Slashdot Mirror
Oldest Skeleton In New World Discovered
Death Metal Maniac writes "Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old. If that age is accurate, the skeleton along with three others found in underwater caves along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated. The skeletons' skulls hint that the people may not be of northern Asian descent, which would contradict the dominant theory of New World settlement. 'The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia,' González explained."
Imposible, as every one in florida knows the world is only 6000 years old
Underwater for so long! Is she okay?
No, they found Sarah Palin's world view.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults.
Let me know when you're done with this quote so I can use it as my sig. Thanks!
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Paleolithic?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Timing is off.
Isn't it at least plausible that the group "Eva" belongs to lived in Northern Asia, despite having characteristics that we would now identify with Southern Asia? Perhaps a later group migrated in that direction, driving Eva's group over the land bridge much in the way ethnic groups worked in Europe (subsequent waves tending to push preexisting ethnic groups).
The Earth *IS* only 6,000 years old. Give or take 4.54 billion years.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Although a slightly older skeleton is news, doesn't anyone remember in Mexico?
The more I read about archaeology and ancient history, the more I think that the conventional view is as Ford called it, "bunk."
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
I've heard one theory that the Polynesians et all actually were forced out of northern Asia to the south and the east. They walked over the bridge and floated through the oceans to all the little islands, and the New World. There, they found another people, who they had to fight to survive; being from a hostile background, they were better fighters.
So they chased the inhabitants down throughout the Americas, to the very tip of Argentina and Chile. Most of the men were killed and most of the women were taken, however several thousand took to the ocean, and floated along the West Wind Drift.. to Australia!
(The theory was based on genetic evidence that a chickens were introduced to the New World by Polynesians, and that there is a genetic trail on some human female populations in S.A. that links them to Australians.)
I know you don't approve of Chou because he's from the North, but I LOVE HIM and WE'RE GETTING MARRIED! I'm running away with him and his family, so by the time you learn how to read, I'll be gone. Chou's just bought a boat, and we're going to sail north until we find a New World to live in. Maybe one along the coast so we can surf, ya know?
I'll leave it up to you to tell Liam that I've gone. I couldn't marry a Celt anyway! All that red hair on his face? YUCK!
I know you wanted to me to stay and grow rice and stuff, but I really just want a life where I can soak up the sun and tell everyone to lighten up.... And who knows? Thousands of years from now, maybe they'll find my remains and it'll ROYALLY screw up their view of ethnic migrations, cause you and I KNOW that the only people who ever sail north and never come back are from the North. I mean, who'd be dumb enough to jump to a conclusion based on one person? AS IF!! Oh well -- as long as I'm famous, ya know?
Sorry about never seeing you again and stuff. Hugs and kisses!
Zang
So.... Within that margin of error, the earth may not have been created yet?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
This is just a thought, and I know it's kinda radical here but is it at least possible that these might be some of very first sea fairing people and they simply got lost and discovered the Americas first? I mean, we have been tool users for a very long time, they might have made a very primitive raft, and if long ships, Egyptian sailing ships and south American boats have proven to be able to cross the Atlantic then is it so impossible that these people crossed a primitive pacific?
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
kiloyears? That sounds awfully science-y to me...
He's a witch!
has anyone even considered that some 17th century explorer is just playing a trick on everyone by having taken an old skeleton from southeast Asia and dumping it in the water...
I was playing Civilization the other day, doing an earth simulation and I was playing as Japan. One of my first strategies was to research Astronomy so that I could build Galleons and go colonize the Americas before anyone else could. Having colonized all of the islands in southern Asia (and Australia) it was just obvious what I had to do next. Clearly the early south Asians were thinking along the exact same lines.
You scientists and your crazy fossil and skeleton digging. There are simpler ways people!
Vote McCain - Vote MILF!
Have you got MILF? Vote McCain!
My personal fantasy....
I'm McCain with a really hot MILF millionaire wife (which he already has) who wants to 'experiment'. I get a MILF of a VP and THREESOME in the Whitehouse! WoooHOOO!
I am not an anthropologist, but I thought the dominant theory was that the New World was populated from various Asian populations in several waves. No one believes that it was just one group, or that it was just one wave. This finding further supports that thesis, along with other findings such as Kennewick Man in 1996.
You mean to say that the original Native Americans were really Indians after all? Or should we start calling Native Indians, Brown Americans from now on? So confused...
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Sorry for the confusion guys! The skeleton found is actually my grandmother who died while hiding in the washer. I tried to dry her out in the dryer, but it only shrank her. Then I tried the microwave...
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Scary, but that DOES go along with how I feel some Monday mornings....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Oh, please stop talking about McCain and the US elections now.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Only as likely that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old though.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Eve of Naharon
No, just John McCain's first girlfriend. *rimshot*
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Given the body of scientific data to backup evolution theory, I believe the correct term would be "idiot".
Is that better than the "old farts young tarts"-sex in the White House we had a few years ago?
Does this contradict Indo-Aryan Migration
"Dubbed Eva de Naharon..."
Huh?
"...or Eve of Naharon
Oh, ok, got it!
Crossing from South to North Asia is no more difficult, than crossing from North to South America or, indeed, from Asia to Europe — where even the recent Romans had to battle "endless" Eastern tribes.
So, the theory, that people crossed Bering's Straits into Northern America (Alaska) and then populated both continents, already assumes migrations far more distant, than a travel from Southern Asia to Norther would require...
And finally, next time you are in Cancun, ask a Yucatani Mexican, where the Mayas are from, and he'll tell you, they are related to Mongols (and by the looks of them, he may be right)... Mongolia is neither the Southern nor Northern Asia, but smack in the middle...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And would you know, god failed his own test! ;D
I miss Lucy already.
So the first people in the Americas were south asians i.e. Indians? So should we call them Indians or native americans?
They probably did not know any better at the time.
Quite a few dinosaur skeletons (1e8 years) have been discovered in the "New World".
its no great mystery. the idea of land bridges is silly. if people can reach samoa and new zealand and easter island on boats and rafts, why they need a land bridge to get to alaska from kamchatka or from lappland to iceland, then greenland, then ellesmere, is silly. you don't even need boats to do that, just pack ice. want to understand how the new world was populated?
just look at a picture of icelandic pop singer bjork
looking at her picture, seeing her obvious genetic heritage, on iceland, should cue you in on the free flow of of northeast asian genes around the north pole for millenia
and of course this doesn't preclude the odd southeast asian gene influx from the occasional lucky maniac who made the trip to the south or central american west coast from easter island or hawaii
the real mystery is how people ever got to easter island, or any other highly isolated south pacific dot. you can head towards north or south america and be way off your intended course, and still make it there as long as you ar emoving very roughly in a general east west direction
but a dot in the south pacific? if one were given to random chance, that's a lot of wasted souls in outrigger canoes in watery graves. more likely, they simply followed subtle signs: fish migrations, or bird migrations, cloud formations over distant lands, guessing further outliers on island chains from deducing the general direction of mapping previously known chain islands. who knows? perhaps the colonizers of the south pacific used subtle well-observed natural clues we aren't even aware of anymore
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is that better than the "old farts young tarts"-sex in the White House we had a few years ago?
Um, excuse me. There's no fat chicks involved here nor is there any deceit between the husband and wife.
AND, the Congress will realize that there are better things to do than to impeach a President over a blowjob.
That's why we need McCain! To bring America to her core values: sex and making babies! And if there's a blowjob involved, well, we'll be a little Liberal and allow those sperm to die in the women's stomach - that's assuming they swallow. After all, we're all cognizant of the plight of women! Not all swallow!
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Well, if you didn't think any god did it or that we evolved on our own, the logical conclusion must then be that we're being manipulated by some other, non-divine being or beings. It's not entirely out of the realm of the possible that life has been created in the lab by aliens and seeded on our planet. Still, even if you don't claim evolution to be the explaination of all change it'd be pretty hard to deny any and all evolution.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The skeletons were found back in 2001 and 2002 and they were carbon dated no later than 2004, probably before that, though.
They don't say, but I suspect they're talking about the Ox Bel Ha cave system (Ox is the Mayan word for "Three" and is pronounced "Osh"), which is the largest underwater cave system in the world and it's actually something that's probably worthy of a Slashdot post in itself, if it weren't also old news.
I lived in that area for 3 years and I'm friends with 2 of the divers that discovered and mapped the Ox Bel Ha system.
The Yucatan peninsula is studded with sink holes called "cenotes". They're filled with fresh water (though there are areas where the salt water comes in and creates a salt/fresh water interface called the halocline, which looks wicked cool. It's kind of like oil and water) and look like a bunch of very circular ponds, except they're often fairly deep and interconnected by caves. Skeletons are a pretty common find in them, but most are far more recent (from the Mayan period) and are largely believed to be sacrificial.
I can't find the stories now, but I recall some stories suggesting that some of the indigenous people of South America were believed to have been descendants of lost fisherman from South-East Asia. It seems plausible that there could have been groups that arrived in Mexico as well.
Thanks to the miracles of DNA testing, scientists have already found the closest living relative. This skeleton is from the great-great-great-grandfather of John McCain.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
There is also evidence of Polynesian contact in South America: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729133618.htm
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
So they really were Indians?
Yeah. Actually I heard they came here on H1-B visas and actually replaced the native peoples that came here from North Asia.
My blog
Don't tell anyone, but we're doing the public beta stress test, so the publisher can know how many players per server he can expect. There've been some bugs and balance problems found, though, so they might push back the actual release for another billion years. Although the publisher is calling it good enough and might shove it out the door as it is.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
No, they found Sarah Palin's world view.
Let us know when someone finds Obama's.
And find out how long it lasts.
PS - don't you guys just love styrofoam columns? They're pretty, but lightweight with no substance. They also fly all over the place depending on which way the wind blows.
How appropriate for fair Obamacles.
Perhaps you too could show some respect for those who are diverse in their opinions and ideas
Perhaps creationists could provide an opinion to this discovery? If they did, would it be respectful?
Maybe she is actually from the future and got lost on her way back to the time portal.
Inside Joan Rivers.
When 900 years old you reach, look that good you will not.
It's good the summary translated that...they're so different, I would have had no clue what her name was otherwise
If you do not believe in Science, can you really a run a country this complex?
Look up "News I'd like to F*#K" by Samatha Bee on The Daily Show. My favorite skit and show of why Bee is the best correspondent comedic talent on the show.
I believe the Gulf side is Gulf, not Caribbean, although there is no hard line there separating the two.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old.
Why can't they just use her real name? Joan Rivers.
Anything and Everything about the Net
There's a lot of evidence (despite a lot of disagreement) that the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx in Egypt, Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and Chichen Itza in the Yucatan are all monuments to the sky as it appeared 13.5 thousand years ago. Even though none of those monuments seem to actually be at all that old (though perhaps half that old, in their original constructions), which seems to indicate that the memory was preserved for six or seven millennia without such a monumental "permanent marker".
These unearthed skeletons date from approximately that time. I wonder if they'll shed any light on what was so important from their epoch that it earned the most permanent and recognizable "bookmarks" that humanity has ever kept?
--
make install -not war
"could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated."
I would think scientists would know how humans "populate." I mean, if they're still stumped on this one, no wonder they don't get laid!
How about perjury and obstruction of justice?
The 'mainstream' Western theories of 'multiple waves' are all talking about multiple waves from Northeastern Asia. Someone mentioned the correlation between genetic markers found in South America and Australia... (Australia has been populated at LEAST as long as modern Humans have existed, if not before) Which sounds more likely that populations originating in South Asia/Australia (The Southern Sea Basin) could have migrated either around Africa, or across the Pacific, to reach the Americas. Hawaiian legends speak of 'little people' they encountered when the Polynesians first came to Hawaii, that were mostly killed/disappeared. Like the Indonesian caves holding 'pygmy' skeletons. Early reports of European invaders in Central America spoke of "black people" distinct from the "red people" they were encountering in the rest of the area (Mexico, Caribbean).
The fact that someone thinks their girlfriend is pretty when others don't is a matter to live and let live. Creationists are actively trying to destroy science education in the United States and convert the government into a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy. Those are matters to be actively resisted, not tolerated.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
however, it is not beyond the foolhardy adventurer to say:
and that scenario is much more likely than some guy just sitting in the water and randomly paddling in a random direction. of course random chance works fine for finding new islands over long periods of time, as you note
it is just that your observation doesn't work for the guy who actually has to sit in the canoe and start paddling!
like most successful human endeavours it was probably a combination of well-informed prediction AND random chance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My beef with (most) creationists is that they also think:
* That my girlfriend (wife, now) should really not be so uppity to believe she should have a career and exercise her mind and opinion Instead, she should be barefoot in the kitchen, continually pregnant, and look to me as head of the household as Christ is head of the church.
* That my children should not be taught to think, but rather think exactly like they do, and ignore most things that science and reasoned investigation have revealed.
* That 90% of those 6.6 billion people (i.e., the ones not like them), not to mention nearly everyone who has lived before, are going straight to hell and damnation, whether they are moral or not.
So I don't think I'll apologize and respect their diverse opinions.
Aw man, that was hilarious.
...'tis easier to blame than to improve.
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself. Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
But I guess the whole study of paleontology is an ignorant falsehood. My bad. I'm probably the one off the mark here.
But...but...but...the Book says....
This guy's the limit!
What would you be if you are atheist and not an evolutionist?
Given the body of scientific data to backup evolution theory, I believe the correct term would be "idiot".
And in the spirit of Lenin, the ID-loons would term you a "useful idiot".
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
the YucatÃn peninsula has a caribbean coast (CancÃn, "Mayan Riviera") and a gulf coast (Campeche, Ciudad del Carmen)
No sig for the moment.
There are some things which aren't a matter of "opinion", and holding an opinion contrary to measurable fact is, well, senseless.
People who claim the Earth is flat may have an "opinion", but since their opinion is directly falsifiable, it's not a very good opinion. It's one they hold onto irrationally in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The people who haven't been able to adapt their view of their creator god to actually encompass reality ... well, that just makes no sense. Heck, if the Catholic Church can accept that fossils are real and actually millions of years old, anyone fanatically clinging to the notion that the Earth is 6000 years old ... well, they're not even trying to be rational. They're just holding onto a notion and saying "la la la" when someone tries to tell them truth.
This isn't about respecting differences in subjective things. This is about claiming that objective reality has been faked. That's just plain irrational.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
But what if its just completely WRONG? Like if their girlfriend is a pig. The animal, not the insult variety. Then is it not our duty to point out, "hey, you really shouldn't be dating a pig!"
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
Quite a few dinosaur skeletons (1e8 years) have been discovered in the "New World".
Yeah, and humans rode them. Sheesh, where have YOU been?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Look who's running it now. Apparently, you can.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
a bunch of guys who made it to easter island by canoe
therefore, it is more likely that your understanding of what they did to get there is wrong, rather than the intelligence and wisdom and ability to read natural clues, that they obviously possessed to make it all the way to easter island under any scheme, random or otherwise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In what way is justice served by finding out who's f&sking who?
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Reminds me of the The Motel of Mysteries
Uneducated.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
No, he said run the country. Note the lack of "into a deep, deep hole" after those words.
C Pungent
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself.
We will need to pick a political solution. One side wants a theocracy, the other a scientific government. There are advantages to both sides as history teaches us.
How do we pick? Or do we keep respecting each other's opinions, never reaching a consensus, and let our intransigence shuffle us off into the dust-bin of history?
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
Agreed, it is time to put an end to these barbaric religions.
I recently sent a funny email about creationist idiocy to a friend. Here's the response I got back:
==================
you kid, but we Texas people know the reality of crazed parental notions. I am reminded of my first experience in small town Texas where I was told "you don't use the rod?" and the woman proceeded to pull out a leather replica of a ruler with embossing that said "the ROD of GOD" on it.
I nearly fell out. That and the accompanying "you must spank your child until they cry with tears of repentance"
And this regarding [name of kid kept private] who was TWO at the time and reluctant to potty train. She no more knew what sin or redemption was than she could explain quantum physics. Yet I was to punish her over lack of bowel control upon demand.
===================
Really. I call for zero tolerance for "biblical" morality. You wouldn't let a kid be taught that 2 + 2 = 5, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the solar system. Don't teach them that the bible is the full truth and spirit of an all-powerful, all-knowing being who created everything, either.
The bible is an archaic, brutal, ridiculous text of ancient folklore. Nothing else. Seriously, read it cover to cover, not in cherry-picked bits and pieces. And if you're a christian, do not park your god-given powers of reason and logic at the door. Consider the possibility that the bible itself is the work of satan, and that God gave us reason and logic in his own image. The true religious mission is to learn about the universe from the universe itself. To hell with the bible, where it belongs.
On second thought, carry on. My children will need some good, obedient servants when they get older.
There is evidence that both populations in Southern Asia and the Americas are genetically related. One is the fact that both are susceptible to alcoholism.
When Han Chinese settlers first arrived in Taiwan, they used alcohol against the aboriginal population there as means of control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#History
and now we know why:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=9066994&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
In the United States, pioneers and frontiersmen always brought whiskey with them on meetings with Native American chiefs to sign "treaties".
now we know why:
http://www.essortment.com/all/nativeamerican_ragq.htm
Possible link or coincidence?: http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html
I never said he was doing it well. Merely that a complete idiot seems to be holding the job now.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We have Chinese anchor stones from ancient times found along the pacific coast.We have Roman vessels in the gulf of Mexico. We have Mediterranean village in New Hampshire.We have pre-Celtic ogam language written on stones on riverbanks coast to coast.We have Vikings coming over,historically speaking.We have the Bearing strait.Consequently, I don't believe in the American Indian as an original race with a justifiable "we were here first" beef.
We were all here at some point,but someone ate all the elephants,camels and giant sloths without putting them back. Also someone used to start forest fires for amusement and left camp litter where ever they roamed.I suspect if we dig deeper we can find evidence of ancient blackjack tables too.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself. Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
There is also a difference between respecting someone and respecting their opinion. I may find your opinions on many things irrational, or oversimplistic or whatever, but I wouldn't call you a loony -- because that would be rude.
It is particularly worth noting that an important element of the atheistic view of the psychology of religion is that we believe because we're told. At best, that's normal human behaviour; at worst, gullible. It is certainly not insanity by any clinical definition of the term. You are being unreasonable.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old.
They must be desperate if they resort to dating a 13,600 year old skeleton.
Either Scientific American or Discover magazine had an article on this about 12 years ago. Mostly it had to with a settlement they found on the tip of Tierra del Fuego, and postulated that they had been driven down through the Americas by the Asians. Likely descendants of Australian aborigines, iirc.
On the contrary, every evangelical (with perhaps 2 exceptions) I know believes the world was created 6000 years ago.
But...but...but...the Book says....
As opposed to "But...but...but...the Scientist says...."???
None of us have this kind of information first hand, as we're just not that old. On some level, we're all just taking someone else's word for it.
backs away without making eye contact ... OK, sure thing there chief. Whatever works for 'ya.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Sure I've heard of the Sami people. So what? Bjork exhibits Asian characteristics, not Mongol. Not to mention the Sami people aren't the source population for the current Icelandic population. Not to mention that not all Scandinavians are blonde and blue eyed.
Correlation is not causation.
And proving evolutionary causation would be highly unethical, particularly when we're talking about humans.
The leaders of the American religious right have assembled an engine of ignorance with their attempts at subverting science and reason. These are the people who would make us fear change and progress as corruption and immorality because they know it would be their downfall at the head of the power structure if Americans were to secularize as happened in post WWII Europe. They allow their followers to believe it is immoral to deviate from a "median" or norm that they define as slavishly devout hetero couple with kids. They teach all sorts of crazy things like man should be treated as the superior to women, that priests/preacher should be greater than them and a host of saints, gods and fairy folk that are better than all mankind. This false hierarchy gives people an excuse to not look at their life and the consequences of how they live it pragmatically let alone existentially and gives them an excuse or scapegoat they can always pass the buck to instead of perfecting one's own actions, reactions and mind. These systems that tend to classify people according to supposed inborn traits are the anachronisms of the caste society they originated in 1000's of years ago and were meant to enforce obedience and subjugation to.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
The first in the New World appear to be the same peoples as the Australian and Tasmanian aborigines, not too much after they reached those lands, and they had to have had ocean-going technology to get there. The second group where Europeans, the Clovis culture, following the seal and walrus along the edge of the ice from Europe. The third were the Jomon culture peoples following the coasts from Japan and Korea,the fourth and fifth emigrations were from northern Siberia, then you have the Norse 1,000 years ago. This does not count the possible, genetically and culturally-insignificant contacts via ships blown off course, and Irish monks seeking the "white martyrdom."
If you do not believe in Science, can you really a run a country this complex
Why the hell not? Was Ancient Rome any less complex?
Sure they may not run it the way you'd like, but it certainly seems plausible.
"hey, you really shouldn't be dating a pig!"
You should remember that Slashdot is an international community. Some of our English speaking members come from island nations where interpersonal relations of an ovine or porcine nature are not always frowned on save by the Kirk.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
explain the existence of the genes of bjork in iceland
is she an alien?
(maybe she actually is an alien, she's quite insane regardless)
you said something about her being asian versus mongol... that's incoherent. i'm talking about northeast asian genetics extending around the top of the northern hemisphere. bjork is an example of that. the sami are an example of that. disprove my point, or back down
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe you would be reading this in the future, laughing at both creationism and evolutionism as we fathom it today.
In any case, I never understood why creationism and evolutionism are always considered incompatible. Couldn't life have been created (by god, gods, Q, space and time anomalies or whatever) with evolution built in? Like everyone else I don't have the answer but you'd think that if you were able to create life, the self-update sub-system would not be terribly difficult to make. In fact, who knows, the evolution bit could have been the actual reason why life was created in the first place. To see where it goes perhaps? Or as a self adapting algorithm to solve a particular problem, in a way similar to ANNs.
I always thought my neighbor looked like a science experiment!
It was a case of sexual harassment. U.S. society had previously decided that sexual harassment is a problem that needed to be addressed. Clinton's perjury affected the plaintiff's ability to seek justice in her claim.
Probably. I haven't known Creationists to flame athesists or joke about how they're going to hell for not believing. But on Slashdot, the guy who makes a slam at Creationists gets modded funny, while the guy who says "live and let live" gets modded flamebait. Evolutionists may be able to back up their beliefs with science, but that doesn't cover up the fact that most of them are assholes.
I see you read a lot of Richard Dawkins.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
People who claim the Earth is flat may have an "opinion", but since their opinion is directly falsifiable, it's not a very good opinion.
Only if you accept the falsification at face value. You know, since it can't be proven or anything ;)
Hmmmm, good point. Perhaps we should throw out every court case as well. If they accused says they didn't do it who are we to argue? Their word is obviously equally as compelling as their fingerprints on the gun, the spatters on their clothing and the CCTV footage of them hiding the body.
First you say:
> I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but
> that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself.
The you say:
> Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe
> in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
Didn't you just contradict yourself?
Where do irrational people belong?
You do realize that your analogy only works in those court cases where no evidence is actually heard, right? This would be like a court that only looks at previous verdicts and extrapolates the outcome from there.
"Evidence" is not the issue. "Testimony" is. And in my neck of the woods, this all falls under "hearsay".
Can I make everything you just said my sig?
yes, link to it like this
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
1. that there were no eskimos in iceland before the europeans arrived
2. that eskimos aren't related to south americans
3. that the sami people in northern scandinavia are aliens from mars
so what were you saying about being an educated bigot again?
there's bjork. icelandic native. explain her heritage or back down
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, some do, and some don't.
"Evangelicals" and "creationists" are both very broad brushing terms. Don't be so small minded as to think that they all conform to the caricature.
So.... Within that margin of error, the earth may not have been created yet?
Pretty much... As general relativity would suggest, depending on curves in space time, in some locations of the universe the earth may actually not exist yet.
People from India?
People from Australia?
People from Indonesia?
Or American tourists in Cambodia?
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
There was also a bit n FLILF's (pretty sure it's a different one; I don't think it was Sam Bee that did it). Kucinich's wife is pretty hot.
There are a lot of people here who seem very angry at people who believe that God created this earth.
I have seen a lot of different evidence out there, and it seems to me there is just as much physical evidence that discredits evolution as there is proving it. It just doesn't get near as much publicity, because it's unpopular.
Evolution is just as much a religious belief as Christianity. People just won't use that word for it, because only "nuts" are religious, right?
You can call names and talk down to us all you want, but that doesn't discourage us. We know why we believe what we do, and it's because we know the One we believe in...personally. Anyone can.
God loves everyone of every race, every belief system, every creed, every nation...everyone. So do his children.
I don't have to know any of you to care about you. I love every one of you regardless of what you say about me, and I want every one of you to go to Heaven with me.
No, "evidence" really is the issue. And we often get to evidence by way of testimony in which case you have to find a way of discerning the credibility of the person (or institution or book) doing the testifying.
Sadly, a book that *infers* that a list of genealogies adds up to ~6000 years doesn't count as credible evidence.
Science however, with its continual testing and self-criticism, does count as credible evidence.
Indeed, which is why I refer to them as Christian Taliban.
They don't have incentive to use some of the dramatic Taliban methods (because they have political power) but their goals of enslaving us to their superstition are the same. Theocracy is to be resisted, not respected.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And how many who have decided that the book is wrong have personally conducted any of that research? ANY of it?
No, they're accepting the Reader's Digest Conclusions as though they had done the research and had drawn the same conclusions themselves.
This is the same as the genealogy approach, but merely relies upon a different source of 'data'.
You don't know Jack Chick
Evolutionists don't go to court to get science taught in Sunday School. Creationists go to court to get their Sunday School taught in Science classes. That's pretty assholish...
Hmmph, I still cannot believe that the current dating systems are accurate. Therefore I do not know if the Earth is 6000 years or several billion years.
Therefore, I can justify believing that the Earth is however old I feel it to be. For me, I say it is about 21 years old... I know I was alive 21 years ago and can therefore prove it's existence.
No, I didn't. Respecting one's right to an opinion doesn't equate to agreeing with it. I respect one's rights to have an opinion, but that doesn't mean I agree with it, and further to that - think someone can be out to lunch.
Respecting someone's right to an opinion and respecting their opinion are two completely different things. I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself. Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
No, they just need a better understanding of what the scientific method is and how it works. In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that scientists dictate assertions to the rest of us. I now know that there is a method, with checks and balances, but the impression I got in school was always that science was a list of terms to memorize, and an occasional fact or process that needed to be explained "in your own words". In short, I wasn't learning what science is or how it works. I was seeing the product, instead of the process, and that kind of thinking is what allows creationism to flourish in, otherwise, reasonable people.
Correlation is not causation.
In the context of this discussion, what does that even mean? Are you claiming that because evidence makes it look like evolution occurred, that doesn't mean it did? Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you. And even then, you can always claim that it only "correlates to be a time machine".
Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you.
That's correct.
I submit that it probably should not "convince" you either. It isn't very scientific to so readily rule out all the other alternatives based on popularity alone.
Many possible explanations are plausible, and since we can't rule any of them out, it quickly becomes less a discussion of any facts and more a contest of wills.
What's more idiotic, the possibility that an atheist may not be an evolutionist, or having as open a mind as is possible on topics we cannot ourselves test nor witness?
and then you lose your point when you get to the scenario where they are in the canoe, looking for some place to go. at that point, they are not going to head somewhere randomly. they are going to make informed predictions based on fish, birds, clouds, the geography of island archipelagos, etc
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
why does bjork from iceland look like bjork from iceland
i await my sublime enlightenment
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I hint for the knowledge deprived: First Lady I'd Like to ....
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/30/is-america-ready-for-a-flilf/
it is not because asiatic traits evolved independently on iceland. it is because the sami, the inuit, the chukchi, and all other mongol peoples circling the arctic sea got there via pack ice or boats
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I see your wink, but just to be sure you didn't miss the SHIFT key: It'll cost you just $30,000 for personal, direct, proof.
Notmysig
In order for creationism and evolution to be present at the same time, one of them has to be significantly wrong. For example, evolution is 100% correct and all god did was create a cell in antarctica. Or, creationism is 100% correct and evolution hasn't had a chance to kick in over the pitiful 6000 year existence of the earth and the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution is an incredibly massive set of individual coincidences.
Of course, the more you think about it and try to solve the contradictions inherent in "god made all creatures as they currently are" vs "all creatures, as they currently are, evolved from a single-celled organism", you will enivitably come across the realisation that... creationism is redundant and 100% not needed to explain anything.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
It's sad that this was modded troll. Mostly because it wasn't a creationist that modded it troll (these are actually creationist beliefs and it wouldn't make sense to mod them down).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
The founding fathers of America recognised the danger of interspersing religion with state. If you do the research, you'll also find that most of them were deists - which was pretty much as close as you could get to athiest, back then. Anything more radical than a deist was considered godless and wretched at best.
The introduction of religious elements (such as "in god we trust" on money, swearing on the bible, etc) came at a much later date. All founding fathers (the creators of the Declaration of Independence) had long since expired.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Make fun of the AC if you want, but the AC's post describes the whole point of Protestantism. So, if he is a "backs away without making eye contact" kind of loon, then you must place all Protestants either into the same category as the AC, or into the "Too stupid to even know their own religion" category.
First you say: > I respect other peoples right to an opinion, but > that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself.
The you say: > Quite frankly, I think that people who seriously believe > in creationism need to be checked into the loonie bin.
Didn't you just contradict yourself? Where do irrational people belong?
No. His second statement is his opinion. He was saying it to highlight that while you can respect his right to have and share his opinion, you don't need to respect the opinion itself.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Slamming a creationist is funny in a crowd that has a regard for science. We also laugh at the hypercube and the flatearth people. Respecting the right to a belief doesn't mean you have to respect the belief. So, I think people should be able to believe whatever crazy nonsense they want, but I that isn't going to stop me from laughing at them.
I personally put 4000 year creationist below the crazy drunk guy on the street rambling incoherently. At least the crazy drunk guy has an excuse for not using his mental facilities. I can stomach the ID people only slightly easier, as at least their god of holes actually lives in a hole and rank them not much worse than a UFO nut. People who believe that god, FSM, or whatever touched off a big bang or what not, eh, I have nothing wrong with them. Science really doesn't offer up all that much, and so if you insist on believing something magic is just as good as anything else.
I wouldn't say "a lot". In fact, the number of actual scientists who accept Intelligent Design (as opposed to Theistic Evolution, which is what I suspect you're actually referring to) is exceedingly small. I'd wager there aren't more than a handful of scientists in areas of research that deal with biology in any way that believe Intelligent Design. The number of scientists outside these fields likely isn't much higher. Generally speaking ID advocates have to start finding Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers and Mathematicians and then start make-believing that they're scientists to get the numbers up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As someone who was raised protestant, but is no longer a Christian ... I honestly have no farking idea what 'whore of Babylon' means, or why I wouldn't think anyone spouting off about it isn't batshit crazy. Oddly enough, I don't recall ever hearing those words in Church, and the points of disagreement between the various denominations mostly strikes me as arcane and meaningless. I tuned out the animosity between Protestants and Catholics decades ago.
I may be too stupid to know their religion, but that kind of stuff to an outsider just comes across like a nut job who is standing on a street corner screeching out gibberish that most of us haven't a clue what the fuck it means.
Sounds like an incoherent loon to me. :-P
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That's odd. I don't recall Lewinsky charging Clinton with sexual harassment. By all accounts, it was quite consensual (and pathetic, the most the President of the United States could get was a blow job).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And, far less to sit through an explanation of spherical astronomy and how the phases of the moon work and how shadows get cast on spheres.
You don't need to be personally brought into space to have all the evidence you need.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Well maybe I misunderstood.
I thought you wrote:
A) "I respect one's rights to have an opinion", and
B) "I think that people who [have a certain opinion] need to be [removed from society].
These seem to be contradictory statements to me.
Devil-like aliens have planted all the fake evidence of evolution because they don't want us to deduce their existence.
This space intentionally left blank
Congratulations, you've just gone back to the point made in the original post. If you go throw out all reasonable thoughts about what is evidence and what is not, the argument stops, because no one can do all the research and the research behind the research in their lifetime.
Seriously though, people who compare science with religion are missing the fundamental difference: science does not preach a fundamental truth from which there is no deviation: it in fact challenges you to go and find a better theory.
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
Seriously though, people who compare science with religion are missing the fundamental difference: science does not preach a fundamental truth from which there is no deviation: it in fact challenges you to go and find a better theory.
Really? What about the peer topic where any atheist that doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot? Or do I pretend that this kind of opinion is rare in the science world?
