"Darwin Day" Topic

@Doug

Except for "places" where that's apparently not true: everything in the universe apparently originating from the same singularity when space-time got its start, I mean….

There are no places where that is not true, and the link you provide doesn't state anything of the sort. Plus it is so poorly written that I can't make out what he actually means. "A swath of galactic clusters" indicates a blogger and not an astronomer. Also if galaxies are involved we are not looking at the edge of the observable universe, where galaxies do not yet exist. Other comments are really suspect like, "….it's that the entire makeup of the universe as we understand it can't be right if this is happening." or, "One explanation that's already been offered is that our universe underwent a period of hyper-inflation early in its existence, and everything we think of as the vast and infinite universe is actually a small corner under the sofa of the real expanse of reality." There are many better sites to look at, even NASA's one.

Humanity has progressed far beyond the point where science can be dismembered by superstition. Your fears are groundless.

No, I'm just better informed on this topic than you are.

…….or look at physical evidence: they would rather just BELIEVE any old hooey fed to them.

Remind me of the tenets of Creationism, the Young Earthers, and Intelligent Design again?

Science explores immediate answers to observable phenomena. If you only do science in your mind then you are limiting your imagination.

It's funny, the only people I ever get this junk thinking from are those that never took a science class in their entire lives. Where does this idea come from, that those who have some science education are somehow less creative, less imaginative or somehow limited when compared to those with no science background?

But I also see from what you've said in the past, that you don't find it profitable to discuss unscientific things. Entertaining, perhaps, but of no practical value.

Once again, totally wrong. I enjoy many unscientific things as do all people with a scientific background. I especially enjoy idle speculation. I don't enjoy bad, unsubstantiated ideas that some people take to heart so tightly that they confuse them with facts. Discussing things with those people is certainly "unprofitable".

It seems to me that anyone who would claim that the universe (matter in total) has always existed, yet would assert that the attributes of life deriving from the universe are not PART OF the universe, is proposing some kind of closed environment in which attributes can arise out of nothing to do with them

You are misrepresenting what I said. For starters, I didn't claim anything. I said it could be "possible" and I emphasized that I was speculating. The rest is nonsense.

Refusal/failure to believe has its roots in personal issues, not in a failure of imagination.

I totally disagree. Belief has nothing to do with reality. Wishing doesn't make things so.

As I have said also before: refusal/failure to believe is either out of a desire to not have a higher "authority" to answer to (you will find immoral and dishonest individuals in this category): or a fear of disappointment -- "I believed and found out that I was mistaken." Nobody wants that to happen -- and that explains the adamant resistance of IDers/Creationists to godless science: the other approach to staving off disappointment is, of course, to reject belief in the first place….

Sorry, Doug, I don't buy any of this argument. An example: I do not have a DESIRE to not have a higher "authority" to answer to". In fact the opposite. I find I have no inherent NEED to require or necessitate "a higher "authority" to answer to". There is a big difference and this makes the rest of your argument nonsensical.

Ralph

It's spelled kyoteblue……

Shouldn't you be urging some of us on to the Blue Fezzy by now?

That is certainly a false syllogism: I am imagining having sex with Morena but nothing ever happens; my imagination never results in reality; ergo imagining a NC isn't real….

Maybe you could learn the difference between a false syllogism and a false metaphor before you use either one in a sentence.

Maybe we both should stick to the OP's topic.

Ralph

Whatever you call it, it was false reasoning.

If I change the order it becomes a syllogism for you?

Major premise: imagining something never results in reality

Minor premise: I cannot have sex with Morena by imagining it

Conclusion: therefore if I imagine a concept for the NC it will fail on the same basis as my failure to make sex with Morena into reality.

The obvious trouble with Rocky's false logic (whatever it's called) is that he mixed two completely separate imaginative concepts: Morena is known to exist empirically: she could even be stalked, giving Rocky's imagination a very real possibility of being carried out. The NC can be just as real, but evidently manifests only metaphysically. The last time I considered it, sex is not metaphysical and neither is the "object" employed while engaging in sex….

Hi

Actually, Doug, I didn't make my point clear. I have no wish to prove or disprove a NC. I don't believe it possible.

The issue was your assertian about a lack of imagination. One can imagine a lot of things that are impossible. Thus having the imagination to conceive of a NC that cannot be demonstrated isn't the issue. And as you point out, my ability to imagine a scenario that would lead to my bedding Morena is much more plausible than imagining a NC I can demonstrate objectively.

Rocky

Rocky, about the Dawkins and atheism of the gaps.

I think you missunderstand him

I think he only points out the gaps in genesis as a lighbulb kinda thing, I don't think he uses it has evidence against god, only that it made him think twice about the faith he was tought.
He has said that the whole "pick and choose from the bible" and his discovery of other religions as the reason he became and atheist.
I don't think he means that gap of genesis means atheism.
He only finds it weried that you can pick and choose which part you like and which you don't, whats then the point of the book of most people only accept or belive in 25% of it. and the rest is just badly writen fables?

Thats his point, not genesis makes no sense so I became and atheist.

The issue was your assertian about a lack of imagination. One can imagine a lot of things that are impossible. Thus having the imagination to conceive of a NC that cannot be demonstrated isn't the issue.

And my point about imagination is that if you find yourself believing/accepting limited concepts in order to brush aside facile "versions" of the NC, you are not exercising imagination enough.

It hardly seems unreasonable to expect disbelief in the NC to be based on big enough concepts to tax the imagination beyond its capacity. Anything less than this is a denial (rather than a lack) of sufficient imagination.

