View Full Version : Evolution vs. Creation
I think this is the place for an Evolution vs. Creation debate. What do you think?
Certainly is.
------------------
The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is
yours to draw...
Omniscient; BAG
Just so long as you realize that this is also a religion vs. science debate.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
------------------
"Anything is peaceful from one thousand, three hundred and fifty-three feet."
That's an interesting issue in itself. I've found the more I look the more I see people fully able and willing to accept totally contradictory ideas at the same time. Orwell's 1984 is a drastic example of what many of us do all the time--for example, I've debated this question with a number of people who said they thought the Bible to be literal and absolute truth, but when I probed further, it turned out there were quite a few rules in the old book they didn't agree with and didn't think were true. But this sort of debate very rarely enlightens anyone and usually just makes everyone mad at each other.
So, (depending on what you define "science" as), even if the two concepts are contradictory, I'm sure most of us would have no problem believing in both.
------------------
http://www.theshrubbery.prohosting.com
humor, reviews, and more
I, for one, do my best to try to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
I side with El Mariachi. The evolution vs creation debate is only a debate if one insists the answer can only be one or the other. It is entirely possible that in a logical progression both are correct.
"If faced with a contradiction, check your premises. More than likely you will find one of them is wrong" - Fransisco D'Anaconia
------------------
To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.
BurnMeUp said:I side with El Mariachi. The evolution vs creation debate is only a debate if one insists the answer can only be one or the other. It is entirely possible that in a logical progression both are correct.
That depends on what is meant by "creation."
Is it possible to believe that God created the universe (through, for example, a Big Bang) and then used evolution to move us along to where we are now? Yes, of course. Many scientists who are also believers in God feel this way.
But that isn't usually what is meant when one is talking about "Evolution vs. Creation." Usually, one is talking about special creation, or a young earth according to Biblical literalism (even some of those creationists who favor an old earth still fight against evolution).
So before we decide if somebody can believe "both are correct," we have to define exactly what it is that the person is believing.
------------------
"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
-- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Witch Hunt"
I think that creationism and evolution are one in the same only describe from different points of view.
Darwin describe creation from scientific observation
The Bible described evolution from a point of view that the people who would be reading the bible (at the time it was written)(and yes i know it was written over a peroid of time but it was a time before the masses were educated) were mainly incapable of understanding scientific ideas and thus was written in terms that could be better understood by ignorant masses.
But if you do a quasi side by side comparison of the creation story in Genisis and the basic prinicples of evolution that are (in my mind) amazingly parallel. I dont have the bible in front of my so I'll be paraphrasing.
The numbers being the bible the letter being evolution
1. In the beginning there was a great void of vast nothingness
A. There was nothing
2. God seperated the light from the dark
B. The BIG BANG
3. God created the heavens and the earth and the stars above
C. The Universe forms (and is still forming to this day)
4. God seperated the waters from the land
D. Planet cooled and watervapor forms and rain starts and voilia the oceans.
5. God sperates teh day from the night and "creates" the sun and moon and names teh sky and land etc
E. results of the forming of the solar system etc...
6. God creates the fishies in the sea and the animals on the land
F. Now here you have to take into account that evolutionist say that life mostly likely started in the oceans and evolved from there. Although in the bible it doesnt tell of the order in which the animals were created the two theories could be one in the same if you bear in mind again the educational level of the people the bible was originally written for)
7. God made the plants
G. evolution says that plants evolved as well
we assume simultanously with animals evolution. There is no time seperation in the bible just the events sequence so here again you have to suppose that in the bible god was listing in a general order to show events that were occuring at the same time.
8. Then God makes us....as you'll notice we are teh last in the list of thing...and in my opinion the last in a series of evolving. were we differ here is that i dont believe we evolved from apes although i do believe we have similar ancestry. I believe that a speicies of mamals was given divine interference in its evolution to allow it to become intelligent and thus in the image of God.
H. man evolved from apes
Humans ARE apes.
Really smart, really bitchen apes. But apes.
------------------
Stoidela
Actually organically we're much more similar to pigs.
Which raises the question to those of you who don't eat pork, but we'll just leave that one alone ;)
------------------
To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.
currysteph:
You got the order of things a bit mixed up:
4. God seperated the waters from the land
D. Planet cooled and watervapor forms and rain starts and voilia the oceans.
5. God sperates teh day from the night and "creates" the sun and moon and names teh sky and land etc
E. results of the forming of the solar system etc...
6. God creates the fishies in the sea and the animals on the land
F. Now here you have to take into account that evolutionist say that life mostly likely started in the oceans and evolved from there. Although in the bible it doesnt tell of the order in which the animals were created the two theories could be one in the same if you bear in mind again the educational level of the people the bible was originally written for)
7. God made the plants
G. evolution says that plants evolved as well
we assume simultanously with animals evolution. There is no time seperation in the bible just the events sequence so here again you have to suppose that in the bible god was listing in a general order to show events that were occuring at the same time.
The Biblical order of creation has the plants before the sun and moon, i.e., between 4 and 5, not at 7.
Also, the Bible does claim a time separation of "it was evening, it was morning, day n". Of course, if one wishes, he or she could consider "day" to be allegorical, especially since our definition of day is dependent on Earth's rotation, which couldn't have been the basis prior to the fourth "day" according to the Biblical description of creation.
------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Who says that science and religion cannot coexist? Evolution has been proven to a certain degree (i.e. humans are apes etc.)but the story of creation isn't meant to be taken literally in the first place. Besides, a step-by-step account of evolution in the bible would take FOREVER!!
As much as I'd love to debate such a fun topic, I know it'd be for naught. I can't change your mind, only you can do that. That's a general you, not a specific you, BTW.
Instead, I just want to respond to a statement:
i dont believe we evolved from apes although i do believe we have similar ancestry -- currysteph
Good, currysteph. There's no need for worry, since your beliefs coincide exactly with general scientific agreement.
Although the phrase "humans evolved from apes" is a common phrase used even in scientific discourse, it is a misnomer; it is just a shorthand way of saying the more accurate, "humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor."
So, regardless of your beliefs on god and creation, know that no serious person is asking you to believe that homo sapiens came directly from apes.
------------------
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Jack thinks we have common ancestors with apes. Jill thinks the world was created in a few days right as the Bible says. here's the difference: Jack, if he's come to his belief through the scientific method, will change his mind if he finds enough verifiable evidence to the contrary. Jill, assuming she's religious, has faith, therefore her worldview is not so flexible (weak?) as Jack's--she can ignore new evidence, look for ways to twist some of it to her beliefs, or even think two contradictory things to be true at the same time--but she is never required to change. Jack must, if he's to be a scientist.
That's why I have a problem with just saying, "which one do you believe in, creation or evolution?" Putting aside the fact that creation can have many different forms, "believeing" is like apples to oranges.
If God himself came down tomorrow and started demonstarting his clay-to-person approach, real scientists would have to investigate and eventually change their models. No matter how many fossils we dig up or genes we trace, someone with religious faith is by definition stuck.
Personally, I prefer the scientific way. Is it wishy-washy? A bit, but it requires a great deal more work to "proove" something than a religious proof. But there still is room for faith--science is good at saing what, but not why. That's where I see god.
But I could be wrong.
------------------
http://www.theshrubbery.prohosting.com
humor, reviews, and more
Existence itself is inherently illogical. Human logic fails at the boundaries. What was before the Universe? What is after death? How can something not exist, then exist, then not exist? What forces of nature govern this? This is the unknowable.
I believe in science. I also believe in God. Together they mesh to answer all my questions. And, ahhh..., some questions I have given up trying to know.
------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
Burned says: << Actually organically we're much more similar to pigs.
Which raises the question to those of you who don't eat pork, but we'll just leave that one alone >>
Well, actually, I'd say it raises the question to those who DO eat pork... question about cannibobblism.
There are some really strange things in biology.For instance the clotting factors in blood. It's such a comlicated system (like 10 or so factors) that it's hard to see how it evolved.
Not everything will ever have an explanation. But it doesn't need to. You be the jury and decide what evidence to accept.
I don't believe in creationism, it answers too many questions.
An interesting irony of evolution is that there is no "smoking gun". Scientists haven't found the missing link, which means that to believe in evolution, it takes a bit of a leap of faith.
There is really no proof of macroevolution, only micro. After all, when they caught the coelacanth, it hadn't changed in 100 million years.
(these ideas are paraphrase from Lloyd Pye)
There is really no proof of macroevolution, only micro.
I've always loved this arguement.
Let's apply it to a different concept:
I say that walking's impossible.
'Nonsense!' you say. And take a step.
That's only a 'step' also called 'micro-walking'. It doesn't prove that 'macro-walking' is possible.
'Bull!' you say. You wak across the floor.
That's not walking. That's just a series of 'steps'.
Using it as an arguement against evolution falls down the same way.
------------------
---
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'
Last words of General John Sedgwick
Using it as an arguement against evolution falls down the same way.
Funny I don't see the argument. Walking is defined as a continuous series of steps. If you got here and missed a step, then you didn't actually walk here.
------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
Sunbear said:There are some really strange things in biology.For instance the clotting factors in blood. It's such a comlicated system (like 10 or so factors) that it's hard to see how it evolved.
Might I suggest you read some of Richard Dawkins' work? I believe he discusses issues like this (don't know if he mentions this one in particular) in Climbing Mount Improbable (I haven't actually read it yet, but I've read almost all his other books and have read about this one). In other works (and I presume in this one), he basically explains how it may seem that a system is so complicated that it would be impossible to come about through evolution, but then when you look at it one step at a time, it makes a lot more sense.
------------------
"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
-- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Witch Hunt"
Roksez regurgitated, without apparent understanding:An interesting irony of evolution is that there is no "smoking gun". Scientists haven't found the missing link, which means that to believe in evolution, it takes a bit of a leap of faith.
There is really no proof of macroevolution, only micro. After all, when they caught the coelacanth, it hadn't changed in 100 million years.
(these ideas are paraphrase from Lloyd Pye)
Standard creationist babble -- and completely meaningless.
What "missing link" are you looking for? I've seen so many creationists make this statement, and not one of them has actually known what they meant (the more knowledgeable creationists don't make such a claim).
Evolution requires no leap of faith -- just use of the scientific method. Do you understand the scientific method?
As far as "macroevolution" having no "proof" (by which I presume you mean "evidence"), what is your source for that claim? How can you sit there and ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution? Unless, of course, you are ignorant of it (which is what I suspect, considering your use of these silly non-arguments).
------------------
"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
-- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Witch Hunt"
Funny I don't see the argument. Walking is defined as a continuous series of steps. If you got here and missed a step, then you didn't actually walk here.
'Missed a step'?
You seem to have an absurd idea of walking and evolution.
If I'm walking towards you and either step twice with the same foot, or stumble, I can be said to have missed a step.
If something changes in a different way than what you consider the 'logical' linear way you think it should it can be said it missed a step.
The fact is, though, that in neither case has a step been missed. The order just wasn't what you expected. There might be intermediate steps that we don't know about (there probably are, fossilization is a finicky thing), but even if they do not exsist, this means nothing.
------------------
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'
Last words of General John Sedgwick
I'm going to reply to this without reading anything anybody else has to say on the topic.
I feel the evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.
I see simiarities in the biblical account of creation to the scientific model of how the universe and planets were formed, and how life developed and grew on Earth.
I see, in the biblical account, how a scientifically primitive person might perceive the creation/evolution of the cosmos, as told to them by some higher power/mystical vision or whatever.
I find it amusing that modern, educated people want to literally interpret the bible, considering it was written in various stages over thousands of years, then compiled, then translated, then edited, the added to, then commented on and interpreted by others thousands of years later, then translated again, then re-compiled...you get my point.
Not that I ardently, hardly even passingly, consider myself a christian, but I take the bible metaphorically, when I even take it at all.
<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"And now I'll read what others have to say..."
Having now read through the thread, the only thing I can add to my first post is this:
Dex: when you've done the seventh impossible thing, tell how the food was, and let me borrow your car.
<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"They say he has the Heart of Gold."
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"EAT AT MILLIWAYS"</FONT>
re: "Missing Links"
Of course we don't have any "missing links." Once we find a fossil of an animal which is related to two or more modern forms, it is no longer missing. Sheesh.
The fossil record is the weakest line of evidense for common descent. Genetics and other branches of molecular biology are far more important peices to the puzzle. All that the fossil record can tell us is what an ancestral species actually looked like and when it lived. That all life is related is an inescapable conclusion from the observed twin heirarchies of morphology and molecular biology, the fossil record just gives us the clues to recreate specific family histories for living organisms.
The popular press often makes a big deal out of new discoveries that "promise to re-write the story of human evolution." If anyone were to read the reports these accounts are based upon they would know that all the "re-writing" is about timing and location, not about the fact that Homo sap shares a common ancestor with the other Great Apes.
Occasionally what we have learned about our family history needs to be revised. This is to be expected in an on-going investigation. Expectations and estimates must always be modified to conform with observations and specimens.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
I believe in evolution, however some people have problems with it beacuse it's not really a science. There is almost no predictive value to evolution. Being a molecular biologist I hear a lot of people say things like "this gene probably evolved from that one". This may be true but ultimately we'll never know. It can never be proven. (Yeah, I know no theory can ever be proven, but you get my point) Regardless, evolution is a pretty keen model.
It should also be noted that "highly evolved" does not necessitate "complex". In fact many organisms evolve into simpler creatures. Naked mole rats are considered highly evolved creatures (complex social structure and all that) yet they have actually lost anatomical features that their ancestors had such as functional eyes. Viruses are highly evolved too. So highly evolved that they discard just about every single nucleotide in their genome that doesn't serve a vital purpose.
roksez is right, the coelocanth hasn't changed much at all in a huge period of time. Neither has the shark, or E. coli for that matter. That doesn't mean evolution forgot about it. It just that it hasn't been exposed to a lot of evolutionary pressure in its niche over that time.
You seem to have an absurd idea of walking and evolution.
And I thought I was talking about walking.
If something changes in a different way than what you consider the 'logical' linear way you think it should it can be said it missed a step.
So, if I walked to work, but caught the bus midway, then 'logically' I walked to work.
------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
So, if I walked to work, but caught the bus midway, then 'logically' I walked to work.
Make up your mind, are you missing a step, or are you stopping walking?
'Macro-Evolution' is not separate from 'micro-evolution', any more than 'walking' is separate from 'stepping'.
The bus ride is, if we continue the analogy of walking/evolution a time of no change.
You still have to walk off the bus. If a geneline doesn't change it can start again (assuming it doesn't die out). If you stop walking, you can start again.
That you haven't walked all the way from home to work has no bearing on the analogy. Trying to dodge the question like that speaks of a dishonesty.
------------------
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'
Last words of General John Sedgwick
<hr>
Jack thinks we have common ancestors with apes. Jill thinks the world was created in a few days right as the Bible says. here's the difference: Jack, if he's come to his belief through the scientific method, will change his mind if he finds enough verifiable evidence to the contrary. Jill, assuming she's religious, has faith, therefore her worldview is not so flexible (weak?) as Jack's--she can ignore new evidence, look for ways to twist some of it to her beliefs, or even think two contradictory things to be true at the same time--but she is never required to change. Jack must, if he's to be a scientist.
That's why I have a problem with just saying, "which one do you believe in, creation or evolution?" Putting aside the fact that creation can have many different forms, "believeing" is like apples to oranges.
If God himself came down tomorrow and started demonstarting his clay-to-person approach, real scientists would have to investigate and eventually change their models. No matter how many fossils we dig up or genes we trace, someone with religious faith is by definition stuck.
Personally, I prefer the scientific way. Is it wishy-washy? A bit, but it requires a great deal more work to "proove" something than a religious proof. But there still is room for faith--science is good at saing what, but not why. That's where I see god.
<hr>
amen :)
I was actually just trying to open up the conversation a little, I was accused of being anti-creation on another board.
My true beliefs are that we were the product of a supreme creator, but that the earth is not 5000 yrs old. That is ridiculous.
Try reading the first verse like this:
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. (and everything in it.)
(then, there was at least one global catastrophe, wiping out much of civilization, and many species) And the earth was void, and without form. And God said, let there be light. etc..
I can't bring myself to believe evolution, or how a consciousness could evolve, but I know the earth is older than 5000 yrs.
Much of the Bible can not be read literally(at least in our English form). In the actual Hebrew, the Bible says "In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the earth." It is plural. I don't know how to reconcile that either. Well, now I'm sure I've ticked off creationists and evolutionists, so let me have it.
Roksez:
If you are going to throw in a completely un-Biblical "horrible world-destroying disaster" in between the first two verses of Genesis, what is keeping you from simply reading the entire chapter as a parable? I mean, if you want to read things into the text you might as well add "Here's a nice metaphorical tale to enlighten you" before the first verse...
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
Wow! This is heavy stuff... and without trying to be rude, it seems to me that the most qualified people in this forum are DrFidelius, David B, and Tengu.
Let them teach us!
------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire
Roksez,
I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with "the gods created the heavens and the earth. I've heard that before. There are two basic explainations. One is that while there is only one God,you can describe God in the plural sort of like the "royal we". Another possibility is that references to "gods" are just early references to the trinity, since if God is eternal and unchanging the trinity has been around forever. The pillar of fire or smoke that the Israelites followed from Egypt is sometimes used as a sighting of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. (And just so you know, I tend to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and therfore believe that the earth was created in 6 days. I don't think this is provable in a scientific sense, and I'm not really interested in trying to deprove evolution.)
roksez:
In the actual Hebrew, the Bible says "In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the earth." It is plural.
