With the recent hullaballoo over my foray, once again, into showing how ridiculous young-Earth creationism is, and the sheer flood of comments from people who have completely and utterly missed the point of what I wrote, I thought it would be fun to hand out a little more smackdown.
This time, I have help! It’s from Shane Killian, a fellow skeptic who has posted some YouTube videos about various and sundry aspects of twisting reality. He’s done an excellent job of debunking creationism in his series called "Bogosity". In Part 2, he takes on creationism versus real astronomy. Full disclosure: he has some help in this part by someone you may recognize (hint: look at the very upper right part of this blog page).
And I suppose to avoid a bunch of comments from people who still don’t get it: in these posts (and in this video) I am not attacking religion in general or even Christianity specifically. I am attacking creationism, because it’s wrong, and because so many of its propagators are liars, and so many of them are very, very eager to tear down the separation between Church and State.
Got it? Great! Now watch us destroy creationism. Enjoy.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
keep fighting the good fight my friend
June 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
And why is it such a sin to criticize Christianity? The BA knows that the cosmology of the Bible is completely wrong.
Christianity is almost certainly the single biggest obstacle to the public understanding of science.
As Sinead O’Connor said, ‘Fight the real enemy’.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Long ago, I had a page that was full of various sayings, both mine and others, and this one seems appropriate:
People reduce their god to what they can comprehend.
J/P=?
June 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Creationism is another in a long line of lies that let people think that they really are the center of the Universe. Hundreds of years ago, they would have been defending Geocentrism. It’s the same thinking, the same logic, the same belief system- the drive to make everything in the Universe as small as humans can grasp.
It’s a massive blow to the ego to admit that you are a blip on the timeline, imperceptible from any difference. If you, your entire species, your solar system or even your entire galaxy were to vanish from time and space- it probably wouldn’t be noticed.
Just a pale blue dot…
June 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Thanks for posting this, Phil! Just so everyone’s aware, this is part 2 – part 1 debunks the more biological arguments and sets up the jokes about “Bogus Doctors” and the “bogometer.” There are also thus far three other episodes of Bogosity, and in another one, Astrology, I also used Phil heavily as a source (although I didn’t find any videos of him I to use).
June 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Oh, and how could I forget? Episode 3 debinks the Moon Landing Hoax, and of course Phil was a great source for that, although again no video to go from.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Nice job, very fun to watch, but you’re preaching to the choir. Using scientific fact to argue against creationism is like using the bible to debunk modern physics. Creationists have long ago left logic and reason behind, possibly at a very young age, and using it to buttress the arguments is agonizingly fruitless. Which is why I have always backed up and used the internal inconsistency in the scripture instead.
That doesn’t work very well, either. Sometimes, but not always. The only thing that really WORKS is captured by Phil’s applause line. Science is cool. Science is amazing. The universe is bigger and stranger and older than you can possibly imagine. Science is chaotic and weird and fun. Science is the future, it’s the next generation, always being reborn new and shiny, not old and static and covered in dust.
Also, Shane and Phil, you’re not going to convince anyone without a really cool hat. I mean, look at the Pope’s hat. Millions of people see him and say to themselves “With a hat like that, he must be infallible.” It’s true. Look at Napolean. Look at the Aztec priests of Quetzalcoatl. All of them had cool hats. The main problem with the Word to the wise – start wearing a cool hat and you’ll convince more people. Might I suggest a pirate hat?
June 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Ah Shane, I was about to email you. Guess I don’t have to now.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Ooh, a pirate hat.
“Yarrrrr! Yur creationist arrrrguments be garrrrrrrbage!”
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Bravo, sirrah! Bravo!
June 26th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Great stuff!
BA do you any scheduled speeches in the UK? I don’t want to read about it here after the fact.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I think that a lot of people here are just as guilty in applying faulty logic as are the YEC’ers.
Not all people who believe in Creationism are YEC’ers. In fact most aren’t. But you seem to be using YEC as a straw man to attack all Creationism belief (or Intelligent Design in general).
So gratz to all of you who are masters of the obvious. You’ve done what any high school senior can do — you’ve shown that the Earth and the universe are more that 6,000 years old. Wow.
But you have a little more work ahead of you though before you “destroy creationism”. You might want to address what most Creationism is centered upon — Gap Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Theist Evolution, and/or Intelligent Design. There is a LOT more to creationism than YEC.
The irony is that I see the rabid extremism here mirroring that of the YEC’ers. How ironic indeed if you are becoming that which you profess to hate.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Well David, you beg an interesting question:
In what way are any of what you mentioned: Gap Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Theist Evolution, and/or Intelligent Design, falsifiable?
Thank you,
Jonathan
-It doesn’t matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-
June 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Good content. But next time he should make sure the sound quality of his own sections is at least as good as that of the clips he uses, and please don’t hurt our eyes by standing in front of a white background with a white shirt on. My first thought was “look, a head hovering in midair!”
June 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
David: I did a quick read on the Wikipedia gap creationism article.
In a nutshell- gap creationism is the theory that there’s a gap in the Bible, that the world is as old as those pesky scientists claim, but that Genesis omits several billion years in which nothing much of importance happened.
I guess I’ll cement my reputation as a ‘rabid extremist’ in claiming that you’re just replacing one dumb idea with another that’s equally stupid.
Thanks for showing us (yet again) that there’s an infinite number of stoopid ideas out there. You’re right- it’s impossible to counter them all in one go, and Christians can happily chant ’straw man’ whilst they merrily dance down another path which leads to yet another dead-end.
Or- you could just accept that the Bible is a mythology of its time that’s no more relevant to modern astronomy than the Iliad is to biochemistry.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Michael: I’ve since obtained a better mic; later eps are better quality. Yeah, darker shirts work better, that’s apparent in the other eps, too. I’m still learning.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
t3knomanser:
I don’t subscribe to the idea that humanity is insignificant when compared to the cosmos at large.
The human brain is by far the most interesting thing in the solar system. Give me the wonders of consciousness over a million suns.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Preaching to the Choir is good.
Most of the choir need the material to make a difference out there – their side has propagandists, we need them too. Although a lot of their stuff is easy to debunk, their arguments tend to be subtly wrong and I for one can use a little help every now and then finding the right corrections.
Take the Stephen Hawking mis quote. I know its wrongly used, but now I know (and hope to remember) the whole thing.
Fortunately, I live in the Netherlands where most people agree creationism is bull. But they’re less and less shy of being creationist, and that bothers me a lot. So preaching to the choir to make sure acceptance doesn’t rise is Good.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Wow – I left the previous thread before things really got going… darn it
As one of the “rabid anti-creationists” on that thread, I would like to reinforce Phil’s comment about attacking creationism not being an attack of Christianity. While many YECs like to believe otherwise, Christianity is not dependent on young-earth creationism being true (or old earth creationism for that matter). And while were at it, not all strident critics of creationism are atheists either–far from it.