When one finds that imagination is being deliberately constricted in order to not consider an adequately infinite NC, one ought to look inside to honestly understand why….

Hi

Back to personal beliefs? The point is, doug, I can observe and demonstrate evolution and work with the process to, say, understand the past and the future.

Any imaginatitive vision of a NC that hasn't enough evidence to even be a hypothesis, means that we are left with my testimony. The difference between a religious discussion and a science discussion.

If all I have is imagination without data, it is religion.

Rocky

Here's a nice and LONG video showing there is no need for a first casue or a starter.

It also give very nice and understandble info in comsomlgy and quantum physiscs
YouTube link

Gunfreak,

Thank you so much that post. It is well worth the effort to watch.

Compare to this junk science. This is not from a theistic standpoint but amazing misrepresentation none the less

YouTube link

I came across this posting and I had flash backs of the Dawghouse it seemed so familiar:

"The concept of the Earth being instantaneously formed only 6000 years ago obviously flies in the face of many fields of modern science. A full list can be found on Rational Wiki but most notably these sciences are biology (The theory of evolution and paleontology), astronomy (starlight problem), geology (volcanic formation, sedimentation, plate tectonics), archaeology (historic development of ancient civilizations) and physics (Radiometric dating). Not surprisingly, YEC also contradicts the creation myths of other religions and is in conflict with more evolved forms of Christianity.

These scientific fields are backed by centuries of research by the scientific method, are falsifiable and have accumulated vast quantities of supportive evidence.

Young Earth creationists often reject scientific theories and discoveries that go against their ideas – but rather than presenting evidence for a young Earth, they resort to attacking modern science. Since their ideas are based on faith rather than evidence, they are not falsifiable.

Popular methods of discrediting modern science include:

* Quote mining:

Which is the practice of removing quotes from their context to support a particular view. This often is used in conjunction with the argument from authority.

* Politicization:

Claiming modern science is politicized and biased because most scientists are liberals or moderates. This is, of course, untrue.

* Exaggerating the limits of a scientific theory:

Usually the phrase "only a theory" is passed about without any sense of irony, as creationists themselves sometimes attempt to pass creationism off as a "theory" — albeit one utterly unsupported by any evidence. This is also due to a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is.

* Pointing out science has been wrong before:

This is often combined with the above method of citing the fact that science is theory. Indeed, science has been wrong, but when it is found to be wrong it changes and becomes more accurate. Fundamentalism on the other hand, by definition doesn't change, staying the exact same distance from reality at all times.

* Exploiting the existence of non-uniformitarian views:

This can be wide reaching, from the speed of light changing over time to support the apparent age of the universe to bizarre hypotheses and suggestions that help support a global flood event.

* Exploiting science fiction and popular culture:

As not all people are experts in all fields of science, a lot of people have to make do with popularised and slightly inaccurate versions of scientific theories. The inaccuracies or dramatisations of these theories which slip into popular culture (such as natural selection being termed "survival of the fittest") are easily exploitable. As is saying that intelligent design is right because it sort of happens in 2001: A space Odyssey.

* Invoking divine intervention:

This technique solves many problems, like the starlight problem and explaining why incest was not an issue for Adam and Eve's offspring as well as for those aboard Noah's Ark. From a materialistic view, these are unsatisfying answers. Often this is abbreviated to "goddidit".

* Referring to obsolete sources:

Science thrives on change. When discrediting evolutionary theories, Creationists will often cite Charles Darwin's original Origin of Species and point out issues which were badly understood at the time. As all of science is a "work in progress" the specific details of the the theory of evolution have changed much since Darwin's time and continue to be improved.

* Creationist "scientists" writing outside of their field:

For example, a physicist writing about DNA analysis or geologists commenting on biology. In science, this is of course perfectly acceptable but it does not by default give them authority over someone who has proved themselves as a specialist in an area. This is possibly most apparent in the published list of scientists who disagree with evolution, where only a small handful are qualified biologists.

* Referring to "the flood" for everything:

Similar to divine intervention, the Flood is often cited to explain the presence of fossils, sedimentary layers, The Grand Canyon and to explain why radiometric dating would be flawed. However, this presumes a flood occurred and that it would adequately explain these features of the earth, which it wouldn't do well even if it was feasible to have occurred. See Petrified forest.

Mainstream scientists classify young Earth creationism as a pseudoscience, putting it on par with astrology."

We find examples of the these points in the past 860 posts. I can see why Richard Dawkins refuses to debate.

Source

link

Here's a nice and LONG video showing there is no need for a first casue or a starter.

No he didn't say that. You just fastened on the "zero energy" bit, where he said that the universe didn't need a beginning.

Nothing in that talk addressed Existence in the first place. He did admit that much of a cosmologist's reasoning/thinking is metaphysical! (not religious, that's different, although religious thinking is all metaphysical)

Toward the end it was brought up that the universe/multiverse is infinite; that the space between forming universe is expanding faster than the universes expand. Also that in 5 billion years the only galaxy that will be visible to younger galaxies will be ours: that the exponential expansion of the Hubble progression will have all vanished beyond the speed of light: and that cosmologists will determine empirically with observation that the universe is static: and that they'll be wrong. "We live in a very special time" when we can observe the truth about what is happening with the universe. Yet "there's nothing special about us". His whole talk was a riddle of statement and counter-statement. I guess that "you guys" like that sort of thing. I prefer a clear question and an infinite but clear answer. I don't have to comprehend in order to understand.

