Slashdot Mirror
New Evidence About 'The Great Dying' 250 Million Years Ago
PornMaster writes "The Guardian is reporting that scientists have found the first direct evidence that the killoff of 80% of land species and 95% of marine species 2 billion years ago was due to a meteor." The project web site has more info, maps, etc.
So uh... A giant meteor hit the earth and all the dinosaurs turned into giant roasted chickens?
About the most advanced lifeforms at that time were bacteria ... I wouldn't call it a great dying
So, they are saying that until now there has been no direct evidence and now they just have one piece.
Doesn't that make believing it a little sketchy. On such little evidence.
Evolution or ID?
New clues to 2bn-year-old murder /. habit of not bothering to RTFA.
A buried crater off Australia could be the first direct evidence of a celestial assassin that wiped out more than 80% of life on Earth 250m years ago. Obviously, Guardian headline writers follow the
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Mmmm... unprocessed gasoline...
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
They found the weapons of mass destruction!
Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
more than 80% of terrestrial life?
more than 95% of marine life?
that would mean that whatever we have today, evolved from >20% / >5% of those species that survived?
that's a whole lotta evolution if you ask me.
not "first evidence"...
just like in judicial cases you can have circumstantial evidence, scientific hypotheses can be supported by indirect evidence.
Maybe they're just reading the article?
/me tries not to laugh...
Did they find evidence of offshore outsourcing?
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
I knew I should not have put that giant can of Lysol in the time machine. But I did it anyway. Sorry.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
When I heard the story on NPR yesterday, it said the event was dated at around 250 million years ago. That's what the body of the linked article says too. Somehow, the headline has been changed to say 2 billion. Funny.
There wouldn't have been much on land at 2Ga.
I remember some Discovery piece about another giant meteor hitting around area of the Yucatan several hundred million years ago. I could swear that they were using that crator as evidence of the great die off too.
"...scientists have found the first direct evidence..."
Direct evidence my arse. Scientists have found a few holes in the ground and some sediments. It amazes me that so many people just blindly accept these theories (and they are only theories) about meteors wiping most of the life out on earth long ago.
Two billion years ago there existed only prokaryotic bacteria. The impact the articles are talking about was the end of the Permian era. It happened about 250 million years ago (as stated in the article). Both the Guardian's and Slashdot's articles are mistitled.
So... It's a big meteor, or a volcano or maybe, just maybe... It was caused by a verneshot
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
I wonder if historians 2 billion years from now will come to a similar conclusion when they find the 125 mile-wide crater in Redmond.
You never really see figures about how fast, and how big that chunk of rock (?) was. Gimme a nice scientific factoid, in standard Volkswagen units or something.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Finding a very thin layer of irridium in the rocks laid down at the very end of the Permian would be compelling evidence. A layer of irridium, together with the crater in the Gulf of Mexico off the Mexican coast, made a good argument of what caused the dinosaurs to go at the end of the Cretaceous period.
So, a giant meteor crashes off the coast of a continent that has some of the strangest creatures on the planet, Austrailians. Oh, and think of all the weird animals there too.
The BBC have a much better version of the same story with addition information and some on the opposing view points BBC.co.uk
The earth was created in 7 days. Dinosaurs are a fabrication by atheists. God is perfect and didn't need to practice by making Dinosaurs, you twits. The fact is that they never existed!
Look at it another way: this just means that 80% of terrestrial life and 95% of marine life are completely useless.
I stuck some data in the impact effects simulator (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/), took reasonable guess at most of it. Anyone else more knowledgable, please correct.
Distance from Impact: 1000.00 km = 621.00 miles
Projectile Diameter: 28280.20 m = 92759.06 ft = 17.56 miles
Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 30.00 km/s = 18.63 miles/s
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 3000 kg/m3
Target Type: Competent Rock or saturated soil
Energy:
1.60 x 1025 Joules = 3.82 x 109 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is 2.6 x 109years
Crater Size:
Transient Crater Diameter: 173.30 km = 107.62 miles
Final Crater Diameter: 340.69 km = 211.57 miles
The crater formed is a complex crater.
Thermal Radiation:
Time for maximum radiation: 16.79 seconds after impact
Visible fireball radius: 425.5 km = 264.2 miles
The fireball appears 96.7 times larger than the sun
Thermal Exposure: 6.13 x 108 Joules/m2
Duration of Irradiation: 655 seconds
Radiant flux (relative to the sun): 936.0
Effects of Thermal Radiation:
Clothing ignites
Much of the body suffers third degree burns
Newspaper ignites
Plywood flames
Deciduous trees ignite
Grass ignites
Seismic Effects:
The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 200.0 seconds.
Richter Scale Magnitude: 11.0 (This is greater than any earthquake in recorded history)
Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 1000 km:
VI. Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken (visibly, or heard to rustle).
VII. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.
Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces.
Masonry D. Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally.
Ejecta:
The ejecta will arrive approximately 494.4 seconds after the impact.
Average Ejecta Thickness: 9.4 m = 30.83 ft
Mean Fragment Diameter: 5.4 mm = 0.2107 inches
Air Blast:
The air blast will arrive at approximately 3333.3 seconds.
Peak Overpressure: 920445.5 Pa = 9.2045 bars = 130.7033 psi
Max wind velocity: 661.5 m/s = 1479.8 mph
Sound Intensity: 119 dB (May cause ear pain)
Damage Description:
Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.
Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.
Multistory steel-framed office-type buildings will suffer extreme frame distortion, incipient collapse.
Highway truss bridges will collapse.
Highway girder bridges will collapse.
Glass windows will shatter.
Cars and trucks will be largely displaced and grossly distorted and will require rebuilding before use.
Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches and leaves.
stuff
This article is incorrect convieniently(sp?) enough I was listening to the NPR talk show yesterday and they very clearly said that is was 250 million years ago, which they said was the same that the tested core samples came out to be. They found the site they believed was it a crater on the sea floor with nearly a mile of dirt ontop of it, by using the same techniques that people looking for oil would. Incidentally the core samples were obtained 60 years ago while doing oil prospecting.
Hope that's atleast a little informative.
-RevSin
I agree. btw, jsut wondering. if this crater is the evidence of a meteor... what ever happened to the actual meteor?
Here is the info
I wouldn't trust something written by a guy called PornMaster....
Wow, clues to a 2-billion-year-old murder? Sounds like Angela Lansbury's first case...
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Doesn't this just sound like the title of the latest "Land Before Time" flick, the cartoon series about the dinosaur kids?
Maybe it's the final one in the series.
I'd throw out that while whatever we have today evolved from the 5-20% that survived the Permian extinction, what we have today probably evolved from less than 1% of what was around right after the Cambrian explosion.
The great dying didn't kill everything. Dinosaurs still walk among us. Here's an example, Gary Condit, a gentleman with the appearance and predilections of a T-Rex. The facial resemblance is striking.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I guess it depends on if you believe the article,which says % of LIFE, or the poster's interpretation which assumed it meant % of all SPECIES.
Big difference.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Scientists didn't find a way to blame President Bush and Republicans for this. At least they could have come up with Dick Cheney and a time machine or something. The last thing we can have is "nature" causing extinctions, it has to be Republicans and SUV drivers! Get with the program!!!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
We'll be safe as long as Bruce Willis is around.
Years ago, when Mariner 10 went and disovered the Caloris Basin and wierd terrain on Mercury, I immediately wondered if something like that could happen on Earth. I was one of the first to notice that the volcanic Deccan Traps that formed in India at the time of the dinosaur extinction just happened to be located (after taking contintental drift into account) on the opposite side of the Earth from Chixulub. (As I recall, I wrote a letter to Scientific American about it, way back then...but they didn't think it publishable) And now the evidence seems to be accumulating, in favor of exactly such scenarios.
The Guardian's headline is wrong. They're
talking about the permian-triassic extinction
event, 250 million years ago. There wasn't
much around to go extinct 2 billion years ago.
There was only one continent back then. You couldn't go overseas to do anything!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now, i'm not trying to be a jerk, but if God is all-knowing, then who are you to say, that he didn't look like an amoeba, created them first, and knew what would come out of it?
I am reminded of my undergraduate geology professor's first lecture to our class. He took a candle and covered it with a jar. The candle went out. Then he asked the class for a show of hands, how many people thought the candle went out because all of the available oxygen had been consumed, and how many people thought the flame ceased because (if memory serves) the jar had become saturated with phogistan. Of course the vote was 100% for the oxygen answer. He then explained that 100 years ago, we all would have failed the exam. He then went on to discuss "vestigal organs," the fossil record, and other models that have not held up well in all cases.
His point? "Evidence" can often be made to support any number of theories, among them the 4.5 billion year age of the earth or in this case the cause of a mass extinction. In the future we will know more, but we should never assume we have all the answers right now.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
You're not "supposed to" believe it, where did you get that idea? Clearly you have no idea how science functions, why don't you learn what science is before publicly criticizing it? It is obvious from your post that you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method, despite the fact that you think you "know a bit" about science.
If you actually read up a bit about this, the scientists here are basically saying that this MIGHT BE a possible cause of one of the great extinctions (read "more research required"). Furthermore, this is now just one new "HYPOTHESIS" against two other major "HYPOTHESES" that alread exist that proposing other "POSSIBLE" reasons for this great extinction.
Certainly nobody has asked you to "believe" any of these possible explanations, and none of the scientists involved have claimed that their hypotheses are 'the truth' either. In fact, with things like this, scientists never really decide that any one theory is "the truth" - they basically often settle on a theory that is "the most likely" - they, however, ALWAYS "leave the door open" to other possible explanations that may appear in future that are better. Always. (This is all in refreshing contrast to religions like Christianity, where you are in fact expected to 100% completely believe something regardless of whether or not there is really evidence for it.)
The slashdot blurb has also spun this thing completely wrong. So even worse, now you make decisions about scientific theories based on a slashdot blurb. Sheesh.
It would seem the moderators don't see alternative viewpoints as neither valid nor worthy of discussion. I thought /. was about voicing on-topic opinions. Apparently I was wrong.
Visualize Whirled Peas
Like what?
But, when the science claims that then have evidence but no direct evidence I am supposed to believe it.
No. You are supposed to think that it represents a likely scenario and it is a plausible explanation of what happened. There is no "belief" in science, other than as a figure of speech.
Now we have the volcanic Siberian outpourings of the Permian era, accompanied by a giant meteor impact in Australia (and after taking 200 megayears of continental drift into account, they could well have been on opposite sides of the Earth at that time).
That's pretty compelling to me.
And no, I didn't read the article! It would be so disappointing in comparison.
First let me say that I am a Christian, and as such believe that God created life, the universe and everything. I have no idea if the seven days were literal 24 hour periods. It wouldn't bother me if they were 1 second periods. God is all powerful and there is nothing that He can not do.
That aside, I believe your arguement would be easily refuted by evolutionists. The meteor in question only killed 80% of the land animals and 95% of marine life. This means that the remaining creatures (who would have arrived supposedly from billions of years of evolution) continued to evolve. Additionally, this continued evolution would have occurred at a much faster rate given the fact that there was virtually no competition and a vastly open ecosystem to spread out and diversify in.
How on Earth you arrive at that conclusion? The big extinction didn't kill everything or wind speciation back to step 1. The meteor didn't kill off 80% of species and then magically devolve the remaining 20%.
Ultimately, I think, it comes down to faith.
No, no it does not. These scientific theories really do work, as you witness every day when you use a computer or a TV set or a DVD player. Whether scientists are right about, say, the speed of light or radioactivity does not need to be taken on faith.
Remember, creationists aren't just disputing some evolutionary biologists somewhere. They have to dispute physics, geology, cosmology, basically anything that gives you a dating method or shows what the place was like billions of years ago. Just about every branch of science eventually matures to the point that it burps out evidence the Earth or universe is old.
X
they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
No.
Why post about something you clearly have no interest in understanding?
_All life_ didn't die out 250M years ago. All the _evolution_ done up until then lived on.
it's in my head
How do you quantify those? Like, "I'm pretty sure that it's right... probably about 65% sure."
What would Brian Boitano do?
Apparently this article is posted by some guy called PornMaster, with the URL pointing to ilikepuffies.com. Anyone has any theories on why this guy should be worried about this issue?
C.E.
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The meteor killed 80% of life, not species. I'm sure there were small animals left, something like insects (that's multicelled), maybe also other small animals like lizzards that live in caves that were able to adapt. Even though most life was killed, I'm sure a lot of species survived.
And even if that wasn't true, and all multicellular life were wiped out, evolution is STILL a better theory than "The invisible man in the sky made it all with magic". That's just silly, and is a fairytale best reserved for kids.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
Sounded like a perfectly legitimate question to me, which you did absolutely nothing to answer.
Did it threaten your little world view, or something? Maybe you should go work for the RIAA's anti-piracy division, as you're just about as closed-minded.....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Could you explain exactly who is "blindly accepting" these theories? We all know they're "just theories".
