NationStates Jolt Archive

Such a procedure would be fine. I mean, assuming an average yearly deposit, and assuming that the same rate has held relatively constant, then one could come up with a figure based on this calculation. But then one has to assume that no other contributions have been made to this rate in the past. We would have to make assumptions without knowing the history. We would have to assume that there are no other natural forces that could have contributed to make the estimation older than it really was. My argument is that such assumptions do not amount to proof, or even evidence. Particularly if other effects can be demonstrated, or even argued to have played a role. At best, we could come away from the procedure with a rather tentative figure. To assume that the figure must be the truth would not be cautious at all. It is sad to see that caution thrown to the wind.
Hence margins of errors. And looking for evidence of anything other than process of gradual accumlation being a factor. As well as taking multiple samples, and comparing them.

It's as good an answer as can be arrived at.


Science is filled with examples of rates that have been miscalculated. That doesn't bother anyone, because science is always adjusting itself, and hopefully getting closer to the truth. So why do we assume that our rate calculations are currently correct? We shouldn't, obviously. Neither should we assume the world is old simply because of a bunch of rate calculations. Rather, we should be saying, 'The world might be old, or it might not be.'
The rates might be off, but not by sufficient orders of magnitude as to allow 6000 years to arrive at an ages of billions.

Especially as independent ageing mechanisms give mutually verifying results.

You say the same assumptions underpin these, like uniformitarianism. Tell me then, how can that assumption allow all the various forms of dating to give the same results? They all work on different mechanisms. Mechanisms which are always observed to be constant. Always, even to the millionth of a second.

You can, I suppose, appeal to the supernatural to explain away how these constant effects can be a lot higher in the past. But then the results of that should also be obvious. If radioactivity was higher in the past, sufficiently higher to give an age orders of magnitude longer than "reality". Then why was the earth not sterilised by the massive amount of radiation that must have bathed it? Or buried under mountains of silt and ash? Or why was life able to exist when digestive enzymes should have eaten people from the inside out?

It does not work.


That's hopeless, Grave. If you were right, then naturalism could never generate a hypothesis either. The fact is that we cannot observe apes turning into humans (even if it's because we don't live long enough), and yet the hypothesis is there. But not because of such an observation. Why don't you think about what you are saying?
We can observe that creatures evolve over time, thus (due to our uniforitarian assumptions) we can predict that this happened in the past. And we can see that the fossil record agrees with this. As does analysis of genetics. As does human history, where we have inadvertently changed species to be more useful to use. That's a little more than creationists can do.

How is that different from evolutionary theory? For example, how would one falsify the idea that radiodating can be used to date the earth? We have no way of doing that.
Show that the decay rates of atomic nuclei is variable. Or at least that it is not based on probability.

Thus, the idea of an old earth relies on indirect measurements, meaning that the data always has to be interpreted. Such old age cannot be observed.
I would call looking at the evidence observation. Otherwise we cannot observe an atom. We just assume they exist due to our uniformitarian presumptions, or something.


And your position doesn't look good. Let me summerise what your evidence for the evolutionary theory and old ages seems to be:
This should be fun.

1. The experts all seem to agree on evolution being right
(Even if they can't agree on how it happened--which looks suspiciously like an 'evolution did it' explanation. It is also an argument of the 'majority must be right'.)
Strawman. We can observe evolution without fully understanding all of the intricacies of how the various mechanisms interact, and the patterns that emerge from them. Not "evolution did it".

2. The experts using various methods in various disciplines all seem to agree with an old earth
(Although that isn't too hard to explain, given that they are all using similar assumptions, regardless of the method or the discipline.)
You have not explained how it is possible for assumptions to affect the data.


3. The interpretations of the data seems to agree with each other, i.e., it fits.
(Despite the fact that scientists work in a community and are always looking over each other's shoulder in order to get there estimates to agree. That doesn't mean they are dishonest, but that they simply want their conclusions to be acceptable to the general community.)
Looking over each others shoulder to point out errors in methodology. Not in data. This would lead to less bias, not more.

4. Only science based on observation can be considered real science. And because creationism includes a creation event that cannot be observed (because it is in the past), it cannot be science.
(And as I have just pointed out, much of evolutionary theory cannot be based on observation, but rather the extrapolation of microevolution into macroevolution. Thus, by your judgment, such an extrapolation cannot be science, because macroevolution cannot be observed. It is also stuck in the past.)

Creationism realies on creation. A single on off event that cannot be repeated. This is vastly different from something that is continuous to this day, and can be observed and measured. And which has evidence of happening in the past.

That Atum guy scares the hell out of me.
Well, if you had read the bible, its god-dude should scare the hell out of you.

That Atum guy scares the hell out of me.

The Egyptian pantheon contains many more interesting characters. Like Osiris - who was chopped into bits, revived by his wife- but without his manhood. Which was therefor replaced by a wooden one (one hopes he did not get splinters).
Well worth the read. As are the gods of the Olympus and Valhalla. The Hindu gods for some reason do not appeal to me so much :(

The Egyptian pantheon contains many more interesting characters. Like Osiris - who was chopped into bits, revived by his wife- but without his manhood. Which was therefor replaced by a wooden one (one hopes he did not get splinters).
Well worth the read. As are the gods of the Olympus and Valhalla. The Hindu gods for some reason do not appeal to me so much :(What about the Sumerian/Mesopotamian pantheon? With Enlil, Inanna, etc and especially Enki who the Jews reduced to their Yahweh?

Quickly, someone kill this thread with fire.

Quickly, someone kill this thread with fire.

It's far too late for that, friend.

Quickly, someone kill this thread with fire.Will that extinguish the Creationists?

Quickly, someone kill this thread with fire.

Fire bad. Tree pretty.

What about the Sumerian/Mesopotamian pantheon? With Enlil, Inanna, etc and especially Enki who the Jews reduced to their Yahweh?

I like their flaws. I also agree with the notion voiced by Enlil that humanity makes too much noise ;)

Will that extinguish the Creationists?

flaming creationist. LOL

flaming creationist. LOLare there others?

are there others?

I know its like pointing out a bear shits in the woods, but still funny.

flaming creationist. LOL

Interesting imagery...

If I'm not wrong, it was Moses who saw the first flaming creationist :p

If I'm not wrong, it was Moses who saw the first flaming creationist :p

What? A tree?

What? A tree?

we did not evolve from algae!!!

we did not evolve from algae!!!

How do we know? How do we know? I mean... I've been known to spend unusually amounts of time in water just floating; that can't be natural...

How do we know? How do we know? I mean... I've been known to spend unusually amounts of time in water just floating; that can't be natural...

*snaps out of it*
Sorry, I put myself in the perspective of a really patroic, freedom loving, tree.
because any other tree is a godless communist.

*snaps out of it*
Sorry, I put myself in the perspective of a really patroic, freedom loving, tree.
because any other tree is a godless communist.

You're racist against the Maple! Your horrid Birch! :p

You're racist against the Maple! Your horrid Birch! :p

My granddady gave his life to make george washington's desk.

My granddady gave his life to make george washington's desk.?? Did he make it out of his own bones, or what? And how old is your granddaddy anyways?

?? Did he make it out of his own bones, or what? And how old is your granddaddy anyways?

Read more above.

My granddady gave his life to make george washington's desk.

He was a sellout. My granddaddy gave his life to be a pillar in the House of Commons. :)

?? Did he make it out of his own bones, or what? And how old is your granddaddy anyways?

*listens to the whoosh as the joke goes over your head*

;) read a couple of posts up.

He was a sellout. My granddaddy gave his life to be a pillar in the House of Commons. :)


pssh, My great uncle killed chief sequoia. that big, godless, native deserved what he got.

pssh, My great uncle killed chief sequoia. that big, godless, native deserved what he got.

Uprooted himself in disgust did he? ;) couldn't take another round of bad rain dance music?

(this is meant to be funny, not to offend)

I'm kind of half expecting, half hoping that eventually Bru will come back to the thread going "Gotcha! Man, I really had you guys going. Can you believe that bullshit I was typing? I feel dirty, I'm gonna go wash up. Evolution ftw, peeps."

I'm kind of half expecting, half hoping that eventually Bru will come back to the thread going "Gotcha! Man, I really had you guys going. Can you believe that bullshit I was typing? I feel dirty, I'm gonna go wash up. Evolution ftw, peeps."

Wishful thinking my dear.

Read more above.Oh boy, I'm gonna tell Treebeard....

Oh boy, I'm gonna tell Treebeard....

And what's he going to do? Talk sagely and muse for eons while the rest of us party? :D

And what's he going to do? Talk sagely and muse for eons while the rest of us party? :DI'll make you his Entwife.

I'll make you his Entwife.

:eek:

I think that God created the world. If you believe in Evolution then here is a question for YOU... if you believe in evolution then how come we still have monkeys, fungus, ect in the world and zoos? Why don't we just let monkeys walk around in New York, New York or something???:headbang:

I think that God created the world. If you believe in Evolution then here is a question for YOU... if you believe in evolution then how come we still have monkeys, fungus, ect in the world and zoos? Why don't we just let monkeys walk around in New York, New York or something???:headbang:

... Because they aren't intelligent. Honestly, does it really need a better explanation?

I think that God created the world. If you believe in Evolution then here is a question for YOU... if you believe in evolution then how come we still have monkeys, fungus, ect in the world and zoos? Why don't we just let monkeys walk around in New York, New York or something???:headbang:

Obviously you've never read a book.

I'll make you his Entwife.

:eek:

Beautiful. Sigged.

I think that God created the world. If you believe in Evolution then here is a question for YOU... if you believe in evolution then how come we still have monkeys, fungus, ect in the world and zoos? Why don't we just let monkeys walk around in New York, New York or something???:headbang:

Because monkeys are too smart to live in New York.

Seriously though, evolution is rather like the economy: if there isn't demand for your product, or if somebody else if already meeting that demand and doing it better than you, then you're screwed. Imagine a teenager trying to start a business making lemonade when the factory next door was making cheaper and better lemonade in larger quantities; the teenager wouldn't have a hope.

Now apply that analogy to monkeys. Monkeys are well adapted to their current habitat, and gaining more human characteristics (losing their tails or fur for example) would make them less likely to survive and so natural selection would select against them if they continued to compete against other monkeys. If they started building supermarkets then they'd find themselves in competition with humans and we've had much more practice at being human than they have. They've found their niche in the market/environment so there's not much evolutionary pressure for change.

This is a horribly over-simplified explanation but I hope it conveys the general idea. We didn't evolve from monkeys by the way, we share a common ancestor with them.

I think that God created the world. If you believe in Evolution then here is a question for YOU... if you believe in evolution then how come we still have monkeys, fungus, ect in the world and zoos? Why don't we just let monkeys walk around in New York, New York or something???:headbang:

Just because some evolved, doesn't mean all have to. It's part of the delicate environment around us. Everything has a purpose and if we take away anything, we lose part of that which makes up the world. We need different types of creatures to perform different functions. Evolution says that some stuff becomes 'more intelligent' while others maintain basic functions.

You've heard the saying, "too many chiefs and not enough Indians"? The same could be applied here. If you don't have a natural system of hierarchy, where each animal or creature has its part, life would not exist as it does.

Some primates didn't evolve because they didn't have to, while others evolved because their surroundings made it possible; it was either evolve or die off.

Further, we don't have wild animals roaming the streets because it would be a danger to us and to them.

Hence margins of errors. And looking for evidence of anything other than process of gradual accumlation being a factor. As well as taking multiple samples, and comparing them.

It's as good an answer as can be arrived at.

There are two sources for margin of error. One is with the actual measurement of radiation. The other is with the estimation of age in years of the sample. I don't have much problem with the measurement. That seems to be rather straightforward, from what I have understood of the methods used, although it will generate a range of numbers, a large error margin. Reducing that error margin involves comparing the range with another range generated from a replicate, or measuring a different isotope with a different half-life. But that doesn't ensure that the date is true, only that it is one's best guess, within the limitations of the methodology.

However, the assumptions that the rates are always constant, that there were no daughter products to begin with, and that there was no leakage or contamination of the sample are all rather hefty assumptions. Multiple samples won't confirm these assumptions, except for maybe the leakage one in some situations. But a creation scenario would mean that God could have created the rocks, rather than they being formed from molten lava billions of years ago. In a creation scenario, why would you expect God to have only created the parent isotope and not the daughter isotopes? What would be the difference between a rock that is created, and one that is formed from natural processes? Actually, we don't know, because we cannot predict what God would have done in that situation. We can and do make predictions about rocks that are formed from natural processes, and if we assume only natural processes, then the dating of the rocks is probably quite accurate in that hypothetical scenario. But it cannot rule out creation, and thus it cannot be used to prove that the world is old.



The rates might be off, but not by sufficient orders of magnitude as to allow 6000 years to arrive at an ages of billions.

Especially as independent ageing mechanisms give mutually verifying results.


That's not really my argument. Generating the data is simply measuring the radiation and determining the ratio of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes. That the various methods agree with each other is just another way of saying that the methodology is the same. Most of the time, the data is quite varied, so part of the methodology is to use the various radiodating isotopes, as you have suggested. But they are not as independent as you suggested, since they all involve ratios of parent to daughter isotopes, and thus all require similar assumptions.

Generally, the measurements are quite varied as to disallow 'blind dating'. The measurements that are selected are those that appear to agree. So if one isotope generates a range of numbers, the favourite one is selected based on how well it matches numbers derived from other isotopes. This is the process of selection. That is how one arrives at mutually verifying results. But it can hardly be said to prove an old earth.


You say the same assumptions underpin these, like uniformitarianism. Tell me then, how can that assumption allow all the various forms of dating to give the same results? They all work on different mechanisms. Mechanisms which are always observed to be constant. Always, even to the millionth of a second.


That radioactive elements decay is not in question here. Rather, when dates are selected on the basis of being consistent with uniformitarianism, that is how they all appear to agree with each other. It's not like you shove the powdered rock in the oven and 5 min later, BINGO, you have your ratio that is calculated into years. The numbers are all carefully selected to fit with the explanation. Any measurement that would appear to give a very young age are discarded as 'noise', because, as everyone knows, the world must be very old.


You can, I suppose, appeal to the supernatural to explain away how these constant effects can be a lot higher in the past. But then the results of that should also be obvious. If radioactivity was higher in the past, sufficiently higher to give an age orders of magnitude longer than "reality". Then why was the earth not sterilised by the massive amount of radiation that must have bathed it? Or buried under mountains of silt and ash? Or why was life able to exist when digestive enzymes should have eaten people from the inside out?

It does not work.


No, it such a scenario does not work, I agree. But that is because you are constructing a strawman. Your reasoning in the first several paragraphs was ok, but here you seem to have degenerated into something that appears ridiculous. Probably because it is ridiculous. My reasons have nothing to do with God magically playing around with radioactive decay rates. I only need to use natural explanations to show how human estimates can easily get things wrong. No need to invoke God there. And part of the problem is that humans seem to want the world to be old.

But I have to say, I don't understand why the earth would have to be sterilised by the massive radiation. Chernobyl is still one very fertile place, even if many plants and animals there are mutating at higher rates. And what is with the mountains of silt and ash? And what is with the digestive enzymes killing people? Sorry, I can't read your mind here.


We can observe that creatures evolve over time, thus (due to our uniforitarian assumptions) we can predict that this happened in the past. And we can see that the fossil record agrees with this. As does analysis of genetics. As does human history, where we have inadvertently changed species to be more useful to use. That's a little more than creationists can do.


Creatures do evolve over time, through mutation and natural selection. Such processes are generally accepted, because we can observe them. The uniformitarian assumptions simply mean that we would predict this happening over long periods of time, even when we weren't around to see it happening. But the idea that the current rates of mutation and evolution would be enough to generate all the variation and complexity found in the world today is certainly not observable. There simply isn't any examples of macroevolution. No new biochemical pathways involving multiple enzymes complete with regulation at transcription, translation, trafficking, folding, or function have been discovered in any organism. All the ones that we have worked with appear to have already been there. They are new in the sense that we newly discovered them, but not new in the sense that they have evolved. But neither would we expect that, because today's mutation rate is too slow (thankfully, or we would have all been extinct a long time ago). The important point here is that these new systems cannot be observed. We have only observed slight modifications in the old systems. Thus macroevolution cannot be directly observed. Thus, one must resort to the fossil record.

Does the fossil record support macroevolution? It most certainly does not. All the fossils seem to appear suddenly, and the species are mostly conserved, and do not show a regular evolution into new species. The Cambrian explosion is a good example of this. It's called an explosion because there doesn't seem to be any precursors. Of course, evolutionary theory can explain why one might not see the precursors, but direct evidence for these explanations is missing. Only the explanation fills the gap, with such ideas as punctuated equilibrium, and the idea that fossilization is quite a rare event, capturing only the 'lucky' ones representing the biggest populations.

Further evidence of the lack of support from the fossil record comes from the great song and dance made over the pitiful few 'missing links' that have apparently been found. And yet the creationists easily dismiss these links because the fossil record does not show a smooth transition with each variation in between. The 'missing links' could easily be fossils of created kinds.

Homology in the genes has fared even worse as evidence for evolution. Evolutionary trees are a mess, and frequently contradict each other, depending on which homology serves as the foundation. Of course, the explanations are always there. Humans are clever at it. But evidence supporting the explanations is lacking.

One of the most interesting approaches from the genetic point of view is the observation of apparently randomised transposon insertion sequences, that appear to match well between humans and chimps, suggesting common ancestry. Once again, though, it hangs heavily on the assumption that transposon insertions are truly random.

Another point is the hypothesis regarding thepresence of one less human chromosome compared to the great apes. The underlying idea is that homology is evidence for common ancestry, and that a prediction of chromosomal fusion events can be supported by the data.

But on the other hand, it seems that little regard is given to the data that would seem to contradict the common ancestor hypothesis. One of them is that the current human mutation rates are far too high to fit with the hundreds of thousands of years estimate.

Another is that humans are all observed to be closely related, despite the evolutionary prediction that several modern humans evolved independently. Hence the terms 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y chromosome Adam'. This was not predicted by evolutionary theory, although of course, it didn't take the experts long to find the explanations.

