PDA

View Full Version : Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?



FlaGator
04-27-2010, 11:25 AM
Interesting article...




http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/Noah's%20Ark_doomsday_604x341.jpg Noah’s Ark Ministries International

An explorer examines wooden beams inside what some are nearly certain is the remains of Noah's Ark.


A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah's Ark.
The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and literalists hoping to validate biblical stories.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International (http://www.noahsarksearch.net/) research team that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt (http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahsark.htm) in 1987. At the time, the Turkish government officially declared a national park around his find, a boat-shaped object stretched across the mountains of Ararat.

Nevertheless, the evangelical ministry remains convinced that the current find is in fact more likely to be the actual artifact, calling upon Dutch Ark researcher Gerrit Aalten to verify its legitimacy.



Read the article here (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-arafat/)

Gingersnap
04-27-2010, 11:33 AM
This would be pretty interesting! I wonder how long it will take before they nail down the timeline?

M21
04-27-2010, 02:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1Q1lDNwRU

noonwitch
04-27-2010, 03:58 PM
People have been looking on Ararat for over a century for the ark. Obviously, if they can determine that the structure was a boat, and it's been laying on a huge mountain for centuries, well, most people are going to conclude that it was the ark, especially when you consider that Genesis refers to the ark landing in the area of Ararat.


I don't know. I've seen some shows on the History Channel about theories of a flood, that allegedly caused the Med to overflow through the Bosperus and into the Black Sea. The theory is that the Black Sea consisted of freshwater before that point, and became a salt water body afterwards. My favorite of those shows has become dated, though, and that's the classic "In Search of Noah's Ark" with Leonard Nimoy.

My faith is not dependent on whether anyone finds Noah's Ark or not, but I am curious how die-hard atheists would respond to proof from a non-religious source (the People's Republic of China, for example) that this was a boat and radio carbon dating places it in the proper time frame to be the ark.

fettpett
04-27-2010, 04:43 PM
of course they aren't the first ones to claim they found it either, in the same area. Jonathan Gray said he found it sometime in the last 20 years, yet people call him a kook. yet he has pictures of anchor stones and massive graves that he claims is Noah's and his families, though they've been raided since then

Personally I don't think it's on Ararat it's self as Genisis says the Mountains of Ararat meaning somewhere in the mountain range.

Rebel Yell
04-27-2010, 04:48 PM
My faith is not dependent on whether anyone finds Noah's Ark or not, but I am curious how die-hard atheists would respond to proof from a non-religious source (the People's Republic of China, for example) that this was a boat and radio carbon dating places it in the proper time frame to be the ark.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/psychodiva/scientology-xenu.jpg

Molon Labe
04-27-2010, 04:52 PM
Interesting article...


Pretty cool pic of the site:


http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah-ark-grass.jpg

and the survey

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/Noahs_Ark_Survey.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-27-2010, 05:25 PM
Come on now..

Rockntractor
04-27-2010, 05:38 PM
Come on now..

You have a bugger hanging out of your left nostril.

Yeah right there!

Molon Labe
04-27-2010, 06:35 PM
Come on now..

Didn't say I buy this. But this is the information at the site. Where's your sense of adventure Home G?

Wei Wu Wei
04-27-2010, 06:42 PM
Didn't say I buy this. But this is the information at the site. Where's your sense of adventure Home G?

Well being that I was raised in an evangelical home, and many of my family members were Literalists when it came to the bible, I spent a good portion of my teen years searching for stories such as this (as my rigid religious beliefs clashed more and more with my interests in science and a possible future as a scientist).


I guess this sort of story just feels so tired to me. Let's discuss the philosophy of religion, let's examine how we relate to God, instead of going around looking for a big boat on a mountain or some garden in Africa with a really big fence and an angel guarding it.

MrsSmith
04-27-2010, 07:19 PM
If this does prove out, it will be interesting to see how it's "explained" by "real" scientists. :D

wilbur
04-27-2010, 08:01 PM
My faith is not dependent on whether anyone finds Noah's Ark or not, but I am curious how die-hard atheists would respond to proof from a non-religious source (the People's Republic of China, for example) that this was a boat and radio carbon dating places it in the proper time frame to be the ark.

I almost hope it turns out to be a potential candidate to fit the narrative of the legend.

It would be pretty comical to see all the literalist fundies frantically try and jump back on the carbon dating bandwagon.

Gingersnap
04-27-2010, 09:20 PM
Well being that I was raised in an evangelical home, and many of my family members were Literalists when it came to the bible, I spent a good portion of my teen years searching for stories such as this (as my rigid religious beliefs clashed more and more with my interests in science and a possible future as a scientist).


I guess this sort of story just feels so tired to me. Let's discuss the philosophy of religion, let's examine how we relate to God, instead of going around looking for a big boat on a mountain or some garden in Africa with a really big fence and an angel guarding it.

Interesting. I've spent my entire adult life actually "doing" science. These kinds of stories are interesting to me. They don't conflict on any level with my training or work product. Neither do these issues seem to have much effect on the work of my colleagues (some of whom seriously believe in 'Hell Money', astrology, and reincarnation).

FlaGator
04-27-2010, 09:37 PM
Well being that I was raised in an evangelical home, and many of my family members were Literalists when it came to the bible, I spent a good portion of my teen years searching for stories such as this (as my rigid religious beliefs clashed more and more with my interests in science and a possible future as a scientist).


I guess this sort of story just feels so tired to me. Let's discuss the philosophy of religion, let's examine how we relate to God, instead of going around looking for a big boat on a mountain or some garden in Africa with a really big fence and an angel guarding it.

Yet the two have implications for each other as far as Christianity is concerned. To discuss one and omit the other is to only look at half the picture. Just because one area seems more acceptable to intellect indicates that perhaps the intellect needs to be a bit more expansive.

Wei Wu Wei
04-27-2010, 10:02 PM
Interesting. I've spent my entire adult life actually "doing" science. These kinds of stories are interesting to me. They don't conflict on any level with my training or work product. Neither do these issues seem to have much effect on the work of my colleagues (some of whom seriously believe in 'Hell Money', astrology, and reincarnation).

The story reported or any methods of testing don't conflict with science, nor does the personal faith or beliefs of individual scientists, but the idea that there was a GLOBAL FLOOD 4 thousand years ago, as well as believe in several of the stories in Genesis as being LITERALLY true does conflict with current scientific understanding. Also when people try to employ the scientific method to prove the conclusions that they have already accepted on faith, that certainly is a conflict.

Gingersnap
04-27-2010, 10:10 PM
The story reported or any methods of testing don't conflict with science, nor does the personal faith or beliefs of individual scientists, but the idea that there was a GLOBAL FLOOD 4 thousand years ago, as well as believe in several of the stories in Genesis as being LITERALLY true does conflict with current scientific understanding. Also when people try to employ the scientific method to prove the conclusions that they have already accepted on faith, that certainly is a conflict.

But somehow in terms of actual education and work - there's no conflict. I can't tell you how many people I work with who burn fake paper money for their parents or who believe that there is a huge Buddha tooth in a temple somewhere (actual location varies).

None of these people have impaired job performance and none have educational deficits even though many of them went through schools with a religious component.

I think non-believers have standards and expectations that believers just wouldn't recognize.

FlaGator
04-27-2010, 10:17 PM
The story reported or any methods of testing don't conflict with science, nor does the personal faith or beliefs of individual scientists, but the idea that there was a GLOBAL FLOOD 4 thousand years ago, as well as believe in several of the stories in Genesis as being LITERALLY true does conflict with current scientific understanding. Also when people try to employ the scientific method to prove the conclusions that they have already accepted on faith, that certainly is a conflict.

I agree with you about the conflict part, however I feel that this would that be similar to scientists who try to prove conclusions of AGW by employing scientific method validate a theory that they believe in instead of reviewing the evidence and then forming a conclusion? If that is an acceptable form of science then it should also be acceptable to validate biblical history in the same way.

Do you think for a second that scientists who support macro evolution are out looking for evidence to discount it? We read about scientists who are out to prove their theory of whatever and not about scientists who are out to test the validity of there theory. We can again use AGW as an example. When contrary evidence arises it tends to be discounted rather than factored in to the whole. Scientist today don't seem to want the truth, they want to be right and often the two are not the same thing.

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2010, 12:01 AM
But somehow in terms of actual education and work - there's no conflict. I can't tell you how many people I work with who burn fake paper money for their parents or who believe that there is a huge Buddha tooth in a temple somewhere (actual location varies).

None of these people have impaired job performance and none have educational deficits even though many of them went through schools with a religious component.

I think non-believers have standards and expectations that believers just wouldn't recognize.

I've spent some time in a research lab or two, I know people can have personal religious beliefs without conflicting with science. In fact, they can have any non-scientific belief without it conflicting with their education or scientific work. For example, I think Oranges are the best tasting fruit. Clearly that is a non-scientific opinion, but my love for oranges wouldn't hinder any scientific pursuits I engaged in (even if I was doing research on oranges!)

I think for most people, especially those who work in the sciences, science and faith are not related, because they involve different aspects of their reality and involve different methodology (that is to say, the methodology of scientific research doesn't involve or interfere with their personal beliefs).

However, when people try to use science to prove matters of faith, or when they look to their religion for information in the way people look to science for information, that is when a conflict arises.


I agree with you about the conflict part, however I feel that this would that be similar to scientists who try to prove conclusions of AGW by employing scientific method validate a theory that they believe in instead of reviewing the evidence and then forming a conclusion? If that is an acceptable form of science then it should also be acceptable to validate biblical history in the same way.

Do you think for a second that scientists who support macro evolution are out looking for evidence to discount it? We read about scientists who are out to prove their theory of whatever and not about scientists who are out to test the validity of there theory. We can again use AGW as an example. When contrary evidence arises it tends to be discounted rather than factored in to the whole. Scientist today don't seem to want the truth, they want to be right and often the two are not the same thing.

Actually the purpose of scientific testing (experiments to be specific) is to attempt to disprove your own hypotheses as well as find holes in the current theory. Yes researchers clearly would prefer to see their hypotheses validated, but the point of the experiment is to do everything you can to try to disprove it. It's a negative field of knowledge, where things are not proven, but shown to be more valid as they hold up against scrutiny and evolve as scrutiny finds errors.

As for evolution, every time biologists working in evolutionary theory run an experiment, they are testing AGAINST the current understanding of evolution, even if their hypotheses (and their conclusions) would support it.

Also, "macro" and "micro" evolution aren't really different things, the distinction is arbitrary and just a conventional way for people to talk about the same evolutionary process in various time scales.

enslaved1
04-28-2010, 12:05 AM
Many have claimed to have found Noah's Ark, like ANY archeological or scientific find, (whether it supports or goes against my own beliefs) let's get some deeper investigation going before drawing any conclusions.

BTW Wilbur, the educated creationist argues that carbon dating is only accurate up to a certain point in history (one link below puts it at 80,000 years, yes they are biased Christian sites deal with it), not that it is completely incorrect. Unfortunately, we've got our share of loudmouth moonbats too.

Answers In Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible)
Christian Answers (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html)

WWW: Macro evolution requires the addition of new genetic information (creature A evolving into creature B), microevolution is changes in existing genetic information (insects color patterns changing to match environmental changes). Slight difference.

wilbur
04-28-2010, 12:10 AM
But somehow in terms of actual education and work - there's no conflict. I can't tell you how many people I work with who burn fake paper money for their parents or who believe that there is a huge Buddha tooth in a temple somewhere (actual location varies).


Obviously, whether there is a conflict or not, depends on the belief and the work in question. Believing in creationism probably won't affect your work much if you are a computer scientist, or an engineer. If you are a geologist or a biologist however, it will render you incompetent in your field - or cause you to abandon it all together.

Witness the mildly famous story of Kurt Wise, posted by our friendly, neighbourhood lunatics at AIG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/wise.asp

Cognitive science and neuroscience are getting to the point where a religious predisposition (especially forms of dualism) will cause some clear conflicts as well... as the ideas in those spaces are starting to have something to say about religious belief and the workings of the mind.

wilbur
04-28-2010, 12:42 AM
WWW: Macro evolution requires the addition of new genetic information

Is this what the ID folk are saying these days? Macroevolution, as used by biologists (though its rarely used at all), generally describes the process whereby a population splits into two or more groups, who evolve to the point where they can no longer interbreed. This 'genetic information' crapola is yet another iteration of ID proponents shifting the ground - and by any meaningful definition of 'genetic information', we have certainly witnessed it being 'created', both in lab and in nature. But they generally can't offer a meaningful definition of the term, in any case.

