Radioisotope ages are calibrated by laboratory measurement of half-lives. Yes, nuclear physics could have drastically changed over time, but the mechanisms that caused this would have had serious effects on things like nuclear fusion, and when we look at distant stars, and the composition of interstellar gas, old things look much like current things.
The original estimates of geological ages was based on assumptions about the rate of deposition in sedimentary rocks, based on estimates of deposition rates today. There are obviously large uncertainties, but this is hardly "arbitrary".
There is nothing about the T. Rex bone that is "fresh." "Not rock" != "fresh off the butcher block".
This is a classic strawman. Incomplete wings allow some amount of inefficient gliding, like flying squirrels. Better wings allow for soaring and powered flight. This is also how you get gradual development of the eye.
The other mechanism is changed purpose. Bones that used to be part of the jaw get adapted for hearing. Feathers that are useful for insulation become adapted to flight.
The problem for ID is why ostriches still have wings that *are* useless. How intelligent is that?
The fact that ID proponents keep trotting out these strawman arguments simply reinforces the impression that ID is about being willfully unconvinced by evolution, rather than having a truly more compelling idea of their own.
This sort of relativist approach (taking Hume's objections to the limit, EVERY bit of knowledge is provisional and tentative) masks the essential "grading" of knowledge.
I am very certain, for instance, that George Washington existed and was once president of the United States. I am quite doubtful that there was a historic Garden of Eden or Noah.
My knowledge of George Washington is provisional and theoretical. I know it only because of what I read in books and see in monuments, and it could all be a gross distortion or fiction. I have a theoretical model of Colonial and Revolutionary America which could be made more doubtful by new discoveries.
At some point, however, we will take George Washington's existence as a "fact." Otherwise, we are just playing a silly nihilistic game where NOTHING is factual, and anything could be true or false depending on the current whims of the universe.
You are seriously confused about evolutionary claims of diversity.
Most theories of biogenesis assume that diversity was initially *very low*. Then, mutation and other shuffling of genetic material (accelerated by sex) generates diversity, while competition for limited resources tends to reduce diversity by favoring one winner over a lot of losers.
Mass extinction events drastically alter the diversity: both by randomly wiping out populations that are otherwise well-adapted as well as pushing marginal populations over the edge of sustainability, and then by freeing up ecological space for surviving species to diversify into.
Without such disaster, diversity is at something like an equilibrium: some species become extinct, while successful species can divide into newly diversified species.
The actions of people in courts of law or the political arena does not determine whether their theories are scientific or pseudo-scientific. Their rules for determining what is or is not legitimate evidence and what is or is not an acceptable explanation or experimental technique determine whether a theory is scientific.
The fact that the people who want to re-introduce school-sponsored prayer and the people who what to introduce "intelligent design" into science curricula BOTH stir up opposition from athiests does not mean this opposition is based on the same philosophical foundation.
Also, atheism is the *lack* of a belief. How this can be a bias is mysterious.
Slashdot Mirror
Radioisotope ages are calibrated by laboratory measurement of half-lives. Yes, nuclear physics could have drastically changed over time, but the mechanisms that caused this would have had serious effects on things like nuclear fusion, and when we look at distant stars, and the composition of interstellar gas, old things look much like current things.
The original estimates of geological ages was based on assumptions about the rate of deposition in sedimentary rocks, based on estimates of deposition rates today. There are obviously large uncertainties, but this is hardly "arbitrary".
There is nothing about the T. Rex bone that is "fresh." "Not rock" != "fresh off the butcher block".
This is a classic strawman. Incomplete wings allow some amount of inefficient gliding, like flying squirrels. Better wings allow for soaring and powered flight. This is also how you get gradual development of the eye.
The other mechanism is changed purpose. Bones that used to be part of the jaw get adapted for hearing. Feathers that are useful for insulation become adapted to flight.
The problem for ID is why ostriches still have wings that *are* useless. How intelligent is that?
The fact that ID proponents keep trotting out these strawman arguments simply reinforces the impression that ID is about being willfully unconvinced by evolution, rather than having a truly more compelling idea of their own.
This sort of relativist approach (taking Hume's objections to the limit, EVERY bit of knowledge is provisional and tentative) masks the essential "grading" of knowledge.
I am very certain, for instance, that George Washington existed and was once president of the United States. I am quite doubtful that there was a historic Garden of Eden or Noah.
My knowledge of George Washington is provisional and theoretical. I know it only because of what I read in books and see in monuments, and it could all be a gross distortion or fiction. I have a theoretical model of Colonial and Revolutionary America which could be made more doubtful by new discoveries.
At some point, however, we will take George Washington's existence as a "fact." Otherwise, we are just playing a silly nihilistic game where NOTHING is factual, and anything could be true or false depending on the current whims of the universe.
You are seriously confused about evolutionary claims of diversity.
Most theories of biogenesis assume that diversity was initially *very low*. Then, mutation and other shuffling of genetic material (accelerated by sex) generates diversity, while competition for limited resources tends to reduce diversity by favoring one winner over a lot of losers.
Mass extinction events drastically alter the diversity: both by randomly wiping out populations that are otherwise well-adapted as well as pushing marginal populations over the edge of sustainability, and then by freeing up ecological space for surviving species to diversify into.
Without such disaster, diversity is at something like an equilibrium: some species become extinct, while successful species can divide into newly diversified species.
The actions of people in courts of law or the political arena does not determine whether their theories are scientific or pseudo-scientific. Their rules for determining what is or is not legitimate evidence and what is or is not an acceptable explanation or experimental technique determine whether a theory is scientific.
The fact that the people who want to re-introduce school-sponsored prayer and the people who what to introduce "intelligent design" into science curricula BOTH stir up opposition from athiests does not mean this opposition is based on the same philosophical foundation.
Also, atheism is the *lack* of a belief. How this can be a bias is mysterious.
Mary Chung's is OK, but after about 2011, it really dropped off.
Hey, how's the Tiger upgrade work out on your 3.6 GHz machine? Snappier? 64-bit support working for you?