Creation science

First lesson: there is no spoon.

Ok... no spoon... Roger that
Second command?
"You're not breathing air"???

Crashing The Matrix theory? Next to impossible, but I do have an idea...

Firstly, how close are you to abiding by the movie? We've mentioned "no Neo", no rebellion, etc., etc...

Because, in the movie, there was a real world outside the Matrix... which, through implication (a thousand years later on the same planet), had the same basic laws of physics as the REAL 20th-century Earth. The Matrix was part of this universe.

Am I correct so far?

(This one could be a LOT of fun )

Now...

"Lurker, that fragility you mention is due to science's will to let itself vulnerable to future investigations by experimentations, scrutinity by peers, etc... Fullproof models that are independant of experimental data, as the creation model and the Matrix model, are basically unshakable not because of their believed truth, but because they don't allow experimental data to be able to disprove them; they can't put forward any prediction that may be disproved; they don't allow experimentation to be able to make them "bow down".

That fragility of science comes from the humility its proponents have in front of the complexitiy of nature. Absolute models like creationism and the Matrix scenario just take this complexity as a given fact not to be investigated further, since it was created mostly as is."

"that fragility you mention is due to science's will to let itself vulnerable"

Not as far as I've seen...

The fragility I've observed is because humans are fallible to the EXTREME. Hundreds of the world's greatest minds can all overlook the painfully obvious. It happens quite routinely.

And if that weren't bad enough, peoples' egos get in the way.

"science's will to let itself vulnerable to future investigations by experimentations, scrutinity by peers, etc..."

"will"? More like getting dragged, kicking and screaming all the way...

"the Matrix model, are basically unshakable"

We'll see about that

"the humility its proponents have"

*ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL*

That is freakin' HILARIOUS!


Anyways...

it's time for another short spiel.

Science is the universe in man's image. If someone influential enough decides that a certain species of dinosaur must have existed, then science is changed to fit his views. If they decide that that guy they just dug out of the swamp must be fifty thousand years old, then things are changed to fit that.

Science cannot be perfected in any way because it's entirely based on humanity's perceptions...

Lurker,

I do inspire myself from the movie for the core of the scenario, ie that the reality we experience is really in fact information fed to us by the Matrix. In what kind of world does the Matrix live? We don't know, since we only know of "our" world, a world of illusion created by the Matrix; as the Creator in the Creation "Scientist"'s scenario, the Matrix is outside our "naturalistic" scrutiny and methods (simply because those methods come from the laws "created" by the Matrix in our minds).

Ask me other questions about the Matrix, make it bow down.


"The fragility I've observed is because humans are fallible to the EXTREME. Hundreds of the world's greatest minds can all overlook the painfully obvious. It happens quite routinely.
And if that weren't bad enough, peoples' egos get in the way."

Those statements of yours are not totally deniable, nor of course undeniable.
But the exposition of evolution and the theories of evolution that try to explain it are widely available for anyone to read, study, criticize. There is as yet to come any serious contender to explain scientifically the complexity of life, including what is seen as an interconnectedness between all forms of life.
The single fact that I, a non-biologist, though with a formation in science (maths&physics), can "keep up" with most of the Creationists' arguments, is ample evidence that their position isn't that strong.



"'will'? More like getting dragged, kicking and screaming all the way...

Theories will have defenders, as well as contenders. Yes, there may be some "fighting" among contending scientific explanations. Ultimately, proper predictions/experimentations/further experimentations has to decide between the contenders.

However in the case that concerns us, Creationism is far from being a contender to theories of evolution, let alone evolution itself.
Don't be deceived: the only place the evolutionists are being "dragged,..." are in some Arkensas or other US States courts where the political agenda of Creationists have had some success... but eventually miserably failed.
The victim of the Creationists' Crusade is in no way evolution or biology or science; it is rather the teachers who are pressured by powerfull right-wing religious lobbies; and worst of all, the ultimate victims are the children who are taught that evolution is a conspiracy that has its roots in the Devil himself.


"'the humility its proponents have' *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL* *ROFL*
That is freakin' HILARIOUS!"

Glad to see that you have fun!
By "humility", I didn't mean that they weren't proud... hmmm... so maybe I shouldn't have used "humility"...!
The context is: "That fragility of science comes from the humility its proponents have in front of the complexitiy of nature" So its a humility in front of nature, not a humility in front of other people!
In front of other people, yes, egos often come into play (humans will be humans). But when nature is there in front of them, in a diggin or in an experiment, nature can't be impressed: she's the one ruling, and the scientist knows that... and can't help but have humility in front of her...


"If someone influential enough decides that a certain species of dinosaur must have existed, then science is changed to fit his views. If they decide that that guy they just dug out of the swamp must be fifty thousand years old, then things are changed to fit that"

Some scientists have tried that, in one area of science or in other. And failed.
Piltdown man... failed, because under scrutiny of peers.
Cold Fusion... failed, idem.
Meteorite from Mars showing signs of extra-terrestrial life(!)... failed.
Racist theories of man, which were, and still are, expounded here and there... failed, under scrutiny...

Of course, no theory can ever be perfect, as I constantly have been saying in this thread. But a scam can't remain a scam very long in science. In fact, Lurker, human ego itself, surprisingly, makes sure of that. The thrill of exposing a contending theory of things, in any area of science, beats hands down the security of staying in conformity.
Even in mathematics, where mathematicians were too proud, thinking that theirs was an exact science, without fundamental doubts as in natural sciences, the ground has shaken, and this pride of theirs has crumbled, especially through Bertrand Russell's and others' exposition of paradoxes, and then the coup-de-grâce by Gödel.
Geology, paleontology, molecular biology and genetics, and the many other fields that jointly and sometimes independently provide the evidences for evolution and the theories of evolution, are subject to the dangers of non-scientific scams, but nowadays too many (ie the majority) of those scientists are looking closely, and no clown can easily come and impose their model without having solid evidences and arguments to support it.