Absolutely not true. The Hebrew word used can denote either the singular or the plural; considering the context of the entire rest of the Bible, its use there is obviously singular.
------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
One is that while there is only one God,you can describe God in the plural sort of like the "royal we".
:::snort:::
You want to discuss the different words used for "god" throughout the OT, and how they imply different people.
Another possibility is that references to "gods" are just early references to the trinity,
Not bloody likely.
since if God is eternal and unchanging the trinity has been around forever.
Then why is there no trinity in Hebrew theology, keeping in mind that they wrote the thing?
The pillar of fire or smoke that the Israelites followed from Egypt is sometimes used as a sighting of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.
Not by the Hebrews who, again, wrote it.
E1skeptic said:without trying to be rude, it seems to me that the most qualified people in this forum are DrFidelius, David B, and Tengu.
I can't speak for the others, but I don't find the above rude. ;)
------------------
"The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
I would like to thank the Academy...
it seems to me that the most qualified people in this forum are DrFidelius, David B, and Tengu.
Wow....I feel so loved!
Let them teach us!
Hmmm....are we gonna get payed for this?
------------------
'They couldn't hit an Elephant from this dist...!'
Last words of General John Sedgwick
Alphagene:
There are two kinds of prediction in science. The first is to predict what hasn't happened yet. I look at the data, infer a hypothesis, then test it by observing subsequent behavior of the universe.
The second is to predict what I haven't observed yet. To use a specific example, I look at all the data, and infer that the continents are drifting. I do NOT then wait for the continents to drift some more to prove it. In THAT sense, the hypothesis has no practical predictive value. But I can predict what other sorts of evidence might already exist that I haven't seen, IF my hypothesis is true. If I then find that evidence, I have made SUCCESSFUL predictions, even though I am in a sense "predicting" a past event. It is the fact that it is an undisclosed past when I make my hypothesis that make the process valid.
This idea is central to the science of evolution. The language is often shorthanded to "explanatory power", but what we are talking about is the ability to explain the stuff we haven't seen yet. This is why evolution is a powerful and valid science. Every time we dig up a new fossil or analyze gene distibutions - things that haven't been done before - they are compatible with evolution, and often "predictable". Granted this idea is more explicit in paleontology than molecular biology, but it still underlies (or should underlie) the thinking.
You were right (by which, of course, I really mean that I agree with you) about "highly evolved" not being synonymous with "complex" (although they are USUALLY correlated). But the specific example of a shark is probably a bad one. The reason we say shark morphology hasn't changed for millions of years is that shark fossils show the same structures as modern shark skeletons. Of course modern shark skeletons are made of cartilage, which doesn't fossilize - so clearly SOMETHING has significantly changed. The bone formation process has been lost. Morphology is basically identical, but physiology is not.
Now, I'm no genius, but some things are just logical.
One can not interpret the Bible in a literal sense, especially Genesis. Six days of Creation does not allow for millenia of prehistory.
[roksez: I can't bring myself to believe ...how a consciousness could evolve]
It happens on a daily basis, my friend. Try teaching the quadratic formula to an embryo...
I can concede that existence as we know it was created by a higher power, what I find difficult to accept is the personification of that power. It is necessary to illustrate God in a way that makes the idea comprehensible: a person. But something with that kind of power is certainly beyond human comprehension, thus invoking fear, and the need to bring it down to a lower level.
Evolution, unfortunately, is governed by the same limitations. Whereas it might be able to offer us ideas about how we got to this point in time, it can never determine where time began. Why? Because time is a human concept, used to measure something which can not be measured: infinity.
If you believe the Bible, you are offered eternal Life. If you follow evolution, you must accept the existence of eternity (it can be illustrated by a simple geometric shape.) Thus, in either circumstance, there can be no end, and therefore no beginning, yes?
Both can only reach back so far, but neither can determine the true beginning, because there can be none.
------------------
Satch
Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid.
Satchalen said:One can not interpret the Bible in a literal sense, especially Genesis. Six days of Creation does not allow for millenia of prehistory.
Which is why creationists ignore the millenia of prehistory. <sigh>
------------------
"The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
Okay, I've been reluctant to get into this debate. I've been reading the Great God thread, and evolution consequently comes up.
I admit I don't know the theory of evolution completely, but I do understand it's hypothesis. It's just all this talk of evidence. "Evidence in your face" and what not. As much as I've searched, I haven't seen but a few shreds of ambiguous evidence. Can someone show me this evidence?
------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
Beeruser asked:I admit I don't know the theory of evolution completely, but I do understand it's hypothesis. It's just all this talk of evidence. "Evidence in your face" and what not. As much as I've searched, I haven't seen but a few shreds of ambiguous evidence. Can someone show me this evidence?
Jeez, where to begin? How about a basic biology textbook?
I'm fairly serious here. Where have you "searched" that you can't find evidence?
Well, if not a biology textbook, how about starting with the talk.origins archive. Here is a link to a bunch of FAQs: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html . Within those links are some that I think might be particularly helpful to your search for evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html and especially http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html .
That should keep you reading for a while. :)
------------------
"The best medicine for misery is neither myth nor miracle, but naked truth."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
Beeruser:
The talk.origins FAQs are a good start, but I have to ask one thing. What were you looking for evidence on? Are you looking for the observations that support the conclusion of common descent, or the calculations of how quickly mutations can spread through a population, or the newest speculations about the phylogeny of a specific species?
All of these and more are available, but I would recommend starting with a basic course in biology. You will see that the relationships among living organisms follow lines which are most parsimoniously explained as family relationships. Everything else follows from this conclusion.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
Archimedes said:
I tend to interpret
Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and therfore believe that the earth was created in 6 days. I
don't think this is provable in a scientific sense
Tell me A., is this [b]provable[b] in a religious way?
You call yourself a CHRISTIAN (my capitals) but it seems to me that you haven't read your bible.
And let me say that I'm glad to see that there's more qualified people participating in this debate. I won't say who I think they are this time (you guys tend to get hyper, even want to get paid! he, he, he...), but I'm learning lots!
------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire
This debate is not a Religion vs. Science debate, mainly because evolution is not science. It will be much better to be titles a Evolution vs. Science debate. Anyway, I belive in the creation my main reason for this is evolution has been disproven so many times, by both scientific law and common sense. First let me start with a man named Louis Pasteur, in the 19th century he proved spontaneous generation was impossible, This resulted in the scientific law of Biogenesis stating that living thins can only come from other living things. It is impossible for nonliving substances to change into even simple living things. Pasteur was praised for his discovery, and his work was hailed as a triumph of reason and experimentation over superstition. But even after that evolutionist, formed a new term for spontaneous generation called "abiogenesis". Though it has a new name its the same idea of living things coming from nonliving substances. Eugene H. Cordes and Riley Schaeffer in their book Chemistry (New York: Harper and Row, 1972, p. 529) states " ... an act of Spontaneous Generation must have occured".
In one second we are told that spontaneous generation is impossible and then we are told that , since life had to occur somewhere and god is ruled out, spontaneous generation must have occured dispite the evidence to the contrary. Experiments have been performed which attempted to reproduce abiogenesis(also called chemical evolution), all of which failed. No living matter has ever been produced from nonliving substances in the laboratory.
Some philosophers of science think that science is in danger because it is leaving its roots and returning to superstition.
Now lets look at Charles Darwin and his book Origin of species by natural selection. Darwins idea of "survival of the fittest shows his inability to reason clearly. One of his chief quarrels with the bible stemmed from his misunderstanding of gods justice ,holiness, and love. He said that the God of the bible was a cruel tyrant because he allowed people to suffer. Alot of people think of god as a loving person with a long beard who wouldnt let anyone good get hurt, well if you read the bible you know Gods ways are mysteries to us and to try to understand them is like a ant trying to understand the concept of human thought. If he gave us what we really deserve , none of us will be here. But back to Darwin, His quarrel with the bible was that God allowed people to suffer, so he was cruel. But darwin's survival of the fittest idea is perhaps the cruelest idea that any man has imagined. According to it animals struggled against each other in order to survive as a species, and only the "fittest"- the ones with superior adaptations- survived.(scientist have since found that the fittest are not the ones most likely to survie and that variations within species serve to conserve species and keep them from changing rather than to make new kinds of things)
One of the great writers on scientific though in that day was William Whewell, professor of science and college master of Trinity College, a part of Cambridge, and author of History of Inductive Sciences. His analysis of Darwin's work was so sharp that he would not even allow the book in the college library. Many others disagreed with Darwin, even his former teacher and evolutionist himself Adem Sedgwick, denounced natural selection as "a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up merely to make us independent of a creator." Two of the world greatest physicist, James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin, strongly opposed Darwinism and developed mathematical refutations of evolution.
Ok now lets look a the mathematical analogy. Say we take a billion monkeys, and sit them infront of a type writer(or computer, take your pick) and have people to keep the paper and typewriter reels going, how long do you think it will take for the monkeys to type the simple bible verse, "In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth." This problem is much simpler evolution problem. in the first year the monkeys will have used up enough paper to go to the moon and back several times, but not come anywhere close to typing the Genesis 1:1. According to mathematicians using the laws of probability, the billion monkeys will have to pound on their typewriters for 120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. Even then there is no garuntee they will type the verse, so it certainly could no have happened with in the 30 billion year time frame evolutionist propose.
Now lets go on to more evidence, The earths magnetic field , the absence of meteoritic dust accumulations on earth, the scarcity of helium in the earth's atmosphere, the lack of certain chemical concentrations in the oceans ,etc.(take your pick), indicate the earth is relativly young.A scientist who accepts the bible would predict that creation has ceased and is, in fact ,"running down". A scientist who rejects the bible would predict that Energy and Matter must be being created "somewhere" or the Universe would have already "run down". Modern Science has uncovered the fact that the total matter and energy of the universe is constant- None is being created nor destroyed. The laws of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is running down.
Those of you involed in science must have heard of Entropy. It is a measure of the order or disorder in a system such as the universe or solar system. A system left to itself with no energy flowing into it increases in Entropy, that is, its disorder increases. Scientist refer to the increasing disorder of the universe as the law of increasing entropy. In the universe entropy does seem to be increasing . Energy concentrations even out as entropy increases. For example; if we place a hot object so that it touchs a cold object it will warm up until both are the same temperature. we can say that the Universe is doing this; it is moving towards a eventual "heat death". That means the Universe will eventually cool until all its parts are the same low temperature; its energy concentration will have evened out. When this occurs , all processes of the universe will have stopped and the universe as we know it will have come to an end. It will then be at maximum entropy. The bible indicates this process is now taking place: the heavens are the work of thy(god's) hands... yea all of them(the works of thy hands)shall wax old like a garment-psalm 102:25-26.
Evolution is really the opposite of entropy. The law of entropy says that the world left to itself will become more disordered; evolution says it is becoming more ordily or organized. In other words , evolutionist picture the universe as becomeing more complex and highly orderd than it was originally. If a scientist accepts the law of entropy , how can he logically accept evolution.
I have just posted a minute piece of evidence disproving evolution, there is plenty more. I have tried to refute evolution with just scientific laws, mainly because if I get to much onto the bible people for some reason get more angry and ignorant. Evolution is not science, it is philosophy at best.
All science begins with some sort of observation. The scientist must observe carfully and accurately if he is to gain useful scientific knowledge. Scientific observation may be of two types: diract observation, and indirect observation. Indirect observation imployes a variety of scientific instruments, direct observation is just the scientist using his own sensory abilities. All good scientific observations whether direct or indirect , share the following characteristics:
1- An observation , to be scientific ,must be repeatable. Any event that occurs only one time (the creation ,for example), is beyond the realm of science.( let me clear this up a little because i know some is going to respond with spontaneous generation occured only one time, firt creation has never been disproved, while evolution and spontaneous generation has been disproved plenty of times, therefore the theoretical speculation of evolution was blown to shre
Please fogive my S&P, I am very tired at the moment, and was in kind of a rush to finish the post.
Personally, I want to know why the only creation myth being debated is the Christian one. Why not, say, the ancient Egyptian one, in which the creating god masturbated and *spooge*, there came the universe. Or on a higher level, the Greek mythos, where humans rose from the ashes of the Titans?
And if you insist on using the Bible mythos for Creation, why not other things? Why not base the different languages of the world on the Tower of Babel? That would make for lively discussion.
Finally, to Madjkd-- Miller and Urey. Look them up.
------------------
"If A=B, B=C, and C=D, do not get a job proofreading" --Quid's Theorem
Wow, I hardly even know where to start. This is definitely something I cannot dash off during my lunch break… apologies before I start—I am cutting and pasting this to and from MSWord.
>This debate is not a Religion vs. Science debate,
Nope, never said it was. It is a Science vs. Bad Science debate. I happen to be a member in good standing of my Church, not that that has anything to do with biology.
>mainly because evolution is not science. It will be much better to be titles a Evolution vs. >Science debate. Anyway, I belive in the creation my main reason for this is evolution has >been disproven so many times, by both scientific law and common sense.
Love to hear some. Go on please.
>First let me start with a man named Louis Pasteur, in the 19th century he proved >spontaneous generation was impossible, This resulted in the scientific law of Biogenesis >stating that living thins can only come from other living things. It is impossible for >nonliving substances to change into even simple living things.
Yes, he showed that UNDER PRESENT EARTHLY CONDITIONS nothing as complex as a bacterium or a mold will Spontaneously Generate. This is irrelevant to the question whether in a pre-biotic environment a self-replicating chemical reaction could arise.
>Pasteur was praised for his discovery, and his work was hailed as a triumph of reason and >experimentation over superstition. But even after that evolutionist, formed a new term for >spontaneous generation called "abiogenesis". Though it has a new name its the same idea >of living things coming from nonliving substances. Eugene H. Cordes and Riley Schaeffer >In their book Chemistry (New York: Harper and Row, 1972, p. 529) states " ... an act of >Spontaneous Generation must have occured".
The idea that the conditions on the Earth have changed a little from the pre-biotic world to the present one hasn’t occurred to you, eh?
>In one second we are told that spontaneous generation is impossible and then we are told >that , since life had to occur somewhere and god is ruled out, spontaneous generation >must have occured dispite the evidence to the contrary. Experiments have been >performed which attempted to reproduce abiogenesis(also called chemical evolution), all >of which failed. No living matter has ever been produced from nonliving substances in the >laboratory.
For the past fifty years or so chemists have been producing ever more complex organic chemicals from more simple chemicals. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate from what they have been able to produce with a gallon of mix and a few weeks to what could be produced with an ocean of mix and a few millennia.
>Some philosophers of science think that science is in danger because it is leaving its roots >and returning to superstition.
In my humble opinion, philosophy is mental masturbation.
>Now lets look at Charles Darwin and his book Origin of species by natural selection. >Darwins idea of "survival of the fittest shows his inability to reason clearly. One of his chief >quarrels with the bible stemmed from his misunderstanding of gods justice ,holiness, and >love. He said that the God of the bible was a cruel tyrant because he allowed people to >suffer. Alot of people think of god as a loving person with a long beard who wouldnt let >anyone good get hurt, well if you read the bible you know Gods ways are mysteries to us >and to try to understand them is like a ant trying to understand the concept of human >thought. If he gave us what we really deserve , none of us will be here.
Irrelevant, and inaccurate.
>But back to Darwin, His quarrel with the bible was that God allowed people to suffer, so he >was cruel. But darwin's survival of the fittest idea is perhaps the cruelest idea that any >man has imagined. According to it animals struggled against each other in order to survive >as a species, and only the "fittest"- the ones with superior adaptations- survived.(scientist >have since found that the fittest are not the ones most likely to survie and that variations >within species serve to conserve species and keep them from changing rather than to >make new kinds of things)
Natural selection works by eliminating the less fit. No one ever said that only the “fittest” could survive, most creatures get along just fine. Remember, “fitness” is relevant to the creature’s immediate environment, and so long as the environment does not change natural selection acts as a conservative force. Populations at the edges of a species’ range are subjected to the greatest amount of selective pressure (the edge of the range is, of course, where the species’ adaptations become less “fit” to their environment). These peripheral populations are the ones most likely to “make a new kind of thing” as you put it, although its been a good half a billion years since there’s been anything new under the sun, biology-wise.
>One of the great writers on scientific though in that day was William Whewell, professor of >science and college master of Trinity College, a part of Cambridge, and author of History >of Inductive Sciences. His analysis of Darwin's work was so sharp that he would not even >allow the book in the college library.
Not familiar with him, but I will look him up. I must warn you; however, the opinions of men from a hundred and fifty years ago do not carry much weight with me.
>Many others disagreed with Darwin, even his former teacher and evolutionist himself >Adem Sedgwick, denounced natural selection as "a dish of rank materialism cleverly >cooked and served up merely to make us independent of a creator." Two of the world >greatest physicist, James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin, strongly opposed Darwinism and >developed mathematical refutations of evolution.
See above. And Lord Kelvin’s most familiar “anti-evolution” estimate was his Age of the Earth calculation, which as you know is faulty because he was not aware of radioactivity when he made it.
