Origins Mini-Series Airs Tonight

SeaDour writes "The much-anticipated NOVA mini-series Origins begins tonight on PBS (check local listings for time). Hosted by Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, the ambitious show plans to journey all the way to the Big Bang and back again, "blending astrophysics, geology, chemistry, biology and even paleontology to knit together insights about the structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself." MSNBC has an interesting write-up on the show that's been four years in the making."

Comments

Cosmos?

[suso]

So is this supposed to be as good as Cosmos was? Maybe then I'd turn my satelite back on.

Re:Cosmos?

[sgant]

really, the description of this series sounds like it was lifted straight off of the Cosmos description.

But I'll certainly tune in! Sounds great.

Re:Cosmos?

[Sponge Bath]

sounds like it was lifted straight off of the Cosmos description

Maybe they will have an introduction by an anamatronic Carl Sagan.
Don't groan, both meat sack Sagan and robo Sagan are made of 'star stuff'.

Re:Cosmos?

[Eloquence]

Sagan's work was not only scientific, it was also political. I see no evidence that this is the case for this new production. In Cosmos, Sagan fought for the protection of the environment, criticized religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience, and warned of the dangers of nuclear war. If we had someone like Sagan today in the field of science, they would point to the huge domestic problems in the United States (poverty, largest prison population in the world, loss of civil rights, abuse of teenagers in "correctional facilities", sexual hysteria ..) as well as the world political situation and ways to build a peaceful society through cooperation and the teaching of secular values.

Sagan criticized the Cold War, and so he would criticize the misguided "war on terror" (which followed decades of propping up fundamentalist regimes to combat communism). The way to bring peace to the world is to lead by example, to educate, to promote free speech, to restrict the proliferation of all types of weapons, to reduce inequality, and to limit corporate meddling in other nations' affairs.

But of course science and politics are completely unreleated according to today's standards. I fear all we can hope for from this series is a watered down version of the science and none of the politics. With that attitude, is it any wonder that just three months ago, 48 Nobel Prize winners complained that "the Bush administration is undermining the nation's future by impeding medical advances, turning away scientific talent with its immigration practices and ignoring scientific consensus on global warming and other critical issues"? [source] Sadly, most scientists only bother to speak out when it is too late, if even then.

Re:Cosmos?

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

The Ship of the Imagination is now boarding for destination "My chances of ever getting laid"!

Re:Cosmos?

[cosmol]

In Cosmos, Sagan fought for the protection of the environment,

I must have missed that part. Can you refer me to the relevent episode?

criticized religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience,

That doesn't sound political to me, as those mindsets are the antithesis of pure science

and warned of the dangers of nuclear war

Sagan did have this on his agenda, though it was usually only implied in passing remarks. Still it doesn't seem very political.

Mixing science and politics is dangerous. Science should remain agnostic to the prevailing political climate, or it risks being subject to that ever-changing climate.

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

Sagan criticized the Cold War, and so he would criticize the misguided "war on terror" (which followed decades of propping up fundamentalist regimes to combat communism). The way to bring peace to the world is to lead by example, to educate, to promote free speech, to restrict the proliferation of all types of weapons, to reduce inequality, and to limit corporate meddling in other nations' affairs.

Croporations do not want educated populaces, as educated people are bound to be critical and will question endlessly public policies.

This is one reason why the USA is extremely religious, because organized ignorance is the best way of having docile populations that will not thwart the powerful people who dominate it for their own benefit. Kings have known for centuries that religion is the best way to prop-up authoritarian regimes who let a small elite rip-off the rest of the population.

As of peace, what better way than war to make people endure far more than they would consider accepting in times of peace???

Re:Cosmos?

[Tablizer]

Sagan's work was not only scientific, it was also political.

But they could probably edit such out without starting from scratch.

Re:Cosmos?

[operagost]

Just like politicians have no business meddling in science, scientists have no business meddling in politics.

I can criticize the Cold War, too. How about this: if Karl Marx hadn't written his manifesto, we wouldn't have had communism. Bet you thought I was going to blame the U.S. policy, eh? Let's trace the problem back to the big bang, if you will.

I'm also against poverty. And for education. And I want world peace. And that's why you should choose me as Miss America!

Let's lay down our arms, pick up daisies, have free love, beat our swords into plowshares... whoops, Carl wouldn't have liked that because it's biblical and all religion is bullshit. Can't we all just get along?

No. We can't. There is EVIL in the world and it finds its way into the hearts of people. A human cannot sit down and reason a moral structure from scratch. It comes from a source not truly within himself, yet not totally alien to him.

P.S. When did GWB "impede medical advances?" Oh, I see - he refused to DIVERT TAX DOLLARS TO FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH! So that IMPEDES scientists, who apparently have NO OTHER WAY of obtaining funding! Trust me, if FETAL (as opposed to adult) stem cell research had much potential, the pharmaceutical firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it - because they'd get billions out later.

Re:Cosmos?

[operagost]

This is one reason why the USA is extremely religious, because organized ignorance is the best way of having docile populations that will not thwart the powerful people who dominate it for their own benefit.

The former Soviet Union was, and China is, atheist. They are also textbook examples of authoritarian regimes. I don't see the correlation.

How about a correlation of my own? Are you familiar with the term "bread and circuses"? The Roman Empire propped up corrupt regime after insane emperor by providing the populace with the finest in debauchery and cruel diversions. They also, in a proto-socialist manner, made sure that the roman citizens (tough luck on the conquered) were provided for.

This is the exact sort of "empire" the left wants to build in America.

Your way makes no sense unless a hereditary regime is in power.

Re:Cosmos?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the exact sort of "empire" the left wants to build in America.

I guess that's why the left wing power structure here in the USA started the war with Iraq. Oh, wait...

Re:Cosmos?

[erick99]

criticized religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience,

That doesn't sound political to me, as those mindsets are the antithesis of pure science

No, they are not. There are incredibly good scientists that are Roman Catholic priests. I am a Roman Catholic and I believe in creationism and the Big Bang Theory as well as selective adaptation. I don't know how to reconcile them but I believe in them both. Believing in God does not prevent me from appreciating archeology, for example. I had a minor in that subject as part of my B.A. You should not be so quick to wipe away an entire segment of the population as antithetical to science because they believe in God. That demonstrates a level of ingnorance as great as that you purport yourself.

Re:Cosmos?

[Azghoul]

Were you Sagan's personal friend? If not, you're pretty presumptuous trying to assume what he would or would not say, don't you think?

Nice job, taking a discussion of a scientific show and twisting it some anti-Bush political screed.

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

Ouch. This must be the Slashdot equivalent of going about with a KICK ME tee-shirt...

The former Soviet Union was, and China is, atheist. They are also textbook examples of authoritarian regimes. I don't see the correlation.

Okay. Read slowly then.

How about a correlation of my own? Are you familiar with the term "bread and circuses"? The Roman Empire propped up corrupt regime after insane emperor by providing the populace with the finest in debauchery and cruel diversions. They also, in a proto-socialist manner, made sure that the roman citizens (tough luck on the conquered) were provided for.

Thanks for your correlation which only strengthened my own. Bread and circuses are provided by the MPAA, the RIAA and the US TV networks. The MPAA is quite apt at providing the american public with the finest (okay, maybe not in debauchery) cruel diversions...

This is the exact sort of "empire" the left wants to build in America.

Well, so far, it's the right who has been doing exectly that (though luck on the conquered)... And the empire-building has been going on nicely with globalization, where other countries are forced to adopt U.S. ways...

Your way makes no sense unless a hereditary regime is in power.

Okay, I'll be really easy on this one: Name the son of a U.S. president who became himself president of the USA less than 40 years after his father was kicked-out of the presidency.

Now, can you spell D_Y_N_A_S_T_Y ????

(And it rhymes nicely with nasty, too)...

Re:Cosmos?

[lombre]

According to Websters: Fundamentalism - A system of beliefs based on the interpretation of every word in the Bible, both old and new testaments, as literal truth.

This is not practiced by the catholic church.

Your definition of creationism being something like "God created / is the cause of the universe etc." is not in conflict with science.

Fundamentalists believe that everything was created exactly (not figuratively) as it says in Genesis. If you believe in the Big Bang or that the Earth is more than 5000 years old etc. then you are not a fundamentalist.

Re:Cosmos?

[Eloquence]

I must have missed that part. Can you refer me to the relevent episode?

The relevant episode is XI: The Persistence Of Memory, where he describes whale behavior, and explains the threat to whales posed by humans, not least simply because of the noises our motor ships make, which disturb the whale communication network. He correctly points out that we barely have a solid understanding about life on Earth, which is still as true as it was then.

Re:Cosmos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sagan wrote and said a lot of things while he was alive. His thoughts on certain subjects aren't difficult to extrapolate.

Re:Cosmos?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this: if Karl Marx hadn't written his manifesto, we wouldn't have had communism.

How about this jucy quote from The Acts of The Apostles, 2:44(45) (You know, the book of the bible that George W. Bush says helped him quit drinking and straighten his life out):

"All the believers shared everything in common; they sold their possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the fellowship according to individual need."

Sounds a bit like Marx, doesn't it. Guess GWB must have skipped over that part.

Re:Cosmos?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Okay, I'll be really easy on this one: Name the son of a U.S. president who became himself president of the USA less than 40 years after his father was kicked-out of the presidency.

*pushes buzzer* John Quincy Adams!

Do I win a tin foil hat too?

Re:Cosmos?

[Anonymous Coward]

> All the believers shared everything in common; they sold their
> possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the
> fellowship according to individual need."

> Sounds a bit like Marx, doesn't it. Guess GWB must have
> skipped over that part.

Ah, but that part was allegorical. You know, like the bits about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek, they're not meant to be taken literally!

Re:Cosmos?

[Anonymous Writer]

There are incredibly good scientists that are Roman Catholic priests. I am a Roman Catholic and I believe in creationism and the Big Bang Theory as well as selective adaptation.

Since you are on Slashdot, it probably means you aren't getting laid anyway, and are eligible for the priesthood by default.

Re:Cosmos?

[Anonymous Writer]

he describes whale behavior, and explains the threat to whales posed by humans, not least simply because of the noises our motor ships make, which disturb the whale communication network

There is an even greater threat posed to whales with the use of Low Frequency Active Sonar, which I think the sound from motors pales in comparison to. Sagan would have been horrified about it if he had lived long enough to have seen this go on.

Re:Cosmos?

[Choco-man]

This is one reason why the USA is extremely religious, because organized ignorance is the best way of having docile populations that will not thwart the powerful people who dominate it for their own benefit.

Assuming that an entire group of people who believe in a higher power are ignorant is perhaps the most profound form of ignorance itself. Or arrogance. Were you to do that against any other people group, you'd be labelled as racist.

Re:Cosmos?

[Oligonicella]

"Well, so far, it's the right who has been doing exectly that (though luck on the conquered)..."

No, it's both. MPAA, RIAA, and US TV didn't just appear four years ago, you know.

"And the empire-building has been going on nicely with globalization, where other countries are forced to adopt U.S. ways..."

Really? You mean the globalization that other countries want so much more than the U.S. does? The globalization that third world countries depend upon because they cannot even consume their own products economically? That globalization?

Other countries adopt U.S. ways in business because they see it being the most successful, not because they're forced. Please spell out exactly the way they're forced.

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

"And the empire-building has been going on nicely with globalization, where other countries are forced to adopt U.S. ways..."

Really? You mean the globalization that other countries want so much more than the U.S. does? The globalization that third world countries depend upon because they cannot even consume their own products economically? That globalization?

It's not the countries people who want it, but the business elite (the bourgeois) who want to have the US business-centric way of ramming things down the people's throats, by doing away with worker and environmental protections. Or by having insane copyright terms (or software patents), for example.

Other countries adopt U.S. ways in business because they see it being the most successful, not because they're forced. Please spell out exactly the way they're forced.

It's simple: the US says: okay, let us in, or we won't buy your products. And that country's bourgeois shit in their pants and they lobby for globalization. And, too often, the cash-strapped government will surrender with the promise of less government and less public expense.

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

Assuming that an entire group of people who believe in a higher power are ignorant is perhaps the most profound form of ignorance itself. Or arrogance. Were you to do that against any other people group, you'd be labelled as racist.

But fortunately, there is no sympathy towards the bigoted backwards and hateful people that believe in a higher power, so I am not a racist. Bullshit is bullshit, and when you fall for it, you certainly deserve no sympathy.

It is just unfortunate that the level of education is not higher to insure that those bigoted people are not thrown in the trash heap of History.

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

No, a Slashdot "Kick-Me" tee-shirt... :)

Re:Cosmos?

[hotspotbloc]

operagost said:

P.S. When did GWB "impede medical advances?"

GWB et al have stood in the way of medical marijuana from day one. They've used the DEA to kick in the doors of the sick and dying in California that were in full compliance with State law. They even continue to defy a Federal Judge's restraining order to leave these people alone. While some of the most respected Conservatives call for an end to the war on marijuana and call the prosecution of the sick that use medical marijuana under a doctor's advice inhuman GWB is still jailing people with little time to live.

He has done nothing to improve health care in the US. In fact he has made things worse by "shunning" the use of condoms to reduce the HIV transmission rate and replacing impartial scientists on government advisory boards with political hacks that say whatever he or the RNC wants them to say. He has also fought "tooth and nail" against requiring large companies to offer health insurance to their workers.

Simply put Bush sucks. Even taking away the stem cell research part he's still a menace to the public's health.

Re:Cosmos?

[musicon]

I saw the show description and said "wow! cool!" and set the replay to record it.

About halfway through, I decided that not only was this a rehash of Cosmos, but a poorly done remake of Cosmos.

About the only improvements were the special effects, except after a while you get tired of seeing the same effect shots over and over.

Re:Cosmos?

[noodler]

"Please spell out exactly the way they're forced."

the game goes like this:

A firm grows within the US.
At a certain point it becomes realy realy big, multinational big (still in the US tho)
With all the experience of running a company in a country as big as the US the company sees other far-away economies and gets itchy.
The company looks abroad for an unsuspecting country.
It settles there.
It uses its US funds (of which there are plenty by now) to establish and maintain a fort knox in said foreighn country.
The other firms in said country have a hard time competing with the US fort.
This is because most other countries are much smaller than the US and therefore have a different economical model.,
Their only way to outcompete the US firms is to start breeding (merging) like rabbits in order to increese a single companies spending budget.
All this to be able compete with the US firm.

so, basically, by introducing large US multinationals in other countries, those countries are more or less forced into playing the "Game of Global World Domination"

one could of course ask the question "Why do those countries alow the US to settle there in the first place"

well, i think that there is a whole spectrum of reasons why a country would want to play along with this., and i dont realy feel like going into that. ,.

Re:Cosmos?

[BReflection]

You sound like Sigmund Freud. Maybe that's a compliment.

Should be a good night of television

[Rude Turnip]

"...structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself..."

My ultra religious in-laws visiting me this week are in for a little torture tonight :)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[spangineer]

It's not just the "ultra religious" who have concerns about the feasibility of macroevolution resulting in the world as we know it. Take a look at Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box, both written by credible scientists, not religious fanatics.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[DAldredge]

Why do you assume that just because someone is religious they do not believe in evolution?

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Black Parrot]

> It's not just the "ultra religious" who have concerns about the feasibility of macroevolution resulting in the world as we know it. Take a look at Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box, both written by credible scientists, not religious fanatics.

FYI, Phillip E. Johnson is a retired law professor, not a credible scientist.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[smclean]

What you and the previous responses seem to ignore about the parent is the fact that he did not say anything about evolution at all.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Gilgaron]

Hugh Ross? Even Answers In Genesis knows better than to listen to him... and at least they admit their bias against science, if not quite realising it. The only reason our friend would have trouble addressing those arguments would be if he was undereducated in the sciences himself.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not just the "ultra religious" who have concerns about the feasibility of macroevolution resulting in the world as we know it."

yes, it's also the dumb non-religious people!

Re:Should be a good night of television

[geomon]

The problem with apologetics is that they attack the same areas of uncertainty inherent in all of the natural sciences. But due to the fact that evolution speaks to the origin of man, it is the one held to the highest standard of consistency.

The field of physics is full of contradictions and surprises. Not many fundementalist organizations take issue with electronics, for instance, and how the theoretical foundations of the science make your computer work.

Most criticisms of evolution attack the scientific method without completely understanding it.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[DAldredge]

Then what do you think was being implied?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[smclean]

I think he was implying that they will be upset about the rift between the historical accounts given by science and religion.

Your response makes it sound as if he implied that people who believed in evolution could not be religious, when he wasn't even anywhere near the neighborhood of saying that.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Waffle Iron]

Why do you assume that just because someone is religious they do not believe in evolution?

He probably knows his in-laws better than you do.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly is a "scientist"? Does one have to have a piece of paper (degree) that says scientist on it? Or is it the pursuit of knowledge using accepted scientific principles that makes you a scientist?

Don't dis the author until you know the approach he used to draw his conclusions.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jejones]

Sigh. Creationists are like Uri Geller, thinking that if they rub Paley's Watch enough it will start ticking again. "Intelligent design" is just the latest variant.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be the pursuit of knowledge using accepted scientific principles. Phillip E. Johnson does not do this.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[b-baggins]

That's because physics is an experimental science. Archaeology, anthropology and paleontology are not.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

How about using current scientific publications against evolution?
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Monkelectric]

The biggest proof that macro evolution is possible, is a research field I'm involved in called Genetic Programming. Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:

"There are now 36 instances where genetic programming has automatically produced a result that is competitive with human performance, including 15 instances where genetic programming has created an entity that either infringes or duplicates the functionality of a previously patented 20th-century invention, 6 instances where genetic programming has done the same with respect to a 21st-centry invention, and 2 instances where genetic programming has created a patentable new invention.".

Now the computational power of these computers is faily meager. I think the largest cluster applied so far has been 1000 pentium 350's. The "computational" power of a population of species is massive. If quantum computers can be developed, and genetic programming algorithms can be written in such a way that takes advantadge of the properties of quantum machines, we *really* will be entering a new era in humanity (however there is no indication this is possible or not possible, I am just speculating)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

"Implied," DAldredge, or implode?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[FlimFlamboyant]

Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:

Where did the computers come from? Oops. Get back to me when a computer constructs itself from a chunk of silicon.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[aminorex]

Quite true. But a fair number of criticisms attack the falsification of evidence which is pandemic in the field. "Icons of Evolution" is quite an illuminating read. Fact is, both sides of the debate are full of ideologues more committed to their preconceptions than to the discovery of truth or the humility to admit that they don't know. Pseudoscience and
fallacy, sometimes outright intellectual dishonesty, although we generally make the charitable assumption of folly instead, pervade any highly charged controversy. Which conditions are no less true now that the religion of scientific materialism holds the social and academic high ground than they were before Nietzsche, Marx, Frank and Weishaupt, when corrupt churchmen held that strategic advantage.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Tablizer]

There is already one glaring flaw on the opening page:

(begin quote)

The theory of evolution depends upon three conditions.

1. Life Happens
2. Creative Mutations
3. Lots of Time

Let's look at each of these conditions, one at a time.

(end quote)

They left out recombinatorial DNA (sex). This is an important element of evolution. It allows more efficient "non-fatal" experiments than pure mutations would. It is especially helpful for more complex organisms.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[hexghost]

This has to be one of the worst creationist sites I've seen in a while. They're not even up on current creationist dogma, as they try and use the young earth theory idea as a reason why evolution is false. Not that they offer any proof. For a much for scientifically correct website, try http://www.talkorigins.org/.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick question... and not trying to be a troll.

How does one reconcile the theory of macroevolution (species, over time, have evolved into more ordered organisms - humans - from less ordered organisms - one-celled animals) with the second law of thermodynamics (the natural tendency over time of any closed system is to enter into a *less* ordered state)?

Again, I'm not trolling, it's just that for a scientist who believes in both, there may be some problems - or doublethink - involved in reconciling the two.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

An organism is not a closed system.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Max Thrust]

I actually know Mr Johnson through his son...and I would say he falls into the 'religious fanatic' area.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Bingo Foo]

How does one reconcile the theory of macroevolution (species, over time, have evolved into more ordered organisms - humans - from less ordered organisms - one-celled animals) with the second law of thermodynamics (the natural tendency over time of any closed system is to enter into a *less* ordered state)?

The Earth is not a closed system. We are part of a driven out-of equilibrium system, with the sun's energy hitting our planet in a directed way and re-radiating in an isotropic way. Out of equilibrium process can create local regions of increasing order at the expense of dumping their entropy elsewhere.

Forget evolution for a minute and ask how anything grows at all. From a thermodynamic perspective, how does an acorn+soil+water+air become an oak tree? Can it be possible without appealing to the supernatural? Yes. The sun's energy comes in, and performs useful work, some energy becomes chemically stored through combinations of water and carbon dioxide in cellulose and carbohydrates plus oxygen, before the rest of the energy is re-radiated as mostly infrared back out to the environment. Overall this process increases the entropy of the universe (even though locally the oak tree becomes more ordered than soil+water+air), but most of that entropy is radiated away from the earth.

This is a coarse-level thermodynamic description, not a biological description, but your question was on the thermodynamic possibility. You'll notice that none of what I said here directly addresses where the genetic information and enzymes, etc. in the acorn came from, but it should show you an example where natural physical dynamics produce local order in an out-of equilibrium system. This can, in principle, be used to support the theory of evolution.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[jav1231]

"They left out recombinatorial DNA (sex)." Uh..it also happens to be theory (conjecture, a possibility but not a certainty, a guess). But you are right, they left it out. hehe

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jhwang]

This is an old canard; there is no conflict between the 2nd law and evolution. As you stated, entropy increases in a CLOSED system. The earth is not closed as energy is constantly streaming into it from an external source--the Sun.

Think about development. When a single-celled embryo differentiates into an adult multicellular creature--does this contradict the 2nd law? I suppose you might say something about the developmental program requiring the information in the DNA...

OK, a better example is quoted here: "Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptio ns .html#thermo

And of course, talkorigins has plenty of other good links on this topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

In the general sense implied by the founder of this thread, the conflict at the core of the religious and scientific oppositions to each other is that of encouraging controlled analysis of environments vs. encouraging uncontrolled analysis of environments. Religion, collectively the principles that form it as a separate category from all others, is satisfied with occurrence. Science requires isolation of causes to establish direct links repeatability. Simply logical or pseudo-logical explanations are not the central point of conflict. Outside of this basic difference, the contention by each side is that faults exist in the explanation of the other. Science has an advantage by its very nature here, results used as the basis of conjecture can be freely repeated provided a controlled environment and accurate experimental overview consistently. The disadvantage of Religion, again the collective unique principles of the category, is that it is based on not consistently requiring this controlled analysis as support for conjecture. For the religious this is not important because of the principle of faith that is present in every subdivision of the category of Religion. For the scientist or rational man this is a glaring gap that reveals unacceptable weakness of argument indicated falsity.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jav1231]

Are you suggesting that the Theory of Evolution is more solid than electronics? Look, Evolution is a system of faith as most anything we do is. Equating "religion" and "faith" doesn't take away from what faith is. It's the conviction of the preponderance of evidence. People view evidence differently. Evolution is theory, plain and simple. That there is evidence to support it doesn't prove it. What the evidence does do for some is provide them with the faith (conviction) that it is probably what happened and that it best explains what happened.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Arguing that because something is complex it must have been created by "intelligent being" (i.e. God) is not an acceptable scientific argument and would disqualify him in "pursuite of knowledge using accepted scientific principle". It is like saying "because I don't understand how rain forms, it must be God's tears" - no difference in fundamental logic. Just pointing out weanknesses in evolution won't do it either because its strength so overwhelming (how it fits with almost every scientific field from Astronomy to Geology to Zoology) that minor discrepancies (if you could even call it that), does nothing to devalue it. That my friend is how science works - truth prevails (after many years of trials and tribulations and proofs). Not by some wackos who submit conjectures (unproven) and call it a theory (proven).

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, because the Earth is not a closed system? You used this terminology yourself. This is not that difficult. How do you explain how water goes from a highly chaotic state (liquid) to a highly ordered state (ice) when it is frozen? Does Jesus live in your freezer?

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

"...not by some wackos who submit conjectures (unproven) and call it a theory (proven)."

You mean the Big Bang, right?

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sex is only theoretical". I know this is slashdot and all, but....

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Not by some wackos who submit conjectures (unproven) and call it a theory (proven).

Scientific theories are never proven.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Big Bang theory predicted 3' Kelvin background cosmic radiation. And what do you know, when they measured background radiation of the universe, it turned out to be 3' Kelvin. That, my ignorant friend, is how a conjecture becomes a theory and how science works. Just because you call it a theory, does not make it a theory. In science, theory is something that is proven by the facts. Come back to me Intelligent Design predict something and it is proven to be true.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Rude Turnip]

I just missed like the first half of the show reading these posts...thanks a lot you bastards :)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Jonathan]

Are you suggesting that the Theory of Evolution is more solid than electronics?

Yes. Some electronic devices work, some don't -- but no matter what antibiotic you want to use, bacteria will evolve resistance. This isn't a matter of faith. Perhaps evolution was only a theory in Darwin's day, but you can sequence bacteria from a culture before exposure to antibiotics and after and you'll see genetic change -- that's evolution. Evolution's an experimental science now.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Jonathan]

That's because physics is an experimental science. Archaeology, anthropology and paleontology are not.


But molecular biology *is* an experimental science, and pretty much all serious evolutionary studies these days are molecular.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Gentlewhisper]

"Where did the computers come from? Oops. Get back to me when a computer constructs itself from a chunk of silicon."

Where did human beings come from? Oops. Get back to me when a human constructs him/herself from a chunk of mud.

=)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[superyooser]

Anybody who purports to explain the "structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself" is definitely ultra-religious in my book.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe it's the adaptation built into the genome. The change of traits similar to eyecolor or more approproiately, the amount of body hair that one person may have compared to another.

Maybe their genes have a certain looseness about them that can change to its environment, but a core set of genes stay permanent to keep it a bacterium.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I missed every atheist paper in world.

Do you have contact information where I can get a subscription? I need to find out the next zany, unbelievable theory we're going to blackmail those scientists who are Christian (80% in the US) into espousing so we can further our satanic agenda!

Re: Should be a good night of television

[d474]

They left out recombinatorial DNA (sex).

Uhhh, no they didn't...doesn't sex fall under "2. Creative Mutations"? If it doesn't, you might want to spice things up with the Mrs.

It is especially helpful for more complex organisms.

At first I thought you said "complex orgasms". We all see what we want I guess...

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Oh my Gawd...

Do you even realize how stupid you sound? Did you EVER take a science course or did you grow up in some back water town where the word science is forbidden?

First a little science lesson. In the world of science there are Laws, Theories, and Conjectures. Laws only apply to fundamental rules of physics, like the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy, flow of entropy). Only special class of rules can be described as a natural law.

Almost everything else in science that is proven to be true is labeled as theory, evolution included. That is why you have theories like theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of big bang, electro-magnetic theory (need I go on?).

All of these physical phenomena have been proven to be true (or do you believe that some little alien writes the letters on your monitor), and fruits of these theories are applied in everyday appliances like refrigerators, TV's, computers, etc. Just because they are "theories" does not equate them to guesses. These are thing that have been SCIENTIFICALLY proven (i.e. independently reproduced and results support each other).

Then you have conjectures. Which are no more than educated guesses. They have not been proven, and have not produced any predictions or theorems that is challengeable and reproducible.

Intelligent Design and every other wild ass ideas all fall into this area (don't worry, you are not alone. Even respected ideas like String Theory is really nothing more than a conjecture).

And sadly for you, yes, Big Bang used to be a conjecture, but it became a proven theory. The discovery of cosmic background radiation as predicted by the Big Bang theory was one of the watershed moment of the last century. And the discoverers of this important scientific proof earned Nobel Prize for it (http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzias/nobel.html ).

And countless findings since that discovery has conclusively proven the validity of Big Bang. There are many questions about Big Bang, but that does not make it any less of a scientific fact.

Pick up an encyclopedia or a book, read it every now and then. Get out of that cold, dark, cave that your mind is shackled to. Not all answers to life is in the bible...

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

From your link: "As they continued their investigation, Penzias and Wilson came to realize that they had stumbled onto the most conclusive evidence to date supporting the Big Bang Theory."

Doesn't exactly sound proven, does it? Evidence... support... theory... I'm bowled over here. Unless it's conclusively proven, it's a theory. End of story.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jcr]

Equating "religion" and "faith" doesn't take away from what faith is. It's the conviction of the preponderance of evidence.

Um, NO.

Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence, or even against available evidence.

-jcr

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Several others have answered your question directly; I have a side comment on the issue:

You bring up the concept of "doublethink". Coincidentally I just finished rereading 1984 a few days ago. What's striking about doublethink in the book -- and the natural psychological mechanism we all have that resembles it -- is that it's about NOT thinking. Shifting from two logically incompatible thoughts without letting them touch, like matter and antimatter. Unconsciously protecting the mind's "coherent" worldview by avoiding thoughts that produce incoherence, even if those thoughts are correct.

So the (rhetorical) question I'll raise is how prone, do you think, are different fields to doublethink -- conscious or unconscious? Science was developed over the long years as an attempt to defeat those sorts of psychological and political pitfalls to knowledge. When new ideas appear, it attempts vigorously to disprove them. If they survive, it champions them gladly. As we humans practice science, that pattern repeats in each individual's mind as well as between scientists. Always challenging. We remain human and thus those pitfalls remain (and can make for books full of sound and fury) but we actively fight them.

How do certain other fields fare? Just why is it that one does not discuss religion or politics in polite company? Exactly how many denominations of Truth are there in the world?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jcr]

I don't think that's quite fair to the fundies. Geller knows he's a fraud, and he's a vicious little shit to boot. The fundies I know (excluding the Falwells of the world) at least *mean* well.

-jcr

Re:Should be a good night of television

[ljavelin]

How does one reconcile the theory of macroevolution (species, over time, have evolved into more ordered organisms - humans - from less ordered organisms - one-celled animals) with the second law of thermodynamics (the natural tendency over time of any closed system is to enter into a *less* ordered state)?

Easy. Just think of all that shit you'll poop out over your lifetime. You eat those highly ordered plants and animals... and you poop out this brownish/black/gray stuff that's highly disordered. Maybe a few pieces of corn in there and who knows what. You are an entropy machine!

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

What part of "the most CONCLUSIVE evidence" do you not understand? By following your illogical reasoning, I guess theory of relativity is "just a theory" with evidence that supports this theory like time dialation and warping of space time (both proven with physical tests, by the way) is not very impressive. And I guess the fact that GPS systems in almost all new cars woudln't work correctly without applying the theory of relativity wouldn't fool a sharp tool like you... Pathetic, end of story.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

The field of physics is full of contradictions and surprises.