But does Creationism let itself exposed to such scrutiny? No.



"Science cannot be perfected in any way because it's entirely based on humanity's perceptions... "

Nobody said science was perfect in this thread.
Especially not me.

Only Creationism claims to have the ultimate answer to the origin of life and the universe: they will admitedly say that this answer is their god, whose acts are described in their bible (eg Book of Genesis).

Niffiwan: Are you suggesting I don't believe in dino's? I'm a creationist, not a (insert radical religious cult here so I don't have to mention one and be accused of flamming )

As for your kids/parents size relationship example, that kind of thing is normal, and that flux has nothing to do with long term evolution between species. Nothing that there is evidence of does, sorry.

Junte: "The single fact that I, a non-biologist, though with a formation in science (maths&physics), can "keep up" with most of the Creationists' arguments, is ample evidence that their position isn't that strong."
You're probably the most educated person in this thread

"Only Creationism claims to have the ultimate answer to the origin of life and the universe: they will admitedly say that this answer is their God, whose acts are described in their bible (eg Book of Genesis)." (capitalization of God is my own.)
I believe that everything the Bible says is true, and yes, that of course effects my opinion on this matter, though if I saw any logic on the side of evolution beyond change within species I'd believe it and find a way for it to work in my world view. I do not, however, believe that the Bible says EVERYTHING. There are of course many truths and falacies that it doesn't mention, how could it touch on everything? Church fathers have added to the list of revelations, but there are still a lot of mysteries, and I wouldn't even be in this thread if I didn't believe that.

More on the Matrix:
So, you've changed the basic idea that the religion is based on. People can know about the Matrix, even if only a select few. Um, there goes your religion, it is no longer in a possision to prove what you're trying to use it for. Sorry, the idea was in error from the beginning.
God does NOT want to hide His existance from us. He gives us revelations that He's there all the time. I myself have had an experiance where I felt His presence in a deeper way then ever before. I don't expect you to believe this, but don't laugh at me for it, considering how many people have Had religious experiances.
The virgin birth was proclaimed to the world! Your Matrix idea is supposedly a secret!!!
Despite the fact that your church has no logic to it, I was wondering, can I join?

Now, I'd like to share a sorta personal story. After posting in this thread yesterday I went to church for Vigil, a combination of two services, Vespers and Matins. The Psalms are used a lot in Vigil, very often sung. I was preocuppied with this thread and the religious aspects that it brings up. Yes, I was questioning my own Faith, I am not ashamed of this. But it seemed that every Psalm was speaking to my situation, telling me to be strong, telling me that there are those in the world who try to blot out the Word of God (I am not in any way accusing evolutionists of doing the work of the devil, but of course I dissagree with the evolutionists world view.) I am very greatfull to this thread, it's come at a time when I am questioning my own spirituality, and it is helping me to reafirm it.

Religion -> A belief that is firmly established and afterwards supported with logic or observations, though not absolutely proven.

Science -> A principle that is established AFTER support has already been observed and outlined, though not absolutely proven.

See the difference?

If you believe in God, you assume God exists and attempt to reinforce that assumption. That is not science. The scientific process involves forming hypotheses from existing observations or logic. It appears that the devoted do not treat God like a hypothesis - and that's why the existence of God cannot be shown through science. I don't see anyone who doesn't already believe in God going, "Hmm, because of this and that, God must exist!" It's closer to a matter of "I believe God exists, and this is why." In science, the "why" comes first.

There's a big difference.

Also, creationism and evolutionism are not polar opposites. If any of you are going to make the assertion that they are, please explain yourselves so I have some material to take apart.

Tater,

"You're probably the most educated person in this thread"

Believe me Tater, I've read dialogs, arguments and couter-arguments by "professional" Creation "Scientists", and you and Quickbeam have adequately presented their model as good as they themselves would have done. Which, by the way, was my point.


"I do not, however, believe that the Bible says EVERYTHING"

I should have written: "Only Creationism claims to have the ultimate answer to the origins of life and the universe"; i.e., I forgot to put that "s" to "origin". I didn't want to imply that you believed the bible said everything, but that what the bible says about the origins of life and the universe is the ultimate answer to that evergoing question we humans ask.


"So, you've changed the basic idea that the religion is based on"

Please go see my original post on the Matrix scenario; even then I said it had been revealed to me. When later you talked about an illogical element, I thought it was between the Revelation and the secrecy of the Matrix. So I justed adjusted the scenario to remove this (don't tell me that Gish, Morris and Johnson, in the history of ICR, never adjusted their Creation model! Their history is well documented by others.).
Anyway, secret or not, furtive or not, it doesn't matter; I don't care that the Matrix is benevolent or malevolent, moral, immoral or amoral...

...The point of that Matrix scenario is wheter it can be proved to be wrong, wheter it can be proved that it isn't in accordance to the facts about nature that we know. But since the Matrix itself is the one that provides us with these "facts" in our minds... well, you see the problem (I hope) of taking down that "theory" of our reality. Wheter it is in accordance with your notion of deity is beyond the point; I don't pretend that the Matrix is as benevolent as your deity.