...Evolutionists may be able to back up their beliefs with science...
How can anybody's belief to be backed up by science? A belief is a belief, no matter who holds it. Everybody has a worldview and will interpret whatever information or evidence comes their way according to that world view.
Someone who truly believes in God, the God of the Bible, will also believe that the universe and all life within it is created by him. Anybody who is an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance. Those are the only options there are.
Everything we observe about the universe, all life including ourselves in it, can be and is being interpreted by this fundamental difference in world views. Observations clearly show that the universe did have a definite beginning, which scientists have labeled the Big Bang. We also observe and experience every day that every effect has a cause. We may not always know the cause of a given effect, but we have never observed an effect that did not have a cause. What or who caused the Big Bang? It either just happened without a cause, or something, or better, some One who has no cause, but just is, brought it into being. This eternally existing being, communicates to us through the skill of writing, which only we humans possess.
How can the random probabilities of a gigantic, cosmic explosion create order in a finite amount of time? What caused the Big Bang and what caused the universe to develop in an orderly manner? Where did the laws it operates by, the laws of physics come from? From all observations we can make, these laws seem to operate quite uniformly throughout the entire universe we can observe. Can random probabilities account for the existence of a computer chip or 747 airliner? If not, then why do so many if not most so-called scientists, attribute a single living cell, which is far more complicated than all computer chips ever made and all airliners ever built, to random probabilities?
Is it not, that most scientists, being human, are not very comfortable with the idea of being ultimately responsible and accountable to a Creator God? It is this uncomfortable thought, that causes most scientists, in fact most people especially here on /. to adhere to the randomness worldview.
All theory is gray
"The supposed "theocracy" you speak of,"
Are you referring to Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc?
If so, try again. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults.
Let me know when you're done with this quote so I can use it as my sig. Thanks!
Too late...
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
...Creationists are actively trying to destroy science education in the United States...
Maybe some of them are, and those ought to be resisted. However many, myself included, resist the idea that scientific observations should all be filtered ONLY through an atheistic worldview. ALL observations of science, the actual facts, the actual data, can be interpreted through either one or the other of the two basic world views.
There are many scientists today, with just as many degrees in front of or after their name, that are increasingly uncomfortable with the mechanistic, probabilistic interpretation of the amazing world of nature. They may not even be believers or Christians, yet are seeking alternate interpretations of the raw scientific data and observations.
Why is it almost nobody has any problems with attributing a highly ordered system, such as a wristwatch, a computer chip or an airplane to intelligent design, but most are unwilling to make the same attribution to the origin of living systems? After all, there is one living system, called people, who are responsible for making watches computers have airplanes. Could there not be a higher intelligence, that is responsible for the design of these living people systems, which in turn can come up with all sorts of complex devices?
All theory is gray
As opposed to "But...but...but...the Scientist says...."???
None of us have this kind of information first hand, as we're just not that old. On some level, we're all just taking someone else's word for it.
Right, because a book which was written, translated, revised, forked, burnt, re-translated, lost, found, omitted from, and appended to through the centuries/millennia by many different unknown people is equally as credible as the smart, educated people who spend a lifetime studying these fields and have all of today's technology at their disposal...?
Seriously though, people who compare science with religion are missing the fundamental difference: science does not preach a fundamental truth from which there is no deviation: it in fact challenges you to go and find a better theory.
Really? What about the peer topic where any atheist that doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot? Or do I pretend that this kind of opinion is rare in the science world?
Well, unless that atheist has a better theory with better evidence to back it up, then yes, he's an idiot... And I'm assuming that with the theory of evolution, you mean the base idea of that natural selection is how simple organisms can evolve to complex organisms, not the original theory of Darwin. Because that theory has evolved all by itself for some time now and doesn't really resemble Darwin's original theory, if only in basics... Which again proves the difference between science and religion.
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
Ok, I believe the earth was created by God (I do not believe it was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago but in 6 periods of time that covered billions of years). I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if the skeleton was dated as over 13,000 years old, it's most likely over 13,000 years old.
the oldest closet in the world?
I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me anything that cat's actually "done".
Why are you waiting for someone to tell you this? There's a great new tool called "Google" where you can find out things like this for yourself.
Hell, I'm a conservative and can list half a dozen Obama accomplishments, both in Congress and in the Illinois Senate. Some are impressive. Some are bipartisan. Some I don't agree with.
Interestingly, I can't list any for GWB prior to his election.
...The bible is an archaic, brutal, ridiculous text of ancient folklore...
You are obviously misinformed about the nature of this unique book. There is no other one like it.
Even if you do not accept the Bible as truth, or as God's message to mankind, you certainly should be able to consider that it is a very unusual book. Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind. Much of it depicts human history, some of it written down before it ever took place. Some of this history, written in advance, is taking place right before our very eyes in our time. We can read the content of tomorrow's newspaper headlines in some of the passages of the Bible.
For thousands of years, all human writing had to be laboriously copied by hand. When the art of printing was finally invented by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed? Guess which human writing is distributed more widely than any other and translated into more languages and dialects than any other? Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other? There are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.
(..and that God gave us reason and logic in his own image..)
Exactly, and that is why we read in the Bible:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD;...
It is an admirable and good goal, which is encouraged in a number of biblical passages, to study the universe which the Creator God of the Bible brought into being. It is a good thing to learn about the theories and ideas of Einstein or other great scientists, but it is quite a greater honor and higher goal to get to know such people personally and interact with them face to face.
That is the ultimate goal the Creator God of the universe has in mind for you and me. He gave us humans not only the ability to observe and learn about his creation, but wants to honor us, by inviting us into a face-to-face, one on one relationship with himself.
Jesus DEFINES eternal life to be this knowledge of God:
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
This is not something you get after you die. You can experience it today, but only if you want to and are willing to believe.
The Bible is not about the religious trappings and rigmarole, which organized religion has brought us, but an intimate loving relationship which God desires for us humans, whom he has created in his image and likeness. If you were to dare read the Bible with that desire in your heart, it would become a new book to you.
All theory is gray
...In order for creationism and evolution to be present at the same time, one of them has to be significantly wrong...
Scientific laws and observations are true and only they can be called "science". Evolution and creationism are two different ways of interpreting the same data. All data is filtered through two fundamental world views. The first, more common one holds, that everything in the natural world is there through probabilistic processes operating over immense spans of time. The second holds, that the complex natural systems we observe in nature exist because they were designed by an intelligent mind.
It is interesting that the first world view, the probabilistic one, is only applied to complex natural systems, but never to unnatural, human made complex systems. The second world view is more consistent, in that it sees design in natural complex systems, as well as in man-made complex systems. An amoeba is interpreted to have come into being by means of a probabilistic process, but a computer chip is interpreted to have come about by processes of design and thought. Yet, an amoeba is many orders of magnitude more complex, than even the most sophisticated computer chips available today.
I am surprised that this inconsistency does not bother more people.
All theory is gray
Can I get an AMEN!!!!
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
Well the translation/copy says so anyways. Given the hypothetical nature of God, you cannot prove the world was not made 5 seconds ago. So, if you believe God created the universe and all the laws of nature, you cannot assume anything science "proves" as factual, only the intended result of God. The point is... When you make that leap of faith Science and the word of God become one and the same. If you do not make that leap then they are clearly different standards. This leap of faith is a boolean value perhaps with a null option, but I think those that have a null opinion of God are unable to articulate what they really believe. But that is just my opinion so don't put much stock in it.
Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
Someone says "It magically happened."
Someone else says "We've attempted to come up with a logical theory."
I don't agree that these statements should be weighed the same way. The vast, vast majority of scientists would not agree with your view either. People who believe in magic, well, maybe they would agree with you.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
poor old McCain.
There are numerous vids on youtube of simulated evolution for even complex things, such as watches. They're quite interesting and they help the novice break down evolution into something that can be easily understood.
You speak of Intelligent Design, though. ID is basically a single portion of creationism ("we were made by a designer") expanded upon and turned into a theory (which has since been scientifically panned -- normally that would mean that the theory needs significant rework but ID'ers don't seem to care... but I digress). Creationism is all about holding what the bible says, to be true... specifically, the parts on creation. This means it took six days to make earth, that all creatures were made as-is in a day, that humans are made from clay (or a rib if you're of the "inferior" sex), that the earth is 6000 years old (technically that's young-earth creationism but for the sake of argument).
If you hold to creationism, it is clearly incompatible with evolution (among other near-certainties of reality). Six thousand years isn't nearly enough time for anything beyond simple quick-reproducing organisms such as bacteria to noticably evolve. This alone doesn't mean evolution can't exist but the problem is, we have a ridiculous amount of evidence spanning from months (evolution observed in the lab) to millions and millions of years (evolution of ancient species between periods leading up to today's species) and in between. Practically the only argument remaining that can be used to tie the two together is that "god put everything there to fool us", which even the most devout believer will admit is an incredible stretch.
Interestingly though, this point still exists with ID vs. evolution. Unless the designer started with the most basic building block, such as a single celled organism from which evolution would take root, there's still the problem of all that historic evidence. If we're following the ID theory (which is meant to be approached scientifically), it's a much greater stretch to believe that this designer placed them to fool us.
Ultimately, if you understand evolution enough to be trying to make it compatible with creationism/intelligent design, then you know enough about evolution to know that it explains everything you need to know about how we all came to be. If you want to know where life came from to begin with, that's a different theory altogether (said theories are not nearly as rock solid at this point in time, though in true scientific form, that's improving).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
...I only wish you would be more tolerant of my intolerance...
You apparently have not learned yet, that those who rail most against intolerance, are themselves exceedingly intolerant toward those they strongly disagree with. Those are the kinds of people who screamed "crucify, crucify" because of their intolerance and hatred of the only one that ever lived, who could challenge friends and enemies alike with:
John 8:46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?
Evil, intolerant people hate, with a passion, anyone and anything that exposes their deeds and attitudes. They do not want to answer or be accountable to *any* authority other than themselves. The smallest thing in existence is not a quark or a neutrino, but a person all wrapped up in himself or herself.
All theory is gray
Odd, I kind of thought that Congress and Senate had a more than a bit of responsibility for the running of the US. Hey, maybe I'm wrong and they just sit there doing whatever while the President does it all. Who knew...
...Science however...
NEVER makes any assumption? Scientists don't have a worldview with which they filter the evidence? In a court case, the prosecution and the defense may interpret the same evidence very differently. It is then up to the jury to decide whose interpretation they will believe. It is not the evidence itself that is the issue, but the interpretation thereof.
All theory is gray
My fellow being. The bible is, if anything, a very important piece of history. All religious books from the days of lore are a deeply rooted part of our history and they most certainly should be respected for that fact alone.
Should they been taught in schools? For what they are as a part of history yes. Their doctrine should not be taught, that is what Church is for.
Just because they mention God, does not mean we can not educate our children about what they are, why they are and what role they play in our culture.
To not do so would be for us to become as cold and Godless as the Soviets.
They are a part of who and what we are, where we came from and what the ancients believed would happen. Everything you said above shows an ignorance of someone who has not really read the Bible and tried to understand how it came to be and what it meant to them people who penned the letters and transcribed the scrolls that the Church later bound as a book.
I believe deeply that we are all part of the same great thing, one soul looking back on itself in a million different ways. You know the silly old saying, 'Be One with the Universe".
'The least you do unto your fellow man is the least you do unto me' J.C.
ed duval the very last person
...And how many who have decided that the book is wrong have personally conducted any of that research?...
In reality, there are a few people, highly intelligent, educated people who have set out to show that this book is wrong. These were honest skeptics who made a very thorough, rather detailed study of this book, the Bible in an effort to once and for all proven to be wrong and facts of science and history.
One of these comes to mind immediately and his name is Josh McDowell. You can learn a little about them on this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell
In the same article, mention is also made of Simon Greenleaf, a founder of Harvard law school. His multivolume treatise on the rules of evidence still graces almost every big law office and court.
If you are interested, you may read about this man here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf
He wrote a little book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists", wherein he scrutinizes the four Gospels of the Bible by the same rules of evidence that are still applied in courtrooms today. This book is in the public domain and ought to be available for free on the Internet.
All theory is gray
...This is about claiming that objective reality has been faked...
There is no such a thing as absolute objective reality, but only more or less believable evidence, given to us by our senses or their extensions by technological mechanisms. We further filter these evidences through our worldview, that is our basic belief system. A big cornerstone of the naturalistic, probabilistic, evolutionary worldview, is that only evidence our human logic and understanding can grasp can be "real and true" and is permitted to even be considered. Anything that comes their way that cannot be grasped by their finite mind, is summarily dismissed as supernatural and therefore automatically false. In this we are no different than our ancient forebears, who indeed were quite certain that the earth was flat and that disease was caused by bad humors. Letting of blood was supposed to get rid of these.
I'm sure, that you, as well as most of us have heard the saying: "seeing is believing". Yet we all know, at there are optical illusions where what we see does not necessarily correspond to what's really there. In fact, "the flat earth theory" is an example where seeing is NOT believing only for somebody with a higher external perspective.
(..clinging to the notion that the Earth is 6000 years old..)
Since nobody alive today was around to observe the formation of fossils, we have to BELIEVE what certain scientists think how and when fossils came to be. They claim to have certain evidence of this, but all evidence must be BELIEVED, it is not absolute proof. Just as in a court case, the prosecution and the defense look at the same evidence very differently, so too, do evolutionists and creationists explain the same evidence according to what they want to convince the jury to accept as truth.
All theory is gray
Well, I guess we know which group you belong to then...
There's also some fun circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that one of the Kham plateau dialects of Tibetan is possibly related to Navajo.
A woman I once worked with lives in the Southwest and was at a Tibetan conference chatting with a friend of hers about the Navajo, when she turned to the Tibetans sitting at her table and apologized for not explaining who the Navajo are. The Tibetans laughed and said they needed no explanation. They told her how, in WWII, when the US hired on the Navajo code talkers, the Japanese figured out who it was on the radio and searched around for anyone who might be able to interpret. There was apparently a serious effort underway by Tibetan speakers that was making some headway before the war ended.
The recent Elliot Pattison novel, Prayer of the Dragon, plays on this potential Tibetan-Navajo connection. He talks some about the (admittedly superficial) similarities -- sand paintings, sky burial. And the Navajo themselves have a creation story about climbing down from a hole in the sky in the far north, where nowadays speakers of the related Athabaskan languages reside.
Sure, it might all be accidental, but circumstantial evidence, in sufficient quantities, begins to be a bit compelling. :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Chickens are one thing, humans are another. :)
There is growing evidence that the Polynesian linguistic group arose from origins in what is now Taiwan. Mâori oral traditions (the "story" in their "history") describe arriving at Aotearoa, the Land of the Long White Cloud (New Zealand), right when a particular star became extremely bright. Given the constellation described in detail in the tale, Western eggheads have been able to identify it as the Crab Nebula, which went kablooie in 1054.
They came from the west.
This makes any detour through the Americas quite unlikely, at the least. :)
That's not to discount any Polynesian contact with South America -- if a people can travel from Indonesia through Samoa and find Rapa Nui ("the big hunt" -- i.e. Easter Island) and travel back again, they can probably hit something as big as the South American coastline.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Who said anything about "NEVER makes an assumption"?? I said, "Science however, with its continual testing and self-criticism, does count as credible evidence" [when compared to the evidence of an inferred age of the earth based on the genealogies in a book].
Nice try.
...There are numerous vids on youtube of simulated evolution for even complex things, such as watches....
Of course you really believe that is how a watch came into being don't you! Seeing has never been believing and that is doubly true when it comes to digital images.
(..that humans are made from clay..)
Actually, it says they were made from Earth, soil if you will. If you analyze soil, or even clay as a type of soil, such as good a fertile garden soil, you will find the same elements in about the same proportion as they are in your body. This stands to reason, because everything you eat comes from the soil, from the earth. So then, the Bible is not wrong in stating that you are basically, or at least your body is, nothing more than a dirt clod. This is interpreting the facts of science, namely the elements in the human body, through a biblical rather than a probabilistic world view.
(...Six thousand years isn't nearly enough time for anything beyond simple quick-reproducing organisms such as bacteria to noticably evolve....)
If you would do a little study of the complexity of even a single living cell, and then do some statistical math based on your knowledge of this complexity, you would come to the conclusion that 6 billion years or 60 billion years or 60,000 billion years would not be enough time by any conceivable probabilistic process, to make such a complex structure.
