Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Suicide Junkie]

For simulating shapes and surfaces of ships in mods:
Make all "internal" components have the cargo ability (amount-zero)
Make all "surface" components, such as weapons, engines, and fighter launch bays NOT have the cargo ability. (Fighter storage would have to be separated from fighter launch components)

Add a cargo % restriction to every hull size.
The actual value would depend on the shape and size of the hull.

For a simple shape like a sphere, the cargo % would be high. For a complex shaped ship with wings, skinny sections, and open areas, the requirement would be much lower.

Relating this to the TNG-mod:

Think of various ships in the TNG universe.
A romulan warbird is very open, with the wings and such. The only blocky area is the bridge-section. Such a ship would have a cargo requirement of somthing like 5%

A borg Sphere, on the other hand, is mostly internal space. In fact the sphere shape has the least surface area for the most volume.
It would have a cargo requirement of something more like 60% Fusion cubes would be even worse.

The fancy shapes and high surface area of the standard ships allows them plenty of room for weapons and other such things that need to poke through the hull.
The borg cubes, on the other hand, have a lot of internal volume that can't be used for weapons or other surface objects!

[ December 11, 2002, 04:45: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Ed Kolis]

SJ, you are simply a genius at modding SE4! I hope that talent pays off in the real world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

To add to your idea, though, how about giving all "surface" components the Armor ability so they get hit first, thus protecting the inner components and possibly balancing the two ship styles?

Then you could also say that bigger ships a greater proportion of internals than smaller ships do, and really get fancy! Maybe you could make the different hull types separate tech areas, as well - after all, it is a different kind of engineering to hold together a spindly Excelsior class cruiser or X-wing fighter than is is to build a sturdy Borg cube or Death Star!

[Fyron]

You know, I just might have to steal that idea for Adamant mod... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Taera]

An interesting idea you have there, SG.
Would love to see it implemented.

[Captain Kwok]

This is similiar to how ships were built in SE:III.

One nitpick is that the main parts of a weapon may be in the hull and not directly mounted on it. One might also argue that a Borg Cube is so large, there is still more surface area than any other ship.

It's still a cool idea though.

[ November 28, 2002, 01:17: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
...To add to your idea, though, how about giving all "surface" components the Armor ability so they get hit first, thus protecting the inner components and possibly balancing the two ship styles?
...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm, except then it would have the same logical error that the "hit first" armor suffers from in SE4 - it ALL has to be destroyed before ANY non-hit-first components are. So there is no way to penetrate armor - it all has to be completely vaporized first. Which, is entirely not how actual armor works. Which is why I modded armor the way I did in Proportions mod.

PvK

[Kamog]

There needs to be some way to balance out the disadvantage of having a sphere or cube shaped ship with large internal volume. These ships are penalized by requiring to have more cargo %, so you are at a disadvantage because of the heavier restrictions you have on ship design and the fewer weapons that can be included. So you wouldn't want to play a race with such a ship set.

To balance things out, how about giving these ships more structure strength to resist damage, for example?

[Suicide Junkie]

One might also argue that a Borg Cube is so large, there is still more surface area than any other ship.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly: the 30% surface area on a Cube of 2000kt is still bigger than the 80% surface area on a 600kt spindly battleship.

Kamog:
For a trek mod, the disadvantage of borg shape restrictions is compensated for by the vastly larger size of the ship http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ November 28, 2002, 02:21: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Krsqk]

Give the surface components much higher hitpoints, so they're hit first more ofter--a la Proportions' armor.

I think this is an awesome idea, though. I did like the SE3 armor/outer hull/inner hull design setup; once a layer was pierced, the next layer could (but not necessarily would) be hit. This is the closest we can get with the SE4 model.

[Escaflowne]

Ships with large internal volumes and relatively small suface area may have fewer places to mount weapons. But due to their large size they are more then likely able to mount guns that would shred the smaller ships, even if the smaller ships have more weapons.

Plus there's the fact that you have all that internal space. You could have armored belts on the inside. Not sure we could represent that except maybe have some armor with cargo to represent 'internal' and some armor without cargo to represent 'external'. Of course the downside is you can't have any fancy armor on the inside of your ship. But you also have plenty of space for supplies, cargo, magazine capacity (if some mods use it), and of course SHIELDS.

So a Borg cube can't mount many individual weapons. But each of those weapons it does mount could crack a small starship in half. Plus it could have nearly impenatrable shields and several internal armored belts to make it extremely tough.

[ November 30, 2002, 14:30: Message edited by: Escaflowne ]

[Ed Kolis]

Don't Borg ships lack shields? I never understood why, surely they've assimilated someone who knows how they work, they seem to be a common enough technology... Maybe the shields are incompatible with some other aspect of their technology... kind of like how the Antarans didn't use shields in MOO2 because they had Damper Fields which reduced all damage by 75%...

[Suicide Junkie]

The Borg do have shields...
The're just very specific, and they just don't plan ahead, getting surprised a lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The fmog

[Taz-in-Space]

I believe that the Borg were never really thought out very well... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Consider the Borg assimilation tech. With this tech the Borg don't have to directly conquor Earth - just seed Federation space with Borg drones and have them assimulate everyone they meet... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
Very soon you would have a Borg Federation!
I.E. They made the Borg too powerful to stop if they were real. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[capnq]

If you use angle brackets put a space between them and the other object. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Another way to do &lt and &gt is to use & lt ("less than") and & gt ("greater than"), without the spaces.

[Suicide Junkie]

I don't think the Enterprise had a chance in hell to defeat the Borg. If they weren't after Picard, they could have easily blown the Enterprise apart before it could even get off a shot.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, they'd get to fire a few shots, but they wouldn't do any noticable damage.

The borg cube only needed three shield-sapper shots to disable them, and then start cutting bits out like a roast.

The Borg are extremely powerful, but they have no real direction, and are very narrow-minded. Tactical superiority, but no strategy to speak of.
They do not spend resources on "insurance", or anything without immediate value.

IOW, they are perfect for a monster race, with powerful and dangerous single ships, yet nearly harmless in the big picture.

[Captain Kwok]

I don't think the Enterprise had a chance in hell to defeat the Borg. If they weren't after Picard, they could have easily blown the Enterprise apart before it could even get off a shot.

[Kamog]

I believe that the Borg were never really thought out very well... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Neither was the time traveling stuff with First Contact. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif If the Borg can travel back in time to change history whenever they want, why didn't they do it earlier? Apparently, the Enterprise has exactly the same time traveling capability, but of course the Federation is bound by the prime directive of temporal non-interference (which they disobey every other episode). By the way, the stuff from the other movies and the original series about traveling back in time by using the sling shot effect, flying around the sun really fast, never did make much sense...

[Phoenix-D]

"By the way, the stuff from the other movies and the original series about traveling back in time by using the sling shot effect, flying around the sun really fast, never did make much sense..."

If you go REALLY fast in real space, you should theoreticlly end up going back in time. The apparent time slows as you speed up and approach the speed of light, so "logiclly" after a point it should start running backwards.

The problem with that is in order to do that, you need to generate MORE than infinite force. Slingshoting around a sun just ain't going to cut it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That and your apparent time would reverse, not anything else's. The result would likely be a ship trapped in an infinite loop..go forward one second, reverse the next. You can't go anywhere, the time is too small to react..stasis.

Phoenix-D

[Krsqk]

"If the Borg can travel back in time to change history whenever they want, why didn't they do it earlier?"

Just have them go back in time to change when they started going back in time... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Maybe this should have gone in the Post-of-Many-Names...

[capnq]

I've got an obscure boardgame in my collection called Time Agent. The object of the game is to travel in time and change history so that your empire dominates the galaxy, then prevent anyone else from changing things back, by going back and preventing the invention of time travel. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[PvK]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

If you go REALLY fast in real space, you should theoreticlly end up going back in time. The apparent time slows as you speed up and approach the speed of light, so "logiclly" after a point it should start running backwards.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the limit of this theoretical effect, is that everyone else would see the fast ship as if it were moving almost as fast as the speed of light. The fast ship would in theory seem like it was travelling faster than the speed of light, as if there were no speed limit, but even with infinite speed, the time to reach the destination would be at least zero, but never less than zero. T = D/V. As long as D(istance) and V(elocity) are positive, change in T(ime) is positive. The only way to get negative T(ime) is to go away from your destination, which just means you're going the wrong direction in space, not in time.

So as far as I can tell, the "Star Trek slingshot effect" (like many of the rest of the explanations of Star Trek effects) is entirely a result of writers with much greater immagination than their knowledge of math and physics.

PvK

[Suicide Junkie]

V= D/T, mixed with relativity, eh?

Unfortunately, at relativistic speeds, time is distorted as well as space.

As you go faster and faster, time slows down for the other object. If faster than light speeds would make the time negative, then the ship would see the universe getting younger, and the universe would see the ship getting younger. Once the ship decelerates, the twin paradox effect should make the end result be that the ship would end up younger, and the rest of the universe be slightly older than when the whole thing started.

[ December 04, 2002, 03:03: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Taera]

i've read previous Posts about borg's shields, and there's a realy simple solution - Regen Shield per Hit.
Give Bord some weak shields, which though would regenerate pretty much when the armor is hit. think CA.

[Krsqk]

If a CA-style armor had 500 damage-to-shield points, and max shields were 300, would 450 points of damage regenerate 300 shields and do 150 damage, or just regenerate 300 shields? Or would it be 450?

[Fyron]

I'd test it if I were you.

[Suicide Junkie]

It dosen't. Your max shields is the max.
If your generators are destroyed, you get max of zero.

If you are hit by PPB when you have normal shields, they charge up to full, and then stay.

The solution is to give the Crystalline shields exactly as much (phased) shield generation as crystalline effect.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
D= V/T, mixed with relativity, eh?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">D=V/T? No. D = V x T.

If D = V / T, the longer you travelled, the less far you'd go.


Unfortunately, at relativistic speeds, time is distorted as well as space.

As you go faster and faster, time slows down for the other object.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe in the egocentric universe imagined by Star Trek authors. In the 20th Century Earth physics I studied, I don't recall any such thing. A fast moving object is not going to have temporal side-effects from the frame of reference of the rest of the universe. It's own perception of time is what changes, if you believe the theory.

If faster than light speeds would make the time negative, then the ship would see the universe getting younger, and the universe would see the ship getting younger.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, I assume you're talking to Spock here, and not to Einstein. Quantum theory, unless I'm wrong, maintains that the speed of light will not be exceeded. It's just that "time slows down" from the perspective of the traveller. From no perspective, however, does time stop or reverse.

Once the ship decelerates, the twin paradox effect should make the end result be that the ship would end up younger, and the rest of the universe be slightly older than when the whole thing started.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems to me that yes, the universe would be slightly older, as usual, and the very fast ship would be younger, but only younger than it would have been if it were standing still, from the stationary frame of reference. The ship will still be older than it was before it started moving.

For example, if we hook up a drive capable of what would be ten times the speed of light to a Twinkie, and send it five light-years away and back (ten light-years total distance), we'll see it re-appear in ten years time, and history will not be changed, but the Twinkie will only have aged one year. No humpback whales will be saved.

PvK

[Spoo]

By the way, the stuff from the other movies and the original series about traveling back in time by using the sling shot effect, flying around the sun really fast, never did make much sense... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it has something to do with activating the warp field in a strong gravitational well... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

D, V, T.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Typo. My bad.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...faster, time slows down for the other object<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe in the egocentric universe imagined by Star Trek authors. In the 20th Century Earth physics I studied, I don't recall any such thing. A fast moving object is not going to have temporal side-effects from the frame of reference of the rest of the universe. It's own perception of time is what changes, if you believe the theory.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Time *appears* to slow down for the other object.
If a ship moves past a planet, who's to say the planet isn't moving past the ship instead. The time dilation works both ways. That's all I'm saying

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If faster than light speeds would make the time negative, then the ship would see the universe getting younger, and the universe would see the ship getting younger.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, I assume you're talking to Spock here, and not to Einstein. Quantum theory, unless I'm wrong, maintains that the speed of light will not be exceeded. It's just that "time slows down" from the perspective of the traveller. From no perspective, however, does time stop or reverse.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We were already talking about FTL. The ability to magically accelerate past the speed of light was a given in this problem. Given that assumption, the rest is reasonable, eh?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Once the ship decelerates, the twin paradox effect should make the end result be that the ship would end up younger, and the rest of the universe be slightly older than when the whole thing started.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems to me that yes, the universe would be slightly older, as usual, and the very fast ship would be younger, but only younger than it would have been if it were standing still, from the stationary frame of reference. The ship will still be older than it was before it started moving.

For example, if we hook up a drive capable of what would be ten times the speed of light to a Twinkie, and send it five light-years away and back (ten light-years total distance), we'll see it re-appear in ten years time, and history will not be changed, but the Twinkie will only have aged one year. No humpback whales will be saved.
PvK[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree that the ship will appear in ten year's time. I also agree the whales will not be saved. I do NOT agree that the twinkie will be roughly one year older.
If the twinkie were travelling at a non-relativistic speed, it would age normally. If it were travelling at a very high sublight speed it would age less. If it were travelling at the speed of light, it would not age at all.
So, faster must make for younger.

[capnq]

If the twinkie were travelling at a non-relativistic speed, it would age normally<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In other words, not at all. Twinkies are forever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by capnq:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> If the twinkie were travelling at a non-relativistic speed, it would age normally<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In other words, not at all. Twinkies are forever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Really? I wouldn't know. Twinkies in my house are lucky to Last long enough to get out of the wrapper. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif MMmmmmm, Twinkies.....

[jimbob]

SJ:
You are probably more than aware of this, but most of the science fiction explanations for FTL actually attempt to by-pass the vessel actually going faster than light. For example in ST they wave their hands about, spinning a yarn about some sort of warp bubble - the bubble goes faster than light because it's a tachyon (or equiv.) bubble that must go faster than light. The bubble and everything within it moves FTL relative to the rest of the universe, but the stuff inside the bubble remains moving at sub-light speeds relative to other stuff within the bubble - ie normal matter is never moving FTL. SW employs a similar sort of side-step on the issue of FTL with hyper-space being non-normal space with a unique set of light speed restrictions.

Therefore, within the majority of Sci-Fi genres, the actual (normal matter) vessels never go up to nor do they ever pass the speed of light themselves. As a result, time neither slows nor reverses for them (relative to objects at a hypothetical rest, whatever that's supposed to be).

For example, if we hook up a drive capable of what would be ten times the speed of light to a Twinkie, and send it five light-years away and back (ten light-years total distance), we'll see it re-appear in ten years time, and history will not be changed, but the Twinkie will only have aged one year. No humpback whales will be saved.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now what's all this about Humpback whales being saved by Twinkies? Is there some sort of nutritional requirement on the part of FTL whales that I wasn't aware of? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ December 04, 2002, 23:11: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Wardad]

Is this the famous Twinky defense? Or Offense?

[PvK]

Name := Tachyon Twinkie Torpedo
Description := Twinkie packaged in a tachyon bubble that allows it to travel faster than the speed of light. This tends to confuse and distract enemies, when they even notice, which isn't very often. Some get hungry, some get sick, and some enter into distracting discussions about the shelf life or the temporal side effects the super-fast twinkie may have.
Pic Num := 665
Tonnage Space Taken := 10
Tonnage Structure := 1
Cost Minerals := 10
Cost Organics := 0
Cost Radioactives := 1000
Vehicle Type := Ship\Base\Sat\WeapPlat\Drone
Supply Amount Used := 1
Restrictions := None
General Group := Weapons
Family := 9010
Roman Numeral := 0
Custom Group := 665
Number of Tech Req := 1
Tech Area Req 1 := Twinkie Weapons
Tech Level Req 1 := 1
Number of Abilities := 0
Weapon Type := Direct Fire
Weapon Target := Ships\Planets\Ftr\Sat\Drone
Weapon Damage At Rng := 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Weapon Damage Type := Disrupt Reload Time
Weapon Reload Rate := 50
Weapon Display Type := Torp
Weapon Display := 665
Weapon Modifier := -90
Weapon Sound := ttt.wav
Weapon Family := 665

[PvK]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
...
Time *appears* to slow down for the other object.
If a ship moves past a planet, who's to say the planet isn't moving past the ship instead. The time dilation works both ways. That's all I'm saying
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Right, each has a different frame of reference, reciprocal, in some sense. What the limits of the relationship are though is the question.


We were already talking about FTL. The ability to magically accelerate past the speed of light was a given in this problem. Given that assumption, the rest is reasonable, eh?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Sure, because even the assumption isn't well defined, and there isn't really any complete understanding of what occurs. Only theory, at best.

I agree that the ship will appear in ten year's time. I also agree the whales will not be saved. I do NOT agree that the twinkie will be roughly one year older.
If the twinkie were travelling at a non-relativistic speed, it would age normally. If it were travelling at a very high sublight speed it would age less. If it were travelling at the speed of light, it would not age at all.
So, faster must make for younger.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where we disagree. However, I would say that it depends on both the theoretical physics postulated, and also the means by which you achieve FTL travel. I was assuming quantum mechanics and no Star Trek physics, and also that the Twinkie would be accelerated conventionally, not by some futuristic device that achieves motion without an accelerating force. Given my assumptions, I believe I'm right, that if you give something enough acceleration so that (if we ignore quantum effects for a moment), the Twinkie would be accelerated to ten times the speed of light, the effect from the Twinkie's frame of reference is exactly as if there were no limit of the speed of light, except that in addition to moving past the universe very quickly, the universe actually seems to be aging faster. That is, not only does the Twinkie not go back in time, it actually goes forward in time, like everything does. It arrives later than it would expect from it's own clock readings - IT is what is younger, not the universe.

That is, not only is Star Trek making up devices, and physics, it is loosely basing them on theory and getting it backwards.

I agree though that if you're talking about a "warp drive", then you can make up any side-effects you like.

PvK

[Kamog]

Originally posted by capnq:
Twinkies are forever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree: Twinkies Last forever if a human doesn't eat it. Try unwrapping a Twinkie and leaving it beside the sidewalk. Look at it two months later and it will still be there, looking exactly how you left it.

[ December 05, 2002, 02:52: Message edited by: Kamog ]

[Taera]

Twinkies are forever <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This discussion is TOO scientific for me.

[KirbyEF]

I like twinkies, really.... But what does not have to do with this Surface Mod?!?!?!?

Can we talk about the mod, please?

KirbyEF

[jimbob]

Well, okay,

So the larger the object, hypothetically the more twinkies it should be able to contain. However the actual surface area of the object can have a huge effect on the internal volume (with the maximal volume to surface ratio being appreciated by a sphere). As such, Borg ships should, on average, be able to carry more twinkies per kT of hull plating than can the Enterprise. Star Destroyers should have a reasonable ratio, whereas mon Calamari cruisers should have a slight edge over them. X-wing fighters and Tie-fighters are not so good for Twinkie transport, but of the two, I'd give the prize to the X-wing (removal of the R2 helps in this regard). In the end, you can count on the pilot eating the lions' share of the twinkies anyway, unless it's a Wookie pilot - then you're guaranteed that there will be none delivered to the destination.

-jimbob

[Krsqk]

Theoretically, injecting twinkies directly into the warp core should allow a ship to surpass light speed, given that twinkies in their matter state contain more energy than any energy known to man/woman/person/humanoid/sentient lifeform.

[PvK]

If Twinkies are fired at a wookie's surface, it will tend to make a sticky mess, but I'm not sure if troops are affected by the energy dampener effect, so there might be no way to mod it in the current game.

PvK

[Kamog]

The future looks bright for the Hostess company! The galaxy will soon be powered by Twinkie energy! Now is our chance to buy some Hostess stock and become billionaires!

And I'm going to the store right now to buy a crate full of Twinkies, I'm sure they're about to skyrocket in value! Yes! We're going to be rich...

[mlmbd]

We are All going to become Twinkie Billionaires! Oh, Yeah! I've got Highhhhhhhhhhh hope, yes I've got Highhhhhhhhhhh hope. I've got Twinkie in the sky hopes. Sorry, just got a little carried away! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

mlmbd http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

Alright. Take the Twinkies over to the cantina to scare away the health inspectors. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

This thread is for Physics, Geometry and Topology!

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by PvK:

For example, if we hook up a drive capable of what would be ten times the speed of light to a Twinkie, and send it five light-years away and back (ten light-years total distance), we'll see it re-appear in ten years time, and history will not be changed, but the Twinkie will only have aged one year. No humpback whales will be saved.

PvK[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have got to disagree here (I know I'm jumping in a little late but what the heck). If equiping a twinkie with a drive system capable of 10x the speed of light it would travel 10 light years in only one year of our subjective time.

This is assuming that said drive system is capable of instantaneous acceleration and deceleration and so negating the turnaround time at the half-way point.

The subjective effects of the twinkie are the true unknown. If they are the same as light speed then no time will have passed (subjectively) yet 10 lightyears will have been crossed and one year would have passed in the world.

This is the most likely explanation since we have detected forms of radiation that move faster than the speed of light (for the life of me I can't remember what it's called, though I do have it written down somewhere) and they don't show any evidence of time warping properties.

As a side note I recently heard that there is strong evidence to support the fact that C is not as constant as we once thought. Apparently the speed of light has been slowing down slightly over the Last several billion years.

Interesting huh?

[Arkcon]

Sorry guys, but I had to do this.

web page link (http://invirtuo.cc/phpwiki/index.php/Light%20speed)

If you would, please fill in the gaps.

[Suicide Junkie]

You shoulda spelled it "light speed" instead of "Light speed".

The Wiki is case sensitive, and the odd capital makes it hard to link to.

Other than that, the only problem is the galaxy squares are 10 not 1 LY across.

[ December 06, 2002, 20:28: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
You shoulda spelled it "light speed" instead of "Light speed".

The Wiki is case sensitive, and the odd capital makes it hard to link to.

Other than that, the only problem is the galaxy squares are 10 not 1 LY across.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for fixing that SJ. It had been like that for sooooooo long. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif How is it done? That's not easy to find in the Wiki help files.

When I wrote light speed, I did it buy clicking on a ?Light speed. I was new at Wiki then.

Can you fix Maintenance? That one just everywhere. I'm willing to search and fix the links to it -- it's a good way to browse Wiki.

If I had a girlfriend, she'd probably stab me in the back of the head right now.

It was just Last night I re-read the printed manual and found out about the 10 light year. I left it because I thought it could have been a typo. I don't open many warp points.

*[EDIT]*

Ohhh. Please fix [systemvsector bonus] as well. I didn't even know that entry was there, I was going to write one.