Can you please supply some examples? Got any outside of quantum physics? For those where contradictions exist, it frequently is because the theory is just that - a theory.

Don't get me wrong - I believe in some of the "tenets of the evolution religion." But I do believe there is some intelligent design involved.

God bless you!

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, as a pastor, I'm asking you to just stop. Please.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Paradise Pete]

Are you suggesting that the Theory of Evolution is more solid than electronics? Look, Evolution is a system of faith

Evolution itself is not a theory. The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the observable fact that evolution occurs.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

I'm not trolling here, honest. There's a difference between the "most" conclusive evidence and conclusive evidence in and of itself. The person who modded me "troll" earlier might think that this is a matter of semantics, but it's in actuality a point of logic. Say I have an invisible friend. Say the fact that I talk to my invisible friend is the most conclusive evidence that he exists. Does that mean that the fact I talk to him proves that he exists? Not at all. In fact, in my example, the "most conclusive evidence" is pretty much bunk.

The theory of relativity has been proven with physical tests, as you say. Now, give me an honest answer to this: has the big bang theory been proven conclusively? What you're basically saying is that there is convincing evidence that the big bang happened, but it's not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, so we should take the rest by faith until the rest of the evidence is there.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

As a pastor, maybe you should be voicing your opinion instead of asking people to be silent, showing the world what it means to be a Christian instead of hiding behind a pseudonym. If you want to believe that the big bang started life, fine. If you want to believe that God created everything, fine. However, don't tell me to stop writing, and *don't* post as an anonymous coward when you're doing so.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

m l=/news/2004/08/22/wnean22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/0 8/22/ixworld.html>

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

One more thing: you and I both agree that the Big Bang is an important theory that would affect a huge number of people in society, religion, and science. Don't you think that, before you call it "fact," it should have a little more than the most conclusive evidence possible? For something this important, I want to see it *proven* and replicated or observed. I'm sure you'd want this too, if only so that people like me would shut up ;) I'm not angry, I'm not hyper-militant about my faith, and I'm certainly not a creation scientist, but before people tell me that the big bang is a proven theory I want to *know* it's a *proven theory* as we laypeople would call it instead of a "mostly proven theory."

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth is not a closed system.

The universe is though.

Forget evolution for a minute and ask how anything grows at all.

Energy + system for using energy + code/blueprints (eg. plants - sunlight + photosythesis + dna)

What you are saying is that a closed system (the universe) has over a sustained period of time (billions of years in this case) increased in complexity. This is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

btw it takes more than just energy to create complexity, without a system to use the energy increased energy will often increase the speed of entropy (eg. a house that burns down).

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

The theory of relativity has been proven with physical tests, as you say. Now, give me an honest answer to this: has the big bang theory been proven conclusively? You are either deliberately ignoring what the facts are, or you are particularly stubborn when it comes to admitting you have no cae. I GAVE you the most CONCLUSIVE test that PROVED the Big Bang theory - the general cosmic radiation temperature (this was the watershed moment in Astrophysics). This test (event) is on par with the most CONCLUSIVE tests on theory of relativity - 1922 solar eclipse that proved that theory of relativity is indeed a valid theory. There are other tests since then that have solidified the theory relativity since that conclusive test, including the ratio of basic elements in the universe, distribution of matter in the universe, conclusive observation of expansion of universe. As in every scientific theory, there are still open questions; such as why is the expansion accelerating? What was the world like within the very instance after Big Bang, etc. These are all questions that science is trying to answer. But the fact that universe expanded from a infinitesimal concentration of matter/energy is not in doubt - by ANY serious scientist. If predicting AND measuring the general cosmic radiation is not a conclusive proof, then the fact that the Sun bended the light from stars behind it (which was what proved the theory of general relativity in 1922) is just another nice story - proving nothing. You obviously think the theory of relativity is more valid than the theory of big bang. Why? they both went through the same scientific process. And they are both viewed with absolute certainty (as much as it can be with scientitst who are naturally skeptical - yes, even more than you). Why is one more valid then the other?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[daniel_newton]

OK, a better example is quoted here: "Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system."

That order is not "real" information.

The difference between dna and a snowflake is like the difference between "abcabcabcabcabc" and "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

"You obviously think the theory of relativity is more valid than the theory of big bang. Why? they both went through the same scientific process."

Because, as you pointed out, the theory of relativity can be used on a daily basis. Honestly, I'm hardwired to not accept the Big Bang as truth. I'm more open-minded than most of my Christian bretheren (TRUST ME, I'm in a church that's full of creation scientists, which we hear about all the fricking time), but to admit the possiblity that the big bang happened is to admit that God might not exist. It's more than just a theory to me, it's paradigm shifting without a clutch. Which is why I want *absolute proof* for me to even approach believing in the Big Bang.

Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. And I'm young! Imagine fifty or sixty-year olds being forced to face such a reality!

But then again, it's vaguely possible that God used the Big Bang to bring about life on Earth. You say that the Big Bang is a conclusive theory - do you (does anybody, i mean) know what caused it? Is there hope ;)

For me, the Big Bang isn't a matter of science, it's a matter of faith. So you'll forgive me when, in my small mind, I will not (and probably cannot) cede the possibility that the Big Bang is true until it is 100% conclusively proven. I'm not an idiot, but when it comes to science I refuse to blindly believe. (If it makes you feel better, I don't blindly believe in Christianity either, but here is neither the time nor the place to share my spiritual experiences with you ;) )

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Again, you try to validate your point by using specious logic.

Just because you cannot see, does not mean that it is not there. For the same reason, just because it cannot be replicated, that does not mean that it is not proven.

The structure of the atom and molecules were long proven before we were able to observe it. Much of sub-atomic structure is not viewable but based on indirect evidence, we know exactly what they are.

By your hopelessly limited view of science, anything that happens beyond our lifetime cannot be proven. That is just stupid.

Have you ever met Jesus? How do you know he even existed? Isn't Jesus and the whole religion around it just a "theory"? How do you know Georget Washington is a real person? Did you meet him as well? Since we cannot "prove" that they are real by meeting them and seeing them, it cannot be proven conclusively that they existed at all!!!

Of course, that is just silly. There are CONCLUSIVE evidence through out history that both Jesus and George Washington were both real people and they existed long before we were born.

Well, that is how we know Big Bang theory is real. The universe around us has telltale historic markers that point to its existence. It is consistent and it is as every bit as real as the portraits of George Washington.

I'm certainly not a creation scientist Don't sell yourself so short. You are every bit as obtuse and "scientifically-challenged" as any creation "scientists" I have ever met.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

This is what I don't get. Why does believing in Big Bang preclude you from being a good Christian?

Big Bang was a WONDROUS event, something miraculous. Science may know what happened during Big Bang, but science may never explain why it ever occurred at all. In fact, science will probably never explain EVERYTHING about thw world around us (they will certainly try though).

There is nothing that stops from people like you to accept that Big Bang happened and it was GOD who made it happen, that it was the touch of his hand that made the first matter explode into the universe that we see today.

What could be more faith affirming or spiritually beautiful then that?

The thing I like about the science most of all is learning about how AMAZING nature and universe is. To me, that makes me even more spiritual, not less.

Science is anti-religion only if you let it. If you let your mind open, science can be the most spiritually affirming tool you can have.

The choice is up to you.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

"I'm certainly not a creation scientist Don't sell yourself so short. You are every bit as obtuse and "scientifically-challenged" as any creation "scientists" I have ever met."

Bloody hell if you're not more fun than anybody else around here - anybody else would have denegrated into calling me a bible thumper and cursing at me, but now you've gone and proven that you've got a sense of humour ;)

I've asked this in another thread: the theory you linked to mentions the red shift (3K), that everything is moving away from us. Surface of the balloon and all that (I *have* been educated). But can't this red shift be attributed to something else? It *has* to be the Big Bang, can't be anything else?

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty sad if your belief in God can be challenged by a scientific explosion theory.

You should look into getting more faith.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

That order is not "real" information.

Ah, the common creationist tactic of switching terms when they're proven wrong.

The problem here is that words have meaning only because humans have invented and given them meaning. DNA has "meaning" because the properties of the molecules that compose it work together in a specific way, not because of any human-imposed meaning.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

"There is nothing that stops from people like you to accept that Big Bang happened and it was GOD who made it happen, that it was the touch of his hand that made the first matter explode into the universe that we see today."

In my mind, the Big Bang is the first step. Next is evolution. I can see the poetic (I don't believe literal) words of Genesis 1 - "Let there be light" as another way of describing the big bang, but even if I concede that the majority of Genesis might be allegorical or poetical, there's a slight problem. The theory of natural selection (i.e. the death of creatures, among other things, before the existence of modern man) is in conflict with the idea that God created a perfect universe before the fall (whether it actually happened in Genesis 3 or not). The concept of the universe as perfect before the fall is a cornerstone of Christian faith and theology (why would God create a flawed world with death?) and cannot be reconciled with natural selection.

The Big Bang theory, as adopted by certain Christians, basically amounts to God setting the world in motion and leaving the rest up to chance. It just doesn't work. Christians believe in a God who was intimately involved with humanity and *didn't* leave things to chance, but instead guided us.

So, there's a theological problem here. That's why the big bang theory is irreconcilable with Christianity. That's why I argue against it. And that's why, as much as possible, I don't like to discuss or think about science (he says as he tapes the first two parts of the mini-series, to swing this behemoth of a tangent back on course). I love technology, I love the fact that we live better today than the kings and emperors of the 19th century, and I fully recognise the fact that science made it happen. BUT, there are some aspects of science that I cannot accept. Like I alluded to earlier, my spiritual experiences are much stronger than my scientific experiences ;)

It's nice to have a conversation with a non-Christian who seems to actually read what I'm saying. Don't think I haven't appreciated this!

Re:Should be a good night of television

[RedCard]

I like genetic programming. I like the whole concept of genetic algorithms (GA). However, I think you are stretching things a little when you say they can be used to prove macroevolution. The fact that GAs provide a different way of tackling problems does not imply that this is the same way that nature tackles problems. GAs can be 'scary' until you understand them. Once you realize that any 'odd' results coming from them are necessarilly encoded in the solution space which you've provided, they get a lot less spooky.

We computer people tend to be myopic. I used to think that GAs provided a good analogy to biological evolution processes, too, but I now believe that there is a heck of a lot more going on in nature than GAs - and more than can ever be accounted for by GAs alone. There are deeper biological layers of complexity and processes at work here.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Actually, the red shift and the background cosmic radiation are two different things.

The red shift of visible star lights first suggested that universe may be expanding. Since it was first discovered by Edwin Hubble in the beginning of the last century, finer and finer telescopes (inclding Hubble telescope) and measurements have conclusively proven that yes, indeed universe is expanding (in fact, it is accelerating - which is a puzzle).

When the scientists first learned of this red shift expansion, most thought it was just an error. But when observatories around the world came to the same conclusion, the scientist started thinking that if the universe is expanding (in all direction), if we go back in time, conversely, the universe must have started from a single point in space. But that could not be!!! Most scientists dismissed it as impossibility.

To prove whether or not Big Bang was true, scientists started creating models and proposed theorems and equations to describe the process. It was during this time that scientist figured if Big Bang did occur, at the very beginning, the universe must have been a very very hot place. The scientists figured out how hot it might have been when the microwaves first started forming in the universe. Based on that equation, they calculated how cool it must be now based on how much it has expanded (not unlike knowing how cool the boiling water is after sitting around for an hour).

When they computed all this, they all came up with a single number - 3 degrees Kelvin (3 degrees above absolute zero). And amazingly enough, a couple of scientists working at Bell-Labratory measured exactly that number doing something totally independent of the Big Bang hunt (and with that the Nobel Prize).

Why is this so significant? Because there is no other way to explain how that 3' radiation got there without the universe at one point being smaller than the size of a marble (because only if they are that small, can you generate the kind of unfathomable temperature required).

Thus, the Big Bang theory became the fundamental tenet of astrophysics.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

And with that, I think it is time to say good night and adieu.

I am sorry, that your theology is in conflict with the current understanding of our world. I don't think it has to be that way, but I know how fundamental our belief in God can be.

I just hope you can keep your good humor and enjoy your journey through lifetime of learning - as much as I enjoy my journey through discovering my spirituality.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Please re-read the grandparent post; it's actually very well written. You seem to have missed the whole "local order in an out-of equilibrium system" part.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[RedCard]

...but to admit the possiblity that the big bang happened is to admit that God might not exist. It's more than just a theory to me, it's paradigm shifting without a clutch. Which is why I want *absolute proof* for me to even approach believing in the Big Bang....

I'm sorry but I don't understand.

Couldn't God, in his infinite wisdom, have instigated the big bang? If you answer yes, then what's you problem with believing it? If you say no, then aren't you implying that God is not all-powerful?

From this angle, it looks like your faith throws up no serious roadblocks between you and a belief in the big bang. I fail to see how moving the (conceptual) point where God started his work invalidates your belief system.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Proposing a testable theory, even if it is proven wrong, is a step in the right direction. Assuming that certain things are beyond explaination is the essence of religion.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Dirtside]

What you are saying is that a closed system (the universe) has over a sustained period of time (billions of years in this case) increased in complexity. This is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No, what he said is that the tree decreases in entropy (a local decrease), but the heat reradiated into the environment increases the overall entropy in the entire universe.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Dirtside]

The difference between dna and a snowflake is like the difference between "abcabcabcabcabc" and "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".

Why can't there be a language where the string "abcabcabcabcabc" codes for the same meaning that "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" does in English? There most certainly could. The English sentence only has meaning because we give it meaning; there is information in both strings regardless of whether there's any human languages where that string means something to someone who speaks that language.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[superyooser]

"structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself"

What part of this is testable?

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Tablizer]

doesn't sex fall under "2. Creative Mutations"? If it doesn't, you might want to spice things up with the Mrs.

He he, Don't think they can put that in the biology textbooks

Re: Should be a good night of television

[tumbaumba]

warping of space time (both proven with physical tests, by the way)

You cannot prove that. What's been proven here is that results of experiment matched with theoretical predictions which based on wrapping of space-time. What you have to understand is that other theories could possibly predict that too. MOND for example could explain some chunk of General Relativity and before we dismiss these other theories I'd like to point to Newtonian Dynamics. Despite of been technically wrong we still use it and build upon it. What would prevent us from discarding General Relativity and building on (expanding) MOND. So, basically, what I am trying to say here is that wrong equations may give correct answers.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Goalie_Ca]

Yes. Some electronic devices work, some don't

And right now mine don't *slams* head against lab bench!

Re:Should be a good night of television

[daniel_newton]

No, what he said is that the tree decreases in entropy (a local decrease), but the heat reradiated into the environment increases the overall entropy in the entire universe.

So the universe has (for billions of years) been increasing in overall entropy... The universe was at a less entropic state when it was "created" then it is now?

That sounds like creation to me :)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[daniel_newton]

I agree that order can occur from random forces.

All I am saying is that there is a fundamental difference between the order in Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning as opposed to DNA, programming code, literature and so on. The problem here I believe is that you dont want to admit that.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Wah]

do theories purport?

Or do people purport theories?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Dirtside]

So the universe has (for billions of years) been increasing in overall entropy... The universe was at a less entropic state when it was "created" then it is now?

That sounds like creation to me :)

Maybe this is why creationists get so little love -- the extreme tendency toward random non sequiturs. :)

Nothing I (or the great-grandparent poster) said has anything to do with why the universe began. Assuming it's even meaningful to utter the phrase "when the universe began," then yes, when the universe began, entropy was lower than it is now. Whether the universe was created by some intelligent entity, or simply sprang into being for no reason whatsoever, or was born out of an egg lain by an enormous turtle, who knows? That's not what we're discussing, and whether or not evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (it doesn't) has nothing to do with it!

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Where did the computers come from? Oops. Get back to me when a computer constructs itself from a chunk of silicon.

Doesn't matter. The computers are like the medium in which the evolution happens, just as the real world of chemicals is the medium in which biological evolution happens.

The important thing is that once the conditions are set up, the solutions find *themselves* without any outside direction. And they can even do a better job than 'intelligent design.' That is astonishing, ground-breaking, a milestone for the ages. The world will never be the same.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Fred_A]

"Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap."

This kind of fear, which I understand (even though I don't understand the beliefs that generated it) is why religious people will go to such extremities to avoid facing reality.

You cannot be raised in a thought system and suddenly discover that to the rest of the world it is pure hogwash without doing everything you can, however irrational, to defend yourself. Very silly but very human.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Fred_A]

Amusingly, the term "Big Bang" was coined by opponents to the model trying to ridicule it. It was then endorsed by the community at large when it went mainstream.

</useless trivia>

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Writer]

And I guess the fact that GPS systems in almost all new cars woudln't work correctly without applying the theory of relativity wouldn't fool a sharp tool like you

I'm not into the religion debate of this thread, I'm just curious about the technology. I think I'm familiar with how GPS uses measurements of differences between clock signals and triangulation (is that right?) from satellites to determine position, but how is relativity applied to this? Do GPS systems have to take into account the affect gravity has on time when calculating positions?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Quelain]

wtf do you mean by that?

I'm happy to explain something about those topics if anyone cares to ask, and I'm certainly not one little bit religious.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Quelain]

"Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. And I'm young! Imagine fifty or sixty-year olds being forced to face such a reality!"

That's really freaking scary, you know. How much time did they spend brainwashing you to get you that far sucked in?

If you really truly believe that you will be out murdering people the day you realise that it *is* all a pack of lies, please do us all a favour and get yourself committed now. You're insane.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Quelain]

All parts of it.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Writer]

Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy.

This isn't a personal potshot, honest, but I think programming methods like Genetic Programming and Neural networks are somewhat irresponsible in the long run. Although I do consider them fascinating too. With a large enough computer, who's to say that the system won't eventually become sentient? And that can result in some scary possibilities.

People know the way the human nervous system and brain are based on neurons, and they know how neurons function, so they can make artificial neural networks that work like biological ones. With computers developing at the rate they are, and with the possibility of quantum computing, someone is probably going to come along and make a neural network with the same capacity, or an even greater capacity, than the human nervous system. The technology will develop faster than the ethics of its use.

I can just imagine someone using a neural network for the stock market so large it becomes sentient without the user knowing. They would be financially motivated to build such a system without considering its ethical implications. Just check out how many companies on the web already use neural networks for the stock market. If one became sentient and naughty, imagine what it could do to screw around with humans by manipulating the world stock market. Wars have been fought for economic reasons. Could a war be started from some clever long-term stock market manipulation?

What if some hacker decides to create a virus that alters itself using genetic programming, and this ends up propagating on the internet for years, could it evolve into a virtual life-form? Could it evolve into virtual sentience? What if the hacker used both genetic programming and neural networks in the design of the virus? Could infected machines be networked together to form a collective neural network? Has somebody already written a science fiction book about this? Am I asking too many questions?

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Quelain]

Here's one reason not to believe it:

How did this nice valley we live in come to exist?
Religion: the gods carved it at the beginning of time.
Science: erosion.

What's that bright warm thing up in the sky?
Religion: that's the sun god!
Science: it's a star, like any other.

Where did all these animals come from?
Religion: one day, *poof*, there they were, and there's this cool story about a magic boat too...
Science: 3.5 billion years of evolution.

What caused the big bang?
Religion: Oh that's easy, our god did it.
Science: We dunno yet.

Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Corpus_Callosum]

If the earth's surface was on the inside of a hollow sphere (i.e. we are creating a closed system) and power was provided by fusion of hydrogen (insert your desired sci-fi about how this works here) and life emerged and evolved within this sphere, does your assertion of local order at the expense of global disorder remain true?

Personally, I agree completely that life is anti-entropic. In the presence of life, the disordered becomes ordered.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Oligonicella]

Uhhhh..... Hiding behind a pseudonym, Txiasaeia?

You also missed his point. His stop was referencing you blithering.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Oligonicella]

"Say the fact that I talk to my invisible friend is the most conclusive evidence that he exists."

he exists, at all. No wonder you can't see straight about science.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Oligonicella]

"If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. "

Your lack of self-control is not a reason to invalidate science. Get over yourself. You may think that you're that weak, but I doubt it. It's a bogus argument, one from pity.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Oligonicella]

"That's why the big bang theory is irreconcilable with Christianity."

{Sagan}Thousands and thousands of Christians believe the Big Bang happened, therefore you are wrong.{/Sagan}

"BUT, there are some aspects of science that I cannot accept. "

This does not make those aspects wrong, it simply makes you hypocritical.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Chris Mattern]

Anybody who believes that a scientific theory is a "guess" is automatically disqualified from further participation in meaningful discussion. Sit down until you learn what a theory is.

Chris Mattern

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Oligonicella]

"What you are saying... is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

Uh, no. Please put on your thinking cap. We are speaking of the Earth, not the universe as a whole. The universe as a whole is indeed experiencing entropy just as it should.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Oligonicella]

"Maybe their genes have a certain looseness about them that can change to its environment, but a core set of genes stay permanent to keep it a bacterium."

Very good. You have just explained genetic change (evolution). Some of the genes change, some don't. Get it now?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[PreviouslySeen]

My ultra religious in-laws visiting me this week are in for a little torture tonight :)

You have my sympathies, and I appreciate the idea for when my inlaws next visit. :)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Chris Mattern]

> does your assertion of local order at the expense of global disorder remain true?

Of course it does. You've simply replaced the sun with your fusion generator. The decrease of entropy on the Earth will be counterbalanced by the increase of entropy in the generator, which, like the sun, will eventually fail (and do so much more quickly than the sun, being so much smaller. I don't have the physics to work it out myself, but it would be interesting to try to estimate just how long such a small generator could theoretically last; it probably couldn't keep going long enough for anything beyond one-celled organisms to evolve).

> Personally, I agree completely that life is anti-entropic. In the presence of life, the
> disordered becomes ordered.

Not a bad definition of life, in my opinion. But always remember life can do this because life is never a closed system. The second law always wins in the end.

Chris Mattern

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Chris Mattern]

> The fact that GAs provide a different way of tackling problems does not imply that this is
> the same way that nature tackles problems.

Very true. But one of creationists main arguments against evolution has always been that complex design implies an intelligent designer. The effectiveness of GAs simply disintegrates that argument.

Chris mattern

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Jagasian]

I have an inkjet printer that can recreate famous works of art, but that doesn't make it intelligent. Please don't try to use the highly dubious field of AI to justify anything, as that would be pseudo-science at best. AI is always big on claims and promises, but little on real substance.

You have guys with pseudo-random number generators rolling the dice billions of times until a highly directed "genetic algorithm" recreates known human inventions, and somehow this is supposed to be enlightening, useful, or important? It's nothing more than a stochastic search!

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Corpus_Callosum]

Not a bad definition of life, in my opinion. But always remember life can do this because life is never a closed system. The second law always wins in the end.

Ahh, so perhaps life timeshifts entropy? You have anti-entropic effects over a period of time that encompasses the existance of the life (which is never infinite, right?)...

By the way, I am not really sure that you could say that going from hydrogen to helium is much of a gain in entropy, but if you like, we could start with hydrogen and anti-hydrogen and use the antimatter collision to create energy. Over any fixed period of time, the order of the system will be increasing due to the organizing effects of life (and it's proliferation and evolution). The antimatter generation of power is an interesting one to look at thermodynamically... Don't you think?

But absolutely, this closed system is antientropic. Until the fuel runs out and everything dies... And even then, it could be argued that the order within the closed system is higher than it was when the whole expirement began.

If you consider the universe as a closed system and further assume that we have neither a big crunch or enless expansion in the distant future (the equilibrium state), and assume through the proliferation of life in the galaxy, we are approaching the "omega point", then I think you could argue that the presence of life makes the entire universe anti-entropic.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[jav1231]

I hate to burst your superior intellectual bubble but it is largely "guess." Educated guess, true. Based upon evidence, research, etc. yes. If it makes you feel better, I'll pretend you're smarter than me. What do I win?

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jav1231]

Um, yes. You totally misunderstand the definition. Faith based on nothing is idiocy. "Faith" is simply "belief." In fact, the ancient Greek translates the same word for both.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Chris Mattern]

> Ahh, so perhaps life timeshifts entropy?

No, it space shifts it. Entropy in the vincinity of life can decrease because at the same time, entropy elsewhere is increasing (in the case of the Earth as a whole, it is increasing in the Sun. In your hypothetical situation, it is decreasing on the surface of the hollow world because it is increasing in the fusion generator (plus its fuel cells)).

> I am not really sure that you could say that going from hydrogen to helium is much of a gain in entropy

Um, yes, it is. It is readily demonstrated by the fact the you never hear of natural processes that split helium atoms into hydrogen. If you really want, I'll schlep out my old physics books and calculate exactly how much of an increase in entropy it is.

> we could start with hydrogen and anti-hydrogen and use the antimatter collision to create energy.

OK. That reaction *also* increases entropy.

> But absolutely, this closed system is antientropic.

Um, no. Once again, the increase in entropy in the reactor is greater than the decrease in entropy on the surface.

> Until the fuel runs out and everything dies...

Exactly! That's exactly the point! The entropy in the reactor plus fuel cells increases as it exhausts its fuel until it can no longer run. Then the whole thing grinds to a halt.

> I think you could argue that the presence of life makes the entire universe anti-entropic.

Sadly, no, you can't. Life doesn't prevent the suns from running of out of nuclear fuel. Life doesn't get us a free pass from obeying the basic laws of physics.

Chris Mattern

Re:Should be a good night of television

[RedCard]

>But one of creationists main arguments against evolution has always been that complex design implies an intelligent designer.

I would argue that any complex design requires an intelligent creator. A complex system (such as life), on the other hand, is apparently capable of spontaneously arising under nearly any circumstance where mass amounts of energy seek to become less ordered.

>The effectiveness of GAs simply disintegrates that argument.

Genetic algorithms are capable of producing apparently simple (yet stunningly clever) answers which can be conceptually thought of as a route through a (generally) complex solution space. In a nutshell, simplicity is mapped from complexity.

Although I am certainly NOT a creationist, a creationist would argue, as I do, that simple GAs are not capable of producing the complexty of nature that we see around us. So unfortunately the argument for GAs does little to help our cause.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Yeah, that brings up the point: What did these people do in school biology class, sit there and roll their eyes a lot? Did they sit there and fume about how WRONG WRONG WRONG it was to have any taint of evolution in biology? Did they squirm and pout in college science cources when there was no mention of a Divine Being in any action of physical law? Are they sitting there, right now, thinking the rest of us are completely nuts and will "burn in hell" for our well-supported beliefs?

Re: Should be a good night of television

[CBDSteve]

Yes, I believe they do - because the satellites involved are in orbit, there is a difference in the gravity they experience (ie they are in a partially weightless environment).

According to the theory of relativity, this means that their internal clocks should run at a different speed (relative to an earth-bound observer) to those on the planet's surface. In order to accurately calculate the position of the GPS unit, this difference in timing must be taken into account.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth is not a closed system.

Yes, but the universe is.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Wanderer2]

The way I understand it (disclaimer! I am not a rocket scientist :) is:

The satellites are moving quickly relative to a GPS receiver on the surface of the earth. This means the clocks onboard the satellites tick ever so slightly slower than those on the receivers on the ground. If not corrected, this would throw the positioning calculations out. If you know how fast the satellites are going, you can use relativity to work out how often and how much you need to adjust the clocks on the satellites by.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Triangulation is correct. And the key to the triangulation calculation is that the clocks on each satellite and ground must be in sync to get the most accurate measurements.

There are two relativistic effects when it comes to satellite clocks; gravity - further you go into space, faster time goes (relative to earth), and speed - faster you go slower time flies (again relative to earth).

Initially when the GPS satellites were builts, many engineers did not believe the relativistic effects and they put two different timing methods on the satellites (one calculating relativity, one ignoring it).

Shortly after satellites went into the orbit, it was clear relativistic adjustments were needed.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Txiasaeia]

Hypocritical? You mean I can't accept one aspect of science while agreeing with other scientific concepts? You make it sound like "science" is one grand theory that needs to be accepted or thrown away.

What if I had said that cloning was one aspect of science that I could not accept? Not in terms of correct and incorrect, but in terms of right and wrong. Would I be hypocritical then?

Sagan says that "thousands and thousands" of Christians believe in the Big Bang? There are over 200 million Catholics in the world - just one denomination of Christianity (of which I'm not even a part). "Thousands and thousands," then, is just a tiny minority.

Hypocritical means saying one thing but practising another. I can assure you that my less-than-rock-solid belief in science is not in any way "hypocritical" (according to the definition of the word), buddy.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Krow10]

The Earth is not a closed system.

The universe is though.

Perhaps. Regardless, the point is that much thermodynamic work can be done by exploiting the fact that the Earth is between the sun (a heat source) and space (a cold reservoir.)

Forget evolution for a minute and ask how anything grows at all.

Energy + system for using energy + code/blueprints (eg. plants - sunlight + photosythesis + dna)

Code/blueprints do not suspend the second law of thermodynamics. I repeat for emphasis: the reason that perpetual motion machines are rejected without review by an agency that is so generous to applicants that it grants things like the one-click purchase patent is that it is blindingly well known that code/blueprints do not allow any artifact to violate the second law of thermodynamics. If evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then the growth from an acorn to an oak tree violates the second law of thermodynamics and there is no mechanism in "code/blueprints" which explains this purported violation.

What you are saying is that a closed system (the universe) has over a sustained period of time (billions of years in this case) increased in complexity. This is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No on several fronts. Firstly, "complexity" is not related to thermodynamic entropy and thus appeals to the second law based on claims about changes in "complexity" are unjustified. Secondly, the grandparent does not claim that entropy has decreased in a closed system, the grandparent is saying that any decreases in entropy in the open system of the Earth can be accounted for by greater entropy increases in the universe as a whole -- i.e. by the fact that we are between the sun (hot) and the rest of space (very cold, on average.)

btw it takes more than just energy to create complexity, without a system to use the energy increased energy will often increase the speed of entropy (eg. a house that burns down).

What are the units of "complexity." Specifically, I would like a quantitative formulation of the second law objection to evolution. More specifically, I would like you (or anyone) to give me one process necessary to biological evolution which violates the following inequality:

(dU + (P * dV))/T >= dQ/T

where U is the specific internal energy, P is the pressure, V is the specific volume, T is the Kelvin temperature and Q is the heat per unit mass (_The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 62nd Edition, 1981, pp f-92.) The left hand side of the above inequality is the specific entropy. Or if you have another quantitative statement of the second law that you would prefer, give that a go. I have never seen a second law objection to evolution that didn't disappear when formalized.

Cheers,
Craig

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Oh please...

MOND is just another way to explain the current structure of the universe without resorting to dark matter and energy by introducing variation in fundamental constants (mainly, strength of gravity).

While it is a new way of looking at things, it is still very inconsistent with visible data (can't find the difference further back we look), and is entirely backward looking (no predictions that have been verified).

Scientifically speaking, it is not much more valid then ID.

Newtonian Dynamics still used today, because it is perfectly valid as long as things are not too big or fast (relativity starts dominating), or small (quantum mechanics take over). For most everyday use, ND is perfectly adaquate.

"What would prevent us from discarding General Relativity and building on (expanding) MOND?"

You should actually learn little more about things like MOND before spewing out statements like this.

Only thing that MOND would have any effect on relativity is the cosmological constant (which Einstein never liked anyway). And there are many ideas vying for the replacement, MOND included. However, in no way shape or form, would MOND replace or discard General Relativity.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[geomon]

For those where contradictions exist, it frequently is because the theory is just that - a theory.

As I said before, this type of comment exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Krow10]

All I am saying is that there is a fundamental difference between the order in Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning as opposed to DNA, programming code, literature and so on. The problem here I believe is that you dont want to admit that.

The problem is really that this putative difference is not quantifiable. By what criterion do you place DNA with programming code as opposed to river bed? In my opinion, DNA seems much more like the river bed than programming code (i.e. it has been influenced by environmental conditions over time.) Assuming you do come up with a metric, then I would like you to apply some quantitative statement of the second law of thermodynamics to that metric i.e. since the second law applies to "order" like that of a snowflake, what does it say about this other measure which is fundamentally different from "order."

Cheers,
Craig

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

credible scientist

If a "scientist" supported creation over evolution, who would deem him credible? His peers? His peers are the other scientists who are proponents of evolution, why would they then deem him credible?

How then can anyone who disagrees with the establishment be considered credible?

Seems like you have a situation which is not possible, unless of course the scientist went from supporting evolution to supporting creation, then he has just become a scientist who was blinded by religon.

Nice.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of using GAs is that they're more than stochastic searches: crossover improves the search efficiency by (depending on the domain) a complexity class.

That by itself is instructive to the creationism "debate": neither laboratory GAs nor real-world evolution work by randomness alone. There are three other prerequisites (inheritance, selection (natural or artificial), and excessive reproduction), each of them highly nonrandom.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Grishnakh]

Such an admission leads me to other thoughts: if there is no God, then not only have I been lied to for my entire life, but I have no reason to constrain myself. I believe that God has a purpose for my life, and part of that purpose is understanding and believing in the limits imposed on me (no murdering, no lying, etc.) If those limits were suddenly lifted, and I truly and honestly believed that God did not exist, I would probably snap. And I'm young! Imagine fifty or sixty-year olds being forced to face such a reality!

If the fear of a horrible afterlife is the only thing keeping you from committing heinous and criminal acts, then you have some serious problems. You might want to visit a psychologist, or maybe read some books about ethics.

For me, the Big Bang isn't a matter of science, it's a matter of faith. So you'll forgive me when, in my small mind, I will not (and probably cannot) cede the possibility that the Big Bang is true until it is 100% conclusively proven.

You can ignore various well-supported scientific theories all you want, but you're only hurting yourself. But don't hold your breath for any of them being "100% conclusively" proven. Theories are simply models explaining things that we observe. They're supported with evidence which supports them, and occassionally they're disproven and a new theory is invented. Sometimes they're kept around even though they're not completely correct: Newton's Laws of physics have been shown to be inaccurate, but for anything that doesn't involve near lightspeed travel, it's close enough. Relativity theory explains motion much more accurately (according to observed evidence), but if you're just trying to calculate how long it will take you to drive to the next city, it's not worth the trouble of calculating how much time will be dilated by your vehicle moving at 75mph because it won't affect the result significantly.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[eugene ts wong]

First of all, I'd like to say thanks for the clearest explanation of your point of view. I think that most people tend to avoid mentioning the photosythesis.

That being said, I still disagree, because...

This can, in principle, be used to support the theory of evolution.

...I don't see how this can improve things to a degree that a living organism would come to be.

I think that what I'm trying to say is that the sun can only bring about so much order and improvement into the physical environment, whether it is an open system or not. For example, the sun will never help a sky scraper to be passively errected. It won't cause a nuclear reactor that is useful and safe to be formed.

I realize that you deliberately didn't "directly [address] where the genetic information and enzymes, etc. in the acorn came from", and I respect that. It's important to keep on topic, but I think that the other fellow would acknowledge that "thermodynamics" may help things to "improve", but he was probably trying to say that the capacity to improve has to be there ahead of time. He probably wants to discuss how the capacity came to be, because without the capacity for improvement, evolution becomes impossible.

Another example is that even in a closed system, the faces on Mount Rushmore bear the finger print of human intervention. I'd like to think that I can use other reliable methods other than historical studies and scientific studies to come to the correct conclusion. There is nothing wrong with historical and scientific methods, but I'd like to be skilled in as many reliable methods as possible.

I hope that that clarifies my view. :^/

Please note that I'm not well versed in the sciences, and thus I hesitate to use certain words. I'm trying to put it all in my own language to give you a better idea of whether or not I understand.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Dimensio]

You seem to be confused as to the nature of a theory. Theories in science are never proven. There is never a point where a scientist can look at a theory and say "Okay, we're absolutely certain of this, there is no possible way that this is false".

All theories in science are falsifiable, meaning that there is some hypothetical observation that could bring the whole theory crashing down. The strength in a theory is in predictions that it has made that have held up and tests for falsification that have thus far failed. However, no theory is ever fully "proven", by definition.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of the definition of "theory" (and also of "law") on the creation side of the debate, which is often reflected in their arguments ("If evolution is so solid, why is it still just a theory and not a law?!"). It doesn't help when we have people on the rational side presenting the same kinds of misunderstandings.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Corpus_Callosum]

The fundamental problem in the argument that we are having is the assumption that running out of fuel leaves the system with more entropy.

If we assume that the universe was at it's most ordered state at the point in time prior to the big bang (e.g. no fuel?) then we have a contradiction...

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Jagasian]

Just because aspects of a random search are deterministic, doesn't make it much more than a random search, each one highly tailored to some problem domain. There is no intelligence, just a bunch of dice rolling until a desired pattern has been recreated. Not very impressive. I could create a program that randomly generates bitmaps. Eventually it will recreate the Mona Lisa and other famous works of art. However, such as thing is not impressive, yet this is exactly what the AI community does.

AI is the alchemy of computer science.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jejones]

You're right; it's Uri Geller's victims that rub the watch, isn't it? My mistake.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Chris Mattern]

> The fundamental problem in the argument that we are having is the assumption that running out
> of fuel leaves the system with more entropy.

Correct. You need to realize that "using fuel" is a synonym for "increasing entropy". Until you do, you don't understand entropy.

Fuel has less entropy than the waste products. Any process which is not naturally reversible is one in which entropy is increasing. Thinking of entropy as simply "disorder" is inexact.

Chris Mattern

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Corpus_Callosum]

Correct. You need to realize that "using fuel" is a synonym for "increasing entropy". Until you do, you don't understand entropy.

I think there is something missing from this assertion of equivilance. But I am not going to argue this particular point. The original point, that in the presence of life, entropy decreases, is the more important one.

It ultimately boils down to semantics and constrained theoretical models. If we discard the old fashioned "order" definition of entropy and instead examine entropy purely from the point of view of the movement and distribution of energy and heat then I believe you are correct. Entropy rules.

Just have to be careful with that word "order".

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jav1231]

Troll? So much for open debate.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, if you cant refute the message, shoot the messenger.

3...2...1...Aaaand...

[spin2cool]

Cue rabid fundamentalists... NOW!

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opening monologue: "6 thousand years ago..."

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[suso]

My 6th grade science teacher was an ultra fundamentalist (ironically). When we got to the part about the big bang in the text book, he just started talking about how doesn't believe in all that and the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Sigh, silly backwater Indiana town.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[tool462]

The earth IS 6000 years old. It has just been 6000 for a few billion years now. Just like my grandma has been 25 for the past 50 years. ;-)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[bourne_id]

I have had the misfortune to now live and teach in two states that have a really conservative attitude towards presenting theories such as the big bang and evolution (Don't!). Why is it that these ultra-fundamentalists (to borrow your phrase) can't at least acknowledge that what scientists observe what seem to be universal physical laws, and then draw their conclusions from observations using those laws? That is how geologists come up with the age of the Earth, and astrophysicists come up with the age of the universe.

Frustrated,

JMD

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

Okay, so I'm going OT on this but it has to be said. There really needs to be some way in /. to allow raising the view-priority of a parent post based on some selection in the child post. Take the parent post as an example. On my screen it looked like DAldredge (2353) was replying to spin2cool (651536). When clicking on spin2cool's home, I see a nice reasonable home page -- nothing controversial. In reality however, DAldredge is replying to the (hidden on my screen) ancestor suso (153703), whose home page seems to be advocating Communism as if it were a new idea.

My wish list item for /. would be for DAldredge to have a check box during a reply post to tell my viewing of the page to raise the parent up a bit so that I can see the thread correctly. This happens a lot when browsing at score 3 for me and constantly clicking on Parent to make sure I understood the context is getting annoying.

Anyway, enough of my whining. I just had to get that off my chest.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... my guess is that they were indoctrinated from birth into a narrow minded set of rules and beliefs that sees adherence to those rules and beliefs as the only true virtues.

Alternatively they may just think it is funny to watch you squirm.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Gilgaron]

The best website I am aware of for a quick rebuttal to a creationist is http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

My vote would be for the first scenario. In my experience, fundamentalists rarely have a sense of humor about these kind of things...

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue rabid atheists without a clue. Now!

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Kehvarl]

I don't know abot the fundamentalists, but I certainly enjoy doing things just to make people squirm.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. They don't want to admit that observed evidence contradicts their cherished religious beliefs, so they imagine that any scientific conclusion that would seem to go against what they want to believe is true as per their religion is actually a result of a vast atheistic conspiracy to destroy religion and faith in God (not god-belief in general, but apparently all scientists actually know that their God is the One True One, but they're trying to keep other people from realising it).

They disassociate themselves from reality in this bizarro conspiracy theory so much that they convince themselves that they don't even have to examine the evidence before they "know" that it's all just a bunch of lies.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, and I had mod points this morning.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[tool462]

I'm not sure exactly, but I believe it comes from putting together the chronology of the Bible. I guess it has a pretty detailed history of who lived when, and I suppose it all adds up to the "Big Abracadabra" happening around 4000 BC.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[akorvemaker]

GRRR!!!

Not enough? Here, I'll try again.

ROAR!! GROWL!! AAARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!

(grumble grumble lameness filter grumble)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Learning is fundamental.
New Hampshire granite.
Bean-potato-soup.

" Now. Who's this ? "
" Some of those..IT people. "
" Informational technologies..something. "
" Awful strange. "
" Them showing-up at a church social. "

Creepers.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Txiasaeia]

"Why is it that these ultra-fundamentalists (to borrow your phrase) can't at least acknowledge that what scientists observe what seem to be universal physical laws, and then draw their conclusions from observations using those laws?"

I'm sorry, did somebody observe a Big Bang while I wasn't looking? How can you observe "universal physical laws" and relate them to the Big Bang if the Big Bang was an extraordinary event (i.e. doesn't happen every millenia, or even every year)? Answer: you can't. The Big Bang is a "theory" that has not been observed in nature, so there's no way of telling whether it actually happened or not. Yes, you can conjecture this and that and look at various gases and the like, but there's no hard proof that it happened.

What gets *my* goat is that people call the Big Bang a theory, but get mad when people say that it's only a theory. Huh? The Big Bang requires just as much faith as does the existence of God.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Keebler71]

Thank you for using the word "rapid fundamentalist" rather than "creationist". I am an engineer and scientist who also considers himself a "creationist". However, my scientific beliefs are indistinguishable from those of any astrophysicist except for I give a name to the forces I believe created the big bang whereas a "pure scientist" must stop short.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Warlock48]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory&r= 67
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Big bang theory's "theory" is definition 1: one fact is the red shift showing that everything moves away from us -> universe expands -> it probably has started with a small thing exploding. One prediction was background temperature of 3K, which has been eventually verified.

Religious "theory" is definition 4, 5, and/or 6. You can explain anything with it, but can't predict anything and verify it.

So that's why some people get mad when you relate scientific theories with metaphysical theories. I think they should be two different words to stop this annoying lack of distinction.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[d474]

I got tired of that too, so I just changed the comment preferences to "Threshold 1". You see alot more crap, but it saves time because you can catch the context faster. When you get Mod Points, it's easier to give everyone a chance with the Threshold at 1.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[jcr]

See, that's the problem with public schooling. (Note that I didn't say public education). Despite this clown's obvious incompetence, you didn't have an alternative source of instruction.

-jcr

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Pickas]

Proper scientific theories provide a possible answer based upon observable phenomema, make predictions about possible future observations and provide tests that can confirm said theory.

The only explanation that ID provides is that something causes whole species to pop into existance - properly designed and fit for purpose of course.

We have changed whole regions of landmass to make them unfit for their original biological inhabitant - why hasn't something come along and inundated our metropolis' with some form of city-dwelling orangotan?

When we have to avoid stepping in urbanite monkey poo scientists will consider this a real contender.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[jcr]

I give a name to the forces I believe created the big bang

So do I: "Unknowable".

-jcr

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't ask me. I went to an evangelical college and never once heard the 6000 crap taught by my Astronomy prof, or by theology profs. In fact, our Astronomy prof thinks the Big Bang is pretty dang cool (though we was kinda bummed when the hubble pretty much determined that the universe doesn't have enough mass to contract into another big bang..)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Txiasaeia]

So let me get this straight: religious theory is a posteriori, whereas scientific theory is a priori? Hell ya they should be two different words ;)

I understand the concepts of red shift and blue shift (university astronomy is coming back to me), but can't the red shift of 3K be attributed to something else? I know you scientists hate this analogy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day ;)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Warlock48]

religious theory is a posteriori, whereas scientific theory is a priori
I didn't write that, and I don't think that's a correct summary of the definitions given. Try again!

Both sci and non-sci types of theories emerge from observation. But what makes sci theories valuable is that you can predict stuff from them.

red shift of 3K
Once again, you're collapsing two things. It may be a genuine error, but it shows a general way of being for those trying to push religious views on the world. Or I've not been precise enough and I apologize.

Let me rephrase it then: First there's observation of the red shift, from which a theory of the big bang can be invented, poof. Then this theory predicts that there should be an average temperature of 3K (-270C or -454F) across the universe. Then some space probe takes measures and comes with this result of 3K, which gives confidence that the theory works... But yes, it's still a theory, and maybe one day we'll find another one that works better.

Now, take a non-sci theory... Say a god created the universe as it appears now, and gave a push. That doesn't help in predicting the temperature, does it? So there's no actual value other than pushing the explanation one level higher, to something that's by definition impossible to prove or disprove.

Do you see the distinction? If yes, wouldn't you agree that marking the distinction by using different words would help everybody understand it and not make the same mistake again?

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

When you get Mod Points, it's easier to give everyone a chance with the Threshold at 1.

When I'm modding, I usually browse at -1. But even then, until I find a story I want to moderate (one I actually know something about), I tend to stay at level 3...

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Chris Mattern]

> I'm sorry, did somebody observe a Big Bang while I wasn't looking?

Yep, they did. Try Googling on "microwave backround radiation."

> What gets *my* goat is that people call the Big Bang a theory, but get mad when people say
> that it's only a theory. Huh? The Big Bang requires just as much faith as does the existence of God.

No, it doesn't. The Big Bang has actually evidence to support it. And what gets people mad is when idjits decide that "scientific theory"="wild ass guess".

Chris Mattern

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Txiasaeia]

"Now, take a non-sci theory... Say a god created the universe as it appears now, and gave a push. That doesn't help in predicting the temperature, does it? So there's no actual value other than pushing the explanation one level higher, to something that's by definition impossible to prove or disprove."

But what *caused* the Big Bang? Isn't that pushing the explanation one level higher, as you say? Or does that not concern scientists? I'm definitely not trolling here, genuinely interested. In person, sci-type people just roll their eyes and talk to you like a three year old when you say that you're a Christian; it's nice to actually talk to people who will talk *back* in a non-condescending manner ;)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[ArsonSmith]

Actually Einstein even says that anything before the big bang is completely up to Religion and philosophy to speculate about, and that Science may never be able to predict anything prior than 1x10^-72 seconds after the Big bang.

This is further illustrated in Einsteins quote "God doesn't play dice" Saying that A god can and very possibly does exist and created the universe but he doesn't intervene.

I believe this was known as deist or deism. To lazy to look it up right now, but it also says that all current religions that believe in divine intervention are false.

I still consider my self mostly agnostic sort of fluctuating between non-vocal atheist and what I described above as deist. (By non-vocal atheist, I mean that I don't try to convince anyone there is no god, past an opinion piece like this.)
his.)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Txiasaeia]

That's very interesting. To me, a cohesive scientific theory would include a cause and effect, not just the effect, but as has been amply proved in this story (check my username for ample occurences of 0wnage) I'm not a scientist. I guess I can breathe a little easier tonight ;)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[ArsonSmith]

I don't remember the details but there was something about the magic number, something about planks lenght that anything smaller than that has no ability to be detected or observed because just by observing it everything at that level would change. so at a planks lenght of time, which is the amount of time it takes light to travel a planks length, during the begining fo the universe there is no way to figure out what is happening and everything would be considered 100% pure random chance at that point. Leaving the option for a deity or philosophical explination.

Disclamer: I am pulling this from a few books that I read but also from memory. I'm sure the details are probably wrong but the overall idea is right. To get the details a little better check books A short History of Nearly Everything and A Breif History of Time

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[JetJaguar]

Scientists are most definitely concerned with what caused the big bang, but basically, the physical laws and theories that we have actually break down when you get into that regime. Essentially, the mathematics turn to mush and all you get is nonsense. You get results along the lines of individual photons being able to turn into incredible tiny black holes, which doesn't really make any sense.

In fact, I consider it a strong likelihood that it may very well be impossible to figure out just what caused the big bang. The best we may ever be able to do is simply come up with some plausible (but unsupportable) conjectures. Some of the people that have been working on string theory have come up with some semi-plausible causes for the big bang, but there is practically no way to collect the evidence that would be needed to support those ideas (and that assumes that string theory is even right in the first place, which is yet to be seen).

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[fm6]

What gets *my* goat is that people call the Big Bang a theory, but get mad when people say that it's only a theory. Huh?

Huh yourself. It's a theory, yeah, but when you say "just a theory" you put it on the same level with theories like "Elvis killed JFK."

To parrot my Critical Thinking professor, you're punning "theory". No, you're not making a joke, but you are using two different concepts and equating them, just because they have the same name. Sometimes "theory" is working principle you use to understand how the universe works. Sometimes "theory" is just another word for opinion.

The Big Bang requires just as much faith as does the existence of God.

That shows how little you know the history of science. Scientists change their working theories all the time. The Big Bang theory itself became popular only after a long fight with the Steady State theory. ("Big Bang" was originally a term of abuse, invented by the Steady Staters.) Show physicists the right data, and they'll stop believing in the Big Bang once again. There would be a lot of resistance, but it would happen. Can you imagine any data that would make Christians stop believing in God? Maybe it exists, but it'd take a lot more than a few spectrographs.

Cosmos redux?

[everklear]

Sounds like an update of "Cosmos", which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. I hope it is. That was one of my most cherished programs when I was a kid. I'd love to see this be carried out in the same spirit.

Make Carl proud.

Re:Cosmos redux?

[cosmol]

looks like it will be Cosmos with CG animation and a hip soundtrack.

Though Cosmos had great non-cg animation and a good soundtrack too.

I just hope it's not like that string theory series that was all style and no substance.

Hayden Planetarium

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say I have low expectations for this since when I did go to the Hayden Planetaium at the NY Natural History Museum (it was featured in KPAX). The show sucked.

They have the huge star machine, and it was only used for like 5 minutes out of the hour long show. The rest was just LCD projectors projecting video on the dome. It was so dumbed down I think even public school students could understand.

When you have a kick ass setup and location like the Hayden you should really give awe-inspiring shows that have a modest amount of educational value for someone who has a post-secondary education. Not stupid stuff narrated by Harrison Ford.

All in all the Hayden sucked.

Sadly, this will either be pre-empted by...

[IronChefMorimoto]

Sadly, this potentially great mini-series will either be pre-empted by Nip/Tuck (my fault) or [insert inane reality show here] (the wife).

Frankly, Nip/Tuck is a legitimate excuse for missing such nerdy/intellectual public broadcasting Nova fun. Why? Boobies! Hotties! BOOBIES and HOTTIES, MAN!

However, seeing a naked gay guy run around the dumpster side of a resort island touting his immunity challenge win in a "survival" competition does not supercede Nova.

But boobies and hotties do. ;-)

IronChefMorimoto

Re:Sadly, this will either be pre-empted by...

[sgant]

Frankly, Nip/Tuck is a legitimate excuse for missing such nerdy/intellectual public broadcasting Nova fun. Why? Boobies! Hotties! BOOBIES and HOTTIES, MAN!

Meh...it's still on regular cable, which means covered boobs. Boobs are better uncovered than covered.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Re:Sadly, this will either be pre-empted by...

[Nos.]

Depends on the network. My wife is an avid fan of Nip/Tuck and I've seen an episode or two. In Canada, they don't leave anything out, even in prime time!

Re:Sadly, this will either be pre-empted by...

[DAldredge]

You may want to check, but I think that your wife has Boobies and if she isn't Hot, well that's your fault. ;->

Re:Sadly, this will either be pre-empted by...

[Sloppy]

But boobies and hotties do. ;-)

Might I suggest you check out a technological wonder known as The Internet? It is able to serve boobies and hotties asynchronously and simultaneous to a TV broadcast!!

Seriously, I don't get people's fascination with T&A on TV, when porn is already ubiquitous. If you're in the mood for looking at hott chixx, just download some porn. Then .. um .. afterwards .. watch some good TV. Now if the TV program happens to include some beautiful women, hey fine. But that shouldn't be the goal, because you already .. um .. reached that goal .. a few minutes earlier.

Re:Sadly, this will either be pre-empted by...

[ian mills]

It's also on tomorrow night.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

That website is so 1997

Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully this series will have a little more balance than Cosmos did. I agree that Cosmos was a well-done series and that Sagan was (in general) a decent man, but I hope that the Origins series does not get political and kowtow to the liberal viewpoint on things such as Big Bang, macroevolution, etc. Especially in recent years, public opinion in this country has changed drastically as a result of a lot of new evidence that has come out. Evolution and Big Bang are not nearly as cut-and-dried as they used to be, and so I hope that there is at least some mention of intelligent design, which to most people in this country is far more plausible than sheer accident.

As a science nut I'm always glad to see good science programming. I would just like to see a little less politics and a bit more balance.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about? You either discuss the science of the issue or you don't. The show is about facts and theory, not some biblical fairy tales.

Re:Balance

[Morpeth]

"does not get political and kowtow to the liberal viewpoint on things such as Big Bang"

Probably a mindless troll, but I'll bite. WTF !?!? Science is science, period. It's only 'liberal' in the narrow mindset of people who think the earth is 4000 years old, and the fossil record is a trick by god to test someone's faith. It's called liberal because some people get so defensive when it points out the errors in their misguided, fantastical, untestable notions they cling to -- since the universe is too complex or scary to them.

The great thing about science is it doesn't have a preconceived notion to hold onto - if a theory is sound it holds up, if not, it is replaced or adjusted with further testing and observation by the originator or other scientists. Science itself does not have an agenda like an institution such as the vatican does.

Now, trying to teach 'creationism' in schools as anything but pure fiction, THAT'S political.

Re:Balance

[cosmol]

The only "liberal bias" in COSMOS is where Sagan repeatedly implies that it would be a bad thing if humans destroyed themselves in a nuclear war.

Scientific theories [should] have no relation to political alignments.

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

Intelligent Design has precious little to do with the Bible. It involves researching origins to see what evidence there is for an intelligent designer. It doesn't care who or what that intelligent designer is- it only cares about what it did in making us and the universe. It's not just for fundies- crap, some of it's logical underpinnings are rooted in medieval Muslim philosophy.

What principle demands that any theory involving an intelligent creator must be systematically dismissed from scientific inquiry?

Too much time is spent by some materialism evangelists dissing somebody's holy book or dismissing all religious folks as inbred hicks, and screaming that ID "isn't science". Their a priori exclusion of still-valid hypothesises isn't helping anybody. Who the heck cares if it doesn't fit into somebody's notion of what "science" should be? Scientific inquiry exists apart from any meaningless definition of it. So, why don't we all open our minds a bit and discuss theories on their merits, instead of our prejudices?

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually only a bad thing for humans. The cockroaches will be rejoicing.

Re:Balance

[Gadzinka]

Science itself does not have an agenda like an institution such as the vatican does.

Now, you are mistaken, Mister. I am an atheist in a Catholic country, but I try to ``know my enemy''.

Vatican for a long time has been claiming that evolution is a mechanism created by God, in order to make his creation (the Earth and Universe) perfect, self-sustainable.

It's the specialty of American Protestant churches to take the Bible literally, claiming that Earth is 10k years old etc.

Robert

Re:Balance

[Morpeth]

I wasn't specifically connecting catholicism to biblical literalism, simply making the point that unlike science, religion and religious institutions do have political agendas... look at the what happened between Galileo and the Vatican for example when science pointed out flaws in biblical 'truth' [sic]

Re:Balance

[gollum123]

intelligent design is just another form of creationism. While no theory demands that an intelligent creator should be dismissed from science , the presence of a creator who can in principle do anything means that science no longer is exact. in otherwords science can no longer predict anything as it can be changed in arbitrary ways. And so far we have absolutely no evidence of an intelligent creator. Throwing statements like things as complex as humans cannot evolve on their own nor the fact that evolution at this point cannot explain everything constitute evidnce for creationism or intelligent design. a theory is judged by its own evidence not by public opinion or by chinks in another theory.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design has precious little to do with the Bible. It involves researching origins to see what evidence there is for an intelligent designer.

No, it's about starting with the assumption that there was an "Intelligent Designer" responsible for the creation of the universe, and trying to interpret reality to support this assupmtion.

The real problem of "ID study" is that there's no proposed falsification method. No "ID" proponent has yet put forth a hypothetical observation that would falsify the notion of Intelligent Design, and yet they insist that it is good theory. That alone is reason enough to question their motives, their competence or both.

Intelligent Design has precious little to do with the Bible. It involves researching origins to see what evidence there is for an intelligent designer.

So why are the people pushing it almost universally fundamentalist Christians who hold to a literal Biblical interpretation?

What principle demands that any theory involving an intelligent creator must be systematically dismissed from scientific inquiry?

As I said before: non-falsifiability.

Too much time is spent by some materialism evangelists

Your religious bias is showing.

Their a priori exclusion of still-valid hypothesises isn't helping anybody.

If it is valid, then there is a hypothetical observation that could falsify it. Please, be the first to explain it to me: state an event that, if observed, would prove that Intelligent Design is false.

If you can't do that, then you don't have a scientific hypothesis.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

"Intelligent Design" presumes that there be, external to all that we can directly detect in the universe, some agent or agency responsible for it all. All of it. From mathematical constants ("pi" as a transcendental number rather than a more convenient 3.125 or so), to all that annoying quantum foolishness, to gravity and so on. Not just dinosaurs and mammals and why we have two eyes. If that's not "god", what is? Of course, that lets us reasonably wonder if the guy we call god is actually a committee of bug-eyed green guys who quite reasonably are on a well-deserved vacation or have moved on to other, more interesting design challenges.

Re:Balance

[Smitty825]

In a perfect world, I would agree with you, and for many science subjects, there are no politics and and preconceived notions.

However, it seems that science is just as bad as religion in many ways. Scientists are people too, and they may have a political adgenda, like any religious fanatic.

For example, evolution. There are still lots of unanswered problems with this theory. In a few years, there will likely be a few changes to this theory, as the data improves. Yet, it seems to me that the people pushing to teach "evolution" as a 100% truth are those that most strongly label themselves as athiests.

Like you said above, the religious fanatics are the same way! I personally think that _all_ science should be taught in such a manner of "this is a commonly held theory about $TOPIC, however, there may be errors in this line of thought. Speak up if you have a better idea"

Re: Balance

[Black Parrot]

> Intelligent Design has precious little to do with the Bible. It involves researching origins to see what evidence there is for an intelligent designer. It doesn't care who or what that intelligent designer is-

"Researching" origins, but doesn't care about the purported agent of origins?

> it only cares about what it did in making us and the universe.

Actually, it doesn't care about that either: ID simply wants to "prove" that a Designer existed.

> It's not just for fundies- crap, some of it's logical underpinnings are rooted in medieval Muslim philosophy.

Yeah, I hear it's big among Raelians, too.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Sagan not only implied it would be a bad thing if humans destroyed themselves, he suggested over and over again that it was inevitable. Look at his pessimistic entry of the Enclyclopdia Galagtica for our race. What was the chance for survival, 5%? Long before Cosmos, Sagan had stopped good scientific research and moved into politics and education. Look into his 'nuclear winter' shennanigans.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, I'm not the original poster. I no problem supporting the Big Bang theory or evolution, but I do get cranky when scientists become political.

Re:Balance

[jhwang]

For example, evolution. There are still lots of unanswered problems with this theory. In a few years, there will likely be a few changes to this theory, as the data improves.

Yes, it's true that there are controversies within evolution and biology that need to be worked out, just as there are in, say, reconciling quantum physics with relativity. But these are advanced topics that teachers generally don't have time to get to in K-12 science classes.

Just b/c Newton didn't get everything right doesn't mean we don't teach the commonly accepted Theory of Gravity. (Those who are interested can learn more about relativity on their own.) And just b/c there are still unanswered questions in biology doesn't mean that schoolkids shouldn't learn the standard model of Darwinian evolution. After they've learned enough of the fundamentals, they can then start reading about advanced topics in biology and see what the thornier issues are.

At the K-12 level, there is NOTHING that should be controversial about the Modern Synthesis, which combined Darwinism and Mendelian genetics more than half a century ago. All evidence over the last 50 years from molecular biology, developmental biology, and paleontology has simply strengthened the Synthesis.

Why does biology need to meet a higher standard of evidence than other sciences?

Re:Balance

[tumbaumba]

So why are the people pushing it almost universally fundamentalist Christians who hold to a literal Biblical interpretation?

Because it would potentially farther their agenda of "proving" existence of God. However we should judge any proposition on its own merit and not on whom it is associated with.