This all means that much of the evolutionary theory simply rests on the construction of explanations, and mostly not actual evidence, although some of the evidence does seem to be more supporting of evolutionary theory (at this stage) . And what is lacking in the theory is made up for by the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe it. That belief appears to contribute a good deal of confidence in the theory. I wonder what would happen to that confidence if, say, half the scientists considered the theory to be useless. Already, there are some that are beginning to claim this.


Show that the decay rates of atomic nuclei is variable. Or at least that it is not based on probability.


That's not relevant to my arguments.


I would call looking at the evidence observation. Otherwise we cannot observe an atom. We just assume they exist due to our uniformitarian presumptions, or something.


True, we cannot directly observe an atom, but we can plan experiments that observe the effect of an atom, and we can build up a picture of what an atom must be based on our observations and repetition of those observations under varying conditions. Obviously, we cannot do this with macroevolution.



Strawman. We can observe evolution without fully understanding all of the intricacies of how the various mechanisms interact, and the patterns that emerge from them. Not "evolution did it".


We can observe microevolution. But confirmation of macroevolution is unobservable. In fact, no one has ever (to my knowledge) even tried to construct a hypothetical model of even one example of macroevolution, say, the evolution of the flagella. There are no papers attempting this. Why? Because it's far too difficult. That means that when we say that we believe in macroevolution, even though we cannot follow the process, we are, in effect, simply saying that 'evolution did it'.


You have not explained how it is possible for assumptions to affect the data.


I'm not sure if my answers above have made it clearer or not. Part of the problem is that the assumptions will rule out a creation scenario, not because it isn't possible, but because it isn't thinkable. Numbers that might give a young earth are therefore discarded as 'noise'. And rocks are dated (even before the radiation is measured) by how far under the earth the are found. The assumption is that the deeper the rocks are, the older they must be, with the deepest rocks much older than the surface rocks. A major flood (or even a minor one) that lays down several layers in the one event is generally not taken into account, since uniformitarian assumptions assume that the layers are deposited gradually over long periods of time.


Looking over each others shoulder to point out errors in methodology. Not in data. This would lead to less bias, not more.


Actually, if your conclusion is made by looking over your shoulder, that would tend to increase the bias, not decrease it. Far better to come to your conclusion independently, and then look to see how it matches with those of others.

And detecting an error in your methodology by comparing it to others does not necessarily help detect all errors. Only those that your colleagues haven't made.


Creationism realies on creation. A single on off event that cannot be repeated. This is vastly different from something that is continuous to this day, and can be observed and measured. And which has evidence of happening in the past.

Pah! Strawman. Creationism relies on looking at nature as it is.

You keep falling in the old habit of saying that evolution can be observed. Only microevolution can be observed. Macroevolution cannot be observe, cannot be measured. And if you cannot tell the difference, or if you refuse to see the difference, I suggest that you haven't really understood yet.

What the heck is this Bruarong dude after?

What the heck is this Bruarong dude after?

Attention.

Creationism relies on looking at nature as it is.But Evolutionists don't just look. They understand.

I think that God created the world. If you believe in Evolution then here is a question for YOU... if you believe in evolution then how come we still have monkeys, fungus, ect in the world and zoos? Why don't we just let monkeys walk around in New York, New York or something???:headbang:

Once again we have the absolute STUPIDEST argument against evolution possible. ('nuff said)

We didn't evolve from monkeys by the way, we share a common ancestor with them.

Yup, we share 98% of our DNA with monkeys.

There are two sources for margin of error. One is with the actual measurement of radiation. The other is with the estimation of age in years of the sample. I don't have much problem with the measurement. That seems to be rather straightforward, from what I have understood of the methods used, although it will generate a range of numbers, a large error margin. Reducing that error margin involves comparing the range with another range generated from a replicate, or measuring a different isotope with a different half-life. But that doesn't ensure that the date is true, only that it is one's best guess, within the limitations of the methodology.
It gives a good indication though.Worst case it at least gives a great indication of the order of magnitude of the age of the sample.

However, the assumptions that the rates are always constant
As much of an assumption as direct observation of it always being that in all cases at all times can b called an assumption.

that there were no daughter products to begin with, and that there was no leakage or contamination of the sample are all rather hefty assumptions.
Leakage and contamination are rarely a problem. most samples are essentially fixed in place. In rock for example. As for daughter products, it's not an assumption as such. You can trace the chemical composition across related materials and see if there was much in the area. The knowledge of how rocks form helps with this as well.

Multiple samples won't confirm these assumptions, except for maybe the leakage one in some situations. But a creation scenario would mean that God could have created the rocks, rather than they being formed from molten lava billions of years ago. In a creation scenario, why would you expect God to have only created the parent isotope and not the daughter isotopes? What would be the difference between a rock that is created, and one that is formed from natural processes? Actually, we don't know, because we cannot predict what God would have done in that situation. We can and do make predictions about rocks that are formed from natural processes, and if we assume only natural processes, then the dating of the rocks is probably quite accurate in that hypothetical scenario. But it cannot rule out creation, and thus it cannot be used to prove that the world is old. Last thursdayism is a fairly desperate claim. If the universe looks old, then the only rational conclusion is that it is old. If you think your god made it look old for the lulz value, then fine.


That's not really my argument. Generating the data is simply measuring the radiation and determining the ratio of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes. That the various methods agree with each other is just another way of saying that the methodology is the same. Most of the time, the data is quite varied, so part of the methodology is to use the various radiodating isotopes, as you have suggested. But they are not as independent as you suggested, since they all involve ratios of parent to daughter isotopes, and thus all require similar assumptions.
And that these agree with other, non-radiometric, dating methods?


Generally, the measurements are quite varied as to disallow 'blind dating'. The measurements that are selected are those that appear to agree. So if one isotope generates a range of numbers, the favourite one is selected based on how well it matches numbers derived from other isotopes. This is the process of selection. That is how one arrives at mutually verifying results. But it can hardly be said to prove an old earth.Taking the median of results is hardly a bad thing.

[QUOTE=Bruarong;12784208]That radioactive elements decay is not in question here. Rather, when dates are selected on the basis of being consistent with uniformitarianism, that is how they all appear to agree with each other. It's not like you shove the powdered rock in the oven and 5 min later, BINGO, you have your ratio that is calculated into years. The numbers are all carefully selected to fit with the explanation. Any measurement that would appear to give a very young age are discarded as 'noise', because, as everyone knows, the world must be very old.
Or because statistical anomalies are expected, and extreme results are filtered out. That's math, not science.


No, it such a scenario does not work, I agree. But that is because you are constructing a strawman. Your reasoning in the first several paragraphs was ok, but here you seem to have degenerated into something that appears ridiculous. Probably because it is ridiculous. My reasons have nothing to do with God magically playing around with radioactive decay rates. I only need to use natural explanations to show how human estimates can easily get things wrong. No need to invoke God there. And part of the problem is that humans seem to want the world to be old.
The "strawman" is simply the logical conclusion of any argument that asserts that the rates of radioactive decay were simply higher in the past, to account for the appearance of age. Discarding that idea, we come to the idea of the universe being created looking old. A deceitful god is then the logical conclusion there. And believing in an old universe is STILL the only scientific conclusion in that case.
That leaves casting doubt on methodology, which ignores that the methods are only used to give vague answers anyway, with large margins of error from single samples. You only get better results with large numbers of different samples from the same time and place, or where there is a known age.

But I have to say, I don't understand why the earth would have to be sterilised by the massive radiation. Chernobyl is still one very fertile place, even if many plants and animals there are mutating at higher rates. And what is with the mountains of silt and ash? And what is with the digestive enzymes killing people? Sorry, I can't read your mind here.
Chernobyl is a small scale low radiation area. high enough to cause problems if you linger there for a period of time, yes. However, if the radiation was released at a high enough rate to account for a few billion years at current rates, then the radiation released would be much higher. Enough so that the radiation from natural radiation sources would be lethal.

Creatures do evolve over time, through mutation and natural selection. Such processes are generally accepted, because we can observe them. The uniformitarian assumptions simply mean that we would predict this happening over long periods of time, even when we weren't around to see it happening. But the idea that the current rates of mutation and evolution would be enough to generate all the variation and complexity found in the world today is certainly not observable. There simply isn't any examples of macroevolution. No new biochemical pathways involving multiple enzymes complete with regulation at transcription, translation, trafficking, folding, or function have been discovered in any organism. All the ones that we have worked with appear to have already been there. They are new in the sense that we newly discovered them, but not new in the sense that they have evolved. But neither would we expect that, because today's mutation rate is too slow (thankfully, or we would have all been extinct a long time ago). The important point here is that these new systems cannot be observed. We have only observed slight modifications in the old systems. Thus macroevolution cannot be directly observed. Thus, one must resort to the fossil record.
And analysis of anatomy and genetics. Yes. Extrapolating backwards through time, along the lines of descent that we can see in the fossil record. Which agree with the genetic similarities to an astounding degree, if you expect us to think that these are coincidental.



Does the fossil record support macroevolution? It most certainly does not. All the fossils seem to appear suddenly, and the species are mostly conserved, and do not show a regular evolution into new species. The Cambrian explosion is a good example of this. It's called an explosion because there doesn't seem to be any precursors. Of course, evolutionary theory can explain why one might not see the precursors, but direct evidence for these explanations is missing. Only the explanation fills the gap, with such ideas as punctuated equilibrium, and the idea that fossilization is quite a rare event, capturing only the 'lucky' ones representing the biggest populations.
Look at the conditions that are required for fossilisation, it is extremely rare.
And regardless of whether you think evolution happened through natural means, or was guided by a deity, the above is simply untrue, and the fossil record shows evolution. Thus you are saying that god constantly creates and destroys species in a nice sequence that looks like they are descended from one another?

Further evidence of the lack of support from the fossil record comes from the great song and dance made over the pitiful few 'missing links' that have apparently been found. And yet the creationists easily dismiss these links because the fossil record does not show a smooth transition with each variation in between. The 'missing links' could easily be fossils of created kinds.
"Could" yes. In a nice sequence of time that shows transitions. Given that similarities over time are fairly clear.


Homology in the genes has fared even worse as evidence for evolution. Evolutionary trees are a mess, and frequently contradict each other, depending on which homology serves as the foundation. Of course, the explanations are always there. Humans are clever at it. But evidence supporting the explanations is lacking.
When you dismiss entire lines of evidence as being possibly the work of a supernatural entity, it's remarkable how quickly nothing can have evidence.

One of the most interesting approaches from the genetic point of view is the observation of apparently randomised transposon insertion sequences, that appear to match well between humans and chimps, suggesting common ancestry. Once again, though, it hangs heavily on the assumption that transposon insertions are truly random.
They certainly give the appearance of being so. Given how they happen.

Another point is the hypothesis regarding thepresence of one less human chromosome compared to the great apes. The underlying idea is that homology is evidence for common ancestry, and that a prediction of chromosomal fusion events can be supported by the data.

Good thing they can see where the two chromosomes joined. Telomeres are a handy giveaway. As well as the structure of the chromosomes being maintained, with some changes.

But on the other hand, it seems that little regard is given to the data that would seem to contradict the common ancestor hypothesis. One of them is that the current human mutation rates are far too high to fit with the hundreds of thousands of years estimate.
news to me. What's this idea based on?

Another is that humans are all observed to be closely related, despite the evolutionary prediction that several modern humans evolved independently. Hence the terms 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y chromosome Adam'. This was not predicted by evolutionary theory, although of course, it didn't take the experts long to find the explanations.
First common ancestor is not the same as one single ancestor of all humans. Easily confused I admit, but not the same thing at all.

This all means that much of the evolutionary theory simply rests on the construction of explanations, and mostly not actual evidence, although some of the evidence does seem to be more supporting of evolutionary theory (at this stage) . And what is lacking in the theory is made up for by the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe it. That belief appears to contribute a good deal of confidence in the theory. I wonder what would happen to that confidence if, say, half the scientists considered the theory to be useless. Already, there are some that are beginning to claim this.
Not likely to happen though.


That's not relevant to my arguments.
You asked how it could be falsified. I provided a method.


True, we cannot directly observe an atom, but we can plan experiments that observe the effect of an atom, and we can build up a picture of what an atom must be based on our observations and repetition of those observations under varying conditions. Obviously, we cannot do this with macroevolution.
Yes, we can.
With life forms with very short life spans and high mutation rates. Like bacteria. And fruit flies. Which we do. Quite often.


We can observe microevolution. But confirmation of macroevolution is unobservable. In fact, no one has ever (to my knowledge) even tried to construct a hypothetical model of even one example of macroevolution, say, the evolution of the flagella. There are no papers attempting this. Why? Because it's far too difficult. That means that when we say that we believe in macroevolution, even though we cannot follow the process, we are, in effect, simply saying that 'evolution did it'.
You mean except for all of the papers that do exactly that? All proposed irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be evolveable.

I'm not sure if my answers above have made it clearer or not. Part of the problem is that the assumptions will rule out a creation scenario, not because it isn't possible, but because it isn't thinkable. Numbers that might give a young earth are therefore discarded as 'noise'. And rocks are dated (even before the radiation is measured) by how far under the earth the are found. The assumption is that the deeper the rocks are, the older they must be, with the deepest rocks much older than the surface rocks. A major flood (or even a minor one) that lays down several layers in the one event is generally not taken into account, since uniformitarian assumptions assume that the layers are deposited gradually over long periods of time.
And because floods leave obvious tell tale signs of their presence.

Actually, if your conclusion is made by looking over your shoulder, that would tend to increase the bias, not decrease it. Far better to come to your conclusion independently, and then look to see how it matches with those of others.

And detecting an error in your methodology by comparing it to others does not necessarily help detect all errors. Only those that your colleagues haven't made.
More minds have a better chance of finding methodological errors.
And it is from other people scrutinising your work, not from you looking at other people's.

Pah! Strawman. Creationism relies on looking at nature as it is.
Creationism relies on special creation by a supernatural entity.

You keep falling in the old habit of saying that evolution can be observed. Only microevolution can be observed. Macroevolution cannot be observe, cannot be measured. And if you cannot tell the difference, or if you refuse to see the difference, I suggest that you haven't really understood yet.
And I suggest that it can be, and has been. Micro evolution being small scale, and macro being large scale. Any speciation event would be large scale, and such has been observed.

Oh that video is such crap.

"Junk Science" isn't particularly balanced vocabularly to use as a viewpoint, and claiming that The Bible is 100% factually accurate is complete arse.

Oh that video is such crap.Oh yes it is.

"Junk Science" isn't particularly balanced vocabularly to use as a viewpoint, and claiming that The Bible is 100% factually accurate is complete arse.Well, the bible's accuracy is severely limited by its theology.

Well, the bible's accuracy is severely limited by its theology.

If the bible was an animal, It'd be extinct by now.

If the bible was an animal, It'd be extinct by now.

Natural Selection. *nods*

If the bible was an animal, It'd be extinct by now.Unfortunately it rather seems the bible is a roach.

Yup, we share 98% of our DNA with monkeys.

Actually the correct term would be apes. In particular Chimps.....

Creatures do evolve over time, through mutation and natural selection. Such processes are generally accepted, because we can observe them. The uniformitarian assumptions simply mean that we would predict this happening over long periods of time, even when we weren't around to see it happening. But the idea that the current rates of mutation and evolution would be enough to generate all the variation and complexity found in the world today is certainly not observable. There simply isn't any examples of macroevolution.
Actually there are a few, both direct and indirect. I will point you at the wiki articles as that seems to be about the right level for this discussion but they have the detailed references on them for you to peruse if you so choose. There are artificial examples of speciation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation . Fruit flys are the commonly used organisms as they are easy to keep, are free from concerns to do with animal safety and breed quickly. For an example more closely rooted in the natural world you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species where the speciation process is still underway. They form a continuum of breeding species where the ends of the continuum are unable to breed.
No new biochemical pathways involving multiple enzymes complete with regulation at transcription, translation, trafficking, folding, or function have been discovered in any organism. All the ones that we have worked with appear to have already been there. They are new in the sense that we newly discovered them, but not new in the sense that they have evolved.

Also a false assumption. I work on Integrons unfortunately there is not a lot in the wiki on them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrons as they have really only been studied with any depth for around the last 15 years. (usually takes quite a bit longer than this for the science to make it to mainstream) they collect genes from other bacteria. The best known examples are antibiotic resistance genes.. they are largely responsible for the problem hospitals are having with multidrug resistant bacteria. They have been shown to be able to build the toluene degradation pathway from individual pieces. Creating an entire biochemical pathway from scratch... so scratch the idea that that level of evolution hasn’t been shown.
But neither would we expect that, because today's mutation rate is too slow (thankfully, or we would have all been extinct a long time ago). The important point here is that these new systems cannot be observed. We have only observed slight modifications in the old systems. Thus macroevolution cannot be directly observed...........
We can observe microevolution. But confirmation of macroevolution is unobservable. In fact, no one has ever (to my knowledge) even tried to construct a hypothetical model of even one example of macroevolution, say, the evolution of the flagella. There are no papers attempting this. Why? Because it's far too difficult.
What we consider major changes in appearance are often only very minor chemical changes and many of these have been observed. In fact fish contain all the genes necessary to create limbs, its simply timing of release of certain chemicals during the development process that determines whether you have a fin or a limb. Ducks being born with 4 legs, pigs with 2 heads etc are observed fairly regularly, most people would consider these fairly large structural changes.
No a model for the evolution of the flagella hasn’t been experimentally shown (lots have been postulated) but our understanding of the inner workings of bacterial cells is still so rudimentary its no wonder we aren’t running before we can walk.

That means that when we say that we believe in macroevolution, even though we cannot follow the process, we are, in effect, simply saying that 'evolution did it'. .....................
You keep falling in the old habit of saying that evolution can be observed. Only microevolution can be observed. Macroevolution cannot be observe, cannot be measured. And if you cannot tell the difference, or if you refuse to see the difference, I suggest that you haven't really understood yet.

There is no delineation between macro and micro evolution. The line in the sand that you have drawn at a species barrier is entirely a human construct.. it simply doesn’t exist in the natural world.. see ring species above.... or in fact even a very cursory look at the bacterial world will show you that the idea of species really doesn’t make a lot of sense in that context.