The one thing people have to remember is that all the creationist outfits mentioned on the other thread have one thing in common–they don’t do science, they do apologetics. Oh, some of the staff of ICR, AiG, and RTB may be scientists or have a science background, but every time they don a lab coat or lift a pen in the name of the organization they represent, they are working as apologists, not scientists. How come? Because what little they do research must ultimately conform with and confirm what they already believe the Bible is telling them. If a result or interpretation conflicts with the Bible, then it’s the result or interpretation that must be wrong. That’s not science, it’s anti-science.
(Note that the creationist in the video who pronounces so eloquently on how wrong astronomers are about the Big Bang, Chuck Missler, is yet another armchair critic who is an Christian apologist by trade, not to mention running an unaccredited institution where you can get credits for reading his books, was a one-time plagiarist, and Y2K alarmist–remember them? Hardly stellar credentials for someone posing as an expert on astronomy.)
Lastly, we know that creationists aren’t dumb, and they aren’t idiots, so parading IQ numbers about is missing the point. Creationists may believe dumb things, but most everybody does at one point or another, even those who like to think they are always 100% rational! How else can you explain Chicago Cubs believing their team will win the World Series some time soon?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Fantastic quote: “Why do I fight creationists..? Because their god is too small. 6000 years..? Are you kidding me?!”
Where are those clips with the good doctor taken from? I’d like to see them in their entirety.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:38 am
[...] “Evolution versus Creationism: Astronomy Edition“, no Bad Astronomy; [...]
June 27th, 2007 at 1:41 am
The scientific method must be the way to go. However, I am open to new facts and information, and science should be open to constant revision, not dogmatism.
At present, it seems that micro-evolution is absolutely demonstrated, has not been falsified, and it seems very unlikely that it could be.
Macro-evolution still has doubts about it IMHO. I might have missed the point, but it would seem to rely on the pre-existence of DNA for the micro-evolution to take place. Somehow, this extremely complex structure would have had to appear from non-living material to enable the chain of events leading to life. A dogmatist perhaps could accept this, chemicals, amino acids etc etc, chance combinations? Can it be falsified? No. Could it be proved? Yes, but not as yet in a laboratory.
As this happened many millions of years ago, we can only speculate. Can we rule out other options?
Primitive organisms from space? Possible, but how were they produced?
“Aliens” from another planet? No real evidence yet,but cannot be ruled out with an open mind. Intelligent design on Earth from prior living beings is at least possible, unlike the God myths and the Bible genesis story. Again, how did they originate?
Any other heretics with other possibilities?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Nicely done! I know some people that could use a viewing of this video.
I find an amazing number of people don’t get the “north of the north pole” analogy when it comes to the Big Bang. They want an explaination of what came before the universe.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:35 am
Actually, I just watched this on my _Cosmos_ DVD set- disk 2, IIRC. Dr. Sagan showed the experiment wherein the basic “stuff of life” was created in a lab setting from the basic elements available in the atmosphere millennia ago- just add lightning, and there you go- lots of brown goo
. My wife and I thought that was pretty neat.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:44 am
David in Phoenix: So gratz to all of you who are masters of the obvious. You’ve done what any high school senior can do — you’ve shown that the Earth and the universe are more that 6,000 years old. Wow.
Mastering the Obvious, Part Deux: If any high-school senior actually *could* do this, I think that would please Phil (and the rest of us) to no end. But until the day comes when EVERY high-school senior can do this, these posts will continue.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:53 am
“Primitive organisms from space? Possible, but how were they produced?
“Aliens†from another planet?”
Possible, but how were they produced?
Aliens solves nothing – merely moves problem one step back.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:01 am
PuckishOne, you are OEC, correct? Well, YEC’s at least are consistent. I never know why in OEC exists so HUGE gap between creation of universe and creation of man. This makes OEC disjointed contraption.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:03 am
tacitus, I was tracking with you just fine – until you dissed Cubs fans. C’mon, everything I need to know about life I learned from being a Cubs fan: patience, long-suffering, humility, expectation management, savoring every minor victory (since the “big victory” may never come)…
June 27th, 2007 at 5:08 am
Right on! Thank you for all the effort!
June 27th, 2007 at 5:34 am
“Macro-evolution still has doubts about it IMHO. I might have missed the point, but it would seem to rely on the pre-existence of DNA for the micro-evolution to take place.”
The origins of life on this planet are still hotly debated, but the fact that this area remains unresolved does not mean it did not happen – was the sun dark until we discovered fusion? Macroevolution – the adaptive radiations that occured as new niches or resources opend up – are a matter of fossil record. There are no dounts about whether macroevolution occured, just the specific mechanisms involved.
This is a good discussion!
June 27th, 2007 at 5:37 am
NormanHutt: “Macro-evolution still has doubts about it IMHO. I might have missed the point, but it would seem to rely on the pre-existence of DNA for the micro-evolution to take place. Somehow, this extremely complex structure would have had to appear from non-living material to enable the chain of events leading to life. A dogmatist perhaps could accept this, chemicals, amino acids etc etc, chance combinations? Can it be falsified? No. Could it be proved? Yes, but not as yet in a laboratory.”
What you’re describing there is abiogenesis, not macroevolution.
Macroevolution — evolution that jumps the species barrier — *has* been observed, many times, and within a single human lifetime at that. Try Joseph Boxhorn’s “Observed Instances of Speciation”, or Carl Zimmer’s “At the Water’s Edge”.
MaDeR: “I never know why in OEC exists so HUGE gap between creation of universe and creation of man.”
Huge? To whom? Man?
If you’re going to posit a supernatural creator of the Universe, why does he/she/it/they have to perform according to your preferred style?
Further, if you’re going to posit that this creator is *infinite* in nature, three is as far beneath him as eighty-six trillion. *Any* finite number is insignificant. *Nothing* is “huge”.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:24 am
“Macro-evolution still has doubts about it IMHO. I might have missed the point, but it would seem to rely on the pre-existence of DNA for the micro-evolution to take place.”
By analogy: Chemistry still has doubts about it IMHO. I might have missed the point, but it would seem to rely on the pre-existence of chemical elements for the chemistry to take place.
“Macro-evolution” describes a process, and it is perfectly valid to study that process without knowing where the acting elements came from. Just as you can study organic chemistry without worrying about where the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen came from.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:09 am
MaDeR: By OEC I assume you mean “Old-Earth Creationist”? And you presume that I have this mindset because…I think it’s imperative for high-school seniors to be able to explain the actual scientific age of the earth??
I guess I wasn’t being obvious enough the first time, so I’ll clarify: The. Earth. Is. Very. Old. As in, tens of millions of years, give or take. Science proves this. The point I was attempting to make was that if every high-school senior could demonstrate knowledge of this (which I believe, by and large, is not the case), then BA and all the rest of us could sleep better at night knowing that everyone Gets It.