And don't forget that after all, I'm only a mind through which that revelation has been shown.
It is your rigth NOT to believe in the Matrix. But beyond belief, can you scientifically prove that there is no such Matrix... a Matrix for whom we are but the receptacle of Its dreams (don't take that one too literally... just wanted to be poetic about it!)


"don't laugh at me for it"

Like I said elsewhere in this thread, all - not most, but all - my friends are of a religion or another, and some did have such experiences. I do not laugh at them, nor at you.
Nor does science give anything to laugh at these experiences; science is about the material world, not the spiritual.


"your church has no logic"

Please expand on this, that is the goal of my scenario; saying is not explaining. The Matrix scenario may not be appealing to our ego and self-worth, it may not be what we would wish to be the reality of our lives, but again that is beyond the point: can it be scientifically discarded?
Give me your arguments to discard it, and I'll try my best to withold the Faith!


"[This thread has] come at a time when I am questioning my own spirituality, and it is helping me to reafirm it"

Glad to hear this. Glad to hear this thread has positive repercussions, and I hope that others (especially QB) enjoy it as much.

Ok, I'm trying to post, but I'm half asleep, so don't expect anything great. Maybe I'll say more tomorrow. And stop with the long posts, my brain can't handle it j/k

IP: Thank you for illustrating my opinion of why evolution is currently impure science
It used to be it was a theory to help understand things. Well, it's gotten to the point where evolution is a theory used to DEFINE things. A theory that is far from even having sufficient evidence, yet it is a model around which "science" bases a lot these days. Take the age of the universe for instance. Ever notice how the universe is getting older and older? And I don't mean in normal progression of time. Every few years or so "scientists" keep telling us "oh, it's this many million years older then we said before." Why? So that evolution works. Ask any archeologist who knows anything about the furtile crescent when intelligent life showed up on earth and how long it evolved, and you'll laugh at evolution. (For those who don't know, archeologists are constintly baffled by the fact that life just showed up there. They don't get it, maybe they would if they gave up on evolution!)
So basically, evolution is now practically a religion. Let me illustrate this. A believer (the word scientist doesn't really work in this example, but that's what I'm refering to) is a firm follower of evolution. Now, he keeps learning more scientific things that don't seem to work with his religion. So, he changes the science to fit into his religious models.
I ain't talking about creation science!

juntel, the error in the Matrix thing is that part of the belief system is that no one (with the exception of you and maybe some others) can know about the Matrix. Therefore, if others can't know about it, you can't tell them, they would therefore know about it and it would no longer be the Matrix. I may not be very clear, considering I'm asleep, I'll get out some books on logic and try to do better tomorrow.

Tater,

Astrophysic research on the age and "history" of the universe doesn't depend in any way to any biological research on evolution. They arrive at their evalutations through methods of their own.

So Tater, when astronomers say that such or such galaxy is 3 billion light years away from the earth, do you think it's true? If not, how far away do you think it is? Or even what are those other galaxies we see, for you? But if you believe that distance to be true, and considering the speed of light, the light by which we see that galaxy would have taken 3 billion years to reach us. What is your opinion about all this?


No one knows for now about the Matrix, but I received the Revelation, and now all who read my posts know, and the Word is going to spread, and I want you Tater... YES, YOU, to help me spread the Word... Do you Believe? Do you Believe?
Yeaaaay-a! We are the Mind-Childs of the Matrix! We are its dreamscape!

Unless you want to bring it down... now that you know about it. Maybe you do not believe, but do you KNOW that it isn't true?
Then PROVE to me that the Matrix scenario, as I've laid down through my posts, isn't in accord with what we know of our reality (but do remember that the scenario says thar our reality is a direct "as-is" illusion created in our "minds" by the Matrix itself).

First of all:
Look you Creationists, WHY ARE YOU IGNORING MY POSTS??!!! No comment about Archeopteryx or Cynodont! If you really want to prove your case, reply to the points that directly contradict the special creation "theory"! I'm supposing that you're not replyng to them because you can't pin them down into the mud...

Now that that's over,

There is enough proof for evolution for it to be used to define things.
ok, now. Do any of you "creationists" know how rocks are dated?
They take the rock (or if the rock is too important, a lesser rock in the same layer), then they use several proccesses to remove all other minerals except for one (forgot its name...). They then look at the molecules of that mineral. Some molecules contain a certain number of electrons, while other molecules contain another number. When the mineral first starts out, all of its molecules have the same number of electrons. Then, as time progresses, the more and more molecules loose some electrons and become that other number. Scientists have tested a variety of things on the rock, and it has been proven that it is a reliable method.
The same is done with fossils

There, now that you know how rock is dated, please explain how 300million-year-old fossils are not possible.

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before. If so, tell me in which "number" of this thread thread.

And stop ignoring me!!

"I do inspire myself from the movie for the core of the scenario"

Okay. I don't have a copy of the movie on hand, and if you wish to contest any of my admittedly slightly foggy recollections of it with actual quotes, I'll be more than happy to concede.

Now, let's think back for a moment to the movie.

I believe that the world simulated by the Matrix was based at about the 20th century or so. The world outside the Matrix (yes, there is a physical world outside it according to the movie - and that is what I'm aiming at for its downfall) is either at about 2199 or 2999... I can't remember (stupid Computer Guy [www.ifilm.com]). In any case, the basic physics of the world inside the Matrix are more or less the same as the world outside it.

Now, the Matrix is, according to the movie, some sort of computer.
And this is why I contend that the theory is pretty much unrealistic.

If you look at this computer's specifications... It has to provide life support for "billions" of people (unpredictable entities), generate new batches of them (they don't do it the old-fashioned way, after all), manage a contiguous universe for all of them (not explicitly stated, but very heavily implied), compensate for outside attacks and inside hacks, and manage its own survival as well as the war against the rebels.