Genes get added, deleted, changed, copied, duplicated, etc., all the time, and often new traits (good or bad) are expressed as a result of those processes, in actual populations. If thats not 'creating genetic information', I don't know what is.



(creature A evolving into creature B), microevolution is changes in existing genetic information (insects color patterns changing to match environmental changes). Slight difference.

Microevolution pretty much consists of the set of all evolutionary changes that even creationists (begrudgingly) cannot reasonably deny any longer (like anti-biotic bacterial resistance) and not much else - but, like the term "macroevolution", actual biologists have little use for the category.

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2010, 12:47 AM
WWW: Macro evolution requires the addition of new genetic information (creature A evolving into creature B), microevolution is changes in existing genetic information (insects color patterns changing to match environmental changes). Slight difference.

"Information" here is undefined. ANY new arrangement of DNA, whether it's by addition of nucleotides, deletion of nucleotides, or the various other rearrangements of existing nucleotides can potentially result new forms of genetic expression.

Creature A turning into Creature B is nothing different than what you described as 'microevolution', the only difference is how you decide to categorize Creature A and Creature B. EVERY generation is different from the generation that preceded it, our system of naming and categorizing things is useful, but that categorical schema is an artificial construction that we use for practical purposes. In reality, there is no "Creature A" or "Creature B", it's just generation after generation of unnamed creatures, each slightly different than the one before it. There's no evolutionary "leap" needed.

wilbur
04-28-2010, 12:59 AM
When contrary evidence arises it tends to be discounted rather than factored in to the whole.


Says who? You've been sold a bill of goods here my friend.


Scientist today don't seem to want the truth, they want to be right and often the two are not the same thing.

See above

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 06:21 AM
I've spent some time in a research lab or two, I know people can have personal religious beliefs without conflicting with science. In fact, they can have any non-scientific belief without it conflicting with their education or scientific work. For example, I think Oranges are the best tasting fruit. Clearly that is a non-scientific opinion, but my love for oranges wouldn't hinder any scientific pursuits I engaged in (even if I was doing research on oranges!)

I think for most people, especially those who work in the sciences, science and faith are not related, because they involve different aspects of their reality and involve different methodology (that is to say, the methodology of scientific research doesn't involve or interfere with their personal beliefs).

However, when people try to use science to prove matters of faith, or when they look to their religion for information in the way people look to science for information, that is when a conflict arises.



Actually the purpose of scientific testing (experiments to be specific) is to attempt to disprove your own hypotheses as well as find holes in the current theory. Yes researchers clearly would prefer to see their hypotheses validated, but the point of the experiment is to do everything you can to try to disprove it. It's a negative field of knowledge, where things are not proven, but shown to be more valid as they hold up against scrutiny and evolve as scrutiny finds errors.

As for evolution, every time biologists working in evolutionary theory run an experiment, they are testing AGAINST the current understanding of evolution, even if their hypotheses (and their conclusions) would support it.

Also, "macro" and "micro" evolution aren't really different things, the distinction is arbitrary and just a conventional way for people to talk about the same evolutionary process in various time scales.

Actually macro and micro evolution are very different things. Micro evolution is changes within a species and macro evolution is a change from one species to another. I accept micro evolution because the evidence lead me to believe that it is a true function of nature. Macro evolution I don't accept because there is not the predicted abundance of transitional fossils that Darwin felt certain would be discovered.

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 06:23 AM
Says who? You've been sold a bill of goods here my friend.



See above

So factoring out the medieval warming period is a sign of the acceptance of contradictory data? That is an interesting way to view it.

Kay
04-28-2010, 07:37 AM
Very interesting. I took a religions of the far east class as an elective in college. There is also a story of the great flood in the Hindu religion, where their god Visnu flooded the earth on about the same timeline as Noah built his ark. So I believe a big flood did really happen, besides the geological records known to science, two mainstream religions recorded the event in their teachings they handed down. I'd love to go see this and be able to explore it myself. Whether it is ever proven to be the actual biblical Noah's boat or not, it is still a significant ancient find.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-28-2010, 08:25 AM
Very interesting. I took a religions of the far east class as an elective in college. There is also a story of the great flood in the Hindu religion, where their god Visnu flooded the earth on about the same timeline as Noah built his ark. So I believe a big flood did really happen, besides the geological records known to science, two mainstream religions recorded the event in their teachings they handed down. I'd love to go see this and be able to explore it myself. Whether it is ever proven to be the actual biblical Noah's boat or not, it is still a significant ancient find.

I also remember hearing of some South American myths, I'm not sure if it was the Mayans or what, also spoke of a great flood occurring.

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 08:45 AM
Here are some links to sites that catalog flood legends in various cultures.

http://www.crystalinks.com/floodstories.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2010, 08:45 AM
Actually macro and micro evolution are very different things. Micro evolution is changes within a species and macro evolution is a change from one species to another. I accept micro evolution because the evidence lead me to believe that it is a true function of nature. Macro evolution I don't accept because there is not the predicted abundance of transitional fossils that Darwin felt certain would be discovered.

If you choose to define the difference betwen micro and macro evolution as a "change of species" then basically you're saying that it becomes macroevolution when members from one population cannot breed with another. Firstly, this assumes that a population of creatures is split apart and evolve divergently, and that the two groups can be tested against each other. This isn't always the case, sometimes a population just evolves, and it's impossible to directly test the mating because the "first population" died away dozens of generations before the "second population", rather than it being a "forked path".

There has been substantial evidence of populations of creatures divergently evolving to the point of not being able to breed, or what you are calling 'macroevolution'.

Also, from a theoretical/functional standpoint, it doesn't make sense to draw this distinction. The exact same process is at work in 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, there's no 'jump' needed. It's like the transition between 'child' and 'adult', we may set the age at 18 or 21 but really there's no "real" distinction, despite the fact that a child is a child and not an adult, and an adult is an adult and not a child.

What are you calling 'microevolution' is the slight modification in phenotypic expression of DNA from generation to generation, what do you suppose is the "genetic obstacle" which blocks this process from continuing until the population no longer resembles their ancestors (or 'macroevolution')? What do you suppose (a process or mechanism) stops random mutation and natural selection at some point to prevent speciation from occurring?

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2010, 08:50 AM
Here are some links to sites that catalog flood legends in various cultures.

http://www.crystalinks.com/floodstories.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

Of course there are flood legends in various cultures. All of the first civilizations were founded near large rivers, lakes, or other sources of water which were prone to flood at times. Water is so crucial to life, and can be so destructive, as these early people knew all too well. Do stories about floods suggest that there was a global flood with unprecedented amounts of water that lasted for 40 days and that a guy built the biggest boat in history and somehow got kangaroos and orangutans across the oceans and put them into that boat along with a bunch of food? Or do they suggest that early cultures all had a dependent yet precarious relationship with the bodies of water that they were founded by and expressed it with stories of flooding?

Sonnabend
04-28-2010, 09:34 AM
he story reported or any methods of testing don't conflict with science, nor does the personal faith or beliefs of individual scientists, but the idea that there was a GLOBAL FLOOD 4 thousand years ago

Why is this impossible?

A global strike by an celestial body makes that entirely possible. The crater may be at the bottom of an ocean now, and we KNOW that the Moon has been hit thousands of times by asteroids and other cosmic debris.

Many parts of the ocean are too deep to explore, even for the best submersibles. The Titanic lies deep, but her grave is shallow compared to some abysses of the ocean.

What is colloquially called an E.L.E. is hardly impossible, given that earth has seen dozens of close passes by comets etc..for one to hit the planet is hardly faith or religion.

Velikovsky's books make for interesting reading, look at Tunguska and others.

A massive impact on an ocean body, or close enough to cause massive tidal and tectonic shifts, has happened before and may well happen again.

Many incidents in the Bible are well documented in fact.

The Census was indeed carried out by Augustus , refer to the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

That Christianity rose in Rome was discussed in detail by Pliny, the birth and death of Christ are documented in at least a dozen places, not the least of which is discussed in Roman literature of the time.

Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, in his capacity as High Pontiff was concerned at one stage with Judea, believing that an uprising could happen that he could not quell in time.

Pontius Pilate was indeed recalled to Rome, to face an angry Emperor Tiberius, wondering that the hell he had done, and none to happy with a supposedly quiet province becoming a major headache. The fate of Pilate is unknown, but my ancient history teacher speculated that he had angered Tiberius, and after him Caligula, who, it is reported, had him put to death...this is anecdotal, as a lot of the era around Caligula was lost.

Suetonius discussed it in some basic detail, but here too his narrative is sketchy, as that part of the man's reign is as yet unrecoverable.Antoninus, Grave's books dealt with this issue (I Claudius was based on many Roman texts and a great deal of research)

Four thousand years ago, a global flood may very well have happened.

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 09:46 AM
If you choose to define the difference betwen micro and macro evolution as a "change of species" then basically you're saying that it becomes macroevolution when members from one population cannot breed with another. Firstly, this assumes that a population of creatures is split apart and evolve divergently, and that the two groups can be tested against each other. This isn't always the case, sometimes a population just evolves, and it's impossible to directly test the mating because the "first population" died away dozens of generations before the "second population", rather than it being a "forked path".

There has been substantial evidence of populations of creatures divergently evolving to the point of not being able to breed, or what you are calling 'macroevolution'.

Also, from a theoretical/functional standpoint, it doesn't make sense to draw this distinction. The exact same process is at work in 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, there's no 'jump' needed. It's like the transition between 'child' and 'adult', we may set the age at 18 or 21 but really there's no "real" distinction, despite the fact that a child is a child and not an adult, and an adult is an adult and not a child.

What are you calling 'microevolution' is the slight modification in phenotypic expression of DNA from generation to generation, what do you suppose is the "genetic obstacle" which blocks this process from continuing until the population no longer resembles their ancestors (or 'macroevolution')? What do you suppose (a process or mechanism) stops random mutation and natural selection at some point to prevent speciation from occurring?

What you are talking about is speciation. We see speciation within birds and frogs but even though they can't create viable offspring within their genus they are still birds and frogs. What I am identifying as macro evolution is a rat like creature becoming a deer. In micro evolution small changes in frog for example may enhance the frog's ability to survive and may even lead to a new species of frog, however, it is still a frog. That is mirco evolution. The argument can be made that enough of these small changes over time will product an entirely new creature but there isn't enough evidence, in my opinion, to accept this as a proven behavior of nature.

Gingersnap
04-28-2010, 10:18 AM
Cognitive science and neuroscience are getting to the point where a religious predisposition (especially forms of dualism) will cause some clear conflicts as well... as the ideas in those spaces are starting to have something to say about religious belief and the workings of the mind.

Yes, I seem to recall that we've gone down this road a number of times before. Such as when Freeman pinpointed the amygdalae as the cause of psychotic or simply unacceptable behavior. Then there was the fad for changing a woman's hormonal profile to make her more feminine after middle age. The current practice of family doctors using powerful drugs to change the neurochemistry of ordinary brains to make those brains behave more "acceptably" on an emotional level also comes to mind.

I find it difficult to believe that we are standing on the brink of defining human consciousness for all time. That the theories and assumptions of today won't be modified, redefined, or discarded by later generations of scientists. After all, 100 years ago most of the major figures in physics believed that little was left to learn in the Newtonian world. They didn't perceive that the Newtonian world was just one way of looking at things.

wilbur
04-28-2010, 10:31 AM
Why is this impossible?

A global strike by an celestial body makes that entirely possible. The crater may be at the bottom of an ocean now, and we KNOW that the Moon has been hit thousands of times by asteroids and other cosmic debris.
...

Four thousand years ago, a global flood may very well have happened.

If you define global flood, as every single land mass submerged under water this is not possible. Not only didnt it happen, it couldnt have happened.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood

When one looks at events like the tsunami in India a couple years ago, though... one has no problem realizing that ancients might have easily interpreted such events as "worldwide".