I’m not entirely sure what you were reading to glean my supposed OEC leanings, but I’d certainly appreciate a little elucidation. Wouldn’t want to make the same mistake again.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Christian Burnham said, “The human brain is by far the most interesting thing in the solar system.”
Of course, look what’s telling you that.
(Thank you, Emo Philips.)
June 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Day age creationism, gap creationism, and ID all have the same basic flaw: they assume that creatures were poofed into existence, in roughly the form that they are seen either today or in fossils, at some particular point in history. This has been pretty much completely refuted by the fossil record, morphology, embryology, genetics, protein analysis, ecology, and in the laboratory. They continue to make excuses to explain away these problems (ID being merely the latest attempt to hide God in gaps in or knowledge, including some real gaps and some gaps that were closed long ago but that the ID community refuses to acknowledge).
These old-earth creationist ideas are continuously modified and reduced so that they always exist just beyond what we know about nature, the so-called God of the Gaps. First it was in the age of the Earth, but early 19th-century geologists closed that hole. Then it was in the differences between organisms, but the discovery of homology closed that hole. Then it was in the development of biological diversity, but Darwin and his contemporaries closed that hole. Then it was in heredity, but Mendel closed that hole and Watson and Crick poured cement over it. Then it was in the lack of fossils, human and otherwise, but the expansion of fossil work to new regions in the second half of the 20th century closed that hole. Then it was change between species, but experiments and observation in the wild has demonstrated that dozens of times now. Then it was in the evolution of the first organisms, but molecular biologists developed a number of plausible explanations (the real problem is figuring out which one is right).
Now the ID community is trying to point to lack of knowledge about the evolution of protein “machinery”. Much of this lack of knowledge is only on the part of the ID community themselves, scientists currently know quite a bit, if not most things, about the evolution of most if not all the structures the ID community is using as “possible” examples of structures that can’t evolve. I say possible because the ID community refuses to actually commit to a particular structure as being definitively intelligently designed (even Behe’s classic flagellum example is only a possible example). This is because they know scientists likely will be able to figure it out eventually (actually they already have to a large extent, although Behe refuses to acknowledge this or even read the material). If they actually make any specific claims these could be used as evidence against them later. The fact is all of the arguments used by the ID community were answered by scientists long before the ID community even began using them. They just refuse to acknowledge these explanations.
So this is what science is dealing with from all forms of creationist: constantly moving goalposts. As soon as scientists close a gap in our knowledge, they latch onto another, or in many cases refuse to acknowledge the new knowledge. YEC, day-age, gap, ID, they are all the same in this regard. The only difference is the extent to which they continue to rely on gaps that have already been filled.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Ah! Moving goalposts. I’ve seen those but I was pretty ripped at the time,,,hic,,,
You must admit, though, YECs and OECs really give us something to work against, kinda like lifting weights. Whatever tries to mess with your mind only makes you stronger,,,but as in weight lifting, it does require commitment and dedication.
Keep on trucking, Y’All. The battle/exercise program is not yet over.
GAry 7
June 27th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Why are the clips of you, Phil, so choppy? Was that just to save a little space with the video? Because at times, it seems as though something could’ve been edited out.
Otherwise a pretty nifty video. And I love your quote “Why do I fight creationists..? Because their god is too small.” That’s awesome… great slogan for a t-shirt.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Here’s a comment I received about the Astrology episode:
“An eye-opener….
“I have to think about this for a long time, my zodiac sign has meant a lot in shaping my life.”
Also, a teacher emailed me that he had shown the Moon Hoax episode in a classroom with great success.
There aren’t just the choir vs. believers; there are the people in between as well.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
David in Phoenix: I wish I could agree with you. But if it were so obvious, we wouldn’t have such trouble in the US where 40% or more of the population doesn’t believe in evolution or understands the Big Bang. So while it’s obvious to you and me that the Earth is older than 600 years, that is not true for a vast number of people in the country. That’s why we need to do things like this.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Clair: I edited Phil’s speech for time. My doing, not his.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:01 am
So was fine tuning what they are calling the Anthropic Cosmological Principal nowadays?
Something that was derived by atheists and predates that theological trap called Intelligent Design.
So how did the BB get around the FLOT again? – Oh wait FLOT does not exist until after the BB, is that how this works?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Well, I ask you, but I know Shane created/edited it.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:16 am
You’ve been tagged. (Sorry
)
Just in case, I put a little disclaimer at the bottom of the post.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
TheBlackCat: “So this is what science is dealing with from all forms of creationist: constantly moving goalposts. As soon as scientists close a gap in our knowledge, they latch onto another, or in many cases refuse to acknowledge the new knowledge.”
That’s the basic problem with trying to prove that a supreme being (or beings) is *necessary* by examining the properties of the Universe.
If it were really that simple, adhering to would be a matter of *scholarship*, not a matter of *faith*. All you would have to do is learn enough, and you would either be in denial or a devout believer.
Many religions insist that faith is a *requirement* (including Christianity; see Hebrews 11:6). If any of them are telling the truth about this, then one must assume that using arguments based on the natural world to prove his/her/its/their existence is an exercise in futility.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Dang it, BA, you need a Preview button. Part of the third paragraph was cut out because of my choice of punctuation.
It should read, “… adhering to INSERT_PREFERRED_FAITH_HERE would be…”.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I nearly fell out of my chair during the sections where the lady was narrating. All my co-workers are staring at me LOLOLOL: ‘can a terrorist bomb form a rolex? do you understand what im asking?’
Please someone tell me where that original video is from
June 27th, 2007 at 10:17 am
gah i should have waited and looked at his sources, sorry for the bother
thanks for fighting the good fight phil!
June 27th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Boy, when I (finally) get broadband, I’m gonna search all through this blog and download every damn vid there is of Phil et al.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:18 am
erlando: “Where are those clips with the good doctor taken from? I’d like to see them in their entirety.”
The clips were from The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) 4. The DVD set is available through randi.org at: http://www.randi.org/shopping/index.html#video
It’s a little pricey though, $69US, but you’ll get 6 disks worth of skepticism/critical thinking/fun.
..and I was one of the folks applauding Phil when he made that statement.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:35 am
First, they came for the biologists. (And I did not stand up, because I was a lil’ bookworm in the age before blogs.) Then, they came for the astronomers. (And I figured I’d stand up however I could.) Then, they came for the physicists, and I got bloody upset.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am
“Watch us destroy creationism!”?
BA, Consider this. With everything that is going on in the world and the United States, over 25% of our fellow Americans still say the president is doing a good job. No one is going to “destroy” the loyalty these folks have to the president, even if he kills kittens on live TV. They see loyalty to the president as a greater good than anything that can come of abandoning their belief in him.
Similarly, a percentage of Americans believe the account of creation that appears in religious texts, and they have spun out volumes of pseudo-science based upon it. That idea is more important to them than any kind of science, and nobody is going to change that.