I have said it before and I will say it again there is no Evolutionary police force saying “Stop, put down that gene, you can evolve no further”

PS: Sorry for feeding this thread I just couldn't help myself.

AS CREATOR OF THIS THREAD THE OPTION TO FIRST HIT 500 VOTES(clearly evolution and don't stop voting after 500)IS THE WINNER. I SHALL POST THE RESULTS IN YOUTUBE.

What the heck is this Bruarong dude after?

UB: Look, this isn't an argument.
Mr. Bruarong: Yes it is.
UB: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr. Bruarong: No it isn't.
UB: It is.
Mr. Bruarong: It is not.
UB: Look, you contradicted me.
Mr. Bruarong: I did not.
UB: Oh you did.
Mr. Bruarong: No, no, no.
UB: You did just then.
Mr. Bruarong: Nonsense.
UB: Oh, this is futile.
Mr. Bruarong: No it isn't.
UB: I came here for a good argument.
Mr. Bruarong: No, you didn't. No, you came here for an argument.
UB: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Bruarong: It can be.
UB: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Bruarong: No it isn't.
UB: Yes it is. It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Bruarong: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
UB: But that's not just saying, "No it isn't."
Mr. Bruarong: Yes it is.
UB: No it isn't. An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Mr. Bruarong: No it isn't.
UB: Yes it is.
Mr. Bruarong: Not at all.
Something like that, but perhaps not so straightforward?

I think that God created the world. If you believe in Evolution then here is a question for YOU... if you believe in evolution then how come we still have monkeys, fungus, ect in the world and zoos? Why don't we just let monkeys walk around in New York, New York or something???:headbang:

Why don't you go pick up any basic biology text book and educate yourself so we don't have to, or something???:headbang:

hehe...I haven't used the headbang in months.


we don't "still have". They have evolved from previous lifeforms as well (I'm not really sure why you included fungus...unless.......)

Here's the basics. We have species A (we'll call it protoape). For whatever reason, protoape divides into two populations: one living in the forests, another living in grasslands. after a few dozen generations, protoape has divided into two subspecies: they have distinct differences (grassland protoape has longer legs and can run faster, forest protoape is smaller so it can move among the trees, etc). These subspecies can still breed with the other subspecies, but the differences are noticable. After a couple dozen more generations, we now have two species: grassland protoape has become homo, whereas forest protoape has become pan (chimps).

Why don't you go pick up any basic biology text book and educate yourself so we don't have to, or something???:headbang:

hehe...I haven't used the headbang in months.


we don't "still have". They have evolved from previous lifeforms as well (I'm not really sure why you included fungus...unless.......)

Here's the basics. We have species A (we'll call it protoape). For whatever reason, protoape divides into two populations: one living in the forests, another living in grasslands. after a few dozen generations, protoape has divided into two subspecies: they have distinct differences (grassland protoape has longer legs and can run faster, forest protoape is smaller so it can move among the trees, etc). These subspecies can still breed with the other subspecies, but the differences are noticable. After a couple dozen more generations, we now have two species: grassland protoape has become homo, whereas forest protoape has become pan (chimps).I'm starting to think you were one of Ruffy's consultants when we used LaDame's DNA a little while back.
*nods emphatically*

AS CREATOR OF THIS THREAD THE OPTION TO FIRST HIT 500 VOTES(clearly evolution and don't stop voting after 500)IS THE WINNER. I SHALL POST THE RESULTS IN YOUTUBE.

How excitingly dull. :)

I'm starting to think you were one of Ruffy's consultants when we used LaDame's DNA a little while back.
*nods emphatically*

I assure you I have no idea what you're talking about.

Now, if you'll just look into the little blinky light thing....

I assure you I have no idea what you're talking about.

Now, if you'll just look into the little blinky light thing....

I suddenly have the urge to buy myself some new clothes, something nice for myself.
:)

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our mind

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our mind

"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls." -George Carlin

I hope to see you all after the Big Crunch/Rip/Heat Death.

"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls." -George Carlin

There's a ring around the moon tonight, and a chill in the air
and a fire in the stars that hang so near, so near

I hope to see you all after the Big Crunch/Rip/Heat Death.

Why wait?
I'm sure some part of you will be some part of me will be some part of them will be some part of us.

There's a ring around the moon tonight, and a chill in the air
and a fire in the stars that hang so near, so near

"Fuck Soccer Moms" -George Carlin

Why wait?
I'm sure some part of you will be some part of me will be some part of them will be some part of us.

And this is what I call ... DIVINITY !

*spotlight for effect*

And this is what I call ... DIVINITY !

*spotlight for effect*

I really like that shimmering, stardusty effect. Reminds me of nights on the prairie with the crickets and cattle mutilations.

"Fuck Soccer Moms" -George Carlin

Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.

Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge.

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -G.C.

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -G.C.
Instead of exclusively All Hallow's Eve, some of us need to stay engaged more often.

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -G.C.

You're just making that up, now.

Edit: My house... in the middle of my street. My house....

You're just making that up, now.

Edit: My house... in the middle of my street. My house....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtr24IuhyUk

It's about 3 and a half minutes in. *nod*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtr24IuhyUk

It's about 3 and a half minutes in. *nod*

Haha! Farewell; don't let self-doubt interfere with your plans to improve your life.
Haha.

Battered plants: I don't believe it.

Something like that, but perhaps not so straightforward?I would never get into such a pattern. Simply because I have given up on people who lack the mental ability to mature past faith.
How can a god have created the world who was only invented in the 4th century BCE and (somewhat) streamlined in the 3rd? And if they say that it may have been G-o-d only known in another form or under another name, then it must be said clearly that in that case it isn't the biblical god and there is no need to adhere to the biblical creation story either. People like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses, and even David, Salomon, and all the rulers of the Divided Kingdom era just were no worshipers of the god that is presented in the bible. There is no trace of any such worship at all. Whatever historical accuracy the bible holds in narrating ancient events, the entire theology that has been woven into the narration of the bible is simply a fraud.
And no matter how many flaws or yet unexplained features these folks may find in the (still evolving) theory of evolution, it just doesn't make any of their positions right.

Haha! Farewell; don't let self-doubt interfere with your plans to improve your life.
Haha.

Battered plants: I don't believe it.

One of his best comedy routines ever. :) SOmetimes when I watch the old and delightfully acidic and cynical current George Carlin, part of me misses the younger and wonderfully silly George Carlin. But I still laugh. :)

I would never get into such a pattern. Simply because I have given up on people who lack the mental ability to mature past faith.
How can a god have created the world who was only invented in the 4th century BCE and (somewhat) streamlined in the 3rd? And if they say that it may have been G-o-d only known in another form or under another name, then it must be said clearly that in that case it isn't the biblical god and there is no need to adhere to the biblical creation story either. People like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses, and even David, Salomon, and all the rulers of the Divided Kingdom era just were no worshipers of the god that is presented in the bible. There is no trace of any such worship at all. Whatever historical accuracy the bible holds in narrating ancient events the entire theology that has been woven into the narration of the bible is simply a fraud.
And no matter how many flaws or yet unexplained features these folks may find in the (still evolving) theory of evolution, it just doesn't make any of their positions right.
As much as i agree with you, i tend to find a lot of amusement in the trolls here.
I'm not supposed to feed them, but you know how that goes. I really appreciate some of theirs' technique. Some proper discourse can produce some pretty tasty and sigworthy lines.
Same reason i like Colbert.

As per the specific topic, i'm not really fettered anymore. The mind can only take so much doubt, despair, fear, and bullshit, and that chapter is long since divorced from my fleeting and fragile hopes. Whatever concept Jehovah is, it doesn't merit an iota of my "worship". I'd further endeavour to destroy it if it were real and the possibility to were to my avail.
But, it's not. It's merely a cowardly embodiment of most of humankinds' failings, misery, malfeasance, hubris, and varying degrees of all sin, while simultaneously acting as though it's beyond judgment.
I had enough fun trying to justify what i'd read as sensible, and when i finally passed the brim, it occurred to me that i could change the channel just as easily as i could a TV.
The problem, as you've obviously noticed, is the inability for certain other people to make the same step in judgment. :(

That's the whole meaning of heaven --they give you back everything you have lost.

Like sanity?
Socks?
Car keys?
Past lovers' phone numbers?


...

How about what i'd longed for but never accomplished/achieved/gotten?

Oh, right, i'd be dead.

One of his best comedy routines ever. :) SOmetimes when I watch the old and delightfully acidic and cynical current George Carlin, part of me misses the younger and wonderfully silly George Carlin. But I still laugh. :)
That's the whole meaning of heaven --they give you back everything you have lost.

AS CREATOR OF THIS THREAD THE OPTION TO FIRST HIT 500 VOTES(clearly evolution and don't stop voting after 500)IS THE WINNER. I SHALL POST THE RESULTS IN YOUTUBE.

Time to crank out my Creationist sock puppets... :p

As per the specific topic, i'm not really fettered anymore. The mind can only take so much doubt, despair, fear, and bullshit, and that chapter is long since divorced from my fleeting and fragile hopes. Whatever concept Jehovah is, it doesn't merit an iota of my "worship". I'd further endeavour to destroy it if it were real and the possibility to were to my avail.
Not having a concept of Jehovah, it's understandable that in having nothing, nothing merits your worship. But what if you DID have a concept of Jehovah? And what if it were not "real" so you could not destroy it? (i.e. what does it mean to be "real"?)

But, it's not. It's merely a cowardly embodiment of most of humankinds' failings, misery, malfeasance, hubris, and varying degrees of all sin, while simultaneously acting as though it's beyond judgment.
I had enough fun trying to justify what i'd read as sensible, and when i finally passed the brim, it occurred to me that i could change the channel just as easily as i could a TV.
The problem, as you've obviously noticed, is the inability for certain other people to make the same step in judgment. :(
What if there was a context in which it could make sense?

Not having a concept of Jehovah, it's understandable that in having nothing, nothing merits your worship. But what if you DID have a concept of Jehovah?I do have a concept of "Jehovah". I did the prereq reading. And it's pathetic that anyone wants to make a living out of fear of that creature. It simply isn't dear to me anymore than a pustule might be.
And what if it were not "real" so you could not destroy it? (i.e. what does it mean to be "real"?)I've already had that dance - that's how i've moved on. *nods*


What if there was a context in which it could make sense?The context of it making sense, unfortunately, is the vestige of humankind's most barbaric and sorrowful accomplishments.
Seriously.

I do have a concept of "Jehovah". I did the prereq reading. And it's pathetic that anyone wants to make a living out of fear of that creature. It simply isn't dear to me anymore than a pustule might be.

I've already had that dance - that's how i've moved on. *nods*

The context of it making sense, unfortunately, is the vestige of humankind's most barbaric and sorrowful accomplishments.
Seriously.
'kay. I had another context in mind....

'kay. I had another context in mind....

...being?

I think a good understanding here is that the whole "There's nothing new under the sun" concept is just fucked.

How so?

The comfort it's supposed to provide is, by the same blade, the righteousness of nihilism.

Oh, yoink!
Divine intervention?

...being?

I think a good understanding here is that the whole "There's nothing new under the sun" concept is just fucked.

How so?

The comfort it's supposed to provide is, by the same blade, the righteousness of nihilism.

Oh, yoink!
Divine intervention?

But what if, in nihilism of ego, it provides support for another form of existence?

But what if, in nihilism of ego, it provides support for another form of existence?

What existence are you shooting for if everything is equally valueless?

When you finally depart that particular arena of the mind - the religious arena, you find real life still waiting there to eat your lunch, and less time for you to take care of it.
Instead of willingly wasting time on something you can't prove, why not live a life knowing that this is the proving ground for philosophy?

You may be on a point about nirvana, and if so, good, it's a worthy point. Is that where you're going with it?

What existence are you shooting for if everything is equally valueless?
A formless context for existence, where value is meaningless and all is one substance. Value belongs to this world.

When you finally depart that particular arena of the mind - the religious arena, you find real life still waiting there to eat your lunch, and less time for you to take care of it.
Instead of willingly wasting time on something you can't prove, why not live a life knowing that this is the proving ground for philosophy?
It's not about being there, but about "becoming" from there to here.

Not being able to prove "here" is essential (i.e. agnosticism). That is the philosophy required to understand God.

You may be on a point about nirvana, and if so, good, it's a worthy point. Is that where you're going with it?
I'm not big on Buddhism, but something like that, yeah.

and god said "let there be evolution, because creating billions of speicies on billions of planets in billions of solar systems, is too damd much like friggin work!"

=^^=
.../\...

It gives a good indication though.Worst case it at least gives a great indication of the order of magnitude of the age of the sample.

Yes, but only if the assumptions underlying the method are correct. If they aren't, the estimation becomes nonsense.


As much of an assumption as direct observation of it always being that in all cases at all times can b called an assumption.


Earlier, I gave an example of carbon14 measurements. Even though we have never observed changes in decay rates, we actually think that there has been. That should be enough of a warning that a similar situation could be happening with the other isotopes.

Furthermore, I doubt that few people would stupidly think that the sun has always been there simply because we haven't observed any changes, or only tiny changes. If we think about it, about how much energy the sun is radiation, we can calculate that in about 15 billion years, at this rate, it will have burnt itself out. Except that the current rate is unlikely to continue. See, humans are clever enough to think about rate calculations and how carefully we should rely on our calculations.



Leakage and contamination are rarely a problem. most samples are essentially fixed in place. In rock for example. As for daughter products, it's not an assumption as such. You can trace the chemical composition across related materials and see if there was much in the area. The knowledge of how rocks form helps with this as well.

Rarely a problem because no one has a way of checking if it is a problem. And as for daughter products, nobody knows how the rocks formed. If the long age scenario is true, we can estimate or guess at how the gases condensed into rock (in multiple steps) and then assume that all of the daughter product is produced through decay. But that only works if the long ages were true. But we don't know if they are. One cannot simply use an estimation based on an assumption to show that the assumption is true, no matter how you try to worm around it.


Last thursdayism is a fairly desperate claim. If the universe looks old, then the only rational conclusion is that it is old. If you think your god made it look old for the lulz value, then fine.


So that is what it comes down to, eh? You think a young earth is a desperate claim, because you think the earth looks old, probably because you want the earth to be old. That would be prejudice. At least that I allow that the earth could be old. But you are saying that it must be old, with little other than the reason that it looks old. You are departing from scientific procedure. The 'old earth' seems to be in your head.


And that these agree with other, non-radiometric, dating methods?


If these other methods are also based on uniformitarian assumptions, I place no confidence in them.


Or because statistical anomalies are expected, and extreme results are filtered out. That's math, not science.


But how is one to decide where the anomalies lie? I suggest that the assumption that the world is old is pretty much the basis.


The "strawman" is simply the logical conclusion of any argument that asserts that the rates of radioactive decay were simply higher in the past, to account for the appearance of age. Discarding that idea, we come to the idea of the universe being created looking old. A deceitful god is then the logical conclusion there. And believing in an old universe is STILL the only scientific conclusion in that case.
That leaves casting doubt on methodology, which ignores that the methods are only used to give vague answers anyway, with large margins of error from single samples. You only get better results with large numbers of different samples from the same time and place, or where there is a known age.


The world doesn't look old. It doesn't look young. It just looks the way it is, because we have nothing else to compare it to, or at least nothing else where we know the age. Thus, the 'deceit' is a product of your mind, because you are convinced that the world is looking old.

And it is simply another form of your prejudice to rule out a young earth because the old earth conclusion is the only scientific conclusion. All you have done is to rearrange your definition of 'scientific' to rule out creationism, and then you are left with uniformitarianism. That's not science. That's playing word games.

If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless. To me it is, because I'm only interested in the truth (whether that be an old earth or a young earth), not your 'science'.


Chernobyl is a small scale low radiation area. high enough to cause problems if you linger there for a period of time, yes. However, if the radiation was released at a high enough rate to account for a few billion years at current rates, then the radiation released would be much higher. Enough so that the radiation from natural radiation sources would be lethal.


That all depends on how much radiation levels you are starting with. If you assume that there were no daughter products to begin with, and that all the decay that we see now had to have released its radiation via some unknown mechanism within a mere fraction of several billion years, then you might have a point. However, I see quite a lot of problems with your estimation. Not least is the problem of decay beginning at a definite point. In a creation scenario, there may not be any condensation of gases and eventually turning to rock.


And analysis of anatomy and genetics. Yes. Extrapolating backwards through time, along the lines of descent that we can see in the fossil record. Which agree with the genetic similarities to an astounding degree, if you expect us to think that these are coincidental.


I certainly do not describe it as 'to an astounding degree'. In fact, I suggest that the fossil record fits better with creation. The vast majority of fossils can be fit into straight lines of lineage (as opposed to the evolutionary trees), showing little or no variation, and suddenly appearing in the strata. The fact that anyone can claim a fit with evolutionary theory 'to an astounding degree' is rather astounding.



Look at the conditions that are required for fossilisation, it is extremely rare.
And regardless of whether you think evolution happened through natural means, or was guided by a deity, the above is simply untrue, and the fossil record shows evolution. Thus you are saying that god constantly creates and destroys species in a nice sequence that looks like they are descended from one another?


Ahhhh, there you have it. We don't see the transitional fossils because fossilization is too rare. That is a life-saver of an explanation for the evolutionary theory. Whoever thought that up should get a nobel prize. Here's the thing that the experts are saying: the fossil record does not show nice sequences from one species to another. That is WHY they come up with the 'rare fossilization' explanation, and things like punctuated equilibrium, which says that evolution occurs in leaps and bounds, not gradually, so that all we see are the relatively stationary moments. That means all the steps between a lizard and a bird had to have happened relatively quick, because we just don't see all that many links.



"Could" yes. In a nice sequence of time that shows transitions. Given that similarities over time are fairly clear.


I don't think you realize what you are saying. 'Given that similarities over time are fairly clear.' That's all just speculation. It's worth nothing outside of the old age assumptions.


When you dismiss entire lines of evidence as being possibly the work of a supernatural entity, it's remarkable how quickly nothing can have evidence.


It's not a dismissal. It's an allowance. And yes, it will mean that I am a lot more careful with the explanations. I won't go around believing that science has proven evolution to be the truth. That is because I hold more respect for the truth than I do for any idea that claims to be the truth.