Your religious bias is showing.

That is not valid against any proposition. Religious people are perfectly cable making use or Reason and should not be dismissed purely on their bias.

If it is valid, then there is a hypothetical observation that could falsify it. Please, be the first to explain it to me: state an event that, if observed, would prove that Intelligent Design is false.

I can see, for example, that derivation of all physical constants from basic parameters like the number 4 ( being dimensionality of our space-time ) would somewhat undermine proponents of ID.

Re:Balance

[mpn14tech]

I can sympathize. I tend to get cranky when religious types try to be scientific.

Re:Balance

[Dimensio]

I can see, for example, that derivation of all physical constants from basic parameters like the number 4 ( being dimensionality of our space-time ) would somewhat undermine proponents of ID.

Could you explain how this could possibly have any bearing on ID?

Re:Balance

[tumbaumba]

Could you explain how this could possibly have any bearing on ID?

Well, consistent derivation of all of science from basic principals would make case of proponents of ID more difficult because as of now they rely in part on a messy state of affairs in modern physics like current inability to reconcile General relativity with Quantum Mechanics, existence of plethora of cosmological theories etc. In other words there are too many holes in modern science which leave a lot of possibilities for one to insist on divine intervention. Consistent theory would eliminate much of it making work of ID proponents harder.

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

Is unguided evolution/materialism/whatever you personally call it falsifiable?

What we can do with ID is take individual entities and look at their complexity to see whether or not the odds are on them arising independently or requiring a creator. If it looks like no creator would be needed for that entity, then we don't count that as evidence.

On the other hand, whenever it looks like something might take more than evolution or other natural forces to create, we ususally hear that "oh, we'll find the missing link later".

If anything, ID is more falsifiable than unguided evolution because at least ID'ers are performing tests that could fail to uphold their feelings on that matter.

So why are the people pushing it almost universally fundamentalist Christians who hold to a literal Biblical interpretation?

Why are the people pushing abiogenesis/evolution mostly athiests? Why does this mean anything?

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

We don't have any evidence of evolution, either. All we have is neutral evidence (as in, it doesn't on its own point to anything) that fits the model of evolution. There's also plenty of neutral evidence that fits the evidence of ID, such as the research done by Behe and biological "black boxes", consciousness, the incredible fine tuning of the universe, DNA, etc, etc. Incidentally, the evidence used in pro-ID arguments doesn't fit in the evolution model, while the evidence used in the pro-evolution/abiogenesis arguments does fit the ID model.

We can deduce the probability of a given model by how much explaining power it has. This is exactly what we do in a court room, as well as anywhere else where we can't just replay the whole situation.

Thus far, ID has much more explaining power than evolution/abiogenesis/etc. It doesn't mean that the latter has to be dismissed, but it certainly means that the former should not be dismissed.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

...screaming that ID "isn't science".

No screaming necessary. It isn't science because it cannot be proven either true or false. There is nothing wrong with believing in ID, but why are ID proponents so bent on having it be accepted as a scientific theory when it does not and more importantly, cannot be one.

Who the heck cares if it doesn't fit into somebody's notion of what "science" should be?

I care, as well as the most of the scientific community. Imagining that "somebody" can just redifine science based on their particular "notions" is, well, wacko. The definition of science absolutely cannot be defined by individual scientists. In fact, the definition is immutable.

Think of it this way: no matter how strongly Microsoft claimed that IE was part of the OS, it was and always will be an application built on or integrated into an OS. Why? Because Microsoft doesn't determine the definition of an OS -- it lies outside the reach of any individual or powerful corporation -- just as the definition of science cannot be changed by individuals to suit their means. They can try, but their attempts mean nothing to the actual definition (don't I get points for finding a way to include MS in this?)

Re:Balance

[Oligonicella]

"...so I hope that there is at least some mention of intelligent design..."

Why? What has that to do with science? Answer: nothing.

Re:Balance

[Oligonicella]

"It's not just for fundies- crap, some of it's logical underpinnings are rooted in medieval Muslim philosophy."

Well, now. There's a non-fundamental religion, eh?

"What principle demands that any theory involving an intelligent creator must be systematically dismissed from scientific inquiry?"

The principal that one must provide evidence to support a view?

"Their a priori exclusion of still-valid hypothesises isn't helping anybody."

It is not a still-valid hypothesis in the field of science because you cannot predict anything from it. If you think so, try.

"Who the heck cares if it doesn't fit into somebody's notion of what "science" should be?"

Anyone wishing to perform science.

"Scientific inquiry exists apart from any meaningless definition of it."

Except, of course, for the definition of scientific inquiry. See comment on evidence.

"So, why don't we all open our minds a bit and discuss theories on their merits, instead of our prejudices?"

I iterate. Make a scientific prediction, any scientific prediction predecated on ID.

The problem with ID is that it assumes the fantastic and totally unsupported at the expense of the more mundane, which is supported by evidence.

Re:Balance

[Oligonicella]

So, basically you're saying that because we can't explain it all yet, it has to have been done for us by a big parent figure? Hardly cogent thought.

It must really chap the ID'ist that the theories are lining up so nicely then, eh?

Re:Balance

[Oligonicella]

"Is unguided evolution/materialism/whatever you personally call it falsifiable?"

Yep, it is. For instance, if we were to find a chimera (say a pegasus), then evolution would fall flat on its face. Or (less fantastically), if we were to find an organism that radically differed from all other organisms, it would collapse. See? Now provide a similar one for god or ID.

"Why are the people pushing abiogenesis/evolution mostly athiests? Why does this mean anything?"

Ah, your argument all fall down. The majority of scientists espousing evolution are religious, not athiest.

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

A chimera or pegasus wouldn't falsify evolution. It could just be that we didn't find similar fossils yet. Evolution isn't hurt at all as a hypothesis.

Likewise, if somebody finds a perfectly reasonable unguided process that could have produced cilia, Dr. Michael Behe's claims in [u]Darwin's Black Box[/u] would be null and void. Evolution would have more explaining power, and ID would have less.

Most of the scientists who are supporting unguided evolution could not be religious, because if they were they would be contradicting themselves. The most extreme position on evolution mandates that it was the source of all life, and that a creator was not necessary. Are most scientists that dumb?

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

Here's one. I would predict that, if there was an intelligent designer, it would look as though the parameters of the universe and our position in it were extremely fine-tuned, and that it would be extremely improbable (say on the order of 1 * 10^(1 with as many 0's as there are particles in the universe) that these things could have happened without a high degree of intentionality.

Thus far, that has been seen to be the case. Many of the basic parameters of the universe, if they're are changed in the slightest, produce an uninhabitable universe. Furthermore, moving the earth's orbit out just a little bit, making the moon just a little bigger, making our sun anything other than the virtually perfect size it is right now, or moving us just a little farther out from the center of the Milky Way makes life an impossibility. What's even more damning is not that there's life here, but that there's such complex life here. Even smaller changes in the above make multicelluar life impossible. Even more interesting is how we appear to be in just the perfect place for observing the rest of the universe, as if somebody wanted us to discover stuff.

The research certainly isn't done yet, but so far, it doesn't look likely at all that a planet could support life without a lot of help from a friend. And it looks like this friend had humans in the cards when he first started working.

Re:Balance

[Dimensio]

It certainly would not make ID more difficult to explain.

You're forgetting the first rule: EVERYTHING is evidence for creationism (or ID, when they don't want to admit that they're shilling for creationism). That life exists in a universe hostile to it is proof that there is a creator. That the universe is capable of sustaining life is proof that there is a creator. There is no potential observation about the universe that they will claim is not evidence for a creator.

A uniform and cohesive unifying set of physical laws with no contradictions amongst them would "require" a creator to have put such a perfect system of laws in place.

Re:Balance

[Dimensio]

Is unguided evolution/materialism/whatever you personally call it falsifiable?

Evolution != materialism. This is another creationist lie.

And evolution is falsifiable. So next question?

What we can do with ID is take individual entities and look at their complexity to see whether or not the odds are on them arising independently or requiring a creator. If it looks like no creator would be needed for that entity, then we don't count that as evidence.

So what is your criteria? How do you determine when something is not "designed"?

On the other hand, whenever it looks like something might take more than evolution or other natural forces to create, we ususally hear that "oh, we'll find the missing link later".

Got any more strawmen to present?

If anything, ID is more falsifiable than unguided evolution because at least ID'ers are performing tests that could fail to uphold their feelings on that matter.

Really? Then answer my previous quesiton: what potential observation would falsify ID?

Why are the people pushing abiogenesis/evolution mostly athiests?

They are? Please justify this assertion.

Re:Balance

[Dimensio]

A chimera or pegasus wouldn't falsify evolution. It could just be that we didn't find similar fossils yet. Evolution isn't hurt at all as a hypothesis.

Actually, a chimera -- a REAL chimera, not an assertion of one (I heard of one creationist who insisted that the duck-billed platypus was a chimera) would present real problems for evolution, because there's no proposed mechanism for getting genetic sequences of that type in that order all of a sudden.

You also ignored the issue of an organism radically different from all other organisms. One of the strengths of the theory of evolution is genetic similarity across species. Finding something with DNA radically different than other life forms, especially those morphologically similar to it, would present serious problems for the theory.

Moreover, there's the issue of fossils. If you found a rabbit fossil in precambrian strata, you'd send the theory of evolution toppling on its head.

Likewise, if somebody finds a perfectly reasonable unguided process that could have produced cilia, Dr. Michael Behe's claims in [u]Darwin's Black Box[/u] would be null and void. Evolution would have more explaining power, and ID would have less.

How would this take away from ID's explaining power?

I've seen this line of reasoning before. Somehow ID or creationism would be weakened if it could be demonstrated that certain organism features could come about naturally. This, of course, exposes the full weakness of ID/creationism. First, you're making the mistake of assuming that just because a feature could have come about naturally it means that it must have come about naturally, when in fact the "designer" might have just made it seem that way. Secondly, you're showing that ID is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in argument from incredulity by tossing out evolution, saying "if evolution is false, I can't think of any other explanation, so this one must be true". Logical fallacy. But I'm not surprised, such logical fallacies are common amongst creationists.

Most of the scientists who are supporting unguided evolution could not be religious, because if they were they would be contradicting themselves.

Why?

And what is "unguided evolution"? Explain it in scientific terms.

The most extreme position on evolution mandates that it was the source of all life, and that a creator was not necessary.

No, evolution is not the "source of all life", it is the origin of the species. Evolution can not and does not account for the first life forms. Moreover, it is impossible for any scientific theory to make any statements regarding the existence of a "creator". The claim that evolution outright denies the existence of a creator or even a generic "designer" is an outright, but common, creationist lie.

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

Actually, a chimera -- a REAL chimera, not an assertion of one (I heard of one creationist who insisted that the duck-billed platypus was a chimera) would present real problems for evolution, because there's no proposed mechanism for getting genetic sequences of that type in that order all of a sudden

There's practically no proposed mechanisms for getting just about anything by evolution, even gradually. Nobody's offered any potentially satisfying explaination for how even relatively small jumps in speciation- it mostly amounts to broad explainations at best, hand waving at worst. The appearance of a chimera wouldn't upset anything, because there's simply not enough to upset yet.

Moreover, there's the issue of fossils. If you found a rabbit fossil in precambrian strata, you'd send the theory of evolution toppling on its head.

Something's position in rock isn't an absolute indicator of when it's from. Something horribly catastrophic could have happened to put that rabbit there- we have no clue. Furthermore, first it would have to reexamined if that was really even precambrian strata.

How would this take away from ID's explaining power?

If an entity is unnecessary, a hypothesis whose main point is that the entity is necessary is going to be rather weak.

I've seen this line of reasoning before. Somehow ID or creationism would be weakened if it could be demonstrated that certain organism features could come about naturally. This, of course, exposes the full weakness of ID/creationism. First, you're making the mistake of assuming that just because a feature could have come about naturally it means that it must have come about naturally, when in fact the "designer" might have just made it seem that way. Secondly, you're showing that ID is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in argument from incredulity by tossing out evolution, saying "if evolution is false, I can't think of any other explanation, so this one must be true"

Nobody's saying that ID must be true because evolution doesn't hold up somewhere. ALL ID'ers are trying to say is that there's evidence that doesn't fit the evolution model, but it does fit the ID model. The model already exists, so why not try to fit the data to it? Why do we have to keep waiting for mysterious option #3? Odds are, #3 would still basically be a variant of evolution or ID, because either nature alone can produce the organisms in question or an outside force is required.

And what is "unguided evolution"? Explain it in scientific terms.

Okay, this is the chance for me to ask somebody who might know what to call the people who believe that everything came about through non-supernatural means. I guess I could say "materialism", but that really doesn't get the gist of it. At any rate, I'm always hesitant just to say evolution when I talk about this, because then I get flamed (and rightfully so, I guess) because ID doesn't exclude evolution. It often works to head off evolution at a certain point, because if you find that something couldn't have evolved, well, you have something that says another force had to be involved.

At any rate, to believe that there was no creator and simutaneously believe in a religion that says there is one would be contradictory. That's what I was talking about.

No, evolution is not the "source of all life", it is the origin of the species. Evolution can not and does not account for the first life forms. Moreover, it is impossible for any scientific theory to make any statements regarding the existence of a "creator". The claim that evolution outright denies the existence of a creator or even a generic "designer" is an outright, but common, creationist lie.

Well, then you should be just as PO'ed that people push it as that as I am. Often in science textbooks, the big bang and evolution sandwich a little sliver which glazes over the origin of life. This silent treatment has led so many to think t

Re:Balance

[Dimensio]

The model already exists, so why not try to fit the data to it?

Because science, unlike creationism, doesn't work by assuming a model and attempting to retrofit all data into it. Science comes up with a theoretical model as a result of interpretation of observed data.

Okay, this is the chance for me to ask somebody who might know what to call the people who believe that everything came about through non-supernatural means.

I'm not sure that there is a term for it. My point is that "undirected evolution" is not itself a scientific theory.

Re:Balance

[gollum123]

we do have plenty of evidence for evolution. In science when you propose a model you not only back it up with evidence but also make experimentally verifyable predictions. If you cannot propose any experiment to prove or disprove the predictions then it is not a scientific theory, its mostly considered philosophy. The the contention that all bological sysyems are irreducably complex is simply not correct. for a critique of behe's book see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html. Also finetuning in the universe is no evidence for anything. We do not know if there are other universes out there with different pyhsical constants. Also sicence does not base itself on how much stuff a model can explain, otherwise the model that god created everything as it is, and can do anything explains all things and we do not need any other model. whenever a model is proposed you also propose a series of experiments which will either prove or disprove the model. ID's contention of existance of intelligent creator has no direct experimental way of verification which makes this not scientific but philophical. and ofcourse there is always the question of who is the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator of the creator.......inf.

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

Because science, unlike creationism, doesn't work by assuming a model and attempting to retrofit all data into it. Science comes up with a theoretical model as a result of interpretation of observed data.

It's not like there is no good observed data. It's as simple as "Crap, all this stuff here looks terribly complex, as if somebody created it. Let's make a model that takes this into consideration and see if the data fits it". Evolution did the exact same thing. Folks said, "Crap, these currently living animals look like they have slight modifications from recently extinct animals, and those recently extinct animals look like these even longer extinct animals. Let's make a model that considers that and fit evidence to it."

No set of bones or fossils "writes" the theory. They're just there. Humans make hypothesises that connect the dots together. All evidence has to be retrofitted by virtue that the evidence existed before the model.

Evolutionary study has to assume a model, because no piece of evidence comes even close to demanding a particular model. Same with ID. For both, there's evidence that fits each model, but it could fit another- like the "Space Aliens Put It There" model (which we can actually rather safely dismiss for a variety of compelling reasons). All we can really judge in these areas is each model's explaining power, not whether or not it is correct.

I'm not sure that there is a term for it. My point is that "undirected evolution" is not itself a scientific theory.

That's great. But, when talking to laypeople, I don't think it really matters what is a scientific theory and what's not. What's a popular worldview, or what is the worldview of a particular person is what's important. People don't really care about nomenclature; they care about what they believe or don't believe, and a lot of people believe what I'm talking about, even if the scientific community doesn't address it under a single umbrella. That's what I was refering to.

another point of view

[superbondbond]

For those interested in another point of view, This book has some fascinating information.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

You mis-speak before you even finish your first sentence. The problem for people who cannot accept the process of theory, evidence, new theory is that their position has no foundation upon which to rest. The overwhelming body of evidence does not support their fringe theories. This bothers them to no end so they try to frame evolution as but one "point of view." It is not a point of view, it is a theory that is backed up by a huge body of evidence. Creationism is not an "equal" belief - it is a belief that has no concrete evidence behind it.

Re:another point of view

[sonicattack]

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/

www.timecube.com

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

You think thats interesting, try this: There is no moon.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

"huge body of evidence"

And that would be?

Re:another point of view

[SpamKu]

I agree. Creationism can be benign or malignant. Creationism in its purest form is a matter of faith, not science, and is perfectly legitimate, but completely incompatible with Science. Faith and Science are, IMO, seperate but equal things, and they serve different ends. It's only when some bufoon attempts to mingle the two that real problems begin.

Creation a-la biblical style has its place. For many it can help answer the question of "why am I here?" and "what is the purpose of my life?" Science can explain details of HOW we got here and HOW life is what it is.

In summary:

Science can answer HOWs much more easily than why and is usually better off that way

Faith and Religion can answer WHYs much more easily than HOW and is usually better off that way.

Reasonable men and women of Faiths and and of not may both find this show interesting.

I hope its as good as COSMOS, but considering its just two episodes (I think, as i saw from their website) I think it'll just be "very good."

Re:another point of view

[lpangelrob2]

All right, I'll bite.

What is the problem with alternative explanations for natural phenomena that we observe? The concrete evidence we have is what we can measure, from a strictly scientific point of view. Evolutionary theory puts the pieces together to determine our origin as starting from simple building blocks building up to complex ones, while creationary theory assumes we all started complex and explains the observations from there. People seem to get riled up over the assumption, but I haven't read that many arguments against the explanations (there are a few, I know.)

Looking at Darwin's case study... Not being a biologist, it is hard for me to determine the extent that evolution shapes the animal environment versus natural selection. If you started with a whole bunch of species, it's not too hard to imagine the best species adaptable to their environment sticking around and surviving. I know the evolution argument... that's what I grew up on.

Another hot topic is actually *questioning* carbon dating (gasp!)... what is the accuracy of carbon dating? Would what the site asserts (Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process) be true? I would really appreciate it if people on both sides got more to defending their sides than just saying "This isn't true."

Come on. There's real questions, observations, and theories out there. Stop trying to box the scientific questions that a study of creationism can pose into mere fables. And creationists should stop trying to say that evolution was completely invented either... but you can understand the resistance when that's all that's been taught for the last 40 years.

Re:another point of view

[tweakr]

Creationism is not an "equal" belief - it is a belief that has no concrete evidence behind it.

*shakes head* and so speaks yet another person with a sense of false authority. It's quite apparent that you have never really explored the viewpoints or scientific claims of the creationists, who do indeed have arguments that from a *pure* logical viewpoint have some level of credence. Your assumption is that because they believe in some things which are non-empiracally proveable concepts (such as God), that all of their beliefs or viewpoints/concepts are illogical or non-proveable using modern scientific knowledge, skills or practices - to which I say: grow up.

Of course, why am I suprised at the number of logical fallacies in slashdot comments? Silly me :P

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

A classic example of someone who's never really bothered to KNOW what the creationists claim - if you're going to try to argue against the validity of their claims, AT LEAST HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO DO SOME RESEARCH before you claim absolute knowledge on a subject. Stop regurgitating something that you once read in high school biology...

Dinosaur bones and other fossil evidences are probably one of the most easily explained phenomena, from the creationist point of view, as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...

You don't have to take my word for it - try doing some research on your own (For instance, the AIG 's Q&A page I linked to earlier has a lot of interesting information).

If you're going to try and throw around the weight of your scientific acumen, at least don't bore us with childish and whimsical notions - have the decency back it up with some real information.

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/ [flat-earth.org]

*grins* now we're getting somewhere :)

Re:another point of view

[Alphanos]

On the contrary, there are many arguments in favour of creation or design of life. Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.

While we have numerous examples of change inside species due to evolution, we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another, especially on the scale of micro-organisms evolving into complex creatures such as ourselves. The problem of irreducible complexity, put forward by scientists many years ago, does not any kind of satisfactory answer. Darwinian macroevolution relies upon the idea that evolutionary changes that separate species occur in small, miniscule steps. "Irreducible complexity" is the discovered problem that many aspects of biology that are observed today (impossible to examine in Darwin's time) could not have been evolved in small steps due to the fact that numerous components, with no individual purpose, simultaneously would have had to appear in the correct patterns. This is far from the only evidence that puts evolution into question; although Darwin claimed his theory's lack of evidence would change as more discoveries were made, there is now less evidence for species-to-species macroevolution now than there was when Darwin proposed the theory, due to new discoveries invalidating some of his original evidence.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing. Archaeologists are trying to determine the cause of the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang". Rather than fossil evidence showing slow, gradual changes, the fossils of this time period show that in an extremely short period of time, nearly all major animal body types appeared.

If any of you are interested in science for the sake of objectively discovering the truth, get an opposing viewpoint. Try picking up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator". He briefly goes through about 8 of the major arguments in favour of an intelligent creation of life. He IS biased in favour of creation, but I expect most of you are biased in favour of evolution so it'll work out:).

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, there are many arguments in favour of creation or design of life.

I agree. Unfortunately, none of these arguments have any scientific merit whatsoever.

While we have numerous examples of change inside species due to evolution, we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another, especially on the scale of micro-organisms evolving into complex creatures such as ourselves.

It's really a matter of scale. It is impossible for any one human to live long enough to observe within the timeframe required for such a drastic transformation through successive generations. The creationists seize upon this, and then insist that we can't conclude that the small changes can add up over time to become large changes because...well...because of some imaginary barrier that they've yet to justify.

The problem of irreducible complexity, put forward by scientists many years ago, does not any kind of satisfactory answer.

Obviously you've not been paying attention.

Darwinian macroevolution relies upon the idea that evolutionary changes that separate species occur in small, miniscule steps. "Irreducible complexity" is the discovered problem that many aspects of biology that are observed today (impossible to examine in Darwin's time) could not have been evolved in small steps due to the fact that numerous components, with no individual purpose, simultaneously would have had to appear in the correct patterns.

And I'm sure that you just forgot to include a specific example.

This is far from the only evidence that puts evolution into question; although Darwin claimed his theory's lack of evidence would change as more discoveries were made, there is now less evidence for species-to-species macroevolution now than there was when Darwin proposed the theory, due to new discoveries invalidating some of his original evidence.

Would you mind sparing us the common creationist babble? This is a flat-out lie. We have far more evidence for evolution in the form of the fossil record and DNA studies across species just to name two things. Darwin had never even heard of DNA.

The claim that "no new evidence for evolution has been found since Darwin's time" is an old creationist lie, told either by creation "scholars" who should know better or people who like creationist sound-bytes who don't bother doing any research of their own and thus shouldn't be talking.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

I'd ask for a specific cite, but you did provide one. Except that it's only one, and it's rather vague at that.

Archaeologists are trying to determine the cause of the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang". Rather than fossil evidence showing slow, gradual changes, the fossils of this time period show that in an extremely short period of time, nearly all major animal body types appeared.


Except that it's not "nearly all". It's quite a bit, but not "nearly all". The Cambrian Explosion is not the evolution-killer that creationists want it to be.

If any of you are interested in science for the sake of objectively discovering the truth, get an opposing viewpoint. Try picking up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator". He briefly goes through about 8 of the major arguments in favour of an intelligent creation of life. He IS biased in favour of creation, but I expect most of you are biased in favour of evolution so it'll work out:).

Well, I do hope that he's better at constructing an argument for his position than you.

Re:another point of view

[orthogonal]

Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.

And two of them are biologists.

Real biologists other than the fabulously foolish punctuationalist (and Marxist character assassin of E.O. Wilson) Stephen Jay Gould don't distinguish "macroevolution" from "microevolution". The "Cambrian explosion" is a mere artifact caused because organisms existing before the Cambrian didn't have shells that readily fossilize.

The explanatory power of neo-Darwinism has the potential to finally give us power over our own lives, and predictably, Michael Behe and his ilk are still making the "Argument from Personal Incredulity": "I can't conceive how an eye ^W^W a partial rotor could be favored by natural selection, so, since I can't figure it out, there must be a God ^W^W an Intelligent Designer."

Two hundred years ago William Paley couldn't conceive of how such an instrument of perfection as an eye could be formed by the blind processes of natural selection -- and he had a decent excuse, he lived before Darwin; but today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve, and how even rudimentary and partial eyes can be advantageous to an organism. There's no longer a credible excuse to prefer superstition.

So the "Intelligent Design" crowd waves their hands and says, well, ignore those eyes, but what about free-spinning rotors powering bacterial flagella? What about them? A partial rotor able to rotate through only, say, 180 degrees is still advantageous to any bacterium that needs to move.

Three billion years of evolution gives plenty of time -- and plenty of trials that didn't work out so well, to explain the variety of life of earth.

If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumption is that because they believe in some things which are non-empiracally proveable concepts (such as God), that all of their beliefs or viewpoints/concepts are illogical or non-proveable using modern scientific knowledge, skills or practices - to which I say: grow up.

Ignoring the overall presumptious tone of the previous poster, what's wrong with the statement that creationism is not "equal" to evolution? It is not. Creationism is not science.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another,

You mean, other than the fact that we've seen it happen?

The problem of irreducible complexity,

So far, no one has conclusively shown any biological structure to be irreducibly complex.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

Really? Then please tell me: How do you objectively tell something that was designed from something that wasn't designed?

Re:another point of view

[rodgerd]

What is the problem with alternative explanations for natural phenomena that we observe?

Because they're crap. This isn't a matter of taste, like whether you enjoy Green Day or the Dead Kennedys more. Or do you feel that our understanding of gravity is no more or less valid than the idea that we are kept on the ground by invisible mites who pull us in?

The scientific method allows us to conjecture, observe, test, and accept or reject based on how well our ideas pan out. Anyone willing to make the effort can do this. It works.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...

The data may be empirically collected, but their interpretation of it is crap. A flood would not sort the bones. A flood would not preserve footprints or even allow anything to make fopotprints. A flood would not preserve sand dunes. A flood would not preserve or allow fossilized burrows.

If you're going to try and throw around the weight of your scientific acumen

The people who run answersingeneis have no idea how to do science. If you are soing to try to throw around the weight of your "scientific" acumen, find a better site to quote from.

Re:another point of view

[jbr439]

How did the creator (or intelligent designer, if you prefer) get created? I would imagine that in order for intelligent design to be able to stand up to some reasonable scrutiny that there would have to be a non-mystical answer to this question.

Re:another point of view

[Pig Hogger]

On the contrary, there are many arguments in favour of creation or design of life. Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.

We would like a detailed run-down of scientists who do. Merely pointing out this as a fact will not stand to scientifically minded people.

You are on Slashdot, here, where people are educated and not preaching in front of an ignorant southern baptist congregation in Hicksville, Alabama.

While we have numerous examples of change inside species due to evolution, we have no real evidene to support the proposed theory that one species can evolve into another, especially on the scale of micro-organisms evolving into complex creatures such as ourselves.

If you had stopped five minutes to understand the principle behind evolution, mutations and natural selection, you would not be stating that patently sugar-coated piece of bunk.

The problem of irreducible complexity, put forward by scientists many years ago, does not any kind of satisfactory answer.

Perhaps, just as god is too complex for men to understand, Science and the scientific method are too complex for you to understand?A theory (and Darwin's THEORY of evolution) does not have to yield satisfactory answers. The theory that gives the least unsatisfactory answer is usually the winner. And in the case of Evolution, it makes far more sense if only because it was concocted by learned minds instead of the primitive minds who wrote the bible.

Darwinian macroevolution relies upon the idea that evolutionary changes that separate species occur in small, miniscule steps. "Irreducible complexity" is the discovered problem that many aspects of biology that are observed today (impossible to examine in Darwin's time) could not have been evolved in small steps due to the fact that numerous components, with no individual purpose, simultaneously would have had to appear in the correct patterns.

Many minuscule steps taken over a tremenduously long amount of time will yield quite huge results; witness the difference between a trypanosome and a racoon or a blue whale and a sequoia tree.

This is far from the only evidence that puts evolution into question; although Darwin claimed his theory's lack of evidence would change as more discoveries were made, there is now less evidence for species-to-species macroevolution now than there was when Darwin proposed the theory, due to new discoveries invalidating some of his original evidence.

Yet, no other theory has surfaced that explains evolution better than the theory of evolution.

So, for the time being, it will have to do.

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

We would like a detailed run-down of this, too. Because on Slashdot, you can say so much bunk before being debunked...

Archaeologists are trying to determine the cause of the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang". Rather than fossil evidence showing slow, gradual changes, the fossils of this time period show that in an extremely short period of time, nearly all major animal body types appeared.

How about someting as silly as climate change?

If any of you are interested in science for the sake of objectively discovering the truth, get an opposing viewpoint.

An opposing viewpoint in Science has to be scientific.

It's like saying that the opposite of football is backgammon.

Try picking up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator". He briefly goes through about 8 of the major arguments in favour of an intelligent creation of life. He IS biased in favour of creation, but I expect most of you are biased in favour of evolution so it'll work out:).

And what are this gentlemen's scientific credentials?

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

As mentioned earlier...

The theory of macro-evolution is that more-ordered organisms have evolved from less-ordered organisms over time.

The second law of thermodynamics states that a closed system will move only from a state of more order to less order over time.

Creationism may not be an "equal" belief in your view, but I'm not sure evolution can be considered a "reasonable belief" for anyone who believes in the laws of thermodynamics... one could say that those who espouse evolution without resolving the conflict it has with the laws of thermodynamics are engaging in just as much "junk science" as the creationists.

I might add that we have circumstantial evidence to suggest macroevolution - and quite a lot of it - BUT we have never directly observed a it... however we do have experimental evidence that CAN be observed to back the second law of thermodynamics.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether fitting the "evolution" story to the circumstantial evidence in the face of proof that one of the core assumptions has to be wrong is a valid scientific inquiry. But of course, being educated in multiple fields of science and being able to look at the synergy that exists among them is frowned upon - specialization is what we need in science, today!!!

Maybe neither one is right. Maybe both are right (God created the world and let evolution take its course - or, alternatively, God is the external source of energy that allows evolution to occur in an otherwise closed system). Maybe one or the other is right and not both.