(...evolution observed in the lab...)
No evolution in the larger sense has NEVER been observed in the lab or in nature. You are repeating an outright lie that has been foisted on you and you swallowed it hook line and sinker. There have been uncounted experiments, for example, to evolve fruit flies (drosophila). All that was ever demonstrated is that nobody can make anything but fruit flies from fruit flies. Some of them were rather grotesque and weird, but they were nevertheless all fruit flies and nothing but fruit flies. Again, this evidence supports the biblical statements about living things reproducing after their own kind. The Hebrew word commonly translated as "kind" does not necessarily mean the species. There are many kinds of dogs, and interbreeding them, as mankind has been doing for centuries, still has produced only dogs and no other kind of animal.
(..it's a much greater stretch to believe that this designer placed them to fool us..)
It's a much greater stretch to believe that a designer intelligent and powerful enough to create the entire universe from nothing, would have a logical reason to want to fool us humans, who he claims to love, like that.
(...Ultimately, if you understand evolution enough...)
I understand the mathematics of probability enough, as do many who doubt evolution, to believe that the immense complexity and variety of even single celled creatures, can be explained by any probabilistic process. Even the EXPONENTS of these numbers get into six or seven decimal places, for the number of nanoseconds the age of the universe would have to be, in order to produce such unimaginable complexity.
All theory is gray
Your misplaced sarcasm aside, I recommend the youtube vids. They're not evidence and nobody presents them that way, but they are exceptionally good at demonstrating how natural selection + mutation + generations = the transformation of something simple (an uncalibrated pendulum) to something complex (an accurate four-handed time piece).
I paused several times reading that to gather some references to show how flat wrong you are, until I completed reading your post and realised the scale of work required. So here's a summary. All of the following can be backed up with a few google and wiki searches.
Evolution has been observed, forced and guided in "the lab", using various species (bacteria's the most common but I also spotted one involving caterpillars). Evolution is a ridiculously simple premise that is oft misunderstood, especially by people who don't quite understand that complex creatures and features start simple.
Finally, If you want to disassemble humans down to their most basic components and then argue we're the same as dirt/clay/trucks/the sun, go nuts, just don't present it in an argument and expect people to not call you retarded.
I leave you with a very appropriate link. Have a good weekend!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
...when compared to the evidence of an inferred age of the earth based on the genealogies in a book...
It isn't as if the human interpretations of the Bible are always infallible either.
In Exodus 20:9 you can read:
Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. You shall not do any work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
From the context, being part of the Ten Commandments, it seems reasonable to conclude that the days of work are intended to be takes as six normal 24-hour days. It is now so unreasonable to conclude that the days of creation were not the same?
The question becomes, do we change the length of these "days" to accommodate the probabilistic interpretation of evolutionary theory? A transcendent Creator God, powerful enough to bring the entire universe into existence from nothing, could have done it in six days, six years, 6000 years, or whatever billions of years are deemed necessary by evolutionary requirements. Since he was the only one there, we either have to believe what he tells us or not.
The Bible opens with the following sentence:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Anybody who can believe that, should have no problem in believing what we humans call miracles or the supernatural.
In this one majestic opening verse, we find the three basic aspects of the reality we find ourselves in. There is the beginning -- time, then there are the heavens -- space, and then there is the earth -- matter-energy. The one doing the action is Elohim in Hebrew. Interestingly, this is a plural word form.
All theory is gray
Wow. That really is interesting. Plural huh?
Sooooo... when are you going to pull your head out of arse-land and join us back in reality?
...(bacteria's the most common but I also spotted one involving caterpillars)....
Yes, and in all of them, the bacteria, usually e-coli, were still always and forever bacteria (e-coli or whatever they started with) and the caterpillars remained always only caterpillars. Some caterpillars of course "evolve" into butterflies or moths. These butterflies then lay eggs, which hatch into, you guessed it, more caterpillars. Those caterpillars in these articles may have had different colors or spots, but they were still always, only and forever caterpillars, nothing else.
Cats make more cats, dogs make more dogs, humans make more humans. That is the laboratory we are all familiar with and we know it works. All Life-forms, without a single exception reproduce after their kind, just as God tells us in his book the Bible. Nobody, anywhere in any place has ever observed anything else.
All theory is gray
This is obviously completely wrong. If there is something we cannot understand, we keep trying to figure it out. That's why we have science. If there's anything that summarily dismisses anything it's the "we can't explain it, so we'll assume that God did it and ignore the problem" crowd.
Here's where you get it wrong again. The thing with science is that it has worked nicely so far, so accepting scientific consensus is the best thing to do for us normal people who don't have all the expertise. You seem to believe in some massive scientific conspiracy and coverup just because the evidence doesn't support your world view, but science has brought us all these useful things like technology, medicine, etc. Even if you don't believe in an objective reality, you should at least accept that science makes more sense than blind religious faith because it has been working fine until now.
You seem to equate the acceptance of scientific consensus and religious faith, which is completely off the mark. Scientific consensus is based on verified facts. Religious faith is based on blind belief in something.
Clever signature text goes here.
I have looked at her face - and yes, she looks vaguely Asian. But then so does more than one Caucasian I know. I also know many Asians, of pure blood, that look Western. I know half a dozen light skinned blacks. Looks prove nothing.
And you are correct, having refuted each of your assumptions in turn, I have nothing further substantive to say.
If they do, they make it perfectly clear. It's called intellectual honesty. If they make an assumption, they explain why they made that assumption, what the weaknesses are, and exactly how that assumption is supported, and how it could be wrong.
Oh, they certainly do. Which is why the scientific process is so useful. You don't have to rely on a single person's claims. That person must back up his claims with actual data and research that can be duplicated by others.
Clever signature text goes here.
Actually, we have observed actual speciation. And especially among bacteria we see new proteins enzymes appearing (and if there's no limit to how proteins can change, there's no limit to how the entire organism can change).
Clever signature text goes here.
The Bible is full of genocide, rape, slaughter, etc. And God condones and even performs it himself.
Clever signature text goes here.
Indeed.
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Either the universe is really, really old, or God has fooled us.
Clever signature text goes here.
I agree. The OP mistakenly referred to Evolution as a "belief", when it is in fact not a belief. It is a model for explaining what we observe in nature.
No, this is a straw man.
No. Only one model is supported by all the data and contradicted by none.
No, this is not necessarily the case. Especially in a "pre-universe" state, the laws of physics were not necessarily as they are today.
Clever signature text goes here.
No. Only Evolution is supported by all the data and contradicted by none.
This is false. These are extremely few compared to the total number of scientists.
Because of what the facts tell us.
Clever signature text goes here.
The problem is: Creationists are wrong. They have no understanding how we date things. They just make empty straw man claims.
Clever signature text goes here.
I think we should send all those creationists a copy of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. See what they make out of that :)
Aye, but make sure ye always walk roond the coo three times widdershins before consummation!
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
No matter whether I have conducted the research or not, the reported evidence of science is far more credible than a book of bronze age myth and superstition.
Face it - if you believe that the two sources are equal you're either a fool or a knave.
Personally, I'd rather despise you as a knave than ridicule you as a fool.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
My fellow being.
...
To not do so would be for us to become as cold and Godless as the Soviets.
...
I believe deeply that we are all part of the same great thing
I have nothing more to add.
Seriously, haven't you got these arguments countered like a million times?
Its complex (lets ignore for a moment that evolution explains the complexity that arises), so there's an even more complex creator.
So, this creator must have an even more complex creator. And instead of reducing the complexity of the explanation, you increased it, significantly.
We cannot "test nor witness" directly almost anything. We test and witness things through our potentially faulty senses - which is a form of indirection itself.
We only "see" electricity through indirect electric sensors that we have like lamps, or electric devices, or the magnetic effect on metals. These are only slightly more indirect than directly seeing objects.
Similarly, we see evolution through millions of fossils, containing features predicted with high accuracy beforehand, by evolution researchers. This is only slightly more indirect, and quite a bit more direct than how we "see" some very exotic physical principles, which are obviously true, or technology wouldn't work.
Is it not, that most scientists, being human, are not very comfortable with the idea of being ultimately responsible and accountable to a Creator God? It is this uncomfortable thought, that causes most scientists, in fact most people especially here on /. to adhere to the randomness worldview.
I can only speak for myself but I am not uncomfortable with the idea at all. I do not believe in the existence of a God so the idea is a non-issue to me.
How (un)comfortable is a Christian with the idea of being ultimately responsible and accountable to Allah, Anubis or any other god that has ever been worshipped?
Anybody who is an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance.
I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that. Since you are wrong on this point, It is accurate to assume that you are wrong in everything you do and say, and that your very existence is an exercise in wrongness. Cut it out.
In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
You obviously went to a messed up school then or maybe you just missed some particular classes all the time.. you know.. the ones called LABS? Ofcourse no school would give you an opportunity to actually experience how some complicated phenomenon works, like say a nuclear fission reaction, in a puny little lab room unless ofcourse you go on a field trip to a nuclear reactor nearby, but thats what the higher studies are for.
Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
Upon further examination said, "stop touching me!"
Changing the world... one research project at a time.
Yes, the group that thinks that if your religion focuses on being divisive, and can't accept reality, then it's fundamentally wrong.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
A man and a woman are honeymooning at the beach. The current takes the woman away and she is lost. The man and police attempt to find her, but they fail.
A few days later, the man goes to the police station for an update. The policeman says "I have some bad news, some good news and some very good news. Which do you want first?
The man says, "please give me the bad news first."
The policeman says, "I'm afraid your wife has drowned. We found the body earlier today."
The man is heartbroken, but asks, "well, what is the good news?"
"When we pulled her up, she was just covered in Dungeness crabs and lobsters. I have to say, it was really good eating!"
The man is shocked, but manages to ask for the very good news.
"We're going to pull her up again tomorrow!"
She didn't. Paula Jones did. While he was Governor of Arkansas. He was questioned on his affair with Lewinsky as it helped establish a pattern of sexual coercion of subordinates. This is the crux of sexual harassment issues - a man (usually), in a position of power over an employee, requesting sexual favors. Because of the ability of the superior to control the career of the subordinate, it is difficult to determine if the sex is really consensual. Bill Clinton had numerous complaints about him trying to force himself onto women who worked for him, or owed their livelihood to him.
In all my years of school, the vast majority of the time spent learning "science" has revolved around reading a book full of assertions, with nothing presented to the reader for the purposes of backing those assertions up.
You obviously went to a messed up school then or maybe you just missed some particular classes all the time.. you know.. the ones called LABS? Ofcourse no school would give you an opportunity to actually experience how some complicated phenomenon works, like say a nuclear fission reaction, in a puny little lab room unless ofcourse you go on a field trip to a nuclear reactor nearby, but thats what the higher studies are for.
There were a few lab assignments in high school, but my school experience, as I remember it, went like this. Several years of memorizing facts, then we cut open a starfish. Now, I'm sure that the scientific method was covered, several times, along with the difference between a fact, a theory, etc. But, that was only a small part of it.
As for the nuclear reactor part, that is a total straw man. If you were an Algebra teacher and your students didn't know how to add and subtract, then the answer isn't to teach calculus. It is to hit the basics a little harder. That is what I'm promoting. Students don't understand the basics, so that science classes should hit them harder before moving on. It could easily be accomplished with a few more assignments that ask questions like "under situation x, you suspect y, what is the next step".
I can't find one serious post here that doesn't make a reference to religion. This is ridiculous!
I thought I might list some facts that are missing in some posts (presumably because the posters did not RFTA).
Archaeologists have found four skeleton remains preserved in the underwater cave.
"Eva de Naharon" is dated to be 13,600 years old (preliminary dating, but is in range 11,000 to 14,000 years old from carbon dating of the others).
I was kind of expecting speculative talk about other bones not being discovered because of burial practices, exposure to the elements, the group temporarily living in the cave because they may have been moving around exploring, etc; or the potential impact this discovery has, along with other evidence stated in the article, to unseat the "theory holds that ancient humans first came to North America from northern Asia via a now submerged land bridge across the Bering Sea."
Define "magic". Personally I feel that any magical events could be expressed via science as well. For example, I believe that the method by which Christ walked on water is attainable by humans, but we have yet to reach that level of knowledge.
Face it - if you believe that the two sources are equal you're either a fool or a knave.
They are equal in this way, only:
Neither you nor I can confirm either one.
We weren't there. Didn't see it. Can never really know what happened or didn't happen. We will never know, can never know, and everything else is belief. The exact same kind of guesswork.
Why is this so damn hard to grasp?
...I'm an atheist, and I don't believe that...
So now you expressed what you don't believe, but you have said nothing about what you do believe. The universe obviously exists, unless you're one of those who believes that everything is an illusion. So by what mechanism, do you believe in the universe came into existence.
All theory is gray
Because, if that's the case, then nothing short of a time machine will ever convince you.
That's correct.
The problem with that attitude, however, is that you act as though complete agnosticism is the only option for something that cannot be proven, but, if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven. At some point you have to look at what has the most compelling evidence and say "based on what we now know, this seems to be true".
I submit that it probably should not "convince" you either. It isn't very scientific to so readily rule out all the other alternatives based on popularity alone.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence. Evidence is the reason evolution became as popular as it did, among scientists. Popularity alone is the reason creationism became popular among non-scientists.
Many possible explanations are plausible, and since we can't rule any of them out, it quickly becomes less a discussion of any facts and more a contest of wills.
But your argument is based on the idea that because God is a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and for which there is no evidence, then no amount of facts will ever be relevant. It is a discussion of wills because creationists choose to dig in their heels and ignore the evidence.
What's more idiotic, the possibility that an atheist may not be an evolutionist, or having as open a mind as is possible on topics we cannot ourselves test nor witness?
But we can test this phenomena, and have been doing so for a century and a half. There are several experiments in which evolution has been directly observed. You will never be able to start with a single-celled organism and see it evolve to an intelligent life form, but it is idiotic to assume that either option is equally likely, or to assume that the one supported by no evidence is more likely than the one supported by a great deal of evidence.
.... It is a model for explaining ...
Any model for explaining anything is nothing more than an expression of an underlying belief, a basic worldview.
The universe either involved by some process or it was created through the actions of an intelligent mind. Which one of these two alternatives do you consider to be a strawman. Perhaps you have another alternative means by which you believe the universe came into existence. Maybe you can explain that.
All theory is gray
..No. Only Evolution is supported by all the data and contradicted by none...
Evolution is an attempt to explain how things got here, specifically things that are alive. Darwin's ideas have been extended beyond the sphere of biology. There is not one scientific experiment or observation that cannot equally be explained by the alternative worldview of creation.
(..These are extremely few compared to the total number of scientists..)
Since when has truth ever been a popularity contest, even scientific truth? If you would study the history of science, you would certainly learn, that it was more often than not, the lone voice in the wilderness that was finally proven to be correct. True scientific progress has never been a product of a committee or the consensus of a crowd.
All theory is gray
if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven.
Nice to meet you. I'm Bob. I question everything. Constantly. I wouldn't know how to stop, even if I wanted to...
Friend, nothing can ever really be proven. 'Close' is a good as it gets. It is the people that keep this in mind that advance our society.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence.
Mostly, this is false. I'm not arguing that evolution isn't probable. It is. What I am saying, is that evolution is founded primarily on correlation. I find it amusing that correlation isn't good enough for a 'soft' science like psychology, but is rock solid enough to go around blasting people's religions.
Don't you find that at least a tiny bit disingenuous?
What I believe is not important. It could be anything at all, except that "the universe is a result of random chance." What is important, in this case, is what I _do_not_ believe. That is, after all, the definition of atheist, no? You don't know what atheists believe, no one does, yet you claim to. Since you choose to apply assumptions universally, I am applying one to you. You are wrong about everything. You have always been, and always will be.
...so there's an even more complex creator...
Yes indeed, you got that one right! Is not the designer of a bridge or an airplane also more complex than either the bridge or the airplane? It is not the mind and its thinking processes far more complex than the processes in a computer that was designed by this mind? So yes, the transcendent Creator God, existing eternally outside of time and space, who produced the universe and all life in it from absolutely nothing, is infinitely more complex than his creation.
All theory is gray
Whoosh! You totally missed my point.
Then who created this infinitely-more-complex god?
An uber-infinitely-kaboodley-hoo more complex god?
"endowed by their Creator"
Nuff said.
