Slashdot Mirror
Texas Creationist Museum Facing Extinction
gattaca writes "A small Texas museum that teaches creationism is counting on the auction of a prehistoric mastodon skull to stave off extinction. The founder and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, which rejects evolution and claims that man and dinosaurs coexisted, said it will close unless the Volkswagen-sized skull finds a generous bidder. 'If it sells, well, then we can come another day,' Joe Taylor said. 'This is very important to our continuing.'" Meanwhile, the much larger Creation Museum in Kentucky that we discussed and toured when it opened last year seems to be thriving.
Has any fellow European of mine ever come across any serious creationists? Is this solely an American phenomenon?
... no one buy it!
Two states where I'm pretty sure you could find arguments against evolution just by looking at the local populace. I guess if they don't believe in evolution they don't feel the need to do so themselves.
today is spelling optional day.
Falsiblity. Predictive ablity.
Some resemblence to the facts we can find in nature.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Believe whatever you want while within your church. Just keep it out of the science classroom.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I'm a Christian of the preterist nature. I believe in evolutionary forces as part of God's creation. I don't believe in a 6000-year old Earth (neither do most Jews who hold the Old Testament in a different way than many Christians do). I also think the debate of evolution versus creationism is really repugnant and a waste of time when there are so many other things we can be spending our time on (we meaning "us Christians.")
I can't even begin to count the billions of hours wasted by Christians in living life in ways completely counter to what our God teaches us. Look at the battle over the 10 Commandments, laws of the Israelites' God that have been countermanded by Christ's teaching to a much more simpler set of rules (completely love God first, completely love others second). And yet, when we dig deeper into the "Why" of modern Christian thought, we come up against the same problem that I see in those who are pro-government: we need "leaders" and we need "rules" and we need "penalties" to keep us in line.
What has happened to the powerful individual in today's society? Evolution versus creationism is a debate that strikes at the heart of my question: why is it that we need "teacher-leaders" to stick to a specific standard, rather than what the individual kid in a unique place in their specific city/society needs to be taught? I can't even understand why science is taught to ALL children, along with higher level maths, when the kids today can barely count, let alone read or speak properly. I had a 20-something in my town use a calculator at a checkout line 2 weeks ago when I gave her $21.01 for a $6.06 charge. Unbelievable.
Creationism and evolution are both articles of faith, and really have no purpose for MOST students. Then again, I truly believe that even High School is worthless for 70% of society considering what it is churning out.
Theories can be tested to be proven or disproven using scientific methods. Creationism cannot. What scientific research would you propose to test the "theory" of creationism? Evolution can be studied by examining DNA progression, fossil records, etc.
today is spelling optional day.
...either smite them with bankruptcy or send a saviour to the auction, their accountant has been weighing their sins and thinks a press release might help. /ducks
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I think the point is that he's supposed to talk up his love for everybody, but in secret only loves the ones that suck up to him. That's why animals have such a rough go of it, they aren't smart enough to brown nose the one way that really counts.
I read the internet for the articles.
The KY Creation museum isn't too far away from here and everyone that I've talk to that has gone or wanted to go hasn't done so out of religious belief but out of morbid curiosity or think it's funny. Their success is the same as that of the bearded lady, or so it seems to me. Once people get over the initial shock and humor it'll fade into obscurity.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I sometimes wonder about the wisdom of giving free publicity to organizations like these. From my standpoint they represent an institutionalized mental illness- that of denying reality. Denying reality is certainly akin to "doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result".
I do understand the religious issues that fuel these kinds of organizations. But it has always seemed to me that since "truth" is central to any religious belief, that an attempt to derail truth through ignorance or outright deception was a horrible "sin".
With the way organizations like this adhere to biblical writing, one might be able to accuse them of having a book as "god" rather than the apparently supernatural "God of the Gaps" most people seem to engage in their spirituality.
The inerrancy of God seems plausible to me. The in inerrancy of a book seems like sheer insanity.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
First of all, we are talking scientific theory vs. layman's theory.
What a non-scientist calls a "theory", a scientist calls a hypothesis, and isn't remotely worth of theory status.
1) Evolution is a scientific theory. To achieve theory status in science, you typically have to test something rigorously and show it to hold up well. The theory of evolution has mathematical/statistical models defining it, explains evidence found on earth very well, and can be tested.