Right now, I am sitting inside my room. If it was a part of the Matrix, the computer would be responsible for generating and modifying untold thousands of textures, objects, light sources, dust particles, insects, sound waves with acoustics, etc., etc., and decode these signals into the neurons of my brain. It must perform all these tasks with ridiculous precision - I can grab a microscope out of my closet and examine my speakers at 600x, looking over every millimeter of them, picking out differences in the mesh or variations in the ambient light patterns. And believe me, if the Matrix drops a frame, I'll know

The sheer amount of things which the Matrix MUST predict - which I even fail to think of at the time, so it can't just read my mind - is mindblowing.

I am certain that this task could not be accomplished by a SGI Cray T3E - perhaps the most powerful computing device in existance at this point.

Now, think about how many people the Matrix must perform all these tasks for. I do recall the word "billions" being used in the movie explicitly.

If the impossiblility of a computer, subject to the laws of physics, etc., etc. being capable of this doesn't hit you right away...

I'll deal with everything else in a different post.

(Dang, this is fun, isn't it?)

To add to Niff's post:

The time-line attributed to stratta had been done well before isotope dating method was discovered. The famous periods you sometimes hear about (with the strange names of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic) had even been named before Darwin's publication of "Origin of Species".
Even at that time, it had been very well observed that among the many layers observers could study, the fossils that were the bottom-most were simpler, and the one at the top-most were more complex.
Of course, all this was qualitative at the time, that is they couldn't assign a time period to these layers of tightly compacted sediments.
So that time-ordering of past life-forms found in the rock (petrified) stratta predates modern methods.
Today, with radioactive dating methods (based on the desintegration of atoms such as Potassium found in the minerals of those layers of rock), one can go beyond the mere qualitative results, and give quantitative ones: in other words, we can date those layers.
And yes, numbers like millions, hundreds of millions, and even billions of years come up for those layers, independantly from the fossils they contain.
The Creationists may try to tell you later that the dating does depend on, and is done in function of, the said fossils... but that is simply not true: there are many ways of dating, absolute ones and relative ones, and when all the data is compared, they agree and point to periods well beyond 5000 years - the age the Creationists give to our universe, even though so much in nature goes against that opinion.

We live indeed in a very old universe, which age lies around 14 billion years (an age that hasn't much changed these last 15 years).
The Earth's formation is dated to about 4.5 billions years ago, and the first forms of life have been detected and detected to about 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

These dates were not just calculated once and then put in books and then forgotten. They are rechecked over and over again, nothing is taken for granted or absolutedly solved in geology.

So, if we are indeed created by a Creator, who made everything only 5000 years ago (according to Creationists), then all these discoveries, all these complexities that point towards an evolutionary process... all this would be an illusion created by the Creator... but for what? To fool us? To test us?
If the universe was created 5000 years ago, then what of the ligth that comes from distant galaxies?

And these can go on, and on, and on...

Science was invented by humans to make sense of the observations. And the best explanation as yet for all observations made is certainly not the Special Creationism: it is evolution and the theories of evolution.
Is science perfect in its explanations by evolution? No. There are still a lot humanity can learn about life, present and past, and about the universe. Only at most 50 years ago did we discover the structure of the dna, and the evidence FOR evolution IS still pilling up, contrary to what Creationist will try to say to you.


And now I must go to sleep.

To J. Lurker:

I inspire myself from the movie, that doesn't mean that I take all the details of it!
(I did take the example of the Matrix because it would be fresh to your memories... but in THIS case I'm the writter, not the Washaahasski(?!) brothers, so I, not them, will describe this thought experiment).

Here is again MY description of the Matrix scenario, but a bit more detailed:

The reality we perceive seems real to us. But I received a Revelation: we are in fact just "minds" that are fed illusions by a complex entity, a machine called the Matrix.
**What is the nature of the Matrix, the Revelation said it was beyond my comprehension. It said that it was beyond all that I knew, beyond all that I could reason: it was in fact beyond the way I perceived reality... for that reality anyways was only an illusion created by the Matrix.
**All the phenomenons we see and feel around and inside us, well, are part of those illusions.
**And what are we? Are we really humans in pods (like in the movie)? The Revelation didn't say.
All the Revelation said is that all that we see, touch, feel, smell, and even dream... is fed through us by the Matrix.
**The illusion is so perfect, the Matrix so powerfull (in a way that goes way beyond the illusory laws of physics it feeds us) that all details are as perfect as it wants.
**I do not know where the Revelation really comes from; sometimes I think that it is the Matrix itself that talks to me.


So this is my scenario for the Matrix. No, it is not exactly like in the movie.

This scenario is made for you to ask questions about it, and try to prove that it is inconsistent with our reality that we know.
And as prophets have received many times messages of their god in the bible stories, so it is that I myself may receive other Revelations about the Matrix.


(you see Lurker, the "laws of physics" you mention are part of the illusion created by the Matrix. I hope this will give you a hint of the problems about beating my Matrix scenario down...)

"But the exposition of evolution and the theories of evolution that try to explain it are widely available for anyone to read, study, criticize."

And when you do criticize them? When you do say, "Something doesn't make sense here.", what happens?

People think you're trying to force your religious views on them - even when you don't mention religion.
Your entire argument is disregarded because you're "biased" and "fanatical".
And if you press on on your quest for information, shedding off the cries of "bigot" raining down on you, until someone's FORCED to concede that you do, indeed, have a valid point, they'll then pull any number of tricks on you - anything from the "That theory isn't widely accepted" to "Even so, the theory's still intact." Or the classic... "I hold to a different theory..."