>Ok lets look a the mathematical analogy. Say we take a billion monkeys, and sit them >infront of a type writer(or computer, take your pick) and have people to keep the paper >and typewriter reels going, how long do you think it will take for the monkeys to type the >simple bible verse, "In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth." This problem >is much simpler evolution problem. in the first year the monkeys will have used up enough >paper to go to the moon and back several times, but not come anywhere close to typing >the Genesis 1:1. According to mathematicians using the laws of probability, the billion >monkeys will have to pound on their typewriters for >120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,>000 years. Even then there is no garuntee they will type the verse, so it certainly could no >have happened with in the 30 billion year time frame evolutionist propose.
Argument from faulty probability. Your assumption is that there is only ONE correct thing for the monkeys to type. Besides, you are greatly overstating the odds against he monkeys typing Genesis 1:1. Given 54 characters in that line as you typed it (including spaces) and 88 possible keys the monkeys could hit (including upper and lower case), with one hit per monkey per second. I come up with it being pretty certain that one of your billion monkeys hit that phrase within sixty hours. You say, “This problem is much simpler evolution problem.”(sic) I disagree. The “evolution problem” is simpler because chemistry follows certain laws, whereas your hypothetical monkeys work completely randomly. (I also assume that the monkeys will type it correctly, capitalizing God, as you did not.)
>Now lets go on to more evidence, The earths magnetic field ,
The Earth’s magnetic field is a generated by a reversing dynamo, the evidence for which is well preserved in the ocean floor.
>the absence of meteoritic dust accumulations on earth,
That’s supposed to be on the Moon, and the amount of dust is completely consistent with the measured rate of influx, although the ESTIMAT
hmmm, the formatting didn't go all cobbliwobbles. Cool.
Dr F said:>This debate is not a Religion vs. Science debate,
Nope, never said it was. It is a Science vs. Bad Science debate.
Precisely.
I haven't had a chance to even consider replying to the long message (glad you did <g>), but I was going to say something similar to that part.
I think Stephen Jay Gould has hit it on the head (in his new book, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life) when he says the creationism battle is not science vs. religion, but a political battle of those who respect science vs. those who do not (ok, that's not exactly how he says it, but if I went into that I'd have to explain the whole danged book).
I happen to be a member in good standing of my Church, not that that has anything to do with biology.
More of what Gould says! He notes that science and religion are two separate areas of study, with different rules and different goals. As long as this difference is respected, there shouldn't be any fighting. The problem is that creationists don't respect the difference.
------------------
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets
Or angels watching from above" -- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Ghost of a Chance"
Madjkd is right about one thing, anyway. Many of the greatest scientist in history were ardently devout Christians. Indeed, it was their desire to commune with God that prompted them to study His holy scripture: the universe itself. We can debate whether the Bible is corrupted by human influence or not, but it IS incontrovertible (if we agree to adopt "the religious voice") that the universe is His DIRECT and UNCORRUPTED work. At least, that's how Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, etc. looked at it.
Unfortunately, there are disparities between the Bible and the universe (Dr.F has done a good job, and I wrote far too much on this topic myself in the thread "Ockam's Razor and the Origin of Life", which can still be read under Great Debates if anyone's interested. A lot of Madjkd's objections were discussed). One has to decide which of God's works is more believable - the Bible or the universe itself. Unfortunately, studying the Bible has NOT proven itself very efficacious in understanding the universe as it presents itself to us, and it is the universe that is beyond question as to the authority of its authorship, not the Bible.
...Nope, never said it was. It is a Science vs. Bad Science debate. I happen to be a member in good standing of my Church, not that that has anything to do with biology...
I never said you did but I remember reading someone saying that you know this is going to turn into a religion vs. science debate.
...Yes, he showed that UNDER PRESENT EARTHLY CONDITIONS nothing as complex as a bacterium or a mold will Spontaneously Generate. This is irrelevant to the question whether in a pre-biotic environment a self-replicating chemical reaction could arise...
Yes that was the argument back then, along with there wasn’t enough oxygen in the flask, etc.
...The idea that the conditions on the Earth have changed a little from the pre-biotic world to the present one hasn’t occurred to you, eh? ...
Sure it has, but life forming in the pre-biotic world is much less likely to have occurred. Various experiments conducted by evolutionist in an effort to prove evolution have been conducted. For example: Stanley Miller's experiment produced certain amino acids with specialized apparatus and conditions which were supposed to correspond to the imagined conditions on the primitive earth. (Amino acids are not living things in any sense), Also Miller's apparatus included a trap to separate them as soon as they were formed, otherwise they would have been quickly broken down by the same atmospheric conditions which produced them. This type of protection would not have been available on the primitive earth. Sideny Fox and others have been able, under special conditions and heating techniques, which could never have existed on the pre-biotic earth, to bond the amino acids together to form what they called "proteinoids." These are not Living things either or even the highly ordered specific proteins found in living things. These also would have been quickly destroyed by the primeval earth evolutionist describe. In 1970, J.P. Danielli was reported actually to have synthesized a living cell. But he started with living cells, disassembled them, and then refabricated a cell from parts of the dismantled cells.
If anyone finds some info where scientist actually create living things from non-living things, please E-mail me or post it here.
...Not familiar with him, but I will look him up. I must warn you; however, the opinions of men from a hundred and fifty years ago do not carry much weight with me...
So most of those disciplines I listed at the end of my post do not carry much weight with you, seeing that most of them were created/discovered by men over 150 years ago.
...And Lord Kelvin’s most familiar “anti-evolution” estimate was his Age of the Earth calculation, which as you know is faulty because he was not aware of radioactivity when he made it...
Oh yes. The type of dating requiring a preset "guess of how old the person thinks the object he is dating.
...Argument from faulty probability. Your assumption is that there is only ONE correct thing for the monkeys to type. Besides, you are greatly overstating the odds against he monkeys typing Genesis 1:1. Given 54 characters in that line as you typed it (including spaces) and 88 possible keys the monkeys could hit (including upper and lower case), with one hit per monkey per second. I come up with it being pretty certain that one of your billion monkeys hit that phrase within sixty hours. You say, “This problem is much simpler evolution problem.”(sic) I disagree. The “evolution problem” is simpler because chemistry follows certain laws, whereas your hypothetical monkeys work completely randomly. (I also assume that the monkeys will type it correctly, capitalizing God, as you did not.)...
Yes the monkeys had only one correct thing to type, same as It is most likely only one way to create life from non living things which is much more complicated then a simple verse. I doubt they will type the phrase in 60 billion millennia, anyway it’s not my numbers, and ill like to see your calculations for the monkeys typing the verse in 60 hours.
...That’s supposed to be on the Moon, and the amount of dust is completely consistent with the measured rate of influx, although the ESTIMATE made during the 70s was off...
So your saying meteoritic dust doesn’t accumulate on earth, just on the moon. Well I didn’t mention the argument about the meteoritic dust on the moon because the same response come over and over, "their estimate was off". Even though they were dead set in their calculations.
..Irrelevant to biology, but we are still a long way from the heat-death of the Universe. As long as there is still enough energy to flow from one point to another all sorts of neat things can happen...
Yes we are a long way from the Heat-death, if you calculate that the earth in 4.5 billion years old, and the universe 30 billion. But if the universe is actually less then a million years old, then we really got a problem (not in our life time though, maybe a few thousand years from now).
..Snip of irrelevant accusations of unrepeatability and prejudice thrown at “evolution”. History is unrepeatable, but historians are not accused of being unscientific. Interesting strawman…...
Because historians study history, they don’t make scientific observations, conduct scientific experiments, etc. History is not repeatable, but the events are. They study history to learn from it, to learn to not make the same mistakes as those who came before us. Another thing, History is written by the winners of wars, the rich etc. So historians try to dig through all the BS and get to the truth. While Scientist, on both sides of the argument try to prove their theories, and the sad thing is that when some fail, they bury their failure or completely lie, the two disciplines cannot be compared.
...I also snipped the list of scientific and technological advances made by theistic scientists as being irrelevant. My buttons are pushed by folks who deliberately misuse scientific-sounding language and misinterpret the observations of others. As I try to be a good Christian, I must use polite language and act as if they are merely mistaken, and not attempting to lie for my God. If it makes me a bad Christian to believe that the natural world is best explained by natural causes, so be it. I’ll settle for being a good man, and take it up with my judge at the end. I would never have the hubris to try to limit my God to the creation myth of any human culture, even if that culture happens to be my own...
Hey guess what, my post wasn’t all about the evolution debate, the listing of disciplines etc, at the end of my post is to show that religion and science does not have to be separated as most people think. Was I attempting to lie, or are we having a discussion, I put out what I know, you refute it, I respond, we both learn something. That’s my purpose in posting this. If this is going to turn into another one of those arguments where name calling, etc. ran amuck, then it is a very sad day for science and advancement of knowledge.
You mention the creation myth limiting your god, to a human culture or something to that nature. What I find is the attempt to limit god in saying that he didn’t create us, rather he sits back and just watches as evolution takes its course and he has no control over it, that is much more of a limiting belief then creation, which is he created us, and the universe in 6 days, not because he couldn’t do it in 1, but because he set a standard for his people, (he rested on the 7th day- the Sabbath). He could have just snapped his fingers and we all would have been here, I don’t see how that limits god.
I've found this topic quite interesting and would like to throw out another view. A lot of these posts have characterized G-d as "he" (regardless of the pronoun, as a being).
What if G-d is a concept? A personification of those processes in life and nature that we do not understand, but not someone who can "just snap his fingers". A lot of Christians will rail against this theory, which is fine, since it is just my humble opinion. People, in general, have a need to explain those things that they cannot understand. You in your way and I in mine.
Now that you see where my thoughts stem from, I do not believe that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. Parallels have already been drawn in preceding posts. However, the Bible was written (and rewritten...) by man.
The fact that amino acids have been created in a laboratory environment speaks wonders for the theory that life was created from the 'primordial soup'. Was it pure coincidence? Maybe, but if it happened, it was the one coincidence that set off the chain reaction of evolution. If you can make the leap of faith that a god created the cosmos, then can you accept coincidence as a starting point? Or does that make life too insignificant?
The fossil record (if weak) also draws parallels between species. We have fossils of Australopithicus (sp?) "lucy" to hint at what our ancestors might have been like. The evolution of the horse is another hint. Also, the fact that animals have vestigial organs speaks for evolution.
Just food for thought and my $0.02
I beg your indulgence, but I cannot stand long posts. With your permission, I would like to address separate points in separate messages.
>>...Yes, he showed that UNDER PRESENT EARTHLY CONDITIONS nothing as >>complex as a bacterium or a mold will Spontaneously Generate. This is irrelevant >>to the question whether in a pre-biotic environment a self-replicating chemical >>reaction could arise...
>Yes that was the argument back then, along with there wasn’t enough oxygen in >the flask, etc.
No. The argument “back then” was not about the advent of life on the primeval Earth. The argument was whether the bacteria and molds which spoil wine were a result of conditions in the wine itself or were introduced from outside. Pasteur demonstrated that the infectious organisms were introduced into the medium by dust particles and airborne mould spores. This is, as I said, irrelevant to questions concerning the behaviour of chemicals in an environment similar to that of the early Earth.
>> ...The idea that the conditions on the Earth have changed a little from the pre->>biotic world to the present one hasn’t occurred to you, eh? ...
>Sure it has, but life forming in the pre-biotic world is much less likely to have >occurred. Various experiments conducted by evolutionist in an effort to prove >evolution have been conducted. For example: Stanley Miller's experiment produced >certain amino acids with specialized apparatus and conditions which were supposed >to correspond to the imagined conditions on the primitive earth. (Amino acids are >not living things in any sense), Also Miller's apparatus included a trap to separate >them as soon as they were formed, otherwise they would have been quickly broken >down by the same atmospheric conditions which produced them. This type of >protection would not have been available on the primitive earth. Sideny Fox and >others have been able, under special conditions and heating techniques, which >could never have existed on the pre-biotic earth, to bond the amino acids together >to form what they called "proteinoids." These are not Living things either or even >the highly ordered specific proteins found in living things. These also would have >been quickly destroyed by the primeval earth evolutionist describe. In 1970, J.P. >Danielli was reported actually to have synthesized a living cell. But he started with >living cells, disassembled them, and then refabricated a cell from parts of the >dismantled cells.
>If anyone finds some info where scientist actually create living things from non->living things, please E-mail me or post it here.
Life is far less likely to arise NOW than it was before life got here. As a single example, there is far too much loose oxygen around now for any significant carbon chain building to occur spontaneously. Life adjusted to free oxygen and even “learned” how to control it. Also, do you know what a “soup” of amino acids and nucleotides is nowadays? It’s FOOD, and will be consumed by the first bacteria that comes along.
Miller et al have shown that the production of complex organic molecules from simple compounds is an easy thing. With only a few gallons of ammonia, carbon dioxide, water, and other compounds COMMON THROUGHOUT ALL OF OBSERVABLE SPACE they made the precursors of life in just a few weeks. Given a test tube the size of a planet, almost any “special conditions” can be found, no matter how unlikely you may think them. As amino acids “like” to form into protein-like chains (the only distinction between “proteinoids” and proteins is that proteins just happen to be the small set of potential configurations of amino acids that life as we know it uses) it is inevitable that highly complex molecules will form. The proteins in living cells are no less “ordered” than any other string of amino acids, they only appear so because of the network of interactions that surround them.
I have a link somewhere to a recent announcement of a synthetic replicator. Would that satisfy your request for “some info where scientist actually create living things from non-living things”?
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
Continuing…
>>...Not familiar with him, but I will look him up. I must warn you; however, the >>opinions of men from a hundred and fifty years ago do not carry much weight >>with me...
>So most of those disciplines I listed at the end of my post do not carry much weight >with you, seeing that most of them were created/discovered by men over 150 >years ago.
Just a short answer here. OPINIONS, not ACHEIVEMENTS. I had always been under the impression that I was capable of writing simple declarative sentences; I may be mistaken.
And so on…
>>...And Lord Kelvin’s most familiar “anti-evolution” estimate was his Age of the >>Earth calculation, which as you know is faulty because he was not aware of >>radioactivity when he made it...
>Oh yes. The type of dating requiring a preset "guess of how old the person thinks >the object he is dating.
No, not at all. I did not mention radioisotope dating, as it is irrelevant to Lord Kelvin’s mistake. He had calculated the age of the Solar System based upon gravitational collapse as the energy source for the Sun. He also calculated the age of the Earth based upon thermal radiation, basically figuring out how long ago a solid crust could have formed if the Earth is cooling off at the rate we measure. Radioactivity was the factor he was unaware of in both these calculations. We now know that the Sun is powered by fusion and could be at approximately its present size for a good ten to fifteen billion years. We also know that the decay of fissile elements provide a heat source for the Earth, so the measured heat escaping from the planet is not just the residue of its initial state.
Radioisotope dating is a fascinating study in and of itself, but I am not qualified to lecture on it.
Still more:
>>...Argument from faulty probability. Your assumption is that there is only ONE >>correct thing for the monkeys to type. Besides, you are greatly overstating the >>odds against he monkeys typing Genesis 1:1. Given 54 characters in that line as >>you typed it (including spaces) and 88 possible keys the monkeys could hit >>(including upper and lower case), with one hit per monkey per second. I come up >>with it being pretty certain that one of your billion monkeys hit that phrase within >>sixty hours. You say, “This problem is much simpler evolution problem.”(sic) I >>disagree. The “evolution problem” is simpler because chemistry follows certain >>laws, whereas your hypothetical monkeys work completely randomly. (I also >>assume that the monkeys will type it correctly, capitalizing God, as you did >>not.)...
>Yes the monkeys had only one correct thing to type, same as It is most likely only >one way to create life from non living things which is much more complicated then >a simple verse. I doubt they will type the phrase in 60 billion millennia, anyway it’s >not my numbers, and ill like to see your calculations for the monkeys typing the >verse in 60 hours.
Mea culpa. I dropped a decimal point.
However, after thinking about the issue a little more, the question should not be whether the monkeys will type one specific line, but whether they will produce a grammatically correct sentence. One set of chemicals dominates life as we know it, but given the number of potential life supporting protein-ish and nucleotide-based combinations, the insistence that one and only one set of chemicals can support life is premature. I’ll withhold judgement on this until we get a sample of life from somewhere other than this biosphere. Until then I must say that the validity of the typing monkeys analogy to the “evolution problem” is questionable.
And furthermore:
>>...That’s supposed to be on the Moon, and the amount of dust is completely >>consistent with the measured rate of influx, although the ESTIMATE made during >>the 70s was off...
>So your saying meteoritic dust doesn’t accumulate on earth, just on the moon. Well >I didn’t mention the argument about the meteoritic dust on the moon because the >same response come over and over, "their estimate was off". Even though they >were dead set in their calculations
Nope, micrometeorites land on Earth constantly. However, it is very difficult to tell space dust from ordinary Earth dust, and dust on the Earth’s surface tends to be washed into the ocean, where it is even harder to get a good measurement. The Moon does not have these problems, so the amount of dust built up on her surface can be directly measured.
The difficulty in distinguishing homegrown dust from imported is where the ESTIMATE fell down. The math was impeccable, but the measurements from which the math proceeded were inaccurate. Basically, the researcher used a figure for influx that was too high, he was wrong about what percentage of dust collected was of extraterrestrial origin. Now that we have devices above the Earth’s atmosphere we are able to directly measure the rate of influx rather than attempting to estimate it.