2) A law is achieved by one of two methods: a theory that is not disproved (or even seriously challenged) for a ridiculously long time can achieve "law" status in the books. Alternatively if it can be rigorously proven that no other explanation is possible, the process might be sped up a bit.
3) Creationalism, as the ministers at the church I went to when I was younger suggested, DOES NOT conflict with evolution. The former is the who and why, the latter is the how.
May I ask how your pastor described a theory and went over it?
Also, may I ask how creationalism can be mathematically and statistically defined, as well as tested? For all I've seen in this argument, I've yet to see a good mathematical or statistical model for creationalism, or an accurate test.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
The closest word to theory in the sense you use (as in 'guess') in the scientific community is 'hypothesis.' An hypothesis is just a guess. Maybe a somewhat educated one based on observation, by still just a guess.
OTOH, a theory is something much more substantial than a guess -- it is falsifiable, repeatable, consistent, and verifiable. Gravity is "just" a theory. Evolution and gravity meet these same scientific criteria.
Creationism does not. It is not verifiable (no, your 'Good Book' doesn't count). It is not falsifiable (we can't prove that without it, there would be no man). And it is not repeatable. (We can't just make a man in a lab from dirt.)
So Creationism doesn't meet the criteria for theory. It merely meets the criteria for hypothesis, and not a very good one as it's based on only one observation -- a 6,000 year-old story written in a book.
My blog
So biology professors have a higher genetic fitness than Christian fundamentalists? :-P
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Y'know, it occurs to me that anti-evolutionists don't just have a problem with evolution, but also geology, cosmology, carbon dating, physics. Any I missed?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
The funny part about the original CNN article I read on this said that Heritage Auction Galleries estimated the age of the thing to be at around 40,000 years old. At least the musuem guy is letting smarter people sell the thing.
Actually, I think a better argument is the predictiveness argument: Science is about learning to understand and predict the world around us, so we can make it better. (Of course 'better' has a host of different meanings, but regardless of which we choose, we need to be able to understand and predict, so we can choose the results of our actions.)
Evolution makes predictions that are accurate enough to be useful, regardless of whether is it aboslutely true or not. (For the record: It's as true as anything we've ever come up with.)
Creationism makes no predictions. In fact, it prevents them: Why did this happen? God did it. Will it happen again? If God wants it to. Will it stop? If God gets bored. Can we influence it? If God decides to be influenced, yes. In the end, 'God' is unknowable and unexplainable, so by saying God did it we have stopped all thought, inquiry, or prediction on the topic.
Which is probably why it is attractive to some people: They don't want to think.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
How can they sell this skull as a 40,000 year old artifact if they claim it's less than 6000 years old?
It's about 35 miles from me on the road to Lubbock. He has some really nice fossils, but his interpretation is just plain weird. He built a huge human leg bone to show people what the "giants" would have looked like. The problem is he didn't take into account the strength of the bone and simply scaled it up to giant size. The local schools take classes on field trips to see the museum, I need to ask the high school kid that works for me what they are told when they visit. Knowing the teachers around here they teach this stuff in their class, it's shame really.
Sexuality. Other religions.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
that wouldn't be anti evolutionists that would be people who are creationalists. It is possible to be both anti evo and anti creation.
From the BioTech Life Science Dictionary: theory definition:"In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments." What makes it better than proposing Creationism?
- Evolution is supported by repeatable, publicly observable experimentation. Creationism is not
- Evolution is supported by massive amounts of publicly observable evidence. Creationism is not.
- Evolution is falsifiable. Creationism is not.
- Evolution makes testable predictions. Creationism does not.
Think about it. I strongly urge you to begin doing so, rather than following the lead of charlatans.Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Say you are a legitimate museum/educational institution capable of purchasing this skull.
Do you:
a) Purchase the mastodon skull to preserve an excellent fossil and put it on display for educational value, including its true age?
b) Allow this absurdity and insult to rational intelligence that is a Creation Museum die?
Biology and it's whole sub-genere called 'medicine' come to mind...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Words, eh! Who'd have though they could have more than one meaning:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
Evolution would be under definition #1, whereas creationism comes under definition #7.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.
Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones[1]) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution.
Now, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a "text" being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits.
It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue..." - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.)
The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees... and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or... common ancestry is actually true.
[1] Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the 'tree' of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Y'know, it occurs to me that anti-evolutionists don't just have a problem with evolution, but also geology, cosmology, carbon dating, physics. Any I missed?
Logic?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
You've never heard of the theory of intelligent falling? God makes things fall. Duh.
Seriously, though, Gravity is not a fact. Things falling is a fact. Gravity is a theory that explains why things fall. Which theory of gravity do people use? Mostly, Newton's, even though we know that is incorrect. Nobody uses relativity except in special circumstances, because it is a more complex calculation and yields the same results as the 'incorrect' theory of Newton in most circumstances. Newton's theory is 'wrong' but it is still useful. Do you understand now?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I can see why people would reject evolution. For one thing, as was pointed out by an earlier articled linked to by slashdot, it's counterintuitive. It is not consistent with our every day experience, or at least not with aspects of our experience that we recognize as having those qualities. Secondly, it can be very hard to keep up with. There are aspects of evolution that are rock solid. They're facts about things observed in the laboratory. Then there are things that are highly plausible, such as that we got here through this mechanism. But when you start making claims about specific things that "must" have occurred, you're on damn shaky ground. When humans left Africa, or IF they did, has been revised more times than I can count. When we and chimps branched from our common ancestor keeps getting revised. Now, that's all well and good, except for the fact that any time the layman comes into contact with these theories, they're STATED AS FACT. Ever watch the Discovery channel? Ever notice how none of the dinosaurs have feathers? And yet no mention is made of the fact that we now know that they do and that the original notion that they were scaly was based on assumption (we didn't have good evidence either way). Let me reiterate: Scientists tend to make bold fact-like statements about science that should never be stated that way, because they just fucking don't know! It's no wonder people think scientists are arrogant. They make bold statements and think they're right. Then they change their minds and think they're right. Scientists are never wrong! Isn't that convenient. Perhaps it's not fair to say, but the fact is that evidence supporting specifics of evolutionary theory are trivial compared to the kind of certainty we have about things like physics, chemistry, and biology of living organisms. Yet those, as with any science, are inherently uncertain. Evolutionary biologists need to get off their high horse and admit that they're stabbing in the dark.
That being said, what I cannot understand is why you would want to invoke a much more ridiculous hypothesis like creationism. It's not even a hypothesis. It's not science. It's not falsifiable. Ok, so it's certain and unchanging. I can understand that. But there's no objective evidence for it. Or at least, the evidence there is does not point in the direction of creation than any other alternative, so choosing creationism is arbitrary. So, when it comes down to it, many people probably choose creationism for two reasons: (1) tradition, and (2) because the scientists leave them feeling like a chump who trusted them, just to be betrayed when the scientist changed his mind (while being completely apologetic about having been wrong).
See, scientists are role models. Yes, I realize that they're just presenting the hypothesis that best fits the evidence (sometimes; sometimes they have personal or political agendas), but they need to be damn careful about how they present their theory and explain better their uncertainties and alternative explanations.
Oh, and the scientists who try to use evolution to disprove God are just as screwed up as the creationists who try to use God to prove evolution. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
'If it sells, well, then we can come another day,' Come again?
I think that means his wife is cutting him off until he gets that damned thing out of the house.
Keep religion out of school, and we'll keep reality out of church.
Bronze age fairy tales vs a mountain of verifiable facts that also are the basic foundation of genetic research.
What possible prediction can anyone make from Creationism?
Evolution predicts that since all living things on the planet share DNA, then medical research using animals should produce useful medical procedures for humans.
When you cut someone open, it's not full of clay.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
I mean that silly skull can't be older than 6,000 years, obviously not worth much. ;)
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
English
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Your pastor is an idiot, and you just committed the etymological fallacy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is getting worse than Mac vs PC.
I have a question that has always troubled me regarding evolution vs. intelligent design. Is there any meaningful way, or even a need, to differentiate "created" things from "naturally occurring" things? Homo Sapiens may have "evolved" over millions of years, but there are objects on this earth (now even "living" objects) which are 100% the "creation" of us as a species, which would be very difficult to explain from an evolutionary standpoint.
At some point, we may become so advanced, technologically, that there is nothing curently living which is beyond our ability to recreate in a laboratory setting. How would one determine what occurs naturally and what was created? There will be lots of legal issues related to "accident of nature" or "industrial accident" related to when created things go bad, and how to prove they were created versus just having occurred by themselves.
To some extent, this is us "playing God" with nature. Somewhere down the road, a wholly "created" being will gain consciousness, evolve some (if left alone long enough), then wonder where he came from. Then they will have the same argument we are having now.
I'm no fan of ID as having "scientific" merit. But it does have philosophical merit. And some of the thought experiments make my head hurt.
(Posting Anon, because I don't like to discuss my personal politics or religion in public.)
It means scientific theory, not something ai thought about while have a few bears with my buddies.
Evolution is real, it makes predictions, is falsifiable.
There are warehouses of evidence.
Plus, your pasture should probably actually study the history of the Bible. It becomes very obvious, even at a cursory glance, that Genesis isn't a literal book; Which would explain why Genesis I and II contridict each other about creation.
Gravity is also a Scientific Theory.
Evolution isn't an attack on religion, it's just another piece of evidence that the Genesis creation stories are a fable. Also, getting hung up on the creation stories MISSES THE POINT.
I suggest you read your Bible, cover to cover. Take some notes.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As a Christian, I have toi say that the parent comment is the best modded comment I've seen today. Science and religion ask completely different questions. Science asks "how", religion asks "why".For the religious to try to undermine a useful scientific theory with an untestable "theory" like "creationism" is to show an appalling lack of faith in the God they claim to worship.
My take on it? Creationism per se is bunk, and evolution is the best theory I've seen to explein how God went about growing this wonderous universe.
Yes, I know it's heresy to admit being a Christian at slashdot, where athiesm is the site relgion and its proponents will stone with mod points anyone who dares believe that God exists, so mod me down. Arguing the existance of God with an athiest is like arguing the existance of red with a blind man.
You're an athiest because God wants you to be an athiest. "All we are is dust in the wind" - Kansas.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Once Mike Huckabee is elected president and amends the Constitution to "be with GOD" it will be my sworn duty to hunt each of you down and have you burned at the stake for your heretical treason.
There are three meanings of theory, and people frequently misunderstand them.
..." This is the meaning that creationists usually think they are arguing against. But in science, it is never correct to use theory in this sense, though even scientists speaking casually often use it like that. The correct word for this in science is "hypothesis". It is certainly not the correct definition for the phrase "the theory of evolution".
(Theory defitition 1): "supposition" or "hunch". This is the use in the sentence "If my theory is correct, then
(Theory definition 2): "a description of a process that explains observed facts". These vary in their degree of supportability, and sometimes, multiple warring theories are supported to different degrees by existing experiment. For example, there are at the moment multiple theories about what process gives matter mass. Examples: The theory that matter is atomic, i.e. not continuously divisible. The theory that natural selection coupled with variation leads to evolution. The theory that particles have mass because of their interaction with the Higgs field.
(Theory definition 3): "a body of knowledge and understanding that supports much other past and future work"; it describes an entire framework of internally consistent principles, understanding and data. Meanings used in this sense:
* Atomic theory (the understanding of the structure of the atom and it's constituent particles and interactions that underlies all of nuclear science and chemistry)
* Evolutionary theory (the understanding of how organisms and species give rise to one another, and the genetic mechanisms thereof that underlies all of biology)
It's instructive to note that evolutionary theory and atomic theory are approximately equivalent in terms of evidentiary support and use in their fields. Both arose as type-2 definitions around the same time (mid 19th-century), supplanting prior theories (matter is continuous, God created all organisms at one time and they have been unchanged since then). Both have since then become into type 3 theories that completely underly the relevant fields (chemistry, biology).
Religious fundamentalists don't understand the difference between these definitions, and they think evolution is a "type 1" theory, more properly called a hypothesis. It is not. Evolution is the entire framework of over a century of biological research. Attempting to understand research in biology while rejection evolution is like attempting to understand chemistry while rejecting the atom. Or attempting to understand higher math while rejecting arithmetic. It's flat-out ludicrous.
(This is a repost of my statement from the last time we had this debate. I will keep reposting it, hoping to educate a few people eventually.)
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Well, at least their prospects for selling it look rosy. I'm sure a member of the large "creationist fossil hunters with lots of money to burn" community will come to bail them out.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Well said. If you're not pro evolution you're instantly "one of them. You're either for us or against us!" This mentality shows why some evolutionists and some creationists are more similar than they are willing to admit.
The fact that you yourself are ostensibly unable to comprehend the idea of "faith", which underpins all religions, doesn't mean that anyone who holds religious beliefs is "uneducated" or "right on the bottom". In fact, I'm sure there are a lot of people who are much more intelligent than you are, who much more thoroughly understand evolutionary theory than you do, and who are much more generally enlightened and educated than you, but who still hold religious views which might properly be called "creationist" views.
There's a lot of this sort of bigotry--apparently rooted in insecurity--on Slashdot. In the end, though, you end up looking more like an ignorant, black-or-white thinker than the people who you intend to mock, but whose views to choose to caricature rather than actually understand. That's not to say that there aren't some hard-core "creationists" who are irrational, but they are certainly a minority amid a sea of people who are more-or-less intelligent than you but who believe in God, and you don't allow for that at all. That's why you sound like an idiot to me.
Indeed. If you ever have the perverse pleasure of debating with a creationist, the first thing you need to discover is what it is exactly that he/she understands by the term "evolution". If you're scientifically literate at all, I can guarantee you that 99% of the time you'll be amazed and discouraged by what you're dealing with. These are people who are not necessarily stupid, but rather something worse than that: willfully and intransigently ignorant. It can be like arguing with a toddler.
Typically, they think that "evolution" means that a monkey got pregnant one day and out popped a human baby. They think that a theory in science (as in "just a theory") is an idle speculation that just shot out of some scientist's ass and beat out competing theories in a popularity contest. Their faith requires them to believe without question what they are taught by their parents and religious authorities, and so the notions of reason and sceptical inquiry carry zero weight with them.
There's a multitude of them, they're refractory to reason, and they vote. They are also easily manipulated by unscrupulous politicians who don't give squat about their beliefs but are willing to pander to them to enhance their own power.
This circus is going to go on for a long, long time.
"Y'know, it occurs to me that anti-evolutionists don't just have a problem with evolution, but also geology, cosmology, carbon dating, physics. Any I missed?"
But they save their strongest hate for evolution. The problem with the theory is exclusive to Christianity because it strikes to the core of the religion. The theology is straightforward: Christ died as a means to offer salvation from Hell. But the sticking point isn't that Genesis has a different account of the origin of the universe, it's that Christ died to save us from Adam and Eve's sin in tasting the fruit of knowledge. That sin tainted not only those two, but all their progeny, i.e. everybody. So there's nothing we can do, unless we accept that Jesus had a really bad weekend for our sins. That's our ticket to Heaven. But if we accept evolution, then there was no Adam and Eve, no Eden, no original sin, and therefore, no need for Christianity. That means a lot of people stand to lose a lot of money.
That's the reason nobody who's strongly opposed to teaching evolution talks about their reasoning beyond "It's not what the Bible says." Even believers cherry pick what they want to believe in the Bible; I don't know many Christians who believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, for instance. But if we start discussing the real reasons churches oppose evolution, then some people who maybe haven't really thought about it will start to see how truly weak the foundations of Christianity are.
So you believe in fate, predisposition and a clockwork universe? To me, that's a far more disturbing world than the one with the bearded old guy in the sky occasionally raining down fire and brimstone.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Nope, no problems with any of those. There's nothing factual, based solely on empirical evidence in any of these fields that conclusively proves macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is undeniable -- species are constantly changing. But the jump from a new breed of dog to man evolving from a single-celled organism is just a bit too much for me, given any time frame. There's no interemediary reliable fossil record, even though we've gone through enough rock to have seen that by now (geology), no proof that just because there are (as far as we can tell, and the evidence makes sense) old stars that this somehow proves the evolution of life (cosmology), no empirical proof that carbon dating is even accurate, let alone that this only proves that some creatures are very old if it is accurate, not that they evolved (carbon dating), and I'm missing what in physics conclusively proves evolution.
Creationism and evolution both require faith. I realize that makes you uncomfortable, but perhaps when we can both realize the severe limitations of our knowledge and stop accepting assumptions as fact, we can discover the truth together. This is what science is about, isn't it?
Regarding sexuality and other religions, I do have a problem with ideas that are wrong, as everyone does. That does not stop me from loving people, and listening to and learning from them.
prediction: modded down: -1 disagree
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
I see your Theism and Atheism and raise you Agnostic ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Actually, interesting that you bring up gravity. Last time I checked, we *still* have no clue what the heck gravity is. How it acts at such great distances and such. We can describe it mathematically (G m1 m2 / d^2), but we don't really know the reason for it. Why is it that this works? How can it act apparently instantly across great distances that even photons can't reach as quickly?
Perhaps your smart-ass answer isn't far off - it's God's will. Whatever it is, we do not thoroughly understand it. All we can do is take advantage of it (through mathematics).
I would also suggest that the argument analogy you presented is inaccurate and misleading, as most analogies often are. Such topics cannot be summed up or dumbed down in such simplistic manners. Case in point, the popular "let me explain this as a car" analogy given so often on Slashdot. Your analogy presents a pre-determined supposition that God does indeed exist, which is the point of the argument in the first place, yes? You're an athiest because God wants you to be an athiest. "All we are is dust in the wind" - Kansas. I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you implying that atheism is a state at which humans arrive at, being theistic at first? I would propose that humans come out of the womb atheistic and them develop theism at a later date. This can probably be proven by the fact that there are plenty of religions out there that do not advocate "God" in a Christian fashion, or are monotheistic, or something completely different. Unless you're one of the "all paths lead to God" people, of course...
Huh? Evolution does not preclude a "first human." In fact, it pretty much demands it. Your logic is rather weak.
I'm Christian and I don't have a problem with evolution if I can believe it on scientific grounds. I have some reservations about macro-evolution, but none of those reservations are religious-based. If my scientific reservations about evolution could be resolved, I have no problem with that evolution and Christianity co-existing. Those that seem to have a problem with Christianity and evolution co-existing are fundamentalist extremists: Both religious and scientific extremists. These people usually misunderstand what the Bible says, what science says... or both.
And don't forget world 36 on Super Mario Brothers. That one can be pretty tricky if you don't know what to expect.
someone should nominate them for Darwin's award.
I think I figured it out. Both are right - the Creationists and the Evolutionary followers. I argue only about the time scale. Assuming both are right, that is, life is 6000 years old and 4 billion years old, how can it be? It is possible if the scale of time, that is, how long is a year?, how is a second measured?, different from each other. If you take the time taken by the Milky Way to rotate once around its axis as a year (why not?), well, then the Earth is, sorry for the pseudorandom number, 10 years old. Taking the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom as one second is JUST ONE WAY of defining time. I hope this solves all the misunderstanding.
I can't believe this comment has gone this long without an explanation. In good faith I will assume you are not trolling.
There is a lot of good information at Talk origins. In summary, it says "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." (Which, I believe, is what you are referencing.) It goes on to say "However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things."
Ed
"Long time listener, first time caller."
Well, if they don't sell it, and the museum become extinct...you can just say that it was evolution in action!
ttyl
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Science asks "why" questions as well, and answers them based on the evidence gathered from research on "how" and "when" questions. This is the difference between ultimate and proximate questions. Although natural selection answers the "how" question of evolution (making Darwin very popular), selfish gene theory answers the "why" question of evolution (making Dawkins very popular, never mind his recent militant anti-religion stuff).
Also note that the selfish gene theory poses a "why" question as well: why do organisms bother with sex when asexual reproduction seems to better propagate such selfish genes? The best answer to that question, so far, is the Red Queen theory; organisms have sex in order to switch up their offspring's genes so that the parasites that adapted to the parents' will not immediately infect and kill any such offspring.
This is why most scientists are secular, most of the "why" questions of the universe can be answered with empirical evidence almost as effectively as are "how" questions.
Arguing the existence of God with an atheist is more like arguing the existence of Zeus with a Christian. Religious people tend to think the myths they were brought up with as children are fact, and the ones they were introduced to later in life are fiction.
There is nothing daring about believing in anything; there is, however, something daring about believing in nothing.
- A pluralised second person (Several latin languages have them. See: Spanish, with -ais)
- A non-genitive third person pronoun (as "it" tends to be something of an insult when used with regard to people)
"Y'all" merrily fills one of those voids, yet is generally despised by those who fail to see its utility. Not only that, but with the apostrophe, it's technically correct.
There is "you all" and a few other multi-word forms that accomplish the same feature, but how is that any different from "do not" and "don't".
I am from Texas, and possess whatever accent I so choose (generally, I'm accused of being from Canada, regardless of where I am at the time). My only regional giveaway is that I use "y'all", not because I'm from Texas, but because it's an exceptionally useful word - same as any other contraction.
