....or the speed of light was not constant in the last 6000 years....
There is no law of physics that mandates a constant speed of light. We KNOW from experiments that the speed of light depends on the properties of the medium it traverses. That's how lenses work.
At Creation, the Universe and all of space was small and the electromagnetic propagation characteristics allowed light to travel at least 300 million times faster than today. It had after all to keep up with the rapid expansion of the Universe.
The alternate to the doppler interpretation of the red shift clearly shows this. Since the atomic properties are tied to the speed of light, things like radioactivity also proceeded much faster. Since any volume expansion is a cubic function, it stands to reason that the properties of space would also change in a highly nonlinear way.
From the red shift it is possible to determine that expansion ratio. Depending on when you start after the initial creation event, often called the "Big Bang", the speed of light should have been billions of times faster, in fact near infinite shortly after time=0. A ray of light could cross the entire small universe in an unimaginably small period of time.
All the refutations center on the idea that parts can be removed from a mechanism and it may still function. Another part of the so called refutation says that the existence of similar structures elsewhere, either in the same organism or similar organisms, shows that they all arose, somehow randomly and gradually. Natural selection is a plausible mechanism for driving evolution forward. This is only true if the partial change confers an advantage of survival.
By that reasoning, if someone removes two cylinders from an 8 cylinder engine, the engine evolved from a 4 cylinder model, since it still runs on only 6 cylinders.
....There are dating techniques other than radiometric dating....
I looked at that link and it, like all others assume that it is valid to extrapolate present day processes uniformly into the distant past. Any clock, such as radioactivity, based on atomic behavior, assumes a constant linear RATE of all atomically governed processes.
The properties of the atom are not independent of the properties of space. As space expanded, its electrical and magnetic properties changed greatly. The properties of atoms and the propagation of atomically generated energy would have to change with it. All atomic equations have a time unit associated with them. Scientists assume that this time unit has never changed over the vast periods of time since the Universe began.
....Geologic evidence, including radiological dating and tectonic theory...
are all based on the uniformitarian assumption (belief), that recent day processes can be extrapolated linearly and continuously back in time.
(..the Universe did start in a hot, dense state billions of years ago..)
Is based on the assumption (belief) that the observed red shift is due to the Doppler effect. It is also based on the assumption that heavenly bodies, such as planets, stars and galaxies are electrically neutral relative to each other.
There is plenty of evidence that there are immense electrical and magnetic fields throughout the universe. The super energetic cosmic radiation is made the exact same way as we make this radiation here at home. We do this by accelerating charged particles, usually electrons, and then running them into targets or deflecting them with magnetic fields.
(...the sun was much cooler billions of years ago..)
We also think we know today that the sun isn't simply a gigantic camp fire in the sky. We assert that nuclear fusion powers the sun and all stars. However, there is evidence, that this may not be the case. The sun and stars may be nothing more than giant light bulbs powered by unknown cosmic power stations sending immense electrical currents over invisible power lines millions of light years through space. In some of the "nebula" photos these streamers and paths of currents become visible. The currents from the sun also become visible to us at times in the borealis displays near the north and south poles.
....when God made the Earth he made it look much older.....
I don't think much of any God who is a deceiver like that. The Bible makes it very clear that God is truthful and would have to join all liars He sends to hell.
It is more likely that our ignorance of time and its measurement causes the confusion. Uniformitarian assumptions over time are not warranted. The fact is that the solar system, including the Earth, had a very violent history.
All dating methods assume that the processes we measure today can be extrapolated in a UNIFORM way to the distant past. We measure radioactivity and assume it has always been what we experience today. We assume the red shift is due to the doppler effect. On these two assumptions rest ALL of the dating methods that give the billions of years ages. We know that radioactivity has not changed much since science learned about this phenomenon, in the past 100 or so years. So what is a 100 years to thousands, millions or even billions of years?
....Because science is based on the assumption.....
Science is based on many assumptions (beliefs). In that sense it is no better than religion. This is especially true of the study of origins. In order to assert that the universe is 13 some odd billion years old, the time needs to be measured. To measure time, we need a clock. Any clock depends on the regular occurrence, on average, of some event or motion. These events or motions in turn are governed by fundamental forces.
Science uses the laws and motions of atoms to clock time. In the Bible, as well as in ordinary life, the law of gravity is applied. The law of the atom governs radioactivity, which is the main basis for dating. The big assumption is that the gravitational and atomic clocks always tick at the same rate throughout all time, especially in the past.
Belief does not require accepting the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence either. Both sides examine the same evidence, but interpret it differently. Evolutionists merely substitute time and probability (chance randomness) for an intelligent designer God.
The Earth was never flat, even though the majority believed that from superficial observations. The Universe isn't flat either as the article would lead us to believe, because of superficial observations and faulty interpretation of data.
Evolution makes certain foundational assumptions (beliefs) that are never questioned, even when there is no or little evidence for making such assumptions. Darwinism, like any other "ism" is a matter of world view and belief.
....There isn't a single piece of hard evidence.....