They certainly give the appearance of being so. Given how they happen.


We actually don't know if they are transposons. We think they might be, because of the sequence homology. But it could also mean that there are other natural causes to account for them. One of the problems with the method is the assumption that the 'decayed' transposon sequences are nevertheless somewhat conserved. If conserved, they then might have a function, with removes the randomness aspect. If not conserved, then they are not the remains of ancient transposon insertions, just conincidences, or even more puzzling, convergent evolution (as opposed to divergent evolution).


Good thing they can see where the two chromosomes joined. Telomeres are a handy giveaway. As well as the structure of the chromosomes being maintained, with some changes.


The presence of what looks like a telomere at an internal location with respect to the ape chromosome does seem to favour common ancestry, I have to say. The problems could be to do with a correct identification of a telomere, since repetitive DNA is rather common, more than 50% of the genome. Furthermore, telomeres seem to serve a role in the cell (particularly with DNA replication). There is no reason to assume that it must be at the end of the cell, nor that it serves only one role. The whole argument for common ancestry does involve a lot of unknowns, at this stage, since telomere research still has a long way to go.


news to me. What's this idea based on?


It's to do with the estimation of mutation rates per nucleotide in humans.

I've lifted most of this from a link: http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html

Once upon a time, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was thought to be strictly the result of maternal inheritance. Based on this assumption, it was assumed that the mitochondrial offspring would get exact copies of the mitochondria that the mother had except if there was a mutational error. This error rate in the non-coding portion of mitochondrial DNA has long been thought to occur once every 300 to 600 generations, or every 6,000 to 12,000 years for humans.

The Berkeley biochemists who developed the theory, Allan Wilson, Rebecca Cann, and Mark Stoneking, made several apparently reasonable assumptions. Since there were no DNA changes due to genetic recombination events (ie: with paternal DNA - now known to be a wrong assumption), they assumed that all changes in the mtDNA were the result of mutations over time and that these mutations occurred at a constant rate. On the basis of these assumptions, the researchers believed they had access to something like a "molecular clock."

An interesting aspect of the "molecular clock" theory is the way in which the mutation rate itself was determined. Contrary to what many might think, the mutation rate was not initially determined by any sort of direct analysis, but by supposed phylogenic evolutionary relationships between humans and chimps. In other words, the mutation rate was calculated based on the assumption that the theory in question was already true.

This is a rather circular assumption and as such all results that are based on this assumption will be consistent with this assumption - like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the rate was calculated based on previous assumptions of evolutionary time, then the results will automatically "confirm" the previous assumptions. If one truly wishes independent confirmation of a theory, then one cannot calibrate the confirmation test by the theory, or any part of the theory, that is being tested. And yet, this is exactly what was done by scientists such as Sarich, one of the pioneers of the molecular-clock idea.

Sarich began by calculating the mutation rates of various species "...whose divergence could be reliably dated from fossils." He then applied that calibration to the chimpanzee-human split, dating that split at from five to seven million years ago. Using Sarich's mutation calibrations, Wilson and Cann applied them to their mtDNA studies, comparing "...the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between humans and chimpanzees."24 By this method, they calculated that the common ancestor of all modern humans, the "African Eve", lived about 200,000 years ago.

Obviously then, these dates, calculated from the mtDNA analysis, must match the presupposed evolutionary time scale since the calculation is based on this presupposition. The circularity of this method is inconsistent with good scientific method and is worthless as far as independent predictive value is concerned. The "mitochondrial clock" theory was and is basically a theory within a theory in that it has no independent predictive power outside of the theory of evolution. It is surprising then that scientists did not catch this inherent flaw earlier.

Interestingly enough though, this flaw in reasoning was not detected for many years and perhaps would have remained undetected for much longer if a more direct mutation-rate analysis had not been done.

Eventually, scientists, who study historical families and their genetic histories, started questioning the mutation rates that were based on evolutionary phylogenetic assumptions. These scientists were stunned to find that the mutation rate was in fact much higher than previously thought. In fact it was about 20 times higher at around one mutation every 25 to 40 generations (about 500 to 800 years for humans). It seems that in this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. 3 By simple mathematics, it follows that modern humans share a common ancestor some 300 generations back in time. If one assumes a typical generation time of about 20 years, this places the date of the common ancestor at around 6,000 years before present. But how could this be?! Thomas Parsons seems just as mystified. Consider his following comments published April of 1997, in the journal Nature Genetics:


"The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution.
The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years." 27

But it's only implausible because he 'knows' that humans are older. As for myself, I'm a long way from concluding that humans must be young, since there is a good possibility that another explanation for the data is yet to turn up. I remain a skeptic.

Another interesting paper published in September 2000 in the Journal Scientist by Denver et al. is also quite interesting. These scientists reported their work with the mtDNA mutation rates of nematode worms and found that these worm's molecular clocks actually run about "100 times faster than previously thought".

Another paper takes a difference approach, measuring the nuclear DNA mutation rate.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297
It seems that the genomic deleterious mutation rate is so high that it is 'difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common'. In other words, the build up of detrimental mutations in a (human) population might lead toward extinction. At that rate, we are all dying, not evolving. The mutation rate is too high.


First common ancestor is not the same as one single ancestor of all humans. Easily confused I admit, but not the same thing at all.


I didn't mention *first* common ancestor. Nor was I confused by this difference.



Yes, we can.
With life forms with very short life spans and high mutation rates. Like bacteria. And fruit flies. Which we do. Quite often.


Your claim is that changes in bacteria and speciation in fruit flys is evidence of macroevolution. In that case, we should be able to identify the changes, both in the genotype and the phenotype, and see if those changes can be extrapolated to account for all the variation we see in life.

Firstly, the fly speciation.
''It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

This link covers the popular press version of the fly speciation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Based on the most common definition of speciation, it occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

The Drosophila mojavensis and the Drosophila arizonae are very similar, genetically, and are capable of interbreeding in captivity. But in the wild, they do not. Female D. mojavensis crossed with male D. arizonae produce fertile offspring, but the opposite cross does not.

''Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.''

''However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.''

Believe? That doesn't sound very much like good evidence.

My conclusions to this is that the mechanisms by when these two species are diverging is not yet understood. Thus, while it may well be speciation, it cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution. There is simply a loss of the ability to interbreed. This probably isn't introducing new biochemical pathways and other forms of complexity.

As for the bacteria, it is well known that bacterial like Golden staph (Staphylococcus aureus) is able to acquire resistance to antibiotics. Mostly, it is through conjugation between different species of bacteria. Probably, the Pseudomonas living in the soil carries a plasmid that allows it to survive in penicillin rich soils (because of the many fungi), and a conjugation event (like bacterial sex) between the Pseudomonas and the Staph living on human skin means that the Staph acquires the plasmid. This has the appearance of gaining information that might support macroevolution. There is a new gene, perhaps even a new biochemical pathway in the Staph. However, if you consider the pool of genes from a combination of the Staph and the Pseudomonas, there is no new genes and biochemical pathways. There is only a lateral transfer between organisms. This is inadequate for macroevolution, since macroevolution requires the generation of novel genes and biochemical pathways.

Thus, my conclusion is that antibiotic resistance does not support macroevolution.



You mean except for all of the papers that do exactly that? All proposed irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be evolveable.


What papers?



And because floods leave obvious tell tale signs of their presence.


Do they? I doubt it. Was the grand canyon the result of long ages, or a flood? We don't know, actually. But it was probably more likely a flood, although I don't think anyone is arguing for 'obvious tell tale signs'.



Creationism relies on special creation by a supernatural entity.


To find evidence to support creation, one does not have to observe the creation event. One would only have to find evidence that is consistent with it, and preferrably which cannot be explained by evolution.


And I suggest that it can be, and has been. Micro evolution being small scale, and macro being large scale. Any speciation event would be large scale, and such has been observed.

No, it's more complicated than that. Firstly, we would have to find a satisfactory definition of 'speciation'. Then we would have to understand the genetic basis for the speciation, to see if it is consistent with an increase in genetic information. If it involves only a loss of information, genes, proteins, RNAs, etc., then such a speciation would be inadequate as support for macroevolution.

-snip-

Fun. :)

Just don't go stargazing and you'll be fine. :)

If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless.

Priceless.

If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless. To me it is, because I'm only interested in the truth (whether that be an old earth or a young earth), not your 'science'.Creationism is not scientific. That does not depend on anybody's personal definition but on the definition of science as such. And what definitions are to you is irrelevant, as they don't depend on your personal opinion.
If you are really interested in truth, the scientific method is the only reliable method to find out about truth. Everything else is just faith and thus completely useless.

If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless. To me it is, because I'm only interested in the truth (whether that be an old earth or a young earth), not your 'science'.

Ye...no. Creationism isn't science for two significant reasons (among many other reasons).
1: It puts forth a supernatural explanation of facts as they are. Science is, by its very nature, a naturalistic methodology. You CAN NOT have a supernatural explanation and call it science.
2: It does not base its hypothesis (that god created the universe) on observational data, but rather on a literary account that is impossible to verify.

Go, find something in nature that supports creationism that can't more easily be explained through science, and we'll talk.

If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless.

Don't worry, it's not.

Creationism has never been science. The definition of "science" has always excluded Creationism and similar belief systems.

And science, thusly defined, is why you are able to post on this forum right now.

I know it makes you sad to admit this, but Creationism is basically useless. There has never been a single technological advance or useful hypothesis or productive theory generated using Creationism. It's simply not useful for anything, other than personal entertainment.

Projecting your unhappiness about this reality onto the very practices which provide you with all the modern comforts of your life is, frankly, pretty rude of you. If you cannot bring yourself to thank science for all the wonders it has provided for you, then at least have the decency to remain silent and refrain from spitting on science.

Ye...no. Creationism isn't science for two significant reasons (among many other reasons).
1: It puts forth a supernatural explanation of facts as they are. Science is, by its very nature, a naturalistic methodology. You CAN NOT have a supernatural explanation and call it science.
2: It does not base its hypothesis (that god created the universe) on observational data, but rather on a literary account that is impossible to verify.

Go, find something in nature that supports creationism that can't more easily be explained through science, and we'll talk.There is nothing in nature that supports creationism. There are only weird interpretations of things in nature that seem to support creationism.
In the end creationism is just wishful thinking, the projection of faith into reality.

Go, find something in nature that supports creationism that can't more easily be explained through science, and we'll talk.

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.

Virtually everything is more easily explained by creation.
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, if I may borrow Thoreau. Science unnecessarily complicates things.

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.

Virtually everything is more easily explained by creation.
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, if I may borrow Thoreau. Science unnecessarily complicates things.

Simplicity for for the simple-minded and those who don't want to learn beyond what is in a single irrelevant document that is pure fiction.

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.
Hint: the fact that you, personally, can't understand science doesn't mean that nobody can understand science.

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.

Virtually everything is more easily explained by creation.
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, if I may borrow Thoreau. Science unnecessarily complicates things.

So that the FSM created those is an easier explanation than "science". Good. I'm converted.

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.

Virtually everything is more easily explained by creation.
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, if I may borrow Thoreau. Science unnecessarily complicates things.

Wrong (http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bhjmqsuw36&n=The+Bourgeosie+Elite&c=%23FF0000&t=creationism)

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.

Virtually everything is more easily explained by creation.
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, if I may borrow Thoreau. Science unnecessarily complicates things.

There is a difference between ease and simplicity. Explain to me tectonic shift using Creationism.
Explain to me tidal forces using Creationism.
Explain to me tree ring formation using Creationism.

You can't, without bending over backwards to pull forth contrived and silly excuses.

evolution wins because it has like,.... proof


and what does creationism have? a book. a book supposedly written by the "magical sky daddy", but was in fact written by very very insane old people




evolution wins, so kindly shit the fuck up, get the hell off of the internet, get in a spaceship, leave our planet, and crash your ship into the sun and kindly die in a fire.

k thanks

and god said "let there be evolution, because creating billions of speicies on billions of planets in billions of solar systems, is too damd much like friggin work!"

=^^=
.../\...

c:/> Run Evolution.exe

:D

There is a difference between ease and simplicity. Explain to me tectonic shift using Creationism.
Explain to me tidal forces using Creationism.
Explain to me tree ring formation using Creationism.

You can't, without bending over backwards to pull forth contrived and silly excuses.

goddidit.

There, explained. :)

c:/> Run Evolution.exe
Are you sure? Y/N

c:/> Run Evolution.exe

:D

If that's all he did, he's a lazy bastard for taking the 7th day off.

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.

Virtually everything is more easily explained by creation.
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, if I may borrow Thoreau. Science unnecessarily complicates things.

Creationism makes things more complex. Who created the Creator? Who created the Creator's Creator? It is a 'Turtles, all the way down', type of argument.

Of course this is easily refuted by saying, the Creator is eternal, and without creation.

But you want the simplest. The Simplest is that the Universe requires no creator, creators make things complex. If the creator is eternal and without creation, why not the Universe?

There is no reason it can't be. Study science for a while. We have a method, we have all these things supporting it, peer review, etc. There is no science conspiracy. If Evolution really was false, (in reality you probably mean Natural Selection), thousands of scientists would jump on it like mad, trying to make their reputation and disproving what has been established as 'fact' and proving new 'fact'.

Science isn't about 'truth, that is for Philosophy class, go down to your local University and take a course in Philosophy to understand the 'truth'. Science is about finding, and later verifying 'fact' and then building a theory around it.

Now to staple a few more nails in the coffin.

The mountains.
The oceans.
Trees.
The diversity of life on Earth.
Mankind.

The mountains are formed by tectonic plates pushing on each other and localized geologic pressures if they are far away from faults. Case in point, the Himalayas, which are still growing in size as the Indian Subcontinent shoves its way toward Asia.

The oceans were created after Earth had hardened fully and volcanic gases coalesced in the ancient atomosphere and formed liquid water which rained down on the newly grown together earth.

Trees are large colonial organisms with limited specialization, root cells, xylem, phoelm, which gathers sunlight for photosynthesis to create food for the rest of organism.

The diversity of life on Earth is completely subjective. Looking on it biologically, the diversity of life on Earth is cripplingly small. There are only one form of life, the cell via DNA, and only two forms of it, unorganelle bound and organelle bound cells. There are two divisions in the colonial organisms, ones that create their own food and ones that collect their own. If there is a God, God is really uncreative genetically speaking.

As for mankind, it is a steady collection of changes that eventually resulted in Homo Sapiens Sapiens, each little addition or subtraction creating benefits for the species as a whole.

Arguing with this is like saying, I believe in microaddition but not macroaddition because I've never seen anyone count to a billion. 1+1 = 2. 1+1+1 = 3. Continue for millions of years and you can easily reach a billion.

Creationism makes things more complex. Who created the Creator? Who created the Creator's Creator? It is a 'Turtles, all the way down', type of argument.

Of course this is easily refuted by saying, the Creator is eternal, and without creation.

But you want the simplest. The Simplest is that the Universe requires no creator, creators make things complex. If the creator is eternal and without creation, why not the Universe?

There is no reason it can't be. Study science for a while. We have a method, we have all these things supporting it, peer review, etc. There is no science conspiracy. If Evolution really was false, (in reality you probably mean Natural Selection), thousands of scientists would jump on it like mad, trying to make their reputation and disproving what has been established as 'fact' and proving new 'fact'.

Science isn't about 'truth, that is for Philosophy class, go down to your local University and take a course in Philosophy to understand the 'truth'. Science is about finding, and later verifying 'fact' and then building a theory around it.

You stole that last paragraph from Indiana Jones.

goddidit.

There, explained. :)

Cop-out. Yes, I know you were being facetious

You stole that last paragraph from Indiana Jones.

Harrison Ford should smack down all of the creationists like those Nazis and Kali worshippers and we all know it.

And science, thusly defined, is why you are able to post on this forum right now.

I know it makes you sad to admit this, but Creationism is basically useless. There has never been a single technological advance or useful hypothesis or productive theory generated using Creationism. It's simply not useful for anything, other than personal entertainment.

If it wasn't for fundamentalist monks, enormous amounts of knowledge would have been lost in the Dark Ages, and no one would be debating this topic, particularly on this forum, for another thousand years. and it was Mendel, a monk, who came up with the first experimental proof (and case of scientific fraud probably) of genetic transmission.

that said, religion has outlasted its usefulness for science, but maybe not for social reasons. after all, missionaries and religious groups probably still do more volunteering and work for the poor than anyone else. poll shouldn't have been this-or-that.

I don't believe in creationists. I've never seen one, and I think the concept is completely absurd. Where's the acreationistist option ?

If it wasn't for fundamentalist monks, enormous amounts of knowledge would have been lost in the Dark Ages, and no one would be debating this topic, particularly on this forum, for another thousand years. and it was Mendel, a monk, who came up with the first experimental proof (and case of scientific fraud probably) of genetic transmission.

that said, religion has outlasted its usefulness for science, but maybe not for social reasons. after all, missionaries and religious groups probably still do more volunteering and work for the poor than anyone else. poll shouldn't have been this-or-that.

Incorrect. While Christian Europe was regressing slowly into barbarity, India, China, and the Middle East were unaffected, and continuing on in scientific and technological advancement. Hell, you kids didn't even have the number 0.

wadda ya mean... he had to program it in BASIC! that's hard work. :rolleyes:

and the fact that it worked called for the 7th day celebration. :D

Obviously not a programmer. ;)

You'd be surprised. I'm programming in what is, in many ways, a more painful and slightly advanced version of BASIC. I want to gouge my eyes out after staring at this code for the past 2-3 weeks.

If that's all he did, he's a lazy bastard for taking the 7th day off.

wadda ya mean... he had to program it in BASIC! that's hard work. :rolleyes:

and the fact that it worked called for the 7th day celebration. :D

You're obviously not a programmer. ;)

You'd be surprised. I'm programming in what is, in many ways, a more painful and slightly advanced version of BASIC. I want to gouge my eyes out after staring at this code for the past 2-3 weeks.

ahh.. then you do understand the need for the 7th day celebration. ;)

Get some rest. can't have you posting on NSG with Gouged out eyes now...

ahh.. then you do understand the need for the 7th day celebration. ;)

Get some rest. can't have you posting on NSG with Gouged out eyes now...

No rest for the weary, I'm afraid. I'm at this moment going through all the calculations by hand to verify that its doing the math the way it should, and trying to figure out why it's still not working after 3 weeks of hammering away at it.

Harrison Ford should smack down all of the creationists like those Nazis and Kali worshippers and we all know it.
That would make a great movie......
If it wasn't for fundamentalist monks, enormous amounts of knowledge would have been lost in the Dark Ages, and no one would be debating this topic, particularly on this forum, for another thousand years. and it was Mendel, a monk, who came up with the first experimental proof (and case of scientific fraud probably) of genetic transmission.

that said, religion has outlasted its usefulness for science, but maybe not for social reasons. after all, missionaries and religious groups probably still do more volunteering and work for the poor than anyone else. poll shouldn't have been this-or-that.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/DarkAges.gif

No rest for the weary, I'm afraid. I'm at this moment going through all the calculations by hand to verify that its doing the math the way it should, and trying to figure out why it's still not working after 3 weeks of hammering away at it.

check syntax and punctuation also. that also trips me up big time.

check syntax and punctuation also. that also trips me up big time.

Oy, don't I know it. IDL isn't case sensitive, which tripped me up for a loooong time while I was correcting other problems.

So that the FSM created those is an easier explanation than "science". Good. I'm converted.

NO! You heretic, all true believers know that the Giant Space Chicken crapped the universe into existence!
Giant Space Chicken!!!
Giant Space Chicken!!!!!!
Giant Space Chicken!!!!!!!

... oh yeah, this is much better than science. So much simpler. Let's see if we can keep this argument going for a few centuries, and maybe burn some people at the stake and start a war or two.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/DarkAges.gifWas that development created or did it evolve?

Incorrect. While Christian Europe was regressing slowly into barbarity, India, China, and the Middle East were unaffected, and continuing on in scientific and technological advancement. Hell, you kids didn't even have the number 0.
and yet, somehow, christian european science far outpaced anything in india, china, or the middle east.

and yet, somehow, christian european science far outpaced anything in india, china, or the middle east.starting in the renaissance age, when contact with the Middle East was re-established. the renaissance age coincides also with the major rifts in european religious culture when folks started to severely doubt the authority of religion and its institutions.

NO! You heretic, all true believers know that the Giant Space Chicken crapped the universe into existence!
Giant Space Chicken!!!
Giant Space Chicken!!!!!!
Giant Space Chicken!!!!!!!

... oh yeah, this is much better than science. So much simpler. Let's see if we can keep this argument going for a few centuries, and maybe burn some people at the stake and start a war or two.

False teachings. Oregano is a foundation of existance and is present in the universe. Oregano doesn't grow well in high ammonia ground. Chicken crap is high in ammonia. Therefore since there is Oregano, the FSM is real and the GSC is not.

False teachings. Oregano is a foundation of existance and is present in the universe. Oregano doesn't grow well in high ammonia ground. Chicken crap is high in ammonia. Therefore since there is Oregano, the FSM is real and the GSC is not.

HERETIC! Giant Space Chicken crap does not contain ammonia. All regular chickens have had their digestive systems tampered with by the devil in order to create ammonia. Your use of false science is typical of the GSC-hating scientists' attempts to suppress the faith.

Worship the Giant Space Chicken!

Was that development created or did it evolve?

Aliens grew it in a test tube and planted it on earth in order to observe it.

That would make a great movie......


http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/DarkAges.gif
nonetheless, what was saved in the Dark Ages contributed significantly to the current state of understanding, particularly in math where the entirety of Greek geometry would have been lost. Arguably, the reliance on greek and roman views of astronomy pushed back the progress of science while copernicus and friends fought with the church. However, the major innovations of Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, rested solidly on what remained of science during the Renaissance.

as for the significant contributions of the muslims, there was still the problem of the crusades and both sides screaming Infidel! at each other. not entirely conducive to research.

False teachings. Oregano is a foundation of existance and is present in the universe. Oregano doesn't grow well in high ammonia ground. Chicken crap is high in ammonia. Therefore since there is Oregano, the FSM is real and the GSC is not.
who says science and religion can't coexist?

who says science and religion can't coexist?

I DO!

Fear the vengeance of the Giant Space Chicken, unbelievers, for His beak is pointy and his feathers are... umm... feathery! And they collect a lot of dust, which will cause you to sneeze a lot, and... anyway, you'll be sorry.

Worship the Giant Space Chicken!

who says science and religion can't coexist?

Religion, or at least the crazy part of religion.

Religion, or at least the crazy part of religion.bolded for emphasis...

and also don't forget, those crazy scientists who also believe that there is no God because there is no evidence supporting His existance.

I believe in both. I do believe that God created our universe and that we evolved. I don't think we evolved from primates but that we evolved to adapt to the verious climates on the earth.

Essentialy, I believe in evolution through adaptation rather then evolution towards a higher species.

I believe in both. I do believe that God created our universe and that we evolved. I don't think we evolved from primates but that we evolved to adapt to the verious climates on the earth.

Essentialy, I believe in evolution through adaptation rather then evolution towards a higher species.what?? :confused:

nonetheless, what was saved in the Dark Ages contributed significantly to the current state of understanding, particularly in math where the entirety of Greek geometry would have been lost. Arguably, the reliance on greek and roman views of astronomy pushed back the progress of science while copernicus and friends fought with the church. However, the major innovations of Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, rested solidly on what remained of science during the Renaissance.Greek geometry was never lost in the Muslim world, it was even extended there. That's why we have Arabic numerals today.

as for the significant contributions of the muslims, there was still the problem of the crusades and both sides screaming Infidel! at each other. not entirely conducive to research.That wasn't a problem really for all those merchants of Venice.

who says science and religion can't coexist?Logic.
And history.

Religion, or at least the crazy part of religion.Which part is that?

Which part is that?
off hand... Bible literalists.

off hand... Bible literalists.how are they different from non-literalists?

how are they different from non-literalists?

Couple billion years.

Couple billion years.and? how does that make their version of the same belief "better" ?

and? how does that make their version of the same belief "better" ?

It's more in line with reality as it is.

That would make a great movie......


http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/DarkAges.gif

Nice, but how do you quantify scientific advancement?

I DO!

Fear the vengeance of the Giant Space Chicken, unbelievers, for His beak is pointy and his feathers are... umm... feathery! And they collect a lot of dust, which will cause you to sneeze a lot, and... anyway, you'll be sorry.

Worship the Giant Space Chicken!

You take your fowl beliefs elsewhere heretic. I stand in the grace of the noodly appendages. His sauce shall protect me from your mite-filled dust.

and? how does that make their version of the same belief "better" ?

so your grief isn't creation vs evolution, but belief in God!

thanks for clearing that up. ;)

I have seen so much stupidity an illogic in this thread that it makes me think that the only people left defending evolution are the monkeys themselves!

Evolutionists seem to immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks about how stupid creationists are, rather than actually proving why they're wrong.

Hey, if Stephan Hawking and Fred Hoyle say that their must be a Creator, I'm with them.

I have seen so much stupidity an illogic in this thread that it makes me think that the only people left defending evolution are the monkeys themselves!

Evolutionists seem to immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks about how stupid creationists are, rather than actually proving why they're wrong.

Hey, if Stephan Hawking and Fred Hoyle say that their must be a Creator, I'm with them.

You mean kind of like what you just did?

Awesome. Evolution celebrates its 420. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.


Heh... Darwin...

I have seen so much stupidity an illogic in this thread that it makes me think that the only people left defending evolution are the monkeys themselves!

Evolutionists seem to immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks about how stupid creationists are, rather than actually proving why they're wrong.

Hey, if Stephan Hawking and Fred Hoyle say that their must be a Creator, I'm with them.1. there :rolleyes:
2. do they say that there must be a creator?
3. only about 1/6th of the people here believe in creation, and you call them the remaining monkeys?

so your grief isn't creation vs evolution, but belief in God!

thanks for clearing that up. ;)belief in the bible.

I have seen so much stupidity an illogic in this thread that it makes me think that the only people left defending evolution are the monkeys themselves!



You do believe in evolution!

Nice, but how do you quantify scientific advancement?
I have no idea. I'd ask whoever made the image if I knew who it was.
I have seen so much stupidity an illogic in this thread that it makes me think that the only people left defending evolution are the monkeys themselves!

Evolutionists seem to immediately fall back on ad hominem attacks about how stupid creationists are, rather than actually proving why they're wrong.
You seem to be the one resorting to ad hominem attacks by implying that people who accept the theory of evolution are monkeys.

Hey, if Stephan Hawking and Fred Hoyle say that their must be a Creator, I'm with them.

What do the opinions of a theoretical physicist and an astronomer have to do with evolution?

What do the opinions of a theoretical physicist and an astronomer have to do with evolution?

Your mom! *zing!*


Wait, no, no zing. Dammit.

Essentialy, I believe in evolution through adaptation rather then evolution towards a higher species.

Thankfully that's what the Theory of evolution states as well. There is no such thing as a "higher species", only a more adept one towards the environment at hand.

In the bible it never mentioned Dinosaurs, or any other type of life before Adam and Eve. So, on that course, then the dinosaurs never 'happened' if the bible is truely right. I highly doubt in Creation as what are the odds some higher power just created the universe? What higher power made the dinosaurs? If there was a higher power, then why did they 'create' the dinosaurs? Just to watch them be slaughtered as the smallest creatures survived.. The smallest always survived. I firmly believe in Evolution, and until someone proves me wrong, then to bad.

In the bible it never mentioned Dinosaurs, or any other type of life before Adam and Eve. So, on that course, then the dinosaurs never 'happened' if the bible is truely right. I highly doubt in Creation as what are the odds some higher power just created the universe? What higher power made the dinosaurs? If there was a higher power, then why did they 'create' the dinosaurs? Just to watch them be slaughtered as the smallest creatures survived.. The smallest always survived. I firmly believe in Evolution, and until someone proves me wrong, then to bad.

And then people would call you pig-headed like a creationist that doesn't believe in evolution...

You can't win in this kind of arguments,... there's only faith in either something divine, or in that your hypothesis and theories won't fail you.

Heh... faith.

And then people would call you pig-headed like a creationist that doesn't believe in evolution...

You can't win in this kind of arguments,... there's only faith in either something divine, or in that your hypothesis and theories won't fail you.

Heh... faith.

Accepting scientific theories isn't faith, it's acknowledgement that they're the best fit for the currently available evidence.

Accepting scientific theories isn't faith, it's acknowledgement that they're the best fit for the currently available evidence.

Yeah, acceptance, all that, what I'm trying to say is, there's not enough solid evidence to support both of this theories, too much... plot holes.

Well, anyways, arguing about stuff like this is more or less,... fun,... I guess.

Yeah, acceptance, all that, what I'm trying to say is, there's not enough solid evidence to support both of this theories, too much... plot holes.

Er... I don't suppose 150 years of extensive scientific research, mountains of data, verified speciation are enough evidence to support evolution.

Of course not.

verified speciation

Such as what?

Such as what?

Nylon bacteria, various species of flies arising in laboratory situations, as well as naturally arising species in the natural world of insects and plants.

But that's fact. Observed occurence.

Or maybe the devil playing trick with us.

Not sure which one seems more plausible.

Such as what?
Its only wiki but its a good place to start..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

Nylon bacteria, various species of flies arising in laboratory situations, as well as naturally arising species in the natural world of insects and plants.

But that's fact. Observed occurence.

Or maybe the devil playing trick with us.

Not sure which one seems more plausible.

And did any of those create new complex structures?

And did any of those create new complex structures?

Explain complex.

Because in evolution, "complex" is very vague, and nearly impossible to define.

Humans are no more complex, nor any more evolved, than the modern Chimpanzee, for example. Just adapted differently.

Oh, not irreducible complexity. Please not that.

No, just how a a rarely-occuring occasion like mutation with a 99% failure rate can create something as complex as the eye in such a short time.

And did any of those create new complex structures?

Oh, not irreducible complexity. Please not that.

Oh, not irreducible complexity. Please not that.

Yes, that.

600 million years + must be classified as "short".

A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58.

Er... I don't suppose 150 years of extensive scientific research, mountains of data, verified speciation are enough evidence to support evolution.

Of course not.

Those data are still refutable.

It's not exactly built-in like 1+1=2,... there's a lot variables that can go wrong with it.

I myself believe in the whole creation of this current/local universe is through the Big Bang,... (and I also believe in a cyclic universe),... fast forward a few billion years into the stelliferous era,... i.e now, and you still can't prove that wheter that BANG into being was because it was willed by something divine.

I'm not as shallow as OMG TEH WROLD IZ 500o (or 6000) YAR OL! But I do believe that in this state of existence, through evolution or not, through chance of billions to one, this planet has produced intelligence enough to argue about it's own existence on their internet... and that's one hell of a miracle.

Whoop-dee-do and Hoopla. So if you say we came from chimpanzees,... why maybe yes we are,... but if you see in the numbers game, on the chances of early mammals developing into chimps and later on into... well, us... something must have designed it to do that.

Okay ,then, intelligent design? No,... that'll only limit the absolutely absurdness of God in the eyes of mortals. And I don't defend God in this one, I'm just defending my believes.

Anyways, me and God, will be having a few beers later, you wanna ask IT something?

Yes, that.

600 million years + must be classified as "short".

A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58.

About how often do mutations occur?

Those data are still refutable.

It's not exactly built-in like 1+1=2,... there's a lot variables that can go wrong with it.

I myself believe in the whole creation of this current/local universe is through the Big Bang,... (and I also believe in a cyclic universe),... fast forward a few billion years into the stelliferous era,... i.e now, and you still can't prove that wheter that BANG into being was because it was willed by something divine.

I'm not as shallow as OMG TEH WROLD IZ 500o (or 6000) YAR OL! But I do believe that in this state of existence, through evolution or not, through chance of billions to one, this planet has produced intelligence enough to argue about it's own existence on their internet... and that's one hell of a miracle.

Whoop-dee-do and Hoopla. So if you say we came from chimpanzees,... why maybe yes we are,... but if you see in the numbers game, on the chances of early mammals developing into chimps and later on into... well, us... something must have designed it to do that.

Okay ,then, intelligent design? No,... that'll only limit the absolutely absurdness of God in the eyes of mortals. And I don't defend God in this one, I'm just defending my believes.

Anyways, me and God, will be having a few beers later, you wanna ask IT something?

Well, that's consider humans as what evolution is going for(And no we did not evolve from chimps, chimps are just as advanced as we are in evolutionary terms, and to say otherwise is to have a complete lack of understanding about evolution).

I would think of it like this:

You have a giant mechanism. From the top, it pours several types of sand. As well, you have several mechanisms between the top and the bottom that randomly break up the falling sand. Now, as the sand falls, it makes a pile at the bottom. Different types of sand randomly fall into differently places.

An observer of the pile of sand looks at the pile, and sees exactly how unlikely it is that each sand grain would be exactly where it would be. They then come to the conclusion that someone must have placed the sand grains there purposely. There is no other explanation for those grains of sand being exactly in the place they are other than that. Regardless of the fact that they can still see the sand falling.

Other than that they fell there randomly, and that some people cannot conceive this concept that if it were to start over, everything would be completely different. As well, that line of thinking seems to indicate humans being the end of evolution, which is untrue. We are simply at the point in the line of evolution that we are at. Who know what the future may hold for the human species?

No, just how a a rarely-occuring occasion like mutation with a 99% failure rate can create something as complex as the eye in such a short time.

"Short time"? There's probably several hundred million years of evolution that go into a fully functioning human eye. You do understand that significantly less complex critters, like fish and insects, have eyes, yes? And that even less complex critters have appendages and protrusions that are light-sensitive?

There's no such thing as "a short time" in evolutionary theory.

About how often do mutations occur?

Ever heard of cancer?

Yes, that.

600 million years + must be classified as "short".

A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58.

I've seen numbers saying that the time it would take a field mouse to evolve into an elephant, given random mutations, being as low as 10,000 years. That obviously doesn't happen.

I'm also curious on their line of thinking as to how they describe the evolution of the eye for this study. As well, if they consider the fact that many cambrian species had eyes, and that before that there is still around 3.5 to 5.5 billion years(depending on who you ask for the age of the earth, still a very long time) of Earth's existance, 600 million years for an eye to evolve is nothing short of "meh", and downright possible.

Ever heard of cancer?

You mean the mutation that has an unfortunate tendency to kill people? What about useful mutations, as in one that adds information and won't kill you?

"Short time"? There's probably several hundred million years of evolution that go into a fully functioning human eye. You do understand that significantly less complex critters, like fish and insects, have eyes, yes? And that even less complex critters have appendages and protrusions that are light-sensitive?

There's no such thing as "a short time" in evolutionary theory.

Infact, talking about evolution in terms of time is misleading. It all really depends on rates of reproduction. The faster the rate of reproduction, in general, the faster the rate of evolution. Another very important factor is genetic variation among the population, which greatly changes the rate of evolution.

You mean the mutation that has an unfortunate tendency to kill people? What about useful mutations, as in one that adds information and won't kill you?

Eh, most mutations are neutral. They don't harm, nor help, the individual.

As well, mutations are neither bad nor are they good, generally speaking. There are certain environments in which a bad mutation could be useful. Nothing in evolution is strictly bad, so long as it does not hinder one's ability to reproduce.

Infact, talking about evolution in terms of time is misleading. It all really depends on rates of reproduction. The faster the rate of reproduction, in general, the faster the rate of evolution. Another very important factor is genetic variation among the population, which greatly changes the rate of evolution.

Yup. Which is why evolution is generally quantified in terms of generations, rather than years/months. After all, a day is a day to humans. It's a lifetime to may flies.

About how often do mutations occur?Almost as often as meioses occur.

Eh, most mutations are neutral. They don't harm, nor help, the individual.

As well, mutations are neither bad nor are they good, generally speaking. There are certain environments in which a bad mutation could be useful. Nothing in evolution is strictly bad, so long as it does not hinder one's ability to reproduce.

Sickle cell, for instance. Sucks to have, but boosts malaria resistance. The "goodness" and "badness" of genes are always going to be situational. There's no such thing as a universally good gene.

Alright, since it's clear I'm lost in that debate, how about this: How did we get nerve cells and body differences between us and Bonobos despite lacking the DNA information to account for such things?

And no, I'm just interested in such things.

Alright, since it's clear I'm lost in that debate, how about this: How did we get nerve cells and body differences between us and Bonobos despite lacking the DNA information to account for such things?
And no, I'm just interested in such things.??

Alright, since it's clear I'm lost in that debate, how about this: How did we get nerve cells and body differences between us and Bonobos despite lacking the DNA information to account for such things?

And no, I'm just interested in such things.

Er... care to elaborate?

If you're going down the line that we evolved from Chimps, that's a wrong assumption, as chimps weren't around when our Homo ancestors were arising.

As such, it would only make sense that we would have different traits than animals that followed a different evolutionary line.

Alright, since it's clear I'm lost in that debate, how about this: How did we get nerve cells and body differences between us and Bonobos despite lacking the DNA information to account for such things?

And no, I'm just interested in such things.

DNA information?

DNA information?

Well, such as our DNA lacks enough information to tell us how to shape our bodies and the form of our cells.

Well, such as our DNA lacks enough information to tell us how to shape our bodies and the form of our cells.what are you talking about?? :confused:

what are you talking about?? :confused:

Well, I'm trying to phrase this as best as I can, but our DNA cannot appear to account for our nerve cells and the differences between us and creatures with highly similair DNA.

Well, such as our DNA lacks enough information to tell us how to shape our bodies and the form of our cells.

So how do you suggest our bodies come to be in the shape they are, if not by using our DNA? If our DNA doesn't have the information for how our bodies form, then how can a clump of cells grow into a human being?

Well, such as our DNA lacks enough information to tell us how to shape our bodies and the form of our cells.

Source, please.

Well, I'm trying to phrase this as best as I can, but our DNA cannot appear to account for our nerve cells and the differences between us and creatures with highly similair DNA.Not every cell is accounted for in the DNA. Often DNA only contains the information "here be cells" of a specific type and minimum/maximum number. How that tissue forms out is then left to the tissue and its growth mechanisms (which is indeed rather complex). This actually works pretty well.

Source, please.

Do you consider Wired to be a reputable source?

I've never even heard of it.

Well, such as our DNA lacks enough information to tell us how to shape our bodies and the form of our cells.

That's a rather broad claim considering that we only recently mapped it.

We barely understand it. I raise the Leary eye on the credibility of the claim.

A formless context for existence, where value is meaningless and all is one substance. Value belongs to this world.That value, by definition, is sum zero.
That pretty much negates the point of having a soul. The soul experiences, learns, moves. The formless context is not only irrelevant but pretty much impossible for the individual.
If you intend to renounce the ego, it doesn't stop suffering. It just changes your point of view on it. I suppose it works when you're dead, or "prebirth", but the "prebirth" thing might be more about brain development and memory issues than any real understanding of a formless context.

It's not about being there, but about "becoming" from there to here.As Weird Al put it, so gracefully ....
I don't care about your karma
I don't care about what's hip
No space cadet's gonna tell me what to do
I won't swim in your jacuzzi
You can't make me settle down
I'd rather kick and jump and bite and scratch
And scream until I'm blue
I may as well be hyper as long as I'm still around
'Cause I'll have lots of time to be laid back
When I'm six feet underground.

(Chorus)
I'll be mellow when I'm dead (I'll be mellow when I'm dead)
I'll be mellow when I'm dead (I'll be mellow when I'm dead)
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead (I'll be mellow when I'm dead)
I'll be mellow when I'm dead (I'll be mellow when I'm dead)
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
When are you cosmic cowboys gonna get it through your heads
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead

I can't stand the smell of incense
I don't really like to jog
No Joni Mitchell 8-tracks in my car (oooh)
I hate anything organic
Even health food makes me sick
You won't catch me sipping Perrier
Down in some sushi bar, I tell you
Now's the time to go for all the gusto you can grab
You'll have plenty of time to be low-key
When you're laid out on the slab

(Chorus)

Ow! Bobcat!

I don't want no part of that vegetarian scene
I won't buy me a pair of designer jeans
No redwood hot tub to my name
I got all that I want and if it's all the same to you
I don't need a course in self-awareness
To find out who I am
And I'd rather have a Big Mac or a Jumbo Jack
Than all the bean sprouts in Japan. Wow!!!!

Ah so don't ask me what I'm into
I don't need to prove I'm cool
I'll break your arm if you ask me what's my sign
I won't tell you where my head's at
I don't need to see no shrink
Psychosis may be in this year but I'm really not that kind
And I'm in no hurry to be casual
In fact I think I'll wait
Until I'm pushing up the daisies
Like wow, man, can you relate?


I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead (mellow when I'm dead)
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead (mellow when I'm dead)
I'll be mellow when I'm dead
I'll be mellow when I'm dead .....wooooowww!


Not being able to prove "here" is essential (i.e. agnosticism). That is the philosophy required to understand God.
I never said i didn't understand "God". I simply don't buy into the Old Testament one (or many other for that matter). The attitudes needed to buy into the worship of Jahweh are the most sufferable and ignoble attributes humankind has ever perpetuated (far past shelf life, at that). Sans humility, actually - i like that one.
That god is kinda like exposing your kid to chicken pox so it doesn't kill them later on, imnsho.



I'm not big on Buddhism, but something like that, yeah.

You should give it a shot. There's a lot of excellent perks about it.

That god is kinda like exposing your kid to chicken pox so it doesn't kill them later on, imnsho.


What's wrong with that?

If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger. If it does kill you, here's a fun fact: we all die. Life is only a temporary condition between two eternities: death and pre-birth nonexistence.

What's wrong with that?

If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger. If it does kill you, here's a fun fact: we all die. Life is only a temporary condition between two eternities: death and pre-birth nonexistence.

I take it you play a lot of Russian Roulette...

I take it you play a lot of Russian Roulette...

With six bullets.:D

With six bullets.:D
... and an automatic pistol. :p

That value, by definition, is sum zero.
That pretty much negates the point of having a soul. The soul experiences, learns, moves. The formless context is not only irrelevant but pretty much impossible for the individual.
It doesn't "negate the point of having a soul" so much as make being spirit/soul real. After all, if having something that is "sum zero" be real to you can't convince you then no other thing can. But you're right --it is impossible to consider yourself unity and be an individual. Once the bigger picture is acquired, there's no going back.

If you intend to renounce the ego, it doesn't stop suffering. It just changes your point of view on it. I suppose it works when you're dead, or "prebirth", but the "prebirth" thing might be more about brain development and memory issues than any real understanding of a formless context.

Renounce? no; and the "suffering" is essential. It's not about renouncing it but simply putting it in perspective.

You mean the mutation that has an unfortunate tendency to kill people? What about useful mutations, as in one that adds information and won't kill you?

Cancerous cell is infact a good example of evolution and nature.

First, it's an excellent example of humans (and other multicellular organisms) developing from a single celled organism: Cancer is a way of complex organisms behaving more like superorganisms - co-operative collectives - rather than beings in their own right. This is also why - in case of complex organisms - most noticable mutations are often bad or at least non-beneficial for the organism as a whole as they're not compatible with and are unable to change the rest of the organism.

Secondly it's an excellent example of randomness of the process: There's no intelligence or 'will' guiding our cellural metabolism, it's simple chemical actions...Otherwise, why would cancer cells have the chance of growing in the first place? They get nutrition, water & oxygen the same way all the other cells do from the supporting structure (ie. the body) driven by the same chemical reactions.

Thirdly, cancerous mutation is infact good for the cell - especially in the short term - as it extends the life time of the cell and removes most restrictions on it's growth (multiplication through division). See eg. HeLa cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa_cell).

Fourthly, cancerous mutations are *rare* mutations: Most indigenous cell mutations are either ineffective, result in bad cell or go unnoticed.

You must also realize that mutation happens every time any being reproduces through sexual reproduction (no offspring conceived by different sexual intercourse is exactly the same), "larger" mutations happen when the cells involved in such reproduction are either mutated before the offspring is conceived or upon conception (I'd put my money on the latter :)).



As an example...

Consider you'd gain immortality & unlimited sexual appeal with the (hidden) prices of having your future children bear the same traits and for some inexplicable reason an allergy to contraceptives (:p). At first you wouldn't probably notice a thing, except of course that you've become immune to most causes of death (ie. disease, old age) and getting laid around a lot. After several generations your children would have become quite numerous with them having similar amounts of children.

After more time you and your offspring would begin to replace the human population with ever increasing number of reproductive immortals in average consuming about as much resources as other humans on the planet. With time the immortal population would grow too large to be sustained as there would be practically no natural way of them dying off leading to wars, famine & death.

You and your offspring would've become cancers to Earth. Their immortality (a "beneficial mutation") and uncontrolled growth would eventually kill off the structure that supports it in the very same way such a mutation in a cell can eventually kill off the 'host organism'.

But...as you and your offspring would be intelligent you'd have the option to think beyond your 'scope' and your wellbeing by limiting the growth as opposed to random cell which has to follow the chemical laws that created it. In a way, your family could become a benign tumor instead of becoming a cancer, depending on thy & thy offspring's intelligence, willpower and conscience - Instead of depending on the nature of the cell's mutation.

Alternatively the rest of the structure - humanity - could fight back and destroy you before anything bad (for them) would have had the chance to happen...in the same way a body protects itself against malignant mutations.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n243/garethpostans/not_this_shit_again.jpg

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n243/garethpostans/not_this_shit_again.jpg
where have you been... you're 948 posts late! :mad: :p

where have you been... you're 948 posts late! :mad: :p

Well, better late than never, eh? ;)

where have you been... you're 948 posts late! :mad: :p

Atleast it is all neatly kept inside one topic :) .

Yes, but only if the assumptions underlying the method are correct. If they aren't, the estimation becomes nonsense.
There is more than good reason to think that they are, though. Given that the measurements used to reach an age have been shown to be reliable and mutually verifying.

There is no documented case of the half-life of a sample varying.

Earlier, I gave an example of carbon14 measurements. Even though we have never observed changes in decay rates, we actually think that there has been. That should be enough of a warning that a similar situation could be happening with the other isotopes.
Barring external radiation sources, the half-life of a sample has always been seen to be constant.


Furthermore, I doubt that few people would stupidly think that the sun has always been there simply because we haven't observed any changes, or only tiny changes. If we think about it, about how much energy the sun is radiation, we can calculate that in about 15 billion years, at this rate, it will have burnt itself out. Except that the current rate is unlikely to continue. See, humans are clever enough to think about rate calculations and how carefully we should rely on our calculations.
Strawman.

The similarities between the sun and the half life of radiological samples are superficial only.

We know there are limits to the suns actions, because we understand how it works well enough. We also know that is not true for the half life of samples, because we know how that works well enough.

Rarely a problem because no one has a way of checking if it is a problem. And as for daughter products, nobody knows how the rocks formed. If the long age scenario is true, we can estimate or guess at how the gases condensed into rock (in multiple steps) and then assume that all of the daughter product is produced through decay. But that only works if the long ages were true. But we don't know if they are. One cannot simply use an estimation based on an assumption to show that the assumption is true, no matter how you try to worm around it.
Not is that how it works.

If the rates were off in the past, there would be evidence to show this. There is none.


So that is what it comes down to, eh? You think a young earth is a desperate claim, because you think the earth looks old, probably because you want the earth to be old. That would be prejudice. At least that I allow that the earth could be old. But you are saying that it must be old, with little other than the reason that it looks old. You are departing from scientific procedure. The 'old earth' seems to be in your head.
Pah, If it looks old, that is the only rational conclusion. The actions of a supernatural entity could fool me, yes. But given that, there is still no rational reason to think otherwise.



If these other methods are also based on uniformitarian assumptions, I place no confidence in them.
All of science is based on the NECESSARY assumption that things in the past work the same way as they do now.
Hell, all of LIFE is based on that necessary assumption.
Otherwise you can never predict anything, or rely on anything.

But how is one to decide where the anomalies lie? I suggest that the assumption that the world is old is pretty much the basis.
Nope. You take mathematical extremes.



The world doesn't look old. It doesn't look young. It just looks the way it is, because we have nothing else to compare it to, or at least nothing else where we know the age. Thus, the 'deceit' is a product of your mind, because you are convinced that the world is looking old.
You ignore that we have the world as it changes to look at to compare it to.

And it is simply another form of your prejudice to rule out a young earth because the old earth conclusion is the only scientific conclusion. All you have done is to rearrange your definition of 'scientific' to rule out creationism, and then you are left with uniformitarianism. That's not science. That's playing word games.
No, that's science. Creationism is a one off event by a supernatural entity that seems to be pretty camera shy. It cannot be science if you can't even test it.


If creationism is not scientific, according to your definition of 'scientific', perhaps your definition of 'scientific' is useless. To me it is, because I'm only interested in the truth (whether that be an old earth or a young earth), not your 'science'.
Bollocks you are, you are only interested in trying to widen the definition of science to allow for your religious ideas. Of course you also have to widen it enough to allow for alchemy, magic, and astrology as well. To be consistent.


That all depends on how much radiation levels you are starting with. If you assume that there were no daughter products to begin with, and that all the decay that we see now had to have released its radiation via some unknown mechanism within a mere fraction of several billion years, then you might have a point. However, I see quite a lot of problems with your estimation. Not least is the problem of decay beginning at a definite point. In a creation scenario, there may not be any condensation of gases and eventually turning to rock.
Which changes nothing. If the rock was created looking old, the only conclusion that is supported by the evidence is that it is old.


I certainly do not describe it as 'to an astounding degree'. In fact, I suggest that the fossil record fits better with creation. The vast majority of fossils can be fit into straight lines of lineage (as opposed to the evolutionary trees), showing little or no variation, and suddenly appearing in the strata. The fact that anyone can claim a fit with evolutionary theory 'to an astounding degree' is rather astounding.
You seem to want to ignore all of the transitional fossils.


Ahhhh, there you have it. We don't see the transitional fossils because fossilization is too rare. That is a life-saver of an explanation for the evolutionary theory. Whoever thought that up should get a nobel prize. Here's the thing that the experts are saying: the fossil record does not show nice sequences from one species to another. That is WHY they come up with the 'rare fossilization' explanation, and things like punctuated equilibrium, which says that evolution occurs in leaps and bounds, not gradually, so that all we see are the relatively stationary moments. That means all the steps between a lizard and a bird had to have happened relatively quick, because we just don't see all that many links.
Except there are plenty of transitional fossils. Technically all fossils are transitional of course, but ignoring that. We know that the conditions required for fossilisation are incredibly rare, and that even fewer are likely to survive the years since their deaths for us to find. Many species are represented by single fossil specimens. It is not, as you claim, an ad hoc explanation for why there are so few fossils.

Even with the limitations of having to rely on fossilisation, there are still plenty of transitional species representing the transition from reptile to bird. Feathered dinosaurs being not the least of these.

Of course, creationists tend to classify these as one or the other, and ignore all evidence to the contrary, no matter that they share some features that are only found in birds, and some that are only found in dinosaurs. They are, by creationists, described as absolutely one or the other.




I don't think you realize what you are saying. 'Given that similarities over time are fairly clear.' That's all just speculation. It's worth nothing outside of the old age assumptions.
And "It's possible they were just created to look like they were all similar, in a coincidental pattern that looks like evolution" is certainly not a desperate attempt to keep the floor open to the idea that your religion is historically valid.

It's not a dismissal. It's an allowance. And yes, it will mean that I am a lot more careful with the explanations. I won't go around believing that science has proven evolution to be the truth. That is because I hold more respect for the truth than I do for any idea that claims to be the truth.
I really doubt that.


We actually don't know if they are transposons. We think they might be, because of the sequence homology. But it could also mean that there are other natural causes to account for them. One of the problems with the method is the assumption that the 'decayed' transposon sequences are nevertheless somewhat conserved. If conserved, they then might have a function, with removes the randomness aspect. If not conserved, then they are not the remains of ancient transposon insertions, just conincidences, or even more puzzling, convergent evolution (as opposed to divergent evolution).
The insertions are random, whether they later serve some function is another matter entirely.


The presence of what looks like a telomere at an internal location with respect to the ape chromosome does seem to favour common ancestry, I have to say. The problems could be to do with a correct identification of a telomere, since repetitive DNA is rather common, more than 50% of the genome. Furthermore, telomeres seem to serve a role in the cell (particularly with DNA replication). There is no reason to assume that it must be at the end of the cell, nor that it serves only one role. The whole argument for common ancestry does involve a lot of unknowns, at this stage, since telomere research still has a long way to go.
The presence of telomeres in the inside of a cell is a dead giveaway.
And that's not the only part of it. The structure of the two chromosomes that combined into one is also preserved.

sure, you can dismiss this as you dismiss so many other lines of evidence, because it disagrees with your anti-evolution agenda, but that changes nothing.


It's to do with the estimation of mutation rates per nucleotide in humans.

I've lifted most of this from a link: http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html

A creationist link is not a valid source.
Look what other link i found.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html



But it's only implausible because he 'knows' that humans are older. As for myself, I'm a long way from concluding that humans must be young, since there is a good possibility that another explanation for the data is yet to turn up. I remain a skeptic.
Yes, the known age of civilisation being older than is allowed by such things.
Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years."



Another interesting paper published in September 2000 in the Journal Scientist by Denver et al. is also quite interesting. These scientists reported their work with the mtDNA mutation rates of nematode worms and found that these worm's molecular clocks actually run about "100 times faster than previously thought".
Also to note the following, left out of the page you linked to
Damaging mutations result in the death of a line, meaning they are not preserved. However to get an accurate estimate of mtDNA mutations, all mutations must be taken into account. So the team 'artificially evolved' the worms, allowing them to produce the next generation even if they had developed debilitating mutations.


Another paper takes a difference approach, measuring the nuclear DNA mutation rate.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297
It seems that the genomic deleterious mutation rate is so high that it is 'difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common'. In other words, the build up of detrimental mutations in a (human) population might lead toward extinction. At that rate, we are all dying, not evolving. The mutation rate is too high.
Either that, or they simply do not understand the mechanisms involved fully.

