That's the subjective time for the hammer, silly. In the absolute, objective frame of reference--mine--time progresses at the same rate for both the hammer and the feather.
Don't you remember anything from your college physics class? Sheesh! Kids these days.
As a matter of fact, I've heard of incidents where people took samples from living animals, for example, a mollusk, and the dating shows them as being many thousands of years old.
Dude, you need to spend more time researching the arguments you try to present.
First, I'll tell you that I myself am a Young Earth Creationist. Keep that in mind when you read the next sentence:
The "living mollusk" attack on carbon-14 dating is one of the most dramatically fallacious displays of ignorance in the entire Creation/Evolution debate.
Remember that part about me being a Young Earth Creationist, and try to open your mind to the possibility that you're using a very bad argument. Now read on.
The problem with it is that it's not anomalous, to a mainstream geologist. A prerequisite for carbon dating is that the object in question must derive its carbon from the atmosphere. If a C14 technician knows, as with mollusks, that the carbon in the object (the mollusk shell) is absorbed from mineral deposits, he will predict that the C14 age will be rather old. He will know that he isn't measuring the age of the mollusk, but something like the age of the mineral deposits in the mollusk's environment. (Think of it this way: It's like saying that radiometric dating must be wrong because it says that Mount Rushmore is older than a century.)
Basically, you're trying to disprove a hypothesis by reporting that one of its predictions have been verified!
Look into this some more for yourself, verify what I'm telling you. When you realize that you were spouting nonsense, take a good look at whether you're being sufficiently critical of the creationist resources you're reading. Double-check anything you read. (If you got that one from Kent Hovind, well, triple-check anything that guy says.) If you don't want to make creationists look like they don't know the first thing about the arguments they're using...well, you need to learn the first thing about the arguments you're using, and make sure they're not built on ignorance.
(Note: On the C14, you can question whether there's a good general criteria for deciding whether to assume that an object got its carbon from the atmosphere. But you still look like an idiot when you present the "living mollusk" thing as though it's anomalous.)
It's a follow-up. Adams' thesis is not that the arguments against ID are weakened, but that the misrepresentations he points to make it difficult and/or impossible for the average Joe to find a credible source for those arguments.
PZ declares that no one has EVER argued against the young earth argument to refute ID, except for uninformed people. My very POINT was that that argument comes from uninformed people, by definition. And I've heard it three times in the past month. If he's wrong about this, and completely certain of his rightness, how can I trust his certainty on any other topic even when he IS right?
>> "Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism.
>Generally, perhaps, but not exclusively.
>You can't show that ID isn't creationism by showing that it doesn't specify what a subset of creationism specifies.
To the best of my knowledge, "creationism" has always referred to some variety of either YEC or OEC. That's not a hard-and-fast technical rule, but I do believe it correctly describes the primary use of the term.
The reason I see a meaningful distinction between creationism and ID is that a creationist does not have to believe a single ID argument, and an IDer doesn't have to believe a single creationist argument. To be a creationist is to believe something about the age of the earth, or that life was created in sweeping, fiat, "the animals appeared miraculously" manners. A creationist does not have to believe that random mutation + natural selection + genetic drift + etc could not reasonably account for the type of life that we see. And to be an IDer, you have to believe that there are particular features of life that require intelligent input to have come into existence.
In short, creationism does not require ID arguments to be correct, and ID arguments don't involve any of the primary claims of creationism.
Please realize, I'm not saying this to try to make ID acceptable for public schools, or some such. I'm not saying that ID is valid science. I'm just talking about definitions of terms, as best I know them.
>That is correct. However, if you visit talk.origins you'll find that the theistic evolutionists unanimously reject the sort of ID that has become popular in the USA over the past couple of decades as a result of the "missionary work" of the Discovery Institute. It's nothing but pseudoscience to make creationists feel like science supports their views (whatever variety they may be).
What an odd thing to say. "The theistic evolutionists" reject ID? How do you think that was determined? A poll? Or are you simply saying that self-identified TEs who post articles at talk.origins (.org, or USENET?) don't post articles supporting ID? If so, do you really think that enables you to make this kind of sweeping generalization?
Scott Adams has an idiotic take on it. He's telling us that supporters of evolution and ID need to listen to the other. But why should we listen to supporters of ID when ID is not science?
