Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Uhhh...everyone seems to be missing the fact that collisions aren't scheduled until next month. That's when we need to be concerned...the fact that scientists are moving protons around is NBD.
The NIV is an easy read for most Americans. I'm not sure which pages you read, but the Bible is full of non-fluff which sometimes seems too "real" to be appropriate for children. Take the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. There isn't a whole lot of fluff in it, and it's a story that I would be uncomfortable explaining to a child *in full detail*.
This summary is ridiculous. The Codex Sinaiticus contains plenty of references to the resurrection. The article mentioned that pieces of the resurrection story at the end of the book of Mark were missing. Mark is only one book in the Codex Sinaiticus - Matt., Luke and John are included fully with references to the resurrection. At least get your facts straight before bashing the Bible.
So instead of accepting the dates that have been observed by real people, you'd rather rely on dates supplied by faulty reasoning? Would you calculate your date of birth based on your height? I'm guessing not, because your rate of growth changes throughout your life. You might be better off asking some people who actually witnessed your birth (hopefully they wrote down the date) instead of relying on a date calculated based on unknown factors. On that note, dendrochronology is definitely a great way to date things, as you can observe that a new tree ring is created each season. Where it becomes black magic, though, is when a samples become ambiguous. Still, I'd probably trust dendrochronology over C14 > 2000yrs.
The reason I'd rather argue against evolution is because I don't want to force ID (BTW, I'm not in the ID camp...I'm a full-on, YEC) on you, or anyone's children. I would prefer that educators present evolution and big bang (actually, let's just say *EVERY THEORY*) with the arguments for and against. We don't need to be teaching theology in schools, I agree, but we *should* be teaching the facts and the various interpretations for anything not provable, testable or falsifiable.
It's pointless to scientifically argue that God exists, but you can scientifically argue that there are plenty of facts that are *consistent* with the existence a creator and/or *inconsistent* with evolutionary teaching.
The example of randomness adding integrity to a complex system by natural selection is not consistent with what is observable. When the size of a type of animal changes over generations, it is not a change in the genetic instructions, it's a change in the genetic variables. The instructions still say "Grow legs", the difference is that it says "growLegs( 10 )" instead of "growLegs( 5 )".
"growLegs( size )" doesn't become "growWings( size )".
This is not an empty claim, it's science, logic and math.
Radiometric dating is flawed without a true benchmark. It's like determining the distance of a star WITHOUT establishing "standard candles". It can't be done. Radiometric dating is flawed in it's conception. You can calculate distance on a grid by determining the delta of y and x, right? So how do you determine the delta, if you don't have the origin?
Now please tell me how the above is not true? How can you calculate the change in something when you only know the current state of it? This is just one example of how scientists make the data fit their preconceived notion that the earth is billions of years old, and thus capable of spontaneous generation of life.
Radiocarbon dating is a form of radiometric dating - that's a fact.:)
The three radiometric dating methods I'm aware of (Carbon, Potassium & Uranium) all start out with the notion that we know isotope ratios at a given point in history. But what good is counting half-lives if you don't know the starting quantity or ratio?
And even though radioCARBON dating is pretty consistent with written history, archeologist almost always give deference to the carbon date, even when multiple written references say otherwise. A good example is the dating of the Egyptian dynasties. Mainstream archeology is quick to point out, for instance, inconsistencies between radiocarbon dating and Jewish history, even if the Jewish history is corroborated by Greek history. It's just another example of modern arrogance toward our predecessors. Perhaps academia is just a little too "generationalcentrist", if that's a word:)
This analogy you've made is not analogous to macroevolution, but rather to microevolution through natural selection. Where the analogy fails is that a genetic algorithm does not act upon or modify itself, it modifies a set by testing the fitness of a candidate in the given set. The algorithm itself is designed intelligently. Programming is an excellent parallel for this discussion however, as programs never write themselves. You can write software to inject code at runtime, for instance, but it's only going to be successful if the code you are injecting was intelligently designed. Try having a program inject random instructions into itself and see what kind of luck you have - I'll be surprised if you get through two iterations. I've been trying to do this for years, in the hope I can retire and watch software write itself.:)
Creationist and ID'ers use the same facts as scientists. Mainstream scientists interpret *the* facts in light of their religion of Science. ID'ers and Creationists interpret *the* facts in the light of their religion. Notice I didn't say "their" facts, because everyone has the same facts, they just interpret them differently.
They interpret the facts based on different preconceived notions - for instance, many radiometric dating techniques are flawed because there are variables that are assumed, like the concentration of a certain isotope in the environment. Since none of us were around on the day a certain dinosaur was buried, we shouldn't assume that we know the concentration of C14 in the air. Scientist that argue for "old earth" put their faith in layers of speculation instead of being honest and saying "yeah, we don't know the beginning ratio of C14 to C12, so we're not going to speculate".
For starters, I would point out that randomness never adds to the integrity of a complex system, it only breaks it down. Ignoring for now the complexities of life, let's look a really simple example of "design", how we can recognize design and what randomness does.
Take for example, something like the sphinx. If you stumbled across it in the middle of a desert, would you assume that years-worth of weathering produced this colossal, detailed example of masonry? The nature of randomness is to destroy information or detail, not to build it up. The wear that you observe on such a work is randomness in action. Even on an infinite time line, randomness can not create the Sphinx - any random "success" it would have would be destroyed
Returning to the issue of life - life is far more complicated than a carving. DNA, the "software" of life, is more intricate than the detail carved into something like the sphinx or Mt. Rushmore, so it doesn't seem reasonable that they would be built up by randomness quicker than they would be destroyed by randomness.
The biggest problem facing the study of science today is not ID or creationism, it's scientific bigotry and incest. It's the classic story of scientists - the majority screams the loudest and makes the dissenters out to be kooks.
Why are so many Slashdotters fearful of opposing viewpoints? Every time there's an article posted about Creationism, ID or Evolution, most of the comments are just one straw man after another. Get off your intellectual high horse and engage in the discussion scientifically, not irrationally.
Science (including Evolution, Big Bang and Anthropic Principle) is your religion whether you admit it or not. Stop being a zealot and start thinking critically.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh...everyone seems to be missing the fact that collisions aren't scheduled until next month. That's when we need to be concerned...the fact that scientists are moving protons around is NBD.
The NIV is an easy read for most Americans. I'm not sure which pages you read, but the Bible is full of non-fluff which sometimes seems too "real" to be appropriate for children. Take the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. There isn't a whole lot of fluff in it, and it's a story that I would be uncomfortable explaining to a child *in full detail*.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah)
This summary is ridiculous. The Codex Sinaiticus contains plenty of references to the resurrection. The article mentioned that pieces of the resurrection story at the end of the book of Mark were missing. Mark is only one book in the Codex Sinaiticus - Matt., Luke and John are included fully with references to the resurrection. At least get your facts straight before bashing the Bible.
So instead of accepting the dates that have been observed by real people, you'd rather rely on dates supplied by faulty reasoning? Would you calculate your date of birth based on your height? I'm guessing not, because your rate of growth changes throughout your life. You might be better off asking some people who actually witnessed your birth (hopefully they wrote down the date) instead of relying on a date calculated based on unknown factors. On that note, dendrochronology is definitely a great way to date things, as you can observe that a new tree ring is created each season. Where it becomes black magic, though, is when a samples become ambiguous. Still, I'd probably trust dendrochronology over C14 > 2000yrs.
The reason I'd rather argue against evolution is because I don't want to force ID (BTW, I'm not in the ID camp...I'm a full-on, YEC) on you, or anyone's children. I would prefer that educators present evolution and big bang (actually, let's just say *EVERY THEORY*) with the arguments for and against. We don't need to be teaching theology in schools, I agree, but we *should* be teaching the facts and the various interpretations for anything not provable, testable or falsifiable. It's pointless to scientifically argue that God exists, but you can scientifically argue that there are plenty of facts that are *consistent* with the existence a creator and/or *inconsistent* with evolutionary teaching. The example of randomness adding integrity to a complex system by natural selection is not consistent with what is observable. When the size of a type of animal changes over generations, it is not a change in the genetic instructions, it's a change in the genetic variables. The instructions still say "Grow legs", the difference is that it says "growLegs( 10 )" instead of "growLegs( 5 )". "growLegs( size )" doesn't become "growWings( size )".
This is not an empty claim, it's science, logic and math. Radiometric dating is flawed without a true benchmark. It's like determining the distance of a star WITHOUT establishing "standard candles". It can't be done. Radiometric dating is flawed in it's conception. You can calculate distance on a grid by determining the delta of y and x, right? So how do you determine the delta, if you don't have the origin? Now please tell me how the above is not true? How can you calculate the change in something when you only know the current state of it? This is just one example of how scientists make the data fit their preconceived notion that the earth is billions of years old, and thus capable of spontaneous generation of life.
Radiocarbon dating is a form of radiometric dating - that's a fact. :)
The three radiometric dating methods I'm aware of (Carbon, Potassium & Uranium) all start out with the notion that we know isotope ratios at a given point in history. But what good is counting half-lives if you don't know the starting quantity or ratio?
And even though radioCARBON dating is pretty consistent with written history, archeologist almost always give deference to the carbon date, even when multiple written references say otherwise. A good example is the dating of the Egyptian dynasties. Mainstream archeology is quick to point out, for instance, inconsistencies between radiocarbon dating and Jewish history, even if the Jewish history is corroborated by Greek history. It's just another example of modern arrogance toward our predecessors. Perhaps academia is just a little too "generationalcentrist", if that's a word :)
This analogy you've made is not analogous to macroevolution, but rather to microevolution through natural selection. Where the analogy fails is that a genetic algorithm does not act upon or modify itself, it modifies a set by testing the fitness of a candidate in the given set. The algorithm itself is designed intelligently. Programming is an excellent parallel for this discussion however, as programs never write themselves. You can write software to inject code at runtime, for instance, but it's only going to be successful if the code you are injecting was intelligently designed. Try having a program inject random instructions into itself and see what kind of luck you have - I'll be surprised if you get through two iterations. I've been trying to do this for years, in the hope I can retire and watch software write itself. :)
Creationist and ID'ers use the same facts as scientists. Mainstream scientists interpret *the* facts in light of their religion of Science. ID'ers and Creationists interpret *the* facts in the light of their religion. Notice I didn't say "their" facts, because everyone has the same facts, they just interpret them differently. They interpret the facts based on different preconceived notions - for instance, many radiometric dating techniques are flawed because there are variables that are assumed, like the concentration of a certain isotope in the environment. Since none of us were around on the day a certain dinosaur was buried, we shouldn't assume that we know the concentration of C14 in the air. Scientist that argue for "old earth" put their faith in layers of speculation instead of being honest and saying "yeah, we don't know the beginning ratio of C14 to C12, so we're not going to speculate".
For starters, I would point out that randomness never adds to the integrity of a complex system, it only breaks it down. Ignoring for now the complexities of life, let's look a really simple example of "design", how we can recognize design and what randomness does.
Take for example, something like the sphinx. If you stumbled across it in the middle of a desert, would you assume that years-worth of weathering produced this colossal, detailed example of masonry? The nature of randomness is to destroy information or detail, not to build it up. The wear that you observe on such a work is randomness in action. Even on an infinite time line, randomness can not create the Sphinx - any random "success" it would have would be destroyed
Returning to the issue of life - life is far more complicated than a carving. DNA, the "software" of life, is more intricate than the detail carved into something like the sphinx or Mt. Rushmore, so it doesn't seem reasonable that they would be built up by randomness quicker than they would be destroyed by randomness. The biggest problem facing the study of science today is not ID or creationism, it's scientific bigotry and incest. It's the classic story of scientists - the majority screams the loudest and makes the dissenters out to be kooks.
Sorry - if that was a joke, I don't know if I'm interpreting as it was intended. Can you clarify what you meant? Thanks.
Why are so many Slashdotters fearful of opposing viewpoints? Every time there's an article posted about Creationism, ID or Evolution, most of the comments are just one straw man after another. Get off your intellectual high horse and engage in the discussion scientifically, not irrationally. Science (including Evolution, Big Bang and Anthropic Principle) is your religion whether you admit it or not. Stop being a zealot and start thinking critically.