BTW they found a bit more than just "sediments" and a "few holes in the ground". It does seem likely in fact that they have found a meteor impact crater, just not necessarily one that resulted in a major extinction.
Actually, several clues tend to prove a meteor isn't the cause of permian extinction. For instance, there should be a thin layer of irridium (or any other stuff) coming from the meteor or its explosion/impact, and laying on the ground after the blast... Also their proof about having found the meteor impact site doesn't seem very convincing.
Now, they need to explain why we don't find such clues, and they haven't done it yet.
For now, the only convincing scenario involves volcanism and oceanic methan tanks (methan is stored inside ocean, both dissolved and inside seabed).
Big volcanism activity in what is today Siberia (and there are proofs of it) increases mean temperature for about 5-10 C by producing greenhouse effect. Then with such increase, methan starts to evaporate from ocean, induces more greenhouse effect, and mean temperature goes up 5-10C more. At the same time, it kills life in the ocean.
That 10-20C increase in mean temperature is enough to kill 80% of species on the surface of the ground.
So that scenario explains everything better than the meteor theory.
Forgive my bad English... I think that this explanation could be found on some american scientific website, so feel free to post the link.
Oh, and you can find more info there
You are using "old-school" ideas of abiogenesis to back yourself up. In fact, it is not very hard for organic compounds to self-organize into the needed components of life. Take for instance the cell membrane, this is a sphere of phospholipids. If one just takes phospholipids and adds them in water, they self-organize into a sphere and provide a membrane.
You may ask where these organic compounds came from, well a classic experiment (earned the researcher a Nobel prize I think) called the Miller-Urey experiment showed that if one simulated the conditions on a primordial earth, one got organic compounds (ranging from your simple alkanes to the building blocks of protiens, amino acids) were formed. And these processes happen relatively quickly, thus I do not see the evolution of life as being improbable.
If any of my facts are wrong please correct, if you want back-up for my statements, feel free to request it.
What crap. Stop trolling. The evidence in science is based on pre-observed behaviour and hypothesis.
And they are just collecting evidence to substantiate their hypothesis.
Religious claims cannot be recreated. A scientific claim can.
Tomorrow if this is disproved, you can throw this out of the window. I'm yet to see any religious figurehead materialize before me -- that still hasn't made any religious believers throw out religion.
Science is based on assumptions, which evolve into hypothesis and are substantiated with evidence. Plain and simple. When another kind of evidence is found, science simply changes it's assumptions and hypothesis to fit the facts.
Besides, whether or not you believe it is entirely upto you. Your soul is not going to hell if you don't. It's just the most plausible thing that might have happened, and in the light of no other explanations, this seems just about right.
And look at the choice of words from the article -- they think, they believe etc. -- they do not say, we are so damn sure that THIS happened.
Have you been to the sun? How do you know it's full of Hydrogen and Helium? It's based on an assumption, that was later on substantiated with evidence (spectra of the sunlight). Have you seen a Black Hole? It was based on an assumption that it's quite likely Black hole exist, and later on they were substantiated with evidence by observation.
This is no different.
Religion merely makes claims, and has no need to substantiate nor prove. Unlike science.
And judging by your comments you know nothing of science.
Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
Huh? Are you confused or just stupid?
And the worst part is you've been modded up as insightful. It's insane. Come on people, visit a goddamn library, or do some googling, or something! This post is total BS, and it doesn't take a genuis to confirm against actual scientific theories that this is total BS.
isn't it amazing how many of them get elected or become lawyers?
Likewise, the parent post (i.e. my own post) should be "off-topic", NOT "troll". Hope the meta-moderators get you.
Maybe there's more truth to that than we think. After all, "there is no such thing as a free lunch."
I'm looking to get rich. I've got steps #2 (????) and #3 (PROFIT!) planned out, but am having trouble coming up with #1.
Just because your viewpoint is alternative doesn't automatically make it valid or worthy of discussion.
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
2^31 maybe
Here we go again!
It could be any unusual deposit. The Iridium line from the K-T boundary is believed to come from a single meteorite impact; it's assumed that that particular meteorite contained unusual levels of iridium (or perhaps hit an iridium deposit?).
If you're looking for a boundary layer, it's a bit much to expect the same element to be the indicator, at least until we know more about the composition of meteorites.
In order to keep this from happening to us, we need to:
1) Advance as far technologically as we can, as fast as we can, especially in manned space travel.
2) Learn how to survive with a polluted atmosphere, instead of just avoiding polluting it in the first place, which would retard technological growth.
3) Get as many people the hell off this rock as fast as we can. A moonbase would be a great start.
So, if you want the human race to become extinct, vote for John Kerry. If you want us to survive, vote for George Bush.
Thanks for your support.
Well, the mammoth didn't become extinct until about 14000 years ago. I don't understand what your point is about a fossil from a mammal with a relatively recent extinction period. The extinction may have actually been later than that. People aren't entirely sure when it happened, but it is certain that modern humans and mammoths had a fairly large intersection of existence.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
From Carl Sagan:
... The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age.[1] "
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
I always thought the Republican Party was soley responsibile for such environmental and specieist devestation.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
" Religious claims cannot be recreated. A scientific claim can." Really? So we can recreate Macro-Evolution? Show me the latest partially evolved Chimp. For many scientists science is a religion. You start with evidence and base your belief (faith, if you will. As "faith" is merely belief based on your understanding of evidence, it's merely been bastardized by modern concepts of faith) on that evidence. The idea that science has to prove it's claims isn't exactly true. Many believe the Big Bang to be fact, but it is not proveable, like many other theories. Like religion, they feel the preponderance of evidence supports it.
Since many large land animals tended to go extinct about the same time as modern man reached that area/continent, perhaps it would be better to say "They did lunch together"?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Well the Earth is much older than a few thousand years. This is as much a fact as that it is round. That totally invalidates Genesis 1 and 2 by itself.
There is plenty of evidence of evolution - ever heard of fossils? Ever heard of strata. fossils of individual species tend to be found in certain definite strata which means that a) species have been dying out since the earliest times in which life has been around and b) new species have been "created" throughout history. Further, there are sets of fossils where you can trace changes over millions of years. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection (which is a theory of the mechanism of evolution) is not a fact, but it is the best theory we have for it at the moment (discredited accounts made up by semi literate tribesmen 3,000 years ago don't count).
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Not trying to nitpick here (and I may be wrong), but wouldn't lack of competition actually stifle evolution? Evolution implies survival of the fittest, where a mutation eventually becomes standard. If there is no competition, even the non-fit ones are surviving and multiplying, therefore the "strong" mutation isn't becoming as dominant as evolution would require. There would also be less to feed on and breed with, which can either work for or against evolution now that I think of it.
In the end, we both may be right. I'm just a bit confused as to whether a huge drop in population actually accelerates or deccelerates evolution.
One NEW species will replace the losts - the robotbeings!
Chimps already are partially evolved, when compared to the last common ancestor of themselves and us.
Really? If god is ALL POWERFUL... can he/she/it make a ROCK so BIG that he/she/it CAN NOT LIFT IT?
If the answer is yes, then god can not lift the rock and thus is not all powerful. If the answer is no, than god is not all powerful. If the answer is 'quit playing word games, god is beyond words" then WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA get a frig'n life and stop believing in the *words* in the bible.
No atheist scientist could ever admit any finding which would cast doubt on the pre-conceived notions of abiogenisis, because to do so would destroy his religion.
How is it that you've magically come to the conclusion that all atheistic scientists look to a single concept as a faith-based religious enterprise? Most scientists I know understand that hypotheses and theories are nothing more than ideas with varying levels of certainty that never approach the 100% range (AKA faith). If something is invalidated,then GREAT! Chances are some other concept has been illuminated by that invalidation. That's what true science is all about.
Believe it or not, that probably wasn't a troll. The U.S. is falling at warp speed into a dark age of ignorance, superstition and fear. The guy who made the post you responded to probably really actually believes what he wrote.
At the time of this posting, the parent has been modded down as overrated and flamebait just because he doesn't subscribe to some form of secular scientism. Grow up.
If you disagree with they guy, say so. But don't mod him down because he beleives in God. Go ahead and read the post. It's very insightful/interesting. It's a relevant and accurate observation about science and religion. Kudos to you for thinking on your own.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So what about Jesus Christ. The fact they do have some historical evidence along with the fact our whole calender system is based after Him (b.c. a.d.) i guess that makes him a figure that can't be materialize? Yea i've been going on a religious rant the past 2 days but like everyone else, when there beliefs/ideas get criticize to a great degree they feel the need to defend......
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The fact that later generations of bacteria inherit immunity to antibiotics to which ancestors have been exposed does actually prove one of the basic tenets of evolution. (I know, "Inherit" is a bad choice, as it suggests Lamarckianism... OK, bacteria are selected for resistance by exposure to antibiotics...) It is also possible to see genetic continuity between generations in any species. Doesn't this count as "evidence".
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
"Simple" and "self-happening" doesn't equate to "easily reproducible in a lab".
It's really simple to form a star: wait millions of years for a cloud of gas and dust to gravitationally collapse. It happens completely on its own. That doesn't mean it's easy for us to do it in a lab.
Okay, prove it.
It's not the "directness" in the "evidence" claimed by a lot of religious nuts, it's that what is usually claimed as evidence isn't. When scientists criticize the flavor of such evidence, it's frequently because it's reported fifth-hand between 100 and 10,000 years later, because "God said so" is taken as evidence, and because the religious crowd is decidedly unscientific in "picking and choosing" its evidence, focusing on one single piece of crappy evidence while ignoring a wealth of good information.
Also, it's generally the religious crowd that's the worst about the whole "higher standards on the other side" thing. A while back, someone found a discrepancy of a few days over millions of years in the earth's orbit, and the religious crowd took this to mean that God made the sun stand still during the siege of Jericho. That sounds a bit stretched. However, they expect anthropologists to find every single Australopithecus variant, and anything left out is proof that evolution is dead wrong. Also, any single fossil that has its radioactive dating done incorrectly is somehow proof that the whole thing doesn't work, and the universe really is 4000 years old. Seems a bit off, there.
I know a bit about science and I still find this sketchy and I really wonder that if this were a court case and this level of info was provided if a conviction would happen.
Regarding this meteor in Australia? No, there wouldn't be a conviction. You might get a judgement in a civil court though. But the thing is, this isn't being reported as complete fact at this point.
If you have any particulary religious "science" that you feel has been unfairly treated, I'll report more specifically.
Is actually on a shaky foundation. The problem is that the early geologists used paleontologist opinions to date their strata, and paleontologists used strata to date their fossils.
Does anyone see a problem here?
And the dating using radioisotope decay is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the relative concentrations of isotopes have remained fixed throughout history. In fact, some geologists are taking flak because they've discovered that the strata dating based on uranium isotope decay is fundamentally flawed; they're finding additional isotopes in the samples which indicate that at least some the "decay" isotopes present may have come not from the decay of uranium, but of other heavy metals also present - which have a much shorter half-life.
As for the killing 80% of multicellular life - well, that's just speculation at this point - the number could up or down.
The problem, as I see it, is that a certain group of people are trying to transform science - which is at best a tentative explanation, and quite frequently wrong - into a religion. They seek science as the ultimate authority in all matters, when such authority is specifically precluded by the use of the scientific method. Modern science is founded on the assertion that we don't know everything there is to know about the Universe - if we did, there would be no point in further study. There are people who view questioning evolutionary theory as tantamount to blasphemy, in spite of the fact that the progress of science as a whole is dependent upon skepticism.
And this is what irks me - the valid questions and logical problems inherent in abiogenesis are simply left unaddressed by the current theories. If anything, it is an embarassment to science - it isn't empirically verifiable, and worse, it offers no enlightened understanding of the subject matter. It is claimed that the events by which life would come to exist on its own are extremely rare, and hence, an Old Earth is required for an extremely small probability to become a reality. Belief that God created life is not contingent, though, on the age of the Universe - regardless of whether the Earth is four thousand or four billion years old.
But the problem is worse than that. Even given the current accepted age of the Universe, with the currently accepted mass of the Universe, there is simply not enough atoms nor enough time for even one useful protein molecule to stand a better than even chance of coming about through random interaction. A statistician could easily poke holes in the "random chance" model of life's beginnings. Because it lacks empirical verifiability, abiogenesis isn't a valid scientific theory. And because the logical model is flawed, it isn't a good philosophy either. Even were we to accept abiogenesis on faith, it still provides no deeper insight regarding life than simply saying we were created by God; it provides us no mechanism of generation, it cannot explain why certain molecules were used as opposed to others (for example, why we don't have a hydrocarbon base as opposed to an aqueous one. Even though many more chemical reactions take place in water, the underlying assumption of abiogenesis is that unlikely events do occur, so such is a reasonable question. It would seem that if we ignore statistics, a hydrocarbon metabolism would be as plausible as an aqueous one.)
It is far more plausible to posit that we were created by God than to suggest life came about by a highly unlikely chain of events for which the exact mechanisms are not understood. Neither theory explains the exact mechanism, nor is empirically verifiable. The difference, however, is that the first does not claim to be science, yet is logically sound, whereas the second does claim to be science, but is neither logically sound, nor proper science.