Now sod off, wanker.
So then he's sending me to hell simply because he wants to send me to hell? Nothing for me to do about it, eh?
IANAP (I am not a physicist), but my understanding of general relativity is that all objects with mass tend to curve spacetime and curved spacetime is directly responsible for what we perceive as "gravity". The Wikipedia gravity well article has a decent picture that might do a better job of explaining this concept then words do.
How can it act apparently instantly across great distances that even photons can't reach as quickly?Actually, I recall reading somewhere that they did a test awhile back and figured out that gravity is limited to C, i.e: if you could make the sun wink out of existence, Earth would continue in it's orbit for 8 minutes or so as if nothing had happened. Then again, I just did a Google search and can't really find anything conclusive on this. One site seems to think that gravity propagates out at more then 300 times C. Another claims it's limited to C. Any actual physicists care to comment?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How can it act apparently instantly across great distances that even photons can't reach as quickly?
It cannot. If the sun disappeared this instant the Earth would continue in orbit under its gravitational field for 8 minutes more: the time it takes light to travel from the sun to the Earth. In fact, rather ironically, it is the theory of relativity which, in its general form, explains gravity that also requires that information is never transmitted faster than the speed of light. So far from gravity having instantaneous action at a distance, the study of gravity has shown us that nothing can have instantaneous action at a distance...at least if you you like to have cause precede effect.
So, purely by reasoning, regardless of the truth of evolution, and regardless of arguing over open or closed systems, the argument from the second law of thermodynamics is self-contradicting, as either our facts are wrong (there is no order), or the SLoT itself is wrong (at least for this part of the universe).
I think part of it is that people don't know how it's supposed to be used. Fake southerners/Texans in the media often use it incorrectly in place of the singular 'you'. This turns it into just an excuse to laugh at a group for being different.
But then again, I could be wrong.
1 Corinthians 6:9 New International Version (NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. And the old testament puts homosexual activity in with sacrificing your children to Baal. I'd say thats pretty bad.
So I put it to Slashdot - Can anyone name a closed system? Something that has no outside inputs or outputs.
I am not stubborn. I am right!
It is not for the atheist to prove the non existance of anything.
I am not saying that the atheist has to prove anything. All religions are a matter of personal conscience and if someone is an atheist, while I may not share their faith, I am not going to demand that they prove it is 'correct' or stop believing any more than I would go up to a Hindu, Jew etc and demand that they prove that they are 'correct'.
To prove non-existance of anything is an impossible task and is therefore an unreasonable request.
Sorry, but from a scientific point of view this is completely incorrect. The best example of this is the ether. This was the mysterious non-interacting medium that, in the late 1800's was used to explain the propagation of light. At the time it was the simplest explanation for how light propagated through a vacuum. All other waves had some existing medium to propagate through and so, the easiest solution, was to presume that light too had such a medium. Michelson-Morley proved the non-existence of the ether by studying the motion of the Earth through the supposed ether.
This example shows two things. First that it is indeed possible to prove that something does not exist. The second is that Occam's razor does not always give the correct answer: it might be a very good guide but it is by no means always right.
By the same token I have no proof that there aren't 8 dimensions in our universe so I shouldn't not believe that either?
It is very interesting that you should choose this example because there are serious scientific theories that suggest there may well be more than 3+1 dimensions in the Universe. If you talk to a scientist then the response you will generally get is that we don't have any evidence of 4+ space-like dimensions yet but there might be that many, we just don't know. You will generally not hear anyone categorically state that these theories are wrong and that there must only be 3+1 dimensions. They might have a personal belief about whether the theory is right or not but the scientific point of view is that it is unproven. The same holds for your more outlandish examples (except, sadly, for Father Christmas since you can show that it is impossible for him to perform his task in the manner attributed within the laws of physics) - and may be the flying spaghetti monster too but I have no idea what that is.
So for an atheist to go around saying categorically that God does not exist, unless they have some proof that they have not disclosed to the rest of us, they are making a leap of faith...and faith is something that suggests a religion. That leap may be based on rationality and they may have logical arguments to back it up but, as shown in the ether example, rationality and logical argument are great guides most of the time but are by no means infallible. Hence my contention that if you really want to get at the truth the first thing you have to be willing to do is admit that you might be wrong.