Slashdot Mirror
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."
So is this supposed to be as good as Cosmos was? Maybe then I'd turn my satelite back on.
"...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
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Cue rabid fundamentalists... NOW!
Make Carl proud.
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.
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.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
There hasn't been a good NOVA series on in a while, especially not on Cosmology. I have my hopes up for this one...
Expect the southern baptists to raise hell about it...
...But will they solve the riddle of why two socks go into the dryer and only one comes out?
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.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
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!
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.
"It's a simple question, if the moon were made of ribs ... would ya eat it? ...I know I would."
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
"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!
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
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..
The effects will be great, no doubt. Too bad the science behind most of what they'll say is bunk.
because I get to find out about interesting stuff like this which I might not normally be exposed to.
If I had a real
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.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Scientific theories [should] have no relation to political alignments.
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.
You may want to check, but I think that your wife has Boobies and if she isn't Hot, well that's your fault. ;->
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.
Learn About Outsourcing. http://www.pioutsource.com
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?
This Sig is removed due to factual inaccuracy
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.
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.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
...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.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
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."
If I had a real
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?
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
Actually only a bad thing for humans. The cockroaches will be rejoicing.
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
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
*********
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
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.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
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
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Doesn't that imply a Creator?
Oh, you're talking about the formation of the planets!
If you miss the show, you can still get it on DVD and VHS sometime around November 15th from here.
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]
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
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."
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
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 )
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.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
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
No sig for you!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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?
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).
Table-ized A.I.
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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?
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.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/Science Against Evolution
Atlantis
>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.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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.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. We would like a detailed run-down of this, too. Because on Slashdot, you can say so much bunk before being debunked... How about someting as silly as climate change?An opposing viewpoint in Science has to be scientific.
It's like saying that the opposite of football is backgammon. And what are this gentlemen's scientific credentials?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.
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"
Doh!
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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".
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
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.
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?To slashdot a TV station? I guess we'll see
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
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.
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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....
Sig it.
The whole basis of Science depends on three things:
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.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
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?
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.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
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!
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
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.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
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.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
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.
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
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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.
PPS. There is no such thing as fetal stem cell research.
You probably mean embryonic stem cell research.
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
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
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.
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.
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.
"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?
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
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.
"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 /.
-sig removed for tax purposes-
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.
--
Power to the Peaceful
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.
"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?
-sig removed for tax purposes-
rather than 4 years in the making, eh?
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.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I thought the first review ("Nearly everything is missing") on this page was very interesting.
I can sympathize. I tend to get cranky when religious types try to be scientific.
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.)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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.
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?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
It's also on tomorrow night.
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.
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.
"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.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
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.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
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.
My other first post is car post.
"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.
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?
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
.... may not be as reliable as you may believe.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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...
.sig? No.
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.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Poor puppy.
That is to what religious nuts have been reduced, to call propaganda a solid body of knowledge.
Whay a sorry espectacle.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
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.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Blind spot: "The Choice"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0100/0100_01.
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!
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
"...so I hope that there is at least some mention of intelligent design..."
Why? What has that to do with science? Answer: nothing.
"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.
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?
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.
______________________
Huh?
"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.
Third choice. There is no "creation" involving "creators" at all.
> 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
" 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...
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
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
"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.
"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.
"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.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
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
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
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?
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.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
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.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
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.
/. discussion... at least for now :)
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
William George
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?
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
...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).
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.?"
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
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?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
My other first post is car post.
You might come off as more than an intellectual dwarf if you actually address my arguments.
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.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
Edwin Abbott, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions
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?
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?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
Atlantis
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Why post? To stir the pot. It is entertaining. I have problems with both sides. To you, that makes me a creationist?
Atlantis
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.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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.
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.
My other first post is car post.
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.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd