The earth is not an isolated system. Just like a refrigerator is not an isolated system - both have an outside source of energy - in the earths case, the sun.
Maybe you can help me understand why you think that he used the procedure improperly (considering the conclusion he drew), but from where I stand this is a powerful blow to geological dating.
Nope, it is a powerful blow to Austin's credibility. You say that you have recieved the same response before - I'm not surprised since this is such a basic thing. You seem to be hung up on the idea that it was a blind test - but it was a poorly done test because he violated a simple but very important rule. So of course you get a garbage result - garbage in, garbage out.
By the way, the samples were low in Ar - from talkorigins.org
First, Austin sent young, low-potassium (and therefore very low in radiogenic argon) rocks to Geochron Laboratories, which specifically states in its advertisements: "We are not in a position to analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."
Apart from these I cannot find an additional link that you mentioned. Could you post it please?
It's on the same web page as the response to Camp.
Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?
When you do research or perform experiments, you should never improperly use a proceedure or method and then try to use those results to draw conclusions. Anyone who would do that deserves a sharp blow on the knuckles using the edge of a ruler by their boss.
Lucky for me, I can post links too, a defence of the criticisms given in the link you just posted. My link is newer, do I win?
No, because my link included a refutation to his rebuttal to my rebuttal.
First of all, though the strict theory of evolution is biological only, it also relies on a number of assumptions in other fields without which it would be impossible.
And you will note that in this thread, I refer to those areas, like geology, astronomy, physics. And the vast majority of scientists in those fields, that work in the the areas that have an impact on evolution, agree with the findings that are important to the theory of evolution - as an example, geologists who work in the area realated to the age of the earth - very, very few would argue that the age of the earth is substantially different than 4.7 billion years old. Or, very, very few astronomers would argue that the age of the universe is substatially different than around 14 billion years old. Of course, this impacts evolution because of the time scales required.
The fact is, there are some creation biologists, and that is significant.
Not really. In any sufficiently large group, you will find a few, "interesting" individuals, to put it politely. And when you throw in religion in, interesting things can happen - look at the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones (Kool Aid), The Church of Jesus Christ and Aryan Nation (I am *not* making this one up!), etc.
We are the Church of God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He has saved us, and called us to judge each other. You as an outsider cannot tell us how we should run our affairs. We listen to Him alone, and He requires us to guard carefully that which He gave us. I personally do not condemn evolutionist christians as unsaved. I do chastise Christians who believe evolution - I give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have not considered what they believe. But once having understood what is truly at stake in the creation evolution controversy, they must ultimately make a choice.
And that is why I have mentioned over and over that mainstream Christian denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church do not have problems with the theory of evolution.
a. The lab cannot accurately age samples known less than 2Ma b. Austin sent a sample knowingly less than 2Ma to be sampled Conclusion. Austin's results are good for nothing
That logic misses the point completely. It is mere playing with words.
Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.
If the dating method fails with samples of known age, dating them to be old, then how do we know samples aged in the millions of years are being dated correctly?
No - if you abuse the technique, don't be surprised if the results are wrong - garbage in, garbage out.
But as we have seen, even organisms that elave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates.
But as we have seen, even organisms that elave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates
The evolution of of reptiles to turtles occured more than 250 million years ago, so I'm not surprised that there are not a large number of intermediates found.
So if today it is quote common for fossils to form, then what excuse is there for the almost empty fossil record for the last supposed couple of billion years?
Well, prior to the cambrian explosion around 550 million years ago, creatures had soft bodies - so they didn't fossilize very well. Also, a fossil has to do more than be formed, to be found millions of years later - it has to survive.
If they name a CVN the U.S.S Gerald Ford, will they name a cruiser the U.S.S. Chevy Chase? (since they do name Navy ships after cities, and there is a Chevy Chase, MD, it is not *that* farfetched)
All Reagan did was kill MORE civilianss by not allowed the Russian government to drop all the military posturing
That's a silly and idiotic claim. Personally, I think that the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway, but Reagan's policies sped up that date - which was a good thing, because the Soviet Union was not a nice country. And a faster collapse probably reduced the misery - it forced decisions that otherwise would have been procrastinated over.
He the the chance to end the war YEARS earlier
You obviously do not understand what the cold war was about.
But I'm one of the few INFORMED citizens it seems
No, you seem to either have forgotten what you should have learned in school, or should consider suing your school for doing such a bad job of educating you.
Woah ho! You sure make a pursuasive argument. You summarised the whole response as a strawman? And you think I should be pursuaded?!? A one sentence answer to the creationist page??? I think you should do better than that. Why, exactly, is it a strawman?
Here's a link to the response to Camp's critique. It explains the strawman arguements that he used.
And now you tell me there's a unanimous consensus about the facts of evolution when I can assure you that: a) It is not unanimous, a few significantly educated scientists reject evolution
First, I said *virtually*. Also, most of those few scientists who disagree are not working in the fields related to evolution - they are speaking outside of their expertise. Or, to quote, "Take me out of my field of study and I'm just another guy sitting on a barstool".
You know, have you actually ever bothered to look past the talkorigins propaganda and see if what the creationists are saying is true? It's awfully easy to stand with a bunch of bullies throwing stones at someone, never asking whether what you are doing is right. It is another thing entirely to actually step inside our shoes and consider. I'm not talking about our faith - I'm talking about logic, reason and fact. You betray ignorance and worse than that - arrogance. You spew forth the same propaganda rubbish that every other evolutionst seems to.
Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right. And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.
I looked at your ICR criticisms - I have in fact discussed some of those issues with an evolutionist. We didn't get on well. Regarding asking to date a knowingly young sample when the lab said they couldn't is dodging the root question: why is the lab unwilling to date samples, say, less than 2Ma? Answer that question.
I assume it is due to the type of equipment or proceedure that they use. But to abuse that like Austin did raises ethics questions on his part - that is the *real* root question.
The transitional fossils that have been presented so far are less than weak, certainly not enough to pursuade a rational man. Darwin himself expected a lot more. The predictory power of evolution failed to predict what the fossil record explains - so the liquid nature of evolution was changed to now predict such a fossil record.
No, the traditional fossil record is not weak, and have convinced quite a few scientists. Darwin did not expect alot more, even though we have found far more transitional fossils since Darwin's time. Your comment about evolution changing - are you referring to punctuated equilibrium? Darwin states this in the Origin of the Species:
One other consideration is worth notice: with animals and plants that can propagate rapidly and are not highly locomotive, there is reason to suspect, as we have formerly seen, that their varieties are generally at first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and supplant their parent-forms until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree. According to this view, the chance of discovering in a formation in any one country all the early stages of transition between any two forms, is small, for the successive changes are supposed to have been local or confined to some one spot. Most marine animals have a wide range; and we have seen that with plants it is those which have the widest range, that oftenest present varieties; so that with shells and other marine animals, it is probably those which have had the widest range, far exceeding the limits of the known geological formations of Europe, which have oftenest g
Stop trying to drop elephants into every line. It was unecessary to say there's overwhelming evidence, because again I disagree.
Disagree all you want - there is no credible evidence that the earth is not billions of years old - at least evidence that would convince scientists working in the related fields.
Be careful not to be hypocritical, accusing us of unscientific positions when you yourself propose unscientific propositions. You tell me - did that first life come from God, pink unicorns or chance? What you believe, not what is possible.
Taking me out of context, I see. I guess I'll have to restate it - BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST REPLICATING CELLS HAVE BEEN CREATED - THEREFORE, HOW THE FIRST CELL CAME ABOUT IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
How about this, a reply in which I posted a link to a rebuttal of those 29 evidences? How about you pick one of those you consider very convincing and we'll look at it in detail? I'm not going to skim over 29 examples - it is far better to examine one in depth.
A strawman rebuttal to the link I provided.
About that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution, and many scientists in the fields related to evolution are Christian:
They are considered allies of evolution only so long as there is resistence. If the creationist movement was to ever be utterly destroyed, then I imagine the atheistic evolutionists would then move to attack Christian evolutionists.
Are you serious? I think that you need a reality check - you seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy. And you seem to think that creationism is taken seriously by scientists in anything other than a political sense.
They aren't involved with AiG, ICR or any of the other major organisations I respect, so yeah.
Duane Gish is with the ICR, btw. You actually respect the ICR? I consider the ICR despicable for their dishonesty - "Lying for Christ" is not the way of a true Christian. Here's a visit.
I'll tell you how I feel about this whole thing. I've talked to many evolutionists, and they all come from a patronising position as if I am a fool to believe what I do. And I think this is mostly due to organisations like talkorigins.org and a general culture of intolerance. How do you feel about people who believe that the earth is flat? That the haulocaust didn't happen? That the moon landing didn't occur? They believe these things with a passion, and that there is some sort of conspiracy against them.
I want to deal with specifics as I've said before. I want to demonstrate to you step by step, if you are willing, that I have indeed thought about what I believe and I don't just blindly accept. So you can also see that I have a rational mind and I listen to reason.
No, you don't. You use (post) strawman arguements, and have the mind of a "true believer". Your dismissal of the virtually unanimus agreement by scientists in the fields of biology, astronomy, physics, and geology, along with agreement with mainstream Christian denominations proves it.
3. Yes, if SCO executives are indeed engaging in a pump and dump scheme, as seems most likely, that is fraud and would be a criminal offense. But on that one only time will tell for sure.
About abiogenesis: A common copout. Of course the theory of evolution strictly refers to after the formation of life. However, the general phrase "evolution" refers to a number of realms besides biological evolution (even though this is not correct usage). If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the earth is in fact around 6000 years old, then the theory of evolution will be declared false.
Yep, like all scientific theories, it is falsafable. And since there is overwhelming evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that the earth is billions of years old, there is plenty of time for evolution to occur.
If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the first life that evolution requires could never have formed or come into existence, then evolution will be declared false.
Nope - it doesn't matter if the first life arose from natural causes, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, your God, or aliens from planet Zork - that wouldn't prove that evolution was false.
So even though evolution doesn't directly deal with these areas, it lies on that foundation without which it has no foothold. That is why it is a copout to ignore them.
But as I said, it really doesn't matter where the first life came from.
I know, I have something we can discuss - how about you cite for me one major evidence for evolution?
How about this? It's a listing of a set of 29 evidences for macroevoultion.
And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the materialistic/atheistic bias of many/most of these scientists? No, of course not. Because while creationists are fairly accused of bias, it is unfair to accuse materialistic atheists of being biased against creationism.
While I don't know what percentage of scientists working in the areas related to evolution or the age of the earth who are Christian, it is a significant number, and it is one of the reasons I have mentioned numerous times that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution - or are they atheists in disguise?:).
Heck, I know a Christian biologist who is also an evolutionist. He's relatively high up in his work place. He believes evolution, but he hadn't even *heard* about the creationist arguments. So it's absolutely no surprise to me
Well, my wife is a Christian biologist, and is also an evolutionist - she got her degree from a Methodist college, where evolution is taught as part of the normal curiculum.
For example, many of the points in SciAm's 15 answers to creationist nonsense are based on misunderstand or misrepresentation of the creationist position (example, no creationist with the slightest bit of knowledge would argue against natural selection).
Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? Duane Gish? Ken Hovind? It's ok if you want to distance yourself from these guys.:).
You think that I haven't looked into this at all don't you? You think that I've heard some people saying "we have overwhelming evidence that the earth is young" and left it at that?
And how many scientists in the field of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry have you convinced? About zero. You cannot even convince most mainstream Christian denominations.
Mutations have not been observed to gradually give rise to new species.
Just grabbing a few quick references...
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
The processes that evolution claim created life on earth have *never* been observed.
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the initial life form - it deals with life once it has formed. The area investigating initial life forms is referred to as abiogenesis.
And ditch your elephant hurling - "This is a debate tactic known as âelephant hurlingâ(TM). This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side.
ROTFL. I'm not really here to teach you biology. There are large complex undelying ideas in evolution, but there is also a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. Consider opposing data? Well, I've seen so many creationist whoppers that I have a hard time understanding how some of them can look at themselves in the mirror with the lies that they have told. Noah's ark, the speed of light, 2nd law of thermo, dinosaur/manprints, the Grand Canyon, basking shark/plesiosaur, blatent misquotes of various evolution supporters.....
Problems with geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology? I'd rather deal with them because I think they can be answered.
Go ahead. But so far, you and your supporters have failed to convince a noticable number of scientists working in those areas.
Ford and its dealerships/repair shops would probably also make less over the life of the vehicle, since a well-designed hytbrid with an integrated electric motor (not those gas engines that GM proposed with the oversized 42 volt alternator) will likely have a longer service life - meaning less wear and less maintainence. After all, you are burning less fuel.
Actually, I would expect the opposite - you have more systems in your car, so you have more things to potentially go wrong. And expensive battery systems to replace. While the gas engine might not run 100% of the time, the gas engine will be quite a bit smaller, and the vehicle heavier, so the engine will be running at a much higher percentage of its maximum load - especially since it has to recharge the battery, too. So the engine wear might actually be greater for many usage profiles.
The disagreance is whether those mutations lead to the simple organisms->today's life, and that is simply not covered by the theory you provided. We believe these mutations are insufficient to ever lead to what evolutionists claim.
No. New species arise from existing species. The only way that it wouldn't is if there was some sort of mechanism that would keep sufficient mutations from accumulating from happening - something that has never been found.
As far as controversy, simply because many people accept evolution does not mean it is right - evolutionists are fond of quoting Galileo's experiences, so am I. Galileo was by far a minority view. I have no problem with considering something that is a minority view to be correct.
Well, you know the old saying: They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.:). Now, I didn't just say that many people accept evolution, I indicated that experts in the areas of science and religion accept it. While I myself have no problems with considering a minority viewpoint, to take the other viewpoint against such a well supported theory such as evolution requires real evidence - which creationists don't have - such as a mechanism that would prohibit species evolving into new new species.
What you are saying is that even though the true mutation rates did not fit with the fossil record, the ones that were invented based on the fossil record correlate with it better and so should be used.
No, I did not say that. I said he found different values than did other researchers. And the values others found (not invented) correlate better with known information.
I think you need to explain this more carefully, because right now it looks like you are willing to invent numbers to support evolution.
Actually, it looks more like your side is willing to invent numbers, since you are willing to grab one set of numbers that do not correlate with what all the other researchers have found. It reminds me of the "moon dust", where creationists tried to use long discredited results from a poorly run experiment to claim that a lack of deep moon dust was evidence of the moon being young.
BTW, in an erlier post, you seem to indicate that you are a young earth creationist - do you realize that it was a hot topic (Omphalos Hypothesis) back in the 19th century, but it was dropped because of the quandry of having God creating the earth relatively recently but leaving overwhelming evidence of great age - God the deceiver. The young earth creationist has problems with many other branches of science, including Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, not just Biology. All of these sciences point to a very old earth and older universe.
So give me the description of the theory that causes so much controversy.
Sorry, but that is the theory. I guess you don't realize that the long term implication is that starting from a simple single cell, over time evolving to become the diversity of life that we see today.
As far as controversy, in the fields of science related to biology, there is no controversy. And even major Christian denominations, such as the Methodist Church and Catholic Church have no problem with evolution. They even teach it in their biology classes
provide me first with the equivalent evolutionary theory
A common textbook definition of it is: Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
About the evidence refuting a worldwide flood:
How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?
Sure. Heres a Link that not also gives the arguements, but also has links to additional information.
About mtDNA:
Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster
Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.
It seems that you are a young earth creationist - here is a page with links to articles on the problems with a young earth.
This is the result of a misunderstanding of creationism.
Have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it... lacking (to use a polite description)?
I find however, no matter how rational or kind/non confrontational I make my pro-creationist posts they get modded troll.
Again, have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it... lacking (to use a polite description)?
Also, when you talk about creationism, do you mean Young Earth, Old Earth, Intellegent Design, etc, or any of the other creation myths of all those other religions? One thing all of these have in common is that:
1. They are not scientific 2. There is little if any evidence for it outside of their own religious texts
Now, when I say they are not scientific, I mean that it does not meet any of the criteria needed to be a scientific theory - Explaining the evidence, making predictions that can be examined, and be falsifiable (you can devise tests that could possibly disprove it). For years, creationists have been asked for a scientific theory of creationism on the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins - and none has *ever* been posted.
And as far as using the Bible as evidence, I hope you realize that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and total falsehoods (example: The Great Worldwide Flood - there is overwhelming evidence that it never happened).
Now, your explanation of how the human race was created, well, it is amusing fiction. Of course, it completely contradicts all known fossil and genetic evidence. It's ironic when you talk about others having a misunderstanding of genetics when you post this stuff.
Most of the people who wrote articles on the talk.origins website are scientists working in fields related to evolution and use information from sources such as peer reviewed journals. So far, I have seen little (if any) criticism of the information on the website from other scientists working in the fields related to evolution.
It should be noted that most major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution, including the Catholic Church, Methodists, etc., and teach evolution in their biology classes at their colleges - I should know, my wife is a biologist with a degree from a Methodist college.
Quite a number of years ago, when Consumers Reports tested coffee makers, they measured the temperature of the coffee in the pots. There were a number of pots that kept it at 180 degrees or more.
The versions of the McDonalds coffee lawsuit I've read had the coffee temperature at 180 degrees.
I wonder how many people now complain that their coffee is too cold by the time they drink it?
Moz works fine for me - I've had no problems with the 1.0 and newer releases, with better stability than the Netscape 4.7x series.
To me, security is far more important than performance and stability once you get to the level of Moz 1.0. The market leader, IE, has had so many security holes in it that it is unbelievable. That would be the browser I would never bundle with an OS.
-asb
Sounds like a Tom Swift invention
on
Fanwing Planes?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I couldn't see a picture of it since the site is slashdotted, but the description reminds me of on of Tom Swifts' (Tom Swift Jr) - his Ultrasonic Cycloplane!
Come on! We know that Microsoft is just dying to share their source code with people. We just had a thread on Slashdot about it.
Seriously, the possibilites are
1) It wouldn't work or fit 2) Bad licencing (terms or cost) 3) Figured that Symbian would dominate
-asb
Snared Source
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
One important thing about the memo is that we need to do a better job explaining the difference between shared source, and open source, and how it really is "snared source" in terms of the potential legal entanglements.
Slashdot Mirror
Or don't you believe in refrigerators?
Nope, it is a powerful blow to Austin's credibility. You say that you have recieved the same response before - I'm not surprised since this is such a basic thing. You seem to be hung up on the idea that it was a blind test - but it was a poorly done test because he violated a simple but very important rule. So of course you get a garbage result - garbage in, garbage out.
By the way, the samples were low in Ar - from
talkorigins.org
-asb
It's on the same web page as the response to Camp.
Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?
When you do research or perform experiments, you should never improperly use a proceedure or method and then try to use those results to draw conclusions. Anyone who would do that deserves a sharp blow on the knuckles using the edge of a ruler by their boss.
-asb
No, because my link included a refutation to his rebuttal to my rebuttal.
First of all, though the strict theory of evolution is biological only, it also relies on a number of assumptions in other fields without which it would be impossible.
And you will note that in this thread, I refer to those areas, like geology, astronomy, physics. And the vast majority of scientists in those fields, that work in the the areas that have an impact on evolution, agree with the findings that are important to the theory of evolution - as an example, geologists who work in the area realated to the age of the earth - very, very few would argue that the age of the earth is substantially different than 4.7 billion years old. Or, very, very few astronomers would argue that the age of the universe is substatially different than around 14 billion years old. Of course, this impacts evolution because of the time scales required.
The fact is, there are some creation biologists, and that is significant.
Not really. In any sufficiently large group, you will find a few, "interesting" individuals, to put it politely. And when you throw in religion in, interesting things can happen - look at the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones (Kool Aid), The Church of Jesus Christ and Aryan Nation (I am *not* making this one up!), etc.
We are the Church of God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He has saved us, and called us to judge each other. You as an outsider cannot tell us how we should run our affairs. We listen to Him alone, and He requires us to guard carefully that which He gave us. I personally do not condemn evolutionist christians as unsaved. I do chastise Christians who believe evolution - I give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have not considered what they believe. But once having understood what is truly at stake in the creation evolution controversy, they must ultimately make a choice.
And that is why I have mentioned over and over that mainstream Christian denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church do not have problems with the theory of evolution.
Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.
If the dating method fails with samples of known age, dating them to be old, then how do we know samples aged in the millions of years are being dated correctly?
No - if you abuse the technique, don't be surprised if the results are wrong - garbage in, garbage out.
But as we have seen, even organisms that elave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates.
But as we have seen, even organisms that elave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates
The evolution of of reptiles to turtles occured more than 250 million years ago, so I'm not surprised that there are not a large number of intermediates found.
So if today it is quote common for fossils to form, then what excuse is there for the almost empty fossil record for the last supposed couple of billion years?
Well, prior to the cambrian explosion around 550 million years ago, creatures had soft bodies - so they didn't fossilize very well. Also, a fossil has to do more than be formed, to be found millions of years later - it has to survive.
-asb
-asb
That's a silly and idiotic claim. Personally, I think that the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway, but Reagan's policies sped up that date - which was a good thing, because the Soviet Union was not a nice country. And a faster collapse probably reduced the misery - it forced decisions that otherwise would have been procrastinated over.
He the the chance to end the war YEARS earlier
You obviously do not understand what the cold war was about.
But I'm one of the few INFORMED citizens it seems
No, you seem to either have forgotten what you should have learned in school, or should consider suing your school for doing such a bad job of educating you.
-asb
Here's a link to the response to Camp's critique. It explains the strawman arguements that he used.
And now you tell me there's a unanimous consensus about the facts of evolution when I can assure you that:
a) It is not unanimous, a few significantly educated scientists reject evolution
First, I said *virtually*. Also, most of those few scientists who disagree are not working in the fields related to evolution - they are speaking outside of their expertise. Or, to quote, "Take me out of my field of study and I'm just another guy sitting on a barstool".
You know, have you actually ever bothered to look past the talkorigins propaganda and see if what the creationists are saying is true? It's awfully easy to stand with a bunch of bullies throwing stones at someone, never asking whether what you are doing is right. It is another thing entirely to actually step inside our shoes and consider. I'm not talking about our faith - I'm talking about logic, reason and fact. You betray ignorance and worse than that - arrogance. You spew forth the same propaganda rubbish that every other evolutionst seems to.
Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right. And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.
I looked at your ICR criticisms - I have in fact discussed some of those issues with an evolutionist. We didn't get on well. Regarding asking to date a knowingly young sample when the lab said they couldn't is dodging the root question: why is the lab unwilling to date samples, say, less than 2Ma? Answer that question.
I assume it is due to the type of equipment or proceedure that they use. But to abuse that like Austin did raises ethics questions on his part - that is the *real* root question.
The transitional fossils that have been presented so far are less than weak, certainly not enough to pursuade a rational man. Darwin himself expected a lot more. The predictory power of evolution failed to predict what the fossil record explains - so the liquid nature of evolution was changed to now predict such a fossil record.
No, the traditional fossil record is not weak, and have convinced quite a few scientists. Darwin did not expect alot more, even though we have found far more transitional fossils since Darwin's time. Your comment about evolution changing - are you referring to punctuated equilibrium? Darwin states this in the Origin of the Species:
Stop trying to drop elephants into every line. It was unecessary to say there's overwhelming evidence, because again I disagree.
Disagree all you want - there is no credible evidence that the earth is not billions of years old - at least evidence that would convince scientists working in the related fields.
Be careful not to be hypocritical, accusing us of unscientific positions when you yourself propose unscientific propositions. You tell me - did that first life come from God, pink unicorns or chance? What you believe, not what is possible.
Taking me out of context, I see. I guess I'll have to restate it - BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST REPLICATING CELLS HAVE BEEN CREATED - THEREFORE, HOW THE FIRST CELL CAME ABOUT IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.
How about this, a reply in which I posted a link to a rebuttal of those 29 evidences? How about you pick one of those you consider very convincing and we'll look at it in detail? I'm not going to skim over 29 examples - it is far better to examine one in depth.
A strawman rebuttal to the link I provided.
About that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution, and many scientists in the fields related to evolution are Christian:
They are considered allies of evolution only so long as there is resistence. If the creationist movement was to ever be utterly destroyed, then I imagine the atheistic evolutionists would then move to attack Christian evolutionists.
Are you serious? I think that you need a reality check - you seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy. And you seem to think that creationism is taken seriously by scientists in anything other than a political sense.
They aren't involved with AiG, ICR or any of the other major organisations I respect, so yeah.
Duane Gish is with the ICR, btw. You actually respect the ICR? I consider the ICR despicable for their dishonesty - "Lying for Christ" is not the way of a true Christian. Here's a visit.
I'll tell you how I feel about this whole thing. I've talked to many evolutionists, and they all come from a patronising position as if I am a fool to believe what I do. And I think this is mostly due to organisations like talkorigins.org and a general culture of intolerance.
How do you feel about people who believe that the earth is flat? That the haulocaust didn't happen? That the moon landing didn't occur? They believe these things with a passion, and that there is some sort of conspiracy against them.
I want to deal with specifics as I've said before. I want to demonstrate to you step by step, if you are willing, that I have indeed thought about what I believe and I don't just blindly accept. So you can also see that I have a rational mind and I listen to reason.
No, you don't. You use (post) strawman arguements, and have the mind of a "true believer". Your dismissal of the virtually unanimus agreement by scientists in the fields of biology, astronomy, physics, and geology, along with agreement with mainstream Christian denominations proves it.
-asb
3. Yes, if SCO executives are indeed engaging in a pump and dump scheme, as seems most likely, that is fraud and would be a criminal offense. But on that one only time will tell for sure.
Two words: Perp Walk. In handcuffs, please.
-MDL
About abiogenesis:
:).
:).
A common copout. Of course the theory of evolution strictly refers to after the formation of life. However, the general phrase "evolution" refers to a number of realms besides biological evolution (even though this is not correct usage). If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the earth is in fact around 6000 years old, then the theory of evolution will be declared false.
Yep, like all scientific theories, it is falsafable. And since there is overwhelming evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that the earth is billions of years old, there is plenty of time for evolution to occur.
If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the first life that evolution requires could never have formed or come into existence, then evolution will be declared false.
Nope - it doesn't matter if the first life arose from natural causes, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, your God, or aliens from planet Zork - that wouldn't prove that evolution was false.
So even though evolution doesn't directly deal with these areas, it lies on that foundation without which it has no foothold. That is why it is a copout to ignore them.
But as I said, it really doesn't matter where the first life came from.
I know, I have something we can discuss - how about you cite for me one major evidence for evolution?
How about this? It's a listing of a set of 29 evidences for macroevoultion.
And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the materialistic/atheistic bias of many/most of these scientists? No, of course not. Because while creationists are fairly accused of bias, it is unfair to accuse materialistic atheists of being biased against creationism.
While I don't know what percentage of scientists working in the areas related to evolution or the age of the earth who are Christian, it is a significant number, and it is one of the reasons I have mentioned numerous times that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution - or are they atheists in disguise?
Heck, I know a Christian biologist who is also an evolutionist. He's relatively high up in his work place. He believes evolution, but he hadn't even *heard* about the creationist arguments. So it's absolutely no surprise to me
Well, my wife is a Christian biologist, and is also an evolutionist - she got her degree from a Methodist college, where evolution is taught as part of the normal curiculum.
For example, many of the points in SciAm's 15 answers to creationist nonsense are based on misunderstand or misrepresentation of the creationist position (example, no creationist with the slightest bit of knowledge would argue against natural selection).
Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? Duane Gish? Ken Hovind? It's ok if you want to distance yourself from these guys.
-asb
You think that I haven't looked into this at all don't you? You think that I've heard some people saying "we have overwhelming evidence that the earth is young" and left it at that?
And how many scientists in the field of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry have you convinced? About zero. You cannot even convince most mainstream Christian denominations.
Mutations have not been observed to gradually give rise to new species.
Just grabbing a few quick references...
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
And here is a nice page.
The processes that evolution claim created life on earth have *never* been observed.
Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the initial life form - it deals with life once it has formed. The area investigating initial life forms is referred to as abiogenesis.
And ditch your elephant hurling - "This is a debate tactic known as âelephant hurlingâ(TM). This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side.
ROTFL. I'm not really here to teach you biology. There are large complex undelying ideas in evolution, but there is also a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. Consider opposing data? Well, I've seen so many creationist whoppers that I have a hard time understanding how some of them can look at themselves in the mirror with the lies that they have told. Noah's ark, the speed of light, 2nd law of thermo, dinosaur/manprints, the Grand Canyon, basking shark/plesiosaur, blatent misquotes of various evolution supporters.....
Problems with geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology? I'd rather deal with them because I think they can be answered.
Go ahead. But so far, you and your supporters have failed to convince a noticable number of scientists working in those areas.
-asb
Ford and its dealerships/repair shops would probably also make less over the life of the vehicle, since a well-designed hytbrid with an integrated electric motor (not those gas engines that GM proposed with the oversized 42 volt alternator) will likely have a longer service life - meaning less wear and less maintainence. After all, you are burning less fuel.
Actually, I would expect the opposite - you have more systems in your car, so you have more things to potentially go wrong. And expensive battery systems to replace. While the gas engine might not run 100% of the time, the gas engine will be quite a bit smaller, and the vehicle heavier, so the engine will be running at a much higher percentage of its maximum load - especially since it has to recharge the battery, too. So the engine wear might actually be greater for many usage profiles.
-asb
The disagreance is whether those mutations lead to the simple organisms->today's life, and that is simply not covered by the theory you provided. We believe these mutations are insufficient to ever lead to what evolutionists claim.
:). Now, I didn't just say that many people accept evolution, I indicated that experts in the areas of science and religion accept it. While I myself have no problems with considering a minority viewpoint, to take the other viewpoint against such a well supported theory such as evolution requires real evidence - which creationists don't have - such as a mechanism that would prohibit species evolving into new new species.
No. New species arise from existing species. The only way that it wouldn't is if there was some sort of mechanism that would keep sufficient mutations from accumulating from happening - something that has never been found.
As far as controversy, simply because many people accept evolution does not mean it is right - evolutionists are fond of quoting Galileo's experiences, so am I. Galileo was by far a minority view. I have no problem with considering something that is a minority view to be correct.
Well, you know the old saying: They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
What you are saying is that even though the true mutation rates did not fit with the fossil record, the ones that were invented based on the fossil record correlate with it better and so should be used.
No, I did not say that. I said he found different values than did other researchers. And the values others found (not invented) correlate better with known information.
I think you need to explain this more carefully, because right now it looks like you are willing to invent numbers to support evolution.
Actually, it looks more like your side is willing to invent numbers, since you are willing to grab one set of numbers that do not correlate with what all the other researchers have found. It reminds me of the "moon dust", where creationists tried to use long discredited results from a poorly run experiment to claim that a lack of deep moon dust was evidence of the moon being young.
BTW, in an erlier post, you seem to indicate that you are a young earth creationist - do you realize that it was a hot topic (Omphalos Hypothesis) back in the 19th century, but it was dropped because of the quandry of having God creating the earth relatively recently but leaving overwhelming evidence of great age - God the deceiver. The young earth creationist has problems with many other branches of science, including Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, not just Biology. All of these sciences point to a very old earth and older universe.
-asb
So give me the description of the theory that causes so much controversy.
Sorry, but that is the theory. I guess you don't realize that the long term implication is that starting from a simple single cell, over time evolving to become the diversity of life that we see today.
As far as controversy, in the fields of science related to biology, there is no controversy. And even major Christian denominations, such as the Methodist Church and Catholic Church have no problem with evolution. They even teach it in their biology classes
-asb
A common textbook definition of it is: Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Here is a simplified version of it: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
About the evidence refuting a worldwide flood:
How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?
Sure. Heres a Link that not also gives the arguements, but also has links to additional information.
About mtDNA:
Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster
Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.
It seems that you are a young earth creationist - here is a page with links to articles on the problems with a young earth.
This is the result of a misunderstanding of creationism.
... lacking (to use a polite description)?
... lacking (to use a polite description)?
Have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it
I find however, no matter how rational or kind/non confrontational I make my pro-creationist posts they get modded troll.
Again, have you ever considered that there are enough science literate people on Slashdot that understand creationism, and have found it
Also, when you talk about creationism, do you mean Young Earth, Old Earth, Intellegent Design, etc, or any of the other creation myths of all those other religions? One thing all of these have in common is that:
1. They are not scientific
2. There is little if any evidence for it outside of their own religious texts
Now, when I say they are not scientific, I mean that it does not meet any of the criteria needed to be a scientific theory - Explaining the evidence, making predictions that can be examined, and be falsifiable (you can devise tests that could possibly disprove it). For years, creationists have been asked for a scientific theory of creationism on the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins - and none has *ever* been posted.
And as far as using the Bible as evidence, I hope you realize that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and total falsehoods (example: The Great Worldwide Flood - there is overwhelming evidence that it never happened).
Now, your explanation of how the human race was created, well, it is amusing fiction. Of course, it completely contradicts all known fossil and genetic evidence. It's ironic when you talk about others having a misunderstanding of genetics when you post this stuff.
-asb
Most of the people who wrote articles on the talk.origins website are scientists working in fields related to evolution and use information from sources such as peer reviewed journals. So far, I have seen little (if any) criticism of the information on the website from other scientists working in the fields related to evolution.
It should be noted that most major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution, including the Catholic Church, Methodists, etc.,
and teach evolution in their biology classes at their colleges - I should know, my wife is a biologist with a degree from a Methodist college.
-asb
Do you deserve to have the skin on your genitals peel off for a single act of clumsiness?
Worse than that happens every day on the roads and highways - people die, including innocent people, due to someones "single act of clumsiness".
-asb
Quite a number of years ago, when Consumers Reports tested coffee makers, they measured the temperature of the coffee in the pots. There were a number of pots that kept it at 180 degrees or more.
The versions of the McDonalds coffee lawsuit I've read had the coffee temperature at 180 degrees.
I wonder how many people now complain that their coffee is too cold by the time they drink it?
-asb
Moz works fine for me - I've had no problems with the 1.0 and newer releases, with better stability than the Netscape 4.7x series.
To me, security is far more important than performance and stability once you get to the level of Moz 1.0. The market leader, IE, has had so many security holes in it that it is unbelievable. That would be the browser I would never bundle with an OS.
-asb
-asb
Seriously, the possibilites are
1) It wouldn't work or fit
2) Bad licencing (terms or cost)
3) Figured that Symbian would dominate
-asb
-asb
No, I expect Disney to copy it as an animated musical. "Disneys Legend of The Overfiend" - it has a really nice ring to it.
-asb
While some of the best anime have been translations from manga?
-asb, with 300+ anime DVDs