"Darwin Day" Topic

crhkrebs- didn't realise you were a real scientist!

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not. I got an undergrad degree in molecular biology. But my distant relative is Dr. Hans Krebs of Krebs Cycle fame. I'm from the shallower end of the gene pool.

I should point out that I have nothing lesser in quality than a Premier grand cru.

What? Really? I have got a little collection myself, but only three biggies, a Chateau Marguax, a Chateau LaTour and a Chateau Rothschild, all from the 80's. I think we'll drink your stuff first, haha! Well, if some of you are bringing vintage Port, I guess I'll have to pop open my '79 Chateau D'Yquem for dessert.

Do we have room for a fridge for Hexenhammers beer AND a gaming table?

Ralph (who feels suddenly thirsty)

A facetious formula for this is 1+1=3. Complexity works this way too. You should read more about this, …..start with Mandlebrot.

Facile, more like. To get 3 you have to reproduce. That isn't what I was referring to when I questioned a universe that is BIGGER than the NC. A bigger universe, i.e. one that evolved traits that the NC did not have, would make the NC redundant, ergo no NC at all. In fact, said-universe would DISPROVE such claims for a NC.

What do fractals have to do with any of this…?

Hi

NC has nothing to do with evolution!

'evolved traits' of the universe has nothing to do with origin of species or evolution.

Fractal math is infinate complexity math.

R

Well, yeah. Of course evolution (by itself) has nothing to do with addressing a NC of Existence in the first place. But evolution also has nothing to do with disproving a NC; it flies in the face of Judeo-Christianity's creation myth, and that's all it does. No biggie, imho.

Evolved traits are still mandated by the origins of them: evolved traits cannot transcend that which mandated evolution in the first place.

I still don't see what Mandelbrot/fractals have to do with any of this…

Doug, fractels are an example of complexity arising out of simplicity. Remember, you asked something about that breaking some law? Try to keep up, buddy. I was answering you.

Pass the St. Emilion and the camembert.

Ralph

So you have this picture, a very complex one as such things are defined: appearing to be nothing more than an intricate design (like a coastline seen from far overhead): yet when you draw ever closer to it, you can never quite reduce it to a point where you can measure how far it is around: you never arrive back at the starting point because you can always approach closer, rendering more facets to what seemed (from farther away) to be a smooth line. That's a textual "translation" of the visual translation of the mathematics (in general terms).

How, please, does this demonstrate complexity out of simplicity? What you are asserting is that if you can't see it at first it must be SIMPLICITY: but the truth taught/demonstrated by fractals is that appearances are only from a given perspective: appearances are not the reality. The complexity is always there to begin with; just not observable until you change (improve) your perspective.

Fractals, string theories, multiverses: all are in all. There is no complexity arising out of simplicity (defined as more out of less, i.e. parts exceeding the sum or total): there is only infinite complexity, ever changing….

crhkrebs- by co-incidence I was reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and Dawkins mentioned "my freind the zoologist John Krebs…". Another one of your clan?

With such DNA no wonder you are taking TJ to task.

PS
Stilton- salted crackers (Ritz crackers for preference) to go with the port. I live just down the road from the Rothschild estate in England. If you have a couple of hundred pounds to drop you can buy bottle of wine that will reach its peak in about 10 years, though it will be drinkable by the anniversary of Waterloo if you wish. Thats just the stuff they sell to the public.

Ok. This should be interesting:

How big is the largest dinosaur ever found?

Actually, no dinosaur has ever been found. But we have found the fossilised remains of many dinosaurs, and the fossilised remains of many other extinct creatures and plants. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the largest complete fossil of a land dwelling dinosaur yet discovered is that of a brachiosaurus. It was 22.2 metres long, 6 metres high at the shoulder, with a raised head height of 14 metres, and had an estimated weight of about 35 tonnes. Dinosaurs this large are very rare indeed for the average size of a dinosaur is only about that of a small sheep.

So, what can fossils tell us, and what can't fossils tell us?

Firstly, the fossil record clearly shows that billions of animals and plants have lived and died on this planet. The fossil record also shows us that most of the fossils are not of extinct animals and plants, but are of animal and plant species that are still around today (e.g. invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals). The fossil record also shows us that many of those animals and plants have not changed significantly throughout so-called geological time. The fossil record also shows us that that some varieties of animals and plants have become extinct. Thus, the Earth has lost some of the diversity it once had in plant and animal life. That's about all the fossil record really tells us.

I do hope that this is obvious: Science, based on human observation, can really have nothing to say on the subject of what happened in the distant past simply because there were no human observers there to observe exactly what happened. In fact, science, based on human observation, can have nothing to say on any event over perhaps 5,000 years ago, that is, whatever the age of the oldest known human records are. However, it should be obvious to one and all that many people do have plenty to say about the fossil record, but realize that their musings are not based on any actual observations but are rather based on their beliefs on how the fossils got there. So, let's get a little scientific and look at the process of fossilization and see what we can learn from that.

What happens to an animal (or plant) when it dies?

The fleshy parts quickly waste and decay away or they are eaten by predators or scavengers, usually leaving just the bones or other hard parts. In time, bacteria, worms, weathering, etc, quickly break down these as well so that after just a few years virtually nothing is left. That's the observation.

So, how does an animal or plant get fossilized? An animal has to be buried in a particular way to fossilize. It must be buried quickly at (or at least very soon after) death and it must be buried completely (and reasonably deeply). The physical make-up of the sediment the animal or plant is buried in is also important. If not buried in this way, then it still wastes and decays away via the action of weathering, bacteria, worms, etc, just as if it lay on the surface. So:

Just how then would you fossilize something as big as the brachiosaurus already mentioned?

Obviously, such a large animal would need to be buried VERY quickly by VERY thick layers of sediments, not very slowly over time by small layers. So, being scientific:

Can large layers of strata be laid down quickly?

Yes, large layers of sediments can be laid down very quickly in catastrophic situations. For example, the Mt St Helens volcano erupted in Washington State, USA, in May, 1980, and again in March, 1982. Hundreds of scientists were able to observe that around 183 metres (c600 feet) of strata was laid down over a large area as a result of these two eruptions. In one single day, the June 12, 1980, they observed just over 7 meters (c24 feet) of strata laid down. Later they observed that heavy rain caused a sudden mudflow which eroded about 30 metres (c100 feet) of the strata away in just over one day, forming what they described as a mini "Grand Canyon".