All evidence has to be BELIEVED. For every evolutionary INTERPRETATION of the actual evidence, there is also a intelligent design interpretation. You are the jury and may pick which interpretation of the evidence you want to believe.
The biggest problem with it is that there has to be something to select that gives the organism an advantage. The bacterial flagellum is a microscopic, complex motor that has to fully function, before it would give the bacteria a survival advantage of independent motion. As long as it is not fully formed, natural selection is blind to its existence. If anything a partially evolved non-rotating appendage would be a disadvantage and be selected against.
.....So which of Earth's many religions is the correct one with respect to the creation of the universe......
All of them, including evolution, are only beliefs. None of them can be correct, since no humans were around as witnesses. Like a jury in a court, look at the evidence and decide which you want to believe. Remember to look at the evidence, not someone's INTERPRETATION of it.
Wow, now we have come full circle! Not only is the earth flat, but the whole UNIVERSE even, is flat!!
I don't believe it for a second. Very few things in nature are flat. Stars and planets are not. Water drops aren't either.
(..One day we WILL know the absolute truth of it...)
Almost 2000 years ago the Apostle Paul put it this way:
1 Corinthians 13:9 Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete. 10 But when what is complete comes, then what is incomplete will no longer be used. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I no longer used childish ways. 12 Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me. 13 So these three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the best one of these is love.
I believe that the complete knowledge of God will then include also the total knowledge of His entire creation. It always amazes me how up to date this amazing collection of 66 books, the Bible, penned by at least 40 different writers is.
Both science data and those books must be interpreted. It is only the interpretation of both, that gives rise to the apparent disagreements. The facts of science and words of the Bible are truth and don't disagree, but human interpretations often do.
A major difference in interpretation arises because of the time scale or clock used to measure time. Some believe that the distance between SF and LA is 737 kilometers. Others believe it's 458 miles. Scientists measure time by the activity of the atom. In the Bible, time is accounted for by gravity.
Atomic time and gravity time are not the same measurement system in the same way that inches and centimeters are not. There is an equivalency between the two, which in the case of length is linear, but in the case of time is non-linear. Many, if not most things in nature are non-linear. So then is it such a surprise that the relationship between time scales is non-linear?
So the apparent age interpretations arise because of different time measurement system assumptions.
(--It is a gradual process.-- don't suddenly--GRADUAL CHANGES--that it happens overnight --)
What you are saying, as is the evolution mantra, repeated over and over again is that time, the magic of time, can and make anything at all happen. We see only small changes today, but given enough time and all those small changes add up to the big, deep fundamental differences in the living things we see today.
Time and chance are the evolutionists substitute for God. Christians believe in an all powerful GOD who created life in all its variety. Evolutionists give exactly the same attribute to CHANCE operating over TIME, -- unimaginably long periods of time. Both of these are beliefs rather than science.
(..WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS..)
Evolutionists and Christians are like two independent juries looking at the SAME evidence. The Evolutionists have come to the conclusion that TIME & CHANCE, together with something called NATURAL SELECTION is the driving force and origin of life. Christians see that the same evidence points to a transcendent, Creator GOD applying immense INTELLIGENCE, to bring into being, everything that exists.
(.....that you think earth is only 6000 years old......)
The thousands of years or billions of years differences arise by certain assumptions about time measurements. It depends on how you define a "year". Time used to be scientifically, as well as commonly, defined as the as a period related to the time the earth took to orbit the sun once. That changed in 1967. In 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the second of atomic time in the International System of Units as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. You can read about all that stuff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
Atomic time and gravity time are not the same measurement system in the same way that inches and centimeters are not. There is an equivalency between the two, which in the case of length is linear, but in the case of time is non-linear. Many, if not most things in nature are non-linear. So then is it such a surprise that the relationship between time scales is non-linear?
By the atomic clock, the earth is indeed billions of years old. When rocks or anything is measured by radiological dating, the atom is used as the time keeper. All time statements need to be qualified by what time scale is used. It's similar to distance measurements specifying meters or inches.
You believe that the distance between SF and LA is 737 kilometers? I believe it's 458 miles. I believe the earth is in the billions of years old by the atomic time scale and in the thousands of years in the gravitational, orbital time scale.
Glad you're back from wherever.........So if the laws of physics were completely different.......
Science isn't about speculating about the laws of physics, but simply observing their operation. It is the incredibly balanced forces and relationships that we do observe, that show that these are not probabilistic, random combinations. It appears that all of these taken together, show that incredible forethought an planning must be behind them. Planning that would allow for complexities and puzzles that science has still only a rudimentary grasp of.
Pick a blade of grass or a leaf. We have given the process that these use to convert basic elements and sunlight into living matter a fancy name; photosynthesis. As yet though, we have only a foggy idea of how a photon of light interacts on the atomic level to knit together hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and a smattering of other elements into the complex molecules found in living things.
Our best scientists are working hard at making solar energy available to our own use. Evolutionists try to to fool themselves and everybody else that such an invention as photosynthesis came about by some other processes that did NOT involve careful, imaginative design. It takes more faith for me to believe that, than it does for me to believe that a transcendent, intelligent person -- God -- is behind all of the natural world.