"There is as yet to come any serious contender to explain scientifically the complexity of life, including what is seen as an interconnectedness between all forms of life."

I really don't know how to explain to you that life just might be interconnected because it was made that way... it was placed into existance to fit into the precise pattern which was required of it for prolonged survival...

But since I really don't know how to explain that, I won't try... for now.

You'll have to wait until I think it out all the way through.

"The single fact that I, a non-biologist, though with a formation in science (maths&physics), can "keep up" with most of the Creationists' arguments, is ample evidence that their position isn't that strong."

So if I manage to single-handedly fend off a whole pile of pro-abortion debaters, that proves the inherent weakness of their position?

This is music to my ears. Do go on.

(Seriously, though... I haven't brought forth some of my personal views... I read books, but I don't plagarize them - in most cases - so you might just find something new in there. Maybe even something compelling. But it'll take time for me to get them in order... don't hold your breath)

"Don't be deceived: the only place the evolutionists are being "dragged,..." are in some Arkensas or other US States courts where the political agenda of Creationists have had some success..."

Political agenda?

Hold on a minute there.

It seems you're getting groups confused... before I continue, do you believe in the fallacy of the "right" and "left wings"?

"and worst of all, the ultimate victims are the children who are taught that evolution is a conspiracy that has its roots in the Devil himself."

That is quite amusing. However, if you choose to use it in a debate, I very much doubt you could flesh it out beyond a straw-man job.

"and can't help but have humility in front of her..."

It. Lower-case n nature is genderless.

Upper-case N Nature is another case altogether (no pun intended)... please, let's not go there.

"Piltdown man... failed, because under scrutiny of peers."

Actually, the Piltdown man is quite an interesting case.

Not only was it actually used to DEFEND evolution, it also took 41 years for them to figure out it wasn't a single species.

"Cold Fusion... failed, idem."

Since you capitalized the F on fusion, I'm tempted to assume that you're referring to the well-known software package - which, my sources inform me - is fully functional.

However, as far as the nuclear activity goes... scratch that... I'll wait for you to define "idem" - I'm not sure what that means.

"Meteorite from Mars showing signs of extra-terrestrial life(!)... failed."

Funny... none of the major news stations bothered to announce that they had misrepresented the facts on that one (*ROFL*... when do they ever?).

However, my sources on this are somewhat limited. Would you care to direct me to some information on the subject?

"But a scam can't remain a scam very long in science."

Piltdown man... 41 years... that's a generation.

What's your definition of "very long"?

"The thrill of exposing a contending theory of things, in any area of science, beats hands down the security of staying in conformity."

But how many will sacrifice their funding to go out on a limb? Risk the scorn and derision of their peers?

"whose acts are described in their bible"

I take exception to this. One does not have to be religious to accept that the universe was created, not eternally existing...

IronParrot...

"If you believe in God, you assume God exists and attempt to reinforce that assumption."

Or else you make like C.S. Lewis or myself...

Back to juntel.

"They arrive at their evalutations through methods of their own."

Yes. Very odd, flaky methods.

Perhaps some of the weakest in the house of cards.

"So Tater, when astronomers say that such or such galaxy is 3 billion light years away from the earth, do you think it's true? If not, how far away do you think it is?"

Since this was directed to Tater, I'll leave you with this.

Through some really neat-o twisted-space cosmology, it could be ourselves that we're looking at.

"But if you believe that distance to be true, and considering the speed of light, the light by which we see that galaxy would have taken 3 billion years to reach us. What is your opinion about all this?"

Feel free to explain how the distance travelled by light can be precisely determined without any knowledge of the originating conditions or that of the path followed.

"Look you Creationists, WHY ARE YOU IGNORING MY POSTS??!!!"

This isn't directed to me, but I'll explain to you why I'm "ignoring" your posts like the group you made reference to.

I'm not really interested in addressing your points. It's not that I can't... it's more that I don't have the attention span or the interest to do so.

If you're feeling really confident in yourself, you can "call me on"... I haven't declined one of those invitations ever, to my knowledge.

"No comment about Archeopteryx or Cynodont!"

I have no current interest in either of those "species". If you wish me to perform the necessary research to address your points... you know the procedure.

"I'm supposing that you're not replyng to them because you can't pin them down into the mud..."

That's a rather absurd supposition.

"Do any of you "creationists" know how rocks are dated?"

I know of several methods. If you wish to discuss any in detail, let me know.

"Some molecules contain a certain number of electrons, while other molecules contain another number."

Are you talking of ions with the same chemical composition?

"When the mineral first starts out, all of its molecules have the same number of electrons."

A neutral charge, I'm assuming.

"Then, as time progresses, the more and more molecules loose some electrons and become that other number."

Gaining a positive charge... so this method of dating could be demolished by electrostatic phenomena?


I'm sorry. I'm messing with you. I have a fairly good idea of what you're trying to explain, but if I'm correct, then you're making some rather severe errors in doing so.

Firstly, try to uncover which "mineral" is used.
Secondly, determine if it's electrons which the mineral drops, or electron-proton pairs, or neutrons...

"And stop ignoring me!!"

If it means that much to you... maybe I'll re-read your posts.

Hi, gang! Sorry, I had a VERY busy weekend and couldn't get online until now. Don't worry, Niffiwan, I saw your post right before my last one and had no intention of ignoring it. However, I will have to ignore you for one more day. It's too late and I'm too wiped out to tackle all those points tonight. I'll have more time late tomorrow (although by then there'll be a bunch more things I'll want to respond to, and I'll probably end up doing another 'super-post'. But I'll try not to, I promise).
Anyway, just wanted you all to know that I hadn't forgotten about you.
More tomorrow.

