We have actual specimens of actual creatures which have some features of men, some features of apes. Interestingly enough, the older ones are more apelike, the younger ones are more human-like.
Agreed. But in his mind the following happens:
"Can you not understand that science is what we observe happening TODAY and _history_ is what happened in the past? Nobody can do experiments or observe past history. We have to rely on human or natural witnesses. Fossils are nature's witnesses as are radioactive rocks and light from outer space. Pyramids, cuneiform tablets, papyrus and animal skin scrolls, such as the dead sea scrolls and the books of the Bible are witnesses of human history. ALL witnesses, natural or human NEVER prove anything, but must be BELIEVED or not."
In arminw's mind the specimens are not real, they are instead "witnesses". Thus he is free to choose which witnesses he wants to believe, and the truth value that his mind assigns to those specimens can then be set lower than the truth value his mind has set for the bible and genesis/flood. All this is so that he does not have to change the model he currently has of how the world works.
ToE is about _widely believed_ gradual change. There, fixed it for you.
Are you saying that we have not observed gradual change?
Nobody, anywhere has ever demonstrated sparrows giving birth to mockingbirds
Neither do we expect to see that.
The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that evolution doesn't happen at all, at least not the monkey to man sort.
That makes as much sense as saying:" The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that gravity doesn't happen at all, at least not the earth falling into the sun sort."
Believing that it can or did happen is OK, but it is a belief, not an observed scientific fact.
You move the goalposts all the way to exact detailed fact. That is a quite convenient rationalisation if you want to keep your belief in a young earth, a literal genesis and a global flood.
That is probably the only rationalisation you can use to keep your internal model of how the world works intact. You set the barrier for proof so high that it makes it possible for you to ignore the substantial amount of circumstantial evidence which implies that it isn't so. You eagerly grasp any tiny detail you can find that casts doubt on current scientific theory, no matter how flimsy.
Can you not understand that science is what we observe happening TODAY
That is part of science, but not the most important part. The important part is (1) the process of taking the things we observe and make reasoned guesses at how the world works and (2) then look at what those guesses imply and then go out and do observations/tests to see if those guesses have any value.
Fossils are nature's witnesses as are radioactive rocks and light from outer space. Pyramids, cuneiform tablets, papyrus and animal skin scrolls, such as the dead sea scrolls and the books of the Bible are witnesses of human history. ALL witnesses, natural or human NEVER prove anything, but must be BELIEVED or not.
Yup, as I said above - you set the standard for proof so high that in your mind there is no difference between (1) a scientific theory with heaps of supporting evidence and (2) what someone wrote in a book.
That is such a blatant misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution that I find it absolutely mind blowing.
ToE is about gradual change. We see gradual change. DNA comparisons show gradual change. The fossil record shows gradual change.
ToE does *not* say that the offspring will differ greatly from its parents. If we saw sparrows giving birth to mockingbirds, it would not be a proof of ToE - it would be the exact opposite.
But then again, if you manage to misunderstand so thoroughly what ToE actually says then I really see no reason to continue this attempt at having a reasoned discussion with you.
At the very least, it has provided me with a good example of the rationalisation that happens in the mind of someone who feels that his childhood beliefs are under attack.
..Science at the very least has the advantage of having some system to the guesswork..
Actually science is NOT t all guesswork. It is based on present observations and experiments, done in real time, TODAY!
I notice that you conveniently didn't address my point that science sets strict scrutiny standards to how they deal with their guesses.
You observe something or test something in the lab. You make a guess based on those facts. Then comes the crucial step - you look at this guess and then ask "what else would we expect to see if the guess is correct?". Then you go back to the lab or out in the field to see if the new facts you uncover fits with the guess or not. See the link to The Scientific Theory that I included in my previous post for a more detailed description of the process.
That second step - the "what else would we expect to see" and then going out and looking for those other facts is what is conspicuously missing from your guesswork like "c-decay" or "earth's rotational axis was altered during the flood". Hence, the trust one would apply to those guesses is small because they lack corroborating evidence. Not to mention that those theories have significant problems that have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner.
Scientific guesses only gets elevated to scientific theory once the guess has been poked and prodded at from every angle possible for us to do by doing work in the lab or going out and observing facts.
*that* is the main reason that you don't see ID in school textbooks. They have not done this meticulous work of testing their guesses in every way possible.
There is no LAW of physics that demands ALL such numbers should remain absolutely constant throughout all time.
If you CHANGE those numbers, you CHANGE a lot of things. Ranging from chemical and nuclear reactions to gravity. The EFFECT of those numbers being DIFFERENT in the past would be OBSERVABLE today.
It can be slowed down and sped up in the laboratory at will. The speed of light clearly depends on the medium through which travels.
Yes. I have no problem with that. It is the change of c in vacuum that I have a problem with.
Anyway. Let's say it was true. That would explain the red-shift, but a secondary effect is that we would see stars and galaxies orbiting slower than we would expect. Do we see that?
People are going to go to hell for calling God a liar. You don't like to be labeled a liar, so why should God. If you tell someone something and they tell you that they do not believe you, that is what you are really doing, calling them a liar.
Sorry, I find it incredibly hard to believe in a deceitful god.
One fundamental evolutionary belief is in the uniformity of natural processes throughout vast ages of time.
Is there any evidence to the contrary?
If you believe that radioactive decay, c, Planck's constant etc varied over time then do some SCIENCE. That is, the article you linked to shows some statistical likelihood of c-Decay. A proper scientific approach to this ASSUMPTION/THEORY of C-decay would require developing this theory further - what effects could we expect to see of this change? WHAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT compared to a C-constant universe? Would it be possible to OBSERVE ANY OF THESE DIFFERENCES today?
If you want c-decay to be part of textbooks, you need to do that research. You have to look at all the angles of this ASSUMPTION and come up with as many ways as possible to TEST this assumption.
One look at the cratered moon and mars, as well as plenty of evidence on earth shows anything BUT a smooth gentle history.
Asteroid impacts is one thing. Claiming that the basic laws of physics has changed over time is not even on the same scale.
Another belief is that huge quantities of time can accomplish what nobody has ever done in the lab or observed happening today.
Same would apply for the Grand Canyon.
I've covered fossils elsewhere, *snip*.
Scientists have experimented with innumerable generations of creatures, such as the Drosophila fruit flies. However they have never succeeded making anything other than more fruit flies. People have bred dogs for centuries, but all they have ever produced is more dogs.
Bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotica. Wolves have become dogs. Do you disagree that this shows that "microevolution" works?
"Macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over a longer time span, there is nothing special required. The time required makes it nigh impossible to recreate the Grand Canyon in the lab, but the processes required to make a canyon like that are understood and we can see and test this on the small scale.
The same goes for turning a bear into something else. It would take lots of time, but the process of evolution is understood and we can see and test this on the small scale.
The biblical statement that living things were made to reproduce "after their own kind" has NEVER been contradicted by any scientific fact. The theory of evolution, is an INTERPRETATION of facts based on assumptions (beliefs).
The pastafarian statement that water was commanded to "never dig deep" has NEVER been contradicted by any scientific fact. The theory of river canyons, is an INTERPRETATION of facts based on assumptions / beliefs.
Evolution gives a way out for people to deceive themselves about the possibility of having to face this God.
Rrrrright.. Because accepting evolution does for some reason automagically mean atheism which means nihilism which leads to... [insert litany of all the horrible things man would do if they did not have the Damocles Sword of Eternal Damnation hanging over their heads or the Carrot of Paradise to keep them on the narrow path].
Do you really believe that man is not capable of being good and moral without a longbeard in the sky watching them? That is a horrible thing to think of your fellow human beings!
That is the time when the atomic clocks began to be used for the time base for this. The clocks change exactly the same as the quantity to be measured.
So the speed of oscillation of caesium atoms changed at the same rate that the speed of light in a vacuum does? Sounds like a convenient radom event to me.
Besides, how would this change in atomic clocks not be detected by comparing it to other potential sources of time. Or did those happen to change at the same rate too?
We KNOW that light is affected by the medium it traverses. [..] Recently there were headlines even, that light has been slowed to crawl in the lab.
That is true. So?
Space is not an empty nothing, but has electromagnetic properties that HAVE to change as space expands. The fact is that space is not expanding much any longer
Source? Or is this an assumption?;-p
There is no way we can actually MEASURE the distances to objects using trigonometry more than a few light years away. The biggest base we have is the orbit of the earth.
Correct. Parallax works out to about 200ly.
That is a very tiny distance compared to the galaxy dimensions. The angles become simply too small to measure. The stated distances are arrived at by brightness comparisons and the Hubble red-shift = distance assumption.
Not quite. We usually use Cepheid variables. You use stars that are close enough for parallax distance measurement for calibration.
Red-shift really only tells you how fast they are moving, and while there is a relationship between the amount of shift and distance we shouldn't use that alone.
Creationists forget that the main purpose of the Bible is not to give us an accurate account of how God did things, but to tell us of His love and what plans he has for mankind.
Agreed. So why do you insist on a quite literal interpretation of genesis and the flood?
When it comes to the past, only someone who was actually there can give us an accurate account of what REALLY happened.
Just one sec, I need to change the battery of my camcorder before I go for a trip in my time machine.
While absolute concrete utterly non-disputable evidence is hard to come by, there is more circumstantial evidence out there than you seem to believe.
Since God doesn't give us any where near as much detail as we'd like, both sides have to do a lot of guesswork.
To tilt axis of the earth does not require a direct collision. A close pass by of a massive object could do that.
Did you ever play with one of those toy gyroscopes as a child? The forces required are immense. If you think otherwise, show me the math please.
We are told that the flood was a very violent event.
We are also told that it was survivable by some folks and animals in a boat, so that puts an upper limit on the forces that could have been at play here.
Second, after the flood the rainbow is specifically mentioned as a new thing which signified God's promise to Noah to never flood the earth again like that. If Noah had been familiar with rain and rainbows, or in fact have ever seen either one before, that would be a nonsensical statement.
Rainbows can also be seen in water mist (say for example by a waterfall or by spray mist as waves hit the beach). If he had never seen rainbows before he (1) either lived inland and had never seen rain before and/or (2) the Creator somehow altered the laws of physics to change the properties of reflection/refraction when light hits water droplets.
One obvious problem with (1) is that it would have been horribly dry, how would anything be able to live if there was no rain.
(2) I find so silly it is hard to know where to start. Anyway, if you believe that people in a boat can survive the forces (roughly the force of an object 1/1000 the mass of earth hitting it with a speed of 170,000 mph) required to alter the tilt of the earth from 0deg to 23.4deg then I suppose the idea of God changing physics like that at the flick of his hand doesn't seem so outlandish either.
(...One more - How would you explain that fossils of creature A only show up in strata A while fossils of creature B only show up in strata B if all fossils were created in a single event?...)
Again, you assume that this flood was like what we experience today when a river rises over its banks.
No, I assume that it was quite a cataclysmic event, especially if it was also the same event that changed the tilt of earth's axis.
When the flowing waters finally slowed down, they dropped everything in thousands of feet deep mud flows.
Did you misunderstand my question? The event you describe would lead to fossils of all different creatures being mixed up in a single layer. My question was why we see *separate layers* with *no mixing of creatures of different types between the layers*. That is, in the fossil record we find "spotted pertussis" only in layer 1 and at the same time find "coffee-stained keyboardog" only in layer 2. If this all happened in a single event, we would expect to find the s.pertussis and c-s.keyb. in all layers.
Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that lived for a long time. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.
Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.
Types of preservation
[edit] Permineralization A permineralized trilobite, Asaphus kowalewskii A permineralized trilobite, Asaphus kowalewskii
Permineralization occurs after burial, as the empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater and the minerals precipitate from the groundwater, thus occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. This is a form of diagenesis. External mold of a bivalve from the Logan Formation, Lower Carboniferous, Ohio. External mold of a bivalve from the Logan Formation, Lower Carboniferous, Ohio.
[edit] Casts and molds
In some cases the original remains of the organism have been completely dissolved or otherwise destroyed. When all that is left is an organism-shaped hole in the rock, it is called an external mold. If this hole is later filled with other minerals, it is a cast. An internal mold is formed when sediments or minerals fill the internal cavity of an organism, such as the inside of a bivalve or snail.
[edit] Replacement and recrystallization
Replacement occurs when the shell, bone or other tissue is replaced with another mineral. In some cases mineral replacement of the original shell occurs so gradually and at such fine scales that microstructural features are preserved despite the total loss of original material. A shell is said to be recrystallized when the original skeletal minerals are still present but in a different crystal form, as from aragonite to calcite.
[edit] Compression fossils
Compression fossils, such as those of fossil ferns, are the result of chemical reduction of the complex organic molecules composing the organism's tissues. In this case the fossil consists of original material, albeit in a geochemically altered state. Often what remains is a carbonaceous film. This chemical change is an expression of diagenesis.