You have chosen to believe that randomness came up with the universe. I believe that God designed it that way and allows us to explore His design and hold Him in great awe as a master craftsman, as we learn more about His handiwork. Neither your belief nor mine can be "proven", but I cannot muster the faith to believe that a complex being, such as you and I are the result of purely mechanistic random processes.
Can you believe that a 737 airliner came about by the same processes that evolutionists claim is responsible for life? A single living cell is FAR more complex than even the space shuttle.
....I have already mentioned Nylonase several times......
So scientists discovered some bacteria that adapted to be able to live on some man made material, such as nylon and related compounds. How does that show that a crocodile can become an eagle or any reptile be an ancestor to any bird?
From the wiki on nylonase:
(..Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients....)
We have known for a long time that micro-evolution happens every day. Life forms, such as bacteria are amazingly adept at meeting environmental challenges. I'm not disputing that sort of evolution is real. I am disputing that big jump from such small changes to then asserting that reptiles can therefore evolve into birds.
(..in other words: Speciation has taken place...)
So what if speciation has taken place. All experiments with fruit flies still PROVED that nothing OTHER than fruit flies were produced. You may call them another species, but no matter what you label them, they were still essentially fruit flies. That experiment and many others clearly show that genetic LAW doesn't allow for the major changes needed to make a jump from an ant to a bee or a reptile to a bird.
(..Identify the SPECIFIC barrier..)
Experiment and observation show that these large scale jumps just don't happen. That is very specific. Genetic LAW prevents such chasms from being crossed. Evolutionists insist on the existence of processes in the past, that we don't see today in nature, nor can we duplicate them in the lab.
(...Science is about more than experiments in a lab,....)
When I used the word "lab" I meant more than a building made by man. All of nature, as we observe it TODAY is a lab in the sense I meant. We can observe supernovas, the sun as part of that lab. When a crime investigator, looking at the past, presents evidence in court, it is still up to the jury, whether they will BELIEVE the evidence, for or against the accused. In the case of the OJ Simpson trial, there was plenty of evidence that the jury obviously did not BELIEVE.
(.. "half a wing"..)
So has anybody ever made a creature or observed a creature with "half a wing" or half of anything? Natural selection supposedly selects for things that give an organism a survival advantage. It seems to me that any critter having to schlepp around a non-functional part more likely hinders survival. Such a thing will likely die before it has a chance to reproduce. People used to believe that your appendix was a "vestigial" organ that has no use. We now know that it is s repository for certain wastes. Sometimes these wastes cause appendicitis.
I happen to believe that experimental and observational evidence has shown, that large scale transformations, such as from reptiles to birds do not happen today. You do believe the assertions of the evolutionists that this took place in the past.
Maybe you can give me an example of such a transformation, today, not in the past, that is not just simply an organism adapting to stress. While under such stress, a bacteria certainly develop new capabilities to survive, but it still basically a bacteria.
The barrier is that we have never observed such large scale changes in nature. We also have, by best efforts of INTELLIGENT scientists, never been able to make anything other than small, minor changes in any organism.
All experiments, genetic or breeding with fruit flies have always and only ever made more fruit flies. These fruit flies had missing or extra parts and other changes. They may also no longer be able to breed with other fruit flies or even multiply at all. STILL they were and remained fruit flies. All genetic experiments show that large scale evolution, such as from a reptile to a bird, does NOT happen, even with "simple" one celled organisms. Science is about experiments, not conjecture.
Since these large scale changes cannot be shown to occur today, you have to BELIEVE that they did occur in the past. However you cannot prove that belief any more than I can prove my belief that God exists.
If large scale evolution were true, we should still see that today, or at least be able to duplicate this in a lab. We can, in a sense duplicate the energies and processes existing in stars, even though they are far removed from us. We can mimic most processes of nature that do not involve life. Scientists have taken once living matter and made coal and oil. This shows that coal and oil can be made quickly. It doesn't take millions of years.
We probe the nucleus of the atom and mimic electric phenomena, such as lightening. But we cannot duplicate large scale evolution of life, because it cannot, doesn't and never did happen the way evolutionists believe.
You are so right. So many people want others to take responsibility for what they should be doing for themselves.
I don't know how these spammers get email addresses. Most of them must get a user's email address by that user's commercial activity on the net. Things like ordering things from shady websites. Many of these outfits sell or trade mailing lists.
Since we have our own mail server, we set up public accounts to give out for commercial purposes to our users. However each user also gets another email address which they are told to give only to those they consider to be good friends.
When spam begins to build up in those semi-public addresses, that email address is killed and a new one gets established. That system has eliminated most spam for our users.
If a user begins getting a lot of SPAM on their clean account, it usually means one of their friends got infected with something that read their email list from their computer. They are then free to change their address to another and notify all those the have received good email from.
We don't have any filters on the email server. Users have filters on their systems however.
....; if you make $150/hr it starts to add up quickly.....
Sounds like a relatively low cost lawyer that makes that kind of money. Even someone like that generally has a $15/hr secretary to screen emails as part of her/his job.
.... a computer that can process some 10,000 e-mail messages per hour.....