As science prides itself on finding truth through skepticism, it should welcome new discoveries, even if they cast doubt on accepted theories. The problem, however,
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I what, pretell, kind of life do you lead that will make it soo much more better and fabulous than ours?
Don't bother - I know _way_ too much (engineer^2) to do anything but laugh at you.
Really.
(I also know a truckload of religious history - I just don't see why you need to mix a mythical "God" into the very sane sayings of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed)
it's in my head
What really gets me is that none of the so called "scientific" origin-of-life theories are logically sound. Nor are they scientific, in the truest sense of the word - their hypotheses cannot be tested.
Of course they can be tested. You can make a hypothesis about how cells form and you can go look for such cells in the fossil record. You can create evolving DNA and RNA strands in a test tube. You can make artificial life forms in the laboratory (this is in progress). There are many clear, simple and easy-to-understand ideas about how life can get started.
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
No. The extinction killed off most species, but certainly did not reduce life to single cells. Left behind were complex plants, fish, reptiles. Its all there, clearly recorded in the fossil record.
Rather, science often illumines our knowledge of God - we discover the perfection of the Creator in witnessing the beauty of the created.
Apart from the aspects of the 'created' you refuse to look at. Surely its up to God (assuming he exists) to decide how life is created, and unless he is a huge practical joker and trying to fool us, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is the method.
-=GuestFox=-
Cool!!! There's another one out here!!!
Thanks for the links, I'll be sure to look them up.
As you can see...he isn't interested in trying to expand his horizons.
My father-in-law is the same way. He says "The Bible insults his intelligence".
How's that for a chilling thought?
I sure would like to be there when he tries that on The Big Guy at the Pearly Gates!!
Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
God is all powerful and there is nothing that He can not do.
As a great philospher once asked: "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"
If he can he's not all-powerful.
If he can't he's not all-powerful.
So the conclusion is.....
"I just don't see why you need to mix a mythical "God" into the very sane sayings of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed"
Because God had a very big influence on the people you mentioned. Without His wisdom, and in the case of Jesus, fathering him, none of these men would be who they were without Him.
Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.
It depends if he wants to.
Yes, I know there are potential problems with evolution, the biggest of which is the generation of the first cells, the other one being the jump from single celled life to multicelled. These are problems.
However, the rest works quite well. Go to any natural history museum and you can basically see evolution right in front of you.
And the case for the judeo-christian god? Bronze age mythology, that's it. The idea of this "god" isn't remotely plausable. The idea of something that, by definition, cannot be explained or understood is NOT useful for understanding the world around us. "God made it, who is so far beyond you can't possibly understand His motives and methods" is just a wussy way to ignore a problem.
I think it's quite safe to dismiss god, as easily as it is to dismiss the theory of the five elements being fire, wind, water, air, and earth. There just isn't anything to it to refute. It's just nonsense that doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
The argument was what he can do, not what he wants to do.
I would agree that it would count as evidence of micro-evolution, but not of what is considered "macro-evolution."
Much of the arguments between creationists and evolutionists spawn from nothing much greater than a misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Yea i've been going on a religious rant the past 2 days but like everyone else, when there beliefs/ideas get criticize to a great degree they feel the need to defend......
;-)
Too bad you only pay lip service to your beliefs, otherwisee you would have turned the other cheek.
I heard the same thing about a huge underwater crater in the Gulf of Mexico. How is this different from that theory?
server acts as if it was hit by a meteor.
Table-ized A.I.
Christianity, OTOH, is not diminished by scientific discovery.
Too bad that hosts of creationist trolls seem to think otherwise. If you succeed convincing some of those, we'll really owe you one
Ah, but we can dream, can't we...
It is a hard point to get across. Science, by its own admission, is not absolute truth, nor does in claim to be. Yet this fact stops neither the creationist nor the atheist trolls from bowing down at the almighty altar of science, seeking something from science which it plainly claims not to possess.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Magnitude 11?
I guess these are Spinal Tap magnitudes.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
For your dining and dancing pleasure, Slashdotters, we have a live, squirming specimen of the bane of the Info Age: "Echd'oh". The website publishes a story (about a 250My-old event), exaggerates the headline (pulling a 2Gy background detail into misrepresenting the entire story), a blogger doesn't RTFA, quotes only the mistaken headline, an irrelevant argument about the incorrect details blooms on the blog. For good measure, a carping blogger invents a neologism to describe the phenomenon, guaranteeing its easy repetition in the blogsphere, even a fad of its own overwhelming the original story, mistake and debate, which are lost in the memory hole.
For our next trick, this thread will pick a different term to describe this phenomenon, which plays on a minor characteristic, spawning mutated copycats trying to fulfill the new term, which will become more popular than the original phenomenon. Behold the mutamemic blogsphere!
--
make install -not war
You do not back up your point at all. All you say is that it does not happen! Buddy, open an organic chemistry textbook or a biochemistry textbook and read it sometime. You will find that autogeneration of the building blocks for life is NOT improbable!
So close, and yet so far from being right. I think you have a pretty good grasp of how science is supposed to work, but your grasp of Christianity is not quite so strong, grasshopper.
You are close. God expects you to seek Him through (i.e., because of) faith. The bible tells us this plainly. Once you choose to believe, you will find all the proof you need.
One of the things which first prompted me to doubt my unbelief was the realization that everything which I considered to be a proof that there was no God was being used by Christians to prove that there is a God. The logic was the same, but the underlying premises had one significant difference: we athiests assumed that there was no God, while the Christians assumed that there was one God, almighty, who cares for each of us, has a plan for each of us, and is deeply grieved when we turn our backs on Him[1]. That led each group to different conclusions from the same facts. Eventually, I realized that there are no testable hypotheses about God: we can't devise an experiment to trap Him and force Him to reveal Himself. Once I had chosen to believe I found that He does justify our faith.
The point to Christianity is not that ``... you are in fact expected to 100% completely believe something regardless of whether or not there is really evidence for it.'' The point here is that God wants you to first seek Him. If you seek Him, you will find Him. He'll see to that.
[1] We Christians believe that there is one God, who has three aspects (three different ways we can experience Him; that's all that trinity stuff), and who cares enough about us that He's deeply hurt when we place our fallible judgement ahead of His perfect judgement. Since He treats us with respect we haven't earned, He allows us to estrange ourselves from Him. Since He loves us, He is always ready to forgive us and welcome us back. Here's the vital part: unless you are perfect, by God's standards (and you aren't: He didn't make you that way), you can't spend eternity with Him. The good news is, He will take care of that, if you care enough to ask Him. Go to my website, get my email address, and write me if you want to know more.
See what I've been reading.
"The Great Dying"? We pay our scientists how much and the best they can come up with is "The Great Dying"? "The Big Bang"? I can't wait for the "Super-huge Thingamajigger"!
I'm not sure, but I could have sworn I heard this a long time ago...
Have you been to the sun? How do you know it's full of Hydrogen and Helium? It's based on an assumption, that was later on substantiated with evidence (spectra of the sunlight). Have you seen a Black Hole? It was based on an assumption that it's quite likely Black hole exist, and later on they were substantiated with evidence by observation.
Funny you should mention that... Have you ever seen God? How do you know he does not exist? How do you know the Bible is not true? Have you considered evidence for it ( try here )?
Here's a scenario (with parameters) for your consideration...
Now, by all accounts that AI has NO ability to see me or even know I exist right? The only evidence I exist is those files I left to prove I exist. Now the AI has two choices about my existence, it can either choose to believe the evidence I left (that is a true faith and not a blind faith) or it can reject my evidence and decide it will only go off what it can "see" (files it can read, parse, programs it can run, etc.). The AI has only these two choices because it cannot see outside the box or think outside the box because it has no way to even figure out where the walls of the box are. Yet I still exist regardless of the AI's choice. And the AI's existence depends on my pulling the power plug or not.
This is where Christianity vs. atheism/skepticism/agnosticism/etc. stands. The Christian is like the AI saying I can't see him (me for this example), but I see the evidence he left for me so I believe he exists. The atheist/etc. is like the AI saying I see the evidence, but I still can't "see" him directly so I cannot believe in him.
The choice you make is still up to you, but your belief or lack thereof doesn't effect whether God exists. I choose to believe in God because I've considered Christianity, I've considered what other religions say, and I've considered various scientific theories so-called and Christianity has far fewer holes than any other items mentioned if you allow yourself to believe that the creation cannot find the creator UNLESS the creator reveals himself. In this case the creator revealed himself through the Bible, scientific evidences (see the link above), and common sense (IMHO). God does not have to show me his literal spirit for me to believe in Him, he's left evidence that leads to the conclusion that he and he alone exists as God.
Like I was saying you're allowed to believe what you want, but be careful that you don't dismiss others and their beliefs lightly. Not all of us believe things because "pastor so-and-so" told me so. In fact, pastor is the wrong term for a preacher anyways, but that's another topic for another day.
You seem to be missing the point...
If creationism were true, there would be no evidence at all for evolution. There would be no fossils, no radioactive decay evidence, nothing. That there is pretty convincing evidence for evolution suggests that either:
(1) it actually happened, or
(2) God put it there as some kind of sneaky plan to fool most of us into thinking creationism is ignorant nonsense.
Which of these do you choose?
"The U.S. is falling at warp speed into a dark age of ignorance, superstition and fear."
Only the Great American Heartland ("Praise jeezus, and pass me that rattlesnake!"). The Right and Left Coasts have enough cynnicism and free-thinking left (so to speak) to save it, though.
O.K. I'm an American. I've lived on the East Coast for (oh, roughly) 50 years. What's going on now is what's been going on since the original, intolerant, religious crackpots, er, our Glorious Founding Fathers, came ashore. It's a fight for mindshare.
"Truth" has nothing to do with it. It's all about control. For the past 100 years, one battle has been the Fundies vs. everybody else (the other battle has been Haves vs. Have Nots, but that one is as old as, pardon the expression, Adam).
The fundies are well organized and focused. The "rest of us" free-thinkers are disorganized and unfocused. Hey, if you're a free-thinker, you have a high tolerance for bullshit anyway.
We usually draw the line where evidence is considerable (look up the Scopes trial) or lives hang in the balance (Vietnam).
America is not sliding downhill. It's more like a drunkard's walk into a bad part of town. For goodness' sake, vote people. Vote for Homer Simpson if you have to (mmmm, WMD!), but vote, damnit!
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
Lack of competition mainly stifles evolution when you're dealing with evolution of sexually-reproducing species. At that point it matters that you have to compete with your own species to reproduce. A huge amount of life on Earth reproduces asexually, which means competition with your own species is less important (but not completely - there could be homicide within asexual species). At early stages of evolution, like if you're a prokaryote or something, there is plenty of challenge posed by your (non-biological) environment. Survival of the fittest still applies, because the non-fit get killed off by the environment. Death by natural causes, i.e.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
For bonus points where is the passage found that talks about turning the other cheek... WITHOUT looking it up.
Or here's another many like to use but have no idea where it's found... Don't judge me, the Bible says not to judge (here's a hint Matthew 7:1... now read v.2 and really several verses past that... then you see it says nothing about not judging at all, it's talking about judging hypocritically)
This is not a rant, just a call for people to consider other's points of view before concluding they're ignorant beliefs based on nothing.
Mechanical and Software
As another poster already pointed out: Creationism is not only about not wanting to believe evolution - it's about doubting everything we accept as fact and on which we build most of the devices we use today.
Since my cellphone, microwave oven and computer work - the scientific theories that _also_ describe the age of the universe and earth also holds.
Don't bother to answer - there's nothing you can say that will stop me smiling at the thought of reading the Bible literally (which is was never meant to, when written down during the exile).
it's in my head
Allah tell you all this personally?
...creationists are now using the term "macro-evolution" when they attack science, instead of just "evolution".
That may be because evolutionists changed the meaning of "evolution" to be "change over time" and then ridculed anyone who argued against it. Most rational religious people (at least the ones I know) would never argue against induced evolution, that is, evolution because of an environmental change. It's pretty easy to show cultures of bacteria becoming resistant to a particular drug, etc. based on survival of the fittest. No one argues against that.
What is questioned is spontaneous speciation, or "macro-evolution". No one has ever really proven that happened, and I don't think anyone ever will, until someone invents a time machine. It's as much a matter of faith as believing in God, but most evolutionists don't want to admit that, and will probably attack me/mod me down for saying it.
Also, most creationists don't attack science in general. They have no problems with most all branches of science. Having difficulting believing in one particular theory and questioning it does not "attack science". Sure, there are some religious wackos that do attack science, but there are plenty of science wackos that attack religion, so I guess it all balances out in the end. A true intellectual will realize that neither religion nor science hold all the answers -- but they each hold some.
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
No. Moses, Jesus and Mohammed were three very bright people who used the local folklore to bring their views of a better society upon the masses.