And finally:
>>...I also snipped the list of scientific and technological advances made by theistic >>scientists as being irrelevant. My buttons are pushed by folks who deliberately >>misuse scientific-sounding language and misinterpret the observations of others. >>As I try to be a good Christian, I must use polite language and act as if they are >>merely mistaken, and not attempting to lie for my God. If it makes me a bad >>Christian to believe that the natural world is best explained by natural causes, so >>be it. I’ll settle for being a good man, and take it up with my judge at the end. I >>would never have the hubris to try to limit my God to the creation myth of any >>human culture, even if that culture happens to be my own...
>Hey guess what, my post wasn’t all about the evolution debate, the listing of >disciplines etc, at the end of my post is to show that religion and science does not >have to be separated as most people think.
Well how about that. We do agree on something. The potential problem occurs when people try to apply the rules of science to their religious beliefs, or vice versa. Science is properly limited to formulating natural causes for the observed natural world. Religion has an entirely different area of application, and it is as foolish to try “scientifically” to define morals as it is to try to describe the growth of a tree from Biblical verses.
> Was I attempting to lie, or are we having a discussion, I put out what I know, you >refute it, I respond, we both learn something. That’s my purpose in posting this. If >this is going to turn into another one of those arguments where name calling, etc. >ran amuck, then it is a very sad day for science and advancement of knowledge.
>You mention the creation myth limiting your god, to a human culture or >something to that nature. What I find is the attempt to limit god in saying that he >didn’t create us, rather he sits back and just watches as evolution takes its course >and he has no control over it, that is much more of a limiting belief then creation, >which is he created us, and the universe in 6 days, not because he couldn’t do it >in 1, but because he set a standard for his people, (he rested on the 7th day- the >Sabbath). He could have just snapped his fingers and we all would have been >here, I don’t see how that limits god.
My comment about liars for God was not directly aimed at you. I apologize if I caused any offense. I do not venture into Biblical commentary or criticism, as I have no skill with rhetoric nor background in heuristics. But I do have one question: why would a Creator be satisfied with just wishing everything into existence when the process of making is far more fulfilling? I mean, it might be enough for a child to have all he wants just handed to him “poof”, but an adult takes pride in building something worthwhile.
A person grows from a single cell to adulthood. We can watch the process, and we know all the stages involved. Does the fact that a person grows from a simple form to maturity invalidate the fact that we are all God’s creatures? If not, then why would the apparent fact that the Universe has also grown and matured make it any less God’s creation?
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
>>I beg your indulgence, but I cannot stand long posts. With your permission, I would like to address separate points in separate messages. <<
Ok ,sorry about the long post ill try to cut them down to size from now on.
>>No. The argument “back then” was not about the advent of life on the primeval Earth. The argument was whether the bacteria and molds which spoil wine were a result of conditions in the wine itself or were introduced from outside. Pasteur demonstrated that the infectious organisms were introduced into the medium by dust particles and airborne mould spores. This is, as I said, irrelevant to questions concerning the behaviour of chemicals in an environment similar to that of the early Earth.<<
Really i didnt know that, so why did they argue that bacteria didnt grow because the lack of oxygen. Also why did they change the name from spontaneous generation to abiogenesis, or chemical generation?
>>Miller et al have shown that the production of complex organic molecules from simple compounds is an easy thing. With only a few gallons of ammonia, carbon dioxide, water, and other compounds COMMON THROUGHOUT ALL OF OBSERVABLE SPACE they made the precursors of life in just a few weeks. <<
Millers experiment was a success, but he had to seperate the amino acids, as soon as they were formed, which would not have been availible in the primitive world.
>>I have a link somewhere to a recent announcement of a synthetic replicator. Would that satisfy your request for “some info where scientist actually create living things from non-living things”?<<
It sure would.
>>Nope, micrometeorites land on Earth constantly. However, it is very difficult to tell space dust from ordinary Earth dust, and dust on the Earth’s surface tends to be washed into the ocean, where it is even harder to get a good measurement.<<
This brings up another problem I have with the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Looking at the rate our shores are eroding , all of the land on earth will have eroded off into the ocean like 14 times already.
Another problem I have , is this big bang. Now i wish i had the paper i read about this so i could be fully accurate with the argument , but ill try to write what i remember. If at first the gases and debris that led up to the big bang, were spinning(and they must have been moving otherwise there wouldn't have been a reaction), then when it exploded, all these planets and and galaxies, and solarsystems should be spinning in the same direction, i forget the scientific law supporting this action, but i remember a analogy made by a science teacher , Most playgrounds have a little ride that the kids sit on and get a adult or a strong kid to hold onto the bar and run around the ride. This makes the ride spin , and the faster the person spins the ride the more the kids have to hold on so they wont get thrown off, but if the person spins it too fast the kids will start flying off all spinning in the same direction. Well you might understand my rambling.
Madjkd:This brings up another problem I have with the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Looking at the rate our shores are eroding , all of the land on earth will have eroded off into the ocean like 14 times already.
No doubt about that. Of course, with the tectonic plates floating around on the surface of the earth and bumping into each other, the collisions are constantly forcing land up out of the sea (note the height of the Sierra Nevada and the Olympics on the U.S. West Coast) while fresh magma is constantly welling up from the earth's molten core to add more "land" (witness the mid-Atlantic range, capped by Iceland, the Hawaiian islands, and the increased elevation surrounding Mount Pinatubo).
------------------
Tom~
Madjkd said:This brings up another problem I have with the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Looking at the rate our shores are eroding , all of the land on earth will have eroded off into the ocean like 14 times already.
(At least) Two problems with this. First, you are assuming that today's rate of erosion has held true throughout the entire history of the world. Considering that there have been several ice ages, when ocean water has been trapped in glaciers and thus sea levels went down, this is a bad assumption. Second, as tomndebb already mentioned, there are other things going on here, such as continental drift.
Another problem I have , is this big bang. Now i wish i had the paper i read about this so i could be fully accurate with the argument , but ill try to write what i remember. If at first the gases and debris that led up to the big bang, were spinning(and they must have been moving otherwise there wouldn't have been a reaction),
You probably heard this from Hovind, a creationist who has a series of 10 tapes out (a friend of mine has the tapes and mentioned this very "argument" to me a couple weeks ago).
The first problem is -- where did you get this "gas and debris moving around" before the Big Bang? That is not part of any standard Big Bang theory that I'm aware of -- so what exactly is this notion supposed to attack?
then when it exploded, all these planets and and galaxies, and solarsystems should be spinning in the same direction,
Simply wrong. The Big Bang started from a single point and exploded outwards in all directions. No real scientist, to my knowledge, has proposed a "spin". Also, of course, even if this scenario were true, there are other forces at work. For example, as masses collide, the spin of a planet may be altered due to the collision itself. So again we see multiple forces at work, but you are acting as if there was only one.
i forget the scientific law supporting this action, but i remember a analogy made by a science teacher
Hovind is most certainly not a science teacher (and he is the one who made the example below, in his tapes).
Most playgrounds have a little ride that the kids sit on and get a adult or a strong kid to hold onto the bar and run around the ride. This makes the ride spin , and the faster the person spins the ride the more the kids have to hold on so they wont get thrown off, but if the person spins it too fast the kids will start flying off all spinning in the same direction.
Except the example is, again, simply wrong. The kids will fly off in a straight line, on a tangent to the spinning merry go round. They teach this in basic science classes. Too bad most people don't have record players anymore, 'cus that was a great way to teach it. You put something small on the turntable and start it up. The object will not fly off in a circle, but in a straight line.
Consider for a moment. If Hovind is wrong about something this basic -- what must we think about the rest of his "science"?
(This ignores, for the moment, that Hovind is a proven liar.)
------------------
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets
Or angels watching from above" -- Neil Peart, RUSH, "Ghost of a Chance"
Mad wrote, amongst other things:
re: Pasteur's demonstration
>>Really i didnt know that, so why did they argue that bacteria didnt grow because the lack of oxygen. Also why did they change the name from spontaneous generation to abiogenesis, or chemical generation?
If I recall correctly, and us old folks have a tendency to misremember things, that objection arose when Pasteur had boiled a medium and sealed it into an air-tight flask. The objection was that there was some "vital principle" that was driven out of the medium by boiling and which could be replaced through exposure to air. To answer this Pasteur made a flask with a swan-necked curve in its throat; the mold spores and bacteria laden dust settles into the curve of the throat but air was allowed to reach the medium. The medium stayed sterile, thus proving that the infectious organisms were introduced rather than spontaneously generated in the medium.
The term abiogenesis was adopted to describe the initial generation of complex organic chemicals for the simple reason that "spontaneous generation" carries a negative connotation. "Spontaneous generation" brings up images of mice appearing in grain silos and frogs in swamp water. It implies an ongoing process rather than the historical event scientists are investigating.
>>Millers experiment was a success, but he had to seperate the amino acids, as soon as they were formed, which would not have been availible in the primitive world.
As a first approximation, Miller's experiment was a resounding success. He clearly showed that amino acids can be produced from more simple compounds outside of a living cell. That his apparatus does not resemble the natural world is irrelevant, one might as well argue that the discoveries of physicists are meangless because cyclotrons do not resemble stars.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
Mad also wrote:
>>Another problem I have , is this big bang. Now i wish i had the paper i read about this so i could be fully accurate with the argument , but ill try to write what i remember. If at first the gases and debris that led up to the big bang, were spinning(and they must have been moving otherwise there wouldn't have been a reaction), then when it exploded, all these planets and and galaxies, and solarsystems should be spinning in the same direction, i forget the scientific law supporting this action, but i remember a analogy made by a science teacher , Most playgrounds have a little ride that the kids sit on and get a adult or a strong kid to hold onto the bar and run around the ride. This makes the ride spin , and the faster the person spins the ride the more the kids have to hold on so they wont get thrown off, but if the person spins it too fast the kids will start flying off all spinning in the same direction. Well you might understand my rambling.<<
Whomever told you this did not understand what the "Big Bang" is all about. According to the physicists. there was no dust and gas that exploded. What exploded was pure energy, and it had to cool down a lot before some of that energy could clump up into quarks and other subatomic particles. It was a long time before anything as lumpy as dust and gas appeared.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
Oh, and I found my article about the man-made simple self-replicating molecule.
http://www.scripps.edu/pub/ghadiri/
>>Except the example is, again, simply wrong. The kids will fly off in a straight line, on a tangent to the spinning merry go round. They teach this in basic science classes. Too bad most people don't have record players anymore, 'cus that was a great way to teach it. You put something small on the turntable and start it up. The object will not fly off in a circle, but in a straight line.
Consider for a moment. If Hovind is wrong about something this basic -- what must we think about the rest of his "science"?<<
I didnt say the kids/object will fly off in a circle , I said they will fly off spinning, all in the same rotational direction. You cann see this if you attatch a ball to a string and twirl it around , when you let goo the ball will fly off in a straight line, but it will be spinning.
>>(This ignores, for the moment, that Hovind is a proven liar.)
<<
How? Also wasn't Hovind a science teacher for 8 years in a highscool?
I didnt fully read the article you posted, i just glanced through it, I printed it and will read it later, but one question. Are the Nanotubes what you cosider the living thing?
No Mad, the nanotubes are as similar to living things as a hydrogen bomb is similar to a star. They are, however, synthetic self-replicators, and given the proper medium will reproduce themselves. They are another tool we can use to make valid extrapolations about what could have happened in the "primordial soup".
Madjkd said:I didnt say the kids/object will fly off in a circle , I said they will fly off spinning, all in the same rotational direction. You cann see this if you attatch a ball to a string and twirl it around , when you let goo the ball will fly off in a straight line, but it will be spinning.
Nope, I don't think so. Think of the track event called the hammer throw (or something like that). The thrower spins around and around to gain momentum, and then lets go of the hammer, trying to send it as far as he can. When it is released, it heads straight off, without spinning around and around.
Also, even if he was right about that, it still ignores (as you did from my previous message) that there are other forces at work. For example, as masses collide, the spin of a planet may be altered due to the collision itself. So again we see multiple forces at work, but you are acting as if there was only one.
You also ignored several other points I made about Hovind's claims and the Big Bang: The first problem is -- where did you get this "gas and debris moving around" before the Big Bang? That is not part of any standard Big Bang theory that I'm aware of -- so what exactly is this notion supposed to attack?
>>(This ignores, for the moment, that Hovind is a proven liar.)<<
How?
Where to begin? Well, I'll start with something I had already posted to the SDMB about him a little while ago (back before Great Debates existed).
From an August 1993 "REALLity Check" column (written by yours truly, you can find the entire column in the newsletter at http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n07/index.html (it's not in a real good format yet):
Underhanded Creationist Tactics
The Peoria Journal Star (June 25) had an article about Kent Hovind, an evangelist who is offering $10,000 to anybody who can provide empirical evidence of the theory of evolution. But the key is "empirical" or based on experiment. In other words, he wants somebody to prove millions of years of natural selection and evolution in a laboratory, to his satisfaction.
Bradley University religion professor, Robert Fuller, is appalled with Hovind's challenge, saying, "No properly educated, reflective person could possible dispute the fact of biological evolution. No credible professor of religion in the world has difficulty with the concept of evolution."
But that's not the half of it.
It seems the Hovind is not being exactly straight with everybody. The article states that Hovind is scheduled to debate "paleontologist Steven (sic) Jay Gould, a Harvard University professor." Hovind goes on to state, "I suspect Gould will back out."
Hovind apparently has good reason to expect that Gould won't be there. Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, wrote to Gould and asked about Hovind. In his response, Gould says, "You really shouldn't believe everything you read ... I have never heard of the man and therefore cannot have agreed to anything with him." Gould went on to comment about "the obvious phony tactic of claiming that he challenged me to a debate when he didn't, and then claiming that I backed out when I didn't appear."
If Hovind is so sure of himself and his "theory", why does he need to mislead the public in such a manner?
===
And just on the note of his beliefs and claims, here is an article about a debate he participated in: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v02/n03/index.html
(I also did a search on the talk.origins archive, and found 21 hits for "Hovind," including several examinations of some of his nutty claims. I would suggest you read them before citing Hovind as a good source again.)
Also wasn't Hovind a science teacher for 8 years in a highscool?
I'm not sure about this. I know he's certainly not a teacher now, and have never heard that he ever was, but that doesn't necessarily mean he never was one. I can check.
------------------
"The struggle to be freed from the tyranny of superstition and ignorance resulted in nothing less than the greatest accomplishments of our species."
-- Dr. Dean Edell, Eat, Drink & Be Merry
Sorry guys, Mad's wrong about the origin of life, but he's right about the spinning kiddies. If they're going around on a platform they're going to have angular momentum, assuming they're always facing the same direction relative to the platform (facing in towards the center, say).
When the tikes are flung from the platform their centers of gravity will certainly travel in a straight line radially, but they will be spinning about those centers. Else where did the angular momentum go?
Mad's point is still moot, though, for as someone has already pointed out, there is no angular momentum postulated for some "pre-big bang" matter (or any such matter, for that matter!).
APB9999 said:Sorry guys, Mad's wrong about the origin of life, but he's right about the spinning kiddies.
I do believe you're correct, and I was wrong about that. I thought about it a bit more, and realized I was mostly concentrating on a singular point, rather than a larger, irregularly-shaped object. I did an in-office experiment with my calculator and a cut rubber band to verify my thoughts, and have come over to your side on this particular issue. :)
But, as you pointed out, this is really a minor issue. He has based the point on false starting conditions and has ignored all the other factors, among other errors.
------------------
"The struggle to be freed from the tyranny of superstition and ignorance resulted in nothing less than the greatest accomplishments of our species."
-- Dr. Dean Edell, Eat, Drink & Be Merry
Addendum/correction to an earlier post of mine:
At this page:
http://www.drdino.com/AboutCSE.htm
Kent Hovind claims to have been a high school science teacher for 15 years. Still no details as to where or at what type of school. And I still hold that a teacher is just as capable of really incredible errors as anyone else.
I can find nothing to confirm or deny whether Hovind taught High School science at any time. Seems odd that he wouldn't mention it in his list of credentials. Perhaps we are trying to think of a different Creationist?
Be that as it may, bringing up an (unproven) former job the man had does nothing to validate any assertions of his. If a syatement is factual, it is factual whether the presenter works at Harvard or Home Depot. And Kent Hovind is just plain wrong about so many things.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
Re: Hovind as a science teacher -- DrF is quite right about science teachers being just as able to make mistakes as others. Yes, we expect science teachers to know what they're doing, but the sad truth is that some don't. I've been at two conferences of the Illinois Science Teachers Association, and there are creationists among that group, sad as it is to say.
Heck, I remember in my high school (which was actually pretty good), several students were often ahead of our physics teacher, who wasn't exactly a brilliant man.
So, as somebody else already pointed out, the point here is that no matter what his background is, Hovind's claims must stand or fall just like anybody else's. Alas, his fall flat.
------------------
"The struggle to be freed from the tyranny of superstition and ignorance resulted in nothing less than the greatest accomplishments of our species."
-- Dr. Dean Edell, Eat, Drink & Be Merry
Athiests live miserable lives-------
they feel/know they have no purpose in life-- all you have to to is be born and die.....
90% of the people on Earth belive in a God/superior being in one form or another...
I feel that the majority rules, God exitst----sure, you say prove it---it cant be proved---it has to be taken on faith--even the Bible says that---if god was to walk up to you and say "hey, im god, worship me, " then you would'nt have to do any thing, there would be no chalange in being a beliver.............EVEN DARWIN BECAME RELIGIOUS.......SEE, EVEN HE KNEW WHERE MEN REALY CAME FROM
FROM GOD
------------------
"In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself"
Justin said:Athiests live miserable lives-------they feel/know they have no purpose in life-- all you have to to is be born and die.....
Well, gosh, thanks for speaking up for me. I mean, here I thought I had a pretty good life. I just had a wonderful Father's Day with my two sons and my wife and I thought that my life was doing fine. But then you come along and point out that I am living a miserable life. Now I'm all upset, because I didn't realize just how bad I had it...
90% of the people on Earth belive in a God/superior being in one form or another...
I feel that the majority rules, God exitst
What is or is not real has nothing to do with what the majority believes. At one time the majority believed the earth was flat. At one time the majority believed God created the universe in 6 days. Now both of these things are known to be untrue.
EVEN DARWIN BECAME RELIGIOUS
Either back up your claim or admit you're just repeating a false piece of creationist propaganda.
------------------
"Most creatures prefer a warm lie to a cold truth. If you make them feel good, the masses will love you. If you make them think, they will hate you. I warn you: He who dares disturb the sleepwalk of masses, prepares for nightmare."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
Just an FYI for folks interested in this: The National Academy of Sciences put out a second edition of their publication, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences.
This is a major revision from their 1984 edition, updated with the latest discoveries in evolutionary science and including refutations of "new" intelligent design creationism claims.
If you'd like to preview or download it, you can find it at: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/ .
Justin:I feel that the majority rules, God exitst----sure, you say prove it---it cant be proved---it has to be taken on faith--even the Bible says that---if god was to walk up to you and say "hey, im god, worship me, " then you would'nt have to do any thing, there would be no chalange in being a beliver.............EVEN DARWIN BECAME RELIGIOUS.......SEE, EVEN HE KNEW WHERE MEN REALY CAME FROM FROM GOD
------------------
Tom~
Sorry for that last post. I really didn't hit SEND and was amazed when it took of.
At any rate,
JustinI feel that the majority rules, God exitst----sure, you say prove it---it cant be proved---it has to be taken on faith--even the Bible says that---if god was to walk up to you and say "hey, im god, worship me, " then you would'nt have to do any thing, there would be no chalange in being a beliver.............EVEN DARWIN BECAME RELIGIOUS.......SEE, EVEN HE KNEW WHERE MEN REALY CAME FROM FROM GOD
I am always amazed that the creationists only believe in nine commandments. For some reason, they don't seem to think that "Thou shalt not bear false witness. . . ." applies to them.
The story of Darwin's death-bed conversion was created by Mrs. James Hope, widow of the British admiral, in an address to the students of the Northfield Seminary in Massachusetts in 1882. The story was quickly proven false when Darwin's daughter pointed out that Mrs. Hope had never visited the Darwin home on any occasion--and certainly not during Darwin's last hours. Nevertheless, biblical creationinsts continue to propagate this lie.
As to Justin's other conclusions: a) I am not aware that atheists are miserable as a natural condition of life; b) if majority rules, then Christians should have converted to Buddhism long ago (and Protestants should have converted to the much larger Catholic Church just before they all became Buddhists).
------------------
Tom~
tomndebb said:I am always amazed that the creationists only believe in nine commandments. For some reason, they don't seem to think that "Thou shalt not bear false witness. . . ." applies to them.
Well, you know, it's one of the less-important commandments. When you compare it to the overall goal of getting people to believe in their god, I guess it's just not a big deal to lie -- as long as you're lying for God.
------------------
"Most creatures prefer a warm lie to a cold truth. If you make them feel good, the masses will love you. If you make them think, they will hate you. I warn you: He who dares disturb the sleepwalk of masses, prepares for nightmare."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
I would like to thank Justin for sharing his little rant with us. Blocks of capitalized letters always help put your point across.
I had always felt that Darwin showed a great deal of faith in his writings, even if he annoyed representatives of some organized religions. But, to repeat myself, a person's faith or religion are irrelevant to questions on biology.
Justin- we have a very nice religion thread going for that sort of discussions. We try to keep the topic here on the debate between "Evilutionists" and "Cretinists". If you would like to share any reasons why you feel descent with modification is an invalid model for the history of life on this planet, please do. If your "evidence" is "Because the Bible and my pastor tell me so" then bring it to the Great God Debate threads.
The atheists I know do not seem to be any more miserable than any member of my church. Some of them less so, for they do not feel the need to take on guilt that they did not incur personally.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason."
Oh, and Justin, we were not discussing atheism versus theism here. I don't know where you got that idea.
DrFidelius said:Oh, and Justin, we were not discussing atheism versus theism here. I don't know where you got that idea.
Because (ok, I'm sure you know this, but I'll say it anyway) many creationists don't understand the difference. To them, arguing against creationism is an atheistic position. Damn the facts, either you're a creationist or an atheist!
------------------
"Most creatures prefer a warm lie to a cold truth. If you make them feel good, the masses will love you. If you make them think, they will hate you. I warn you: He who dares disturb the sleepwalk of masses, prepares for nightmare."
-- Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
many creationists don't understand the difference. To them, arguing against creationism is an atheistic position. Damn the facts, either you're a creationist or an atheist!
Yep, that's pretty much their MO. It's a key part of the ad hominem attacks they inevitably resort to when defending their ludicrously indefensible hypothesis. Michael Shermer talks about it in Why People Believe Weird Things, when he was in a public evolution-creation debate with the noted super-creationist Duane T. Gish:
...I concluded my meta-debate analysis with a show of goodwill by offering Gish an honorary membership in the Skeptics Society. I was later forced to retract the offer, however, when Gish refused to retract his characterization of me as an atheist. As Darwin said, "An Agnostic would be the more correct description of my mind." I knew Gish had a lengthy section in his presentation on the evils of atheism as a technique to destroy his opponents (who typically are atheists), so I made a point of stating in my introduction, loud and clear, that I am not an atheist. I even called the audience's attention to the man passing out anti-Christian literature, who was now sitting in the front row, and I told him that I thought he was doing more harm than good. Nonetheless, in his opening statement Gish called me an atheist and then proceeded with his automated diatribe against atheism.
I think it's an attempt to drag the whole debate from the realm of scientific inquiry, where they secretly know they can't win, to the domain of religion where they consider themselves the victors by default. They do it a lot.
How did fecal matter evolve?
------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
Here's a little thought on the "Intelligent Design" argument. A creator who designed the extinction of 98 percent of all species that ever roamed the planet might NOT be considered too damn intelligent after all.
This gives god a 2 percent success rate in species-making. Hows THEM odds?
Ah, but Slythe, he planned it that way so that people like you would make that argument and test the faith of those who truly believe.
------------------
"We must fight any attempt on the part of the fringers and irrationalists to call to their side the force of the state. ... That we must fight to the death."
-- Isaac Asimov
... so the zookeeper was astounded to see the monkey reading, both the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. Howcome? he asked. "Well," said the monkey, "I wanted to figure out if I was my brother's keeper, or if I was my keeper's brother."
Chimpanzee's thoughts while in the zoo:
"Am I my keeper's brother?"
tracer
10-26-1999, 02:09 PM
So! How 'bout them pseudogenes and introns, huh?
I got your missing links right here... ;)
No, seriously.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/99/feather/
Recently in China, more fossils were uncovered. The fossils seem very likely to be those of what can best be described as dinosaurs with feathers.
They are: Sinornithosaurus millenii, which was "covered with feathers... could leap but not fly," according to the photo caption.
The other animal is Archeoraptor liaoningensis, which had feathers and was very likely capable of flight.
If you go to the above link and then scroll down, you'll see other links to other stories describing other recent dinosaur fossil discoveries, including a feathered dinosaur fossil found in Argentina two years ago called Unenlagi comahuensis. It is described as "the most bird-like dinosaur ever found."
Further information on the Chinese fossils will be published in the November issue of National Geographic, which ought to be available even now.
If these fossils do not convince people that birds are descended from dinosaurs, then I don't know what will.
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
David B
10-26-1999, 03:25 PM
If these fossils do not convince people that birds are descended from dinosaurs, then I don't know what will.For some, the answer is: "Nothing." :(
andros
10-26-1999, 03:31 PM
Well, the fossils certainly indicate to me that there existed at one point bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds. But then, a bat is a bird-like mammal, and it doesn't imply that mammals evolved from birds, or vice versa.
-andros-
Friendly Neighborhood Advocatus Diaboli(tm)
tracer
10-26-1999, 03:40 PM
And I noticed that National Geographic link didn't give dates for these fossil finds. Was archaeoraptor 90M years old, or 150M years old?
I cite those figures specifically, because Archaeopteryx fossils date to about 150M years ago, while the earliest Raptor-like dinosaur fossils (before the discovery of Eoraptor, at least) dated to only 90M years ago -- meaning that Archaeopteryx couldn't have evolved from any of those newer raptor-like dinosaurs.
------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
As I said, the magazine will have more info.
Guess one of us will have to buy a copy.
Something that must be said: Some bird-like dinosaurs CO-EXISTED with dinosaur-like birds. Did you notice they said it was possible that Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers? (My mind reeled with that one...) And T-rex was one of the last great carnivores. It co-existed with the velociraptor.
(It's also possible, I guess, that not all dinosaur species had feathers, or they had very few feathers. Not all mammals are hairy. Ever see a manatee?)
The Argentinian fossils are considered to be 90,000,000 years old.
You have your order reversed. First came Archaeopteryx, at 150M B.C.E., then came the raptors at 90M B.C.E. That's a 60M year time span. (BTW, whether these creatures could fly or not is irrelevant. Ostriches don't fly and neither do emus, and they are most definitely birds.)
A bat is NOT a bird-like mammal. A bat has no feathers.
"Bird-like mammal..?"
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Polycarp
10-26-1999, 04:34 PM
John Ostrom came up with a beautiful line...It must be fall: The dinosaurs are flying south.
andros
10-26-1999, 05:02 PM
Jab, my point is that these fossils, while pretty cool, do not prove anything. To imply that this discovery offers incontrovertible proof that birds evolved from dinos is specious at best.
Hell, it's even possible that there was a dead-end line of feathered reptiles. Stranger things have happened. (Egg-laying mammals, anyone?) Still doesn't mean that these fossils are of birds' ancestors.
Two people are on a train taking their first trip to Scotland. They spy a black sheep on the heath. One remarks, "look, all sheep in Scotland are black." The other replies, "At least one sheep in Scotland is black on at least one side at least some of the time."
-andros-
------------------
At least some of what I say is false at least some of the time.
And I would say, "Look, a black sheep! That proves there's at least one black sheep in Scotland. And it's VERY likely it had at least one ancestor that was also black."
I see that fossil and I say, "Look, some dinosaurs had feathers. BIRDS have feathers. Dinosaurs lived long before modern birds do. And we have found no other species that had or has feathers. ERGO, dinosaurs are probably the ancestors of birds."
In the absence of any contradictory evidence, that's what I'm going to go by.
(The word "probably" does not invalidate the theory that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds. There's always room for doubt, but that room's getting smaller, IMO. Used to be like the Superdome; now it's more like a closet.)
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Boris B
10-26-1999, 05:27 PM
Why isn't a bat a bird-like mammal, jab1? They both:
(1) have wings
(2) are warm-blooded
(3) like to sit in trees
(4) fly a lot
(5) have spinal chords
So they are alike in four ways at least. If bats had feathers and lacked fur and mammaries, then I suppose they would be birds, and it would be redundant to point out that they are bird-like.
Yes, I'm being obtuse for satirical purposes. I just think it's important to note that "like" and "identical to" are not synonyms.
------------------
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
- Boris Badenov
andros
10-26-1999, 05:33 PM
Great. Your opinion, welcome to it. But you do accept the fact that it's not enough proof for everyone, right? And that they're not necessarily idiots?
As the body of evidence to support the theory of evolution grows, more people will believe it. But these fossils alone do not end the dialogue.
-andros-
LonesomePolecat
10-26-1999, 05:45 PM
>>>Because we are looking at small populations adapting rather quickly (in geological time) the chances of us finding a fossil from the split off population are very slim.<<<
So the evidence for this theory is that there is no evidence for this theory, right?
:o)
------------------
LONESOME POLECAT
+++++++++++++
When the pin is pulled,
Mr. Grenade is no longer
our friend.
DrFidelius
10-26-1999, 05:51 PM
The Chinese finds clearly show that modern birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than to any other group of animals. We've pretty much known that since Archy was first described, but it is nice to have some specimens which exhibit the essential shared derived features along the whole spectrum from flightless shaggy dinosaur to flying bird.
The new finds are almost certainly not directly ancestral to modern birds. They do show that viable populations of "proto-birds" existed. They are therefore "transitional" in the same sense that the Dermoptera are "transitional" between primates and fruit bats. It is still very good that one of the predictions of the theory has been bourne out so well.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason."
Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
DrFidelius
10-26-1999, 06:07 PM
How odd, Polecat. I seem to have written something very much like that IN ANOTHER THREAD. Please, us old folks get confuzzled enough without you whippersnappers swapping things around and rearranging the furniture on us...
The evidence that changes in a population happen to small groups separated from the central range comes from studies of real live creatures in real live environments. Eldridge and Gould first pointed out that what we know about living populations gives us a valuable insight into the appearance of fossil organisms in the geological column. Very elegant and obvious in hindsight.
Boris B
10-26-1999, 06:15 PM
What are Dermoptera? Skin-wings... I mean, is this an extinct taxon, or is it just the Latin for something I might have heard of? Flying squirrels? Flying falangers? Flying Phalangists?
andros
10-26-1999, 06:22 PM
You're absolutely correct, Dr. F. It's very exciting to see evidence beyond Archaeopteryx.
Jab, I personally agree completely with the Good Doctor and yourself. But I took unnecessary exception to your assumption that the China finds should be absolutely convincing. Apologies if I offended.
-andros-
Andros, it's okay. It can be more difficult to influence the opinion of a genius than one of a moron. In fact, intelligence isn't the deciding factor. I think it's trust.
If I may get a bit off-topic here, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, went to his grave believing the dead could communicate with the living; that two little girls shot authentic photographs of real, live fairies; and that Houdini did his escapes by utilizing supernatural forces. Why did such a brilliant man believe such things? Because the beliefs comforted him. He'd lost many of his loved ones in his long life and he needed comfort. He needed life to make sense.
We all do. For some of us, the world makes more sense without a god than with one.
---------------------------------------------------
We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion...
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
DrFidelius
10-26-1999, 07:17 PM
Boris--
"Flying lemurs", also known as colugos. Still two species of them around, IIRC, in Madagascar.
About those China fossils: You KNOW someone's going to make a "connection" between evolutionists and God-less Communism!
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
LonesomePolecat
10-26-1999, 07:24 PM
My apologies to Dr. Fidelius. This was a reply to a post in the Neo-Darwinism topic which I placed in this topic by mistake. Patience, please, I'm a newbie here!
------------------
LONESOME POLECAT
+++++++++++++
When the pin is pulled,
Mr. Grenade is no longer
our friend.
Polecat, some friendly advice: Don't EVER let DrF know you're a newbie.
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
andros
10-26-1999, 08:50 PM
Ah, I understand, Jab. So evolution is your crutch? Gotcha.
Polycarp
10-27-1999, 12:09 AM
BeerUser said:
How did fecal matter evolve?
It didn't. It just happens.
=================================
Since this controversy has reared its ugly head once again, I thought I'd bring this one up front.
Gaudere
10-27-1999, 12:13 AM
Boy, you *do* like resurrections, Polycarp, don't you? What, *two* evolution threads not enough for ya? Oh, I forgot...you like things in sets of three. Or do you think all three evolution threads are actually the same thread? ;)
------------------
"Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
- Bertrand Russell
DrFidelius
10-27-1999, 08:14 AM
Oh come now jab, I'm not all that bad. (evil grin)
Right now I'm just waiting for a brewing discussion to start so I can ask the Polecat exactly what goes into Kickapoo Joy Juice.
Polycarp
10-27-1999, 10:28 AM
We already had one promising thread sidetracked into a discussion of brewing, Dr. F. No fair doing it twice! :)
I thought colugos ("flying lemurs") were Malaysian/Indonesian critters. Other than that, I'm fascinated by the trend this thread is taking. The new fossil birds are narrowing the gap between archosaurs (probably dino- but definitely the larger taxon) and Archy on the one hand, and between Archy and modern birdlife on the other.
Boris, would a flying Phalangist be a Spanish aviator of the 1930s who supported Franco? :)
DrFidelius
10-27-1999, 10:30 AM
Whatever. All those islands with funny critters start to look alike to me.
Boris B
10-27-1999, 11:16 AM
[b]Polycarp[/]
Yes, or perhaps an extremist Maronite circus performer.
I still think a bat is a bird-like mammal.
------------------
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
- Boris Badenov
Andros, a crutch is simply a tool. Some need this tool, others don't. It would be foolish to refuse a crutch if one truly needs it.