I bet such a computer isn't connected to the Internet via a low cost DSL home service line. The owner of that computer likely pays for a much more expensive, symmetrical, professional grade service from some ISP.
.....Do you really think that the amount of money they're paying to get that unasked-for (lack of) content into your mailbox really does anybody any good?.....
Actually yes. We have a wood stove and that junk mail makes good fire starters. There is enough to add a little bit of heat to the house. The stove also gets rid of all other unwanted papers so they cannot be used as data for identity theft by some old fashioned dumpster diving.
I wish that electronic junk mail were of a similar benefit.
.....Like an empty cup of water to a full cup of water.......
Your analogy would be more fitting if one were to drip water, but ended up with a cup full of gasoline or other liquid.
(..According to you, rain does not make things wet..)
According to you raindrops fall as water but make the ground dry because the water becomes dust after enough time.
(..It is a gradual process..)
It's a process we cannot observe or duplicate. So the the excuse is that it just takes too long for us to scientifically experiment or observe today.
(..This is yet another straw man..)
None of my examples are straw men, but taken from the school texts that preach evolution. There it states in black and white that birds evolved from reptiles and the ancestors of people are monkeys and apes.
(..It doesn't mean that one animal suddenly turns into another..)
No animal turns into another - period, never, no matter how much time magic you allow. Nobody has ever observed such a transformation.
I'm not accusing you of ignorance or pulling stuff out of any part of your anatomy, but you are believing that time can make evolution work. Well it doesn't and can't. Lots of small changes don't necessarily add up to a big change.
The experimental data to that accuracy shows that atomic time measurements are self consistent to amazing accuracy. It is not possible to measure gravitationally to anywhere near that accuracy.
Even if the gravitational time as shown by tree rings are 6000-15,000 years old, that is still a long ways from 5 billion. The billions of years is measured by the atom.
There are two ways to measure time. That is a FACT. These two measurement scales are related in a non-linear way. When the universe was young, the nature of space itself, as well as everything it contains was different than today.
The equations for gravity contain no time element or units. This is NOT the case for atomic behavior upon which the billions of years time measurements are based.
There you go, invoking the magic of time again. How does a small change of a bird's beak become an entirely different animal, except by lots of time? We don't see that sort of major transformation today, so it must only have happened s-l-o-w-l-y over lots of time.
I wonder if it would be possible to write a textbook on evolution WITHOUT mentioning the incredible amounts of time evolution supposedly took to get what is here today.
Evolutionists write in their books they foist off on little children that "Natural selection" takes lots of time. How does "natural selection" make wings out of legs? What survival advantage is there to a half built, non-functional wing? How do reptiles make birds? We are told in these books, that reptiles evolved into birds over lots of time.
If you BELIEVE something, that doesn't make it scientific or factual. Little children believe in that once upon a time stuff. Evidently, so do you. You have a lot of faith in impersonal time working the magic needed to make men out of monkeys. I have faith in the personal, eternal, transcendent Creator God having put us and everything else here.
....It is no more magical than the way the motion of the stars in the galaxy over millennia can be predicted based upon their measured velocities......
The motion of the heavenly bodies is based on the precisely known LAW of gravity. The laws of electricity are experimentally and observationally defined. So are the laws of genetics.
One of these genetic laws state that there is no way to predict genetic mutations, because they are probabilistic (a nicer way of saying random). A law of genetics is that there are certain genetic borders that cannot be crossed, at least not without the interference of intelligence.
Cats will always be cats and dogs always dogs. One can breed different varieties of cats or dogs, but they'll always either one or the other, never some in between creature.
(...valid at any time...)
Exactly true. Genetic science shows today, that it is impossible, at any time, to cross certain genetic barriers. Nobody has ever made a herpes virus of an HIV virus. These are fundamentally diferent. Yet viruses are the most simplest life forms, making millions of copies, where many mutations are possible.
This so far has been shown to be an ironclad genetic LAW. You cannot cross these borders. It applies to all life still today and ALWAYS has applied.
So then what is mutation based on, but some statistical change in the genetic makeup? Statistical or probabilistic is of course a nicer sounding word than "random".
(..suddenly turn..)
Evolutionists try to convince everybody that time can do miracles. Nobody knows how to turn a crocodile into an eagle, yet evolutionists try to foist off the idea that birds evolve from reptiles. No known process can do this, except faith in the magic of time.
Extrapolation a small genetic variation of a fruit fly even into some other kind of insect, is not the same as predicting the orbits of heavenly bodies. Orbits are based on accurately quantifiable knowledge. We have no such knowledge of how to turn even a paramecium into an amoeba.
Evolutionists substitute time, immense periods of time, for the eternal Creator God. You have faith in time and I have faith in God. Let's just leave it at that.
Slashdot Mirror
....or the speed of light was not constant in the last 6000 years....
There is no law of physics that mandates a constant speed of light. We KNOW from experiments that the speed of light depends on the properties of the medium it traverses. That's how lenses work.
At Creation, the Universe and all of space was small and the electromagnetic propagation characteristics allowed light to travel at least 300 million times faster than today. It had after all to keep up with the rapid expansion of the Universe.
The alternate to the doppler interpretation of the red shift clearly shows this. Since the atomic properties are tied to the speed of light, things like radioactivity also proceeded much faster. Since any volume expansion is a cubic function, it stands to reason that the properties of space would also change in a highly nonlinear way.
From the red shift it is possible to determine that expansion ratio. Depending on when you start after the initial creation event, often called the "Big Bang", the speed of light should have been billions of times faster, in fact near infinite shortly after time=0. A ray of light could cross the entire small universe in an unimaginably small period of time.
.....by now been so thoroughly refuted......
All the refutations center on the idea that parts can be removed from a mechanism and it may still function. Another part of the so called refutation says that the existence of similar structures elsewhere, either in the same organism or similar organisms, shows that they all arose, somehow randomly and gradually. Natural selection is a plausible mechanism for driving evolution forward. This is only true if the partial change confers an advantage of survival.
By that reasoning, if someone removes two cylinders from an 8 cylinder engine, the engine evolved from a 4 cylinder model, since it still runs on only 6 cylinders.
....There are dating techniques other than radiometric dating ....
I looked at that link and it, like all others assume that it is valid to extrapolate present day processes uniformly into the distant past. Any clock, such as radioactivity, based on atomic behavior, assumes a constant linear RATE of all atomically governed processes.
The properties of the atom are not independent of the properties of space. As space expanded, its electrical and magnetic properties changed greatly. The properties of atoms and the propagation of atomically generated energy would have to change with it. All atomic equations have a time unit associated with them. Scientists assume that this time unit has never changed over the vast periods of time since the Universe began.
....Geologic evidence, including radiological dating and tectonic theory...
are all based on the uniformitarian assumption (belief), that recent day processes can be extrapolated linearly and continuously back in time.
(..the Universe did start in a hot, dense state billions of years ago..)
Is based on the assumption (belief) that the observed red shift is due to the Doppler effect. It is also based on the assumption that heavenly bodies, such as planets, stars and galaxies are electrically neutral relative to each other.
There is plenty of evidence that there are immense electrical and magnetic fields throughout the universe. The super energetic cosmic radiation is made the exact same way as we make this radiation here at home. We do this by accelerating charged particles, usually electrons, and then running them into targets or deflecting them with magnetic fields.
(...the sun was much cooler billions of years ago..)
We also think we know today that the sun isn't simply a gigantic camp fire in the sky. We assert that nuclear fusion powers the sun and all stars. However, there is evidence, that this may not be the case. The sun and stars may be nothing more than giant light bulbs powered by unknown cosmic power stations sending immense electrical currents over invisible power lines millions of light years through space. In some of the "nebula" photos these streamers and paths of currents become visible. The currents from the sun also become visible to us at times in the borealis displays near the north and south poles.
....when God made the Earth he made it look much older.....
I don't think much of any God who is a deceiver like that. The Bible makes it very clear that God is truthful and would have to join all liars He sends to hell.
It is more likely that our ignorance of time and its measurement causes the confusion. Uniformitarian assumptions over time are not warranted. The fact is that the solar system, including the Earth, had a very violent history.
All dating methods assume that the processes we measure today can be extrapolated in a UNIFORM way to the distant past. We measure radioactivity and assume it has always been what we experience today. We assume the red shift is due to the doppler effect. On these two assumptions rest ALL of the dating methods that give the billions of years ages. We know that radioactivity has not changed much since science learned about this phenomenon, in the past 100 or so years. So what is a 100 years to thousands, millions or even billions of years?
....Because science is based on the assumption.....
Science is based on many assumptions (beliefs). In that sense it is no better than religion. This is especially true of the study of origins. In order to assert that the universe is 13 some odd billion years old, the time needs to be measured. To measure time, we need a clock. Any clock depends on the regular occurrence, on average, of some event or motion. These events or motions in turn are governed by fundamental forces.
Science uses the laws and motions of atoms to clock time. In the Bible, as well as in ordinary life, the law of gravity is applied. The law of the atom governs radioactivity, which is the main basis for dating. The big assumption is that the gravitational and atomic clocks always tick at the same rate throughout all time, especially in the past.
....Belief does not require accepting ....
Belief does not require accepting the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence either. Both sides examine the same evidence, but interpret it differently. Evolutionists merely substitute time and probability (chance randomness) for an intelligent designer God.
The Earth was never flat, even though the majority believed that from superficial observations. The Universe isn't flat either as the article would lead us to believe, because of superficial observations and faulty interpretation of data.
Evolution makes certain foundational assumptions (beliefs) that are never questioned, even when there is no or little evidence for making such assumptions. Darwinism, like any other "ism" is a matter of world view and belief.
....There isn't a single piece of hard evidence.....
All evidence has to be BELIEVED. For every evolutionary INTERPRETATION of the actual evidence, there is also a intelligent design interpretation. You are the jury and may pick which interpretation of the evidence you want to believe.
.....natural selection......