[ December 06, 2002, 21:45: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

You know I may sound like a hostess pie here but I need to point this out. Are we ASSUMING that we can get said twinkie to near light speed or beyond without the acceleration making the twinkie into a fruit pie on the ships bulkhead? If you are speaking about a gradual acceleration to light speed (or some point there of) than we need to consider what is happening to the twinkie and the outside world during this acceleration period. Then we can consider what happens when reaching the optimal cruising speed.

Yes they [Princeton and a school in Italy] have managed to accelerat “energy packets” to what is effectively beyond light speed. Follow the link, you will need to search around some but only because there is so much info. You still can't move something solid that fast.

http://pupgg.princeton.edu/www/jh/research/he_theory.htmlx

[dogscoff]

As a side note I recently heard that there is strong evidence to support the fact that C is not as constant as we once thought. Apparently the speed of light has been slowing down slightly over the Last several billion years.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where did you read this? I only ask because a "C slowing down" theory has been put forward as an argument for creationism. I don't know if that was something made up for that purpose or something they had borrowed from real science. I don't suppose I'd ever find the webpage again, but I read a really funny argument about this theory between a creationist and someone who actually understood science.

[capnq]

As a side note I recently heard that there is strong evidence to support the fact that C is not as constant as we once thought. Apparently the speed of light has been slowing down slightly over the Last several billion years.

Where did you read this?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This may not be what he's thinking of, but it was the most likely candidate Google pulled up: Speed of Light, Other Constants May Change {link} (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html)

This also reminded me of another theory, that the gravitational constant G may also decrease over time. Here's a link which mentions that: Interview with Paul Dirac {link} (http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm)

[Suicide Junkie]

With those FTL energy packets thing;
Imagine a giant ringworld, with a circumference of one light second. So a little smaller than the orbit of the moon.
Put one of those spinning emergency lights in the middle.
Set the light to spin ten times per second.
The spot of light hitting the ringworld will also go around ten times per second.

Now, that ringworld was one light second in circumference, so that spot of light was moving 10 light seconds each second, or 10 times the speed!

No laws of physics broken, no info of physical object moves faster than light.

With the energy pulses thing, you use a bunch of lasers to interfere with each other, and the pattern shifts faster than light.
Its like you had a big crowd of people on the ringworld, and had them stand up to do "the wave" like it was a giant sports arena as the light goes by. Then tell 'em to keep it up and turn off the light. Then unroll the ringworld into a beam.
"The wave" is still moving 10x the speed of light, but really, the movement is an illusion.

[ December 07, 2002, 19:29: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[dogscoff]

but the spot of light is not a physical object that's moving. it's just our perception of it that maks it look like a single moving object...

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
As a side note I recently heard that there is strong evidence to support the fact that C is not as constant as we once thought. Apparently the speed of light has been slowing down slightly over the Last several billion years.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where did you read this? I only ask because a "C slowing down" theory has been put forward as an argument for creationism. I don't know if that was something made up for that purpose or something they had borrowed from real science. I don't suppose I'd ever find the webpage again, but I read a really funny argument about this theory between a creationist and someone who actually understood science.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I actually saw this as a story on a science news show (or somesuch). Apparently researchers were able to pick up light from a star several billion light years away (and therefore from several billion years ago) and discovered that it was moving faster than C.

It had nothing to do with creationism. In fact, you are the first person from whom I have ever heard of the connection.

Personally I don't see how it could be used to support the Eden paradigm since it would have a negligible effect on our time frame.

Do you remember what the gist of the argument was?

Shang:

We were working under the assumption of instant (and survivable) acceleration of said twinkie. Mainly because the theoretical effects of of acceleration to lightspeed have been fairly well documented and we armchair physicists don't want to break out the calculators (or break a sweat). Besides, the interesting thing is what happens after lightspeed.

[Suicide Junkie]

but the spot of light is not a physical object that's moving. it's just our perception of it that maks it look like a single moving object...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly my point. Its an illusion.

[Kamog]

I actually saw this as a story on a science news show (or somesuch). Apparently researchers were able to pick up light from a star several billion light years away (and therefore from several billion years ago) and discovered that it was moving faster than C.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wonder how they were able to figure that out. Do you mean that the STAR was moving faster than c, or was the LIGHT from the star moving faster than c? If the light was moving faster than c, was it still moving that fast when it reached us?

[jimbob]

Not being a physicist or anything, but I think we're talking about the universal expansion constant. I think Einstein first proposed it, but was so disgusted with the idea that the constants of the universe would change over time, that he discarded it. However observational evidence has brought the idea back into vogue. It's either the fabric of space-time is slowly changing it's rate of expansion, or there is a type of "anti-gravity" energy that is capable of driving matter apart. Roll it in with dark matter, and you've got one whacky universe!

[Cheeze]

Perhaps time has a half-life. It can't be much different than the half-life of a twinkie.

[KirbyEF]

This thread is like a tweekie....

Substance on the outside and a creamy filly on the inside.

The preverbale "cake and eat it too..." occurs here.

KirbyEF

[PvK]

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PvK:

For example, if we hook up a drive capable of what would be ten times the speed of light to a Twinkie, and send it five light-years away and back (ten light-years total distance), we'll see it re-appear in ten years time, and history will not be changed, but the Twinkie will only have aged one year. No humpback whales will be saved.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have got to disagree here (I know I'm jumping in a little late but what the heck). If equiping a twinkie with a drive system capable of 10x the speed of light it would travel 10 light years in only one year of our subjective time.
[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where I think you're mistaken/backwards, if you Subscribe to quantum theory. According to QT, in no frame of reference is any physical object allowed to be accelerated to the speed of light. Instead, it will seem to age less quickly, from the stationary frame of reference. So, from Earth, the Twinkie seems to have taken at least ten years to make the trip, but the Calendar clock included as a free gift inside the Twinkie package only shows one year elapsed.


This is assuming that said drive system is capable of instantaneous acceleration and deceleration and so negating the turnaround time at the half-way point.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, more or less. Actually, say "nearly-instantaneous". (I believe quantum theory does NOT have anything to say about instantaneous changes in speed, or things which actually do move faster than light - it just says that pushing something to accelerate it up to the speed of light and beyond, starts affecting time between the frames of reference, instead.)


The subjective effects of the twinkie are the true unknown. If they are the same as light speed then no time will have passed (subjectively) yet 10 lightyears will have been crossed and one year would have passed in the world.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I really strongly agree with the first sentence - what would really happen to the Twinkie. As was pointed out in an earlier post from the peanut gallery, the Twinkie will probably have big problems under massive acceleration, but that's probably best left to Twinkie-ologists. There are whole web sites (well, at least one) devoted to the effects (or phenomenal lack therof) of all sorts of conditions on Twinkies.

As I wrote above, QT has nothing to say about anything moving faster than or at the speed of light. What it does say, is that objects that are accelerated up to the speed of light, will never reach it, because the closer they get, the greater the time effect relative to other frames of reference. From their own perspective, they seem to accelerate as if there were no speed limit, but when they check the clocks they left at home, they will show more time has passed than the clocks they brought with them.


This is the most likely explanation since we have detected forms of radiation that move faster than the speed of light (for the life of me I can't remember what it's called, though I do have it written down somewhere) and they don't show any evidence of time warping properties.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tachyons are particles that travel faster than the speed of light. There have also been experiments in recent years that seem to have managed to send signals faster than light, but as far as I know, this is not necessarily movement, but cause and effect, which may involve forces and particles which we don't understand. It's quite hard to detect or measure faster-than-light objects and effects, when all of our equipment uses sub-light particles and effects.


As a side note I recently heard that there is strong evidence to support the fact that C is not as constant as we once thought. Apparently the speed of light has been slowing down slightly over the Last several billion years.

Interesting huh?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, it's interesting. However I tend to think modern physicists, as with physicists and philosophers throughout human history, are still extremely overconfident about the degree to which they really understand what's going on at the fringe of their theory and cosmology. I'm not really convinced that they know what they're talking about when they claim to be measuring speeds of light and relativistic effects.

PvK

[dogscoff]

Personally I don't see how it could be used to support the Eden paradigm since it would have a negligible effect on our time frame.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well... some guy had been through the bible, counted up all the "begats" since Adam and Eve and decided that the universe was just a few thousand years old. Then a bunch of scientists said "but what about all the stuff on Earth that can be proved to be millions and millions of years old and all the distant stars and stuff we can see that are billions of years old and the big bang blah blah blah." Rather than just say "Oh I don't believe in all that", the creationist guy then goes on to try and fit the entire history of the universe into the few thousand years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif He tried it by suggesting that universal constants like C have been changing rapidly, so that galaxies which appears to be millions of light years away are in fact just up the street... Nutter. Anyway, by the time he had finished turning physics inside out, the garden of eden would have been a superheated inferno where no matter- let alone life- could have existed. It really was too bizarre to be true, and extremely funny. I'll have a dig aroud for the link.

Oh, and I'm sure lots of credible physicists do believe C is changing, and I'm not necessarily associating their arguments to the one I mention above. That's just the only time I had heard of such a theory before reading this thread.

Here's a link (http://www.mchawking.com/multimedia.php?page_function=mp3z) to sum up my beliefs on the subject. Look at the very bottom track. (Parental advisory)

[Krsqk]

Rather than just say "Oh I don't believe in all that", the creationist guy then goes on to try and fit the entire history of the universe into the few thousand years.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't believe the billions of years, or the Bible stuff he read? I'm getting a little lost here. From what I understand of the Bible, it does say the earth is 10 thousand years old or so. If he really believes the Bible, why shouldn't he believe that part, too?

[ December 10, 2002, 15:36: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by PvK:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by QuarianRex:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PvK:

For example, if we hook up a drive capable of what would be ten times the speed of light to a Twinkie, and send it five light-years away and back (ten light-years total distance), we'll see it re-appear in ten years time, and history will not be changed, but the Twinkie will only have aged one year. No humpback whales will be saved.

PvK<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have got to disagree here (I know I'm jumping in a little late but what the heck). If equiping a twinkie with a drive system capable of 10x the speed of light it would travel 10 light years in only one year of our subjective time.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where I think you're mistaken/backwards, if you Subscribe to quantum theory. According to QT, in no frame of reference is any physical object allowed to be accelerated to the speed of light. Instead, it will seem to age less quickly, from the stationary frame of reference. So, from Earth, the Twinkie seems to have taken at least ten years to make the trip, but the Calendar clock included as a free gift inside the Twinkie package only shows one year elapsed.[/qb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We started with the assumption that the Twinkie was moving at 10x the speed of light! You're not allowed to say it isn't possible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Think of the discussion as thus:
While bending or breaking the fewest laws of physics in order to get a Twinkie moving at 10x the speed of light, what might happen?

for V>C:
gamma = 1/[ (1-V^2/C^2)^.5 ]
1/ (-ve)^.5
or 1/i
So an imaginary number... how do you want to interpret that?

[dogscoff]

Don't believe the billions of years, or the Bible stuff he read? I'm getting a little lost here. From what I understand of the Bible, it does say the earth is 10 thousand years old or so. If he really believes the Bible, why shouldn't he believe that part, too?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I mean he didn't simply say "I reject science/ astronomy/ physics altogether." which is the only sensible approach if you're going to take the bible word for word and believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old. It has to be one or the other: trying to reconcile the two is just impossible...

I'm pretty sure that the bible doesn't specifically give an age for the universe, but you can make a guess at the date of creation by counting how many generations of ppl lived from Adam and Eve up to the end of the Old Testament, by which time biblical history crosses over with actual, recorded history. I think- I'm no expert on the matter...

[ December 10, 2002, 16:08: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Captain Kwok]

I like your link Dogscoff!

[dogscoff]

Kwok: I know, it's cool isn't it? I have all those track in my mp3 playlists. My favourite is "All my shootins be driveby":

Time to give a newtonian demonstration/
Of a bullet, its mass and its accelleration/

There is a brief mention of the article I referred to here. (http://burtcom.com/mtrsn/sfaq_005.htm) I'll try to get some more tonight or tomorrow.

[ December 10, 2002, 17:01: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Krsqk]

Having only skimmed the FAQ, I did find some interesting quotes.

This about "aged creation":
The hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific one (see the section on the scientific method)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Radiocarbon (C-14) dating (and applicable to all methods of dating):
This process is assumed to be in equilibrium with the decay of C-14 throughout the biosphere...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration.

Mutations as mechanism:
So in evolutionary theory, even though the occurrence of a particular mutation is random, the overall effect of improved adaptation to the environment over time is not.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Isn't the retention of acquired characteristics Lamarckism? And doesn't this assume that mutation results in improvements?

Anyone who says that science "proves" creation is wrong. Creation/religion isn't science. But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution. See the works of Karl Popper on the philosophy of science and the scientific method (greatly summarized, scientific theories must be testable; anything else is outside the realm of science).

[edits-typos]

[ December 10, 2002, 19:15: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Phoenix-D]

"Radiocarbon (C-14) dating (and applicable to all methods of dating)"

This can't be used against "aged creation" because the idea is the universe was poofed into place exactly *as if* it was X years old. There is no way to test that simply because there's no way to distgiush an old universe with a "fake old" young universe.

"Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration."

Correct. It's formed and lost, and currently that is at a balance. It would always -end up- at equilbrium, but we don't know if the point of balance has changed. OTOH, C-14 dating is only used for fairly recent dating, and there are other methods.

"Isn't the retention of acquired characteristics Lamarckism? And doesn't this assume that mutation results in improvements?"

No, and not exactly. Lamarckism applies to physical characteritics, genetics to the genes of the organism. The difference is that Lamarckism predicts that if you lost an arm, then have children, your children would -also- not have that arm. It also predicts little or no variation in the children, since anything not expressed doesn't exist and can't be transmitted. Neither are true.

Mutations don't always result in improvements; actually most of them are probably BAD for the organism in question. Random chance though, so you'll likely get a good mutation eventually. My biology teacher put it in a good way, like so:

"Say I take a 100-sided dice, and bet you $5 that I will roll a 1. If I roll anything else, I loose. Good bet, right? Now, is it still a good bet if I get to roll the dice *1000 times*, and if I get just one 1 in those rolls I win?"

The best example of this is antibiotic resistant bacteria. They normally don't compete any better against the rest of the bacteria, so their numbers are fairly small. But the antibiotic comes in, kills off the rest of the bacteria, and their numbers can explode. Instant evolution.

"But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution."

Also known as "the current best guess." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

[capnq]

This site {link} (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm) has a good summary of how people have estimated the date of the Creation.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

... </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where I think you're mistaken/backwards, if you Subscribe to quantum theory. According to QT, in no frame of reference is any physical object allowed to be accelerated to the speed of light. Instead, it will seem to age less quickly, from the stationary frame of reference. So, from Earth, the Twinkie seems to have taken at least ten years to make the trip, but the Calendar clock included as a free gift inside the Twinkie package only shows one year elapsed.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We started with the assumption that the Twinkie was moving at 10x the speed of light! You're not allowed to say it isn't possible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I guess we were on different pages, then. I assumed that this was all assumed to be taking place with sub-light acceleration. Gravity, even from the sun, isn't a big deal if you're able to travel faster the light (thinking of the Trek slingshot effect here).

Quantum theory doesn't say anything about faster-than-light travel. There is essentially no data available on faster-than-light travel, since you can't directly observe any of it with sub-light particles and mechanics, which is all we have to work with.

As I wrote at the time, what I was talking about was applying acceleration so that the Twinkie would go 10 times lightspeed IF there were no relativistic effects. This means that from the Twinkie's own frame of reference, it would seem to move that fast, except that everything around it would seem to be aging ten times as fast as usual.

Of course, if Twinkies are a product of alien technology, then maybe this has something to do with the secret of their longevity. Naaa, they're just pLastic.


Think of the discussion as thus:
While bending or breaking the fewest laws of physics in order to get a Twinkie moving at 10x the speed of light, what might happen?

for V>C:
gamma = 1/[ (1-V^2/C^2)^.5 ]
1/ (-ve)^.5
or 1/i
So an imaginary number... how do you want to interpret that?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I interpret the imaginary number result as a contradiction of premises, which is what it usually means - it's impossible given the rules you framed the problem with. The only mathematical solution, without adding new premises, is to move away from your destination, which only sends you back in time according to the children in the back seat, who measure time as "how long until we're THERE?" If time slows down to compensate for any acceleration, then there is no acceleration that will take you faster than the speed of light. You're postulating a simple contradiction.

The idea of bending or breaking the rules "as little as possible" is subjective - in other words, we're back to making stuff up. The Star Trek invention seems like several logic leaps at once, and seems to me to be loosely based on misunderstandings including taking the relativistic effect backwards.

I guess maybe they could imagine that the relativistic effect is backwards on the other side of the speed of light, and compounded by a strong gravitational field. Then maybe you could ... go back in time ... which brings up all sorts of paradoxes, which seem to make the whole thing nonsensical, except from a fantasy point of view.

PvK

[Krsqk]

"Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration."

Correct. It's formed and lost, and currently that is at a balance. It would always -end up- at equilbrium, but we don't know if the point of balance has changed. OTOH, C-14 dating is only used for fairly recent dating, and there are other methods.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">C-14 dating (and every other form of radioisotope dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now. As for the first, at least three commonly accepted phenomena would affect the formation of radioactive materials. 1) Young-earth creationists commonly accept the existence of a canopy of water (in some form) above the atmosphere during the first 2000 years or so of the earth's existence. This would greatly cut down the amount of radiation (and concurrently, the amount of radioactive materials formed), resulting. 2) Evolutionists commonly accept a cataclysmic event of some sort (meteor collision, etc.) which altered the climate enough to kill the dinosaurs. If such an event can block enough sunlight/heat to change the climate, it would also block radiation, with results similar to the above. 3) The earth's magnetic field is weakening, resulting in lessening protection from radiation. A stronger field in the past would mean less radiation/less radioactives production (now it sounds like SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Any decrease in the ratio of radioactive elements would result in exponential increases in the dates obtained, since the rate of decay is used as the constant in the formula. No extant radioisotope dating method addresses, or can address, this problem; any dates obtained from them are inherently questionable and unverifiable (i.e., not empirical "scientific" proof).

Mutations don't always result in improvements; actually most of them are probably BAD for the organism in question. Random chance though, so you'll likely get a good mutation eventually. My biology teacher put it in a good way, like so:

"Say I take a 100-sided dice, and bet you $5 that I will roll a 1. If I roll anything else, I loose. Good bet, right? Now, is it still a good bet if I get to roll the dice *1000 times*, and if I get just one 1 in those rolls I win?"<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, let me define which biological evolution I do and do not believe in. Micro-evolution (variation within species/sub-species) does occur. These are frequently the result of mutations. Inter-species evolution has never been observed, either in live organisms or in the fossil record, and has never been the result of mutations.

Several experiments by several scientistshave been done in this field. 1) Herman Bumpus found that survival rates were higher for specimens closest to the average for a species. Sub-species are less hardy, not more, than the original species. 2) The "saltation" theory of mutations was based on an observational error. Its author, Hugo deVries was unable to substantiate it. Later, it was discovered that the vast majority of plant varieties are caused by gene factor variations, rarely by mutations. Gene factor varieties may be hardy (though still less than the original), while mutation varieties have poor survival rates. 3) Thomas Hunt Morgan performed the first set of mutation experiments, but failed to find any examples of mutation as an agent of cross-species evolution. 4) H.J. Muller experimented with X-ray-induced mutations in fruit flies for 19 years. Every mutation he and his researchers found was harmful. 5) Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments at UC-Berkeley. He produced more generations of fruit flies than is hypothesized have existed for humans and their ape-ancestors. After 25 years, he began looking for other possible mechanisms for evolution. After 10 more years (1940), he wrote a book debunking all current mechanisms of biological evolution and introduced his own theory: macro-evolution (aka "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" theory). This theory later was adopted by such prominent evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould.

The best example of this is antibiotic resistant bacteria. They normally don't compete any better against the rest of the bacteria, so their numbers are fairly small. But the antibiotic comes in, kills off the rest of the bacteria, and their numbers can explode. Instant evolution.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Species variation does not prove cross-species evolution. It may be penicillin-resistant E. coli, but it's still E. coli.

"But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution."

Also known as "the current best guess."<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My problem with this is two-fold. First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught.

Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. Consider the Indian carvings of dinosaurs on the Grand Canyon walls. In the 1920s when they were discovered, it was said that they resembled dinosaurs, but they definitely couldn't be, since we knew dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came along. If that's true, then how did the Indians know what they looked like? Belief in evolution despite any evidence to the contrary cripples scientific research, not enables it.

[edits-typos]

[ December 11, 2002, 04:07: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Suicide Junkie]

C-14 dating (and every other form of radiometric dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) It dosen't have to be exacly the same, and it did vary by a little. See the link below.
2) is quite reliable if not technically provable.

Check out:
http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/01_04.htm
and the bit on "How radiocarbon calibration works"

First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I'm not sure where you got your textbooks, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
Embryos for animals do tend to look alike, naturally. A head, body, usually four appendages, a tail. Start with a cell, then a ball of cells, then form up some basic parts, heck yeah they look similar for the first while.

Nothing like "human gills" or stupid stuff like that. Sounds like something a mean older brother might scare his little bro with.

Not sure what you're getting at with the Eohippus thing...
Corrections, if shown to be nessesary, are a part of science, and in any case, texts tend to lag behind (as they require writing) not to mention schools need to buy new books on thin budgets.
Of course, the first google hit on the two gives:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html
The evidence does lead to billions of years...

Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And creationists?

If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.

[Baron Munchausen]

Wow, what a great thread! I'm waiting for the Tachyon Internet to pop up again so we can have the time-sensitive error Messages. "Error: The host which you are attempting to reach was not responding at the time your signals arrived."

But I did want to make a comment on some of SJ's assumptions...


If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">These statements show that you are accepting some of the basic precepts of 'Scientific Materialism' and I wonder if you really believe them if you examine them.

The first as that there exists a valid scientific theory to explain any and every phenomena we have observed. This is the most important underlying assumption that keeps evolution afloat. The primary point which Krsqk is trying to show you is that the evidence does NOT support evolution, at least not gradualist evolution by random mutation. The "evolution" sequence of the horse has been used as an example in text books for generations, but it now seems that even the 'die-hard' evolutionists have had to concede that at least some of the fossils used as 'proof' of the gradual evolution of the horse are actually fossils of other animals. (I was not aware of this, Krsqk, could you give me a reference to an article or book that details this?)

And when you think about it, just how do you 'prove' the connection of ANY two fossils found in rocks considered to be millions of years apart in age and hundreds or thousands of miles apart in location? Structure similarity is all that anyone ever had to go on, and genetic research over the Last few decades has been showing that the underlying genetic code of supposedly related animals is VERY different. For example, all of the spcies of 'frogs' in the world do NOT even have the same number of chromosones, let alone a high percentage of actual genes in common. Yet, these very different genes produce physically similar animals that scientists have been assuming were part of one orderly 'sequence' of evolution starting with a single common ancestor.