Knowledge is a tool. As far as explaining how life got here, evolution makes more sense to me than creationism or even God-directed evolution. Because look at all the other things God did, according to the Old Testament: Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) Defies belief that there was only ONE family worth saving out of two cities. And were babies equally deserving of annihilation? And Lot's daughters were supposed to be good people, but look at what they did to their father afterwards. And they didn't seem to miss their mother very much. And this is just one example. I could re-read the Old Testament and find others, if you like. Which town was it that Joshua was ordered to destroy down to the last man, woman, child and infant and animal? What about II Corinthians, the verses that tell women to keep quiet in church? I wouldn't let anyone talk to my mother that way, thank you very much.
What do I mean by all this? If God created me and all other life, whether in six days or 3.5B years, then I was created by a sadistic bully who likes to throw his weight around. That sounds like someone I should defy, not follow. And if I go to hell for it, I go with a clear conscience.
So, yeah, I'd rather believe in God-less evolution. It lets me sleep at night.
You were probably being facetious, but you DID ask.
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
I'd like to add: If evolution is my crutch, then call me "Festus!"
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
tracer
10-28-1999, 08:49 PM
jab1 wrote:
You have your order reversed. First came Archaeopteryx, at 150M B.C.E., then came the raptors at 90M B.C.E.
Um ... that's not "reversed". That's precisely what I said.
tracer
10-28-1999, 08:53 PM
jab1 wrote:
Which town was it that Joshua was ordered to destroy down to the last man, woman, child and infant and animal?
All off them. See Joshua 10:30-40.
DrFidelius
10-28-1999, 08:57 PM
So its obvious. The raptors were giant flightless proto-birds, descended as a sister clade to true birds from Archy-like ancestors. Think emus...
(disclaimer: I don't know if anyone has seriously proposed this. I don't really care. But, if anyone comes up with a series of bird-like fossils that show them growing larger, losing flight and growing big nasty claws on their feet, I want credit for proposing this first. If no such series emerges, or if the cladistics show that it couldn't happen, just ignore this. Thank you.)
Polycarp
10-29-1999, 07:59 AM
Dr. Fidelius is attempting to duplicate l'affaire Utahraptor. For those who don't know, the makers of the Jurassic Park movie liked the idea of Velociraptors as the primary antagonistic beast for the movie. However, at the time they made the movie, your typical dromaeosaur (raptor-style critter) was about the size of a large bipedal dog and none of approximately human size were known. Such an animal, while it would be deadly in real life, was not particularly visually terrifying. They went ahead and, with help from a professional paleontologist, scaled them up to the raptors of the movie. As post-production was going on, Jim Jensen, the real-life paleontologist they had used and after whom the male lead was characterized, discovered a new dromaeosaur which he named Utahraptor, which matched the scaled-up creature almost to a tee.
tracer caught me. I DID get them reversed. Sometimes I think I'm dyslexic.
Anyway, I'm not sure if anyone said the flying Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of the flight-less raptors. It's unlikely we'll ever be able to analyze the DNA of fossil bones, so we may never know for sure.
I don't want to give the impression I'm jumping to conclusions here, I'm just asking: Is it possible that ALL theropods had feathers and that some could fly and some couldn't? Theropod fossils have been found in the Arctic and feathers are good insulation.
Could sauropods have had feathers? The only dinosaur-with-feathers fossils found have been theropods.
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Well, I finally got a look-see at that new issue of National Geographic. Pictures reproduce a lot better on paper than they do on line. The impressions of feathers in the rock of the fossils took my breath away. The photo of Sinornithosaurus on pg. 104 is especially noteworthy. (I think I'm in love!) Sino was a dromaeosaur, about the size of a modern eagle and lived about 120,000,000 years ago. It probably could not fly.
Anyway, there are several passages I'd like to quote:
1) PAGE 105: "The fossil (of Sinornithosaurus) also supports the concept that early feathers evolved for insulation or display rather than flight..."
2) PAGE 102: "...we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammmals."
3) PAGE 103: "At seven feet long, Beipiaosaurus is the largest dinosaur yet found with feathers."
4) PAGE 107: "T.rex hatchlings needed a way to stay warm. What would be more logical than insulating feathers?"
The article states that T. rex would lose those feathers as it aged, though it may have retained a few for display purposes. The hatchlings would've been covered in down. No fossil T. rex eggs have been found as yet, but if they are, could this down be visible in an X-ray or a CT scan?
One other thing mentioned: The fossil of another dinosaur was found in a gem and mineral show in Utah. Stephen and Sylvia Czerkas, directors of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, bought it and contacted the authorities. Since it was illegally exported from China, they promised to return it to China after studying it and showing it to N.G. writer and editor Christopher P. Sloan.
Imagine if the only known fossil of Archaeoraptor liaoningensis had ended up as a door-stop in someone's home because they didn't know how important it was....
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Visual Purple
11-03-1999, 11:03 AM
A little late: Dermaptera are the insect order commonly known as earwigs. This name is not particularly apt, since not all of them are wingless (aptera), and their bodies don't look no more skin covered than any number of other insects. Nevertheless, Dermaptera = Earwigs.
C. corax
(who TA'd undergraduate insect taxonomy at Michigan State)
Visual Purple
11-03-1999, 11:06 AM
"don't look no more"! ACK!
C. corax
(who TA'd undergraduate insect taxonomy at Michigan State, but who hasn't learned to proofread)
DrFidelius
11-03-1999, 11:11 AM
Which is why I said Dermoptera, not Dermaptera. A subtle distinction, but I was talking of the furry comb-toothed critters and not the vermin.
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason."
We apologise for the fault in the sig files. Those responsible have been sacked.
Oh, and it's no wonder that baby T. rex in The Lost World was so unhappy: It was naked! "Where's my downy insulation? I'm cold!"
D' you think they'll give dinosaurs feathers in any subsequent dinosaur movie? Wouldn't that be a kick to see?
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
Phaedrus
11-09-1999, 02:35 AM
note to lurkers evolution is being RIPPED up by an absolute geniug in the flat earth tread!!!!!!!!!
tomndebb
11-09-1999, 08:58 AM
Not to insult any geniugs out there, but I hardly think that several weeks of semantic "ground laying" quite qualifies as "ripping up" anything.
I have not seen any actual evidence presented against Natural Selection and, so far, I have not seen any substantive challenges to the underlying logic employed by those scientists who have speculated regarding the mechanisms of evolution.
------------------
Tom~
The differences between Natural Selection and Artificial Selection:
One of them has an intelligence behind it.
The other one takes millions of years.
------------------
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
I agree with everyone on the side of science - religion has its place, but this is most definately not one of its places.
As everyone probably knows, religion was invented to quell people's fears of death etc... and to serve as a basis for a civillised system of laws. It was NOT based on any scientific fact as there was none at the time and as such falls flat on its face when it gets beyond the realms of belief in a supreme deity which is supposed to be the divine ruler of the world. I stress the 'supposed' section in my last sentence.
This will probably not make me any friends with the religious people out there, but hey, who cares. If half of them are right they only have to hate me for a couple of months then we're all going to die anyway!
------------------
"I think, therefore I am" - prove it!
BIGmatt
11-12-1999, 05:42 AM
You're right CJD when you say that you're not going to make any friends... in fact I suspect that there are going to be more than a few VERY UNHAPPY PEOPLE out there after they read your little 'contribution'.
What exactly are you trying to say, that science is the one true religion??? If that's the case, then who is God? Einstein, Hawking, Newton???
How do you explain the fact that many religions are actually based on historical fact, and that as time goes by historical events which are scientific fact form part of that religions system of 'good' and 'bad'? Although it's pretty obvious that religion can't ALL be taken as fact, there are parts which are based on fact.
That's basically a very long winded way of saying...
What do YOU believe then???
------------------
"Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver" - Edmund Blackadder
SpoonsJTD
11-12-1999, 09:10 AM
CJD: Interesting typo there. You said 'As everyone probably knows' and I think you meant to type 'Some people think'.
SpoonsJTD: No, I think I meant that everyone should know, but I was restating the fact for those who aren't enlightened enough to see the truth (I think that's what I meant anyway...)
------------------
"I think, therefore I am" - prove it!
DrFidelius
11-12-1999, 03:33 PM
Damn. Looks like we got us another one of them there evangelical atheists here...
Gaudere
11-12-1999, 03:44 PM
Oh, you are mistaken, DrF! CJD is clearly in possesion of all the facts of the universe, and is not a troll at all! Why, I think I will have to worship him now since he is clearly omniscient. All hail CJD!
Hopefully he'll go away soon...
DrFidelius
11-12-1999, 03:49 PM
I'll cut him some Slack (praise Bob). I remember most of what it was like to be a wise-assed student. The parts I don't remember, well, my friends tell me I had fun and they have several anecdotes they are saving for blackmail purposes...
BIGmatt
11-13-1999, 06:51 AM
Hmmm, I told you, CJD, you're not making any friends, but you are adding an... how can I put this... intersting slant on the discussion.
(For the benefit of those of you that haven't noticed that CJD and myself go to the same college from our profiles, I can assure all of you that he is ALWAYS this extreme. Don't put him down too hard... save him for me!)
Now what was it you said, CJD? Other people aren't 'enlightend' enough to accept that religion is scientifically flawed? Answer my previous posting, please...
------------------
"Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver" - Edmund Blackadder
David B
11-13-1999, 07:07 AM
Gaudere said:Why, I think I will have to worship him now since he is clearly omniscient. All hail CJD!Hey! Remember, thou shalt have no other gods before me! (After me is ok, though.)
the first supraliminal
11-13-1999, 09:22 AM
As everyone probably knows, religion was invented to quell people's fears of death etc... and to serve as a basis for a civillised system of laws. --CJD
I'm interested. Would you care to backup your hypothesis?
It was NOT based on any scientific fact as there was none at the time and as such falls flat on its face when it gets beyond the realms of belief in a supreme deity which is supposed to be the divine ruler of the world.
I suppose you meant scientific "evidence." Do you really believe there was "no" evidence at the time?
Do you believe there is ample evidence now to draw a factual conclusion?
If yes, explain to me why you think this evidence is ample.
If no, how are we different from those before who hypothesized with their evidence?
------------------
There's always another beer.
the first supraliminal
11-13-1999, 09:28 AM
Oops, I thought I was the only one who attacked CJD. I should learn how to read.
------------------
There's always another beer.
"The trolls are roasting on an open fire
Straight Dopers nipping at their toes...."
------------------
Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.
Gaudere: thank you... (I think)
DrFidelius: How can an athiest be evangelical???
Beeruser: Of course I would like to back up my hypothesis.
1st point: at the time that most major religions started there was no evifence for evolution. By this I mean the fossils that show the evolution of a species such as the amonite over millions of years. They also did not have the skelitons of the pre-homo-sapien humans that have been found that clearly show that mankind evolved from apes and were NOT created by God (or Allah etc...), and that women were definately not created from the rib of the firat man created by God as stated by the bible.
As to your next point, I think this evidence is ample, in fact i think that it is irrefutable proof for evolution and not creation.
Gaudere: Me... Roasted... I think not!
------------------
"I think, therefore I am" - prove it!
CJD, glad you're on our side, but please work on your spelling and other errors. You don't have to be rush. We'll still be here after you've done your proofreading. Anyway:
1) Humans did not evolve from apes. The theory is that modern humans and modern apes have a single ancestor. This common ancestor has not yet been found, so the theory could be disproved. But I wouldn't bet on it. Just because the evidence has yet to be found does not mean that it doesn't exist. Other existing evidence indicates that this ancestor lived.
2) The fossils of ammonites and trilobites have existed for millions of years. But only in recent times have we become able to interpret them correctly. For example, the Chinese first found dinosaur fossils hundreds (thousands?) of years ago. This is the basis of their dragon myths. Unfortunately, they attributed mythical abilities to dinosaurs/dragons, so it's not considered a scientific interpretation of the fossil record, but a religious interpretation, not unlike Bible-inspired Creationism. (BTW, did you know there are Jewish Creationists? I don't remember his screen name, but one of them used to post to the SDMB. He said he was a rabbi, IIRC.)
------------------
Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.
BIGmatt
11-13-1999, 05:35 PM
CJD -
do you ever consider the posibility that you may ever be even slightly... mislead when you make these sweeping statements? I can see and appreciate why your convictions are so strong, but marginally more careful wording can save you alot of trouble...
On the other hand, it's always good for a laugh...
I agree that there is a very strong case for evolution over creation, but (although I'm not overtly religious) you do have to ask eventually, why did the 'Big Bang' happen in the first place. If, as has been discussed in other debates, the Big Bang represented the instant creation of everything, then what caused it in the first place - assuming (very reasonably, I think) that it's pretty difficult to create something from nothing.
Also, in a way, isn't the Big Bang theory a kind of creation theory - e.g. everything suddenly coming into existence as if by some transcendent design?
------------------
"Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver" - Edmund Blackadder
Boris B
11-13-1999, 05:58 PM
jab1
If modern apes and man had a common ancestor, why wasn't that ancestor an ape? A purely semantic question.
------------------
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
- Boris Badenov
tomndebb
11-13-1999, 09:06 PM
CJD:How can an athiest be evangelical???
Rather easily, actually.
Evangelical simply refers to bringing the Good News. It is a simple matter to bring the Good News of skepticism, rational thought, and the obvious nonexistence of (a) god to people if one is sufficiently convinced of those positions.
Most of the atheists that post here are shy and retiring and would never preach their Good News. However, I have met people of similar convictions and more strident personalities who have, indeed, been evangelical in their approach to the discussion of the topics we discuss here.
------------------
Tom~
Gaudere
11-14-1999, 12:50 AM
Hey! Remember, thou shalt have no other gods before me! (After me is ok, though.)
David, do not fear. I cannot be swayed by false Gods. Particularly not ones that manifest in the form of smug smart-ass college students.
Well, a new troll is always amusing...I look forward to the roasting.
tomndeb: the term 'evangelical' refers to the bringing of 'good news' by angels therefore the existance of God which an athiest does not hold to be true.
BIGmatt: You have to take into account the possibility that the big bang was caused by the collective gravity of pre big-bang matter compressing the matter into such a small space that it reached a kind of 'critical mass' and exploded thereby causing the universe we know & love to come into being.
You are right that there was a creation involved in the Big Bang, I am just arguing that it was not "THE" creation refered to in religious texts and that it may not have involved a transcendant design or being.
Jab1: It helps to know these things - I might have to go & do some research before I go & slag off creation next time so that I get all my facts right. My current arguement was based on the evidence that I had come across.
------------------
"I think, therefore I am" - prove it!
RTFirefly
11-14-1999, 04:42 PM
CJD, you're sort of right: 'evangel' comes from Greek euangelos = eu , good, + angelos , messenger. So we're talking about a good Angelos, i.e. not Peter Angelos. ;)
Seriously, for Christians the messenger might be an angel; for atheists it might be Rene Descartes, bearing the message of logical thought.
LRBOM
11-14-1999, 05:15 PM
CJD,
In response to an earlier statement that religion has no place in a scientific debate over the cause behind our existence, I must say that I would have to disagree. You see, science is basically us comming to conclusions about things derived from our knowledge of what are the most likely and often most logical explanations.
Many people, including myself (and I feel I may not gain many friends saying this) would therefore argue that the theory of creation, and indeed religion itself comes from people best guesses (at the time) as to the awnsers of the fundamental questions we still ask to this day. As much as we would like to argue against the fact today, we actually are no closer to knowing the truth than we were at the time of writing the bible. We can still neither proove or disproove the existance of a creator any more than we can say for definate that the universe was created via a bib bang.
Thanks
Also, please don't ask me if I am religious. As I have no proof either way I would prefer to remain Agnostic on that one.
tomndebb
11-14-1999, 06:12 PM
Actually, "angel" is not a necessary component of "evangelical." Angel, as noted above, meant "messenger" and the beings referred to in the Bible as "angels" were simply "messengers of God". That which an angel brought (the message) was the 'aggelías or news. In the earliest Gospel, Mark, (who mentions the angels only once or twice in his Gospel, and never as active participants in any event) begins with the phrase "Beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ,. . ." using the word e'uaggelíou. He means good news or glad tidings, but provides no association to messengers from God.
To date, [b]CJD[/i], I would say that you seem to fit the general profile of an evangelistic atheist. (No harm in that.)
------------------
Tom~
David B
11-14-1999, 09:12 PM
CJD said:It helps to know these things - I might have to go & do some research before I go & slag off creation next time so that I get all my facts right.Indeed, it does help to have one's facts right before one accuses the other side of having their facts wrong...
Triskadecamus
11-14-1999, 10:04 PM
Since this is the Creationism vs. Evolution thread, I though I would mention that last week’s Science magazine contains an interesting article on the discovery in China of vertebrate fossils which are 530 million years old. The existence of the comparatively complex body development within only 10 million years of the beginning of the “Cambrian explosion” of species during which most of the major groups of animals developed.
There is also some support from one of the fossil species for a very early development of bilaterally symmetric fin structures, the structure believed to underlie the quadrupedal structure of more advanced vertebrate skeletons. There is some evidence of a structure on one of the fossils that might be an eye.
The sedimentary beds being examined in China are particularly well suited for the survival of traces of fine structures, and many of the recent finds in this region are of profound importance in increasing the completeness of our picture of the earliest of animal species. As has been pointed out, the fossil record is very incomplete, and each new example from this early period of our planet’s history is an opportunity to increase our understanding of the development of life.
<p align="center">Tris</p>
HELP, i'm running out of things to say to stir up the debate - if anyone has any ideas, please let me know, otherwise i'm going to go & look for something else to add that might be interesting/controversial/funny.
I might even start a new debate if anyone wants to really slag me off...
------------------
"I think, therefore I am" - prove it!
DrFidelius
11-16-1999, 04:47 PM
Don't strain yourself CJD. Have some patience and you will find your pace.
I've known people who dismiss any and all fossils found in China as "fakes created by Communists trying to prove their atheistic philosophy which is then promoted by dupes like the National Geographic," or the science journal under discussion.
There's simply no reasoning with such people. I usually just shake my head and walk away. They, of course, use my actions as "proof" that I lack convictions.
No, it means I'm tired of beating my head against brick walls. I find that it doesn't feel good when I quit.
------------------
Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.
Go to: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/archaeopteryx990505.html for a report on how the (in)famous Archaeopteryx could have flown.
Very well, as it turns out. It simply would have leaped out of a tree and spread and flapped its wings like any modern-day bird.
------------------
Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.
LRBOM
11-21-1999, 02:05 PM
BIGmatt,
I would be interested to know how you can see CJD's reasoning behind there being "irrefutable proof for evolution and not creation". For one, how does CJD know that evolution resulted from creation. I for one do not believe it did but I want to know how he can proove it, having not been present (as far as I am aware) at the time of the Big Bang. If I am wrong and CJD was infact present, would this not entirely alter this arguement anyway?
Also, what is this rubbish about the universe continually accelerating and "dark matter" that these so called TV 'experts' want us to believe. Explain what happens when the universe reaches the speed of light. Enough said!!!
------------------
When the pain will finally cease
When my life will be at peace
LBROM: Whats this that i 'said'... evolution came from creation???
Quote
---------------------------------------------
"For one, how does CJD know that evolution resulted from creation"
---------------------------------------------
If you'd read my coments properly then you'd know that I'm saying that, in my opinion creation never happened in the religious sense of the term, but there was A creation
(i.e. the Big Bang) in which the universe as we know it was formed.
------------------
"I think, therefore I am" - prove it!
LRBOM
11-22-1999, 04:04 PM
I apologise CJD, what I actually meant was the exact opposite, how can you be sure that evolution did NOT evolve from creation. You simply can't because if you argue the accepted theories on the big bang, then religion would argue that whilst the bible may not have been accurate and clear to the minutest detail, there is no proof that a so called "God" was not responsible for the initial explosion which created life as we know it. Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The fact is that however much "scientific evidence" and how many statistical facts you throw at people, it won't register at all or change the way people think if it isn't what they wanted to hear eg. when religion argued continually against all rational evidence that pointed to the fact that the earth was the center to the universe.
Remember, I am not saying religion is right, but religion and science are the same thing, science is just a more up to date version now that we are in possesion of more material and better ways of studying it.
I apologise again and fear that I may have merged several points of conversation here but just remember CJD, that in 10 years time, people may totally disrepute what you are saying and if you refuse to be even slightly open minded about this, you may end up eating your words.
------------------
When the pain will finally cease
When my life will be at peace
tracer
11-22-1999, 09:08 PM
RTFirefly wrote:
Seriously, for Christians the messenger might be an angel; for atheists it might be Rene Descartes, bearing the message of logical thought.
Descartes? Bah! He was every bit as much of a religious nut as Nicholas Copernicus and Johannes Kepler.
Now Francis Bacon, there was someone you could get behind! He was a real he-man in the inductive reasoning department. You wanna know how many teeth a horse has, you go out and count them. He da man!
------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
tomndebb
11-22-1999, 09:33 PM
tracer? Have you ever seen how much a horse drools when you start messing with its mouth? If I want to know how many teeth a horse has, I'll ask my father-in-law the farrier.
------------------
Tom~
BIGmatt
11-24-1999, 05:18 AM
LRBOM,
I agree with your scepticism about 'dark matter'. From what I can see, astrophysicists have 'conjured up' dark matter to account for various phoenomena that they have no other explanation for.
I can just imagine two astrophysicists discussing it now, and it would probably go something like:
"Wow! The edge of the galaxy is rotating at the same speed as the middle! How is that possible?"
"I don't know... hang on a minute, it COULD do that IF there was a load of matter at the edge."
"But we can't see any of it"
"Yeah, you're right... it MUST be INVISIBLE!"
"The public will never buy it if we say 'invisible matter' - we've got to call it something else..."
"Hey! How about DARK matter, that sounds believable doesn't it?"
"Yeah, great idea!"
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but 'dark matter' just seems like an excuse to me.
Also, if some theories are right, then the speed of light may have been different in the past and so may change in the future, and so the Universe could continually accellerate from our present perspective while not actually breaching the spped of light. That's how I'd explain it, anyway...
------------------
"Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver" - Edmund Blackadder
BIGmatt
11-24-1999, 05:21 AM
Sorry, that should be SPEED of light, not 'spped' of light...
tracer
11-24-1999, 06:36 PM
tomndebb wrote:
If I want to know how many teeth a horse has, I'll ask my father-in-law the farrier.
He wouldn't necessarily know either, considering a farrier only has to look at a horse's hoofs. (Hooves? What's the damn plural of hoof?)
tomndebb
11-24-1999, 07:56 PM
Ahh! Not so. Most farriers are used as front-line vets, as well as consultant trainers, "surveyors" and a host of other duties. Knowing a horses age (therefore looking at its teeth) plays a big part in knowing how to shoe a particular horse to bring out its best conformation.
(hooves)
------------------
Tom~
David B
11-29-1999, 09:48 AM
Bigmatt: Dark matter is not just something they conjured up, but something that observation and theory have come together on. When scientists look at the gravitational effects, they realize that they cannot be accounted for solely by the "shining" matter. That gravitational effect is real. It is certainly true that we cannot see all matter (if you were a number of light years away, you would not be able to see Earth or any of the other planets -- just the sun). It is also true that there are billions and billions of particles with small mass that we cannot see. Yes, small mass, but with so many of them, they eventually add up to something. If you are interested in learning something about this, I would suggest you read Almost Everyone's Guide to Science by John Gribbin. It's new and tackles some of these questions in layman's terms.
Regarding the speed of light, I know of no scientific theory that postulates a change in the speed of light over time.
David B
11-30-1999, 01:14 PM
Ok, now I know of one scientific theory that says the speed of light used to be faster. In one paper. With no other comments by other scientists yet.
But, gosh, Phaedrus, I thought your mission in life was to ignore me...
hardcore
11-30-1999, 07:00 PM
I am skeptical of Professor Moffat's theory on the link provided above for several reasons. I defer to real physicists about these issues, as I am a rank amateur. The current "inflationary scenario" is described , with the ramifications for "FTL" travel discussed [url=http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-10.html]here (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html]here[/url).
A couple of things from the website seemed a little strange. For example:
John Moffat of the physics department disagrees -- light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes.
Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe would appear to back up his belief.
How's that? The current inflationary scenario seems to explain things well enough without resorting to changes in the speed of light. Then there is also this passage about the edges of the universe being farther apart than light could have travelled:
To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.
Huh? As I understand it, the current theory proposes that more energy resulted when the universe "supercooled" below the critical value without breaking the symmetry between the forces (strong and weak nuclear and electromagnetic). This "extra" energy had a repulsive effect, not some antigravitional matter.
Besides, all we are talking about is a small fraction of a second in the early universe. Something like 10E-35 to 10E-24 seconds after the Big Bang. So I doubt this will help the creationists anyway. Maybe some of the real physicists on this message board could provide some insight.
hardcore
11-30-1999, 07:05 PM
Evidently I don't know how to do the links right yet. They were supposed to be like this:
Current inflationary scenario
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-9.html
Ramifications for "FTL" travel
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-10.html
oh well....
Phaedrus
12-01-1999, 12:36 AM
http://www.spacer.com/spacecast/news/lightspeed-99a.html
BIGmatt
12-01-1999, 05:56 AM
David B-
the only reason that I said that dark matter SEEMED like an excuse to me (spot the emphasis) was because, to my knowledge, there are no solid observations or evidence for it. Under normal circumstances, I'm a natural cynic anyway, but when it comes to physics I tend to be quite open minded. The problem I have with dark matter is that as it is impossible in theory to observe these sub-atomic particles by normal means, it all seems a bit too 'convenient' for my liking. From where I'm standing (sitting?) we're trying to explain phonomena thousands or even millions (or further) of light years away by using laws which were drawn up by observing the 'local' part of our galaxy.
I just think that sometimes new laws have to be made or old ones amended, instead of rigidly trying to wedge everything into (relatively) old laws.
------------------
"Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver" - Edmund Blackadder
David B
12-01-1999, 08:42 AM
But as long as the existing laws work, why try to dream up new ones? We know how gravity works. We know that not all matter "shines." Thus when we see something being affected by gravity but we can't see the source, it is no leap at all to say it is likely being caused by "dark" matter.
As far as your statement that there are no solid observations of dark matter -- I urge you to look at the ground. As I mentioned before, from a long distance away, the Earth is not visible. That makes it dark matter. Do planets and the like make up all the dark matter? I dunno. But they are dark and they are matter, so...
Polycarp
12-01-1999, 09:03 AM
Game, David. The use of "dark matter" in cosmological speculation is simply used to refer to massive quantities of matter which do not shine by their own light (as one might expect that amount of concentrated matter to do, through fusion, gravitational energy, degeneracy pressure, or whatever it is that causes neutron stars to put out gamma rays). Whether it is a massive concentration of asteroids, planets, black dwarfs, black holes, or pink fluffy bunnies or purple fairies (that's where they went to, Gaudere) is immaterial. There are those who assert that they are either concentrations of neutrinos (obvious arguments against that notwithstanding) or "strange" matter (i.e., with non-cancelled strange quarks) which can only be detected by its gravitational pull. I am skeptical of either explanation. But I don't have anything better to offer.
pldennison
12-01-1999, 10:02 AM
There is an article in the Jan. issue of "Sky & Telescope" to the effect that much so-called "dark matter" may be isotopic hydrogen. I don't have it at hand, and haven't read it yet, but when I do, I'll post something about it.
------------------
"I prefer shows of the genre, "World's Blankiest Blank."
At the risk of de-railing this thread completely....
I'm sure you all saw the recent announcement that astronomers have now confirmed the existence of 28 extra-solar planets. Maybe there are enough planets to make up this "dark matter"?
(Well, maybe not. As David pointed out, if there are enough subatomic particles with mass, that would be sufficient. The best candidate so far is the neutrino, which, if it has mass, would account for it all. If someone wants a link, I'll go look for it.)
------------------
Fighting my own ignorance since 1957.
Triskadecamus
12-05-1999, 04:03 AM
From the same bed of 530 year old rock mentioned in my post above, this week, reports are coming out of better preserved specimens of a Chordate life form, (named Haikouella, after a nearby village.) While there is the usual bickering about the precise interpretation of the fossils there seems little doubt that the history of vertebrate life is far longer than we had suspected only a few years ago.
Thanks to the stunning preservation, the researchers could not only discern a heart and a circulatory system in these 3-centimeter fossils, but also some of the hallmarks of chordates, such as a dorsal nerve cord and a notochord, a rod of stiff tissue that provides support along the back of the body. Haikouella also has a puffed-up back that seems to contain segmented muscles--another key chordate feature. What's more, the animal seems to have a relatively large brain, and what appear to be two eyes, suggesting that it may be a very early member of the vertebrates--which would put it somewhere on the first steps of the long road to humans.
Interestingly enough, the eyes and muscles mentioned are the primary points of contention in the arguments about the appropriate placement of this species taxonomically. The neural development described by the discoverers is surprising for this early date.
See this weeks Science Magazine, for more on the discovery.
<P ALIGN="CENTER">Tris</P>
BIGmatt
12-07-1999, 04:11 AM
I doubt very much that the neutrino is the best candidate for all of the supposed 'dark matter' in the Universe. I remember reading somewhere that neutrinos are constantly passing right through the Earth, and travelling at (or very close to) the speed of light.
IF neutinos have a mass, it would have to be almost infinitely small, as any object moving at the speed of light would attain infinite mass, and since anything with infinite mass would fill the entire Universe, this is very unlikely from my point of view.
If someone can show me a clear, scientific, unbiased and independant website which says that neutrinos have (even an infinitesimal) amount of mass, then I MIGHT JUST be inclined to believe that dark matter could be accounted for by neutrinos. This is an explanation that I would like to believe, because to me, dark matter cannot be simply a load of rocks floating around out there. Or black holes (unless something miraculously enlightening turns up in one of the 'Black holes'-related debates).
------------------
"Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver" - Edmund Blackadder
David B
12-07-1999, 08:51 AM
Matt said:I doubt very much that the neutrino is the best candidate for all of the supposed 'dark matter' in the Universe.I don't know that anybody said it was the "best candidate for all" dark matter. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that you are standing on "dark matter" but you seem to keep missing that point. It is, however, a candidate for some of the dark matter.
IF neutinos have a mass, it would have to be almost infinitely small, as any object moving at the speed of light would attain infinite mass, and since anything with infinite mass would fill the entire Universe, this is very unlikely from my point of view.Er, where do you get the idea that anything of infinite mass would fill the entire universe? Some of the heaviest things we know of are also amongst the smallest (the singularity inside a black hole, for example, or a neutron star, which is estimated to weigh about a billion tons per cubic centimeter). And, yes, they are thought to have a very small mass. But you know, if you have lots and lots of things with very small mass, they can eventually add up. And there are lots and lots of neutrinos around. To give you an idea of how many: "about 70 billion neutrinos produced by nuclear reactions inside the Sun pass through every square centimeter of Earth (and you) every second." - Almost Everyone's Guide to Science, by John Gribbin.If someone can show me a clear, scientific, unbiased and independant website which says that neutrinos have (even an infinitesimal) amount of mass, then I MIGHT JUST be inclined to believe that dark matter could be accounted for by neutrinos.Unbiased and independent from what? Is there a neutrino conpsiracy out there?
I don't have a website handy, but I think pretty much all particle physicists agree that neutrinos have a very small mass. I'll see what I can find if I have time. [/quote] This is an explanation that I would like to believe, because to me, dark matter cannot be simply a load of rocks floating around out there. [/quote]And we all know that physics is based on what Matt can believe...
Triskadecamus
12-07-1999, 10:51 AM
Scientists Discover That Neutrinos Have Mass (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980605080658.htm)
<P ALIGN="CENTER">Tris</P>
David B
12-07-1999, 11:06 AM
Thanks, Tris.
I see they announced this result at "Neutrino '98." Wow, do these guys know how to party or what? ;)
Actually, I said that neutrinos were the best candidate for "dark matter", or, "missing matter," which may be a better term: It's the matter we can't find to explain the fact that galaxies behave as if they weigh more than they appear to.
Something on that article tris cited that caught my eye: A detector in Ohio caught some neutrinos from that supernova that was seen in 1987, and they did so more than ten years before that 1998 article was written, which means the neutrinos were detected in 1988 or before, which means the neutrinos got here shortly after the light of the supernova did.
Which means neutrinos travel at near the speed of light, right?
(But how did they know those particular neutrinos came from that supernova and not somewhere else?)
(And if you wanna know "What supernova? I didn't see any supernova in 1987!" it's because that supernova is in one of the Magellanic Clouds, two small satellite galaxies which are visible south of the Equator only, and which are named after Ferdinand Magellan.)
tracer
12-07-1999, 08:19 PM
Personally, I'm guessing that most dark matter will be in the form of brown dwarfs. We've only detected one so far (Gliese 229B), but I'll betcha dollars to donut-holes that these things are more common than Fundamentalists on the Kansas schoolboard.
------------------
"Love 'em, fear 'em, and leave 'em alone." -- Dr. Spockiavelli
Triskadecamus
12-07-1999, 08:52 PM
The detectors for neutrinos that are in operation in several locations in the world are directional. (Yeah, right, a bathtub full of fluid is directional. Uh, huh.) Computer evaluations of the cascade of particulate interactions are examined to determine the direction from which the neutrino came. Analysis of directional information from disparate locations is a fairly accurate triangulation.
Neutrinos have only very small masses, and the forces in a Supernova are extraordinary. The combination does accelerate them to very close to relativistic velocities. It may be the case that there are other neutrinos that are not moving so fast. Detecting them would be very difficult, with our current technology. If the high-energy neutrinos we are able to detect are only a small portion of the total, the combined mass could be a very significant percentage of the mass of the universe.
Or not.
<P ALIGN="CENTER">Tris</P>
------------------
CABBAGE, n. A familiar kitchen-garden vegetable about as large and wise as a man's head.
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?)
BIGmatt
12-08-1999, 06:07 AM
I quote David B -
"And we all know that physics is based on what Matt can believe..."
Well well well, we DO have a moody little one here don't we? Did I ever even IMPLY that I was basing all of physics on my beliefs? Did I ONCE say that I would not accept any other viewpoints because 'I am always right'? Oh look... NO!
David - since 'infinite' refers to a concept which means 'without end' and yes, I accept that a black hole may HYPOTHETICALLY have 'infinite' density, it does not have INFINITE mass. If anything had infinite mass, it would have mass 'without end' - eg enough mass to fill up the entire Universe. Do you understand now?
By the way, I didn't 'miss the point' when you said the earth and other planets were 'dark matter', I just didn't respond to it because I thought (mistakenly, obviously) you were trying to contribute something constructive to the debate (which, at the time, I thought you did).
Enough of that, I don't enjoy defending myself from verbal (textal?) abuse.
I don't personally believe based on the available scientific evidence and astronomical observations (good enough, David?) that there are enough planets/asteroids etc. to make up 80% of the matter in the Universe (as the astrophysicists say dark matter must). I accept that they may contribute to this 'hidden' matter, but when you consider the mass of a single star (for example - our Sun) to even the biggest planet in our solar system - Jupiter - there is no doubt that it would take a hell of a lot of planets to make up that amount of matter.
Just one small request - David - if you disagree with me in the future (or vice versa) could you please put something constructive in the debate and reserve flaming me to email - you're more than welcome to put as much abuse as you want in that, should you feel the need!
On another note - thanks for informing me, Tris, that neutrinos have mass. At last - I can see the light... (fades into distance).
------------------
"Now be quiet before I rather clumsily knight you with this meat cleaver" - Edmund Blackadder
David B
12-08-1999, 08:56 AM
Good show, Matt. Ignore everything I've said to you except a couple of sarcastic lines I threw in when I got tired of you ignoring all the things I posted to you or you making untrue blanket statements! Wow. You sure showed me.
BIGmatt
12-15-1999, 05:36 AM
Hmmm.
WallyM7
12-15-1999, 05:51 AM
I don't see why we have to limit dark matter to only one species.
The missing matter may well be a combo of neutrinos, brown dwarfs, singularities and something we haven't even heard of.
Could be. Maybe. Possibly.
------------------
It's immoral to allow a sucker to keep his money.
If we could get back to the OP, I thought you'd might like to see what a Darwin Fish may have looked like: www.personal.u-net.com/~paleomod/p97/aca-intr.htm (http://www.personal.u-net.com/~paleomod/p97/aca-intr.htm) It's the analysis of the fossils of Acanthostega gunnari, an amphibian that lived in the Devonian period. It looks for all the world like the "Darwin Fish" logo you may have seen and which I have adopted.
And you could look at paintings of feathered dinosaurs here: www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey/ (http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey/)
------------------
>< DARWIN >
____L___L__
David B
12-22-1999, 05:00 PM
I dunno, Jab, I don't see the letters "DARWIN" on that picture anywhere!
;)
Phaedrus
12-29-1999, 06:17 PM
Now they are postulating "brown dwarfs"?
That sounds racist to me. :(
AND, making funny of the height-challenged!
;)
tracer
12-29-1999, 06:29 PM
Heck, where've you been Phaedrus? ;) Brown dwarfs have been the subject of astrophysical speculation for decades. Gliese 229B was first detected 'way back in 1995. They're called that because they emit a little bit of light, so they're not black dwarfs, but they give off a heck of a lot less light than white dwarfs do.
I'd personally like to see a brown dwarf survey undertaken. The sun might have neighbors a lot closer than Proxima Centauri!
------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
tracer
12-30-1999, 02:24 PM
Oh, and despite having "dwarf" in their name, brown dwarfs are not made of super-dense degenerate matter (like white dwarfs and the hypothetical black dwarfs are).
Unfortunately, stellar astronomers also use the term "dwarf" to mean "main-sequence star", so tiny Proxima Centauri, the sun, and even the massive star Sirius all qualify as "dwarfs". Calling an average-sized specimen a "dwarf" sounds like penis envy to me.
------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Polycarp
12-30-1999, 02:46 PM
I don't see the letters "DARWIN" on that picture anywhere
That's because it's in Adamic script, like they used before the deluge! ;)
Phaedrus
12-31-1999, 02:22 AM
Good one, Poly! :)
200th post...WooHoo only 805 to go to catch the Flat Earth thread. Think it'll make it? ;)
BIGmatt
01-05-2000, 06:22 AM
Tracer -
If brown dwarfs aren't made of the leftovers of a supernova (like white/black dwarfs) then what the hell ARE they made of? I'll admit that I'd heard of brown dwarfs (dwarves?) but I assumed that they were what happened when a white dwarf had radiated out almost all of it's energy.
I'm not entirely sure whether I've missed the point completely here but if I'm sort-of-on-the-right-track then what the hell are they?
------------------
"You can have the afternoon off when you die" - Edmund Blackadder
tracer
01-05-2000, 08:49 PM
For one, white dwarfs (and the hypothetical black dwarfs) aren't the remnants of a supernova, they're the remnants of a red giant. Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovae.
For another, no, despite having "dwarf" in their name, neither brown dwarfs, nor red dwarfs, nor luminosity class V "dwarfs", nor luminosity class VI sub-dwarfs, are stellar remnants.
Brown dwarfs are in fact "failed stars", like Jupiter only bigger. They collapsed from an interstellar cloud of gas and dust like full-blown stars did, but were just too darn lightweight to ignite stable thermonuclear reactions in their cores. They "shine" very very dimly because they're slooooooowly contracting over gazillions of years, which heats them up a little bit. (There may also be some radioactive materials in their cores which contribute to the heat, but most of it is due to gravitational collapse.)
These objects are theoretically more numerous than even the garden-variety red dwarf stars littering space throughout the galaxy. A brown dwarf may have up to 8% of the Sun's mass and still not be able to ignite. This could very well account for all the "dark matter" in the galaxy.
royalbill
01-06-2000, 01:21 AM
Sounds like intersteller racism to me...
Sorry, could not resist.
BIGmatt
01-26-2000, 06:15 AM
Where the hell did the original debate go???
Am I the only one who's noticed this? :confused:
------------------
"You can have the afternoon off when you die" - Edmund Blackadder
BIGmatt
01-26-2000, 06:17 AM
Please disregard the above posting, I just realised that the original debate's just at the top of this page.
------------------
"You can have the afternoon off when you die" - Edmund Blackadder
Forgive me if this has already been covered, but I had two questions for YEC's:
1.) Why do galaxies rotate?
2.) How do you explain the observed phenomena of protein homology?
-Ben
BIGmatt
02-02-2000, 06:32 AM
I can try to shed some light on to your first question 'why do galaxies rotate?' but I can't help with the second one.
From my understanding, galaxies rotate because of loads of poorly understood physical concepts that are applied to situations where they seem appropriate. Astrophysicists argue that gravitational pull cause spotaneous rotation, but I find this hard to understand.
Why should something falling inwards have any rotational motion at all? This question also applies to the formation of the Solar System. According to what I've seen/read, the formation of the Solar System from a spinning disc of matter around an early proto-Sun cannot explain the formation of the outer planets.
DrMatrix? Are you out there to wave the beam of knowledge through this cloud of utter...
Well, you get the idea. But I do need someone to explain this problem to me, because it's been bugging me for a while now.
------------------
"You can have the afternoon off when you die" - Edmund Blackadder
I don't know if I can explain why galaxies rotate (not sure I even know), but I hope to shed some light on why rotation arises.
Why should something falling inwards have any rotational motion at all?
Depends on your definition of "inwards". If you mean "moving directly towards the center of gravity of the system, with no initial velocity component perpendicular to a line from the falling body to the center of gravity of the system and no forces tending to perturb the motion away from that line" then, yes, there would be no rotational motion. But that situation is incredibly unlikely.
Every body that is moving relative to whatever reference frame you choose has both a speed and a direction. Because the equations are linear with respect to the appropriate variables, we can consider that speed and direction as the sum of any number of speeds and directions that add up to the correct total speed and direction. It's usually most convenient to consider two speeds and directions, one parallel to the line joining the moving body to the origin of the reference frame and one perpendicular to that line. And, just for convenience, pick the origin of the reference frame at the center of gravity of the system.
Angular momentum, in the absence of suitable external forces, is conserved. If the moving body initially has a non-zero speed perpendicular to the line connecting the body to the center of gravity of the system, then it will have an angular momentum. As the radius decreases, the rotational velocity must increase to maintain constant angular momentum.
Also, unless the distribution of matter is exactly homogeneous, as the body moves "inward" it will experience changes in the direction and magnitude of the total gravitational force. These changes can increase or decrease the rotation, but of all possible changes most of them increase the rotation. A random applied force has an equal chance of increasing or decreasing the rotation, but since the body is already moving the forces that increase the rotation tend to increase themselves, because for such forces the body must be moving generally towards the source of the force that increases the rotation.
This is, admittedly, a bit of arm-waving. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good thought experiment right now, and the equations for as few as three bodies interacting are so hairy the we've never found a general solution. I do know that people have run computer simulations of large numbers of massive particles, with random initial velocities and gravitational interactions, and there's a strong tendency for the system to wind up rotating. You might want to look at Galaxy Transformations (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/barnes/transform.html) or Cosmos in Fast Forward (http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmosInFF.html)
------------------
jrf
Czarcasm
02-02-2000, 07:45 AM
Is it true that galaxies rotate clockwise if they are above the equator, and counter-clockwise if they are below?
Is it true that you can balance a galaxy on its head on a certain day each year?
sqweels
02-07-2000, 10:28 PM
Aircraft are the product of intellignt design, yet they evolved. Like the Wright Brothers, God first had to test basic design elements out in the real world before combining them into more complex design that, at first, can just barely function. After much experience, those that can keep cooking along become the basis for improved designs which become more divere as different needs and opportunities become apparant to the Designer. Vital elements are preserved but made more efficient to accomdate new innovations like a centralized control system and circulating energy source. Then the thing became computerized and the computers had be programmed, again acording tp past experience. Let's just speculate that God has been somehow progamming DNA step by step, but that He isn't so magical that He could insantaneously design, test, and revise each of the vast numbers of design elements in the plant and amimal kingdoms--all in virtual reality--and then actually build only finished designs. God has infinite patience, and given the millions of species evolving simultaneously, cut Him some slack. If it took God 4 billion years of hard work then He might appreciate you acknowledging it.
DrFidelius
02-08-2000, 10:16 AM
So, "Omniscient" and "Omnipotent" means that He couldn't get it right from the beginning?
------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Zu diesem Projekt ist derzeit noch kein Abstract verfügbar.
Liberal
02-08-2000, 10:24 AM
What "beginning"?
---
A Flatlander tries to measure a "line". It keeps winding back to where he started. Scratching his head, he asks, "Where does this thing begin?"
tracer
02-08-2000, 03:01 PM
And sqweels, what does DNA have to do with aircraft? (Oh, wait, you were only making an analogy.)
Liberal
02-08-2000, 03:20 PM
Fair enough, Doctor.
I suppose I was a bit gunshy from the weird argument I've seen around that if God is bot omniscient and omnipotent, man cannot have free will. I see that your observation holds in the case of sqweels, but as you can see by the Flatlander, it does not hold generally.
Sorry.
DrFidelius
02-08-2000, 03:31 PM
I don't know nuthin' about no Free Wills. You may notice that I decline to participate in those threads.
I do have a very poorly reasoned concept of the Free Will / Predestination question that I do not have the terminology to express clearly. Basically, if I believe I have freedom of thought and action, and all observers in my frame of reference agree with that, then for any human intent or purpose I am not an automaton.
Not that this has anything to do with the "God as R&D department" idea.
Originally posted by sqweels:
If it took God 4 billion years of hard work then He might appreciate you acknowledging it.
On the other hand, if it took Marduk a massive battle against Tiamat, He might like a little appreciation from *you.*
I should also point out that the question was addressed specifically to young-earth creationists.
-Ben
DrFidelius
02-09-2000, 12:58 AM
Lib:
When sqweels' God... first had to test basic design elements out in the real world before combining them into more complex design that, at first, can just barely function.
I find that to be an odd limitation for a Supreme Being.
sqweels
02-10-2000, 01:14 AM
Seriously. I submit that God is not 100% omnipotent and omnicient, and perhaps it's rather presumtuous to assume that He is. If God knows everything that's going to happen before anything happens, then what's the point in making it happen? The entire history of the universe would be instantaneous! (sort of like relationships these days) I think God is having fun watching events unfold. And learning, yes, God [i]learns[/].
Triskadecamus
02-10-2000, 02:21 AM
Ok, this is going to be a long one, but really, it is not all that hard to follow. (assuming for the moment that I get it right, of course)
<P ALIGN="CENTER">Why do Galaxies rotate? </P>
Start with a very large number of gas molecules, monatomic hydrogen, a dash of Helium, some ions, free electrons, and just a sprinkle of heavier atoms, all drifting over a very large volume. For the sake of simplicity we will consider our volume to be remote enough from other things to be dealt with as isolated over galaxy lifetimes. The entire cloud is very chaotic, the individual particles acting independently, and moving randomly.
There does exist a point which is the mathematical center of mass of the cloud. All of the particles are attracted to the center of mass, some are moving away from it with more than escape velocity. Those do escape, or interact with other particles, and either do, or don't retain escape velocity. Among all the chaos, as certain portion of the material does not escape, and therefore, must orbit the mass.
Considered from the center of mass, an infinite number of axises (sp?) can be drawn through the center of mass. For each such axis there are two possibilities: the cloud has a net angular momentum of zero, or not zero. Probability is not overwhelmingly in favor of non-zero, but the existence of any non zero value with respect to any axis is sufficient to allow the next evolutionary step. One axis has the greatest magnitude of angular momentum. The mathematics of this whipped me for a week or so, and I am not up to trying to provide proof. The coincidence of a huge cloud of particles, all moving, and no angular momentum on any axis is really very unlikely.
The local gravity (with respect to the particles within the cloud) is sufficient to overcome outside gravity forces, and is all aligned to the center of the cloud. The particles will interact as they orbit, and the interactions will tend to cause several things to happen. Objects further out from the center will be more consistently attracted toward the center as they are far away, and will accelerate. They will be subject to forces for longer during the outer portions of their orbit, and by a larger number of other particles. The orbits will "regularize" as that happens over time, and become more circular.
Objects in orbital planes at an angle other than 90 to the axis will pass by more objects "below" them as they cover half of their orbit, and more "above" them during the other half, and will interact in a manner which transfers their angular momentum into the plane of the ecliptic more often than out of it. Objects passing near the center of the cloud will have an increasing chance of collision, and close capture with other particles, and aggregates of particles. The interactions of the more massive aggregates will be more common along the ecliptic, and toward the center of the cloud.
As this all happens, the very small rotational speed will gradually increase, just like the old physics class experiment with the kids on the merry-go-round. It will never get all that rapid, only three or four times each billion years. But the overall effect is relentless, and cumulative. The spiral galaxy effect generally is caused by interactions between galaxies, or at least strongly affected by them. The rotation of gas clouds within the galaxies result from the same forces, and end up making the much smaller objects like stars, and planets spin very fast. One planet I know of spins around once a day!
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> Tris </P>
------------------
"Can you do addition?" the White Queen asked. "What's one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one?" "I don't know," said Alice. "I lost count."
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
tracer
02-10-2000, 01:02 PM
Ben wrote:
On the other hand, if it took Marduk a massive battle against Tiamat, He might like a little appreciation from *you.*
You know, Gaea and Uranus have been awfully pissed at us for ignoring them all this time. And Heimdall has been soooooo patient guarding the Rainbow Bridge into Asgard against attack, you'd thing you could say "thanks" once in a while! ;)
Ok, this is going to be a long one, but really, it is not all that hard to follow. (assuming for the moment that I get it right, of course)
Pretty good. Just a couple of minor nits. The plural of "axis" is "axes". To be formal about angular momentum, it's a vector quantity that is independent of your coordinate system. There are always a few coordinate systems in which one or two of the components parallel to the axes are zero, but either the magnitude of the angular momentum vector is zero or it isn't, no matter how you measure it.
To introduce another way of looking at it, the angular momentum can only be zero if the sum of all the cross products of velocity vectors with their corresponding radus vectors is zero. It's kind of like starting on a particular street corner and taking a very large number of steps of random length in random directions (a "drunkard's walk" that has been analyzed to death in the study of probability). In this analogy, having zero angular momentum in a galaxy corresponds to winding up exactly where you started walking.
------------------
jrf
Dalai
06-15-2013, 05:41 PM
I consider evolution to be fact; therefore, I conclude creationism (of man) is wrong.
Airplanes fly because of science, but I can not disprove God.
Science has helped us peer into the depths of space to the near beginning of the Universe. God hasn't said "Hello" to me.
Some would say that God has said "Hello" by virtue of the world around me. To those I would say that I believe in the world around me.
If God chooses to allow the atrocities I have learned of to continue, I think I'd like to believe that there is no omnipotent, omniscient God.
I don't believe the expression, "God works in mysterious ways" is from the bible.
Bozuit
06-15-2013, 05:59 PM
Dalai, you just re-opened a 13 year old thread on one of the least debatable topics posted in this forum.
Any minute now all our parents are going to swoop in and ask how zombies evolve.
Mangetout
06-15-2013, 06:06 PM
I don't believe the expression, "God works in mysterious ways" is from the bible.
No, it's probably a paraphrase of an 18th century hymn by William Cowper.
However, there are passages in the book of Psalms that describe God as 'unfathomable', etc. So the idea is there in the Bible, even if the exact wording isn't.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.