The legacy of wise men, self reliant and fiercely independent would turn over in their graves if they knew the Moral decadence that is being embraced by this country.
These men, many lost their entire worth, for a cause greater than themselves. I don't see that much anymore.
Instead we have people whining why the government doesn't give them all the things they think they deserve ... for nothing.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Leviticus 20:10 (New International Version): If a man commits adultery with another man's wifeâ"with the wife of his neighborâ"both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Egg Shen? Is the Bible a salad bar? Take what you want and leave the rest?
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
...Then who created this infinitely-more-complex god?....
If you believe in the law of cause and effect, the effect of the universe has to have a cause, unless the universe has always existed. This is what scientists believed at one time. Einstein and others showed that there was a definite beginning. Scientists have labeled this "The Big Bang"
Ultimately, at some point, the first cause must be uncaused, eternal. The Bible is the only sacred writing that states clearly that God is eternal, transcendent, outside of space and time, without a beginning or end. He is independent of and not a part of this creation. If you build a chair or a computer, you do not become part of either. You may sit on the chair or manipulate the hardware or software of the computer, but you are never part of them.
All theory is gray
Oo, very interesting, I'll definitely give that a look-see. I'm quite interested in such morphologic analysis, and hope some day to possibly conduct some of my own, so a paper such as this touted for its methodological rigor is a happy find. Thank you.
The only thing I've read recently about Basque in the ancient world has to do with the possible remnants of Basque words in place names around Europe, which might indicate a much broader dispersion of Basque speakers prior to the influx of the Indo-European tribes. The one example I recall was the word "aran", apparently cognate to a Basque word meaning "valley", that shows up in various places around Europe, usually with the now-local language word for "valley" stuck on the end, such as Arantal, Germany (literally, the "valley valley").
The old Irish oral tradition relates that there were other people in Ireland before the folks now calling themselves Irish showed up, and the tales describe how the original inhabitants fought so valiantly that the incoming Gaelic tribes named the place after them in tribute -- Eiran. What with how many dramatic valleys there are in Ireland, that made me wonder if perhaps this "Eiran" is the same Basque word for "valley" -- but that is pure conjecture, and simply a fun thought experiment.
FWIW, almost anything lumping Basque in together with other languages has never read to me as terribly convincing, seeming almost more like "we don't know where the heck Basque came from, so what if it's related to XXX?" but with no clear smoking-gun type of compelling evidence that it actually *is* related to anything. Who knows, hopefully some day someone will figure out where it fits in.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Sorry to reply twice, but the intro to Vajda's paper mentions the Zuni language, which leads me to recommend The Zuni Enigma, wherein Nancy Yaw Davis sets forth a very interesting argument that the precursors to the Zuni absorbed a sizable Japanese community some time in the 1300s-1400s, with the Japanese language of the time forming part of the current Zuni ecumenical language. Davis's work still leaves many questions, and she is not a linguist but rather an anthropologist, but her writings are still worth evaluating. I'm a Japanese translator by trade, and some day I would very much like to be able to seriously study Zuni myself to see what I can find.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
to secularize as happened in post WWII Europe.
Well, I live in Germany, Bavaria (that's in secularized(?) Europe, but i have to check occasionally) and I have to say: not really. Since Bavaria is a free state, it has it's own constitution (and hymn) which explicitly refers to a god. And this mentioned god is of course christian (preferably catholic) which members of the ruling political party (CSU) are always feel pressed to point out. Prior to the upcoming elections ruling party members of the CSU literally(!) said, they will maintain a crusade against all parties who have secularization on their agenda because Bavaria is clearly a christian country. The state collects curch taxes (only protestant and, of course, catholic churches, afaik). In public(!) schools there's always hanging a crucifix on the wall in every classroom. You can challenge that in court, but every attempt i heard of so far (very few) is followed by a public outrage. If you want to teach in public schools it's an advantage if you're christian (preferably catholic) and you're free to roam the school with a crucifix around you're neck. But if you're eg. muslim and want to teach with a scarf you're in big trouble for wearing that scarf. Christian holidays (catholic) are legal holidays.
At least that part of Europe isn't quite secular. Sometimes i wish i lived in Turkey. Greetings from the catholic madhouse.
Ahh... The irony....
It has been a far more thorough secularization of social mores and customs in the industrialized nations of Europe than it has in the United States but there are some places as you mention where resistance has been building. Spain as well has some problems in the Andalusian regions where Catholic supremacy goes virtually unchecked, England's rural areas are always having one revival or another but none of these comes with the level of virulent disbelief in Evolution and out and out hatred of homosexuals we see in the US. America through its missions in Africa and Asia has begun spreading this ignorance and hatred causing African societies that once begrudgingly accepted gay couples to attack, maim and in some cases kill them. Newly converted couples in SE Asia are burdening the state with children they cannot care for because they have been told to "go forth and multiply" mindlessly by American missionaries who have little understanding of the world or local economic situation.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
...both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death...
We also read that God is perfect and hates liars. Anyone who deliberately breaks a solemn promise, such as a marriage vow is a liar. There is a death penalty for liars, so why are you and I still be alive? Do you know anyone who has NEVER told a lie? I don't.
If a government makes a law and someone under its jurisdiction violates that law, then such a person becomes a lawbreaker, even if he/she only breaks it ONCE. The lawbreaker then has to bear whatever consequences were decreed for such lawlessness.
Getting away with lawbreaking can be attributed to certain reasons. One is that the lawgiver, overlooks the fact that the law was broken. That means the lawgiver is not really interested in justice.
Another might be that the law giver lacks the power to enforce the laws. That means such a law is toothless and has no value. Such a law might as well not exist. Another might be that an innocent party takes the rap for the guilty one.
Since the law giving God, being perfect and just, could not ignore his own laws, that option is not available. Anyone worthy to be called God must have the ability to make and enforce his rules.
So now the choice narrowed down to finding an innocent person willing to take the decreed punishment for breaking the law.
God searched, but could not find an innocent party among humans. We are all liars, thieves etc. and therefore guilty. So now the choice was narrowed down to either enforce the law on us all or become human and then take the decreed punishment Himself as a human. Because of His love for us that is what God did in Jesus Christ.
We are all under the sentence of eternal death, sitting here on Earth, on death row. However, what God did through Jesus Christ enabled him to offer a pardon for those WILLING to accept such a pardon and agreeing to not desire to be a liar, thief, adulterer etc. any longer. This doesn't mean we will no longer occasionally lie, steal, be unfaithful, etc, but that we have change of heart, a change of attitude about the seriousness of these offenses and earnestly strive to avoid them.
God doesn't want to execute the judgment on you or anyone else, but will be forced to in the end, if he desires to maintain justice, which he does. I have accepted his pardon and now He is waiting for you to also accept the pardon he freely offers.
All theory is gray
Hm I was actually thinking about the basic physics lab sessions I had during school to teach us simple sutff like reflection, refraction and other similar stuff like the experiments involing pendulums etc. Those things kept the interest up and let us see for ourselves that we do have the chance of testing things out if we so desire. Same for some of the very basic sessions in chemistry labs.
The nuclear reactor part was just used as an example of something which may not be possible to show the students in a school lab, I don't know why you took it as a straw man. It could very well have been a prism related experiment which may be out of reach for a school too poor to invest in anything at all like labs.
Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
Lets joust a bit and so I say to you; try again, it was only a mediocre summarization and satire and I know you can do better than choking on your words like they were chunks in bloody bilious vomit. To the lions with you.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Some of our English speaking members come from island nations where interpersonal relations of an ovine or porcine nature are not always frowned on save by the Kirk.
And trust me, Kirk certainly frowns on them.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You would think an Omnipotent being that is perfect would have thought about this before asking someone to write it down. Thus avoiding a lot of confusion and grief. Let alone, killing himself to fix this oversight.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
No, a model for explaining something is one which matches the actual facts, regardless of the person's beliefs and worldview. Evolution, for example, is accepted by religious scientists as well as scientists without a religion. These have drastically different, and one might say opposite, beliefs and worldviews. But that is irrelevant, since the explanation doesn't rely on any specific beliefs.
That's just dishonest of you. You claimed that "an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance". This is the straw man.
Clever signature text goes here.
northeast asian traits evolved independently on iceland
thats far more plausible to you
even though the same people, the sami in scandinavia, the chukchi in siberia, the inuit in canada, are just a quick pack ice trip away
its amazing the things i learn from genuises on teh intarwebs
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. northeast asian traits evolved independently on iceland
2. the same people: the sami in scandinavia, the chukchi in siberia, the inuit in canada, are just a quick pack ice trip away
which is more plausible to you?
scratch that question: which scenario is astronomical orders of magnitude more probable to you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
..You would think an Omnipotent being that is perfect would have thought about this before asking someone to write it down...
That is the wonder of it all, that he did know exactly what would happen and did not stop it. Like many books of instruction, such as many math textbooks, all or some of the answers are given in the back of the book. If you read the back of this book, the Bible, you will find that the author has shared pertinent information how it will all end.
There we read, that all people on this planet are divided into two groups. One group is those whose names are written in what is called the book of life. The other group of those whose names are absent from this book. All people, including you, are allowed to choose whether your name appears in the pages of this book of life. While still here, at this time, you can, no in fact you must KNOW, whether your name appears in there. Only those who have accepted God's free pardon, will be recorded in that book of life.
There is another book, or if you will express it in modern terms, a huge databank, that contains a complete record of your entire life, including all your private thoughts.
Scientists have given us some indication, that every experience and action anyone has ever had or done is recorded somewhere in the brain. By electrically stimulating some of these areas, these experiences have been recalled in stunning detail. If it is possible for us humans to do a complete core dump of a computer and then send that information who knows where, why should it be impossible for our Creator not to be able to do the same with our computer, our mind?
All theory is gray
...an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance...
An atheist is someone who confidently asserts that there is no God. Logically then, all that exists, has to be attributed to something else. That something else is the theory of evolution, which basically says that everything evolved over immense periods of time without any intelligent input. Maybe, there is an alternative you can tell me about.
(..No, a model for explaining something is one which matches the actual facts..)
Any model, no matter what it is about, is constructed on a foundation of underlying assumptions. No model can be or has ever been constructed solely based on facts. One basic assumption that all science makes, is that the laws of the universe are predictable and unchanging, rather than varying in some random manner and place. Based on the short time that observational science has existed, this assumption APPEARS to be correct. We believe, based upon the short time we have observed the speed of light for example, that it and its related "constants" is truly invariant over thousands or even millions of years. It is this belief in constancy, upon which every dating model is founded.
There is however evidence, that some of these constants upon which these dating models are based, are not constant at all in the LONG TERM. If you're interested in learning more about this, do some research on "zero point energy" and the "intrinsic properties of space" and "the expansion of the universe".
We know from countless experiments, that the speed of light depends on what the medium it traverses. If the properties of the medium, such as space itself changes, than the speed of light, will of necessity also have to change. As space itself expanded after what scientists call the "Big Bang", its properties also changed dramatically and along with that change, the speed of light and its related constants changed accordingly.
Therefore, models based upon the current belief that nothing has changed over time will give completely erroneous results. I'm sure you know about the garbage in garbage out rule of computing.
All theory is gray
Tough break for all those poor sods who died in that 4,000 year interim where he couldn't find an innocent soul. One question though, why did an omnipotent being have to look for one? If he did know exactly what would happen, why look in the first place?
...There is another book...
Also, interesting that you would use science to illustrate a position that supports your opinion in a thread regarding creationism.
There is yet an even larger book about everything in the universe. The answers are all in plain sight. Yet when some read it, others turn away from it and bury their minds in a tiny, finite book of Man's disjointed reasoning that takes mental gymnastics to draw a reasonable conclusions from.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
...Evolutionists may be able to back up their beliefs with science...
How can anybody's belief to be backed up by science? A belief is a belief, no matter who holds it. Everybody has a worldview and will interpret whatever information or evidence comes their way according to that world view.
I believe that Science can back up a belief. ZOMG! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME WRONG OR RIGHT!
Someone who truly believes in God, the God of the Bible, will also believe that the universe and all life within it is created by him. Anybody who is an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance. Those are the only options there are.
Really? Tha't strange, because in my view, we don't know. So I beleive that it's beyond human comprehension. Either side could be correct.
Everything we observe about the universe, all life including ourselves in it, can be and is being interpreted by this fundamental difference in world views. Observations clearly show that the universe did have a definite beginning, which scientists have labeled the Big Bang. We also observe and experience every day that every effect has a cause. We may not always know the cause of a given effect, but we have never observed an effect that did not have a cause. What or who caused the Big Bang? It either just happened without a cause, or something, or better, some One who has no cause, but just is, brought it into being. This eternally existing being, communicates to us through the skill of writing, which only we humans possess.
If you complete strip out the fact that the most important aspect of us, as observers of our universe, have limited capacity to see and understand things, sure. Otherwise, you're a moron.
Or, you know, the third possibility that something we have yet to understand created the BigBang. You know, it used to be that THE ALMIGHTEE GH0D created the flat Earth. As our knowledge expands, now it's the universe (after those assholes killed a bunch of scientists trying to prove the earth is in fact round, and revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe)...
How can the random probabilities of a gigantic, cosmic explosion create order in a finite amount of time? What caused the Big Bang and what caused the universe to develop in an orderly manner? Where did the laws it operates by, the laws of physics come from? From all observations we can make, these laws seem to operate quite uniformly throughout the entire universe we can observe. Can random probabilities account for the existence of a computer chip or 747 airliner? If not, then why do so many if not most so-called scientists, attribute a single living cell, which is far more complicated than all computer chips ever made and all airliners ever built, to random probabilities?
I don't know, so you must be right! I know that random probabilities can prove a 747. That one I know for sure. I will send you /dev/random in email until you see it. At least it'll keep you from posting this shit. Oh, and it'll take as much time as the Big Bang took to make 747's. Assuming you're riding the right quantum bus. If you get lost, just take the anti-quantum-bus back and catch the next one.
Actually, a living cell isn't necessarily more complicated, it's just not as well understood.. One of the beautiful things about life is it's simple elegance. Complexity does not make something wonderful.
If you are satisfied with stopping at the BigBang, then backing it up with a random fictional figure, that's cool. Be like those on a flat earth, with the sun flying around it... and start killing people who eat fish on the wrong day or whatever other whack shit is in the bible.
Or you can take it as a book of stoies about the human condition, and stop trying to make other people wrong for not following every word that can be PROVEN wrong.
Is it not, that most s
No SIG for you!
Why are you mentioning the bible? Who cares about the bible?
So, this god of yours does not need a creator because it is everlasting.
Why not say the universe is ever-lasting itself? That time is a property of the universe?
Why push it all one step further away and obscure a simple explanation into a complicated one?
..One question though, why did an omnipotent being have to look for one...
He did not HAVE to, he could have simply wiped us all, but according what he tells us in his communication, "this book", he WANTED to rescue us from our predicament simply because "this book" also tells us that he is LOVE.
He did have a problem though, one worthy of deity. How could he do this and at the same time maintain his perfect justice? He had decreed the death penalty for all my and your lies and other sins as well as those of every other single human being that has ever stood on this planet. Perfect justice demands that the decrees of all laws MUST be carried out. Because we are all, without a single exception lawbreakers, we are all condemned under the law.
In order for this law NOT be carried out to the final judgment, somebody had to be found to take the rap. God had to find a guiltless human being who was willing to take the punishment the perfect law calls for. God searched the entire planet, but everybody here is already on death row, because we are all liars, thieves, adulterers and all kinds of hateful, murderous sinners. He tells us in "this book" that there is no one innocent, not even one.
His other choice, the choice of love and forgiveness, was for God himself to leave behind his deity, the splendor of his eternal existence and limit himself to the constraints of his own creation, as we are limited. He had to become a human being. He entered this world in the same manner as we all do. We celebrate this event still today all over the world -- Christmas.
This God-Man Jesus lived a perfect life. He never, even once did any of the bad things that most of us do every day. He took the punishment of the eternal law of God demands. Because he himself never sinned, even once, God could legally be justified in raising him from the dead as a sign for everyone that justice and love had both been satisfied.
That is the essential core message of this book, the Bible. The amount of print space afforded to the message of redemption and restoration far exceeds that devoted to creation. To create the universe and all life in it, God merely had to speak. To redeem you and me from the just punishment law requires for sin, he had to come here and die a horrible, painful death.
What do you think God will say at the final judgment to each and every human being who has rejected through unbelief his offer of grace and forgiveness?
All theory is gray
...You don't know what atheists believe,...
You are right of course, I don't REALLY know, because I cannot read anybody's mind. Everybody, including atheists, has a world view. This is a set of underlying assumption or beliefs about reality and origins. Since atheists, by definition don't credit any sort of God or other intelligent being as responsible for how things came into existence, they have to formulate this to themselves in a satisfactory manner outside of a possible God.
I can see how a person can logically be what is commonly called an agnostic, saying they cannot know whether there is a God or not. Asserting confidently that there is no God is no different than asserting confidently that there is. Asserting confidently that I am wrong is just as illogical, because then you are also asserting that you or someone you basically agree with is right. An agnostic is in essence saying that he does at this time have insufficient evidence to believe there is a God. An HONEST agnostic may say that some level of evidence will change his/her belief.
In the end, all any of us can do is to weigh the evidence we have available to us. We have no absolute proof, one way or another. In fact, if you think about it, that is true in every area of life. There is no proof of anything. Like in a court of law, there is only evidence which the prosecution and defense interpret and try to get the jury to BELIEVE. In the end, almost everything comes down to BELIEF, not sure knowledge or proof. You believe that you will wake up tomorrow morning, but you do not KNOW that for sure. You believe that the airplane will get you to your desired destination. Most of the time it will, but sometimes it crashes. If you really and truly believed that the particular airplane you are about to get into will surely crash, you would stay off.
All theory is gray
...Why not say the universe is ever-lasting itself? ...
Because Einstein and other scientists, who don't necessarily believe in the Bible or God, have demonstrated that this long held belief that the Universe itself is eternal has no evidence. All measurements and observation show overwhelmingly that time-space-matter-energy all came into existence together. This event has been labeled "The Big Bang". Its echoes are still reverberating measurably through the entire universe. The motion of the stars and galaxies is also strong evidence against the idea of an eternal universe.
The Bible opens with the following sentence:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In this one majestic opening verse, we find the three basic aspects of the reality we find ourselves in. There is the beginning -- time, then there are the heavens -- space, and then there is the earth -- matter-energy. Finally there is the One responsible cause for bringing it into existence.
Modern scientific observations give strong evidence that this is very likely correct.
All theory is gray
What do you think God will say at the final judgment to each and every human being who has rejected through unbelief his offer of grace and forgiveness?
Sorry for the inconvenience.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
no inuit or sami made it to iceland
that's amazing
especially since there is a goddamn icelander who looks the part, singing wacky tunes since the 1980s
and especially since mongol stock has populated every other far northern reach... except iceland? really?
explain bjork. explain that her parents were refugees from greenland. explain her appearance on iceland. otherwise, i have to trust my eyes more than your words, and conclude you don't know what you are talking about, or you are in some sort of weird racist denial, that its really important to you iceland is 100% scandinavian for some weird reason, in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary
mongol stock occupies iceland the same way it did every other area in the far north
that seems most plausible and probable to me
the very existence of bjork makes it so
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What can be more entertaining than ignorant and arrogant fools exposed as what they are?
Well, I know the scientist(s) in person, and can judge their trustworthiness from personal experience, but I've never met the author of the book. Or, indeed, there is no properly identified author to meet.
That's strange. Aren't they supposed to cite the Bible during Church sermons? It's the Revelation:
Of course, how this all is somehow applicable to the Catholic Church is another matter. But historically, Christians of all denominations were quick to slap that "Whore of Babylon" label on any opposing factions. For example, after the Orthodox Church of Constantinople attempted to re-unify with the Roman Catholic Church, other Orthodox Churches - and particularly the then-prominent Russian one - quickly labelled Constantinople the "Whore of Babylon". Catholics themselves used the label against Hussites, and so on...
The problem with forced atheism is that it is really a religion all by itself. And, of course, the USSR had Marxism-Leninism and dialectic materialism, which are even closer to the conventional religions, what with their own cast of prophets, the holy book with its set of dogmas, orthodoxy and heresy etc.
By the time the Roman Empire grew to its peak, the Roman Pagan religion devolved into something that might be best called "traditionalist agnosticism". Noone seriously believed in gods as such, but adherence to the faith was merely considered an indicator of one's loyalty to the state.
Also, it is very likely that neither the Roman pagan emperors, nor the latter East Roman Christian emperors were young earth creationists (as the doctrine only appeared in late 19th century). Furthermore, at that time, considering the overall level of scientific development, it probably didn't matter much if at all. It certainly does matter now - if you push for a consistent Christian creationist policy, then a lot of existing scientific achievements (particularly in the areas of biochemistry and pharmacy) are heretical by the very fact of their existence, and whole areas of science should be shut down as pointless.
That's not funny, modes, that's spot on.
The Big Bang is an event WITHIN the universe.
It did not *create* any matter, it converted energy to matter.
The energy/mass preservation principle means that matter/energy cannot be created, it *is* in essence ever-lasting, by the principles of physics themselves.
If time is a property of the universe, then time may have had a beginning, but the universe is ever lasting, big-bang or not.
You can also consider the universe as a timeline, starting with the big bang, there is no "time" before the universe, thus the universe was not created.
if your logic were applied to any other question, then nothing could ever be proven.
Nice to meet you. I'm Bob. I question everything. Constantly. I wouldn't know how to stop, even if I wanted to...
Friend, nothing can ever really be proven. 'Close' is a good as it gets. It is the people that keep this in mind that advance our society.
No. It is only those who are prudent in their determinations of what to question. I can spend my entire life questioning whether gravity exists, but that wouldn't bring our society closer to anything. And, if I demanded that every school in America devote a few classes to the "research" into "theories" of gravity's non-existence, then that detracts from time that they spend learning things that really are true.
The problem with your argument is that the belief in evolution is based on evidence.
Mostly, this is false. I'm not arguing that evolution isn't probable. It is. What I am saying, is that evolution is founded primarily on correlation. I find it amusing that correlation isn't good enough for a 'soft' science like psychology, but is rock solid enough to go around blasting people's religions.
Don't you find that at least a tiny bit disingenuous?
No, Bob. Evolution is based on evidence. We know that evolution does happen, because we see it every year, when we get our new flu vaccine. We know it happens because it has been observed several times in reproducible experiments. The fossil record and molecular evidence may not be reproducible in experiments, but there are several experiments that show that every building block needed does exist, and that they do occur without any kind of intelligent intervention.
Now, if you want to argue that evolution does happen, but it didn't happen before, then that is an area where we can not be 100% sure. But, we have a choice, we can either believe it is the result of a phenomena that we know occurs and see no reason to believe did not occur then, or we can make up a completely unnecessary supernatural explanation, based on no evidence, and pronounce it as a viable explanation. The problems with the later are that it is not science, because there have been no tests or research performed, and that anybody can make up a supernatural creation story. If we spend time teaching our students every creation myth every told, and pass it off as science, then students won't have any time to learn any real science.
OK, no one is reading this, save you and I.
I was being tongue-in-cheek before, to point out your universal assumptions, which are inherently wrong. Therefore, my assertion that you are wrong is not strictly illogical; I was trying to make a point.
There is a major fallacy in your logic with this statement:
Asserting confidently that there is no God is no different than asserting confidently that there is.
Atheists don't, to my knowledge, assert as a matter of fact that there is no god, but rather, that there is no evidence for belief in any particular god, such that a belief in one is pointless. Google the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Teapot, etc.
As an atheist, and a scientist, I CAN assert that some level of evidence will always be considered in my belief system, and it is the lack of same that has led me to believe what I do vis-a-vis theism.
Furthermore, a cursory understanding of human psychology would provide ample evidence to an open minded observer for the origins of religion and mythic beliefs.
While there is no evidence for the existence of god or gods, there is plenty indicating that such deities were created by man.
Whether it be Zeus, the Sun, the Bear, Jesus, the Unicorn, they are all the same.
As an atheist, that's what I believe.
PS. I originally disagreed with your assertion that ANY atheist believes "the universe is a result of random chance." This is simply not true, and I suspect that it speaks to a lack of understanding of mathematics and/or statistics on your part.
Ever read Machiavelli? According tho him the job of a President in a Republic is to divert attention away from the actual Wielding of Power. As such Clinton was one of the most successful Presidents ever. People were so tied up with the impeachment that they really don't know what the government was up to otherwise.
...The Big Bang is an event WITHIN the universe...
No, before "The Big Bang" there was no time, there was no space, no matter and there was no energy. Essentially, there was NOTHING. Current science theorizes about something they call a "singularity" that produced "The Big Bang". Scientific observations indicate that the universe, including time and space and matter-energy have not always existed. The non-existence of time is hard for time bound creatures like us to grasp. We have a hard time to imagine absolutely NOTHING.
Logically then, either this nothing is the cause of the universe or something or someone outside of and beyond our time-space-matter-energy caused the universe and everything in it to exist.
All theory is gray
Actually it is a collection of 66 books penned by 40 different writers over a time span of at least 1500 years. Yet it has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind.
Well the unified central authorship and message is most likley due to the Catholic churches councils determining what texts were considered cannon and which were not. Considering the history of the Catholic church, its somewhat hard to believe that god would have guided such men in exactly what to put in and what not to put in (you know the whole issue about the Cathars).
Which is why Eastern Orthodox Christianity believes in slightly different message than the Western Catholic. The differences are subtle but the effects are profound IMO.
The key issue of course is the message you believe to be the word may not in fact be exactly what the authors meant originally. Mostly because these texts were translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek into Latin and then into vernacular with varying results. One could argue that the King James bible was created due to entirely political motivations with the Anglican church versus the Papacy and other non-government approved protestant sects (like the Puritans).
This of course might be why Jews and Muslims study their religious texts in its original tongues.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
.... that there is no evidence for belief in any particular god,...
The fact that the universe exists and you and I and it, is evidence that something or someone caused it, if you believe in the law of cause and effect.
One option, believed for a long time, is that the universe itself is eternal, uncaused. There is a large body of scientific evidence that this is not so. Time, space, matter -- energy all came into being by way of something that scientists have labeled the "Big Bang".
So what ever whatever caused the Big Bang to go bang, had to have a cause or be uncaused. This First Cause cannot be dependent on or in any way limited to our time, space matter-energy universe.
Only the Bible portrays God as a transcendent, eternal Creator, entirely and completely outside of this fishbowl we call the universe and independent thereof.
All theory is gray
...Mostly because these texts were translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek into Latin ....
Your arguments of transcription and translation errors is largely nullified by the discoveries in 1948 of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars were amazed and surprised how closely the traditional translated and recopied documents matched the scrolls which had lain in those caves for centuries. If this was true for the sections of scripture found in these scrolls, there is no logical reason why this would not be the case for the rest of Scripture as well.
Any God, worthy of the name, wishing to communicate with us, would have to have the ability not only to get his message across, but also to preserve it for whatever time periods this message needs to be preserved. Unlike other religious writings, the God of the Bible wants to ensure that his message is spread to every nook and cranny, to every tribe and nation on this planet. Year after year, decade after decade, century after century ever since the art of printing was invented, no other book, by any stretch of the imagination, has seen wider distribution than this one. It is also true, that no other book in history has been the object of as much banning and burning by both secular and ecclesiastical governments.
Even if the Bible were not God's message to mankind, it still is surely the most unique book in existence.
All theory is gray
Only the Bible
provides evidence of a creator. The Bible was created by men, ergo: men created god. As I said above.
Thank you for confirming.
...provides evidence of a creator...
Evidence from science ALSO shows that the first cause, or Creator, has to be external to our time space matter-energy universe.
All theory is gray
Which experimental data show "that the first cause, or Creator, has to be external to our time space matter-energy universe"?
So, in the past (within the timeline), there was no time? Its not difficult to comprehend, its simply contradictory, and thus false.
The closer you are in space and in time to a black hole/singularity, time is slowing down. The beginning of the big bang is probably a "time-freeze", so it may have no past. But its wrong to say that there was "no time".
Nobody knows what caused the big bang, but we do know that there's a law of preservation of mass and energy - and scientists believe that the big bang converted huge amounts of energy to mass, and thus created *space/time*. Mass was converted from energy, and no energy was created at all. That it was simply there is the best explanation science can give.
Now, if you believe a "god" caused the big bang - or whether its just an axiomatic fact of the universe, does not matter at all. As long as we can agree that laws of physics guide the universe since the big bang, and not fairy tales about creatures in the sky.
They're bacteria because we call them bacteria. Understand? They can, via natural selection + evolution, eventually morph into completely different bacteria with completely different functions. It's the same species of course, because it fits within the definition of the word. Don't try and use the semantics of english and methods of scientific categorisation to prop up such a flimsy response. "Ok fine it's evolution BUT IT DIDNT TURN INTO A SPIDER!" Ugh.
I now delegate this argument to these other gentlemen who have stepped in and are doing a fine job.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
....As long as we can agree that laws of physics...
It is interesting that should bring up the laws of physics. In our human experience, all laws, in this case man-made laws are products of mind, arising out of processes of thought. Complex man-made structures, such as computers and airplanes, or even the simple devices such as a pencil or ballpoint pen, are the result of careful thought and planning.
Is it now so far-fetched to say that the laws of physics are also a product arising in a mind? Are the laws of physics not like the blueprint by which time, space, matter-energy operate? We have people called legislators who come up with laws, products of their mind, by which society operates.
If the laws and relationships of physics would not be the way they are, life as we know it could not exist. For example, we know by direct measurement that the inertial mass of a proton is exactly 1836 times that of an electron. If that were some other ratio, either larger or smaller, no life could exist, because no molecules would ever form.
Only the very specific electronic properties of the element carbon are such as to make possible, the complex molecular structures life depends on.
The relationships between certain fundamental forces (fine structure constants) of nature must be just so. How easily light and other forms of energy travel through matter and what effects the energy going through will produce. Among other things, this also determines the size and structure of stars. Gravity acts to pull them together and the energy acts to push them apart.
The size mass-distance relationships of the earth and sun cannot be much different that what they are. Half of all stars in the universe are too close to each other to have a planet that could have life.
There are many more such "fortuitous" relationships and laws and structure in the universe all contrived towards the goal of having life, and with that life, scientists who are able to study these laws and relationships. To have all of these come together by any other process besides careful planning and thought is exceedingly remote.
The probability of a functional 747 airliner self assembling in an automobile junk yard is higher.
All theory is gray
...Actually, we have observed actual speciation. And especially among bacteria we see new proteins enzymes appearing...
The fact that bacteria have acquired, with intelligent human help, the skill to make a new enzyme or protein doesn't make into something different. If you learn chinese, you don't become a chinaman. Similarly, the newly skilled bacteria were and are forever, still only a bacteria with a new ability. You can LABEL such bacteria a different species, but the organism is still essentially what it has always been, even if it now has a new skill and a new label imparted to it by an intelligent scientist.
Now if an experiment could tun a e-coli into a pneumoccus, or an amoeba into paramecium, then your evolution argument MIGHT hold up scientifically. As far as I know, that, or anything like it has ever happened. You can teach dog all sorts of new tricks, but it will still be always and forevera only be a dog.
All theory is gray
....They can, via natural selection + evolution, eventually morph into completely different bacteria with completely different functions....
If you learn to do calculus while riding a bicycle on a tightrope, are you no longer human? It would be an entirely new function which likely no other human has ever done.
The fact that bacteria have acquired, with intelligent human help, the skill to make a new enzyme or protein, even one never seen before, doesn't them into a different organisms. They will still, always be bacteria of a given kind. If you stared with e-coli, you will always and forever only have e-coli. If you use coccus you will get more coccus.
You can label such bacteria with new name, but the organism is still essentially what it has always been, even if it now has a new ability and function.
The definition of the word "species" is not rigidly defined. Are all dogs of the same species? Then there is the word "genus" wherein organisms are grouped. Breeding of dogs has produced many sizes, shapes and capabilities, but they have been and always will be dogs. If one were to take a pair of every known breed of dogs and confine them all on an island where they could survive and interbreed without the interference of humans, you eventually get some kind of generic mutt dog, but still only another dog. Dogs always make more dogs, cats more cats and spiders more spiders. Nobody has ever demonstrated anything else, EVER.
All theory is gray
If you learn to do calculus while riding a bicycle on a tightrope, are you no longer human? It would be an entirely new function which likely no other human has ever done.