The biggest problem with it is that there has to be something to select that gives the organism an advantage. The bacterial flagellum is a microscopic, complex motor that has to fully function, before it would give the bacteria a survival advantage of independent motion. As long as it is not fully formed, natural selection is blind to its existence. If anything a partially evolved non-rotating appendage would be a disadvantage and be selected against.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/derbyshire_vi_behe_s_bacterial_flagellum_1.html
There are many complex structures in nature that have to function in order for natural selection to pass that function on to succeeding generations.
.....So which of Earth's many religions is the correct one with respect to the creation of the universe......
All of them, including evolution, are only beliefs. None of them can be correct, since no humans were around as witnesses. Like a jury in a court, look at the evidence and decide which you want to believe. Remember to look at the evidence, not someone's INTERPRETATION of it.
....."the earth is flat".....
Wow, now we have come full circle! Not only is the earth flat, but the whole UNIVERSE even, is flat!!
I don't believe it for a second. Very few things in nature are flat. Stars and planets are not. Water drops aren't either.
(..One day we WILL know the absolute truth of it...)
Almost 2000 years ago the Apostle Paul put it this way:
1 Corinthians 13:9 Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete. 10 But when what is complete comes, then what is incomplete will no longer be used. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I no longer used childish ways. 12 Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me. 13 So these three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the best one of these is love.
I believe that the complete knowledge of God will then include also the total knowledge of His entire creation. It always amazes me how up to date this amazing collection of 66 books, the Bible, penned by at least 40 different writers is.
Both science data and those books must be interpreted. It is only the interpretation of both, that gives rise to the apparent disagreements. The facts of science and words of the Bible are truth and don't disagree, but human interpretations often do.
A major difference in interpretation arises because of the time scale or clock used to measure time. Some believe that the distance between SF and LA is 737 kilometers. Others believe it's 458 miles. Scientists measure time by the activity of the atom. In the Bible, time is accounted for by gravity.
Atomic time and gravity time are not the same measurement system in the same way that inches and centimeters are not. There is an equivalency between the two, which in the case of length is linear, but in the case of time is non-linear. Many, if not most things in nature are non-linear. So then is it such a surprise that the relationship between time scales is non-linear?
So the apparent age interpretations arise because of different time measurement system assumptions.
.... what use is flash ....
mostly to put annoying, bouncing, jiggling and FLASHing ads on the screen for you to click on.
(--It is a gradual process.-- don't suddenly--GRADUAL CHANGES--that it happens overnight --)
What you are saying, as is the evolution mantra, repeated over and over again is that time, the magic of time, can and make anything at all happen. We see only small changes today, but given enough time and all those small changes add up to the big, deep fundamental differences in the living things we see today.
Time and chance are the evolutionists substitute for God. Christians believe in an all powerful GOD who created life in all its variety. Evolutionists give exactly the same attribute to CHANCE operating over TIME, -- unimaginably long periods of time. Both of these are beliefs rather than science.
(..WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS..)
Evolutionists and Christians are like two independent juries looking at the SAME evidence. The Evolutionists have come to the conclusion that TIME & CHANCE, together with something called NATURAL SELECTION is the driving force and origin of life. Christians see that the same evidence points to a transcendent, Creator GOD applying immense INTELLIGENCE, to bring into being, everything that exists.
(.....that you think earth is only 6000 years old......)
The thousands of years or billions of years differences arise by certain assumptions about time measurements. It depends on how you define a "year". Time used to be scientifically, as well as commonly, defined as the as a period related to the time the earth took to orbit the sun once. That changed in 1967. In 1967 the Thirteenth General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the second of atomic time in the International System of Units as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. You can read about all that stuff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
Atomic time and gravity time are not the same measurement system in the same way that inches and centimeters are not. There is an equivalency between the two, which in the case of length is linear, but in the case of time is non-linear. Many, if not most things in nature are non-linear. So then is it such a surprise that the relationship between time scales is non-linear?
By the atomic clock, the earth is indeed billions of years old. When rocks or anything is measured by radiological dating, the atom is used as the time keeper. All time statements need to be qualified by what time scale is used. It's similar to distance measurements specifying meters or inches.
You believe that the distance between SF and LA is 737 kilometers? I believe it's 458 miles. I believe the earth is in the billions of years old by the atomic time scale and in the thousands of years in the gravitational, orbital time scale.
Glad you're back from wherever..... ....So if the laws of physics were completely different .......
Science isn't about speculating about the laws of physics, but simply observing their operation. It is the incredibly balanced forces and relationships that we do observe, that show that these are not probabilistic, random combinations. It appears that all of these taken together, show that incredible forethought an planning must be behind them. Planning that would allow for complexities and puzzles that science has still only a rudimentary grasp of.
Pick a blade of grass or a leaf. We have given the process that these use to convert basic elements and sunlight into living matter a fancy name; photosynthesis. As yet though, we have only a foggy idea of how a photon of light interacts on the atomic level to knit together hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and a smattering of other elements into the complex molecules found in living things.
Our best scientists are working hard at making solar energy available to our own use. Evolutionists try to to fool themselves and everybody else that such an invention as photosynthesis came about by some other processes that did NOT involve careful, imaginative design. It takes more faith for me to believe that, than it does for me to believe that a transcendent, intelligent person -- God -- is behind all of the natural world.