The laws of Moses, The Quran and various documents regarding Jesus' sayings makes a whole lot more sense when viewed that way.
it's in my head
I did not make a statement on my belief, nor on his - I was merely highlighting his comment on comparing science with religion, that's all. I felt it was a troll, and hence I responded thus.
I'm AI researcher, and an amateur physicist, and I've pondered upon these questions myself. I do not discount the existence of God, nor do I believe in it - am an agnostic, simply because I do not see conclusive evidence eitherway.
I'm quite sorry if my beliefs offended people, but I was merely trying to point out the flaw in his argument - nothing more and nothing less. If you have faith, I'm happy for you because it's something I cannot ever have no matter how hard I try, and I think it's the way some of us are wired.
I will not put down your faith - as long as you don't tell me that I'm wrong and try to put down my faith (science) and how your faith is above mine. I believe in the dictum, to each his own, so please let me believe what I want and I will let you believe what I want.
Mechanical Engineer? Great! Have you happen to have heard of Mr. Stone?
Professor Brian Stone
Professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Western Australia
Brief profile:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1319.asp
Interview with Mr. Stone:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3724.asp
-=GuestFox=-
I was raised as a Christian and a scientist (not a Christian Scientist however ;>), so your conclusion is inherently flawed at first.
Second, I checked out the site you mention, and not only is it flat wrong about many a lot of factual evidence, it isn't even one of the better creationist sites I've seen. It's one of those "this specious evidence doesn't correlate 100% with the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 bn yrs old, so the earth is really 4000 years old" sites. They ignore an immense amount of evidence that doesn't support them, while focusing on poorly measured, nearly irrelevant information that doesn't even usually support their conclusion. Care to explain carbon and potassium dating, please?
They aren't even correct about their representations about what scientists actually believe about evolution nor creation - such as modern humans evolving from Neanderthals, or "Lucy" being a chimpanzee.
A little advice - taking literal assumptions from a 3000 year old document that's been translated, poorly, many times, isn't a good idea. Try this. http://www.orisol.com/chap08.html
Light speed is not a constant. You can slow light down and speed it up. Maybe your hiding form him?? Maybe you have been decived?
I do not want to get into a flame war over this. Everyone has the right to their own belief. In an earlier post I was simply stating mine. However, since you end yours with a question I thought I would offer an answer.
Let me start by saying that there ARE things that God cannot do. He cannot sin or do anything that goes against His Godly character. However, He would not set out to do these things. The definition of omnipotence, therefore, is the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.
Saying that God cannot create a rock so big that He couldn't lift it is absurd. I have also heard a similarly illogical argument that He cannot create a spherical triangle. Would God set out to do these things? I think not. There are some things that by definition are impossible. However, even in stating this we must realize that the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. So it may be beyond our ability to understand the true power of God.
I know that this will not change the mind of someone who has already concluded that there is no God. I do think, however, that better reasoning should be used than this to disprove His existance. Omnipotence does not include the ability to fail and an omnipotent God would never fail.
One last thought, with this in mind revist some of the apparent contradictions in the Bible and ask yourself, "If God is omnipotent and could never fail, then how do I explain this contradiction?" I think you will find that passages in question do not condradict each other. Instead, perhaps, it is our understanding that is lacking.
Carbon and potassium has been proven to be inaccurate and completely unreliable. It is covered in the videos as I mentioned here. Just because you have been given poor explanations in the past doesn't make evolution fact. You still need to hear both sides. http://www.creationevidence.net/offers.shtml.
*shakes his head*
You really don't get it. I laugh at your kind - even "Mr. Stone" - who, as an engineer, doesn't even have a personal belief as to how old the Earth is - and who seems to think there is evidence of "The great flood" (a sumerian myth regarding flooding of the land between Tigris and Eufrat incorporated into Judean beliefs during the first exile).
Please. Stop it. I cannot control the laughter.
it's in my head
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
An 80%-95% extinction rate doesn't necessarily mean starting from single-celled organisms again, though you would expect the more complex organisms to suffer greater extinction rates, since they're presumably more dependent on particular environmental conditions.
So long as some complex organisms survive a mass extinction, the level of complexity in the system is preserved. The level of diversity can recover much more quickly than the level of complexity.
The following analogy might be useful: suppose a global catastrophe occurs, causing a total breakdown in human civilization, and we all revert to the state of the proverbial hunter-gatherer. Would it take us another 10,000 years to get back to 2004 levels of technology? Presumably not, since the information on how to redevelop the lost technology would still exist. It's slow and uncertain work to innovate in the first place -- it's a lot faster to relearn what others have already done. I'm wandering a little off-topic with this analogy, maybe, but while I'm here, I may as well put in a good word for the novel "A Canticle for Leibowitz", which touches on this theme.
No, he was more likely modded down because he doesn't understand the scientific process, despite his claim to kinda so. It's neither relevant, nor accurate.
-=GuestFox=-
You can slow light down and speed it up
Well, actually, sorry - you can't. Try it and see. The speed of light in space is constant. Its very easy to measure, and very easy to prove it's constant all the time and in all directions - all you need is mirrors a long way apart and a stop-watch. you don't have to take anyone's word for it. Look up the Michelson-Morely experiment.
Yup, those stars really are millions of years old... sorry.
Do you consider refuting points and bringing out other sides of an argument judging? I don't. I never said you stupid for believing this or you dumb for thinking that. Just from time to time I need to defend my good ol' faith when it seems like to be bashed by everyone and their mother.
But see, there's the problem. If god can't do illogical things, like making a square circle, a spherical triangle, a rock so big he can't lift it, or make colorless green ideas sleep furiously, then God is constrained by logic.
If God is constrained by Logic, then he can't do impossible things that break laws of physics, he can't create matter or energy out of nothing, etc., so if he existed he'd just be a powerful being, not an omnipotent being. The point of the "stone so big he can't lift it" is that omnipotence has serious logical flaws.
So there's the problem.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
No - they do really mean that 80% or 95% of *species* died. We know this by counting the different types of species present before and after the extinction. It would be impossible to count the *numbers* of life-forms.
Asking a question to spark intelligent debate should not be considered a Troll.
Visualize Whirled Peas
You did pretty well with your creationist troll, I must admit, since they're pretty hard to pull off.
But, this genre's old and busted. Move on.
Go back to doing "Absurd Liberal Myth" trolls. Those are instant classics.
"Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking."
That paragraph, in and of itself, describes in exquisite detail how poorly you understand life on earth.
50MYA? What the hell are you talking about?
Its nothing to do with strength. The species that tend to survive extinctions tend to be those that are most numerous and widespread, and those tend to be physically smaller creatures. The extinction 65 million years ago was not really the 'end of the dinosaurs', but simply the mass destruction of large creatures. After all, a particular type of small therapod dinosaur (the birds) are still around.
Leading univeristies have proven they can accually stop light, hold it in place, then speed it up on their command. Light is Not constant.
Leading univeristies have proven they can accually stop light, hold it in place, then speed it up on their command.
Well, firstly, that is not in empty space, which as I hope even you believe, is what exists between the stars.
Secondly, if light was stopped for a while, that would mean it took *longer* to get here from the stars, which would mean they were *even older* than millions of years!
For your argument to work, light would need to be speeded up. No-one has done that, of course.
(Also, they aren't really stopping light at all: they are simply storing the information in the light and then re-creating the light later).
Evolution is NOT tought in our schools as truth. Evolution is taught as "The Theory of Evolution." You seem to be confused, so let me provide you with the definition of the word theory:
Theory - An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
I'm 99.999999999999 % sure that god doesn't exist.
I'm also 99.999999999999 sure that Earth's gravity will not suddenly reverse itself and shoot everything into space.
I agree that the bible has laid down some useful rules to follow, have 1 days rest a week, don't kill etc. but the world has changed since it was written. You don't have abstain from sex to prevent overpopulation anymore, just use a condom or the pill.
Religion is just a story (99.999 etc.). Feels good to be part of that epic story and "belong" to a group but I suggest to all believers to stop believing in this disneyworld and face the harsh and wonderful reality.
- -- Truth addict for life.
As always, the talk.origins archive and website should have good info on this or related topics.
I HAVE heard both sides, as I mentioned. I was RAISED hearing both sides. It seems you've never heard any real evidence to the contrary (or you're a very bored troll). Carbon and potassium dating are both fine. Just because you can find one rock that was misdated doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. By that standard, if I can find something in the bible that's wrong, the whol book is, and I don't think you want to go with that standard.
As far as radioactive dating, it's very simple. The lifetimes of known isotopes are very well known. All rocks contain some potassium. The ratio of different isotopes very accurately predicts age. Sorry if that doesn't correlate with what you want to believe.
I looked at the site but I'm not downloading and damned Divx movies.
You also seemed to have skipped the Christian site I sent you - one can believe in a creationist-driven evolution that correlates with what's in the Bible, yet also agrees with the science that anyone with a bit of sense believes.
The great thing about science isn't that it's always right, but it's able to change its mind.
2 billion years ago is smack dab in the middle of the preCambrian and there was no marine life that we know of then. There certainly were no land species. Early life in the oceans showed up in the Cambrian which is about 570 million years ago.
/.
A UK billion is a million million not a 1000 million as is used in North America. So by their own numbers they are out by a factor of not 8 but 8000 on their time scales.
Stories that are this factually wrong should not be welcome in
I disagree. There is a difference between creating matter from nothing or breaking the laws of physics and creating square circles or spherical triangles. The difference is that a miracle defies what mankind has defined as "law" through observance of God's universe.
For example, we know that when you drop an object off the top of a building that it will fall at a certain rate of speed. We are confident in this because it is repeatable and reproducable. It works this way because God has defined it to. And as the designer he can bend His own rules to suite His needs. In the dictionary, a miracle is defined as something that appears to break the "known" laws of nature. Again, the only one who truly "knows" these laws is the Creator Himself.
On the other hand, man has defined a square to be a shape with four sides of equal length. By its very definition there can not be a circular square. This is illogical meaning that it defies reason. Or as the dictionary says in this case, it is senseless.
I almost believed you might not be a troll, but you went too far with that one. Good job though, you got a bunch of us!
The article mentions an interesting theory, that instead of an external meteorite triggering mass eruptions, it might be the volcanic eruptions that came first. The eruptions were powerful enough to fire a great gob of rock into space, and each big crater is where it re-impacted. On this view the eruptions would be the prime cause of the mass extinctions - at Permian, Cretaceous and Triassic - and the impact craters just a side effect.
No, he was more likely modded down because he doesn't understand the scientific process, despite his claim to kinda so. It's neither relevant, nor accurate.
I disagree with you on both counts, but for the sake of argument, lets say you are right, and that he is completely wrong. If that were the case, the appropriate thing to do is to reply stating you think he is wrong and why (some people did this). The innapropriate thing to do is to mod him down because you disagree with him. That happened also. That is the worst form of censorship - trying to hide his ideas because you disagree with them. If you have the intellect and the prowess to debate him, then do it in your post. Show people your ideas and why you think them better, but don't mod an oponent down because you disagree. Doing so only exposes your shallowness of intellectual and philosophical thought.
The word you here is aimed at the moderators, not the author of the parent.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Someone stated that my claim of a young earth is unsupportable. To that I would refer you to the following link icr.org that combats modern dating methods. Read the article and think what you wish.
I'll drop the subject now.
Visualize Whirled Peas
Assuming Mercury is mostly solid, due to having greater surface-to-volume ratio than Earth, and geologically cooled-off faster than Earth, then if the Caloris impact did that much damage on the far side of Mercury, then on Earth any decently large strike should be able to crack open the crust on the opposite side (remember to take direction of impact into account). That should be enough to let lots of magma pour out, because it does already, whenever the crust splits open, even without a meteor impact. And because of the way impact energy spreads and reconverges on the other side of the globe, a large region of cracks should appear, all letting-loose magma, while the impact site itself is a comparatively small puncture.
I'm no expert.
I am.
But you need to hear both sides of the story.
I have. I have studied both evolution and creationism in detail for a long time.
In the past creationist have not always given the best answers to the questions from evolutionist. Doesn't make evolution any more true.
You are right. But, the fact that creationists have not given good answers is a very good reason indeed to doubt what they say.
Instead of looking into it for yourself
I have looked into it, and still am.
I challenge *you* to take the time and look into it. Its not always easy to understand, but the story of evolution is a long and beautiful one. It gives you a sense of awe and wonder at the amazing variety and strangeness of life. It explains why life looks like it is, and how it has changed and survived over billions of years. Its not a complete story yet, but its a good one. Its not a made-up story - its one that has been build up by careful observation and debate over centuries.
Creationism puts us in such a small, feeble, minor universe. Evolution opens our minds to a world that is hugely more impressive and awesome.
when something really big hits something else really fast it tends to break up just a bit
if you notice, the moon has a lot of craters but no bolders sitting in the middle of them
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
heh funnie, when I read the article it reminded me of revelations where it says a star named wormwood would fall into the ocean killing (either 1/3 or 2/3s of the sea life) and make the waters bitter... hmmmm all of this written before any one knew of the danger of falling meteors or that one had before...