These two eruptions were fairly minor when compared with most eruptions studied to date, and rather insignificant when compared with much of the evidence of volcanic events seen in the geological record. Clearly, vast areas and vast depths of strata can be formed very quickly. That's the observation. Now, let's take a quick look at the Biblical account of creation – Genesis, Chapter 1:

Verse 1 God creates the heavens and the Earth
Verse 3 God creates light, day and night
Verse 6 God creates a firmament (atmosphere) by dividing the waters such that there are waters above and below the firmament
Verse 7 God creates the ocean and dry land. We now have the atmosphere, the sea and dry land
Verse 11 God creates the plants, fruit trees, grasses and so on
Verse 14 God creates the Sun, Moon and stars. Note that light existed without them
Verse 20 God creates the birds; all land life; all aquatic life. Finally, God creates man

The first thing to note is this: the sequence is nothing like that given by theory of evolution. The Earth was cool and covered with water when formed; life is created on the land before it is in the sea; the Earth exists before the Sun, Moon and stars, etc, etc. There is just no similarity. What we do see is that God first forms, then fills.

From this account we can see that there existed at one time "waters" above the firmament (or atmosphere) and waters below the firmament. One hypothesis is that this may have been a water vapor canopy high in the atmosphere; a similar vapor canopy can be observed by scientists today on Venus, and a subterranean source of water is not impossible; many exist today.

Following the Biblical account: Man eventually rebels against God (that's a simple definition of sin), and falls from grace. Eventually humanity becomes so intent on evil that God decides to punish humanity by destroying the world. Only Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives (8 people in all) are found worth saving. God commands Noah to build the Ark, God gathers the animals to it, and a massive global flood occurs as recorded in Genesis, Chapters 6 to 9. So:

How long was this Biblical Flood? What was it like?

The record says that it poured torrential rain for 40 days and 40 nights. It says that "the floodgates of heaven were opened". This may have been the hypothesized water vapour canopy collapsing, or some other source. The "fountains of the deep" are broken up, adding vast amounts of water and volcanic activity to the cataclysm. The waters continued to rise for another 150 days. It says they "prevailed", "were overwhelmingly mighty", and that they "overturned the Earth". All the high hills and the mountains were covered. All air breathing land animals that moved upon the Earth perished. After the 150 days, the waters begin to abate. After 7 months the Ark rested on Mountains (plural) of Ararat, which now stand about 17,000 feet high. After 10 months, the tops of other mountains could be seen. After another 40 days a raven and a dove are released. After another 7 days a dove is released, which returns with an olive branch. After another 7 days a dove is released and does not return. This represents a period of about 12 months.

Ok: If a year long, Earth covering flood as described in Genesis actually occurred, what would one expect to find?

Firstly, one can only imagine the sheer magnitude of the geological work that would be done by such an event as when the "fountains of the deep" (i.e. the subterranean source of water) burst forth all around the world, and no doubt there was much volcanic activity along with it. Not only that, but the deluge went on for 5 months!

So, if such an event really happened, what would one expect to find?

First and most obvious: Massive evidence of sedimentation. And we do. At least three quarters of the Earth's surface is covered by sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rock is rock that has been eroded at some other location, is then is transported by water (or occasionally wind), and then is redeposited in its present location. This is exactly what happens during any flood. However, the deposits are on a vast scale like nothing seen today and there is much evidence to show that these substantial layers of sedimentary rock were deposited within a very short space of time and not "gradually over millions of years".

Next: I would expect to find evidence of massive volcanic activity all over the world. And we do. About a quarter of the Earth's surface is covered by igneous rocks, that is, rocks formed as a result of volcanic activity, and again, the deposits are on a vast scale like nothing seen today.

Because of the sheer size and the chaotic nature of the Flood, I would expect to find that the geological layering would be confused and indistinct in many places. And we do. There are many exceptions to the general trends, and many discrepancies in the order in which the strata was laid down.

Also, since the Flood would have been tidal in nature, I would expect to find layering caused as sediments that were layered by the tides. And we do. Also, I would expect to find evidence of other smaller catastrophes that have occurred since the Flood which have also caused other fossils and layers of strata to be deposited. And we do.

For these reasons, I would expect the complete so-called "geological column" as laid out in textbooks to be very rare indeed. And it is. In fact, the so-called "geological column" cannot be observed anywhere in the world. In fact, it's extremely rare to find three or more of them in the correct "order". So, where exactly did the famous textbook "geological column" come from…?

Next, it would not be unexpected that the strata contained the fossilized remains of billions of animals entombed by such a Flood, and there's no doubt they do. Not only that, but many fossils of all shapes and sizes have been found to be extending through many, many layers of strata, in some cases over six metres in thickness (e.g. our brachiosaurus, tree trunks, etc). The top parts of these "polystrate" fossils are as well preserved as the bottom clearly showing the whole fossil animal or tree was buried in a very short space of time by rapid deposition of the layers of sediments involved.

Further, I would expect the fossils to show signs of violent deaths. And that's exactly what they do find. We find massive fossil graveyards full of millions of many different types of animal fossils all indicating they died suddenly and violently.

Next, if the hypothesized water vapor canopy ever existed, then one would expect to find evidence that a constant tropical or sub-tropical climate once existed all over the world because of the glass house effect of such a vapor canopy. And we do. Fossilized sub-tropical animals, plants and even coal seams have been found near the poles.

All of these things are found in the geologic record, most definitely.

Then there is the evidence of the coal and oil deposits. Vast coal and oil deposits are found right through the geological record and in all parts of the world. Both coal and oil are the remains of once living organisms (i.e. fossilised plant life). The deposits represent an almost unimaginably massive accumulation of buried plant material. These remains have been altered by the effects of pressure and temperature. If you look at coal seams objectively, they strongly suggest that the plant accumulation had been washed into place by water. The seams often have thin intervening non-coal strata (e.g. mudstone, sandstone, etc) and these are always said to be deposited by water, so why shouldn't the coal also be deposited by water?