You have chosen to believe that randomness came up with the universe. I believe that God designed it that way and allows us to explore His design and hold Him in great awe as a master craftsman, as we learn more about His handiwork. Neither your belief nor mine can be "proven", but I cannot muster the faith to believe that a complex being, such as you and I are the result of purely mechanistic random processes.
Can you believe that a 737 airliner came about by the same processes that evolutionists claim is responsible for life? A single living cell is FAR more complex than even the space shuttle.
....I have already mentioned Nylonase several times......
So scientists discovered some bacteria that adapted to be able to live on some man made material, such as nylon and related compounds. How does that show that a crocodile can become an eagle or any reptile be an ancestor to any bird?
From the wiki on nylonase:
(..Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients....)
We have known for a long time that micro-evolution happens every day. Life forms, such as bacteria are amazingly adept at meeting environmental challenges. I'm not disputing that sort of evolution is real. I am disputing that big jump from such small changes to then asserting that reptiles can therefore evolve into birds.
(..in other words: Speciation has taken place...)
So what if speciation has taken place. All experiments with fruit flies still PROVED that nothing OTHER than fruit flies were produced. You may call them another species, but no matter what you label them, they were still essentially fruit flies. That experiment and many others clearly show that genetic LAW doesn't allow for the major changes needed to make a jump from an ant to a bee or a reptile to a bird.
(..Identify the SPECIFIC barrier..)
Experiment and observation show that these large scale jumps just don't happen. That is very specific. Genetic LAW prevents such chasms from being crossed. Evolutionists insist on the existence of processes in the past, that we don't see today in nature, nor can we duplicate them in the lab.
(...Science is about more than experiments in a lab,....)
When I used the word "lab" I meant more than a building made by man. All of nature, as we observe it TODAY is a lab in the sense I meant. We can observe supernovas, the sun as part of that lab. When a crime investigator, looking at the past, presents evidence in court, it is still up to the jury, whether they will BELIEVE the evidence, for or against the accused. In the case of the OJ Simpson trial, there was plenty of evidence that the jury obviously did not BELIEVE.
(.. "half a wing"..)
So has anybody ever made a creature or observed a creature with "half a wing" or half of anything? Natural selection supposedly selects for things that give an organism a survival advantage. It seems to me that any critter having to schlepp around a non-functional part more likely hinders survival. Such a thing will likely die before it has a chance to reproduce. People used to believe that your appendix was a "vestigial" organ that has no use. We now know that it is s repository for certain wastes. Sometimes these wastes cause appendicitis.
I happen to believe that experimental and observational evidence has shown, that large scale transformations, such as from reptiles to birds do not happen today. You do believe the assertions of the evolutionists that this took place in the past.
Maybe you can give me an example of such a transformation, today, not in the past, that is not just simply an organism adapting to stress. While under such stress, a bacteria certainly develop new capabilities to survive, but it still basically a bacteria.
(....top Google link for "man made coal"...)
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e0g.htm
(....Google link for "man made oil"...)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-402871.html
.....Please identify this barrier.....
The barrier is that we have never observed such large scale changes in nature. We also have, by best efforts of INTELLIGENT scientists, never been able to make anything other than small, minor changes in any organism.
All experiments, genetic or breeding with fruit flies have always and only ever made more fruit flies. These fruit flies had missing or extra parts and other changes. They may also no longer be able to breed with other fruit flies or even multiply at all. STILL they were and remained fruit flies. All genetic experiments show that large scale evolution, such as from a reptile to a bird, does NOT happen, even with "simple" one celled organisms. Science is about experiments, not conjecture.
Since these large scale changes cannot be shown to occur today, you have to BELIEVE that they did occur in the past. However you cannot prove that belief any more than I can prove my belief that God exists.
If large scale evolution were true, we should still see that today, or at least be able to duplicate this in a lab. We can, in a sense duplicate the energies and processes existing in stars, even though they are far removed from us. We can mimic most processes of nature that do not involve life. Scientists have taken once living matter and made coal and oil. This shows that coal and oil can be made quickly. It doesn't take millions of years.
We probe the nucleus of the atom and mimic electric phenomena, such as lightening. But we cannot duplicate large scale evolution of life, because it cannot, doesn't and never did happen the way evolutionists believe.
....people who fail to protect themselves ....
You are so right. So many people want others to take responsibility for what they should be doing for themselves.
I don't know how these spammers get email addresses. Most of them must get a user's email address by that user's commercial activity on the net. Things like ordering things from shady websites. Many of these outfits sell or trade mailing lists.
Since we have our own mail server, we set up public accounts to give out for commercial purposes to our users. However each user also gets another email address which they are told to give only to those they consider to be good friends.
When spam begins to build up in those semi-public addresses, that email address is killed and a new one gets established. That system has eliminated most spam for our users.
If a user begins getting a lot of SPAM on their clean account, it usually means one of their friends got infected with something that read their email list from their computer. They are then free to change their address to another and notify all those the have received good email from.
We don't have any filters on the email server. Users have filters on their systems however.