Let me start by saying that there ARE things that God cannot do.
Ah. So not all-powerful then (see definition of omnipotence below).
He cannot sin or do anything that goes against His Godly character.
Not even if he wanted to?
However, He would not set out to do these things.
Has he told you this? If so, when and where?
The definition of omnipotence, therefore, is the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.
Actually no.
The definition of omnipotence is:
"Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force".
The existance of fossils and strata are simply fact. They exist. Various theories about how and when they formed are not necessarly fact. However they do exist, so any theory that does not provide a way for them to exist is wrong. Simple creationist theories of how the earth was formed rely on 'God is a big practical joker who likes to mess with your head' The God of the bible doesn't do stuff like that. (IMHO)
Dating methods are many, and they all agree too well that the earth is old for any reasonable person to question. (barring the practical joker of course) See here for specifics about the trees.
People who say evolution is not true are either ignorant* of the facts, (this can be fixed through study) or they think that an evolving world is incomaptible with the existance of God, (simply not true, but you do have to drop the medievial interpretations of genisis 1 and 2, and other parts of the bible)and they have personal evidence that he exists.
*I am using ignorant to mean 'don't know', not 'stupid' here!
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Please at least learn how to spell if you wish to rescue even the faintest trace of credibility from posts like that.
Except that evolution isn't controlled by opportunity.
Evolution happens along at its OWN rate, population growth happens at a rate partially determined by competition. Also, in this case there's less "ecosystem" to populate, since much of the ecosystem has been destroyed.
Evolution has it's impacts, and we can more easily see those impacts when the population size is small, like on islands or other isolated groups. As a theoretical example, if you happen to have six fingers on an island with 20 other people, there's a bigger chance it could become an island of six fingered people than if you're the guy with six fingers in Paris, France or New York.
There's other factors which make the impact of evolution more visible, like having a shorter life span (more generations means more chances for change), etc. But it's not something that "happens", it's something that never stops.
Every once in awhile evolution gives out something that's a real gem, like a color that hides you from your predators. But usually it gives you something that either doesn't harm / help you (think a different eye color, or the human appendix). If you're really good at living in your environment, it will often give you something that's really bad (think hemophilia, the inability to make the blood clot).
Evolution is blind change; however, it's effects are often visible. Think back to that color which hides you from predators, it's going to be your children, with your "hide me" genes that don't get killed. If the predator never catches on, and that predator (whether it's cold or lions or posionous foods) kills off enough of the "other guys", your family's ability will become the dominant characteristic of the species. But that is what is called Adaptation, and unfortunately, there's few people who bother to see the difference.
Adaption is controlled by opportunity.
It has nothing to do with God, but it also has nothing to do with disproving the existance of God. So unless there's a clause in the Bible/Koran/Whatever saying, "Creatures never change from one generation to the next", and another clause saying "Creatures with differences never manage to do better or worse than other creatures", your religion has nothing against Evolution. If such a clause exists, then one has to ask, "We see whole species getting killed off, so why doesn't the planet eventaully run out of them?"
Whether it was all set up in 7 days or not is unimportant in deciding to accept or deny that evolution happens.
I don't wish to step on their copyright so I'm only going to quote the beginning of the story:
Four days that shook the world. New Scientist vol 182 issue 2446 - 08 May 2004, page 32
Just when you thought the dust had settled on the cause of the demise of the dinosaurs, there's a new type of catastrophe kicking it up again. Forget meteorites and mega-volcanoes, Verneshots are the real culprit, says Kate Ravilious
THE Earth exploded under their feet. Noxious gases spouted into the atmosphere and quickly circulated around the globe. The ground shook with the force of a hundred massive earthquakes, and 20 gigatonnes of the Earth's crust and mantle were blasted into the sky before raining back down onto the surface. It was a terrible day for the dinosaurs. They never recovered.
Is this, at last, a true description of what happened 66 million years ago? The argument over what killed the dinosaurs has raged for 25 years, and has polarised into two opposing camps: a meteorite impact, or a prolonged bout of mega-volcanism called a continental flood basalt.
But now a team from Geomar, an earth sciences institute at Kiel University in Germany, has come up with a completely new type of geological catastrophe to explain the death of the dinosaurs, as well as three previous mass extinctions. If they are right the culprit was neither a meteorite nor a flood basalt, but a colossal underground explosion called a Verneshot.
As yet the idea is in its infancy (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol 217, p 263). But the Verneshot hypothesis has one big advantage over its rivals. It explains a mystery that haunts the debate over mass extinctions: why the extinctions always seem to coincide with both continental flood basalts and meteorite impacts when the odds of these happening simultaneously are vanishingly slim.
Be careful what you wish for...
Where your treasure is there is your heart also...
...partially evolved Chimp...
You obviously have absolutely no idea of how the THEORY of evolution works.
faith" is merely belief based on your understanding of evidence
or of what faith means
Two reasons:
One - It is based on an object (computer/AI)we know is created by another entity. The setup dictates a creator/createe relationship.
Two - It presumes the evidence was left by some deity and that belief/atheist is just a matter of good or bad interpretation.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
I can create a spherical triangle, as a matter of fact, you can too!
(A spherical triangle is a triangle that is contained within the surface of a sphere)
I'm sure God could do it too, if he took spherical geometry.
...we get to hear even more hilarious tap-dancing explanations for this new evidence from Christian Scientists.
I think they're still dancing over the fact that dinosaurs were never mentioned in the Bible.
Finding a very thin layer of irridium in the rocks laid down at the very end of the Permian would be compelling evidence.
An irridum layer is (an almost) sufficient condition to prove an impact, because some asteroids contain lots of irridium, but Earth's surface normally does not.
However, it is not a necessary condition, because not all asteroids contain lots of irridium.
So yes, it would be compelling evidence, but we cannot rule out an impact if this evidence is not found.
Tor
Compare if you will the order of things occuring in genisis 1 & 2 to current theories of the formation of the earth.
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.": The solar system is a cloud of dust and gas, (without form?) and dark. the dust is too thick, it blocks all outside light.
"Let there be light: and there was light." The sun finally lit, illuminating the dust cloud it was in, It would look like being in thick fog.
"and God divided the light from the darkness." Solar wind starts to thin out the dust enough that it is no longer light on the far side of the earth. Note that the sun and stars are not 'created' until after plants. They would not be visible from the earth until the solar wind cleared out most of the dust. Or possibly until the plants cleared out the atmosphere (think venus like clouds of something)
Plants before animals, ocean life before land life, these are all roughly in the same order as modern science has determined. Oh, and the 'let the earth bring forth' part sounds like evolution to me.
I think that The bible creation story is all that is left of a vision god showed someone of the creation, time compressed at least, and from the perspective of the earth. The guy who saw it didn't really know what he was seeing, and those who wrote it down and put it into the bible generations later were totally clueless about what it was actually describing. Modern science has filled in many of the details that were lost and is a much better description of the same event.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
(2) God put it there as some kind of sneaky plan to fool most of us into thinking creationism is ignorant nonsens
"Does it bother anyone else that God...just might be fucking with our heads? 'Huhuhuh...I'm a prankster god! I kill me.'" -- Bill Hicks on the theory that fossils are a test of faith
The atheist/etc. is like the AI saying I see the evidence, but I still can't "see" him directly so I cannot believe in him.
It's a question of epistemology and competing stories. If the AI ponders its existence, it will come up with one or more stories -- possible sets of events that could have led to its creation (creation myths). Given N creation myths, the question is, how can you tell which one is right? (Especially if there are an infinite number of possible explanations that fit the data.)
Let's say the AI is methodical and logical, and it wants to get to the bottom of this whole creation'thing. It's got a set of data (probably incomplete) and N possible explanations. What can it do?
A) Investigate: look for more data and use it to narrow the search field. discard or modify stories which don't fit newly-acquired data.
B) Apply scientific method: for each story, make a hypothesis. test it. discard or modify stories which suggest incorrect hypotheses. give extra weight to stories which are accurate predictors.
C) ???
Really, (A) and (B) are the same thing: attempt to decide between competing stories based on available evidence, or attempt to find more evidence to help decide.
You're saying that the story you believe is one which cannot be tested. How then do you know that that is the true one, and not some other story?
Kindly take your steaming heap of lies and leave the civilization that you are denying.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
For those without the vocabulary:
Abiogenesis: Creation of life from non-living matter.
Actually, even the scientists believe in abiogenesis, it's just that their version of the story has to do with self arranging molecules. This is very understandable since even right now, your protein strands are arranging and rearranging themselves (folding) into the shapes they use to keep you living.
The "old school" reference of the word is entirely different. It refers to a time when scientists believed that pieces of mud spontaneously turned into frogs and parts of rotting meat spontaneously turned into maggots. It's an example of why science didn't go very far until the discovery of "the scientific method" and the "controlled experiment".
Btw, the reality of speciation is crucial to the feasibility of all those animals fitting on the Ark, e.g., there weren't as many as you think. "Kinds" != species.
Is that this damn thing is too old. As is, the Chixilub crater, at 65MY, is severely degraded, and many of the continents were close to their present locations. At the end of the Permian Era, they were all lumped into one land mass.
Even an impact crater as large as 100 miles would be so worn over that even with sensitive geologic data, it would be hard to detect. Finding evidence of shocked quartz points to some sort of impact in that area... narrowing down the date and size is the tough part.
Could this be the smoking gun? Hard to say. My guess is that numerous phenomenon combined to cause this extinction. Massive vulcanism in what is now Siberia would have causes all sorts of problems ecologically. Then you have theories on methane seeps... which could explain why ocean life suffered the worst fate... And maybe this rock was the coup de gras of the Permian Era.... the final nail on the coffin for an already stressed ecosystem.
Though, these extinction events lead life on Earth to its current path. Poor evolutionary pathes were cut off, and only hearty, adaptable species survived.
You missed the part where I said that I know a lot of religious history I guess. I do know about all the scientifics in the Bible - which is not suprising since it was written during the exile - and, surprise, in an area of the world that practically invented science!
Genesis in the Bible is based on other creation myths from that region as well. Don't you know _anything_ about stories from outside the Bible?
it's in my head
If someone is a believer, than they must take the bible literally, despite the contradictions.
Okay. I'll bite. Give me some contradictions. I'm up for a challenge.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
No offense intended... My response was to Darby not you. The part about Matt. 7:1-2 was just another example. I was trying to bring out the point that Darby and others tend to like take what the Bible says completely out of context. It's not fair to take the Bible out of context to prove a point or to bash it either.
How much of the evidence for God (again see my previous link) have most people truly considered though? That link doesn't have a lot of "Reverand this-or-that says this." It relies on what respected scientists (many who are non-Christians) have discovered in areas of archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. for its arguments.
Also, *if* the AI ponders its existence? (1) Could not the creator wire the AI to do so? (2) How many people do NOT ponder their existence at some time in life?
Everyone ponders what they're doing here and what they're values are at some point in their life. They may reach different conclusions, but everyone questions their surroundings, it's inherent in us. I happen to believe God wired us this way, but regardless of how it occurs it still occurs.
Lastly, I'm not saying the story cannot be tested. I'm saying the computer cannot find scientific data about the creator beyond the files left for the AI. I know that I cannot test for God because God is not affected by the laws of the universe. If he were would that not make him just another being and part of the universe? Would that not negate his being all-powerful as the Bible claims?
However, just because I cannot test God does not mean there is no evidence. Just as the files for the AI, God left evidence for us to find. We're not talking a few pieces of evidence for God and the Bible, nor in one area of science, but rather 1000's of pieces in all major branches of science and many sub-branches.
The idea of "I have to be able to run a test on God himself to know he exists" is fallacious because that idea pre-supposes that God can be tested/experimented on. And in case I'm still not being clear about what I mean (sorry to belabor the point)... just because you cannot run tests on God himself doesn't mean you cannot run tests that prove he exists.
Sorry about that and you are right about not taking it out of context too.....
DISCLAIMER: you have the right to believe as you wish. But by the same token I have the right not to believe the same thing and further I have the right to refute your argument just as scientists are allowed to question and refute each others theories and beliefs. So I am merely exercising that right, not trying to force you to change your mind because I can't FORCE that, nor would I want to. I'm just asking you to consider another point of view and the evidence for it. From all I've read today on this article that is the approach in science... consider one anothers' theories, beliefs, etc. and the evidence for or against and come to a conclusion. I have done this with evolution (several varieties of it), big bang, distant origins theory, etc. so I just ask the same of others with the Christian faith.
One - It is based on an object (computer/AI)we know is created by another entity. The setup dictates a creator/createe relationship.
How do you know the AI is created by another entity? Why does the setup dictate a creator/createe relationship?
Is it because the AI is a complex object that could not have occurred by mere chance? Does a car fall into the same category? How about a watch? If I showed you a fully loaded car with tons of bells and whistles and told you it appeared to me by chance, would you believe that? I know I sure wouldn't because the car is complex and could not have come about by mere chance. There must have been something/someone intelligent that created it.