It should be noted that even the general order of the fossils found in the strata would roughly line up with that proposed by the theory of evolution. But don't misunderstand me here if you are an evolutionist – I mean the general order one would expect to find if it was the Biblical global Flood that buried them! Consider:

The marine creatures that lived on or near the bottom of the sea would be affected first as the fountains of the deep were broken up and the debris quickly engulfed them. Other marine organisms could escape the initial impact depending on their speed of movement, etc. Thus in the lower levels of the sedimentary rocks one would expect to find the remains of the so-called "simpler" invertebrate organisms, and this is exactly what we do find. Most of the fossils ever found are of these organisms.

Next, vertebrates (fish, etc) by contrast are generally capable of faster movement and are thus would be better equipped to escape the initial impact of the Flood. The first vertebrates to succumb would probably be the fishes, etc, that lived in the shallow lakes and lagoons. As the Flood continued, the torrential run-off would begin to pour vast amounts of sediment into the lakes, seas and oceans, chocking, killing and entombing further sea life.

Next, land creatures generally would have been in a better position to escape as the Flood waters continued to rise. Amphibians though are cold blooded and generally move slowly on land. So, as the climate began to change from sub-tropical (due to the collapse of the hypothesised vapour canopy) they would have slowed down and be soon been caught up in the Flood. Reptiles can often move quickly on land, but like the amphibians, they are also cold blooded and so as the climate changed they too would have slowed down and soon been caught up in the Flood.

Mammals and birds would have stood a better chance of escaping and thus could have probably escaped the rising flood waters for some time until they also succumbed. Finally, man would have used all his skill and ingenuity to survive until the last possible moments. Why is it that human fossils are exceptionally rare…?

So, as you can see, the general order in which we find the fossils in the geological strata can be interpreted to give the same general order as evolutionary theory, but the order is based on the organism's ability to escape a catastrophic global event like the Biblical Flood: invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and finally man.

Clearly, evolutionary theorists weren't there to see what happened; neither were any creationists. Both must INTERPRET the evidence (the fossil record) to support their "conjectures". The fossil evidence is evolutionary theory's only evidence that long term "microbe to man" evolution may have occurred, so, since their evidence can be interpreted in an alternate logical non-evolutionary way that also fits the evidence then evolutionary theory would have a major problem. The long term "evidence" of microbe to man evolution supporting their "conjectures" would be seriously compromised… wouldn't it?

That's all very interesting, TJ, but it is only about fossils. Evolutionists say that evolution is shown WITHOUT A SINGLE FOSSIL required: something to do with DNA connections, I presume. I'll wait….

Remind me of the date please gentleman?

I can not believe that the TJ posting was made at the beginning of the 21st Century of the vulgar era.

Five hundred years of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment dismissed out of hand by some Ken Ham sock puppet.

Here is a posting a friend of mine made about his trip to the Creation "Museum" in KY. You'll see the same 'arguements' made there.

link

Now if we have to rely on human observation as the key to it all. Interesting.

It is obvious that TJ has never read Professor Hector Avalos "The End of Biblical Studies" In these he shows just how little underpinning of archeology for much of the Christian Bible. There is no archeological evidence for the kingship of David or Solomon. We also have evidence from other the surrounding cultures for the the existing of these kingdoms. These have lots of treats with other civilizations but nothing with these two biblical biggies. I would recommend Avalos because he argued that academic biblical scholarship was primarily an apologetic religionist enterprise meant to provide the illusion that the Bible was still a culturally and morally superior authority.

Based on the idea that if we have to rely on the human record of observation to support ancient texts, and taking into account Avalos, we have more support for the Homeric record than that of the Hebrew bible. By extension, therefore there is more evidence to support the Olympian 'gods' than the existence of Yahweh. Remember gentleman: 'The god of the old testement is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty unjust unforgiving control freak; a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misoginystic, homophobic, racist infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciciously malevolent bully.' Prof. Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'.

Actually, no dinosaur has ever been found. But we have found the fossilised remains of many dinosaurs,…….

Gee…..really? Thanks for sharing that with us.

According to the Guinness Book of Records, the largest complete fossil of a land dwelling dinosaur yet discovered is that of a brachiosaurus.

With apologies to Guinness, (I do like their beer), I don't think so. The last time I went, the Field Museum in Chicago has an ulna bone of a Brachiosuarid much larger than "Brachiosaurus branchai". He is "Ultrasaurus MacIntoshii". An even bigger specimen is in Berlin in the Humboldt Museum.

You did know that Brachiosaurus is not a dinosaur, but a Genus of dinosaurs, right? Then you might want to Google "Supersaurus Vivianae", who is a Brontosaurid and not a Brachiosaurid. Why? Because his hind limb is longer than his forelimbs. Don't get me started on "Bruhathkayosaurus matleyi".

I wonder if IDiots go to museums. Ones that are not creation museums or flood museums.

The fossil record also shows us that most of the fossils are not of extinct animals and plants, but are of animal and plant species that are still around today (e.g. invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals).

TJ, this is what happens when you take the crap on a Creation Wiki at face value. You are totally wrong. First off invertebrates, fish, amphibians, etc are not Species, rather they are Classes. Therefore, your statement is nonsensical.

Some facts:

1) The overwhelming majority of all species that have ever lived on Earth are currently extinct. Look it up.

2) Recently extinct species (those that died out 10,000 years or less) will not have fossilized remains. Just because we do not have fossils of the Dodo bird or Passenger Pigeon doesn't mean they are not extinct.

3) Just because a Class of animal or plant still exists today does not mean that millions of Species within those classes have not died out and become the fossilized remains that we see today. For example, a few hours drive from my house, in Gilboa, New York, is a clump of fossilized ferns of the Genus Wattieza. They became extinct almost 400 million years ago. But ferns still exist. Just like sharks that still exist after 400 million years. But they are MODERN ferns and sharks. The species of 400 million years ago are long, long, long, dead. Get it?

Now, let's take a quick look at the Biblical account of creation………The first thing to note is this: the sequence is nothing like that given by theory of evolution.