Whichever it is, why does this matter?
Either scenario is in full accordance with the theory of evolution.


Your claim is that changes in bacteria and speciation in fruit flys is evidence of macroevolution. In that case, we should be able to identify the changes, both in the genotype and the phenotype, and see if those changes can be extrapolated to account for all the variation we see in life.
We can and do.

All the variation seen in life is based on genetic changes, and thus is based on numerous small change in DNA.


Firstly, the fly speciation.
''It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

This link covers the popular press version of the fly speciation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Based on the most common definition of speciation, it occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

The Drosophila mojavensis and the Drosophila arizonae are very similar, genetically, and are capable of interbreeding in captivity. But in the wild, they do not. Female D. mojavensis crossed with male D. arizonae produce fertile offspring, but the opposite cross does not.

''Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.''

''However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.''

Believe? That doesn't sound very much like good evidence.
Lions and tigers can also reproduce when in captivity. They are still seperate species.

And the reason for the debate is that no single definition of species is widely useful.

For example any definition based on ability to reproduce ignores all asexual reproduction.

My conclusions to this is that the mechanisms by when these two species are diverging is not yet understood. Thus, while it may well be speciation, it cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution. There is simply a loss of the ability to interbreed. This probably isn't introducing new biochemical pathways and other forms of complexity.
And since when does speciation require either of those?

As for the bacteria, it is well known that bacterial like Golden staph (Staphylococcus aureus) is able to acquire resistance to antibiotics. Mostly, it is through conjugation between different species of bacteria. Probably, the Pseudomonas living in the soil carries a plasmid that allows it to survive in penicillin rich soils (because of the many fungi), and a conjugation event (like bacterial sex) between the Pseudomonas and the Staph living on human skin means that the Staph acquires the plasmid. This has the appearance of gaining information that might support macroevolution. There is a new gene, perhaps even a new biochemical pathway in the Staph. However, if you consider the pool of genes from a combination of the Staph and the Pseudomonas, there is no new genes and biochemical pathways. There is only a lateral transfer between organisms. This is inadequate for macroevolution, since macroevolution requires the generation of novel genes and biochemical pathways.
An example of which has already been presented. Enzyme to digest nylon = new gene.

Thus, my conclusion is that antibiotic resistance does not support macroevolution.
Never said it did.
I said observed evolution in bacteria does, not single mutations.



Do they? I doubt it. Was the grand canyon the result of long ages, or a flood? We don't know, actually. But it was probably more likely a flood, although I don't think anyone is arguing for 'obvious tell tale signs'.
More likely a flood? No flood could carve a canyon like that.

Especially one where water magically appears from nowhere and then disappears.


To find evidence to support creation, one does not have to observe the creation event. One would only have to find evidence that is consistent with it, and preferrably which cannot be explained by evolution.
That would not support a creation event. Merely be evidence against evolution.

No, it's more complicated than that. Firstly, we would have to find a satisfactory definition of 'speciation'. Then we would have to understand the genetic basis for the speciation, to see if it is consistent with an increase in genetic information. If it involves only a loss of information, genes, proteins, RNAs, etc., then such a speciation would be inadequate as support for macroevolution.
"Increase in genetic information" what bullcrap is this? I had hoped you would be beyond old creationist canards like this.
Define information please. And tell my why macroevolution must always inculde an increase in this definition of information

It doesn't "negate the point of having a soul" so much as make being spirit/soul real. After all, if having something that is "sum zero" be real to you can't convince you then no other thing can. But you're right --it is impossible to consider yourself unity and be an individual. Once the bigger picture is acquired, there's no going back.
To lose perspective isn't necessarily seeing a "bigger picture" .... in the same way it could be delerium, delusion, death, coma, or focus of a certain persuasion. I'm learning all the time, and of course, my picture gets bigger all the time. But my faculty is measured accordingly, as is my understanding, and my wisdom, and my appreciation for those things is not in a case of irretrievability. They are the foundation of how i got "here".
If i were to lose my ego and all perceptive capacity, there would be no measurement by which growth, reason, and experience could actually occur.

The soul, btw, is no less "real" if it doesn't lose itself. Neither is the spirit. Those concepts are pretty much moot, as i'd said, if you are into zero sum experience.
Perhaps you are thinking of a different concept of soul and spirit than i am, which wouldn't surprise me, since people of all walks seem to have their own figure on how it all works for them anyway. Take "love", for example.


Renounce? no; and the "suffering" is essential. It's not about renouncing it but simply putting it in perspective.I think i'd said pretty much that, just a little differently.
I don't mean embodiment of sin for sake of glory or any of that other bullsh*t, either, to elucidate.
When you say value is of "this world", be cautious with your intent there.
Value is clearly stated as import in Yahweh's world as well.
I don't mean denominational appreciation of things external of spirit and worth through barter.

What's wrong with that?Did i say something was wrong with it?
I'm saying that it's a matter of experience to make the perspective valuable.
Think it over a bit, perhaps?


If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger.The Hormetic Principle does NOT, i repeat: DOES NOT apply to everything. There are certain things that kill you in a fashion quicker than your constitution can compensate, even if you aren't consciously aware of it. Happens all the time, actually.

If it does kill you, here's a fun fact: we all die. Life is only a temporary condition between two eternities: death and pre-birth nonexistence.It's a quaint axiom, but useless to the living in any manner other than emotional and psychological compensation.
Simply put, you're hard pressed to prove an eternity of anything. You simply aren't equipped for it. Life is an insistent temporary condition.

in case i haven't already said it, and since if i have it's more then two pages back and there ain't no way i'm gonna read all 64 pages to check and make sure,

...

and god said: "let there be evolution (because trying to hand craft each of billions of species on each of billions of worlds, is too friggin much like work!)"

=^^=
.../\...

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n243/garethpostans/not_this_shit_again.jpg

:p (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg)

and yet, somehow, christian european science far outpaced anything in india, china, or the middle east.starting in the renaissance age, when contact with the Middle East was re-established. the renaissance age coincides also with the major rifts in european religious culture when folks started to severely doubt the authority of religion and its institutions.

Let's also not forget that the Arabs even added to our own scientific knowledge- "algebra" (al-Jabar) is an Arabic term, and it's well known that they were far more advanced in medicine than the Europeans were at the same time. It's also worth noting that the Chinese invented quite a few things that were later "invented" in Europe, such as paper and gun powder.

I also wonder how much "science" has been lost or suppressed in India, China, Africa and other parts of the world simply because the Europeans didn't wish to ackowledge their accomplishments. Great Zimbabwe is a good example of this- it took until 1980- when Zimbabwe itself became independent- for the idea that the ancient city was "built by 'white people' who were 'lost'" (the "lost" people have varied from an Israelite tribe, a Roman legion, the Egyptians (who were probably not "white" in the strictest sense of the word anyway or the Phoenicians) to be firmly eradicated, despite evidence as early as 1929 proving it was built by Africans. It's only very recently where we in the West have decided to firmly take up learning our non-European history with an objective eye and while it's done a lot to "fill in the gaps", a lot is still unknown.

I bring this up because it's important to differentiate between "scientific knowledge" and "Western scientific knowledge". One of the things that's always bothered me about perceptions regarding history- and thus, the history of scientific discovery- is that it's "all done by white guys" when this isn't true. This perception is fueled by how it's taught to us given that most of the information we're required to learn and digest deal with the works of mainly "white", male people. Part of the reason for this is because we're in the West and thus Western history *should* focus on Westerners- who are, throughout most of their history, predominantly white- with Western history getting subconsciously extrapolated to "world history" because the Western nations are in such a dominant position globally (even though it's erroneous to call Western history, "global history" because it's not). The other part of the perception is a question of source material. Since it's only recently in our own society that a woman could be given the opportunity to write a textbook or that we've even bothered to research non-European works, it's not surprising that most of what we have comes from white men. Does this mean that white men were the only ones capable of discovery? Of course not- it just means that their writings are what we have. Research is being done to collect works of other, non-white and non-male writers and researchers and while it's done a lot to "make up some ground", there's still a lot left to be done. Don't get me wrong- this shouldn't diminish the accomplishments of the discoverers that we know of now, but they shouldn't be extrapolated as "everything we know" when they're not.

Creationism is not scientific. That does not depend on anybody's personal definition but on the definition of science as such. And what definitions are to you is irrelevant, as they don't depend on your personal opinion. If you are really interested in truth, the scientific method is the only reliable method to find out about truth. Everything else is just faith and thus completely useless.

My definitions certainly do matter to me. (Maybe not to you, but probably that's because my whole life doesn't matter to you. But that's irrelevant here.)

The definition of 'scientific' pretty much varies from person to person. But generally, 'scientific' will mean a certain avoidance of commitment to any ideal, either creationism or naturalism.

I think your idea that 'the scientific method is the only reliable method to find out the truth' is actually a non-scientific assertion, an ideal that you have no way of testing. In fact, pretty much all of your assertions above are non-scientific. Does that make them irrelevant? Not to you, at least. But since they cannot be called 'scientific, thus, by your own claim, you have ruled your own non-scientific conclusions as 'faith' and thus 'completely useless'.

Ye...no. Creationism isn't science for two significant reasons (among many other reasons).
1: It puts forth a supernatural explanation of facts as they are. Science is, by its very nature, a naturalistic methodology. You CAN NOT have a supernatural explanation and call it science.

I have proposed a form of creationism that is not committed to a particular interpretation of a scriptural account. Thus, it does not rule out evolution and long ages, nor sudden creation, nor a young earth, but does recognise that God did it. How he did it is unknown, and best left guided by the evidence.

It is one of the pillars of naturalism that rules out any mention of the supernatural, and which implies an assumption that God didn't do anything. However, if you buy into the whole 'science equals naturalistic methodology' philosophy, you have to consider that all the science done before Darwin, and a good deal of what is being done today all around the world (by people who don't buy into that definition) is not actually science. You have, therefore, a narrow definition of science that heavily depends on the philosophy of naturalism. Considering how much 'science' was and is done by people who don't hold your view, you will have to construct some rather hefty arguments about how this was possible.

Or, your claim is based on an impossible ideal, and has little to do with the real world.



2: It does not base its hypothesis (that god created the universe) on observational data, but rather on a literary account that is impossible to verify.


That would be according to your narrow little definition of creationism. I'm challenging your definition, and proposing that creationists are simply anyone who holds (assumes, believes) that God had ANYTHING to do with the origins.


Go, find something in nature that supports creationism that can't more easily be explained through science, and we'll talk.

Sorry. It's not creationism versus science. It's not even creation versus evolution. That is a false dicotomy. It is creationism versus naturalism, where naturalists are anyone who holds (assumes, believes) that nothing other than natural causes had anything to do with the origins.

Probably the biggest problem with naturalism is abiogenesis.

The definition of 'scientific' pretty much varies from person to person. But generally, 'scientific' will mean a certain avoidance of commitment to any ideal, either creationism or naturalism.



Science, and therefore scientific, is defined by the scientific method. There is an overwhelming agreement amongst scientists of what the main components of the scientific method are. Creationism simply cannot meet those requirements however much you would like it to. Get over it.

Creationism has never been science. The definition of "science" has always excluded Creationism and similar belief systems.

No. It hasn't. It is fact that the people who started science believed that the universe was created by a rational mind, and thus allowed a rational investigation into that universe. Many people doing science today hold the same view.


And science, thusly defined, is why you are able to post on this forum right now.


Rather, I would say that this rational investigation of the universe is why I can use this forum. It has little to do with the assumption that all things can be explained through natural causes.


I know it makes you sad to admit this, but Creationism is basically useless. There has never been a single technological advance or useful hypothesis or productive theory generated using Creationism. It's simply not useful for anything, other than personal entertainment.

Most science is possible in the absence of any theory of the origins. Thus, I could agree that the idea of creationism itself probably hasn't contributed much technological advancements. But indirectly, it has, because it has been a motivation for people like myself all throughout the past several hundred years. We feel like we are investigating what God has made. More than personal entertainment, it has become the reason for why we do what we do.

The same can be extended to naturalism. People get their motivation from naturalism. They find it a beautiful inspiring ideal. But it hasn't actually generated a single technological advancement.



Projecting your unhappiness about this reality onto the very practices which provide you with all the modern comforts of your life is, frankly, pretty rude of you. If you cannot bring yourself to thank science for all the wonders it has provided for you, then at least have the decency to remain silent and refrain from spitting on science.

Actually, I'm not at all unhappy. That would be a mistake of you to assume this. I like my position. And I like most of the modern comforts that science brings, though I don't make a habit of thanking science for them. Rather, I can thank God for making such possibilities, and for allowing and even encouraging such a wonderful occupation as science.

My definitions certainly do matter to me. (Maybe not to you, but probably that's because my whole life doesn't matter to you. But that's irrelevant here.)

The definition of 'scientific' pretty much varies from person to person. But generally, 'scientific' will mean a certain avoidance of commitment to any ideal, either creationism or naturalism.

I think your idea that 'the scientific method is the only reliable method to find out the truth' is actually a non-scientific assertion, an ideal that you have no way of testing. In fact, pretty much all of your assertions above are non-scientific. Does that make them irrelevant? Not to you, at least. But since they cannot be called 'scientific, thus, by your own claim, you have ruled your own non-scientific conclusions as 'faith' and thus 'completely useless'.no. you obviously have no clue what science means.

Science, and therefore scientific, is defined by the scientific method. There is an overwhelming agreement amongst scientists of what the main components of the scientific method are. Creationism simply cannot meet those requirements however much you would like it to. Get over it.


Your argument seems to be based on the 'overwhelming agreement amongst scientists of what the main components of the scientific method are.' In other words, this is an argument from the majority. You are assuming that the majority couldn't have got it wrong.

I only have to point out to you how science gets it wrong all the time, and simply adjusts its ideas and explanations to a better fit with the data. Getting it wrong is actually part of the science procedure.

I just shot your reason in the head.

I only have to point out to you how science gets it wrong all the time, and simply adjusts its ideas and explanations to a better fit with the data. Getting it wrong is actually part of the science procedure.And? That's the way to refine information, isn't it? That's what creationism fails to do. Creationism will always remain in the first stage of fact finding and subsequently never really find any facts except the obvious.

Your argument seems to be based on the 'overwhelming agreement amongst scientists of what the main components of the scientific method are.' In other words, this is an argument from the majority. You are assuming that the majority couldn't have got it wrong.

I only have to point out to you how science gets it wrong all the time, and simply adjusts its ideas and explanations to a better fit with the data. Getting it wrong is actually part of the science procedure.

I just shot your reason in the head.

no, 'science' gets its conclusions "wrong" all the time, and does indeed change its theories to fit new evidence.

what doesn't much change is the way they get there - the scientific method. that's pretty much constant, and with good reason too.

creationist "theory" does not fit in with that method.




you missed.

No. It hasn't. It is fact that the people who started science believed that the universe was created by a rational mind, and thus allowed a rational investigation into that universe. Many people doing science today hold the same view.

Wrong. But nice try.


Rather, I would say that this rational investigation of the universe is why I can use this forum. It has little to do with the assumption that all things can be explained through natural causes.

Wrong. But nice try.


Most science is possible in the absence of any theory of the origins. Thus, I could agree that the idea of creationism itself probably hasn't contributed much technological advancements. But indirectly, it has, because it has been a motivation for people like myself all throughout the past several hundred years. We feel like we are investigating what God has made. More than personal entertainment, it has become the reason for why we do what we do.

Creationism still hasn't produced anything, even if that is true. People have, due to their motivation. Saying that Creationism is what provides discoveries because it motivates people is like saying that my grandfather's death is what's writing my thesis, because his death motivated me to go to grad school.

Bunk. Your personal motivations are great, and all, but they aren't generating new scientific hypotheses.


The same can be extended to naturalism. People get their motivation from naturalism. They find it a beautiful inspiring ideal. But it hasn't actually generated a single technological advancement.

Wrong again. And really not such a great try this time.


Actually, I'm not at all unhappy. That would be a mistake of you to assume this. I like my position.

*Shrug* Whatever works for you.


And I like most of the modern comforts that science brings, though I don't make a habit of thanking science for them. Rather, I can thank God for making such possibilities, and for allowing and even encouraging such a wonderful occupation as science.
I find that remarkably insulting and dishonorable of you. Refusing to give credit to the people and the processes which actually provide you with such gifts, and instead heaping credit on a supernatural being created in your own image...that's pretty much the height of arrogance and disrespect.

Your argument seems to be based on the 'overwhelming agreement amongst scientists of what the main components of the scientific method are.' In other words, this is an argument from the majority. You are assuming that the majority couldn't have got it wrong.

I only have to point out to you how science gets it wrong all the time, and simply adjusts its ideas and explanations to a better fit with the data. Getting it wrong is actually part of the science procedure.

I just shot your reason in the head.

It essentially is agreement of the majority as that is the most useful thing. The majority changes when evidence is offered that shows them wrong. It is far better than having a few nutcases who believe in fairies and atlantis and creationism changing the scientific method to suit there silly beliefs.

You have more shot yourself in the foot more than my reason in the head.

Earlier you were using the 'I have seen the experts get it wrong so I can discount anything they say" as an argument for your position. Have you changed your mind or is it just an inconsistent approach so that whatever suits you is evidence and what doesn't isnt?

And? That's the way to refine information, isn't it? That's what creationism fails to do. Creationism will always remain in the first stage of fact finding and subsequently never really find any facts except the obvious.

You are still basing your idea of Creationism on a narrow definition, a position taken by people who are probably not scientists. Why is that? Are you afraid to take on a more robust version of creationism?


no, 'science' gets its conclusions "wrong" all the time, and does indeed change its theories to fit new evidence.

what doesn't much change is the way they get there - the scientific method. that's pretty much constant, and with good reason too.

creationist "theory" does not fit in with that method.

I doubt you have understood the point. Read the thread a little more. I'm not criticising the scientific method. I am criticising the philosophy that commits to naturalistic interpretations, and proposing that creationism can work, is in fact superior, so long as it doesn't commit to a particular interpretation of the creation account. Free of commitments to any ideal, it can allow the scientific method to flourish.


Bunk. Your personal motivations are great, and all, but they aren't generating new scientific hypotheses.


Nor should they. Neither should yours. Motivations are motivations, and should not be the basis for interpreting the data.


I find that remarkably insulting and dishonorable of you. Refusing to give credit to the people and the processes which actually provide you with such gifts, and instead heaping credit on a supernatural being created in your own image...that's pretty much the height of arrogance and disrespect.

But you said science, not people. Sure I have a good deal of respect for people like Watson and Crick, despite their personal beliefs. And if I ever met Watson, I would be honoured. But I don't think I'm ever going to say 'Oh, thank you science, for giving me this computer.' I mean........come on. That's a sign of madness, isn't it? How can you give thanks to a process?

And, no, the computer wasn't a gift. I had to pay for it.

And it's even more arrogant to believe in God and yet not to thank him for all the good things one enjoys.

Actually, it's rather silly of you to call something arrogance without checking to see what it looks like from within my world view, rather than judging me from your own world view.


It essentially is agreement of the majority as that is the most useful thing. The majority changes when evidence is offered that shows them wrong. It is far better than having a few nutcases who believe in fairies and atlantis and creationism changing the scientific method to suit there silly beliefs.

We don't need to change the scientific method. We invented it. (Yes, it was invented by creationists.) We don't need to buy into the belief that everything should be explained through natural causes. Because if we did, we would have to be silly enough to invent natural causes, without a shred of evidence for them, like dark matter.

The majority doesn't necessarily change even in the face of evidence. How long have we known that women are no less intelligent and capable than men? Hundreds of years? Maybe? But where do you see the majority actually acting on this? Most of the women in this world are probably no better off than where they were when they were thought of as little more than animals.

Nah, the majority is capable of not changing, even when they know the truth. And the 'nutcases' in that situation are right.

Earlier you were using the 'I have seen the experts get it wrong so I can discount anything they say" as an argument for your position. Have you changed your mind or is it just an inconsistent approach so that whatever suits you is evidence and what doesn't isnt?

My point is that, yes, the experts have got it wrong in the past, are still getting it wrong in the present, and probably will continue to do so. Because they are human, and the human element will always be a part of the scientific method, despite such things as peer review. I accept this as part of the method.

I'm not different. I will get things wrong too. But that is even more reason to be skeptical of what anyone says, the experts included, even what your own favourite theory says. The moment you fail to question your favourite theory is the moment you are taking a step away from learning the truth.

I wouldn't say that I discount anything the experts say. But I do tend to value their opinions in the context of their world view (governing assumptions). But if they haven't bothered to state their opinions with respect to their world view, then I am quick to check if their estimations have any value outside of their world view. If not, I do not consider those estimates to be evidence for the truth of their world view.

In fact, once upon a time I also had the attitude that whatever the majority of the experts say much be the closest thing to the truth. It's only as I did my own searching and analysing and judging that I have come to the conclusion that it is far better to be skeptical and critical of the experts, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. The experts change, but the truth doesn't.

To lose perspective isn't necessarily seeing a "bigger picture" .... in the same way it could be delerium, delusion, death, coma, or focus of a certain persuasion. I'm learning all the time, and of course, my picture gets bigger all the time. But my faculty is measured accordingly, as is my understanding, and my wisdom, and my appreciation for those things is not in a case of irretrievability. They are the foundation of how i got "here".
It's not necessary to lose a perspective, but to acquire one, to see this bigger picture.

If i were to lose my ego and all perceptive capacity, there would be no measurement by which growth, reason, and experience could actually occur.
True. This is why, as I said, by my understanding ego is not abandoned or denied, only put in perspective.

The soul, btw, is no less "real" if it doesn't lose itself. Neither is the spirit. Those concepts are pretty much moot, as i'd said, if you are into zero sum experience.
No less real, exactly, and no more. The significant realization is not so much a matter of making spirit real as making the "sum zero" real. :)

Perhaps you are thinking of a different concept of soul and spirit than i am, which wouldn't surprise me, since people of all walks seem to have their own figure on how it all works for them anyway. Take "love", for example.

I think i'd said pretty much that, just a little differently.
I don't mean embodiment of sin for sake of glory or any of that other bullsh*t, either, to elucidate.
When you say value is of "this world", be cautious with your intent there.
Value is clearly stated as import in Yahweh's world as well.
I don't mean denominational appreciation of things external of spirit and worth through barter.

Okay. I'm not a Christian, so I'll take your word for it.

You are still basing your idea of Creationism on a narrow definition, a position taken by people who are probably not scientists. Why is that? Are you afraid to take on a more robust version of creationism?There are no robust versions of creationism. I too know the bible.

I think it's time for a musical intermission:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JSR_6qfXTg

:)

It's like watching a tennis match between someguy and a brick wall.

There are no robust versions of creationism. I too know the bible.

Robust Creationism= One small aspect of one of the many dozens of sciences that support the TOE may have a flaw in it according to new data so "goddidit".

I've yet to see anyone actually present evidence for a creator and not just evidence against TOE.

No matter how it's packaged (ie intelligent design, etc.), it always boils down to "goddidit".

It's like watching a tennis match between someguy and a brick wall.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. The brick wall, being made of many bricks stacked upon one another, remains as ensconced in its own inexhorable worldview, unwilling to accept change, and ignorant of the tennis player's efforts, who happens to be dynamic and bettering himself, whereas the wall refuses to accept that it the tennis player will move on to more intelligent opponents, once this practice is complete.

Robust Creationism= One small aspect of one of the many dozens of sciences that support the TOE may have a flaw in it according to new data so "goddidit".

'evolutiondidit' is no better. Or what is worse, 'naturalcausesdidit, evenifthosenaturalcausesdon'texist' explanations.



I've yet to see anyone actually present evidence for a creator and not just evidence against TOE.

Unless you have any serious alternatives to natural causes, then I suggest that makes 'Goddidit' a possibility. Another possibility would be aliens. Although they could also be defined as 'god'. Or you could go after parallel universes. Still, that's not that many options.

Plus, it's not evidence against the TOE, necessarily, just evidence against the wisdom of making a commitment to natural causes as the explanation for everything.

As far as evidence goes for a creator, the design theorist do have a case. If they can show that design in living systems can only come from design, and not from natural causes, then this is a very powerful argument for a creator.


No matter how it's packaged (ie intelligent design, etc.), it always boils down to "goddidit".

That's not necessarily a bad thing, right? Otherwise we would not have all those 'evolutiondidit' explanations.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. The brick wall, being made of many bricks stacked upon one another, remains as ensconced in its own inexhorable worldview, unwilling to accept change, and ignorant of the tennis player's efforts, who happens to be dynamic and bettering himself, whereas the wall refuses to accept that it the tennis player will move on to more intelligent opponents, once this practice is complete.

Exactly. Here, have a candy bar.

Yes, the point obviously escaped you.

Out of bounds, point goes to me.... and the candy bar.

Exactly. Here, have a candy bar.

Yes, the point obviously escaped you.

Out of bounds, point goes to me.... and the candy bar.

Well played, sir.

Perhaps, for you, the candy bar is adequate.

Well played, sir.

Perhaps, for you, the candy bar is adequate.

I has Nougat.:D

Double or nothing?

Okay, your serve.

I has Nougat.:D

Double or nothing?

Okay, your serve.

Okay, so these two guys walk into a bar...

You'd think after so many repetitions, SOMEONE would have maintained and passed on the genetic mutation needed to avoid this unfortunate circumstance.

Unless you have any serious alternatives to natural causes, then I suggest that makes 'Goddidit' a possibility. Another possibility would be aliens. Although they could also be defined as 'god'. Or you could go after parallel universes. Still, that's not that many options.

Of course, the God from "Goddidit" could be any of the several million gods humanity has devised and sometimes even worshipped during its existence. Or even one we never even thought of. Creationism however only considers the Biblical one valid - without explaining why it can be no other.

It could also be so that we weren't carefully crafted. God sneezed (or autofellated) anyone ?

Plus, it's not evidence against the TOE, necessarily, just evidence against the wisdom of making a commitment to natural causes as the explanation for everything.

If you want science to work you simply have no other choice then to limit yourself to natural causes. It may indeed mean you will in some cases never discover the truth - but the method at least ensures you have a decent shot at the best testable approximation of that truth.
But hey - science is just a method. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as evidence goes for a creator, the design theorist do have a case. If they can show that design in living systems can only come from design, and not from natural causes, then this is a very powerful argument for a creator.

Agreed. Pity that design inference and irreducible complexity as defined by the ID proponents are both philosophically flawed and untestable concepts.
If the ID crew can remedy that I will eagerly listen to what they have to say.

Why are there still people who can use computers, spell, read and possibly even add up, who think that there is a real life honest to goodness possibility that god made the world in 6 days and blah blah blah........


EVOLUTION is a fact, it is still happening, doh :headbang:

Okay, so these two guys walk into a bar...

You'd think after so many repetitions, SOMEONE would have maintained and passed on the genetic mutation needed to avoid this unfortunate circumstance.

Now, Is said bar infact an establishment for the consumption of alcohol? Or a literal bar, the two unfortunately bang their heads against?

If the former... Perhaps the meeting, as unfortunate as it is, is merely competition for the barmaid. for the The passing on of the victors genes, while the loser is left to cry in his beer. It isn't important for barlizards, whom reached a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, to unnessicarily mutate.

As for the latter... I couldn't rightly say at this point.

What's wrong with that?

If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger.

Or cripples you for life.

I have proposed a form of creationism that is not committed to a particular interpretation of a scriptural account. Thus, it does not rule out evolution and long ages, nor sudden creation, nor a young earth, but does recognise that God did it. How he did it is unknown, and best left guided by the evidence.

STOP THERE! STOP RIGHT THERE!

You're clearly overstepping the boundaries of evolution here. You're trying to say god was behind evolution, which is fine, but evolution says -nothing- about god. It doesn't say god wasn't involved, it doesn't say he was involved - it just observes what happens, without giving a real cause. We don't have enough information to make a decision on how or why all this happened.

So your creationism not only isn't science, it's just your personal opinion that god had a hand in it. There's no real evidence for or against your claim, so we can't do anything other than put forth our own opinion.

So you can stop now.

'evolutiondidit' is no better. Or what is worse, 'naturalcausesdidit, evenifthosenaturalcausesdon'texist' explanations.

Only if you ignore all the thousands of peices of evidence supporting TOE, then you're correct.




Unless you have any serious alternatives to natural causes, then I suggest that makes 'Goddidit' a possibility. Another possibility would be aliens. Although they could also be defined as 'god'. Or you could go after parallel universes. Still, that's not that many options.

Plus, it's not evidence against the TOE, necessarily, just evidence against the wisdom of making a commitment to natural causes as the explanation for everything.

As far as evidence goes for a creator, the design theorist do have a case. If they can show that design in living systems can only come from design, and not from natural causes, then this is a very powerful argument for a creator.


Thank you for proving my point again. Even if there is no definite "natural" explanation at the time, relegating it to a mythical being that, by it's definition can't be disproven, isn't the answer. NOr one that also has no evidence to support it. At least aliens and "alternate universes" can be disproven.

"Design Theorist" is a contradiction. They have no evidence to support themselves beyond "we don't like the TOE explanation so "goddidit".


That's not necessarily a bad thing, right? Otherwise we would not have all those 'evolutiondidit' explanations.

Yes it is a "bad thing". There is evidence for evolution. None for "goddidit".

STOP THERE! STOP RIGHT THERE!

You're clearly overstepping the boundaries of evolution here. You're trying to say god was behind evolution, which is fine, but evolution says -nothing- about god. It doesn't say god wasn't involved, it doesn't say he was involved - it just observes what happens, without giving a real cause. We don't have enough information to make a decision on how or why all this happened.

So your creationism not only isn't science, it's just your personal opinion that god had a hand in it. There's no real evidence for or against your claim, so we can't do anything other than put forth our own opinion.

So you can stop now.

Creationism is actually a philosophical position. So is naturalism. Never have I said that creationism is science, although it may have looked that way, probably because all science requires a basis, and science generally cannot check to see if the basis is right or not. One often refers to science as inclusive of the philosophical position on which it rests.

My arguments are simply that science is possible on the basis of creationism, particularly a form of creationism that doesn't commit to any particular Biblical interpretations, nor any other mythical account of the origins. In support of this, it was creationists who invented the scientific method, and who are still doing science.

A scientific creationism is the philosophical position that God did it, either through evolution or through sudden creation. Scientific naturalism is similar in some ways, in that it is a philosophical position that everything can (sooner or later) be explained through natural causes, including evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang. Its assumptions mean that God is completely unnecessary.

Thus, scientific creationism allows for both a young earth or an old earth, evolution or sudden creation. Naturalism allows only for an old earth and a form of evolution that consists of lots of tiny undirected changes over long periods of time, with no interference from the 'supernatural' (defined as anything that isn't natural).

In my view, creationism is the superior position, because it doesn't rule out possibilities simply on the basis of a philosophical position, but will consider the evidence from more than one angle.

Ugh not this debate again............

Ok! Here's my stance on this. God created evolution, but we have evolved past the need for God. There! Everyone happy? Now shut up! :p

No matter how it's packaged (ie intelligent design, etc.), it always boils down to "goddidit".Actually it rather boils down to "the bible says goddidit".

Creationism is actually a philosophical position. So is naturalism. Never have I said that creationism is science, although it may have looked that way, probably because all science requires a basis, and science generally cannot check to see if the basis is right or not. One often refers to science as inclusive of the philosophical position on which it rests.

My arguments are simply that science is possible on the basis of creationism, particularly a form of creationism that doesn't commit to any particular Biblical interpretations, nor any other mythical account of the origins. In support of this, it was creationists who invented the scientific method, and who are still doing science.

A scientific creationism is the philosophical position that God did it, either through evolution or through sudden creation. Scientific naturalism is similar in some ways, in that it is a philosophical position that everything can (sooner or later) be explained through natural causes, including evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang. Its assumptions mean that God is completely unnecessary.

Thus, scientific creationism allows for both a young earth or an old earth, evolution or sudden creation. Naturalism allows only for an old earth and a form of evolution that consists of lots of tiny undirected changes over long periods of time, with no interference from the 'supernatural' (defined as anything that isn't natural).

In my view, creationism is the superior position, because it doesn't rule out possibilities simply on the basis of a philosophical position, but will consider the evidence from more than one angle.

And this statement pretty much speaks for itself.

Damnit Kecibukia, don't make me look like I'm siding with Creationists, or Bruarong!!! :mad:

"Design Theorist" is a contradiction. They have no evidence to support themselves beyond "we don't like the TOE explanation so "goddidit".

I've yet to see anyone actually present evidence for a creator and not just evidence against TOE.

No matter how it's packaged (ie intelligent design, etc.), it always boils down to "goddidit".

Please show how Evolution disproves that God (or any higher being) started the process. Saying that "Evolution proves the Bible false" does not disprove the Idea of a Greater Being either starting the process or nudging it along. It only proves that the person who wrote Genesis was wrong.

and please don't lump ID'ers in with Creationists. :(

Please show how Evolution disproves that God (or any higher being) started the process. Saying that "Evolution proves the Bible false" does not disprove the Idea of a Greater Being either starting the process or nudging it along. It only proves that the person who wrote Genesis was wrong.

Neither of the quotes you provided assert that "evolution proves the Bible false."


and please don't lump ID'ers in with Creationists. :(
They're one and the same.

Creationists and ID believers have a range of specific beliefs regarding exactly who or what the Creator/Designer is, and the specific process by which the Creation/Design was implemented. But it's the same concept. The same "theory" that is not remotely worthy to be compared to scientific theory.

And Kec was 100% correct: not a single shred of evidence has been presented to support Creationism or ID. People present lots of beefs about evolutionary biology, but none of these remotely constitute evidence FOR their own alternate idea.

If you have evidence that supports Creationism/ID, PLEASE PRESENT IT! If you can provide a list of testable hypotheses generated by Creationism/ID, PLEASE PRESENT THEM! I have been begging for such information for a long time now.

Damnit Kecibukia, don't make me look like I'm siding with Creationists, or Bruarong!!! :mad:


Please show how Evolution disproves that God (or any higher being) started the process. Saying that "Evolution proves the Bible false" does not disprove the Idea of a Greater Being either starting the process or nudging it along. It only proves that the person who wrote Genesis was wrong.

and please don't lump ID'ers in with Creationists. :(


JuNii, you know that ID, beyond the few that say "God is involved but life still evolves", is just creationism repackaged.

ID is just creationism revamped. It relies on poor concepts such as irreducible complexity and the fine-tuned universe, neither of which hold any real empirical evidence or scientific standpoints. Also, I'm of the personal opinion that Michael Behe, a prominent ID biochemist, is full of shit and couldn't make his evidence ever conclusively fit his discussion points.

EDIT: Damnit, I knew eating was counter-productive!

JuNii, you know that ID, beyond the few that say "God is involved but life still evolves", is just creationism repackaged.
So? Show how Evolution proves that God wasn't involved...

Now if you think that God's involvement is only a Monty Pythonesque hand reaching down from the clouds... then you're proving to be as silly as bible literalist... infact, you would be proving yourselves as bible literallist who take "the Hand of God" literally.

Neither of the quotes you provided assert that "evolution proves the Bible false."and they don't show that Evolution proves/disproves God's involvement.


They're one and the same.

Creationists and ID believers have a range of specific beliefs regarding exactly who or what the Creator/Designer is, and the specific process by which the Creation/Design was implemented. But it's the same concept. The same "theory" that is not remotely worthy to be compared to scientific theory.

And Kec was 100% correct: not a single shred of evidence has been presented to support Creationism or ID. People present lots of beefs about evolutionary biology, but none of these remotely constitute evidence FOR their own alternate idea.

If you have evidence that supports Creationism/ID, PLEASE PRESENT IT! If you can provide a list of testable hypotheses generated by Creationism/ID, PLEASE PRESENT THEM! I have been begging for such information for a long time now.
actually, there is a big difference. Look at the op on how the creationist views are defined.

two, I've never claimed Creationism nor ID as SCIENCE in any of these threads. I challange you to fine one instance where I claimed ID or Creationism as anything near science.

Three, you still have to prove how Evolution disproves the Idea (note, IDEA, not theory, hypthosis nor scientific fact) of a greater being being involved in the beginning and evolution of life.