The case for evolution was weak before, with no way to 'prove' connections between fossils. Now, with genetic evidence showing that structural similarity does NOT correspond with genetic similarity there is simply no way to support it with existing evidence. Yet, most scientists will NOT admit that 'evolution' doesn't work. There are discussions going on in the professiponal journals about re-arranging taxonomy to suit the new genetic evidence, but no one dares to question whether evolution is even a valid theory anymore. Ergo, it is not a 'falsifiable' theory, it is a religious precept of Scientific Materialism.

Now we come to the sticky part. Most 'science' oriented people, like you, will immediately raise 'Creationism' when evolution is challenged. It is immediately assumed that anyone trying to disprove evolution is trying to replace it with Creationism. I must be very clear that though I grew up in a very 'ordinary' W.A.S.P. setting (Methodist, actually, one of the original 'Puritan' sects http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) I do NOT bring this up in order to defend or restore the competing religious viewpoint of Biblical literalism. My religious views are difficult to summarize. Let's just say that 'Heretic' would be the only label the average 'Christian' would find suitable for me. So I am not a partisan in the 'either/or' conflict between 'Science' and 'Religion' that occupies so much time in the US. I find both views to be inadequate. And what is really annoying though is that most so-called 'scientific' people, even professional scientists, are as unwilling to say 'I don't know' as the most rigid fundamentalists.

This is the other assumption of Scientific Materialism, and oddly enough, of the 'Religious' viewpoint as well... that we can understand anything and everything. Only the theoretical physicists are finally breaking through this one. Once in a while you'll see a physicist say something like this in an article on the latest weird, exotic, and baffling cosmological theories -- "The Universe might not be merely stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

And that's the point I wanted to bring out. The Universe is not our perception of it, it's always different, it's 'not us'... and we may never really understand it. Yet 'Science' does not operate that way. There is an underlying set of assumptions held by the community of professional scientists as rigid as the religious viewpoint they claim to be in opposition to. As Krsqk says, this actually impedes scientific progress.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:46: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Taz-in-Space]

"Error: The host which you are attempting to reach was not responding at the time your signals arrived."
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">or perhaps: "Error: The host which you are attempting to reach will not be responding at the time your signals will arrive." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Phoenix-D]

"C-14 dating (and every other form of radioisotope dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now. As for the first, at least three commonly accepted phenomena would affect the formation of radioactive materials. 1) Young-earth creationists commonly accept the existence of a canopy of water (in some form) above the atmosphere during the first 2000 years or so of the earth's existence. This would greatly cut down the amount of radiation (and concurrently, the amount of radioactive materials formed), resulting. 2) Evolutionists commonly accept a cataclysmic event of some sort (meteor collision, etc.) which altered the climate enough to kill the dinosaurs. If such an event can block enough sunlight/heat to change the climate, it would also block radiation, with results similar to the above. 3) The earth's magnetic field is weakening, resulting in lessening protection from radiation. A stronger field in the past would mean less radiation/less radioactives production (now it sounds like SE4 )."

Excuse me while I go try and find the formation of the various isotopes used for dating..I know C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere, but I don't think say Uranium would be affected by this. C-14 is only valid for a couple thousand years at best anyway.

"Any decrease in the ratio of radioactive elements would result in exponential increases in the dates obtained, since the rate of decay is used as the constant in the formula. No extant radioisotope dating method addresses, or can address, this problem; any dates obtained from them are inherently questionable and unverifiable (i.e., not empirical "scientific" proof)."

Questionable yes, unverifiable no. The more independant sources you have giving the same result, the better the result tends to be. Either the result is correct *or* there is something consistantly throwing your results. The effect wouldn't be exponential, either. Start with, say, 9 grams instead of 9, half-life of 5000 years:
10/9
5/4.5
2.5/2.25
1.25/1.125
.625/.5625

Notice that the ratio you're off by at any given time is *exactly* the same as the ratio you're off by when you started.

"First, let me define which biological evolution I do and do not believe in. Micro-evolution (variation within species/sub-species) does occur. These are frequently the result of mutations. Inter-species evolution has never been observed, either in live organisms or in the fossil record, and has never been the result of mutations."

Take two populations, seperate them for a long period of time in different enviorments and allow for that micro-evolution you mentioned. What happens? (that Last statement is as much of a jump as what you're accusing others of BTW)

Check out the different varieties of dogs some time. They result from artifical selection applied by humans. Put a really big dog and a really small dog and try and breed them; what happens? Likely nothing, or the offspring dies. the only reason they can be considered the same species is because of the breeds in between..

"Several experiments by several scientistshave been done in this field. 1) Herman Bumpus found that survival rates were higher for specimens closest to the average for a species. Sub-species are less hardy, not more, than the original species."

Consistant with a species being well-adapted to it's enviroment; change anything and it's less well adapated, unless you get obscenely lucky.

"2) The "saltation" theory of mutations was based on an observational error. Its author, Hugo deVries was unable to substantiate it. Later, it was discovered that the vast majority of plant varieties are caused by gene factor variations, rarely by mutations. Gene factor varieties may be hardy (though still less than the original), while mutation varieties have poor survival rates."

Gene factor: are you refering to the variation produced by sexual reproduction here?

") Thomas Hunt Morgan performed the first set of mutation experiments, but failed to find any examples of mutation as an agent of cross-species evolution."

I don't think they -could- be, directly. It doesn't make sense. (and what the hell is cross-species evolution? Macroevolution, or what you earlier refered to as inter-species evolution?)

"4) H.J. Muller experimented with X-ray-induced mutations in fruit flies for 19 years. Every mutation he and his researchers found was harmful."

Hmm. For one, X-rays aren't the only way to get mutations; DNA can be changed in other ways, and the repair systems don't always catch it. However this ussually only matters in two cases: if it affects a reproductive cell and/or if it leads to a cancer. Wacking a random skin cell doesn't do too much. For the other I'd have to do more research.

"5) Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments at UC-Berkeley. He produced more generations of fruit flies than is hypothesized have existed for humans and their ape-ancestors. After 25 years, he began looking for other possible mechanisms for evolution. After 10 more years (1940), he wrote a book debunking all current mechanisms of biological evolution and introduced his own theory: macro-evolution (aka "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" theory). This theory later was adopted by such prominent evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould."

1940? Please tell me you're not going to bring up the "Darwin couldn't say how A could happen so A must not happen" point next? Science does advance. You say that microevolution does occur. Fine, -where does the variation come from orriginally-? i.e. you have a population consisting of entirely one type of gene. In your view would microevolution ever occur?

"Species variation does not prove cross-species evolution. It may be penicillin-resistant E. coli, but it's still E. coli."

I always assume in these arguments that I'm dealing with a Bible-literal "nothing ever changes" person until told otherwise. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

"My problem with this is two-fold. First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught."

I think this is more the common science textbook being badly done more than anything else. A wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps, that snowballs into something else.

"Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. Consider the Indian carvings of dinosaurs on the Grand Canyon walls. In the 1920s when they were discovered, it was said that they resembled dinosaurs, but they definitely couldn't be, since we knew dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came along. If that's true, then how did the Indians know what they looked like? Belief in evolution despite any evidence to the contrary cripples scientific research, not enables it."

OK, few comments on this:
-people gennerally assume their worldview is correct, and try to make everything else fit. Yes, this includes scientists. File it under the "yep, they screwed up" catagory. Happens a lot.

-similar topic, but if you try and de-bunk a worldview without offering an alternative, you encouter a lot of resistance.

Phoenix-D

[Taz-in-Space]

...Taz is wading through the preceeding discussion...

Of course you are BOTH assuming that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
How about Evolved Creation. This is the theory that something (GOD?) created the initial conditions and set-up the natural laws just so that now the current conditions are as they are.

Just thought I'd muddy the waters a little more...
(My work here is done - Taz Devil) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Some minor injections:

Evolution occurs, but the method of evolution is just a theory. Just like gravity - it happens, but our explaination is only a theory. Last time I checked, gravity was treated like a fact too.

The rate of radioactive decay is constant and is not affected by external conditions. While the ratio of rad. isotopes to the naturally occuring element is subject to flucuations - it is not exponential as Phoenix has already shown. It would take a *significant* change in the rate to make any dramatic change to age estimates.

The guy who pounded fruit flies for 19 years with X-rays and found no beneficial mutations. Why would he? First of all X-Rays don't exist naturally on Earth and secondly, they are highly energetic and can cause serious damage to DNA and other cell components - not really the kind of mutations that a beneficial change might come from. Aside, mutations aren't the single factor in evolution anyways.

The generations of fruit flies. Umm, let me see, they were in a closed environment - not exposed to various agents of selection? So it might not have been a good experiment to compare to the evolution of a species over time.

Textbooks can get dated in a hurry. Schools don't generally have the funds to get the most recent books for students.

In re: to the E. coli. They are not necessarily the same E. coli! In fact, they are becoming more genetically diverse. Sooner or later, they will be significantly different as one will be able to readily survive harsh conditions while the other will not. However, since E. coli doesn't really reproduce sexually as most higher lifeforms, much of the other mechanisms are not really applicable and the changes less pronounced.

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These statements show that you are accepting some of the basic precepts of 'Scientific Materialism' and I wonder if you really believe them if you examine them.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, perhaps a better wording: "If evidence builds up against the current theories, then people will work on developing a better one."

This is the other assumption of Scientific Materialism, and oddly enough, of the 'Religious' viewpoint as well... that we can understand anything and everything. Only the theoretical physicists are finally breaking through this one. Once in a while you'll see a physicist say something like this in an article on the latest weird, exotic, and baffling cosmological theories -- "The Universe might not be merely stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Surely an optimistic outlook is better than a defeatist attitude, eh?
A perfect theory of everything may not be possible, but it is certainly the right direction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Krsqk]

Wow, so much to respond to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Where to start:

BM: Excellent description of scientific materialism. As for the horse series, let me give you what I know about it, and then refer you to several other sources. 1) The number of ribs is inconsistent throughout the series, beginning with 18, climbing to 19, then dropping to 15 before ending up back at 18 with the modern horse, Equus. 2) No transitional teeth exist. They are all either browsing or grazing teeth. 3) The series does not exist in order in the fossil record. Frequently, earlier forms are found on top of later forms; Eohippus has even been found in the same strata as modern Equus. In fact, the only places the complete series is to be found is in museums and textbooks. 4) The first animal in the series is not even a horse, but a badger. 5) There are no transitional forms between members of the series. They are all distinct species. 6) There are no transitional forms to link Eohippus to its supposed ancestors, the condylarths. 7) The series is heavily keyed to size; but even modern horses vary in size as much as the horse series does. 8) Skeletal remains are insufficient to determine relationship. Horse and donkey remains would appear similar, but they are vastly different animals.

Here are some further sources for study:</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Science News Letter, August 25, 1951</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960)</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988)</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982)</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969)</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979)</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The New Evolutionary Timetable</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953)</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944)
Hope that helps.
The primary point which Krsqk is trying to show you is that the evidence does NOT support evolution, at least not gradualist evolution by random mutation.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for the clarification.

Taz:
Of course you are BOTH assuming that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
How about Evolved Creation. This is the theory that something (GOD?) created the initial conditions and set-up the natural laws just so that now the current conditions are as they are.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No serious evolutionist or Bible-believer buys into that, or should. The Bible specifically records a six-day creation, and its credibility is at stake. Everything else in the Bible is based on the belief that God created the world the way He recorded it.

Capt. Kwok:
Evolution occurs, but the method of evolution is just a theory. Just like gravity - it happens, but our explaination is only a theory. Last time I checked, gravity was treated like a fact too.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The difference is that gravity is constantly being observed and verified, while evolution has not been observed. It is theoretical. If you mean micro-evolution occurs, you're right; but we've never seen a species turn into another species.
The rate of radioactive decay is constant and is not affected by external conditions. While the ratio of rad. isotopes to the naturally occuring element is subject to flucuations - it is not exponential as Phoenix has already shown. It would take a *significant* change in the rate to make any dramatic change to age estimates.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I misspoke (mistyped?) in my previous post. I meant to say that if the rate of formation were decreased (by canopy, magnetic field, meteor dust, etc.), then the rate of absorption would be decreased, resulting in animals which appeared much older than they really were.
Aside, mutations aren't the single factor in evolution anyways.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If mutations aren't thought to cause evolution, then what is? From what I can tell, that's the current popular mechanism, combined with natural selection. Mutations bring about beneficial changes which allow the organism to survive and pass on its traits to its offspring. Has something new come up?
Textbooks can get dated in a hurry. Schools don't generally have the funds to get the most recent books for students.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The horse series has been in doubt since the 1950s. Embryonic recapitulation has been disproved since the late 1800s. I know it's government-funded, but how long does it take? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
In re: to the E. coli. They are not necessarily the same E. coli! In fact, they are becoming more genetically diverse. Sooner or later, they will be significantly different as one will be able to readily survive harsh conditions while the other will not. However, since E. coli doesn't really reproduce sexually as most higher lifeforms, much of the other mechanisms are not really applicable and the changes less pronounced.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one has said they're not E. coli. They're just drug-resistant E. coli. We haven't developed any new bacteria since the invention of penicillin; they've just adapted to the drug and are less affected by it. Staph is still staph, E. coli, etc. The only "harsh conditions" its been proven they can survive is the presence of specific drugs; that's hardly "natural" selection. No one knows if they're more fit to survive their natural predators, whatever they are. And why should sexual/asexual reproduction matter? If we came from something else, it had to start with a single asexual cell somewhere. The same mechanisms have to apply to both types of organisms.

Phoenix-D:
Questionable yes, unverifiable no. The more independant sources you have giving the same result, the better the result tends to be. Either the result is correct *or* there is something consistantly throwing your results.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can these results come from accurate dating methods?</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!)</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old. </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55.</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old. </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old.</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old.</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

How about this quote: "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54) What does that mean, then? That radiometric dating doesn't really matter; it's the strata that determine the age? Or if strata age and radiometric age conflict (which should never happen, if the geologic column were correct), the rock age wins?

Take two populations, seperate them for a long period of time in different enviorments and allow for that micro-evolution you mentioned. What happens?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one knows what happens, because no one has ever observed it. Science doesn't guess or predict the future.

Check out the different varieties of dogs some time. They result from artifical selection applied by humans. Put a really big dog and a really small dog and try and breed them; what happens? Likely nothing, or the offspring dies. the only reason they can be considered the same species is because of the breeds in between.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A dog is a dog is a dog. Science still classifies them as dogs. And who's going to put the current breeds of dogs in a series? Do the small ones or the big ones come first? Or is it the middle ones? Which species is more advanced? Would these varieties exist if not for artificial selection? Are humans the new mechanism for evolution? The hundreds of varieties of dogs are just varieties, not new species. They never result in anything but a dog.

1940? Please tell me you're not going to bring up the "Darwin couldn't say how A could happen so A must not happen" point next? Science does advance.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Science has yet to do what Darwin couldn't do. No one has found a mechanism for evolution. If they have, then why are Gould and so many others going with this "hopeful monster" garbage? I don't think anyone will say they're ignorant doofuses or religious bigots.
You say that microevolution does occur. Fine, -where does the variation come from orriginally-? i.e. you have a population consisting of entirely one type of gene. In your view would microevolution ever occur?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you mean 500,000 blargs with a single gene, or 500,000 blargs with uniform genetic code? Either way, I would say that micro-evolution would occur, but I wouldn't predict that they turn into snorks. They'd just have more and more blargs, each with variation.
Let's throw another light on the variation/new species question. No two humans in the world are alike (besides identical multiple births). Each has variations on the same human "average." Some have dark skin, some have light skin, some are bigger, some are smaller, etc. Which ones are more advanced? Which ones are more fit to survive? Do we have any that are new species? Do we have any that are still older species? With all of the variations in the tens of billions of people from the Last two millenia, have we got anything other than humans?

I think this is more the common science textbook being badly done more than anything else. A wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps, that snowballs into something else.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And inaccurate textbooks are excusable? Confusion about what? That this is what we think happened, (although the evidence we're giving you is dated or doubtful), and we want you to believe that this is unquestionably what happened (despite any evidence we find to the contrary), so we'll just teach you what we have to so you believe the "right" thing. And, someday, we'll find the missing link or some formula or astronomical evidence will come to light and vindicate what we're teaching you right now.
-similar topic, but if you try and de-bunk a worldview without offering an alternative, you encouter a lot of resistance.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My worldview is simple. God created the world in six days, the way the Bible records it. He made the world, He owns it, and He makes the rules. That pretty much sums it up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So there's the alternative.

[Krsqk]

My turn for questions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?


When, where, why, and how did

1. Man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
2. How did photosynthesis evolve?
3. How did thought evolve?
4. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
6. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
7. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
-It is all they have been taught.
-They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
-They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
-They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
-Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? 11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Looking forward to your responses.

[dogscoff]

I'm not a scientist in any shape or form, but I have an amateur's interest I'd like to answer some (not all) of your questions. The fact that I can't answer them all doesn't mean I'm wrong - science acknowledges that we still have things to learn.


1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't know much about Big bang theory, so I'm not going to attempt to answer these, but can you answer this: Where did God come from?


4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perfectly organised? Perfect for what? Something cannot be perfect unless it has a purpose to be perfect for. I believe there is no purpose and that space is just chaotic. Matter clumps together into star systems, galaxies etc as a result of physical laws.


6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe labs have proven that amino acids and other complex organic molecules can be formed by non-biological processes (ie primordial soup).


7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure that a single cell can reproduce sexually, I think that's the domain of us clever multi-cell beasts. Nitpick aside, I imagine the first whatever with that ability did the deed with another part of itself- even modern plants that are capable of sexual reproduction can self-pollinate.


9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're right, a creature looking after number one probably would live longer than one that makes the effort to reproduce, but its ancestors aren't going to be the ones running the Earth in 600 million years, are they? Remember, celibacy is not heridtary.


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't how your metaphor is relevant. The possibilities for variety within genetic code are staggering- remember, our DNA is something like 50% the same as that of a banana. Your parents combined their genetic code to create a new, potentially improved variety of themselves.


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not necessarily. Parallel evolution.


12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The theory of evolution is designed to explain just that.

I'm skipping a bunch of questions I don't know enough about. I'm curious as to why you're picking specifically on whales and sea horses. What did they ever do to you?


4. Eyes evolve?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, now this one I can answer, I saw it on TV: Something about sluggy creatures with simple, light sensitive cells which allowed them to tell if it was light or dark. Gradually, these cells moved (over many generations) into recesses in the creatures form, so that by moving around it could tell where the light was coming from. The recesses became concave pits (for even better directional vision), kind of like a an empty eye-socket with a retina at the back, and eventually all the fancier features of the eye evolved after that.


5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The same way anything else evolves. A creature is born, by chance, with something a bit like hair on it. His brother isn't. It isn't an important difference, neither an advantage nor disadvantage in competetion for food etc, so off they both go, reproducing merrily. Dozens of generations later, some of the species has hairyish bits and some of the population doesn't. No one notices and it still doesn't seem important until the environment begins to change- it's getting colder. The population splits with the bald half finding somewhere warmer or dying off, the hairy half thriving in the cold weather. Give it a couple of million years of progression in two seperate directions and- hey presto- two seperate species.


1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the
...snip...system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wouldn't it have been easier just to ask "how does stuff evolve?", rather than asking "how does a, b, c, d, e... evolve?" See my previous paragraph for my own, layman's understanding of evolution.


10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why does symbiosis defy evolution?


Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because it is an explanation and because it can be proved. If evolution was as unproveable as you say, I'm sure someone (ie, someone without a bible to defend) would have noticed by now.


How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">it doesn't matter why they started mimicking other animals. All that matters is that the ones who did mimic thrived and the ones who didn't, didn't.


When, where, why, and how did

1. Man evolve feelings?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, it was in a tree in what is now western Ethopia on a Tuesday afternoon... how am I supposed to knwo where and when?

Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree completely. You ever see an elephant or a gorilla that has lost it's offspring or mate? It seems to me that that social, animal bond could easily develop into complex human empathic responses (mercy, guilt) as we becasme civilised.


5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">uh..?


What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would have said "that's impossible, they're extinct." If you told me today that you have one I'd say "That must be a very high pressure aquarium." Then I'd say "Did you know that 50 years ago these were thought to be extinct?" What's your point?


8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand this question. Are you talking about hydrogen being the only element being produced by the big bang and all other elements being produced from hydrogen in stars? I don't have a problem with that theory.


9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, so do you. I ask again, where did God come from? What raw materials did it use to fashion the universe? What was there first?


1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In my case they are based on largely on faith, because I'm not a scientist and I don't habve the know-how or resources to run around verifying everyone else's results. As far as I have actually experienced with my own senses the international scientific community could be one crazy guy in an office producing wierd-sounding theories at random and feeding them to the likes of me.
Equally, as far as I'm concerned there might be no such place as America, because I have never been there. However, I choose to believe that there is a place called America because, well, for the same reason you (presumably) accept that there is such a place as (insert name of place you've never been).
And so yes, my answers are based on faith, but it is faith that what I have said is based on scientific, provable facts.


3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not in 7 days, no. As much as anything else, I can't see that a God would bother doing it that way. Seems to me a far more elegant solution would be to kick off something like the Big bang and let it all unfold...


If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, quite frankly, that's your problem and not mine. If you could show me an undeniably genuine sticker on the underside of the universe with "God was here" written on it, then I would accept your viewpoint and be happy that a) eternal life is a reality after all and that b) God has a sense of humour. Until that happens, I just have to plod along with what can be proven. I have to say I would *like* to believe - it must be very comforting to believe in all that, but belief isn't something I can just switch on and off.


4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well it all comes down to your definition of fact, doesn't it? Let me put it this way: You say evolution can't be proved, and so it can't be taught as fact. I say it can be proved, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't make you right. Your theory is certyainly not more provable than evolution, so maybe we should be teaching all these little kids about Buddhism.


5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who cares? Just 'cause I don't like the truth, doesn't make it any less true. Like I say, it would be very nice to believe in a benevolent God and eternal life and all that jazz, but I'm not going to pick and choose my beliefs about truth according to which one is nicest.


6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
-It is all they have been taught.
-They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
-They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
-They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
-Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sure there are some, but a lot of the above sounds too much like a conspiracy theory for my taste.


-It is all they have been taught.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How widespread would religion be today if not for this one?


7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, we should use all the indated, proven, unquestionable and conclusive ones instead, and we do.


because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is this list about. AAre these items supposed to disprove evolution? I don't think they do.


8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. That kind of thing is for the family to teach. I don't think religion has any place in a school, except as something to be studied impartially.