Let me fix that for you.
If, in a few million years time, a descendant of yours is able to convert nutrients to energy via photosynthesis in their skin, swim one meter underwater for extended periods of time via adapted lungs and see in the infrared spectrum, is he no longer human?
We still seem to be stuck here. I had hoped you had moved on. You are correct in that we have not yet had the chance to observe many billions of generations evolve into a category of species other than what they began as. This is because the theory of evolution has not been around for millions of years and neither have we. Poke me in a million years for an update there.
What HAS been proven in the lab is evolution itself. I'm not talking about some sort of "nuh uh it isn't evolution until it turns into this" arbitrary goalpost. I'm talking about the mechanics and predictions made by the theory, which have observations in the laboratory. In the "olden-days" of science, the Theory of Evolution would now be called the Law of Evolution (scientific theory doesn't work like that any more). As a theory/law that has overcome all scientific obstacles thus far, you could now take the "laws" and use it to predict something millions of years into the future... including the evolution of one species into a new species... and may reasonably assume it is true, along with the assumption that you haven't fucked up the prediction itself. And, millions of years down the track, one of your descendants can observe your prediction for you.
Until that day comes I'm afraid you're just going to have to wait and join the rest of us in opting for more short term experiments.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
...Which experimental data show "that the first cause, or Creator, has to be external to our time space matter-energy universe"?...
No experiment, but straight forward logic borne out of cause and effect. If there is no external cause, then there two other logical options. One is that the universe created itself. That is logically absurd. The other is that the universe has no cause. Time, space and matter-energy have always existed, that is, they are eternal. That used to be the accepted belief, before Einstein and others showed that there was a point of beginning. Scientists call this beginning "The Big Bang". The echoes of this creation event still reverberate through all of space today. This carries the label of "Cosmic Background Radiation".
Since we and the Universe exist, that leaves as the last option that the universe was caused by something or someone without a cause. This is what we read in the first sentence of the Bible:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
In this one majestic opening verse, we find the three basic aspects of the reality we find ourselves in. There is the beginning -- time, then there are the heavens -- space, and then there is the earth -- matter-energy. The one doing the action is Elohim in Hebrew. Interestingly, this is a plural word form.
The eternal, self-existing God, gives us the answer, simply and straight forward in a single profound statement. Scientific observation corroborate Genesis 1:1. Time, space, and matter-energy came into being suddenly, all together.
All theory is gray
...If, in a few million years time,....
is fanciful conjecture. Science is about experiments and observation HERE and NOW, not assumptive speculations about what MIGHT happen in millions of years. You COULD conceivably learn to do something in your lifetime, that no other human has ever done. That doesn't mean you evolved into something OTHER than a human.
(..What HAS been proven in the lab is evolution itself...)
That is simply an often repeated, yet still bald-faced LIE you have swallowed. ALL attempts to make evolution happen in the lab, in real time, have NEVER produced a new organism. They have ALWAYS merely been the creatures with a few new tricks.
You have fixed nothing except added the usual speculation about immense amounts of time ostensibly solving the problem that there simply is NO factual, experimental or observational evidence for the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution insists that a frog can turn into a prince, no, even a ROCK can become a prince. Evolution is like faith in a magic recipe, the magic ingredient of time, mixed with a dash of chance.
All theory is gray
You COULD conceivably learn to do something in your lifetime, that no other human has ever done. That doesn't mean you evolved into something OTHER than a human.
This is completely off topic. Evolution, by definition, cannot happen within one lifetime. Nor is learning a form of genetic mutation. A better analogy:
If, over the course of many generations, one of my anscestors has deviated so much so as to gain, lose or otherwise change functions (such as adapting lungs for extended dives or vision expanding to detect infrared or legs dwindling to the point of unusability), you would still be considered human. If however, this ancestor couldn't breed with what we now consider human, then it is officially a new species.
That's right. That's the definition of a species: a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another. If your dog breeding led to one such dog, that was incapable of breeding with other dogs but could successfuly reproduce with dogs of its immediate genetic line (like parents or siblings), congratulations, you've bred a new species. It doesn't seem very special, does it? For all intents and purposes it's just another dog. But scientifically, it's a brand new species. The point is, don't put all your argumentative weight on definition. In this context it is arbitrary.
Going back to the point however, you don't seem to understand what evolution is exactly.
- It happens over generations. An example is the hundreds millions of years it took for an ape to become anything remotely human.
- It happens gradually: you don't just sprout a new arm; an existing limb (such as a fin or a vestigial relic of an ancient species) adapts, slowly.
- Evolution is natural selection + mutation (aka. genetic drift). Something that's more likely to survive is more likely to pass on its genes. So the creature that is best at surviving, helps its species become better.
An example of evolution would be if there was a significant advantage to being able to butterfly swim (hypothetical - say it's the most optimal way to avoid a predator and all the food is in the water). Someone like Michael Phelps, with his longer-than-usual arms, double jointed flipper feet and short legs would have an advantage over other humans. He'd be more likely to live, and thus more likely to breed and pass on his genes, and his kids in turn more likely to live, breed, pass on their genes. As generations go on you would see humanity in general become more fish-like in appearance and ability, but it would take millions of years for it to be readily noticable... and they'd still be human until the day when they're unable to reproduce with the original humans as we know them today.
As for the lab evidence... read these. So help me if you come back spouting "they are LIES and there is NO EVIDENCE", this debate is over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabidopsis_thaliana
and finally, a ridiculously good source of info on the subject in general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
A good argument is an informed argument
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
No experiment
No data, no evidence.
Deduction based on "logic" which, in your case is based on mythical dogma is not science, and not evidence.
Goodbye
What others are using it for is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution, which deals with biology.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Things like endogenous retroviruses can only be explained using the evolutionary model.
Science is based on consensus. Furthermore, when all authorities in a field agree, one can be certain that the science is indeed solid. Then you have the few loonies who aren't even in a relevant field who "question" Evolution with straw men and misinformation.
Oh, but you are mistaken. That lone voice in the wilderness would have to do actual science to get anywhere. Unfortunately, creationists are unable (or unwilling) to bother.
Clever signature text goes here.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, for whatever reason. Just like someone who does not believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Evolution is biology. It deals with life on earth. Anything else is just your imagination (or ignorance).
This is false. You are clearly deeply ignorant about science. Or dishonest.
I recommend that you educate yourself instead of spouting nonsense.
Your straw men are truly pathetic.
Clever signature text goes here.
Of course that as living, intelligent beings, we live in a universe that supports such life.
This does not imply that there is a god, but instead it implies that possibly there are infinite universes, with different constants/laws. Of course intelligent beings will end up in the "right" ones, or they wouldn't be able to ask about it.
Also, saying that the universe's parameters are exactly tuned for life is not true - as any set of rules that allows forms of self-duplication will make life arise, and very possibly intelligence. If protons weighed 0.001% more than they do, I am not sure at all that molecules wouldn't form, but I am not a physicist. Maybe if molecules didn't form, then some other kind of formation of matter would arise, that would give rise to different self-duplicating mechanisms, which would eventually evolve intelligence.
The point is that noone knows exactly which parameters would yield life. Perhaps they know which parameters would yield life AS WE KNOW it, but that is an entirely different thing.
...Evolution is biology. It deals with life on earth....
That is the area of science that Darwin first formalized the idea of natural selection. This blind process, rather than the input of a rational mind is theorized to be behind the origin and development of life.
This idea, as well as modified versions thereof, have been extended to cosmology and astronomy. Books and scientific papers on these subject, also use these evolutionary concepts to explain the origins of other areas of the cosmos.
(..This is false. You are clearly deeply ignorant about science. Or dishonest..)
Instead of making personal attacks, why do you not give me an example of only ONE model on the subject of of origins, that is based solely on facts and makes no assumptions whatsoever.
I can however, spare you the trouble by pointing out that ALL origin models, without a single exception, always assume that presently observed processes can be extrapolated over immense time periods. In nature, linear relationships are the exception rather than the norm. Over the extremely short time span we have observed a given process, we may not have noticed its nonlinearity. The segment of the curve we have access to is just way too short. Therefore we assume is a curve but a straight line that can be extended back as far as we like.
For example, the process of radioactivity is used to date living and non living objects. Science has known about radioactivity for about 100 years. Over that time span we observed radioactive decays to be occurring at a quite regular, apparently highly predictable rate. We assume (believe) therefore that this is a linear process, even over immense amounts of time, millions and even billions of years. This assumption of linearity underlies all models of radioactive dating. Even an incredibly small nonlinearity in the rate of the ticking of this atomic clock, would make all dates and numbers obtained totally wrong.
We observe geological processes such as erosion, mountain building, continental drift etc. occurring at what appears to us as rather constant rates. Based on the assumed constancy, we build models reaching back millions or billions of years.
All theory is gray
...I'm afraid you are mistaken. Things like endogenous retroviruses can only be explained using the evolutionary model..
I looked at Wikipedia on endogenous retroviruses. Here is his sentence from the very first paragraph:
"Many _believe_ that they play a key role in evolution as well."
A little further down in the article there is a sentence:
It is _believed_ that the ancestors of modern viviparous mammals evolved...
I have never read an article longer than a few paragraphs on evolution, where the word BELIEVED or ASSUMED was not found. The theory of evolution is not a scientific one, but a religious one where the high priests calling themselves scientists, promulgate the certain beliefs.
These viruses, like all viruses still remain that, namely viruses. They never themselves became a different life form, nor were they able to transform themselves they invaded in to another organism.
You cannot get around the fact that all laboratory experiments ever done has not produced a single new life form. And no matter what experiments were done with viruses, they always were, without a single exception always still viruses or virii if you like. All experiments with e-coli have never produced anything but more e-coli. All the thousands of generations of fruit flies (drosphila) have never produced anything except, guess what, fruit flies. Cats have always made more cats and dogs have always made more dogs.
Calling those who disbelieve the high priests of evolution loonies, does nothing to change such experimental evidence, but it is a sign of desperation of people who want their evolutionary religious beliefs to be upheld as science and truth.
All theory is gray
What do you mean by "blind process"? You mean as in "blind chance"?
No, it has not. Again, Evolution is biology, nothing else.
Evolution is based solely on facts. Like all other scientific theories, Evolution has moved from being a hypothesis (not an assumption, but a possible explanation to be tested) to a theory (fully supported by all known facts, makes true predictions, etc.).
It is not an assumption. It is what all facts point to.
This is another straw man.
Again you need to stop spewing out nonsense. Please educate yourself.
And again, you really, really need to educate yourself.
Clever signature text goes here.
First of all, your quotes are irrelevant to the point of this. The point here is what ERVs are. What they show.
Secondly, you are mistaking intellectual honesty for somethign else. Just because science doesn't deal with the absolutes of irrational religion (science is always tentative), it does not make assumptions. Please educate yourself, as you are clearly ignorant of what science really is.
Just as I thought, you are completely ignorant of Evolution. ERVs are not interesting because they "became a different life form". ERVs are interesting because they once infected the germ cells of a life form, which then passed the virus down through the generations.
Here's a video for you to educate yourself. From the video description:
"Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome. There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs providence the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution. And remember, ERVs are just one of the millions of FACTS that support the theory of evolution.
Your ignorance leads you to believe that all science is, is "laboratory experiments". No wonder your conclusions are so weird.
Actually, a new strand has been observed to appear which has lost the key thing that makes e-coli e-coli. Which means that they are e-coli no more.
More straw men. Typical of desperate creationists.
Clever signature text goes here.
....or humans and chimps share a common ancestor....
or that human, chimps and viruses have the same DESIGNER. That is how it works with human designs. Why should it be any different in nature, God's designs? Internal combustion engines are found in motorcycles, cars, airplanes, tractors and who knows what. So the the fact that they all have such engines means they were each others ancestors? How ridiculous!
Just because we don't know the function of a life form doesn't mean it has none. Medial science used to believe that the human appendix and the tonsils have no function and routinely removed them, especially the tonsils. More diligent research finally discovered their purpose. So it is quite likely that these viruses installed on the genome have a common purpose science just has not yet figured out.
(...Your ignorance leads you to believe that all science is, is "laboratory experiments"...)
Modern science came about BECAUSE people began experimenting and observing our world, rather than just speculation and philosophizing about how things worked, as they used to do. The ESSENCE of real science is experimentation and careful observations, not fancy computer models based on ASSUMPTIONS.
(..More straw men. Typical of desperate creationists..)
As always, when the people dislike the message or cannot refute it, they resort to attacks on the messenger. Someone may call the modified e-coli something else, but the still are basically e-coli. The FACT is, no matter what anyone says, the fruit-flies were and are STILL nothing but fruit flies, even after thousands of generations. A good mechanic can weld two motorcycles together into a four-wheled contraption of some sort. Is that now a car or still basically two motorcycles?
Every evolutionary INTERPRETATION of the same facts can and does have a design INTERPRETATION as well. I would REALLY like you to name one, even just ONE scientific FACT, that cannot be interpreted either by the evolutionary belief or the belief in a intelligent designer God. Both are BELIEFS. You have yours and I have mine.
All theory is gray
...Evolution is based solely on facts...
No, it is an INTERPRETATION of facts based on world view.
It is a fact, that scientists have never been able to make evolution of even simple one celled organisms happen. Nobody has ever transformed an amoeba into a paramecium or an e-coli into a spirochete. Thousands of generations of fruit flies have always without even a single exception produced ONLY more fruit-flies. There is a barrier in reproduction of living things that has never been crossed.
In Genesis we read that the creatures were designed to reproduce after their KIND. That statement has never been shown to be false, but is being proved over and over in labs and breeding farms all over the planet. The Hebrew word translated "kind" is not necessarily the same as what science has termed "species". Dogs and cats are two different "kinds" of animals, as are fruit-flies and house-flies.
For every LINEAR process in nature, I can name at least one or maybe two that are highly nonlinear. Assuming linearity and uniformity in nature is a foolish belief not in accord with the overwhelming evidence. In geology, there is plenty of evidence of sudden catastrophic events making sweeping changes to the surface of the earth. One look at the moon ought to convince you that the earth likely did not escape some of the events that scarred our natural satellite. Can anyone who has ever stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon really believe that the teensy-weensy river at the bottom could have done THAT? It looks more likely that it was formed by an Ocean's worth of water suddenly carving a gigantic gully in the plateau.
There is increasing evidence that some of the so called "constants" of physics also changed in a highly non-linear manner over long time spans. You don't need education, but need to take a look at the evidence staring you in the fact.
All theory is gray
The designer just happened to insert the same ERVs in the same positions in humans and chimps? And in equivalent places in other life forms that just happen to match the exact predictions made by Evolution?
But that's not what this is. This is more of the same minor flaws appear in all engines.
Oh, we know what ERVs are, and what function they serve.
Computer models? You really ARE ignorant!
It is not an attack to point out the fact that your argument is a straw man.
They are not e-coli when they are completely different and don't have the characteristics of e-coli.
No, it does not. ERVs, transitional fossils, nylonase, etc. all contradict creationism.
False. One takes all facts into accounts, makes true predictions and has practical applications. Creationism has NONE of these.
Clever signature text goes here.
It is an EXPLANATION which is supported by all facts.
False. Evolution is descent with modification.
This shows your incredible ignorance. Just like other ignorant creationists you think Evolution is about existing life forms turning into OTHER existing life forms.
False. Speciation has taken place.
False. Even something as simple as the domestic banana. Completely different from the "wild" banana, and can't interbreed. Even something as simple as dogs. They have a HUGE variety in looks and function.
Creationists can't even explain what "kind" means.
What linear process in nature? Evolution does not work along a line. It's a branched tree. Again your ignorance shines through.
So what?
1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted no
Clever signature text goes here.
....No, it does not. ERVs, transitional fossils, nylonase, etc. all contradict creationism...
You are making a blanket statement. Would you please explain HOW fossils or ERVs or any FACT of science contradicts the theory that an intelligent designer, a transcendent eternal God is responsible? Maybe you have a reference, such as a link.
(..The designer just happened to insert the same ERVs in the same positions in humans and chimps?..)
What makes you assume that ERVs are flaws? Yes, and the designers of internal combustion engines just happen to put a flywheel at one end of each engine? It's not flaws, but common design elements.
(..Computer models? You really ARE ignorant!..)
ALL mathematical models make assumptions. Please name ONE that does NOT. You don't have to call anyone names. I have not called your integrity or knowledge into question. Don't simply dismiss the issues you have no good reply for as straw men.
(..They are not e-coli when they are completely different and don't have the characteristics of e-coli...)
If e-coli or other organism are altered so they cannot reproduce, that doesn't make them COMPLETELY different. Explain to me how great such differences are. Experiments with fruit flies make all sorts of mutations, but the creature are still essentially fruit files.
(..False. One takes all facts into accounts, makes true predictions and has practical applications. Creationism has NONE of these..)
The theory of an Intelligent designer can explain every single FACT of observational and experimental science. When modern science began two to three centuries ago, scientists believed in a rational intelligent Creator God whose works could be and should be studied.
For example, you mentioned fossils. The only FACT we now have, is that there are fossils. Nobody has ever made one or watched one being made. Today, any living organism decays quickly after death, long before it can be fossilized. So what conditions would be needed today to make a fossil? Oh yes, all decay causing organisms would have to somehow be killed or at least be prevented somehow from causing decay of dead bodies. Oxygen in the air also causes damage to delicate structures of most organic material. So somehow it also has to be excluded. All this has to happen QUICKLY, before there is time for the ever present bacteria, molds, fungi and other microscopic life forms have time to work on the dead bodies. Would you please explain to me how these conditions to make fossils came by any slow evolutionary means?
Here is the explanation , or interpretation, of the fact that we do find fossils, as seen through the eyes of the biblical world view. The Bible relates a terrific catastrophe called the flood of Noah. The Biblical account explains further, that the "fountains of the deep" broke open. Much of the water came from the interior of the earth. Even today there is seismic wave evidence, that there are enormous quantities of water in the mantle. Therefore much of this water was boiling hot. This hot water killed all microscopic decay organisms. Oceans of sediment carrying, often very hot water, rushing across the surface of the earth carried living creatures to a quick burial under mountains of mud. The deterioration from oxygen was also immediately halted. This mud later hardened into the sedimentary rock, where we find ALL fossils today. Coal and oil (fossil fuel) was also formed then and in the same sudden manner.
All theory is gray
ERVs are entirely inconsistent with the "magically created out of nothing" nonsense. ERVs are viruses which have infected germ cells after the life form appeared. It has then been spreading through the generations, and is found in the same locations in species that are separate today, but that have been shown to have a common ancestor.
Furthermore, the fact is that Evolution makes predictions that turn out to be true, and it has practical applications. We can use our knowledge of ERVs in practical work, and indeed use them to verify if predictions made based on Evolution are true. For example, if chimps and humans share a common ancestor, we would expect to find ERVs in the same places, and we did! Neither of these apply to creationism.
They are viruses that were once separate, but which were embedded into the genome.
What assumptions?
A bacteria without the characteristics that are special for e-coli is not e-coli. E-coli turned into non-e-coli.
But they cannot interbreed, which means that speciation has taken place. So we have shown that speciation takes place, and we have shown that evolution causes fundamental changes (e-coli or even nylonase, where a new protein/enzyme appeared, which means that there is no limit to how the entire organism can chance).
No. To claim this, you must ignore facts. Like the list I gave you refuting your claim about the Grand Canyon.
LOL. Just because you don't know how fossils can form doesn't mean that no one knows. Just use Google and educate yourself.
LOL. Fossilization is not part of Evolution. Your ignorance shines through again.
Unfortunately, your "explanation" ignores evidence and is basically completely bogus. The fact that you are relying on a claim of a "global flood", which has been refuted a long time ago shows your dishonesty and/or ignorance.
Clever signature text goes here.
...a "global flood", which has been refuted a long time ago ...
Yes, by evolutionary OPINIONS and beliefs, but not the facts. The facts are that there are very few places, if any, on this planet, that were not at one time covered by water. We find fossils even in the mountains of the Himalaya. Either the waters covered the highest mountains, such as we are told in the Bible, or the mountains arose after the flood. The fact is though, that we find fossils there and fossils are always without a single exception found in sedimentary layers. Dig out one of your geology textbooks and find a drawing of the cross-section of the interior of the earth. Notice how thin the entire crust with its oceans and continents is compared to the other layers? Does it look conceivable to you that the mantle layer could contain more water than all the oceans put together? Even today, if the earth were perfectly smoothed out, over a mile of water would cover the entire planet. The concept of a flood covering the entire planet is not really that far fetched.
(...Just because you don't know how fossils can form doesn't mean that no one knows...)
Even evolutionists will acknowledge that fossils are only found in sedimentary rocks. Fossils so happen to be one of the cornerstones of evolutionary belief and are cited constantly in almost every textbook on the subject as one of the primary evidences for evolution. It is really strange, that evolutionists give fossils as evidence, but have not the foggiest notion how to make a fossil. When was the last time you read a book on evolution? I do know, as I explained in the previous post, that fossils MUST form quickly. There is no way to make a fossil over a period of thousands or even millions of years. It can't happen today and it could not happen in the past either.
(..They are viruses that were once separate, but which were embedded into the genome..)
Flywheels on internal combustion engines are also separate and also part of steam engines. They have similar functions in both. Flywheels are also generally added to these engines AFTER the main parts of the engines are built.
(..But they cannot interbreed, which means that speciation has taken place..)
This is the first time I hear that the ability to interbreed or not has anything to do with speciation. It is doubtful that a Chihuahua and a great Dane could successfully interbreed. Even so, they are both considered to be dogs. Are horses and donkeys considered to be of the same species? We know that they can interbreed and make mules which are sterile.
(..Furthermore, the fact is that Evolution makes predictions that turn out to be true..)
Evolutionists make predictions based on opinions, not measured experimentally or observed facts in nature. It is a commonly observed fact that creatures reproduce after their kind. Mice and rats are both rodents, but mice only produce mice and rats only produce rats. Eagles and ostriches are both birds, but make only eagles and ostriches respectively. This is exactly what we read in the Bible. According to that theory of intelligent design, we can predict that chimpanzees will never make anything but chimpanzees and humans will never produce anything but more humans. This prediction turns out to be true.
The God of the Bible also gives us some incidental information about his creation. Long before modern science discovered that the universe to the north of the earth is strangely empty and that the earth is suspended in space, God himself gave this information to Job as part of a science quiz. Many questions on this quiz are still unanswered today. Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.
Since God is the eternal Creator, he tells us as part of this conversation with Job that there are springs on the bottom of the ocean. Even today, we know very little about the ocean depths, but we have discovered, that indeed there are springs down there. Job 38:16 Have you gone to the springs
All theory is gray
False. In this post, I thoroughly refuted your misconceptions, and exposed your ignorance.
But not a global flood.
Your ignorance is astounding.
The Himalyas are formed by the collision of the Indian and Eurasion landmasses which were originally separate. This collision uplifts the mountains, which is why they are still rising.
From around 200 million years ago the area between the 2 separate land masses was covered by the Tethys Sea which was filling with sediments and had sea creatures which left fossils in the sedimentary rocks formed there. Around 70 million years ago the land masses collided and this started pushing up the seabed of the Tethys. Over the years a number of phases of uplift occurred with resulted in the mountain range we see today.
Currently the indian landmass is still moving north at about 2cm a year and the Himalayas are still rising at about half a cm a year.
So the Fossils found in the Himalayas are those formed in the ancient sea bed of the Tethys Sea, now exposed and pushed up to form mountains.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Once again your ignorance is astounding.
Sedimentary rock is just one of the three main rock types (the others being igneous and metamorphic rock, which form from magma and other rocks respectively). Rock formed from sediments covers 75-80% of the Earth's land area, and includes common types such as chalk, limestone, dolomite, sandstone, conglomerate and shale.
And AGAIN your ignorance AND dishonesty is exposed. We DO know how fossils are formed. Did you use Google to educate yourself like I told you?
Again, just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean that everyone else is. FYI, there are five different ways ways an organism can become fossilised:
Permineralization (Petrification) - This process involves the replacement of the original organic tissues with minerals from the surrounding rock, including silica, calcite or pyrite.
Unaltered preservation - This occurs when the organism is preserved in its original state and protected from the affects of permineralization. Examples of this include insects which become trapped in tree sap, which later turns to amber.
Carbonization (Coalification)
Clever signature text goes here.
....From around 200 million years ago...Around 70 million years ago ...
Tell me, exactly who was here to observe all that?
(..Currently the Indian landmass is still moving north at about 2cm a year and the Himalayas are still rising at about half a cm a year...)
So now evolutionists or evolutionary geologists extrapolate this two centimeters per year linearly and come up with some numbers in the millions. How do they know, that the land masses have always moved at only 2 cm per year and not much faster or slower at some point in time?
(..Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys..)
Is it not true that most fossils were found in the lower places not on the mountain tops?
(..In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life..)
That is true, but they also find Siberian mammoths frozen in ice, with the last bite they ate still in their mouth. This is evidence of sudden catastrophe.
One of my points, which neither you nor any evolutionists ever addresses about fossils is how to prevent decay. We do not observe any fossils being formed today, because living things no matter where they are found, simply decay. Simply burying organic matter, no matter how deep will not prevent decay. The organic matter MUST be sterilized in some way and then kept sterile and buried. Why do you think we bury dead bodies in the ground today? Fossils are also extremely common. There is hardly an area of this earth where fossils are NOT found. None of the processes you give for fossilization can work in the presence of microbes or oxygen.
(..Sedimentary rock is just one of the three main rock types..)
That is correct, but that is the only place, the only kind of rock wherein fossils are found. That means the presence of water.
(..We DO know how fossils are formed..)
That is simply not true. If science did know how fossils were formed, they would be able to make one. The fact is, nobody, yes, nobody ever has made a fossil. Refer me to an article anywhere, that shows someone making a fossil today. It is not good science to attribute things like fossils to the distant past if we cannot demonstrate how they were made. Any PROCESS that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory, is not likely to happen by itself in nature. Science is about evidence we have today, not conjecture what might have happened umpteen million years ago.
(..So you are claiming that fossils CAN'T form?..)
Obviously they can and did. In fact, there are very few places on the entire planet that don't have fossils. The fact is that fossils do NOT form naturally today and nobody has demonstrated a plausible process whereby they might have formed in the distant past.
(..Flywheels are not viruses. They do not "prey" on cells..)
Of course not! They are an integral part of the design of an engine and viruses are integral part installed in living organisms. Both were put where they are intentionally by their designer. Whereas we know the function of a flywheel in an engine, we have not yet discovered the function of these viruses in living cells. Is it not possible for you to just respond to the material at hand, rather than resorting to name calling?
(..the fact is that Evolution makes true predictions ..)
Maybe you can give me some predictions evolutionary theory makes and on what observations and experiments these are based. I have already given you some Bible statements and the predictions based on them.
(..Evolution is a gradual process..)
Which has never been demonstrated in our time. When this is pointed out to evolutionists, they always come back with the magic of time, millions and billions of years. Even after millions of generations, no new life forms have ever been produced in the laboratory. It is an incontrovertible fact, that no matter how many generations are applied, the millionth generation of a life form, such as fast multiplying fruit flies or even bacteria, are still no
All theory is gray
This is basic geology. A number of observations today confirm that this is the case.
No, they use a number of observations that all confirm this.
Again, you are wrong. Please educate yourself.
Again your ignorance shines through. This is a process that doesn't take place overnight.
Viruses are not usually an integral part. Again, educate yourself please. You are making all sorts of bogus assumptions. The fact is that the placement perfectly matches evolutionary predictions.
With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pest.
Let's not forget Tiktaalik, though, which was found because one predicted based on evolutionary theory that such a fossil would have to be found in layer in that area.
And I have already explained that re-interpreting something after the fact is not a scientific prediction.
It has. Please stop lying.
Clever signature text goes here.
...This is basic geology. A number of observations today confirm that this is the case....
We go observe the movements, but then project these movements ASSUMING the movements have been constant all those millions or billions of years. We don't KNOW whether these movements were much slower of faster that today.
ALL observations today assume thing to remain constant. There is MUCH evidence that this assumption is FALSE.
All you say is that I am wrong. How do creatures NOT decay? You never answer that. Tell me, if you can, where are fossils being formed today? has anyone ever made a fossil? Don't just say I am wrong. Tell me HOW I am wrong. Maybe you can enlighten me as to where and how fossils are formed today. You cannot cite fossil evidence unless you can show HOW a fossil might form. I told you a plausible theory for fossils that meets ALL criteria for fossil formation. I'd like to hear your side of this.
(..And I have already explained that re-interpreting something after the fact is not a scientific prediction..)
I've given you much more than a prediction. I've given you some evidence that describes scientific knowledge LONG before mankind discovered this. Job tells us of the earth suspended in space long before we had rockets with cameras to show this to us.
As always, all you do is make personal attacks. This shows that you are able to spout forth only predigested evolutionary assumed fairy tales, but have not answered a single of my points. If you cannot tell me how fossils can form today, how can you assert how they formed millions of years ago? The FACT is, there is NO way to make fossils slowly. They have to be made quickly. You cannot counter that, so you tell me to educate myself. Maybe you CAN educate me and tell me how to prevent decay organisms from destroying dead bodies which is what ALWAYS happens today.
(..False. E-coli bacteria turned into non-e-coli, for example..)
OK, tell me what WERE these supposed non-ecoli? Were they coccus, spirochetes or what?
(..Since there is no limit to how proteins can change..)
This all would have merit, if INTELLIGENT scientists managed to make a protein completely from building blocks that were never part of a living organism.
Tell me WHERE the evolution of complex plumbing of a giraffe's neck has been explained. Evolutions cannot have an explanation, because a partially evolved system doesn't help natural selection.
(..You are assuming that the long neck appeared suddenly..)
Yes I am assuming it was designed fully functional. That is an assumption just as you are assuming that it "evolved" over eons of time by natural selection.
The fundamental assumption of evolution is that with enough time to throw the dice, modern humans can come into existence. Here is the evolutions kid story.
When children are small, we often tell them about Santa Claus, fairies, hobbits, trolls, witches, ghosts, goblins and a multitude of other mythical creatures. Some of these have magical powers that can help them accomplish impossible tasks. Magic can spin straw into gold and a kiss can turn a frog into a prince. However, children grow up, and learn that all of these tales are not really true, but imaginative fiction. There is one tale however, that continues to be told repeatedly and with ever increasing imagination and detail all the way through the highest degree a university can bestow. It is a tale that public educators try to make even adults believe that it really happened "once upon a time", not in a galaxy far, far away, but right here on our own planet.
In many of these stories we have magical tools, actions or words, such as wands, kisses, rings, incantations, swords and almost anything else that can help the hero or villain accomplish otherwise impossible tasks. In this modern tale, there are only two magical things. One of these is chance. The other one, by far the most important and powerful magic, is time.
Let's exmine, how these magical twins can turn, not only a frog, but ev
All theory is gray
No, they do not. In fact, one of the typical creationist arguments, that the amount of dust on the moon and the distance to earth "proves" a young universe because such an old age would not cause what se see today, they claim, assumes that things are constant. Scientists, however, know better. So please stop lying.
Did you even try to SEARCH for this information yourself? You clearly don't even want to educate yourself, because you keep denying all facts. If you paid attention and actually read my comments, you would have seen that preventing decay isn't even NECESSARY to form a fossil. There are DIFFERENT ways of forming a fossil. But you, of course, are only interested in pushing your religion on others.
False. You have dishonestly and desperately tried to re-interpret Bible verses after the fact. However, the Bible clearly tells us that earth is flat, and that it is the center of the universe.
Why is it relevant what they are called? Please stop it with the red herrings. You just admitted defeat, so stop trying to slither your way out of it.
No, it is not an assumption on my part. All the data shows this to be the case.
This is typical of creationists: Lie and misrepresent Evolution. This is a straw man. Are you really this ignorant about Evolution?
There is nothing magic about it. Of course, to an ignorant and dishonest fool, it might seem like magic.
Really? Where is the word "assume" being used, and what is the context?
Once again you display your ignorance. Evolution does not deal with how life first arose. That's Abiogenesis. But hey, since when did creationists care about facts, eh? Furthermore, your description is just as dishonest as always.
Not by chance, no. But we know by now that you are a dishonest, ignorant scumbag who always lies.
Once again, a blatant mispresentation.
Please stop lying and misrepresenting Evolution now, please.
No, they do not. Your story only shows your amazing ignorance. You didn't even come close to describing Evolution.
Why do you insist on lying?
Clever signature text goes here.