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 10:32 AM
Yes, I seem to recall that we've gone down this road a number of times before. Such as when Freeman pinpointed the amygdalae as the cause of psychotic or simply unacceptable behavior. Then there was the fad for changing a woman's hormonal profile to make her more feminine after middle age. The current practice of family doctors using powerful drugs to change the neurochemistry of ordinary brains to make those brains behave more "acceptably" on an emotional level also comes to mind.

I find it difficult to believe that we are standing on the brink of defining human consciousness for all time. That the theories and assumptions of today won't be modified, redefined, or discarded by later generations of scientists. After all, 100 years ago most of the major figures in physics believed that little was left to learn in the Newtonian world. They didn't perceive that the Newtonian world was just one way of looking at things.

Quantum theory seems to be on the verge of recognizing the connection of the conscience mind to reality and that consciousness has more do with the nature of reality than we ever could have imagined. The Newtonian (classical) physics is only a close approximation of what quantum theory tells us and breaks down when applied to the quantum level. The act of observation may in fact be the catalyst that defines all reality. Not only does observation create the particle that the scientist seeks to observe (collapses its wave function) the observation creates the history of the particle as if it had existed all along. Quantum scientists have recognized this for 80 years but are now just beginning to attempt to understand what it means in relation to the reality we experience every day.

wilbur
04-28-2010, 10:33 AM
So factoring out the medieval warming period is a sign of the acceptance of contradictory data? That is an interesting way to view it.

The mistaken assumption here is that climate scientists actually ignore or "factor out" the MWP.

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 10:34 AM
If you define global flood, as every single land mass submerged under water this is not possible. Not only didnt it happen, it couldnt have happened.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood

When one looks at events like the tsunami in India a couple years ago, though... one has no problem realizing that ancients might have easily interpreted such events as "worldwide".

You would be correct, except that God is not bound by the limitations of the laws of nature. The fact that many of this stories all come from around the same period in human history, while not absolute proof, is enough to make a sensible person as questions.

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 10:40 AM
The mistaken assumption here is that climate scientists actually ignore or "factor out" the MWP.

Not a mistaken assumption




More interesting, Trouet et al., based their work in part on a tree-ring–based drought reconstruction for Morocco (1049–2002) and a millennial-length speleothem-based precipitation proxy for Scotland (900–1993), a methodology similar to Mann's work. Unlike Mann, these researchers found significant climate warming during the MCA. According to the report (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5923/78): “The Morocco and Scotland reconstructions contain substantial multi-decadal variability that is characterized by antiphase oscillatory behavior over the last millennium.” Their reconstruction can be seen in the figure from the article seen below. http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/MCA_graph1.gif (http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/MCA_graph2.jpg)
The figure shows a proxy-derived long-term NAO reconstruction. (Top) Reconstructed winter precipitation for Scotland and February-to-June Palmer Drought Severity Index for Morocco. Records were normalized over the common period (1049–1995) and smoothed with the use of a 30-year cubic spline. The bottom graph shows a winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction (black curve). The gray area is the estimated uncertainty. The researchers' conclusions?

The persistent positive phase reconstructed for the MCA appears to be associated with prevailing La Niña–like conditions possibly initiated by enhanced solar irradiance and/or reduced volcanic activity and amplified and prolonged by enhanced AMOC. The relaxation from this particular ocean-atmosphere state into the LIA appears to be globally contemporaneous and suggests a notable and persistent reorganization of large-scale oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns.
Here AMOC stands for the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (i.e. the ocean conveyer belt) and LIA for Little Ice Age, the period of global cooling that followed the Medeival Warm Period and lasted until the mid 1800s. What they are saying is that both the MCA and the LIA were real and had identifiable root causes. This result stands in stark contrast with the hocky stick result where the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age almost disappeared, replaced by a largely benign, slight cooling trend that lasted until ~1900. http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_small.jpg (http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg)This is just the latest in a series of reports that quietly contradict some of the more outlandish untruths spread by the anthropogenic global warming extremists of the IPCC. Another recent Science article (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/323/5922/1714), by Brierly et al., addresses the Pliocene warm interval, a period of warm climate conditions that preceded the current Pleistocene Ice Age. Occurring some 4 million years ago, the Pliocene warm interval has been difficult to explain.



Whole story here (http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered)

How did Mann manage not to find the evidence that Trouet easily uncovered?

wilbur
04-28-2010, 10:41 AM
Quantum theory seems to be on the verge of recognizing the connection of the conscience mind to reality and that consciousness has more do with the nature of reality than we ever could have imagined. The Newtonian (classical) physics is only a close approximation of what quantum theory tells us and breaks down when applied to the quantum level. The act of observation may in fact be the catalyst that defines all reality. Not only does observation create the particle that the scientist seeks to observe (collapses its wave function) the observation creates the history of the particle as if it had existed all along. Quantum scientists have recognized this for 80 years but are now just beginning to attempt to understand what it means in relation to the reality we experience every day.

The concept of the 'observer' in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness.

FlaGator
04-28-2010, 10:43 AM
The concept of the 'observer' in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness.

You should probably read a little more on the subject.

wilbur
04-28-2010, 10:55 AM
Yes, I seem to recall that we've gone down this road a number of times before. Such as when Freeman pinpointed the amygdalae as the cause of psychotic or simply unacceptable behavior. Then there was the fad for changing a woman's hormonal profile to make her more feminine after middle age. The current practice of family doctors using powerful drugs to change the neurochemistry of ordinary brains to make those brains behave more "acceptably" on an emotional level also comes to mind.

I find it difficult to believe that we are standing on the brink of defining human consciousness for all time. That the theories and assumptions of today won't be modified, redefined, or discarded by later generations of scientists. After all, 100 years ago most of the major figures in physics believed that little was left to learn in the Newtonian world. They didn't perceive that the Newtonian world was just one way of looking at things.

Well, OK... scientific theories evolve* - we get it. But the conflict still exists - which was my point. If the evidence leads a certain way, there certainly are religious beliefs that will compel the people who hold them to resist. While many non-religious beliefs can cause the same types of conflicts, we all have to admit - there are some particularly sacred cows that many believers will strongly resist seeing dissected, and those dissections are happening as we speak. And so is the resistance.

I wasn't suggesting that we have some new slam dunk theory of consciousness... but religious belief, as studied by cognitive science and neuroscience, is steadily being shuffled from its special category, and thrown into the same bin, and studied like any other mental phenomena - where, obviously, no divine causes are presumed and there is an (warranted) assumption is that these things are reducible to the natural.


* but dualist theories of the mind have changed little for a couple thousand years, so they must be true right?

wilbur
04-28-2010, 11:03 AM
You would be correct, except that God is not bound by the limitations of the laws of nature. The fact that many of this stories all come from around the same period in human history, while not absolute proof, is enough to make a sensible person as questions.

Around the "same period" (which could mean anything from the same century, to the same millennium) and referring to the same 40 days and 40 nights are completely different things.

Flood myths are absolutely legion.... TO has a wonderful compilation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

wilbur
04-28-2010, 11:07 AM
You should probably read a little more on the subject.

You should put down the Deepak Chopra and read something by someone who knows what they are talking about :)

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2010, 03:42 PM
What you are talking about is speciation. We see speciation within birds and frogs but even though they can't create viable offspring within their genus they are still birds and frogs.

Here, you've redefined 'macro' evolution as the change in genus. Again, these classifications are artificial systems of naming that people make up to talk about and work with these animals.


What I am identifying as macro evolution is a rat like creature becoming a deer. In micro evolution small changes in frog for example may enhance the frog's ability to survive and may even lead to a new species of frog, however, it is still a frog. That is mirco evolution. The argument can be made that enough of these small changes over time will product an entirely new creature but there isn't enough evidence, in my opinion, to accept this as a proven behavior of nature.

If a population can evolve to the point where a new species is showing up, what's stopping the process from continuing? The longer the process goes on, the more the population will change over time.

What mechanism stops the mutation+selection process?

You can keep moving the goal posts and say "well we haven't seen this happen" because we are working with processes that take hundreds of generations to complete, but there's no "new" process.

There's nothing special about "macro" evolution, nothing extra needed other than time.

It's the exact same process at work in "micro" evolution, unless there is some identifiable mechanism to stop it, it makes no sense to assume it just stops.

That's like saying well we know that if you shoot a rocket into space it'll keep moving unless something stops it, we know this because we have space probes floating out in space, but so far we only know that they'll keep moving for 60 years or so, there's no evidence that proves that after 150 years it'll still be moving.

AmPat
04-29-2010, 12:15 AM
Obviously, whether there is a conflict or not, depends on the belief and the work in question. Believing in creationism probably won't affect your work much if you are a computer scientist, or an engineer. If you are a geologist or a biologist however, it will render you incompetent in your field - or cause you to abandon it all together.
Witness the mildly famous story of Kurt Wise, posted by our friendly, neighbourhood lunatics at AIG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/wise.asp

Cognitive science and neuroscience are getting to the point where a religious predisposition (especially forms of dualism) will cause some clear conflicts as well... as the ideas in those spaces are starting to have something to say about religious belief and the workings of the mind.

What an unscientific and totally unsupportable OPINION.:rolleyes:

Why don't you ask those scientists who are in those fields who also believe in CREATON before you post that crap?

wilbur
04-29-2010, 01:19 AM
What an unscientific and totally unsupportable OPINION.:rolleyes:

Why don't you ask those scientists who are in those fields who also believe in CREATON before you post that crap?

They're very hard to find, for obvious reasons - but I suspect that you, and others, spend so much time digesting information from the fringe, that you have a very distorted picture of the scientific world, and that fringe is vastly overrepresented in your mind... do you actually think that there is some significant rebellion in the scientific community against evolution? And even global warming? Even a significant minority? There isnt.

If its not creationism, ID, global warming skepticism, its some new fangled quantum theories of the mind that are "sweeping the science community", or something else equally batty, that gets disseminated by a few wacko's who may happen to have a credential or two, but are widely disregarded by all, excepting the handful or two of peers that are as fringe as they are. But keep on drinking that kool-aid...

Sonnabend
04-29-2010, 03:43 AM
If you define global flood, as every single land mass submerged under water this is not possible. Not only didnt it happen, it couldnt have happened.
As part of my training (training you have never had since you've never served in any capacity in any rescue service), we were given a series of briefings on what have been called "catastrophic level events"...and the sequelae of a planet strike included massive tectonic shift and worldwide floods.

Catastrophics, my dear wilbur,is the study of disasters and how they happen. We were shown a series of simulations of what would happen if we were hit by a large body at terminal speed.

The words planetary extinction were used. A continent the size of China could be under water in a matter of hours...if the tectonic shifts hadnt torn it to pieces first.

Do I REALLY need to explain to you what would happen to this planet if a majorly dense celestial body impacted?

Planet strikes CANT happen? It isn't possible?

YES it bloody well is.

Sonnabend
04-29-2010, 04:08 AM
We keep hearing from you

"The science is settled"

" It's fact"

"It's real" "

"There is no doubt".

if this is the case....why was Jones so fanatic about not letting that data get to the general public?

What was he hiding?


If its not creationism, ID, global warming skepticism, its some new fangled quantum theories of the mind that are "sweeping the science community", or something else equally batty, that gets disseminated by a few wacko's who may happen to have a credential or two, but are widely disregarded by all, excepting the handful or two of peers that are as fringe as they are. But keep on drinking that kool-aid...

Wackos like Dr Freeman Dyson?

Speaking of which...what are YOUR credentials, wilbur?

malloc
04-29-2010, 05:57 AM
Speaking of which...what are YOUR credentials, wilbur?

I'm curious as well. This thread isn't about global warming, but even the Wiki page on the subject links to "dissenters", which is a big list of scientists in prominent positions who don't agree with the supposed "consensus" on global warming being caused by human activities. Basically, if our human activities were to be put on trial in a court of law, and our economy hung in the balance of life and death, there currently is not enough evidence when taking dissent into account to convict human activity without a shadow of doubt. Doubt does exist, and this doubt exists and grows because the scientists we, the jury, trusted to accurately report their findings decided to fluff up their findings with questionable practices. Now we the jury, the body politic, must apply this knowledge of questionable practices to every single "truth" the AGW movement has made a case for. That's not going to happen without a scrap of the current structure, and a re-do of the science with a large level of transparency and "dissenter" critique of the findings.

