So, you may recall that President Bush says that we should teach egregiously false information to our students alongside of proven science.
Then, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist jumps in, courageously stomping to death any remaining credibility he has as a man with a science background, by saying that
I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith…
His quotation is wonderful, in a way. Who could disagree with what he said? Except that he is arguing that we should teach Intelligent Design in schools. Of course, to his credit, he didn’ t include in his statement “grotesquely wrong ideas that will set our children so far behind in education versus other countries that we might as well just make a giant bonfire in the middle of the country — say, in Kansas — and throw all our science textbooks in it.”
But he could have. It’s what he means. And it’s what’ll happen if this goes on.
And then, out of the darkness, a voice of rationality, of reason. And it came from Howard Dean (also a doctor, but in this case one who embraces the science behind the profession). Dean came right out and accused Bush (and tangentially, Frist) of being “antiscience” (where have I heard that word before…?), saying specifically,
The president has been anti-science for a long time. This is the most antiscientific regime that I’ve seen in America in my lifetime. I’m a trained physician, as you’re aware. I’m insulted by that. It’s going to harm America. What serious business is going to invest in America if a scientific education is influenced by politics? Science ought to be taught as science. If you want to teach religion, that’s a separate debate. But science should be taught as science.
I don’t care what party you belong to, what wing you call yourself, for whom you voted, what your religion is, or even if you have one or not. Intelligent Design is not science; it’s not even religion. It’s just wrong. Purveyors of ID are stifling our children, killing their future, and literally destroying the chances our country has in being a player in the biotechnical industry that will become the biggest business of the 21st century. If this goes on, we’ll be firmly planted in the 15th century. Science is about looking ahead. ID is about sticking its head in the ground.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:56 pm
“society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith”
What a strange thing to say. The core principle of the scientific method is to avoid faith as a method of predicting the principles of the natural world, relying instead on observation (which happens to work). By teaching our children that untestable, mystical postulates have the same credibility as tested scientific knowledge, we run the risk of creating an entire generation of Tom Cruises.
And nobody wants to see that happen.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Of course you’ve all seen this:
http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:03 pm
I’m officially creeped out. I may not live in America, but goodness, they’re right down us. And whatever happens in the US, some people like it or not, it strikes the world. If the president allows this, what will happen of modern science? All the good willed people that give their lives for advancement will be stepped in the face and spit on. Darwin will be spinning around in his grave like a turbine!
Is this the kind of mentality you want on this fair planet? Mentality that does not accept facts but prefer nonsense? No thank you, please give me my daily dose of rationality.
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Right on. The “Intelligent Design” bandwagon is totally antiscience. By all means teach kids to believe things without evidence, teach them to believe 9 impossible things before breakfast. But call it what it is – it’s brainwashing, not science. This idea is gaining traction in New Zealand as well, it’s a very clever marketing strategy. Keep on posting!
And heaven forbid we have a generation of Tom Cruises. Although the orthodontists and divorce lawyers might like it.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:31 pm
The Onion’s “Intelligent Falling…” LOL!
Twisting the meaning of that phrase around a little, it’s too bad the fall of rationality in the US is anything but intelligent.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Frist is another one of those wierd guys who smiles with his mouth only and appears to be chemically free of any trace of humor. I doubt he believes any of what he said. He wants power, he does, and he’ll say what he thinks will work to get him some. I trust him about as far as I can throw up.
And I love the way he’s always ‘Doctor’ Frist. Phil is a Doctor. Hell, so am I for that matter. But the title ain’t bestowed by coronation, and it doesn’t give special powers outside your specialty.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Howard Dean is exactly the type of honest, straight-shooting, rationally minded person all politicians should aspire to become. As far as I’m concerned, fostering the development of science should have no political, religious, or socio-economic bearings. Science will always be needed, and it’s sad to see the future generation of scientists becoming pawns within the useless struggle of the religious right to garner acceptance on the same fundamental level as rationally based scientific reasoning. Attempting to sell religious belief and faith, as science, must be punished. Religion should not be intertwined with science or politics. Those who attempt to preach such false gospels (pardon the pun), should have their tax exempt status removed. They cease functioning as a religious organization, once they insert their irrational tendrils into arenas that have no bearing on faith or religion.
Having a personal belief and faith is one thing, but allowing these thoughts to influence and effect genuine processes should be stopped. The threat these antiscientists pose, should not be underestimated. They are undermining the very thought processes that lead to critical thinking and logical reasoning. Throwing us back into the Middle Ages is not going to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions, calculate the trajectories of Near Earth Asteroids, cure cancer through Stem Cell Research, and numerous other challenges requiring a healthy dose of critical thinking and science to solve.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:08 pm
The people who put ID into schools aren’t interested in advancing the critical thinking abilities of our children, but merely interested in having their own ideologies and philosophies ratified, when sadly they’ve merely lies and decietes to support them. Religion is of those who rely upon a lie to hold them up, but it doesn’t work. Lies have never been able to hold up when put to the test, and every day their ego tests them. The only way they can get away with living such a worthless existence is by focussing on anything but it, and then privately lying to themselves i.e. prayer. These people can rarely be reasoned with as they fight reason at every turn by using excuses like, “It’s God’s will that…”
What do they do in prayer, but shut their minds off from the rest of the world and focus on what they want to believe over and over again untill they believe it’s real? But that doesn’t mean it’s real, it just means they’ve found a way to think it is real no matter what, and the EXACT SAME mentality is what drives people to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up at a Starbucks in the middle east, or to throw all their money to a tellevangelist, or fly planes filled with people into buildings filled with people, or start and carry out wars, or that it’s ok to enact revenge upon your peers in the halls of your high school… with guns…, or that brainwashing your kids every morning before school is good for them, or that those couple hours each sunday that you spend on your knees or singing songs and depleting your pocket of change really will make you without any responsibility for all the humiliating, intimidating, and mutilation you preformed upon the minds of those you call the children of your school systems. This practice might as well be called masturbation, which is purely a system of lies, denial, and self service which ends with them feeling damn good about themselves.
Prayer is masturbation, and pushing “Intelligent Design” is an immensely depraved way of perverting the youth of America. The Supreme Court must act.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:15 pm
…. I applogize if my last post was a bit too much, or too intense for some people, but I meant every word, and I won’t take any of them back….
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:19 am
Here is a thought, [i](waits for expected groans of not that old chestnut AGAIN!!!! to subside[/i]
Would objectors to ID also oppose any reference to the Antropic Cosmological Principal? From what I have seen of this ID stuff, it just seemed like the biological equivalent of ACP.
From the stand point of religion, if it is what I have heard, “This thing is so complex it had to have been specially created” it falls into the trap of “God of the Gaps” which we were warned to avoid in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Basicaly GOTG is “we do not know how this happens so this must be direct devine intevention” , like the angels carrying the planets around. As soon as science figures out how something is set up, a gap vanishes, and GOTG kingdom shrinks.
Meanwhile we were once taught a wonderful analagy to throw at evolutionists. Take a trash can, fill it with electronics, and shack it until you get a PC.
I wondered how Tiny used to make their machines
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:51 am
There is a typo in the last post
It should read
Take a trash can, fill it with electronics, and shake it until you get a PC.
apologies for that mistake.
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:40 am
I figure you also meant the “anthropic principle” and “divine intervention.” Unless there’s some esoteric theory out there concerning a small Jewish man/woman named Devine running about keeping the Universe ticking.
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:46 am
> I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith…
This is just plain scary.
Why?
Because he implies that faith is based on fact, which in turn every (sane) religious person will be first to acknowledge that it is in actuality based on… well… faith.
(Though I’m agnostic I have to) thank God I left California and moved to Europe…
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:20 am
Off-topic: Thought You all might find this interesting:
Forensic astronomers date famous photograph:
LINK
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:38 am
This angers the FSM.
August 23rd, 2005 at 5:31 am
I apollogise for my poor spelling
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:00 am
Warning: A lot of Sarcasm follows.
The Bad Astronomer has been Possessed! Only Satan could write such hateful things about our lord and savior. Next thing he’ll be saying is the Earth goes around the sun, or that the Earth is round! Blasphemer!!!
All right people, I’m going to need a young priest, and an old priest. A small amount of holy water. Get the children to gather up some firewood along with some rope and a long piece of wood. Soon this minion of Satan will be sent back to the hell from wence it came. Oh, Bad Astronomer, confess your sins now to save your everlasting soul from your own personal hell!!
/Sarcasm Off
Oh for the love of a Plastic christ Impaled on a Stike and BBQ’ed! Is this REALLY where the USA is going??!!? @#$%!@!! The most advanced country that figued out how to fly, that landed on the FRIGGIN’ MOON! That developed Nuclear Power!!!! That put some of the most advanced Robots designed by the hand of man on MARS!! That has sent robots to the outer reaches of the Solar System, and has been able to peer deep into outer reaches of the Universe. This is the SAME country!!!
[Goes off and Hangs head in shame]
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:11 am
We’ll get antiscience outta Kansas, then on to Florida…YEEEARRAGHH!!!
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:32 am
Ironically enough, there is a God whose existance can be inferred through observations. I can say this with certainty. It directs everything that has been and ever will be. However, this God isn’t a wisened old man or even a flying tangle of spaghetti and meatballs. It’s simply some numeric value that existed at the very start of time.
The universe that It (must be capitalized!) brought into being is ruled by reason and predictable formulas. While we can never truly know the form of It, as It is so complex and wide-reaching as to be beyond mere human comprehension, we can make very good guesses about how facets of It behaves, based on superficial evidence and more focused study. Where necessary, we can substitute ranges of uncertainty, and still have a very good idea of what will happen.
Did some intelligent being or race set Its value, and hence we’re all being run in some impossibly complex simulator? We can only pray that they won’t terminate our process once the results don’t fit with some imperical ‘theory’! Let’s give equal time to Itism.
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:10 am
I’m a Republican…no problems stating that. I come from a large family of Republicans here in Miami. But I have one sticking point, and it’s that Bush is…well, anti-scientific is not the word I’d choose, but science-ignorant is a better one.
This is one of my sticking points…science. So much so that recently I was in a conversation with my family and I raised a point that Religion needs to figure out its role in Science. My mother said “Don’t you mean Science’s role in Religion?” “Nope…I meant Religion’s role in Science.”
The problem here comes from one of Faith (that’s a capital F). One of my old teachers put forth a simple question: If the universe started with the Big Bang (or its new successor, Inflation Theory), how did the subatomic particles get created? If there was no space-time before, then why did they suddenly come one into being?
The question was rhetorical…each student answered it for themselves. But the question is an interesting one. Someone with a logical scientific background would answer: “I don’t know, but I’ll let you know when I figure it out.” A religiously minded person would answer: “God.”
The problem is, and I’ve always argued it, that God speaks in Math, and Science is how we will translate the words he spoke on Creation. But I still contend that intelligent life was a fluke…just a random gathering of variables that no one could have predicted.
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:50 am
Phil, you’re in good company: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4172504.stm
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:16 am
>I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith…
I too am a moderate Republican, but I believe strongly that faith should be separate both from politics and Science…. _especially_ from science.
In my opinion, faith-based politics gives rise to the same reasoning that produces Zealotism, which is arguably one of the great problems of the 21st century. If our fellow man doesn’t think the same way as us, what do we do? We bomb him off the planet, of course! And, if he is trying to bomb _us_ off the planet, are we supposed to sit back and let him do it? It becomes much easier to rationalize an act of violence if you figure you’ve got a mandate from God to do it.
Mixing politics with religion is a step toward obtaining that mandate. Mixing religion with science is the key way to break down peoples’ only cognitive defense of Skepticism.
In my opinion, intelligent life is not a fluke. Random is the nature of creation. If you argue that God speaks Math, you must concede that probability is part of the will of God since probability is pure math. The randomness that produced us is what is supposed to be. It is perfectly reasonable that a human mind not be able to fathom the “purposes” of random chance. “Purpose” is a human label. I have often heard it said in religion that it is the highest conceit of man that man presume he is able to discern the will of God. That is, afterall, the reason that man is supposed to have faith!
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:20 am
We are hanging in here in Florida. Its ironic that while participating in the construction of a 10.4m telescope (Gran Telescopio Canarias) we also had to fight against a proposed state law that would have allowed students to sue faculty who presented something in class to which they objected. We won but Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:54 am
It had to be done: http://idrewthis.org/2005/intelligentdesign.html
Also, if you click “next” (bottom right), the next comic is quite good, too.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:24 am
I feel that something really dark is coming. It is of course not too late, but a HUGE step backward can always happen… It seems to me that slowly, but surely, the US is drifting to the mindset of countries that they are fighting. That is, overly strong religious mindset. The ironic thing is that many of the founding fathers left Europe because of religious zeal that was prevalent there at the time. Slowly, that zeal is coming to the US, despite that one of the reasons that the United States of America exists at all was to protect people from that zeal.
One of the US amendment is “Religion and politics MUST NOT be mixed”, because the result can get VERY ugly. The middle east right now can show us how ugly it can get when you mix those… Of course the US is still very far from that point, but we must remember too that the middle east wasn’t chaotic like that before either.
Mixing religion and politics is indeed dangerous, since whatever you do, all you have to do is saying a few “God bless us” or “God is on our side” when you want to give your motivations. The Al-Quaeda does that all the time, but what I hate, I mean I REALLY hate, is that the Bush Administration does it just as much. The “God bless America (period)” coming from Bush is about as scary as it can get to me… What they should say is more like “We don’t know if God is on our side or not (or if he is there at all?
) but the Al-Quaeda are so fanatical that they really have to be stopped.”
. It should be obvious to the Bush Administration that almost all of the Islamist terrorism comes from religious fanatism. The Administration should use that opportunity to show what happens when you push a religion so far that it even start to go against the whole point of the religion itself. They should not use that argument to make people more zealous than they are… it should be a golden opportunity to show what happens when religion stops being a “spiritual guide” and start to be “the absolute truth”.
So you get only one side saying “God bless us”, and then you can show what happens when you are excessively “blessed” by God
In Canada, about 160 Imams said to Canadians on TV that the Islam presented by Al-Quaeda is about as anti-Islam as it can get, and that a religion pushed that far loses it’s point entirely and can become quite dangerous.
I think that mixing religion and science is just as deadly. I mean, by definition, science does NOT take anything on faith. It is about observing natural events, and explaining what’s going on by investigation and controled testing. If they want to talk about ID, they should do so in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc, since it’s their entire purpose : study faith! Trying to explain faith as science is simply not knowing what faith or science is!
Mixing science and faith will generally denature both the science and the faith, and end up with something that is neither science nor religion.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:02 am
This will sort itself out. If not now, then people will understand when the European and Asian pharmceutical industry destroys the american by fair competition and the US Airforce admits to being defensless against chinese missile systems, exclaiming “For some reason, our missiles fly all willy nilly ever since we rounded PI down to 3″…
Then people will understand.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:55 am
>>I don’t care what party you belong to, what wing you call yourself, for whom you voted, what your religion is, or even if you have one or not. Intelligent Design is not science;>>
Agreed
>> it’s not even religion.>>
Ummm…not sure about that statement
>> It’s just wrong.>>
OK, I have to disagree with the certainty of that statement. I do agree that ID is not science and should not be taught in science classes, not even in passing. But it is my understanding that the proponents of ID accept all of the science behind the theory of evolution – they just think that there is a God that set it all in motion. This is neither provable or disprovable, hence, it is not science. But is it wrong? Just because it is entirely possible that the whole general mish mash happened without a God doesn’t mean that there is no God. Rather than saying “it’s just wrong,” I would be more inclined to leave it at “it’s unprovable and unlikely based on the evidence.”
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:42 am
You act as if evolution being taught in schools is a known fact. If you were in any part of the scientific community, evolution cannot be proven any more than creation can be. The only reason they allow evolution to be taught in schools is to encourage younger ones to believe that the government (and science) has an answer for everything. This, in effect, brain washes the kids to believe anything and everything coming out of the mouth of a ’scientist.’
Evolution is no more fact than creationism. They are both ‘theories’ and ‘religions.’ Any argument past this point is plagued with a bias for furth, and unrelated ideals.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 am
Steave said “Evolution is no more fact than creationism. They are both ‘theories’ and ‘religions.’ Any argument past this point is plagued with a bias for furth, and unrelated ideals.”
Oh boy. Yes, evolution is not a fact. Its a theory. A theory is a system of facts. A theory becomes more reliable than single facts simply because it is a SYSTEM OF FACTS SUPPORTING EACH OTHER. Sorry for yelling.
Religion operates in an entirely different epistemological sphere. Actually, many religions, christianity in particular lack epistemic anchoring completely. Meaning, it has nothing to do with the actual real world the we inhabit.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:56 am
OK everyone, one more time for Steve.
The fact evolution occured is fact. It’s how it occurred that is debated. It’s your choice to ignore how it happened and just say “goddidit”, but science provides real theories as to the mechanics of evolution.
The only reason they allow evolution to be taught in schools is to encourage younger ones to believe that the government (and science) has an answer for everything. This, in effect, brain washes the kids to believe anything and everything coming out of the mouth of a ’scientist.’
I’m sure you have proof of this?
Evolution is no more fact than creationism. They are both ‘theories’ and ‘religions.’ Any argument past this point is plagued with a bias for furth, and unrelated ideals.
Evolution is not a religion; it is based on observable fact, can make predictions, and be tested. For proof please see antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Religion is based on faith, or believing in something despite evidence against it. I believe Mark Twain said it best – “Faith means believing in something you know ain’t so.”
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:57 am
The early founding fathers left Europe to come to the US to escape persecution from the King, because they did not agree with the Catholic Church. You either did/followed what the Catholic church said, or you were gonna take a lickin’.
They came to the US to practice religion in the way they saw fit. Not according to all the straineous laws the Catholics placed on them in Europe. There are tons of quotes from our famous forefathers like Ben Franklin, Jefferson, etc. Just use http://www.google.com and look for them.
Bush is not attacking science as being bad. He is not trying to shut down research that gives us all of our frills of life we have now. He is simply stating that teaching only scientology in schools should not be the only way to go. If you are going to ‘teach’ something in a school that is pretty much a theory by nature, then it would be only fair to also ‘teach’ the kids about mroe than just one ‘theory.’
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:58 am
OK everyone, one more time for Steve.
The fact evolution occured is fact (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). It’s how it occurred that is debated. It’s your choice to ignore how it happened and just say “goddidit”, but science provides real theories as to the mechanics of evolution.
>>The only reason they allow evolution to be taught in schools is to encourage younger ones to believe that the government (and science) has an answer for everything. This, in effect, brain washes the kids to believe anything and everything coming out of the mouth of a ’scientist.’>Evolution is no more fact than creationism. They are both ‘theories’ and ‘religions.’ Any argument past this point is plagued with a bias for furth, and unrelated ideals.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Sorry for the duplicate.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Evolution is not a fact. If it was, then why are there so many shows on TV about ‘the missing links have now finally been found’ and such? It is because Evolution is not a 100% proven fact. It has never been documented in real time, and the best guess scientist have is a postulation from what they can not fully explain in nature.
If Evolution was a fact, then we would know everything there was to know about it, and how it came about, right?
Answer me this:
When the big bang occured, where did all the ‘dust’ come from? How did it start spinning? The ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ we have of today state that for every action there is a reaction. What ‘action’ caused the ‘reaction’ of that mass of dust from which we have no origin to start spinning?
For a gravitational force to be so strong that every single bit of matter in the entire universe was condensed into one single volume the size of a period at the end of a sentence….where did it come from? Have we ever been able to reproduce that?
Evolution is a mix of speculation and theory….with misconstrued fact from fossils.
Here is one. How old is the earth? Every were you go you will get different answers. Millions, billions, tens of millions/billions.
Everyone has a different answer. Why? Because there is no solid basis or backbone to evolution.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:21 pm
We have the Law of Conservation of Mass. We also have the Law of Conservation of Energy.
These state that you cannot create mass from nothing. You can alter mass into different chemical compounds, but the mass of the copmonents going in is equal to the mass of components going out. You can’t make something with nothing.
The same applies with energy. There is no such thing as free energy. Energy in equals energy out. It may be not be in the same form on both sides of the equation, but it does equal.
Where did the ‘dust’ come from that makes up every single planet/star/comet/sun/etc in the universe? It just doesn’t show up. Something cause it to exist. What caused it to exist?
What cause gravity? What started gravity? If gravity were always prevelant…there wouldn’t be free-floating dust everywhere. It had to have a point of origin in order to atract all the other dust to it. From there it is able to give out gravitational properties to other masses that shoot off of it, but it had to have an origin.
What caused that mass to spin? What force acted on the mass to cause it to spin? The reason our planets and stars spin, is because they were all shoot-offs of that one original spining mass. When that mass exploded, the properties of gravity and motion were set apon it. But again, all those properties had an origin. What caused that origin?
Bottom line, you can’t get something from nothing.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
J. D. Mack Said:
>>> It’s just wrong.>>
> OK, I have to disagree with the certainty of that statement. I do agree that ID is not science and should not be taught in science classes, not even in passing. But it is my understanding that the proponents of ID accept all of the science behind the theory of evolution – they just think that there is a God that set it all in motion. This is neither provable or disprovable, hence, it is not science. But is it wrong? Just because it is entirely possible that the whole general mish mash happened without a God doesn’t mean that there is no God. Rather than saying “it’s just wrong,â€? I would be more inclined to leave it at “it’s unprovable and unlikely based on the evidence.â€?
That’s not quite accurate. The main vocal ID proponents have stated accepting the mechanisms of evolution. However, they have questioned the ability of those mechanisms to account for the diversity of life. I will, perhaps, draw fire here from my colleagues here and state that the question of whether the known mechanisms of evolution can account for the diversity of life or not is a scientific question. However, the next step in the ID position fails to be science. They are not seeking alternate methods to explain the gaps they see – they are declaring the answer to be “it was designed”, as if that explains anything. That is no more an explanation than to explain how the Eiffel Tower was built by saying “It was designed.” Gee, I feel so illuminated now.
As for it being wrong, again I will draw fire and state that the techniques that the IDers are proposing to justify their position can be evaluated scientifically. Those techniques include Irreducible Complexity (IC), and Specified Complexity (SC). When the science community evaluates those techniques, the techniques fall apart. IC fails because it relies upon assumptions that evolution does not make. Assumptions like all component parts of current biochemical pathways are the same as they have always been, or identifiable as the form they’ve always had. SC is even worse – it is a hash job on a description presented to define life. It has been butchered to mean something else, and then argued as a justification based upon statistics that are incalcuable, with vague and unspecified assumptions and used in ways that statisticians say are not meaningful.
This is quite apart from the question of the existence of deities.
One other point about “wrong”. It seems Phil is using this term as a value judgment, not of the claims themselves, but of the actions taken by the politicians corrupting science to reflect political agendas. In this sense, it is not religion, it is politics, and it is definitely wrong.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Step right up! Rockstar gives a free education to Steve!
Evolution is not a fact. If it was, then why are there so many shows on TV about ‘the missing links have now finally been found’ and such? It is because Evolution is not a 100% proven fact. It has never been documented in real time, and the best guess scientist have is a postulation from what they can not fully explain in nature.
Did you click the link in my last comment? No? Here’s one that might be easier for you to understand. From your comment, I see you are ignorant as to what evolution is. Evolution a change in the gene pool of a population over time. This has not only occurred in real time, but has been studied. See here.
After reading those studies you now know that it has been observed that gene pools of populations have changed over a given period of time. That’s what evolution is. Now it is up to you to prove that these studies are flawed. And please provide evidence.
Up to speed now? OK, here’s where the debate lies – HOW did the changes in the genes happen. HOW did speciation occur. This is where the “theory” part of evolution comes into play.
If Evolution was a fact, then we would know everything there was to know about it, and how it came about, right?
You believe in gravity? String theory? Relativity? Black holes? We don’t know everything about them. But we have a good idea (ie, a theory). That’s what science tries to prove. ID says “goddidit”. Science shows it’s work.
Answer me this:
When the big bang occured, where did…
Again, you are ignorant of/confused about what evolution is. Biological evolution has nothing to do with how the universe was created.
Evolution is a mix of speculation and theory….with misconstrued fact from fossils.
This is the smartest thing you’ve said yet, though misleading. That’s the beauty of science, Steve. We’re learning how it happened!
Here is one. How old is the earth? Every were you go you will get different answers. Millions, billions, tens of millions/billions.
Everyone has a different answer. Why? Because there is no solid basis or backbone to evolution.
Again, please tell me what the age of the Earth has to do with evolution? That’s what drives me nuts about IDiots. You have nothing to back your claims up so you try to poke holes in evolution.
Steve, even if you proved against all evidence that biological evolution never occured, that would not make intelligent design any more so.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:58 pm
“He is simply stating that teaching only scientology in schools should not be the only way to go.”
i’ll admit, i have to agree with the president on this one.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Evolution is MORE than fact. A fact tells you one thing only, but evolution correctly predicts all observable biology on earth. That is much more powerful and certain than any single fact. No scientist has ever found any evidence that contradicts the fact that a process of gradual change, based on inheritance, leads to speciation.
ID merely states that since small, insignificant bits of evidence are missing from the fossil record, then the entire system is faulty and (here’s the worst part) a different system with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL is the correct one.
The fallacy here is that the media and the politicians are talking about “the controversy” and “the debate” about evolution. There is NO controversy or debate between scientists. The so-called “debate” is between science and religion, and religion has, throughout history, ALWAYS lost every one of these battles, every single time, because religion has no basis in observable reality. Science exists solely in the world of observable reality, it strictly avoids untestable ideas, and thus cannot be defeated by arguments that depend on non-observable rationales. Science can only be defeated by more and better science.
You can watch evolution happening. You can watch plasmid transfers in bacteria. You can look at a wolf and a dalmation and note the differences and scan their DNA. You can see a Staph infection or the AIDS virus and note their mutations over time. You can look at the tunicate, the amphioxus, and the hagfish, and see this amazing process writ large all across the planet. That is what science is about. Eveyone can come up with their own religious explanations, but unless you can prove the existence of your mysterious designer in a repeatable and observable manner, he/she/it does not belong in a science class. Science will not contradict your mystical claims since it is confined to our observable reality, and since ID lies outside observable reality, science has absolutely nothing to do with it.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:01 pm
Forgot to close my tags.
understand
here
Now with linky goodnesss!
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Actually, the age of Terra is most likely between 4.5 and 5 billion years old. This mesurement is wildly accepted by astronomers and geologists, that is, people who are educated in the areas of science dedicated to the study of such processes, and spend their whole lives observing said processes. I dare you, find me one, not ten, not 100, but just ONE certifiable, practicing astronomer or geologist who dissagrees with the age of the earth stated above as based on current information in said fields of study.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:23 pm
>>He is simply stating that teaching only scientology in schools should not be the only way to go.
Science is definitely NOT Scientology. You might want to learn something about L. Ron Hubbard’s religion before you lump science together with cultism.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Steve Said:
> Evolution is not a fact. If it was, then why are there so many shows on TV about ‘the missing links have now finally been found’ and such?
People like TV programs.
> It is because Evolution is not a 100% proven fact. It has never been documented in real time, and the best guess scientist have is a postulation from what they can not fully explain in nature.
Methods and techniques of evolution most certainly have been documented in real time. Natural selection, mutation, gene duplication, sexual selection, changing genotypes, changing phenotypes, etc. I suspect, though, that you are referring to what is sometimes termed “macroevolution”, evolutionary changes large enough to change the identity of the species in a significant, observable way. Two problems: one is the time scale involved, and two is that the definition of “significant” is never clearly defined. However, it is only within the last 100 years when methods of selective breeding have gone beyond the inherent natural methods of change provided by biology to artificial manipulation means, such as gene transplants. The entire human history of agriculture and animal husbandry shows some blatant changes that are definitely at least at the species level. One such example would be the development of modern wheat from the pre-agriculture grass. Somehow I don’t think you’re going to care. I expect that what you’re looking for is something on the scale of witnessing the development of bats from non-flying rodents.
Let’s look at another science that has long time scales – astronomy. We have not witnessed stellar “life” in real time, either, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a pretty good idea about the general stages, sequence of events, and how they end.
> If Evolution was a fact, then we would know everything there was to know about it, and how it came about, right?
This is a definite misunderstanding of “facts”, science, and Evolution. Gravity is a fact, but we don’t know everything there is to know about it, or how it came about. Dinosaurs existed is a fact, but we don’t know everything there is to know about dinosaurs.
> Answer me this:
> When the big bang occured, where did all the ‘dust’ come from? How did it start spinning? The ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ we have of today state that for every action there is a reaction. What ‘action’ caused the ‘reaction’ of that mass of dust from which we have no origin to start spinning?
For a gravitational force to be so strong that every single bit of matter in the entire universe was condensed into one single volume the size of a period at the end of a sentence….where did it come from? Have we ever been able to reproduce that?
1. This is not Evolution. It has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is a description of the methods of change of biological life. The origins of the universe are a completely different topic.
2. The origins of the Big Bang and the generation of all matter that started the universe is highly speculative at this point. This is the realm of frontier science. Explanations under debate right now involve ideas from String Theory and it’s contemporary equivalent of Branes. The question is highly dependent upon bridging the gap between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics proposes some bizarre effects including something called “virtual particles” that are constantly appearing and disappearing out of nothingness. Some explanations for the Big Bang rely on these virtual particles. There are plenty of ways to find out more on the topic (lots more than I know off hand), but none of this has to do with Evolution.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:26 pm
I most certainly disagree with President Bush’s comments on education and the “choice” of studying ID. However, I doubt that it can make matters much worse given the current condition of the public school system in the US. Children simply dont learn cr@p. Amazingly some finish high school without knowing how to evaluate a function at a point (!!!). So in my opinion it is sort of just another hole in the sinking ship of education.
I strongly believe that families must encourage their children to study and be much more responsible to their education, pay attention to them and help them learn and not just rely on government and the public shool system to do their job as a parent, to instill critical thinking and responsibility.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
I just want to add that you could be in a bad school and still turn out to be quite a capable individual, depending on the conditions you are exposed (at home, with your friends and so on). I’m not trying to undervalue school education, just saying that it is not the only “parameter” to optimize.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:42 pm
I just read Stephen Baxter’s novel, “Titan”. Written in 1997, but set (at the beginning) in 2004. It’s beginning to sound very spookily prescient…
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Someone said, “Take a trash can, fill it with electronics, and shack it until you get a PC.”
Hey, that’s about how Microsoft gets new versions of Windows, and it hasn’t hurt their bottom line.
Just to toss out another angle: Is Frist voicing the general opinion of the constituency that sent him into office? Not defending him, just tossing out the basic concept of representative democracy.
It’s too late once an anti-science type gets into office. You have to do the work BEFORE that happens.
Personally, I’m such a misanthrope I don’t care, but I think you’re all wringing your hands over a pendulum that will (and has to) swing in another direction. And it’s a chaotic pendulum at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Sticks: The problem with the Anthropic Principle (cosmological or otherwise) is that it is not useful. We cannot use it to make any predictions; we cannot test it in any meaningful way; and it does not actually explain anything. So most scientists do not spend any time on it.
Incidentally, in what way is your “analogy” (Take a trash can, fill it with electronics, and shake it until you get a PC) actually analogous to any living system? The components of a living system are able to interact in uncountable different combinations, whereas the components of any electronic system interact only in very prescribed ways. A living system comprises parts that are made of pieces that themselves have unique and varied characteristics (e.g. the four nucleotides combined into DNA, the twenty amino acids combined into proteins etc.) whereas an electronic system has parts that are either non-functional (i.e. individual bits of silicon) or have only a very limited function (e.g. a transistor will behave in a very specific way). I could go into detail, but I can’t be bothered just now. Suffice it to say it is a very poor analogy.
Dukrous – so, you’re a Republican are you? I consider myself to be a Homo sapiens sapiens. In what way is a Republican different? How does one identify a Republican if it is not an election year? For me, the way I cast my vote when the opportunity arises is only a very small part of who and what I am.
Jonathan Keith MacDonald – I think I can understand the sentiment, but that’s a bit over the top.
Sticks – I like this. “I apollogise for my poor spelling”. LOL. I hope it was deliberate.
Viggen – Actually, if you are Christian, you should turn the other cheek if some fanatic tries to bomb you (assuming you can find it).
I must confess that I do not like religion getting mixed up with politics. It has caused too much suffering. (such as, for example, the English Civil War. There are more recent examples, but since this is a science website, I don’t want to get *too* political).
Peptron – good point. I wholly agree.
Steve – you say “evolution cannot be proven any more than creation can be.” I say it depends on what you mean by proof. Prove to me that you exist. Go on. Prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt. Or, here’s an even tougher one: prove to me that I exist. NOTHING can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt (except in pure mathematics). HOWEVER, lucky for us, we don’t need to prove anything to that level of certainty to be able to make useful predictions, to be able to carry on with our everyday lives, to drive our cars, to use the internet and so on. Just because your computer has performed 16 billion floating point operations since it was built, how do you know it will get the next one right? Belief can be based on experience rather than absolute proof or absolute faith. In US/UK criminal justice systems, the evidence needs to convince 12 people beyond any resonable doubt. You’re asking science to provide a better quality of proof than that. Well, maybe that doesn’t exist.
To get back to evolution vs creationism. Evolution is based on evidence, facts and testable predictions (that have agreed with data literally millions of times). Creationism is based on faith and is directly contradicted by vast swathes of facts that have been observed and recorded and tested by millions of people. Therefore, evolution is a good scientific theory. Creationism is not science.
Furthermore, evolution *explains* why and how living things are the way they are (but it does not make any claims about how life began). Creationism does not explain anything, it merely states that things are the way we see them because they were made that way. It raises more questions than it answers.
Steve says : “Evolution is not a fact. If it was, then why are there so many shows on TV about ‘the missing links have now finally been found’ and such?”
Ah, so TV is now the final arbiter of truth. Give me a break.
“It is because Evolution is not a 100% proven fact.” See above. As far as I am concerned evolution has been proven to about 99.99%, which is close enough for me. “It has never been documented in real time,” YES IT HAS. Where did MRSA come from? It evolved from a mutated cell of Staphylococcus aureus that was not resistent to methicillin. “the best guess scientist have is a postulation from what they can not fully explain in nature.” True, but we are a long way toward explaining it. A partial explanation as far better than no explanation at all. Anyway, can you fully explain to me how your computer works? But you have a pretty good idea of how it will behave, don’t you?
Steve says : “If Evolution was a fact, then we would know everything there was to know about it, and how it came about, right?” Bovine faecal matter. If your existence is a fact, how come you don’t yet know how you’re going to die?
Steve says “Answer me this: When the big bang occured, where did all the ‘dust’ come from?” As is explained in many other places, space itself is postulated to have come into existence at the big bang. When the universe was small and dense, the temperature precluded the existence of dust.
“How did it start spinning?” I’m sorry, do you have some evidence that the universe is spinning?
“The ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ we have of today state that for every action there is a reaction. What ‘action’ caused the ‘reaction’ of that mass of dust from which we have no origin to start spinning?” You are demonstrating a sad lack of understanding of Newtonian mechanics.
“For a gravitational force to be so strong that every single bit of matter in the entire universe was condensed into one single volume the size of a period at the end of a sentence….where did it come from? Have we ever been able to reproduce that?” You are assuming that there was some space and time and forces acting prior to the Big Bang. As far as can be ascertained, space, time and all known forces came into existence at the instant of the Big Bang. Therefore, any question about what caused it or started it or where the matter came from has no meaning in any scientific context unles sit porposes a means by which we can measure or calculate these properties.
“Evolution is a mix of speculation and theory….with misconstrued fact from fossils.” Evolution is a very successful theory with a sound basis in many many branches of evidence. The fossil record has been studied in depth by tens or hundreds of thousands of people, over the course of about 200 years (give or take a bit). The existence of the fossil resord is one of several threads of evidence that LED TO the theory of evolution. In the same vein, I put it to you that the book of Genesis is anecdotal, and is not supported by one observable fact.
“Here is one. How old is the earth? Every were you go you will get different answers. Millions, billions, tens of millions/billions.
Everyone has a different answer. Why? Because there is no solid basis or backbone to evolution.” Since radioactive dating has been used, only one answer has been obtained. The Earth is 4.3 billion years old +/- about 10% (I’m just guessing at the precision here – it could be far better than that). Previous answers disagreed because they were all estimates, based on what was known at the time. The age of rocks on Earth was only measurable after radioactive dating became known.
Steve, if you want to raise points for discussion, that’s fine. Go ahead, ask questions. But bear in mind that all of these scientist guys might be onto something. And bear in mind that they’ve been studying their chosen fields (mine is biochemistry) for upwards of 8 years before they properly consider themselves scientists. And a lot of these people have very strong faith, but do not necessarily believe that the Bible should be taken literally. The debate is about teaching ID in science class. ID is not science.
Rockstar, Irishman – Yay for science. Keep it up, guys.
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:36 pm
“But it is my understanding that the proponents of ID accept all of the science behind the theory of evolution – they just think that there is a God that set it all in motion.”
Actually, that is not what the proponents of ID say. That’s what an 18th century Deist might say, but these people are not Deists.
The proponents of ID say that there are certain transformations in the history of life– the introduction of certain organs and systems; the development of cells– that natural processes cannot possibly explain, and that the most parsimonious explanation for these events is essentially that they were miracles. They support these claims with specious mathematical arguments.
I think that the choice of the relatively neutral-sounding phrase “intelligent design” is a deliberate ploy to get people to think that all they’re advocating is the compatibility of science and theism, in order to make it easier to get their doctrine, argument-from-ignorance, bogus math and all, into school curricula. But it’s important not to be fooled.
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Steve Said:
> The early founding fathers left Europe to come to the US to escape persecution from the King, because they did not agree with the Catholic Church. You either did/followed what the Catholic church said, or you were gonna take a lickin’.
> They came to the US to practice religion in the way they saw fit. Not according to all the straineous laws the Catholics placed on them in Europe. There are tons of quotes from our famous forefathers like Ben Franklin, Jefferson, etc. Just use http://www.google.com and look for them.
This is fairly correct, except it was the Church of England rather than the Roman Catholic Church. A number of early colonists came to the U.S. to escape repressive religious practices back home. Many of them came to found their own brand of religiously oppressive government. The famous Pilgrims, for instance, had escaped England and moved to Amsterdam in order to escape England’s oppressive religious rule. Yes, they were religious minorities to the Church of England, and persecuted for it. Amsterdam was religiously liberal and accepting. The Pilgrims were not happy there, because it was so liberal. They wanted repressive religious rules, they just wanted their repressive religious rules. Thus they sailed to America to found the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This Colony is famous for Salem, Massachusetts, and the Salem witch trials. Massachusetts was known for draconian measures – it was often not safe to be a Quaker in Massachusetts after sundown. The Quakers went on to found Pennsylvania because of it.
Bush is not attacking science as being bad. He is not trying to shut down research that gives us all of our frills of life we have now. He is simply stating that teaching only scientology in schools should not be the only way to go. If you are going to ‘teach’ something in a school that is pretty much a theory by nature, then it would be only fair to also ‘teach’ the kids about mroe than just one ‘theory.’
But if you read those same founding fathers’ messages mentioned above, you will discover (if you’re not already aware) that while many of them were religious, most of them directly opposed establishing a religious government of the United States. Note that while the Declaration of Independence makes mention of being endowed by our “Creator” with inalienable rights, the basis for the justification for seeking independence does not rely upon Devine Will, it is based explicitly upon the actions of the King in failing to uphold his responsibilities to the colonists. Note also the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It does not rely upon or look to Divine Inspiration or Will as the source or basis for the government. What does it say? “WE the People”. The U.S. government was plainly established as getting it’s authority from the people themselves.
None of which has anything to do with Evolution or ID.
> Bush is not attacking science as being bad. He is not trying to shut down research that gives us all of our frills of life we have now. He is simply stating that teaching only scientology in schools should not be the only way to go. If you are going to ‘teach’ something in a school that is pretty much a theory by nature, then it would be only fair to also ‘teach’ the kids about mroe than just one ‘theory.’
1. Bush is attacking science. He is attacking the foundation of science as critical investigation. He is supporting elements of faith be taught as science. This undermines the whole footing of science as a process of skeptically considering the alternatives and testing them to eliminate options. Faith is by definition untestable – faith is believing without or even in spite of the evidence. It is exactly this wishful thinking mindset that provides a foothold for homeopathy and all the rest of the Alternative/Complementary medicine bunkum like ear candling. This mindset undermines the ability of people to think critically, and that is weakening the U.S.
2. As pointed out, Scientology is not science. What I think you meant was scientism, http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Scientism .
3. There is no alternative theory to Evolution. “Evolution” is a descriptive word for the change of organisms over time. Evolution can be expressed by a number of different concepts and methods. For instance, there was a concept of Evolution called Lamarckian Evolution, that proposed that traits acquired by an organism were passed to its offspring. For instance, a pre-giraffe stretching its neck to reach high limbs would undoubtedly develope a slightly longer neck. It’s children would be born with slightly longer necks because of this, and would continue the process until generations later the giraffe has the neck it has today. Lamarckian Evolution was disproven and is no longer considered valid (except it was taught in the Soviet Union). Evolution also serves as a collective term for all the processes of change that have been identified by science – mutation, natural selection, gene duplication, gene resequencing, etc. All of these mechanisms have been tested and demonstrated to occur in nature an in the lab. Finally, Evolution is used as an explanation of the overall process of biological diversification, of change from the earliest cells to the modern ecology and all the steps in between. In this manner, it is a description of the process of change based upon the component mechanisms described above. The alternative theories within Evolution rely upon debating and exploring the mechanisms and how they act – such as punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism. Evolution is about genetic change, and the scientific debates are over the mechanisms within that process of change.
The only alternative to Evolution is Creationism – god snapped his fingers and *poof* life was present. That is not a scientific theory. Also, it fails to match the observed evidence.
4. We should teach children more than one theory. We should teach children that the Earth may really be flat, because some people believe that. We should teach children that heavier objects fall faster than light ones, because that’s what Aristotle taught. We should teach children that the U.S. didn’t really put man on the moon, that was all just a big government hoax, because that’s what some people think. Oh wait, no we shouldn’t!
Steve Said:
> Here is one. How old is the earth? Every were you go you will get different answers. Millions, billions, tens of millions/billions.
Everyone has a different answer. Why? Because there is no solid basis or backbone to evolution.
Where are you getting your information? Scientists have reached a concensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old, from formation as a planet. This is based not upon Evolution, which can only look so far in the past, but on geology and radiological dating. This answer has been fairly consistent within science for at least the past 20 years.
August 23rd, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Steve,
Theories have to explain the data and predict the existance of data we don’t have yet. Evolution does this.
Imagine a geneticist studying whales finds an endogenous retrovirus a particular location in the genome of blue whales. He is curious and checks around a bit. He finds the same ERV at the same location in cows and giraffes, but not in pigs or camels. He now has enough information to make some predictions. He predicts that this ERV will be found at the same location in sheep, antelope, deer, dolphins, hippos, and narwhals. He also can predict that it will not be found in that location in horses, rhinos, elephants, seals, or manatees.
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
What does your theory predict?
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Yes, remid me to buy a pitchfork and strawhat for any visits I have to make to the US.
Also I think the pilgrim fathers were trying to escape the doctrine of the Curch of England rather than the Catholic Church (silly folk, just needed a covenant and a small riot in St Giles to keep the CofE away from the Kirk).
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Thanks for the good times, but I’ve unsubscribed from your feed. You could consider being a bit more polite to those of us with different beliefs. And it isn’t like our belief is unfounded; have you ever really studied creationism?
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Nicholas, while its sorry to lose a fellow reader, you are under the mistaken impression that Evolution is a “belief.”
As has been said above and before, and more eloquently. Evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by Natural Selection is the robust theory, that is to say, a set of facts and observations, that together explain the phenomenon of Evolution.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:27 pm
I, for one, have rigorously studied creationism and rejected it because no evidence has ever been found that even suggests it is a valid theory. Beyond that, it is not useful as it does not have predictive power and does nothing to explain the way living things work. On the other hand, every facet of nature, every detail of every living thing on this planet, directly supports the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory has touched every part of your life already, even if you don’t believe in it, because the food you eat and the medicines that keep you alive are byproducts of the biological sciences, all of which are based completely on evolutionary theory. Your communion wafers are made from wheat that has been developed, under the guidance of man, through evolution. The grapes that made the wine were likewise transformed through the evolutionary process. Penicillin-resistant bacteria exist and are proof positive that evolution is occurring right now. Your pet dog and cat are a different species from their wild ancestors because they have coevolved with humans. Every time you eat an apple or grill a steak you bear witness to the validity of the theory. And now, in this day and age, we not only have the facts of evolution proven beyond all doubt, but even the underlying chemical mechanisms have become common knowledge.
None of this would ever have happened were it not for the scientific method. It is the process of inquiry, of seeking understanding, of striving for knowledge, that we seek to teach our children. To do any less would be to damn them to eternal darkness and ignorance. To intentionally shield a developing mind from discovering the truth, or to actively try to subvert the process of development in a child who has the potential to someday unlock the secrets of the cosmos, is a crime against nature.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Howard Dean and My Friendly Local Astronomer Agree
When Plait quoted my hero Howard Dean AND slammed Intelligent Design, I couldn’t help but share the love.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:01 pm
I think there may be another viewpoint here to if I may.
These Evangelicals are coming across as if all Christians believe Their brand of nonsense!
As a Catholic I resent this..I don’t believe that evolution is wrong, as I said before, I believe it is the way God has chosen to create and again they are trying to cram their own little viewpoint down my throat and I don’t think they will succeed but it’s just par for the course.
They would rather talk about this then talk about a stupid war that they helped create, loss of jobs..outsourcing that they love too and a nation that is on the road to losing it’s language.
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:14 pm
I am guessing Steve and his cohorts would tell our kids that God created the earth with age for some unknown reason!!!
August 24th, 2005 at 1:09 am
Nigel Depledge, the Trash Can PC was not an analagy I came up with, I mentioned it as something I heard,, I believe at some religious gathering at an institute of higher education, possibly in Aberdeen Scotland in the 1980’s. It was to illustrate thinking in some quarters at that time.
It’s presentation was quite elloquent, I do not recall anyone questioning it at the time.
My raising of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle was to illustrate that in recent times, the concept of a dDesigned universe first came from the scientific community and not the religious. Assuming I have the citation right, IIRC, it was Dr Frank Tippler who said that “The universe appears to be designed for mankind” Dr Frank Tipler was no creationist.
So far ID appears only to be something going on across the pond, and from what I can see of it, it seemed that it was like a version of ACP for biologists.
Meanwhile, Nigel Depledge you listed your profession as microbiologist, what is the latest thinking as to how life started in the first place in an open system. My reading around of this subject seemed to be that spontaneous generation had been disprooved countless times throught the centuries, right up to the Eurea and Miller experiments in the 1950’s. I had heard something along the lines that they were looking at the RNA route. What is the latest on this and has anyone tried to create life using this lead?
BTW Apollogise – doh have been spending too much time at Apollohoax duh!!
August 24th, 2005 at 3:38 am
I just saw Larry King about this subject. I was already very surprised that such a topic is shown in such a show. During the discussion none of the intel.designs proponents was bothered with any evidence. They just keep phrasing that it is impossible that complex life can evolve for simple organic matter. If you ask why they always go back to the bible. Even a congress man (a man of influence in a country with thousands of nuclear missels) stated that he believed the universe was created in 6 days of 24h. But at least he was opposed to imposing his view to other people.
If bush gets his way and intelligent design becomes taught as an alternative to science then you may mark that day as the beginning of the technological decline of the US. The rest of the world is already closing the technological gap, so at a time that the US should accelerate its investment in the scientific community it starts restricting it by ‘brainwashing’ entire generations.
Just 2 examples of historical consequences:
1/ Before the Spanjards & Portugese started to colonize the world the Chinese had a huge technological naval advantage (with much bigger boats) and they too were sailing the sees and had reached the african coast. They had the opportunity to do what the Europeans did later but at that moment the Chinese emperor (advised by his administration) ordered that exploration was unwanted and recalled most of his fleet. The world would have looked very different if this restriction would not have been ordered.
2/ During the middle ages the middle east was more advanced then the west (compass is for example an arabic invention…). It was a time where the islamic regimes were tolerant to other regimes. However later on those regimes became more fundamentalist (maybe as reaction to the crusades?) and what happened, they lost their advantage and from rich nations they declined into poverty. Western Europe had an opposite trend and reaped the fruit of that too..
So It may sound shocking to many American readers but I am glad I do not live the US….
August 24th, 2005 at 5:39 am
Well , the post really leaves my in deep thought ….
http://www.exploreuniverse.com/ic (Information Centre)
http://www.exploreuniverse.com/astrolog (Astronomy Web Blog)
I will try and include this in my articles section of the website under the name of bad astronomy by phil plait
August 24th, 2005 at 7:01 am
>>Viggen – Actually, if you are Christian, you should turn the other cheek if some fanatic tries to bomb you (assuming you can find it).
*laughs* Yeah, this is true. If you’re a Taoist, you’ll do your best not to care, and if you’re a buddhist, you will work to be happy despite it all. I guess my major point in that other post was that religion is a means of rationale and a salve for emotional hurt that can be severely perverted -think suicide bomber.
Unfortunately, the human need for survival and family welfare created government to protect the people. If somebody external to the country (or, with police, inside the country) are threatening the welfare of the people, it is the government’s purpose to act as a shield. A truly passive government that turns the other cheek will be annihilated because it is not serving its basic function. I would assert that this is a big part of why Hitler walked across Europe before the start of World War II. Sad to say it, but this is a form of natural selection; when a person is threatened with death by another person, survival of the fittest is to fight back, not to roll over and die. Humans are programmed with survival instincts no less powerful than those of any other animal on the planet -don’t let any religious ideal fool you;-)
This is not to say that human motivations are simple, or that the rationale are straight forward, just that, when threatened, we must make a basic decision either to fight or run away. Ultimately, nature does not care about human morals; standing there, turning the cheek will get you eaten or clubbed to death (or shot or bombed -why suggest that these are any different?)
August 24th, 2005 at 7:17 am
A highly recommended book: “Why Intelligent Design Fails–A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism” edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis.
Everday, Science Daily [http://www.sciencedaily.com/] has several articles regarding biological evolution/sceintific research but no research articles by the Intelligent Design “scientists”.
Here’s just a few recent articles:
Gene Duplication Adapts To Changing Environment
ANN ARBOR — As scientists piece together the genomes of more and more life forms—from fruit flies to humans—they’re finding ample evidence that new genes have often been created through the duplication of existing genes. Of the more than 40,000 genes in the human genome, for example, about 15,000 appear to have been produced by gene duplication.
Zhang and colleagues were particularly interested in a pancreatic enzyme, RNASE1, which breaks down bacterial RNA. Most primates have one gene encoding the enzyme, but the researchers found that the douc langur, a colobine monkey from Asia, has two—one encodes RNASE1, and its duplicate encodes a new enzyme, which they dubbed RNASE1B. The duplication occurred about 4 million years ago, after colobines split off from the other Old World monkeys, Zhang’s analysis showed. Through a series of computations and experiments, the researchers determined that the original gene encoding RNASE1 remained unchanged after duplication, but its twin, which encodes RNASE1B, changed rapidly. Furthermore, the changes were not random; most caused the enzyme to become more negatively charged, which could affect its interaction with the RNA it degrades.
Source: American Society of Plant Biologists
Date: 2005-08-04
Trapping Genes That Control Flower Development
Identifying genes based on patterns of gene expression in specific organs or at specific stages of development is a useful approach to improving our understanding of complex biological processes. Scientists Vivian Irish at Yale University in Connecticut, Rob Martienssen at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, and their colleagues used a strategy known as “gene trapping” to identify numerous genes involved in the regulation of flower development in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana.
As noted by Dr. Martienssen “gene traps are powerful tools to examine both gene expression and gene function in animal and plant systems. Large scale studies like this are going to provide valuable information concerning regulatory networks and target genes”. Dr. Irish added “using the gene trapping strategy, we have identified a host of new genes involved in floral development, as well as illuminating some of the processes involved in establishing different tissues and organs. This general approach is very effective in providing novel insights into development that are not easily gleaned using other available techniques.”
The research paper cited in this report is available at the following link:
http://www.aspb.org/pressreleases/Sept033985.pdf
Scientists Focus On ‘Dwarf Eye’ — Genetic Finding May Have Implications For Farsightedness And Nearsightedness, Too (August 24, 2005) — Working with an Amish-Mennonite family tree, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute researchers have discovered what appears to be the first human gene mutation that causes extreme farsightedness. In the July 5 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers report that nanophthalmos, or “dwarf eye,” a rare, potentially blinding disorder, is caused by an alteration in a gene called MFRP that helps control the eye’s growth, shape and focus. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2005/08_23_05.html
Recursive Splicing: Carnegie Mellon University Research Reveals How Cells Process Large Genes (August 24, 2005) — Important messages require accurate transmission. Big genes are especially challenging. During processing, introns (non-coding elements) are snipped out and exons (coding segments) pasted together to form a template for proteins. How a cell’s molecular machinery eliminates introns without making errors has puzzled scientists for years. Now, investigators at Carnegie Mellon have discovered that a novel mechanism removes long introns by steadily paring them down in a predictable fashion and joining the remaining exons. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050824082040.htm
August 24th, 2005 at 7:30 am
*Study* Creationism?
No problem. Here’s the entire textbook for you, assuming the Judeo-Christian Creation myth:
Chapter I, or “Godidit”
Q: (insert who, what, when, why or how question)
A: God did it.
Bibliography
God et al. The Holy Bible. Gutenberg Press: Mainz, Germany 1450
Did I miss anything? Let me know here.
August 24th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Actually, the trash can computer is quite valid if you take some basic assumptions.
1. the components are indestructable
2. the shaking continues for an infinite length of time
the laws of random chance state that as time (lim>infinity) then the chances of a computer existing at some point =1
of cource the computer will be shaken to bits again pretty fast, so the trick really is to know when to stop shaking…
August 24th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Nicholas said: Thanks for the good times, but I’ve unsubscribed from your feed. You could consider being a bit more polite to those of us with different beliefs. And it isn’t like our belief is unfounded; have you ever really studied creationism?
I don’t think I was rude, but I will be quite blunt about people who want to ram through legislation — using deceptive tactics — that teaches patently wrong things to kids. I don’t mean to be rude to people who believe in ID and creationism, as I understand that beliefs– even beliefs in things that are grossly wrong– are extremely difficult to sway. But I refuse to be falsely charming when faced with the very real danger of polluting our school systems with this garbage. Science is not about belief, and belief and faith should not be taught in the schools.
Have I studied creationism? I wrote a chapter in my book about it, for one. I have read the astronomy-based writings of many creationists, including Ross, Gish, Morris, and others. I have read many creationist webpages, including those of Answers in Genesis, Inst. for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute. I have never found anything of redeeming value in those writings, and in fact found most of the “information” to be woefully out-of-date, misleading, and outright deceptive.
Do people wonder why I’m so upset? I cannot make this any more clear: creationism is wrong, demonstrably so. Provably so. Unequivocally so.
August 24th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Sounds pretty clear to me, BA. Crystal.
If someone can’t accept truth in journalism, that’s their own bad.
August 24th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
I, too, suffered from a keyboard that cannot spell. “…unles sit porposes…” I meant to say “…unless it proposes…”.
Sticks, understood that I was wrong to ascribe the analogy to you. I meant the analogy to which you drew attention.
As far as I am aware, there is not a consensus in the life sciences world of how life began. It is clear with our present understanding of biochemistry and molecular biology and cell biology that it cannot be as simple as was initially postulated back in the ’50s. The most promising line of investigation arose with the discovery of catalytic RNA. This has the potential both to encode information in a replicable form and to catalyse biochemical reactions. It does not do as good a job of the former as DNA and it does not do as good a job of the latter as many proteins, but it does not need to. A big stumbling block in explanations of how life began is that of compartmentalisation, i.e. how the first cell separated its insides from the outside. Various ideas have been proposed, but I am not aware of one being favoured above any others. Bear in mind that this particular topic is not one with which I am familiar in detail.
James – there’s one thing you forgot : you’d wear a hole in the trash can, and then where would you be?
BA, I fully agree. However, there is one bright side to the annihilation of the teaching of quality science in the US. Europe would once again lead the world in scientific endeavour, so it isn’t all bad, is it?
August 24th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
• The Bad Astronomer Says: I cannot make this any more clear: creationism is wrong, demonstrably so. Provably so. Unequivocally so.
Hi. It’s me again. Not that you really seem to care or anything. But do you realize just how many people you turn off, and drive away because of dumb statements like that? You are so full of yourself because of all of the letters that come after your name, that you actually believe that you have the last word on this subject. I have nothing but pity for you. These statements are so utterly false and with out merit that I can’t even get mad at you anymore. Not that I should have in the first place. I am just embarrassed for you. You have completely discredited yourself. There is nothing that you could show me specifically on the subject of origins that I would ever except as true. How do you expect to convince any one of my persuasion to even entertain anything that you have to say? You really need to reconsider such caustic false statements, or you will only have your fellow elitist eggheads around, and no one else to play with.
August 24th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
First let’s define terms (again). When the BA says “Creationism”, he is NOT saying “belief in God” or “that God caused it to happen”.
“Creationism” refers to the belief in God spontaneously generating life (and the universe in general). Young Earth Creationism is the most blatant form, and everything about YEC violates all the evidence of science. The only rationalization that allows YEC is that God maliciously placed fake evidence so that science would work and we would be mislead. Does that sound like the God you know?
Old Earth Creationism at least isn’t bound to the 6000 year old Earth model, and works with the “day-age” interpretation of Genesis. However, it still violates the findings of science by not accepting evolution and having issues with geology and radio-carbon dating. So again, either there’s fake evidence created by God, or OEC is wrong, too.
If you truly mean Creationism, and not God-driven Evolution, then I don’t know what else to say but that you’re a lost cause. This sentence proves it. “There is nothing that you could show me specifically on the subject of origins that I would ever except [sic] as true.” With a close-minded attitude like that, frankly, you won’t be missed.
> How do you expect to convince any one of my persuasion to even entertain anything that you have to say?
How do you expect to come on here and declare Evolution wrong and expect to convince anyone? Oh, wait, through logical persuation and presentation of evidence. You state that you were mad, but the BA did not make any statements to inspire such a reaction. He declared Creationism wrong, in no uncertain terms, but he did NOT call you an idiot or a moron or a doody-head. He made no insulting remarks. Evaluative discourse and debate is full of people declaring each other wrong – that is the essence of debate. Each side is calling the other wrong.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
As an Australian I cannot fathom this strange debate going on in the US. Neither can any of my friends. Evolution vs Intelligent Design. This debate should have ended 300 years ago.
Evolution is Science! End of story.
Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science. If anything, it belongs under the banner of religion and/or philosophy.
Here in Australia, in schools, scicence is taught as science. Intelligent design, not being science, has no place in a science class room.
For those students you wish to study ID at school, we have electives, such as comparative religious studies or philiosophy etc. If a student elects to study these, then fair enough, but lets not stuff ID down students throats.
Folcrom.
PS There are as many versions of Intelligent Design as there are religions and belief systems. Which one, would they force upon a student class room anyway?
August 24th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
BA is rude and abrupt. People who speak the truth often are.
Some creationists and some scientists are just too small-minded to accept that they might BOTH be right. It is possible for God to have created the Universe, using the Big Bang, evolution, and other science thingies to do it. Please see the story of Galileo for insightful details.
I am a scientist in part because I believe that the study of God’s creation is the highest calling possible. And there are others like me.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
The truth cannot be taught, it can only be inferred between all the non-truths that we teach our kids. There may be many mechanisms of evolution, or there may be many creation myths or there may be even more intelligent designers sitting around the table trying to program the next species on the list, all the while the boss is complaining about having been over budget on the giraffes, and how can you possibly expect me to pay for all those stripes on the zebra, it’s just ridiculous. And the beetles, my god the beetles, so many beetles.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
It may become an issue in the future – have a look at the thread I posted here. The Wedge Strategy is at work here too…
August 24th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Funny. I am the one making false statements. I wish I had a “rolleyes” icon for this page.
Where exactly have I done such a thing? When I point out links to where big-league ID proponents lie, or quote mine, or use deceptive tactics, or ignore evidence against them? Or when I point to links showing where there is so much evidence that the Universe is old that it is not an exaggeration to call it established fact? Or where I point to links that indicate that evolution is, as well, established fact?
If you think I am making false statements, you are invited to point out precisely where they are, with evidence that I am wrong. And don’t be surprised when that evidence is attacked. That’s another thing science does: attacks evidence, looking for holes, looking for flaws. It’s self-correcting, which is why it has come so far in such a relatively short time.
August 24th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
[...] The Bad Astronomer has written an extended response to Bush and Frist’s suggestion that Intelligent Design be taught in schools. [...]
August 25th, 2005 at 6:08 am
Again, BA and others with scientific thinking, you are not going to “convince” the “Creationists (of any type)”, the “Religious (of any type)”,
or the “Anti-Scientific (of any type)” with arguments, logic, rationailty, evidence, critical thinking, sciences, or with any in-depth, objective, and rational attempts at “understanding” the history of human created religions (polytheism-animism-monotheism- [or the evolution of polytheism into monotheism]…).
“Once a religion has been fed into the culture stream, it persist indefinitely or can be replaced by other imagination-induced religious systems. ” page 507 from “Science and Earth History–the Evolution/Creation Controversy” by Arthur N. Strahler. [A highly recommended book because it does thoroughly discuss both Science and Creationism.]
So, even though I find it very difficult, myself, not to continue trying to “educated” them, it won’t happen! They are totally “closed” to any logical and rational knowledge because they don’t have a “mind” capable of scientific, critical, logical, and rational thinking.
BA and others have provided numerous references for them to be able to read, review, and educate themselves but they will not or they can’t. So, why continue trying to debate them?
August 25th, 2005 at 6:27 am
I’d like to ask all the ID/Cretinist (sic) proponents out there -
Why do you think you don’t need to back up your claims like the rest of us? We created Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to show you why ID is silly.
Listen carefully: WHEN YOU CAN TELL YOURSELF WHY FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM IS SILLY NONSENSE, YOU WILL KNOW WHY WE THINK ID/CREATIONISM IS SILLY NONSENSE
August 25th, 2005 at 7:36 am
Chet Said:
> BA and others have provided numerous references for them to be able to read, review, and educate themselves but they will not or they can’t. So, why continue trying to debate them?
If it were just a matter of the obstinate, then we wouldn’t. But if we just shut up, then the opposition gets unfettered access to the airwaves and bandwidth. So we speak up, not to convince the non-listening, but to reach the people who don’t know what’s up and don’t have all the information, but are open to it.
August 26th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Irishman,
I was just referring to these BABlogs.
I do speak out; put my own home-made car window stickers; volunteer to teach leassons in my wife’s middle-school science classes; buy bumper stickers, t-shirts, caps from Evolushark.com, DarwinFish.com;
and, write letters to the editor.
I also belong to several meetup groups, too.
And, I donate books on Evolution, Atheism, Philosophy of Humanism and Naturalism, Science Fiction, etc., to the public school and local libraries.
Thanks for responding.
August 29th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Someone said before that the debates with creationists and ID supporters is not for the sake of discouraging them from their creationist ways, rahter meant to sway the opinion of the general public, which hesitates which way to go. How many creationists have you observed saying “Hey, thanks for exmplaining evolution to me, I now understand it, I was wrong to criticize it?” It’s just not going to happen and the fact that they argue about it mainly with what I can qualify as trolling (intentionally disruptive and malevolent, counterconstructive) behavior just says it all, those people are zealots trying to deny things that are true and make children learn stupid lies.
August 30th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
As a lurker, I second the notion that BA and other knowledgable folk should–have to?–continue to respond to the folk who won’t listen, knowing they won’t listen, because there are silent folk out there who will listen. At least, I have to hope so; the endless troll attacks at Kansas Citizens for Science can’t have been endured for nothing. Wishful thinking, I know; but trying to educate can’t be bad. My sincere thanks and respect to those who can continue in the face of utter refusal to learn, while I sputter and throw things.
August 31st, 2005 at 11:33 pm
i believe in science AND intelligent design! evolution and the big bang are silly!
how can u be for those lies and be a christian? u can’t!!
us evolving from a puddle is dumb and unfounded.
September 5th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
I’m a creationist. If someone would, please go to
http://www.creationscience.com/
and read the section explaining the hydroplate theory. Then, tell me the scientific problems involved in the theory. And please, be specific.
For those who don’t want to read it, I’ll just explain the basis of the theory. The hydroplate theory is a theory based on observations of the earths surface, tilt, and gravity arrangement (the arrangement of mass). The main mechanism used is gravity, which is unlike the plate tectonics theory which explains things with heat. The hydroplate theory also does a good job of explaining the formation of comets and the formation of mountains.
So I must ask: which is more likely to push huge masses of rock together with enough force to make mountains, heat or gravity? I would honestly say gravity would move rock better than circulation of lava because of heat.
Also, would someone point out a scientific or historic problem with the Bible (aside from miraculous events, which are events acting outside science).
One last question. I’m a student in high school. I have recently been taught that human life began in Africa. Logically from that knowledge one would assume that the first civilization would begin in Africa. The oldest civilization in Africa is Egypt, and as the path from Africa is primarily desert, then it would be safe to assume that the first civilization was Egypt. However, the first civilization was in Mesopotamia, in Sumer. Sumeria is the farthest point in the Fertile Crescent from Africa, if you count impassible terrain such as desert. Would someone explain this?
September 7th, 2005 at 7:29 am
I’ll take this one up M Duke:
The problems with hydroplate theory are as such:
1. Earth’s crust doesn’t float
2. Water kept 2-10 miles below the surface of the earth would be superheated. When it came back down Noah would’ve been fried, along with most other things.
Reference here
So just like most Creationist claims, it’s impossible to prove the theory wrong, but it is highly unlikely.
Pointing out contradictions/errors in the Bible to a Creationist is hard. They usually say “it’s God’s way”, or tell me I need to “interpret” the Bible correctly. But here is a resource for all things silly regarding science and history in the Bible —-> click.
Lastly, how do you define civilization? A band of humans that are self sufficient and create their own domiciles? Culture? An Economy? Or something as simple as having language?
You can email me if you have any more questions, just click my name.
September 7th, 2005 at 7:30 am
Sorry. Try rockstarryan AT rock.com
September 7th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
I take civilization by the historical definition, as in they have large cities, advanced technology, have settled down, etc. On that note, again, rescources were plentiful to begin civilization in Africa.
Also, if a plate is sealed, it will float on water. Its like saying pneumatic pumps don’t work because metal doesn’t float on air. Also, about the second point, it would make no sense, but the evolutionist theory (at least the most accepted) of a meteorite killing the diosaurs would also kill everybody and everything, and to a larger extent. I’d like to restate the point that the hydroplate theory is based on gravity and that the plate techtonic theory is based on heat moving rock. It is much more reasonable to assume that gravity pulling things in is moving the earths crust than the comparitively weak forces of heat moving solid rock laterally with sufficient force to push up mountains.
About the website of the illogical references in the Bible, i’d like to say some things. First of all, many of the problems were that the Bible said that demons caused various malformities. There are, however, references of them being stated as not caused by demons. Another on the list was that a person was blind so that Jesus could show off. But Jesus also said (as was on the website) that it was not caused by sins, in other words, God didn’t punish him, God didn’t even make it happen, but misfortune was turned into good when he was healed.
The passage in Romans eight was interpretted to say that nature proves God. By the way, this is true and can be shown by the fact that many atheists have turned to God as He provides an explanation. On that, I suggest you read “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel.
All the accusations of Revelation must be made in the light that all of Revelation was symbolic. It was written for it’s meaning, such that people of the time would readily understand it. Also, the four corners of the earth is still a term in use today.
As a note, I could say the exact same thing about the theory of evolution. You can’t disprove the theory, but its very unlikely. (I believe most modern scientific calculations concerning it’s actual likelyhood are in the vicinity of 1 to 10^2,000,000,000, which is far past what is defined as “impossible.” I would guess you have heard such things before, but it is true.)
Also, please dispute this website:
http://www.pathlights.com
in the section on evolution. And read it, please, thouroghly.
Did you actually check the information at
http://www.creationscience.com
well? Logical reasoning hurts the plate techtonic theory when some points are presented.
I thought I’d mention my opinion on what this entire web reply thing is about. Why don’t teachers just tell the students to research it on there own? Provide some resources on both sides, and let them draw their own conclusion. The theory that actually would work would be the one they should come up with. As you are well convinced that evolution is completely logical, then this would be a resonable thing to do. Unbiased students would draw the conclusion that evolution makes sense. So long as the teacher makes an unbiased statement, of course.
September 7th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
10^2,000,000,000 to 1 sounds like the probability that you blurb random wrong stuff for commericial purposes.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:37 am
I said “in the vicinity of,” there are more specific probabilities, but around that order of improbability. One is, I think, 10^10^1243 to 1, which is of course, obnoxiously low. Also, on probability, may I make this point: If you were to live a life of christianity and were wrong, it wouldn’t matter much. But if you were an atheist and you are wrong, you suffer in hell. Who would gamble eternity on anything like 10^50 to 1?
September 8th, 2005 at 9:43 am
An ignorant coward will definitely not
September 8th, 2005 at 11:24 am
M Duke, those probability arguments are based on completely wrong premises. Chemical elements do not mix together randomly! If you take oxygen and hydrogen, put them in a box, and add a spark, the odds of them combining to form water are close to 100%. But by your argument, the odds would be zero.
Please go to the Talk Origins web page and read what they have to say in the FAQ. The arguments you are using (including, I think, Pascal’s wager, which is to what you are referring in that last comment) are discussed there.
September 8th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
They don’t mix randomly. Lipids will form in a structure to protect their hydrophobic tails from water, which may form a membrane. But, as in DNA, they are ordered randomly, when you are talking the atheist origin of DNA. And notice that this is not so simple as oxygen and hydrogen making water. These are made of biological molecules, and many of them can be damaged by water. So, yes, this is probability.
Also, water will not form in the wrong situation. Sure, if you set it up to form and light the spark, it will form, but what if it’s spread in the air? What lights the spark? It requires the correct situation. In the case of DNA, RNA, proteins, et cetera, formation requires very specific requirements. You cannot prove the atmosphere was once radically different (which is required for such things to form). I do think we ourselves can’t create functional proteins or DNA. What makes us think moving water (or wind, it’s still random) can do it?
Add that to Pascals statement, you cannot be sure of which is true, creation or evolution. You can play it safe either way, or you can risk hell for a chance of 75 years of pleasure (which isn’t really much, as this life is not good in the eyes of an atheist, as former atheist John Clayton said). Either way, the argument I used still applies.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
No it doesn’t. You haven’t read the Talk-Origins page, obviously.
Amino acids are easy to make; we find them in meteorites, for example. Complex molecules do in fact get built up from simpler ones. Water does form when mixed in air; if you take hydrogen and disperse it, you can bet it’ll form water at some point. It’s too unstable. Have you ever taken a chemistry class? There are reasons some chemicals are kept away from students.
DNA didn’t just form spontaneously overnight It took tens of millions of years, developing bit by bit. That’s one of many reasons your statistical argument is utterly wrong, and inappropriate to use in this situation.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Amino acids are not exactly so spontaneous. Most amino acids, if formed in the theoretical way, would be half and half left and right handed. Also, notice that amino acids are in meteorites. How did they get there in the first place? Obviously they wouldn’t have formed with access to many materials neccessary. And notice that they also have left handed in them; this happens to support the hydroplate theory. And some of my questions have not been answered. How does the plate techtonic theory account for mountains? The theory resides on the force of heat. But can the heat move plates horizontally with enough force to make mountains? Consider how much resistance would be in place. I thought that rejecting plate techtonics was rediculous, until that was pointed out.
Pascals statement works no matter how high or low the probability is; it is still a probability and can never fully be proven. It is a matter of how much you are willing to risk. That is all. But the risk is eternity.
By the way, I actually haven’t taken a chemistry class yet, but not all of this requires such advanced knowledge.
September 9th, 2005 at 10:44 am
First of all, many of the problems were that the Bible said that demons caused various malformities. There are, however, references of them being stated as not caused by demons.
This is not condtradictory how? Another case of faith getting in the way of critical thinking…
You need to check sources other than those you listed. All the claims made at creationscience.com have been debunked on talkorigins.org.
… As you are well convinced that evolution is completely logical…
Not just logical, FACT. To anyone who says evolution has not occured, I say this: You are obviously ignorant as to what the word means. Being young, I don’t hold it against you, but listen -
Biological Evolution at its core means a change in the gene pool of a population over time. That’s it. You my friend have had the distinct pleasure of witnessing this in your own lifetime. Think about antibiotic resistant bacteria. Or insect repellant resistant insects. (Do not bring up Kent Hovind’s ridiculous challenge until you have read this.
Also, the fact you can poke holes in plate techtonics does not make hydroplate theory any more likely. Where are the peer reviewed journals on hydroplate theory? It’s called working backwards to scientists: You have a conclusion, now you need a theory to back it up. Science bases conclusions on observation, then testing/experiment/repeat. Not one Creationist canard does this. All “Creation Science” does is this:
1. Goddidit
2. Try to prove science wrong to show #1 is correct.
If I sound curt, it is because this type of thing is like a steering wheel in my pants – It drives me nuts…
September 9th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
I already know that evolution is a change in a gene pool. Also, you did not answer the question.
When I say that you think the theory is logical, I mean the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution, which are different on several key points. The theory says that evolution will change species into new species. The fact, so far, has proven change within a gene pool. That is, obviously, important.
Please anwer my question regarding the force of heat making mountains or producing enough force to make earthquakes.
Have you read the case for faith? All it is is a reporter obaining information from proffecionals, and the explainations work.
September 9th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
M Duke you are repeating arguments that have been long-debunked countless times. Please go to the Talk Origins site and do a search. All these arguments are covered there.
September 9th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
I already did, and I didn’t find the answer to my question. So, please, answer the question about heat.
Also, we should be obseving such slow change alot. And we should also see it in the fossil record. By saying that this is because this rarely happens, you are saying that standard species are more likely to be buried than transitional species. This doesn’t hold.
And have you read The Case for Faith in detail?
September 9th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
I have read many creationist books, and found them all to be wrong in both gross and fine detail.
I suggest you read Richard Dawkins, where again he covers this ground.
September 9th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
I will look into that. But have you read the Case for Faith? It is mainly about the phylisophical accusations against Christianity, not the scientific, but it does cover that briefly. However, you haven’t answered my question yet. Nor the answer to Pascals statement, which I haven’t found yet on talkorigins. So, please just answer them.
September 12th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Here or here for observed cases of speciation.
Here for the flaws in Pascal’s Wager.
Keep in mind, it is not our job to answer your questions. Do the research yourself.
September 12th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
The Bible specificly says that God loves obedience. Think of it this way: if there is a God, and you don’t believe Him, and don’t obey Him, God has no reason to bring you to heaven. Heaven, in the Bible, is non-symbollicly shown as being with God. Remember, God is described as being perfect. You cannot convince God with good deeds, because they will pail in comparison to God. So the argument that one should live benevolently doesn’t work. What works is to find out what religion is true, and to act on it. And it doesn’t waste all of your time. May I say most of us probably waste more time doing pointless things like whaching TV which could be spent on much more useful things. I would say you could spend time helping humanity and on religion, you just have to use your time well.
I hope my explaination wasn’t too vague.
September 12th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
I really didn’t mean to be a bitch, it’s just so frustrating trying to discuss scientific facts with those who will not open their minds to even contemplate the truth behind them.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:36 am
It’s OK to capitalize “God”. I mean, hey, we capitalize “Santa Claus”, “Peter Pan” and “Superman”, right?
September 13th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
When you said I used lipids in reference to DNA, I was making a statement about the whole cell, not just DNA. And right and left handedness has to do with amino acids in protein.
What I can tell is this: you haven’t thought of some very simple things or read some things. Rocks will not float on water: that is true. But you misunderstand the hydroplate theory by saying “this is why it cannot work.” Think of pneumatics. Metal doesn’t float on air. But, if the metal blocks all escape of air, the air will lift it. This is similar to the hydroplate theory. In theory, most of the earths water was a layer under a layer of rock. The rock was impermiable, so the water couldn’t get through. Eventually, the pressure cracked the surface and the water escaped.
Also, you misunderstand how the hydroplate theory explains movement of the earths crust. Please, read the explaination at
http://www.creationscience.com/
I would also suggest you read The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. It covers your accusation of God.
About DNA: it replicates itself, yes. It can also vary. But, it varies by what it can vary. Once you have a DNA molecule formed by chance, it’s going to replicate itself as is. It may vary, but you may notice that we people have mapped the human genome. We know how much our DNA can vary. It cannot vary beyond that point, there is a limited gene pool within ones genetic makup can vary.
What you said about the Bible being entirely unproven is not true. It is known that Jesus exsisted. It is also known that the list of kings in the old testament is accurate. It may also be said that one should look at the prophecies in the old testament. Go to:
http://pathlights.com/onlinebooks/David%20Dare/David%20Dare%20TOC.htm
and read it. Please.
By the way, were did we get the week then? Seven is not a number that comes to mind if I were to think of the idea of weeks. Six would work better (5 for work, 1 for rest) or just forget about weeks. But if we made up God, then why did we make up weeks, a practice that has apparently been followed for a long, long time.
September 13th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
God damnit, I’m really sorry about that. The page kept telling me that it wasn’t posting. If you could delete some of those, Mr. BA? I forgot to add a few notes until the final posting, so all above that can be disregarded.
September 14th, 2005 at 6:11 am
Yet another note: my use of the terms mantle and crust may be incorrect for I do not really remember high school geology. However, I do believe my argument still stands. If you can prove me wrong, do it.
September 14th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Saying that the water would have seeped out defeats other arguments for evolution, actually. On the talkorigins website, they state that the reason oil hasn’t seeped up is because it met impermiable rock. Same thing in the hydroplate theory. And I didn’t get the impression you read the website. Maybe you will understand it better if you read the equivilent of a book instead of simply viewing the 5 minute video.
Also, you said that our genomes change rapidly for every generation. So, are we getting better? Are we changing much? Also, changing the order doesn’t do much to change into a species. Significant variations in the DNA count (size, whatever) is known to cause severe disabilities. It is also required (however slowly) to change to a new species with a new chromosome count. Do younger generations have more DNA?
I might note that I hadn’t even watched the movie on that website before you pointed it out, and I don’t believe I would have been convinced of the hydroplate theory either. Then, I read the website. It so happens that it makes sense.
It may be said that “weeks” make no difference in a year. They are independent of the months, which is obvious as not all months are exactly a number of weeks, each has its own number of days. If the mayan calender is scientificly accurate, what are weeks based on? Scientificly, at least.
By the way, I have a thought. If uranium came from the exploding of supernovas tens of millions of years ago (billions actually, if I have it correct), then how is it (and other radioactive elements) still around? It does have a very long half life, yes. But not long enough to last for these incredible amounts of time and still be in sufficeint quantities for us to use. Also, if the uranium was part of the molten earth, wouldn’t it have gone down to the core of the earth in a liquid earth? U238 is very, very, dense, 2.5 times denser than steel, one of the most dense materials known to man. It is because of this the US military uses it in piercing shells, letting them simply tear through armor. It would well have sunk to the center, and then you would have had other heavy metals, such as mercury, lead, and things like gold as well. But, instead, the earths core is magnetic, probably containing elements in the iron triad. All the heavy elements are at the crust, in little pockets, well contained and surrounded by rock. Are you going to suggest that giant golden meteors crashed into the earth some long time ago? Gold (and many of the heavy elements) are very weak. Also, they melt easier than other elements that are normally solid. U piercing shells will easily melt if the armor of the target is thick enough, and the armor usually is. (this does, of course, make depleted uranium very much more dangerous as a weapon, because if you are in a cramped, hot tank, and you get hit by a DU shell, you now have molten uranium everywere. Not good) Anyway… so, how do we know have uranium? Uranium would melt (at least partially) if it came through the atmosphere, so any lucky thing below better run. And I don’t think it is reallistly possible to say that there are giant, gold meteors in space. Lead, maybe, but lead is also very weak.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
>>Remember, God is described as being perfect. You cannot convince God with good deeds, because they will pail in comparison to God. So the argument that one should live benevolently doesn’t work.
I’m sorry if this is incredibly off-topic, but reading this, I instantly thought of that MAD Magazine article “A Typical Religion Fanatic Tract” of issue #372 August 1998 ($2.50 Cheap!)
September 16th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Crystal, one point. Please be more careful with your language. This is supposed to be a child friendly website. While I’m not offended by your language, it is unnecessary and detracts from the tone of your responses.
September 16th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
M Duke Said:
>I have recently been taught that human life began in Africa. Logically from that knowledge one would assume that the first civilization would begin in Africa. The oldest civilization in Africa is Egypt, and as the path from Africa is primarily desert, then it would be safe to assume that the first civilization was Egypt. However, the first civilization was in Mesopotamia, in Sumer. Sumeria is the farthest point in the Fertile Crescent from Africa, if you count impassible terrain such as desert. Would someone explain this?
That is a very interesting question. That question, in fact, was a strong contributor to the basis for Jerrod Diamond’s book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel”. Summary: the early human population spread from Africa around the globe while the people were still in the hunter-gatherer mode. This is a nomadic life, and conducive to spreading. Development of the first step toward what we call civilization was driven by a couple of factors. One was the onset of an ice age, making resources more scarce. Another was certain geographic conditions. The Fertile Crescent is a region that had several high energy density food plants available. Agriculture began by populations learning to stay in one place (scarce water, shelter, etc) and cultivating the food plants rather than migrating to harvest naturally growing plants.
That region of Asia was home to two native grasses that produced edible seeds. The climate was dry, conducive to the creation of the first graineries – storing grain from one year to the next and beyond to tide over the winter, replant in spring, select the best for later crops, and eat during times of famine. Other regions of the world weren’t so lucky. Places like sub-Saharan Africa and New Guinea were not home to native edible plants with high energy density. High energy density means the food goes a long way for the effort to produce/harvest it. Low energy density means a lot of effort goes in to producing a small amount of calories (i.e. food).
The same region was also home to several large animals, what have become typical livestock. Chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, cows, horses, and donkeys are all native to the area. As agriculture developed, so did cultivation of animals – animal husbandry. This produced animals for food sources, including milk, eggs. Also animals for labor. Other regions of the world are not home to such diversity of animals that could be domesticated. For instance, while zebras resemble horses they are actually much more aggressive and tempermental.
Agriculture and animal husbandry provided the extra resources to allow specialization of work – some farmed, some shepherded, some learned to weave, etc. This is what drove the building of civilization. Hunter-gatherer societies that did not have these resources did not develop the agricultural way of life.
September 17th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Egypt is very agriculture friendly. For one thing, the Nile floods predictibly and gives very fertile ground. The Fertile Crescent, though it is very easy to grow crops, does not flood predictibly. And Egypt is a very good place to store food. In all respects, the Nile river would have been a preferable place to settle down.
Also, to what was said earlier about the Biblical prophecies being vague, there is something one should point out. The Biblical prophecies tended to name what they were prophesying about. The prophecies about Ninevah, for example. They said that Ninevah would be destroyed, would never be inhabitted agian, and that shepherds would feed their herds in its basin. Well, what happened? Ninevah was destroyed. No people have yet settled there permanently. And shepherds do tend to their flocks in it’s basin. You could also read the prophecy of Tyre, Babylon, or Memphis, to see what they say. And, of course, if they are accurate.
To add on to what Crystal said about weeks, it may be noted that weeks were used by the Romans. And the Chinese. And the Babylonians. We use the same week as they did. The seven days is often said to come from one of two sources: the Babylonians or the Jews. But, of course, here is the problem: how did the Mayans, in central America, have the same week as the Romans or Babylonians?
September 19th, 2005 at 7:14 am
If the days of the week are support for faith, would it not be Norse faith a la “Woden’s day”, “Thor’s day”, “Freya’s day”, etc.?
Selective data = Creationist’s friend
September 19th, 2005 at 8:36 am
The number of days in the week is important. The names come from Norse mythology and Roman mythology, because thats where we get most of the English language from, so Wodens (Odins) day, Freyas (Frejas) day, Thors day, Saturns day, Jupiters day (I believe tuesday is named after him, either that or monday. No idea how), et cetera et cetera. So, anyway, it really makes no difference the names of the days, just that we have weeks at all.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
The Babylonians selected 7 days because there were 7 observable moving heavenly bodies – i.e. 5 planets, the Sun, and the Moon. The planets were associated with gods and the names were assigned accordingly. The names were translated from the Sumerian and Babylonian to the Greek and then the Latin – by associating the prior god with the closest similar current god. The Latin names were eventually replaced by the Anglo-Saxon gods that were similar, and that’s where the current English names come from.
The day sequence is a bit debated, but the best theory is that if you consider the “planets” based upon how long it takes for each to circle the Earth (and use a year for the Sun), then this establishes a certain order. Then assign each name in sequence to the hours in the day, they cycle such that it produces the day order we see.
http://www.friesian.com/week.htm
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html
The Mayan calendar is completely different. It has two types of “week” cycles of 13 and 20 days. It bears little relation to the Western calendar.
http://www.michielb.nl/maya/calendar.html
September 20th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Forgot to mention…
M Duke Said:
>Sumeria is the farthest point in the Fertile Crescent from Africa, if you count impassible terrain such as desert. Would someone explain this?
Geography now is not necessarily indicative of geography then. Much of the Middle East was much more fertile in the past. The pathway for early human expansion was likely up through the eastern part of Africa, not across the Sahara. The developments didn’t occur until after humanity had spread around the world. There really is nothing to need to explain.
>Egypt is very agriculture friendly. For one thing, the Nile floods predictibly and gives very fertile ground. The Fertile Crescent, though it is very easy to grow crops, does not flood predictibly. And Egypt is a very good place to store food. In all respects, the Nile river would have been a preferable place to settle down.
It was not just the fact that the land was conducive to farming, it took a certain amount of mental development (which is why did didn’t happen before humanity got spread around the globe) and it took a certain culmination of events and factors. Mesopotamia developed first. Diamond proposes that what sparked the swap to agriculture was actually a drought. The difficulty of finding water led to the people staying near a good water source and moving plants closer to them. I’m not sure what plants are native the the Nile delta that would have encouraged being farmed.
>>>The reasons of the head start, again, boil down to luck: the author shows how some areas had the good fortune of having both good climate (for a fairly elastic definition of good) and a good starter set of wild species that lent themselves to domestication. The luckiest ones, apparently, were the Mesopotamians that got the wild ancestors of wheat, chickpeas, flax, barley, cows, goats, pigs and other terribly useful species. Close seconds where the Chinese.
>>>Contrast that with the Central America, where the starter set was only the somewhat difficult to select corn, turkey, amaranth, beans and no large pack animal.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=826140
September 20th, 2005 at 11:10 am
M Duke Said:
> Think of it this way: if there is a God, and you don’t believe Him, and don’t obey Him, God has no reason to bring you to heaven. Heaven, in the Bible, is non-symbollicly shown as being with God. Remember, God is described as being perfect.
If I don’t believe in God, I have no reason to fear not being with him in the non-existent afterlife. I first have to believe for that outcome to have any meaning to me.
>You cannot convince God with good deeds, because they will pail in comparison to God. So the argument that one should live benevolently doesn’t work. What works is to find out what religion is true, and to act on it.
You’ve just negated Pascal’s wager yourself. The whole point of the wager is you don’t know what religion is true, there isn’t enough evidence to tell. If you have the evidence, you don’t need the ambiguous wager.
September 21st, 2005 at 3:35 am
Let me put it this way: Pascals wager deals with any religion and athiesm. To find out which religion, you should check each religion to see which holds the most truth. Now, if you have undeniable evidence that evolution most certainly did occur, then go ahead.
Also, the big bang doesn’t seem to hold: I’ve recently read a Popular Science issue on the problems with the big band that could lead to the destruction of the theory. Of course, the next theory probably won’t be creation, but it probably won’t hold very long, as the universe is somewhat difficult to explain.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:54 am
Sorry, forgot to add something. When I say fear I mean fear of death. A true Christian doesn’t fear death. A true Christian also doesn’t find discomfort or threats to challanging, because the only reason they live is to obey God and to help other people in this life. If they die, it is regretful, as they have lost opprotunity to help, but it also means heaven. I hope this made my point more clear.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:11 am
Irishman – I’m sorry for my language. I’ll try to refrain from now on. I simply type exactly how I speak, and I speak very colorfully.
Also, I’m sorry if some of my arguments are inaccurate – up to this point, I’ve only given knowledge that I’ve acquired from my university classes, not things that I’ve truly researched. I would assume that everything taught in a university setting is either fact or theory with hard evidence as backing, as it should be. But now there’s Bush trying to have ID taught in schools, which is neither fact nor backed by hard evidence…so yeah…If you ever want me to back up my information, let me know. I can usually do it. But when I can’t, I do sincerely apologize.
M Duke – How long do I have to go on with you about genes? You continue to ask the same question and I give you the exact same answer, yet you refuse to accept it.
“Also, you said that our genomes change rapidly for every generation. So, are we getting better?” – Yes, slowly but surely. Evolution is a process that has taken billions of years. What do you expect to see, me give birth to Superman? Every second our genes are changing, sometimes for the best and sometimes for the worst. “Are we changing much?” Look above. “Also, changing the order doesn’t do much to change into a species.” If you change the order one nucleotide at a time, and these changes occur every 20 nanoseconds, it’s quite possible to develop the characteristics of a new species over time. “Significant variations in the DNA count (size, whatever) is known to cause severe disabilities.” Maybe your argument should be a little more solid. Any kind of variation within the alleles of a gene is generally a mutation. To most, mutation is a bad word. But this is not the case: it’s simply is another form of a gene that causes a different characteristic to show than the normal gene. A mutation can be the difference between brown eyes and blue eyes. And who says these are bad? “It is also required (however slowly) to change to a new species with a new chromosome count. Do younger generations have more DNA?” In general, different species have a different number of chromosomes. There are many proven genetic processes that can explain for these different chromosome counts, including translocation and additions/deletions of genes. I don’t really know chromosome numbers of different species, but I assume that the number of chromosomes began small and grew to be larger. This can occur through the duplication of one chromosome in the gametes (egg and sperm cells) that is then passed on. Although the offspring will be genetically imbalanced, it is possible for this offspring to survive. To carry on this new chromosome to form a new species, the offspring from the previous mating must mate with themselves (brother and sister must mate = inbreeding). If this occurs, a normal progeny will be produced with the extra chromosome. I’m pretty sure I explained this correctly, but if you want to read it, go here: http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/dec97/875507503.Ge.r.html.
On to the hydroplate theory question: I didn’t need to read it to know it was incorrect because I had read so much critical evidence against it that there wasn’t any reason to begin to believe that it is true. I’d like to ask you to send me some peer-reviewed journals regarding hydroplate theory, because I’d like to know what respected professionals think of it. I’d also like you to show me how that this theory does not, in fact, work backwards, meaning it doesn’t begin with the conclusion (a great flood happened in Noah’s time). Real theories begin with a well-formulated hypothesis due to observation. Oh yeah, visit this site to find some very strong evidence against it: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm.
I believe the question regarding the calendar was already touched on, so I’ll skip that.
Now your last paragraph. I didn’t understand one bit of it except for the presence of uranium now. Maybe someone else can explain the part to you about sinking and such, but I can explain why we still have uranium. I found the following: “238U with a half-life of 4.51 x 10^9 years, has been used to estimate the age of igneous rocks. The origin of uranium, the highest member of the naturally occurring elements – except perhaps for traces of neptunium or plutonium, is not clearly understood. However it may be presumed that uranium is a decay product of elements with higher atomic weight, which may have once been present on earth or elsewhere in the universe. These original elements may have been formed as a result of a primordial creation, known as the big bang, in a supernova, or in some other stellar processes.” This site: http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/92.htm. There’s your explanation. Uranium’s half-life, the time required to deplete its mass by 50%, is 4.91 billion years. The universe is estimated to be around 15-20 billion years. With this in mind, there is no possible way that the uranium found in now is the same as the uranium that was found in the beginning of the universe. However, as explained above, it is generally accepted that most uranium is the product of the decay of higher-atomic mass, which are more unstable and prone to decay. If you want further proof and evidence that stars form new chemical elements, go here: http://photon.phys.clemson.edu/wwwpages/StarLife.html. It’s very interesting.
I’d also like to read this article in Popular Science about disproving the Big Bang Theory. Could you give me the information?
And lastly, I’m not Christian and I do not fear death. Why should you fear death when it’s inevitable? I will cease to function, and there’s nothing I can do about it. That’s something people need to learn to deal with. Had they already, there wouldn’t be a necessity for a god.
September 22nd, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Ooops, I explained half-life incorrectly. I’m getting all my classes confused.
Anyways, half-life is the time required for the decay of half the population of the element undergoing decay. Is that confusing? This is better: “Definition: The time required to convert one half of a reactant to product. The term is commonly applied to radioactive decay, where the reactant is the parent isotope and the product is a daughter isotope.” http://chemistry.about.com/library/glossary/bldef538d.htm. My bad.
September 24th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Atoms above Uranium tend to last less than a second. None can account for millions of years of age. And yes, it would take great amounts of time to decay all of Uranium. However, the longer it goes on, the faster it decays, and we would expect less Uranium than we have. Much less.
The hydroplate theory began with “if there was a flood.” Looking at a description of the flood in the Bible (the fountains of the deep) and looking at the earths crust (and other information), it turned out that the theory explained why we have comets, mountains, shape of the earths crust, et cetera. Actually, I have found that it is workable into the evolutionary theory and explains the extinction of the dinosaurs and various other fossil remains better than the meteorite theory. Or the Oort cloud theory.
About mutations. The variations, what you are describing, are limited by the gene pool. If one devolopes down syndrome (has one extra chromosome), they would probably be infertile and very incapable of survival. They would still be the same species, however. Also, it may be noted that horses have 72 chromosomes, we have 46 chromosomes, and rice, I believe, has over 200 chromosomes. Chickens have around 8 chromosomes. It must be said that, if new chromosomes were added as you have described, then we should be seeing new species showing up all the time. What you have described can create a species in a few generations.
I would like to clarify “variation” (change in the code) change in the size of the DNA. The second doesn’t happen very often, and usually is a bad mutation (such as being bombarded with gamma radiation. Your DNA may change, but not orderly as in reproduction, which chooses from a gene pool. Usually, radiation=death). I hope this makes something clear.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Concerning length of weeks, which was mentioned several times in previous postings:
I have, as an amateur and for personal enlightenment, researched a bit online and in books concerning calendars, sundials, astronomy, etc. My studies support that the days of the week are named after the gods, and seem to be similar in many cultures (tied to the planets). On my Sundials page, written a few years ago, I list the day names in Spanish and the equivalent names of gods.
As far as the length of a week: my (again amateur and personal interest) research leads me to think that this is tied directly to the length of time it take for the moon to cycle through its phases.
New Moon to Quarter Moon
Quarter Moon to Full Moon
Full Moon to Quarter Moon
Quarter Moon to New Moon
Each phase takes one week.
Admittedly, this isn’t exact because a lunar cycle isn’t exactly 28 days (it’s a bit more, if I remember), but it’s close.
Look at this month’s calendar, September 2005. My calendar shows the different phases on these dates:
Sunday, September 11
Sunday, September 18
Sunday, September 25
The next one is eight days later, on Monday, October 3
That’s my take on the reason for the length of a week. My web site has links to a small number of interesting sundial and astronomy sites, if anyone is interested.
Albert Franco
alfranco584@yahoo.com
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:48 pm
I’ve only read page 126 of this thread so far, and admittedly, some of these arguments are a little over my head. But there is one detail which I haven’t seen mentioned so far.
The current debate is whether creationalism should be taught in school science classes. As others have pointed out, religious beliefs (such as an ultra powerful all seeing invisible man creating everything) are not scientific, in that such beliefs are only backed by faith. Those beliefs can be studied in religious classes, philosophy classes, churches, etc. instead.
I’ve seen very few arguments for banning religion in schools, or religion at all, and there’s nothing wrong with believing in such things if you do. If someone was arguing that people should teach in churches that $deity doesn’t exist, and that creationalism is a falsehood which should be ignored, THAT would be wrong. And by going into a science class, and arguing that evolution is a falsehood which can be ignored, you’re doing something equally wrong. Yet that is exactly what many are arguing for.
In short, if you want to believe that we exist due to the work of God, or Budda, or Allah, or Jehovah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever, that’s your choice. Keep whatever faith you want, and pray that your group will be the one that can escape eternal damnation for being the one that was correct. But if you have nothing scientific to back it up conclusively, keep it out of science class.
I just found these forums today and this is my first post, so I hope I didn’t say anything that was too obvious.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:21 pm
In politics, and school is very political, teaching controversy is something most leaders would want to avoid. They just don’t want the pressure.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
M Duke-
Exactly how did you come up with the claim that the longer Uranium decays, the faster it decays? Last time I checked, the decay of radioactive elements is constant and is not affected by any natural processes.
Also, there are numerous atoms above Uranium that have half-lives much longer than a second including Americium-241(used in smoke detectors) with a half life of 432 years, Neptunium-237 with a half life of 2.1 million years, and Plutonium-244 with a half life of over 80 million years the last two of which DO occur naturally in the earth’s crust.
October 4th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Elements below Uranium decay faster, usually much faster. I read on a military web site, about depleted uranium, that the longer the uranium is around the faster it begins to decay. The decay elements will decay after the Uranium decays, and as most of them decay faster, that means that the more Uranium that decays the more of elements like radon and francium there are to decay. I hope I explained this well.
Sorry, I was wrong. However, elements above plutonium and americinium usually have half lives of less than a second, correct?
October 4th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Yes, some elements above atomic number 95(Americium) do have half lives longer than a second but the half-lives are still much shorter than those used in radiometric dating. None of them occur naturally on the face of the earth either(except for some traces left by nuclear bomb tests over the Pacific Ocean) so they have no bearing on the radiometric dating issue anyways.
You are also correct that the daughter products of Uranium decay much faster than Uranium itself, but the actual decay of Uranium into these other radioisotopes is constant and is NOT affected by any natural processes.
October 4th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Actually, as half life is determined by the amount of the element in that place, and uranium is easily broken down by acid, it can be changed by applying acid. Also, uranium itself is not changed in decay in a closed system. But, the longer it decays, the more daughter products it produces, and those products tend to decay very quickly. So the combined result decays faster, even if the actual uranium is slowing down in decay.
October 5th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Yes, uranium can be altered by acid. That’s why geologists don’t just pick up a rock sample alongside the road that’s been exposed for who knows how long and then decide to date it. Only samples that have been in a closed system since they were formed are used. Usually a process similar to that used to obtain ice core samples is used and then multiple samples are subjected to multiple dating methods to determine the correct ageo of the specimen. There is a somewhat large margin of error when radiodating rocks, usually anywhere from 5-50 million years but when you compare this to the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, it is relatively small. Also, it is very easy to tell if a certain sample of rock has been altered by acid, heat, pressure or a number of other processes. If you’ve ever looked at a piece of Shale and the compared it with a Slate or a Phyllite, You can easily see that metamorphisim has altered the Shale significantly, but not so much so that the parent rock can not be determined. In addition, the cement that holds most sedimentary rocks together is Calcium Carbonate, the minerals Calcite and Dolomite, Both of which are disolved quickly in any type of acid. Therefore if a rock has come into contact with even small amounts of acid, the cement holding the rocks together will probably have been totally eaten away, something that would be quite apparent to the naked eye.
If I remember correctly, Uranium-Lead dating is usually used as a secondary dating method, the most reliable, acurate, and most often used technique is Potassium-Argon dating. K-Ar dating is usually the first method used and then the numer obtained is compared with other dating methods including U-Pb dating, if the dating obtained from each of the methods agree with each other within the margin of error listed above then we can conclude that the rock had not been significantly altered during the course of it’s lifetime.
I would also suggest reviewing the process of radioactive decay and the defintion of half-life at some the following sites as what you said in your last entry did not make any sense at all.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/radioactivity/radioactivity.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit (section 2.1 near the bottom of the page will be helpful)
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/lawdecay.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
October 7th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Since you are still here, M. Duke, and I now have time, I’ve decided to reply.
I recently had a talk with my genetics professor at UNL regarding evolutionary biology. He kindly provided me with information to argue your points. I haven’t successfully found proof on the internet that what he has told me is true, though I can not disagree with him, from what I’ve learned. If you understand genetics at all, you will understand that what I am about to tell you is logical.
“About mutations. The variations, what you are describing, are limited by the gene pool.” The current assumption is that variations are limited by the gene pool of that generation, but the next generation will have a different gene pool, and the next will have a different as well. Every generation will have a different gene pool due to relatively high frequency of mutations. In addition, new genes can be produced, mostly due to mutations. New genes can code for new traits, thus enhancing the gene pool and allowing “better” (for lack of a better word) species to arise.
“If one devolopes down syndrome (has one extra chromosome), they would probably be infertile and very incapable of survival. They would still be the same species, however.”
You’re correct with the infertile and very incapable of survival part. And they are, still, the same species. HOWEVER, it is not simply the addition of ONE chromosome that forms a new species, it is the addition or deletion of an ENTIRE SET of chromosomes that forms a new species. This does occur naturally when a cell’s chromosomes spontaneously duplicate. It is rare, but it still occurs. It can also be induced by the introduction of colchicine, which hinders the formation of spindle fibers that attach to the centromeres of the chromosomes to pull them apart during meiosis or mitosis. Therefore, one cell (or two, depending on which process and at what stage) is formed with an extra set of chromosomes. It can lastly be accomplished by the binding of two different diploid or polyploid cells.
“Also, it may be noted that horses have 72 chromosomes, we have 46 chromosomes, and rice, I believe, has over 200 chromosomes. Chickens have around 8 chromosomes.”
I don’t care.
“It must be said that, if new chromosomes were added as you have described, then we should be seeing new species showing up all the time. What you have described can create a species in a few generations.”
Sorry that I explained this process incorrectly before. But look above and you’ll understand.
“I would like to clarify “variationâ€? (change in the code) change in the size of the DNA.”
What?
“The second doesn’t happen very often, and usually is a bad mutation (such as being bombarded with gamma radiation. Your DNA may change, but not orderly as in reproduction, which chooses from a gene pool. Usually, radiation=death). I hope this makes something clear.”
Still lost here. A bad mutation isn’t being bombarded with gamma radiation. Gamma radiation causes damage to the backbone of DNA (the sugars and phosphates) which, unfortunately, completely destroys the viability of the polymer in gametes. So yes, gamma radiation=death. However, it is only the cells that are actually affected by gamma radiation that die. So what does this have to do with genetic variation?
I suggest you read this page, in its entirety: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html. If you have any questions or don’t understand something, I will explain it to you. But you need to read it and understand it before you make any further assumptions regarding genetic mutation, variation, etc.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Sorry, x rays can change the structure in DNA (like how it was used on fruit flies to cause variation). My point is, there is considerable difference between a mutation and a variation. Mutations are when something happens that isn’t supposed to happen. In most cases, this is bad. It also may have no effect. Or, in very rare cases, it may help. Normal variations are not so random. Does this help clear things up?
November 22nd, 2005 at 4:01 pm
M Duke Said:
>Let me put it this way: Pascals wager deals with any religion and athiesm. To find out which religion, you should check each religion to see which holds the most truth.
That’s just illogical. If you have truth that can be measured, you don’t need the silly wager. It’s only when you don’t have evidence so can’t judge based on the merits that atheism becomes a question. If you gave some reasonable evidence, 95% of all the atheists out there would concede the point. It’s that lack of evidence that most of them base their position on. Pascal’s Wager is invoked to justify belief in God because there is no evidence to convince the atheist, so something else is required. So again I have to ask, which God, which religion, which set of religious beliefs and practices, which ceremonies and rites?
And how do we know that God would accept our belief based upon some silly Wager anyway? After all, he’s omniscient – he knows what we’re thinking. Do you think he’s approve of someone who believes out of fear? How do you prove God isn’t the type who wants us to use this reasoning process he infested us with? Didn’t he give us this brain, this ability to think, to reason? What if he wants us to use it, and would hold it against us for using the lazy out of believing just because it’s easier?
Also, Pascal’s Wager is based on the assumption that once you’re dead, there’s no second chance to decide. We are born on Earth and live some limited time here with primitive and unsure access to information about god and what he wants, and then we die where we will spend Eternity. Eternity – say it again to make sure you get the comparison – a blip of time to think and decide, and an Eternity to experience the consequences. And God requires that we decide before we know the answer. What? Once you’re dead, it’s too late. Nevermind that that’s the first time most of us get anything like convincing evidence – experience the truth yourself. Why is it that I can be a murderer and rapist and cannibal and mean and spiteful and vicious for my whole life but choose to believe at the last second while alive and get into heaven, but be a decent, loving, polite, pleasant, kind person all my life but wait until after I’m dead to decide and have to go to Hell? That’s a loving God?
>Now, if you have undeniable evidence that evolution most certainly did occur, then go ahead.
Mutation occurs. Natural selection occurs. Genetic recombination occurs. Variation in traits occurs. Sexual selection occurs. Changes in characteristics of species occur. These are all demonstrated in the laboratory and in the wild. Evolution certainly did occur.
Now if you mean that these processes are the sum total of processes that lead to the development and diversity of life on this planet, that’s a little less certain. But they certainly played a role, and we have yet to identify where they are insufficient. As for origins of life from non-life, the details there have not been discovered yet, but scientists are working on it. There are good pointers in the nature of organic molecules in asteroids, and in the ability of some complex molecules to form on inorganic (clay) structures. There are good ideas related to the heat and pressure from early bombardment of Earth, and in undersea vents.