....; if you make $150/hr it starts to add up quickly.....
Sounds like a relatively low cost lawyer that makes that kind of money. Even someone like that generally has a $15/hr secretary to screen emails as part of her/his job.
.... a computer that can process some 10,000 e-mail messages per hour.....
I bet such a computer isn't connected to the Internet via a low cost DSL home service line. The owner of that computer likely pays for a much more expensive, symmetrical, professional grade service from some ISP.
.....Do you really think that the amount of money they're paying to get that unasked-for (lack of) content into your mailbox really does anybody any good?.....
Actually yes. We have a wood stove and that junk mail makes good fire starters. There is enough to add a little bit of heat to the house. The stove also gets rid of all other unwanted papers so they cannot be used as data for identity theft by some old fashioned dumpster diving.
I wish that electronic junk mail were of a similar benefit.
.....Like an empty cup of water to a full cup of water.......
Your analogy would be more fitting if one were to drip water, but ended up with a cup full of gasoline or other liquid.
(..According to you, rain does not make things wet..)
According to you raindrops fall as water but make the ground dry because the water becomes dust after enough time.
(..It is a gradual process..)
It's a process we cannot observe or duplicate. So the the excuse is that it just takes too long for us to scientifically experiment or observe today.
(..This is yet another straw man..)
None of my examples are straw men, but taken from the school texts that preach evolution. There it states in black and white that birds evolved from reptiles and the ancestors of people are monkeys and apes.
(..It doesn't mean that one animal suddenly turns into another..)
No animal turns into another - period, never, no matter how much time magic you allow. Nobody has ever observed such a transformation.
I'm not accusing you of ignorance or pulling stuff out of any part of your anatomy, but you are believing that time can make evolution work. Well it doesn't and can't. Lots of small changes don't necessarily add up to a big change.
....You are just being dishonest:......
The experimental data to that accuracy shows that atomic time measurements are self consistent to amazing accuracy. It is not possible to measure gravitationally to anywhere near that accuracy.
Even if the gravitational time as shown by tree rings are 6000-15,000 years old, that is still a long ways from 5 billion. The billions of years is measured by the atom.
There are two ways to measure time. That is a FACT. These two measurement scales are related in a non-linear way. When the universe was young, the nature of space itself, as well as everything it contains was different than today.
The equations for gravity contain no time element or units. This is NOT the case for atomic behavior upon which the billions of years time measurements are based.
....It means that species change over time.....
There you go, invoking the magic of time again. How does a small change of a bird's beak become an entirely different animal, except by lots of time? We don't see that sort of major transformation today, so it must only have happened s-l-o-w-l-y over lots of time.
I wonder if it would be possible to write a textbook on evolution WITHOUT mentioning the incredible amounts of time evolution supposedly took to get what is here today.
Evolutionists write in their books they foist off on little children that "Natural selection" takes lots of time. How does "natural selection" make wings out of legs? What survival advantage is there to a half built, non-functional wing? How do reptiles make birds? We are told in these books, that reptiles evolved into birds over lots of time.
If you BELIEVE something, that doesn't make it scientific or factual. Little children believe in that once upon a time stuff. Evidently, so do you. You have a lot of faith in impersonal time working the magic needed to make men out of monkeys. I have faith in the personal, eternal, transcendent Creator God having put us and everything else here.
....It is no more magical than the way the motion of the stars in the galaxy over millennia can be predicted based upon their measured velocities......
The motion of the heavenly bodies is based on the precisely known LAW of gravity. The laws of electricity are experimentally and observationally defined. So are the laws of genetics.
One of these genetic laws state that there is no way to predict genetic mutations, because they are probabilistic (a nicer way of saying random). A law of genetics is that there are certain genetic borders that cannot be crossed, at least not without the interference of intelligence.
Cats will always be cats and dogs always dogs. One can breed different varieties of cats or dogs, but they'll always either one or the other, never some in between creature.
(...valid at any time...)
Exactly true. Genetic science shows today, that it is impossible, at any time, to cross certain genetic barriers. Nobody has ever made a herpes virus of an HIV virus. These are fundamentally diferent. Yet viruses are the most simplest life forms, making millions of copies, where many mutations are possible.
This so far has been shown to be an ironclad genetic LAW. You cannot cross these borders. It applies to all life still today and ALWAYS has applied.
..... Evolution is NOT a random process.....
So then what is mutation based on, but some statistical change in the genetic makeup? Statistical or probabilistic is of course a nicer sounding word than "random".
(..suddenly turn..)
Evolutionists try to convince everybody that time can do miracles. Nobody knows how to turn a crocodile into an eagle, yet evolutionists try to foist off the idea that birds evolve from reptiles. No known process can do this, except faith in the magic of time.
Extrapolation a small genetic variation of a fruit fly even into some other kind of insect, is not the same as predicting the orbits of heavenly bodies. Orbits are based on accurately quantifiable knowledge. We have no such knowledge of how to turn even a paramecium into an amoeba.
Evolutionists substitute time, immense periods of time, for the eternal Creator God. You have faith in time and I have faith in God. Let's just leave it at that.