Lurker,

"People think you're trying to force your religious views on them - even when you don't mention religion"

Because it is religion, or at least it is at its basis.
But I do listen, contrary to what you think.
...and I always hear the same misused, misquoted, misunderstood 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...
...and I always hear the same misused, misunderstood probabilistic arguments that really don't take into account all we know AND don't know...
I'd like to hear new arguments, rather than those, and other, usual arguments that have been heard over and over and over again, and successfully conter-argumented...
Can't you come up with something stronger?


"I really don't know how to explain to you that life just might be interconnected because it was made that way... it was placed into existance to fit into the precise pattern which was required of it for prolonged survival..."

I hope now, with this statement of yours, you will see one of the purpose of my Matrix scenario, where everything we know was made that way in our minds by the Matrix, so that ultimately we don't really have to explain the complexities, because anyway it is a construct by the Matrix.
The point of my Matrix scenario is not that it is an impossible scenario, just an unscientific scenario.
This sentence of yours that I quoted, where the complexities in nature are explained away by "god did it that way from the begining" is just of the same "kind" as the Matrix scenario (it is not equal to the Matrix scenario, but of the same "kind", I repeat). So maybe the Creationists scenario is true... my point is that it is not science.
Just as the Matrix scenario isn't science.


"So if I manage to single-handedly fend off a whole pile of pro-abortion debaters, that proves the inherent weakness of their position?"

I didn't express myself well. As I mentioned to Tater in a post above, and a bit to you in this post, what I've seen here are the usual Creationists' arguments, that have been adequately counter-argumented and refuted for so long. I wanted to express that the scientific mistakes made in those creationists arguments were always the same.

But regarding the abortion debate, this is mostly an ethical problem, not a scientific one; a battle of values doesn't always have a "true" and "wrong" side, it is not alway that "black&white".
Whereas in the Creationist debate, when the question as wheter Creationism (that creationism preconised by Creation "Scientists") is science or not, there are only two possible answers: science or not science.


"It seems you're getting groups confused..."

At the time of these trials, in the Reagan era, those groups were close.
Today, this may have subsided. The court loss may have had an effect on that.


"do you believe in the fallacy of the 'right' and 'left wings'?"

Nothing is that black and white in politics. Screwballs are on both sides, probably in equal numbers.
There are other sides, of course, but there is such a polarity, not only in the US, but also in Canada and Quebec.
Depending on the era, or deceny, or whatever period of time, that polarity does tend to dissipate a bit, thus giving ground to such funny labels as center-right, center-left, far-center-right, and what not.
But there are times that are a bit "hotter", where the polarity returns, and the middle-grounders tend to go back to their nearest polarity!... The Reagan era was such a time (that doesn't mean it was good or bad... it was just like that. it was also not totally independant of the world situation: cold-(star)-war, middle-east(that one's a constant!), iran, iran/irak, etc...)

(How come I'm not asleep??? Damn!)



"'and worst of all, the ultimate victims are the children who are taught that evolution is a conspiracy that has its roots in the Devil himself.'
That is quite amusing. However, if you choose to use it in a debate, I very much doubt you could flesh it out beyond a straw-man job."

You may be right: I did sound like that ridiculous woman on TheSimpsons!(" But please! Do think of the children!")
But that " evolution is a conspiracy that has its roots in the Devil himself" is a direct conclusion from the writing at ICR.


"Lower-case n nature is genderless."

My mother-tongue is french, in which "nature" is of female gender.
Honest and simple mistake. (but I did see "her" applied to nature or Nature in english it seems... I'll have to check on that).


"I'll wait for you to define 'idem'"

Basically means "same thing". I meant that when a successfull cold fusion reaction had been anounced in the media by some physicists, many other universities tried to reproduce the reaction, and none got close to the claims. That was in the summer of 1988, if I remember well.


"Piltdown man... 41 years... that's a generation"

You're right there.
It took time, and when the proper steps were taken, the proper chemical analysis done. It was exposed.
Took too much time... a lesson that has never been forgotten.
And scientists do not shun away from such examples of mistakes.
Con-men are in every domain.
As in the example I gave, the recent ones were exposed quite fast.
Remember that Piltdown was 1921-1953 (or something like that).


"But how many will sacrifice their funding to go out on a limb? Risk the scorn and derision of their peers?"

It is done.
How many want to but can't because of the reason you bring up? Don't know. Depends on the situation they're in. Depends on the strenght of their ideas. Depends on their character.
From my personal experience (but not in biology), colleagues have never been afraid of advancing far fetched mathematical ideas, to be explored and then later discarded if not sound.
Research doesn't mean that something will be found; some researchers go on without discovering much for years.
You make it sound that nobody has the courage to "shake the boat"...
In some areas that may be somewhat accurate, especially in applied sciences where specific discoveries are sought for (pharmaceutics)... but to generalize this to all science... is paranoia.
The peers are more open than you think.


"'whose acts are described in their bible'
I take exception to this. One does not have to be religious to accept that the universe was created, not eternally existing..."

You took my quote from: "Only Creationism claims to have the ultimate answer to the origin of life and the universe: they will admitedly say that this answer is their god, whose acts are described in their bible (eg Book of Genesis).", which can be found here.
In that quote, I do talk about Creationists, with a capital "C", and not about creationists in general; I guess I should have been more precise than just bolding the "C" (or naming it 'Creation "Scientists"' as I usually do).

So, my comment was specifically for Creation "Scientists", as is most of my replies in this thread. By 'Creation "Scientists"', I mean the American group of people who for many years has been advocating their special theory of creation based on a strict litteral interpretation of their bible: creation of the universe in 6 days (of 24 hours), about 5000 years ago, by an intelligent designer (a designer who is outside the scrutiny of our experimentations); catastrophic flood to try to explain fossils in rock layers; most of the complexity of the world explained away by "god created it that way from the beginning...

Now I hope I'm clearer on this.


"Very odd, flaky methods. Perhaps some of the weakest in the house of cards."

Please expand on this. Unless you want me to do it.
Are these methods odd to you because not comprehended?
Unless you propose that the light from these stars were created mid-way as to let it seem that it came from those stars and galaxies...


"Through some really neat-o twisted-space cosmology, it could be ourselves that we're looking at."

Nice propostion. Now deduce some results from this and try to verify them. That what the astronomers and astrophysicists do. Sometimes their ideas are put down because not in accord with further observations. Sometimes the observations support their ideas, and so we keep those ideas; maybe ultimately other ideas will explain better the said phenomenon, etc...
How 'bout it?


"Feel free to explain how the distance travelled by light can be precisely determined without any knowledge of the originating conditions or that of the path followed."

Hey, you want me to give ya a course in astrophysics?
The light we receive from other suns and galaxies is the same that we usually know; a lot of details can be deduced from their spectrums.
Want me to tell you about Doppler Effect... Then give you a course on the history of how distances were cross-evaluated by different methods?
I could do it here, but I prefer to send you to better authorities.
Go read Hawkins "Brief History of Time", and Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and whatever other book on astrophysics...
Then YOU come back here and try to destroy their methods if you can.
I think I've given my share of explanations to debunk your misuses of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... so I won't try to expose ALL the methods of ALL sciences.

After all, it is to "Scientific" Creationism to try to be an valable explanation of the origins of life and the universe; it is to it to show if yes or no it is a scientific theory.
As for now, in this thread or out there in the world, it has NOT succeded.

You will notice, dear Entmooters, that Creation "Scientists" spend most of their time trying to throw (ineffectual little) arrows at evolution, theories of evolution, and ANY science that adds whatever little support to evolution.
And they SELDOM talk about their own model.


So I will write here a question to Creation "Scientists" that I have put in a preceding post:

"What experimental result would be needed for the Creation "Science" model to "bow down"? That is, now that I have shown [see here] that evolution could be brought down by a specific shoking discovery, and so be falsified, what discovery in nature could make creationists say: hey, nature has just told us that after all, we were wrong with our model."
In other words: "What experimental result could make Creation "Scientists" say: Our model (Creationism) is wrong"

Science and religion fail equally miserably in attempting to offer a convincing explanation of the origins and purpose of the Universe. Each side on this forum merely points out the rather obvious fallacies upon which the opposition is basing their arguments.

I, however, have an idea as to how this debate could be resolved. I suggest that you lobby the International Olympic Committee to replace the Long Jump competition at the forthcoming Olympic Games with the `Leap of Faith` event instead. The person achieving the shortest distance would be adjudged the winner, or perhaps the most righteous.

You could decide among yourself who should judge the event and what criteria should be used to determine the magnitude of each leap, though I strongly suspect you would fail to agree. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Hiya guys.

I'm sorry I couldn't read the entire second page, but I did look over all of the posts on the first and third.

You're all doing a fantastic job defending your beliefs, but what are you trying to do? Convince each other that what you believe is right, and the other person is misguided and a fool?

Those arguing for creation science are correct, no one has found a fossil in transition. But transition would take hundreds of thousands of years according to the evolution theory, correct? What happened to all of them?

Those arguing for evolution, I have to commend you on one thing. You've got a lot of faith.


Consider this:
If you take a fish out of the ocean, just toss it on the beach, what happens to it?
It dies in a few minutes.
You can keep taking a fish out every day for a thousand years, again and again and again, and it will just die.

Present day scenario:
We send someone to Mars with a limited supply of air every day until we 'evolve' enough to survive on our own carbon dioxide.
Not gonna happen, the person is just gonna die.

Evolutionists seem to believe that we got to where we are through mutations. Every mutation recorded in the past several hundred years has not helped us in any way.


Please keep in mind I haven't read the second page.

Someone mentioned that a Jew wrote about a creation theory or something like that.
Then someone replied that his view wasn't distorted by Christianity.

I'm surprised a lot of Jews haven't gotten up and yelled you down for that. Jews believe in God. Orthodox Jews follow the Torah, a Christian's Old Testament. They don't believe the New Testament because they believe the Messiah is yet to come.

Another thing, a lot of you have been mentioning religion and are taking the Christian point of view.
There were a lot of religions around at the time of Jesus' birth. God didn't send him here to start another one. (This is just a quick comment for the creation people, please don't debate it)

I'm not trying to get too involved with your debate here, I'm woefully low on 'why evolution is wrong' information.

I take things by faith until they can be proved to me, then I glorify God for His excellent work.

"Because it is religion, or at least it is at its basis."

RE-READ WHAT I SAID, PLEASE.

I was not talking about Creationism in any way, shape, or form.

I was talking about what happens in the REAL WORLD when you try to question an aspect of Evolution.

"But I do listen, contrary to what you think."

Your record hasn't been very good so far in this post :P

Seriously, though... If you listen respectfully when I present my problems, then obviously I've never discussed it with you in real life, because no one's done that to this point.