Maybe that is because the Bible is not attempting to present a scientific truth, rather present a metaphorical truth for a pre-scientific bronze age readership. Pope John Paul II had some interesting things to say about this issue. I for one, appreciate his view much more that the literal, fundamentalist view of the ID movement.

Next: I would expect to find evidence of massive volcanic activity all over the world. And we do.

Ahh…… no we don't. Volcanic activity is designated to the "ring of fire" which roughly delineate the eastern and western borders of the pacific (with a few spots in the center like Hawaii). You'd be hard pressed to find active volcanoes outside a thin line painted by this "ring". Dead, extinct volcanoes you can find everywhere. So what?

Because of the sheer size and the chaotic nature of the Flood………

Tj, you've made a very bad case against evolution because you accepted the anti-scientific anti-evolutionary nonsense in the creationist press and websites. Now you are diverting us to an equally ludicrous concept of a world wide biblical-style flood.

You must know that no reputable geologists, physical geographers, oceanographers, or geophysicists hold that a global flood ever happened. No professional Associations of the Geo-Sciences believe this to be true. Here is a Wiki list of the above Associations with active links. Look them up and check out their position papers. You'll be surely disappointed.

link

Clearly, evolutionary theorists weren't there to see what happened; neither were any creationists. Both must INTERPRET the evidence (the fossil record) to support their "conjectures".

Yes, but where is the fossil evidence for special Creationism or the existence of a world wide Biblical flood? Why are none of the experts aware of this evidence? Why is this information missing from the position papers of the Professional Associations? Why is none of this published in peer reviewed Geo-Science Journals? The evolutionists have done all the above.

The fossil evidence is evolutionary theory's only evidence………..

Boy! Even Doug thought something about that assertion smelled funny!

The long term "evidence" of microbe to man evolution supporting their "conjectures" would be seriously compromised… wouldn't it?

The fact that the millions of mitochodria in my body are all the archaic "cousins" of Rickettsiae prowazekii is pretty good evidence of our microbiological evolutionary beginnings. I wonder what the Creationist explanation would be? God ran out of DNA sequences so he borrowed bacterial ones to build us with? Does that make more sense?

Ralph

If TJ is accurately representing the actual condition of the fossil record world-wide, then he has a point (no matter how long ago it was made; or do we agree to no longer quote Copernicus?). That record does support a Great Deluge: or evolution, which came along much later and is itself a counter explanation based on a completely "new" idea. No matter how intricate the new idea, if it cannot conclusively show a consistent counter explanation to the fossil record, it cannot disprove the Great Deluge explanation.

But the biological evidence for evolution is what evolutionists rely on, from what I am hearing. I'll wait some more….

Hi Last Hussar,

crhkrebs- by co-incidence I was reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and Dawkins mentioned "my freind the zoologist John Krebs…". Another one of your clan?

Due to the lumbering size of this thread this has come up before. Dr John Krebs (an zoologist, a Baron, and a member of the House of Lords, member of the Royal Society, staunch evolutionist and good friend to Richard Dawkins) is the son of Dr. Hans Krebs. Therefore, he too, is a distant relative. I didn't know that until someone else brought that up earlier on this thread.

The two parts of the family were not close when Hans Krebs and his immediate family emigrated from Berlin to England to escape the coming of Nazism. My part of the family stayed and were wiped out in the war. The only survivors, my Dad and his older brother, finished their education, married and emigrated to Canada in the 50's. We've been separated for almost 80 years now.

Maybe I should head off to "old Blighty", knock on Baron Krebs' door and introduce myself. "Hey, Uncle Johnny, It's your long lost great nephew, Ralph! Can I come in? Where do you keep the Single Malts?"

Ralph

Sorry, gentleman, see how the Creationist, "Cdesign proponentsists." Design proponents. Or IDiots for short lead us away from the subject with some odd side track. Wait for more smoke and mirrors with abiogenesis next.

We know already that TJ rejects any form of sceintic dating that extends back more than 5,000 years.

We know already that TJ rejects the principle of the scientific method, including peer review. Why because IDiots regard this as the 'politically correct' establishment closing ranks to hide "the truth".

So what we have here is a dialogue of the deaf.

If you saw the NOVA presentation of Darwin this week there is an exchange between Darwin and FitzRoy. Darwin reports finding fossilised remains of sea creatures thousands of feet up a mountain in Andes. FitzRoy airily dismisses this as the result of the flood.

So move along people, nothing for you to do worry about, my 'special friend' YHVH did it, isn't he awesome!

That says way more about the 7th century BCE Jews than it does about "God".

As he doesn't believe in God, that is actually Dawkins' point, Doug. Our gods are extensions of both our aspirations and our failings. Either way, Dawkins states that they are manufactured entities and we have to question out genuflection towards them. Sounds like the shoe is on the right foot to me.

If TJ is accurately representing the actual condition of the fossil record world-wide……….

He is not, at least according to those who know.

That record does support a Great Deluge……

What record would that be?

But the biological evidence for evolution is what evolutionists rely on….

No. Biologist rely on the biological evidence. Others rely on their evidence. All the other sciences corroborate evolutionary theory too. While the knowledge is not an unbroken line, all the accumulated evidence is still best described by Evolutionary Theory. All TJ's prose still doesn't change that fact.

Ralph

TJ brought up the discrepencies in the "geological column", i.e. that taken from different places around the world they don't match up. Is this a false observtion? I don't know; but for the purposes of interest in this discussion I am only asking. IF the geological strata contains anomalies then a Great Deluge could account for them: making the Creationists happy.

Dawkins, et al. atheists everywhere believe there is no "GOD" (and certainly no gods): was the debunking of the OT creation myth just too disappointing or what? Was the realization that the OT GOD is a madeup one at all positive? Or was the "freedom" to not believe in a higher authority just too intoxicating to give up?

As I said, evolution does not address Existence in the first place. Expecting science to explain Existence in the first place is having faith in a belief in science every bit as founded in untestable data as the religious faith in the Existence of "God". It, belief, comes down to what you want: what are you expectations?

If scientists (90%+ irreligious, so I am told) would stop sounding like their discoveries disprove religious belief in God I think that this kind of confrontation would largely go away. Then what would we do for fun?…

And I get the 666th post, BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Doug, you might find this interesting with regards to the geological column and the Flood…

link

Pete

Alternatively you could look at the "facts" for Catastrophism that TJ is suggesting here:

link

…I leave you to make up your own mind.

Pete

Interesting claims at both sites. I particularly question the tree fossils that extend through layers (they claim) that are supposed to be millions of years old (according to Uniformitarianism). And the claim that "older is on top" in some strata. Is that just bunk? It looks like this is a very complex (hardly scratched the surface) subject with counter evidence coming to light on both sides all the time.

For what it is worth, I believe that the "Great Deluge" stories are founded on ancient local catastrophes, the most likely being the formation of the Mediterranean, then later the Black seas….

crhkrebs- sorry for missing that, it is, as you say, because of the behemoth of a thread.

I'm with 138Sqd- "dialogue of the deaf". There is nothing anyone can show TJ that will make him accept the truth. He actually pointed out a major biblical contradiction (light before the sun created), yet seems perfectly comfortable with that. The fact that there ISN'T one perfect geological column precludes a worldwide flood causing the geology 4500 years ago- it should be uniform.

Here is an interesting, well diverting anyway, exercise. Work out the volumn of the Earth. Now work out the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth, plus the diameter of Mt Ararat. Take one away from the other. That is the amount of water needed to rest the ark on top of Ararat. Now you can argue some of that is take up by land. So I will be generous, and allow that all the land masses are the same height as the mountain, to reduce the volumn by as much as possible. 2/3s of the Earth's surface is water, so multiply the volumn by 60% (even more generous).

The resultant amount of water needed is many, many times the amount of ALL H2O, no matter what the form, present on Earth. The 'underground fountains' have never been found- there is NO EVIDENCE for the amount of water needed.

(I once did this calculation for napoleonic cannon balls- you'd be surprised at how small the difference between a 12lb and a 9lb cannon ball, suggesting the 12lber shouldn't kill more men, it just has a longer range).

In fact the physics needed for the geology we have to have been caused by a flood precludes many modern inventions- computers just can't work if the geology is flood geology.

Sorry, I too wanted Doug to make up his own mind but I just can't resist:

Catastrophism supports the Noachian Flood. Dramatic evidence is everywhere except in the popular press.

And don't forget it's not found in the scientific literature either.

For instance, who is aware that fossil remains of clams (found in the closed position, indicating they were buried alive) have been found atop Mt. Everest?

Ummm…..if the clams were buried alive wouldn't they be open? They need to be open to filter feed. Remember, when you cook clams don't eat the ones that don't open. Sheeesh, I wouldn't eat clams if I was invited for dinner at some IDiots house.

Actually Mt. Everest is a good example of Uniformitarianism. The entire Himalayan mountain range is caused from the Indian sub-continent crashing into the Asian continent. It is still doing so, causing the plates to buckle upward.

Can we predict anything from this Theory? Sure can. We would expect the upward buckling to cause tremors and other seismic disturbances and we would expect the mountains to be growing upward and that India is moving into Asia.

Well we always knew that there was seismic activity in these mountain ranges. Ask any Sherpa. Now thanks to satellite mounted lasers we know that India is still sliding into (actually under) the Asian plate and Everest is growing at about 2 1/2 " or 6.1 cm per year.

The Idiots chose a bad example. again

Ralph

I just showed my entry to my son who is home from University for Thanksgiving. He said all clam fossils would probably look closed as an artifact of the fossilization process. The eventual high pressures of the overlying sedimentary rock would "pancake" the clam closed. He thinks it would be rare to find a fully open clam fossil unless it was crushed open on it's side. I think he may be right. The IDiots are still wrong.

Ralph

Looks like the IDiots are working on a flawed translation:

link

This of course will not suit the God fearin' 'Merkins who read the Bible in English "just like Jesus spoke"

"She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark "a robust debate", since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people."

"New?" Ah, that's the motivtion, yet again: stir the pot, rock the boat, make a name for yourself. The temptation to make a splash is just too much for most people.

The essential "missing link" in modern translations of ancient texts is the meaning BACK THEN. We cannot determine that, ever, because languages/meanings/nuances change over time. To harp on the actual meaning of "bara" and claim that we've been wrong all these years is ludicrous.

Besides, given that she is literally correct: then the "god" of Judeo-Christianity really is/was a spaceman. So WHAT?

"Not too long ago three aliens descended to Earth to evaluate the status of intelligent life. One specialized in engineering, one in chemistry and one in computation. Turning to his colleagues, the engineer reported (translation follows): "All of the creatures here are solid, some segmented, with capacities to move on the ground, through the water or air. All extremely slow. Unimpressive." The chemist then commented: "All quite similar, derived from different sequences of four chemical ingredients." Next the computational expert opined: "Limited computing abilities. But one, the hairless biped, is unlike the others. It exchanges information in a manner that is primitive and inefficient but remarkably different from the others. It creates many odd objects, including ones that are consumable, others that produce symbols, and yet others that destroy members of its tribe."

"But how can this be?" the engineer mused. "Given the similarity in form and chemistry, how can their computing capacity differ?" "I am not certain," confessed the computational alien. "But they appear to have a system for creating new expressions that is infinitely more powerful than those of all the other living kinds. I propose that we place the hairless biped in a different group from the other animals , with a separate origin, and from a different galaxy." The other two aliens nodded, and then all three zipped home to present their report." link

So, who was responsible for putting us here? (haha)

I note, despite the fanciful quality of the story, that the biological building blocks of life throughout the universe remain a constant in this scientist's (author's) expectations: which goes along with my own (instinctive) expectations, as I proposed earlier….

150 years later and we still have comments like this

So, who was responsible for putting us here? (haha)

I was trained as an economist, not a biologist. Here therefore is a lecture on this very subject by some I know who is a biologist:

link

Hi

TJ asserts that as no one observed….

And you all missed it. In china, we have a continuous use of language, a culture with continuous history recorded and observed that pre-dates the putative "great flood", but the Idiots not only object to their literalism contradicting evolution in general, but have all of the world decended from a handful of inbred individuals who then suddenly re-occupy china and spontaneously take up the language and writing system there! In essenxe, humans were there in china and didn't observe this flood but did record history that could not have happened.

And, of course, no one was there to observe "let their be light", just the assertian. Cannot argue this both ways.

Doug, fractal math is a simple formula discribing when used infinite complexity.

As for "translation" problems. That is well known, and always my first question when, say, a Jehovah's witness asserts that they know the bible. The issue of a description involving an extinct version of bovine becoming "unicorn" in King James is one of the sillier ones.

Rocky

Doug, fractal math is a simple formula discribing when used infinite complexity.

Isn't that what I said? "Fractals, string theories, multiverses: all are in all. There is no complexity arising out of simplicity (defined as more out of less, i.e. parts exceeding the sum or total): there is only infinite complexity, ever changing…."

There is no complexity arising out of simplicity……

Instead of saying something stupid and unsubstantiated like above, do some reading on the subject. Instead of going to the library and getting a book about Benoit Mandlebrot, like I suggested, you decide not to, and all we get is you carping, "What do fractels have to do with anything?"

At least read the first chapters of "The Blind Watchmaker", where you can learn about randomness, self organization, and complexity and how they apply to nature (as opposed to the colloquial understanding you have now).

Consider the complexity of convection currents in water when it is warmer than it's surroundings. They arose out of the simplicity of still water that has the same ambient temperature as it's surroundings.

Every time the dirt road outside my house is graded, I could show you how complexity arises from the gravel over the next few days.

But, Doug, instead of having this spoon fed to you I really suggest you take the time and discover it for yourself.

Ralph

But, Doug, instead of having this spoon fed to you I really suggest you take the time and discover it for yourself.

Doug…listen to Ralph,he speaks the truth.

You only really discover something if you make the journey to it yourself. It's OK to follow in someone else's footsteps, just don't let them do all the walking.

Pete

Instead of saying something stupid and unsubstantiated like above, do some reading on the subject.

Instead of wasting time and energy showing that you don't read for context, try putting what I SAID into the context of what I have always been addressing on this thread.

Not one of you understands the first thing about it: instead of assuming that I am asking questions, you might just imagine that I am trying to show something that transcends your fly specks infinitely more than a study of the same is transcended by the universe.

There is no complexity arising out of simplicity; only a focus on individual empirical phenomena which appears to be increasingly complex, as WE observe more about it. The complexity was there all the time; it just doesn't sit and DO the same damned thing over and over again for eternity.

Whatever happened to your comprehension of the maxim, "The only constant thing in the universe is change?"…

Apropos, complexity without design: PZ Meyers' facile driftwood example (all of his examples, in fact; multiplied by your dirt road and water temperatures over googleplex to the umptitty-'leventh power): apparent randomness resulting in "complexity" compared to Existence in the first place begs the question of arguing against a Necessary Cause origin.

Meyers and his audience bore all the same characteristics as a roomful of Creationists; including their lofty denigration of the other group's intellect: but both groups are willing to concede that there are a few "enlightened/liberal" thinkers among them that are worth "saving"….

Here's the other telling similarity: during the question and answer part at the end, the issue of living in a religious world as a non believer was raised: and the advice was to keep your atheism to yourself, if you wanted that teaching position or wanted to rise in your profession. The MAJORITY of people accept the status quo of traditional religious underpinnings without thought: because they belong to the comfortable majority expectation and are not in conflict with it. But a minority religious person is in exactly the same risk position as an atheist: if he says he's a Mormon (for instance) he can and probably will lose his administrative position working in the school system of the Bible Belt (or won't even get the job in the first place). If atheists ever have their way, and godless gov't is the "PC" position, then hiding your religious notions/affiliations will be the only way to get ahead in this world. We are all pots and kettles, taken en masse; and sometimes from there it just gets worse….

The complexity was there all the time……

Another stupid and unsubstantiated statement. I think I have the context correct here.

……it just doesn't sit and DO the same damned thing over and over again for eternity.

And another one. Complexity does not "sit" nor does it "do things".

It is a quality of the self-arrangement of matter. Ultimately, if the universe progresses to "latent heat death" complexity will also disappear. Why? Because the ever dilating space between the atoms will not allow them to interact. In other words the space between atoms is too big to allow chemical bonds or the weak forces of gravity to have effect.

I now have a maxim for you, "There are none so stupid as those that refuse to learn".

Ralph

If atheists ever have their way, and godless gov't is the "PC" position, then hiding your religious notions/affiliations will be the only way to get ahead in this world.

Don't invent malevolent intentions and agendas for a 5% minority that you obviously don't have a clue about. I always thought your country pays lip service to the separation of Church and State. Personally, I'd like to see a world where people get ahead through merit and not because of, or despite religious affiliations, or lack thereof.

Ralph

Meyers and his audience bore all the same characteristics as a roomful of Creationists; including their lofty denigration of the other group's intellect:…….

But there is one big difference, the evidence is firmly one one side of this argument.

It's not surprising that you do not dwell on the content of Dr. Meyer's lecture, because that would require you to re-examine the logic fallacy of your own argument. You know, the one that all of us on this thread are too stupid to understand.

Ralph

Ultimately, if the universe progresses to "latent heat death" complexity will also disappear.

Says ONE theory. Another one, the more believable one, says BBs are ocurring all the time, forever: the multiverse advances a step in the right direction. Not your feeble, pitiful "heat death then nothing" concept.

"There are none so stupid as those that refuse to learn".

Yup. That's exactly what I just said (as in "meant") above.

If "doctorates" were given out for the kind of learning that really matters, I flatter myself in believing that I am about to earn mine: I'm working on my thesis right now.

Don't invent malevolent intentions and agendas for a 5% minority that you obviously don't have a clue about.

Is THAT what you treasure? Being an elitist minority? And you don't know the first thing about what I know about atheism (ists).

It's not surprising that you do not dwell on the content of Dr. Meyer's lecture, because that would require you to re-examine the logic fallacy of your own argument. You know, the one that all of us on this thread are too stupid to understand.

If I believed that about "you" I wouldn't waste my time talking here. What I continue to be impatient with is the narrow focus on one note: instead of understanding what I say in the correct context: you inevitably take the sentence as-is and apply it to evolution or some other limited science and then pretend to yourself that it was fallacious and stupid. By so doing you remain face-down in the fly specks, and that's all you'll see, breath and eat until you stop taking pleasure in facile quips to make yourself look smart by slapping others around for being "stupid".

The context of Meyers' lecture was simplicity itself: We atheistic scientists are right because we don't say "God did it" for anything (because there isn't any "God"); those Creationists are wrong because they don't know the implications of what they say when they crib from science to create their strawmen arguments. They just don't UNDERSTAND.

And the Creationists say the same thing: and they have ONE fact on their side: Existence in the first place has an explanation in "God". The devil in the details will get them all in the end. But at least the concept of the Necessary Cause remains regardless of how many denominations go down in flames. So far, I have yet to hear any atheist (other than MAYBE Sagan) even hint at the idea that Existence in the first place actually transcends all empirical arguments, i.e. the concept of the NC is behind all the sciences, not observed in them….

Hi

Ralph and Pete, I utterly reject the "go read a book" form of argument. This is, in essence, a variant of TJs go read the Bible. Make a point, the "go read my book" is a form of dismissal.

Doug KNOWS that there is a greater extra-ordinary presence out there. The difference here is pretty simple. Pete and Ralph and I don't think this is "science". There is no way to test for your assertions, Doug. And in a logical way, you are replying in kind to their "go read a book" as in "if you opened your mind to something beyond your narrow…. you would agree". Also a form of dismissal.

I can demonstrate evolution, I cannot demonstrate someones limited or unlimited version of god except by "there must be a God because…I just feel it".

R

Says ONE theory. Another one, the more believable one, says BBs are ocurring all the time, forever: the multiverse advances a step in the right direction. Not your feeble, pitiful "heat death then nothing" concept.

Beliveable to who? you.

As it stands now, we don't have enough evidence for any real concencus. the univerise might just wind down, it might contract(evidence for this is looking bleak) or there might be a big rip.
But in the end how the universe ends if it ends is not up to who beliveble it seems to you, but what the evidence says.
If the universe does infact end up just slowing down, cooling until all mater desolve then thats just how it is, the universe dosn't exist so you can be comforted it just exist and will go though it's life and end or just go on. But the universe dosn't end the way you want it, just becasue it sounds nice and conforting to you.

Beliveable to who?

The multiverse "option" is just as viable as all the other quantum physics ideas on "what caused (came before) the BB?" It also addresses what happens if and when this singular universe "dies". The reason why I believe it is the most correct pursuit is because it is the BIGGEST concept: and when we are talking about Existence in the first place, obviously the biggest concept is the one to chase after, not some more comforting, easier to grasp variety….

Atheists fall into TWO groups: those that can't believe, and those that won't believe.

Any evidence for that statement? Looks like an unsupported slur to me.

Why do you take it as a slur? Is there a third category? If so, share please….

Saying they "won't believe" means that you think there is something they SHOULD believe.

I don't think of myself as a hard or soft atheist. Whatever my personal feelings, the fact is that there is no evidence for gods and nothing in the universe needs one for things to have turned out exactly as they have. If there is one, it isn't significant because it doesn't do anything that causes me to accept that it exists, therefore it doesn't even matter if it exists or not. So I take it for granted that it was never there in the first place, just as I take it for granted that invisible pink unicorns don't watch me take a shower.

Saying they "won't believe" means that you think there is something they SHOULD believe…

If there is one, it isn't significant because it doesn't do anything that causes me to accept that it exists, therefore it doesn't even matter if it exists or not…

First of all, there has to be a cause for anything to happen; the ultimate concept of Existence in the first place requires a cause also; and it would be the only Necessary Cause, i.e. not caused by anything: it just IS (you can't go turtles all the way down): Existence in the first place IS, simple as that. Given that that is true, then everyone SHOULD believe it. To not believe it would be denying truth. That's why I say, "won't believe" is where those that don't care (you) and those that don't want to believe fit. It isn't a slur, just a fact you ought to accept.

You say "it" doesn't matter because it doesn't do anything to "cause" you to believe. But if the NC caused YOU to come about (no matter how randomly you think it happened), you might be mistaken about the NC not mattering where you are concerned. Just a thought; it could be possible. Looking at your life (anyone can do this) I am sure that there are aspects that puzzle, annoy and intrigue you that have no empirical explanation.

Personally, I see "God" coming at everyone from every direction possible all the time. And then we die….

Non-adherents to Islam fall into TWO groups: those that can't believe, and those that won't believe.

Disbelievers in Unicorns fall into TWO groups: those that can't believe, and those that won't believe.

Creationist who oppose science fall into TWO groups: those that can't believe, and those that won't believe.

First of all, there has to be a cause for anything to happen; the ultimate concept of Existence in the first place requires a cause also; and it would be the only Necessary Cause, i.e. not caused by anything: it just IS (you can't go turtles all the way down): Existence in the first place IS, simple as that. Given that that is true, then everyone SHOULD believe it. To not believe it would be denying truth.

Except that you made all that up. It's untestable metaphysical BS. To not believe that would be denying truth.

Gee, getting a little nasty here gentlemen. Said it would get interesting…

A while back I said that it appeared that we are all happy with our own personal beliefs. I said that it would be very unlikely that anyone here was going to change the minds of anyone else here. Following the recent postings, I see that this remains true.

Doug, one thing the evolutionism can never answer is this: Why are we here? What's life all about?

Evolutionism certainly can't answer those sorts of questions; science certainly can't answer those sorts of questions.

From the evolutionist's world-view, you, me and everything we see around us is just the end result of countless cosmic "accidents"; it's all the end result of a countless mindless and aimless random physical processes. They have no reason as to why it began; no reason as to why it is like it is; no reason as to why it even continues. The only certainty that evolution can ever give us is that one day each and every one of us is going to die. It's inevitable.

Evolutionists say that you have nothing to lose when you die; there is nothing after death; you simply cease to exist. So, I ask: Why don't they just go out and jump off a cliff right now? Game over… Would you hurt those left behind? Certainly… but so what! In the course of time they won't exist either, so why care?

So they say: Party on! "Enjoy" the things of life! … and when they get to those last few moments, all they can really say is "What was the #$@%&* point of it all?"

Yes, it's a totally pointless and aimless existence ending in "non-existence"… and its never more than a single heartbeat away. No guarantees you'll see the day out, eh? If they want that sort of existence they can have it … no… they actually already have it.

If the likes of Dawkins are correct, then we all have nothing to lose. But if he's wrong… after all, he is only human and humans make mistakes all the time… don't we?

Evolutionists say that you have nothing to lose when you die; there is nothing after death; you simply cease to exist.

Since when did "Evolutionist" imply non-believers? A huge number of Christians accept that biological evolution through mutation and selection is the most likely explanation for a wide range of observed effects. I imagine they view this as their gods chosen mechanism for running things – their choice. However, inventing an "Evolutionist" faction and ascribing a set of beliefs to them in order to attack them is just a cheap worthless rhetorical trick. (as is consistently trying to widen the scope of the discussion to unrelated areas).

And Doug – Hexxenhammer answered fairly neatly in some respects. My main objection was that you had cast both camps in a negative light – group attack rhetorical trickery a bit like TJ's – although less wild. You dont admit the possibliity of a think-and-conclude atheist, and treat lack of belief as a shortcoming.

I realise that you feel strongly that there must be a first cause of some sort, but surely you can realise that most readers of this thread view this as a "pure" belief untainted by reason. I have thought about these matters, but mainly concluded that I dont have the mental equipment to work with "before" time or "outside" space as concepts. Perhaps somebody else does, or perhaps someone will later. Or maybe not – theres no rule that says our species will eventually achieve complete understanding.

Since when did "Evolutionist" imply non-believers? A huge number of Christians accept that biological evolution through mutation and selection is the most likely explanation for a wide range of observed effects. I imagine they view this as their gods chosen mechanism for running things – their choice.

You are correct Imreal..There was a documentary on TV on Sunday night. Richard Dawkins interviewed the Arch Bishop of Canterbury (most senior member of the Church of England) and this is the exact explanation he gave. The Church of England embraces Evolutionary Theory and does not see it as a challenge to God. I think the same is the case for the Catholic Church as well. Guess that makes them "Godless" in many peoples' eyes.

TJ, when are you going to bring along your Alternate Theory…you were joking about the Flood weren't you?

Pete

@TJ,

You know yourself that this is a fallacious statement:

Doug, one thing the evolutionism can never answer is this: Why are we here? What's life all about?

Evolution and the study of biology in general does not deal in these metaphysical and philosophical questions. Architecture also cannot answer those questions, does that invalidate architecture? Geology can't answer, "Why are we here?", I guess geology is an invalid area of study too.

From the evolutionist's world-view, you, me and everything we see around us is just the end result of countless cosmic "accidents"; it's all the end result of a countless mindless and aimless random physical processes. They have no reason as to why it began; no reason as to why it is like it is; no reason as to why it even continues. The only certainty that evolution can ever give us is that one day each and every one of us is going to die. It's inevitable.

No supernatural reason, you mean. I have very good reasons to continue, thank you very much.

Evolutionists say that you have nothing to lose when you die; there is nothing after death; you simply cease to exist. So, I ask: Why don't they just go out and jump off a cliff right now? Game over… Would you hurt those left behind? Certainly… but so what! In the course of time they won't exist either, so why care?

First, don't confuse atheism with a belief in evolution. Second, the reason most evolutionists don't jump off a cliff is because your assertion above is utter nonsense.

Yes, it's a totally pointless and aimless existence ending in "non-existence"… and its never more than a single heartbeat away. No guarantees you'll see the day out, eh? If they want that sort of existence they can have it … no… they actually already have it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't feel this way at all. Your basic understanding of the science is bad at best. And from this lack of understanding you're trying to piece together my world-view?

@Doug, er I mean Dr. Doug PhD

You said:

If atheists ever have their way, and godless gov't is the "PC" position, then hiding your religious notions/affiliations will be the only way to get ahead in this world.

I responded by saying you are making up agendas for a 5% minority, who want nothing of the sort.

You responded:

Is THAT what you treasure? Being an elitist minority?

First you accuse atheists of some nefarious plot and when I call you out on it, you charge me with elitism? Tell us, what did you get your PhD in again?

Ralph

Hey Doug,

Allow me some different answers to your make believe questions to Dr. Paul Myers:

1) "It is clear that this room is full of people who don't believe in God, either because they can't or don't want to: which one are you?"

(I don't understand what my personal belief has to do with the topic of the lecture. My religious belief do not affect the scientific validity of Evolution any more than it affects the non-validity of Intelligent design.)

2) "I see. Could you explain to me why you would pursue a Godless expectation instead of allowing the need for a Necessary Cause?"

(What the hell is a necessary cause? Were you not listening when I brought up that complexity does not infer a cause with intent? What godless expectations have I pursued in this lecture? I was discussing the intellectual and scientific shortcomings of the ID movement.)

3) "Then what accounts for all of THIS going on? And don't tell me that it just happened; how scientific is that?"

(Everything that we see is accounted for by the simple laws of physics. While there are many unknowns yet to be discovered, is there a reason to believe that that trend will not continue?)

4) "But that's not an answer: you're only talking about this universe."

(Well, unfortunately we are "stuck" in THIS one universe. That is the only universe that I, as a biologist can describe. Anything else is speculation.)

5) "What you are saying is that you don't care to think about Existence in the first place."

(Not at all. But that is a different lecture. This lecture deals with contrasting evolution and ID. Have you not been listening?)

6) "You'd rather assume that the eventual explanation (if there's going to be one) will prove there is no God: so there's a 50/50 here, God or no God: science doesn't help us does it? And you'd rather assume no God."

( Again, leaving my personal views aside for the moment, I'm currently trying to expose the fallacies involved in the pseudo-scientific ID movement. That's what I do as an evolutionary biologist. Maybe you should brings these questions up at the Cosmology lecture by Dr._______, or better yet a religious lecture.)

That work for you, Doug? I think that is a lot closer to the actual response you would get from Dr. Myers.

Ralph