Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
All those websites reminded me of a Creationist argument I heard the other day about peanut butter. It basically went like this:
1. Science says that life came from matter and energy;
2. Peanut butter is matter and is exposed to energy in the form of light from supermarket stores;
3. In all the years that people have been buying peanut butter in the store, no one has ever opened it and found life to be created inside; therefore:
4. All life must be created by God.
The argument is so idiotic that there's no way science can be bothered to specifically address it. To begin with:
1. The elements/energy required for creation of life are not the same as those found in peanut butter/peanut butter's natural environment;
2. The number of interactions that occurred prior to the creation of life is of a magnitude that is significantly greater than the number of jars of peanut butter (or all food purchased) for that matter;
3. The scientific theory of creation of life is that a microscopic form of life was created. Your peanut butter could very well be seething with newly created life, but you would never ever be able to see said life with the naked eye.
That's what this Mount St. Helen's argument is. It's a bunch of piss poor assumptions, heaped on an overly simplistic factual pattern for easy consumption, demonstrates a complete ignorance of the relevant scientific theories and scientific method, and is based on a bunch of "common sense" leaps of logic.
It's b&**%@$$. I can make the exact same series of common sense arguments about the sun revolving around the earth and then claim inadequate evidence for that.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
All those websites reminded me of a Creationist argument I heard the other day about peanut butter. It basically went like this:
1. Science says that life came from matter and energy;
2. Peanut butter is matter and is exposed to energy in the form of light from supermarket stores;
3. In all the years that people have been buying peanut butter in the store, no one has ever opened it and found life to be created inside; therefore:
4. All life must be created by God.The argument is so idiotic that there's no way science can be bothered to specifically address it.
I saw that one too. There's actually a video of these Creationists trying to make their point with this exact arguement. I believe if you do a Google Video or YouTube search for "peanut butter life" or something along those lines, you'll come across it. It's absurd to the point of being hilarious.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I saw that one too. There's actually a video of these Creationists trying to make their point with this exact arguement. I believe if you do a Google Video or YouTube search for "peanut butter life" or something along those lines, you'll come across it. It's absurd to the point of being hilarious.
Yup, that's the one. They keep showing a shot of ants crawling in peanut butter to demonstrate that if matter+energy=life you should expect to find large, complex, multi-celled creatures emerging from your foodstuff.
Hate to "side" with anyone here, but I have to agree with Sebastian that, if you're searching any journals or websites that are devoted to science rather than "scientific religion" or "creation science," the evidence for evolution (even the evidence that the "creation science" sites claim doesn't exist), against a global flood, etc., etc. is pretty overwhelming. If I want Christian doctrine, I ask a priest or minister, preferentially; I don't go to the Atheists Anonymous website. Likewise, for real science I'd stear clear of any of the slew of fundamentalist religious groups masquerading as "science foundations." "Answers in Genesis" is absolutely NOT a credible source for science; only for Genesis stuff.
By the same token, I don't look in the Monster Manual for useful information about real-life animals. Biology books never give me the game stats, though, so if I want those, the MM or SRD become invaluable.
|
Hate to "side" with anyone here, but I have to agree with Sebastian that, if you're searching any journals or websites that are devoted to science rather than "scientific religion" or "creation science," the evidence for evolution (even the evidence that the "creation science" sites claim doesn't exist), against a global flood, etc., etc. is pretty overwhelming. If I want Christian doctrine, I ask a priest or minister, preferentially; I don't go to the Atheists Anonymous website. Likewise, for real science I'd stear clear of any of the slew of fundamentalist religious groups masquerading as "science foundations." "Answers in Genesis" is absolutely NOT a credible source for science; only for Genesis stuff.
What I'm trying to figure out is how it all fits together. I put this out there because I am genuinely interested in seeing both sides.
Doing the search that Sebastian suggested yielded many sites -- it appeared that most of them were still for the creation side, many of the sites were blogs (which I generally don't put any credance in) and only a few were actually "valid" scientific sites that talked about it at all and usually only as a passing comment.
I am still absorbing the information in the specific site that Sebastian provided (a lot of that is a bit beyond me), but unless I was missing it, the only thing it really said about the Mount St. Helens issue was that dating recent rocks is inacurate. What I don't get is why dating recent rocks will yield results that show it to be millions of years old. Maybe it was there and I missed it. I did find one other site that tried to address this, but again I felt that it was lacking.
Another thing that I don't get is that neither side seems to do their due diligence. So, has science done any other more reliable methods to figure out how old new rock is? What is happening to the fossilized forest around Mount St. Helens? Is anyone finding out anything new to help us understand our scientific processes any better? It just feels like a few Christians made some assumptions, other scientists said "no, that's not right" and everyone just left it at that. Regardless of which side you stand on, it seems like there is still quite a bit of information to be gained from studying this phenomenon.
Here's something similar. Creationists seem to say that the flood is the sole reason for the fossils. Ok, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. If nothing else, the different sedimentary layers are far too organized for something like a world-wide flood (assuming that it happened) to be the sole reason for fossils. In addition, I would have thought that we would have found more human skeletons around dinosaurs at that point in time. Scientists pretty much say what I have said and leave it at that. But what I don't understand is how the first fossils were formed (for example). All those fish fossils and shell fossils and so on. As I understand it in order for fossils to be formed, it has to be buried very, very quickly. So how do you quickly bury a fish in the ocean? If even part of it is exposed, it eventually deteriorates to nothing and disappears. So why is it that this huge layer of ash or silt or whatever quickly buries these creatures and this huge layer of rock now represents millions of years? It sounds most logical that it happened all at once. If the layer truly took millions of years to create, then we wouldn't have the fossil records since they would have deteriorated to nothing. So why do scientists say that the entire layer was created gradually when that doesn't seem to correspond with known data?
The Mount St. Helens thing seems to be a great opportunity for both sides to work together to figure out what the truth is.
I also never heard of the peanut butter analogy and agree that it seems rather silly and stupid.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hate to keep saying, that's not true, but, that's not true. To the extent there is a scientific question posed by the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens, rest assured, scientists have and will continue to investigate it. It's not as if the scientific community's reaction to a challenge is OMG, we've got to hide. The scientific method is about challenging the theories, and if it cannot account for Mt. Saint Helens, there's a problem with it.
As for other easy-to-use responses to the Mt. Saint Helens stuff, see also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/creationist-email.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208223910.htm
I particularly like this quote:
"Scientists learned, explains Crisafulli, that traditional theories of disturbance and the succession processes were often inadequate for explaining ecological responses to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens."
The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens was investigated. No amazing contradictions of modern theories of geology/evolution were discovered. Period.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Another thing that I don't get is that neither side seems to do their due diligence. So, has science done any other more reliable methods to figure out how old new rock is? What is happening to the fossilized forest around Mount St. Helens? Is anyone finding out anything new to help us understand our scientific processes any better? It just feels like a few Christians made some assumptions, other scientists said "no, that's not right" and everyone just left it at that. Regardless of which side you stand on, it seems like there is still quite a bit of information to be gained from studying this phenomenon.
There is a footnote in the site to which I directed you that says that more than one method of determination is used. There are other methods, such methods are employed and such methods do resolve these issues. Again, it's not as if the scientific institutions discover challenging theories and then say "Aw, shucks, let's just dodge that question." If science were as easy as ignoring results you don't like, we'd have a fully realized quantum theory.
As I understand it in order for fossils to be formed, it has to be buried very, very quickly. So how do you quickly bury a fish in the ocean? If even part of it is exposed, it eventually deteriorates to nothing and disappears. So why is it that this huge layer of ash or silt or whatever quickly buries these creatures and this huge layer of rock now represents millions of years? It sounds most logical that it happened all at once. If the layer truly took millions of years to create, then we wouldn't have the fossil records since they would have deteriorated to nothing. So why do scientists say that the entire layer was created gradually when that doesn't seem to correspond with known data?
Isn't fossilization localized? That is to say it occurs more frequently in swamps/tar pits/etc where a creature can be completely submerged. It's not as if there is a constant level of fossils in a particular strata, the fossels are concentrated in particular areas that had the traits that helped create fossiles. Furthermore, if the various layers were created instanteously, there would be a hell of a lot more fossils.
I admit, I am significantly out of my league, but how exactly do you know that scientists have not been using the data. Again, we're talking about multiple educational institutions, oil companies, research facilities, etc, etc, etc, located throughout the world all of which agree with the current scientific theories against your digging around in a creationist propaganda websites on the internet in a single afternoon. Go ask a scientist, I'm sure they can rattle off an explanation in a hearbeat.
You want to talk about big conspiracies, there's the biggest one of them all. How is it that a group of persons who get money, fame, and acknowledgement by proving new theories are completely ignoring all this supposed new Earth evidence. Why is it that energy companies, who could make a boatload of money from the ability to manufacture fossil fuels, aren't investing heavily in this cutting edge research that would allow them to manufacture said fuels? Why are they ignoring these amazingly simplistic theories in favor of more complicated models backed up through stastics, data collection, and peer review. It's absurd to think that somehow scientists are ignoring evidence that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
But what I don't understand is how the first fossils were formed (for example). All those fish fossils and shell fossils and so on. As I understand it in order for fossils to be formed, it has to be buried very, very quickly. So how do you quickly bury a fish in the ocean?
Let me try and help here; I'm a geologist for my day job. When a fish dies, it doesn't continue swimming; it sinks to the bottom. There's a variable depth there of fine sediment, especially as you get further out offshore, ranging up to tens of meters of "ooze" for the remains to get buried in. Alternatively, near the mouths of rivers, you have constant dumping off of silt, often in large quantities. During certain geologic periods, you've also got large ashfalls from volcanic activity in parts of the world (e.g., late Miocene in the Caribbean). Burying and preserving things in the ocean is fairly easy, in that sense, especially if the things have hard parts (bones) and aren't just jelly.
Also, a key thing to remember is that geological processes take time. For something to be buried "quickly" might mean "over the course of a thousand years," for example. Dump a half inch of silt every year for a thousand years and you've got over 40 feet of the stuff; even if half of it is carried away by the currents, that still a pretty good start for burial.
I'll stop now about burial, for fear of putting everyone to sleep. But I'm available to answer specific geological questions as well as Buddhist ones, if needed. One thing--I am NOT an expert on Mt. St. Helens in particular, although I do know a bit about igneous petrology. I believe Rexx on these boards is a geologist as well; if he's reading he may chime in.
|
|
Let me try and help here...Also, a key thing to remember is that geological processes take time. For something to be buried "quickly" might mean "over the course of a thousand years," for example. Dump a half inch of silt every year for a thousand years and you've got over 40 feet of the stuff; even if half of it is carried away by the currents, that still a pretty good start for burial.
Thanks. I still don't really get it. There is a lot of this that I have a hard time grasping (on both sides). For example, I don't understand how something can remain partially buried for thousands of years exposed to the elements without decomposing. Maybe in my next life I will be a geologist and it will all suddenly make sense to me.
Here is an honest question that I wonder what the answer is if anyone can provide one in "simple" layman's terms. (Probably not possible without fully understanding all of geology, but thought I'd ask anyway.)
If science taught me anything, its that matter doesn't really disappear, it changes. Why did people take a sample of the crater at Mount St. Helens and not expect the rock to be millions of years old? Why would the rock that I pick up in my front yard only show being 10 years old as opposed to 2 billion? If something is buried in rock and takes on the properties of the rock, why wouldn't it show as being as old as the rock?
I realize that is more than one question -- basically, in layman's terms, what are dating techniques looking for in fossils or other rocks that can't be found in newly laid concrete?
A couple of quick replies before dinner:
For example, I don't understand how something can remain partially buried for thousands of years exposed to the elements without decomposing.
Nothing magical here; bones have a hard time decomposing within that short a time span. For soft tissues, things are more difficult; it helps to have a La Brea tar pits situation, or especially arid conditions so it can mummify.
I realize that is more than one question -- basically, in layman's terms, what are dating techniques looking for in fossils that can't be found in newly laid concrete?
Without going into too much detail, living things continually intake carbon through their metabolic processes. Some small fraction of naturally-occurring carbon is radioactive C-14. When the critter dies, it ceases intaking new C, but the C-14 still in it continues to decay. By comparing the amount of C-14 in the fossil to atmospheric trends, we can estimate how long it's been dead. C-14 is the favorite marker for younger (<50,000-yr.-old) fossils; older ones can be dated to some extent using other markers. The concrete block intakes no carbon; it's just a block. The calcium carbonate in the cement mix was probably from shells formed by critters that lived so long in the past that essentially all of the C-14 is gone from it by now. Setting the cement makes no difference.
|
|
Without going into too much detail, living things continually intake carbon through their metabolic processes. Some small fraction of naturally-occurring carbon is radioactive C-14. When the critter dies, it ceases intaking new C, but the C-14 still in it continues to decay. By comparing the amount of C-14 in the fossil to atmospheric trends, we can estimate how long it's been dead. C-14 is the favorite marker for younger (<50,000-yr.-old) fossils; older ones can be dated to some extent using other markers. The concrete block intakes no carbon; it's just a block. The calcium carbonate in the cement mix was probably from shells formed by critters that lived so long in the past that essentially all of the C-14 is gone from it by now. Setting the cement makes no difference.
Thanks. So how do you "date" rocks? Basically, what was it that they were carbon dating on the crater? This sounds like rocks are basically too old to date. Is it impossible to date a rock if there wasn't anything alive inside it? Also, how does this relate to things like pottery? Carbon dating is used by Christian archeologists as well as a reliable dating mechanism. Just trying to figure out how carbon dating the stone wall of Jericho is similar to carbon dating a fossil is similar to carbon dating an active volcano.
There is a lot of this that I have a hard time grasping (on both sides).
A question of my own, as former Earth Science teacher: you are obviously a bright guy, and your conversation is mature enough for me to assume you are an adult. Was none of this stuff taught in the public schools where you lived? Or were you home-schooled? It seems like you've been short-changed at some point in the past.
Thanks. So how do you "date" rocks? Basically, what was it that they were carbon dating on the crater? This sounds like rocks are basically too old to date. Is it impossible to date a rock if there wasn't anything alive inside it?
Other techniques are used for rocks. Look up "fission track annealing" if you're really interested.
|
|
A question of my own, as former Earth Science teacher: you are obviously a bright guy, and your conversation is mature enough for me to assume you are an adult. Was none of this stuff taught in the public schools where you lived? Or were you home-schooled? It seems like you've been short-changed at some point in the past.
An interesting question. I think that I might have been a bit sheltered in some areas. Of course, maybe I'm too old. I went to a large public high school in a suburb of Chicago. I think that I managed to grow up in a very short period of time when the political Christians were making a huge campaign against evolution and very little on either side was truly taught to me. I learned a lot of this stuff in some minor self-study, but eventually dinosaurs became boring to me and I looked much more into computers. (Read: don't know -- don't care.) I feel like a lot of the general ideas I get but then things really get muddy for me with the specifics. I try and look at things with a fairly open mind (even being a Christian) but I often times feel like I'm not getting the whole picture.
Mount St. Helens -- here are a number of Christian scientists that send a sample of (newly formed?) rock to be carbon dated. Regardless of the results, I'm still not sure what they were hoping to find. I don't understand why a rock is any different than a block of concrete. They didn't send in a fossil. I was told the information about the radioactive C-14 of living creatures -- and as much as I can, I feel that I can grasp that concept. If there is nothing living in lava either before or after it cools, what good is a C-14 test going to show? Archeology uses the C-14 test on non-living things all the time. How does that work? How old is silt? How old is magma? It seems to me that the rock sample sent in should have shown to be millions of years old. Yet neither side seems to suggest that this is even remotely true. So, what am I missing?
|
|
Nothing magical here; bones have a hard time decomposing within that short a time span. For soft tissues, things are more difficult; it helps to have a La Brea tar pits situation, or especially arid conditions so it can mummify.
Ok, this helps. This is a good refresher for me -- I really haven't looked at this stuff closely for around 30 years.
Mount St. Helens -- here are a number of Christian scientists that send a sample of (newly formed?) rock to be carbon dated. Regardless of the results, I'm still not sure what they were hoping to find. I don't understand why a rock is any different than a block of concrete. They didn't send in a fossil. I was told the information about the radioactive C-14 of living creatures -- and as much as I can, I feel that I can grasp that concept. If there is nothing living in lava either before or after it cools, what good is a C-14 test going to show? Archeology uses the C-14 test on non-living things all the time. How does that work? How old is silt? How old is magma? It seems to me that the rock sample sent in should have shown to be millions of years old. Yet neither side seems to suggest that this is even remotely true. So, what am I missing?
Could it be they're looking at the C-14 concentrations in the air bubbles trapped in the rock?
Those guys were practically Christians! From the oft-cited Wikipedia: "Shinran saw the age he was living in as being a degenerate one where beings cannot hope to be able to extricate themselves from the cycle of birth and death through their own power. Due to his consciousness of human limitations, Shinran advocates reliance on tariki (Other Power) -- the power of Amida Buddha's limitless and infinite compassion made manifest in Amida Buddha's Primal Vow -- in order to attain liberation."
So, the founder threw out all the Buddha's teachings, instead relying on a Christ-like figure for salvation.
Yeah if you look at messianic religious groups everywhere it seems like they all have things in common, no matter what the culture: Messianic leader who speaks for supernatural agent that grants salvation to the people who follow the leader. I think it's really interesting, and shows that Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology etc aren't products of particular cultures. They can pop up anywhere and be remarkably similar, so maybe they are a manifestation of human nature (whatever that is). The Yellow Turbans and the Boxers (Harmonious Fist Society) in China were similar too.
I was just having a bit of a dig at the people who claim Buddhism is spotlessly clean. Those Ikko Ikki dudes definitely thought of themselves as Buddhists, and you can say they didn't follow the Buddha's true teachings but really who has the right to judge? Zen has a very flimsy basis in the Pali Canon for example. David Koresh saw himself as a Christian, and I think because of this he was one. Just a messianic non-mainstream one...
Buddhism is very peaceful in principle, but it was a major religion in Asia in the past, with wealthy temples, corrupt clergy and warlord patrons, just like the Catholic Church in Europe. I did a Buddhism course at uni and I remember learning about a warlord in Vietnam who captured an enemy village and asked his Abbot what to do. The Abbot told him to kill everyone who wasn't a Buddhist to speed them into their next life, because they were wasting this one anyway by being superstitious animists. So he did.
It shocked me, and so I've come to suspect that the reason people in the west think Buddhism is so clean atrocity-wise is simply because not many westerners can read medieval Asian history books.
Doing the search that Sebastian suggested yielded many sites -- it appeared that most of them were still for the creation side, many of the sites were blogs (which I generally don't put any credance in) and only a few were actually "valid" scientific sites that talked about it at all and usually only as a passing comment.
Let me chime in here as well, as this is a VERY important observation. (1) Most churches/religious organizations receive tithes; (2) churches and religious organizations are not taxed; (3) churches and religious organizations answer to no politicians who can revoke their funding, and need produce no research they don't choose to pursue. Scientists receive pitiful funding, MUST publish their research in peer-reviewed journals to be ripped apart by their fellow scientists, and can lose their jobs if they devote funding to advertising instead of research.
Is it any surprise that their are a dozen pro-creationist sites for every scientific one? For scientific stuff, we're reduced to subscribing to the journals and wading through pages of incredibly dense abstract research. Creationist propaganda is openly advertised for all to see.
My view is a bit biased, of course; as a scientist I've had to scramble for funding and still pay taxes and produce peer-reviewed research. (EDIT: It sucked, which is why I'm a consultant now)
It shocked me, and so I've come to suspect that the reason people in the west think Buddhism is so clean atrocity-wise is simply because not many westerners can read medieval Asian history books.
You'll get no argument from me, Kahoolin: I suspect you're right all the way down the line. Buddhism has made ME a whole lot more empathetic and peaceful, but I can't speak for history, just for myself.
You'll get no argument from me, Kahoolin: I suspect you're right all the way down the line. Buddhism has made ME a whole lot more empathetic and peaceful, but I can't speak for history, just for myself.
Just like anything else I guess. It's a good idea and it makes people nicer, but after a while it's inevitable that you get a few bad apples.
Maybe Buddhism is such a positive force in the west because we don't have the weight of history from it. It's new to us so we can take it how it was meant to be. Maybe that's also why Christianity is growing so fast in places like Japan and Korea. They don't have all the associations we do of crusades, creationism, anti-intellectualism and conservatism. They just have the book.
Maybe Buddhism is such a positive force in the west because we don't have the weight of history from it. It's new to us so we can take it how it was meant to be. Maybe that's also why Christianity is growing so fast in places like Japan and Korea. They don't have all the associations we do of crusades, creationism, anti-intellectualism and conservatism. They just have the book.
And it begins to seem like we're maybe almost getting into some original thought here... nice one, Kahoo. I've never heard that theory before, and, on the surface at least, it has a lot to recommend it. Gotta sleep on that one.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, I didn't mean to go this far down this path either. I had assumed that the factual/scientific record was not up to debate given that DNA evidence was cited as a failing of the Mormon doctrine. I didn't expect that the statement that the Earth was over 6,000 years would be controversial and provided a strong example of a factual inaccuracy of the Bible. I guess if you don't consider the age of the Earth/the flood to be examples of Biblical inaccuracies, there's not really much else I can say on the subject. I find the idea even more absurd than Jesus being the son of God given the depth of scientific research on the issue, but what can you do.
I had assumed that the factual/scientific record was not up to debate
You must not watch George Bush's speeches: "We need to 'teach the controversy'!"
It shocked me, and so I've come to suspect that the reason people in the west think Buddhism is so clean atrocity-wise is simply because not many westerners can read medieval Asian history books.
I Just got done taking a religions of the east course here at purdue, so I have literally been doing my homework on Buddhism for a while now. I know the Buddhism has been twisted to cause destruction just like any power. But their death count is still very low comparitive to western religions. I think confucianism and taoism have cleaner records but they are not nearly as popular.
Addmittedly I didn't mention buddhist atrocities since that might have lessened the "impact" I was going for.
Kirth quick question. Can women become buddhist monks? I know their was at least one sect of monks that believed any living creature could become a monk. In fact they annointed every tree in a forest to keep it from being cut down. (the loggers were buddhist and weren't about to kill any monks, really bad karma killing monks)
I always thought it funny these monks would annoint a tree but not a female.
Kirth quick question. Can women become buddhist monks? I know their was at least one sect of monks that believed any living creature could become a monk. In fact they annointed every tree in a forest to keep it from being cut down. (the loggers were buddhist and weren't about to kill any monks, really bad karma killing monks) I always thought it funny these monks would annoint a tree but not a female.
There are sects in Japan in which they can, although it's usually translated as "nun." Taiwan has a well-respected Buddhist nuns' order, translated as "luminary," I think. In Thailand, there's at least one female ordained monk; interestingly, it was OK to ordain her, but illegal for she herself to become ordained there. But once it was done, it was done. A lot of the 'no women' thing in many sects is probably a carry-over from ancient India, in which menstruatung women were believed to be 'unclean.' If I recall correctly, though, the Buddha had no real problem with women monks, and just taught they should be segregated to different wings of the monastery (lest the monks end up engaging in extracurricular activities rather than meditation).
It's like anthing else, I guess. Ask a Christian, "can women be priests?" Well, Anglican women can...
It is totally beyond me why any branch of a religion would exclude women, though; seems like a bunch of little boys making a treehouse that says "no girls allowed." That's just silly. And it's especially silly for Buddhists, who are supposed to be focusing on the "one-ness" of everyone. I see no problem with trees. Or women. Or even gnomes, for that matter.
|
|
Could it be they're looking at the C-14 concentrations in the air bubbles trapped in the rock?
I am so far out of my league. The test (as I understand it) was that they separated a number of samples and sent them in for a rather specific test. I believe it was some kind of 'AR' test? (It's all Greek to me.)
I am so far out of my league. The test (as I understand it) was that they separated a number of samples and sent them in for a rather specific test. I believe it was some kind of 'AR' test? (It's all Greek to me.)
Aha! That's potassium-argon dating (K-Ar), a technique to determine the ages of very old rocks. It's similar in idea to C-14 dating in that it works by decay of radioactive elements, but in this case you're looking at the decay of K-40 (a solid) into Ar-40 (a gas). When a rock melts, any Ar-40 gas in it is released into the atmosphere, "resetting" the clock.
I had assumed that the factual/scientific record was not up to debateYou must not watch George Bush's speeches: "We need to 'teach the controversy'!"
However, the real quetion is:
"Is our children learning?'
What is they learning? Is they learning creationism in Texas instead of grammar?
(Please forgive me. Bush is an idiot.)
|
|
I didn't expect that the statement that the Earth was over 6,000 years would be controversial and provided a strong example of a factual inaccuracy of the Bible.
While I understand where people get the 6,000 year figure, I personally feel that people are making HUGE assumptions to get that figure. If if someone believes in a 7 24-hour day creation, I don't see how that necessarily equates to the earth being 6,000 years old. Most of the "data" used to get that figure come from Old Testament geneology -- which again, is making some pretty big assumptions. The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is.
As far as the flood is concerned -- I don't know. There seems to be some indication that there was some fairly major flooding happening around 10,000 BC around the time that a lot of the age of mammals life was wiped out. I could easily put Noah around that time frame. Was there a world-wide flood? I don't know. Two things come to mind -- A lot of life seemed to have been wiped out at the end of the age of mammals. And global warming people would have you believe that Colorado will end being beach property fairly quickly. That seems pretty close to global flooding. Of course I really don't have any evidence to back it up.
Another thing I found interesting is that you said that 4 or 5 women were the "source" of the human race. This also feels consistent with the Noah story (if it were to be believed) as he had saved his family and their wives. I am NOT saying that you should believe the Bible because of this, but I find it interesting.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Another thing I found interesting is that you said that 4 or 5 women were the "source" of the human race. This also feels consistent with the Noah story (if it were to be believed) as he had saved his family and their wives. I am NOT saying that you should believe the Bible because of this, but I find it interesting.
I would go and research the information before incorporating it into the logic demonstrated above. I'm sorry Moff, but your posts on the past two pages have shown a complete lack of any sort of knowledge of natural science. These assertions you are making ("there is evidence of a flood, all humans trace back to an Adam, etc") are false and easily determined to be false if you refer to scientific publications and not religious propoganda. I would highly suggest renting some National Geographic/Discovery Channel videoes regarding the history of the Earth, evolution, etc.
|
|
I would go and research the information before incorporating it into the logic demonstrated above. I'm sorry Moff, but your posts on the past two pages have shown a complete lack of any sort of knowledge of natural science. These assertions you are making ("there is evidence of a flood, all humans trace back to an Adam, etc") are false and easily determined to be false if you refer to scientific publications and not religious propoganda.
No, I'm not trying to really incorporate anything. I find it interesting, but again, I don't feel like I have the whole story. The DNA thing that you mentioned -- I have a really hard time believing that I am the only one that thought of that and tried to make the connection. The fact that I haven't seen any kind of connection like that tells me that it is most likely false (the connection). My mentioning of the Adam gene thing did come from Discover magazine (Discovery channel) -- but it was a long time ago and I wasn't sure what (if any) other connections had been made since then. Similarly with the whole "frozen mammoth" problem. I have seen a number of Christian sites that say "don't go there -- too many problems and it doesn't really show anything -- certainly not a world-wide flood." I still think that it is interesting and would like to know what it is that the data really shows and how it works -- but I don't think that it shows that all human life came from Noah or Adam or anything else.
This is what I would like to see (and while I am wishing for things, I would also like a horse). I would like to see some document/site/etc. that shows this side, that side, this is what we KNOW, this is what we are hypothosizing, this is why we are hypothosizing, in order for the hypothosis to become "known" these things need to happen. A lot of the sites you gave look too much like evolution "propoganda", which makes the whole thing look a lot like "yes it is" -- "no it isn't". I guess that what I would really like to know are what questions cannot be answered and why. No one seems to say that.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This is what I would like to see (and while I am wishing for things, I would also like a horse). I would like to see some document/site/etc. that shows this side, that side, this is what we KNOW, this is what we are hypothosizing, this is why we are hypothosizing, in order for the hypothosis to become "known" these things need to happen. A lot of the sites you gave look too much like evolution "propoganda", which makes the whole thing look a lot like "yes it is" -- "no it isn't". I guess that what I would really like to know are what questions cannot be answered and why. No one seems to say that.
You can't have a horse.
There is no evolution propoganda. There is evolution science, which is what I directed you to. Again, there isn't any institutional force pushing evolution as there is pushing creationism. End of the day, most Americans, including most scientists, are Christians, and these people would be just as happy as anyone else for scientific evidence of Biblical events. If such evidence existed, it would be fiercly debated and considered in academic and scientific circles.
Again, it's not as if the Technocracy from Mage has determined that evolution is correct and that they are pushing the science to conform to that conclusion. This issue is as cut and dried as every other issue in which religion and science have come to different conclusions on items that can be objectively proven (e.g., whether the Earth orbits the Sun). There is no serious "debate" because there is no serious discrepancy in the scientific record.
Edit: the challenge earlier in this thread was made whether Jesus was a liar or insane. That's my challenge to you: is the scientific community lying or insane? Why is it that they are not exploring this alleged evidence? What do they have to gain from refusing to acknowledge and incorporate facts into their theories? Please, explain to me, what the hell is the motivation for scientists, academics, industrialists to cover up this evidence? And keep in mind, bias against Christianity isn't going to cut the mustard, because scientists in every country, even those in non-Christian countries, have made the exact same determinations. So, your explanation should address that this conspiracy is of global proportions.
|
|
You can't have a horse.
Oh, please?
Seriously -- in case I was not clear earlier let me do my best to set the record straight. I really don't know very much about this topic or about a lot of scientific evidence about the beginnings of the world at all. Let me say it again, I don't know what scientific evidence is there or what scientific evidence isn't there.
If I really had the time or the inclination to dig up some scientific journals and do my best to somehow decipher them I would most likely debate this better or not at all as it wouldn't be an issue.
Kirth had some really good points earlier. Here is where I am coming from. Even Kirth said a few things about the carbon dating -- namely that depending on atmospheric trends you can estimate ... I think that there is even more to it than that but he spared me (thank you) the probably insane amount of research that has gone into it. I am left asking myself "what atmospheric trends? What would that do to the findings? How do you know what atmospheric trends happened millions of years ago?" and so on.
This is what I think -- I think that a lot of people, a lot smarter than I am with this stuff, have already considered all of my questions about all of this stuff. None of the things that I am bringing up are new to the scientific community. I do not mean to imply that they are true. These are things that I might have heard (often in passing) and haven't really heard a good explanation for. I have very little doubt that it is there -- I just would like a little more direction on where to look (without too much work -- I'm lazy).
Edit: the challenge earlier in this thread was made whether Jesus was a liar or insane. That's my challenge to you: is the scientific community lying or insane?
Neither one. I don't think that there is a conspiracy. I guess at worst case I don't feel like the "puzzle" is complete yet -- and a lot of that is probably based on a lack of current education. But even I have a hard time believing that science has answered all the questions about the beginnings of the world.
Even Kirth said a few things about the carbon dating -- namely that depending on atmospheric trends you can estimate ... I think that there is even more to it than that but he spared me (thank you) the probably insane amount of research that has gone into it. I am left asking myself "what atmospheric trends? What would that do to the findings? How do you know what atmospheric trends happened millions of years ago?" and so on.
If you're interested, I could probably answer most if not all of these questions. What I really like about the various dating techniques is they way they match up nicely: K-Ar dating of the ocean floor gives answers that are closely consistent with the spreading rates at the mid-Atlantic ridge, for example. Index fossils in correlated strata show consistent radiometric ages. Etc. The evidence of an old earth, with arrays of life forms that change over time, is not only overwhelming, but it's supported by every new technique developed, even ones that have no basis on one another. God would have to be some kind of prankster to make these things all match and all point more or less unerringly to the same set of conclusions that are, unfortunately, not the conclusions that the pseuso-scientists at the Discovery Institute want publicized.
How do I know this? For almost any technique or area of research I've described, either I've worked on it, I know someone who has, or I know someone who's studied under someone who has. Barring that, when I read the methods, they're similar enough in many cases to methods I've used for me to be able to assess them as potentially useful or total crap. Referring to Sebastian's conspiracy, I'd have to be part of the conspiracy, so if that premise is correct you can't trust any of my answers here, of course.
BTW, the Age of Mammals is still going on. The last mass extinction was at the end of the Cretaceous, when the dinosaurs more or less disappeared from the fossil record; there is a global layer of iridium dust (rare on eath but common in meteorites) in rocks of that age. There is no corresponding evidence of a global flood, although a major flood very likely occurred in the Middle East at around the time the Bible calls for Noah's flood, and the rock record supports that local occurrence. Some would argue we're in the midst of a mass extiction now. But to manufacture evidence of a global flood in human times that wiped out dinosaurs involves the rejection of nearly every verifiable observation made by modern geologists.
I'm not in any way putting down the Bible as a religious text here; just as a source of "scientific" facts.
|
|
BTW, the Age of Mammals is still going on. The last mass extinction was at the end of the Cretaceous, when the dinosaurs more or less disappeared from the fossil record; there is a global layer of iridium dust ...
As always, thanks for your straight-forward answers on this.
For the record, what does the iridium dust indicate? A giant meteor? (Really just wondering.) Can science pin-point where it originated (blast point)? Also how did the ancient mammals (sabre-toothed tiger, mastadon, and so on) all die? Was it gradual? Was it quick? Do we just not have enough evidence either way?
BTW, the Age of Mammals is still going on. The last mass extinction was at the end of the Cretaceous, when the dinosaurs more or less disappeared from the fossil record; there is a global layer of iridium dust ...As always, thanks for your straight-forward answers on this.
For the record, what does the iridium dust indicate? A giant meteor? (Really just wondering.) Can science pin-point where it originated (blast point)? Also how did the ancient mammals (sabre-toothed tiger, mastadon, and so on) all die? Was it gradual? Was it quick? Do we just not have enough evidence either way?
Yeah, typically a layer of iridium dust means an impact. There's a huge crater in the rocks in the Yucatan of just about the right age, too, with the types of shock metamorphic rocks you'd expect. That doesn't prove that an impact killed them, of course, but it couldn't have helped them much. Note, however, the recent DNA comparisons between the Tyrannosaurus rex and the chicken, and the evidence of feathers on some types of dinosaurs. They probably ALL didn't die off; some of their descendants seem to still be with us.
The "ancient" mammals you mention are fairly recent in the overall scheme of things; the end of the last ice age probably left them with less and less favorable conditions (have you seen the shaggy pelts on some of those critters?). Did they "suddenly" go extinct? One question I'd ask is, how you decide when mammoth fossils are actually elephant fossils? I'm sure there are ways, but I can't tell them apart personally except by age and paleoclimate. The elephants today aren't the same as the ones in Africa in the early days of mankind, I'm sure. Those ones probably weren't the same as their forebears. There's no hard demarcation line that I know of. Maybe there's not a direct line of descent there--I'm no expert on the Pleistocene--but the idea I'm trying to lead into is that one animal doesn't just magically "morph" into another one: EVERY fossil is, in a sense, a "missing link."
...but the idea I'm trying to lead into is that one animal doesn't just magically "morph" into another one: EVERY...
That mutant evolutionary stuff is pretty darn quick. Say, any idea when the due date on that is? I hope it's soon, 'cause all mutants seem to share the HOTT gene.
Say, any idea when the due date on that is? I hope it's soon, 'cause all mutants seem to share the HOTT gene.
Heh, heh... Excellent timing, TS; we were overdue for a dose of amusement here.
As far as the flood is concerned -- I don't know. There seems to be some indication that there was some fairly major flooding happening around 10,000 BC around the time that a lot of the age of mammals life was wiped out.
The major receding of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age was 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. I guess you could call gradually receding glaciers "flooding," if all you mean is that sea level rose a bit, but it wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination cover the earth with a sudden deluge, and people back then were at the stone spear stage, not the building-an-ark stage. The mammals we've already discussed, and there hadn't been any dinosaurs to kill for the last 65,000,000 years or so. The timing is not even close to the big mideast flood, either. But if you took all of these things and exaggerated them and compressed the time scale by a few thousand or several million years and took a lot of artistic liberties... well, you see where I'm headed there.
|
|
The major receding of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age was 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. I guess you could call gradually receding glaciers "flooding," if all you mean is that sea level rose a bit, but it wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination cover the earth with a sudden deluge, and people back then were at the stone spear stage, not the building-an-ark stage.
I was shooting at the mouth again. I should have worded that more as a question.
There was an article here in the paper that seemed to suggest that Colorado will be beachfront property in as little as 100 years. If that is true (and that is a pretty big "if" again) it seems to indicate that the earth has enough water to cover it. Once again, I don't have anything to back it up and it seems pretty far-fetched to me to believe it outright (if at all).
I'm not looking for an "answer" here. I'm not really putting any credance in it at all.
One question I do have that I haven't really looked for an answer to -- Is there evidence that there was ever a time that the earth was not tilted on its axis?
|
The challenge earlier in this thread was made whether Jesus was a liar or insane.
I missed it, so here's my stand on the whole 'Jesus' thing:
a.) Jesus existed (it's documented in Roman records).
b.) Jesus was not the son of God.
c.) Jesus was a good man, a humanitarian, and a good leader.
d.) Jesus did not have divine powers.
e.) Jesus was not a liar or insane- the miracles, supernatural qualities, and divine powers were attributed to him by his followers.
I'm not Christian. I don't believe in the existance of One True God. In fact, I don't subscribe to any organized religion- I believe that organized religion is a major cause of narrow-mindedness and intolerance in the world. Ergo, five points stated above are an outsider's perspective on Christian mythology. I shouldn't post on this thread, but I had to make my views known.
- Mr. Shiny out
There is no evolution propoganda.
Please. From what I know of humanity, there is propaganda for EVERY point of view. It doesn't matter how correct something is, there is always many people refusing to even consider that the other side could possably be correct. That is what propaganda is. I didn't bother to look at any of those web sites, but I know that somewhere out there someone is saying "of course creationism is wrong - it's just silly. That's why evolution is right." There is propaganda for everything.
Please pardon my humanity-bashing, but it's true.
But even I have a hard time believing that science has answered all the questions about the beginnings of the world.
Nope, not even close (sorry the Big Bang even leaves more questions than it answers). It probably never will.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There is no evolution propoganda.Please. From what I know of humanity, there is propaganda for EVERY point of view. It doesn't matter how correct something is, there is always many people refusing to even consider that the other side could possably be correct. That is what propaganda is. I didn't bother to look at any of those web sites, but I know that somewhere out there someone is saying "of course creationism is wrong - it's just silly. That's why evolution is right." There is propaganda for everything.
Please pardon my humanity-bashing, but it's true.
I suppose if you use the definition that any advocating a viewpoint is propaganda, I can't disagree. Of course, in that case, we must live in a completely fact-less world, and then I guess there must also be gravity propoganda, and fire propaganda, and world is round propaganda. I constantly read about these things, and have encountered scientific literature explaining them which convinced me they are true, but I guess that's just someone trying to change my opinion. We should all keep an open mind: it's entirely possible that gravity does not exist and that it is invisible angels pulling everything towards the Earth.
There is no evolution propoganda.Please. From what I know of humanity, there is propaganda for EVERY point of view. It doesn't matter how correct something is, there is always many people refusing to even consider that the other side could possably be correct. That is what propaganda is. I didn't bother to look at any of those web sites, but I know that somewhere out there someone is saying "of course creationism is wrong - it's just silly. That's why evolution is right." There is propaganda for everything.
Please pardon my humanity-bashing, but it's true.
I suppose if you use the definition that any advocating a viewpoint is propaganda, I can't disagree. Of course, in that case, we must live in a completely fact-less world, and then I guess there must also be gravity propoganda, and fire propaganda, and world is round propaganda. I constantly read about these things, and have encountered scientific literature explaining them which convinced me they are true, but I guess that's just someone trying to change my opinion. We should all keep an open mind: it's entirely possible that gravity does not exist and that it is invisible angels pulling everything towards the Earth.
What I am saying is that even scientists must acknowledge that their theory can be wrong and that theories that seem wrong can be right, regardless of how right/wrong they happen to be, regardless of proof. Clearly, if the proof argues in your favor, you have every right to advocate you viewpoint. It's just that some people, mostly not scientists I'll grant you, but laymen, feel that the things advocated by Christianity are wrong because they're advocated by Christianity. Saying that creationism is "christian propaganda" merely shows that you might be unwilling to believe it even if there suddenly was some sort of evidence, and you wouldn't be alone.
As for the gravity thing; we have no working theory. If the elusive "higgs particle" (pulling out an issue of Scientific American) proves to be some sort of clue, who's to say that subatomic bosoms aren't "invisable angels". How many quarks can dance on the head of a pin?
There is no evolution propoganda.Please. From what I know of humanity, there is propaganda for EVERY point of view. It doesn't matter how correct something is, there is always many people refusing to even consider that the other side could possably be correct. That is what propaganda is. I didn't bother to look at any of those web sites, but I know that somewhere out there someone is saying "of course creationism is wrong - it's just silly. That's why evolution is right." There is propaganda for everything.
Please pardon my humanity-bashing, but it's true.
Whatever you say, Dr. McKay...
Hey, that rhymes!
Interesting. Never saw this sight but know of the arguement. Jade knows somethings of Hawaii? If I remember you know about the word Haole.
Aloha
I try to learn from all great peoples, Killah.
He lawai`a no ke kai papa`u, he pôkole ke aho;
he lawai`a no ke kai hohonu he loa ke aho.
Ua nana `oe i ka puke "Olelo No'eau" mai Kawena Pukui mai. Ma hea e lawe mai 'oe i kela puke ma New York? E haumana `oe i na mea no'eau no ka po'e a pau ma ka honua? He loa kau aho. Maika`i kena. olu'olu'ia au i ke kakau'ia me ia 'oe i ka olelo Hawai'i.
Pono au e ha'i aku i ku'u tutu wahine i keia mea.
Aloha
Sir Kaikillah
There was an article here in the paper that seemed to suggest that Colorado will be beachfront property in as little as 100 years. If that is true (and that is a pretty big "if" again) it seems to indicate that the earth has enough water to cover it. Once again, I don't have anything to back it up and it seems pretty far-fetched to me to believe it outright (if at all).You can answer this one for yourself. (1) Look up how much water expands when heated, and when it melts, or experiment yourself and find out, if you really want to be free of scientific bias. (2) Look up or estimate how much water there is in the oceans, and how much polar ice there is. (3) See how warm the Earth has been in its warmest historical periods (check the Eocene; there were no ice caps then). (4) Apply your volume increases at that temperature to those volumes, and see what elevation above current sea level that gives you. Is it higher than the Rockies? Or still near the coast? How hot would it have to be to put sea level over the Rockies? If that's a lot higher than the boiling point of water, than a global flood seems a lot less likely
One question I do have that I haven't really looked for an answer to -- Is there evidence that there was ever a time that the earth was not tilted on its axis?
Just out of curiousity on this one--why? I'll admit freely that I fail to see where the question is headed.
Ua nana `oe i ka puke "Olelo No'eau" mai Kawena Pukui mai. Ma hea e lawe mai 'oe i kela puke ma New York? E haumana `oe i na mea no'eau no ka po'e a pau ma ka honua? He loa kau aho. Maika`i kena. olu'olu'ia au i ke kakau'ia me ia 'oe i ka olelo Hawai'i. Pono au e ha'i aku i ku'u tutu wahine i keia mea.
Sir Kaikillah
Translations for the poor mainlanders on these boards would be appreciated.
|
|
One question I do have that I haven't really looked for an answer to -- Is there evidence that there was ever a time that the earth was not tilted on its axis?
Just out of curiousity on this one--why? I'll admit freely that I fail to see where the question is headed.
I don't know that it is headed anywhere. It seemed to me that there was at least one point in earth's history that there weren't any ice caps (which you mentioned). If there was a meteor that hit the earth and covered it in a layer of clouds/dust I can understand how that could have "jump started" the ice ages.
I don't know -- just thinking out "loud"? The global warming thing got my brain working. I'm sure that none of this is really new thinking. Since we have always had polar ice caps for far longer than I have been alive, it is difficult for me to understand how we wouldn't have them unless the earth wasn't on a tilt at some point. If the earth wasn't on a tilt and something made it go on a tilt, what stopped the tilting? Or is it stopped? If the meteor was the primary cause of the ice ages, then it feels like the earth is basically "healing" itself and that "global warming" is just a natural evolutionary progression of the planet.
Hey!! That's it! Well, now that I have solved global warming, I think I will work on a cure for cancer.
Seriously, at best this is a passing interest right now and I probably won't care two weeks from now. Aside from Al Gore, I'm not really sure why we should be all concerned about global warming -- it just feels to me like it is a fairly natural progression of things. In either case, I think that there are people out there studying this who are far smarter than I am (and smarter than Al Gore is) and are looking at a whole lot more than the few lame theories I am throwing out there.