What about jesus christ? What is your point? There is historical evidence to suggest he was a man that existed 2000 years ago. That is all there is, nothing more.
plurvert
Granted I'm no expert on the matter, but here's some evidence (for your consideration) I've seen going against dating methods trying to date objects back past a *few* 1000 years...
I've seen a video (sadly I forget the name, I'd have to ask around to find it again) where 2 scientists took about a 1" diameter, 2-3" long piece of wood, put it in a testtube of water, placed it in some machine that subjected it to large amounts of pressure and over the course of 2 weeks it was nearly indistinguishable (including at a chemical level) from other samples of wood found that are dated as being millions of years old. If this test can be repeated in a laboratory using wood and probably animals and other forms of life then that doesn't bode well for the dating methods regardless of the isotope used.
The video did go on to propose that the decay rate constants used for various dating methods could have been constant all the way back to the worldwide flood in Genesis 7-8ish where conditions would be right to make the constant spike temporarily and thus effect dating methods drastically.
I may not know all the science involved here, but I always did question the dating formulas I saw in one of my chemistry classes because it supposed the constant was truly constant throughout when that cannot be tested. You can test it now, but you cannot test it in the past. That's the same reason I question macro-evolution. I do not question micro-evolution, but macro-evolution is "unproved and unprovable" (I forget who I'm quoting here, but whoever it is deserves credit for the statement).
While carbon dating and such may be accurate for a few 1000 years back, I prefer helping to substantiate any such results by looking at layers of strata of civilizations as well as historical documents and such that help to know that "Object X was in the same time period as Y civilization or king/ruler." Such methods allow us to construct the timeline based on other fixed events/persons we can more easily prove the time for.
Anyways, just some thoughts for your consideration is all.
Did you know that the "fathers" of many significant branches of modern science were creationists?
Did you know the "fathers" of many of these creationists were monkeys? 's true!
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
My problem with modern scientific attempts to explain creation is that everything is filitered through peer review. Now on paper this sounds good. Presenting each others findings between learned men. The problem is what if they don't like your research, not for scientific or even logical reasons, reasearch can be shouted down to easily if it goes against the status quo, and once you get shouted down 2 or 3 times, well good luck getting funding. A scientist risks his career if he rocks the boat. This is why creation science will never be taken seriously regardless of the evidence. It's because modern science has more to do with philosophy and politics than facts.
How many would you like?
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
What methods do they use to trace out these fossils over millions of years? One big questions to me that remains with all these species dying off, new ones forming, why are humans the only one with intelligence? No other species in the world has the logical capacity human do. If you think otherwise, try talking about the theory of relativity to a dolphin or any other species..... For me, there is just something more there evolution or anything else can ever explain with helps further my faith....
> Actually there is more scientific fact in the bible than you might guess.
There's also stories about talking snakes, donkeys, and ghosts, and some delightful nonsense about how to breed striped and spotted sheep.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Leaving aside that this is what all politicians do, not just dems, I think the issue is the British meaning of the word 'billion' is not the same as the American meaning.
All politicians have trouble seperating fact from context. But it is just like a Republican to try to slip an irellevant barb into an unrelated context.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No, it's because in your post you said: "Let's say I was smart enough to create an AI with the intelligence of a human and put it on a PC."
That statement alone sets the scene in a way where there is absolutely a creator, the only thing to figure out is how the created object interprets its origin.
I'm not attacking your beliefs, just the analogy you're using to support a position.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
Haaarumph!! "The Great Dying" indeed!
I don't remember anything so great about it!
Did I not see any REAL evidence in that article?
the Political Inquirer
Not that the evidence isn't also compatible with creators / designers... but those designers are not only plagarists, but very bad plagarists. Not only have they never surprised us with original code, the copies / plagarism also include copies of all previous copying errors (like the primates having an almost working- but for a few errors- version of vitamin C manufacturing. Yay scurvy: other mammals don't have to worry about it.)
Yes, I know a little about the other myths. (not that much but. . .) I would be very suprised if the original story only ended up in the bible. Plus the fact that the original was not in the same language as what the jews spoke (or anyone else during the exile for that matter) as their languages didn't exist yet.
Curious now, what is the order of creation in some of the other versions?
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
The fact is, I do not deny that creatures change, and new species are formed. My claim is simple - that no matter how many generations there are, a human will always be a human. So far as evolution is defined as a variation of allele frequencies in a population, you will find no argument from me. Yet I deny the possibility that I share a common ancestry with a lion - and that is where evolution lacks proof.
The fossil records also do not support the second definition of evolution (the one that states common ancestry). In fact, the only reasonable fossil record there is is the reptile->mammal sequence, and even this isn't in order or real. Along with archaeopteryx, it is the only thing that could be considered evidence from the fossil record. And something being the exception to the rule hardly should become the rule. Stephen Gould himself stated rightly:
The standard response to this is to claim that the fossil record is laid in such a way as to not leave good evidence. While that may be true, it is hard for those of us who are looking for proof of darwinism. I will not accept a theory based on an argument that states it is incapable of leaving evidence. Would you believe I had an invisible gardener that you could not touch, talk to, or see the effects of?Try not to think about the alternative to darwinism, but instead look at the problems with it. The only area where it has actual, strong, scientific evidence is in the area of astrophysics - there is no denying that the universe is old. This is a fact that Creationists openly admitted as a problem. While they could demonstrate the earth as young, and the inherent problems with darwinism, they could come up with no good answer for the universe. As far as our world goes though - there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is old. And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor.
What in the world is this you are referring to? Are you saying that the Bible's restrictions on the practice of sex (only within marriage, not between same sex, or with animals, or with close relatives), was implemented just to reduce population growth?
If so, you should be aware that the patriarchs of the Bible considered it an important role to have children. It was even commanded by God on different occasions. Procreation has always been a positive thing in the eyes of God. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
As for me, I prefer arguments with substance.Even funnier is the fact that those people probably believed that it would work!!
(my point being that people have always believed stupid stuff. I would expect stuff like that in any genuine historical document)
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Don't be sorry for stating what you think, metlin. No matter what you say, it will always offend someone out there. There are way too many idiots in this world; and I'm talking about the fulltime ones, not the momentary ones - which we can all be.
You're doing well just as you are. Apologizing for offending people can become a fulltime occupation (politicians practice this
(Don't let the bastards choose the battleground, either
Cheers, friend
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
It's probably a good idea to at least make a good faith effort at becoming one before telling the real experts that they're wrong, no?
But you need to hear both sides of the story. It's like saying most people use microsoft so it is the best and it is the right way to do things, instead of looking into it for yourself.
I don't see anybody here saying that they haven't looked into you. You're just assuming that they haven't.
In the past creationist have not always given the best answers to the questions from evolutionist. Doesn't make evolution any more true.
That's correct. However, it does strongly indicate that the creationist model can't stand on its own scientific merit. Its like saying everyone uses Microsoft because it is better then open source, Instead of looking into it for yourself.
Well, if in this analogy evolution = microsoft and creation = open source, it's more like this: People are going with Microsoft because it works pretty well and hasn't been shot down yet, and open source is obviously fatally flawed.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
This is one of the few times I ever agree w/ Troed (check our comments to each other), but I'm man enough to admit when he's right.
There's a prof in Australia that says evolution is unproveable? So exactly how is creationism proveable? How much do I have to swallow on faith? By proveable, I mean facts, evidence, et cetera.
Maybe since you're touting one scientist or professor that believes in the fairy tale of creationism, you should take a look at how many scientists do support the theory of evolution.
What sort of "intelligent design" combines excretion w/ sexual organs?
This guy is way out there
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather look at non-explosive fossils.
But Satan put them there, to try to mislead people. Or God put them there, to test our faith. ... and WHAT wiped them out (and whether or not they were really all wiped out simultaneously).
Don't you know they were all too big to fit on Noah's Ark? Noah could've lashed the big sauropods to the side of the ark, like pontoons, but he ran out of rope. The little ones, like Archaeopteryx, got on the boat but were eaten by tigers or something. After all, the Bible says they were at sea for over a year -- there couldn't possibly have been enough food for all the thousands of animals, so Noah decided to prune the food chain a little bit.
You can't have it both ways. God is either contrained by his creation(s), or he isn't. If he truly wishes his creations to achieve wisdom, he can't do it by confusing them when he decides to change the rules. Whether or not it's a "moral" restraint is irrelevant for this point.
That said, you seem like someone who one could have a refreshing discussion (as opposed to argument) about the concept of god with.
Cheers!
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Duh... thanks Captain Obvious. That was the point. God's want = can.
Its possible that knocking out 80% of terrestrial life could wipe out only 30% of the species or some number like that. I'd probably be a case of massive starvation, and lots of large communities of animals being dessimated, and breaking off into multiple and much much smaller populations. Obviously anything that happened to have a nice little niche at ground zero might not be quite so lucky.
No, it is your loss, of a grip on reality. That's why the rest of us find it funny. For the beliefs of creationists to be true, literally millions of things we take for granted would have to be false. Science is a vast interlocking web of theories and hypothesis, none 'true' in the absolute sense, but supporting each other. Many of these theories have been subjected to every kind of test imaginable and not been falsified. Creationism, if true, would falsify all of them. Everything we understand about how to make a computer, or how airplanes fly, or how the sun works: ALL of it would have to be wrong for creationsim to be true. That is why we laugh.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Since the taxonomy of creatures is an arbitrary classification made up by people, if you *want* to say that no species have ever evolved into another, it's very easy to do by tautology - just make it so that you call any form you see that's halfway between two other forms its own species. If an intermediate transitionary form is known, it will be called it's own species.
Both religion and science seek answers - but only one of them has a tradition of self-doubt about them and a desire to TEST them wherever possible.
The less testable something is in science, the less certain scientists are about it. So the cutting-edge pie-in-the-sky stuff where scientists are currently pushing the boundries of the unknown is always the least certain part of science, and the part most open to debate.
Science: Start from stuff that's fairly certain, and derive stuff that you're not as certain about from it.
Religion: Start from stuff that's uncertain, and derive stuff that you're certain about from it.
One is definately more honest than the other.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The genesis story claims the Earth formed before the Sun did. So much for your theory.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Did you know that the "fathers" of many significant branches of modern science were creationists?
Of course. So was EVERYBODY ELSE AT THE TIME. Duh.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Uh oh, silence from the creationism camp.... Probably busy trying integrate church and state so we can end up like the Middle East.
This guy is way out there
That the calendar is based on the alleged birth of Jesus is not proof of Jesus existing. It's merely proof that the Romans who made the calendar, at the time, believed in Jesus existing.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
People thinking atheists are those who believe they have conclusive evidece god doesn't eixst really start to irk me sometimes. It's like people who believe that "hacker" just means "one who breaks into comptuers".
You're painting a group with too wide a brush. It is not required that one believe god cannnot possibly exist in order for one to be an atheist.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
This is why creation science will never be taken seriously regardless of the evidence.
The evidence, or lack thereof, is precisely WHY it's not being taken seriously.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It's a relevant and accurate observation about science and religion.
I was with you until this line. Accuracy should have nothing whatsoever to do with moderation, which is precisely why it was wrong to mod this guy down. I say it was wrong to call him a troll *despite* the accuracy (or lack thereof) of his post. Disagreement does not mean trolling.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Well, I'm not that much of a geologist, to be able to say. However, in a way, the Mid-Ocean Ridges count as cracks in the crust, through which magma currently outpours. Maybe not as fast as perhaps happened in Siberia, the Deccan, the Columbia Plateau, and other places. What I wonder is what they would find, if they decided to LOOK for coincidental magma outpours and giant meteor craters. When the Columbia Plateau formed, what was at (or near, due to impact angle) the antipode? When the African Vredevoort Ring formed, was any magma event recorded at its antipode? And so on.
What about the new species of bacteria which only lives in beer-mats, the mosquito species unique to subways, or the wallabies in Hawaii thought to be a distinct species?
How do you explain the twin nested hierarchy without evolution? What about the many instances of identical viral DNA sequences found in the genomes of different species?
Cthulhu loves you.
Ok, I admit I was having a bit of fun. Its amusing to see people get so involved in describing the detailed attributes (such as omnipotence) of something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Same, a bit different, more correct, less correct.
it's in my head
"As far as our world goes though - there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is old. And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor."
I think you'll find that if you go to a library and pick up a book on geology or biology, it will describe a great deal of evidence. You can choose to ignore it if you like, but claiming it doesn't exist is flat-out lying.
Cthulhu loves you.
I never said there was no evidence. I said nothing conclusive. There are many things that point out a young earth too, and many problems with the methods that produce an old age.
Pure imagination. The only reason you say that is because you think it is true. Yet you cannot prove we do have a common ancestry, nor can you prove that chimps will eventually become something other than chimps. You would do well to answer the question - we would like to see such intermediary creatures. Perhaps, for example, an earlier human who shows some of the signs of our incredible intelligence, but not as much.