"and I always hear the same misused, misquoted, misunderstood 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"

Your hyperbole is not appreciated. I have not made use of it in such a form. Indeed, I never have in prior discussions, and I doubt I ever will.

"and I always hear the same misused, misunderstood probabilistic arguments that really don't take into account all we know AND don't know"

"We'll find fossils to support our theory" or "There might be a mechanism for that" only goes so far.

"Can't you come up with something stronger?"

Yes. It will take time.

"where the complexities in nature are explained away"

No. They aren't explained away. They are given a plausible reason for existance.
Evolution explains how things came into existance. So does Creationism.
Science, on the other hand (lower-case s), explains what they do.

"But regarding the abortion debate, this is mostly an ethical problem, not a scientific one"

Actually, it's more or less a biological one.

"when the question as wheter Creationism (that creationism preconised by Creation "Scientists") is science or not"

I'm sorry... if that's what this is about, then I'm in the wrong room.

Why? (This is an example, not a summation) I don't care if God fits into the house of cards.

"but there is such a polarity"

Not really, no. Some claim there is, but my personal experiences strongly suggest otherwise.

"a direct conclusion from the writing at ICR."

What is this ICR you speak of? I'm curious. (I'm also too lazy to dig around and find out for myself)

"but I did see "her" applied to nature or Nature in english it seems... I'll have to check on that"

Capital-N Nature is a personification - or more often, a deification - of the natural world. I very much detest that. Referring to nature as a person is a bit more innocent than that (somewhat the same as referring to a boat as female), but... I hope you see my concern.

"many other universities tried to reproduce the reaction, and none got close to the claims"

Yeah. I'm not sure about this, but the words I saw most were "inconclusive", not "failed"... I assume that the reason for this was that although that particular experiment was not repeatable - or perhaps even authentic - the theory in itself was not thrown out altogether.

"It took time, and when the proper steps were taken, the proper chemical analysis done. It was exposed."

But how much of that level of scrutiny was levied against the hundreds of thousands of less "controversial" discoveries? If the "find" was by a group of scientists who started with a bit less ambitious "findings", they probably would have been able to slip it in unnoticed.

"Remember that Piltdown was 1921-1953 (or something like that)."

According to Microsoft *shudder* Encarta, it was 1912-1953 (a simple reversal of digits - no problem).

"You make it sound that nobody has the courage to "shake the boat"..."

Not nobody.

But on the "inside", few.

"but to generalize this to all science... is paranoia."

And if this was coming from research, from personal experience?

"So, my comment was specifically for Creation "Scientists""

You miss my point.

Christians have their Bible.
Jews have their Torah (similar to the Biblical OT)
Muslims have their Qur'an.

I am nearly positive that it wasn't just Christians who were part of the capital, bolded C Creationist movement. And so, not all capital, bolded C Creationists have "their bible"... Your reference to the six-day period overlooks this.

"Are these methods odd to you because not comprehended?"

No.

You underestimate me, but it won't be fatal.

Okay, cut and paste is messing up, so please excuse any misquotes I may make from this point in.

"Unless you propose that the light from these stars were created mid-way as to let it seem that it came from those stars and galaxies"

Not really, no. Oh, and it seems that the card of "speed of light constancy" might be wobbling a bit...

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...N26514.DTL

Very amusing to read.

"Nice propostion."

Nah, pure B.S., but fun to play with.

*ick*

"Hey, you want me to give ya a course in astrophysics?"

If you have the free time, sure.

I won't promise that I'll read it...

"Want me to tell you about Doppler Effect..."

This underestimating is growing tiresome.

"Go read Hawkins "Brief History of Time", and Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes""

I hit the public library once every three months, and my last run was a week ago, so it might be a while.

"I think I've given my share of explanations to debunk your misuses of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics..."

If you were using "you" in the corporate sense, I could excuse this. However, it seems abundantly clear that you were NOT.

FIND ONE ****ING TIME I'VE MENTIONED THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!

"After all, it is to "Scientific" Creationism to try to be an valable explanation of the origins of life and the universe; it is to it to show if yes or no it is a scientific theory."

See way above.

"Science and religion fail equally miserably in attempting to offer a convincing explanation of the origins and purpose of the Universe."

That's a very interesting proposal. Care to back it up?

""What experimental result could make Creation "Scientists" say: Our model (Creationism) is wrong""

I know a few that would disqualify young-Earth creation... but the apparati are a bit... difficult to obtain. As far as old-Earth creation goes, I don't know how to go about and do that.

Lost in Coruscant...

"If you take a fish out of the ocean, just toss it on the beach, what happens to it? It dies in a few minutes."

You picked a really bad example here... There are certain types of fish that would actually survive laying there on the beach - as long as they didn't get sand in their gills.

Lurker,

I'll answer your post more in detail soon (damn week-ends go away too fast!)

I do have to mention here that this thread was started by an adept of Creation "Science", QB, which doctrines can be found it ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.
Moreover, a second Entmooter, Tater, also brought up these arguments coming from these same people.
So it is normal that my answers in this thread have been primarily directed at ICR's Creation "Science", since the creationist argument only came from them.

Therefore it would be nice if anyone entering this debate would say how far they are from ICR's positions. Most christians I know don't share those ideas, even though they believe in a god-created universe and life.
But, I repeat, this thread had a Creation"Science"/Science debate since the beginning.

So, since you say you are not among ICR followers after all, then I guess I'll have to counter-argue on two fronts...
I do know YOU never mentionned the 2nd Law; now that I know you are not directly an ICR's doctrines follower, I won't assume you hold their views.
I was wrong in my assumption that you were, but please understand the context of this hot debate!