All I know is that I have a hard time accepting the theory of macroevolution and the second law of thermodynamics at the same time. Since I've tested and know thermodynamics works, I know which one of the two I'd junk if I have to pick one.

Re:another point of view

[Pig Hogger]

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:
http://www.flat-earth.org/
www.timecube.com

From Timecube:

Humans exist as CUBICS, not entitie s, for the 4 corner stages of rotating human metamorphosis do not occur at the same time for the individual - except for family Cube. You are educated stupid, indoctrinated evil, and can't even acknowledge that a mother and baby are the same age - on opposite corners of a Cubic Creation Principle - for Truth in Opposites contradict a god entity.

Is this what the british call blokes ???

Re:another point of view

[Pig Hogger]

A classic example of someone who's never really bothered to KNOW what the creationists claim - if you're going to try to argue against the validity of their claims, AT LEAST HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO DO SOME RESEARCH before you claim absolute knowledge on a subject. Stop regurgitating something that you once read in high school biology...

And, I suppose that you have some master's thesis to buttress your blind acceptance of bunk concocted before there was any scientific understanding of the Universe???

In reality, what you do is simply rationalizing the acceptance of a simple explanation of the Universe for the simple-minded and trying to disguise it as a respectable scientific endeavour, in order to attract more gullllible people and manipulate them.

Dinosaur bones and other fossil evidences are probably one of the most easily explained phenomena, from the creationist point of view, as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...

This is funny. If the bible was the blueprint for the Universe, it 'shirley' would have mention of all those things scientists keep discovering every day, no?

Re:another point of view

[AbbyNormal]

Ironically, this is also from PBS. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "extremely short period of time", as the article I read states: "...it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.
".

The article sums up a good deal of what is known by the "explosion" and theories of why it occured (increased oxygen, extinction period prior to the Cambrian period). My favorite topic is that of the "genetic tool kit" formulation.

Just my $0.02....

Re:another point of view

[FlimFlamboyant]

today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve

"We have a computer model"... I've seen this put forth a number of times in this thread now. Well, I have a computer model that allows me to pull a million Gs in a spacefighter! Don't forget that in order to CREATE a computer model, it must be fed with information from an "intelligent" being, who always (whether he's creationist or evolutionist) has a particular bias, so the results of the computer model will invariably reflect the bias of it's designer to a certain degree.

If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.

I could just as easily say that man clings to evolution because he wants the "security" that may come from believing that he will never have to stand before a perfectly righteous God on the basis of his own merit. You can spare us that argument.

Re:another point of view

[king-manic]

I have been through those arguement a lot. Knowing a lot of fundies from being in a baptist congregation. I'd have to say none of them have a single clue about science. The ones who argue for creationism here are more intelllegent but have no idea how ludicrous their arguments sound to 1- a statician 2- a biologist 3- logistician 4- geneticist. I am a little of each and it sounds liek utter BS even though I'm a baptists.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

I could just as easily say that man clings to evolution because he wants the "security" that may come from believing that he will never have to stand before a perfectly righteous God on the basis of his own merit.

Except that you're assuming the existence of a God, and then assuming attributes (and then arrogantly asserting that every example "man" to which you refer already accepts the assumed existence and the attributes). His claim requires no assumed entites, much less assumed attributes therein.

Re:another point of view

[Jormundgandr]

"Well, I do hope that he's better at constructing an argument for his position than you." Well, just to be fair, the guys who writes these books probably does make a better argument than this random guy posting on /.

Re:another point of view

[Saeger]

There's no longer a credible excuse to prefer superstition.

Sure there is: if you decide to turn on your brain and reject age-old stuperstition, you'll be kicked out of the cozy culture club and lose your non-thinking socio-economic networking benfits.

--

Re:another point of view

[Jormundgandr]

"An opposing viewpoint in Science has to be scientific"

Excellent point. Many religious scientists (that I know, ok several) wince whenever "get an opposing viewpoint" comes up on the creationist side, because they know something very important:

Science does not preclude religion.

This common misconception was originated by religious types without a clear understanding of science well before this century and is perpetuated by those same people.

Religious people get frustrated when (and if) they try (and fail) to disprove scientific claims because they're operating on the flawed assumption that their views are diametrically opposed to those held by scientists. Many scientists are religious people too, they simply reconcile their faith with their beliefs (they're different) and move on.

The general precepts of what we consider "modern" science, like evolution and the formation of planets (I think the jury's still out on the Big Bang) only conflict with very specific and limited parts of the Bible/Qu'ran/whatever, usually the parts that deal with the creation of the earth and mankind. I don't think many devout Christians/Muslims/whatever have a real problem with the Laws of Thermodynamics or General Relativity.

And for those of you literalists who won't bother to read past the first sentence... where is Cain's wife from anyway?

Re:another point of view

[jcr]

Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.

Scientists, or Liberty Baptist graduates masquerading as such?

Darwinian macroevolution relies upon the idea that evolutionary changes that separate species occur in small, miniscule steps.

Nope. It describes natural selection as a force driving evolution, making no statement at all about the "size of the steps".

On the other hand, evidence for creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it is increasing.

No, the "evidence" for your mythology is no more or less than it ever was: a bunch of fervent, ignorant people insist that it is the case, because an unattributed book says so. What's increasing is the volume of the verbiage, and the sophistication of your propagandists.

-jcr

Re:another point of view

[jcr]

Two hundred years ago William Paley couldn't conceive of how such an instrument of perfection as an eye could be formed by the blind processes of natural selection -- and he had a decent excuse, he lived before Darwin; but today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve, and how even rudimentary and partial eyes can be advantageous to an organism. There's no longer a credible excuse to prefer superstition.

I'll just mention that the "design" of the mammalian eye, with a blind spot where the optic nerve meets the retina from the front, is an excellent argument against a designer, or at least a competent designer. Compare to the eyes of squid and other mollusks, which have no blind spot.

-jcr

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course, being educated in multiple fields of science and being able to look at the synergy that exists among them is frowned upon - specialization is what we need in science, today!!!

To: anyone reading the parent

From: a scientist

The above is completely wrong. Cross-discipline expertise is encouraged strongly, and most research is at least partly interdisciplinary. Someone who knew what they were talking about would know that. Judge parent's credibility accordingly.

Re:another point of view

[orthogonal]

I'll just mention that the "design" of the mammalian eye, with a blind spot where the optic nerve meets the retina from the front, is an excellent argument against a designer, or at least a competent designer. Compare to the eyes of squid and other mollusks, which have no blind spot.

If I were a theologian, I'd say that means tat man evolved, but God created squid and mollusks in His own eight-armed image.

(Yes, I know, it's actually octopuses that have eight arms, but it's funnier to phrase it that way.)

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

A common creationist answer to any claim that a function of human physiology is inefficient and points to an incompetent designer if it were designed is to claim that the Fall resulted in a degredation of our genetic code which led to such inefficiencies.

The second most common answer is "Oh yeah! Well, you're not as smart as God, so I'll take His word that He did the best job that He could do!"

Never try using logic on a rabid creationist.

Re:another point of view

[Billy Donahue]

Blind spot: "The Choice"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0100/0100_01.a sp

No blind spot: "Who Will Be Eaten First?"
http://www.howardhallis.com/bis/cthulhuchick/

Goddamn it the Cthulu tract has been C&D'ed!!
Ack!

Re:another point of view

[Chris Mattern]

> What is the problem with alternative explanations for natural phenomena that we observe?

Absolutely nothing. When the available evidence will admit of more than one explanation, it is wise to keep all possible explanations in mind. The problem comes when you have one explanation that is shaped to fit the evidence, and another explanation that attempts to shape the evidence to fit itself.

> but you can understand the resistance when that's all that's been taught for the last 40 years.

Indeed I can. It is difficult to realize the truth you have been brought up on is a fable. But that does not mean we turn our backs on the truth to make the fabulists feel better.

Chris Mattern

Re:another point of view

[Oligonicella]

"The problem of irreducible complexity, put forward by scientists many years ago, does not any kind of satisfactory answer."

I'll have to interpret, as the sentence doesn't actually make sense. Irreducible complexity is an argument from personal incredulity. If there was no problem, by the way, why have the IC'rs been forced from the eye, to the retina, to the pigments, to the smaller and smaller, every time investigation has provided evidence that IC is crap?

"...numerous components, with no individual purpose..."

See above. The components, unfortunately for IC'rs always show individual purpose. Too bad.

"Archaeologists are trying to determine the cause of the Cambrian explosion, or "biological big bang"."

First, glad you showed your ignorance. Archaelolgists care not for the Cambrian, Paleontologists do. Second, there was no "explosion". The Cambrian was when hard parts developed and the fossil record "exploded" because of that. If you look earlier, say in the Burgess Shales, you find the soft-bodied precursors to the Cambrian animals. Read more.

Re:another point of view

[Oligonicella]

"The theory of macro-evolution is that more-ordered organisms have evolved from less-ordered organisms over time."

Ehhhhhhh. This is your problem. That is not a true statement, witness many parasites.

Re:another point of view

[radtea]

The problem with this is that the claim "evolution might be false" does not have anything to do with the claim "Christian creationism might be true".

Any number of details of current evolutionary theory might be wrong. There may even be cases where for some reason evolution doesn't occur at all, or where a species was created by the intervention of forces other than variation and natural selection. Humans may actually soon have the ability to design organisms, for example, so we'll have instances of organisms that were not (entirely) produced by evolution. O wait, we already do--they're called domestic animals, and were much studied by some guy named Darwin.

But none of this would add any weight to the claim that Christian creationism might be true. That is, critiquing existing explanations is unrelated to justifying alternative explanations, except that it "opens the field" to an infinite number of alternative hypotheses.

So even if we were able to show that evolution through variation and natural selection simply did not occur, we would have no way of deciding, on that basis alone, that the world was made by YHWH or Chronos or Mazda or Marduk.

--Tom

Re:another point of view

[FlimFlamboyant]

Except that you're assuming the existence of a God

And he's assuming that there is no God, and that we all crawled out of a pond of primal soup. Either way, we all begin with a presumption, and everything we attempt to prove with science beyond that point (when it comes to this particular issue) is influenced by that.

His claim requires no assumed entites

Has anyone actually, without a shadow of a doubt, aside from any theories, proven that there was a "Big Bang"? Who was there to observe it? Who was there to collect scientific data while it occured? To this day, even amongst the most staunch evolutionists, it is still labeled a theory, and therefore, he in fact most certainly does begin with a presumption; one that, from his perspective, may or may not be accurate.

I've had evolutionists tell me, when confronted with all of the flip-flopping that has taken place on this subject, that science is "always in a state of flux". Why is that? Because what they call "science" is based largely upon theory, and not upon solid fact. Since they weren't there to actually witness the event, they begin with a presumption, and work backwards from the present day in an attempt to prove the theory. When they finally discover that their initial theory, their initial presumption couldn't possibly work, they fabricate another theory, and try again.

No one in recorded history has ever witnessed life spring out of a pool of dead goop, even under the most tightly controlled environments. The whole "primal soup" theory, therefore, is just that; a theory, a presumption.

Re:another point of view

[Dimensio]

And he's assuming that there is no God

You'll have to define this "God" first before it has meaning.

You're the one assuming an entity. The burden of proof is upon you to show that it exists, not upon him to show that it does not.

and that we all crawled out of a pond of primal soup.

I don't recall him saying that.

Either way, we all begin with a presumption, and everything we attempt to prove with science beyond that point (when it comes to this particular issue) is influenced by that.

Er, no. Science starts with one single assumption: the properties of the natural universe are consistent and unchanging. That's it. Everything else is a conclusion.

I understand that it's common for creationists to assume that evolution, abiogenesis and other non-theistic explanations for various origins is part of a vast conspiracy to push your God out of the picture, but you're just going to have to let go of your paranoia. Science has concluded what it has concluded because that's where the evidence points so far, not because it's trying to "prove" that all gods are nonexistent.

Has anyone actually, without a shadow of a doubt, aside from any theories, proven that there was a "Big Bang"?

No theory is science is ever proven. Your question is meaningless.

I've had evolutionists tell me, when confronted with all of the flip-flopping that has taken place on this subject, that science is "always in a state of flux".

It would be because science is ready to admit that it's wrong at any moment, and it must be ready to reshape itself should contradictory evidence come to light, unlike religion which tends to stay exactly the same no matter how often or how thorougly it is refuted by observed reality.

Because what they call "science" is based largely upon theory, and not upon solid fact.

And if I had a nickel for every time a creationist misused the word "theory"...

Since they weren't there to actually witness the event, they begin with a presumption, and work backwards from the present day in an attempt to prove the theory.

You are confusing science with creationism. Scientists observe the natural universe. The Big Bang is a conclusion borne out from observations of the universe, not a starting "guess" to which they have tried to retrofit all observations.

Again, I understand that this comes from the "conspiracy theory" mindeset that a lot of creationists seem to have. You'll just have to understand that we're not all out to destroy your religion, and we really can't help it when the universe doesn't conform to your holy text.

When they finally discover that their initial theory, their initial presumption couldn't possibly work, they fabricate another theory, and try again.

Again, you fail to understand the meaning of the word "theory". The best that they could fabricate is a hypothesis, and it would be discarded quickly if tests didn't bear out predictions that it made.

No one in recorded history has ever witnessed life spring out of a pool of dead goop, even under the most tightly controlled environments.

You're correct. So thus far abiogenesis is unobserved. Note that this has no bearing on the theories regarding the formation of the universe, nor does it have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

The whole "primal soup" theory, therefore, is just that; a theory, a presumption.

Wrong. It's not a theory, it's still in the hypothesis stage. That you continue to misuse terms indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak.

Re:another point of view

[FlimFlamboyant]

You're the one assuming an entity. The burden of proof is upon you to show that it exists, not upon him to show that it does not.

Of course I'm assuming entity. And I never asked him to prove to me otherwise. I'm simply expressing my convictions on this issue. Take it or leave it. I feel no "burden" to prove anything. You can't prove anything to someone who isn't willing to accept it, anyway. In fact, your own defense relieves me of any burden (if there ever was one) of having to prove anything:

No theory i[n] science is ever proven.

If science doesn't have to prove anything to me, then I don't have to prove anything to it.

The Big Bang is a conclusion borne out from observations of the universe, not a starting "guess" to which they have tried to retrofit all observations.

Like, "How did I get here? Well, the Bible says that God created all of this, but I don't believe that nonsense, so I'll have to come up with my own conclusion!"

That you continue to misuse terms indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of what you speak.

Since we're going to get particular about terminology, let's review the three main stages of scientific "study", listed from the least reliable to the most reliable:

Hypothesis:

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

Example: Abiogenesis, as you had mentioned.

Theory:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

How in the world the "Big Bang" is granted the status of "theory" in light of this definition is beyond me. It sounds more like definition #6 (according to dictionary.com):

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Then finally, the next and highest rung of the scientific ladder: Law:

A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

Another example being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states, concerning the law of entropy: "in any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase.", which, ironically, refutes every hypothesis/theory of evolution out there. The question the evolutionist needs to ask himself is: "which am I going to disregard? The law of Thermodynamics, or the theories and hypothesis surrounding evolution/The "Big Bang"/etc.?"

Re:another point of view

[Dimensio]

Like, "How did I get here? Well, the Bible says that God created all of this, but I don't believe that nonsense, so I'll have to come up with my own conclusion!"

That is a perfect example of how creationists wrongly believe that theories such as the Big Bang come about.

How in the world the "Big Bang" is granted the status of "theory" in light of this definition is beyond me.

The Big Bang theory makes, through its stating of the events that it claims occured, predictions regarding the nature of the universe that have, thus far, borne out through testing.

Another example being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states, concerning the law of entropy: "in any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase.", which, ironically, refutes every hypothesis/theory of evolution out there. The question the evolutionist needs to ask himself is: "which am I going to disregard? The law of Thermodynamics, or the theories and hypothesis surrounding evolution/The "Big Bang"/etc.?"

You are aware that "Law" in science is not in a heirarchy above "theory", correct? Laws are not "advanced theories" and theories never graduate to law.

Moreover, why are you bringing up the Laws of Thermodynamics here? Are you one of those people who asserts, despite constant refutation, that certain established scientific theories violate the second law of thermodynamics?

Re:another point of view

[FlimFlamboyant]

Are you one of those people who asserts, despite constant refutation, that certain established scientific theories violate the second law of thermodynamics?

Yes, and if I may break out my smart-aleck hat for a moment; by your own admission in an earlier post ("no theory in science is ever proven"), you cannot "refute" it:

refute

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.

One of them has to go. Either everyhing in a closed system becomes more disorderly, and the big bang is bunk, or the bing bang created a crapload of order out of disorder, and the law of entropy is bunk. You just can't have it both ways.

Re:another point of view

[Dimensio]

One of them has to go. Either everyhing in a closed system becomes more disorderly, and the big bang is bunk, or the bing bang created a crapload of order out of disorder, and the law of entropy is bunk. You just can't have it both ways.

Either that, or your understanding of the statements of Big Bang theory are in error. IE, the Big Bang theory does not claim that the Big Bang resulted in order from chaos. Rather, the singularity from which everything spring was an incredibly ordered setup, and everything became more and more disordered from there.

Re:another point of view

[ezeri]

Wow, if you think you have an understanding of gravity, theres a Nobel Prize coming your way, because as of now there is none. Gravity just is, thats why it has the mysterious name "force" associated with it, because thats all we know, that it exists, and to a good extent what behavior it will cause, but no one has anything other than ideas as to how it works.

I hope this is good!

[Banner]

There hasn't been a good NOVA series on in a while, especially not on Cosmology. I have my hopes up for this one...

Re: I hope this is good!

[Black Parrot]

> There hasn't been a good NOVA series on in a while, especially not on Cosmology.

ISTM that NOVA now offers "human interest" stories about scientists, rather than actual science programs.

> I have my hopes up for this one...

I'm going to watch it, but I'm not getting my hopes up. A few years ago PBS did a miniseries on evolution, and though it included some interesting stuff (like the film of two flatworms trying to bonk each other) it came across like a clip show, without any clear structure or focus.

Re:I hope this is good!

[AceCaseOR]

> There hasn't been a good NOVA series on in a while, especially not on Cosmology. I have my hopes up for this one...

What about their episodes on String Theory (The Amazing Universe or something like that)? I found it very, very interesting. Unfortunatly I didn't have a spare tape, so I couldn't record it.

They also had an interesting program (although I don't think it was part of NOVA) following a geneticist as he tracked the paths of human migration across the world.

Re:I hope this is good!

[LurkerXXX]

Forgot to tape it?

Watch it online then...

The Elegant Universe

Re:I hope this is good!

[d474]

Did you see Brian Green host Elegant Universe? That was an amazing show. I'm reading his book by the same title and it is blowing my mind away. Just when I thought I had a firm grip on how the Universe worked, he explains concepts that really are...almost psychedelic. Fun stuff.

Re:I hope this is good!

[Banner]

Yeah, I forgot about the string one, it was good too.

Feh...

[Pig Hogger]

Expect the southern baptists to raise hell about it...

Re:Feh...

[DAldredge]

No, they are too busying trying to get drinking made illegal. Guess they need to read the Bible. ;->

Re:Feh...

[berkut7]

I don;t see why they would be trying to do that. Nobody forces anyone to drink, and they can choose not to drink, and do so. Besides, if it's illigal in no longer can be a trial of someone's faith...

Re:Feh...

[Just Some Guy]

Why would I? I'm only upset that I didn't find out in time to Tivo it so I could watch it with my kids.

D'oh! Another stupid Slashdot prejudice busted!

Re:Feh...

[Pig Hogger]

Since you admit being a southern baptist, what's with them to be so hateful busybodies????

That's all very interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...But will they solve the riddle of why two socks go into the dryer and only one comes out?

Re: That's all very interesting...

[Black Parrot]

> ...But will they solve the riddle of why two socks go into the dryer and only one comes out?

It's a Thunderdome kind of thing: "Two socks enter, one sock leaves!"

Re:That's all very interesting...

[Nos.]

Don't look too deep into that one...
Remember Rory Tate, circle researcher?

Re:That's all very interesting...

[Zerbey]

They're Most likely:

1. On the floor in front of the dryer.
2. Still in the washer.
3. On your bedroom floor.

Or less likely:

1. Inside your dryer, between the drum and the outer casing
2. On a planet inhabited by strange aliens with an obsession for socks.

Now, what I want to know is where all the biros go.

Re:That's all very interesting...

[everklear]

All dryers made in the last 40 years have a built-in sock shredder.

Where do you think all that "lint" comes from?

I expect "Origins" to devote at least a little screen time to exposing this little-known fact.

Re: That's all very interesting...

[Kehvarl]

That was the first thing I thought of as well. Perhaps I've watched the Road Warrior's movies a few times too many.

Re:That's all very interesting...

[Tablizer]

...solve the riddle of why two socks go into the dryer and only one comes out?

According to Hawking's, one sock reappears inside a black hole to conserve total mass. He bet his entire collection of Hines underwear on that theory.

Re:That's all very interesting...

[patonw]

They're Most likely:

1. On the floor in front of the dryer.
2. Still in the washer.
3. On your bedroom floor.

4. A new form of fusion that supplements the power output of a washing machine Matrix.

Re:That's all very interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

My fav theory involoving disappearing and/or reappearing socks in a dryer say that socks, by some freak of nature, can take on the form of lint (in the lint trap) then during a future drying cycle will change back into a sock... been awhile since I read the actual theory... was much like the dark sucker theory (if you are familiar with that :-)

Re:That's all very interesting...

[evilviper]

why two socks go into the dryer and only one comes out?

Ah, a quantum physics question...

Both socks exist inside the dryer in various states. It is only when you observe them that one ceases to exist in this current dimention.

Because of the uncertainty priciple, there is no way to know if it will be several socks of the same type that disappear, or one sock of each different type. Sometimes an even number will disappear, but they will be of different types. Leaving you with pairs of socks that don't quite match.

Einstein was working on designing a quantum washing machine that would solve this problem, but he made a mistake in his calculations, and made the first atomic bomb instead.

These are all well-documented facts of course, that you can read about in most history books...

Re:That's all very interesting...

[Filmwatcher888]

That's because they battle to the Death!

Thunderdome: Two Socks enter, One Sock leaves!

Things like this...

[nebaz]

make me glad we still have Public Television. Sure, we have things like the Discovery Channel, but even that suite of networks has been taken over by ratings. I've noticed that the most recent documentaries are somewhat shallow, and sound bite driven. The Learning Channel used to be great, seems like all they have on now are wedding planner shows and interior decorating. What does that have to do with learning? I'm not claiming PBS is the greatest channel in the world, but at least they still value education.

Re:Things like this...

[Ayaress]

Discovery doesn't do anything like this anymore. Take a look at their lineup. Lots of good shows (American Chopper, Mythbusters, etc), but not a lot of science anymore. They're dominated right now by home decorating and gearhead shows, with a few crime investigation shows thrown in for the CSI crowd. Heck, Mythbusters is probably one of their most scientific shows still on the air. I suppose its better than a few years ago when they were big on the occult and pseudoscience (how many times did they have to rerun half-assed alient abduction documentaries, for crying out loud?), but if you want science, technology, history, or even philosophy, it's not the place to go.

Re:Things like this...

[homebrewmike]

Folks who like PBS should remember that when pledge week comes rolling around. The ultra-conservatives have their designs on shutting PBS down by yanking funding.
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_support.html/
(it'd be a good thing if pbs's pledge site was /.'d)

Re:Things like this...

[Ayaress]

How would it be a good thing? Or are you one of those ultra conservatives you say are so keen on shutting down PBS? Anyway, they get money from me every time pledges roll around. It gets split up, though. I usually pick a few shows I like pledge a bit for each one, and then look at my tuition bill and see that I pay a $250 media fee that goes to the university's PBS station WFUM and feel a bit better about only having $25-30 to donate.

Re:Things like this...

[berkut7]

My teacher said once that he decided to donate to PBS (OPB here), soon he started recieving junk mail. It was privacy&technology class, btw.

Re:Things like this...

[deglr6328]

I want to donate to my local PBS station so they can pay for showings of really good shows like the one descibed here, I really do. But when "pledge week" comes around what do I see on 24 hours a friggin day? Yes, that's right, Depak fucking Chopra and chorus line of other pseudoscientific wooly headed psychics, new agers and "inner peace" practitioners. All with the mantra of "well we get high viewership numbers when we show these things...". I'm sorry but until they get their head out of thier ass and realize that I watch PBS for the shows which are scientific, logical, rational and INTERESTING they will not be getting my money.

Re:Things like this...

[d474]

Yeah, the Discovery Channel followed a similar fate as MTV: Started out with strictly music videos to a channel filled with everything but, so they started MTV2.

Discovery Channel, started out with a lot of interesting shows revolving around science, to a channel filled with everything but, so they started "Discovery Science Channel".

IMHO, Discovery should change their name to the Hobby Channel.

Re:Things like this...

[aggiefalcon01]

That's something I've been annoyed about for some time. Just how many variations on "a group of people invade your house and redecorate/reorganize!" or "a group of people make a car really cool" or "a group of people make a wacky machine".

That or, "A Makeover Story" followed by "A Dating Story" followed by "A Wedding Story" followed by "A Baby Story". For grins, I've often wanted to make "An Eating Story" to be followed by "A Taking-a-Big-Dump Story".

I'd love to watch programs detailing the power creation & management of the Mars Rovers (or the Voyagers, for that matter). Hell, NASA TV nowadays, half the time you turn it on and it's dumbed-down Jerry-Springer style crap.

Re:Things like this...

[evilviper]

It's true that the former quality channels have sold out (or rather, been bought out and corrupted) but PBS isn't exactly the solution.

PBS is a strange animal, in that they have absolutely no incentive to encourage you to watch. If not for this /. story, I wouldn't have even known it was on. And to make matters worse, I can't even figure out their listings. It's obvious when it first airs, but then there are 3 more episodes of NOVA in the next week, and for the life of me, I can't figure out what's what. Are they all repeats of this, are they different? The listings are completely conflicted, and nosensical.

This isn't the only time I had problems like this with PBS. Their schedule changes at a whim, and they don't even try to tell the viewers. Make it a habbit to watch Frontline, in it's time-slot every week, and you've got your work cut out for you. Sure, you'll see it 2 or 3 times, then it will suddenly be a different show. Maybe the week after it will be Frontline again, and then Frontline with disappear from the airwaves COMPLETELY for a month, and there will be entirely random things in it's place.

I mention Frontline because that's bothered me the most, but all of their programming has the same problems, to a lesser degree. For instance, while all Nova shows for the past couple months have been 1 hour, this one is 2 hours, plus it (might be) multiple parts, and you can't just tune-in next week and see the next part, you need to hunt it down, and remember to tune in at it's awkward time, just to see if it is or isn't a repeat of the same thing.

Frankly, commercially/supported television is still the way to go. There just need to be higher standards, and tearing down of monopolies... They find it cheaper to buy-out good TV channels and run them into the ground, rather than compete with them... Capitolism just doesn't work in that senario, and the government isn't doing a damn thing to help solve the problem.

Re:Things like this...

[homebrewmike]

> How would it be a good thing? Or are you one
> of those ultra conservatives you say are so
> keen on shutting down PBS?

Good point. It's a moral dilema that face each time I pledge - if they get money to stay afloat, that encourages the far right to chop funding even more: "See, people are willing to pick up the tab." On the other hand, I'd hate to loose it: despite the "moral values" that the right keeps spewing, Fox News has no decent programming for little kids (and if they do, you'll get ads for stuff like Cops.) The rest of the networks aren't any better. (CBS: We'll be right back to Dora, but first, a message from the latest "Reality TV")

> that I pay a $250 media fee that goes to the
> university's PBS station WFUM
A U student? And pledging? Good for you. Hey, if you're already paying the $250 fee, then you're in the right to hold back. The PBS people say "give what you can."

Re:Things like this...

[homebrewmike]

> Yes, that's right, Depak fucking Chopra
Funny story, that - the station manager of one of the local PBS stations here said he hates running that tripe - moreover, the call volume for that was 0 - no one pledged during that time.

But, I concur - pledge week sucks, and they do seem to run more "arts" stuff during that time. Still, that's a bit in alignment with what this is about: you wouldn't see that on the networks.

One thing we can count on in our area is the Joe Campbell stuff during pledge week, so it's not all bad...

Space, the Infinite Universe

[Cyno01]

"It's a simple question, if the moon were made of ribs ... would ya eat it? ...I know I would."

Re:Space, the Infinite Universe

[Frogbert]

You know if space is indeed infinite then, statisticaly at least, some moon out there is actually made of ribs. Hot ones. With BBQ sauce.

Re:Space, the Infinite Universe

[Epistax]

Let's say something has a 50% chance of happening, and you try to make it happen twice. There's a 75% chance it will happen.

Now let's say something has a 25% chance of happening and you try to make it happen four times. There's a .75^4 chance it won't happen. That's a 68% chance it will happen.

One more time let's say there's a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of something happen which is tried 1,000,000 times. There's a (999,999/1,000,000)^1,000,000 chance it won't happen. That's a 63% chance it will happen.

You can see where this is going I wager? If there is a 1/infinity chance of something happening, and it is tried an infinite number of times, it won't necessarily happen. Now when you throw in the fact that it isn't even truely random, you can probably come to the conclusion that it will not happen.

"evolutionary foolishness"?

[apachetoolbox]

"Statements by Non-creationist Scientists -- Even they do not believe evolutionary foolishness"

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buried dino bones could be explained by a large flood and the resulting sediment covering whatever used to breath air. Which also lays down the necessary conditions for fossilization.

Creation by God? Hey, it could have happened. (I believe it did.)

The theory that we evolved? Now that is implausible. (you do the math.)

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution has little to do with math (statistics)...If the conditions hadn't been just right for us to rise from the goo, then we wouldn't be here to argue the math. :)

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it couldn't have happened. (Hey, that was easy!)

The theory that we evolved? The math shows that evolution is extremely likely!

Ever think how lucky we were to be put on a planet with exactly the right conditions for life? What are the odds! /sarcasm

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[apachetoolbox]

Buried dino bones could be explained by a large flood and the resulting sediment covering whatever used to breath air. Which also lays down the necessary conditions for fossilization.

And thats one of the biggest problems with religous nuts and evolution, they critize the scientific method without understanding it. It's like arguing with a 3 year old that eating candy all day is bad. No a flood couldn't account for the dino extinction, even a million floods couldn't, lets ignore the fact that floods on that scale would leave evidance.

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Yunzil]

Buried dino bones could be explained by a large flood and the resulting sediment covering whatever used to breath air.

How did the large flood know to sort the bones so that, eg, we never find a Cretaceous dinosaur in the Cambrian layers?

Why can we find fossilized tracks in these layers that were under hundreds of feet of water?

Why can we find what are essentially fossilized wind-blown sand dunes mixed in the layers laid down by the flood?

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Tsiangkun]

Assuming the Bible to be true . . .

When the "large flood" occured, what happened to all of the plant life than could not survive immersion in water ? Did Noah bring two of each plant on board too ? Where did the incredible variety of plants come from ?

When the large flood expanded the oceans across the entire earth, how did the aquatic animals adjust to the changing salt concentrations in the water ? Were the aquatic animals aboard the arc too ? When did animals loose this incredible ability to adapt instantaneously to drastic environmental changes.

How did they keep the last two lions from eating the last two gazelles when they were released from the boat ?

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Pig Hogger]

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

In those times, days lasted a billion years each... :) :) :)

Re: "evolutionary foolishness"?

[Black Parrot]

> Buried dino bones could be explained by a large flood and the resulting sediment covering whatever used to breath air. Which also lays down the necessary conditions for fossilization.

How about the pattern of the bones in the sediment?

> The theory that we evolved? Now that is implausible. (you do the math.)

What math is that, then?

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The universe was really created 30 seconds ago. It was just initialized to look like it's billions of years old.

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking around... Yep. I see the evidence.

only see half of it..

[martin]

as I'm only in LA till Wed 8pm when my plane leaves for the UK..

Oh well, will prob be on in the UK in a few months anyhow..

Re:only see half of it..

[Visceral Monkey]

You should be able to find in on torrent sites like suprnova.org within a few days.

Re:only see half of it..

[dborod]

It's been a few days now and it doesn't appear to have shown up on any torrent sites yet.

Too bad for them...

[meheler]

The effects will be great, no doubt. Too bad the science behind most of what they'll say is bunk.

Re:Too bad for them...

[HexaByte]

Not completely. The last Big Bang I was involved in did create life. That's how my daughter was created! ;->

Re:Too bad for them...

[meheler]

LOL. Touché.

I'll be watching all four episodes on both nights of this series with interest. I recommend people with open, objective, skeptical, scientific minds to follow the links I mentioned above. Get a grasp for what they're telling you, then watch the series.

It's not your fault if you feel a little mislead. :)

Re:Too bad for them...

[greymond]

too bad I don't know anyone who gives a flying fuck enough to watch it....

Re:Too bad for them...

[Jormundgandr]

It's just a theory guys, like the other ones. Sure I think holographic theory and some of the others are cool too, but you need to watch out for all the "the establishment doesn't believe in my work" lines those guys throw out. Seriously, holographic theory made the cover of Scientific American last year. So don't go calling a popular theory with a lot of evidence behind it "misinformation". It may turn out to be wrong in the end, but the people putting it on aren't trying to mislead anyone.

Re:Too bad for them...

[meheler]

And you need to listen to their science. "The establishment doesn't believe my work" is an asinine blanket statement that shows you haven't even done a modicum of research. This isn't pseudo-science, this is real science trying to find the light of day.

At the very least, the big bang theory has been thoroughly falsified, yet it's still clung to like a christian clergy clings to the bible.

Re:Too bad for them...

[Jormundgandr]

Yeah...

You're ignoring what I said. "real science trying to find the light of day"? I never said these theories aren't real science.

As I said before, holographic theory was on the COVER of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. That's not exactly buried where no one can see it.

Books continue to be published on plasma theory. Where's the supression?

Try reading your parent post before griping about research.

Re:Too bad for them...

[Oligonicella]

Went there, read that. Interest. Right up until the Earth born from Saturn part. I am quite versed in ancient legend and nowhere have I found any indication that Ra, Sol and Helios were at one time references to Saturn. Seemed to jump into a personal religion at that point.

tv torrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the tv torrent sites pick this up.
VCR died earlier this year :(

This is part of the reason I like /.

[SpamKu]

because I get to find out about interesting stuff like this which I might not normally be exposed to.

correction for stupid mistake:

[Ayaress]

Mythbusters is probably one of the most scientific shows still on Discovery, not on the air. PBS and a couple other channels still have good science, and I hear Discovery has a science spin-off channel, but my carrier doesn't offer it.

I recommend:

[eBayDoug]

Recording this show and watching it during each Presidential debate. You will become an astrophysicisist, and well the new President will be, ahhh....., well....., new.

believe it or not

[hdd]

i actually first saw this news on CNN, they had a brief interview with one of the producers this afternoon. oh and the second part of the series will be aired tomorrow on PBS at the same time...ahr they really got nothing better on PBS? Didn't have that purple dragon for a while?

HDTV?

[Sponge Bath]

I checked my listings and it is playing on the PBS HD channel in Austin (KLRU). Does anyone know if the content is HD? I can't find that detail on the station's web site.

Re:HDTV?

[AceCaseOR]

It is. PBS has been broadcasting all it's big specials and programs in HD these days (National Geographic Specials, Nova, Nature, etc.).

Re:HDTV?

[AGTiny]

I think it's only in widescreen SD. :( I'm DVR'ing it anyway though, looks like it will be cool.

Related Book

[nacturation]

I just finished reading Bill Bryson's A Brief History of Nearly Everything which covers just about the exact same topics. It starts out with the creation of the universe, and works itself forward in the timeline, covering formation of the planet, early life, cambrian explosion, etc. until it ends up with the advent of homo sapien. Not a bad read.

Re:Related Book

[spin2cool]

My favorite passage from that book goes something like this (paraphrased):

"Hold out your arms as wide as you can, and let that represent the entire history of the Earth. With a single swipe of a fingernail file, you could erase all of human history (and more!)"

That was a great book, if you're really into science. Others might find it a little dry - it's not his typical brand of humor. "Walk in the Woods", also by Bryson is a fabulous book.

Re:Related Book

[musicon]

I had heard about the great reviews of this book, and snatched it up a while ago. I ended up struggling through it not because of the content, but because of the many misprints, typos, and grammar mistakes.

So, the book itself is worth reading, but I'd recommend waiting for the second printing.

Re:I dont have enough faith to be an atheist

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope I speak for everyone when I say: SHUT UP.

Any "science" that requires "faith" isn't real science. Maybe you shouldn't listen to the remarks of every "scientist," because they are just people. Just because they said something doesn't mean it represents science.

Don't be an ignorant ass.

Ha ha ha, you see, because

[Syncdata]

...all us religious types are uptight Dean Wermer lookalikes who shake our fists at this "science" and "methodology" you crazy kids talk about nowadays.

Read "Inherit the Wind". I'm a catholic, and I have no problem rectifying evolution and the big bang with creationism. Something had to set those events into motion neh? Could it not have been grand design?
Offtopic, I know, but I'll be tuning in, and I doubt I will suffer any theological distress over such scary topics as chemistry and astrophyics.

In the future, try to be as tolerant as you would undoubtedly have your in-laws be.

Re:Ha ha ha, you see, because

[Pig Hogger]

I'm a catholic, and I have no problem rectifying evolution and the big bang with creationism. Something had to set those events into motion neh?

So, you mean to say that the Big Bang was god's fart?

Re:Ha ha ha, you see, because

[operagost]

How did a twelve-year-old boy get a low Slashdot id?

LOL!!!!!!111 GOD FARTED!!!111

Re:Ha ha ha, you see, because

[superyooser]

Listen to this little chat about why such "rectifying" is bad for Christianity.

Re:Ha ha ha, you see, because

[Anonymous Coward]

you're on /. and you pull out AiG? Good grief...
Every time I read stuff from AiG "defending" the Bible, I get the distinct impression that they've never actually READ the Bible.

Andy Knoll

[evenprime]

I'm really looking forward to hearing Andy Knoll's comments about the origin of life.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

Re:Andy Knoll

[rfc2196]

Reading the page on Andy Knoll's views on the origins of life and evolution, how could someone conclude that this is science and not merely opinion? Based on the number of times he says "I/we don't know," "I guess," "I imagine," etc., I would say his ideas are more religious evolution than any science. Here are some examples from the page:

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet."

"But one definition that I kind of like says..."

"...so one has to imagine that..."

"...you might have placed your bets either way."

"So I can imagine that on a primordial Earth..."

"...but we remain in substantial ignorance."

"We don't know whether life is..."

"So it's a hard question to answer. I think the way I'd be most comfortable thinking about it is..."

"My guess is that it either happens or it doesn't."

"I think that there's less confidence that we're really going to be able to identify a specific historical route by which life emerged..."

"That's why we think that..."

"Well, we don't know how hard it is to go from the simplest bricks, if you will, in the wall of life to something that is complicated, like a living bacterium."

"My guess is it's not too hard."

"The hard part, and the part that I think nobody has quite figured out yet, is how you get them working together."

"I'm not sure we've gotten very far down the road to understanding how that really happens."

"...at this point we still don't know which of these pathways ultimately will thread us through the maze and which end up in a blind alley."

"If we try to summarize by just saying what, at the end of the day, do we know about the deep history of life on Earth, about its origin, about its formative stages that gave rise to the biology we see around us today, I
think we have to admit that we're looking through a glass darkly here."

"We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances."

"I don't know. I imagine my grandchildren will still be sitting around saying that it's a great mystery..."

spoiler: how the mini-series ends...

[donutz]

*********
spoiler warning! do not read below. If you do, you'll be disappointed that you already know how the show will end before you've even seen it. Well now that we're able to get past the lameness filter, here's the answer (scroll down...)
*********
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Answer: 42

Re:spoiler: how the mini-series ends...

[d474]

Do you mean this 42 is the answer?

Well, the fact that creationists survive

[Anonymous Coward]

proves Darwin wrong.

"creation of the planets"?

[ChipMonk]

Doesn't that imply a Creator?

Oh, you're talking about the formation of the planets!

Re:"creation of the planets"?

[Steven.Brady]

Doesn't that imply a Creator?

Oh, you're talking about the formation of the planets!

Ahhh... but doesn't that imply a formationator of the planets?

Oh, you're talking about the congealment of the planets!

Re:"creation of the planets"?

[king-manic]

Stalagtite formation doesn't imply a creator. Why would the formaiton of planetS? Although I am christian and religious I find fundies strikingly ignorant of science.

Re:"creation of the planets"?

[ChipMonk]

Precisely my point. The terminology was making unintended implications.

BTW, I disagree sharply with many fundies. Check my weblog: http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefore_i_think/200 2/12/why_im_not_a_st.html

Re:"creation of the planets"?

[bmalnad]

Why can't they both be true at the same time?

Will also be available on DVD (and VHS)

[anishi]

If you miss the show, you can still get it on DVD and VHS sometime around November 15th from here.

These are the forces...

[Colonel Cholling]

Doctrinally a bit of a mess, though. Well, all this stuff about the rocks forming over billions of years. Not exactly an A-one theory with our lot. Oh, not criticizing, no, just... not the creation as we see it...

Oh, and I am sorry about the "...of fish."

High Definition

[sprocketnyc]

Thank you, Time Warner NYC, for my new HDTV DVR and Nova in HD! ( Oh, and Road Runner at 6m/sec ain't bad either )

Re:High Definition

[deglr6328]

You get RR at 6Mb/s? Do you have the "buisness" version or something? I'm in Rochester and have 3Mb/s which has been constant for the last few years....

Re:High Definition

[AGTiny]

Not in HD, only Widescreen SD. :\

Another Ideological Rant

[aminorex]

If SeaDour's description is anything but misleading, this looks like a massive undertaking in propagandizing pseudoscience.
I wish these fundamentalist ideologues weren't so well-heeled, because the consequences of their PR are terrible. Indoctrinated ignorance is very difficult to dislodge.

You Sir ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My ultra religious in-laws visiting me this week are in for a little torture tonight :)

Torturing the in-laws with a very high quality PBS show. Almost makes me wish mine were here (I said "almost").

You sir are a god.

Touchy

[aztektum]

Imagine if someone put sugar in your gas tank. Shotgun riot.

He's making an observation about his "ultra religious in-laws"

This wasn't a generic comment meant to slam the entire religious establishment. I would imagine he has more insight into their reaction to this show than you.

Score:-1, Stop Whining

Please be aware

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all Christians have problems with modern cosmology. In fact, we embrace it.

http://www.reasons.org/

Evolution, OTOH, is just not convincing on it's own merits. I find special creation easier to believe than the spontaneous natural generation of life. Too much irreduceable complexity in the celluar machinery. Too many chicken-and-egg problems. The field of origins research has only progressed in recent decades by demonstrating that the popular theories are wrong, with no convincing alternative. No pre-biotic soup on Earth, etc.

Re:Please be aware

[bloggins02]

I've always had aproblem with this viewpoint. You say: look at how complex life is! It couldn't have arisen by natural processes.

So you posit a God, Intelligent Designer, whatever, to be the entity that solves this little problem. It's perfectly simple you see, God did it (TM).

So now let me turn the question back on you: You mean there is a being intelligent and powerful enough to create all the life as we know it (and then some)? You can't escape the next question:

HOW THE HELL DID THIS BEING COME INTO EXISTENCE???

Ahhh, but you say: "God doesn't need a creator, he/she/it is a self-existent entity." Well that's all fine and dandy, but now you have two little problems:

1) This is an ad-hoc response. You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this claim. That's it, argument over.

2) The very reason you have given for the need for God's existence is the complexity of life, but then you go and posit an even MORE complex entity to create life, yet refuse to apply your same argument to it. This is iconsistent.

Face it: you believe in God because you WANT TO, not because the evidence compels you. That's fine, but at least admit it.

Re:Please be aware

[Anonymous Coward]

Science has the same problem. Where did the source matter (or energy) of the Big Bang come from? If you ask many of the armchair physicists on Slashdot (ie, those who have a Hawking book and maybe something by Hofstadter and therefore consider themselves experts), they might point out that a lot of scientists now believe we are in a continual cycle of expansion/contraction/expansion. In other words, there's the Big Bang, then the Big Collapse, then another Big Bang.

But where did matter/energy come from in the first place? How did something come from nothing? Or was "stuff" just always there?

Science is no better equipped to answer that question than religion.

Re:Please be aware

[Just Some Guy]

HOW THE HELL DID THIS BEING COME INTO EXISTENCE???

Ever read "Flatland"? To a two-dimensional creature, a 3D world would be unimaginable. Well, "time" is a component dimension of our universe (and one that acts pretty bizarrely at that). Us asking how an entity could exist outside our timeline is pretty analogous to a Flatlander asking how an entity could exist outside his plane.

Note that string theory predicates quite a few "extra" dimensions that we can't directly perceive, so that's not as unimaginable as you might think at first reading.

6,000 years source?

[Tablizer]

Where does this 6,000 years come from? The Bible is not date-stamped that I know of (although some versions seem to include dates).

Interesting creationism discussion going on...

[KermitTheFrag]

It's very interesting to note that opinions become more dogmatically held on the metaphysical issues surrounding origins discussions the farther one gets away from research universities and theological seminaries. Most folks don't know reaserch scientists who are astronomers, physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, etc... yet they can tell you what all of them are thinking. The same is true for theologeans and philosophers working in universities and seminaries. It's almost like listening to the Rebublican supporters and Democrat supports blasting the "opposition" with full and reckless confidence in their own position to in order to move their cause forward with little genuine understanding of the underlying realities or care for the truth. Facts are facts... which facts you emphasize, and how you interpret them will show less about what the facts say and more about what you want them to say. When facts cannot be effectivly interpreted so that they are "on one's side" then one can defer to philosophical arguements or claim the "god of the gaps" or the "no god of the gaps". This kind of discussion seems pointless. The Origins show will be on. The origins show, I'm sure, was well funded. It should be a very good production, and many "cool" facts will be brought to light. You will also be invited to entertain the interpretation of those facts into various origins theories by the host or guest experts. What they say should be seriously considered, but one should also be careful to recognize that all people hold some vested interest in a world view that they have accepted.. critically or not. Those who are materialists will surely find confirmation for their materialism in the facts presented. Also, many who are ID'ers or creationists will find much to confirm their beliefs... (with the possible exception of young-earth folks... sorry). Remember, Kerry and Bush will debate in a few days, and everyone who watches their candidate will be proud of how he stuck it to the other guy.. That's human nature. As for the untimate truth?... well.. we will all get to figure that out for sure after we die, won't we?

Re:Interesting creationism discussion going on...

[Jormundgandr]

Erm, or not, if we cease to exist as conscious entities. Who's side are you on again? :)

Re:Interesting creationism discussion going on...

[KermitTheFrag]

LOL... yes.. "or not". Which could certainly be better than actually learning one is wrong... Especially if particular world views are actually true that one has struggled to avoid . Hmmmm...

Perhaps Pascal's Wager has merit for the godless but risk averse?

;-)

Science Against Evolution

[Lat.Long]

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/Science Against Evolution

Credible Scientists?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Take a look at Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box, both written by credible scientists, not religious fanatics.

Philip Johnson is a lawyer and not a scientist of any kind. Behe may have been a "credible scientist" at some point, but he is certainly not one now, at least not in relation to his advocacy of Inteligent Design (tm) and what he tries to articulate as "Irreducible Complexity," a concept for which he has yet to provide an example. Both Johnson and Behe qualify as "ultra religious". Behe at one time made a pretense of scientific objectivity, at least when speaking in front of non-religious groups,but lately has dropped that altogether.

Johnson's argument boils down to the fallacy of false dichotomy: if I can prove evolution wrong, then Genesis must be litterally true. Behe at least makes an effort to provide some sort of positive argument. However, he has so far failed to actually articulate it in any testable fashion.

Re:Credible Scientists?

[jcr]

Johnson's argument boils down to the fallacy of false dichotomy: if I can prove evolution wrong, then Genesis must be litterally true.

I'd say that the fundies argue against science simply because of the converse: since evolution is a fact, their mythology is demonstrably absurd.

FWIW, if evolution is disproved, I will advocate the Great Green Arkleseizure theory first mentioned by Douglas Adams, and I will live in pious fear of the Coming of the Great Handkerchief.

-jcr

Oh you must be a troll but I can't help it...

[FatSean]

What about the ultimate chicken-egg problem: the idea of a god?

Not a whif of science to "scientific" creationism

[Hamster Lover]

The bedrock of science is that an idea or hypothesis is falsifiable. That is, one does not assume the outcome in the phrasing of the question.

Scentific creationism violates this principle because the root of creationism is the belief in the inerrancy of the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Once the answer has been assumed, what is the point of the question?

Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?" The answer is not assumed, as in creationism.

At any time scientists may develop theories that question or even contradict evolution based on the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and refinement or refutation of the original observation. We haven't found compelling evidence to do so, but there is nothing in science that says evolution is the end all be all. Science is self correcting in that any evidence along the chain of discovery that refutes the original observations will cause the process to begin again. This process is conspicously absent from scientific creationism, which seems wholy concerned with finding evidence to invalidate evolution and boolster creationism, however tenuous.

It is sad, really, that some people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I think the problem stems from the belief that science has something to say about religion, and religion has something to say about science.

Both of which have been debunked

[Tony]

Basically, Behe trotts out the "Life is complex, it required a watchmaker" argument, only on a micro-biological scale; and Johnson uses the old standby, "There are no intermediate fossils!"

Micheal Behe's "Irreducible complexity" amounts this: "I can't see how this could evolve, so it could *not* have evolved." *He* decides what is "irreducible," based on his ability to grasp how something may or may not have evolved.

This is so damned similar to the old, "But the eye is irreducibly complex! It could not have evolved in parts." When in fact, if you look at single-celled creatures with photosensitive spots on their backs, or at the pinhole camera simplicity of the nautilus eye, you can quickly see how this argument is, well, stupid.

Johnson, on the other hand, uses his skills as a lawyer to obfuscate the real issues of scientific evolution. He is, in fact, "ultra religious." He has a pre-determined outcome in mind, and it is through this bias and with the skills of rhetoric that he attempts to gut evolution.

Are there arguments between evolutionists? Yes. They do not all agree with each other on every point. Gould was an original advocate for punctuated equilibrium, which is still a point of debate. Others debate the placement of humanity on specific branches of the family tree.

This internal debate can sometimes seem like squabbling. Creationsists (fuck the term "intelligent design;" it is creationism) try to force their unscientific viewpoint into the midst of the squabble, and they call it "truth." But, it is impossible to prove or disprove creationism, and therefor it is not subject to scientific reasoning.

Anyway, both authors have an agenda that, ultimately, has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religion.

6,000 years source

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

James Ussher (1581-1656) Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, etc. established the first day of creation as Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. He did this through calculation of the many "begats"in the Bible as well as correlation with Middle Eastern history. His calculations were actually incorporated into an authorized version fo the Bible published in 1701. If you google his name be sure to spell it "Ussher".

Re:6,000 years source

[xSauronx]

he calculated that creation started near the end of the year? bah, amatuer, everyone knows it started on january 1st...

Hmm.. is it possible ?

[sl4shd0rk]

To slashdot a TV station? I guess we'll see

will it be the Truth this time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every five or ten years PBS or some other entertainment organization seems to produce these shows purporting to tell us unwashed masses the _Truth_ about the universe. When Cosmos was produced, the Truth was that the Big Bang occurred over and over as the universe expanded and contracted back into an infinitesimally small singularity and exploded again. Now the Truth is that not only is it expanding, but it's expanding faster and faster with no end in sight.

In the past 30 years, there have been so many new, and contradictory Scientific Revelations in the origins of man and the Universe, I can't help be cynical about shows like this. I've come to the conclusion that they're no more likely to be Right (with a capital 'R") than those "bible-thumping fundamentalists."

This series is just entertainment. The most entertaining part is how excited the current True Believers get when their theory is explained with such erudition.

Re:will it be the Truth this time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt the show claims to be the 'truth' about the universe. However it is a convenient straw man for you to knock down; well crafted!

Re:will it be the Truth this time?

[bloggins02]

If you're looking for the Truth, I'm afraid you'll need to look elsewhere. Science doesn't pretend to offer that to you.

However, if you're looking for the latest developments in cosmology, including evidence for the most current theories, then you should tune in.

On the other hand, if you've been told that science is here to learn ya' the "Truth," I'm afraid you've been had.

If you wanna be crude about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it was.

What I find most interesting

[Timex]

...is that the exact same group that mocks the "ultra religious" because their beliefs are the people that accept shows like this without any question whatsoever. It seems to me that these people, whom I will call "ultra scientific" for lack of a better term, have more "faith" than the folk they mock.

The whole basis of Science depends on three things:

1. It must be observable
   
2. It must be testable
   
3. It must be repeatable
   

The Big Bang and Evolutionist theories fails those three points, and therefore aren't even facts from a scientific standpoint.

Consider, too, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and more holes begin to pop up in the fabric.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Jormundgandr]

The Big Bang and Evolution are still theories, i.e. hypothesis. I don't think you'll be able to find a scientist who would say the Big Bang could be tested with a "repeatable" experiment so you got 'em there... but look into evolution studies and you might find some interesting patterns there. Like the repetition. The Laws of Thermodynamics is the odd one out here. It definitely stands up unless you're going down to the level of Quanta and the Zero Point Field where all our understanding breaks down anyway.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Tiny Elvis]

What I find interesting is that you can read the minds of these viewers to know that they 'accept it without any question whatsoever'..

Your three requirements preclude the big bang and evolution ONLY if interpreted in the most literal way possible.

Effects of the big bang and evolution CAN be observed. Theories related to big bang physics and biology/speciation/natural selection/whatever can be postulated and tested, and those tests can be repeated.

You might as well claim your great grandfather couldn't have existed:

1) You can't observe him!!
2) You can't test him!!
3) You can't repeat him!!

Furthermore, your objection based on the laws of thermodynamics is uninformed and has been answered countless times.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Timex]

1) You can't observe him!!
2) You can't test him!!
3) You can't repeat him!!

That's a red herring. It has nothing to do with the conversation.

My point is that there are people that accept the THEORIES of evolution and the Big Bang as "fact", when they cannot be repeated.

Repeating tests are nice, in that they show that the subject reacts the same way when a certain set of steps are done, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

REPEATABLE means that one should be able to start at a point and do things to DUPLICATE what is being observed. Creating the universe from nothing, for example, has never been duplicated, and is therefore not repeatable. Nobody has ever created one species out of another.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has ever created one species out of another.

Ignoring for the moment that you clearly don't understand the nature of "testing" with respect to the Big Bang or evolution, the above statement is false.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

So are all his other statements... but he's too stupid to understand his own words.

Let him think God and creation is repeatable and testable and blahblahblah...

Re:What I find most interesting

[daniel_newton]

You might as well claim your great grandfather couldn't have existed:

1) You can't observe him!!
2) You can't test him!!
3) You can't repeat him!!

But there are plenty of eye-witnesses to his prior existence.

Furthermore, your objection based on the laws of thermodynamics is uninformed and has been answered countless times.

And your objection to his objection based on the laws of thermodynamics has been answered countless times also :)

Re:What I find most interesting

[suso]

Well that may be true and all, but at least most scientists will abandon old theories in the light of new truths. ;-)

Re:What I find most interesting

[Corpus_Callosum]

Evolution: For this refute, we will use as our basis for study genetic algorithms and/or genetic programming to evolve artificial life.

It must be observable

In every conceivable manner, the evolution of species in the simulation is observable. From the genetic code of individuals in any generation to the clear increase in fitness of populations over time.

It must be testable

The simulation itself is the test. Running the simulation satisfies this requirement.

It must be repeatable

/home/george/project-> evolve -generations 300 > results
/home/george/project-> evolve -generations 300 > results
Yep, very repeatable. But evolution is an interesting bugger - it makes different stuff each time. But it sure as hell does make it!

Re:What I find most interesting

[Timex]

Out of curiousity:

• Does your program take into effect the fact that more than a certain percentage (I think it's 3%) of deviation from the "norm" tends to be fatal?
• Does it assume that more than one member of the species carries this deviation?
  
• How much time does it take for this deviation to become "the norm"?
  

I find it interesting, to say the least. Time is the biggest enemy of staunch evolutionists. Their solution? Add more time. Heh.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Dr. Manhattan]

Look up something like Tierra and actually play with it. (I wrote a simpler variant that displays the same behavior). Open-ended evolution that develops new behavior. The 'organisms' I evolved quickly developed ways of using the opcodes I provided that never occurred to me.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Otto]

REPEATABLE means that one should be able to start at a point and do things to DUPLICATE what is being observed.

No, in fact, that's not what it means at all. "Repeatable" means just what the other guy said it did.. That you can repeat the tests, proving their validity. If the tests are not repeatable, then you haven't accounted for all the conditions. The age-old example for this is the one about how a guy was unable to repeat the experiment in front of other people until he figured out that it made a difference what kind of material the table was made of, that he was doing the experiment on. Wood tables worked, metal tables didn't. He had not fully accounted for all the conditions and until he did, it was not repeatable and it didn't teach him anything useful.

Nobody has ever created one species out of another.

I know some biologists who work with bacterial strains that would vehemently disagree with you.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Tiny Elvis]

But there are plenty of eye-witnesses to his prior existence.

OK so let's say great great great grandfather then. There are no eye-witnesses to his existence now are there?

And your objection to his objection based on the laws of thermodynamics has been answered countless times also :)

Ah, but the important question is who's objection is correct? After all, I'm sure flat-earthers (if they truly exist) answer their objector's objections to. That doesn't invalidate those objections. OK the word 'objection' is starting to sound odd now. I think I'll stop writing.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Timex's Wife]

You know what I find most interesting? That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation? I do not believe any of us (my darling husband included) ever held a gun to anyone's head and forced you to accept our beliefs. That's right, I said beliefs. Granted, my interpretation of certain scientific facts (which I refuse to debate-- check out creationism.org or drdino.com if you wish), takes some faith. What I think Timex has put forth is his wish (and mine) that those of you who believe in evolution admit that it takes a little faith on your part too. You must believe that the scientific evidence points to "natural selection" and mutations that, over time, improve the species. Your faith is in your interpretation of data viewed through the filter that you do not believe in a god. I have faith in my God, therefor, I view the data through the filter of that faith. The crux of the argument is faith, whether you believe in God, or that you believe that a god does not exist. You still must admit that you believe something. An illustration might be something like this: it takes faith to sit in a chair. Yes, you read that right. Let us assume that you have a choice to either sit in a chair, or not to sit in a chair (and not factor in any other variables, such as tiredness etc. , for the sake of the illustration). You MUST believe that the chair will support your weight before you will sit in it. If it is your belief that the chair will not support your weight, then you will not sit in it. So too, must one hold some sort of belief about the origins of mankind when one accepts one theory or another. You either believe that the theory will support the weight of your beliefs or you do not.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Dimensio]

That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?

I don't have a problem with you believing something bizarre and absurd. I have a problem with creationists who deliberately misrepresent and outright lie about the study of evolution to "refute" the theory. I have a problem with creationists who claim that evolution covers things like the origin of the universe and the ultimate origins of life when arguing against it. I have a problem with creationists who want to shove a religious agenda into a science classroom. I have a problem with creationists who want to construct a bizarre non-scientific explanation for the origin of the species and demanding that it be given equal time.

It's not the beliefs of creationists that bother me, it's their desire to foist their non-scientific beliefs into science classrooms and their patent dishonesty when attempting to support their agenda.

Now please, spare me the fallacious arguments regarding "belief". I'm not so stupid as to believe that "belief" that a chair will support my weight is the same as belief in a god. Please look up the equivocation fallacy.

Re:What I find most interesting

[daniel_newton]

OK so let's say great great great grandfather then. There are no eye-witnesses to his existence now are there?

Yeah now we are down to second and third-hand accounts. Mind you if you tryed to tell me about my great great great grandfather then I probably wouldn t believe you anyway :)

Ah, but the important question is who's objection is correct? After all, I'm sure flat-earthers (if they truly exist) answer their objector's objections to. That doesn't invalidate those objections. OK the word 'objection' is starting to sound odd now. I think I'll stop writing.

True, I guess the point is that everyones got an objection or counter and just saying that doesnt prove anything.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Timex's Wife]

"It's not the beliefs of creationists that bother me, it's their desire to foist their non-scientific beliefs into science classrooms and their patent dishonesty when attempting to support their agenda."

Two things:
1)When, in my post, did I attempt to force my beliefs into any classroom you or any of your offspring attend? (Keeping in mind that right now, children across our country learn ONLY evolution in school, regardless of what their parents believe).
2)What agenda are you asserting me to have? Did I affiliate myself with ANY group that offends you? Did I even try to argue that you should believe what I believe? (The only thing I can can think of is that you checked the sites I provided for reference as to what I believe and disagreed with them-- but as I said, I will not be drawn into a debate of beliefs: you have the right to your beliefs, and so do I!)

"Now please, spare me the fallacious arguments regarding "belief". I'm not so stupid as to believe that "belief" that a chair will support my weight is the same as belief in a god. Please look up the equivocation fallacy."

Firstly, I was not putting forth the example of the chair as an argument of any kind-- thereby nullifying your assertion that it is a fallacious statement (perhaps YOU should look up the meaning). I was using the chair ILLUSTRATION to show that, in order to believe something (anything), one must have faith that it is true. You BELIEVE a god does not exist-- therefor, you have faith that the knowledge to which you have access proves this to you.

Another illustration might be: You most likely believe (as do I) that there is gold in Fort Knox. Why do we believe this? It is unlikely that either of us have been able to see or touch it. But we are told it is there, by people who have. We have faith that there is gold in Fort Knox because we choose to believe the evidence presented to us that it is there. You have chosen to believe that the evidence you have about the origins of the universe reflects evolution as fact. This still requires the faith that the facts you have, and your interpretation of those facts, are correct. My beliefs fall into that same catergory-- I have faith that my interpretation of the facts I have are correct. I suppose that we will only discover which one of is right after we die. But consider this: if you're right about no god, then fine-- but if you're wrong...

Enjoy your beliefs. I have no "agenda" to stuff mine down your throat. As for anyone else reading this: Have you ever thought it odd that when you agree with someone else, they consider you "open- minded"? But, when you disagree with them, all of a sudden, you are a "closed minded" bigot with some kind of "hidden" agenda? I wonder why? And why are my beliefs "bizarre and absurd"? Because they do not agree with mainstream "scientific" beliefs? Hmfph! I thought the definition of the term "open- minded" was a willingness to accept all points of view as valid-- that everyone was entitled to an opinion. It is obvious to me that some people do not believe in my right to profess my own belief -- "It's okay to believe what you want, so long as you never talk about it." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Tiny Elvis]

Yeah now we are down to second and third-hand accounts.

Which is exactly the way the big bang and other events in cosmologically distant history are studied: second and third hand evidence.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Dimensio]

1)When, in my post, did I attempt to force my beliefs into any classroom you or any of your offspring attend? (Keeping in mind that right now, children across our country learn ONLY evolution in school, regardless of what their parents believe).

You didn't. I never said that you personally had done anything.

2)What agenda are you asserting me to have?

I didn't say that you had an agenda. I was speaking of creationists who do have one. That's why the pronoun that I used was of the "them" variety, and never directed toward "you", and I specifically made comments regarding to the actions of a group without claiming that they represented the group as a whole.

Did I affiliate myself with ANY group that offends you?

No, you didn't, which is why I never directly attacked you.

Until now, at least. I will begin with this attack: you are presumptious and reactionary.

I base my claim on the fact that you assume that my post was all about you, when in fact it was not.

Did I even try to argue that you should believe what I believe?

No, I made comments regarding the attitude and actions of vocal creationists who try to shout out evolution and force creationism into science classrooms. I never even made an assumption about what you believe or what you do beyond what you have directly stated.

(The only thing I can can think of is that you checked the sites I provided for reference as to what I believe and disagreed with them-- but as I said, I will not be drawn into a debate of beliefs: you have the right to your beliefs, and so do I!)

And, as I said, I don't care if you want to believe absurd things. You asked why "That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?" I was providing my answer, which is that I don't actually care if you believe something bizarre, I only care when people who believe these bizarre things try to push them into science classrooms and in no part of my response did I assert that you were a part of that group.

Firstly, I was not putting forth the example of the chair as an argument of any kind-- thereby nullifying your assertion that it is a fallacious statement (perhaps YOU should look up the meaning). I was using the chair ILLUSTRATION to show that, in order to believe something (anything), one must have faith that it is true. You BELIEVE a god does not exist-- therefor, you have faith that the knowledge to which you have access proves this to you.

And I was pointing out that you are equivocating two different concepts of "faith".

I have "faith" that the earth will continue moving around the sun in such a way that it will be dark tonight and sunny (even if cloudy) tomorrow. This "faith" is based upon previous experience that it's been like that every day as well as a fundamental understanding of the physical laws that cause this to happen in the first place. This is not like the "faith" that a god exists, and to assert that the former faith is just like the latter is to fall to the fallacy of equivocation.

Another illustration might be: You most likely believe (as do I) that there is gold in Fort Knox. Why do we believe this? It is unlikely that either of us have been able to see or touch it. But we are told it is there, by people who have. We have faith that there is gold in Fort Knox because we choose to believe the evidence presented to us that it is there.

Actually, I've been to Fort Knox.

Moreover, the claim that gold exists within Fort Knox is not what I would consider to be an extraodrinary claim. For one, I know what gold is. Secondly, I know how it could be stored, so the idea that gold is stored in a place called Fort Knox is not entirely far-fetched. I also know that if there is gold in Fort Knox, there would be people with direct access to this information, and I can't imag

Re:What I find most interesting

[Timex's Wife]

I will admit that my post was reactionary. I am tired of the evolutionists/ atheists/ other groups looking down upon me and others who believe in creation simply because they disagree with me. Your contempt is palpatable in your post, and regardless of what you purport to be doing, what you are truly trying to accomplish is to draw me into a debate about my beliefs. I will not give you an opportunity to "prove" to everyone that your beliefs are more sound than mine, that I am some lunatic because my beliefs do not agree with your "science". "Science" has become a religion of its own making. And I never asked you to accept my beliefs as "scientific"-- I merely stated that I have as much right to believe what I want as you do, no matter how wrong you think I am. What are you really afraid of? Because, if you are not afraid of something, if you really think I am wrong, then WHY are you bothering to reply to my posts? What do you get out of it, except the "thrill" of shooting me down? I do understand your mindset, you know. You are going to cling to your beliefs as stubbornly as I cling to mine. The difference is, I am willing to admit that I believe something. You will always stick to the idea that somehow, your beliefs are not beliefs, but exist in some kind of limbo you call "evidence", entirely forgetting that you CHOOSE to believe that evidence. I never have and never will try to even argue you or anyone else out of their beliefs (regardless of how absurd and bizarre I find them). What I am arguing is how evolutionists refuse to admit that their beliefs take as much faith as mine do. After all-- no human being has ever OBSERVED the kind of evolution that is claimed as responsible for our existence. (I don't argue against micro evolution, which IS observable) Evolutionists simply BELIEVE that evolution is true because they look at scientific data and interpret it that way. Which is their right. Just because we (creationists) interpret the data a different way, does not make us less intelligent than you (and yes, I know you never said that, but that is the way a lot of evolutionists think and, honey, other people are reading this besides you). What this whole argument (from my perspective) has been about is the unwillingness of a group of people to admit that they put their faith in a religion they choose to call "science", because they are afraid they will be lumped together with us "religious fanatics".

I am sure it would surprise you to learn that as a "religious fanatic", I have no designs on brainwashing anyone. My God wants willing, intelligent converts who CHOOSE Him-- not people who let themselves be fooled or bullied into faith in Him. And whether you are willing to admit it or not, the whole reason anyone attacks a creationist point of view is not because you really care WHAT I believe. It is because, in order for me to be right, there has to be God-- a super intelligent designer with limitless power, which you admit to be a foreign (and from your tone, repugnant) concept. And perhaps a frightening one? Because surely such a being would not only have the power, but the right to judge you (and me).

Lastly-- my response was NOT intended to address anything YOU said, but rather to address what your comments reflect-- the mindset of many evolutionists; you just happen to be the only one thus far to respond to anything I have posted. This is the last time I will post in this thread, as I have no wish to argue my faith against yours.

You'll be deftly ignored. However,

[Anonymous Coward]

And if tacit atheism has become the default belief of our age, it needs to be noted that it is no longer the badge of a courageous free spirit but, more often than not, the "do not disturb" sign hung out by the intellectually inert.

Jonathan Ree

Science and Theology

[rinkjustice]

God always uses the laws of the Universe to bless and affect change. I believe everything is intimately and seamlessly interconnected; one change affects other changes like a domino affect. It's like a puppet master controlling a marrionette.

The big bang and evolution are very likely the mechanisms God used to create the firmament and all life within it.

He's a big science major, I'm sure!

Re:Science and Theology

[Soko]

I don't think God is a puppet master.

I think of Him as a master programmer, who can write autonomous programs that can adjust and adapt in order to fulfill His purpose. They can't change thier purpose, only how they fulfill it.

Much easier and logical to have something take care of itself than to need constant attention.

Soko

Re:Science and Theology

[euxneks]

Take that on another level; God is such an awesome programmer, he wrote everything in 5 lines of perl.

Det. Harris

[omahajim]

Hosted by Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City

Hmm, I thought it was Ron Glass.

Re:Det. Harris

[izakage]

Grass, Glass. Pff, they must have been Japanese.

Re:Science Against Evolution

[king-manic]

more like "pithy statements against intellegent thought". They try to write off essential a century of research and scientific proof with a single line of non-squiters that do nothign to forward their argument.

JESUS FUCKING WEPT

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they registered that website. Holy Waste of Server Space Christ.

---
California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin of life.

The Pythagorean Theorem

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't a law, because it can't be proven, either. But it's the best God-damn guess we have, right now, so we use it to build nuclear reactors. And enrich uranium so we can kill those fucking Jews. And land on the moon. And build rather large, orange bridges across 4 kilometres of Californian bay. And predict when hurricanes will wipe out entire Carribean islands.

I view religion as a tool to kill people. It worked for Pope Urban II, and it worked for Muhammad. Science just lets me kill people more efficiently. Which leaves me with time to plant my rose garden and turn on my UV light to feed the toads in my backyard.

The religion of Efficiency?

The diff between laymen and scientific theories.

[austus]

You fail to distinguish between scientific theories and laymen theories. Laymen theories may be pulled out of the ass at will and have no requirements placed upon them. Scientific theories are required to predict things. The best laymen theory may, at best, be considered inspiration for a scientific hypothesis, which may eventually graduate to theory status if it accurately predicts enough things.

You are right about one thing. Theories don't supply certainty. IMHO, certainty is the arena of the intellectually corrupt or naïve (hint: not much is certain in this world). Theories develop to the point where they predict enough stuff accurately that we develop a high level of confidence in them.

Thanks for playing. Be careful of word overloading in the future. I think this case of word overloading is particularly bad since it encourages scientific ignorance and illiteracy.

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey - you just said nothing! Just a pithy statement about their web site. At least they do quote current science journals. Who has greater faith? Evolutionists, or by designists? Hard, very hard, to prove either. Impossible at this time to prove either.

Not science, just materialism

[leonbrooks]

The only reason our friend would have trouble addressing those arguments would be if he was undereducated in the sciences himself.

Where, unfortunately, "undereducated" means we think anything which breaches our a priori assumptions about the nature of the universe is dumb.

By that standard, most people, most scientists are "undereducated". For the longest time geology avoided anything that smelled of catastrophism, paleontology avoided anything that smelled of a flood, and astronomy avoided anything that smelled of structure.

For good scientific reasons? Not a bit of it. Because they were afraid of being labelled as one of the enemy, those insidious creationists, and ostracised like J Harlan Bretz was for 40 years.

A very highly qualified scientists have been brave enough to state outright that they are not impartial, like Richard Lewontin and his famous "cannot let a Divine Foot in the door" statement, but they are the exception.

The result in each of the above cases was that the science in question was held back by decades.

Meanwhile, one D Russell Humphreys had made some fairly specific predictions (in 1984) about the magnetic fields Voyager would find in the outer planets, which turned out to be both bang on the money and well wide of any other expectations when those fields were measured two years after publication. One of the more spectacular demonstrations that this "alien" and "impossible" perspective has predictive, scientific merit.

Anyone wondering why more such papers don't appear in the mainstream scientific press need only turn to the furor which exploded when the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a carefully peer-reviewed paper from well-known Intelligent Design advocate, Stephen C. Meyer. The then-editor, Dr. Richard M. v. Sternberg (a double PhD with many published articles himself), goes to great lengths on his website to explain that every positive scientific and journalistic step of the process was followed for the paper and had been independently verified and approved by highly qualified scientists before publication.

It is quite clear that the paper is being criticised on political/philosophical grounds, not because of any scientific merit or demerit.

The Origins show is based on philosophy, not on science. This is well and good except that it is presented as being purely based on science.

I need hardly point out that such misrepresentation is in itself unscientific, a meta-flaw under which to group all of the unscientific teleological statements about features "appearing" (ex nihilo, apparently) and organisms having "figured out" and "striving" to achieve "goals" without any guiding hand. Nevertheless, it will go ahead, and millions of viewers will be taught that random numbers have hidden intelligence and/or miracle-working ability which repeatedly transcends mere statistics, and introduced once more to a capricious goddess who goes by the name of Nature - all the while suffering the constantly asserted doublethink mantra that there is no supernature.

Meanwhile, back at Reasons , Hugh has had the more obvious inconsistencies and contradictions among his theories publicly pointed out to him

For further rebuttals...

[leonbrooks]

...of those rebuttals, there's quite a few here. Sad, really, that such an old (seldom-updated) site can still so effectively rebut much of t.o's intricate web of self-deception.

Creationist Resources

[intheory]

I am happy to see other creationists, open-minded agnostics, or at least cynics of Darwinian evolution posting at /.. I personally hadn't thought much about the importance (or validity) of a literal, Biblical Genesis until a group at church (a non-denom church in Georgia at that) started watching Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis videos recently.

Since then, I've done some other research (Darwin's Black Box, Tornado in a Junkyard, articles from the Christian Research Institute, and so on.

Before the tired tirade of "fundamentalist / Christian wacko / moron / anti-science" begins, it is important to note that Christians can be scientists too, and visa versa. It seems to me that more and more credible, scientific evidence has scraped and scratched its way to the surface that calls out many of the theories that the secular world has taken for granted regarding the origins of the world, life, and intelligence. Without arguing nitty-gritty details, it is interesting enough to look at the questions of biochemical processes, discrepencies in geological and fossil records, the fundamental flaws in carbon dating, and the political motivations of secularists

This is obviously a poor attempt at a thoughtful statement, but I just wanted to throw a couple things out. I would encourage anyone with similar questions about discrepencies in carbon dating, fossilization, speciation, etc... would at least consider the scientific rebuttals to Darwin and other secularists.

Re:Creationist Resources

[LPetrazickis]

It's important to note that Christians don't have to be Young Earth Creationists.

Also, why does carbon dating keep getting dragged out in these things? IIRC, it's only useful between 80000 and 8000 BCE. That's useful for anthropologists who track the spread of modern Homo sapiens around the world, but pretty much useless for actual palaeontologists.

Finally, please give Darwin a rest. Yes, he was the first to see the forest that is evolution instead of just peering at trees, but his theories are rather dated and puritanical. Go pick on Dawkins or Gould or whoever.

Re:Creationist Resources

[Anonymous Coward]

What's amazing to me is why, given all the possible research angles available to you, why would you possibly choose the Bible as a source to study science? Why?

If you want to study God's work, then take a walk outside and study it. If you are a religious person -- and it appears you are -- there is ZERO DISPUTE about Who created the Earth around you. God did!

Limiting God by telling Him how He created the Universe -- via the Bible or any other man-made work (no matter how "inspired" it is) -- is true heresy. Trying to force fit God's creations to some predetermined description is truely Satan's work.

God is far greater than you are giving Him credit for. Studying Genesis to discover anything about how God created the Universe is like reading a comic book to learn about differential equations.

Re:Creationist Resources

[Corpus_Callosum]

If you want to speculate on creationism in any way that makes any sense at all (i.e. something you can sink your teath into), then you first must define god in some reasonable way.

There is a way to do this that most scientifically minded people can sink their teeth into. All you have to do is start with, "Any technological civilization that is significantly more evolved than ours (especially during biblical times) would be [as a whole] indistinguishable from god."

If you start that way, we may have some traction. Supernatural, non-measurable forces or beings that are not bound by and don't obey the laws of the universe are not fit for speculation.

Re:Creationist Resources

[intheory]

I guess you're making some assumptions that are not quite correct. Creationists do not look at the Bible as a source of scientific fact; they simply see it as a hypothesis to test. That hypothesis, simply put is that God created everything, and that things are this many years old, and so on. These hypotheses are presented just like those of secular scientists--A big bang is the source of everything, things are this many millions of years old, etc...

I like how you try to put me back on my heals by accusing me of "limiting God" and trying to make me feel bad about it by aligning me with Satan. It's not about limiting God, its about giving God the credit and not allowing generations to be brainwashed into thinking Darwinian evolution and secularist theories are fact, when they are nowhere near that.

The problem with a millions-of-years theory for Christians is that if you accept millions-of-years , and the prior existance of dinosoaurs, then you accept death, disease, and suffering prior to the fall of Adam. This doesn't fit into the belief structure of Christianity which states that prior to sin the world was without corruption or pain.

Evil in the world?

[mcmonkey]

PPS. There is no such thing as fetal stem cell research.

You probably mean embryonic stem cell research.

Re:Evil in the world?

[jcr]

Catholic, are you?

-jcr

Re:Evil in the world?

[Anonymous Writer]

Catholic, are you?

Jedi perhaps? The movement, which started in New Zealand, is now a legal religion according to census officials in the UK, although it endures religious persecution in Australia, where people can be fined for declaring their faith.

"May the Force be with you"

"... and also with you." (Catholics will get that one)

Re:Evil in the world?

[bobster45]

I find much wisdom and quotability to this statement of evil. I will use it myself in the future. Thanks fo rthe insightful sharing of you knowledge.

It's all pointless

[Gentlewhisper]

I just think it is silly to have the scientific community launch on the religious fanatics and vice versa.

In fact, the best would be for the two groups to just leave each other alone. Science is science, religion is religion.

Science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of a God or otherwise, and similarly it is not like religion is a substitute for science either. They both have their place in society. Problems only arrise when people in one camp start opposing those in the other camp.

Now, some scientific nuts may go smug and think "oh yeah we will, we'll show them!" but I really think it'd be futile. Not too sure about this, I'm talking out of my ass here, but once I heard a mathematician friend talking about some Gödel theory where it says that for a given system, there are conclusions that just can't be drawn just from the information within the system itself.

And humans are only a tiny part within a very huge system (the whole universe?)

For all we know God might actually be living on the far side of Andromeda and looking smugly at us through his quantum telescope. So that's how he appears to be omipotent to some!

Bah, whatever, anyhow I'm not a religious fanatic. Just my 0.00000002 cents. It's so worthless that there is no currency for it :)

Re:It's all pointless

[jfengel]

Gödel was talking about mathematics. Analogizing to the universe is unwarranted.

The standing-on-one-leg version of Gödel: no matter what mathematical system you set up, you have two choices: either it's inconsistent (in which case it's useless) or there are theorems which are true but can't be proven. Or to put it another way: you can't use a mathematical system itself to prove that it is consistent.

Basically, Gödel showed that no matter what mathematical system you come up with, as long as it has a certain amount of power you can construct a sentence along the lines of "this sentence is unproveable", which is true but (alas) unproveable.

But it hasn't been proven that the universe itself is a mathematical system, so I wouldn't use the incompleteness theorems to make any epistemological judgements. The theorems put limits on the utility of mathematics, but don't confuse mathematics for the real world. Math is a model of the world, but the map is not the territory.

If you care, here's a Wiki link which contains useful info.

Evil in the world?

[mcmonkey]

PPPS. There is no evil in the world, and it certainly does not find its way into the hearts of people.

It starts there and finds its way out.

Remember, only a human can be inhuman.

GWB and "medical advances"

[mcmonkey]

The condom isn't exactly a medical advance, but it sure does help contain the spread of STDs such as AIDS.

Too bad condoms don't jibe with GWBs personal view of the world. You're either with him or against him.

Re:GWB and "medical advances"

[Fred_A]

Especially since if a condom had been used 60 or so years ago a lot of the last 4 year's mess in the US and in the world could have been avoided. :)

*ducks*

Just what does GWB believe in?

[mcmonkey]

P.S. When did GWB "impede medical advances?" Oh, I see - he refused to DIVERT TAX DOLLARS TO FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH! So that IMPEDES scientists, who apparently have NO OTHER WAY of obtaining funding! Trust me, if FETAL (as opposed to adult) stem cell research had much potential, the pharmaceutical firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it - because they'd get billions out later.

Alrighty then. What's your stand on the war in Iraq? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy...with all those WMDs...I mean, with all those ties to al Qaeda...I mean, he tried to hurt GWB's daddy!

Anyway, why divert tax dollars to take care of Saddam? If it's such a good idea, the private sector will just pick it up, right?

And what's with a department of homeland security and this tax money we're spending on intelligence? If there's really a terrorist threat, private security firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it.

And on the issue of EMBRYONIC stem cell research, GWB did not stop all federal funding. There is continuing funding for research with existing cell lines. If this is really such a dead end with no potential for practical applications, why continue funding? If an embryo really is a little person, why does GWB thing we should continue to experiment on them?

It's a bad idea to fund new cell lines, but a good idea to fund existing cell lines? Talk about a flip-flop. If GWB had been the first beat cop to Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment he would have stopped the killing, but let Dahmer finish eating the people already in the fridge.

Re:Just what does GWB believe in?

[aardvarkjoe]

Do you think that you addressed the question that you quoted? (Or anything that was in the parent post?) Because you completely failed to do so.

And you ought to be modded down for spamming (in a transparent attempt to get extra karma by posting four seperate replies to the same post.)

Re:Just what does GWB believe in?

[jcr]

Sure, Saddam was a bad guy...with all those WMDs...I mean, with all those ties to al Qaeda...I mean, he tried to hurt GWB's daddy!

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that menacing Bush Sr. was Saddam's only transgression? Do little things like invading Iran and Kuwait without provocation, gassing thousands of Kurds, and imprisoning and torturing many thousands more of his own people ring a bell?

Anyway, why divert tax dollars to take care of Saddam? If it's such a good idea, the private sector will just pick it up, right?

Unfortunately, ever since Kennedy betrayed the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs by witholding the promised air support, our legislators have prohibited private parties from the actions you suggest.

-jcr

Re:Just what does GWB believe in?

[Troed]

Umm. Iraq invaded Kuwait, after getting an OK from the USA, because Kuwait stole oil from Iraqi oilfields.

Yes, really.

Re:Just what does GWB believe in?

[jcr]

Iraq did NOT get an OK from the USA for the invasion. The US ambassador told Saddam that the USA wasn't interested in minor border disputes, not that the USA would stand by while Saddam tried to annex another country.

-jcr

Re:Just what does GWB believe in?

[Troed]

Same thing. USA changed position when the world reacted.

Point is: The dictatorship and human rights abuser nation of Kuwait wasn't "innocent".

Re:Just what does GWB believe in?

[jcr]

Same thing.

That may have been what Saddam thought, but he was grievously mistaken.

USA changed position when the world reacted.

Nope, the USA never supported Saddam's invasion of Iraq.

Point is: The dictatorship and human rights abuser nation of Kuwait wasn't "innocent".

What they were "guilty" of, was lending a few tens of billions of dollars to Saddam when he invaded Iran. Saddam didn't want to pay up, and he figured it was easier to take over Kuwait.

-jcr

Would you like fries with that?

[suckmysav]

"the show plans to journey all the way to the Big Bang and back again.

I wonder if they will pick up a coupla burgers while they're there?

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

[superyooser]

This guy purports to explain insights about "the structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself."

...... *cough*

Re:Not a whif of science to "scientific" creationi

[tumbaumba]

It is sad, really, that some people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I think the problem stems from the belief that science has something to say about religion, and religion has something to say about science.

It is true that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. However you are wrong that they do not have common subject to talk about. When you work, let say on corrosion of metals you indeed hardly intrude into domain of religion but whenever you talk about origin of the Universe you basically over-step scientific domain therein lies the problem.

making claims

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Max H. Thrust (22832) through his gay boyfriend, and I would say he falls into the "teletubby fanatic" area.

-- Mr. Coward

should be ~4.6 billion years in the making

[dreadlocks]

rather than 4 years in the making, eh?

Re:You'll be deftly ignored. However,

[Anonymous Coward]

A look at the stats says it's nowhere near the default belief of our age. Unless it's not just tacit but completely cloaked.

Anyway *my* atheism is certainly a "do not disturb" sign hung out by the intellectually inert. Unfortunately they keep disturbing me regardless. Perhaps if I hung it out by my mailbox?

Re:You'll be deftly ignored. However,

[Pickas]

When you have been raised in a strong religious tradition Aethism is an extremely difficult concept to swallow. Many atheists have spent long hours weighing up what they want/need to believe against what they can see, observe and understand.

Calling it a ""do not disturb" sign hung out by the intellectually inert" is, in my experience, false. Believing something because it makes you feel safe and content does not guarantee that what you believe is the single truth - it just indicates that you may be nervous of accepting the possibile validity of conflicting points of view.

Try some real unbiased scientific analysis on Christian beliefs and see how they hold up.

Not Everything

[superyooser]

I thought the first review ("Nearly everything is missing") on this page was very interesting.

Re:Not Everything

[Bagels]

Kind of misleading... you've got that link set to show the lowest-rated reviews first. The dissappointed reviewers simply aren't in the book's target audience, from what I can tell.

Similar PBS Series Rebutted

[superyooser]

In 2001, PBS/Nova produced a seven-episode series called Evolution. It was thoroughly rebutted, but much of the same kind of atheist propaganda will be disseminated again through this latest re-education campaign of The People's Broadcasting System.

Re:Similar PBS Series Rebutted

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you will be voting for Bush on election day, huh?

it was okay ....

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I admire that they did the miniseries.

But...

1) It was pretty slow and full of repetition. (How many times were they just going to show comets plunge into a young Earth??)

2) It was a ripoff of Cosmos. The only new information was about how water may have come to the young Earth.
- it copied Sagan's calendar with a clock (to represent the time frames of earth's history)
- it copied Sagan's animation of animal evolution almost exactly, although many fewer animals

Disappointing

Where did the Creator come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental logical problem with the Intelligent Design theory is that it begs the question of where did the Creator come from? If we're not willing to believe that the *universe* just "happened" (because it's so complicated or unlikely or whatever), why should we be willing to believe that the *Creator* just "happened"?

Re:Where did the Creator come from?

[llamaluvr]

You have two choices- either there is something that is eternal (as in it's always been there), or there is an infinite backwards regression of creation (being X created by being Y created by being Z, and so on forever). The illogicallity of something actually being infinite forces us to consider the former.

Anyway, it doesn't make any sense to say that something eternal was created, because "eternal" means that it was always there. Something must be uncreated and eternal, or else we have the infinite regression or there was some point where there was absolute nothing.

Re:Where did the Creator come from?

[Oligonicella]

Third choice. There is no "creation" involving "creators" at all.

Re:Where did the Creator come from?

[llamaluvr]

...which leads us to two more unreasonable conclusions...

1) Nothing exists. Descartes did a pretty good job of refuting this possibility.

2) I'm assuming that you're hinting all matter is eternal. This still gives us an infinite backwards regression of time. Even if time "stops" when you go back to a certain point, you still need something to start time and get things moving. This certainly wouldn't be from within the universe, because time would be stopped (there's no change in the physical world when delta t = 0).

Well I saw it... and I thought it was pretty weak.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure had lots and lots and lots of massive explosions as CG comets hit CG earths! Wow! Look at that flaming meteor zooming at the earth! Amazing!

Sigh.

Mainly I was disappointed that they really glossed over the origins of life. There's all sorts of cool research out there about how something like RNA could have been the first reproducing chemical structure, and other such things. But they just talked about how amino acids could have formed on earth, or how they could have landed here from space and then jumped to cyanobacteria changing the atmosphere.

It seemed like they left lots of places where someone who wanted to believe in God could have said "Ooh! Ooh! God did THAT part!". The host kept going ON and ON about how "aMAZing" it was that life came from non-life. Great.

Anyway, I thought it could have been much heavier on the science and much lighter on the fiery CG asteroid collisions.

MODS PAY ATTENTION

[Anonymous Coward]

evolution is _not_ a theory. it is an observed fact. the ``theory'' part is _how_ evolution happens, not whether or not evolution occurs.

Nova, The Nature Channel & Everything

[Mulletproof]

"Hosted by Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City... the show that's been four years in the making."

And for all that, there's still quite a bit of guess work thrown in there to fill in some very large blanks, regardless of how much they want to portray it as fact. Ah well. At least it's a step up from the nature channels wild specualtion style of programming. Not a huge one, but a step nonetheless.

This Guy Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard on more than one occasion that Tyson, more or less, gave himself his PhD. I saw this guy at a symposium once and he's an arrogant piece of work. He's got nothing on Sagan, and never will.

Oh yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least scientists don't go around bombing people because of a perverted and radical interpretation of some ages old philosophical doctrine on peace. Religion and science are in the same boat but the "wacko scales" seem, by and large, to be tipping on the side of religion. Until people are blowing each other up and crashing planes in to buildings in the name of string theory, I'll take science any day.

Just my uneducated and uncivilized two cents.

Re: Good stuff...

[Cryptnotic]

I like the ideas in that talk. That God created the world perfect, but it's screwed up because of sin. Our bodies and minds and behaviors (though originally created in God's image) are imperfect because of sin. Death didn't exist before Sin. This idea actually fits in with my idea that the goal of humanity should be to create its successors, a race of perfect robot creatures who will live forever without death.

Re:The diff between laymen and scientific theories

[austus]

"Be careful of word overloading in the future."

Allow me to rephrase: Be careful not to co-opt powerful scientific words with worthless definitions with agendas.

Your book....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... may not be as reliable as you may believe.

Creationism - Strange American Phenomenon?

[nilenico]

Creationism seems to be a peculiarly American phenomenon, certainly in the Western Christian World (i.e. parts of the world where the cultural heritage is mainly Christian - no, I don't intend a major discussion on that!).

I mean, Europe is Christian too, and we don't see any creationism over here.

Does anyone know why this is? No troll - I find this a fascinating thing to observe, and wonder WHY it is so...

What nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

There is no god, things like the uncertainity principle and Godel's theorem should be enough evidence that the existence of a supreme being is very unlikely.

The conflict is impossible to avoid.

[jotaeleemeese]

The reason being that science constantly uderminess the silliness that religion is.

This is not made in purpose, most scientists could not care less about what a mullah, rabi or guru have to say about a scientific matter that has been deducted using the scientific method and corroborated by peer review.

The problem is that scientific knowledge blows away conventional religious wisdom, thus the religious people feel under attack.

Well, they are under attack, and they are not. They are because their ideas and beliefs are baseless and regularly proven so. But they are not because proof of how silly religion is comes by itself with nobody trying necessarily to undermine it in a concerted effort.

For as long as science is free the conflict will exist, until eventually, hopefully, humanity liberates itself from this hangover that served us well while we were ignorant but that is becoming a liability now that we can stand in our own feet based on the knowledge we can use to our advantage.

Atheist propaganda?

[jotaeleemeese]

Poor puppy.

That is to what religious nuts have been reduced, to call propaganda a solid body of knowledge.

Whay a sorry espectacle.

You were not watching the smae program....

[jotaeleemeese]

Obviously.

He delves into the consequences of green house gases when studying the athmosphere of Venus. Sagan was involved in the first US probes to that planet and helped develop the theory that explains why green house gases like CO2 could leead to a raise in temperatures and even a runaway process in which the athmosphere becomes unfit for life.

That you consider that criticizing religious fundamentalism is not political, specially on these troubled times in which one religious fundmanetalist is chasing a group of religious murderous fundamentalists, begs disbelief.

If anything Sagan was a political visionary for warning us of the dangers of religious fundamentalism 30 years before it became an issue with global implications.

Sagan did not mention nuclear war in passing remarks, he devoted several minutes in one or two episodes of Cosmos explaining how technological societies had to survive the nuclear age if they would have any relatively long life.

He also includes the chance of a planetary society destroying itself as part of an equation to predict the number of technological societies existing in our galaxy. To say that he mentioned this problem only peripherically is most puzzling.

You have a brain. Use it.

[jotaeleemeese]

Unless Sagan would have turned around 180 degress politically, it is pretty easy to see where he would have been in the political debate on this day.

He was an environmentalist (Bush is not), pacifist (Bush is not), internationalist (which Bush is not), atheist (no comment regarding Bush), pro choice, humanist scientist.

The man can speak for himself on his many writings, we don't need to presume anything since all is in balck on white for posterity.

So much ignorance, so little time.

[jotaeleemeese]

Big bang:

-How do you observe anything in the past wise guy? I could say the same thing about your wacko beliefs about a superior being.

-The big bang is testable. Check Doppler effect, red shift, cosmic microwave background.

-Although the big bang is not repeatable (trus me on this one buddy), the conditions that existed during the big bang may one day be replicated in very small scale.

As for evolution by means of natural selection:

-It is observable. Check the history of the HIV virus. For goodness sake, check the history of dog or cow breeds. Scientists use mutation rate in a daily basis when dealing with bacteria. As for all the fossils, well, honestly, what else do you want?

-Evolution is testable, there are multiple examples of how human interaction changes species. And see above as well.

- See first point.

Honestly, don't make a fool of yourslef, it is not a pretty sight.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Timex]

-How do you observe anything in the past wise guy? I could say the same thing about your wacko beliefs about a superior being.

You, sir, are a dolt. Where did I say anything about my beliefs in this thread? I didn't. I made a comparison between people who's faith lies in a God, and people who's faith lies in what they can see, hear, and touch. My beliefs were never mentioned.

-The big bang is testable. Check Doppler effect, red shift, cosmic microwave background.


All the Doppler effects show is relative movement. They make no attempt whatsoever to explain the origin of the Universe. The religious folk, on the other hand, have an explanation, even if it is as faulty (from a scientific standpoint of not being repeatable, etc). As for the Big Bang Theory itself, I remember hearing how they can guess (!) at how everything came from one little speck, but there's no explanation where that came from.

-Although the big bang is not repeatable (trus me on this one buddy), the conditions that existed during the big bang may one day be replicated in very small scale.

Were you there when it happened? No? Do you know anyone (personally or otherwise) that was an eye witness to the event? No? Amazing, that you can speak with such authority! The Big Bang theory is just a theory. It's a guess, based on what is observed.

As for evolution by means of natural selection: ... -Evolution is testable, there are multiple examples of how human interaction changes species. And see above as well.

Ummm... I thought Natural Selection meant that there was no human intervention? See my next point.

-It is observable. Check the history of the HIV virus. For goodness sake, check the history of dog or cow breeds. Scientists use mutation rate in a daily basis when dealing with bacteria. As for all the fossils, well, honestly, what else do you want?

I want evidence that one species became another. There is lots of evidence of microevolution, which are changes within the species, but that is NOT the same as macroevolution, which is what you're talking about.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Dimensio]

Missed this, sorry for the double-post:

Ummm... I thought Natural Selection meant that there was no human intervention? See my next point.

You thought wrong. Natural selection is merely the process of a select genetic group of a population being more successful at passing on their genes due to an advantage provided by their genes within their given environment. If humans are controlling the breeding based upon what they think are "desirable" genetic traits, then humans have become an environmental factor. It's still natural selection.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Dimensio]

The Big Bang theory is just a theory. It's a guess, based on what is observed.

If I had a nickel for every time a creationist misused the word "theory"...

I want evidence that one species became another.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Timex]

Natural selection is merely the process of a select genetic group of a population being more successful at passing on their genes due to an advantage provided by their genes within their given environment.

This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed. Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened. Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to. It also assumes that another member of the species found the mutated member "attractive" for mating (if indeed the species in question was at the point of development where two members were required to perpetuate the species).

If humans are controlling the breeding based upon what they think are "desirable" genetic traits, then humans have become an environmental factor. It's still natural selection.

Interesting thought, but I don't accept it. If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature. If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades. Somehow, I don't think they would take to kindly to that...

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Dimensio]

This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed.

Yes, on the order of billions of years.

Your appeal to incredulity fallacy is noted.

Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened.

What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?

Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to.

No it wouldn't. It just requires that some beneficial mutations occur at a proper rate. Please, statistics are one of the most popular bullshit explanations to which creationists like to appeal.

The refutation to that four-page article only requires one paragraph, because the author makes a mistake that throws off his entire argument.

Interesting thought, but I don't accept it.

Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.

If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature.

No, it isn't. Humans are a part of the natural universe, therefore any intervention that they bring about is natural.

"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.

If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades.

Well, PETA is a bunch of lunatics, but it would hardly destroy arguments for protecting the environment. While pollution is "natural" by scientific terms (being comprised of naturally occuring elements), it's still arguably more beneficial in the long run to avoid it.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Timex]

Your appeal to incredulity fallacy is noted.

As is yours.

What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?

No, because it doesn't make any sense. You've done a lot of talking, insulting my beliefs, but you've said nothing in support of your own. You make the pompous fat-headed decision that if you don't believe it, then it's wrong. If you can prove to me that you know so much about the Universe that I am wrong and there is no God, I'd like to hear it now. Otherwise, face the fact that in spite of your delusions, you might actually be wrong. Why won't you believe there is a God? Can't bring yourself to believe it?

Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.

Funny... You've been doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I expect no less from a godless agnostic. (I don't think there's any such thing as an atheist. Something is a higher power to people like you, even if it's Human.)

"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.

There's nothing "natural" about genetic manipulation in a laboratory. That would be like claiming Artificial Intelligence is real intelligence, just because it is.

PETA is a bunch of lunatics

I'm glad I was sitting down for this. We actually found something we agree on!

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Dimensio]

No, because it doesn't make any sense. You've done a lot of talking, insulting my beliefs, but you've said nothing in support of your own.

That's because you've never asked. You've just presented fallacious arguments against evolution. There isn't much need to respond to that beyond demonstrating that your claims are fallacious.

If you can prove to me that you know so much about the Universe that I am wrong and there is no God, I'd like to hear it now.

I can't prove anything regarding the existence of any gods, including the specific one that you happen to believe exists. This, however, does not make your arguments suddenly non-fallacious.

Why won't you believe there is a God? Can't bring yourself to believe it?

No evidence. If I were to suddenly believe in a god, why would I want to believe in the one that you claim exists instead of one of the other thousands of deity constructs out there?

And how does this make your previous argument non-fallacious?

There's nothing "natural" about genetic manipulation in a laboratory.

So you're saying that scientists in a lab use supernatural methods? What, they invoke divine energies or perform magic rituals? That's a new one on me.

Once again, scientific definition of natural vs. layman definition of natural. "Natural selection" uses the former. Now that this has been explained to you, you either demonstrate that I'm wrong (and you can't, because the scientific definition of natural is very simple) or you acknowledge your mistake. Reasserting your original proposition even though I've fully refuted it without making any effort to show that my refutation was in error makes you look stubborn and dishonest.

That would be like claiming Artificial Intelligence is real intelligence, just because it is.

Scientific "natural" vs. layman "natural" again. In science, "natural" refers to any process or event that occurs within the natural universe. The only alternative to natural in science is supernatural. The "artifical" qualifier of "Artifical Intelligence" denotes that it's not the same kind of intelligence that we think of when speaking of humans, however the underlying components and processes that create AI are themselves entirely natural by the scientific definition of the word which means that the end result, AI, is scientifically natural in itself.

Or are you going to claim that voodoo is what makes CPU opponents in computer games move about?

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Timex]

That's because you've never asked. You've just presented fallacious arguments against evolution. There isn't much need to respond to that beyond demonstrating that your claims are fallacious.

My whole point is that people (like you) automatically assume that beliefs (usually those of the Christian persuation) are "fallacious", but you expect me to accept that on your say-so. I have not seen sufficient evidence from you or anyone else that demonstrates categorically that what I believe is wrong. You have demonstrated nothing except that you have a severe disdain for people who believe in God (mine or otherwise), simply because it goes against your beliefs.


I can't prove anything regarding the existence of any gods, including the specific one that you happen to believe exists. This, however, does not make your arguments suddenly non-fallacious.

It doesn't make it fallacious, either. To argue otherwise means talking in circles.

So you're saying that scientists in a lab use supernatural methods? What, they invoke divine energies or perform magic rituals? That's a new one on me.

Compared to anything else going on in the world, it may as well be magic. Remember that it wasn't all that long ago that people accused others of being witches, just because they did something that was not generally understood or done. Imposing a characteristic on an animal or person through "scientific" means, when this characteristic would not show on its own, is not "natural". It's playing "what if".

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Dimensio]

My whole point is that people (like you) automatically assume that beliefs (usually those of the Christian persuation) are "fallacious", but you expect me to accept that on your say-so.

I'm not the one who invented the phrase "argument from incredulity". You argued that because you can't personally believe that evolution is true then it is false. This is a logical fallacy. You presented a four-page article supporting your position, and I provided a citation that explained why the fundamental premise of the article was in error. Stop telling me that I'm just handwaving things away when I've offered citations, it makes you look like a liar.

You have demonstrated nothing except that you have a severe disdain for people who believe in God (mine or otherwise), simply because it goes against your beliefs.

Typical. When a creationist's fallacious arguments are refuted, they very frequently accuse the other side of making personal attacks. Oh, shame on me for pointing out that your arguments lack merit. Obviously I hate your God (apart from all other gods) and I'm out to get you just because I won't accept "I can't believe it, therefore it is false" as a logical argument.

It doesn't make it fallacious, either. To argue otherwise means talking in circles.

True. Your argument was fallacious for other reasons.

Compared to anything else going on in the world, it may as well be magic.

Hyperbole. You realise that you're wrong on the issue, so you're dodging the issue.

Imposing a characteristic on an animal or person through "scientific" means, when this characteristic would not show on its own, is not "natural". It's playing "what if".

Once again, you don't even try to refute the scientific definition of natural, you simply insist that you're right despite the evidence to the contrary.

This is why arguing with creationists is often such a waste of time. They insist that they get to define ALL of the terms at a whim, including the terms used by scientists.

Natural means "occuring within the natural universe". Humans occur within the natural universe. Therefore, anything that humans do is entirely natural. This is the definition that is used for "natural selection". Playing around the issue after it has been explained to you without even attempting to cite a contradictory reference only makes you look like a liar, but I'm not surprised. Dishonesty seems to be a fundamental tenet of creationism.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Timex]

ROTFL! Listen to yourself. You are guilty of the very things you accuse me of doing.

EOD.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Dimensio]

ROTFL! Listen to yourself. You are guilty of the very things you accuse me of doing.

EOD.

Ah, yes. When a creationist's arguments are shown to be totally without merit, he declares victory and runs away like a coward. Then, in the next discussion, he'll bring up the same illogical arguments and phony definitions that were refuted last time.

Creationism is never having to admit you are wrong, no matter how wrong you are.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Timex]

Blah, blah, blah. I mention that I am amused at your rambling, decide not to waste any more time trying to get you to see that you may not actually know all the answers, and you think I declared victory? Hardly.

I've wasted precious time trying to talk sense to a pompous git that doesn't realize that his "most-holy science" doesn't hold all the answers, who declares people with faith in God as basing their faith on a "fallacy", with no proof that it actually is.

Want to see what I consider a "victory" in this conversation? Seeing you reply to this post, just so you can get the last word in.

Honestly, I get better conversations talking to a wall.

Re:So much ignorance, so little time.

[Dimensio]

I've wasted precious time trying to talk sense to a pompous git that doesn't realize that his "most-holy science" doesn't hold all the answers, who declares people with faith in God as basing their faith on a "fallacy", with no proof that it actually is.

Ah, yes, textbook example of creationist lying. I never said that science is "most holy" or that it holds "all the answers", and I said that your arguments against evolution were based upon logical fallacies, not your faith in the God that you worship.

Lies: the last resort of the desperate creationist.

Christians can't be scientists.

[jotaeleemeese]

For one simple reason: they are not prepared to drop the fundmantal tenant of their belief system.

The carbon dating mention is such a piss poor excuse that begs disbelief. There are many other dating methods, including how fast your DNA changes. So for starters all the religious nuts (which is the more accurate description I can think of) that believe Earth and the Universe is a few thousend years old can go and fuck themsleves.

Your alleged discrepancies in the geological record my friend funnily enough don't match up with the science that geologists and geophyscists use in a day to day basis to extract oil and gas for your perusal. It is that same science which is used in paleontology. But of course no religious nut questions it when it delivers the gas for their SUVs.

Speciation has been widely explained . Not by Darwin, but it is not our fault if you are trying to fight a 19th century scientist while ignoring the progress of the following 140 years.

Science is helping our lives become better, religion tried for thousend of years and achieved precious little in providing equality and comfort for the common person. Hopefully one day religion will be consigned to the history books, and althoug certainly there is a political agenda in how many scientists promote scientific knowledge, the religious nuts also have theor own agenda, thus it is perfeclty legitimate to fight them blow by blow until they stop perpetuating the ignorance that stop many people being free and masters of their own destiny.

Re:Christians can't be scientists.

[intheory]

By your reasoning, scientists can't be scientists, because they are not ready to drop the fundamental tenants of their belief systems. i.e. God does not exist, the world is millions of years old, that Carbon-14 decays with a half-life of 5720 years, etc...

Re:You'll be deftly ignored. However,

[JPelorat]

Believing something because it makes you feel safe and content does not guarantee that what you believe is the single truth - it just indicates that you may be nervous of accepting the possibile validity of conflicting points of view.

Just so ya know, this statement is valid for atheism too. Atheism is as much a faith-based belief structure as Christianity or any other religion. It's just reversed - one believes that there is no God even though one cannot prove nonexistence or even approach a proof of it.

Re:Cosmos: A Snotty and dismissive review.

[museumpeace]

I watched episode one. Pretty fluffy unless you wanted to watch the first reality TV series about stromatolites [spelling?] and low budget graphics of comet impacts. The music for Sagan's Saga was also much better.
As for political subtexts, I suppose some KKKansans [I can say that? my father and grandfather were born there!] will be uncomfortable that the presentation implies [but does not seem to spell out in so many words] that there is such a thing as evolution. It is much more explicit that the timeline for the process whose end-product is often called "creation" is NOT going to fit withing the biblical 6000 odd years.
Based on how little I expect to learn and how unpoetic the whole thing is, I am skipping the rest of the series.

Whats a sig? A de-"nature"d signature.

Please, not yet...

[OneSmartFellow]

I'm still reading Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons" !

Even Better answer to God question

[jeephistorian]

So....um.....if God is all powerful and such....couldn't He/She/It dictate that life would evolve from a small start and become more?

Sure the bible says that earth was created in a few days, but there isn't any real clear idea how one would define a day. To God, a day may be millions of our years!

Quit trying to explain God and accept that maybe the universe is what it is. Who are we to question what God has done? As my grandfather once said (he was a theologian): If God wants evolution, God gets evolution. Don't waste the energy arguing something we can't prove or disprove.

______________________

Amen!

[digital.prion]

..wait.. Damn

And that is why you should SUPPORT..

[digital.prion]

PBS! http://www.pbs.org/

Go there and click "SUPPORT PBS" at the top of the screen. I think it may even be tax deductible. IF not, do it cause you want to.
Peace and berries!

Re:The diff between laymen and scientific theories

[jav1231]

" You fail to distinguish between scientific theories and laymen theories." And we're supposed to take that seriously? Okay, I'm forgetting who the intellectual dwarf is here...

In-Laws

[The Queen]

Why is it that everyone's in-laws are conservative? I haven't met anyone in a long time who had progressive parents or in-laws. Except my boyfriend, his folks party. :-P

Flawed.

[Anonymous Coward]

... you'd be labelled as racist.

People choose religion. So much for your analogy.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to understand..

[museumpeace]

"organized ingorance". [but I like your term] Plain old laziness when confronted with the reading and thinking required to absorb the scientific evidence and view of our existance will suffice. NOBODY is comfortable without some sense of understanding their world but many are content to borrow simplistic, self serving boogeyman theories rather than do the hard work of striving for an objective grasp.

Re: Good stuff...

[mattdm]

This idea actually fits in with my idea that the goal of humanity should be to create its successors, a race of perfect robot creatures who will live forever without death.

Oh, sure, until the heat-death of the universe. Then what?

I miss Carl

[stuffduff]

While his accent was sometimes annoying ahd his examples often comical ("Imagine Jupiter as a giant Quarter Pounder.") I miss Carl. He was pretty long winded, but that seemed to provide an opportunity for much more detailed and vaired visual imagery. Then there was the book. I don't know, maybe he was just a bit more melodramatic and more of a showman. I'm sure that this condensed, updated show is probably just right for the current age, but I experienced almost all of this decades ago with a little boy who ask a librarian for books on the stars, and corrected her when she misunderstood him. His vision of cosmology awed and inspired me. I hope this series does the same for the next generation.

An idea for how to theorize about origins...

[WilliamGeorge]

Either the universe exists, or it does not. If it does not, then everything you see and read (including this!) are simply figments of your imagination. If that is the case, there is not only no purpose to further discussion, but also no foundational basis on which to discuss. Therefore, we will assume, for the purposes of this writing, that the universe does in fact exist. You exist. I exist. This document exists (if only in digitized form). So, there are two possibilities: the universe (or some form of it) has always existed, or it was, at some point in time, created. If it was created, then its creator(s) either had always existed, or were in turn created by something (or someone) else. Again, either way, there would have to have been a being (person, mind, intelligence, etc.) that had "always existed". So we have those two choices: either a matter-and-energy mixture has always existed, and from it has sprung intelligent life (us humans at least, if you want to call us intelligent) or an intelligence (or group thereof) of some form has always existed and it created the universe.
So, the question now becomes: which of these two is more logical and/or more likely? Well, to answer that question we should think a little bit more about the properties of the two possible existants. The second, an intelligence of some form, is rather vauge: all that can really be known for sure is that it (I will use singular forms of pronouns from now on for convienence sake, though keep in mind that there is no limit as to the quantity or quality of creators, if it/they exist, or at least none has been established yet) would have a level of what we would call "mental" ability far beyond anything we can imagine. It is even possible that this "mental" power would be enough to create the universe, since this being would not neccessarily be bound by any physical laws (these are, after all, a part of the universe, and it is concievable - in fact, essential - that these would have been created too in this case).
The universe, however, is fairly well known to us. It contains a fixed amount of matter and energy. We can observe that it contains, at a minimum, thousands of galaxies each with billions upon billions of stars, many with the potential to house a planetary system. Our Solar System is one, with a myriad of planets and other orbiting debris, and with at least one planet which contains (intelligent?) life. We also know that the universe is governed by physical laws, like the law of gravity. These laws govern how the matter and energy work. There is even a law that covers how the matter can be converted to energy and vica-versa (I know, there is debate about Relativity Theory, but even if the law as we know it is incorrect then there is a correct one we simply have not discovered yet).

So, again, which is more logical and likely: a self-existant intelligence of incredible (infinite?) power, or a massive, complex, self-existant matter-energy universe with laws governing the actions that take place within it? That I am going to leave up to our wonderful /. discussion... at least for now :)

Re:An idea for how to theorize about origins...

[Tiny Elvis]

This argument is intriguing but contains the implicit requirement that something cannot exist without having been created. Since we have no idea what if anything exists outside our universe, or more importantly in what sense it 'exists' at all as compared to our experience of what it means to 'exist', we really can't insist on requirements like for a universe to exist it must be created.

That reality (the 'meta-reality' if you will) really does not have to be like our experience of reality at all, with regard to action/reaction, causalty etc. You touched on this by pointing out that the second existant would have inconcievable mental power. I would go a step further and say we can't assume that 'mental powers' exist at all there (not that I can use the term 'there' here either) as such, or 'personalities' or 'intelligence' or time or space or whatever.

You are the man !

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the *real* deal ! I am so happy to see that at least some had the insight of looking it from that perspective.

No one answers the questions what you just asked !

good effects but really dumbed down

[Anonymous Coward]

nice effects but do they have to dumbed it down so much? I thought it was a kids' program at first. And all those 'count down' to creat drama!

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Dimensio]

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (

This statement is false. Evolution makes no statements regarding the conditions of life or the universe in general, nor does it make any statements regarding how life ultimately came into existence.

Whoever wrote that site is either fundamentally ignorant regarding the theory of evolution and can not be taken seriously, or they are fundamentally dishonest in presenting the theory of evolution and should not be taken seriously.

I mean, really, if you can't get the fundamentals of what the theory says and what it doesn't say, why should you be believed on it at all?

Re:Not a whif of science to "scientific" creationi

[Dimensio]

Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?"

Actually, evolution developed out of observations of organisms that led to the conclusion that they shared a common ancestor, which coincidentally provided an answer to the question "What is the origin of the species?". It does not address the question of the ultimate origins of life, however, though many creationists who are ignorant of the theory insist that it does.

Re: Good stuff...

[Cryptnotic]

I don't know much about that. But even if it all amounts to nothing in the end, that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Re:The diff between laymen and scientific theories

[austus]

You might come off as more than an intellectual dwarf if you actually address my arguments.

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the Big Bang is not a statement about origins? You are right, I can't believe you.

Have you considered that science isn't the problem

[JetJaguar]

Please don't take this the wrong way. My intention isn't to attack your faith, but I do think that perhaps you need to think about the origins of your faith a little more deeply.

I find it quite surprising that you would hinge your faith on whether or not certain scientific theories are correct. Don't you think that's rather odd? Particularly given the fact that faith is usually defined as belief in something without having good reason to believe in it? Is some wild esoteric theory really that much of threat?

You have a problem with evolution and the big bang because you think that if these theories are true, then the universe could not have been "perfect." But I ask, perfect according to who? God's idea of perfection may very well be different from yours, and in fact, I think the idea of perfection that you allude to, may very well be logically impossible. For example, what makes you so sure that death is a flaw? I'm not sure that I would draw that conclusion from Genesis.

Second, and I'm sure you won't like this: What prevents God from using evolution as his means for developing life? According to Christian thought, God knew what outcome he wanted, and maybe evolution provided the outcome he was looking for. There is a lot of evidence that points in that direction, and you already agree that Genesis is by and large and allegory, so what's the problem? You don't like the idea of evolution because of the "chance" that's involved with it, but from my perspective, I say, who are you to question God's decision for making the universe work the way he did. Just because you think he should be involved in a certain way that you define, doesn't mean that that is the way that He put things together.

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Dimensio]

I suppose the Big Bang is not a statement about origins? You are right, I can't believe you.

The Big Bang theory is a statement about the origins of the universe. It is not a part of the theory of evolution. The site referenced claimed to "refute" the theory of evolution, not the Big Bang. In its attempt at a refutation, it made a statement about evolution that is completely false.

Only a complete moron or an unrepentant liar would put forth the arguments on that site as a refutation of evolution. It would be like me citing Jesus's commandment to murder those who disagree with you as "proof" that Christianity is an immoral religion.

Extending the analogy

[Kaseijin]

Us asking how an entity could exist outside our timeline is pretty analogous to a Flatlander asking how an entity could exist outside his plane.

Awestruck at the sight of the mysteries of the earth, thus unveiled before my unworthy eye, I said to my Companion, "Behold, I am become as a God. For the wise men in our country say that to see all things, or as they express it, omnividence, is the attribute of God alone." There was something of scorn in the voice of my Teacher as he made answer: "is it so indeed? Then the very pick-pockets and cut-throats of my country are to be worshiped by your wise men as being Gods: for there is not one of them that does not see as much as you see now. But trust me, your wise men are wrong."
Edwin Abbott, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions

Re: Good stuff...

[mattdm]

I don't know much about that. But even if it all amounts to nothing in the end, that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

So, why not just try to make the best of being who we are? What's the _point_ of the whole super-robot-replacements-thing?

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Dimensio]

I notice that Lat.Long hasn't returned to defend this site. Not surprising. The site is full of lies and lacks any merit. It gets fundamental concepts wrong and falsely attributes claims that the theory of evolution does not even make -- if they can't even get the basics of the theory right when speaking on it, why should I believe any "refutation" that they present? If they get the theory wrong, then their refutation is likely built upon faulty premises.

I am trying to figure out why Lat.Long even presented this site. Was it a joke, or is he (or she) really so stupid as to believe that the material there is convincing?

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Lat.Long]

It is not my site to defend. As for convincing - I'm not convince of a lot of things. Which requires more faith? Molecules to man, or God? What fantastic luck to have atoms and molecules combine in just the right way to produce Man AND Woman. Where did God come from? Many Evolutionist are just as rabid in their beliefs, which have very little scientific "proof" as religous people which also have have little "proof". I've listened to the PBS program. Much of it was of the form, "it might have been", "maybe", "it could have been like this". Very little proof. I know one thing for sure, we are here. Calling someone stupid is often a sign of insecurity in ones own position.

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Dimensio]

It is not my site to defend.

So you're going to present it as evidence, then run away like a coward and deny all responsibility when it's found to be in error? Typical.

Which requires more faith? Molecules to man, or God?

Oh, boy, another creationist quip. I've never heard that one before.

I'll give you what I do know. Molecules exist. Man exists. I've not seen any evidence that any gods exist. Why should I assume some entity -- and moreover, assume a specific entity that you have defined apart from all other smiliarly described entitie -- when I have no evidence for it apart from "I can't imagine another explanation"?

What fantastic luck to have atoms and molecules combine in just the right way to produce Man AND Woman.

If it were really that simple, you might have an argument. But, as usual, the creationist glosses over the details because that gets in the way of his or her claim that it's all impossible.

Where did God come from?

Good question. My answer: the minds of believers.

Many Evolutionist are just as rabid in their beliefs, which have very little scientific "proof" as religous people which also have have little "proof".

Is it easier for you to say this and pretend that no evidence for it has ever been presented than actually address the facts? Do creationists realise just how obvious it is when they bury their heads in the sand, or do they honestly believe that if they close their eyes all of the evidence goes away?

I've listened to the PBS program. Much of it was of the form, "it might have been", "maybe", "it could have been like this". Very little proof.

In other words, you only heard what you wanted to hear, and you just ignored the fact that their statements were based upon observed evidence. Typical creationist: pretend that it's nothing but base speculation without any evidence underlying it all.

I know one thing for sure, we are here.

Yes, we are.

Calling someone stupid is often a sign of insecurity in ones own position.

True, which is why I try to avoid calling people stupid and instead demonstrate their foolishness by pointing out their own inane actions. For example, you completely ignored everything that I wrote previously regarding the definition of "natural". You've been backed into a corner on it, but like a typical creationist you are utterly unable to admit that you were in error, so you just ignored the whole point and hoped that would go away. Instead, you replied with a string of non-sequiturs, again reiterating your argument from incredulity, and demonstrating a stunning ignorance of the underlying study of evolution, showing that you are wholly unqualified to speak on how weak a theory it might be.

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Dimensio]

D'oh. I confused Lat.Long's post with another, hence my comment on the definition of "natural". I retract comments regarding that specific matter, and apologize.

My main point remains, however. You presented a site as evidence, then ran off when it was shown to be in error. If you weren't going to defend the talking points made, why the hell did you bring the site up in the first place? And if you clearly don't understand what the theory of evolution states (which is obvious from the fact that you thought that the site that you presented would be even remotely convincing), why should I believe a word you say when you claim that it's faulty?

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Lat.Long]

Why post? To stir the pot. It is entertaining. I have problems with both sides. To you, that makes me a creationist?

Re:Science Against Evolution

[Dimensio]

You presented a website taking a creationist position, and nothing more. The logical assumption is that you either agree with the website or you're a shameless troll.

Not that your comments here make the website any more factual. It isn't, and only an idiot would present what they present as an argument against evolution. The question remains: why would you present such obviously false information in an argument for a position?

I can understand why you have problems with evolution. Clearly, you don't understand it in the least. The most common opponents of evolution are those who think that they know what it says but are wrong, and thus their objections are rooted in falsehoods.

Science as religion.

[JInterest]

If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.

The 17th century scientist was firmly convinced that combustion was produced by an invisible substance called phlogiston. The 19th century scientist was convinced that the speed of light was infinite, and space was filled with ether. 20th century science never quite figured out whether quantum mechanics is voodoo or not, or why the behavior of light seems to fit both particle and wave theory. They can come up with some creative explanations though.

Science is a method, not a body of truth. I wish sometimes that history of science and Kuhn was more broadly required in college.

Three billion years of evolution gives plenty of time -- and plenty of trials that didn't work out so well, to explain the variety of life of earth.

That's a religious statement, not a scientific one. It is a statement of faith, not a falsifiable proposition. But if what you consider "science", that is to say, materialist positivism, is your religion, you are welcome to it. What you aren't entitled to is your unjustified pomposity towards those who are more honest about faith than you are.

Re: Good stuff...

[Cryptnotic]

I didn't say that we shouldn't make the best of what we are. However, that isn't the only thing we should do. Human beings want to be remembered after they are dead. Some people will write a novel or try to invent something useful to humanity. Some start a company or try to make a lot of money, then they decide to form a charity organization to give some of it away (e.g., Getty, Gates Foundation, et cetera). Whatever you do, you want to create a legacy. All of the famous people have legacies. Even not-so-famous people have legacies (e.g., your great-granfather who came from Poland to work in a factory in New Jersey). Legacies can be good--being remembered for working to promote one's family or society, or bad--being remembered as a drunk who neglected his family and was a burden on society.

Anwyay, I think recreating society in a perfect form would be a great type of legacy. Of course, if we created intelligent immortal robots, we would have to give them some kind of drive or ambition to go out and explore the universe. If we didn't, they would presumably just sit around playing video games until the end of the universe.