I think the negative reactions you have been getting to some of your posts is related to The BA Blog’s stated desire to “destroy” the idea of creationism and to get the creationists to publicly admit that they have been wrong all this time and now they see the light, thanks to their new friend, BA. I think we all realize that isn’t going to happen.
Superstition is the repetition of actions that have not worked in the past, with the hope that they will work in the future. Maybe some readers fear that the BA Blog is creating and living within its own superstition.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:56 am
This really falls under cultural change; and what do we do to change culture in an organization? We fire management. If we could just get a single, solid politician who supported science we could begin a cultural revolution.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Seeandyspin: the original video is on YouTube in something like 11 parts. Do a search for “Evoltuion vs. Creation” and I’m sure you’ll find it.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Has anybody pointed out to Stephen Hawking the misqoute and the abuse of SH’s name in the creationist video yet? Ah, how I would love to hear SH’s speech synthesizer say: “I’ll see you in court!”. Contactinformation of SH is on http://www.hawking.org.uk/info/contact.html .
June 27th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“Maybe some readers fear that the BA Blog is creating and living within its own superstition.”
O…K…
Actually, you are cribbing the old joke about the definition of insanity. Which doesn’t apply here at all. There are some in our society who would like to return us all to the 14th century; if they are going to be resisted, then sites like this are crucial. At the very least to remind us that we are not alone in the struggle. Mutual support and all that.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Dogma from either side should be carefuly considered.
Yin, yang…
Id, ego…
Faith,science…
A coin has three sides to it. (Fact)
Yet most poeple will only call what they know. ( the two sides they are used to seeing occur.) The truth might be radicaly different than both sides say in their search.
Yes the fact, the sciences were started by religions…is true.
far, far too often, both visions of this reality, are very small-minded in their scope.
Luna
June 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Lunatik, may I ask how, in this context, science is being small minded?
Also, I note in passing your use of yin and yang; Buddhists and Taoists are generally open to admitting they are wrong when the facts say so. Which is why you don’t generally see them slaughtering people to spread their “faith.” They have no faith to spread or kill for.
I recall Carl Sagan’s quote from the Dalai Lama when he asked the monk what would happen if science absolutely proved reincarnation to be wrong. The Dalai Lama replied, “Then Tibetan Buddhism would have to change.”
You won’t hear such a comment from any western religious leader I know of.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Lunatik wrote “Yes the fact, the sciences were started by religions…is true.”
Another true fact is that science has been fanatically surpressed by religion. Remember Galileo? Do you know how long it took the Catholic Church to admit they were wrong???
If you think that science and scientists are small-minded (I take it that you meant “narrow-minded”), then you probably have watched too many Hollywood movies and Oprah Winfrey shows. I can’t think of any other kind of people that so much love to be proven wrong. The secret to get scientists dancing in the street is called evidence.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Lunatik, consider this: if there was no church Columbus wouldn’t have sailed to America. He would have landed on the moon.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
attFunke Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 5:37 am
NormanHutt: “Macro-evolution still has doubts about it IMHO. I might have missed the point, but it would seem to rely on the pre-existence of DNA for the micro-evolution to take place. Somehow, this extremely complex structure would have had to appear from non-living material to enable the chain of events leading to life. A dogmatist perhaps could accept this, chemicals, amino acids etc etc, chance combinations? Can it be falsified? No. Could it be proved? Yes, but not as yet in a laboratory.â€
What you’re describing there is abiogenesis, not macroevolution.
Macroevolution — evolution that jumps the species barrier — *has* been observed, many times, and within a single human lifetime at that. Try Joseph Boxhorn’s “Observed Instances of Speciationâ€, or Carl Zimmer’s “At the Water’s Edgeâ€.
Sorry, I expressed myself badly. I do know what macroevolution means, but have not yet read convincing evidence that species jumping occurs. As a non-biologist, as far as I knew all present species only breed and multiply within their genetic group. It is not widely known to the general public whether or not new species have been recently formed from existing species, or why most species do not change to others, while others do, as you claim. It is easy to recognise microevolution as it is happening all the time and within our lifetimes. Has it been proved that mutations of DNA in “recent” species has caused changes sufficient to form new species which we can observe and analyse now? How far back do we need to go to get examples? If all this is well known and accepted, please excuse my ignorance, as a former chemist and engineer I have not come across it.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Uh, no need for hyperbole, Zaza. Actually, I suspect Columbus would have happily sailed for the East whether there was a Church or not. His ambitions were for money, power, etc., not for discovery for its own sake.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Berlzebub, thanks, but I try to avoid blog memes. I’m too busy as it is!
June 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Norman Hutt says:
And it is, in fact, open to revision, and it welcomes new evidence that challenges current theories etc. But the issue is that it requires evidence, and the creationists have consistently failed to provide valid evidence. Their arguements tend to be one or more of:
1) showing supposed flaws in evolution (without showing evidence for their POV)
2) outdated information that’s since been discredited
3) facts that have been shown to be inaccurate
4) trying to use the Bible as evidence
5) insisting that evidence is unnecessary, or even sinful.
The ID crowd has been especially bad about providing evidence, and especially shifty when asked to provide hypotheses or predictions that are testable. The YEC group has tended to rely heavily on #2 and #3.
If someone were to show some solid evidence that showed evolution was wrong, scientists would sit up and take notice. Major revisions of the theory, or even its overturning, would probably ensue. Remember, scientists make their careers on these kinds of things. But the evidence would have to be very good, it would have to stand up to repeated scrutiny by the scientific community, and evolution would have to be replaced by something that explained the observed facts better–not just by the default alternative offered by a given religious community.
What you’re seeing here isn’t the collective haranguing of a dogmatic congregation that refuses to look at evidence; it’s the outraged cries of a group that’s being attacked on grounds that are known to be baseless.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I second Leon: Scientists love surprises, and if there were genuine reasons to doubt evolution, a lot of scientists would devote a lot of time to it. The fact is that this is not the case. Creationism has had its moment in the spotlight; it couldn’t cut the mustard and science moved on, discarding creationism like a used condom. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
I’ve been following this blog for some time now, but I am still amazed that we keep having this discussion.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
We keep having this discussion, PK, because the battle between creationism and science is an ongoing war. You must constantly fight to keep the enemy at bay. Our only weapon is science, and it is a powerful one, but must be brought to bear in its full strength. The purpose of these discussions is to arm the people. I know I’ve used many of the points in these discussions to smack down the creationists in my area, and I will continue to so.
Cheers!
June 27th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing. The two terms were created by creationist (from the ID movement perhaps?) they are not used in evolution studies.
Macro-evolution simply means enough changes have built up from “micro-evolution” that a new species, when compared to the original, has formed. For micro-evolution to be true and macro-evolution to be false something has to intervene to stop changes from occurring. No such mechanism has ever been found. If creationist ever did any real research perhaps they could look for one.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Let’s see if the seventh time is the charm: Great job, Shane! I watched all the videos.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
We don’t have to go back very far at all. For instance, since the building of the London subway system at the end of the 1800’s a new species of mosquito has evolved there. This species has considerably different characteristics from the surface-dwelling species it evolved from and will not breed with any other type of mosquito (the definition of a species for sexually-reproducing organisms likes most animals). There are many, many other examples in both plants and animals. Species have also been created in the laboratory using fast-breeding species like fruit flies. These new species are different from other fruit flies and will not breed with any wild species. This has been done with other species as well, both on purpose and by accident. It can happen to slower-breeding species as well if they are kept isolated for sufficiently long. An example is a population of worms used in experiments in Massachusetts for 20 years that became unable to breed with the wild population it was collected from. Macroevolution is common in plants, where increases or decreases in the number of chromosomes are fairly benign for plants and can render otherwise compatible populations incapable of breeding (one of the main differences between chimpanzees and humans is a change in the number of chromosomes). Examples not including such major genetic changes are also known. Ordinary house mice were introduced to Faeroe Island about 250 years ago and are now incapable of breeding with other house mice, thus showing an example of macroevolution in mammals..
June 28th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Leon wrote: “I suspect Columbus would have happily sailed for the East whether there was a Church or not.”
Actually, he sailed for the west. But that’s a minor mistake, as long as you don’t plan to go sailing yourself.
Leon also wrote: “His ambitions were for money, power, etc., not for discovery for its own sake.”
That is not what I am talking about. The Catholic Church had a very tight grip on everyboy’s life in Europe during 500-1500 (and later). You were supposed to put all your time into hard labour and your faith, and put all your money to church in order to buy your place in heaven. Have you ever visited European churches and seen all that gold? You were also not supposed to learn or investigate anything, the Bible was believed to hold all answers and all knowledge that you were allowed to know. You were told about the mistake Adam and Eve made. So there was hardly any scientific and technological progress between 500-1500 in Europe. Most of the technology and science that was required to get Columbus to America was already available around the year 1000. If the church wasn’t holding science back, America would have been discovered 500 years earlier. Amstrong landed on the moon less than 500 years after Columbus sailed to America. So yes, we could have gone to the moon 500 years earlier if the church wasn’t repressing science for all those centuries. And now they are trying to do it again.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Norman Hutt: “I do know what macroevolution means, but have not yet read convincing evidence that species jumping occurs.”
If we define macroevolution as jumping the species barrier, it’s synonymous with speciation.
Read Joseph Boxhorn’s “Observed Instances of Speciationâ€, or Carl Zimmer’s “At the Water’s Edgeâ€, or Stassen et al.’s “Some More Observed Speciation Effects”. All of these contain observed instances of organisms jumping the species barrier. I also recommend “Darwin’s Cathedral” by Wilson, “Lying Stones of Marrakesh” by Sterelny, and “Sex and Death” by Sterelny and Griffiths.
Unfortunately, a tactic of some YEC teachers has been to say that organisms never leave their “kind”. They then dodge all attempts at defining what a “kind” is so that the claim can be tested; they also have not proposed any mechanism that would prevent organisms from leaving their “kind”. (Note that even if they had no mechanism, we could still test the claim if we had a definition of “kind”.)
Norman Hutt: “It is not widely known to the general public whether or not new species have been recently formed from existing species, or why most species do not change to others”
The scientific education of the general public is notoriously poor in just about any field you could name. Many YEC teachers use this to their advantage, knowing that no one will question claims like “there are no transitional fossils”, simply because the general public doesn’t know that there are (and that they are plentiful).
In my mind, one of the most remarkable finds in biological science — strong genetic evidence that some ancestor of humans that came after the common ancestor we have with the chimpanzee experienced a chromosomal fusion, answering a long-standing question about our chromosomal count (and why it differs from that of the chimpanzee) — was not reported in any mass media outlet I was tuned into, and in general, the “laypeople” I meet are surprised to hear about it.
That’s why I’m grateful for people like Phil, who spend a lot of time and effort laboring under the conviction that science is for everyone, not just those who are employed as professional scientists.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Thanks for the excellent clear replies. I think that popular explanations of advanced physics, chemistry, and engineering, my own fields, are much more available and easier to understand than advanced biology. More power to your elbows, as they say.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:20 am
[...] This video entry actually demonstrates a large part of why I’ve left the Christian faith. If Christians [...]
June 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Phil: You can fiddle with the numbers quite a bit and still get life to FORM? How scientific is that? This guy wrote a program that shows how life formed in his 100 universes? Maybe mice do come from cheese after all.
Here’s a question… The genetic code is a language, right? Just like English, or RealBasic or C++. In order for life to work, it has to be able to read the code. Where did this language come from? There’s nothing in the laws of physics that says the language of life has to pop out from nowhere. Every single language or code we know of, came from an intelligent source, so why not the code of life?
June 28th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Another question:
Doesn’t the standard Big Bang model require a closed universe? If the universe started with a singularity, and then expanded in a 4-dimensional hypersphere, then this is a closed universe by definition. Therefore what the creationists are quoting is correct, namly that Hawking admits the possibility of a God in this senario.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Thanks for introducing me to this series. Shane is great – amusing and educational. And Phil, we’ll you’re my hero (after James Randi of course)! Plus you’re wicked sexy and have an impressive telescope.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Scotty -
Since that is *not* the definition of a closed universe, your question is meaningless.
Your other question, assuming the genetic code is a language and therefore it must have had an intelligent designer, is equally bogus. You are assuming the conclusion before asking the question. This is backwards.
In all your questions, you are just playing semantic games, which have nothing at all to do with the underlying science.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Buzz Parsec,
I didn’t mean the Big Bang is the ‘definition’ of a closed universe, just that it requires one and that it requires a beginning.
Why do you think that the genetic code is not a language? This is not a conclusion, but a statement of fact that is pretty much agreed by everyone (until you point out the ramifications). Do you think the quote below is semantic games and nothing to do with science?
Brian Hayes (American Scientist 2004 92:494):
“The genetic code was cracked 40 years ago, and yet we still do not fully understand it. We know enough to read individual messages, translating from the language of nucleotide bases in DNA or RNA into the language of amino acids in a protein molecule. The RNA language is written in an alphabet of four letters (A, C, G, U), grouped into words three letters long, called triplets or codons. Each of the 64 codons specifies one of 20 amino acids or else serves as a punctuation mark signaling the end of a message. That’s all there is to the code. But a nagging question has never been put to rest: Why this particular code, rather than some other? Given 64 codons and 20 amino acids plus a punctuation mark, there are 10^(83) possible genetic codes. What is so special about the one code that — with a few minor variations — rules all life on the planet Earth?”
June 29th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Scotty: “Here’s a question… The genetic code is a language, right? Just like English, or RealBasic or C++.”
Nope — not in the “just like English, or RealBasic or C++” sense, anyway. It’s more like a cipher than a language in the sense that those are languages. The translation from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (or nearly so), but it’s the only arbitrary step. Contrast this with languages. Even RealBasic and C++ require multiple steps in translating the source code into voltages on the capacitors inside the processor. Translating natural language into meaning likewise requires multiple steps… unless you think there’s something special about, say, the word “arm” that has a particular arm-ness about it.
It’s also the only arbitrary process. DNA is translated into RNA in a one-for-one transcription. There’s no translation at all; the functionality of the RNA is merely a byproduct of its makeup.
Here’s the key difference: in language, any word can mean anything. There’s no reason “if” has to be the word that does what if does in C++ or RealBasic; likewise, there’s no reason “bicycle” has to be the word that refers to a bicycle in English. This is not true of DNA. There’s no arbitrary nature in its makeup.
Moreover, the use of words in natural languages follow a power law (I think it’s called Zipf’s Law). DNA does not.
There’s a sense in which referring to the coding of RNA or DNA as a “language” is meaningful. But it is a mistake to then insist that it exhibits all the properties of a high-level computer language or a natural language.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:37 am
[...] Evolution versus Creationism: Astronomy edition Some commentary and an excellent YouTube video for the evolution vs. creationism argument. On Bad Astronomy. (tags: religion science video) [...]
June 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
“Here’s the key difference: in language, any word can mean anything.”
Yes, but a language still has to exist for any sequence to mean anything. The fact remains that the language, code, cypher (whatever you call it) of DNA exists outside of the properties of the matter on which the information is carried. If you look at the information contained in the DNA sequence for building say, an arm, there’s no “armness” in that either, except for the existence of the code that gives it meaning.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
First off, good info within the video you produced. Ive seen the creationist video you mentioned and it’s great to see someone take them on the way you did. No complaints…well, except one.
I tried checking the rest of the comments made so far but I did not notice any mention that you quoted Darwin’s last sentence of his book ‘The Origin of Species’. One correction…in the First edition of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ he never mentioned the word ‘Creator’. This was added later.
Nice job!
June 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
For those that have not seen this, I highly recommend Jason Rosenhouse’s essays at: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/rosenhouse.html
Three that are good to start with are:
What Is Science?
How Do You Spot A Bad Scientific Argument?
Why Do Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents?
The bottom line here of course is that creationists (of all stripes) simply do not do any actual scientific research (field or laboratory), therefore have no scientific data to publish in real scientific peer-reviewed journals (creationist “peer-reviewed” books and magazines do not count, no matter how much they whine about it). Creationists seem to love philosophy, as it is the perfect match for their horrible ideas: one can argue endlessly on any topic, solve or prove nothing, and claim victory. (Philosophy of science can be useful, as long as scientific content and conext are preserved, but if not …)
The worst recent (current) example is Behe, a reigning IDC “expert”. At the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005, when presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system, he snivelled that this was not sufficient evidence of evolution. He also admitted under questioning that IDists have no research programs, and ID creationist “science†was on par with astrology. So there we have it from the IDC “expert”. Read the Dover transcript for yourself for all the details about how IDC stacks up against science (and totally fails).
July 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am
[...] be precisely what they are. Even just on its merits this isn’t right. I talked about this in the video clip I posted last week, so I won’t elaborate here. Go watch [...]
July 1st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I liked the clip, except I am having difficulty comprehending the portion where it was indicated that the Big Bang resulted in the manifestation of time and space. Does not that argument go against the well-established law that matter cannot be created or destroyed? Can matter have existed without a time reference and without a space to exist? That claim seems as bogus to me as a creationist argument.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 am
I second that. Keep fighting one of the biggest threats to our survival and evolution as a species : ‘reinforced’ stupidity.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am
Great video. Only one minor nit to pick…
I wouldn’t be so “shocked” at the claim that “it was bible-believing creationists that gave us science as we know it today.” There’s a big chunk of truth in there – Descartes, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, basically *all* the early scientists were “bible-believing creationists.”
This isn’t a bad thing. IMO, it shows us the *real* picture. Religion and science aren’t really different things – both try to make sense out of the world around us. The difference is that religion has failed, while science is succeeding.
Newton and Galileo took for granted that the Christian god existed and created the world in six days. Darwin, while attending Christ Church College, was very much enamored of William Paley’s work (he’s the guy who pretty much *invented* the Rolex analogy used in the creationist clip, though in late 18th century form). He only rejected creationism on consideration of the results of his field work.
The key thing to bear in mind, I think, is that these men all were working with the best hypotheses available to them. That we’ve falsified many of them today is no slight to these great men, and we do them no honors to redact them.
Religion is failed science. Science is religion that works. Not religion in the narrow sense of theology, but rather in the broad sense that includes Taoism. “Religion” is best as mankind trying to make sense of it all. But then again, so is science.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
You cite Wikipedia in your credits.
That’s bad…very bad. It’s not an authoritative source. Not even close.
Real scholars don’t cite encyclopedias.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Consider a world with no god. I think it would look a lot like Mexico City where people come up behind you and shoot you in the head for $200 cash. IT is the prospect of god that keeps many people in line. Without him, people can’t handle the prospect of this is it.
So, push science to the masses. Be smug in what you are doing. When the average moron decides you are right, prepare for a very poor outcome.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hmm, maybe it’s just me, but this video doesn’t really seem to do much debunking at all…
It starts by talking about the Stephen Hawking quote, but provides no evidence that the universe is completely self-contained, which would be required to satisfy the quote… not debunked.
Rolex watch stuff… yeah, that argument doesn’t really apply to the big bang… debunked.
Space/time… this just begs the question. Something is here at this time, and in our time frame there was a time when it began. Something clearly happened, whether or not there was “time” before the big bang… not debunked.
As for universal constants not ever changing, some physicists disagree: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html... not debunked.
Planets having same composition as the sun… debunked.
Planets spinning… debunked.
Not having anything to do with the big bang… well, I’m not really even sure what the point of this argument is, since clearly everything came out of the big bang… not debunked.
Fine-tuning… having simulated star life in universes with altered forces is not evidence of the possibility of life under those conditions. We don’t even have evidence that there’s any life in our universe outside of what’s found on the Earth… not debunked.
So… out of the 8 “best” arguments for creationism, you were able to debunk 3. Personally, I don’t think all 8 of these should really qualify to be in the “top 8″ creationist arguments, but whatever.
Keep trying.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
WOW, Thanks guys. This is why all should drop Christianity to its corrupted, rusted self and Study the Qur’an. 1400 Years ago it said…
He created seven universes in layers. You do not see any imperfection in the creation by the Most Gracious. Keep looking; do you see any flaw? Look again and again; your eyes will come back stumped and conquered. The Qur’an 67:34
You do not get into any situation, nor do you recite any Qur’an, nor do you do anything, without us being witnesses (Did the tree fall? YES!) thereof as you do it. Not even an atom’s weight is out of your Lord’s control, be it in the heavens or the earth. Nor is there anything smaller than an atom (Quarks?), or larger, that is not recorded in a profound record. The Qur’an 10:61
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 am
What we all need, creationists and evolutionists (and even scientists!), is a bit less smug self righteousness and a bit more wide-eyed wonder. This is the beginning of all science (and probably the beginning of all religeous thought as well.)
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 am
Great blog post Phil! I saw that SlashDot loved it too!
Also I put that video up on Skepticality TV
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Very nice video.
I love how at least creationists are now trying to bend the scientific facts to their views. This means they are acknowleding the facts instead of ignoring them. If it were up to them the sun would still be orbiting the earth. We’re gaining ground and we should always be ready to stand up against false logics.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am
(July 2nd) Careful What You Wish For stated : “IT is the prospect of god that keeps many people in line.”
Egad, you advocate rule by fear?! Western civilization has grown tremendously only because we’ve rejected tyranny (by dictators and religions of most stripes).
I’m glad I don’t live in your world – you’d abolish police because God will take care of everything after the fact – then watch the mayhem. Yikes!
I am a good citizen because I have been provided freedom and the opportunity for a wonderful life. Partly as a debt to those strangers who deposed dictators, and partly because I believe that civilization should aspire to greater things, I will fight for honesty and reality, and not be a willing victim of fear.
July 4th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Scotty: “Yes, but a language still has to exist for any sequence to mean anything. The fact remains that the language, code, cypher (whatever you call it) of DNA exists outside of the properties of the matter on which the information is carried.”
Where? What part of DNA’s information is not related to the properties of the matter that composes it?
There are representations of DNA’s code that are not directly related to DNA’s functionality. This is not the same thing. The functionality of DNA is dictated by its makeup; the sequence of its nucelotides determines how it works. There is no way in which the behavior of the “switch” statement in C++, say, is defined because it has a “w” in it. I could write a language (with very little effort) that resembled C++ in all respects except that “switch” was no longer a reserved word, and “match” was a new reserved word that exactly duplicated its functionality. Heck, I could even make the new reserved word “kjff421z”.
Languages like C++, RealBasic, and English are arbitrary; DNA is not. The arbitrary nature of representation in language argues for an intelligence capable of abstract thought. The functional cipher of DNA does not.
Scotty: “If you look at the information contained in the DNA sequence for building say, an arm, there’s no “armness†in that either, except for the existence of the code that gives it meaning.”
I never argued that there was.
Here’s the difference I’m trying to delineate: the information that builds an arm cannot be changed into anything else arbitrarily. If you change something in the code at some point, you don’t end up with an arm; you end up with something else.
If I could somehow get every English speaker on the planet to use the word “goldfish” everywhere they once used “bicycle” and vice versa, it would not change the properties of bicycles or goldfish.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
[...] times have I read The Bad Astronomer rant about the anti-science forces in the current administration. We’ve heard complaints [...]
August 11th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Bible believing christian here. 6 day creationist. I think.. geocentricitist. Evolution is bunk and unproven…. even heliocenticity isn’t as ironclad as you think. Give careful thought to your beliefs (that is all they are, not facts despite your protests to the contrary) as they govern where you will end up. God is most definetly real. Be careful of your ways.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I’m sorry but the guy in the video sounds like Gomer Pyle. Very interesting stuff guys but hell I am still on the fence. I certainly don’t believe the bibles version of creationism but I do know that there are a lot of things out there we don’t fully understand and probably never will. The fact is we really can’t say with 100% certainty how everything in the universe works. We know some things but not everything. Some of these theories sound like science fiction to me. Then throw in string theory and quantum physics and you lost me……..;-)
So you are telling me that you know how the universe started and life and this and that but you can’t tell me what the pick 3 lottery numbers will be for tomorrow? ;-P What is the math formula for that?
If the universe in infinite and there are other dimensions, other universes, that can have an infinite number of different rules and they go on forever then certainly almost anything is possible.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.â€
“Imagination is more important than knowledge”
Albert Einstein
October 25th, 2007 at 2:37 am
I’ve an interest in the Creationism vs Evolution/Big Bang debate. I’d be grateful to the Evolution/Big Bang supporters if they could briefly explain their theory. Trolling the Internet, different sites have different versions of the theory making it difficult to get a definitive answer.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.” -Socrates
April 17th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Well produced video.
It’s unfortunate that a number of people have latched onto this to push their atheist or anti-Christian agenda. Doing that is precisely the kind of thing that pushes people apart and creates unproductive decisiveness and hostility. It only offers ammunition to people who want to depict science as incompatible with their religion or ethical beliefs, and it likely doesn’t change the opinion of a single person. The elitist tenor does not help either.
Generally, it’s bad to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and foolish. They’ll then never change their opinion. Great job, not only have you failed to accomplish your goal, but you’ve discredited people who are honestly trying to educate people. Basically you’re just the “educated” version of the rabid extremist who enjoys gloating how they are going to be in paradise in the next life and you will be re-incarnated as a goat. It might make you feel good, but it doesn’t help humanity.
If you want to help the fundamentalists who hate science, by all means continue, you’re playing right into their hands.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 am
Creationism verse Evolution!! which version of which do you suppose we attack or defend? Those who claim to be “christian” are divided as oil and water, whilst scientists argue about definitions, alternative or “multi” universes ad infinitum, and have been guilty of their own progroms against their contemporaries who dared to differ and claim, ideas they had the evidence to prove. The layman’s version pf “scientific” publishing pften goes from the maybe and the probable to the definite, about halfway through the article.
Faith – what is that? Truth what is that? ask a thousand folk and i bet you will get a thousand different answers, yhis fact? – truth? alone makes any blog like this tend to descend to a mud throwing contest. As Andrew says.
I would contend that science has always and still is permeated with false assumptions and bigoted defence of them. History proves this – and in at least one particular case it was “christian” faith? that supported the false science (Galileo). Many would claim that the opposite is true in the evo. crea. conflict of today
On the other hand I would also contend that the bible which claims to be the word of God is probably the most commented on, criticised, misrepresented, misunderstood book ever written.
Do not forget that the best math the Greek philos. had supported their model of the universe. Are we not men as they? As they then, we now only have the best tools we can provide, and still, we wrestle with our minds. over the answer to the same questions they presumed to have solved. Oh you say we have so much greater knowledge. Sure we put a man on the moon, we have solved many health problems , we have a huge manufacturing ability, just one of our airliners would to them be an amazing miracle!! Yet our planet is dying under our own pollution evident in almost every field of human endeavor! Our knowledge has puffed us up. And we run the risk of “puffing out” as a result
I will not deliver my opinion there are thousands of men who have made Science their career, There are thousands of theologeons who have studied holy scripture ’till the cows come home – that is also their career.
I will deliver the words of two who claim to be beyond the constraints of time, space and matter, but not energy. They make the personal claim I AM – no “past” no “future” just an eternal present. “Before Abram was I AM”. and to Moses “go tell Pharaoh I AM sent you” “I AM the Alpha and Omega … I AM God and there is none like me telling the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things not yet done saying I will fulfill all my purpose…” Now i ask you? the relligeous leaders told the person in the first instant he was mad, do you agree? Abram had been dead quite a few centuries!
Scientists tell us that befroe the big bang there was no time, no space, no matter. Can you imagine an existance in such a “non” place?? Yet at least two claim it to be their eternal home and that they together created the time space continuum in which we live and die! Be careful how you judge these claims, they were made to men long before scientists knew any thing about space time, light speed, quantum mechanics, the big bang and “something” before time
They also made the preposterous!? claim that except for their personal intervention no man will survive the future, and offered a supernatural, verifiable, defined experience to those who would believe them and put their bold claims to the test. He who has an experiance is not at the mercy of him who can only provide an argument.
Yes Andrew i am a “fundamentalist” and I love the truth that science can tell me about the “miraculose” universe we call home. Aristotle and his friends did their best, they were wise and learned for their time but they were still ignorant of many things we now claim are “set in concrete” When i look at the world today i ask the question what have we leaned from history? and i sometimes think “nothing that we should, could have” Yet i am an optimist because i have the experience of Life.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
WOW. You people all believe in the dumbest things. Do you know the Chances of evolution working are impossible. The odds of Evolution forming a human SKELETAL system and JUST the skeletal system, While ignoring if the bones are upside down or aligned right, are 206! or 206 factorial. This is the Equivalent of 10 to the 388th power. Written as a “1″ followed by 388 “Zeros”. So the chances are
1 in ten cenoctovigintillion. Which is the word for 206!.
Look it up if you do not think it is a word. Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE and the only reason people believe in it, is because they want to feel like they came from somewhere. Which they did. GOD created you dumb people.
Now go buy and read the book IN SIX DAYS
July 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The VHS video recording from an 1989 storm speaks for its self, in a bright orange format.
This intense argument over evolution that requires no God, and intelligent design that gives credit where credit is due, could be finally proving. I am dead serious here when it comes to this kind of God or no God philosophy.
People on the left say that there was no intelligent being, just a big explosion in space and nothing more. The people on the right say that there is a super intelligent being that is more than capable of creating every aspect of life including all the planets that make up all those countless galaxies out there. However, I choose neither approach for I shall remain neutral, between both opinions. As I said in the beginning I have the videotape evidence that proves beyond any doubt whatsoever, that heavenly Angels and fallen Angels really do exist. In addition, if these good and evil entities truly exist then there has to be a creator. Unfortunately, I will not be the one to release this video data to the world that finally proves that there really is a highly intelligent Supreme Being out there. As a former satanic high priest, it goes against my years of programming to release this video data to the world. Now I may not be willing to release it, however whoever may purchase this brief video data from me for ten or twenty million dollars, can do whatever he or she wants with it.
In conclusion, that eBay Internet service jazz seems to be quite popular in regards to all those religious items these days, therefore I will give it a shot for lots of filthy lucre.
Then some rich millionair can release it to the world, for a nice profit.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Wow you guys really are nasty, sure its one thing not to believe in something, but its a whole another to state that you want war against it.
Okay, firstly, Catholics are Catholics, you cannot blame all of Christianity for the mistakes of the Catholics. Many of the protestants before me died because they knew what the Catholics were doing were wrong, yet here you bastards are blaming those protestants for those things they frought against.
Sorry, but I personally find morons calling Christians idiots when they say stuff like that hugely ironic.
Then you come out with blanket statements like “Creationists seem to love philosophy, as it is the perfect match for their horrible ideas”.
Completely denying the power of an in depth study of the mind of humans just because it supports religious areas more then Scientific? LOL! Just because Darwinism is a piece of simplistic crap, that’s what you get for believing in it, and all you can come up with is “oh its crap because it supports you more”.
This whole thing is just a bunch of morons being the biggest hypocrites I’ve seen, saying that Science is perfect and everything other then Science is invalid.
Sorry, but as coming from an arts P.O.V. I can personally say that everything has a HUGE amount of context that needs to be considered and being thick drones like yourselves that take everything at face value is funny shit. I am not saying you are wrong or right, but if you can actually put this much FAITH in every bit of “Scientific” (Scientific considering most of the crap you are talking about here is still a theory rather then an actual law within Science) that you read or see.
Has to be one of the best examples I have seen of Ideology in action.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:09 am
From what I see, evolution IS proven.
A micro organisme that mutates in a different version adapted to a new environment, isn’t that evolution ?
A colony of wild foxes captured, domesticated and tamed that show incredible physiological changes in only 4 or 5 generations, isn’t that evolution ?
Proof of evolution is everywhere. Life is engineered by God to evolve.
No evolution is anti-life.
I really don’t see why keep God out of the evolution process.
Creating a univers full of life that evolves is far more miraculous than a static form of life that doesn’t change.
What is the point of life if not to evolve ?
We evolve intellectually, spiritually, physicaly. That’s the purpose of life itself in my view.
That’s how I see things.
But I don’t want to be right about everything. I want to be happy.
With all my love.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Seriously, spruking on about how believers in higher powers reduce their beliefs down to what they can understand couldn’t be more opposite from the truth. It’s the arrogant atheist types who adamantly claim if they can’t understand it or prove it then it can’t exist.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:03 am
It seems like most of you don’t understand anything at all…
Let’s turn it around. You-try to prove the bible wrong.
Anyway, when and where did the bible originate? Why is it so closely linked to history?
If you bother to find out more, you will find out that either a mega genius or god wrote the bible. All of you are probably too foolish to understand anyway. (obviously you will argue about this comment)
Also, when and where did Evolution originate? Charles Darwin alone created a theory, scientists begin building on it… You will probably just simply say that I am an arrogant atheist types who adamantly claim if they can’t understand it or prove it then it can’t exist.
Well, what about you? Most of you here don’t even know your own concepts properly, most of you here are just joining in the fun and acting smart, just as you always do.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Just by the way, you can search the entire Internet, books and whatsoever and you won’t find concrete evidence for evolution. At this point of time, evolutionists aren’t even trying to close up the loopholes that creationists opened for them. Also, evolution is not science- science is being used to try to prove evolution-evolutionists are not scientists (although they claim to be)
they are just normal people attempting to prove something fictitious using real things. You claim and think that people that believe in creation know nothing about science and they are just morons who know nothing about science. Well, evolutionists know less than them. Hopefully you know what I’m talking about, because if you don’t you will start arguing again without any foundation.
One last thing – Evolution cannot be proved 100% right, creation cannot too. Creation cannot be proved 100% wrong, but evolution can