[edit] Bioimmuration The star-shaped holes (Catellocaula vallata) in this Upper Ordovician bryozoan represent a soft-bodied organism preserved by bioimmuration in the bryozoan skeleton. The star-shaped holes (Catellocaula vallata) in this Upper Ordovician bryozoan represent a
We are also told in the flood account of the Bible, that it was only after this event, that seasons as we have today, spring, summer, winter and fall began. The reason we have seasons in the first place is because the axis of the earth is now tilted at about 23 degrees in relation to the plane of the Earth's orbit. There is no way to know exactly what immense forces were at work to cause the axis of the earth to be realigned this way. Perhaps, a planet sized object came close. This would put tremendous pressure from gravitational forces on the entire Earth, squeezing it like a sponge, thus releasing immense quantities of stored water. Furthermore, this water would have been boiling hot.
Do you have any idea of the force required to move the axis of the earth like that? The current best supported theory is that the earth's tilt was changed by a giant object that collided with the earth and created the moon. We are talking close to shattering the earth into pieces scale energies here. If this happened in fairly recent time, it would be ludicrous not to expect to find geological evidence of this all over the earth. It would be ludicrous to even think that our ancestors would be able to survive such an event.
Not to mention, where is the geological evidence for the flood? If a global flood occurred, we would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place within a mere 4,000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.
There is plenty of evidence that the earth itself also had a very violent history.
Some of that was extremely long ago (e.g., the event that created the moon). In more recent history, the only thing that comes even within shooting distance of the force required for a global flood (let alone something big enough to alter the earth's tilt) would be the K-T event at an estimated 65mill years ago. Such an event within biblical time would be sure to leave physical evidence behind.
Fossils were made in a sudden unimaginable water catastrophe.
Yeah. Sure it is. Lack of supporting evidence. Lack of even having an inkling of understanding the forces that would be required.
One more - How would you explain that fossils of creature A only show up in strata A while fossils of creature B only show up in strata B if all fossils were created in a single event?
None of this is allowed to be put into a textbook used in public schools.
And you should thank your maker it isn't in there. The US educational system would be a laughing stock for decades.
Only the gradualist interpretations of evolution are permitted, in spite of all the evidence of violent sudden catastrophe.
Once fairly accurate measurements of c became available (post 1960), the supposed c decay seems to vanish. So, he uses the measurements of c pre-60 (which have huge potential errors) to build the case for his decaying c argument but his proposed graph conveniently levels off post-60.
A decaying c would also have wide ranging effects, which we should be able to observe today. For one, e=mc^2. With a higher c, chemical reactions would release more energy than it does today. Not to mention that it would alter the fine structure constant (α = vH/c), which we would definitely be able to observe the effects of (the temperature of stars depends strongly on α, so we should be able to detect even a slight change - one of which is that we would have been bbq'd by the sun in the 1000 or so years after genesis).
And that's only scratching the surface of the changes that c-decay would imply, change one of the basic values of physics and lots of stuff happens.
Oh, and it would be interesting to see how one would reconcile this with the idea of c-decay.
There is NO law of physics that says that the speed of light MUST be constant.
That is true, as far as I know. However, that is not the same as saying that the effects of this historic change of c would not be DETECTABLE today.
Go ahead and ask five evolutionsts to describe how life began on this planet, and you'll hear two or three different stories (most popular, of course, is lightning bolt striking primordial soup). It's constantly changing. It should change, of course, as data is presented to get a more accurate picture, but it shouldn't be heralded as the answer (or even scientific) when they can't claim any basis of observation as to what actually happened. Until then, it's a ship caught in a storm without a rudder.
You might have missed the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not contain an explanation of abiogenesis. ToE is a theory of how life evolves once life exists.
If you ask "evolutionists" (whatever that is) about how life started, you are obviously going to get a lot of different answers. And that is simply because there is no coherent tested theory of that yet, so what you get from them are thought experiments and their current best guesses.
That abiogenesis is still in the dark does however not mean that ToE itself is "caught in a storm without a rudder".
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred. Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells.
Atheism eventually leads to nihilism.
Oh, that old argument again. "In the absence of faith, man will just revert to this lawless beast that only thinks of himself and has no regard for others."
Those that believe that must have such a horribly sad view of humanity. It is a puzzle to me why they have so little faith in humanity that they believe that we need a constant Damocles Sword of Eternal Damnation hanging over our heads in order to keep us on the narrow path and Paradise as a carrot to keep us from depression and suicide.
There must be something utterly broken in the minds of those that have so little faith in their fellow humans.
Could you please answer my very basic questions instead of using every opportunity to ignore them and instead go on another rant about the unfairness of religion not being allowed in science class?
Again:
What are these facts that has "god did it" as a plausible interpretation? Please be as specific as you can.
Where do you have "This would include scientists [..] DO believe in God" from? Is it your assertion that scientists that have a personal belief in religion is for some reason banned from writing science textbooks? If so, I would have to ask for supporting evidence.
We DO have some evidence that the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space itself have indeed changed dramatically over time.
Source?
One of these is Planck's constant which is measured to be smaller today than when it was first measured.
Source?
There is evidence from past light-speed measurements using a gravity time-base, which have shown a decrease since such measurements were first done in the early 1600s.
Which measurements? You know, this would be so much easier if you would do the very basic courtesy of providing sources for your assertions.
If a ruler elongates at the same rate as a distance to be measured by it, the distance will always be measured to be the same, even though it really is changing.
Though it would be possible to measure the changes of the ruler. For one, if you elongate it enough it would simply break apart because the molecules in the ruler would be too far apart for the intermolecular bonding forces to hold them together. That is, unless you also assume that the inter- and intra-molecular forces change accordingly.
Since Planck's "constant" appears in equations describing the behavior of atoms, radioactive clocks must also be affected.
But it does not follow that it would affect other kinds of clocks, and even if it did it might not affect them to the same degree. If we were to compare these clocks, it would be fairly straight forward to discover that something funky is going on with the atomic clock.
It is also a FACT that all fossils, without a single exception are found in sedimentary rocks.
Not really surprising, considering that the other forms of rock (igneous and metamorphic) are formed in a way that would destroy any fossils contained therein.
These are rocks formed by the action of water.
Not strictly. It is caused by particles carried in suspension (which would in most instances mean water in some form, be it from rain, in rivers, ice sheets melting, etc) and then deposited over time. It does not mean that sedimentary rocks are only formed when below the sea level.
The same FACT that there are fossils only in sedimentary layers is interpreted by God believing creation scientists to be caused by a world wide, sudden universal flood catastrophe.
How would this "interpretation" account for fossils found in different sedimentary layers? If fossils were trapped all at once by a single universal flood, you would expect to only find fossils in a single layer.
Besides, how long did this global flood last? Sedimentary rock does take some time to form. Besides, if these sediments were deposited on land and the water then retracted, this sedimentary layer would be on the surface of the earth and would likely just erode away by the action of wind and rain.
However, this equally valid scientific interpretation is NOT allowed to be even mentioned in American Schools by LAW.
That could perhaps have something to do with even a simple layman like me being able to find problems with this "interpretation" by no more than a cursory glance and 10 minutes with Google?
Seriously, you want this taught as valid interpretations in science class in schools? If you were successful in getting this into the curriculum, I think it would do more damage to the credibility of Christianity than it would gain you new converts.
Of course we know nothing about what kind of people they are, what kind of families they have, what cars they drive etc.
Are you purposefully trying to miss the point, did I trig some sort of mental block?
To rephrase my point - we know humans to the point where we have a reasonably good grasp of our mental capabilities, what kind of tools we had available at different times in history, what government/social structures we had (or were likely to have), what motives and incentives we might have had, etc..
The purpose of this is so that when we are presented with an artefact and ask the question "did Man make this?" we have a large amount of background material that can help us decide the likely answer for this question. First of all, would man - at that point in time - have the required tools to make this artefact? Second, would he have any likely motive for making it? Continue down this line of questions for every property of the artefact and what was known about humans at the time and place the artefact was made.
On the other hand - An attempt to do the same line of reasoning with "did intelligent designer make it?" to something like the flagellum would be an exercise in futility. We simply don't know enough (or anything at all) about this supposed intelligent designer to make any sort of reasoned judgement as to whether this intelligent designer made the artefact or not.
These predictions of the future in the Bible are not vague or self-fulfilling, but quite specific of events, places and times and NEVER miss
Ok, now I definitely know that you are either trolling or so brain-addled that you are in dire need of professional help. Never miss? The end-times have been proclaimed how many times exactly? Oh, or were those foretold by people not following the right kind of Christianity?
Huh? The supernatural is orthogonal to science. It is not part of science, never has been, never should be.
Secular humanism is certainly not taught in science class either. I certainly don't remember a single instance of being taught ethical philosophy in science class when I went to school. Secular humanism might have science and the scientific method as part or their core beliefs, but that does not make teaching science the same as teaching secular humanism. If you disagree, please provide *specific* examples.
Any interpretations of the facts of science where God, Intelligence or the supernatural is mentioned, is officially and legally disallowed.
As it should be. What part of church and state is so difficult to grasp? If you want to enumerate scientific facts and then proclaim religious interpretations of those facts, isn't the church a large enough soap box to preach it from?
Ah. So you you are not arguing god-of-the-gaps after all, you are arguing "teach the controversy".
What are these facts that has "god did it" as a plausible interpretation? Please be as specific as you can.
Also remember that if you open for Christian interpretations in science text books you also open for all interpretations.
Besides, where do you have "This would include scientists [..] DO believe in God" from? Is it your assertion that scientists that have a personal belief in religion is for some reason banned from writing science textbooks? If so, I would have to ask for supporting evidence.
The Supreme Court has misinterpreted the founders edict on freedom OF religion into a interpretation of freedom FROM religion.
Opinions differ on that matter. From what I can tell, the majority opinion seems to be that the establishment clause means the separation of church and state.
but they are all based on the _assumption_ that the rate of radioactivity has always been what we observe it to be today. Again, this may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption
But where should one draw a line on these assumptions? We have seen nothing so far to indicate that decay rates have changed over time (including analysis of spectra of supernovas) so it seems like a reasonable assumption to make.
We also make the assumption that our senses don't (intentionally) lie to us and thus most of us assume that we are not used as biological batteries with our brains plugged into the Matrix.
We have to draw the line somewhere, because if we take the path of doubting every assumption would have us all in catatonic state because we would be unable to trust anything at all.
In most cases we feel fairly comfortable with making assumptions when we have a considerable amount of facts that seem to support the assumption and a lack of contradicting facts - even when actively looking for contradicting facts.
So my question would be - where do you draw that line?
In a sense, the interpretations (not the facts) of science are based as much on faith as any religion.
As opposed to certain religions, science does at the very least allow for their interpretations to change. That is pretty much the only "tenet" that science has - that current interpretations are not holy and that if facts are found that contradict current interpretation, then the interpretation must change to fit the facts.
The same evidences of design can be found in human systems and devices, is also present in the systems and devices that exist in the natural world.
Sorry, no. (Or in your words, "pure BS")
We know humans. We can study them and get a reasonably good assurance that they are intelligent. We also can tell what other properties they have, like their ability to make and use tools and their ability to organise to make works that would require more than one human. We also have a reasonably complete written record of at least some of human history. Not to mention the remains of human artefacts, which would indicate that humans inhabited a particular place at a particular time.
Using that knowledge, it isn't that difficult to infer that Stonehenge, the pyramids, the stone faces of mt. Rushmore or the Easter Island stone statues were made by man.
When it comes to God, we have hardly any such knowledge. We can't exactly ask him to step into a lab so we can test his cognitive abilities or what tools he has available for shaping the world. How, then, can we make any reasoned argument whether any systems or devices that exist in the natural world are God-made?
To say "sorry, we don't know how that could happen by purely causal mechanisms" is not the same as "God must have done it". That is just the faulty argument of god-of-the-gaps. It tells us to infer design when we have ruled out all the chance (i.e. non-design) hypotheses we can think of. The design hypothesis says nothing whatsoever about the identity, nature, aims, capabilities or methods of the designer. It just says, in effect, "a designer did it".
Slashdot Mirror
We have actual specimens of actual creatures which have some features of men, some features of apes. Interestingly enough, the older ones are more apelike, the younger ones are more human-like.
Agreed. But in his mind the following happens:
"Can you not understand that science is what we observe happening TODAY and _history_ is what happened in the past? Nobody can do experiments or observe past history. We have to rely on human or natural witnesses. Fossils are nature's witnesses as are radioactive rocks and light from outer space. Pyramids, cuneiform tablets, papyrus and animal skin scrolls, such as the dead sea scrolls and the books of the Bible are witnesses of human history. ALL witnesses, natural or human NEVER prove anything, but must be BELIEVED or not."
In arminw's mind the specimens are not real, they are instead "witnesses". Thus he is free to choose which witnesses he wants to believe, and the truth value that his mind assigns to those specimens can then be set lower than the truth value his mind has set for the bible and genesis/flood. All this is so that he does not have to change the model he currently has of how the world works.
That is not true. The so called evolutionary column is found NOWHERE on earth in any single spot.
Red herring.
"Earlier" life forms are at times wildly jumbled up with "later" ones, all in the same layer.
At times.
ToE is about _widely believed_ gradual change. There, fixed it for you.
Are you saying that we have not observed gradual change?
Nobody, anywhere has ever demonstrated sparrows giving birth to mockingbirds
Neither do we expect to see that.
The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that evolution doesn't happen at all, at least not the monkey to man sort.
That makes as much sense as saying:" The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that gravity doesn't happen at all, at least not the earth falling into the sun sort."
Believing that it can or did happen is OK, but it is a belief, not an observed scientific fact.
You move the goalposts all the way to exact detailed fact. That is a quite convenient rationalisation if you want to keep your belief in a young earth, a literal genesis and a global flood.
That is probably the only rationalisation you can use to keep your internal model of how the world works intact. You set the barrier for proof so high that it makes it possible for you to ignore the substantial amount of circumstantial evidence which implies that it isn't so. You eagerly grasp any tiny detail you can find that casts doubt on current scientific theory, no matter how flimsy.
Can you not understand that science is what we observe happening TODAY
That is part of science, but not the most important part. The important part is (1) the process of taking the things we observe and make reasoned guesses at how the world works and (2) then look at what those guesses imply and then go out and do observations/tests to see if those guesses have any value.
Fossils are nature's witnesses as are radioactive rocks and light from outer space. Pyramids, cuneiform tablets, papyrus and animal skin scrolls, such as the dead sea scrolls and the books of the Bible are witnesses of human history. ALL witnesses, natural or human NEVER prove anything, but must be BELIEVED or not.
Yup, as I said above - you set the standard for proof so high that in your mind there is no difference between (1) a scientific theory with heaps of supporting evidence and (2) what someone wrote in a book.
That is such a blatant misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution that I find it absolutely mind blowing.
ToE is about gradual change. We see gradual change. DNA comparisons show gradual change. The fossil record shows gradual change.
ToE does *not* say that the offspring will differ greatly from its parents. If we saw sparrows giving birth to mockingbirds, it would not be a proof of ToE - it would be the exact opposite.
But then again, if you manage to misunderstand so thoroughly what ToE actually says then I really see no reason to continue this attempt at having a reasoned discussion with you.
At the very least, it has provided me with a good example of the rationalisation that happens in the mind of someone who feels that his childhood beliefs are under attack.
..Science at the very least has the advantage of having some system to the guesswork..
Actually science is NOT t all guesswork. It is based on present observations and experiments, done in real time, TODAY!
I notice that you conveniently didn't address my point that science sets strict scrutiny standards to how they deal with their guesses.
You observe something or test something in the lab. You make a guess based on those facts. Then comes the crucial step - you look at this guess and then ask "what else would we expect to see if the guess is correct?". Then you go back to the lab or out in the field to see if the new facts you uncover fits with the guess or not. See the link to The Scientific Theory that I included in my previous post for a more detailed description of the process.
That second step - the "what else would we expect to see" and then going out and looking for those other facts is what is conspicuously missing from your guesswork like "c-decay" or "earth's rotational axis was altered during the flood". Hence, the trust one would apply to those guesses is small because they lack corroborating evidence. Not to mention that those theories have significant problems that have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner.
Scientific guesses only gets elevated to scientific theory once the guess has been poked and prodded at from every angle possible for us to do by doing work in the lab or going out and observing facts.
*that* is the main reason that you don't see ID in school textbooks. They have not done this meticulous work of testing their guesses in every way possible.
If it is rare, then how is it that there is virtually no place on earth that does NOT have fossils?
Time? Oh, I forgot. "Time" is a dirty word, and any attempts at measuring age is assumptions.
Whole trees, including the leaves are found
Polystrate fossil
I'll get back to you on the rest, don't have time now.
There is no LAW of physics that demands ALL such numbers should remain absolutely constant throughout all time.
If you CHANGE those numbers, you CHANGE a lot of things. Ranging from chemical and nuclear reactions to gravity. The EFFECT of those numbers being DIFFERENT in the past would be OBSERVABLE today.
It can be slowed down and sped up in the laboratory at will. The speed of light clearly depends on the medium through which travels.
Yes. I have no problem with that. It is the change of c in vacuum that I have a problem with.
Anyway. Let's say it was true. That would explain the red-shift, but a secondary effect is that we would see stars and galaxies orbiting slower than we would expect. Do we see that?
People are going to go to hell for calling God a liar. You don't like to be labeled a liar, so why should God. If you tell someone something and they tell you that they do not believe you, that is what you are really doing, calling them a liar.
Sorry, I find it incredibly hard to believe in a deceitful god.
One fundamental evolutionary belief is in the uniformity of natural processes throughout vast ages of time.
Is there any evidence to the contrary?
If you believe that radioactive decay, c, Planck's constant etc varied over time then do some SCIENCE. That is, the article you linked to shows some statistical likelihood of c-Decay. A proper scientific approach to this ASSUMPTION/THEORY of C-decay would require developing this theory further - what effects could we expect to see of this change? WHAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT compared to a C-constant universe? Would it be possible to OBSERVE ANY OF THESE DIFFERENCES today?
If you want c-decay to be part of textbooks, you need to do that research. You have to look at all the angles of this ASSUMPTION and come up with as many ways as possible to TEST this assumption.
One look at the cratered moon and mars, as well as plenty of evidence on earth shows anything BUT a smooth gentle history.
Asteroid impacts is one thing. Claiming that the basic laws of physics has changed over time is not even on the same scale.
Another belief is that huge quantities of time can accomplish what nobody has ever done in the lab or observed happening today.
Same would apply for the Grand Canyon.
I've covered fossils elsewhere, *snip*.
Scientists have experimented with innumerable generations of creatures, such as the Drosophila fruit flies. However they have never succeeded making anything other than more fruit flies. People have bred dogs for centuries, but all they have ever produced is more dogs.
Bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotica. Wolves have become dogs. Do you disagree that this shows that "microevolution" works?
"Macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over a longer time span, there is nothing special required. The time required makes it nigh impossible to recreate the Grand Canyon in the lab, but the processes required to make a canyon like that are understood and we can see and test this on the small scale.
The same goes for turning a bear into something else. It would take lots of time, but the process of evolution is understood and we can see and test this on the small scale.
The biblical statement that living things were made to reproduce "after their own kind" has NEVER been contradicted by any scientific fact. The theory of evolution, is an INTERPRETATION of facts based on assumptions (beliefs).
The pastafarian statement that water was commanded to "never dig deep" has NEVER been contradicted by any scientific fact. The theory of river canyons, is an INTERPRETATION of facts based on assumptions / beliefs.
Evolution gives a way out for people to deceive themselves about the possibility of having to face this God.
Rrrrright.. Because accepting evolution does for some reason automagically mean atheism which means nihilism which leads to... [insert litany of all the horrible things man would do if they did not have the Damocles Sword of Eternal Damnation hanging over their heads or the Carrot of Paradise to keep them on the narrow path].
Do you really believe that man is not capable of being good and moral without a longbeard in the sky watching them? That is a horrible thing to think of your fellow human beings!
That is the time when the atomic clocks began to be used for the time base for this. The clocks change exactly the same as the quantity to be measured.
So the speed of oscillation of caesium atoms changed at the same rate that the speed of light in a vacuum does? Sounds like a convenient radom event to me.
Besides, how would this change in atomic clocks not be detected by comparing it to other potential sources of time. Or did those happen to change at the same rate too?
We KNOW that light is affected by the medium it traverses. [..] Recently there were headlines even, that light has been slowed to crawl in the lab.
That is true. So?
Space is not an empty nothing, but has electromagnetic properties that HAVE to change as space expands. The fact is that space is not expanding much any longer
Source? Or is this an assumption? ;-p
There is no way we can actually MEASURE the distances to objects using trigonometry more than a few light years away. The biggest base we have is the orbit of the earth.
Correct. Parallax works out to about 200ly.
That is a very tiny distance compared to the galaxy dimensions. The angles become simply too small to measure. The stated distances are arrived at by brightness comparisons and the Hubble red-shift = distance assumption.
Not quite. We usually use Cepheid variables. You use stars that are close enough for parallax distance measurement for calibration.
Red-shift really only tells you how fast they are moving, and while there is a relationship between the amount of shift and distance we shouldn't use that alone.
Creationists forget that the main purpose of the Bible is not to give us an accurate account of how God did things, but to tell us of His love and what plans he has for mankind.
Agreed. So why do you insist on a quite literal interpretation of genesis and the flood?
When it comes to the past, only someone who was actually there can give us an accurate account of what REALLY happened.
Just one sec, I need to change the battery of my camcorder before I go for a trip in my time machine.
While absolute concrete utterly non-disputable evidence is hard to come by, there is more circumstantial evidence out there than you seem to believe.
Since God doesn't give us any where near as much detail as we'd like, both sides have to do a lot of guesswork.
Science at the very least has the advantage of having some system to the guesswork. Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
To tilt axis of the earth does not require a direct collision. A close pass by of a massive object could do that.
Did you ever play with one of those toy gyroscopes as a child? The forces required are immense. If you think otherwise, show me the math please.
We are told that the flood was a very violent event.
We are also told that it was survivable by some folks and animals in a boat, so that puts an upper limit on the forces that could have been at play here.
Second, after the flood the rainbow is specifically mentioned as a new thing which signified God's promise to Noah to never flood the earth again like that. If Noah had been familiar with rain and rainbows, or in fact have ever seen either one before, that would be a nonsensical statement.
Rainbows can also be seen in water mist (say for example by a waterfall or by spray mist as waves hit the beach). If he had never seen rainbows before he (1) either lived inland and had never seen rain before and/or (2) the Creator somehow altered the laws of physics to change the properties of reflection/refraction when light hits water droplets.
One obvious problem with (1) is that it would have been horribly dry, how would anything be able to live if there was no rain.
(2) I find so silly it is hard to know where to start. Anyway, if you believe that people in a boat can survive the forces (roughly the force of an object 1/1000 the mass of earth hitting it with a speed of 170,000 mph) required to alter the tilt of the earth from 0deg to 23.4deg then I suppose the idea of God changing physics like that at the flick of his hand doesn't seem so outlandish either.
(...One more - How would you explain that fossils of creature A only show up in strata A while fossils of creature B only show up in strata B if all fossils were created in a single event?...)
Again, you assume that this flood was like what we experience today when a river rises over its banks.
No, I assume that it was quite a cataclysmic event, especially if it was also the same event that changed the tilt of earth's axis.
When the flowing waters finally slowed down, they dropped everything in thousands of feet deep mud flows.
Did you misunderstand my question? The event you describe would lead to fossils of all different creatures being mixed up in a single layer. My question was why we see *separate layers* with *no mixing of creatures of different types between the layers*. That is, in the fossil record we find "spotted pertussis" only in layer 1 and at the same time find "coffee-stained keyboardog" only in layer 2. If this all happened in a single event, we would expect to find the s.pertussis and c-s.keyb. in all layers.
In your next post, please explain to me how to make a fossil. Please be sure to explain how you propose to prevent decay.
Mind if I quote instead of writing it out myself?
Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that lived for a long time. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.
Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.
Types of preservation
[edit] Permineralization
A permineralized trilobite, Asaphus kowalewskii
A permineralized trilobite, Asaphus kowalewskii
Permineralization occurs after burial, as the empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater and the minerals precipitate from the groundwater, thus occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. This is a form of diagenesis.
External mold of a bivalve from the Logan Formation, Lower Carboniferous, Ohio.
External mold of a bivalve from the Logan Formation, Lower Carboniferous, Ohio.
[edit] Casts and molds
In some cases the original remains of the organism have been completely dissolved or otherwise destroyed. When all that is left is an organism-shaped hole in the rock, it is called an external mold. If this hole is later filled with other minerals, it is a cast. An internal mold is formed when sediments or minerals fill the internal cavity of an organism, such as the inside of a bivalve or snail.
[edit] Replacement and recrystallization
Replacement occurs when the shell, bone or other tissue is replaced with another mineral. In some cases mineral replacement of the original shell occurs so gradually and at such fine scales that microstructural features are preserved despite the total loss of original material. A shell is said to be recrystallized when the original skeletal minerals are still present but in a different crystal form, as from aragonite to calcite.
[edit] Compression fossils
Compression fossils, such as those of fossil ferns, are the result of chemical reduction of the complex organic molecules composing the organism's tissues. In this case the fossil consists of original material, albeit in a geochemically altered state. Often what remains is a carbonaceous film. This chemical change is an expression of diagenesis.
[edit] Bioimmuration
The star-shaped holes (Catellocaula vallata) in this Upper Ordovician bryozoan represent a soft-bodied organism preserved by bioimmuration in the bryozoan skeleton.
The star-shaped holes (Catellocaula vallata) in this Upper Ordovician bryozoan represent a
We are also told in the flood account of the Bible, that it was only after this event, that seasons as we have today, spring, summer, winter and fall began. The reason we have seasons in the first place is because the axis of the earth is now tilted at about 23 degrees in relation to the plane of the Earth's orbit. There is no way to know exactly what immense forces were at work to cause the axis of the earth to be realigned this way. Perhaps, a planet sized object came close. This would put tremendous pressure from gravitational forces on the entire Earth, squeezing it like a sponge, thus releasing immense quantities of stored water. Furthermore, this water would have been boiling hot.
Do you have any idea of the force required to move the axis of the earth like that? The current best supported theory is that the earth's tilt was changed by a giant object that collided with the earth and created the moon. We are talking close to shattering the earth into pieces scale energies here. If this happened in fairly recent time, it would be ludicrous not to expect to find geological evidence of this all over the earth. It would be ludicrous to even think that our ancestors would be able to survive such an event.
Not to mention, where is the geological evidence for the flood? If a global flood occurred, we would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place within a mere 4,000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.
There is plenty of evidence that the earth itself also had a very violent history.
Some of that was extremely long ago (e.g., the event that created the moon). In more recent history, the only thing that comes even within shooting distance of the force required for a global flood (let alone something big enough to alter the earth's tilt) would be the K-T event at an estimated 65mill years ago. Such an event within biblical time would be sure to leave physical evidence behind.
Fossils were made in a sudden unimaginable water catastrophe.
Yeah. Sure it is. Lack of supporting evidence. Lack of even having an inkling of understanding the forces that would be required.
One more - How would you explain that fossils of creature A only show up in strata A while fossils of creature B only show up in strata B if all fossils were created in a single event?
None of this is allowed to be put into a textbook used in public schools.
And you should thank your maker it isn't in there. The US educational system would be a laughing stock for decades.
Only the gradualist interpretations of evolution are permitted, in spite of all the evidence of violent sudden catastrophe.
WHAT EVIDENCE?
A couple of comments on c decreasing:
Once fairly accurate measurements of c became available (post 1960), the supposed c decay seems to vanish. So, he uses the measurements of c pre-60 (which have huge potential errors) to build the case for his decaying c argument but his proposed graph conveniently levels off post-60.
A decaying c would also have wide ranging effects, which we should be able to observe today. For one, e=mc^2. With a higher c, chemical reactions would release more energy than it does today. Not to mention that it would alter the fine structure constant (α = vH/c), which we would definitely be able to observe the effects of (the temperature of stars depends strongly on α, so we should be able to detect even a slight change - one of which is that we would have been bbq'd by the sun in the 1000 or so years after genesis).
And that's only scratching the surface of the changes that c-decay would imply, change one of the basic values of physics and lots of stuff happens.
Oh, and it would be interesting to see how one would reconcile this with the idea of c-decay.
There is NO law of physics that says that the speed of light MUST be constant.
That is true, as far as I know. However, that is not the same as saying that the effects of this historic change of c would not be DETECTABLE today.
Go ahead and ask five evolutionsts to describe how life began on this planet, and you'll hear two or three different stories (most popular, of course, is lightning bolt striking primordial soup). It's constantly changing. It should change, of course, as data is presented to get a more accurate picture, but it shouldn't be heralded as the answer (or even scientific) when they can't claim any basis of observation as to what actually happened. Until then, it's a ship caught in a storm without a rudder.
You might have missed the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not contain an explanation of abiogenesis. ToE is a theory of how life evolves once life exists.
If you ask "evolutionists" (whatever that is) about how life started, you are obviously going to get a lot of different answers. And that is simply because there is no coherent tested theory of that yet, so what you get from them are thought experiments and their current best guesses.
That abiogenesis is still in the dark does however not mean that ToE itself is "caught in a storm without a rudder".
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred. Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells.
Atheism eventually leads to nihilism.
Oh, that old argument again. "In the absence of faith, man will just revert to this lawless beast that only thinks of himself and has no regard for others."
Those that believe that must have such a horribly sad view of humanity. It is a puzzle to me why they have so little faith in humanity that they believe that we need a constant Damocles Sword of Eternal Damnation hanging over our heads in order to keep us on the narrow path and Paradise as a carrot to keep us from depression and suicide.
There must be something utterly broken in the minds of those that have so little faith in their fellow humans.
Could you please answer my very basic questions instead of using every opportunity to ignore them and instead go on another rant about the unfairness of religion not being allowed in science class?
Again:
What are these facts that has "god did it" as a plausible interpretation? Please be as specific as you can.
Where do you have "This would include scientists [..] DO believe in God" from? Is it your assertion that scientists that have a personal belief in religion is for some reason banned from writing science textbooks? If so, I would have to ask for supporting evidence.
We DO have some evidence that the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space itself have indeed changed dramatically over time.
Source?
One of these is Planck's constant which is measured to be smaller today than when it was first measured.
Source?
There is evidence from past light-speed measurements using a gravity time-base, which have shown a decrease since such measurements were first done in the early 1600s.
Which measurements? You know, this would be so much easier if you would do the very basic courtesy of providing sources for your assertions.
If a ruler elongates at the same rate as a distance to be measured by it, the distance will always be measured to be the same, even though it really is changing.
Though it would be possible to measure the changes of the ruler. For one, if you elongate it enough it would simply break apart because the molecules in the ruler would be too far apart for the intermolecular bonding forces to hold them together. That is, unless you also assume that the inter- and intra-molecular forces change accordingly.
Since Planck's "constant" appears in equations describing the behavior of atoms, radioactive clocks must also be affected.
But it does not follow that it would affect other kinds of clocks, and even if it did it might not affect them to the same degree. If we were to compare these clocks, it would be fairly straight forward to discover that something funky is going on with the atomic clock.
It is also a FACT that all fossils, without a single exception are found in sedimentary rocks.
Not really surprising, considering that the other forms of rock (igneous and metamorphic) are formed in a way that would destroy any fossils contained therein.
These are rocks formed by the action of water.
Not strictly. It is caused by particles carried in suspension (which would in most instances mean water in some form, be it from rain, in rivers, ice sheets melting, etc) and then deposited over time. It does not mean that sedimentary rocks are only formed when below the sea level.
The same FACT that there are fossils only in sedimentary layers is interpreted by God believing creation scientists to be caused by a world wide, sudden universal flood catastrophe.
How would this "interpretation" account for fossils found in different sedimentary layers? If fossils were trapped all at once by a single universal flood, you would expect to only find fossils in a single layer.
Besides, how long did this global flood last? Sedimentary rock does take some time to form. Besides, if these sediments were deposited on land and the water then retracted, this sedimentary layer would be on the surface of the earth and would likely just erode away by the action of wind and rain.
However, this equally valid scientific interpretation is NOT allowed to be even mentioned in American Schools by LAW.
That could perhaps have something to do with even a simple layman like me being able to find problems with this "interpretation" by no more than a cursory glance and 10 minutes with Google?
Seriously, you want this taught as valid interpretations in science class in schools? If you were successful in getting this into the curriculum, I think it would do more damage to the credibility of Christianity than it would gain you new converts.
Of course we know nothing about what kind of people they are, what kind of families they have, what cars they drive etc.
Are you purposefully trying to miss the point, did I trig some sort of mental block?
To rephrase my point - we know humans to the point where we have a reasonably good grasp of our mental capabilities, what kind of tools we had available at different times in history, what government/social structures we had (or were likely to have), what motives and incentives we might have had, etc..
The purpose of this is so that when we are presented with an artefact and ask the question "did Man make this?" we have a large amount of background material that can help us decide the likely answer for this question. First of all, would man - at that point in time - have the required tools to make this artefact? Second, would he have any likely motive for making it? Continue down this line of questions for every property of the artefact and what was known about humans at the time and place the artefact was made.
On the other hand - An attempt to do the same line of reasoning with "did intelligent designer make it?" to something like the flagellum would be an exercise in futility. We simply don't know enough (or anything at all) about this supposed intelligent designer to make any sort of reasoned judgement as to whether this intelligent designer made the artefact or not.
These predictions of the future in the Bible are not vague or self-fulfilling, but quite specific of events, places and times and NEVER miss
Ok, now I definitely know that you are either trolling or so brain-addled that you are in dire need of professional help. Never miss? The end-times have been proclaimed how many times exactly? Oh, or were those foretold by people not following the right kind of Christianity?
Huh? The supernatural is orthogonal to science. It is not part of science, never has been, never should be.
Secular humanism is certainly not taught in science class either. I certainly don't remember a single instance of being taught ethical philosophy in science class when I went to school. Secular humanism might have science and the scientific method as part or their core beliefs, but that does not make teaching science the same as teaching secular humanism. If you disagree, please provide *specific* examples.
Any interpretations of the facts of science where God, Intelligence or the supernatural is mentioned, is officially and legally disallowed.
As it should be. What part of church and state is so difficult to grasp? If you want to enumerate scientific facts and then proclaim religious interpretations of those facts, isn't the church a large enough soap box to preach it from?
Ah. So you you are not arguing god-of-the-gaps after all, you are arguing "teach the controversy".
What are these facts that has "god did it" as a plausible interpretation? Please be as specific as you can.
Also remember that if you open for Christian interpretations in science text books you also open for all interpretations.
Besides, where do you have "This would include scientists [..] DO believe in God" from? Is it your assertion that scientists that have a personal belief in religion is for some reason banned from writing science textbooks? If so, I would have to ask for supporting evidence.
The Supreme Court has misinterpreted the founders edict on freedom OF religion into a interpretation of freedom FROM religion.
Opinions differ on that matter. From what I can tell, the majority opinion seems to be that the establishment clause means the separation of church and state.
but they are all based on the _assumption_ that the rate of radioactivity has always been what we observe it to be today. Again, this may be a valid assumption, but it is still an assumption
But where should one draw a line on these assumptions? We have seen nothing so far to indicate that decay rates have changed over time (including analysis of spectra of supernovas) so it seems like a reasonable assumption to make.
We also make the assumption that our senses don't (intentionally) lie to us and thus most of us assume that we are not used as biological batteries with our brains plugged into the Matrix.
We have to draw the line somewhere, because if we take the path of doubting every assumption would have us all in catatonic state because we would be unable to trust anything at all.
In most cases we feel fairly comfortable with making assumptions when we have a considerable amount of facts that seem to support the assumption and a lack of contradicting facts - even when actively looking for contradicting facts.
So my question would be - where do you draw that line?
In a sense, the interpretations (not the facts) of science are based as much on faith as any religion.
As opposed to certain religions, science does at the very least allow for their interpretations to change. That is pretty much the only "tenet" that science has - that current interpretations are not holy and that if facts are found that contradict current interpretation, then the interpretation must change to fit the facts.
The same evidences of design can be found in human systems and devices, is also present in the systems and devices that exist in the natural world.
Sorry, no. (Or in your words, "pure BS")
We know humans. We can study them and get a reasonably good assurance that they are intelligent. We also can tell what other properties they have, like their ability to make and use tools and their ability to organise to make works that would require more than one human. We also have a reasonably complete written record of at least some of human history. Not to mention the remains of human artefacts, which would indicate that humans inhabited a particular place at a particular time.
Using that knowledge, it isn't that difficult to infer that Stonehenge, the pyramids, the stone faces of mt. Rushmore or the Easter Island stone statues were made by man.
When it comes to God, we have hardly any such knowledge. We can't exactly ask him to step into a lab so we can test his cognitive abilities or what tools he has available for shaping the world. How, then, can we make any reasoned argument whether any systems or devices that exist in the natural world are God-made?
To say "sorry, we don't know how that could happen by purely causal mechanisms" is not the same as "God must have done it". That is just the faulty argument of god-of-the-gaps. It tells us to infer design when we have ruled out all the chance (i.e. non-design) hypotheses we can think of. The design hypothesis says nothing whatsoever about the identity, nature, aims, capabilities or methods of the designer. It just says, in effect, "a designer did it".
"and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was."
"Stood over". Unlike genesis, this is not intended to be taken literally then?
...How is science the same as secular humanism...
Science itself isn't, but some of the interpretations of scientific facts are foundational doctrines or beliefs of secular humanism.
Could you give a few examples of these, specifically examples of these being taught in science class?
*rolleyes*
You are really good at missing the point, arent't you?