancient superstitions explains far more about he believer than the belief. I would not even say the Bible is anti-evolutionary, but many of its adherents are. The ancients couldn't even explain rain without a God context let alone evolution. Also, your use of anti-intellectual in this context is silly as is in the last paragraph.
2005-09-30 06:59 | User Profile
The new Pope is not so easy going about Evolution. Christains should realise that choice is involved - God or Evolution. You cannot have both. The best account of the controversy over Evolution can be found in Stephen. J. Gould's last book of essays. He points out that the term "Evolution" means a predetermined predictable unfolding - such as in a dance, and the fossil record does not show that and Evolution is a bad word to describe what Darwin meant and that Darwin did not like it and only agreed to accept it to please Spenser. However while Evolutionists will preface their statements with "There is no design in nature, no purpose, no direction, no moral lesson to be learnt from nature and no room for God, they will go on to contradict themselves, using terms like "selfish genes", "we have not fully evolved to being upright which is why we suffer backache, some species are more evolved than others, we are evolving away from vestigal organs and in the future we will be just big brains with vestigal legs, etc. In other words they display that they believe that there is a direction in nature. We have a moral purpose, a destiny, etc, views that would only be consistent if they did believe there was a God who designed it all. Of course they want us to believe that they know the mind of God and that this gives them the right to make our Laws for us, to declare that homosexuality is the next step in evolution and it should be nurtured, etc. Keith
2005-11-03 02:29 | User Profile
[B][SIZE=2][URL="http://www.calvin.edu/scs/2001/conferences/125conf/papers/vanleeu.htm"]http://www.calvin.edu/scs/2001/conferences/125conf/papers/vanleeu.htm[/URL] [/SIZE][/B] This is a gem, IMHO - a scholarly Christian critique of evolutionary psychology. While I don't agree with everything here, I could have written much of this article myself.
An excerpt:[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]
[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]
[/SIZE][/FONT]The author goes into depth in exposing the "make it up as we go along" nature of EP. She's proficient at showing how EP routinely rationalizes sinful behavior as inevitable, a hardwired product of our genes. That doesn't leave much room for growth, for the grace of God. Then there's also the reverse problem: where virtue is said to be genetic, the danger is that we'll let our moral guard down. For example, if monogamy and coyness are in our daughters' genes, as EPs argue, then why bother raising them to be ladies? They're hardwired to be ladies, right, so what's the point? Wait a minute - it looks like many people [I]have[/I] come to this conclusion. And what has happened? Women's sexual "liberation," that's what. The results are disastrous. So what happened to those genes, anyway? This is only one example of why fundamentalist Darwinism is morally corrosive. In truth, it has been the greatest blessing to the left in modern times. (Yes, by now, I'll even rank Darwin's influence as greater than Marx's.)
Of course I'm not going to reject evolutionary psychology (let alone neo-Darwinism in general) simply because I don't like its results. While that's a big reason for my distaste, it's not what drives my skepticism. I'm skeptical because as "theory," it's a great mass of metaphorical Swiss cheese. Van Leeuwen makes many of the same critiques that I do, invoking useful references along the way. I'll defer to her incisive writing.
Hamilton
2005-11-03 05:59 | User Profile
When it is all boiled down all this is about "homosexuality'. show me a Darwinist who is anti-Gay . yet if they believed their own dogma they would realise that Gay is an evolutionary dead end - not the next step in evolution as they claim. But they do not care about that. All they want to do is make the whole world Gay - by Science