I highly doubt that, for two reasons:
1. It is no conspiracy theory to believe that a naturalistic based scientific journal would accept and consider any creation articles that undermine its fundamental philosophy (naturalism). This is unsurprising. Creationists do precisely the same in their peer reviewed journals.
2. I have not yet met a single darwinist (and I have argued with a great number) that understands the creation model. So, when yet another comes along and claims it is because of the lack of evidence, I simply think that he is yet another of the (so far) 100% of darwinists I met that didn't understand. Often though this failure of understanding is also a failure of understanding the nuances of the theory of evolution and its many faces.
"And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor."
Care to some of these 'many things' that point to a young earth?
Are you also saying that every piece of evidence for an old earth, has many problems? Have you looked at this evidence yourself, or are you just parroting the usual creationist sources?
Cthulhu loves you.
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
This just isn't the case. There are a very large number of examples of gradual change illustrated in the fossil record. The horse and the whale are good cases. You can see each step as the shape of the creature slowly changed over millions of years.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
There is a good reason for this. Species tend to arise fastest in small isolated groups of animals, such as on islands. Because these are small, they tend not to be preserved in the fossil record. When the new species come back into contact with larger land areas, by continental drift or sea level change for example, they can spread and possibly increase in number. Continental drift explains lot of this: for example the sudden appearance of new species in South America as a result of migration from North America when the land bridge formed.
So your argumentation is that since we cannot "prove" down-to-earth theories of how everything came to pass, our only alternative is to resort to a primitive belief in a higher divine being?
Btw, do you know what oil is made out of?
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
So you are saying that if people dig up remains of beings that prove a common ancestor, you will switch your views? Are you sure that even in such a case you won't go "aha, but GOD put those remains there!"
Using "pure imagination" is a bit far-fetched for someone who bases his claims on superstition.
Have you ever even READ Darwin's works?
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
- Descendant organisms are slightly genetically different from their parents
- over time, these changes, coupled with environmental and competetive pressures, create communities of organisms that do not interbreed
- these independently changing groups lead to new species and branches in the descendancy tree
What would you consider to be an 'intermediary' creature? How can you gauge intelligence of a creature that is dead? How about early hominids who used primitive tools? Have you looked at the Talk.origins page for a long list of "transitional" fossils?Excellent. I'll dig out my concordance, commentary, dictionary and several versions of the Bible and do some of these for you. Are there any in particular that interest you?
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
While you are correct on "a hypothesis", at least Webster says that it's "an historic". Where is your reference?
And, AFAIK, it's not "a hypothesis" because the H is pronounced or not, but because of what follows: the same as it's "an update" but "a user". But I may be wrong on the H part.
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
Thanks, shadowbearer! :)
;-)
:)
Yeah, I do realize that people can (and will) get offended at just about anything and everything.
It's just that I get pissed when they get mad at me for something I never meant in the first place - intentionally reading between the lines to misinterpret it the way they see it, and not the way I meant it!
So setting the records straight may not really help anyone, but hey it's not like I've not pissed off enough people already
However, I do agree with what you say, it's not worth being nice to everyone!
Thanks & cheers, friend!
You can't carbon date a fossil as all the original organic material has been displaced during the fossilisation process. It is dangerous to your own credibility to go around claiming that it is relevant - well it would be if you hadn't posted AC.
I distinguish between evolution and natural selection. Evolution is the observed fact (mainly from the fossil record) that species are "created" change and go extinct over time (there is actually quite a lot of fossil evidence for so called transitional forms). Natural selection is a theory proposed by Charles Darwin to explain how evolution might happen. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a good theory to explain it.
Are you a Young Earth Creationist? Because this "grossly inaccurate dating" argument is the kind of rubbish that they like to come up with. How grossly inaccurate? A factor of 10 wrong? 100? 1000? Current dating methods would have to be wrong by a factor of nearly a million in order for the Earth to only be 6000 years old.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
There were just as many people then who were not creationists as now.
As a percentage? No. (Keep in mind that under this context, "creationist" doesn't JUST mean that someone believes there's a god who created the universe, but that this god did so in a way incompatable with evolutionary theory. There are a lot of people who believe BOTH evolution and that there's a god. I don't understand that mindset myself, since it would have to be a very sloppy god that isn't really in control, but I do know that such people exist.
And of course, if you were an honest person, you'd know that rejecting a theory does not mean rejecting all similar theories. You cite people who have rejected SPECIFIC models of evolution, and then say this means they are anti-evolution.
God bless you DunbarTheInept.
Don't Pray On Me.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
A car with problems (which describes my car perfectly :) is better than no transportation at all. I have to have a good alternative. Fixing my bike would do.
So my question for you is, do you have one? speciffically, what alternative creationist theories do you have that would explain the existance of the fossil record as it currently exists? Keep in mind that the fossil record contains mostly animals that do not exist anymore, and while those animals that do exist do show up sometimes, they are by far the minority.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
You're saying in all of the bible, one word--"behometh"--is now refers to the giant lizardsthat walked the earth alongside man? Just one single reference?!
What a stretch. You're looking for things to fit the description, and you find "behometh" and say, "There! It's describing a dinosaur." Not convincing.
The Hebrew meaning for the word behometh was "giant, kingly beast." Do you realize how many of those we have around? The word "Behemoth" is not a direct translation; it is a transliteration. Which means that the original Hebrew letters were substituted with the equivalent English letters to enable us to pronounce it, because translators didn't know what to do with the word when they came across it.
Behemoth and Leviathan, and the context describes features which are only attributable to dinosaurs. Various schools of "higher criticism" have tried to "rationalise" (the wimpy losers) the descriptions back to hippos or alligators, but she's a no go.
Next question: why do you expect the Bible to be a comprehensive historical biology text? Are you still looking for that ultimate contradiction in terms: a supernatural being who behaves as you expect? A pet God? Turn to Paganism, most denominations of that have those by the bushel.
At least learn to spell. No wonder you couldn't find the text! (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Maybe not. Note that many of Mr Körtvélyessy ideas are better supported by the available evidence than meteor impacts are.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Atheists claim that there is no God. Theists claim that there is a God. Both are definite claims. Christianity is a (small) subset of Theism.
An Agnostic also makes a claim: that he doesn't know whether there is a God. This claim is definite only in the sense of the Agnostic's belief, it is not definite in terms of the existence or otherwise of God. Thus it is the defaultg position: an Agnostic has nothing to prove.
A devout Agnostic will make a definite claim: that the existence or nonexistence of God is definitely not open to proof. This is also not the default position, since the default position is a kind of double Agnosticism: one starts without deciding whether one can actually prove or disprove God.
So... either you are not an Atheist, or you don't know what an Atheist is.
However, your reading in the "Troll" mod is 100% on the money. Hope the metamods get the perpetrator.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I've tried that. I only get consistently modded down if the religion in question is Atheism.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...'coz Inherit The Wind was pretty close to 100% bullshit. The Scopes trial was quite different In Real Life; Scopes was a deliberate plant put up to making his claims of having taught evolution (of which there was zero actual evidence) and the opposing lawyers got on quite well together.
If you want to actually support your point instead of undermining it, do a bit more research before firing from the hip. The major untested assumptions in your worldview really detract from your post, because other than that ("...Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"), your style was really readable and enjoyable.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Dang, so much for RTFA. You did not even read what you replied to. I discussed that. In fact, it is one of the key points. Go back and read it.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Well, I started with the first one and am going to work my way down the list.
,because they believed not them which had seen him
after he was risen.
The author of the list has an apparent typo; he asks the question were there 10, 11 or 12 apostles, but the quote he uses to show 10 apostles actually reads 12 and not 10, so I wrote a commentary based on the differences between the 11 and 12 apostles of Christ.
Q: Did Jesus appear to eleven or twelve apostles after his resurrection?
A: Matthew chapter 28, verse 16 reads, Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus has appointed them.
Mark chapter 16, verse 14 reads, Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart
Luke chapter 24, verse 33 reads, And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 5 reads, And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.
So which is it? Were there eleven apostles of Christ or twelve? Let's start in Matthew, chapter 10 to get the names of each apostle.
Matthew chapter 10:1-4 reads, And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
So to sum up, here are the twelve disciples:
Simon (Peter)
Andrew
James (son of Zebedee)
John (brother of James, son of Zebedee)
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James (son of Alphaeus)
Lebbaeus
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot
So we understand that there were originally twelve disciples. Why does the Bible refer to the group mostly as the twelve but sometimes as the eleven? Let's start with verse 16 from Matthew, chapter 28.
The scene from Matthew, chapter 28 is the literal resurrection of Christ. The Bible tells us in verse 2 that there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Clearly then, verse 16 has happened after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So why only 11 disciples? The answer lies in Matthew, chapter 27:1-5: When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Judas committed suicide, leaving only 11 literal disciples. Much in the same way as some older bands go on tour decades after their
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
human who shows some of the signs of our incredible intelligence, but not as much.
I meet those every day.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
One big questions to me that remains with all these species dying off, new ones forming, why are humans the only one with intelligence?
Why are elephants the only ones with trunks? Why is it a failure of the theory of evolution for there to be species with unique traits?
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Even if the trait of intelligence doesn't have to come with the desire to control the surroundings, I think it would be sufficient that the two were both present in humans, so that they would wipe out the other species that threatened their position of power over all other species.
It is possible that humans are the only intelligent species because we were specially created, but it's also possible to explain it in other ways. In fact, in my experience 'proof' that God exists must always be subjective and non-repeatable, by the very nature of faith. Objective and repeatable evidence generally just encourages people to dig deeper into the reasons, rather than increasing their faith. That must really annoy God, sometimes.
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
> but with my lucky crystal I can feel a karma vortex heading my way.
Sounds like someone's been watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit!
I read it again to see if there was someting I'd missed, to see if there really was somewhere where you'd discussed this as you claim. Nope. There wasn't.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
That "now many people" was supposed to say "how many people". I made a bad typo that inverted the gist of that statement entirely. Damn I hate it when that happens. (Espeically "now" versus "how" - that's a common one because H and N are next to each other, and it almost always results in a sentence that actually does grammatically and semantically make sense, so it's not obvious it's a typo.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Well put.
This guy is way out there
...supposed to be even meaningful, let alone rigorous?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Shinto, Bhuddism, Romanism have all tried religion-by-force, and are all Pagan derivatives. The druids may have been generally gentle, but there are proper pagan groups aplenty who weren't. Open your eyes and try a different tack.
A pair of Besser blocks [the fish is for scale], suitably employed, can also provide comfort to the dying. Which doesn't mean that it's a good idea in either case. Christianity, as opposed to the mindlessly violant political "us'r'better'n'them" zealotry which often calls itself Christianity, provides not merely comfort, but also purpose and a real future.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Whales are _not_ good cases. The whale fossils in question do not show a direct sequence, and are not even similar. I don't know where to begin - but it's certainly not a good example.
As for horses, there are living today a great variety of horses. One could theoretically lay them out in a sequence that shows an evolutionary tree - yet it would be nothing more than fiction. Certainly they all share a common ancestor. Yet a horse is still a horse.
Fact is, the only good evidences are the reptile->mammal sequence (which isn't even real, but out of order), and the archaeopteryx. These are an exception to the overall rule of the fossil record - which counteracts darwinism.
There is a good reason for this.
I'm not looking for you to explain how Darwinism explains sudden appearance. The point is simple - the fossil record provides no support for darwinism. And no matter how many times you can provide excuses for a lack of evidence, they are just that: excuses. In order to believe that there is "overwhelming evidence" for the common ancestry of all living things, one must see proof, not excuses for the absence of proof.
A car with irreparable problems is not better than no car at all. It costs money, or takes up space, and gives nothing in return.
So my question for you is, do you have one? speciffically, what alternative creationist theories do you have that would explain the existance of the fossil record as it currently exists?
While I do ascribe to one of the creation theories (and while creation groups are divided, so are evolutionist groups - including darwinists and those that ascribe to punctuated equilibrium), it is irrelevant to this conversation. If I were to reject the creation theory, I would not ascribe to darwinism or any other evolutionary explanation for the origin of life. There is too much fundamentally wrong with it. I think the problems against darwinism can stand on their own without needing recourse to an alternate theory.
There was a time when men did not understand certain things. One does not need an alternative theory before they can reject the absurd. Keep in mind that the fossil record contains mostly animals that do not exist anymore, and while those animals that do exist do show up sometimes, they are by far the minority.
This does nothing to prove Darwinism. There are many other possibilities for why that is true. I do not deny that there is a change in allele frequencies over time, and that new species can be formed over time. I simply reject the answer that all living things descend from a common ancestor.
I was correctly pointing out the original meaning of the word in the original Hebrew texts. There is absolutely no concrete mention of dinosaurs in the Bible unless you actually go looking for things to fit onto it. I could find something to describe vampires if I wanted to and argue that the Bible is saying vampires existed.
Don't get me started on the original source of the word Lucifer and how it was twisted to become the anthropomorphic image of Satan we have now.
At least learn to spell. No wonder you couldn't find the text! (-:
I can spell just fine. Sorry, I have a life and don't waste my time proofreading hastily written Slashdot posts.
Where is the flood of Noah in the fossil record? Is carbon dating wrong? Where are the cave drawings of dinosaurs? How do you explain the proven movement of the continents over time?
You're arguing with science just to bolster your looney religious worldview. You're searching the entire Bible for one vague word and declaring that it's describing dinosaurs. I think if dinosaurs were roaming around Jerusulem, we'd have known about it. Or do you think the authors of the Bible were morons?
Someday, you should try reading up on how there were dozens upon dozens of Gospels coming out after the fact, and how a certain monk decided on four of them to represent "the Four Winds of the Earth--North, South, East, and West." Your Bible is a mish-mash of mistranslations and subjective editing. This is all proven historical fact.
Unlike one single word that magically becomes dinosaurs in your mind.
Here's the answer to the next one on the list.
All Bible references are from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.
Q: Was Abraham justified by faith or works?
A: Romans 4:2 (NIV) reads, If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about - but not before God.
However, James 2:21 (NIV) reads, Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
Abraham is first mentioned in the Book of Genesis as Abram, husband of Sarai, later known as Sarah. God makes a covenant with Abram in Genesis 17:1-5: And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly, And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. Genesis 17:19 continues, And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Abraham was 100 years old before he and his wife were blessed with their first son, Isaac (Abraham had a son with Sarai's handmaid previously but Isaac was the first son between Abraham and Sarah.). The Lord spoke with Abram when he was 99 years old and told him that he would be a father of many nations as is evidenced in Genesis 17:1-6. The Bible doesn't directly tell us how old Sarah was when she gave birth to Isaac, although Genesis 17:17 reads, Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Genesis 21:1-2 tells us that Sarah gave birth to a son: And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
So was Abraham justified by works or by faith? It was by faith because all Abraham did was believe in the Lord. And the Lord justified Abraham by delivering a son as promised.
When was Abraham justified by works as mentioned in James 2:21, then?
Genesis 22:2 tells us that Abraham was instructed by God to offer his son, Isaac, as a burnt offering in the land of Moriah: And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Genesis 22:9-13 tells of Abraham's faith: And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
The whale fossils in question do not show a direct sequence, and are not even similar.
Wrong. They show a very clear and simple sequence, illustrating at every stage how adaptations to aquatic life appear and are selected for.
The point is simple - the fossil record provides no support for darwinism
Complete nonsense. Darwinism was arrived at because of the fossil record.
one must see proof
Galapagos finches. Australian flora and fauna. New and Old world monkeys. Madagascar species. There are plenty of examples of how species arise because of isolation.
There is proof for those who choose to look, and not follow blind and ignorant dogma.
I'm not out there oppressing anyone, in fact my beliefs call me to not just tolerate everyone, but to embrace them. So, why bash them?
Firstly, because its healthy to bash all beliefs. All ideas should be challenged and subject to debate.
Secondly, because faith is a very dangerous thing, as you can (and many people have) justify anything based on faith.
This could just end up as a "he says, she says" situation. Slashdot is definitely not the best medium for offerring up evidences, but instead just stating what we are convinced is fact. And for me, I've seen the reasons why whale fossils are thought to demonstrate darwinism, and it simply doesn't. This portion of the conversation though can go no further till we start pointing to evidence.
Complete nonsense. Darwinism was arrived at because of the fossil record.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Darwin predicted that in the future the fossil record would be full of transitional fossils. He was shown to be dismally wrong - but instead of acknowledging this weakness, the theory was instead changed to show how darwinism predicts a mostly absence of transitional fossils. That to me counters directly your claim that Darwinism was originally accepted because of the fossil record. My understanding, also, was that Darwins conclusions were based off the ideas of people earlier than him, and inferences he drew from his observations with the finches.
Galapagos finches. Australian flora and fauna. New and Old world monkeys. Madagascar species. There are plenty of examples of how species arise because of isolation.
Citing these as proof shows a gross misunderstanding of the controversy and its alternatives. I have no problem with the scientific definition so far as it is defined as "a change in allele frequencies of a population over time". When 'evolution' comes to also mean the common ancestry of all living things, then I have a problem. The finches, flora and fauna, new and old world monkeys, Madagascar species, arrival of new species - NONE of these provide proof that all living things share a common ancestor. They affirm beyond doubt the scientific definition of evolution I cited above, but say nothing of the common ancestry of all living things.
There is proof for those who choose to look, and not follow blind and ignorant dogma.
And, as I said just before, you miss the entire point of the controversy in the first place. There is no dispute about changes, adaptation, natural solution. The dispute is whether all life descends from a common ancestor or not. THAT has no fossil evidence, and has no biological mechanism that sufficiently explains it. That (common ancestry) is also not a scientific claim - it is not something that can be empirically tested, repeated, and at the moment cannot be falsified.
Darwinism is a theory that explains everything and predicts nothing - and is therefore useless.
And for me, I've seen the reasons why whale fossils are thought to demonstrate darwinism, and it simply doesn't.
No - it doesn't to you. You are stating your personal opinion as fact.
This portion of the conversation though can go no further till we start pointing to evidence.
There is no point, as you disagree what is evidence.
That (common ancestry) is also not a scientific claim - it is not something that can be empirically tested, repeated, and at the moment cannot be falsified.
Of course it can be tested, and falsified. Suppose I find a bacterium on Mars. I propose it has common ancestry with that on Earth. So what do we do? We look for DNA, and we look for common sequences. If we find DNA at all, that is a good suggestion of common origin. The more conserved sequences (such as ribosome structure) the more likely that it is common.
DNA sequences can be examined and easily arranged in a tree of similarity. The tree of similarity is either damn good evidence of common ancestry or the most mind-numbingly astronomically unlikely coincidence.
Darwinism is a theory that explains everything and predicts nothing - and is therefore useless.
Complete nonsense. Darwinism predicts that species will adapt to change through evolution.
Darwinism predicted what Gregor Mendel found. Darwinism predicted the nature of genetic material. It was realised from the structure of DNA that it must be the genetic material because it would allow Darwinian evolution.
We can actually see that in action. There have been cases (such as beak shape in birds on an island) where such adaptations have arisen and spread through populations within a few human lifetimes!
We have seen the DNA of species change and adapt: Resistance to pesticides for example. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. These aren't just examples of some existing resistant organisms becoming more numerous - these are the creation of new strains through the selection of naturally occurring mutations - Darwinism.
Your post included the point that this guy's accuracy was one reason (of several) that he shouldn't be modded down. My point is that that accuracy isn't even relevant one way or the other to moderation, or at least it *shouldn't* be. Whether he was accurate or not shouldn't even be a consideration.
Remember: although his belief may or may not be wrong, it is entirely possible for him to be right about a double standard.
True. But his claim that a double standard exists is precisely what I was talking about when I said I don't agree with him. I don't think such a double standard exists.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
There is no point, as you disagree what is evidence.
You don't even know what problems I have with the whale fossil sequence, yet you assume the type and character of my objections.
Of course it can be tested, and falsified. Suppose I find a bacterium on Mars. I propose it has common ancestry with that on Earth. So what do we do? We look for DNA, and we look for common sequences. If we find DNA at all, that is a good suggestion of common origin. The more conserved sequences (such as ribosome structure) the more likely that it is common.
None of that is good evidence for darwinism if you assume the existence of God. Darwinism is based on naturalism - the philosophy that everything can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations. While you personally may hold to that view, it is not a reasonable assumption. People assume naturalism because darwinism allows them to. Darwinism is a valid theory if one first assumes naturalism - it's circular logic.
Regardless - first one would have to find this evidence on Mars, and at the moment that is quite a feat, making it an unfeasible experiment, at least for now. Darwin himself had no chance. Even if we discovered life there it doesn't prove common ancestry. It just proves that whatever life is on earth somehow ended up on Mars, or vice versa. Any explanation of common ancestry is an extrapolation of the facts which isn't necessarily true.
DNA sequences can be examined and easily arranged in a tree of similarity. The tree of similarity is either damn good evidence of common ancestry or the most mind-numbingly astronomically unlikely coincidence.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. That because DNA is similar that it must have a similar ancestor? That doesn't follow. Computers, cars, and toasters all have great similarities - they use similar electronic components, they all have an outer casing of metal, etc. Yet the only similar "ancestry" they share is the same creator. What you need is a mechanism by which simple life can become what we see today.
Complete nonsense. Darwinism predicts that species will adapt to change through evolution.
My point still stands - no matter what absurd situation arises, Darwinism will explain it. If a creature fails to adapt, darwinism explains it. If a creature succeeds at adapting, darwinism explains it. If a harmful mutation propagates itself throughout a population, darwinism explains it. If a beneficial mutation does the same, darwinism explains it. There is no conceivable counter situation to darwin's prediction. That is why it explains everything, predicts nothing, and is therefore useless. Many times people have tried to give me an example of something that would disprove Darwinism, and failed. Perhaps you could do better.
Darwinism predicted what Gregor Mendel found. Darwinism predicted the nature of genetic material. It was realised from the structure of DNA that it must be the genetic material because it would allow Darwinian evolution.
Darwin observed the finches and theorised on adaptation. Mendel's research was into inheritence. Honsestly, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this sentence, but I see no difficulty here.
We can actually see that in action. There have been cases (such as beak shape in birds on an island) where such adaptations have arisen and spread through populations within a few human lifetimes!
Darwinism actually predicts slow speciation. Such rapid changes are counter to darwinism - but due to its versatile nature, it can again successfully predict and/or explain anything. For an opposing theory, the young earth creation theory (perhaps others too) predicts rapid speciation and changes like this. It does nothing to prove Darwinism above the others.
We have seen the DNA of species change a
I'd rather not get into the details on this forum, since it's not good to debate. My primary concern is to demonstrate the problems with Darwinism, not to defend young earth creationism or any other model. So I'll quickly give you these links, and ask (perhaps unfairly) that we not get into a detail on the specifics:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-110.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
Are you also saying that every piece of evidence for an old earth, has many problems? Have you looked at this evidence yourself, or are you just parroting the usual creationist sources?I
*blush* Now I'm scared to answer. So I'll ask you a question: Have you personally looked into the evidence for an old earth yourself, or are you just parroting the usual darwinist sources? Luckily for me, the problems with darwinism are far from just being the problem with evidences for old earth.
I will NOT use that explanation. Ever. Assuming you are talking about the defense, "God put old fossils there to test us".
So you are saying that if people dig up remains of beings that prove a common ancestor, you will switch your views?
If you find a fossil that proves common ancestry, then yes, I will affirm it. However, just finding a fossil that you think proves common ancestry does not mean it does. First find the proof, then we'll talk.
Using "pure imagination" is a bit far-fetched for someone who bases his claims on superstition.
Who is that? My faith in God is based on what I consider proofs and evidence. You base your belief on naturalism, I'm assuming: "the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations". Since I believe in God (and proof that He exists), I cannot ascribe to naturalism. It's really a simple concept. And without naturalism, Darwinism no longer becomes the simplest answer. It becomes an incredibly convoluted and complex answer.
Have you ever even READ Darwin's works?
Not sure if I should be embarrassed or not. No, I have not - but I don't think that disqualifies me from being able to understand the theory. After all, I have been informed a number of times that Dawwin's works are outdated - and while good for a general understanding, no longer represent the modern Darwinist model. This is usually in response to my mention of some of the many problems with his theory.
Excellent links, thank you.
o nt _use.asp
I can tell you exactly why all of those points are not just wrong, but ludicrous.
Don't take my word for it, take a look here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/d
The people running the icr site are well aware that their claims have been refuted, but they still leave those pages on their site. Is there not something about bearing false witness which they should be aware of? I'm concerned that organisations like that are blatantly misrepresenting facts to so many people.
If you would like to learn more about why all that is wrong, I'll be happy to point you to sites with real information, or groups where you can discuss the issues with experts.
*blush* Now I'm scared to answer. So I'll ask you a question: Have you personally looked into the evidence for an old earth yourself, or are you just parroting the usual darwinist sources?
I don't know of any 'darwinists'. There are plenty of biologists who study evolution, but a geologist would be the proper source to parrot on the age of the earth.
Yes, I have looked for myself. If you're interested, grab a geology textbook from a 2nd hand bookshop, and see some of the evidence for yourself. If you lived anywhere near Sydney Australia I'd be happy to show you some interesting sites so you could literally see some evidence.
Luckily for me, the problems with darwinism are far from just being the problem with evidences for old earth.
If there really was evidence which conflicted with the theory of evolution, it would be modified to suit the evidence, or else abandoned for a different theory which better suited the evidence. That's the way science works.
Cthulhu loves you.
Short version: A person, seeing the creation from the earth, would have seen the earth form before seeing the sun. So that is the order of things in genisis
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
That makes zero sense. What the heck do you mean by the phrase "seeing the creation from the earth", at a time when there isn't an earth there yet? A person viewing from the earth would see neither the sun nor the earth form first - they'd both already be there at the start before he starts observing.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.