ID makes no testable claims. Without testable claims, it cannot be science. It is only about criticising evolution.
Dude, you didn't read his blog. Your eyes might have been pointed at a screen with it, but you didn't read it.
He didn't say evolutionists should listen to IDers. He said that evolutionists tend to misrepresent ID arguments, so it's hard for an average Joe to find a credible source for evolutionist debunking of ID arguments--one that actually deals with ID arguments as they're stated, and not with strawmen.
Even if you still disagree with Adams, at least get his argument right. (Oh, how ironic.)
Technically, you are correct. Theistic Evolution can be considered Intelligent Design in that it requires an intelligent designer.
Um, I think you misunderstand. TE can mean that God stepped in and miraculously tweaked the processes of evolution as a way of guiding it to where He wanted it to go. Or not; it can mean that God used only the naturalistic processes of evolution to create life. The first type is compatible with ID, though it doesn't require ID.
"There is an intelligent designer" is not ID. "We see features that require an intelligent designer" is ID.
In practice, ID as a movement and AS IT IS CURRENTLY USED is a tool for Creationists, nothing more. It does not allow for understanding or acceptance of evolution.
There are more creationists than non-creationist IDers. Creationist use of ID arguments will have a much higher profile, simply from that fact. And that fact is enough to account for your perception.
The difference is in common ancestry and the ages of the earth & universe.
"Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism. And, sometimes, Old Earth Creationism, which has an old Earth but says that God made life directly.
ID is about saying that there are features of the life we see that point to design, generally by saying that the features are too complex. This can include Theistic Evolutionists, if they believe that God stepped in to tweak the evolutionary process in key places. ID says nothing about common ancestry or the ages of the earth & universe.
That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.
That looks like a load of bull to me. That is, the extent to which decisions like Roe v. Wade depend on "loose construction" or "living document" notions is the extent to which the decisions are not based on what the Constitution says, but rather on the personal stances of judges or on their perception of the stances of the majority of the population.
By my count, the page you cite only indicates that the Thomas Jefferson quote is bogus:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Mind you, it's annoying that the grandparent didn't provide references. I'm too lazy to track them down.
Could Jesus possibly have expressed clearer approval of "blind faith" than by saying, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"?
The context, by the way, is that the apostle Thomas has been told that Jesus has risen from the grave, but (understandably, I think) is not convinced until he sees and touches Jesus himself. Jesus is scolding Thomas for his empiricism, and praising the blind faith of his other followers.
What other followers? Verse 20 of the same chapter says:
And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
In other words, Thomas wasn't really distinct from the others.
But that doesn't address what Jesus did mean by believe without seeing. So look at the broader context. Specifically, look at the way Jesus had told his disciples ahead of time that he would die and be resurrected. He did it once in Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31-32, and Luke 9:22, and then later in Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 10:32-34, and Luke 18:31-34. He told them he would be coming back the third day, and they had plenty of reason to take him at his word--they'd even seen him raise Lazarus. And yet, they didn't believe him.
That's the background of Jesus castigizing Thomas. It's not that he wouldn't believe without evidence, it's that he wouldn't believe the sufficient evidence he'd been given.
Just to be clear about this context:
I'm talking about the meaning of a particular word in the Bible. It's a translation thing. The word for "faith" does not in any way mean "blind belief". Meaning, the Bible doesn't call anyone to blind acceptance.
That's all.
Don't be so quick to jump on a "bash the fundies" bandwagon that you inadvertantly set up straw-men.
Um, huh?
How do you get that from my post?
Did you see the part where I said, "Anyone who rejects evidence on the basis of their 'faith' to the contrary is an unmitigated idiot, and they're not using a Christian definition of faith."
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly. "Conjugating" in public like that. Sicko. I don't know what Slashdot is coming to!
That's the subjective time for the hammer, silly. In the absolute, objective frame of reference--mine--time progresses at the same rate for both the hammer and the feather.
Don't you remember anything from your college physics class? Sheesh! Kids these days.
Crap, they did mod you down. Never mind. They do care.
Psst. No one actually cares.
As a matter of fact, I've heard of incidents where people took samples from living animals, for example, a mollusk, and the dating shows them as being many thousands of years old.