The reason for the scrap and redo isn't science, it's is basic sociology. There is a reason why a jury must convict a man unanimously based on the absence of doubt. I think you'll find that Americans are still willing to roll up their sleeves and do what needs to be done, we just won't waste wealth and effort on some bullshit that hasn't been actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-29-2010, 06:16 AM
Around the "same period" (which could mean anything from the same century, to the same millennium) and referring to the same 40 days and 40 nights are completely different things.

Flood myths are absolutely legion.... TO has a wonderful compilation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

A rational person might conclude that because the stories of a huge flood are SO common to so many different and seemingly unconnected cultures, that there JUST MIGHT be a bit of truth to it.

Sonnabend
04-29-2010, 09:25 AM
Wilbur posts as if he is an expert on climate change, climate science and now on catastrophics. Every post of his I see is him spouting off "ex cathedra", he is right everyone else is wrong.

An apparent expert on AGW who "schools us"...yet what are his qualifications? I keep asking this question, and yet he never replies.

An apparent expert who presumes to lecture me in catastrophics (just what unit did you serve with, how many hours, what are your certifications, what work or training have you had in disaster management and planning?), yet it would appear he knows nothing of disaster management and probably didnt know what E.L.E was...he sneers at this thread on the Ark and yet is no more well informed than the rest of us..unless he was there at the time.

His actual words were "It couldn't happen"...from every teacher I have had, in every lecture and in every simulation and real situation I have faced (both life threatening to me and to others), if I have learned ONE thing in all those years it's this

The words "It couldn't happen here" is the single most idiotic statement of all time..usually followed by the very catastrophe they claim is impossible.

It can happen, It has happened, and it will in the future.... and unless Wilbur was there at the time, I challenge his assertion and his smug certainty..so I ask you again, wilbur

Just what is it that makes you such an expert?

Who died and made you Pharoah in Egypt?

On what grounds do you make this unbelievably ludicrous claim "It couldn't happen"?

Couldn't? It already HAS, on dozens of occasions. Meteorites and meteors have struck this planet, and anyone who thinks that the chances of a major strike are nil is unbelievably stupid...and ill informed. There have been at least a dozen "bullet burns" in the last year or so, one of which passed only 40,000 k from Earth's gravity well.

"Deep Impact" is a movie, agreed.

The scope and breadth of the destructive power of such an impact is no fiction...it is indisputable fact...which is why it is called "an extinction level event"

Now Wilbur....answer this for us all.

What makes you such an expert? Or is this just all your own opinion?

fettpett
04-29-2010, 01:38 PM
Genesis 7:11-12 KJV
11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

first, there was more than just rain. it was also the aquifers that opened up and added to the flood waters. it's very possible that the creation of the different continents could have been formed following such a break up.

also one of the theories is that the the atmosphere had a layer of water vapor that caused a greenhouse effect that not only help reflect harmful radiation but helped to increase the density of the atmosphere bringing it up too about 2 atmospheric pressure. that is the same amount of pressure that is about 20 feet below water. what has been found through tests is that the increase of pressure not only gets more oxygen to the blood, but also increased the size and longevity of plants and animals. any scuba diver will tell you, you can live indefinitely at that pressure with no harmful effects.

a impact from a meteorite or comet very easily could have caused both events to happen, the extreme heat from the impact on the atmosphere as well as on the crust. I'm not saying that is what happened but it could have.

wilbur
04-29-2010, 01:56 PM
A rational person might conclude that because the stories of a huge flood are SO common to so many different and seemingly unconnected cultures, that there JUST MIGHT be a bit of truth to it.

I don't find it particularly troubling to theorize that many of the flood myths were based on real floods, and even some of them might have been based on the same flood. Really, so what?

fettpett
04-29-2010, 02:06 PM
I don't find it particularly troubling to theorize that many of the flood myths were based on real floods, and even some of them might have been based on the same flood. Really, so what?

you sure as hell don't act like it. you also didn't answer Sonna question again. which isn't surprising.

you still haven't gotten a book for me to read

wilbur
04-29-2010, 02:08 PM
Basically, if our human activities were to be put on trial in a court of law, and our economy hung in the balance of life and death, there currently is not enough evidence when taking dissent into account to convict human activity without a shadow of doubt.


This trial analogy fails to map, because the issue is about risk assessment, not about demonstrating a verdict to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. There will always be doubt, and perhaps even reasonable doubt.

But in risk assessment, the catastrophe in question may not even be more probable than not. If the disaster is at all plausible (and AGW is), what one is concerned with the discrepancy between the cost of implementing contingency/mitigation plans, versus the cost of eating the unmitigated disaster.

Depending on that ratio, it might only be a 20% chance that our worst case catastrophe scenarios are true. But even if that is the case, it still might be correct to invest in reasonable mitigation strategies - even if they cost you upfront.

Now there is a value at which the cost of mitigation become unreasonable, and we would be foolish to pay it... but its debatable what that value is. I certainly think its a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either A) Do nothing, or B) Collapse the economy paying for prevention.

wilbur
04-29-2010, 02:31 PM
As part of my training (training you have never had since you've never served in any capacity in any rescue service), we were given a series of briefings on what have been called "catastrophic level events"...and the sequelae of a planet strike included massive tectonic shift and worldwide floods.

Catastrophics, my dear wilbur,is the study of disasters and how they happen. We were shown a series of simulations of what would happen if we were hit by a large body at terminal speed.


All about those computer models, eh?



The words planetary extinction were used. A continent the size of China could be under water in a matter of hours...if the tectonic shifts hadnt torn it to pieces first.

Do I REALLY need to explain to you what would happen to this planet if a majorly dense celestial body impacted?

Planet strikes CANT happen? It isn't possible?

YES it bloody well is.

The claim in question is not that catastrophic events don't occur, or that planet wide extinction is impossible, but that the entire land mass of the earth can be covered in water. Sure, maybe one can concoct some fanciful scenario, where we get bombarded with giant comets, that bring enough H2O to the planet to do so, or that God raised the ocean floors or some such thing - but I'm constraining myself to reality here.

AND, if we're talking about within the context of the thread, the claim is even much stronger than a mere claim that all the earth's landmass can be submerged under water - its that the entire earth's landmasses can be entirely submerged in water - and in a year or so, its completely recedes, and all evidence that it ever happened has disappeared a mere 5000 years later.

wilbur
04-29-2010, 02:39 PM
you still haven't gotten a book for me to read

I was going to recommend this one (http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-Richard-Carrier/dp/1420802933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272566304&sr=8-1), but now I'm looking through a new one (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272566133&sr=8-1), that I think might be a little better. Maybe you can choose... what would you prefer to read: An argument against the truth of Christianity, or a book that makes a positive case for Naturalism? If the latter, it would be more analogous to what CS Lewis does for Christianity, but for naturalism... but the other route might more directly challenge some of the claims of Lewis.

fettpett
04-29-2010, 02:42 PM
The claim in question is not that catastrophic events don't occur, or that planet wide extinction is impossible, but that the entire land mass of the earth can be covered in water. Sure, maybe one can concoct some fanciful scenario, where we get bombarded with giant comets, that bring enough H2O to the planet to do so, or that God raised the ocean floors or some such thing - but I'm constraining myself to reality here.

AND, if we're talking about within the context of the thread, the claim is even much stronger than a mere claim that all the earth's landmass can be submerged under water - its that the entire earth's landmasses can be entirely submerged in water - and in a year or so, its completely recedes, and all evidence that it ever happened has disappeared a mere 5000 years later.

the evidence hasn't all disappeared, some like yourself chose to either ignore it or dismiss it as flights of fancy. Any and all arguments that support such things are shut down and the people behind them are called kooks or don't have the qualifications to prove such facts.

yet many of the most important discoveries were by amateurs in their fields. not by arrogant men that think they know everything

wilbur
04-29-2010, 02:52 PM
the evidence hasn't all disappeared, some like yourself chose to either ignore it or dismiss it as flights of fancy. Any and all arguments that support such things are shut down and the people behind them are called kooks or don't have the qualifications to prove such facts.

yet many of the most important discoveries were by amateurs in their fields. not by arrogant men that think they know everything

For a global flood that submerged the entire landmass of the earth at once? For that, there is no evidence - not even a workable theory that obeys the laws of physics for how it could possibly occur. There is, however, plenty of evidence for the types of floods we see frequently, and even less frequently (like tsunami's).

fettpett
04-29-2010, 03:14 PM
For a global flood that submerged the entire landmass of the earth at once? For that, there is no evidence - not even a workable theory that obeys the laws of physics for how it could possibly occur. There is, however, plenty of evidence for the types of floods we see frequently, and even less frequently (like tsunami's).

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake") layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits or river deltas. 42,43 Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. 44,45 First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.

This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major, major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.

We can say for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine fossils that are buried in much of this strata. For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself, old Earth geologists have said that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six different occasions. Young Earth geologists say it was probably only once.

also:

Worldwide Chaos and Out of Order Fossils:
The following excerpts provide further evidence that something is amiss with the Geological Time Chart and the associated Theory of Evolution itself.

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record." 62

And that:

"Heretofore, we have thrown up our hands in frustration at the lack of expected pattern in life's history -- or we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it... If we can develop a...theory of mass extinction, we may finally understand why life has thwarted our expectations, and...extract an unexpected ... pattern from apparent chaos." 62 Stephen Jay Gould Emphasis added.

"One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression..." 63 David M. Raup Emphasis added.

"only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order." 64 John Woodmorappe Emphasis added

"Any sequence in which an older fossil occurs above a younger one is stratigraphically disordered ... disorder may be from millimeters to many meters ... (and) is produced by the physical or biogenic mixing of ... sediments ... Since these processes occur to an extent in virtually all sedimentary systems, stratigraphic disorder at some scale is probably a common feature of the fossil record." 65 Emphasis Added

"The extent of disorder ...is not well documented; however, the widespread occurrence of anomalies ... suggest that disorder should be taken seriously..." ref. 61 p. 234. W. J. Arkell. Emphasis added

"Examination of Britain's record of the Ice Age levels discloses a 'complex interbedding of drift sheets derived from different sources.' 'When we add the additional complications imposed by thin drifts, scanty interglacial deposits, and the frequent presence in fossil-bearing beds of secondary [displaced] fossils derived from the reworking of older horizons, we get a truly difficult overall problem ... All in all, British glacial stratigraphic research has encountered exceptional difficulties,' writes R. F. Flint, professor of geology at Yale University. 66,67 Immanuel Velikovski Emphasis added

ancient river beds and channels

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1195704/Ancient-river-beneath-Channel-Olympics-survey.html
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/browse/ancrchan/ancrchan.htm

far as the stories

An additional evidence of the Deluge being global and not local is the literally thousands of flood stories from around the world. One enterprising historian, Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro, North Carolina, became obsessed with classifying all the flood accounts. "As a result of years of labor, he has collected a complete history of the literature on Noah's Ark. There are 80,000 works in seventy-two languages about the Flood, of which 70,000 mention the legendary wreckage of the Ark" (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, 1980, p. 38).
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn47/noahsflood_worldwideflood.htm

Sonnabend
04-29-2010, 03:42 PM
All about those computer models, eh?

Based on real world assessments, floods and other disasters that have already happened. I ask again and I am getting sick of you ignoring it.I was a disaster planner with an emergency services unit.

And your experience is...?

Where did you serve? What makes you an expert?

WHAT qualifications do you have?


The claim in question is not that catastrophic events don't occur, or that planet wide extinction is impossible, but that the entire land mass of the earth can be covered in water. Sure, maybe one can concoct some fanciful scenario, where we get bombarded with giant comets, that bring enough H2O to the planet to do so, or that God raised the ocean floors or some such thing - but I'm constraining myself to reality here.It only takes one. One impact, one deep strike, and we can kiss it all goodbye. Do the math of say, an asteroid of say, thirty miles in diameter, composed of iridium and other dense metals, entering the atmosphere and impacting in the middle of the Atlantic.

The kinetic energy alone at impact makes all our nuclear arsenals look like firecrackers by comparison.

Nothing to slow it down or stop it. I suggest that you go off and do some reading on the consequences of a massive sea based planet strike of dense cosmic debris entering the atmosphere at terminal velocity

I bet you dont even know what terminal velocity is.

"Reality?" The reality is that we are siting in the middle of a massive cosmic detritus field, and the chances of another planetary strike are not if but when. We've been lucky so far.


AND, if we're talking about within the context of the thread, the claim is even much stronger than a mere claim that all the earth's landmass can be submerged under water - its that the entire earth's landmasses can be entirely submerged in water - and in a year or so, its completely recedes, and all evidence that it ever happened has disappeared a mere 5000 years later.It may not have disappeared in a year, or at all , the evidence may be at the bottom of a massive ocean trench or other abyss we cant get to. The ocean is majorly unexplored, especially the deepest areas which will crush anything we have designed so far.

The Laurentian Abyss is one, the Mindanao Deep is another. In some places of the Pacific, the ocean drops off into a sheer cliff and even a strong submarine cant get to the bottom.

I've seen one, the cliff stops short at seventy feet then proceeds down to over one hundred miles or more.

Crush depth.

Or under a mountain.

Or buried under miles of desert sand

I am prepared to say the words you are gutless to...we dont know.

Yet.

noonwitch
04-29-2010, 03:56 PM
Based on real world assessments, floods and other disasters that have already happened. I ask again and I am getting sick of you ignoring it.I was a disaster planner with an emergency services unit.

And your experience is...?

Where did you serve? What makes you an expert?

WHAT qualifications do you have?

It only takes one. One impact, one deep strike, and we can kiss it all goodbye. Do the math of say, an asteroid of say, thirty miles in diameter, composed of iridium and other dense metals, entering the atmosphere and impacting in the middle of the Atlantic.

The kinetic energy alone at impact makes all our nuclear arsenals look like firecrackers by comparison.

Nothing to slow it down or stop it. I suggest that you go off and do some reading on the consequences of a massive sea based planet strike of dense cosmic debris entering the atmosphere at terminal velocity

I bet you dont even know what terminal velocity is.

"Reality?" The reality is that we are siting in the middle of a massive cosmic detritus field, and the chances of another planetary strike are not if but when. We've been lucky so far.

It may not have disappeared in a year, or at all , the evidence may be at the bottom of a massive ocean trench or other abyss we cant get to. The ocean is majorly unexplored, especially the deepest areas which will crush anything we have designed so far.

The Laurentian Abyss is one, the Mindanao Deep is another. In some places of the Pacific, the ocean drops off into a sheer cliff and even a strong submarine cant get to the bottom.

I've seen one, the cliff stops short at seventy feet then proceeds down to over one hundred miles or more.

Crush depth.

Or under a mountain.

Or buried under miles of desert sand

I am prepared to say the words you are gutless to...we dont know.

Yet.



I don't know anything about any of the science being discussed, but I do know human psychology. I think Wilbur deep down wants to be convinced that God is real through a scientific process, which of course, would eliminate the necessity for faith. But still, I think that underneath the surface of every argumentative atheist is a person who at some level wants to believe, but either had parents with warped views on religion (pro or con), or received some other kind of negative religious experiences as a kid.

AmPat
04-29-2010, 03:58 PM
They're very hard to find, for obvious reasons - but I suspect that you, and others, spend so much time digesting information from the fringe, that you have a very distorted picture of the scientific world, and that fringe is vastly overrepresented in your mind... do you actually think that there is some significant rebellion in the scientific community against evolution? And even global warming? Even a significant minority? There isnt.

If its not creationism, ID, global warming skepticism, its some new fangled quantum theories of the mind that are "sweeping the science community", or something else equally batty, that gets disseminated by a few wacko's who may happen to have a credential or two, but are widely disregarded by all, excepting the handful or two of peers that are as fringe as they are. But keep on drinking that kool-aid...

I see, if it your opinion, it is valid. If my opinion differs, it is wrong and worthy of ridicule.:rolleyes:

Your science is slipping.:cool:

malloc
04-29-2010, 05:11 PM
This trial analogy fails to map, because the issue is about risk assessment, not about demonstrating a verdict to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. There will always be doubt, and perhaps even reasonable doubt.

I don't want to hijack this thread, so my response is here:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=265487#post265487

MrsSmith
04-29-2010, 06:43 PM
I don't know anything about any of the science being discussed, but I do know human psychology. I think Wilbur deep down wants to be convinced that God is real through a scientific process, which of course, would eliminate the necessity for faith. But still, I think that underneath the surface of every argumentative atheist is a person who at some level wants to believe, but either had parents with warped views on religion (pro or con), or received some other kind of negative religious experiences as a kid.
I think you're right about wilbur. He never misses a thread that contains religious references. If he lives long enough, he may get his wish, too. After all, God created everything, wrote the laws of physics, built the cell and the universe...the more we learn, the closer we come to finding Him in those scientific studies.

djones520
04-30-2010, 12:00 PM
I don't know anything about any of the science being discussed, but I do know human psychology. I think Wilbur deep down wants to be convinced that God is real through a scientific process, which of course, would eliminate the necessity for faith. But still, I think that underneath the surface of every argumentative atheist is a person who at some level wants to believe, but either had parents with warped views on religion (pro or con), or received some other kind of negative religious experiences as a kid.

Any thoughts as to the non-argumentative types?

wilbur
04-30-2010, 12:23 PM
But still, I think that underneath the surface of every argumentative atheist is a person who at some level wants to believe, but either had parents with warped views on religion (pro or con), or received some other kind of negative religious experiences as a kid.

Well that would be the typical sort of Bible-based anthropological theory regarding non-belief... but I think it has some obvious problems (I don't fit the bill for any of your criteria there, btw), and its quite a broad brush that I wouldn't exactly call "psychologically rigorous".

Obvious problem number one, is that no one really applies this explanatory model to any other type of belief. I'm sure you'd have a hard time presuming that a typical conservative, even the extremely argumentative ones, are actually sincerely seeking to believe liberalism, or vice versa. I'm sure we might be able to find a few, but nobody would every think of calling it the normal case.

So why not extend the "argumentative atheist" the benefit of the doubt, that he's made it his goal to sincerely aim his beliefs at truth, whatever that truth may be? And that perhaps he may argue, because he feels strongly that truth matters?

Your general idea is not an uncommon one - but its always maddening, as it turns many conversations into a sort of one-sided psychological attack, rather than a reciprocal exchange of ideas (witness the matriarchal MrsSmith).

djones520
04-30-2010, 02:14 PM
Back to the original topic.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/30/noahs-ark-hoax-claim-doesnt-deter-believers/?test=latestnews

I'm pretty sure this story is referring to the OP.

FlaGator
05-01-2010, 07:58 AM
You should put down the Deepak Chopra and read something by someone who knows what they are talking about :)

I don't read Deepak Chopra. In this case I am referring to like of John Bell and Roger Penrose.

You really should read more.

FlaGator
05-01-2010, 08:11 AM
Here, you've redefined 'macro' evolution as the change in genus. Again, these classifications are artificial systems of naming that people make up to talk about and work with these animals.



If a population can evolve to the point where a new species is showing up, what's stopping the process from continuing? The longer the process goes on, the more the population will change over time.

What mechanism stops the mutation+selection process?

You can keep moving the goal posts and say "well we haven't seen this happen" because we are working with processes that take hundreds of generations to complete, but there's no "new" process.

There's nothing special about "macro" evolution, nothing extra needed other than time.

It's the exact same process at work in "micro" evolution, unless there is some identifiable mechanism to stop it, it makes no sense to assume it just stops.

That's like saying well we know that if you shoot a rocket into space it'll keep moving unless something stops it, we know this because we have space probes floating out in space, but so far we only know that they'll keep moving for 60 years or so, there's no evidence that proves that after 150 years it'll still be moving.


I would like to see solid evidence of changes for one creature in to another. That I don't see. Theoretically it can occur but theoretically lots of things can occur. That does not mean that it does.

As for your analogy using the Law of Inertia, we don't know that rockets will keeping moving because we shoot rockets in to space. We know that they will keep moving because it has been mathematically verified and classified as a Law. To disregard Newton's first law is to break down the foundations of classical physics and the laws that govern motion. There is mathematical evidence that objects will keep moving unless acted upon by an outside force. This is also supported by logic. There is no empirical evidence that one animal changes into another either by observation or by mathematical determination.

FlaGator
05-01-2010, 08:13 AM
Back to the original topic.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/30/noahs-ark-hoax-claim-doesnt-deter-believers/?test=latestnews

I'm pretty sure this story is referring to the OP.

It is interesting that most of those who are calling it a hoax have a vested interest in some other theory that they support as being the correct one. I'm not stating that the original story is or is not a hoax, but I am stating is that this is a case similar to the AGW supporters and deniers. Each side must be looked upon from a skeptics view because each side as some interest (whether monetary or honorary) in being correct.

FlaGator
05-01-2010, 08:22 AM
Any thoughts as to the non-argumentative types?

Here is a thought, perhaps you are a true believer in non-belief (forgive the word play), and I take my hat of to you. You don't feel the compulsion to weigh in on every thread that has some relation to theism and prove your atheism by disproving someone elses faith. What you lack in obsession you make up for in honesty.

As Noonwitch pointed out, where some people are concerned "me think thou protest to much" :D

AmPat
05-01-2010, 12:02 PM
They're very hard to find, for obvious reasons -Blah blah blah...
Lemme help you out lazyboy:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/Time invested, 2 minutes.:rolleyes:
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

Wei Wu Wei
05-01-2010, 12:50 PM
I would like to see solid evidence of changes for one creature in to another. That I don't see. Theoretically it can occur but theoretically lots of things can occur. That does not mean that it does.

One creature doesn't change into another. Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Also, a population of creatures is not "one type of creature" until we classify them as such, nature is just one enormous system that we divide up cognitively for the purpose of working with the world, "type" or "kind" as you are using it is a vague and meaningless category. It allows someone to say "okay this population evolved to this point, like speciation, but it's still the same """"creature"""" so it's not really evolution"

It's like the arbitrary distance of "far". I propose you cannot run far. You may run for hours, but that's not what I consider "far". Therefore, you cannot and never have run far.

What you are asking for is for a population of animals to evolve into something that you think of as being a different "kind" of animal. This is a meaningless distinction in biology. Plus, it's a loaded question. There is plenty of evidence, genetic (which is the most solid), morphological, fossil, and more. What you are asking for is to personally observe a process that takes millions of years.

You are saying that you accept the theory of evolution, that it definitely works and has been shown time and time again to work, and theoretically the process keeps working over time leading to more and more changes, HOWEVER - something, somehow, unspecified and unnamed, stops the evolutionary process, you're demanding evidence that you know is impossible to get. This is like the people who deny major events in history (the crusades, the holocaust, ect), because no matter how much evidence you bring, they didn't personally see it and there's no way to go back in time so in their mind they cannot be proven wrong.

You say that just because it holds up "theoretically" doesn't mean it actually occurs,but it's the exact process we see all the time, just over a longer period of time.

If "macro" evolution doesn't occur, then there's only 2 possible explanations:

1. The entire theory of evolution is wrong, and microevolution (which is the same process) doesn't occur either and somehow everything we know about it (such as pathogen evolution) isn't true and we've just been getting extremely lucky every time we use the theory in practice.

2. The theory accurately describes what occurs, but via Miracle, God has decided to stop evolution in it's tracks with every single animal population since the beginning of time, carefully and constantly intervening to make sure that one animal's descendants don't end up "looking different".


As for your analogy using the Law of Inertia, we don't know that rockets will keeping moving because we shoot rockets in to space. We know that they will keep moving because it has been mathematically verified and classified as a Law. To disregard Newton's first law is to break down the foundations of classical physics and the laws that govern motion. There is mathematical evidence that objects will keep moving unless acted upon by an outside force. This is also supported by logic. There is no empirical evidence that one animal changes into another either by observation or by mathematical determination.

Mathematical models are theory too, they are just based in mathematics and that is why they are classified as law. However, let's use another example:

I propose that rivers cannot and do not carve out canyons. You may point to the grand canyon, with the river running through the bottom, but that just doesn't make sense. How can soft flowing water carve through solid rock? Maybe it can carve a path through dirt or mud, but not rock. Rock is too solid. There is absolutely no evidence that water can carve a canyon through rock, and it flies in the face of common sense.

Perhaps the water can displace some sediments, we've observed that, but no one has ever observed a river carve a canyon through rock. Theoretically if the river kept flowing and displacing sediments you might think that it could carve a canyon, but that's only theory and hasn't been proven.

MrsSmith
05-01-2010, 01:27 PM
If evolution worked over "millions of years," we would see the very slow development of things like legs and wings. As it is, every fossil ever found either has legs, or does not...either has wings, or does not. There would be no survival advantage in legs until they can actually cause a creature to move faster. The only way these things would have been "selected" by evolution is if they appeared for the first time already usable...and the fossil record shows that this is true. The problem arises in exactly how they came about...Darwin's theory falls flat on it's nose given the current evidence. The evidence of periodic, extremely rapid evolution with long, static eras is far more convincing. However, to believe that this extremely rapid change came about with no guidance from an intelligent designer...far harder to believe.


The theory accurately describes what occurs, but via Miracle, God has decided to stop evolution in it's tracks with every single animal population since the beginning of time, carefully and constantly intervening to make sure that one animal's descendants don't end up "looking different" Looking different is not the issue. The issue is whether or not each "type" has existed as a distinct "type" through time. There is no credible evidence that this has not happened.

Wei Wu Wei
05-01-2010, 01:41 PM
If evolution worked over "millions of years," we would see the very slow development of things like legs and wings. As it is, every fossil ever found either has legs, or does not...either has wings, or does not.

1. That's just not true. There are plenty of fossils that show developing limbs.

2. We don't even need fossils. There are fish with extra strong "fins" that they use to walk on land for minutes at a time. There are squirrels with flattened "arms" that they use to glide from tree to tree. The bones in a bat's "wings" are just like the bones in your arm, just different proportions.


There would be no survival advantage in legs until they can actually cause a creature to move faster.

That's not true. Some fish are able to crawl out of the water with their fin-legs and get food. This is advantageous even though they aren't chasing down gazelle.

Squirrels can "glide" from tree to tree and this has an advantage even though they cannot up and fly away like birds or bats.


The only way these things would have been "selected" by evolution is if they appeared for the first time already usable...and the fossil record shows that this is true. The problem arises in exactly how they came about...Darwin's theory falls flat on it's nose given the current evidence. The evidence of periodic, extremely rapid evolution with long, static eras is far more convincing. However, to believe that this extremely rapid change came about with no guidance from an intelligent designer...far harder to believe.

Both take place. There is constant evolution occurring from generation to generation, and sometimes, whether it's from rapid changes in DNA (sunspot activity, atmospheric changes, chemicals produced by other animals, microorganisms and many more can all cause rapid DNA change) or whether it's from rapid changes in the environment (volcano, floods, other major local changes) can all result in speedier evolution.

An organism doesn't need to be born with a brand new appendage, this isn't how evolution works. However, it really depends on the population, the genetics, and the environment. Some creatures evolve very fast, so fast we can observe speciation in a few years. Others have remained largely unchanged for hundreds of millions of years (like crocodiles)


Looking different is not the issue. The issue is whether or not each "type" has existed as a distinct "type" through time. There is no credible evidence that this has not happened.

Except for fossil evidence, morphological evidence, thousands of experiments testing the theory, and most of all genetic evidence. I guess besides all of that there is no evidence.


There's no such thing as a "type". That is a purely symbolic category that we humans invented in order to understand and interact with animals.

Our cognitive processes categorize things, but that's just a labeling system, it doesn't reflect reality in itself.

There's nothing special about a "type" that prevents evolution from changing it.

And as for evidence I'll just repost this:

You say that just because it holds up "theoretically" doesn't mean it actually occurs,but it's the exact process we see all the time, just over a longer period of time.

If "macro" evolution doesn't occur, then there's only 2 possible explanations:

1. The entire theory of evolution is wrong, and microevolution (which is the same process) doesn't occur either and somehow everything we know about it (such as pathogen evolution) isn't true and we've just been getting extremely lucky every time we use the theory in practice.

2. The theory accurately describes what occurs, but via Miracle, God has decided to stop evolution in it's tracks with every single animal population since the beginning of time, carefully and constantly intervening to make sure that one animal's descendants don't end up "looking different".

FlaGator
05-01-2010, 01:47 PM
One creature doesn't change into another. Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Also, a population of creatures is not "one type of creature" until we classify them as such, nature is just one enormous system that we divide up cognitively for the purpose of working with the world, "type" or "kind" as you are using it is a vague and meaningless category. It allows someone to say "okay this population evolved to this point, like speciation, but it's still the same """"creature"""" so it's not really evolution"

It's like the arbitrary distance of "far". I propose you cannot run far. You may run for hours, but that's not what I consider "far". Therefore, you cannot and never have run far.

What you are asking for is for a population of animals to evolve into something that you think of as being a different "kind" of animal. This is a meaningless distinction in biology. Plus, it's a loaded question. There is plenty of evidence, genetic (which is the most solid), morphological, fossil, and more. What you are asking for is to personally observe a process that takes millions of years.

You are saying that you accept the theory of evolution, that it definitely works and has been shown time and time again to work, and theoretically the process keeps working over time leading to more and more changes, HOWEVER - something, somehow, unspecified and unnamed, stops the evolutionary process, you're demanding evidence that you know is impossible to get. This is like the people who deny major events in history (the crusades, the holocaust, ect), because no matter how much evidence you bring, they didn't personally see it and there's no way to go back in time so in their mind they cannot be proven wrong.

You say that just because it holds up "theoretically" doesn't mean it actually occurs,but it's the exact process we see all the time, just over a longer period of time.

If "macro" evolution doesn't occur, then there's only 2 possible explanations:

1. The entire theory of evolution is wrong, and microevolution (which is the same process) doesn't occur either and somehow everything we know about it (such as pathogen evolution) isn't true and we've just been getting extremely lucky every time we use the theory in practice.

2. The theory accurately describes what occurs, but via Miracle, God has decided to stop evolution in it's tracks with every single animal population since the beginning of time, carefully and constantly intervening to make sure that one animal's descendants don't end up "looking different".



Mathematical models are theory too, they are just based in mathematics and that is why they are classified as law. However, let's use another example:

I propose that rivers cannot and do not carve out canyons. You may point to the grand canyon, with the river running through the bottom, but that just doesn't make sense. How can soft flowing water carve through solid rock? Maybe it can carve a path through dirt or mud, but not rock. Rock is too solid. There is absolutely no evidence that water can carve a canyon through rock, and it flies in the face of common sense.

Perhaps the water can displace some sediments, we've observed that, but no one has ever observed a river carve a canyon through rock. Theoretically if the river kept flowing and displacing sediments you might think that it could carve a canyon, but that's only theory and hasn't been proven.

Long responses to simple questions tend to be an attempt at obfuscation. Nitpicking syntax is a when you clearly understand my intent is another. I asked for examples and you gave me rhetoric. Should macro evolution one day be invalidated doesn't mean that the whole theory of evolution is invalid. Just one aspect of it would have been proven untrue. There is solid evidence of changes within a species and new species being created. Can you show me an example where a species (over time) within genus gave rise to a new family due to the number of micro evolutionary changes?

The Law of Inertia is a law of nature not a theory of nature and is supported by mathematical reasoning and mathematical proof, thus no matter how you twist you argument with the with subterfuge of speculation of canyon by water creation, it does not change the fact that your original example of rockets and motion is absurd in our common reality. Can you provide for me a proof of the possibility that the Law of Inertia is in fact a theory of motion?

Wei Wu Wei
05-01-2010, 02:11 PM
Long responses to simple questions tend to be an attempt at obfuscation. Nitpicking syntax is a when you clearly understand my intent is another. I asked for examples and you gave me rhetoric.

1. The problem is an issue with cognition, and the mind is structured like a language, so using the terms like I have is not irrelevant. The idea revealed through evolution is that there are no real "kinds" of animals, all "kinds" blend into each other, it's one enormous family.

2. Are you asking me for an example of observing a process that takes millions of years? You know that is an absurd request.


Should macro evolution one day be invalidated doesn't mean that the whole theory of evolution is invalid. Just one aspect of it would have been proven untrue.

Here is the problem, "macro" evolution isn't an "aspect" of evolution, because there is no real distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. The distinction is only used to talk about time scales, the process is the EXACT SAME PROCESS.

Macroevolution IS evolution.
Microevolution IS evolution.
Microevolution IS Macroevolution
evolution IS evolution
It's the same process, one process, a single flow of change.


There is solid evidence of changes within a species and new species being created. Can you show me an example where a species (over time) within genus gave rise to a new family due to the number of micro evolutionary changes?

You're just moving up and up and up.

First, there is plenty of evidence, fossil, morphological, and GENETIC (which is the strongest and most solid evidence to date) that full scale evolution has occurred (meaning all life is related)

Second, first it's small changes like color that people want, then species change, then genus, then family, the order and so on. The more that is "proven" (by whatever standards you are using), the more you'll want to move up further the classification scheme.




The Law of Inertia is a law of nature not a theory of nature and is supported by mathematical reasoning and mathematical proof, thus no matter how you twist you argument with the with subterfuge of speculation of canyon by water creation, it does not change the fact that your original example of rockets and motion is absurd in our common reality. Can you provide for me a proof of the possibility that the Law of Inertia is in fact a theory of motion?

No you're totally right here, I shouldn't have used an example based in mathematical laws, it doesn't relate too well because of it's mathematical basis.

I prefer the Canyon example.

fettpett
05-01-2010, 03:10 PM
Wei wie or wilbur, answer this question, how can a supposed 65 MILLION year old fossil stil have intact connective tissue, blood and cells?

Wei Wu Wei
05-01-2010, 03:51 PM
Wei wie or wilbur, answer this question, how can a supposed 65 MILLION year old fossil stil have intact connective tissue, blood and cells?

I'm sure a quick search of Google Scholar can give you a very thorough answer, but in short:

Mummification followed by fossilization

fettpett
05-01-2010, 04:08 PM
I'm sure a quick search of Google Scholar can give you a very thorough answer, but in short:

Mummification followed by fossilization

they weren't fossilized

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html


"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

so now after literally THOUSANDS if not Millions of fossils with only hard tissue (ie bones) they find one that has soft tissue and they have to reinvent how fossilization happens? :rolleyes: ok...

Wei Wu Wei
05-01-2010, 05:19 PM
they weren't fossilized

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html



so now after literally THOUSANDS if not Millions of fossils with only hard tissue (ie bones) they find one that has soft tissue and they have to reinvent how fossilization happens? :rolleyes: ok...

Yes that's how it works. When new data comes that conflicts with the current theories, the theories must be changed to account for them. This is how our theories become progressively more accurate and reliable, by evidence that works AGAINST it. This is why all scientific experiments are aimed at disproving a hypothesis.


As opposed to the fundamentalist approach which holds the current theory to be True, and any conflicting data must either be discounted, ignored, or somehow misrepresented to match the current theory without changing the theory itself.

MrsSmith
05-01-2010, 06:01 PM
Yes that's how it works. When new data comes that conflicts with the current theories, the theories must be changed to account for them. This is how our theories become progressively more accurate and reliable, by evidence that works AGAINST it. This is why all scientific experiments are aimed at disproving a hypothesis.


As opposed to the fundamentalist approach which holds the current theory to be True, and any conflicting data must either be discounted, ignored, or somehow misrepresented to match the current theory without changing the theory itself.

That made me laugh. :D I love people that believe an "accurate and reliable" theory of evolution that accounts for all the forms of life...but can't explain how life started. Or where DNA came from.

These things just invented themselves, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 After all, they aren't at all complex, so surely they could just happen in a swamp somewhere. :rolleyes:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627571.100-the-secrets-of-intelligence-lie-within-a-single-cell.html?full=true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA...DNA is a long polymer made from repeating units called nucleotides.[2][3][4] The DNA chain is 22 to 26 Ångströms wide (2.2 to 2.6 nanometres), and one nucleotide unit is 3.3 Å (0.33 nm) long.[5] Although each individual repeating unit is very small, DNA polymers can be very large molecules containing millions of nucleotides. For instance, the largest human chromosome, chromosome number 1, is approximately 220 million base pairs long...These things just invented themselves, right?

wilbur
05-01-2010, 06:34 PM
so now after literally THOUSANDS if not Millions of fossils with only hard tissue (ie bones) they find one that has soft tissue and they have to reinvent how fossilization happens? :rolleyes: ok...

They havent really re-invented anything as far as I know... anyhow, this is a stock and trade creationist canard, so talk origins has dealt with it (and of course, references are at the bottom).



1. The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues.[/ Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).

...

3. DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

wilbur
05-01-2010, 07:12 PM
That made me laugh. :D I love people that believe an "accurate and reliable" theory of evolution that accounts for all the forms of life...but can't explain how life started. Or where DNA came from.


An irrelevant requirement, actually.



These things just invented themselves, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 After all, they aren't at all complex, so surely they could just happen in a swamp somewhere. :rolleyes:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627571.100-the-secrets-of-intelligence-lie-within-a-single-cell.html?full=true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA...DNA is a long polymer made from repeating units called nucleotides.[2][3][4] The DNA chain is 22 to 26 Ångströms wide (2.2 to 2.6 nanometres), and one nucleotide unit is 3.3 Å (0.33 nm) long.[5] Although each individual repeating unit is very small, DNA polymers can be very large molecules containing millions of nucleotides. For instance, the largest human chromosome, chromosome number 1, is approximately 220 million base pairs long...These things just invented themselves, right?

No, those things didn't invent themselves... chemistry and the laws of nature invented those things. But seriously... if thats so improbable, what must the chances be for a perfect being to invent himself - who has both the desire and the power to create such arrangements of matter? A few complicated, but small configurations of matter existing as a result of the natural workings of a mindless universe, seems rather trivial to imagine in comparison.

If its hard to believe the universe could be so "finely tuned" as to produce such things, then how on earth are we supposed to believe there exists a perfect being (who is tuned as perfectly as its possible to be tuned) that can produce such things?

Wei Wu Wei
05-01-2010, 08:03 PM
That made me laugh. :D I love people that believe an "accurate and reliable" theory of evolution that accounts for all the forms of life...but can't explain how life started. Or where DNA came from.

Actually there are several interesting theories about the source of DNA and of life, however the theory of Evolution isn't concerned with origins.

The theory of Evolution is a theory of Evolution. Not too complicated I hope.

It's a theory of change, not of origins.


These things just invented themselves, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 After all, they aren't at all complex, so surely they could just happen in a swamp somewhere. :rolleyes:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627571.100-the-secrets-of-intelligence-lie-within-a-single-cell.html?full=true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA...DNA is a long polymer made from repeating units called nucleotides.[2][3][4] The DNA chain is 22 to 26 Ångströms wide (2.2 to 2.6 nanometres), and one nucleotide unit is 3.3 Å (0.33 nm) long.[5] Although each individual repeating unit is very small, DNA polymers can be very large molecules containing millions of nucleotides. For instance, the largest human chromosome, chromosome number 1, is approximately 220 million base pairs long...These things just invented themselves, right?

Yes the world is incredibly complex no one doubts that.

Did it happen by itself? Yes, that's the truly remarkable part. The real miracle of creation is not that some guy in the clouds poofed it into existence, but that it evolved naturally.

Technically, there's no necessary rigid distinction between life and non-life.

BOOM- there's a bunch of energy, it expands and cools and condenses into matter + energy, the matter clumps together into giant masses, these giant masses crush the atoms together producing more complex forms of atoms.

These new atoms react with each other, forming molecules, various molecules react with others when energy is present. You have 14 billion year old chemical reaction, it's like any ol chemistry set just unfathomably complex.

The chemicals mix around and mesh around, forming chains and breaking apart. Some give off heat, some absorb it, some just fall apart, all sorts of reactions.

One of these chains absorbs energy and makes a copy of itself with other pieces of molecules. These copies then make copies of themselves.

Soon the sea is teeming with self-replicating molecules, every now and then the self-replication process is imperfect, resulting in new kinds of self-replicating molecules. Some replicate better than others, and biological evolution has begun.

Once (imperfect) self-replication and natural selection is in place, that's all you need. A nucleotide changes here and there, resulting in a novel amino acid or a new protein. Some of these result in better replication, some of them do not. Obviously the ones that work better keep replicating, because that's all they do. 4 Billion years later and we have long strings of nucleotides wrapped up in proteins, organizing incredibly complex structures around them, cells. These cells together all work for the benefit of the nucleotide chain, propelling the clump of cells to replicate more copies of itself. With so much time, these clumps of cells wrapped around nucleotide chains build computers and explain the process to you.

There you go.

Wei Wu Wei
05-01-2010, 08:04 PM
As remarkable as it may seem (and the majesty of nature never ceases to amaze me), a very simple process is very capable of producing incredibly complex results.

fettpett
05-01-2010, 08:25 PM
They havent really re-invented anything as far as I know... anyhow, this is a stock and trade creationist canard, so talk origins has dealt with it (and of course, references are at the bottom).



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

I wasn't referring to the actual process of fossilization but to the theories which they EXPLICITLY stated that could not be explained with their current ones. and yeah, they've gotten DNA and other soft tissue from bones that are supposedly 10,000+ years old, but they are talking about ones that are suppose to be MILLIONS of years old.

wilbur
05-01-2010, 08:50 PM
I wasn't referring to the actual process of fossilization but to the theories which they EXPLICITLY stated that could not be explained with their current ones. and yeah, they've gotten DNA and other soft tissue from bones that are supposedly 10,000+ years old, but they are talking about ones that are suppose to be MILLIONS of years old.

I don't think your groking the problem here - tissue on fossils in those age ranges are much more common - so if the dinosaur bone is young, it it surprising that we have found so few dinosaur bones with actual soft tissue on them. So, if you want raise the possibility that the t-rex is young, you are left with the burden of concocting a theory to explain why only one, despite the thousands (or millions?!) found, has some sort of soft tissue.

Now, if you think adjustments to fossilization theories are problematic, simmer on just what has to be changed for creationism to be true. The consensus theory merely has to be modified to account for a couple anomalies - while the creationist has to modify the theory to explain thousands (and maybe millions) of anomalies, since - under creationism - conventionally mineralized remains without soft tissue, would be the anomalies.

It's doubtful that it will be much of a problem to explain soft tissue in ancient fossils, as there are naturally occurring preservatives, that act in similar ways to formaldehyde. Combine some of that with a sealed, bacteria free environment, and you have a recipe for soft tissue preservation.

But still, the first problem really is that, apparently, they aren't sure that it is actually dinosaur soft tissue. Journalistic sensationalism strikes again.

fettpett
05-01-2010, 09:00 PM
I don't think your groking the problem here - tissue on fossils in those age ranges are much more common - so if the dinosaur bone is young, it it surprising that we have found so few dinosaur bones with actual soft tissue on them. So, if you want raise the possibility that the t-rex is young, you are left with the burden of concocting a theory to explain why only one, despite the thousands (or millions?!) found, has some sort of soft tissue.

Now, if you think adjustments to fossilization theories are problematic, simmer on just what has to be changed for creationism to be true. The consensus theory merely has to be modified to account for a couple anomalies - while the creationist has to modify the theory to explain thousands (and maybe millions) of anomalies, since - under creationism - conventionally mineralized remains without soft tissue, would be the anomalies.

It's doubtful that it will be much of a problem to explain soft tissue in ancient fossils, as there are naturally occurring preservatives, that act in similar ways to formaldehyde. Combine some of that with a sealed, bacteria free environment, and you have a recipe for soft tissue preservation.

But still, the first problem really is that, apparently, they aren't sure that it is actually dinosaur soft tissue. Journalistic sensationalism strikes again.


it's the scientist that were calling it dino soft tissue, NOT the Journalist.

ok, so how did the T. Rex get into a sealed bacteria free environment in SD quick enough with the preservatives without destroying the animal, as this particular T Rex was a nearly complete skeleton which is rare enough as it is

wilbur
05-01-2010, 09:11 PM
it's the scientist that were calling it dino soft tissue, NOT the Journalist.

Re-read the article - thats not true. I'm sure there are published papers on this bone - we'd have to look at them to know for sure.



ok, so how did the T. Rex get into a sealed bacteria free environment in SD quick enough with the preservatives without destroying the animal, as this particular T Rex was a nearly complete skeleton which is rare enough as it is

I don't know - ask a palaeontologist - on creationism, how could so many bones be mineralized and stripped of all traces of soft-tissue in no more than 10,000 years?

FlaGator
05-01-2010, 09:25 PM
1. The problem is an issue with cognition, and the mind is structured like a language, so using the terms like I have is not irrelevant. The idea revealed through evolution is that there are no real "kinds" of animals, all "kinds" blend into each other, it's one enormous family.

2. Are you asking me for an example of observing a process that takes millions of years? You know that is an absurd request.


Shouldn't the fossil record be able to indicate this?



Here is the problem, "macro" evolution isn't an "aspect" of evolution, because there is no real distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. The distinction is only used to talk about time scales, the process is the EXACT SAME PROCESS.

Macroevolution IS evolution.
Microevolution IS evolution.
Microevolution IS Macroevolution
evolution IS evolution
It's the same process, one process, a single flow of change.


Here is the whole issue behind intelligent discussions of evolution, everyone has their own definition of what constitutes evolutions and no one from either side of the debate can agree on what it is. But if instances can be found where micro evolution did not lead to the creation of new families or even genus' then is there really such a thing a macro evolution? Perhaps I'm using to fine of a distinction but that is because I do believe that changes within a genus or species happen. However I don't not believe that new families have been derived from the accumulation of these changes with in a species or genus. The fossil record is spotty.



You're just moving up and up and up.

First, there is plenty of evidence, fossil, morphological, and GENETIC (which is the strongest and most solid evidence to date) that full scale evolution has occurred (meaning all life is related)

Second, first it's small changes like color that people want, then species change, then genus, then family, the order and so on. The more that is "proven" (by whatever standards you are using), the more you'll want to move up further the classification scheme.

Your first point doesn't dispute the possibility of intelligent design in which the designer used a base DNA prototype and manipulated it to create all life as we know it. All life would then be related. That means that your first point is up for grabs between ID and macro evolution and both sides should be treated fairly in the arena of ideas since neither can bring to enough proof to the table to discount the other.

As for your second point, you would only need to move up the classification scale until such a time as two distinct life forms are shown that have originated from a common ancestor. This has been implied by research but not demonstrated conclusively. The same problem that Darwin saw with his theory, the lack of transitional fossils, still had not been remedied. As Darwin pointed out (I believe it was Darwin) there should be more intermediary fossil examples than beginning and final result fossils. The only way I see to argue out of this is to purpose drastic mutations that resulted in whole new genus' but that argument would stand in contradiction of the mechanism of evolution.

fettpett
05-01-2010, 11:29 PM
Re-read the article - thats not true. I'm sure there are published papers on this bone - we'd have to look at them to know for sure.

um.....yes it is


"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

It's the paleontologist that says it, NOT the Journalist that whole quote is from her.



I don't know - ask a palaeontologist - on creationism, how could so many bones be mineralized and stripped of all traces of soft-tissue in no more than 10,000 years?

probably the same way that a piece of wood can be turned into a chunk of coal or a diamond in a few weeks to months, LOTS of pressure from say........Thousands of tons of sediment being dumped on it. the pressure would have created enough heat to destroy most of the flesh and fossilize the bones.

wilbur
05-02-2010, 09:28 AM
um.....yes it is

It's the paleontologist that says it, NOT the Journalist that whole quote is from her.



There is nothing in that quote concretely saying that the tissue is original.... all those inferences are made by the article. Trust me - science journalism is horrible, even often in publications like nature. They get you to read the articles by puffing up claims and sensationalizing, just like anything else. To get the real story, you'll have to look at peer review. So again, its not even clear, at this point, that anything actually needs be accounted for.



probably the same way that a piece of wood can be turned into a chunk of coal or a diamond in a few weeks to months, LOTS of pressure from say........Thousands of tons of sediment being dumped on it. the pressure would have created enough heat to destroy most of the flesh and fossilize the bones.

Ok, but you still have the problem of explaining just how soft tissue survived such a process. What makes it more plausible that soft tissue would survive such intense heat and pressure? Then you also have to explain why the relative age of fossils varies so greatly... then you also have to explain why the layering of fossils in the geologic column do not appear to be sorted in a manner consistent with flooding. Heck, now you have to explain the whole geologic column, itself. And unless you can produce a fossil building machine, like we now have with diamonds, your hypothesis suffers the same unfortunate circumstance that processes that take millions of years do - we can't replicate in a lab, because we can't exactly simulate a global flood. But floods do and have happened all throughout our history - so you also have to explain why we don't see relatively modern animals fossilized in the same ways.

If it as a problem that we have to adjust some aspect of our beliefs about fossilization to account for soft tissue, it surely is a *huge* problem to adjust all sciences to account for a young earth theory of fossilization. Explaining one or two anomalies, improbable though they may be, is orders of magnitudes less problematic than that alternative.

fettpett
05-02-2010, 11:06 AM
There is nothing in that quote concretely saying that the tissue is original.... all those inferences are made by the article. Trust me - science journalism is horrible, even often in publications like nature. They get you to read the articles by puffing up claims and sensationalizing, just like anything else. To get the real story, you'll have to look at peer review. So again, its not even clear, at this point, that anything actually needs be accounted for.

did you read the article? they talk about how they got the tissue sample:

Because the leg bone was deliberately broken in the field, no preservatives were added. As a result, the soft tissues were not contaminated.



Ok, but you still have the problem of explaining just how soft tissue survived such a process. What makes it more plausible that soft tissue would survive such intense heat and pressure? Then you also have to explain why the relative age of fossils varies so greatly... then you also have to explain why the layering of fossils in the geologic column do not appear to be sorted in a manner consistent with flooding. Heck, now you have to explain the whole geologic column, itself. And unless you can produce a fossil building machine, like we now have with diamonds, your hypothesis suffers the same unfortunate circumstance that processes that take millions of years do - we can't replicate in a lab, because we can't exactly simulate a global flood. But floods do and have happened all throughout our history - so you also have to explain why we don't see relatively modern animals fossilized in the same ways.

If it as a problem that we have to adjust some aspect of our beliefs about fossilization to account for soft tissue, it surely is a *huge* problem to adjust all sciences to account for a young earth theory of fossilization. Explaining one or two anomalies, improbable though they may be, is orders of magnitudes less problematic than that alternative.

there are many cases of Rapid Petrifaction

a group of Japanese scientist found trees that had petrified in less than 40 years, they did an experiment that found it could happen in less than 10 years
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6X-4CY050V-2&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F15%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1319346556&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=492f58f6ac97b2f116dfc396590d7f94

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm

it doesn't take much to realize that if there was a Massive world-wide flood that the piling on of sediment then as the water dried and soaked into the ground that the bones would have fossilized. if a Tree can fossilize in 10 years, than any bones can be fossilized in 10,000 year range.


If find it highly ironic that Atheist Scientist will do exactly what they say Christian Scientist do when presented with evidence, and ignore it or call it pesdo-science. I think we can both agree that there is a lot of dumb/underhanded stuff done on both sides of the aisle

Wei Wu Wei
05-02-2010, 04:44 PM
Shouldn't the fossil record be able to indicate this?

It does, but you have to remember that fossils are extremely rare. The odds of a bone becoming fossilized are a million to one, and the odds of complete or mostly-complete skeletons being preserved are almost 0.

Fossils are extremely, EXTREMELY, rare. It's unrealistic to expect a full complete fossil record.




Here is the whole issue behind intelligent discussions of evolution, everyone has their own definition of what constitutes evolutions and no one from either side of the debate can agree on what it is.

Except for the scientists. Listen., I don't think it's impossible for either side to agree on with it is, just follow your logic:

You accept microevolution, I assume you have a good working understanding of how the process works, and you know that theoretically, if the process continues the result is further and further change.

So, if we have a process of change based on a steady principle (imperfect replication and natural selection) you get a form of change like A-B-C-D-E....

Now, Macroevolution as you call it, is not a difference in process, just a difference in time. It's like saying "microevolution is the change from A-D, while macroevolution is the change from A-P"

Either way, the process is the same, A-B-C-D-E....

We seem to agree about the process, that's the only place where you can logically disagree.

The key question, to determine how you "define evolution" is this: What is the process, mechanism, or functional difference between the occurance of "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution?

That's not "what are the different results?" but, "what are the different processes".

Either they are the same process or they are not, if they are not the same process, it would help to know your definition of the process of macroevolution.



But if instances can be found where micro evolution did not lead to the creation of new families or even genus' then is there really such a thing a macro evolution? Perhaps I'm using to fine of a distinction but that is because I do believe that changes within a genus or species happen. However I don't not believe that new families have been derived from the accumulation of these changes with in a species or genus. The fossil record is spotty.

Genetic evidence is far stronger and far more complete.

Again, if you're suggesting that evolution somehow stops at a certain point, what is the mechanism or functional difference in process that stops it?




Your first point doesn't dispute the possibility of intelligent design in which the designer used a base DNA prototype and manipulated it to create all life as we know it. All life would then be related.


Whoaaaa now. Here it seems you are accepting that full scale macroevolution occured, but that a Transcendent Intelligence intervened in the mutations of DNA or in the seemingly random events that select for certain phenotypes.

This does not conflict with the theory, but it is outside of the theory.

Basically this is saying that the theory of evolution is correct as we know it, but that behind the scenes, in a realm that we cannot measure, there is something guiding the process.

This means that evolution and ID aren't necessarily contradictory (just like how people accept the Big Bang theory, but posit that God triggered it), however one of these is a scientific theory, so it does not take supernatural causes into account.


That means that your first point is up for grabs between ID and macro evolution and both sides should be treated fairly in the arena of ideas since neither can bring to enough proof to the table to discount the other.

In the philosophic arena of ideas they should be treated fairly. In the scientific arena of ideas they should not.

Science is a naturalistic empirical epistemological tool, and as such any invocation of a supernatural cause cannot be used. A fundamental aspect of any scientific theory is Falsifiability and ID simply is not falsifiable. There is nothing at all that can disprove the idea that there is a God working behind the scenes, not even theoretically. There are thousands of things that could disprove evolution if we were to find them, but we could never find anything that could disprove God-as-cause.

Unfalsifiable, unscientific. Simple as that.


As for your second point, you would only need to move up the classification scale until such a time as two distinct life forms are shown that have originated from a common ancestor.

Another problem of cognition. Every animal is a distinct life form. Classification scales are artificial inventions by man, nature is not divided up into the groups we named.


This has been implied by research but not demonstrated conclusively. The same problem that Darwin saw with his theory, the lack of transitional fossils, still had not been remedied. As Darwin pointed out (I believe it was Darwin) there should be more intermediary fossil examples than beginning and final result fossils. The only way I see to argue out of this is to purpose drastic mutations that resulted in whole new genus' but that argument would stand in contradiction of the mechanism of evolution.

You wouldn't need drastic mutations. Get any population, separate the population into two different environments and give them a few hundred thousand generations. The accumulation of tiny mutations would over time lead to changes so drastic that the two populations would appear to be totally different "forms" of animal.

fettpett
05-02-2010, 05:36 PM
dude, fossils are Not rare at all. finding fully intact Skeletons, yeah, thats rare

Wei Wu Wei
05-02-2010, 06:18 PM
dude, fossils are Not rare at all. finding fully intact Skeletons, yeah, thats rare

The odds of any bone becoming fossilized is extremely rare. It just so happens that there have been billions and billions of animals roaming around the earth so we have thousands and thousands of fossil specimens. Still very rare, especially for land animals.

wilbur
05-02-2010, 06:19 PM
dude, fossils are Not rare at all. finding fully intact Skeletons, yeah, thats rare

I would presume what he was trying to imply was that any particular animal remains are unlikely to be fossilized - that the fossil record only represents a minute fraction of the actual populations of organisms when they existed.

Wei Wu Wei
05-02-2010, 07:20 PM
I would presume what he was trying to imply was that any particular animal remains are unlikely to be fossilized - that the fossil record only represents a minute fraction of the actual populations of organisms when they existed.

yes this

wilbur
05-02-2010, 09:41 PM
did you read the article? they talk about how they got the tissue sample:


Yes, of course I read it - I read it, precisely looking for the part where the scientist claimed that the bones contained original tissue. Its not there.

In fact, the published papers authored by the scientists who made the discovery, apparently point out that they are not sure if the material is original tissue.

Here's a much more reasonable news story on the issue - note this part:

Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance.

She and other scientists will want to establish if some hitherto unexplained fine-scale process has been at work in MOR 1125, which was pulled from the famous dinosaur rocks of eastern Montana known as the Hell Creek Formation.

Protein route

"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.

"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm



there are many cases of Rapid Petrifaction

a group of Japanese scientist found trees that had petrified in less than 40 years, they did an experiment that found it could happen in less than 10 years
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6X-4CY050V-2&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F15%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1319346556&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=492f58f6ac97b2f116dfc396590d7f94

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm

it doesn't take much to realize that if there was a Massive world-wide flood that the piling on of sediment then as the water dried and soaked into the ground that the bones would have fossilized. if a Tree can fossilize in 10 years, than any bones can be fossilized in 10,000 year range.


Why? From what I can tell, silica petrification of wood is a completely different process than the type of fossilization that occurs in ancient bones. So there really isnt any good reason to go overturning fossilization theories...

As for imagining a global flood, I'll simply repeat points from above:
"Ok, but you still have the problem of explaining just how soft tissue survived such a process. What makes it more plausible that soft tissue would survive such intense heat and pressure? Then you also have to explain why the relative age of fossils varies so greatly... then you also have to explain why the layering of fossils in the geologic column do not appear to be sorted in a manner consistent with flooding. Heck, now you have to explain the whole geologic column, itself. And unless you can produce a fossil building machine, like we now have with diamonds, your hypothesis suffers the same unfortunate circumstance that processes that take millions of years do - we can't replicate in a lab, because we can't exactly simulate a global flood. But floods do and have happened all throughout our history - so you also have to explain why we don't see relatively modern animals fossilized in the same ways.

So I'll add that your hypothesis comes with all the same unanswered puzzles as the prevailing theories of fossilization, but add a billion more to the mix.n See the problem?



If find it highly ironic that Atheist Scientist will do exactly what they say Christian Scientist do when presented with evidence, and ignore it or call it pesdo-science. I think we can both agree that there is a lot of dumb/underhanded stuff done on both sides of the aisle

What scientist, and how do you know they are atheist, and what gives you the impression they "ignore" evidence? Nobody covered up this t-rex bone... they published about it!

I vehemently disagree that there is lots of underhanded stuff on both sides of the aisle. There is a side that produces good science, and there is a side that is pre-committed to the beliefs of a six day creation, and a ~10k year old earth. What's more, they hold this belief to be axiomatic and unchangeable. Their "science" is little more than an apologetic practice to defend their pre-committed beliefs from sceptics, and the results of modern, honest, science.

Articulate_Ape
05-02-2010, 09:48 PM
The only difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is time. The former stops being understood beyond the "big bang" and the latter begins believing at the same spot. The argument is one related to when more than anything else and that is definitely a matter of faith in both science and religion; and where the two become one.

wilbur
05-02-2010, 09:55 PM
Lemme help you out lazyboy:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/Time invested, 2 minutes.:rolleyes:
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
long list of quacks cut for brevity
......



I did a line count of your list, and it came to about 192 names.

If its long lists of names that you find convincing, you should check out "Project Steve". The NCSE has amassed a list of 1100 scientists so far, who endorse this statement:



Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.


Oh, ~1100 names, and its only for scientists who are named Steve... which comprise about 1% of the scientific population.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

So with that in mind, your list of names has become statistically insignificant. And it only had one Steve.

Articulate_Ape
05-02-2010, 09:59 PM
I did a line count of your list, and it came to about 192 names.

If its long lists of names that you find convincing, you should check out "Project Steve". The NCSE has amassed a list of 1100 scientists so far, who endorse this statement:



Oh, ~1100 names, and its only for scientists who are named Steve... which comprise about 1% of the scientific population.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

So with that in mind, your list of names has become statistically insignificant.

Not to butt in here, WWW, but if you were to record evolution on this planet with a stop-action camera and condense it to say 100,000 years per minute, what do you think it would look like? Try 1,000,000 years per minute, what would that look like?

wilbur
05-03-2010, 02:05 PM
Not to butt in here, WWW, but if you were to record evolution on this planet with a stop-action camera and condense it to say 100,000 years per minute, what do you think it would look like? Try 1,000,000 years per minute, what would that look like?

Blurry? :P

FlaGator
05-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Blurry? :P

That explains images of bigfoot.

AmPat
05-03-2010, 02:59 PM
I did a line count of your list, and it came to about 192 names.



Please, can we keep your boyfriend out of this. You said that it was difficult to find scientists who were also creationists. I proved you are a liar with less than two minutes of Google-Foo. I Don't need statistics to prove that.:cool: