The oldest living thing is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains in California, at about 4700 years old. Since these trees can live seemingly forever in harsh conditions, why aren't there any older?
Semingly forever isn't forever. Also, we have tree ring data going back much further than 4700 years. Hint: You don't have to use just one tree, or even a live tree.
Nearly every ancient culture has a great flood story. Most are strikingly similar to the Biblical account.
Um, citation for that last sentence? Also, these ancient cultures don't agree on *when* the supposed flood happened. And could it be that the reason many ancient cultures have a flood legend is that many ancient cultures were built along rivers, or a lake, or the sea?
The Black Sea is believed to have once been a much smaller freshwater lake.
The bacteria are still bacteria and the cows are still cows.
Sure. And you are still an ape, which is still a mammal, which is still a vertebrate. What's your point?
Molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evolution is simply not true.
I can't decide if you're a stupendous troll or a stupendous idiot.
Fundamentally, evolution is simply about genetic change in a species over time. Therefore, for you to say that evolution is not true, you have to assert that no species has ever changed. This is quite easy to refute.
The theory of gravity can be backed up by experimentation and observation. Evolution cannot.
Sure it can. Two species that have similar features ought to have similar DNA. If you expose a bacteria colony to an antibiotic, the ones that survive ought to produce bacteria that are more resistant. If you selectively breed cows that produce a little more milk than other cows, eventually you will have a cows that produce a whole lot of milk (or a lot of whole milk:)). That's all evolution is.
Evolution can never be proven by science.
Duh. Nothing is ever proven by science. If you want proofs, try geometry.
The problem is that the early geologists used paleontologist opinions to date their strata, and paleontologists used strata to date their fossils. Does anyone see a problem here?
No. That was then, this is now.
And the dating using radioisotope decay is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the relative concentrations of isotopes have remained fixed throughout history.
the valid questions and logical problems inherent in abiogenesis are simply left unaddressed by the current theories.
As has been said, evolution does not required abiogenesis.
an Old Earth is required for an extremely small probability to become a reality.
No, an Old Earth is "required" because only an Old Earth fits all the data, unless God is deliberately trying to trick us.
there is simply not enough atoms nor enough time for even one useful protein molecule to stand a better than even chance of coming about through random interaction.
A statistician could easily poke holes in the "random chance" model of life's beginnings.
Why should I ask a statistician about biology. And anyway, it's not just "random chance". There are laws of chemistry and physics which take a lot of the randomness out of it. It's not like you just throw atoms into a bucket and shake it, hoping they stick together.
It is far more plausible to posit that we were created by God than to suggest life came about by a highly unlikely chain of events for which the exact mechanisms are not understood.
Oh? So you understand the mechanisms of God then? What was His procedure for creating life then? Be specific. For a followup question: What created God?
The difference, however, is that the first does not claim to be science, yet is logically sound,
Positing the existence of a magical being to explain what you don't understand isn't logic. It's wishful thinking.
whereas the second does claim to be science, but is neither logically sound, nor proper science.
Au contraire. Evolutionary biology is backed by 150 years of painstaking research. They didn't just put it out of the air, you know.
Because science is the authority for their religion, they cannot accept any science which rejects their pre-conceived notions about the existence of God.
Science doesn't address the issue of the existence of God at all. God, by definition, is a supernatural entity and so is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
When scientists try to explain the origin of life as a series of highly unlikely events for which their is no understood mechanism, it calls into question the credibility of all science.
Does not follow.
It would be better to say, "we simply don't know", than to suggest something which is neither empirically verifiable nor logically sound.
Hmm... someone should ask Sen. John McCain or Adm. John Stockdale about how the recent treatment of prisoners we've seen lately compares to how he was treated in the "Hanoi Hilton".
Yeah, idiot, but "we" are supposed to be better than "them", otherwise, what's the point?
Everyone says what an excellent set of rules they are
Which ones? The Protestant list is different from the Catholic list, which is different from the list the Hebrews were supposed to follow. And I find the one about "No other Gods before me" pretty offensive, and the one about graven images is silly.
So, no, I don't think they are an excellent set of rules, as a whole.
Freedom would be a priveledge extended by the state, not by the Almighty Creator. In fact, if any religious propaganda, such as a plaque of the Ten Commandments, be found anywhere, said propaganda would immediately be removed.
Their tenets of belief are to ignore any evidence that contradicts their pre-supposed truths.
That's because there hasn't been any, yet. And at this point, if you have some evidence that evolution is false, it better be damned good evidence. The theory of evolution is so well-established, has so much evidence, and explains so much of what we see that it would take something absolutely spectacular to overturn it completely.
Regardless, let me quote from the ICR webpage: "The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
In other words, the think they already know what the truth is and are only looking for evidence to back it up. This is almost exactly opposite of how real science is done.
ICR: We know the truth, let's look for evidence Science: Let's look for evidence so we can discover the truth
You really shouldn't use anything from the ICR, if you want to be taken seriously. Their tenets of belief are to ignore any evidence that contradicts their pre-supposed truths.
Monitors - How many are still running CRTs? Throw it away, get a TFT and it'll pay for itself in saved power within three years.
Shan't. My CRT is crisp, bright, and still works fine. Plus wouldn't throwing it away just release more toxins into the environment?
I really wouldn't expect an American to understand this. Your domestic appliances haven't seen an update since 1963
From the rest of your post I gather that 1963 was the last time you were here.
you don't build sidewalks
We have plenty of sidewalks. I just don't fancy walking the best part of a mile (that's 1.6 km for you) just to pick up a sandwich at the local shop. So I drive.
If more people bought environmentally responsible products, the cost would go down.
The problem is that environmentally responsible products tend to look ugly or don't perform as well. Take your buried house. I applaud your "earth-sheltered, passive solar home". Sounds really neat. Unfortunately, I am not a hobbit and do not wish to live in a hole in the ground. Also, 50 degrees is too damn cold for me without some kind of heating.
Why not drive a hybrid car? Because I love my V8 too much. I'm not whining about gas prices. I know there are cheaper alternatives. I just like the power, the torque, and the sound.:)
I won't switch to a TFT because my CRT is better.
However, I do turn off my computer at night.
Re:Why my company doesn't do LINUX
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I work for a major defense contractor, where I've been integrating systems for numerous years. One of the primary reasons we don't do LINUX is because there's no profit in it for us.
Interesting. I work for a defense contractor and we are mostly a Linux shop.
Yeah, because the earlier photographs were taken at a much lower resolution. When viewed at a higher resolution, the "Face" is just a hill. Your link contains a lot of wishful thinking and not much else.
Similarly, Pluto was discovered because it was found that Neptune alone was not sufficient to account for all of Uranus' irregularity.
Actually, no. When Pluto was discovered it was found to be too small to account for the irregularity in Uranus's orbit. When they went back and checked, they found there had been a mistake and there wasn't any irregularity to start with. The discovery of Pluto was an accident.
I get the feeling that anyone who grew up playing early video games gets a real sense of disgust at seeing the level of depravity present in today's titles.
You'd be wrong then. I grew up with early video games. Started with the 2600 and it's free Combat cartridge. And I loved GTA3 and Vice City.
Master and Commander, Lost in Translation, and Mystic River were all better films than Return.
Nah. Master and Commander barely hung together as a movie at all. It was more like a lot of 20-30 minutes short films strung together. And while Lost in Translation was a good movie, I don't think it was as good as RotK. Didn't see Mystic River, so I can't comment on that.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been fossils of aquatic creatures found far inland, at high elevations.
Plate tectonics. The high elevations were once the bottom of the sea.
The Grand Canyon was created by water movement, but it could not have been the Colorado River because there is no buildup of sediment - a "delta".
Sure there is. Here's a picture of it.
The oldest living thing is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains in California, at about 4700 years old. Since these trees can live seemingly forever in harsh conditions, why aren't there any older?
Semingly forever isn't forever. Also, we have tree ring data going back much further than 4700 years. Hint: You don't have to use just one tree, or even a live tree.
Nearly every ancient culture has a great flood story. Most are strikingly similar to the Biblical account.
Um, citation for that last sentence? Also, these ancient cultures don't agree on *when* the supposed flood happened. And could it be that the reason many ancient cultures have a flood legend is that many ancient cultures were built along rivers, or a lake, or the sea?
The Black Sea is believed to have once been a much smaller freshwater lake.
Yes it was. So?
The bacteria are still bacteria and the cows are still cows.
Sure. And you are still an ape, which is still a mammal, which is still a vertebrate. What's your point?
Molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evolution is simply not true.
I can't decide if you're a stupendous troll or a stupendous idiot.
Fundamentally, evolution is simply about genetic change in a species over time. Therefore, for you to say that evolution is not true, you have to assert that no species has ever changed. This is quite easy to refute.
The theory of gravity can be backed up by experimentation and observation. Evolution cannot.
:)). That's all evolution is.
Sure it can. Two species that have similar features ought to have similar DNA. If you expose a bacteria colony to an antibiotic, the ones that survive ought to produce bacteria that are more resistant. If you selectively breed cows that produce a little more milk than other cows, eventually you will have a cows that produce a whole lot of milk (or a lot of whole milk
Evolution can never be proven by science.
Duh. Nothing is ever proven by science. If you want proofs, try geometry.
Nah, olds. This was in the Straight Dope years ago.
The problem is that the early geologists used paleontologist opinions to date their strata, and paleontologists used strata to date their fossils. Does anyone see a problem here?
No. That was then, this is now.
And the dating using radioisotope decay is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the relative concentrations of isotopes have remained fixed throughout history.
Wrong.
the valid questions and logical problems inherent in abiogenesis are simply left unaddressed by the current theories.
As has been said, evolution does not required abiogenesis.
an Old Earth is required for an extremely small probability to become a reality.
No, an Old Earth is "required" because only an Old Earth fits all the data, unless God is deliberately trying to trick us.
there is simply not enough atoms nor enough time for even one useful protein molecule to stand a better than even chance of coming about through random interaction.
Prove it. (Hint: You're wrong)
A statistician could easily poke holes in the "random chance" model of life's beginnings.
Why should I ask a statistician about biology. And anyway, it's not just "random chance". There are laws of chemistry and physics which take a lot of the randomness out of it. It's not like you just throw atoms into a bucket and shake it, hoping they stick together.
It is far more plausible to posit that we were created by God than to suggest life came about by a highly unlikely chain of events for which the exact mechanisms are not understood.
Oh? So you understand the mechanisms of God then? What was His procedure for creating life then? Be specific. For a followup question: What created God?
The difference, however, is that the first does not claim to be science, yet is logically sound,
Positing the existence of a magical being to explain what you don't understand isn't logic. It's wishful thinking.
whereas the second does claim to be science, but is neither logically sound, nor proper science.
Au contraire. Evolutionary biology is backed by 150 years of painstaking research. They didn't just put it out of the air, you know.
Because science is the authority for their religion, they cannot accept any science which rejects their pre-conceived notions about the existence of God.
Science doesn't address the issue of the existence of God at all. God, by definition, is a supernatural entity and so is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
When scientists try to explain the origin of life as a series of highly unlikely events for which their is no understood mechanism, it calls into question the credibility of all science.
Does not follow.
It would be better to say, "we simply don't know", than to suggest something which is neither empirically verifiable nor logically sound.
Take your own advice.
Hmm... someone should ask Sen. John McCain or Adm. John Stockdale about how the recent treatment of prisoners we've seen lately compares to how he was treated in the "Hanoi Hilton".
Yeah, idiot, but "we" are supposed to be better than "them", otherwise, what's the point?
I have no problem with one species evolving into another. However, I am not convinced scientifically that this is a possibilty,
Since we've seen it happen, in the wild and in the lab, I'd say it's a scientific possibility.
Everyone says what an excellent set of rules they are
Which ones? The Protestant list is different from the Catholic list, which is different from the list the Hebrews were supposed to follow. And I find the one about "No other Gods before me" pretty offensive, and the one about graven images is silly.
So, no, I don't think they are an excellent set of rules, as a whole.
Freedom would be a priveledge extended by the state, not by the Almighty Creator. In fact, if any religious propaganda, such as a plaque of the Ten Commandments, be found anywhere, said propaganda would immediately be removed.
This is the only reasonable thing you wrote.
Their tenets of belief are to ignore any evidence that contradicts their pre-supposed truths.
That's because there hasn't been any, yet. And at this point, if you have some evidence that evolution is false, it better be damned good evidence. The theory of evolution is so well-established, has so much evidence, and explains so much of what we see that it would take something absolutely spectacular to overturn it completely.
Regardless, let me quote from the ICR webpage: "The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
In other words, the think they already know what the truth is and are only looking for evidence to back it up. This is almost exactly opposite of how real science is done.
ICR: We know the truth, let's look for evidence
Science: Let's look for evidence so we can discover the truth
(both are theories, BTW)
Wrong. A theory must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. How do you falsify the idea that "God did it"?
Where's the evidence proving Evolution to be scientific fact?
The fact that we've seen it happen, both in nature and in the lab?
Where's the evidence proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist?
Huh? The truth of evolution does not imply that God does not exist.
The Dwight D. Eisenhower is 332.85 meters long.
The Dwight D. Eisenhower is not made out of gopher wood. It is impossible to build a wooden boat the size of the Ark and keep it afloat.
Second, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "omnipotent".
Then why did God need an old man and a boat then? Why didn't he just magic away everyone except Noah's family and forget the Flood?
It's a fair bet that he, or you, or I could probably subsist 40 days and 40 nights just fine on the food in your pantry. What's your point?
I suggest you read your Bible. The Ark was closed for a year.
There is more than ample evidence of severe flooding.
There is no evidence for a global frood. None.
You really shouldn't use anything from the ICR, if you want to be taken seriously. Their tenets of belief are to ignore any evidence that contradicts their pre-supposed truths.
Mount Ararat is named in the Bible as the resting place of the Ar
Actually, it isn't. The Bible says the Ark came to rest in "the Mountains of Ararat".
Monitors - How many are still running CRTs? Throw it away, get a TFT and it'll pay for itself in saved power within three years.
Shan't. My CRT is crisp, bright, and still works fine. Plus wouldn't throwing it away just release more toxins into the environment?
I really wouldn't expect an American to understand this. Your domestic appliances haven't seen an update since 1963
From the rest of your post I gather that 1963 was the last time you were here.
you don't build sidewalks
We have plenty of sidewalks. I just don't fancy walking the best part of a mile (that's 1.6 km for you) just to pick up a sandwich at the local shop. So I drive.
If more people bought environmentally responsible products, the cost would go down.
:)
The problem is that environmentally responsible products tend to look ugly or don't perform as well. Take your buried house. I applaud your "earth-sheltered, passive solar home". Sounds really neat. Unfortunately, I am not a hobbit and do not wish to live in a hole in the ground. Also, 50 degrees is too damn cold for me without some kind of heating.
Why not drive a hybrid car? Because I love my V8 too much. I'm not whining about gas prices. I know there are cheaper alternatives. I just like the power, the torque, and the sound.
I won't switch to a TFT because my CRT is better.
However, I do turn off my computer at night.
I work for a major defense contractor, where I've been integrating systems for numerous years. One of the primary reasons we don't do LINUX is because there's no profit in it for us.
Interesting. I work for a defense contractor and we are mostly a Linux shop.
Earlier photographs showed something entirely different.
Yeah, because the earlier photographs were taken at a much lower resolution. When viewed at a higher resolution, the "Face" is just a hill. Your link contains a lot of wishful thinking and not much else.
The second statement in quote from parent is false: there are significant pertubations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, and also in Pluto's orbit.
No, there aren't.
Similarly, Pluto was discovered because it was found that Neptune alone was not sufficient to account for all of Uranus' irregularity.
Actually, no. When Pluto was discovered it was found to be too small to account for the irregularity in Uranus's orbit. When they went back and checked, they found there had been a mistake and there wasn't any irregularity to start with. The discovery of Pluto was an accident.
I get the feeling that anyone who grew up playing early video games gets a real sense of disgust at seeing the level of depravity present in today's titles.
You'd be wrong then. I grew up with early video games. Started with the 2600 and it's free Combat cartridge. And I loved GTA3 and Vice City.
I'd have to look it up, but it's on the order of 10^26 against,
Don't bother. Read this instead.
Master and Commander, Lost in Translation, and Mystic River were all better films than Return.
Nah. Master and Commander barely hung together as a movie at all. It was more like a lot of 20-30 minutes short films strung together. And while Lost in Translation was a good movie, I don't think it was as good as RotK. Didn't see Mystic River, so I can't comment on that.
Burly Brawl was way too long, really silly, and didn't look right
Fixed it for you.
The movies were awful claptrap. Doesn't the author's son's opinion count in your minds?
Speaking as a Tolkien fan myself, the movies were great, and Christopher Tolkien is a prat.