Dude, you need to spend more time researching the arguments you try to present.
First, I'll tell you that I myself am a Young Earth Creationist. Keep that in mind when you read the next sentence:
The "living mollusk" attack on carbon-14 dating is one of the most dramatically fallacious displays of ignorance in the entire Creation/Evolution debate.
Remember that part about me being a Young Earth Creationist, and try to open your mind to the possibility that you're using a very bad argument. Now read on.
The problem with it is that it's not anomalous, to a mainstream geologist. A prerequisite for carbon dating is that the object in question must derive its carbon from the atmosphere. If a C14 technician knows, as with mollusks, that the carbon in the object (the mollusk shell) is absorbed from mineral deposits, he will predict that the C14 age will be rather old. He will know that he isn't measuring the age of the mollusk, but something like the age of the mineral deposits in the mollusk's environment. (Think of it this way: It's like saying that radiometric dating must be wrong because it says that Mount Rushmore is older than a century.)
Basically, you're trying to disprove a hypothesis by reporting that one of its predictions have been verified!
Look into this some more for yourself, verify what I'm telling you. When you realize that you were spouting nonsense, take a good look at whether you're being sufficiently critical of the creationist resources you're reading. Double-check anything you read. (If you got that one from Kent Hovind, well, triple-check anything that guy says.) If you don't want to make creationists look like they don't know the first thing about the arguments they're using...well, you need to learn the first thing about the arguments you're using, and make sure they're not built on ignorance.
(Note: On the C14, you can question whether there's a good general criteria for deciding whether to assume that an object got its carbon from the atmosphere. But you still look like an idiot when you present the "living mollusk" thing as though it's anomalous.)
Ah, there's the problem. I was looking at the link provided by the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent:
0 05/11/intelligent_des_1.html
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2
It's a follow-up. Adams' thesis is not that the arguments against ID are weakened, but that the misrepresentations he points to make it difficult and/or impossible for the average Joe to find a credible source for those arguments.
From the blog:
PZ declares that no one has EVER argued against the young earth argument to refute ID, except for uninformed people. My very POINT was that that argument comes from uninformed people, by definition. And I've heard it three times in the past month. If he's wrong about this, and completely certain of his rightness, how can I trust his certainty on any other topic even when he IS right?
So, what is the "real" ID argument that scientists haven't debunked?
Did I (or he) say there is one?
Read the blog, man. Learn what he actually said before you spout off.
Did you read his blog, where he responds that exact criticism?
>> "Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism.
>Generally, perhaps, but not exclusively.
>You can't show that ID isn't creationism by showing that it doesn't specify what a subset of creationism specifies.
To the best of my knowledge, "creationism" has always referred to some variety of either YEC or OEC. That's not a hard-and-fast technical rule, but I do believe it correctly describes the primary use of the term.
The reason I see a meaningful distinction between creationism and ID is that a creationist does not have to believe a single ID argument, and an IDer doesn't have to believe a single creationist argument. To be a creationist is to believe something about the age of the earth, or that life was created in sweeping, fiat, "the animals appeared miraculously" manners. A creationist does not have to believe that random mutation + natural selection + genetic drift + etc could not reasonably account for the type of life that we see. And to be an IDer, you have to believe that there are particular features of life that require intelligent input to have come into existence.
In short, creationism does not require ID arguments to be correct, and ID arguments don't involve any of the primary claims of creationism.
Please realize, I'm not saying this to try to make ID acceptable for public schools, or some such. I'm not saying that ID is valid science. I'm just talking about definitions of terms, as best I know them.
>That is correct. However, if you visit talk.origins you'll find that the theistic evolutionists unanimously reject the sort of ID that has become popular in the USA over the past couple of decades as a result of the "missionary work" of the Discovery Institute. It's nothing but pseudoscience to make creationists feel like science supports their views (whatever variety they may be).
What an odd thing to say. "The theistic evolutionists" reject ID? How do you think that was determined? A poll? Or are you simply saying that self-identified TEs who post articles at talk.origins (.org, or USENET?) don't post articles supporting ID? If so, do you really think that enables you to make this kind of sweeping generalization?
Scott Adams has an idiotic take on it. He's telling us that supporters of evolution and ID need to listen to the other. But why should we listen to supporters of ID when ID is not science?
ID makes no testable claims. Without testable claims, it cannot be science. It is only about criticising evolution.
Dude, you didn't read his blog. Your eyes might have been pointed at a screen with it, but you didn't read it.
He didn't say evolutionists should listen to IDers. He said that evolutionists tend to misrepresent ID arguments, so it's hard for an average Joe to find a credible source for evolutionist debunking of ID arguments--one that actually deals with ID arguments as they're stated, and not with strawmen.
Even if you still disagree with Adams, at least get his argument right. (Oh, how ironic.)
Technically, you are correct. Theistic Evolution can be considered Intelligent Design in that it requires an intelligent designer.
Um, I think you misunderstand. TE can mean that God stepped in and miraculously tweaked the processes of evolution as a way of guiding it to where He wanted it to go. Or not; it can mean that God used only the naturalistic processes of evolution to create life. The first type is compatible with ID, though it doesn't require ID.
"There is an intelligent designer" is not ID. "We see features that require an intelligent designer" is ID.
In practice, ID as a movement and AS IT IS CURRENTLY USED is a tool for Creationists, nothing more. It does not allow for understanding or acceptance of evolution.
There are more creationists than non-creationist IDers. Creationist use of ID arguments will have a much higher profile, simply from that fact. And that fact is enough to account for your perception.
The difference is in common ancestry and the ages of the earth & universe.
"Creationism" generally refers to Young Earth Creationism. And, sometimes, Old Earth Creationism, which has an old Earth but says that God made life directly.
ID is about saying that there are features of the life we see that point to design, generally by saying that the features are too complex. This can include Theistic Evolutionists, if they believe that God stepped in to tweak the evolutionary process in key places. ID says nothing about common ancestry or the ages of the earth & universe.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. We may have to wait for the stupid people to die off.
That's why abortion remains legal in this country. Regardless of whether or not you feel abortion is a sin, or morally repugnant, or whatever, abortion seems to be allowed by the Constitution.
That looks like a load of bull to me. That is, the extent to which decisions like Roe v. Wade depend on "loose construction" or "living document" notions is the extent to which the decisions are not based on what the Constitution says, but rather on the personal stances of judges or on their perception of the stances of the majority of the population.
The reason being is? The reason being is? Bad monkey. No banana.
By my count, the page you cite only indicates that the Thomas Jefferson quote is bogus: "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Mind you, it's annoying that the grandparent didn't provide references. I'm too lazy to track them down.
You left off the best one! - Data and R2D2 have a romantic liaison. ("Geordi, C3P0, go find out where those loud beeps and whistles are coming from!")
We bought a company out of fear and called in Macradobe!
I know that somebody can figure out more lyrics on this. It is 4/20 after all.
The second line doesn't fit the tune at all!
I'm a herring you insensitive cod!
But that doesn't address what Jesus did mean by believe without seeing. So look at the broader context. Specifically, look at the way Jesus had told his disciples ahead of time that he would die and be resurrected. He did it once in Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31-32, and Luke 9:22, and then later in Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 10:32-34, and Luke 18:31-34. He told them he would be coming back the third day, and they had plenty of reason to take him at his word--they'd even seen him raise Lazarus. And yet, they didn't believe him.
That's the background of Jesus castigizing Thomas. It's not that he wouldn't believe without evidence, it's that he wouldn't believe the sufficient evidence he'd been given.
Just to be clear about this context: I'm talking about the meaning of a particular word in the Bible. It's a translation thing. The word for "faith" does not in any way mean "blind belief". Meaning, the Bible doesn't call anyone to blind acceptance. That's all. Don't be so quick to jump on a "bash the fundies" bandwagon that you inadvertantly set up straw-men.
"I will use the preview button for all posts."
Pardon me while I go type that 100 times.
I am referring to #2. You are referring to #1.
Yes, you're referring to #2. Such people are indeed idiots. But #2 is not Christian faith. See my other post.
Um, huh? How do you get that from my post? Did you see the part where I said, "Anyone who rejects evidence on the basis of their 'faith' to the contrary is an unmitigated idiot, and they're not using a Christian definition of faith."