Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Evolution takes faith too you know, unless someone has observed a species evolving into a separate species? Did you know that evolution uses more catastrophic events to explain its theory that of the entire Bible? Evolution needs as much faith, if not more then that of the Bible. When your indoctrinated though, it becomes second nature.

Willful ignorance, much? The theory of evolution is based on observable facts (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/holmes.html). I give you one example, but there are many.

By 'catastrophic events' I gather that you are referring to what are known as  extinction events (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-extinction-events.htm). These events are recorded in the fossil record, and in fact do not 'explain' the theory of evolution at all. Where did you get the idea that there is a large element of catastrophism in the theory of evolution? Please give sources for this idea.

There is profound irony in this common practice of creationist bible-thumpers; accusing science of being a system of indoctrination. It's mildly amusing, and exposes a deep misunderstanding of what science actually is, but it gets old quickly.

 

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Viral evolution? Fist of all explain how this is a benefit? Second, in order for evolution to occur, there must be new genetic information. Where is the new genetic information in viral mutation?

Yes fossil record, indicates catastrophe, the Bible says only one ever occured that wiped out all life on the planet. Evolution has to come up w/ at least 5 different catastrophic events to explain mass extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction)

Here is an entertaining video about your belief.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01.html)

Science and evolution is not the same thing. You heard that already I am sure. Evolution is a belief, and their is no observable evidence.

 

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Since when did a mutation require new information and not simply different information?

OK?

You, Man-ofGod, seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that evolution is somehow devoted to a "positive" outcome, presumably for human beings.  This has nothing to do with evolution, which is only the relatively gradual change in forms of life, in response to the environment.  The only positive thing that happens is that the fit forms of life continue, and produce more of their kind.  In the case of the virus; mutation allows it to colonize and infect new species that it had previously been unable to infect. I suppose you could say that this was "good" for the virus. This ability is a new thing in the genetic make-up of the species of virus.  The virus has evolved.  Fact.

You also seem to think that because the bible mentions one world-wide catastrophe, and the geological record shows that there have been at least five extinction events, that somehow this makes the bible more valid than the theory of evolution.  I don't follow your reasoning here. Especially since you have not bothered to explain the supposed connection between the fossil record of extinction events and the theory of evolution.


The theory of evolution is just that, a scientific theory, not a "belief."  Please explain why the theory of evolution is not scientific. The evidence I provided you showed that the virus was evolving an ability to infect new host species.  Do you deny that this is valid evidence?

Quote from: "Man-OfGod"It is obvious that I am challenging the fundamentals of your belief. It is also obvious that you do not want to admit that it is a belief.

This is why I say people have been indoctrinated into evolution. All branches of science today are taught that evolution is fact when its not, and therefore do their research through the framework of the evolution theory. Since the mantra is that evolution is fact, then anything that challenges this establishment is not allowed (your attitude to this discussion is evidence of this), despite the enigmas that plague this theory ( for example, polonium halos). Evolution is a business, the sooner you realize that the sooner you realize that its not about what the majority thinks.

It's a theory not a belief.  If new evidence or scientific data adjusted, added to, rearranged, or negated a part of, etc., that theory it would be accepted (after proper discovery/analysis) without an uprising of people who think this theory is closer to the truth than others.  There is no blind faith (or any faith) required in thinking that evolution is reasonable and supported by tangible facts and/or evidence.  It also is not taught as fact (unlike the bible most certainly is) it is taught as what it is "The Theory of Evolution" and the ideas and support of this theory are taught and readily available for further discovery, alternate explanations, elaboration, corrections, and so on.  There is no god of evolution or any leaps of faith requested, there is simply "here is the evidence, observations, ideas and thoughts on what could have plausibly happened".  There also is no collection plate or request for financial support of the theory from people who agree that it's reasonable so I'm not sure what you mean by business.  If anything the theory of god is a business, and a tax free one at that.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"This is why I say people have been indoctrinated into evolution. All branches of science today are taught that evolution is fact when its not, and therefore do their research through the framework of the evolution theory. Since the mantra is that evolution is fact, then anything that challenges this establishment is not allowed (your attitude to this discussion is evidence of this), despite the enigmas that plague this theory ( for example, polonium halos). Evolution is a business, the sooner you realize that the sooner you realize that its not about what the majority thinks

If creationism were valid science, rather than an attempt to prove the bible correct by the use of selective presentation of 'facts' and outright distortion, then it would have a place in the scientific community.    'Creation science' is almost without exception flawed and does not address reality, but instead picks and chooses what portions of the evidence it will accept as valid.  

You seem willing to conflate all of scientific endeavor with the theory of evolution.  For instance your example of 'polonium halos' is an issue in the subject of geology, and really has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  In fact this is one of many attempts by young earth creationists to prove that the bible is correct in it's very brief timeline for the existence of the universe, as well as our home planet.  You can read about why the idea of 'polonium halos' is flawed here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html), but since the article was written by a mere Unitarian Universalist with a degree in geology, who specialized in  uranium resource investigations as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Program, I guess you'll just ignore it.

QuoteOK?

You, Man-ofGod, seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that evolution is somehow devoted to a "positive" outcome, presumably for human beings.  This has nothing to do with evolution, which is only the relatively gradual change in forms of life, in response to the environment.  The only positive thing that happens is that the fit forms of life continue, and produce more of their kind.  In the case of the virus; mutation allows it to colonize and infect new species that it had previously been unable to infect. I suppose you could say that this was "good" for the virus. This ability is a new thing in the genetic make-up of the species of virus.  The virus has evolved.  Fact.

Thanks for the kind response in explaining this.  For the sake of this discussion, my focus is based on origins.  How do we get from non-living matter to life.  And if DNA is information, where did this information come from? Furthermore, how did the DNA combine w/ non living matter to form lets say  bacteria?

QuoteYou also seem to think that because the bible mentions one world-wide catastrophe, and the geological record shows that there have been at least five extinction events, that somehow this makes the bible more valid than the theory of evolution.  I don't follow your reasoning here. Especially since you have not bothered to explain the supposed connection between the fossil record of extinction events and the theory of evolution.

When the evolution theory was gaining some momentum, a problem arose for geologist.  How do you fit the layers of  strata and the fossil record into this theory?  Enter the geologic column and mass extinction. Todays science, looking through the lenses of evolution, believes the geological record shows 5 extinction events.

 However, I believe the geological record only shows one mass extinction based on a world wide flood. That is my point.

QuoteThe theory of evolution is just that, a scientific theory, not a "belief."  Please explain why the theory of evolution is not scientific.

Well lets look at an image of the scientific method.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencebuddies.org%2Fscience-fair-projects%2Foverview_scientific_method2.gif&hash=311f39fa9b068f30f04f199d9862193cc61b6c29)


Now lets run through this model.  For argument sake, lets assume our question is "Did man evolved from a lower level of species?"   We will assume all current evidence that is used to support this claim has been already admitted.

So running through the method,

Ask a Question? Check

Do a background search (evidence)? check

Construct Hypothesis? check

Test with experiment?  hmm cannot do this one.

Analyze Results?  Cannot do that either, no test we can perform

Hypothesis if False or Partially true? ( do not know, cannot test it, therefore I believe it to be true but its not scientific.)

 

QuoteThe evidence I provided you showed that the virus was evolving an ability to infect new host species.  Do you deny that this is valid evidence?

You use the word evolve as if its synonymous with mutations.  And I cannot fault you,  since main stream science does this as well.  I dislike the term because it infers that since evolution (mutations) is true on a viral level, then it must be true that an organism can evolve from a lower form of life. See how one viral evolution (mutation) is different from an organism evolving from a lower form of life.  Which has never been tested or proven btw via the scientific method.

Again thanks for your kindness, just expressing my point of view.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Man-OfGod"It is obvious that I am challenging the fundamentals of your belief. It is also obvious that you do not want to admit that it is a belief.

This is why I say people have been indoctrinated into evolution. All branches of science today are taught that evolution is fact when its not, and therefore do their research through the framework of the evolution theory. Since the mantra is that evolution is fact, then anything that challenges this establishment is not allowed (your attitude to this discussion is evidence of this), despite the enigmas that plague this theory ( for example, polonium halos). Evolution is a business, the sooner you realize that the sooner you realize that its not about what the majority thinks.

It's a theory not a belief.  If new evidence or scientific data adjusted, added to, rearranged, or negated a part of, etc., that theory it would be accepted (after proper discovery/analysis) without an uprising of people who think this theory is closer to the truth than others.  There is no blind faith (or any faith) required in thinking that evolution is reasonable and supported by tangible facts and/or evidence.  It also is not taught as fact (unlike the bible most certainly is) it is taught as what it is "The Theory of Evolution" and the ideas and support of this theory are taught and readily available for further discovery, alternate explanations, elaboration, corrections, and so on.  There is no god of evolution or any leaps of faith requested, there is simply "here is the evidence, observations, ideas and thoughts on what could have plausibly happened".  There also is no collection plate or request for financial support of the theory from people who agree that it's reasonable so I'm not sure what you mean by business.  If anything the theory of god is a business, and a tax free one at that.

This is a nice thought, but it is not true. Scientist are just as infallible as the men who wrote the Bible.  I can give you one example, or even a video if you like, of a person who ran a study through many established scientific journals , who stumped the scientific community.  When he proposed a theory contrary to what they were willing to accept, they nearly barred him from the scientific community.  He was not fully barred until he actually testified in the creation vs evolution court case in Tennessee as an expert witness.  If they accepted his evidence, it would literally turn evolution on its head.  But they disregarded it as a tiny mystery, as if science was based on the amount of evidence and not the quality of evidence.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Well lets look at an image of the scientific method.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencebuddies.org%2Fscience-fair-projects%2Foverview_scientific_method2.gif&hash=311f39fa9b068f30f04f199d9862193cc61b6c29)


Now lets run through this model.  For argument sake, lets assume our question is "Did man evolved from a lower level of species?"   We will assume all current evidence that is used to support this claim has been already admitted.

So running through the method,

Ask a Question? Check

Do a background search (evidence)? check

Construct Hypothesis? check

Test with experiment?  hmm cannot do this one.

Analyze Results?  Cannot do that either, no test we can perform

Hypothesis if False or Partially true? ( do not know, cannot test it, therefore I believe it to be true but its not scientific.)

I'll field this one.

While evolution on a large scale tends to take a very long time, on a microscopic scale and with certain organisms it can be much, much faster. It all depends on the rate of a) mutation and b) reproduction. If a particular organism, like bacteria, reproduce and mutate at a quick enough rate, not only can we observe the evolution, but we can actually experiment with it. June of last year, an article popped up in New Scientist describing something wondrous:

QuoteTwenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

You see, we actually were able, for what I believe is the first time, to completely test evolution using the scientific method. A question was asked by Darwin, as was a great deal of research. Continuing well after his death, more biologists continued to research, compiling a mountain of evidence and creating a better picture of what that evidence was making clear. the hypothesis that Darwin had once created was now shared by the foremost experts in the world. And now, we've tested this with an experiment and yielded a successful result. After analyzing the results, it becomes clear that not only did a random mutation develop, but that particular mutation was helpful to the organism's survival. And that organism thrived, reproduced creating offspring with the same mutated trait, and that process continued until we could see the clear pattern of evolution.

It was a good day for science. I had cake.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"This is a nice thought, but it is not true. Scientist are just as infallible as the men who wrote the Bible.  I can give you one example, or even a video if you like, of a person who ran a study through many established scientific journals , who stumped the scientific community.  When he proposed a theory contrary to what they were willing to accept, they nearly barred him from the scientific community.  He was not fully barred until he actually testified in the creation vs evolution court case in Tennessee as an expert witness.  If they accepted his evidence, it would literally turn evolution on its head.  But they disregarded it as a tiny mystery, as if science was based on the amount of evidence and not the quality of evidence.

I would contend that the "evidence" this creationist scientist proposed was something that was not in line with scientific theory and probably stemmed from something occuring without tangible evidence?  What was the study?  What was this piece of evidence that proved evolution incorrect?  I'm also curious how, with so many people against the theory of evolution, he just quietly slinked away and no one has supported his findings to bring down this big anti-creator theory?  Where are the creationists?  I don't believe for one second that if there was scientific evidence that evolution was flawed, errored or incorrect that the evidence would quietly go away because of the shunning of the scientific community in general.  The one thing that scientific theories tend to do is not claim they know everything, and not claim that there aren't still undiscovered facts and evidence, so bringing up something that isn't addressed by a theory doesn't negate it or prove it wrong, as the theory does not state that it knows all.

And it is true that scientists will abandon theories they have long followed and feel attached to, if the evidence or new ifnormation provided to them are more reasonable than the current theory.  Um, like Hawking's black hole theory that was long thought to be "gospel" until another scientist found a flaw in at least one of the proofs of that theory.  Hawking himself at first said "no, my proofs are correct" (paraphrased of course) but has since conceded the error in his very own theory. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1053983.html.  If scientist are willing to admit their own theories flawed and/or errored (that have been followed for more than 30 years mind you), then that shows that they are open to the science, the evidence, the data, the verifiable fact.

Moving this over from the Religion section. Should be posted here.

Quote from: "Pipebox"OK, MOG (dunno if you've ever played Final Fantasy games, but, well, I just saw the acronym in you name and decided I had to use it    ), you clearly are asking the tough questions because you don't want to be "mislead" into believing evolution.  That's fine, but the tough questions entail tough answers, and you really have to understand the underlying basics.

Evolution, at its most basic, is just descent, under pressure of natural selection, with modification (mutation).  Don't just read it, understand it.  Now, let's look at DNA.  DNA is "read" (reacts with) by special special proteins, that create more proteins in turn.  The actual process is very complicated, but even creation scientists can observe it if they wish.  Now, if the DNA is altered, the proteins will likely be altered, too.  The vast majority of our DNA is non-coding junk, it has special chemical modifiers that prevent it from being "read", and these unread sections will not produce proteins at all.  Most mutations are harmless and do nothing for this reason.  There are many types of mutations, though: deletions, insertions (new information), frame shifts (I'll explain in a minute), and plain ol' duplications (harmless in most circumstances, but gives an organism more room to be mutated without dying, so while it helps by allowing possible benefits to manifest, it is a benefit in itself as it prevents important stuff from being destroyed).

Natural selection is pretty straightforward.  Everyone, even creationists, can observe natural selection via unnatural selection (selective breeding) used on crops or in breeding dogs or cattle.  If you only breed the tallest corn stalks over many generations, the end result is taller corn.  Do the same for bigger kernels, and then only yellow kernels, and you end up with a far different strain that you see in the wild.  This is done in only a very short time, too, demonstrating how constrained breeding can quickly differentiate things over just a few generations.  As a reminder selective breeding applied to humans is called eugenics, we know, and it isn't necessarily a good thing because it is acting directly against the environment.  That is, we're harming the genepool.  This isn't true only of humans, though, since anything we apply selective breeding to, we do in spite of the environment.  Bananas no longer have seeds, transplantation being the method used to create more trees.  Single viral strains have nearly wiped out the fruit because of this.  A chihuahua without people to feed it is a grossly inadequate dog that will likely parish.   Nonetheless, it's all more proof that selective pressures, environmental or not, can change life forms, and the ethics of selective breeding of other animals we can discuss elsewhere.

Back to genetics in regards to mutations, I'll briefly go over frame shifts and cover duplications in more detail.  The term "deletion" is used whenever an entire gene is wiped out, from stop codon to stop codon (those make the proteins that read DNA stop reading, and define the entirety of the protein produced).  Frame shift, on the other hand, describes the deletion or insertion of single base pairs.   Base pairs are coded for by the reading protein 3 at a time, like this:
ACA GAT CCA GCA GCA ...
Each one results in a different "protein piece," which is actually just another amino acid (those things are handy).  Now, if you add or delete a single base pair, the protein will now read:
CAG ATC CAG CAG CA. ...
or TAC AGA TCC AGC AGC A.. ...
Which, depending on where it falls in a gene, can alter a lot or a little.  If a base pair is added in the last three, almost no difference will occur.  The first three, though, and the resulting protein will be totally different (probably, there are sequences which would be unaffected).  Substitutions may also happen, which doesn't involve adding or subtracting base pairs, just changing one.  Depending on the sequence left behind, a different amino acid may be coded, and the protein may be altered, or nothing may happen.  Keep in mind that if any of this happens in a deactivated portion of the DNA, nothing happens.  And if it happens in a duplicated region of active DNA, then, at the least, the organism is unlikely to die from a lack of something.  Duplications can actually give room for this "new information" to arise, a safe(r) testing ground, in a manner of speaking.

Now, understand that there is no second, uncorruptable, DNA copy for total parity.  There is nothing, natural at least, to guard how much an organism may change over time.  Now, keeping in mind how long it takes these powerful changes to accrue and be selected for, tell me now what makes it impossible for an animal's legs to get a little longer, and its arms a little shorter, and its jaw a little wider.  What is there, then, to prevent it from getting a little less hairy and a little smarter?  And again and again?  Is it really that hard to see, that with a lot of very small changes, things will eventually look totally different?  Let's say you have a screen 1600 X 1200 pixels, and you can only recolor one pixel at a time.  Is there anything that will eventually prevent the screen from being a completely different color?  So, look at our ancestral apes and tell me you still don't see how it could have happened.

97-98% of our DNA matches that of a chimp's.  We have 16 ERVs (endogenous retroviruses, that is, deactivated viral matter present in our genome) that we share with chimps!  We're not telling you this because we want to be primates, we're telling you this because we are primates.  This is confirmed genetically, obviously, but it is also confirmed from the bottom up by examining our traits!  Our physical form is so closely related: same number of teeth (and incisors, canines, premolars, and molars, to boot!), tetrapoidal (possessing 4 limbs), body-wide hair follicles, lungs and heart enclosed inside a ribcage, backbone supporting 12 cranial nerves, skull with dual enclosed eye-sockets and a single temporal fenestra, and so, so much more.  

Demonstrate that evolution is impossible and you can rewrite the science books.  But we're seeing apparent speciation, even now!  Living ring species that can no longer interbreed, bacteria that can digest nylon, a chemical that did not exist 50 years ago!  Even the need to get more flu shots is evidence of viral evolution.  You asked earlier what the benefit of viruses evolving.  The benefit is that they continue to exist, because obviously if they didn't evolve they would cease to exist.  The benefit is theirs, not ours.  Their evolution to suit their environment clearly happens, and evolution just explains how.  If you want to ask why (not how) they might evolve to thwart our vaccines, then you might ask the same of God.

Evolution, though, is not an attack on God.  Sure, it isn't compatible with the allegorical Genesis (and neither is the Sears Tower, far taller than Bable ever was), but even as a Christian I knew it was allegory.  Evolution may not make you feel special, either, like you would if your lineage was specially created in opposition to nature.  Neither is a requisite for it being true.  It happens.  The Theory of Evolution describes the mechanism we actually observe, and it can be used with brilliant accuracy to make predictions throughout biology.  Please, take a strong interest in finding out the facts.  I will assist you with any questions, you have.

QuoteI would contend that the "evidence" this creationist scientist proposed was something that was not in line with scientific theory and probably stemmed from something occuring without tangible evidence?  What was the study?  What was this piece of evidence that proved evolution incorrect?

Well evolution is so intertwined with all branches of science, that if it effects one branch, it effects others.  So indirectly it effects evolution.  Polonium Halos is the study, and you can read his online book, which I recommend you read his story first before reading the critics, cause theres always two sides.  All his studies are published in reputable journals, however there are laymen scientist who contest his findings who also published their findings online, but they were not accepted in any journals.

Good read even if you disagree w/ his belief.  Also its good to read atleast to understand part of where creationist are coming from.  I am always a proponent of understanding someones belief or view point even if I do not agree with it.  It makes the world a better place when people are empathetic.

http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm (http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm)  
 

QuoteI'm also curious how, with so many people against the theory of evolution, he just quietly slinked away and no one has supported his findings to bring down this big anti-creator theory?  Where are the creationists?

It did not quietly slink away, but it did slink away none the less.

QuoteI don't believe for one second that if there was scientific evidence that evolution was flawed, errored or incorrect that the evidence would quietly go away because of the shunning of the scientific community in general.

I know, nor would I expect you to.  In this day in age?  Read the book and hear his testimony.

 

QuoteThe one thing that scientific theories tend to do is not claim they know everything, and not claim that there aren't still undiscovered facts and evidence, so bringing up something that isn't addressed by a theory doesn't negate it or prove it wrong, as the theory does not state that it knows all.

I believe that is what the scientific theory is suppose to represent.  But what I see is an attempt to explain origin, something that cannot be observed and has not been observed.

QuoteAnd it is true that scientists will abandon theories they have long followed and feel attached to, if the evidence or new information provided to them are more reasonable than the current theory.  Um, like Hawking's black hole theory that was long thought to be "gospel" until another scientist found a flaw in at least one of the proofs of that theory.  Hawking himself at first said "no, my proofs are correct" (paraphrased of course) but has since conceded the error in his very own theory. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1053983.html.  If scientist are willing to admit their own theories flawed and/or errored (that have been followed for more than 30 years mind you), then that shows that they are open to the science, the evidence, the data, the verifiable fact.

Yes, I applaud science when they are able to put their emotion aside and look objectively at all theories.  I do not know this to be true, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that scientist use to be competitive about validating their theory or invalidating well known and accepted theories.  It seems that spirit is squashed, especially when it comes to evolution.  Lots of emotion on that subject I think you will agree.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"It seems that spirit is squashed, especially when it comes to evolution.

What evidence is there that's against evolution? Other than religion, of course.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"When the evolution theory was gaining some momentum, a problem arose for geologist. How do you fit the layers of strata and the fossil record into this theory? Enter the geologic column and mass extinction. Todays science, looking through the lenses of evolution, believes the geological record shows 5 extinction events.

Quite the contrary.  The age of the earth was known to be much greater than that derived from biblical studies before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell) Darwin proposed the theory of evolution.
 And I still find your bringing in of extinction events as a supposed critique of evolutionary theory to be of dubious value.  Geologists are looking at the record of the earth as found in rocks, not as a means of proving or disproving evolutionary theory, but simply to discover what that record says about events in the past.  You seem to think that they are influenced by the current scientific acceptance of the theory of evolution, but in fact all they are doing is reporting on what they've found in the geologic record.  Do you believe that findings that support the biblical story are being suppressed?  If so, please give links to the creationist sites that expose this vast conspiracy.

 Just out of curiosity, since you seem to give it so much importance:  If there seems to be a record of at least five distinct extinction events, separated by layers of strata, how does that equate with one great extinction, caused by a global flood, as recorded in the bible?


As for Gentry and the 'polonium halos:'

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"All his studies are published in reputable journals, however there are laymen scientist who contest his findings who also published their findings online, but they were not accepted in any journals.

Thomas Baillieul is not a "layman scientist."  In fact, as I mentioned above, he has a Master's degree in geology, while Gentry is not a geologist, but has a Master's degree in physics.  Gentry's Doctorate is honorary, and bestowed on him by Columbia Union College, a fundamentalist institution.

 

Quote from: "Thomas A. Baillieul"I find the questions and comments about my critique having undergone peer review interesting. My critique is intended to be a peer review of Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis - which itself was never published in its complete form in a mainstream scientific journal nor subjected to peer review. None of Gentry's short papers to Science ever presented the full scope of his study or his conclusions. Most scientific journals do not peer review the comments of their peer reviewers, as those individuals are well known to the journal's editors. In the case of my critique, though, it was reviewed extensively prior to posting.

The original manuscript was submitted for publication in the Records of the National Center for Science Education. The paper was reviewed by the journal's editor, Andrew Petto (senior lecturer in anatomy and physiology at the University of Wisconsin), and Lorence Collins (Emeritus Professor of Geology at California State University Northridge). An additional scientist with nuclear radiation background also reviewed the manuscript for the journal, although I was never given his name (science journals seldom identify their reviewers to the prospective authors for a variety of reasons; Collins self-identified himself to me). All reviewers agreed with my arguments and felt the work warranted publication. However, they felt that the material was too technically complex and lengthy for the average readership of the Records of the NCSE Looking to present the critique to the widest audience possible, I chose instead to submit the revised paper to the Talk Origins Archive. Prior to posting, there was additional technical and editorial review by Talk Origins' coordinators. Following initial posting on the Talk Origins page, I received technical comments from a specialist in radiation effects on biological materials, leading to an expansion of my discourse on the Bragg Effect in minerals. I also had extensive correspondence with 2 creationists which resulted in expanding and clarifying several sections of the paper to make the arguments clearer to a lay audience.


At the end of his 1974 paper in Science, Gentry asks the question about polonium halos: "...can they be explained by presently accepted cosmological and geological concepts relating to the origin and development of the Earth?" I believe my critique answers that question in the affirmative as well as showing Gentry's work to be flawed and incomplete.

 

Quote from: "Thomas A.  Baillieul"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

God did it!

Ah, perfect topic.  Apologies for the text bomb, I haven't read anything yet, but I'll get right to it.  So, here's my post:

OK, MOG (dunno if you've ever played Final Fantasy games, but, well, I just saw the acronym in you name and decided I had to use it   ), you clearly are asking the tough questions because you don't want to be "mislead" into believing evolution. That's fine, but the tough questions entail tough answers, and you really have to understand the underlying basics.

Evolution, at its most basic, is just descent, under pressure of natural selection, with modification (mutation). Don't just read it, understand it. Now, let's look at DNA. DNA is "read" (reacts with) by special special proteins, that create more proteins in turn. The actual process is very complicated, but even creation scientists can observe it if they wish. Now, if the DNA is altered, the proteins will likely be altered, too. The vast majority of our DNA is non-coding junk -- it has special chemical modifiers that prevent it from being "read", and these unread sections will not produce proteins at all. Most mutations are harmless and do nothing for this reason. There are many types of mutations, though: deletions, insertions (new information, often viral, but cells can incorporate wholly novel genes without fuss as well), frame shifts (I'll explain in a minute), and plain ol' duplications (harmless in most circumstances, but gives an organism more room to be mutated without dying, so while it helps by allowing possible benefits to manifest, it is a benefit in itself as it prevents important stuff from being destroyed).

Natural selection is pretty straightforward. Everyone, even creationists, can observe natural selection via the unnatural selection (selective breeding) used on crops or in breeding dogs or cattle. If you only breed the tallest corn stalks over many generations, the end result is taller corn. Do the same for bigger kernels, and then only yellow kernels, and you end up with a far different strain that you see in the wild. This is done in a very short time, too, demonstrating how constrained breeding can quickly differentiate things over just a few generations. As a reminder, selective breeding applied to humans is called eugenics.  We know, and it isn't necessarily a good thing because it is acting directly against the environment. That is, we're harming the genepool. This isn't true only of humans, though, since anything we apply selective breeding to, we do in spite of the environment. Bananas no longer have seeds, transplantation being the method used to create more banana trees. Single viral strains have nearly wiped out the fruit because of this. A chihuahua without people to feed it is a grossly inadequate dog that will likely parish. Nonetheless, it's all more proof that selective pressures, environmental or not, can change life forms, and the ethics of selective breeding of other animals we can discuss elsewhere.

Back to genetics in regards to mutations, I'll briefly go over frame shifts and cover duplications in more detail. The term "deletion" is used whenever an entire gene is wiped out, from stop codon to stop codon (those make the proteins that read DNA stop reading, and define the entirety of the protein produced), and it is almost always harmful. Frame shift, on the other hand, describes the deletion or insertion of single base pairs. Base pairs are coded for by the transcription (reading) protein 3 at a time, like this:
ACA GAT CCA GCA GCA ...
Each one results in a different "protein piece," which is actually just another amino acid (those things are handy). Now, if you add or delete a single base pair, the protein will now read:
CAG ATC CAG CAG CA. ...
or TAC AGA TCC AGC AGC A.. ...
Which, depending on where it falls in a gene, can alter a lot or a little. If a base pair is added in the last three, almost no difference will occur. The first three, though, and the resulting protein will be totally different (probably, there are sequences which would be unaffected). Substitutions may also happen, which do not involve adding or subtracting base pairs, just changing one. Depending on the sequence left behind, a different amino acid may be coded, and the protein may be altered, or nothing may happen. Keep in mind that if any of this happens in a deactivated portion of the DNA, nothing happens. And if it happens in a duplicated region of active DNA, then, at the least, the organism is unlikely to die from a lack of something. Duplications can actually give room for this "new information" to arise, a safe(r) testing ground, in a manner of speaking.

Now, understand that there is no second, uncorruptable, DNA copy for total parity. There is nothing, natural at least, to guard how much an organism may change over time. Now, keeping in mind how long it takes these powerful changes to accrue and be selected for, tell me now what makes it impossible for an animal's legs to get a little longer, and its arms a little shorter, and its jaw a little wider. What is there, then, to prevent it from getting a little less hairy and a little smarter? And again and again? Is it really that hard to see, that with a lot of very small changes, things will eventually look totally different? Let's say you have a screen 1600 X 1200 pixels, and you can only recolor one pixel at a time. Is there anything that will eventually prevent the screen from being a completely different color? So, look at our ancestral apes and tell me you still don't see how it could have happened.

97-98% of our DNA matches that of a chimp's. We have 16 ERVs (endogenous retroviruses, that is, deactivated viral matter present in our genome) that we share with chimps! We're not telling you this because we want to be primates, we're telling you this because we are primates. This is confirmed genetically, obviously, but it is also confirmed from the bottom up by examining our traits! Our physical form is so closely related: same number of teeth (and incisors, canines, premolars, and molars, to boot!), tetrapoidal (possessing 4 limbs), body-wide hair follicles, lungs and heart enclosed inside a ribcage, backbone supporting 12 cranial nerves, skull with dual enclosed eye-sockets and a single temporal fenestra, and so, so much more.

Demonstrate that evolution is impossible and you can rewrite the science books. But we're seeing apparent speciation, even now! Living ring species that can no longer interbreed, bacteria that can digest nylon, which is a chemical that did not exist 50 years ago! Even the need to get more flu shots is evidence of viral evolution. You asked earlier what the benefit of viruses evolving is. The benefit is that they continue to exist, because obviously if they didn't evolve they would cease to exist. The benefit is theirs, not ours. Their evolution to suit their environment clearly happens, and evolution just explains how. If you want to ask why (not how) they evolve to thwart our vaccines, then you might ask the same of God.

Evolution, though, is not an attack on God. Sure, it isn't compatible with the literal Genesis (and neither is the Sears Tower, far taller than Bable ever was), but even as a Christian I knew it was allegory. Evolution may not make you feel special, like you would if your lineage was specially created in opposition to nature. But that is not a requisite for it being true. It happens. The Theory of Evolution describes the mechanism we actually observe, and it can be used with brilliant accuracy to make predictions throughout biology. Please, take a strong interest in finding out the facts. I will assist you with any questions, you have.

Quote from: "McQ"Moving this over from the Religion section. Should be posted here.

Quote from: "Pipebox"Important stuff.

Argh, sorry, please remove that post (I think MOG is more likely to read it when it doesn't look like a block quote from a science blog), the duplicate in the Religion subforum, and this one requesting their removal.  But thanks for putting it in here while I was afk.  

(wtf thats the second time I've messed up the quotes well I can't figure out how to fix it, sorry if it causes problems just ask if you need clarification)

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"

QuoteThanks for the kind response in explaining this.  For the sake of this discussion, my focus is based on origins.  How do we get from non-living matter to life.  And if DNA is information, where did this information come from? Furthermore, how did the DNA combine w/ non living matter to form lets say  bacteria?

The theory of evolution does not in anyway explain how life originated and it is not intended to. So focusing on trying to disprove evolution as a means of proving origins is at best pointless.

QuoteWhen the evolution theory was gaining some momentum, a problem arose for geologist. How do you fit the layers of strata and the fossil record into this theory? Enter the geologic column and mass extinction. Todays science, looking through the lenses of evolution, believes the geological record shows 5 extinction events.
However, I believe the geological record only shows one mass extinction based on a world wide flood. That is my point.

Modern Geology existed BEFORE the Theory of Evolution and questions of the actual age of the earth and the inacuacies writen in the Bibel were raised before the Origin of the Species was ever published.

QuoteWell lets look at an image of the scientific method.



Now lets run through this model. For argument sake, lets assume our question is "Did man evolved from a lower level of species?" We will assume all current evidence that is used to support this claim has been already admitted.

So running through the method,

Ask a Question? Check

Do a background search (evidence)? check

Construct Hypothesis? check

Test with experiment? hmm cannot do this one.

Analyze Results? Cannot do that either, no test we can perform

Hypothesis if False or Partially true? ( do not know, cannot test it, therefore I believe it to be true but its not scientific.)

First we don't evolve from lower species all living species are all equally evolved. The only therory of evolution that claims we are evolved from lower species is the flawed one propagated by creationist intentionaly putting foward a known wrong therory so they can debunk it.

Second the last part is that the results are posted regardless of weather or not the outcome meets with their expectations. Which is the apitamy of scientific honesty. They simply post the honest results of thier work no matter whether it proves or disproves or only partialy match their hypothisis.

Lots of good science going on in this thread, I approve.

QuoteYou see, we actually were able, for what I believe is the first time, to completely test evolution using the scientific method. A question was asked by Darwin, as was a great deal of research. Continuing well after his death, more biologists continued to research, compiling a mountain of evidence and creating a better picture of what that evidence was making clear. the hypothesis that Darwin had once created was now shared by the foremost experts in the world. And now, we've tested this with an experiment and yielded a successful result. After analyzing the results, it becomes clear that not only did a random mutation develop, but that particular mutation was helpful to the organism's survival. And that organism thrived, reproduced creating offspring with the same mutated trait, and that process continued until we could see the clear pattern of evolution.

It was a good day for science. I had cake.

Thanks for sharing the article.

We see that there is an increase in the fitness of the bacteria but not with out a cost.  For example, some lines have lost the ability to repair DNA,  Nature 387 (1997): 703â€"705. However, if you have faith in evolution:

Quotethe experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-lab.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)
 

But another perspective on this same evidence could make a case for this being an example of adaptation, not evolution.

QuoteMolecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems. Instead, these bacteria are likely experiencing a loss of information and functional systems as has been observed in other mutant bacteria in Lenski’s lab. While these changes are beneficial in the lab environment, they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.

QuoteLenski’s lab discovered that at generation 31,500, one line of E. coli could utilize citrate (Cit+). As mentioned previously, E. coli are not usually able to utilize citrate (Cit-), and this fact is typically used as diagnostic identification of E. coli. A New Scientist writer proclaims, “A major innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.”2 However, as we will see, this is a gross overstatement in regards to what actually occurred.
Previous research has shown that wild-type E. coli can utilize citrate when oxygen levels are low.6 Under these conditions, citrate is taken into the cell and used in a fermentation pathway. The gene (citT) in E. coli is believed to encode a citrate transporter (a protein which transports citrate into the cell).6 When oxygen levels are high, it is thought that the citrate transporter does not function or is not produced (even though they still possess the enzymes necessary to utilize citrate). Thus, wild-type E. coli already have the ability to transport citrate into the cell and utilize itâ€"so much for the idea of a “major innovation” and “evolution . . . making a rare and complex new trait”! Other labs have also produced Cit+ E. coli and speculated that mutation(s) in citT (or its regulators) allow the citrate transporter to function or be produced under high oxygen levels.6, 7 These types of changes are very consistent with the creation model (see below), but cannot serve as a means for evolution.
Lenski’s lab has not yet identified the genetic alterations of the Cit+ E. coli line, but he believes that there are multiple mutations involved. Studies of the “fossil record” of this line indicate that one or more mutations occurred around generation 20,000 which he terms “potentiating” mutations that were necessary before additional mutations around generation 31,500 led to Cit+ cells. Lenski thinks that the mutations may have activated a “cryptic” transporter (a once functional transporter that has been damaged due to the accumulation of mutations) that can now transport citrate. However, he states, “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been coopted [sic] for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen levels] conditions.”1 He believes this could be the same citrate transporter (citT) used in low oxygen conditions (inferring a loss of regulation) or a transporter for another substrate that has been modified to transport citrate (inferring a loss of specificity).
Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”1 If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds! Lenski’s work shows a clear case of adaptation and not evolution.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"It seems that spirit is squashed, especially when it comes to evolution.

What evidence is there that's against evolution? Other than religion, of course.

I think the real question is, how did it get to theory with out passing the scientific method?

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"It seems that spirit is squashed, especially when it comes to evolution.

What evidence is there that's against evolution? Other than religion, of course.

I think the real question is, how did it get to theory with out passing the scientific method?

Please read Will's response on page one, he went through the scientific method for you.

But there is so much evidence. the fossil record shows so many animals in that are slight remakings of the ones before them , leading to clearly defined lineages. Nice attempt at a sidestep though.

The article you cited from nature is nothing to do with this experiment, they concern two, totally different people and experiments. But yes, mutations can help in one way and hurt in others, look at sickle cell anemia for instance.

Also, the refutation of the citrate eating bacteria seems to miss the point entirley. The ones that evolved in the lab can transport citrate at normal oxygen levels, where as un-evolved E.coli cannot. By making a tiny addendum to the technical functioning of the trait, the article claims it is less wonderous, when this is not true at all. A mutation ( or series of mutation ) lead to a change in the way an organism functions, it functions better for a given enviroment, so the mutation is passed on, as subsequent generations can also transport citrate. It says this is somehow consistent with a creator model? What?

The next paragraph is not science at all. Saying the gene loses regulation od specificity is simply erreneous. There is no evidence this is what happened, as the genes have not been mapped yet. The "infer" in the article could more correctly be termed as "guess" or "rationalisation". Even is these things were ture, the way in which they are presented is misleading. By using the word "lose" they try to paint a picture of an organism going backwards, which is simply not true.

Last paragraph is an argument from incredulity, classic logical fallacy.

To address this stuff more generally, Christians love to straw man evolution. They say all mutations lose genetic information ( not true, gene duplication and frame shifting can produce new information, reference to pipebox's excellent post, and also, the multiple types of heamoglobin found in humans ), and that there is some sort of ordering to life. No one organism is "higher" than any other. It is true that one organism cannot evolve into a higher one, becuase there is no such thing as a higher organism. Putting forward a bogus theory, calling it evolution and then debunking it, is not science.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"But another perspective on this same evidence could make a case for this being an example of adaptation, not evolution.

Mutation is not a part of adaptation. A new trait not only developed, but flourished in it's environment. Is that not the very definition of evolution?

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"I think the real question is, how did it get to theory with out passing the scientific method?

It has, but I'll get to that in a second. I mention evidence because that's the stage in the scientific method which precedes experimentation. What evidence is there to counter the evidence for evolution? If there is some verifiable evidence, either evolution will need to be changed or replaced with a better theory. If, however, the evidence is not verifiable or scientific, it's not evidence at all.

Regarding the experimentation step of the scientific method being applied to evolution, I may have given you the wrong idea by posting something so recent. Humans have been experimenting with bacteria for many decades now, and as I said above bacteria reproduce very, very quickly and as such evolve at a rate which humans can observe and even experiment with. I've seen studies earlier than the 1950s on bacteria or fruit flies that demonstrate evolution via experimentation. The problem, though, is that once one experiments on evolution, they remove the "natural" from natural selection. We've not only seen, but have been responsible for artificial selection for thousands of years. One could argue that humans first demonstrated evolution of the less natural kind through selective breeding of livestock and crops. We've even caused divergence so great that we've created new species or organism. Natural selection, on the other hand, cannot be experimented on. As soon as one interferes, the process ceases to be natural. It's a paradox, but it doesn't leave us unable to finish.

When I linked the article above, I was providing a part of the puzzle, the patchwork of many, many experiments that eventually created a clear and indeed undeniable picture. Through our many experiments on genetic selection, we've replicated possible real-world situations in which evolution not only can but does take place. Mutation has been experimented on and demonstrated. Selection based on environment has been experimented on and demonstrated. Evolution has passed the scientific method many, many times with flying colors.

Still, that doesn't make evolution gospel. If you have evidence you're holding back, please present it now. It's better to prove something wrong than to believe something that's incorrect.

QuoteQuite the contrary.  The age of the earth was known to be much greater than that derived from biblical studies before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell) Darwin proposed the theory of evolution.

Charles Lyell, you mean the guy who influenced Darwin?  Charles Lyell hypothesized the age of the earth , yes.

QuoteAnd I still find your bringing in of extinction events as a supposed critique of evolutionary theory to be of dubious value.  Geologists are looking at the record of the earth as found in rocks, not as a means of proving or disproving evolutionary theory, but simply to discover what that record says about events in the past.  You seem to think that they are influenced by the current scientific acceptance of the theory of evolution, but in fact all they are doing is reporting on what they've found in the geologic record.  Do you believe that findings that support the biblical story are being suppressed?  If so, please give links to the creationist sites that expose this vast conspiracy.

No. Not at all what I am saying. I am saying that a geologist who has an evolution mindset, will explain an event found in the rocks in the following order,

Does it fit in evolution hypothesis?  lets assume in the example the answer is no.  Well if your a believer, then you overlook that minor defect in your thinking and figure a way to make a fit.


 

QuoteJust out of curiosity, since you seem to give it so much importance:  If there seems to be a record of at least five distinct extinction events, separated by layers of strata, how does that equate with one great extinction, caused by a global flood, as recorded in the bible?

The layers of strata is proof in itself of a flood.  On a small scale, what happens when you take for example 5 different types of rocks, put it in a test tube, and shake the test tube? The rocks are sorted into layers of the same type, distributed proportionately by its weight. This is also referred to as Hydraulic sorting. A global flood would obviously have this same effect.  Of course the flood was violent, so its not going to be perfect distribution of weight.  And that fits perfectly w/ what we see in the geological record. For example, the Grand Canyon.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/preview/i_3211.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/preview/i_3211.html)

QuoteAs for Gentry and the 'polonium halos:'



Thomas Baillieul is not a "layman scientist."

I was thinking of a more J. Richard Wakefield when I said that.

QuoteIn fact, as I mentioned above, he has a Master's degree in geology, while Gentry is not a geologist, but has a Master's degree in physics.

Gentry doing a geology w/ a master degree in physics is like:

Charles Darwin  observing biology with shaky education in medicine and study of Paley's Natural Theology? or maybe not,  gentry finished his schooling.

QuoteGentry's Doctorate is honorary, and bestowed on him by Columbia Union College, a fundamentalist institution.

And that means what? He earned his Masters degree in physics at the University of Florida, a secular institution.


 

Quote from: "Thomas A. Baillieul"I find the questions and comments about my critique having undergone peer review interesting. My critique is intended to be a peer review of Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis - which itself was never published in its complete form in a mainstream scientific journal nor subjected to peer review. None of Gentry's short papers to Science ever presented the full scope of his study or his conclusions. Most scientific journals do not peer review the comments of their peer reviewers, as those individuals are well known to the journal's editors. In the case of my critique, though, it was reviewed extensively prior to posting.

The original manuscript was submitted for publication in the Records of the National Center for Science Education. The paper was reviewed by the journal's editor, Andrew Petto (senior lecturer in anatomy and physiology at the University of Wisconsin), and Lorence Collins (Emeritus Professor of Geology at California State University Northridge). An additional scientist with nuclear radiation background also reviewed the manuscript for the journal, although I was never given his name (science journals seldom identify their reviewers to the prospective authors for a variety of reasons; Collins self-identified himself to me). All reviewers agreed with my arguments and felt the work warranted publication. However, they felt that the material was too technically complex and lengthy for the average readership of the Records of the NCSE Looking to present the critique to the widest audience possible, I chose instead to submit the revised paper to the Talk Origins Archive. Prior to posting, there was additional technical and editorial review by Talk Origins' coordinators. Following initial posting on the Talk Origins page, I received technical comments from a specialist in radiation effects on biological materials, leading to an expansion of my discourse on the Bragg Effect in minerals. I also had extensive correspondence with 2 creationists which resulted in expanding and clarifying several sections of the paper to make the arguments clearer to a lay audience.


At the end of his 1974 paper in Science, Gentry asks the question about polonium halos: "...can they be explained by presently accepted cosmological and geological concepts relating to the origin and development of the Earth?" I believe my critique answers that question in the affirmative as well as showing Gentry's work to be flawed and incomplete.

 

Quote from: "Thomas A.  Baillieul"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

Your link is basically just a blog w/ out the comments.  Thomas states that he is disputing scientific work that gentry did not publish in scientific journals, but then goes on to write a whole article on the very work gentry published in scientific journals?  It is obvious Thomas work will not gain acceptance into any scientific journal.  His writing is just propaganda.

QuoteGod did it!

Sounds similar to  "evolution did it!"

Quote from: "VanReal"Please read Will's response on page one, he went through the scientific method for you.

You mean this

Quote from: "Will"You see, we actually were able, for what I believe is the first time, to completely test evolution using the scientific method

.

Two things, this would imply that evolution was not a theory before this study.  The second is that this study on page 1 does not explain evolution, especially when looked in the light of how bacteria evolved to current day humans. Which is the only evolution I care about.  Which is still scientifically, unproven, therefore a belief.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Two things, this would imply that evolution was not a theory before this study.

This assumes that the article I linked was the first experiment to demonstrate evolution.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"The second is that this study on page 1 does not explain evolution, especially when looked in the light of how bacteria evolved to current day humans. Which is the only evolution I care about.  Which is still scientifically, unproven, therefore a belief.

You imply disparity where none exists. There's no difference between bacteria developing the ability to utilize a particular citrate and bacteria over billions of years evolving into humans or a tree or even a Republican.

Maybe that's where Creationists get confused. Maybe they can't really conceptualize the scope of time involved in evolution. If in the span of a few decades bacteria can develop a whole new way to utilize a citrate, imagine what could happen in 100 years, the amount of time from the first airplane to a mach ten X43 airplane. Now imagine what could happen in 500 years, the time from the first Europeans finding the Americas to now. Now imagine what could happen in 1000 years, the amount of time that's passed since the dawn of the Middle Ages. Now imagine what could happen in 10,000 years, the time between now and the dawn of human civilization. If that mutation could happen in a few decades, how much has happened since the dawn of human civilziation? Now multiply that by at least 350,000. The oldest fossils of microscopic life dates back 3.5 billion years, but there's evidence that suggests that life started closer to 4.7 billion years old, plus or minus a few hundred million years. You can't understand evolution without comprehending the scope of time that life has been evolving.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"The layers of strata is proof in itself of a flood.  On a small scale, what happens when you take for example 5 different types of rocks, put it in a test tube, and shake the test tube? The rocks are sorted into layers of the same type, distributed proportionately by its weight. This is also referred to as Hydraulic sorting. A global flood would obviously have this same effect.  Of course the flood was violent, so its not going to be perfect distribution of weight.  And that fits perfectly w/ what we see in the geological record. For example, the Grand Canyon.

OK, no, just no.  I'm not a geologist but I can tell you the difference between stratification and hydraulic sorting.  Courtesy of the video at the end of the post, which will do a far better job (and it is one of many).  BUT!  Far better is that the stratification that we see is often heavier sediments on top of lighter ones.  Soil on top of pumice on top of redstone on top of sandstone on top granite on top of basalt.  If the heavier, more dense stuff is on top, the this hydraulic sorting fails to explain it.  

Quote... how bacteria evolved to current day humans. Which is the only evolution I care about. Which is still scientifically, unproven, therefore a belief.

OK, first off, bacteria popularly belong to domain prokaryota (I say popularly because they actually belong to domain bacteria but they are prokaryotes along with domain archaea), while we're eukaryotes, like the protists.  The domains are the largest taxonomic structures describing the most basic features shared by all life, aside from being protein based and possessing RNA, which fits both groups in a clade sometimes called gaia biota, describing all life on this planet.  But that's seldom used.  So we share a commonality with all other eukaryotes, and reasonably a common ancestor, as it is an undisputed fact that all of our cells are initially nucleic.  If you're saying we haven't observed protists evolving into animals and all the way up to hominids, well, no kidding.  We've also never seen Sedna orbit the sun, but it sure looks like it does!  We've never, in our recorded history, completed a galactic transit, even more so if you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old and the Milky Way, too (nevermind the galaxy is 100,000 ly across, so we shouldn't even be able to see it unless God wants to trick us into thinking the universe is very old)!  Should we assume that these aren't proven to happen just because we've only seen minor pieces of the orbits we think have happened in the past?  Not at all!  In this case, we know what we've observing, we know it's part of an ongoing process, and through induction (and I use that word lightly, as it doesn't require much induction to figure out) we know how it came to be where it is.  I can't impress on you how much evidence there is in biology that we share a common ancestor.  Please, ask whatever you like, but do ask!


But here's that video:

[youtube:e6vftaek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY[/youtube:e6vftaek]

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Charles Lyell, you mean the guy who influenced Darwin? Charles Lyell hypothesized the age of the earth , yes.

Yes.  Geology is a different branch of science than biology.  It deals with rocks and land formations, and seeks to understand what the evidence found in it's field of study tells us.  That evidence led Hutton and Lyell to think that the age of the earth was much greater than that which biblically influenced ideas current in their time gave.  In other words, they, and the geologists who followed, were not intent on proving the theory of evolution at all, in fact it did not even exist when they began to propose a greater age for the planet than had previously been supposed.  Geology since their time has revised and built upon their ideas, as more evidence has been gathered, and that evidence has been understood more comprehensively. Geologists have a geology mindset, not an 'evolutionist mindset.'  They report what they find.  Those findings have backed up the theory of evolution, but that is not their intent at all. Basically you are accusing the whole science of geology of being intellectually dishonest, of looking only to find what backs up a theory that is not even part of their field, and ignoring evidence to the contrary:

 

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"I am saying that a geologist who has an evolution mindset, will explain an event found in the rocks in the following order,

Does it fit in evolution hypothesis? lets assume in the example the answer is no. Well if your a believer, then you overlook that minor defect in your thinking and figure a way to make a fit.

Please give an example of geological evidence fitting  your description.  Evidence which shows the earth to be much younger than currently understood by the science of geology, and which has therefore been either ignored or explained away in an intellectually dishonest manner.  And please don't bring  Dr. Gentry into this particular portion of the debate since his book is in dispute elsewhere.  If there's  such a preponderance of evidence for the creationist view that it's convinced you of it's truth, then it shouldn't be hard to find another example.

 

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"The layers of strata is proof in itself of a flood. On a small scale, what happens when you take for example 5 different types of rocks, put it in a test tube, and shake the test tube? The rocks are sorted into layers of the same type, distributed proportionately by its weight. This is also referred to as Hydraulic sorting. A global flood would obviously have this same effect. Of course the flood was violent, so its not going to be perfect distribution of weight. And that fits perfectly w/ what we see in the geological record. For example, the Grand Canyon.

I see this has been answered above, but I have a few questions none the less:  Why would different groupings of fauna be buried in separate layers, so that the evidence would seem to show that at one time the ecology of the planet was different than the grouping of fauna found several layers above it would indicate?  If there was only one catastrophic flood, one would imagine that all of the animals killed in that flood would be  in one huge layer, and that layer would only indicate one dead ecology.  Why would different types of animals be found in different layers? Why do multiple layers indicating multiple (quite distinct) ecologies exist?

 

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"And that means what? He [Gentry] earned his Masters degree in physics at the University of Florida, a secular institution.

I was merely indicating that when one reads Dr. Gentry, one should not be mislead into thinking that he has a higher level of academic qualification than Thomas Baillieul.

 

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Your link is basically just a blog w/ out the comments. Thomas states that he is disputing scientific work that gentry did not publish in scientific journals, but then goes on to write a whole article on the very work gentry published in scientific journals? It is obvious Thomas work will not gain acceptance into any scientific journal. His writing is just propaganda.

Actually, if you read the Baillieul article, you will see that he is addressing Gentry's theory in general, including the book Creation's Tiny Mystery. which as you well know was not published in scientific journals. If you find Baillieul's article unacceptable, since it was admittedly not published by a scientific journal, perhaps you might care to read The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery" (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm), which was originally published in the May 1988 Issue of the Journal of Geological Education.  This article takes a slightly different approach in critiquing Gentry's work, but comes to much the same conclusion as Baillieul.

I would like you to address just one sentence from the Baillieul article, however:

 

Quote from: "Thomas A. Baillieul"If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory?

Thank you, Man-ofGod, for your willingness to examine these issues with us, and for your continued well-mannered approach to this debate.  I admire that.

Quote from: "Will"Maybe that's where Creationists get confused. Maybe they can't really conceptualize the scope of time involved in evolution. If in the span of a few decades bacteria can develop a whole new way to utilize a citrate, imagine what could happen in 100 years, the amount of time from the first airplane to a mach ten X43 airplane. Now imagine what could happen in 500 years, the time from the first Europeans finding the Americas to now. Now imagine what could happen in 1000 years, the amount of time that's passed since the dawn of the Middle Ages. Now imagine what could happen in 10,000 years, the time between now and the dawn of human civilization. If that mutation could happen in a few decades, how much has happened since the dawn of human civilziation? Now multiply that by at least 350,000. The oldest fossils of microscopic life dates back 3.5 billion years, but there's evidence that suggests that life started closer to 4.7 billion years old, plus or minus a few hundred million years. You can't understand evolution without comprehending the scope of time that life has been evolving.

You just hit the nail on the head.
 

Quote from: "SSY"But there is so much evidence. the fossil record shows so many animals in that are slight remakings of the ones before them , leading to clearly defined lineages. Nice attempt at a sidestep though.

I think this is more of a case of side stepping the scientific method, a pillar of science. This is the same wolf and the dog argument. One argument states these are two different species and proof of evolution, the other side states its the same kind of animal and proof of Creation (“Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind" - Genesis 1:24). Which side is correct? From a science point of view, neither is correct or incorrect , both fit.

QuoteThe article you cited from nature is nothing to do with this experiment, they concern two, totally different people and experiments. But yes, mutations can help in one way and hurt in others, look at sickle cell anemia for instance.

No argument from me there.  edit** did not see your nature post.. I will address when I get back to thread.:)

"I think this is more of a case of side stepping the scientific method, a pillar of science," said the Man of God. lol. I'm sorry am I the only one who finds that funny?  

Quote from: "Sophus""I think this is more of a case of side stepping the scientific method, a pillar of science," said the Man of God. lol. I'm sorry am I the only one who finds that funny?  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages49.fotki.com%2Fv1496%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2F767-vi.jpg&hash=cbae10e7793ca069f4665b911f81623460f78043)

The wolf anaology is wrong, animals do not evolve from living animals, they both evolve from a common ancestor.

The line you quoted does not show why there would be wolves and dogs, in fact. it makes little sense at all in this context. There is no evidence for a god in the existance of wolves and dogs. The reason they are different is becuase man has domesticated dogs, simple.

Yes, evolution functions largley in part through mutations, no one would ever deny that. to be honest, I cant really see what you're saying here, are you sdaying evolution is not to do with mutation?

Your definition of adaptation is also, very confusing. The genetic code changes, and some of these changes help them survive, and are passed on. Thats called evolution. Me getting fitter after running a lot is an adaptation. One organism. The trait was passed on to many bacteria, they ddi not learn it, they were born with it, its evolution.

Whoever wrote that bacteria "adaptiing" is consistent with god is just wrong, sorry. Why do you call it adaption when it is clearly evolution?


There is more information in some genomes than others, yes. The most plausible explanation I have hard is gene duplication, which I already mentioned and you ignored.

QuoteLenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”1 If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds! Lenski’s work shows a clear case of adaptation and not evolution.

This sia  logical fallacy, it is improbable, and therefor, impossible.


Your last thing, about propaganda from evolutionists, again, makes little sense. They said we evolved from lower orders of life, so this makes it true? do you agree with it?

Please define exactly the difference between adaption and evolution, how can a bacteria adapt? through chnages in its DNA or some other method, please be very precise. If you ignore the rest, please answer this bit.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"I think this is more of a case of side stepping the scientific method, a pillar of science. This is the same wolf and the dog argument. One argument states these are two different species and proof of evolution, the other side states its the same kind of animal and proof of Creation (“Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind" - Genesis 1:24). Which side is correct? From a science point of view, neither is correct or incorrect , both fit.

ARGH.  From a science point of view, one tells us nothing.  If God created us, we still want to understand his method.  If there is any information to be found, and we labor under the assumption there is, then we must keep searching.  Tell me, without invoking supernatural creation, as the supernatural is not science, how do we appear to have arrived on Earth?  Because I can tell you that we don't see stars forming supernaturally.  We see hydrogen clouds collapsing into protostars.  So why would we assume our star was specially created?  We see heavier elements cast out by supernovae, so why would we assume Earth was specially created?  We see that life is made of the same basic stuff as non-life, so why would we assume life cannot arise from it (heck, we even know it does, as you wouldn't call individual amino acids "alive", or individual proteins, and all these blocks are assembled, by cells, into new cells)?  We see so many similarities, which you have yet to address, when just honestly comparing different groups of life forms.  The similarities are visible to anyone who dares to look!  And by your own logic, at the very least, we share an ancestor with chimps, because he have more in common with them genetically than dogs do with coyotes and zebras do with horses.  You ignore the fact that there is no hard line in the fossil record, that there is no evolutionary wall.  We can demonstrate small changes in life forms over successive generations, and all you can do is claim that they can't change enough.

QuoteI think the point being made is the idea that evolution is synonymous with mutation (another function of mainstream science).  Likewise, we see evolution being defined through this process where others would see adaptation.

Adaptation does not occur over successive generations.  That is evolution.  Adaptation, if this is what it means to you, is synonymous to evolution.  To the rest of us, adaptation means when we do more work, we get larger muscles, and when we handle rougher materials, we get rougher hands.  Even neoteny, whereby organisms remain in more juvenile forms to suit their environment, is adaptation (and it can actually lead to evolution, too, when the more advanced form is no longer utilized and the genes it utilizes are mutated).  Organisms adapt, generations evolve.  If using less oxygen were an adaptation, then one would expect these bacteria to adapt to their new environment very fast.  If the adaptation could only happen during a certain part of the organism's life, then you would expect to see it no later than the second generation.  This was generation 30,000+, yes?  Again, your use of adaptation as a fuzzy word shows you must admit evolution is happening, you just do not like its full implications, and seek to define limits where there are none, given the time.

QuoteThe definition of evolution is being blurred. By applying the definition to the every day occurrences and some rare occurrence that do happen, you automatically assume that all forms of evolution must therefor be true.  Which is simply not the case.

See the above...

QuoteAdaptation is consistent with the creator model.

Yup, sure is.  It doesn't require any new genetic information, in fact, adaptation demands there be no change in the genetic information, lest it be evolution if the genetic aberration is observed over generations, the changes being disseminated through a population, or at least a beneficial mutation (a component most creationists claim cannot happen) in the individual.  Oh, yeah, and if that beneficial mutation is transfered on, it's EVOLUTION, BABY!

QuoteMutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world.8 Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect.
Given the selective pressure exerted by the media of a limited carbon source (glucose) but abundant alternative carbon source (citrate), the cells with slightly beneficial mutations would be selected for and increase in the population. Alternatively, if the mutational effects were neutral the cells with these mutations might remain in the population just by chance, since they would not be selected for or against. Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering currently existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment. Further understanding of Lenski’s research is valuable for development of a creation model for adaptation of bacterial populations in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world.

See, this is an amazing example of "say it ain't so" word-play.  The redeeming feature (to creationist) is claiming that God meant for them to unlock a new feature via mutation, and that subsequent generations inherited it.  But minus the supernatural intent, this is exactly what evolution is, with the addenum of it being under selective pressure.  Let us even give you the supposed high ground here, and say the bacteria lost something via this mutation, so it wasn't strictly beneficial.  Let's say it happened in otherwise important DNA, rather than a duplicated or junk bit, and maybe the bacteria is now vulnerable down the line to something else.  Is it still evolution?  YES.  There is no requirement that only totally advantageous changes take place, only that changes take place.  Natural selection will sort the viable from the unviable, and over time, you will see differentiation.  You, again, are left hoping that things can't change too much over time, when we know that they can via the same reasoning that tells us Sedna orbits the sun, despite us never seeing it go all the way.  We haven't seen a microorganism evolve into a hominid, but we don't have to, as we've seen the smaller changes take place and we know that with an infinite amount of smaller changes you will achieve an infinite amount of variation.  Obviously there has only been finite time for finite changes, but we know mutation rates and we have the fossil record, and it meshes.

QuoteWhat is ultimately being implied is that the nothing is gained on a genetic level. Do you agree or disagree that their is incredibly more information in human DNA as opposed to that of a bacteria.  So the question becomes, where did human information come from.

Even if nothing was gained on a genetic level this time, tell me what prevents small changes from eventually yielding a human genome.  I'm not asking you for the odds, as we are exactly as unlikely to have our exact genetic structure as a crocodile is theirs, and yet we exist.  I'm asking you what prevents adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine from changing in their ordering enough.  Now remember that there is nothing to prevent mutation to a duplicated gene, nothing to prevent viable frame shift.  "Information," even in the plain-wrong-creationist sense of the word, can and is easily gained through mutation and natural selection.  You have no method for preventing the genetic progression from microbe to man except to claim that no viable forms would be yielded by intermediary DNA, and since intermediary DNA is literally any viable path of mutations and selection resulting in humans, you know this isn't the case.

QuoteThe E-Coli, based on the observation that it utilized Cit+, may not be proof that it added new genetic information (as implied, the genes have not been mapped yet)   Since we know that E-Coli already has the ability to utilize Cit+ at lower oxygen levels, this could simply be an example of adaptation.  Again, the mapping of the genetic code would be a perfect way to verify which one it is. But I am leaning towards adaptation. ;-)

Something changed in its genes.  This change was passed on.  It doesn't matter if this change didn't add new information, what matters is that it could have added new information, and the mechanism, mutation, is how it happened.  Again, you use that word, adaptation, wrongly, and as a synonym, whether you realize it or not, for evolution.  This is not adaptation -- in the sense of there being no genetic change, but an environmental response by the individual organism -- as you would hope the word might, fallaciously, imply.  A mutation, whether it adds genetic material, pares it down, provides benefit or not, is still a mechanism of evolution, and when that change is passed down and selected for, the population is said to have evolved.  Penguins can't fly, a disadvantage in many ways.  Does that mean they didn't evolve, or "de-evolved"?  NO.  You can lean towards your "not a totally beneficial 'adaptation'" all you want, but it is evolution that is described here.  That is, you are describing evolution, and then mentally limiting it to just a small set of possibilities in the face of reality.  Duplications happen.  Mutate a duplication and you've added information.  Change enough of the same basic stuff we're all made of, and you can develop any viable life form over time for a given environment.  I've explained to you the mechanisms, it's time to face them.

QuoteIll have to come back to this point, but this never was not an invention of creationist, but was propaganda by the old evolution community through media to enforce the idea that we evolved from "lower orders of life."   The premise has not changed, just the idea that there are higher levels of organism has. Or has it?

Let's say is was "the old evolution community" that gave rise to it, that doesn't even mean the scientists by necessity.  But let's say it does.  Does a flawed description of one aspect, or a bad choice of wording, invalidate all others?  I like how you claim this propaganda.  Does that mean that whenever science updates, you claim they were just trying to cover the hole in their religion, as if they were apologeticists?  All new science is propaganda, then.  No wonder why creationists are so disinclined to accept any new evidence in favor of evolution or the standard cosmological model.  No wonder they've been trying desperately to claim scientists got it wrong in every field from astronomy to morphology ever since they started disliking the implications.  They think it is all apologetics, maybe all a conspiracy.  Some doubt the scientists are able to properly interpret the evidence, thinking themselves and their myth more fit, and others think even the evidence is made up to fool us.  If you are unwilling to honestly review the science with me, under the suspicion it is all lies, then this post has been 30 minutes of fluff that I wrote for no good reason.  I'm not here to debate with you.  There is no debate.  I'm trying to tell you the truth.

Ooo, red text.  

This is a little OT, hope the mod does not mind.

Just want to say I appreciate the discussion.  I know how frustrating it can be to get through a creationist thick skull;-)  
So to lighten the mood, hopefully just  a little, Ill post a joke I ran across.  I apologize in advance if its corny or if you seen it already, or both:)

QuoteA young technician and his general manager board a train headed through the mountains on its way to Kansas. They can find no place to sit except for two seats right across the aisle from a young woman and her grandmother.

After a while, it’s obvious that the young woman and the young tech are interested in each because of the looks they’re giving each other. Soon the train passes into a tunnel and it goes pitch black. There is a sound of the smack of a kiss followed by the sound of a slap. When the train emerges from the tunnel, the four sit there in silence without saying a word.

The grandmother is thinking to herself: “It was very brash for that young man to kiss my granddaughter, but I’m glad she slapped him.” The General manager is thinking: “I didn’t know the young tech was brave enough to kiss that girl, but I sure wish she hadn’t missed him when she slapped and hit me!” The young woman was sitting there thinking: “I’m glad he kissed me, but I wish my grandmother had not slapped him!” The young tech sat there with a satisfied smile on his face. He thought to himself: “Life is good. How often does a guy have the chance to kiss a beautiful girl and slap his general manager all at the same time!

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"This is a little OT, hope the mod does not mind.

OT, but I don't mind... funny joke!

... we now return to your regularly scheduled back and forth conversation (already in progress) ...

Quote from: "Man-OfGod"No. Not at all what I am saying. I am saying that a geologist who has an evolution mindset, will explain an event found in the rocks in the following order,

Does it fit in evolution hypothesis? lets assume in the example the answer is no. Well if your a believer, then you overlook that minor defect in your thinking and figure a way to make a fit.

No, this is how the creationist works things out in his/her mind.  How do I make this evidence fit into what the bible tells us?  

A thought coming to mind is the initial carbon dating from the jesus shroud.  It was found to be very young and not old enough to be really the shroud of jesus.  The discovery was then made that there was a specific time period of weaving done in the area of the shroud where their sample was taken.  It was most likely a repair made (the shroud has been fire damaged etc) at a later time period hence the date error in the original carbon dating sampling.  The church has other samples from different parts of the shroud that were taken, but they won't fork them over to the scientists to carbon date.  Here, the scientists are following the evidence and have admitted the initial error.

Geologists did not make up the fossil findings and sedimentary layers that are discovered through their studies.  It is what it is.  If they found a dinosaur in a layer dating from 1000 years ago they would say so and it would be astonishing!

When are you going to stop thinking that the scientific community is purposely making up evidence in order to continue an proveably untrue theory?  There would be no purpose to do that, if another more accurate theory emerged you would not see mass rioting because of the thwarting of evolution.

Quote from: "VanReal"No, this is how the creationist works things out in his/her mind.  How do I make this evidence fit into what the bible tells us?  

I do not doubt that this is how creationist work.  Creationist do not deny this.  Evolutionist, however, are not honest about it.  

QuoteA thought coming to mind is the initial carbon dating from the jesus shroud.  It was found to be very young and not old enough to be really the shroud of jesus.  The discovery was then made that there was a specific time period of weaving done in the area of the shroud where their sample was taken.  It was most likely a repair made (the shroud has been fire damaged etc) at a later time period hence the date error in the original carbon dating sampling.  The church has other samples from different parts of the shroud that were taken, but they won't fork them over to the scientists to carbon date.  Here, the scientists are following the evidence and have admitted the initial error.

The shroud is a bunch of hoopla, and I do not subscribe, and never subscribe to nonsense like that.

QuoteGeologists did not make up the fossil findings and sedimentary layers that are discovered through their studies.  It is what it is.  If they found a dinosaur in a layer dating from 1000 years ago they would say so and it would be astonishing!

Explain to me how layers are dated?

QuoteWhen are you going to stop thinking that the scientific community is purposely making up evidence in order to continue an proveably untrue theory?  There would be no purpose to do that, if another more accurate theory emerged you would not see mass rioting because of the thwarting of evolution.

No, when are you going to understand what I been trying to say from the beginning?  I never said anyone was "making up evidence." No, what I am saying is the hypothesis always made is that w/ an evolutionary mind set.

"Evolution did it!"

As long as it does not pass the scientific method, is always going to be just a hypothesis, not a theory. Truth not many are willing to accept.

~

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"I do not doubt that this is how creationist work.  Creationist do not deny this.  Evolutionist, however, are not honest about it.  

Ah, the evil dishonest scientists argument.  Ah, the evil dishonest scientists argument.  Ah, the evil dishonest scientists argument.  Oh, yikes, I am repeating myself.  It must be contagious.

QuoteThe shroud is a bunch of hoopla, and I do not subscribe, and never subscribe to nonsense like that.

Avoided my point entirely.  What you subscribe to is not important, the point is that scientists follow the evidence regardless of where it may lead.  There have been several examples of that on this thread and you continue to ignore it.

QuoteExplain to me how layers are dated?

Thank goodness Pipeboxdid that for me, although I fear his time and effort will be written of as "hoopla" as well.

QuoteNo, when are you going to understand what I been trying to say from the beginning?  I never said anyone was "making up evidence." No, what I am saying is the hypothesis always made is that w/ an evolutionary mind set.

"Evolution did it!"

As long as it does not pass the scientific method, is always going to be just a hypothesis, not a theory. Truth not many are willing to accept.

Yes you did, you said that the evidence they tout is garbage, several times, and that they will turn evidence to the contrary into a false supporting of evolution.  Not only that but that when evidence proves evolution wrong that they brush it under the carpet, step on it, and set it on fire.  That they pray to the holy creator of the hypothesis of evolution and that they do nothing but run around thinking of evolution and providing faulty evidence for the sheer reason to support it. And, that they are all so loyal and dishonest that true science has died because of this evil evolution and the evolutionist.

By attempting to debunk evolution, scientific discoveries etc. the religious devotees are curiously also denying their own gods abilities.
An almighty God wouldn't have a problem with scientific discoveries, he would just claim them as his own (including Evolution). So by denying this they are not only denying their own Gods powers and just how he did it.  According to the God mob he told 'man' what to write down in the scriptures etc. are they really saying ' that's it then', so why all the debate throughout the centuries or are they saying their god didn't make it clear enough and had to figure it out for them selves. Again they are not only limiting their own gods abilities they are trying to tell the rest of us that they and they alone are able to interpret what their god meant.
The bottom line is, that it is their God and they can and do decide on his powers and abilities who he speaks to and who he helps. The God lot even try to convince us that they are gods chosen ones that he talks to them and them alone and we must obey and believe them OR ELSE. Then you have the God bunch that think they are God.
As the vast majority of the population on board this planet don't believe in your god on a stick thing, just stick to your religious mumblings and leave the rest of us to try and figure out just why and what process created the universe and all it contains.
 Religion as a theory debunked itself long ago.

For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/ (http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/)

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/ (http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/)

How about answering the direct questions instead of simply linking to a creationist site that has all of the arguments we already know? When will you understand that we know this stuff? I, and others here, know these viewpoints. Probably better than you do, based on your arguments here. Why do you fail to understand that some of us have been where you are now? Is that so hard to believe or grasp? So why don't you start being honest and try to see a viewpoint different from your own?

You've continued to ignore relevant questions posed to you, and ignore evidence presented to you, MOG. That borders on trolling. If you want to discuss topics, then do so, but if you are going to continue to ignore other members' posts, that will be a problem. If you do not wish to have meaningful discussions or debate, then this forum may not be the appropriate place for you to post. Totally up to you how you proceed. We welcome honest and open debate.

Edited to add: Looks like the site is very similar to other sites I've seen and probably run by Seventh Day Adventists. Also, what MOG didn't mention is that you have to pay a fee to see the "Amazing Discoveries" in it. MOG's post of this link is pretty much just an ad for that site. Big no-no. there, MOG. That's a strike.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/ (http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/)

How about answering the direct questions instead of simply linking to a creationist site that has all of the arguments we already know? When will you understand that we know this stuff? I, and others here, know these viewpoints. Probably better than you do, based on your arguments here. Why do you fail to understand that some of us have been where you are now? Is that so hard to believe or grasp? So why don't you start being honest and try to see a viewpoint different from your own?

You've continued to ignore relevant questions posed to you, and ignore evidence presented to you, MOG. That borders on trolling. If you want to discuss topics, then do so, but if you are going to continue to ignore other members' posts, that will be a problem. If you do not wish to have meaningful discussions or debate, then this forum may not be the appropriate place for you to post. Totally up to you how you proceed. We welcome honest and open debate.

Edited to add: Looks like the site is very similar to other sites I've seen and probably run by Seventh Day Adventists. Also, what MOG didn't mention is that you have to pay a fee to see the "Amazing Discoveries" in it. MOG's post of this link is pretty much just an ad for that site. Big no-no. there, MOG. That's a strike.

I had a more emotional response to this post that I decided to delete.

I am sorry you felt like I was trolling, their is a lot of post here and it really is tiresome to try to answer every single one.  I do not want posting here to be my second job, just a hobby and hopefully fruitful discussion.  

The link I can assure you is not advertisement as I have no affiliation with that site. Sorry that you got that impression.  Hopefully you can be comforted with the fact that I would not post a link to a Christian site to raise money on an Atheist forum.  Not a good strategy from a marketing perspective.  I think you will find the video I posted is with in the context with the discussion and is free, and I encourage people to watch it so that they can open their mind. Its not enough to say you have an open mind, you have to put it into practice.  

Finally, do not assume you already been where I been.  You know little about me.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"I had a more emotional response to this post that I decided to delete.

I am sorry you felt like I was trolling, their is a lot of post here and it really is tiresome to try to answer every single one.  I do not want posting here to be my second job, just a hobby and hopefully fruitful discussion.

The Bible does have a very good allegory, which explains exactly what has happened to you over here.

QuoteHosea  8:7  For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.

Your problem also reminded me about the Chinese saying

QuoteBeware what you wish for, you may get it.

You wished for a discussion, and, boy oh boy, you sure got it.  

MOG, is this video not mirrored elsewhere?  I mean, if it's really that convincing a message, and especially if it can answer for all my posts, then you'd think it'd be freely distributed and all over the web.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"For those of you interested in understanding a viewpoint different then yours:

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/ (http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/6/101-232K/)

How about answering the direct questions instead of simply linking to a creationist site that has all of the arguments we already know? When will you understand that we know this stuff? I, and others here, know these viewpoints. Probably better than you do, based on your arguments here. Why do you fail to understand that some of us have been where you are now? Is that so hard to believe or grasp? So why don't you start being honest and try to see a viewpoint different from your own?

You've continued to ignore relevant questions posed to you, and ignore evidence presented to you, MOG. That borders on trolling. If you want to discuss topics, then do so, but if you are going to continue to ignore other members' posts, that will be a problem. If you do not wish to have meaningful discussions or debate, then this forum may not be the appropriate place for you to post. Totally up to you how you proceed. We welcome honest and open debate.

Edited to add: Looks like the site is very similar to other sites I've seen and probably run by Seventh Day Adventists. Also, what MOG didn't mention is that you have to pay a fee to see the "Amazing Discoveries" in it. MOG's post of this link is pretty much just an ad for that site. Big no-no. there, MOG. That's a strike.

I had a more emotional response to this post that I decided to delete.

I am sorry you felt like I was trolling, their is a lot of post here and it really is tiresome to try to answer every single one.  I do not want posting here to be my second job, just a hobby and hopefully fruitful discussion.  

The link I can assure you is not advertisement as I have no affiliation with that site. Sorry that you got that impression.  Hopefully you can be comforted with the fact that I would not post a link to a Christian site to raise money on an Atheist forum.  Not a good strategy from a marketing perspective.  I think you will find the video I posted is with in the context with the discussion and is free, and I encourage people to watch it so that they can open their mind. Its not enough to say you have an open mind, you have to put it into practice.  

Finally, do not assume you already been where I been.  You know little about me.

MOG, I really don't care what your response would have been. It's not my job to worry about what you think of me. My job is to make sure that people do not troll or spam the forum. Now that you've had your say about my post, you may get back to the point of my post which was clearly stated (and not for the first time). Either answer the questions and respond to the legitimate comments that came about because of your posts, or risk being banned from the forum. You've been given one warning already. This is not about me, this is about you respecting and adhering to the forum rules.

And don't continue to wrongly assume that people here, including me, haven't been "born again", evangelizing, bible believing paragons of christiandom, just because we don't know you personally. As I said, I have been in your spiritual shoes (unless, of course, you are a seventh day adventist).

Now, feel free to answer legitimate discourse with legitimate discourse, and stop being disingenuous and closed-minded. Additionally I followed the link you posted and found only "pay for play" lectures. Not free. Your link simply goes to the main sign in page for that site. From there you have to sign up, get an email confirmation, join officially, and search for whatever it is you meant to link to. But in the meantime, what you find is creationist drivel, for which you must pay to have the privilege to watch. There may be some free content, but you did not post a link  to that.

QuoteBut in the meantime, what you find is creationist drivel, for which you must pay to have the privilege to watch. There may be some free content, but you did not post a link  to that.

I had it to where it automatically logs me in so I did not realize you were prompted to sign up for an account.  You still do not have to pay for the privlege to watch. In fact, when you click on the link, the first thing you see is..

QuotePlease register or login to view this media.
You can view all of our media files FOR FREE just by registering or logging in. We will absolutely not sell your contact information to anyone. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.
If you have any problems please click on the Contact Us page below.

Quote from: "PipeBox"MOG, is this video not mirrored elsewhere?  I mean, if it's really that convincing a message, and especially if it can answer for all my posts, then you'd think it'd be freely distributed and all over the web.

Yes, I have found one..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... pace&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=667437352756453133&ei=krsFSsyhLIP0rgLHl82jCw&q=The+Earth+in+Time+and+Space&hl=en)

Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

Quote from: "Squid"Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

Was wondering when you'd show up.    Good to see you, Squid!

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Squid"Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

Was wondering when you'd show up.    Good to see you, Squid!

Thanks.  Been busy with work (got a job working as a contractor for a project under the Army Research Lab) and working on my thesis (spent a few long days and nights running enzyme immunoassays)...

....sorry for thread de-rail...please continue...

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"

QuoteBut in the meantime, what you find is creationist drivel, for which you must pay to have the privilege to watch. There may be some free content, but you did not post a link  to that.

I had it to where it automatically logs me in so I did not realize you were prompted to sign up for an account.  You still do not have to pay for the privlege to watch. In fact, when you click on the link, the first thing you see is..

QuotePlease register or login to view this media.
You can view all of our media files FOR FREE just by registering or logging in. We will absolutely not sell your contact information to anyone. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.
If you have any problems please click on the Contact Us page below.

Ah, yes. I see. The Medium Quality ones are free as of April 20th. The High Quality are pay to view. That is my oversight, indeed. Of course, with the "Medium Quality" videos, you can't see the footnotes well enough half the time, to see where he is data mining.

Now, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith)

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe.

Man, he is completely, and I mean completely without credibility. If he were to debate with any legitimate physicist, cosmologist,or astronomer, he'd be obliterated. Shoot, I'd nail his ass on most of what he says. All he does is cherry-pick either old data, or take data out of context, misquote astronomers and scientists.

The Pleiades, Orion, Globular Clusters, Big Bang, Einstein, Alan Guth, Nature, Scientific American....all topics or things he mentions and talks about, and he's wrong or lying about each one!
He agrees with science when it suits one of his arguments, and the dismisses it when it doesn't.

Love how he claims that "In a strange sort of way, science actually acknowledge a deity, sometimes, because here is a nebula which is termed the 'Eye of God', one of the NASA Hubble Telescope pictures."

Hmmmm....let's see how he distorts that. Does "science" (an undefined term that Veith uses constantly, as if it is a person or entity) call this the Eye of God? Nope. It is the Helix Nebula, and it is not a single image, but a composite made by both the HST and The Kitt Peak Observatory telescope. It was never called that idiotic appellation by NASA. Funny how Veith never mentions the name that NASA and all legitimate astronomers call it. The people that called it the Eye of God, were some media outlets, and the morons who passed it around the internet saying it was a divine sign from god. http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/eyeofgod.asp (http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/eyeofgod.asp)

Is he that stupid, or is he committing a lie of omission in addition to a lie of commission? Take your pick.

This is one example of the dozens of times Veith did the same thing in just the first few minutes of his presentation. By the way, the Earth is not a circle. It's not even a sphere. What a douche this guy is!

Oh, and you have yet to respond to the legitimate questions and discourse, MOG. And am I correct in guessing that you are a seventh day adventist?

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Squid"Someone say evolutionary biology?  Sorry I'm late...

Was wondering when you'd show up.  ;)

Quote from: "McQ"Welcome back, Squid. Someone did indeed say that.  

Thank ya, glad to be back again...for the tenth time...

Quote from: "McQ"Now, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith)

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe.

I gotta give you credit.  You watched a lot more than I could stomache.

I got to about 90 seconds.  By then he'd already mentioned "tell both sides" and invoked the bible.  Sheesh.

Remind me.

Why is this conversation still going on?

JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"

Quote from: "McQ"Now, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith)

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe.

I gotta give you credit.  You watched a lot more than I could stomache.

I got to about 90 seconds.  By then he'd already mentioned "tell both sides" and invoked the bible.  Sheesh.

Remind me.

Why is this conversation still going on?

JoeActor

Got to about the 30 minute mark and realized that he really wasn't saying anything I hadn't heard before and that he was repeating the same strawmen, so I finally gave it up. You can only take so much outright dishonesty from people who should know better. Yeah, the "both sides" thing got me right away too.

I'm just going to bow out of this thread. I've got to go to a high school concert and take a nap....
...I mean....watch my son.  

QuoteAh, yes. I see. The Medium Quality ones are free as of April 20th. The High Quality are pay to view. That is my oversight, indeed. Of course, with the "Medium Quality" videos, you can't see the footnotes well enough half the time, to see where he is data mining.

Thank you for admitting your mistake.

QuoteNow, to the video of this guy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith)

You're really kidding, right? In less than the first three minutes of this hour and a half talk, he totally loses any credibility. He completely mis-characterizes every single scientific theory that he mentions. All he does is create straw men arguments against every arena of science that he deals with. He's a joke. He's also just plain wrong and/or lying about more things than I can respond to (and I'm only 14 minutes into the video)! Big Bang was not an explosion, yet he drones on and on about how "science" is wrong because the explosion couldn't have occurred based on what we currently observe

I am aware of what the recent dogma is concerning what "experts" say the  bigbang is now. However, this was not always so:

big bang theory - big-bang theory: (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

big bang theory - A model for the evolution of the universe that holds that all matter and energy in the universe were concentrated in one point, which suddenly exploded. Subsequently, matter condensed to form atoms, elements, and eventually galaxies and stars.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossB.html

The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... heory.html (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570694/big_bang_theory.html)

Princeton, Encarta seem to assume that a big explosion occurred.  I seem to remember thats how they taught it in school.  So who are you to point fingers?

QuoteMan, he is completely, and I mean completely without credibility. If he were to debate with any legitimate physicist, cosmologist,or astronomer, he'd be obliterated. Shoot, I'd nail his ass on most of what he says. All he does is cherry-pick either old data, or take data out of context, misquote astronomers and scientists.

The Pleiades, Orion, Globular Clusters, Big Bang, Einstein, Alan Guth, Nature, Scientific American....all topics or things he mentions and talks about, and he's wrong or lying about each one!
He agrees with science when it suits one of his arguments, and the dismisses it when it doesn't.

Love how he claims that "In a strange sort of way, science actually acknowledge a deity, sometimes, because here is a nebula which is termed the 'Eye of God', one of the NASA Hubble Telescope pictures."

Hmmmm....let's see how he distorts that. Does "science" (an undefined term that Veith uses constantly, as if it is a person or entity) call this the Eye of God? Nope. It is the Helix Nebula, and it is not a single image, but a composite made by both the HST and The Kitt Peak Observatory telescope. It was never called that idiotic appellation by NASA. Funny how Veith never mentions the name that NASA and all legitimate astronomers call it. The people that called it the Eye of God, were some media outlets, and the morons who passed it around the internet saying it was a divine sign from god. http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/eyeofgod.asp (http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/eyeofgod.asp)

This is a petty argument. At the time of this video, this was a common nickname for the Helix Nebula. He just made an interesting observation concerning that nickname.  It really has little to do with the actual video.

QuoteIs he that stupid, or is he committing a lie of omission in addition to a lie of commission? Take your pick.

Again, a petty and ignorant comment.

QuoteThis is one example of the dozens of times Veith did the same thing in just the first few minutes of his presentation. By the way, the Earth is not a circle. It's not even a sphere. What a douche this guy is!

First of all, he never stated that the world was   a "circle."  He pointed to scripture that references the word.  If you want to get technical, the world is closer to an  Oblate Spheroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Shape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Shape)).  Did you want to give me the hebrew word for Oblate Spheroid by any chance?  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F97%2FThe_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg%2F240px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg&hash=c8ee92ac3028e038d6bcd574313dd6fcaf0389ea)

QuoteOh, and you have yet to respond to the legitimate questions and discourse, MOG. And am I correct in guessing that you are a seventh day adventist?

You want me to answer questions you feel are important, but I do not see you forcing people to answer mine. Simple questions that Science should be able to answer at this point in time.

When did the scientific community unanimously agree that evolution should go from hypothesis to theory.  In fact, when was it ever a hypothesis?

I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory.  When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

Finally, your last question has no relevance to the thread and is another example of a petty question that would probably result in more petty comments. Therefore, I refuse to answer it.

QuoteWhen did the scientific community unanimously agree that evolution should go from hypothesis to theory. In fact, when was it ever a hypothesis?

I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory. When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory? Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

When did the scientific comunity unanimously agree that gravity should go from hypothesis to therory? In fact when was it ever a hypotoesis?

Sorry, I'm being a bit faciesious. But not having a clear understanding of why and how hypothesis and therory are used does not make a fact any less of a fact.

Quote from: "Tanker"

QuoteWhen did the scientific community unanimously agree that evolution should go from hypothesis to theory. In fact, when was it ever a hypothesis?

I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory. When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory? Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

When did the scientific comunity unanimously agree that gravity should go from hypothesis to therory? In fact when was it ever a hypotoesis?

Sorry, I'm being a bit faciesious. But not having a clear understanding of why and how hypothesis and therory are used does not make a fact any less of a fact.

In science it does.

The Law of Gravitation passes the scientific method hands down.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"I am aware of what the recent dogma is concerning what "experts" say the  bigbang is now. However, this was not always so:

big bang theory - big-bang theory: (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

big bang theory - A model for the evolution of the universe that holds that all matter and energy in the universe were concentrated in one point, which suddenly exploded. Subsequently, matter condensed to form atoms, elements, and eventually galaxies and stars.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookglossB.html

The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... heory.html (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570694/big_bang_theory.html)

Princeton, Encarta seem to assume that a big explosion occurred.  I seem to remember thats how they taught it in school.  So who are you to point fingers?

Good question. In this case, I'm the guy who's right and you're making this really easy. Every definition you supplied is wrong. It's that simple. Astronomers and Cosmologists don't even wallow in the definition of Big Bang as an explosion. It, like so many other analogies used to describe complex things, is a faulty analogy.

It's funny you should try to use Princeton in your argument. You should have spent a few more minutes on your Google search, as the link you supplied takes you to a WordNet search of Princeton's English Lexicon Site, not the correct site for Princeton Cosmology.

I happen to subscribe to the Princeton Cosmology Journal Club, and followed the research of many of the ongoing and former studies, including the WMAP Five Year Project and its data. You can view the non-research version of it here, at the correct site. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

Or here, where you get the correct definition of Big Bang Cosmology: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html)

As for the second link, it takes you to an online biology glossary published by the Estrella Mountain Community College. Don't know that college, and it might be good, but their online biology glossary gives an incorrect definition of Big Bang. Again, it's that simple.

Same deal for your last link, MOG. Won't even bother repeating it.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"This is a petty argument. At the time of this video, this was a common nickname for the Helix Nebula. He just made an interesting observation concerning that nickname.  It really has little to do with the actual video.

QuoteReally? Why does he bring it up? And no, it was not a common nickname. The common nickname has always been the Helix Nebula. Its actual designation is NGC 7293.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory.  When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

Finally, your last question has no relevance to the thread and is another example of a petty question that would probably result in more petty comments. Therefore, I refuse to answer it.

The rest of your post is as pointless as your initial posts and shows your lack of veracity. You don't even know what a theory is or does, or you would not have posed those questions. And you do not dictate that I answer your questions before you answer mine, MOG. Additionally, I didn't ask you to answer mine from the start, but other people who posted long well though-out messages to you.

Waste no more time with this. I know I won't. But if you continue to troll, you're going to be banned.

If anyone else would like to pick this up and explain basic science, please do so.

Edit to add: I was in a huge hurry typing this post and had to leave it to go pick up my son. I ended it hastily, so to clarify one thing...

I do not debate with creationists for the exact reasons demonstrated by MOG. I broke the rule in this thread to keep it on track, but it is pointless to try to do so. It is obvious that for one thing, MOG has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and that he also has no intention of trying to learn why he is wrong.
Again, the main reason I no longer engage in discussion or debate with creationists about either cosmic origins or evolution.

Quote from: "McQ"It's funny you should try to use Princeton in your argument. You should have spent a few more minutes on your Google search, as the link you supplied takes you to a WordNet search of Princeton's English Lexicon Site, not the correct site for Princeton Cosmology.

I happen to subscribe to the Princeton Cosmology Journal Club, and followed the research of many of the ongoing and former studies, including the WMAP Five Year Project and its data. You can view the non-research version of it here, at the correct site. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages31.fotki.com%2Fv1094%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1232414078348-vi.gif&hash=49f24fdfde6d317c4609f9560e3760033a63fed3)

Quote from: "McQ"Good question. In this case, I'm the guy who's right and you're making this really easy. Every definition you supplied is wrong. It's that simple. Astronomers and Cosmologists don't even wallow in the definition of Big Bang as an explosion. It, like so many other analogies used to describe complex things, is a faulty analogy.

It's funny you should try to use Princeton in your argument. You should have spent a few more minutes on your Google search, as the link you supplied takes you to a WordNet search of Princeton's English Lexicon Site, not the correct site for Princeton Cosmology.

I happen to subscribe to the Princeton Cosmology Journal Club, and followed the research of many of the ongoing and former studies, including the WMAP Five Year Project and its data. You can view the non-research version of it here, at the correct site. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

Or here, where you get the correct definition of Big Bang Cosmology: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html)

As for the second link, it takes you to an online biology glossary published by the Estrella Mountain Community College. Don't know that college, and it might be good, but their online biology glossary gives an incorrect definition of Big Bang. Again, it's that simple.

Same deal for your last link, MOG. Won't even bother repeating it.



This is a petty argument. At the time of this video, this was a common nickname for the Helix Nebula. He just made an interesting observation concerning that nickname.  It really has little to do with the actual video.
[

Really? Why does he bring it up? And no, it was not a common nickname. The common nickname has always been the Helix Nebula. Its actual designation is NGC 7293.



I have a similar question for the Big Bang Theory.  When did it move from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Answer that then I can answer the questions you would like me to answer.

Finally, your last question has no relevance to the thread and is another example of a petty question that would probably result in more petty comments. Therefore, I refuse to answer it.

The rest of your post is as pointless as your initial posts and shows your lack of veracity. You don't even know what a theory is or does, or you would not have posed those questions. And you do not dictate that I answer your questions before you answer mine, MOG. Additionally, I didn't ask you to answer mine from the start, but other people who posted long well though-out messages to you.

Waste no more time with this. I know I won't. But if you continue to troll, you're going to be banned.

If anyone else would like to pick this up and explain basic science, please do so.

Edit to add: I was in a huge hurry typing this post and had to leave it to go pick up my son. I ended it hastily, so to clarify one thing...

I do not debate with creationists for the exact reasons demonstrated by MOG. I broke the rule in this thread to keep it on track, but it is pointless to try to do so. It is obvious that for one thing, MOG has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and that he also has no intention of trying to learn why he is wrong.
Again, the main reason I no longer engage in discussion or debate with creationists about either cosmic origins or evolution.

All I see is excuses here.  Its obvious that science does not care how people come to believe in evolution or the BigBang.  The fact remains that this definition is being taught in schools.  Furthermore, it really makes no difference,  its still a hypothesis, not a theory.  The very name  "Big Bang" in itself also will tell you a little of what the initial implications were of the theory.  So your accusations are not relevant, and again are petty in light of the overall definition of the Big Bang.  Call it just expansion if you want (btw, cosmologist adjusted the theory to account for the uniform temperatures in the universe, and this part of the new hypothesis is flawed as well), its still the same premise.  Does anyone on this forum have the guts to admit that this is how they came to know the Big Bang?  I doubt it.  But to satisfy anyones curiosity on whether science ever called it an explosion,

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1998/98-075.txt (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1998/98-075.txt) < title of this article is "MOST POWERFUL EXPLOSION SINCE THE BIG BANG"

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/ ... l/cobe.htm (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/sentinel/cobe.htm) -

A Single Explosion

QuoteCOBE's first test of the theory showed that 99.97 percent of the energy of the Universe was released in the first year after the Big Bang. This suggests that only one explosion "the Big Bang" created the Universe. NASA researchers determined this by measuring the spectrum of cosmic background radiation, which is the Big Bang afterglow that exists all around us. According to predictions, the background radiation should have a "blackbody" spectrum unless there were major energy releases more than a year after the explosion. COBE found this spectrum precisely as it was predicted.

Recently, we know that the definition has changed to suit the apparent errors in the original theory.  Interesting how this so called established"theory" needs so many adjustments.  In fact, it is not a theory at all, just a hypothesis.(belief).


Your frustration is a natural response to things that cannot be explained.  You cannot answer the questions I posted below, as a result you lash out in anger.  No one can, you devoted yourself to this belief on the presumption that it was a fact.  And now someone who probably does not have the scientific credentials you have, is exposing this fallacy.

You call it trolling, yet no one can answer the question.  Not one, including you.  You will ban me before the question is ever answered, I GAURENTEE (and you will be doing what every other evolutionist does to people who express a view contrary to evolution. This type of behavior is very similar to a cult).  So again, I ask, when did evolution and the Big Bang ever go from hypothesis (belief) to theory?  Look forward to your ban/reply, whatever.

Okay. I gotta step in for McQ, here.

Excuses? Excuses? MoG, you don't understand science. You even use the word "science" in a way that carries an air of conspiracy or "new world order" cynicism. I'll break it down for you.

We notice something.
We ask questions about it.
We propose answers to those questions.
We test those answers as best we can.
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent.

Now, here's where it gets tricky:

**NEW INFORMATION APPEARS**
We notice something (and new information).
We ask questions about it (in light of new information).
We purpose new answer in light of new information (could be same answer as before).
We test those answers as best we can (in light of new information).
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent (in light of new information).[/list]

There is no conspiracy. No one is making "excuses" to get a certain thing taught to children or agreed upon by everyone. It is simply, inasfar as current technology and observation will allow, the best answer that makes the most sense based on the evidence.

Now, here's something else that you don't seem to get: people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and the other cutting edge astrophysicists are way, way more educated on these matters than any of us here. I GUARANTEE it. The reason we get frustrated is not because we are arguing for something that isn't accurate, its' simply that we (at least, I'm speaking for myself) have neither the resources nor the time to defend something we (and 99% of the scientific community) sees as simple fact with people who make it a point to nitpick every little unexplained thing. Remember, these things are unexplained because we are (by and large) using layman's terms and not because they are, in fact, unexplained. Do you know what the Higgs boson is? I mean, do you really know? Sure, you can do a 90 second Google search or read the Wikipedia page and parrot what information you find, but are you trying to learn with honesty and integrity, or just trying to make a point?  That's all I've seen happen here. McQ has tried to inject some of that honesty and integrity, but it has fallen on deaf ears, so to speak.

I don't know everything about the big bang. I don't even like that term. It's misleading. What I do know is that when NASA or the people in CERN say something on the topic, I'm going to believe them, just as much as I believe my doctor when she tells me something about my health. Occasionally there is a technological or theoretical breakthrough and they have (see above) NEW INFORMATION with which to work. When that happens, yes, the theory changes slightly. That's the beauty of the scientific method: it allows for malleability.

A hypothesis is a belief (you're right in that much) that is untested. You take that hypothesis and run it through the model I typed out above. If the hypothesis is proven false, you discard it, as it's obviously worthless. If there's something to it, you take your results, change the hypothesis a little bit, and try it again. You repeat. You repeat. You repeat. Eventually, when (by using the information and resources available to you) you have come to reach the same answer repeatedly and consistently, you now have a working theory. Theories are imperfect, but they're more than simply a belief.

Even the law of gravity gets wonky when you start getting very, very large, or very, very small. These are simply human words used to express something that existed well before our tiny little minds. Don't get hung up on them.

Those who trust in the big bang theory and evolution do so because it's the best we've got so far. When new information comes about that lets us alter the theories to be more accurate, we are delighted. If you see that as frustration or somehow dishonest, you obviously know nothing about that big ol' organ God supposedly stuck in your head (and, for reasons unknown, doesn't want you to use).

Colossal, willful ignorance on a grand scale, MOG. As in you...the Paragon of. Typical straw men yet again, all through your post. You even ascribe anger to me. That's as laughable as everything else you post. I can't say it any better than Curio, so I'll leave it at that, since I certainly can't stand up against your revelations of all the conspiracies and cover ups that science has engaged in over the centuries. We finally got caught.

Damn.

To quote someone near and dear to me, "This conversation can serve no purpose anymore."

 

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Okay. I gotta step in for McQ, here.

Excuses? Excuses? MoG, you don't understand science. You even use the word "science" in a way that carries an air of conspiracy or "new world order" cynicism. I'll break it down for you.

We notice something.
We ask questions about it.
We propose answers to those questions.
We test those answers as best we can.
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent.

Now, here's where it gets tricky:

**NEW INFORMATION APPEARS**
We notice something (and new information).
We ask questions about it (in light of new information).
We purpose new answer in light of new information (could be same answer as before).
We test those answers as best we can (in light of new information).
We compare those answers to the answers reached by everyone else doing the same thing.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We repeat.
We go with the answer that is consistent (in light of new information).[/list]

There is no conspiracy. No one is making "excuses" to get a certain thing taught to children or agreed upon by everyone. It is simply, inasfar as current technology and observation will allow, the best answer that makes the most sense based on the evidence.

Now, here's something else that you don't seem to get: people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and the other cutting edge astrophysicists are way, way more educated on these matters than any of us here. I GUARANTEE it. The reason we get frustrated is not because we are arguing for something that isn't accurate, its' simply that we (at least, I'm speaking for myself) have neither the resources nor the time to defend something we (and 99% of the scientific community) sees as simple fact with people who make it a point to nitpick every little unexplained thing. Remember, these things are unexplained because we are (by and large) using layman's terms and not because they are, in fact, unexplained. Do you know what the Higgs boson is? I mean, do you really know? Sure, you can do a 90 second Google search or read the Wikipedia page and parrot what information you find, but are you trying to learn with honesty and integrity, or just trying to make a point?  That's all I've seen happen here. McQ has tried to inject some of that honesty and integrity, but it has fallen on deaf ears, so to speak.

I don't know everything about the big bang. I don't even like that term. It's misleading. What I do know is that when NASA or the people in CERN say something on the topic, I'm going to believe them, just as much as I believe my doctor when she tells me something about my health. Occasionally there is a technological or theoretical breakthrough and they have (see above) NEW INFORMATION with which to work. When that happens, yes, the theory changes slightly. That's the beauty of the scientific method: it allows for malleability.

A hypothesis is a belief (you're right in that much) that is untested. You take that hypothesis and run it through the model I typed out above. If the hypothesis is proven false, you discard it, as it's obviously worthless. If there's something to it, you take your results, change the hypothesis a little bit, and try it again. You repeat. You repeat. You repeat. Eventually, when (by using the information and resources available to you) you have come to reach the same answer repeatedly and consistently, you now have a working theory. Theories are imperfect, but they're more than simply a belief.

Even the law of gravity gets wonky when you start getting very, very large, or very, very small. These are simply human words used to express something that existed well before our tiny little minds. Don't get hung up on them.

Those who trust in the big bang theory and evolution do so because it's the best we've got so far. When new information comes about that lets us alter the theories to be more accurate, we are delighted. If you see that as frustration or somehow dishonest, you obviously know nothing about that big ol' organ God supposedly stuck in your head (and, for reasons unknown, doesn't want you to use).

Its not "test it the best we can",  the test has to be conclusive before getting to a theory.  If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be a theory, period.  That is true science, science starts out w/ imagination, but doesn't end w/ it.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Its not "test it the best we can",  the test has to be conclusive before getting to a theory.  If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be a theory, period.  That is true science, science starts out w/ imagination, but doesn't end w/ it.

This is your response?   ....... Seriously?  

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Its not "test it the best we can",  the test has to be conclusive before getting to a theory.  If it cannot be tested, then it cannot be a theory, period.  That is true science, science starts out w/ imagination, but doesn't end w/ it.

Who fed you this crap?

QuoteThose who trust in the big bang theory and evolution do so because it's the best we've got so far. When new information comes about that lets us alter the theories to be more accurate, we are delighted. If you see that as frustration or somehow dishonest, you obviously know nothing about that big ol' organ God supposedly stuck in your head (and, for reasons unknown, doesn't want you to use).

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.  

During the time of Nazi Germany, the collective thought was to blame the Jews for all the economic problems in Germany, and that lead to the holocaust.  When you look at these events in hind site, we often say "I would never have done what the Germans did."  But if you grew up in that time, chances are we all would have.  I see these same thought patterns cultivating in pop culture, in the movie theater (and not just the more obvious movies that been out recently, but in entertaining movies with a subtle message against Christians), television, news, politics, and the internet.  For example,  right wing somehow became synonymous with Christianity when everyone should know that this has been a tool used by the republicans and democrats to win votes (although a large amount of Christians do not vote republican).  

So to bring things back into focus, evolution/Big bang and these beliefs should be recognized as such.  How can science explain things of the past, thats historical science and can never be proven.  Besides, creationism fits with the same evidence that now exist. Its just a matter of where your belief lies, in evolution and the BigBang, or in the Bible.  Thats all that separates the two.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in God and Jesus as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Bible has never made a major contribution to science, neither has Creationism. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in God and Jesus as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Bible has never made a major contribution to science, neither has Creationism. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.

Fixed it for you.

No argument there.  Although there is a contribution that comes from the Bible, but thats really not he point I want to make here.  

Point is, creationist know its a belief, evolutionist do not.

Someone want to field that one? I'm busy eating pizza and shooting hookers. Or I can do it later. Whatever.

I'll take it  

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Point is, creationist know its a belief, evolutionist do not.

Uhh.... ever heard of Epistemological Nihilism? Anyways...

"All generalizations are false... including this one." ~ Samuel Clemens

I am well aware belief in the big band theory is a belief. However it remains a theory. Gravity, too is a theory. Do you know the definition of "theory"?

By believing in something (at least for me anyways) it doesn't mean that I'm hidebound; completely certain X is true, without any doubt. Belief does not necessarily equate to fact in the owner's mind. To me my beliefs mean what I currently think is most likely/reasonable given what I currently know. They're out of my cognitive control. What I believe may change as new information is presented.

Facts, and knowledge are themselves beliefs. We are not privy to absolutes, so everything we think we know could be false, it isn't impossible. I merely contend that my beliefs happen to be justified, whether they turn out to be false or not. I was justified in believing it taking into account the evidence available to me at the time.

I contend that creationism is not only unjustified, but completely counter to the evidence. Pointing out that knowledge is not absolute, and it is not impossible that it turn out to be false in no way makes all beliefs equally justified, or on the same playing field. They may be both beliefs, but one explains, and is supported by all the available evidence, and the other explains nothing, and is completely counter to the available evidence.

It isn't impossible that my dog created the universe, and is an omnipotent deity, pretending to be a normal dog -- this fact does not render believing that my dog is the creator of the universe reasonable.

Quote from: "Sophus"I am well aware belief in the big band theory is a belief.

I thought Professor Tommy Dorsey proved the Big Band Theory?  

This thread's been Godwinned.

Hypothesis.  Theory.   Fact.
The bible is none of these.
I will allow that it does contain some facts.
But no more than the Odyssey, War and Peace, Harry Potter, Angels and Demons, Moby Dick, etc.

Why are you guys still at this?

(wait, what am I doing here?),
JoeActor

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"Hey I do not doubt it.  I just want people to realize that its not a "fact" or even a  "theory."  This generation has grown up w/ that mindset and no one has bothered to correct them.  So now that same generation are our very teachers in school, the authors of our text books and the publishers of scientific journals. With the help of the media and school these so called"truths" create prejudices against those w/ opposing beliefs.  With that said, I can live with people believing in evolution and the BigBang as long as their not deceived into thinking its a matter of fact.  And once you understand that these ideas are beliefs, then you can understand why its arrogant to force people to learn about them in school, especially when it runs diametrically opposite to someone else's belief.  The Big Bang has never made a major contribution to science, neither has evolution. No major advancements in medicine or anything else has ever come from these beliefs.  And now this belief has created animosity against people who express an opposite view.  This may seem harmless to you, especially when your on the "safe" side, but it becomes a real problem when this becomes a collective thought amongst the masses.  

Holy expletive, Batman.   The Theory of Evolution as well as the Big Bang Theory are both fully substantiated as scientific theories.  This isn't hard to understand, especially evolutionary theory, where every post we've made on the topic has apparently been ignored.  But hey, let's make it really simple.  Do you agree that the universe is expanding?  Do you agree the rate of expansion is increasing?  Do you agree that the visible universe has a nearly-uniform blackbody radiation, even in the absence of large heating structures?  The last one is important, because it means the universe, the whole universe, was once nearly in thermal equilibrium, and you cannot achieve that over extremely large distances without much greater amounts of time.  Now, we would start winding back the clock and see the universe get smaller and smaller, but it could be claimed that it wasn't always expanding, but the WMAP survey of blackbody radiation indicates the universe must have been far more compact once.  It doesn't just kinda corroborate it, the prediction for what we would see if the universe was much more compact matches the actual observation.  The Big Bang Theory does not actually tell us where the universe came from.  It explains the current body of information by proposing early states of the universe based on evidence.  It does make testable predictions, such as blackbody radiation, and it also gives us a lower limit for the beginning of our universe.  It does not give us medicine, nor contribute directly to technology, except maybe in the development of testing apparatuses, but then, anthropology doesn't contribute to either of these things, either.  Neither does paleontology.  Neither does astronomy.

If you agree with the premises I listed earlier, you agree with Big Bang Theory.  If you don't, I should like to see you explain how you consider it reasonable to ignore the supporting evidence.

Now, do you agree that mutation happens?  And natural selection?  Would you agree that more basal forms appear the deeper we go into the fossil record?  Would you agree that continuous, slow change is possible down any given line of descent?  Would you agree that there is no genetic limit imposed on this change?  Guess what deals with all of this, along with all the morphological, anatomical, and developmental similarities (IE, why trees are so similar in their basic structure and the backbone is popular with everything that possesses a skeleton) throughout various lifeforms.  Evolution.  Again, if you object with the premise, I would like to hear why.  I think you just don't like the words, and are of the opinion that admitting, or dare I say accepting, the solidity of the theories would hurt your position.  It would not.  You can still tease us about the prime causes, but it's pretty evident to anyone who dares to look objectively at the evidence what is going on.

In fact, the only way to avoid these conclusions is either to invoke an unknown natural component, which you have no honest reason to assume is a given (and if we were to discover that, we'd all update), or to invoke a supernatural intervention so that it only looks like these natural processes take place.  And this is science, where we don't do either of those and get a pass.

Quote from: "Man-ofGod"So to bring things back into focus, evolution/Big bang and these beliefs should be recognized as such.  How can science explain things of the past, thats historical science and can never be proven.  Besides, creationism fits with the same evidence that now exist. Its just a matter of where your belief lies, in evolution and the BigBang, or in the Bible.  Thats all that separates the two.

Right, just like we can never prove beyond a reasonable doubt who killed someone.  Sure, we might find a person who has gunshot residue on their hands, and who has a motive, and who has no alibi, or we may find DNA evidence in the case of a rape (which we would use the same testing and comparative methods used to demonstrate how like chimps we are), but we weren't there, we didn't observe the process of the murder or rape, we can't know it happened!  This is ridiculous, and likewise, saying God created the murder scene in situ, ex nihilo is also a valid philosophical objection.  You can't say God didn't do it!

Creationism only accounts for all the evidence when you discard many of the observations.  Creationism does not explain why we see stars that are so old, nor can it cope with radioactive dating, nor the well-ordered fossil layer (no Permian era poodles).  It's only claim is God wants it to look that way, but it's totally not indicative of how it went down.  The Bible is indicative of how it went down and all the contrary evidence is just fluff that man cannot claim to understand.

You have nothing but your desire for the stories of the Bible to be true backing you.  Nothing.  You can keep your belief in Christ the redeemer and the loving God and many of the possibly historical odds and ends of the Bible if you like, but some of it, like the creation myth, is wrong, outside of an allegorical interpretation.  Please, be courageous and accept the this.  Please.

Quote from: "joeactor"Why are you guys still at this?

Hope is the last thing to die.  

A scientific theory is nothing more than a predictive tool.

Gravity: According to the the theory, there should be a force between the earth and the moon, oh look there is.

Evolution: According to the theory, there should be transitional fossils, mutation of living organisms and natural selection, oh look there is.

Big Bang: According to the theory, the galaxies should all be moving away from each other, oh look they are.

Thats good science right there.

Bible: According to the theory, there should be miracles, a heaven and hell, a god, a devil and people raising from the dead, oh look, I can't see any of those things.

Bad science right there.


As to your point about the BB becoming scientific theory, as opposed to hypothesis, its a complete non issue. Each individual scientist has their own oppinion, their own threshold for evidence, their own ideas. Just like each sect of fundies has their own intereptations of the bible. Science is a process, a method, not a consensus. Indeed, it is the differing viewpoints of scientists that leads to these discoveries, and advances science, look at Einstein, he was not satisfied with the evidence for an ether, so came up with SR, a much better theory.