Existence in the first place -- transcending any and all observations within space-time -- requires no Cause because it is eternal, and every universe originates beCause of it….

I don't have to comprehend in order to understand.

There's our Doug! At least he didn't say "NC" again.

Ralph

"No he didn't say that. You just fastened on the "zero energy" bit, where he said that the universe didn't need a beginning"

I didn't say it didn't have a begining only that you don't need some big special start, as he said, the whole universe could start from something as un godlike as a Quantum fluctuation.

No need for big spesical god like starplugs or some big cosmic event. a single Quantum fluctuation could have started it all

A "blip" in the mind of "God", rather like "A Mote in God's Eye". Since every possible and articulated concept is finite, your facile tossing of the universe's origin as no more than a fluctuation is accurate; the universe is FINITE; the Cause of it is not addressed and is infinite….

the universe is FINITE; the Cause of it is not addressed and is infinite….

I'd agree the universe is finite. To say the cause is infinite does not see to logically follow. It could be that the cause of the universe was a finite quantum fluctuation.

"We live in a very special time" when we can observe the truth about what is happening with the universe. Yet "there's nothing special about us". His whole talk was a riddle of statement and counter-statement. I guess that "you guys" like that sort of thing.

We live in a special time because we are the first species that has evolved sufficiently to be able to measure the universe around us. We are nothing special because we have evolved by a perfectly natural process.

Of course there was statement and counter-statement. We have not reached a state where we can answer all the questions.

Of course "us guys" like this – it means that there is more to learn and we love to find out more – one more hill to clime and new vistas before us.

To say the cause is infinite does not see to logically follow. It could be that the cause of the universe was a finite quantum fluctuation.

A finite brain, evolved from a finite universe, cannot trace to an ultimate finite Necessary Cause. BeCAUSE, this finite brain can conceive of the infinite, the Necessary Cause itself must be infinite. To assume that something deriving from the finite can itself even perceive something infinite is an ex nihilo trait. So if what caused the universe is itself a finite quantum fluctuation, and this in turn is caused by an equally random, finite "fluctuation", we simply trace it all back to the original source. Or, there is an infinite series of fluctuations: and if infinite, then the series of fluctuations is the Necessary Cause, no matter how ultimately impossible to grasp or study. We'll just have to live with disappointment.

We live in a special time because we are the first species that has evolved sufficiently to be able to measure the universe around us.

And, he pointed out that c. 5 billion years from now scientists will derive false theories of the universe based on THEIR observations. So his claim is that our timing is more special to our conclusions than the powers of observation and deduction we possess.

There are other horizons/hills. Quantum maths isn't the only way to contemplate cosmology. And again, our observations may be completely whacked because of the information we are getting. The observable universe may already be denuded of "stuff" that was once there that isn't anymore, or that has changed beyond recognition from its earliest state. We are basing everything on what we "see": and he said that later there will be almost nothing to see, yet he does not posit that what we see now might just as well be something considerably less that what was once "out there". That background "noise" could be a mere echo of what was once a resounding "symphony of the spheres": the so-called dark matter and dark energy could have appeared as something far more substantial once upon a time. The universe may at one time have been an "ether" that you could touch or even travel upon; and all we have now is what's left of a still-diminishing/dying remnant of a fatally diseased universe. How could we possibly derive an accurate picture of what cosmic evolution is if over 99% of what was once there is missing because it is effectively destroyed or dead?…

A finite brain, evolved from a finite universe, cannot trace to an ultimate finite Necessary Cause. BeCAUSE, this finite brain can conceive of the infinite, the Necessary Cause itself must be infinite.

??

To assume that something deriving from the finite can itself even perceive something infinite is an ex nihilo trait.

Why?

……..the so-called dark matter and dark energy could have appeared as something far more substantial once upon a time.

No, they were dark in the past too. Anything that doesn't emit radiation will "look" black.

The universe may at one time have been an "ether" that you could touch or even travel upon; and all we have now is what's left of a still-diminishing/dying remnant of a fatally diseased universe.

No.

How could we possibly derive an accurate picture of what cosmic evolution is if over 99% of what was once there is missing because it is effectively destroyed or dead?…

Huh? Where do you get this 99% dead crap from? If you want to look into the past Doug, it is still there. It is from light traveling from the farthest reaches of the universe. It shows what happened billions of years ago. The farther "out" you look, the farther "past" you look.

Ralph

That's only true if the observation isn't based on a false premise. If you took quantum maths and applied it to a theory of "decay" -- where once upon a time 100% of the universe was composed of matter like galactic bodies are composed of, but now 99%+ is "dead/dying" -- I bet that it could be shown mathematically.

I'm just having fun with the admitted limitation of perception: if 5 billion years from now there won't be enough galactic matter remaining to avoid a false observation that the universe is static, I find the notion that our present observation is "the truth" in danger of hubris. There is no way to guarantee that what we think we see as "recorded cosmic history" is in fact showing us the past: what we hear defined as dark energy and dark matter (statistically virtually 100% of the "stuff" of existence) could be entirely misapprehended….

Greetings. I quote:

Glenn R Morton has a B.Sc in Geology. He is not a scientist, nor does he do research. His book is a vanity publication, and he is not published in the scientific literature. Why are we paying attention to, "The Geologic Column and Its Implications".

For a start, I think you definitely need to define what you think a "scientist" is. Here's a start for you: "Someone who believes in evolution". That appears to be your definition. Anyone else is in your estimation is a pseudo-scientist regardless of degrees, PhD's, research, etc. As long as they support your idea of evolution they are a "scientist".

Having noted that, do I really have to point out that the Morton paper on the geological column was referred to me as evidence BY YOU? Correct? So, when I pointed out the two peer reviewed and published scientific papers that throw Morton's evolutionary interpretations into a spin, you duck and weave and can only come up with this…

TJ's lack of knowledge of geology has led him to the simple mistake that shales and mudstones are not the same thus the papers he refers to (and his entire post) become irrelevant. Shales contain significant amounts of organic matter consistent with their deposition in an anoxic environment. Mudstones do not have this organic matter, thus deposition in an oxygenated, fast water environment is not an issue.

Are they different? Collins English Dictionary, 1979:

Shale: A fine grained black, grey, brown or red sedimentary rock formed by the compression of clay, silt or sand under the weight of overlaying rocks.

Mudstone: A fine grained sedimentary rock similar to shale that is hardened consolidated form of mud, composed of approximately equal amounts of clay and silt.

Not much difference is there? Both are fine grained. Both are sedimentary. Both consist of clay and silt. Both are consolidated. The only difference between the two is that one is less consolidated than the other.

This only highlights an all too common ploy by evolutionists. Whenever any problem is pointed out with their "evidence" they suddenly deem that evidence to be simply "irrelevant" or "is not an issue" exactly as done here. Once in a blue moon they may actually surprise you and provide some feeble reason as to why it is so such as in this case. Nevertheless, the thing is that if Morton can be dismissed because he has not been peer reviewed, then the likes of that "pinnacle of truth and honesty in science" Talk Origins, which has never been peer reviewed either, can also be dismissed and deemed to be irrelevant… which is usually the best way to approach anything on Talk Origins anyway. Regardless, there are some lessons to be learnt from it so let's have a quick look.

Firstly, the Talk Origins post referred to uses another common ploy, what I call the "machine gun" approach, that is, it poses dozens upon dozens of apparently "difficult" questions whilst all the time implying that there are no answers to them. It's just a form of special pleading. So, ignoring all the evolutionary fuelled ranting and raving, let's look at just one or two of them scientifically. It asks:

How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy (etc)…

The basic fact is correct; the Moon is slowly sapping the Earth's strength through tidal action… and conveniently not mentioned is the scientific fact that as a result the Moon is slowly receding from the Earth. So, let's follow this observed scientific fact and see where that takes us.

If we extrapolate the recession rate backwards in time it brings the Moon into contact with the Earth in a relatively short space of time. In fact, any distance closer than 11,500 miles (the Roche Limit) and the Earth's powerful gravitational forces would shatter the Moon into small pieces that would orbit the planet much like the rings of Saturn. So, how long are we actually talking here?

CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (pp F160-F216)

Borowitz S and Beisler A, "Essentials of Physics", Addison-Wesley, 1971, pp 164-172

Slichter LB, "Effects of tidal friction upon Earth's rotation", Journal of Geographical Research, Vol 8, No.14 (1964) pp 4281-4288

It's all set out there. The actual science, the physics of it all, says that from the Roche Limit to where it is now there can be no more than 320 million years. Ok, how and when does cosmic theory say the Moon was formed? The Guinness Book of Records, 1993 sums it up nicely:

The current accepted "giant impact" theory of lunar origin … This event must have occurred early in history of the solar system as indicated by the fact that lunar rocks brought back to Earth … are of a similar age to oldest known meteorites (about 4500 million years)."

Of course, the giant impact theory is only one of several competing theories for the origin of the Moon. First there was the Fission Theory (quickly discarded), then the Capture Theory (largely discarded now days), then the Condensation (or Co-creation) Theory (again, largely discarded now days) and so the only one still limping along is the Giant Impact Theory as noted. So, how does it stack up?

Lissauer JJ, "It's not easy to make the Moon", Nature 389(6649):353-357, 1997

Shigeru I et al, "Lunar accretion from an impact generated disc", Nature 389(6649):353-357, 1997

Halliday AN and Drake MJ, "Colliding theories", Science 283:1861-1863, 1997

Among the many problems highlighted in these papers is the fact that the debris from such a collision would rain back down onto Earth instead of remaining in orbit to form the Moon. To dislodge and hurl sufficient debris far enough from the Earth the impactor would need to have a mass of about three times the mass of Mars and it would have to just glance the planet. Further, if the Moon did form after such a collision, the numbers say that the Moon's orbit would be unstable at about 14,000 miles above the Earth, circling approximately every two hours. As it lost angular momentum due to tidal friction, the Moon would gradually move further away, which it is doing.

So, are we to believe this "giant collision" by a body three times the mass of Mars only occurred about 320 million years ago? What of this scientific evidence?

Ruzicka A, Snyder GA and Taylor LA, "Giant Impact and fission hypothesis for the origin of the Moon: a critical review of some geo-chemical evidence", International Geology Review 40:851-864, 1998

Ruzicka et al studied the Moon rocks versus Earth rocks for geo-chemical evidence for such a giant impact. Their conclusion was…

… that there is no strong geo-chemical support for either the Giant Impact or Impact-triggered Fission hypotheses.

The giant impact theory says that it would only take a couple of hundred years for the debris to coalesce and form the proto-Moon. The science says that it would then only take about 320 million years to get where it is now. Then the geo-chemical evidence says the proportions of iron, nickel, chromium, vanadium and manganese are all wrong anyway. It certainly appears the "giant impact" theory has some serious problems for evolutionists to explain… but after all, it is all they have left to hang onto isn't it? So, how did the Moon come to be? It's no problem for the creation/Flood theory. Moving along; another comment I noted:

Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.

This basic observation is also correct. However, I will ask: Why is it that some recent well publicised and contradictory evidence in this area always seems to be left out? Deemed "irrelevant" perhaps? What are we to make of this?

Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR and Toporski JK, "Soft tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex", Science 307(5717):1952-1955, 2005

Schweitzer and her team discovered soft tissue (including blood vessels, cells and connective tissue) preserved inside a fossilised Tyrannosaurus rex bone. Needless to say this came as one hell of a surprise because evolutionary theory says that all of the dinosaurs died out about 70 million years ago and so such tissue just shouldn't be there. This was not the first discovery by the way; an earlier discovery:

Embery G, Milner AC, Waddington RJ, Hall RC Langley MS and Milan AM, "Identification of proteinaceous material in the bone of a dinosaur Iguanodon", Connective Tissue Research 44, Supplement 1:41-46, 2003.

No doubt we will all have to endure the irrelevant diatribe from Hurd's so-called "response" on this matter from Talk Origins. However, as with all good science, various objections were raised, and all have been studied, argued about at length and been answered in the peer reviewed journals. The bottom line, the scientific fact of the matter is this: soft tissue (blood vessels, cells and connective tissue) have been found.

Lindahl T, "Instability and decay of primary structure DNA", Nature 362(6422):709-715, 1993

Lindahl's work shows significant biological breakdown of cellular material and DNA can be expected after about 4,000 years, even if well preserved. So, are we to believe that fragile biological components such as blood vessels, cells and connective tissue have survived about 70 million years without breaking down or being fossilised? I'm sorry, but if you believe that that can happen then you are simply being irrational. It's no problem for the creation/Flood theory. Moving along; what are we to make of this?

Darwin clearly argued that all species evolved gradually from some common ancestor. However, some evolutionary theorists now assert that evolution has occurred in sudden leaps and bounds and so have developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, that is, long periods of evolutionary stasis followed by sudden brief periods of rapid evolutionary change.

Question: Why, after nearly 150 years of evolutionary theory and support for gradual change was there even the necessity to consider something like "punctuated equilibrium"? Or to put it another way:

Why even suggest "punctuated equilibrium" if the fossil record is so obviously clear on the matter of "gradual" evolution?

The answer is obvious. It can only be because the actual evidence of the fossil record can no longer be relied upon to defend the idea of gradual change, and it is the fossil record on which the General Theory of Evolution most heavily rests (despite Dawkin's rather irrational denial thereof).

The proposed slow gradual processes of the General Theory of Evolution and the rapid cataclysmic evidence of the fossil record cannot be reconciled. So, in order to salvage evolutionary theory, changes were required to explain the sudden appearance of large numbers of fully functioning species with no suitable intermediates. Hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to explain this dilemma. In essence, what the theory of punctuated equilibrium is suggesting is that having no evidence of suitable intermediates is evidence for those intermediates! Again, that's irrational. Again, there is no problem for the creation/Flood theory.

In his autobiography "Unended Quest", well known writer and philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote this:

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program – a possible framework for testable scientific theories … This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first non-theistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure…

As noted, Karl Popper viewed evolution not as a science but as a "possible framework" on which to build "testable scientific theories". I would agree with him; it is a possible frame-work… but a very poor one. I argue that the creation/Flood frame-work has been much better at explaining the evidence, such as the Moon recession dilemma, the T Rex soft tissue dilemma or the lack of suitable transitional fossils dilemma.

Evolution is obviously a belief system that has been willingly adopted by some people as a framework to explain the origin and the development of both the cosmos and life itself. The proponents of evolution are fervent in their support of evolution because evolution is in essence their "religious system" based in part on the belief that no supernatural exists. Sir Julian Huxley, world renowned biologist and an evolutionist expressed it this way:

For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous… Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.

And so having decided to push "God" and the "supernatural" out of the picture, proponents of evolution have found themselves in the position of having to create their own "mythology" with their own story tellers (for example, Dawkins, Talk Origins, etc).

Yes, evolution has become, in every sense of the word, a contemporary origins myth. Believers in the myth believe things like shale and mudstone are two totally different things; believe that the Moon is over four billion years old in spite of the scientific evidence against it; believe that fragile biological components can survive intact for 70 million years in spite of the scientific evidence against it; and hell, they can't even agree as to whether it was gradualism or punctuated equilibrium.

Face it: no matter how compelling the evidences may be against the "theory" or how compelling the evidences are for the creation/Flood scenario, you can never concede the fundamental fallacies of your belief system in favour of the Biblical alternative because to accept the creation/Flood model as a viable alternative framework clearly opens the door to God and the supernatural and therein is what you're really afraid of…

Face it: no matter how compelling the evidences may be against the "theory" or how compelling the evidences are for the creation/Flood scenario, you can never concede the fundamental fallacies of your belief system in favour of the Biblical alternative because to accept the creation/Flood model as a viable alternative framework clearly opens the door to God and the supernatural and therein is what you're really afraid of…

So you are admitting that your theory of origins (that has been asked for time and time again over the past months) consists of nothing more than "magic" ?

I'll deal with the geology later.

Deflecting with a word that will be rejected. Not helpful.

TJ and I, both believing in Intelligent Design, i.e. in "God does it", do not believe in magic.

I for one don't believe in a literal great deluge; further, I don't believe in a literal biblical translation. "God" never wrote or dictated the Bible. There is no "correct translation", only a number of possible translations, with all of the translators far removed from the original nuances of the original languages.

What I do believe in is the ancient contents of the OT; the religious agenda of the NT; and the morphing of both in the 2K years since the Christian era began.

I also believe that Existence in the first place requires a Necessary Cause to explain it.

Although interesting, fascinating at times, even, the details of the biblical argument do not concern me one way or the other. I don't know the science (I only read) therefore I can't decide where all of this is going to wind up: but my best guess is for a limited deluge; a confusing, long fossil record (it will never be entirely resolved, because there will always be discoveries which refute or support this or that theory: I believe in a growing number of unresolved theories!); and a growing admission that on a cosmic level we have to accept our limited observation of the universe AS IT IS, which doesn't tell us squat about what it was but might tell us what it will be.

In all of this, "God" (the greatest concept possible to man) is responsible. The religious trappings and constraints are all manmade: there are no "rules", but there is always justice and injustice, truth and falsehood.

And no matter what, if you believe or reject "God", the same maxim applies to everyone: "Never lie to yourself" That is the fundamental basis for science and faith….

Hi

TJ, so the moon might only be 320milion years by ONE model and that supports either Genesis or Bishop Usher in what way?

And, again, you quote people who misuse terms that display "observer bias" and that supports your thesis in what way?

And you keep failing to actually explain how known history predating the flood, say in China, didn't notice or record, and this supports your thesis in what way.

As for your not understanding the terms, your "gradtual" versus "punctuated equilibrium" is not what you think it means, It means rapid changes in hundreds of thousands of years instead of tens of milliona, neither suggests Genesis or 4004 BC or the great flood.

When god stopped the sun in the sky, obviously the earth is neither a sphere or does it orbit the sun! Your understanding of genesis in english isn't supportable by just pointing out the problems and gaps in evolution unless you first explain the greater problems in genesis.

Line the problem of NUMBERS.

evolution is observed. Otherwise, DNA makes no sense, and none of the forensic science used in court could possibly be valid. Mules and Ligers and tigons are impossible because evolution explains them, but genesis does not.

Your basic thesis is that you don't understand evolution therefor it must Be Genesis, but not any other religious explanation of origins.

Rocky

TJ, so the moon might only be 320milion years by ONE model and that supports either Genesis or Bishop Usher in what way?

Typical and deliberate misunderstanding. As I said, the 320 million is a maximum; it could be anything less by the creation/Flood framework. How does the evolutionary framework explain it?

…evolution is observed. etc

Is it? Let's zero in on this since it's something that is scientifically observable. You may start by providing one example and we will discuss that and see if it is really "evolution".

And, again, you quote people who misuse terms that display "observer bias" and that supports your thesis in what way?

For pity sake; and what of the wholsale quoting of "Talk Origins" around here?

Your basic thesis is that you don't understand evolution therefor it must Be Genesis, but not any other religious explanation of origins.

Oh, I have done so and you can logically eliminate them… but that's another story.

Let's just stick to the observable science that you believe supports evolution for now eh?

Your example please (and yes, Talk Origins is on-line at the moment).

It's all set out there. The actual science, the physics of it all, says that from the Roche Limit to where it is now there can be no more than 320 million years.

We've come a long way in the last 40 years in modelling the Earth-Moon system.

A nice little page from the Dutch Astronomical Institute goes into some detail.

link

Schweitzer and her team discovered soft tissue (including blood vessels, cells and connective tissue) preserved inside a fossilised Tyrannosaurus rex bone.

All of the tissue was higly mineralised, and had to undergo extensive chemical processing. There were no blood cells preserved, only mineralised shapes. No haemoglobin, only highly degraded protien fragments.

Abstract from her paper link

To give the impression that there was fresh tissue in the fossilised bone is, at best, disengenious.

And the geology :-

Not much difference is there? Both are fine grained. Both are sedimentary. Both consist of clay and silt. Both are consolidated. The only difference between the two is that one is less consolidated than the other.

Sorry mate, you are going to have to do much better than a layman's dictionary definition.
Shale and mudstone are technical terms in geology with very specific meaning. Your dictionary missed out the organic content of a shale (which gives it it's characteristic colour) plus the lamination that occurs within the bed itself.
Mudstones are much lighter in colour an may not have the stratification. Add to this the context within which they are found and the types of fossil that are associated with each and you get very different rocks with quite different depositional environments.
No geologist worth his hammer would ever mistake the two.

TJ and I, both believing in Intelligent Design, i.e. in "God does it", do not believe in magic.

I happily would give you a response to that statement but, given the rules of this forum, I would end up in the doghouse. So I will give it a miss.

For a start, I think you definitely need to define what you think a "scientist" is. Here's a start for you: "Someone who believes in evolution". That appears to be your definition. Anyone else is in your estimation is a pseudo-scientist regardless of degrees, PhD's, research, etc. As long as they support your idea of evolution they are a "scientist".

Don't put words in my mouth. Don't make up fake sayings on our behalf. I didn't refer Morton to you either.

For your information, I have a B.Sc in Biology, I don't do research and I am not published in any Scientific Journal. I guess that makes me a scientist too.

TJ goes from:

Schweitzer and her team discovered soft tissue (including blood vessels, cells and connective tissue) preserved inside a fossilised Tyrannosaurus rex bone.

to:

Lindahl's work shows significant biological breakdown of cellular material and DNA can be expected after about 4,000 years, even if well preserved. So, are we to believe that fragile biological components such as blood vessels, cells and connective tissue have survived about 70 million years without breaking down or being fossilised?

You are truly ignorant. How did you confuse remnants of soft tissue, and assume that meant well preserved blood vessels and cells? You are totally twisting and misrepresenting Lindahl's and Horner's work to the point of flagrant dishonesty.

BTW, I have seen Dr. Jack Horner lecture. Do you honestly believe that he thinks that dinosaurs didn't die out in the late Cretaceous during the K-T event? Or that evolution doesn't exist? Or that there was a world wide flood? Why don't you email him and quit wasting our time.

Moo-Moo, don't bother. TJ is an ideologue fed by the Discovery Institute. His only interest in discussing things with us is in giving his religious viewpoint a thin veneer of scientific and intellectual impartiality and credibility. His grasp of geology is as tenuous as his understanding of evolution. It would take too long to refute the errors in his last 2 posts and he glosses over them anyway. He is not interested in fruitful discussion.

Ralph

Oh ya, TJ.

Forgot to mention………..Karl Popper was an evolutionist, despite his philosophical misgivings. Sorry.

Ralph

Lenski's citrate.

For a start, I think you definitely need to define what you think a "scientist" is. Here's a start for you: "Someone who believes in evolution". That appears to be your definition. Anyone else is in your estimation is a pseudo-scientist regardless of degrees, PhD's, research, etc. As long as they support your idea of evolution they are a "scientist".

That is actually a pretty good definition of a Biologist.

True, there are a few biologists who do not believe in evolution; there numbers are statistically insignificant. It could be of course that there are those produced by institutions of with a pseudo-science agenda Liberty "University?"

Now the Discovery Institute attempts to bluster their pseudo-science by claiming widespread support for their cause. Just to show how dishonest the DI is the following is enlightening;

YouTube link

Notice how many times the word 'dishonest' is linked to the name of the Discovery Institute.

So yes we do regard your views as those of a pseudo-scientist. Estimates of biologists rejecting evolution are not statistically significant.

Of course TJ's forays into geology and cosmology are similarly pseudo-scientific because his agenda is to show that the world is less than 4.53 billion years old. Why? Because they think if you shrink the age of the earth and evolution does not work as we know it does. Mind you with evidence avaliable to Charles Darwin he beleived the world to be 50 million years old and his theory would still work. So what's the answer, claim that the Moon came into existence is the mid Phanerozoic, specifically the mid Carboniferous and then you can invalidate geological dating.

This does not of course satisfy the Young Earth Creationists, but it does help the pseudo-scientists who reject evolution. The fact that it a a view accepted by a similarly statistically insignificant number of geologists does say more about the choice of sources that their value to this 'debate' – or dialogue of the deaf to be truly accurate.

Note that the the objective of the pseudo-scientists is not necessarily to win against real scientists but only in the court of public opinion. They want to bluster the faithful – see lots of 'scientists' agree with you that 'Goddidit' they want to sow doubt in the minds of the wider public – this tends to work better amongst 'Merkins who don't trust elites – 'See the high falootin' scientist, who are taxhikingovernmentexpandinlattedrikinsushieatinVolvodrivinNewYorkTimesreadinbodypiercinHollywoodlovinatheistscommiepinkoliberalshomosexual freak show who don't fit in with the good ol' common folks in the good ol US of A.' ( At this point I await cries of 'go back to where you came from if you don't like it here' – sorry I'm just like another of your founding fathers Tom Paine.) If then you throw in a conspiracy theory you can arrive at the movie from former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stien "Expelled" which is similarly dishonest with the facts.

This leads to politicians with calls for "teach the controversy" when there is none amongst scientist. What's next? Can we now teach the four humours in medicine as well as the grem 'theory' after all it's "just a theory' too?

I can understand why biologists refuse to debate creationists. It gives them and their pseudo-science an air of respectability that they do not deserve.

The kulturkampff will no doubt continue.

Hi

TJ, I cannot quote Talk Origins as I have never seen the site!

I have cruised YOUR sites, and they just flat make things up. Most of the arguments are straw man, in that they invent some point and then apply that invented point, disprove it, and thus, "disprove" all of science.

One example of evolution, Just WT() do yuu believe people have to get new flue shots? In an earlier post, I carefully outlined current work involving the Britsh thrush evolving in historical times to other speies no longer able to interbreed with the root stock.

Now this is a real conundrum. Evolution describes that of LIFE evolving over time. It has nothing to do with the moon or its age.

I can do the same with the bible. You say, well this guy says 320 OR LESS. I can, with consistancy say: when the bible says the first day, god separated the light from the darkness. As a "Day" is defined as one rotation of the earth, and there was no earth, then the first day could be billions of years until god creates the earth, the separation of the water from the land. Next day, as the bible never describes the earth orbiting the sun which is observed, that second event, the rise of land, could be billions of years.

Thus, again, you are objecting by inventions.

So, again the question, as written history pre-dates the flood, there is zero evidence written or on the ground for the flood in those cultures, just how do YOU justify the flood?

Why this creation myth?

Rocky

Why this creation myth?

Rocky- we are ALL atheists. Some of us go one god further.

Whilst of no interest to pseuds, this was fun on dinosaur evolution:

YouTube link

Yes, creationists will mock and complain that scientists made mistakes, but it shows how science works in Reality-based Communities.

In my line of work I sometimes have to age children according to the ossification of the sesmoid adductor pollicis bone (a puny bone next to the thumb knuckle). The allows to determine the kid's developmental age as opposed to their chronological age. Nice to see the paleontologists doing something similar.

Ralph

Here are two more videos to upset the Creationists and Pseuds:

This is the first of a series from Nova from PBS;

link

The second is another lecture on evolution:

link

Is there another epithet/title for those of us who believe that "God does it", but we don't believe in the biblical exegesis of the literalism of the ID/Creationists? For instance, they seem irrevocably committed to the "4004 BC" age of the earth when God said "let there be light"; some others go with c. 10K BC or whathaveyou: but none of them seem willing or capable of harmonizing the OT creation myth with science's dating of the earth and cosmos. I have never understood why IDers and Creationists must adhere to an essentially early "age of enlightenment" interpretation of how old the OT "says" the earth is….

Btw, is this page displaying for anyone else like it is to me? I see the text extend way out to the right, necessitating my scrolling back and forth to read the posts. Annoying as hell! But it only started doing this a few days ago. No other board on TMP does this currently to me, only this Darwin thread….

I see it the same way.

And there do exist old earth creationist, it's not a "cool" as the seriously stupidifed young earth creationist.

Some creationist have seen that the weight of evidence for the age of the earth is to big, so they say a "god day" might be 500 million years ect.
But for some reason they still belive god created animals and pants with magic from nothing

My page displays the same way – and the posting box is small, with the typeface coming up about 4 point. Making it very hard post.

Old Earth Creationists certainly do exist. The point is the Young Earth Creationists dislike them as much as they dislike Evolutionary Biologists.

Hi

Having the same display problem.

sigh.

R

"Old earth creationists"; okay. So they allow that everything took a long time, why, exactly? So "God" is just slow then? That makes less sense than just accepting instaneous divine hocus pokus….

(Maybe when we get off this page the display will fix itself. If not, then we need to talk to Bill….)

Two issues;

The display issue is not just on this TMP page. It is all of the TMP and has been for about a week.

On the issue of the Old Earth Creationists; There are a number of variations;

Old Earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including Gap creationism and Progressive creationism. Their worldview is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to Young Earth creationism; however, they still generally take the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than theistic evolution (also known as evolutionary creationism) in that OEC rejects the scientific consensus accepting evolution.

Gap creationism (also known as Ruin-Restoration creationism, Restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory"), is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. In this it differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from Young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science. Progressive creationists generally reject "macroevolution" because they believe it to be biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and they generally reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal ancestor. Of course biological science makes no distinction 'macro' and 'micro' evolution.

All of the above forms Old Earth Creationism reject evolution.

To reconcile science and a deity, and I suspect that this is Doug's position there is Theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

Theistic evolution the basic position of the Anglicans (Church of England & Episcopal Church), some of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church (with some reservations).It is also accepted by the liberal movement with Islam. It is the classic position of the Deist, as adopted by the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Hope this helps.

I guess the closest I come to being categorized is "theistic evolutionist" then. Where I might differ with the definition you gave is that I don't accept that animal forms with their manifest imperfections were the intended design of "God". Rather, I tend toward inherent randomness ("come see the violence inherent in the system!") and "God" just lets it all run: evolution "does the job" just fine. "God" didn't set out (with malice aforethought) to create species that possess obvious deficiences. The physical, mortal universe is "perfect" for what it is intended: a venue for experiencing powerful opposition, i.e. a learning environment….

The display issue is not just on this TMP page. It is all of the TMP and has been for about a week.

No it's not: I just checked half a dozen random TMP threads and none of them extend out to the right beyond the monitor.

Always before, the cause of the extended posts boxes is because someone wrote a huge "word", or for some reason a posted LINK didn't (link, that is), and the URL appears entirely and is very, very long: all posted messages on that page then default to the longest post box size. But this page doesn't have anything posted that causes that….

Hi

The word rap problem is only on this thread for me as well.

Rocky

Theistic Evolution appears to the position adopted by those who a re interested in reconciling science and religion. There is largely a truce between the scientists and the religious on this since the observable phenomena are agreed upon. The first cause of the the Universe remains a point of contention and maybe abiogenesis. Certain other issues such as the existence of the soul or the uniqueness of man in the universal schema result from differing weltanschauung cause some tension. These two positions can exist with mutual respect.

The various forms of creationism are the main opponents in the kulturkampf; particularly the Young Earth Creationists, who reject both scientific and theistic evolution.

Doug, you are write this the only message that has a display problem, but I do have a display problem on all boards the message section is only about 65mm by 25mm with the type face in about 4 point type.

Doug, you are write this the only message that has a display problem, but I do have a display problem on all boards the message section is only about 65mm by 25mm with the type face in about 4 point type.

The least you could do is to post a separate time to address this issue; that way we can finish up this page faster and see if the 19th page eliminates the problem :)

Your separate problem with the text box size sounds weird; never heard of anyone on TMP having such an issue: have you asked Bill about it?…

The various forms of creationism are the main opponents in the kulturkampf; particularly the Young Earth Creationists, who reject both scientific and theistic evolution.

These religious idealists would be less inclined to opposition if the non religious among the science community had not put evolution forward from the getgo as some "proof" that religion is false, and worse, that God does not exist. The "war" has been going on ever since. If evolution had not leaped to the conclusion that it was proof of how stupid religion is, then the conflict wouldn't have entered the classroom either. Sure, some religious person was probably the first to point out that evolution, as presented, was in conflict with the Bible's creation story: and they may have denounced evolution on that basis. But science, supposedly big enough to continue on without concern for falsehoods, should have also been big enough to put evolution forward for what it is and not play the game of assertion without foundation. And today, moreso than in the past, it is clear that with everything evolution does address, it is not "in the business" of searching for God, nor does it address God/religion in any degree….

Let's get….