9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, you are talking as though I can just start believing in God if you make it appealing enough. It doesn't matter how "frightening" or "risky" the truth is, it's still the truth and I can't change that. What's the point in beleiving anything else?


10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because a school is not a recruitment centre for your religion or any other. It should be neutral, to reflect the diverse beliefs of the children attending. Even as a kid I was an atheist but I was made to sing hymns and pray at school. Now that I am an adult, I realise how offensive that was. When i have kids I'm going to create merry hell at their school if they try anything like that. How would you feel if your kids came home from school quoting the Qu'ran and saying that Allah was the only true God? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off?


11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That where we will have to agrre to differ. I don't think either side is likely to budge on this point.

[ December 11, 2002, 17:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Wardad]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IT IS A SIMULATION.
We are in a giant Optical Computer and it is all done with mirrors.
God is testing us, and he won't even show us the questions.

Mwahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!!!!!!

[Krsqk]

I don't know much about Big bang theory, so I'm not going to attempt to answer these, but can you answer this: Where did God come from?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God, by definition, is uncreated. I'm not saying that's scientific (i.e., proveable).

I believe labs have proven that amino acids and other complex organic molecules can be formed by non-biological processes (ie primordial soup).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, it takes carefully controlled production to create only left-handed amino acids (the kind in living organisms). Equal distributions of left- and right-handed amino acids form in unconstrained production. Second, amino acids and organic molecules don't equal life, and it hasn't been shown that they will combine to form life once that's produced. Third, there's a vast difference between the conditions in a lab and in a storm-tossed primordial soup.

Perfectly organised? Perfect for what? Something cannot be perfect unless it has a purpose to be perfect for. I believe there is no purpose and that space is just chaotic. Matter clumps together into star systems, galaxies etc as a result of physical laws.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're telling me there's no organization in nature? Wouldn't random processes result in random results? Wouldn't an explosion like the Big Bang result in an equal distribution of matter across the universe?

You're right, a creature looking after number one probably would live longer than one that makes the effort to reproduce, but its ancestors aren't going to be the ones running the Earth in 600 million years, are they? Remember, celibacy is not heridtary.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the point of the question is whether survival is an individual or a species-wide instinct. Do organisms try to save themselves or save their kind?

I don't how your metaphor is relevant. The possibilities for variety within genetic code are staggering- remember, our DNA is something like 50% the same as that of a banana. Your parents combined their genetic code to create a new (potentially) improved variety of themselves.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And our blood chemistry is closest to that of a butter bean. So which one is a closer relative? Which people alive are most closely related to either bananas or beans? If all organisms have similar DNA, they might be related, or they just might have been created using an efficient design.

Not necessarily. Parallel evolution.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not necessarily? The question was could similar design mean common creator.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The theory of evolution is designed to explain just that.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Natural selection keeps a species around the average or norm. How 1) did so much genetic variation survive? and 2) did we evolve extra chromosomes and genes?

I'm skipping a bunch of questions I don;t knwo enough about. I'm curious as to why you're picking specifically on whales and sea horses. What did they ever do to you?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was bitten by a sea horse when I was 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Those animals are examples of organisms which seem contrary to their environment. What sort of conditions would make them evolve like that (i.e., air-breathing but water-dwelling)?

Wouldn't it have been easier just to ask "how does stuff evolve?", rather than asking "how does a, b, c, d, e... evolve?" See my previous paragraph for my own, layman's understanding of evolution.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the things in each list require each other to function--they comprise an entire system. How did vital organs develop? If you need it and don't have it, you're dead--by definition. How did creatures get along with their digestive systems before they developed a resistance to digestive juices? Or if the resistance developed first, what was the trigger for that development?

For example, take the bombardier beetle. He combines two chemicals which instantly create a steaming jet he directs at his attackers. He has a third chemical to keep them from reacting inside his body, and a fourth chemical to counteract the third and allow the reaction. Which of the four chemicals (or the outlet, for that matter) evolved first? How did he survive before the entire system was developed?

Why does symbiosis defy evolution?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They have to develop simultaneously, and even then, what would happen while they're developing? Why wouldn't the original creature develop something to fix its need instead of a secondary creature developing something to meet it?

Because it is an explanation and because it can be proved. If evolution was as unproveable as you say, I'm sure someone would have noticed by now.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They do notice it. They say things like, "We believe," "We think," "Maybe," "Our best guess is," etc. But they still teach that it's unquestionably proven.

By none of those, but by EVOLUTION, which is neither chance or design (although randomness does play a part).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Randomness and chance are flip sides of a coin. You can't separate them at will. Now you're sounding like EVOLUTION is some mysterious Force or Will or Prime Mover which directs events. Another God, maybe?

I disagree completely. You ever see an elephant or a gorilla that has lost it's offspring or mate? It seems to me that that social, animal bond could easily develop into complex human empathic responses (mercy, guilt) as we becasme civilised.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Compassion and mercy are weaknesses when the goal is survival. Why do ruthless dictators gain more power than men with scruples? Because they stop at nothing to advance over the competition. Evolution reduces life to a struggle to survive, where softness has no place with the winners.

I would have said "that's impossible, they're extinct." If you told me the same thing today that you have one I'd say "That must be a very high pressure aquarium." Then I'd say "Did you know that 50 years ago these were thought to be extinct?" What's your point?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, 50 years ago, they were "known" to be extinct, according to any scientist you would have asked.

I don't understand this question. Are you talking about hydrogen being the only element being produced by the big bang and all other elements being the result of stellar processes? I don;t have a problem with that theory.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Any proof? Any evidence of elements naturally changing to new elements? Or is it just another unproven theory?

I ask again, where did God come from? What raw materials did it use to fashion the universe? What was there first?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, my worldview states a supernatural origin. Any God worth his salt would be able to create something from nothing--that's part of being God.

And so yes, my answers are based on faith, but it is faith that what I have said is based on scientific, provable facts.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And my faith is based on an omnipotent God Who recorded what He did.

Not in 7 days, no. As much as anything else, I can't see that a God would bother doing it that way. Seems to me a far more elegant solution would be to kick off something like the Big bang and let it all unfold...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And now man is the expert on how God would think? Why would He do it that way if someone might come along and say it all happened by natural processes?

Well, quite frankly, that's your problem and not mine. If you could show me an undeniably genuine sticker on the underside of the universe with "God was here" written on it, then I would accept your viewpoint and be happy that a) eternal life is a reality after all and that b) God has a sense of humour. Until that happens, I just have to plod along with what can be proven. I have to say I would *like* to believe - it must be very comforting to believe in all that, but belief isn't something I can just switch on and off.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution.

Well it all comes down to your definition of fact, doesn't it?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, there's only one definition of fact... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Let me put it this way: You say evolution can't be proved, and so it can't be taught as fact. I say it can be proved, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't make you right. Your theory is certyainly not more provable than evolution, so maybe we should be teaching all these little kids about Buddhism.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...Which is no more provable than either of these.

How widespread would religion be today if not for this one?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Religions spread by conVersion, not just teaching. Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the US?

What is this list about. AAre these items supposed to disprove evolution? I don't think they do<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, they're former proofs for evolution, all disproven or frauds, which still are taught in many textbooks.

How would you feel if your kids came home from school quoting the Qu'ran and saying that Allah was the only true God?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not advocating teaching creation as fact, either. Let the kids see the evidence for both and then decide for themselves. That's the politically correct thing to do, isn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
This is as good a time as any for the moderator to suggest a subject change. It's been an interesting and thought provoking discussion. You have all comported yourselves with a dignity and curtesy that is rare for public debates of this issue. Maybe it's a good time to put a period on the sentance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Was composing my post while you posted this. Guess we should take this to PM or email if it continues. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

How are the Twinkies? Whether 1 year or 10 years old, they're still great! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ December 11, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Suicide Junkie]

How about this quote: "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54) What does that mean, then? That radiometric dating doesn't really matter; it's the strata that determine the age? Or if strata age and radiometric age conflict (which should never happen, if the geologic column were correct), the rock age wins?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I read that to mean that the geological information was used to help calibrate the radiometric scale...
Just like using tree rings...
This tree was X years old when it died, and the radiometric result is Y.Z

So when you do send an object to a lab for dating, and the radiometric result is Y.Z, it is about X years old.

How radiocarbon calibration works
http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/01_04.htm
As I understand it:
- The red line is the measured value in the sample.
- The blue line is the measured values for objects from that point in history.
- The black area is the likelihood that the sample came from that year.

No, the point of the question is whether survival is an individual or a species-wide instinct. Do organisms try to save themselves or save their kind?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take some critters. The only difference is that one group protects their children and/or immediate family (not nessesarily the entire group, even, while the other is self-centered.

Predators pick off the wnadering children of the uncaring group, while they face the wrath of mature critters of the kind group.
Which one will do better after a few generations?

[ December 11, 2002, 19:31: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Was composing my post while you posted this. How are the Twinkies? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They're fine.

I am not trying to shut anybody down. In fact I had second thoughts about saying anything and deleted my Posts while you were quoting it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

If you guys want to keep talking about it I am not going to stop you. As long as everybody realizes they aren't likely to convince anyone in this forum and everything stays as cordial I guess I should just let it be.

It's hard for a moderator to know what to do sometimes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[Puke]

wow. such a calm and intelligent discussion, im sure the Last thing anyone wants is my two bits.

not to belittle this or anything, but I think the entire arguement is fairly sophmoric:

Creationist: god created the universe on a bet once, when he was drunk.

Scientician: the universe always existed, and came into its current stage via big bang, flying monkeys, or some other popular theory.

C: thats plain silly, where did the stuff come from that the universe came from? god had to create it at some point. it cant have always been there.

S: why the hell not, or i dunno? so where did god come from?

C: he/she/it was always there, of course.

S: so the universe cant have always existed, but god can?

C: you just dont have any faith

S: ive got faith in the universe. its right here. look. (jumping up and down)

C: now thats just plain silly. how do you think you got that soul and free will to jump up and down like that?

S: I evolved from a slug

C: no, along with the platapus, you are one of god's little jokes.

[Krsqk]

SJ, if only it were that simple. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The geologic column comes with its own preconceived dates for each strata. Would post links, but Google with "geologic column" would work best. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[geoschmo]

I will grant that many people on either side of the debate can act illogical and immature, but the argument itself isn't what I would call sophomoric. It's one of the fundamental questions of our exsistence. What side of the debate you fall on influences almost every other factor of who you are as a human being.

Why are we here? Where did we come from? What does it all mean?

I for one have been delighted by the intelligent give and take, if a bit nervous waiting for the "other shoe" to drop and this thing to blow up on us. But hopefully that wont happen here.

I think that it's good for people of faith to see that people of science do believe in things, just not neccesarily the same things.
I think it's good for people of science to see that people of faith do think, just not neccsarily think the same things.

[ December 11, 2002, 19:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Why are we here? Where did we come from? What does it all mean?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

[Puke]

touche. what you believe tends to govern how you act, what you do, and who you are. realizing and articulating what you believe is an important process, as is understanding the beliefs of others (and how those beliefs were formed) to better understand the people themselves.

this is a good read, and very elucidating. please do carry on.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by spoon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by geoschmo:
Why are we here? Where did we come from? What does it all mean?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do you get when you multiply six by nine?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">54? If only the other answers were that easy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Phoenix-D]

I'll bow out of -this- discussion before I do something stupid, put Last parting comment:

"Wouldn't random processes result in random results? Wouldn't an explosion like the Big Bang result in an equal distribution of matter across the universe?"

Random and equally distruted are two different things. Run the same process twice; if it's random, it could be equally spaced one time and clumped together the next. Or it could be the same both times, or..you get my point?

Also, you're neglecting gravity. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

EDIT: one more..
"My worldview is simple. God created the world in six days, the way the Bible records it. He made the world, He owns it, and He makes the rules. That pretty much sums it up. So there's the alternative."

I meant a testable world view. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Otherwise we'll have to bring up all the -other- creation stories.

Phoenix-D

[ December 11, 2002, 19:32: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by spoon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by geoschmo:
Why are we here? Where did we come from? What does it all mean?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do you get when you multiply six by nine?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">54? If only the other answers were that easy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry, the answer was 42. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Phoenix-D]

"Sorry, the answer was 42."

Only for THE Question, not for this question. 9x6 isn't 42. (Well, I suppose EVERYTHING is 42, but I disgress)

Phoenix-D

[spoon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

Only for THE Question, not for this question. 9x6 isn't 42.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
SJ, if only it were that simple. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The geologic column comes with its own preconceived dates for each strata. Would post links, but Google with "geologic column" would work best. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The second google result there seems to be directly addressing the arguments brought up by the first.

[Wardad]

All viruses are snipits of information that use a host to reproduce itself.
We even have no-biological computer viruses.
Often viruses have side effects that are damaging to the host, or induce the host to act in ways detrimental to it's well being.

Can the human consciousness suffer from a thought viruses?

Would Philosophy, Ideology, Nationalism, and Religion fit the description?
---------------------------------------------
I'm going to burn in hell now!!!

[Ed Kolis]

Isn't it true that whenever someone discovers the question, then the entire universe blows up and a new one is created? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Isn't it true that whenever someone discovers the question, then the entire universe blows up and a new one is created? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Almost. Whenever both question and answer are known, then it blows up.
You can know one exclusive-or the other without harmul effects.

[ December 11, 2002, 20:04: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[geoschmo]

Maybe, and I know this borders on heresy, but maybe Adams was wrong. Maybe the answer isn't 42.

Maybe the question is 42.

[capnq]

(Krsqk:) The Bible specifically records a six-day creation, and its credibility is at stake. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bible's credibility is only at stake for people who interpret it strictly literally. Since there are several places where the Bible itself openly states that parts of it are allegorical (e.g. Mark 4:11), I personally don't think literalism is supportable. (Wardad:) Can the human consciousness suffer from a thought viruses?

Would Philosophy, Ideology, Nationalism, and Religion fit the description? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The cultural equivalent of a biological gene is called a "meme" {link} (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212545,00.html).

[Krsqk]

The Bible's credibility is only at stake for people who interpret it strictly literally. Since there are several places where the Bible itself openly states that parts of it are allegorical (e.g. Mark 4:11), I personally don't think literalism is supportable.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The literalist interpretation of the Bible holds that the Bible is literal except when it indicates a literary device is in use (i.e., parable in Mark 4:11) or one is obviously in use (Pharisees called "generation of vipers" or "serpents" in Matthew and Luke).

If I said, "Such and such happened at such a time, and it happened thus and so," I'd expect you to take what I said at face value. If I said, "Let me tell you a story with a moral; here it is," I'd expect you to understand what I meant. That's the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If you don't take the Bible literally, you get to decide what you want to take or not take. It puts man as the determining factor for what's supposed to be God's Word. What did God mean if He doesn't mean what He says? To say that declared use of allegory means nothing is literal is a logical fallacy. In syllogism form:
Some Bible is allegory.
No allegory is literal.
Therefore, no Bible is literal.

[ December 11, 2002, 23:38: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Krsqk]

Here are a couple of links with easy-to-understand arguments. The point is not to disprove evolution once-and-for-all, but to prove that it's not science.

This one (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/) and this other one (http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/)

This one (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-137.htm) lists ten objections against the geologic column/geologic time scale.

[Fyron]

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Empty space comes from a lack of matter to fill it. It was not "created" by anything. Any time all of the matter in a given volume is moved out of that volume, you get empty space.

2. Where did matter come from?

No one, even religious people, can know where matter came from. There are many theories on this, of course.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

They did not come from anywhere. They are not some entity floating out there that had to be created/generated. Well actually, the laws were written by various scientists over the years. But, the forces behind those laws have always been in existence.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Matter is in no way perfectly organized. In fact, almost all of the space occupied by matter is completely empty (even of solid objects).

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

It is hardly organized. The energy has always been there. Energy and matter can not be created nor destroyed. They can be turned into each other though. In fact, particles (matter) exhibit wave-like propeties, and waves (energy) exhibit particle-like properties. Energy and matter are likely the same thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Life never "learned" this. That implies that something taught reproduction to basic carbohydrates and proteins and such,which it didnt. Reproduction involves the formation of complex organic molecules from basic elements. This happened in the puddle of goo, and it simply continued to happen within the basic organisms that evovled.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Itself, of course. Many lifeforms are capable of sexual reproduction with themselves.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Plants do not want antyhing. That is a logical fallacy. You are assigning human characteristics to things that are not human. They don't think, they just continue living. That involves reproduction. Animals function in nearly the same way. The only difference is that they generally have the ability to move about to fulfill their needs. But, they still do not have desires. They do not "want" anything. They simply fulfill basic instincts.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Arguments by analogy are inherently flawed and hardly ever work. For an analogy to work, the things being compared have to be nearly identical. The more different they are, the less accurate the analogy become. Letters and DNA are not even in the same domain. That analogy fails.

Mutations create either improved varieties, worse varieties, or varieties that have no effects.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

In theory, anything is possible. In theory though.

You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Sometimes, the code gets mutated to have a few extra base pairs. Sometimes it is mutated to have fewer base pairs. Often, this does not cause the organism to fail at living, and so goes unnoticed. If that organism reproduces, it's offspring could inherit the extra base pairs, or the fewer ones. Given many generations in which more extra base pairs are added than lost, you get a steadily increasing DNA code. And remember, somewhere over 90% of the DNA is junk, and is NEVER used in replication. So, a few extra base pairs here and there won't hurt much, especially if they are added at the end.

When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

There is no such thing as a single celled plant. All plants are very, very multi-cellular. You are thinking of Protista. Some of them are similar to plants, but they are not plants.

2. Single-celled animals evolve?

See above.

3. Fish change to amphibians?

Build me a time machine, and I will tell you when and where.

A small number of them evolved into amphibians very gradually over millions of years. Very slight mutations occured in some fish that allowed them to come onto the land for brief periods of time. Why? Because they randomly mutated. That is also how.

4. Amphibians change to reptiles?

See above.

5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

Actually, no. Bones are the same, just different thicknesses and such. Scales are hard skin cells. Feathers arre thin, elongated scales.

6. How did the intermediate forms live?

You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't. The intermediate forms were only slightly different form what came before them. They lived the same as their parents did. Evolution does not occur over night.

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?

I am no biologist, and I have not cared to study the evolution of such creatures. Google them, and you will learn.

4. Eyes evolve?

As Dogscoff explained, from photo-receptive membranes. Many protista and monerans have such membranes.

5. Ears evolve?

From sound-receptive membranes in protista and monerans, which evolved randomly.

6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Skin evolved form the cell walls of simple organisms. The same concept applies. It is essentially a layer of non-living stuff protecting the cell from the outside. Skin is merely a layer of dead cells. Scales are skin cells that harden.

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

Other than feathers, they all evolved simultaneously. Some monerans and protista developed soft cell walls, some developed hard cell walls. All thanks to random mutations. This translated to soft coverings or hard coverings of small multi-cellular organims, and continued on. These traits were carried on when some cells failed to split completely during mitosis, and remained joined. The combined cells either died off, or gained a slight advantage over single-celled organisms around them. This is how I would think multi-cellular organisms evolved, anyways. But anyways, there was no magical jump between them, it was a slow process. One child had very slightly harder skin cells. The next may or may not have had harder ones. After a long while, the got harder in general. Feathers evolved from scales that very slowly got thinner and longer.

3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

What perfect mixture of gases? The air we breathe is in constant flux. At no time do we breathe the exact same composition of air as we did before.

4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

From that primordial goo. The simplest lifeforms have much less complex DNA than we do.

5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Random evolution.

9. The immune system or the need for it?

Things do not evolve because of need. That is Lamarckism, and is flat out wrong. All life forms have an immune system. Simple organisms have simple ones, but they do have a system to fight off harmul stuff that gets in them.

10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.

How so? The only reason why they are symbiotic is becuase the symbiote randomly got inside the host and found it easier to live inside it than in the outside world. So, they stayed inside and reproduced in there. Because it is a different environment, different random mutations allow for survival or death than outside.

Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Religion is not a logical explanation. Religion is based entirely upon revelation, and not upon logical reason. It is completely unverifiable and unprovable. Science can be verified, and if not proven, then demonstrated to be close enough to the nature of reality that it can be assumed to be true. Evolotion is a part of science, not religion.

How would evolution explain mimicry?

Evolution can't explain anything. Can I call evolution up and ask it a question? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Sorry, just felt the need for a small joke in the midst of this post, even if it is a tactless one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Only a very small number of species practice mimicry. It is a relatively uncommon occurence. Due to random mutations, some organisms became colored differently. By random chance, some of them happened to look similar to other more dangerous organisms. Their predators, which had learned by instinct to avoid the predator, avoided the mimicers. Of these organisms that had mutated, some would be more apt to flee, and some would be more apt to stay in place. Because they look more dangerous, staying in place doesn't get them killed. Fleeing might cause the predator to attack anyways. So, those that had had mutations that caused the chemical balance in their neurons to create behavoir to flee die more often, and the ones that stay put reproduce and pass on their traits. Or, it might be the other way around, and the ones that flee survive and those that stay die.

Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

They weren't designed, and Lamarck was wrong. They did not choose to change their colors to look like some other creature.

What plant mimicry are you talking about here?

When, where, why, and how did

Again, give me a time machine, and I will be able to tell you when and where.

1. Man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Actually, the theory of evolution incorporates such things into it. They are all based off of chemical balances (and imbalances) in the body and brain of the human. Chemical balances and imbalances exist in all organisms. As the brain randomly evolved to be larger, the chemical system stayed with the primates.

2. How did photosynthesis evolve?

Photo-sensitive membranes evolved that could harness the solar radiation instead of simply emit it back as light radiation. This happened by random mutations.

5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

Pardon moi?

7. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Yes.

8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

What?

9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No, everything came from primordial matter and energy that was always there. I do not know if the universe has periodic big bangs or if there will only ever be 1.

Do you honestly believe that everything came from God? If so, where did God come from? Did God just simply always exist? If so, why can't the universe have always existed?

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Unless otherwise stated, yes.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Anything is possible in theory. But, the design arguement for the existence of God is a flawed argument. If you want, I could explain how to you.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Yes.

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
-It is all they have been taught.

No one has only been taught evolution. Unless, of course, they live in a cave and don't ever communicate with anyone else.

-They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

The theory of evolution does not ever once say that there is no God.

-They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

That is simply hog-wash.

-They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

Other than the fact that they are not wrong, are creationists to proud to admit that they are wrong? In general, yes, they are. This is because a change in their views would change everything about their life. But, science is continually updated and modified to fit new findings and theories that prove that old ones were inadequate or wrong. Religon does not.

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

No.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

If there is a God, he wouldn't be so petty as to punish you for not believing what some people wrote in a work of fiction several millennia ago. He is perfect, right? Well, sending you to hell for not believing him is a sign of an inferiority complex. He would have to do that to make himself seem all big and mighty. But if he is perfect, he wouldn't have any insecurities or feelings of insecurity.

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? 11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Evolution is science. Creation is religion. Religion has no place in schools, except in classes of history. Science does.

[Suicide Junkie]

I think the main problem is that scientific theories are battle-hardened even before creationist attacks happen.
Scientists poke at the holes in each other's theories, and only the solidest theories survive.

[TerranC]

11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

1. Religions don't concern themselves with the brain; it concern themselves with the heart, and emotions of the person. A heavily battered person could find solace in a religion, but could follow that religion to it's strictest letter, not outgrowing the emotional support it gives.

2. There are many religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Shintoism, Daoism, Zoroastrinism, Paganism, Judaism, and others. Then you have sects/churches. Catholics and Protestants, Shiia and Sunni, Confusicians and buddhists, to name a few. Which one are you going to choose to teach? You can't teach all of them. If you teach one, you might offend the other.

3. Examples of the effects: Al Queda, Hazballah, Fatah, The Children's Crusade, Et cetera.

4. Similar case: Japan's education ministry publishing a textbook that were written by nationalists that has almost no mention of Japan's atrocities during WW2.

These are my 2 cents.

Edit: Post number 110. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ December 12, 2002, 02:58: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[KirbyEF]

I have the answer:

Sh*t happens... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

KirbyEF

[Krsqk]

Lots more to reply to...

Terran C: Let's not get into the results of religion or evolution. I think you'd say Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler weren't true followers of evolution, just as I'd say your examples aren't true followers of their religion. Unless you want to go there, too.

No one, even religious people, can know where matter came from. There are many theories on this, of course.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one claims to be able to know. Creationists believe it was created; evolutionists (in general) believe it is eternal.

(re: scientific laws) They did not come from anywhere. They are not some entity floating out there that had to be created/generated. Well actually, the laws were written by various scientists over the years. But, the forces behind those laws have always been in existence.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now forces sound more like the Force. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I get the idea that the answer for anything dealing with stellar evolution, etc, is "It's always been there." Doesn't sound too scientific (i.e., verifiable) to me. Sounds more like a belief or faith.

The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I defy you to tell me what was in the primordial goo or what the conditions on earth were like. That's unverifiable. To come up with some soup in a laboratory, hook up a spark plug, come out with some amino acids, and then assume that you somehow must have hit on the combination that existed is unscientific. To say, "Well, it must have existed--after all, here we are!" is so far from logic that it's not worth debunking. Also, there is a world of difference between organic molecules and life. The "simplest" cell is orders of magnitudes more complex than the most complex organic molecule. (I know. Given enough time and the random chances of enough of the right molecules landing in the right places in this worldwide primordial goo...)

(re: reproduction)Life never "learned" this. That implies that something taught reproduction to basic carbohydrates and proteins and such,which it didnt. Reproduction involves the formation of complex organic molecules from basic elements. This happened in the puddle of goo, and it simply continued to happen within the basic organisms that evovled.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is a world of difference between continued production of organic molecules and cellular reproduction.

Itself, of course. Many lifeforms are capable of sexual reproduction with themselves.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Given the random chance that it somehow developed with the ability to reproduce with itself. It's probably just as likely that it randomly evolved in close proximity to another cell with which it could reproduce.

You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hume's argument stretches the premises beyond their logical extension, by cleverly wording the design argument. No creationist would say that man's creation and God's creation are like results from like effects. If the universe is without edge and without center (as is commonly said), then God would have created an infinite creation. Man never comes close to infinite creation. In fact, man never comes close to the complexity found in "simple" organisms. Given enough time and chance, though, I'm sure we could come up with something.

"6. How did the intermediate forms live?"
You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where did I say this? I'm wondering what allowed intermediate forms to live with partially developed 1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems, etc. For that matter, if the "super-carp" is better, why do we have carp today? If each step up is better by definition, we should have run out of lower forms quite some time ago. The answer, of course, is random chance.

"3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?"
What perfect mixture of gases? The air we breathe is in constant flux. At no time do we breathe the exact same composition of air as we did before.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, you missed the point of the question. The entire system needs to be present to function. How did species with one or two parts survive before the rest of the system developed? Random chance saw to it that it all worked out.

"4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?"
From that primordial goo. The simplest lifeforms have much less complex DNA than we do.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How did it happen that DNA and RNA both happened in the same cell (all surviving cells, actually), with DNA in an incredible double-helix, and DNA unwound itself and unzipped, and an RNA molecule snuggled up to it and made a copy, and the DNA then zipped back up and rewound. Random chance?

"8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?"
What?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Typo. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human? In other words, life from unlife. What about the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Are they bogus? Or didn't they have enough time (or just bad chance)?

"2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?"
They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your verifiable, testable, provable scientific explanations included "random" or "chance" at least ten times. In fact, we're to believe that everything in biological evolution (not to mention planetary, stellar, and elemental evolution) is the amazing result of random chances. I believe in a supernatural (i.e., non-verifiable, non-scientific) miraculous creation of the universe and everything in it. You believe in a materialistic, statistical miracle of such proportions based on so many unverifiable, unsubstantiated assumptions that I'd be ashamed to admit it.
[edit for clarity]

[ December 12, 2002, 03:51: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Krsqk]

Two links here. This one (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=49) about probability is quite interesting. It gives an idea of the long-odds chances of spontaneous generation. This one (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=28) gives several quotes by well-known scientists about evolution. If they don't know what there is to know, then who does?

[Krsqk]

The decay and production of C-14 should reach an equilibrium after ~30,000 years. However, recent research indicates that it hasn't yet reached that point yet. Why?

Because of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, objects thrown off from a spinning mass will retain the direction of their parent in orbit and revolution (i.e., clockwise objects result in clockwise spinning and orbiting objects). Why then do several moons in our solar system alone rotate "backwards" and one moon orbit its planet backwards, if the Big Bang threw off all the matter originally?

Why are the oldest living organisms (trees) found in the world only ~5,000 years old?

Why isn't the ocean saltier? At the current rate of "salting," it would have been fresh water only a few thousand years ago.

Why isn't the earth's magnetic field weaker? It's steadily decreasing in strength. Or on the other hand, how did life survive when it was so much stronger? Too strong, and it would prohibit life.

Why do many moons in our solar system still have magnetic fields? They should have cooled off inside after several billion years, and the molten core is necessary for a magnetic field?

How accurate can interstellar measurements be? The base of our triangle used for parallax is 16 light-minutes, and we're somehow accurate out to millions or billions of light-years? The angle at the tip of the triangle for a star 1 light-year away is .017. For 100 light-years away, it's .00017, and so on. 100 light-years is like two people 16 inches apart trying to measure ~800 miles away--the room for error is immense.

[Phoenix-D]

I really shouldn't read threads I said I'm not going to participate in.

"Because of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, objects thrown off from a spinning mass will retain the direction of their parent in orbit and revolution (i.e., clockwise objects result in clockwise spinning and orbiting objects). Why then do several moons in our solar system alone rotate "backwards" and one moon orbit its planet backwards, if the Big Bang threw off all the matter originally?"

Because the monentum and angle didn't come from that explosion. It came from a -later- event. If the moon in question is a captured one, that is simply the orbit it stablized in.

"Why are the oldest living organisms (trees) found in the world only ~5,000 years old?"

Because surviving for that long is extremely difficult. Why do humans live less than that? Because before that they get killed by something.

"Why isn't the earth's magnetic field weaker? It's steadily decreasing in strength. Or on the other hand, how did life survive when it was so much stronger? Too strong, and it would prohibit life."

IIRC exactly how the field is generated isn't understood. However when rocks solidify they take on properties of any field they are exposed to (it's strength and direction). Rocks have been found with a weaker magnetic field and a stronger one, as well as a completely reversed one. The field apparently weakens gradually, then flips directions and strengthens again.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

Now forces sound more like the Force. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I get the idea that the answer for anything dealing with stellar evolution, etc, is "It's always been there." Doesn't sound too scientific (i.e., verifiable) to me. Sounds more like a belief or faith.

No, they sound nothing like the Force. The Force sounds more like religious mumbo-jumbo than any natural laws. Again, give me a time machine, and then we can go back in time until we see if there was a beginning, or if it is continuous. That is really the only way to prove beyond a doubt what happened that long ago in the past.

I defy you to tell me what was in the primordial goo or what the conditions on earth were like. That's unverifiable. To come up with some soup in a laboratory, hook up a spark plug, come out with some amino acids, and then assume that you somehow must have hit on the combination that existed is unscientific. To say, "Well, it must have existed--after all, here we are!" is so far from logic that it's not worth debunking. Also, there is a world of difference between organic molecules and life. The "simplest" cell is orders of magnitudes more complex than the most complex organic molecule. (I know. Given enough time and the random chances of enough of the right molecules landing in the right places in this worldwide primordial goo...)

The "simplest cell" is made of organic molecules. But, the first organism-like things were not full cells.

There is a world of difference between continued production of organic molecules and cellular reproduction.

Not that much of one.

Hume's argument stretches the premises beyond their logical extension, by cleverly wording the design argument. No creationist would say that man's creation and God's creation are like results from like effects. If the universe is without edge and without center (as is commonly said), then God would have created an infinite creation. Man never comes close to infinite creation. In fact, man never comes close to the complexity found in "simple" organisms. Given enough time and chance, though, I'm sure we could come up with something.

A number of your arguments sure sound like the Design Argument to me.

Where did I say this? I'm wondering what allowed intermediate forms to live with partially developed 1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems, etc. For that matter, if the "super-carp" is better, why do we have carp today? If each step up is better by definition, we should have run out of lower forms quite some time ago. The answer, of course, is random chance.

You said it continuously. Not explicitly, but implicitly.

All 4 of those systems exist in ALL LIFEFORMS. Single-celled organisms have all of them. They are not as complex as in animals and such, but they are there. As organisms started becoming multicellular, the cells started to become more specialized. Then, you eventually got macroscopic organisms that have what you would call "1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems". There was never such a thing as a lion with no circulatory system. That is just absurd. All of those became more complex as the organisms became more complex.

Not all carp evolve into other creatures. Only some do. Each step up is not necessarily absolutely better, it is different. Sometimes it is better, sometimes equal, sometimes worse.

First, you missed the point of the question. The entire system needs to be present to function. How did species with one or two parts survive before the rest of the system developed? Random chance saw to it that it all worked out.

THEY DIDNT! All parts evolved simultaneously.

How did it happen that DNA and RNA both happened in the same cell (all surviving cells, actually), with DNA in an incredible double-helix, and DNA unwound itself and unzipped, and an RNA molecule snuggled up to it and made a copy, and the DNA then zipped back up and rewound. Random chance?

The first organisms did not have as complex DNA as exists in the modern day.

Typo. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human? In other words, life from unlife. What about the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Are they bogus? Or didn't they have enough time (or just bad chance)?

I have already explained how life comes from "unlife", as you put it.

Your verifiable, testable, provable scientific explanations included "random" or "chance" at least ten times. In fact, we're to believe that everything in biological evolution (not to mention planetary, stellar, and elemental evolution) is the amazing result of random chances. I believe in a supernatural (i.e., non-verifiable, non-scientific) miraculous creation of the universe and everything in it. You believe in a materialistic, statistical miracle of such proportions based on so many unverifiable, unsubstantiated assumptions that I'd be ashamed to admit it.

Sigh...

[Will]

Just a comment...

Originally posted by Krsqk:
No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummm, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to word it like that. I know quite a few people who tell me they believe in some god (most of them the Christian God), and that they believe evolution happens. I know a few people that believe in several gods, not just one. So, as you typed it, that statement is utterly and completely wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As for the whole evolution/randomness thing... I have come to believe that the reason so many people cannot accept it is because humans in general have a hard time grasping the concept of how large the universe is, and how long the time is it's actually been in existance. Probably doesn't help that, from what we understand of the mind, subconsiously, we don't recognize anything larger than 4 (I was suprised when I heard about this, but I did some quick testing on myself. If you flash cards with varying numbers of items on it, very quickly, you can tell if there are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more than 4 items on it with accuracy. Pinpointing in the more than 4 catagory is very inaccurate.). So, consiously, the numbers we understand are lots of Groups of 4 added together, and at some point, this breaks down.
Think of one million dollars. "Wow, that's a lot of money." But, if you have one million dollars right in front of you, in one dollar bills, the reaction would be more like "WOW! That's a LOT of money!"

And back to the actual point: it is hard for humans to believe the randomness behind evolution and other theories (BTW, another digression... for scientists, a theory is something that has been continually substantiated by facts, while a hypothesis more acurately describes what "lay" people term a theory. The "Theory of Evolution" is more accurately the "Theory of Microevolution", as this has been substantiated several times. Macroevolution is infered from this, but as it is difficult to prove this within a human lifespan, it would still be classified a hypothesis).
Hmmm... back to the point again... it is hard to believe the randomness behind these theories because in order for that randomness to give the results, it would require the processes going on in a very, very large number of places, over a very, very large amount of time. Since we can't really fundamentally understand numbers greater than 4, we must rely on abstractions to understand what is happening. For religious people, the abstraction is god(s) of some sort(s). For scientific people, the abstraction is a universe that is amazingly, mind-bogglingly huge, we can't even begin to grasp it, and if we actually did, it would probably kill the graspee (read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, chapter 10... The Total Perspective Vortex). So, just accept that the Universe is "one heck of a big place" and work on that assumption http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hopefully all of that made some sort of sense... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Fyron]

Made perfect sense to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[dogscoff]

When my kids go to school I want them to learn all about how the Frost Giant Ymir was formed in the great void Ginnugagap, and that Odin (son of Bor, son of Buri who was formed in a block of ice and freed by the mystical cow Audhumla) slew him and made from his body the Earth (Midgard)...

The Norse creation myth. (http://heidenhexerei.thunderhaven.net/lore/creation.shtml)

[dogscoff]

I don't want religion taught in public schools. I also don't
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I take it that's in response to my Last post. Sorry, I was being facetious...

[Krsqk]

Maybe we should take the morning/afternoon to settle down a little. I think we're all getting a little antsy. I'll check back around 7 or 8 EST.

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> [...] Where did God come from?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God, by definition, is uncreated. I'm not saying that's scientific (i.e., proveable). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ahem. If it's possible to posit an uncreated God, it's possible to posit other uncreated things. Thus, I can (and will) posit that the universe is uncreated/undesigned, thus eliminating the need for a uncreated/undesigned creator/designer. St. Tom's causal chains can't stand up to Occam's razor. I'm not saying that's scientific, but I don't have to, 'cause I'm agnostic in terms of universal creation (i.e., I hold that certain truth in this regard is ultimately unknowable). And I know that in this sort of debate a declaration of any form of agnosticism is generally viewed right up there with declarations that "I'm rubber and you're glue...", but there you go.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
If I said, "Such and such happened at such a time, and it happened thus and so," I'd expect you to take what I said at face value. If I said, "Let me tell you a story with a moral; here it is," I'd expect you to understand what I meant. That's the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If you don't take the Bible literally, you get to decide what you want to take or not take. It puts man as the determining factor for what's supposed to be God's Word. What did God mean if He doesn't mean what He says?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Problem: you make it sound as though language has one, unambiguous meaning. Heh. Speaking as a student of computer science whose interests run towards natural language processing, I find your suggestion amusing. Speaking as a student of philosophy whose interests run towards phenomenology and philosophy of language, I find your suggestion troubling. But most forcefully, speaking as a student of literary criticism who never quite got over his fondness for deconstruction (tho' I probably shouldn't admit that in polite company), I find your suggestion unsupportable.

Comprehension of language (written or otherwise) is interpretation. It is not "comprehension" in the pure sense in which the word is commonly used. I will admit that there is a strong tendency, particularly in the US, to view language as precise, but hélas, it just is not so. Language is an approximation based on current socially accepted norms. Which are neither universal nor static. If I order a hot dog, I expect to get a hot dog. But there's no reason I couldn't recieve a kraut dog, if in this community everyone knows that when you ask for a hot dog, you mean a hot dog with kraut. 500 years ago (or so), "meat" in English meant "foodstuff", not "the flesh of an animal".

So tell me, how can you avoid interpreting language? The answer is, you can't; you can at best strive for consistent interpretation. This sort of reasoning is the basis for W. V. O. Quine's "On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation" (Journal of Philosophy 1970; unfortunately, I couldn't find an Online Version of it). Extracting meaning from language is approximation and assumption; it is not and cannot be viewed as a matter of certainty or precision. Thus, anyone who speaks of "literally" interpreting a book is doomed to speak wrongly.

What the above is to say is that your above statement, "What did God mean if He doesn't mean what He says?", is in fact a misleading rhetorical question, because it implys that one can't possibly ask "What did God mean if He does mean what He says?", and one unfortunately can (and must). As reading any book, even the Bible, is ultimately an act of interpretive guesswork, man is necessarily the determining factor for what's supposed to be God's Word...

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I.F., you're absolutely right. Your answers show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.

I.F., you're absolutely wrong. Your answers show as much or more faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it".

I.F., you're either right or wrong depending on how I choose to interpret "faith".

(Okay, that Last bit was really more addressed to Krsqk, but still...)

E. Albright

[Edit: Yow. Sorry about the length on this...]

[ December 12, 2002, 17:51: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Suicide Junkie]

[Edit: Yow. Sorry about the length on this...]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't worry, there are much larger Posts around here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Puke]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
When my kids go to school I want them to learn all about how the Frost Giant Ymir was formed in the great void Ginnugagap...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was going to bring that up myself, but i have been trying not to get involved in this. A far better creation story if I ever heard one, and since most Norse myth is designed to teach morality and philosophy rather than to explain nature and enslave the minds of the feeble to a dictatorial institution, I would be much happier having it taught in schools. Especially the bit about insubstantial things being stronger than substantial things, and it is the insubstantial things that are able to chain back Fenris. Good stuff, thanks 'Scoff.

[Wanderer]

I picked these points as they're space-related http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

"Why do many moons in our solar system still have magnetic fields? They should have cooled off inside after several billion years, and the molten core is necessary for a magnetic field?"

The major moons of Jupiter are very hot at their cores because they are constantly being squeezed and expanded as they go round the planet (imperfect orbits and the huge mass of Jupiter cause these effects). This is why Io is more volcanic than Earth. I don't have a list of all the moons of the solar system and how strong their magnetic fields are (and for some reason I can't access Google!) so that's my suggestion for now.

"How accurate can interstellar measurements be? The base of our triangle used for parallax is 16 light-minutes, and we're somehow accurate out to millions or billions of light-years? The angle at the tip of the triangle for a star 1 light-year away is .017. For 100 light-years away, it's .00017, and so on. 100 light-years is like two people 16 inches apart trying to measure ~800 miles away--the room for error is immense."

Actually, a lot of distance measuring is done by classifying stars. If a star is a certain shade of blue that tells you roughly how hot its surface is and by comparing how intense the light from it is to the amount of light we'd expect to be radiated off the surface (look up black body radiation) an estimate of the distance is possible. For huge distances (i.e. to other galaxies), astronomers look for supergiants, variable stars etc. to use as a yardstick. Parallax is only used for very close stars.

Don't forget we're not using our eyesight to judge distances, but augmenting our vision with powerful telescopes, many of which are automated and don't even bother looking in the tiny visual part of the EM spectrum.

Oh, and if several people tried measuring the 800 mile distance standing 16" apart every night for a month and the average of the sensible (you'll always get the odd freak result, which is why you take measurements more than once) results came out as pretty close to 800 miles, would you credit it or simply assume they'd cheated?

[Solar]

Good stuff, E. Albright. Language is so ambiguous and dependant on interpretation, it's a wonder we humans manage to communicate at all.

Originally posted by E. Albright:
I'm agnostic in terms of universal creation (i.e., I hold that certain truth in this regard is ultimately unknowable). And I know that in this sort of debate a declaration of any form of agnosticism is generally viewed right up there with declarations that "I'm rubber and you're glue...", but there you go.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why so many scoff at the mention of it.
Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit.
As human beings, what does our "reality" consist of? The input received by our senses, our brain's interpretation of that input, and memories of past input and interpretation (experience). Based on observation, we make assumptions about the nature of the universe. We have to, otherwise we couldn't function.
Every morning I step out of bed without looking, because I believe there will be a floor there. This belief is based on my experience (my senses told me there was a floor there Last night), my faith in the reliability of my senses, and my understanding of the laws of the universe, based on a lifetime of sensory input (floors don't just move during the night). Do I KNOW the floor is still going to be there? No, but I have a pretty good idea. So until I jump out of bed and fall into the downstairs bathroom, I believe in the static-ness of my bedroom floor. This example may seem silly, but I think the same goes for belief in creationism, evolution, Norse myth, or anything else.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How is belief based on choice? Try as hard as you want to believe that the earth is flat, but you won't be able to truly believe if it contradicts your understanding of the universe. We believe what we believe because it makes the most sense to us based on our input, experience, and interpretation (or because we have an emotional need to believe, which is another can of worms entirely), but do we really KNOW? My input, experience, and interpretation tell me that certain things are unknowable.

Science is great, but it's based on the assumption that what we perceive is real and unmovable. If we are really brains in vats hooked up to the matrix (and how can we prove that we aren't), then everything we “know” is invalid. Science and religion both boil down to somebody‘s "best guess".

And now you can see how a steady diet of philosophy and science fiction over the course of 25 years can really mess with your mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Solar

[ December 12, 2002, 19:53: Message edited by: Solar ]

[capnq]

(Krsqk:) To say that declared use of allegory means nothing is literal is a logical fallacy. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is a logically fallacy, but it wasn't my point. I probably could have worded my point better.

I was trying to say that I don't believe it is necessary to interpret the Bible literally, in order for it to be credible.

People who dismiss the Bible as not credible often read it as literally as the Biblical Literists do.

[Phoenix-D]

"Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why so many scoff at the mention of it."
"Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit"

You hit at the answer to the first with the second. I've found that many people, myself included a lot of the time, have a serious dislike for saying or hearing the words "I don't know." Agnosticism *requries* that, it is that. Because of that dislike it's viewed a lack of curiosity or a cop-out..when IMO it's actually the opposite.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

The Bible is a nice work of fiction, but nothing more. I certainly don't interpret it as literal. I don't interpret The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars as literal. Those are also nice works of fiction. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The problem I'm having with the "systems evolved all at once" guess is 1) all systems would have to evolve at the same time--a pretty major accomplishment, even for a simple organism/living organic macromolecule/whatever; 2) we have no evidence of anything like that existing. In fact, we still have no evidence of any transitional forms existing (yes, the old no-missing-link thing). You'd think that, with the untold trillions or quadrillions of creatures that must have died here, that we'd find some of an in between species. We should find endless examples of them in at least one or two places on earth. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take a look at a moneran, the simplest of organisms. They typically have all of those systems you are worried about, though in very simplified form. You are still assuming a magical jump between a lion with no lungs to a lion with lungs. Well, that never happened. ALL multi-cellular organisms have always had the bulk of the systems you mentioned. As they became more complex, the systems themselves also became more complex. There is no "missing link". One is not necessary. There is no lion with no lungs, then a lion with half lungs, then a lion with full lungs. All lions (and lion-like creatures that came before lions) had full lungs (and other systems).

Krsqk, I have a few questions for you. These are not meant as any sort of attack upon your beliefs, but as a continuation of this philosophical discussion.

1. What, in your words, is the Design Argument?

2. Why do you believe in God, and also in Creationism? On what is your belief based?

3. Why do you believe in Christianity and not another religion? Why is Christianity "more right" than any of the alternatives?

[ December 12, 2002, 21:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[TerranC]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
When my kids go to school I want them to learn all about how the Frost Giant Ymir was formed in the great void Ginnugagap, and that Odin (son of Bor, son of Buri who was formed in a block of ice and freed by the mystical cow Audhumla) slew him and made from his body the Earth (Midgard)...

The Norse creation myth. (http://heidenhexerei.thunderhaven.net/lore/creation.shtml)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And I also want my children (If I have any children) to learn that Zeus slayed his father, Cronus by cutting off his sexual organs, and that Zeus violated his mother because of the birds and the bees.

Edit: Fyron, the Bible is a Folklore/Myth that has some real life events in it, such as the babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, and other fictional stuff. It is not wholesome fiction. *although I do not believe it to be fiction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif *

[ December 12, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[Fyron]

I was refering to the parts that don't have some semblence of reality and history to them.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
2. Why do you believe in God, and also in Creationism? On what is your belief based?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't and wouldn't deign to speak for Krsqk, but any belief in God is by definition an act of faith. If it were provable or disprovable by observable facts then it would obviously not be something we would be debating. Even a belief in creation is an act of faith as it assumes the exsistance of a creator that cannot be proven, except by the creator.

I haven't got the impression from Krsqk's comments here that he is attempting to convince anyone of the certainty of his beliefs. He seems to be merely making the point that the commonly accepted scientific theories are based on many assumptions that may or may not be correct.

He doesn't appear to be saying that his beliefs aren't based on faith, but merely pointing out that yours, whether you accept it or not, may be too.

Geoschmo

[Krsqk]

I don't want religion taught in public schools. I also don't want hypotheses taught as fact. I'd much rather have students be told, "Here's the universe, and either it was made, or it made itself."

As for the theory/hypothesis labels, I would greatly prefer that. It hasn't happened often in the past, and isn't happening now, and probably isn't likely to change much in the future, though. Creationists would feel happy if every evolutionist would use the word "hypothesis" in public. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No one will argue with the Theory of Microevolution, and the Hypotheses of Cosmic/Stellar/Elemental/Planetary/Biological/Macro-Evolution still leave room for disagreement, by definition. That might reduce the frequency with which this type of discussion ends in shouting matches. It's not a religious disagreement with a scientific theory; it's a supernatural hypothesis disagreeing with a materialistic hypothesis.

Fyron, it should still sound like the design argument. Hume mischaracterized the design argument--a nice straw man. Again, man's creation and the universe are infinitely different in magnitude. It's not a question of like results, like effects. The part about maybe we will make something that complex given enough time was late-night mild (and apparently not obvious) sarcasm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The problem I'm having with the "systems evolved all at once" guess is 1) all systems would have to evolve at the same time--a pretty major accomplishment, even for a simple organism/living organic macromolecule/whatever; 2) we have no evidence of anything like that existing. In fact, we still have no evidence of any transitional forms existing (yes, the old no-missing-link thing). You'd think that, with the untold trillions or quadrillions of creatures that must have died here, that we'd find some of an in between species. We should find endless examples of them in at least one or two places on earth.

[Krsqk]

Geo, that's an excellent representation of my position. Thanks for speaking for me. Now, don't go edit your post to make it say I favor throwing onions at hapless passers-by. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

RE: Language as interpretation

E. Albright, you are exactly right. However, if something is written down, it must be interpreted in the context in which it was written.

For example, if I write a book about someone who plays with acid, it makes a major difference if I'm writing it during the 1860s or the 1960s. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif All language is subject to that change, although not usually in that magnitude.

RE: Design argument in my own words. Here goes (I don't claim to speak for other creationists, but this is the design argument as I understand it)...

Intelligent design requires intelligent designer. Man creates (or more properly, organizes what is already created), based on his intelligence. It's like a child playing with Tinkertoys--he's not truly creating, but rearranging what's already been given him.
Given the fact that we see design and order around us, it is logical to assume there is an intelligent Designer behind it. So far, we're okay with Hume's representation, but here we must part ways.
Hume uses the wording "like results, like effects" to say that the process of creating nature is identical to man's creative process, only several orders of magnitude higher in ability. Thus, God's creative process, like man's, must be imperfect and subject to limitation. This renders God no longer infinite, and few Christians will accept that.
The problem lies in Hume's extension of the principle. To continue our analogy, he extrapolates the child building with Tinkertoys to the factory making the Tinkertoys from other materials (still an imperfect process, but much less limited than the child's ability). The correct analogy from creation would be the child building with Tinkertoys and the factory creating the Tinkertoys out of nothing (an infinite order of magnitude higher). Hume, as a materialist, is operating from the assumption that something had to exist for God to use in creation; otherwise, his analogy falls apart. It's just a fancy straw man.

RE: Why do I believe in God? It all boils down to faith. Belief in no God requires faith, too. If you knew half of everything there was to know, you still couldn't prove that in the other half, there was a God. There is evidence that convinces me of God's existence, but the evidence is totally unnecessary. Welcome, but unnecessary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

RE: Why Christianity? Of course, this comes down to faith as well. One could go to several things in the Bible that have proven true, even after being ridiculed (i.e., the existence of the Hittites), or the historical accuracy, etc.; but no proof for one religion or another exists.

Any worldview is totally based on faith. That is the overall point I've striven for here. There is more than one worldview, but they do tend to boil down into two main types: 1) God made the world and makes the rules, or 2) The world made itself and we make the rules (or power makes rules, or money makes rules, etc.--that varies with interpretation). Several flavors of each exist, and some attempts have been made to marry the two, but they are unwilling partners http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If an evolutionist accepts that his worldview is a faith, he's already halfway to becoming a creationist. No one would naturally look at the complexity found in nature and say, "Wow! That happened by chance!" any more than they think the space shuttle happened by chance. We have to be taught to think that way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[edit: i like to out words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ]

[ December 13, 2002, 03:17: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

If I was not getting ready for my Last final I would love to put in my two cents worth.

[jimbob]

Well, well, well… like we don’t waste enough time playing (and modding) SEIV, we have to go and open up this can of Creationist-Evolutionist worms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I may as well jump in. I’ve just read the Last 4 pages of this thread, and I gotta tell you, it’s really Evolved (snicker) beyond Twinkies as the absolute perfection in FTL power supply.

As a practicing biologist, here are my thoughts. I picked out some of the more interesting bits of the Krsqk/IF discussion (from about 2 pages back) and just added my thoughts. As to my biases, I’m not really that interested in Creationism as it pertains to the Young Earth Version, and I’ve got a great regard for micro-evolution, but have strongly questioned the state of science as it attempts to address speciation. Someone (really sorry, can’t remember who) made the analogy that [paraphrase] we don’t know how gravity works, but we still observe it everyday. However the same is not true of evolution. Though this may seem pedantic, it’s important to see that it is a question not of evolution, but the observation of Speciation. So, more correctly we should be saying that we don’t know how species have arisen, but we still observe them everyday. As such, evolution is not an observation, but a theory of explanation for speciation.
With that introduction, I know this post will be long, so if you’re really not interested in my thoughts on the state of evolution, I’d suggest you just save yourself some effort. I don’t discuss Twinkies, FTL or Swiss-Chocolate beyond this point.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from [Jim: a-biotic] dead matter?

IF: The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments.

Jim: Yes, it has been proven that more complex molecules can be created from our best guesses at a primordial goo (i). The problem is that despite enormous amounts of work, it has yet to be shown that anything beyond “complex molecules” could be formed. That is to say short peptides (proteins in this case of less than 20 amino acid length) could be formed, but nothing even approaching a useful/functional peptide has ever been produced (ii). That said, nothing vaguely resembling any sort of reproducing entity has ever been observed in these experiments. If I’m wrong, please do inform me!! Seeing as I’ll be teaching this stuff, I absolutely need to know if I’m missing something.

My personal side notes:
(i) I think it’s important to note that the in vitro primordial goo experiments typically use much higher concentrations of the putative goo than would be found in nature. This is expected to aid the experiment in terms of time frame (in their defence, it’s awfully difficult to get a 50 year grant from any federal or independent agency).
(ii) typically useful modern proteins begin to weigh in at around 80 – 100 amino acids.

IF: You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right?

Jim: Really? I’d love a reference for this because I’ve seen a lot of arguments regarding Paley’s (sp) watch, but only by contemporary authors. IMHO, Paley (again, sp.) had a good argument from what I can see, but then went off into hypothetical land on the applications… and his “hypotheticals” got him in trouble.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

IF: Sometimes, the code gets mutated to have a few extra base pairs. Sometimes it is mutated to have fewer base pairs. Often, this does not cause the organism to fail at living, and so goes unnoticed. If that organism reproduces, it's offspring could inherit the extra base pairs, or the fewer ones. Given many generations in which more extra base pairs are added than lost, you get a steadily increasing DNA code. And remember, somewhere over 90% of the DNA is junk, and is NEVER used in replication. So, a few extra base pairs here and there won't hurt much, especially if they are added at the end.

Jim: Yes, it is true that we very often observe point mutations, small lesions, wholesale inVersions, etc. in the genetic code of organisms (i). And yes, often these changes do not cause the organism any harm, or no discernable harm anyway (ii). However, the question is not “can an organism survive genetical damage/degeneration”, but is “can genetical damage result in the production of new species/entire de novotrait.” Junk DNA or no, the burden on evolutionary theory is not to show that organisms can sustain damages, it is to show that this damage can cause the formation of new species.

(i) it has been estimated that huge tracts of the human genome are made up of dead retroviruses and insertion sequences. The human cell response has been to push together large tracts of these “extra genomic parasites” in “grave yards” that are then wrapped up in chromatin, never to be transcribed again!! I love this stuff!!
(ii) an organism that has more junk DNA is going to be more energetically burdened than a counterpart without this energy burden. In lower complexity organisms such as bacteria, especially the gut organisms such as E. coli, this can mean the difference between reproductive success and reproductive failure in a competitive environment. For higher complexity organisms, such as humans, I have never seen any equivalent reports. My guess is that it won’t affect us significantly.

When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

IF: There is no such thing as a single celled plant. All plants are very, very multi-cellular. You are thinking of Protista. Some of them are similar to plants, but they are not plants.

Jim: I’d suggest there is potentially a semantic misunderstanding at one level. If we go back far enough on a phylogenetic tree we will find that plants had an ancestor that was still single celled, and so we could in fact refer to it anachronistically as a single celled plant. The real quandary is this: how does an organism/when did an organism first become multi-celled? The vastly more important implied question is how does a competitive and selfish organism come to cooperate with others of it’s own kind (or non-kind if you Subscribe to the theory that chloropLasts and mitochondria are captured/symbiotic bacteria)

3. Fish change to amphibians?

IF: Build me a time machine, and I will tell you when and where.

Gollum: Fish?!
fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish

Jim: We can do it cheaper than that. We can see exactly when amphibious species appear in the fossil record. If you believe that they evolved from fish, you’ve got your answer! I’m still big on the time machine though, cause I’m wantin’ me some of that primordial soup! Yummm…
Krsqk, I’m not actually sure why the time frame is really important though…

6. How did the intermediate forms live?

IF: You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't. The intermediate forms were only slightly different form what came before them. They lived the same as their parents did. Evolution does not occur over night.

Jim: And this is the problem… the fossil record clearly shows that there are indeed “magical jumps” between species (your words, not mine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Unfortunately this IS the state of affairs. This is so obviously true that Gould and Sflkghfv (I can’t remember his name, for shame http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) invoked Punctuated Equilibrium to account for these leaps, without abandoning the concept of evolution altogether. There are some that charge that Punctuated Equilibrium is simply a non-Supernatural Version of Saltation (ii).

(ii) Yeah, I could use a little Saltation with my primordial soup too. I’m more of a salty snack kinda guy than the sweet/twinky kinda guy. Oh! there it is, I couldn’t resist bringing up twinkies.

IF: You are still assuming a magical jump between a lion with no lungs to a lion with lungs. Well, that never happened. ALL multi-cellular organisms have always had the bulk of the systems you mentioned.

Jim: Err… well that’s a little extreme, but I see your point. Unfortunately that is dealing with entire systems of advanced organs. If we step down to a molecular level, that is to say we look at just a few gene products working in concert, there still is this nagging sense of irreducible-ness (i). I’m currently working on a single protein product (RpoS) that is regulated by no less than 28 other gene products, and itself… and that’s just what we know so far! Knocking out just one of these players has extreme effects on the cell responses (capacity to survive starvation, cause disease, etc.), so it is difficult to imagine an organism with mutations in any of these other genes being stable/functional within their environment. Or more to the point as we look at evolution, the converse is hard to believe - that there would be a mutation of another gene such that it’s product now regulates my protein without whacking out the entire system (ii). Irreproducibility is a sticking point, especially when living creatures are more complex than Formula 1 cars – and I’m just talking about bacteria here!

(i) sorry, it’s getting late, and I’m beginning to make words up.
(ii) my protein is not the best example of the irreproducibility problem though. There are some real doozies out there.

My take home from all this is that biology is by far the most fascinating subject, and that there are some significant problems with evolution as it currently stands. Punctuated equilibrium is a good first start in explaining the fossil story. Unfortunately the real game is in the genes (though being a geneticist I’m perhaps a little biased here). I really wish that some of the bigger problems such as the problems/failures of a-biotic evolution research and irreproducible systems would be addressed by the scientific community with more research/thought, rather than cries of ‘heresy!’ though.

IF and Krsqk, thanks for opening up a very fun thread. I hope that there are no hard feelings about any of this. Coming from a mixed faith family, I can appreciate the frustration that can come when trying to communicate very different world views.

Cheers,(Skol!)
jimbob

[ December 13, 2002, 04:46: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Will]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
If an evolutionist accepts that his worldview is a faith, he's already halfway to becoming a creationist. No one would naturally look at the complexity found in nature and say, "Wow! That happened by chance!" any more than they think the space shuttle happened by chance. We have to be taught to think that way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm... Well, I say my worldview is largely based on my faith that there is/are no god(s). I understand that it is impossible to prove one way or the other, and thus would fall into the catagory of faith or belief. However, I am in no way "halfway to becoming a creationist". There have been numerous attempts by others to show me the "light", or the "way", or the "truth", or the "good news", or whatever else the current fad of a term is, and all of them failed (to borrow from the bedroom floor analogy, it always has failed, and I always expect it to fail). An "intelligent designer" does not fit well in my mind, it violates the principle of Occam's Razor... it seems like it is a layer of complexity from ages past when anything that wasn't understood was "God".

The space shuttle analogy is flawed. I know how it was created, off the top of my head, it was during the 1970s, designed by engineers at Boeing, built by Boeing on a NASA contract. I don't recall any details, really, and don't feel like googling (http://www.google.com) it right now. But I know about its recent creation, by humans, from my junior high history courses. It is very probable that some of the people who designed and built it are still living. The same cannot be said for the Universe or the Earth. Nobody was around for that, and even if the inconsistant and contradictory information that the various "prophets" dictated actually were from a divine source, it has gone through the interpretations of far too many people over far too long of a time. Most elementary school students play a game, where one person makes up a message, and whispers it to someone else. That person whispers what he/she heard to another person, who whispers what he/she heard to another... etc. The Last person tells everyone what he/she heard, and the first person tells everyone what he/she originally said. I have not yet experienced a perfect transmission, or even one that was reasonably close. I see religious teachings in much the same way. Most of the substantiation for religious claims come from the claims themselves (I have stopped counting the number of times I've encountered a person who uses circular reasoning to justify the Bible... "The Bible is Truth because God says so." "How do you know that God said so?" "It says it right here in the Bible." "Well, how do you know the Bible is Truth?" "Because God says so."... etc.). The prophecies contained in religions, to me, reads a lot like daily horoscopes; very ambiguous, and anyone who wants to believe them will find a way to distort the facts of their existance to fit what is said.

As for this worldview being what I was taught... hardly. I grew up in an area that is approximately 40% Catholic, 30% Presbyterian, 30% Methodist, and largely hostile. I know of only three Jewish families. My school had an angry (extremist Christian) parents group that tried to block a field trip by a small group of students to the Andy Warhol Museum because the students would surely be corrupted and return as Satan-worshiping homosexuals. I am sure that many congregations still periodically pray for my soul. The threats made to me that said that the God-fearing Christian who wrote about his/her wish to speed me on my way to my false god, Satan, in Hell... those slacked off after the first few months. I think it's more because the writers found other things to be self-righteous about, rather than me endlessly explaining that athiests (as I later discovered the term to be) don't believe in Satan, either.
No, atheism was not something I was taught. I came to the conclusion that I didn't believe all that "God" nonsense on my own, thank you. Despite the many and varied attempts to teach me something that was not atheism, both before and after I actually knew what the word meant. The first atheist I met face to face (that I knew was an athiest, at least) I met about four months ago. In Los Angeles, not Pennsylvania (where I grew up, and formulated my worldview).

Hmm... I think I need to go to the Cantina for a while...

[geoschmo]

That is twice now that Occam's Razor has been mentioned in this thread. And I have heard it many times before as an explanation by people who don't believe in God. And to be honest with you it has always struck me as a little odd that people would use it as such.

If you assume, as most scientific types do I suppose, that everything (and by everything I mean everything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) is ultimatly understandable to us given enough time to study and test our hypotheses, then I suppose once we (us as a speices) reach the point of complete understanding (a long time from now of course) then an eternal divine creator is a "more complex" option, and thus would be logically discarded.

However if your assumption is a belief in a creator, and that there are things in life which are the domain of the creator that we as a species are incapable of understanding without revalation of some sort, then your two options are just as clear. And the divine creator is much less complex one than the incredible string of random circumstances that would be required to produce life as we know it.

So to use Occam's Razor in defense of either argument, you basically have to decide which side you are on first. It is useless as tool in determining the truth of the matter.

(EDIT: Don't you love it when you come up with something totally off the cuff and then find something afterwards that appears to support it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Of course you have to accept my assumptions to agree, but here's an intersting link for what it's worth. http://skepdic.com/occam.html) (http://skepdic.com/occam.html)

Geoschmo

[ December 13, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[dogscoff]

No one would naturally look at the complexity found in nature and say, "Wow! That happened by chance!"
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So where did the first atheist come from?

[Krsqk]

"So where did the first atheist come from?"

If you're a creationist, he was created on either the 4th, 5th, or 6th day of creation. If you're an evolutionist, he evolved from his distant ancestor Eoatheist. Eoatheist is either a member of the animal or vegetable family, again depending if you're an evolutionist or a creationist. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Or maybe he/she/it came from disgust at watching two religions squabble.

In all seriousness, my statement was not meant as a logical argument. Common sense, though, requires a designer for each design, a creator for each creation. It takes involved thought and argument to move away from that. I would submit that it is the reason why we have so many creation legends and so few evolution legends--creation is the natural starting point for the human mind. Whether that's by accident or design depends on your worldview.

[Fyron]

RE: Design argument in my own words. Here goes (I don't claim to speak for other creationists, but this is the design argument as I understand it)...

Intelligent design requires intelligent designer. Man creates (or more properly, organizes what is already created), based on his intelligence. It's like a child playing with Tinkertoys--he's not truly creating, but rearranging what's already been given him.
Given the fact that we see design and order around us, it is logical to assume there is an intelligent Designer behind it. So far, we're okay with Hume's representation, but here we must part ways.
Hume uses the wording "like results, like effects" to say that the process of creating nature is identical to man's creative process, only several orders of magnitude higher in ability. Thus, God's creative process, like man's, must be imperfect and subject to limitation. This renders God no longer infinite, and few Christians will accept that.
The problem lies in Hume's extension of the principle. To continue our analogy, he extrapolates the child building with Tinkertoys to the factory making the Tinkertoys from other materials (still an imperfect process, but much less limited than the child's ability). The correct analogy from creation would be the child building with Tinkertoys and the factory creating the Tinkertoys out of nothing (an infinite order of magnitude higher). Hume, as a materialist, is operating from the assumption that something had to exist for God to use in creation; otherwise, his analogy falls apart. It's just a fancy straw man.

Thank you for answering more than I asked. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

But anyways, no, that is not really the design argument. I have never heard anyone use a tinkertoy before, and that just makes the analogy even worse than it has to be. Instead, I will use a house, as houses aren't built wholesale in factories (the tinkertoy technically works too, but not quite as you used it). A house does not just appear naturally, someone had to have designed and built it. A house is relatively ordered. Looking around the world, it appears ordered and so appears designed. So, an analogy is used to infer that since the house had a designer, the world (universe) must have had a designer. It has nothing to do with "creative processes" or anythign like that.

The first problem with this is that it is an analogical argument. For analogies to work, the things being compared must be nearly identical to each other. The universe and a house (or a clock, tinkertoy, ship, whatever) are absolutely nothing alike. They arent even in the same domain. eg: You could use an analogy comparing a dog to a cat, as they are both mammals. It wouldn't be very good, because cats and dogs are very differen't animals. But, the analogy works on a basic level because they are both mammals (and animals). You could say, a cat has a heart, so a dog, which is kind of like a cat, must also have a heart. But, you could not compare a cat to a tree or a rock, as there is no basis of similarity. There is no basis of similarity between the universe and a house/tinkertoy. So, the argument by analogy does not work here.

Secondly, the design argument can not say anything about the perfection, infiniteness or unity of God, assuming you still want to say that it proves some sort of intelligent designer exists. Architects (or those that design tinkertoys) do not only design 1 house. They do not work alone. So, you can not use the design argument to say that there is only one universe, or that there is only 1 god. Also, architects design some bad houses before they become good. So, is this universe a bad universe that God made while still learning to make a universe? You have no way to tell. You would have to have another universe to compare it to. Of course, it is assumed that God is perfect and made no mistakes when designing the universe, and so he did not have to make any "test" universes. But, this can not be infered from the design argument.

Continuing to expand upon the flawed analogical argument, the architect (or designer of a tinkertoy) does not stick around to care for the house (or tinkertoy). So, you can not infer that there is a benevolent God from the design argument.

At best, the design argument shows that there could be many gods, they/it are not necessarily perfect, they/it are not necessarily benevolent, and not necessarily infinite.

[Krsqk]

I realize any analogy will be flawed, given the vast difference between human creation and the universe. This flaw is inherent to Hume's criticism as well, though. He argues that God and man must be similar since their results are similar (house~universe). The design argument (ok, at least my understanding of it) infers the infinity of God from the infinite magnitude of the difference.

[Fyron]

No, Hume does not argue that God and Man are similar. He said that the creations are entirely different, so you cannot assume anything about the creator of the universe based on the design argument, if there was one.

The "infiniteness" of God does not come from the design argument. That is taking the belief you already hold an using it as evidence to support itself. You cannot do that.

[jimbob]

Three items
1) how far can analogy go
2) how far can the 'design argument' go
3) one twinkie at a time

1) As to analogy, I *personally* see no reason why the universe cannot be compared to any other complex object, for example a car, a house, or even a twinkie for that matter. Depending on how you compare two objects (ie. the frame work of discussion) it could be invalid to compare the proverbial cat to the proverbial tree (they are both alive, they should both have hearts), or it could be valid to compare the cat to a tree (they are both alive, they must both have circulatory systems). Analogy is a sticky thing, but it is one of our most powerful tools of communication, so I'm not naturally inclined to discard it.

So my thought (apologies to Hume) is that the scale of relatednes in the case of universe vs. house is very distant, but what we demand of the objects in terms of similarity is only the characteristic of extreme complexity - not function. As such, I personally find the complexity issue to be compelling, requiring an "answer" of some sort.

2)
IF said:
At best, the design argument shows that there could be many gods, they/it are not necessarily perfect, they/it are not necessarily benevolent, and not necessarily infinite.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Personally, I agree here - that the design argument does not/should not speak to the identity of said 'designer' at all. It should be merely employed to suggest that the degree of complexity observed does not appear to be due to chance (probability). It could be a god as we think of a god, it could be aliens that have a degree of ability that we conceive as those associated with a god(s). It could be many uber-powerful entities, it could be one.

3) For the sake of keeping all the lines of discussion clear however, I think it may be useful to take on just one line of thought/thread at a time - lots of us think that the Christian God sucks eggs, but that's not a good argument for evolution! Lots of us think He's a hip dude, but that's not a good argument for design! Lots of us are agnostic (should that be capitalized?) but that's not a good argument for them both being true simultaneously!
And so I'd tend to think that the question of the robustness of evolutionary theory, the question of design and the question of the putative designers identity/characteristics are actually three separate questions, that should probably be discussed separately... more for clairity's sake than the entertainment value http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

night y'all, hope you take no offense, as none has been intended.

jimbob

[ December 14, 2002, 08:04: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Will]

Re: Occam's Razor

The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it. Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way. So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid.

On a side note, I had (and in fact, still have) a few days before I have to take finals... to pass the time, I picked up a few books that I've been meaning to read for a while.
The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul by Douglas Adams, has some nice commentary on gods http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
And Candide by Francois-Marie Arouet (A.K.A. Voltaire). The final message of the text I find I agree with... basically, "We'll all be much better off if we stop spending so much time on metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology". Pretty much, quit argueing so much about philosophy and just work, and you'll be happy. Sure, it's nice once in a while, but don't let it consume your life.
Good books http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Phoenix-D]

"So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid."

Therefore it's -more likely- to be invalid. Occam's Razor is useful, but it is not foolproof. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Will:
Re: Occam's Razor

The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The principle as I understand it is to not introduce more complexity than is neccesary to explain a hypothesis. The difference is subtle, I will grant, but it is there. Although it's not the basis of my argument against it's use in this case.

Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On this point the three of us are in total agreement. (You, me and Occam. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here's where I think your use of the principle fails. You have already stated you believe that the exsistnace of God to be unprovable, and by applying the razor you say the lack of proof means that God does not exsist. That seems to me to be very circular logic at best. And it also assumes that everything is "knowable" by us, an assumption which I do not accept, although I cannot refute, and which you cannot support. Only time will tell I suppose on that point.

And the issue of this thread has not been been whether or not God exsists, a point which we both agree cannot be proven or disproven here. It has been mainly "Do you really know what you think you know?". If some of the accepted assumptions that seem to support the origin of species by natural selection are incorrect it by no means proves the exsistance of a creator. But adhering to the belief in evolution regardless demonstrates the same level of faith ascribed to those that believe in the origin of species by act of creation.

Geoschmo

[ December 14, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[capnq]

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

(Wish I knew who originally said that.)

Especially when you can't even get an agreement on what constitutes "evidence".

[jimbob]

Will said:
The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it. Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way. So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought we were discussing the complexity of life and/or the universe, not the complexity of proving the existance/nonexistance of a god-being. Depending on which issue we are discussing, Occam's shaving device will give (IMHO) very different results.

i) The arguement for a non-chance (most commonly a design argument) derived universe states that the universe is far (ie 10^40 or more) too complex to have come about by chance, so the easiest (Occam's razor) explanation is that it did not arise by chance. Therefore I believe that given current understanding of the complexity of the universe, Occam comes down on the side of "probability has to jump through too many hoops to be likely".

i.a) I'm not a astrophysicist however, so really, my opinion is only valid within the realm of molecular biology. It is my opinion that Occam's razor would dis-favor probability there as well. However Occams is NOT fool-proof as noted in an earlier posting... it simply tells the politicians were they should place their science funding http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

ii) The arguments to date for the existance of a deity or equivalent (and here I mean independantly of the above discussion of chance and the universe or the separate one on life) suggests that most if not all evidence(s) can be used for either side of the argument. That is to say, there is no complelling evidence for a diety, and so Occam's razor would suggest that all things being equal, don't introduce a diety because that's another level of complexity.

iii) where can one get some Occam's aftershave? I think I've got a little Occam's burn here on my pre-frontal cortex...

On a side note, I had (and in fact, still have) a few days before I have to take finals... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well it sounds like your brain has warmed up quite well in this thread. I hope you do well on your exams!! What are you studying anyway?


And Candide by Francois-Marie Arouet (A.K.A. Voltaire). The final message of the text I find I agree with... basically, "We'll all be much better off if we stop spending so much time on metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology". <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm... but it's the statement of a satisfied, well fed, man of letters, secure in his upper-class position during the peak of his civilizations' power. Perhaps a man, woman or child in Burkino-Faso would hope that there is a greater meaning to life as their family barely scrapes by on 30 cents a day?

And now to prove that I'm one of those typical north american hypocrites, I'm going out with friends to drop $13 (+popcorn) on a Star Trek Movie http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif , night all.

-jimbob

[ December 14, 2002, 23:32: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Krsqk]

Fyron: I think some of the miscommunication comes from what I read of Hume's arguments. Of course, I just picked the first link I found. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I accept that any analogy is an imperfect representation; but since there is no perfect analogy, we have to use what there is. Otherwise, we have to throw out any philosophy built on analogy. I also agree that the design argument doesn't prove the identity, number, or purpose of the designer.

Hume's argument that nature naturally produces order supports both sides. If you already believe in a designer, then design happening in nature is further proof of that design. If you don't believe in one, it's further proof that one is not needed.

Further arguments about evil in the world do not contradict the design argument. They fit into the "Since there's design, who designed it?" debates.

I'm sure I had more to say, but I can't remember without checking the thread again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Krsqk]

And Candide by Francois-Marie Arouet (A.K.A. Voltaire). The final message of the text I find I agree with... basically, "We'll all be much better off if we stop spending so much time on metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology".<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, yeah. Voltaire should have spent a little less of his life philosophizing, then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif "Now that I've said all I'd like to say, then I have just one Last thing to say before you answer me: Let's all just go home and catch some ZZZs, and get a real job in the morning." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ December 14, 2002, 23:55: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Hume's argument that nature naturally produces order supports both sides. If you already believe in a designer, then design happening in nature is further proof of that design. If you don't believe in one, it's further proof that one is not needed.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The precise definition of "naturally" needs to be nailed down, I think.

I read "naturally" to be "without outside help".

[Krsqk]

I think it comes down to whether scientific laws are evidence of design or evidence that of an ordered world. Obviously both sides can be argued, since those laws by definition mean we have an ordered world; the question is, do they point to anything more.

That's my interpretation of "natural order."

[Fyron]

No, they do not. Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

[Suicide Junkie]

The quote wasn't "natural order", but "naturally produces order"...

Which to me says "life does quite a bit of work on its own towards creating an ordered world"

(the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As far as we know, of course. Which is still pretty darn far: on the order of 10 billion years.

[ December 15, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Krsqk]

"Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect."

Which, again, is based on your pre-determined worldview. A creationist would say that those forces were created along with everything else. My point was that the "order in nature without outside intervention" argument fits both sides equally well.

[Fyron]

Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb. And no, I do not accept evolution and such on blind faith.

[Will]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Well it sounds like your brain has warmed up quite well in this thread. I hope you do well on your exams!! What are you studying anyway?[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right now, the little pieces of paper say "Computer Science". I'm going to be changing them to "Computer Engineering/Computer Science", just to have that little extra breadth. I'll probably swap in another major or a minor sometime.

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Here's where I think your use of the principle fails. You have already stated you believe that the exsistnace of God to be unprovable, and by applying the razor you say the lack of proof means that God does not exsist. That seems to me to be very circular logic at best. And it also assumes that everything is "knowable" by us, an assumption which I do not accept, although I cannot refute, and which you cannot support. Only time will tell I suppose on that point.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can see where you think it fails, since the Razor would tend to support whichever view weilds it right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My reasoning behind it falls more on extrapolating from previous beliefs (though I didn't say that... I need to work on this communication stuff). Originally, people didn't understand how the sun and the moon rose every day; so, they said it was gods that did it. Once we found out how the sun and moon actually appear to rise, that was thrown out. It seems that whatever is not understood has the label "GOD" slapped on it, and makes everything all right. So, right now, we don't really understand how this whole universe shebang got started. It seems to me that the reflexive action is to slap on the label, and everything will be all right. I see no reason why this would be any different than wrongly (we think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )explaining the rising of sun and moon as divine influence.

As for not all mysteries of the universe being knowable, I think this allows for that. There's always some other intricacy of the interactions throughout the universe that will need to be explained. Especially what 42 is the answer to. Then, once we figure that out, we will all be destroyed, and a new universe even more bizzare than this one will be created. Of course, this has probably already happened...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Krsqk]

"Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth. Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb."

Depending on your definition of open mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It seems nowadays that it means "Accept everybody and everything without any sort of value judgment." As long as it means "Keep your eyes open and your brain engaged," I don't have a problem with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Oh, and most people who operate solely on blind faith aren't well informed about much of anything, including their faith.

[Wardad]

My God has a sense of humor. OH BOY, does he ever have a sense of humor!!!

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
RE: Language as interpretation

E. Albright, you are exactly right. However, if something is written down, it must be interpreted in the context in which it was written.

For example, if I write a book about someone who plays with acid, it makes a major difference if I'm writing it during the 1860s or the 1960s. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif All language is subject to that change, although not usually in that magnitude.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ouch. The deconstructionist in me wants to jump on this and scream bloody murder over your apparent favoring of writing over other forms of communication, but I think it'd be irrelevant (and said disconnected deconstructionist Albright parts might be extracting an interpretation from your speech that you never intended to put there, but that's not what I'm driving at...).

On the other hand, if you agree with what I'd earlier stated re: speech as a necessarily interpretive act, you subvert your argument that "it must be interpreted in the context in which it was written." If all communication is interpretive, you cannot judge something in its "real" context, unless you have firsthand experience with it [ and at this point my nascent phenomenological instincts want to scream bloody murder, 'cause your firsthand experience is still interpretive, subjective and intentional (ah, quelle joie to deal with Continental philosophy!) ], because your conception of the context is formed by the accounts of others (i.e., by other communications) and is thus naught but a subjectively interpretation...

The point that your above comment raises doesn't, IMO, go any distance to being able to redeem the notion that one can definatively know the "meaning" of a text, which is to say that it is insufficient to negate the fallacy of intentionality { i.e., the assertion that "one can, by reading a text [ and if we let Derrida have his way (as we probably shouldn't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ), all communications are 'texts' ], discern with certainty the message that the author intended to communicate" is ultimately indefensible }.

The gist of the above critical babbling is that, even if one "[ interprets a work ] in the context in which it was written", one cannot hope to state authoritatively that one is interpreting it "literally". The idea of iterpreting something "literally" suggests that there is a single, definate and correct way to interpret any given work, and hélas, there is no way to justify this assertion...

(Yes, it's good to try to take a work's historical context into account. But this doesn't grant the interpreter a magical looking-glass with which to discern the "true" meaning of the work. Rather, it allows the interpretation of the work to be more consistent with the interpretation of other works derived from the same context...)

E. Albright
(An obviously less-than-completely reformed former deconstructionist)

[ Edit: typing errors ]

[ December 16, 2002, 13:53: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Krsqk]

That's fine and all, coming from a deconstructionist, but some of us ordinary people believe that once upon a time, words had meanings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Furthermore, in the past, there were books called dictionaries which sought to solidify the meaning of words, instead of aid in the progression (or digression) of their meanings, as seems to be popular today. It is reasonable to assume that the Bible translators in particular, and authors in general, used words that directly communicated their intent, in keeping with the established meanings of those words. In short (Short? Do I know what short means? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif }, I think that lack of 100% certainty (where rounding up to 100% is not permitted) is not reason for discounting the probability of successfully interpreting a text.

I'm not sure if I even know what I just wrote--time for a snack break. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[edit] Oh, and I don't necessarily favor writing over other forms of communication; my original point was just that written text retains the meanings from its time of writing, allowing one to interpret it with reasonable certainty.

[ December 16, 2002, 14:38: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
That's fine and all, coming from a deconstructionist, but some of us ordinary people believe that once upon a time, words had meanings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Furthermore, in the past, there were books called dictionaries which sought to solidify the meaning of words, instead of aid in the progression (or digression) of their meanings, as seems to be popular today.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you really believe that Last line? It is now extremely popular (and I'm speaking as a Yank here) to view dictionaries as Bibles (if you'll pardon the expression) and meanings as fixed and certain. 'Tis my experience that Americans in particular have this lovely idea that Languages are fixed, static and standardized, when the bloody things are living, dynamic and diverse. For example, how many times have you heard the phrase "standard English"? How often do you hear people in the States talking about dialects of English? Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just Ohio, but I've found that Americans tend to view dialects as funny accents + bad grammer ("They'uns talk funny o'er yonder!"). Dictionaries are an attempt to standardize language and to clarify meaning, but they ultimately can, will and must fail. There are as many idiolects of English as there are speakers of English; so tell me, which of these hundreds of millions of ideolects represents the real, correct English? Speaking as a teacher of English as a second language, I constently find myself wondering if I use words "right", or if I'm misleading my students as to what connotations and denotations are generally attatched to this or that word. Given that my students have been learning British English, and I come from the other side of the pond, I find that I often don't. I had a lot less sympathy for the idea that language is neither unambiguous nor fixed before learning to speak another language, let alone before I started trying to teach my own.

But I rant digressively. My point are this: a claim that, because langauge is precise enough for ordinary usage, the fact that it's vague and underspecified is irrelevant, essentially sidesteps the question of whether it is too vague and/or sufficently specified for extraordinary use. And I dare say that claiming that one knows exactly what God means because one read what some person transcribed for Him qualifies as rather extraordinary. This would suggest that one can obtain objective meaning after two subjective interpretations (assuming that God, at least, doesn't have these same problems that we'uns do). Um, ouch. And if you want to argue that I've made a double standard, that I'm being less rigourous with ordinary language, I assure you I'm not. I personally hope quite sincerly that this statement communicates the "message" that I intend to communicate, but I freely admit that I've no assurance that it shall...

Oh, and re: dictionaries, and our having of them in the past... Don't forget that dictionaries are a relatively newfangled invention; English dictionaries have been around for less than 400 years, and have been used as standardizing agents a goodly sight less than that. IIRC, 'twas in the 1800's with 'ole Noah Webster that the notion of dictionary as repository of standardized truth came into force, deplacing the idea of dictionary as reference of current linguistic usage...

It is reasonable to assume that the Bible translators in particular, and authors in general, used words that directly communicated their intent, in keeping with the established meanings of those words. In short (Short? Do I know what short means? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif }, I think that lack of 100% certainty (where rounding up to 100% is not permitted) is not reason for discounting the probability of successfully interpreting a text.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So tell me, what level of confidence is necessary for successfully interpreting the meaning of life, the universe and everything (aside from the ability to multiply nine and six)? You wanna round this up, yes? Okay, then if we're rounding up, you need, what, at least 50% percent comprehension, right? And on this level of precision you want to assert that you know the Nature of All Things?

All's I'm saying is that, given your claims of literal Biblical interpretation I feel justified in demanding a bit more rigor in terms of textual interpretation. And this is leaving the issue of translation entirely to one side. Ye gods! That's two more layers of interpretation between you and the author's intent; are you really willing to blithly assert said words "directly [ communicate ] their intent, in keeping with [ their ] established meanings"?

Oh, and the "established" meanings of words, these would be what? Are we going to assert that it's the dictionaries? Can we be sure that the translators agreed with the dictionaries, especially early ones (KJV comes to mind, published, what, seven years after the first English dictionary)? Did they look all the words up, to make sure they "agreed"? Did they "properly" understand the meaning of the definition?

And pray tell, what exactly is it to directly communicate a word's intent, hmm?

E. Albright
(Slightly testy after spending a day trying to approximately communicate meaning to a bunch of French high school students...)

[ Edit: typos; I apparently can't even unambiguously communicate with my keyboard... ]

[ December 16, 2002, 17:22: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
(KJV comes to mind, published, what, seven years after the first English dictionary)? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was a long programme on British TV Last night about the development of the English language - I caught literally the Last two minutes, which was all about the King James Bible (I'm presuming [dangerously] that's what you mean by KJV).

Anyway, apparently the language in it was already 80 years out of date (e.g. used 'thou' instead of 'you' even though no-one said 'thou' anymore) - a deliberate attempt to make it sound more impressive. "Thou shalt not steal" sounds much better than "Oi, don't pinch stuff" or "Don't steal". But it just goes to show that the attempt was made to get a message across, not to make a direct translation of "God's words". That's very important if you're trying to take it all literally.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
"Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth. Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb."

Depending on your definition of open mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It seems nowadays that it means "Accept everybody and everything without any sort of value judgment." As long as it means "Keep your eyes open and your brain engaged," I don't have a problem with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Oh, and most people who operate solely on blind faith aren't well informed about much of anything, including their faith.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That first definition would be akin to blindly accept things on faith (ie: accept the actions others just because it is PC), instead of an actual open mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

No offense intended, but your reasons for accepting Christianity and the Bible (given earlier) seem more like blind faith to me than any logical reasoning.

[Krsqk]

Despite the expansion/morphing of language, the same words communicate something very close to the same thing they did in the past. There are words in the Bible which are no longer in common usage, but it's not difficult to find them. Thee's and thou's are used in writing for a good while after the KJV; comparing formal 1611 English and current slang "ain't" exactly a good comparison.

As for translating from Greek/Hebrew, there are difficulties involved translating. That said, the difficulties are not insurmountable, or no one would translate anything. At least those two Languages had not been popularly spoken for quite some time, so their "meaning creep" should have been very limited, at the least. They had been studied throughout the Middle Ages, though, in the classic literature, so denotation/connotation were determinable.

RE: blind faith--I read the Bible and learn what I would expect to find if it were true. I see said things in the world. I don't claim to understand how everything in the Bible relates to my life, but based on what I do understand, I find my faith reasonable.

You look at evolution. You learn what you would expect to find if it were true. You see (I assume) such things. You don't understand how evolution answers a whole lot of questions, but based on what you do see, you believe it. It's the same process.

RE: testy after teaching--I think I had the same day you had. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Krsqk]

Well, given that all y'all literal interpreters don't agree on exactly which literal interpretation is "right", why should we'uns assume that there is a single correct "literal" interpretation?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There's a lot in your post, but I think this is the core of it. First, to effectively communicate to a wide variety of people, it should be able to be taken at face value, unless it clearly indicates otherwise. Second, I think in some cases (definitely not all), the issue is not one of interpretation, but application. "I know what this says, but what does it mean in my life?" Third, the majority of conflicts are between the literal and allegorical camps. Disagreements on interpretation between literalists are usually limited to points of detail, not doctrine.

[Solar]

I believe the bible cannot be interpreted literally, and I'll tell you why. Here's just one of my favorite examples:

'And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.' Joshua 10:13 (King James Version)

What science tells us in the 21st century that people didn't believe when the book of Joshua was written, is that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The sun never "goes down", the earth just rotates until the sun is on the other side of it. Oh, the sun DOES move, along with the rest of the galaxy, but the effect of the sun "standing still" would be very different from the effect described in this passage.

So, if you want to interpret the bible as God's literal, direct words, there are several possibilities I can think of:

1. God, who created everything that exists, including the sun and the earth, is somehow ignorant of, or has forgotten, the mechanisms of celestial bodies in his universe.

2. God is purposefully trying to deceive the readers of his book, for some unknown purpose.

3. The sun USED to revolve around the earth, but at some point in the Last several thousand years God decided to quietly change the way that the universe works, for some unknown purpose.

Those possibilities do not seem very likely to me. It seems much more likely to me that the bible cannot be interpreted literally, word for word.

Now, this argument does not say that God does not exist, or even that the bible is not his word. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that the bible was a collaboration, ideas directly inspired to the writers of it by God himself, but written in the words of the men who were listening, from their own perspective. All I'm saying is that literal interpretation of the bible does not make much sense to me. And faith, for me, HAS to be based on what makes sense. I don't have any use for blind faith.

This is not meant as an attack on your religion as a whole. Just because the bible isn't literal doesn't, in my opinion, necessarily make it completely invalid. I grew up in the christian church, and I used to believe as you do, so I'm not unsympathetic to you position. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Solar

[Solar]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
I must say (albeit clearly not promptly) that this is IMO quite well said. It's depressing, but I'd say you really hit the nail on the head re: the consistent unpopularity of agnostisic assertions. It's frankly become a four-letter word, right along with "I don't know". It's been my experience that when you assert that you don't and cannot know something, a lot of people get rather uncomfortable. And what I've found to be really depressing is that one can find people who are willing to consciously base their beliefs on whether or not the implications of said beliefs are comforting (rather than my grim, fatalistic conviction that I should believe whatever seems "right", regardless of whether or not it gives me the willies). For example, I once argued a libertarian (i.e., proponent of the thesis of free will) into a corner and ended up with an admission that he refused to accept determinism because he didn't care for what it might imply about ethical judgement, in spite of the fact that he agreed that he couldn't offer any sort of cohesive argument as to how free will could exist...

E. Albright<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for the input, E. I'm pretty starved for complex conversation myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The willingness to base one's beliefs on emotions rather than intellect is something in human culture that bugs me to no end. The problem I have with other people's beliefs is not what they believe, but why they believe what they do. I've talked to athiests who say that God doesn't exist because if he did, he wouldn't let babies die, and there would no be so much 'evil' in the world (this is quite a 'logic leap' IMO). Some of them go on to say that if God does exist, he's a sadistic baby killer (another 'logic leap') and they'd spit in his face if they had the chance (to each his own. If I had good reason to believe there was a sadistic, baby-killing god, I'd rather kiss up to him than burn in fiery torment forever and ever and ever. But I digress.)

On the other hand, I’ve talked to christians who say that there must be a God, because there is no morality without a divine being. And they don't have anything to say in the face of mountains of (IMO) good evidence to the contrary.

In both cases they believe because they are uncomfortable with the implications of not believing in it. This isn't just a religious issue, either. I have a friend who says that human cloning is flat out impossible, and never in a million years will we EVER be able to clone a human being. Argue with him long enough and he’ll freely admit that he has no logical basis for his belief, but he believes it nonetheless. I think he’s really just extremely uncomfortable with the concept of human cloning (and it is a rather disturbing prospect).

I’m not saying that emotions are harmful or don’t have a purpose (I gave up on being a vulcan years ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I just think that basing beliefs and making decisions based primarily on emotion is very unwise. People are doing themselves a favor if they face their fears and realize that discomfort is not a stable foundation for a belief system (again, as always, IMHO).

Solar

[Krsqk]

Now, this argument does not say that God does not exist, or even that the bible is not his word. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that the bible was a collaboration, ideas directly inspired to the writers of it by God himself, but written in the words of the men who were listening, from their own perspective. All I'm saying is that literal interpretation of the bible does not make much sense to me. And faith, for me, HAS to be based on what makes sense. I don't have any use for blind faith.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You seem to have quite the grasp of the doctrine of inspiration, yet you can't reconcile this passage with it? The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Can you find anyone who doesn't understand those verses? The Bible doesn't purport to give detailed scientific descriptions of the events contained therein; to fuss over a frame of reference is nitpicking. (Although, several children in our school could use a little more nitpicking lately--yet another outbreak of lice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
RE: blind faith--I read the Bible and learn what I would expect to find if it were true. I see said things in the world. I don't claim to understand how everything in the Bible relates to my life, but based on what I do understand, I find my faith reasonable.

You look at evolution. You learn what you would expect to find if it were true. You see (I assume) such things. You don't understand how evolution answers a whole lot of questions, but based on what you do see, you believe it. It's the same process.

RE: testy after teaching--I think I had the same day you had. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The theory of evolution is not some magical answer key that can answer anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is an entirely different process. I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for. I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution. This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).

You have not offered any arguments to justify creationism or a belief in the Christian God. You just say that you believe what the Bible says. IMHO, that is not a good basis for beliefs of any sort.

[jimbob]

I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Errr... not to speak for all biologists or anything, but has anyone been reading my Posts? To reiterate in brief, the complexity issue doesn't favor chance.

I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, except the terms "observational gravity" and "theory of gravity" can be linked, whereas "theory of evolution" is not linked to any term "observational evolution".
We can let go of a small object and see it 'drop' towards the large object everyday, and we call the phenomenon gravity - no doubt about our observation (unless you're a deconstructionist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )
However, the observed phenomenon for evolution is speciation.
That is to say, we see species everyday. But evolution is a theory attempting to explain where those species came from. Thus we never see evolution. To claim that we see species proves evolution is circular reasoning at its roundest!

This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm still wondering which of the experiments; the primordial soup in an electrified mason jar, or the punctuated equilibrium/salted fossil record is the successful experimentation everyone keeps mentioning.

nighty-night
jimbob

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Solar:
Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why so many scoff at the mention of it.
Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit.
As human beings, what does our "reality" consist of? The input received by our senses, our brain's interpretation of that input, and memories of past input and interpretation (experience). Based on observation, we make assumptions about the nature of the universe. We have to, otherwise we couldn't function. [...]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I must say (albeit clearly not promptly) that this is IMO quite well said. It's depressing, but I'd say you really hit the nail on the head re: the consistent unpopularity of agnostisic assertions. It's frankly become a four-letter word, right along with "I don't know". It's been my experience that when you assert that you don't and cannot know something, a lot of people get rather uncomfortable. And what I've found to be really depressing is that one can find people who are willing to consciously base their beliefs on whether or not the implications of said beliefs are comforting (rather than my grim, fatalistic conviction that I should believe whatever seems "right", regardless of whether or not it gives me the willies). For example, I once argued a libertarian (i.e., proponent of the thesis of free will) into a corner and ended up with an admission that he refused to accept determinism because he didn't care for what it might imply about ethical judgement, in spite of the fact that he agreed that he couldn't offer any sort of cohesive argument as to how free will could exist...

Anyway, I digress. Yeah. Admissions of ignorance are out of style. And then some.

E. Albright

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
As for translating from Greek/Hebrew, there are difficulties involved translating. That said, the difficulties are not insurmountable, or no one would translate anything. At least those two Languages had not been popularly spoken for quite some time, so their "meaning creep" should have been very limited, at the least. They had been studied throughout the Middle Ages, though, in the classic literature, so denotation/connotation were determinable.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I need to let this die, but I'm starved for complex conversation, so I'll make one Last (I hope) thrust. I again suggest that you look at Quine's Indeterminacy of Translation argument, even though it may not be easy to lay hands on. Translation is certainly possible, but one can never be certain that it's "right". Translation is certainly possible, but it's impossible for translation to be certain. And the more esotaric and abstract the subject, the more likely one is to have problems. Ostention (sp?) only works with things which one can reasonably point to examples of, and even it has its limits.

Look, my major beef can be described thusly: you're not claiming that you're successfully interpreting the Bible, you're claiming that you're authoratatively interpreting the Bible, that you're literaly interpreting the Bible. You're saying that you can clearly and unabiguously determine exactly what it is meant to communicate. This implies that no one may disagree with said interpretation (even though scads of people necessarily shall). What gives your interpretation privledged status over any other arbitrary interpretation, aside from your assurance that it clearly means such-and-such? You say "I think that lack of 100% certainty [...] is not reason for discounting the probability of successfully interpreting a text", but this has the nasty implication that there is one definate, set meaning to be extracted, and that you'll somehow "know" when ya get it. If you want to claim literal interpretation, you need this claim. Well, given that all y'all literal interpreters don't agree on exactly which literal interpretation is "right", why should we'uns assume that there is a single correct "literal" interpretation?

Brèf, literal interpretation is oxymoronic...

E. Albright

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
First, to effectively communicate to a wide variety of people, it should be able to be taken at face value, unless it clearly indicates otherwise. Second, I think in some cases (definitely not all), the issue is not one of interpretation, but application. "I know what this says, but what does it mean in my life?" Third, the majority of conflicts are between the literal and allegorical camps. Disagreements on interpretation between literalists are usually limited to points of detail, not doctrine.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I need to shut up. Really. So this shall be my parting word. Besides, I don't think there's really any reason to continue this line of discussion, as we appear to have hit a semantic brick wall. I think we're using the word "interpretation" differently. I say this for two reasons.

First, you continue to return to phrases such as "face value", which outright eliminates the possibility of textual interpretation as I'm using the word. Yes, words can have a "face value", but it's subjective. Comprehension of text (or any communication) is not a matter of objective comprehension, but of subjective interpretation ("To me word X means concept Y, word A means concept B, word Q means concept R, and thus phrase ABC means concept N", to brutally oversimplify).

Second off, you speak of application v. interpretation. I'm inclined to take this as suggesting that you mean interpretation as "God said XYZ; what does he want us to do?", rather than "God said XYZ; what does he want to communicate by saying XYZ?". This returns us to the fallacy of intentionality; i.e., the notion that one can necessarily extract a communicator's intended "message" from a communication. I have a feeling the root of our problem is actually a touch more esoteric than what has thus far been discussed; I'm wanting to accuse you of subscribing to the existence of universals. If this is the case, our discussion would need to move to a higher level to achieve any meaningful resolution, and I doubt you'd want to go there (not that I'm sure that I, cut off from English-language reference material of the non-Internet-y variety, would want to either, mind you).

Oh, and regarding whether literalists disagree over detail or doctrine, well... I present Exhibit A (http://www.tencommandments.org/) as a non-mainstream (but certainly not without a following) literal doctrine...

The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset."<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...or I suppose that this might be the root of our semantic problem. Literal interpretation means more than just taking something non-allegorically; it means reading the text as the author intended it to be read. Unless you're the author, you can't do so. And if you've got other people writing the text for you, you stand no chance of communicating anything outside of "the perspective of [ those ] who wrote it"... By admitting the preceeding, mind you, you've interposed at least one more layer of subjective interpretation between the reader and the Reavealed Truth. And in any and all fairness, you need to include a layer for the translator(s), too; even if you think one can write something that can be read with an "objective interpretation", I dearly hope that you don't think that objective translation is possible (Douglas Hofstadter's marvelous Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language raises some interesting points in this regard).

Okay, I'm done. Really. Tongue-biting (finger-biting?) shall now commence.

E. Albright

[ Edit: UBB code cleaning ]

[ December 18, 2002, 11:41: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Krsqk]

You have not offered any arguments to justify creationism or a belief in the Christian God. You just say that you believe what the Bible says. IMHO, that is not a good basis for beliefs of any sort.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, the original goal wasn't to prove or disprove evolution, but to demonstrate that it is as much a faith as belief in creationism. If there's any doubt on that score, I'd be glad to begin again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Second, reasons to believe in creation and reasons to believe in God are quite different areas of discussion (although belief in God should also signify a belief in creation). Again, my efforts haven't been focused on proof/disproof of either side. Greatly simplified, I look at both theories, determine what each predicts in the words, and then look at the world for what I actually see.

What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it. There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link. The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution. Research into radio-polonium halos indicates the earth could never have been a molten mass. The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour. Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted. No Oort cloud has ever been found; it was based upon faulty calculations. Furthermore, it is supposed to be 50,000 AU from the sun; no telescope could pick up a comet-sized object at that range, rendering it unprovable. Fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of the earth; if those layers were exposed for millions of years, there should be thousands or millions of meteorites found. Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago. Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now. The amount of He-4 in the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude below what it should be for an ancient earth. The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates. The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers." There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have a maximum depth of 14 thousand feet. Planes which crashed in Greenland in 1942 were found under 263 feet of ice. Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth. The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old. Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument. The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment. Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand.

On the other hand, I would expect the fossil record to closely reflect our current speciation. I would expect hundreds of creation stories in different cultures. I would expect depictions of ancient humans coexisting with dinosaurs (see the Ica stones, for one massive example--how did they accurately depict dinosaurs in their art if they'd never seen one?) I would expect evidence of catastrophism in geology--and many geologists are returning to catastrophism. I would expect massive amounts of fossil fuels. I would expect a lack of ancient geological formations. I would expect many polystrate fossils (such as fossilized trees running vertically through "millions of years" of rock layers). I would expect to still see short-period comets. I would expect the moon to still have short-life isotopes like U-236 and Th-230.

[edit--typos]

[ December 18, 2002, 15:31: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Phoenix-D]

Time to wack a few minor errors..comments I do not understand or can't answer at the moment deleted. Mostly because I'm too lazy to do the needed research at the moment (finals will do that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

"What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it."

AKA extinct species? Like, oh, Neanderthol (sp)? Fossils can only form under specific circumstances, as well. Especially for soft-bodied organisms.

"There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link."

Hmm. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect simply because I've seen pictures of primitive whales. They -don't- look like modern whales, and have several land-based features. That's microevoltion, but the point stands.

The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution."

Time factor. Also interesting that you claim to know the odds, but say we don't know what the early earth was like. If we don't know what the early earth was like, we *can't* get any real odds. Just wild guesses.

"The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour."

You're assuming it falls off at the same rate as current. Rotational speed only affects wind by affecting the heating rate (and producing greater Corlis, but that shouldn't icnrease wind speed).

"Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted."

How many did we start with?

"Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago."

Lesse..heat out there would have to be from radioactive decay and/or pressure. Radioactive decay heat drops exponentially. At the start they would cool much faster than at the end.

"Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now."

Io didn't have to from when Jupiter did.

"The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates."

Volcanic activity creates more land area, as do a few other things IIRC. The continental drift maps that show the continents the -exact same size and shape- as today are weird, though.

"The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers.""

For every single deposit? Somehow I doubt it.

"There is very little sediment on the ocean floor."

The oldest ocean floor found is a few hundred million years old. It's contunally destroyed, and that takes the sediment with it.

"The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years."

Assuming it expanded at the current rate. There's evidence some human activites increase desertifcation, and for that matter climate change can do the same (or shrink it).

:Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth."

Are you familiar with an exponential growth curve? Or carrying capacities? I assume you mean with that. the population has had restraints removed recently; infant mortality and deaths from disease are down, farming increases the amount of food and thus the population that can survive, etc.

"The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old."

Living things -die-. That answers the tree part. You might as well state that the oldest human isn't more than 100 years old, therefore the earth can't be more than X years old.

As for the coral, the ocean floor would take care of most of the very old deposits. Erosin (sp could elimiate the rest after a few thousand years. Coral only grows under certain conditions, and not all coral is reef-forming.

"Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument."

WACK! Oh, sorry, I broke it off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Seriously, formation rates could vary. I don't remember exactly how they form, but I'm fairly certain they need water to form. The WM recieves quite a lot more water than most caves. Speaking of which, -under- the moment? Uh, where? In the basement? The momument itself, being really tall tapered pillar, doesn't seem well-suited to form those.

"The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment."

Which happens to blow the literal creationist 6000-year viewpoint out of the water if true, but hey. Hmm. I'm no expert on rivers, but I know the Mississippi has moved course at least once (IIRC the 1812 earthquake moved it a bit)

"Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand."

I'm assuming you mean net formation rate. See the desert comment.

Phoenix-D

[Krsqk]

"AKA extinct species? Like, oh, Neanderthol (sp)? Fossils can only form under specific circumstances, as well. Especially for soft-bodied organisms."
Neanderthal man was shown to be an old man with severe bone/joint disease (arthritis?). The misshapen face is a result of acromegaly--the forehead and other bones thicken with age.

"Hmm. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect simply because I've seen pictures of primitive whales. They -don't- look like modern whales, and have several land-based features. That's microevoltion, but the point stands."
No "transitional form" in the fossil record has stood the test of time. Each one has been shown to be something other than what it was first thought to be. Have you seen photos of the skeletons? Or just drawings of the fleshed-out artist's conception? Need I remind you of Java man and his history?

"Time factor. Also interesting that you claim to know the odds, but say we don't know what the early earth was like. If we don't know what the early earth was like, we *can't* get any real odds. Just wild guesses."
The odds I gave are just a statistical probablity of assembling 1/5 of the typical enzyme chain found in our simplest organisms (50 instead of ~250). At 100 trillion "attempts" per second, using a factorial system (which assumes wrong combinations are not re-used, something not true of true random chance), it would take 30 trillion trillion times longer than the universe is posited to have existed to ensure the correct combination. (The odds were about 1/10^64.) That's generously assuming all the correct enzymes already exist and assuming an agent to try different combinations. Not to mention that enzyme chains are pretty finicky things--you can't just mix and match them in any order and get useful things.

I don't think you understand the vastness of 10^55 (the limit of improbability}. Given 30 billion years (the approximate proposed existence of the universe), you have to try 1.057*10^37 combinations per second. That's simply an enormous number, far beyond human comprehension. And that's 9 orders of magnitude below the origin of one component of a "simple" life form.

The truth is, there are no "simple" life forms; single-celled organisms are far more complex than we understand. As you've said, each cell has a built-in defense system, power plants, feeding system, etc. The odds of all of those parts evolving simultaneously (as you say must have happened) would be much, much higher than what I've posted here.

"How many [comets] did we start with?"
Short-period comets only have a life-span of 10,000 years.

[edit starts here--I clicked Add Post instead of Alt-Tabbing.]

"Lesse..heat out there would have to be from radioactive decay and/or pressure. Radioactive decay heat drops exponentially. At the start they would cool much faster than at the end."
So, in ~4.6 billion years at the present rate, they should be done cooling by now, and you're saying that the rate of cooling would exponentially increase as we go further back in time? I'm not understanding how this helps you out.

"Volcanic activity creates more land area, as do a few other things IIRC. The continental drift maps that show the continents the -exact same size and shape- as today are weird, though."
Volcanic "spewing" doesn't account for enough new mass to make up for it, though. AFA the continental drift maps, why is Africa actually shrunk? What about all that dirt in between the continents on the ocean floor? The continents don't actually float, you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"You might as well state that the oldest human isn't more than 100 years old, therefore the earth can't be more than X years old."
No, it's just odd that no living creature on earth would be over 4500 years old, which would be expected if creation/the Flood were true.

"Which happens to blow the literal creationist 6000-year viewpoint out of the water if true, but hey."
Except for the Flood. Besides, it also would be a lot closer to 6,000 than to whenever the Last Ice Age (or whatever other massive climate change would have drastically altered the earth's topography) ended allowing the Mississippi to form.

[ December 18, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
First, the original goal wasn't to prove or disprove evolution, but to demonstrate that it is as much a faith as belief in creationism. If there's any doubt on that score, I'd be glad to begin again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Second, reasons to believe in creation and reasons to believe in God are quite different areas of discussion (although belief in God should also signify a belief in creation). Again, my efforts haven't been focused on proof/disproof of either side. Greatly simplified, I look at both theories, determine what each predicts in the words, and then look at the world for what I actually see.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have no problems to this point...

Originally posted by Krsqk:


What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it. There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link. The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">'Probability' is irrelevant. Proof is what matters, and it is lacking.

Originally posted by Krsqk:

Research into radio-polonium halos indicates the earth could never have been a molten mass. The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour. Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted. No Oort cloud has ever been found; it was based upon faulty calculations. Furthermore, it is supposed to be 50,000 AU from the sun; no telescope could pick up a comet-sized object at that range, rendering it unprovable. Fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of the earth; if those layers were exposed for millions of years, there should be thousands or millions of meteorites found. Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago. Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now. The amount of He-4 in the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude below what it should be for an ancient earth. The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates. The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers." There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have a maximum depth of 14 thousand feet. Planes which crashed in Greenland in 1942 were found under 263 feet of ice. Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth. The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old. Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument. The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment. Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whoa! Whoa!

This is one huge mass of overly-quick conclusions. Just a few corrections/amplifications...

The earth's rotation is slowing because of the gravitational drag of the moon. It is slowing at a rate measured in hundredths of a second annually. It will be billions of years before the earth rotates at the same speed that the moon orbits, resulting in the same part of the earth always facing the moon. How does this relate to the Biblical time scale of ~4,000 years?

Winds, btw, are created by heat differences in the atmosphere, not the earth's rotation.

Jupiter is supposed to be radiating about twice as much energy as it receives, yes. Jupiter and Saturn (and to a lesser extent all the other gas giant planets) are generating energy by the simple mechanism of their huge bulk generating enough pressure and heat to cause a little bit of fusion. Jupiter is only a little bit too small to have become a star, you know. Planets about 4 times the size of Jupiter are called 'brown dwarfs' these days. It's also possible that the rocky cores of these planets have some heavy elements in them, just like earth, and there is some nuclear fission going on.

And speaking of the earth, there are lots of geological processes going on that build up the continents. Using scientific information about erosion to claim that they should have eroded away by now, while ignoring the other scientific information about the building processes, is disingenuous.

I don't know where you get the bit about oil strata cracking. Why would oil strata crack and not other strata? Why would any stata crack? Other than the usual fault lines cause by major movement, of course... In other words, what the farg are you talking about? This is gibberish.

No, the Sahara should not have engulfed all of Africa. A desert is not a living thing that grows and seeks out more space. It's simply an area where certain climate conditions exist. During the Last Ice Age the area now called 'the Sahara' was more like the Great Plains in the US with grasslands and rivers. Its current expansion is actually due to human activities like over-grazing.

Ice cores... this is more gibberish. Ice flows, it doesn't just sit there. The depth is determined by how much greater the rate of deposition is than the rate at which it can flow away. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of icebergs calving off of Greenland every year. Where are they coming from if the ice cap is static? You should know this if you know enough to learn about the depth of the ice cap. This is another clear case of disingenuousness.

There is a huge difference between proving that the scientific worldview is not an air-tight, accomplished fact and using half-truths and clever omissions to try to prove the literalist 'Creation' worldview.

Originally posted by Krsqk:

On the other hand, I would expect the fossil record to closely reflect our current speciation. I would expect hundreds of creation stories in different cultures. I would expect depictions of ancient humans coexisting with dinosaurs (see the Ica stones, for one massive example--how did they accurately depict dinosaurs in their art if they'd never seen one?) I would expect evidence of catastrophism in geology--and many geologists are returning to catastrophism. I would expect massive amounts of fossil fuels. I would expect a lack of ancient geological formations. I would expect many polystrate fossils (such as fossilized trees running vertically through "millions of years" of rock layers). I would expect to still see short-period comets. I would expect the moon to still have short-life isotopes like U-236 and Th-230.

[edit--typos]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see any of these 'expectations' as supporting the 'young earth' (or 'young universe' as the case may be) hypothesis. Many of them are true, yes, but these require the same detailed reasoning to understand as the other phenomena you discussed too superficially. Catastrophism does not preclude long periods of relative calm. Short period comets are just long period comets that have been bumped to a shorter orbit by encounters with a planet. Etc... all these things are quite explainable with the scientific knowledge we have today. The problems only come when the 'scientific' types over-extend their theories in their partisan efforts to blot out all other world-views.

[ December 18, 2002, 21:13: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Fyron]

Wow Krsqk, that long post hurt your argument a lot more than helped it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is nice to alter evidence to fit in with your pre-conceived notions, isn't it?

[ December 18, 2002, 19:37: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Wanderer]

So many tuppenies in the pot. Perhaps enough to buy a round? Here's another couple:

Originally posted by Krsqk:
The truth is, there are no "simple" life forms; single-celled organisms are far more complex than we understand. As you've said, each cell has a built-in defense system, power plants, feeding system, etc.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just as physicists keep finding smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles, so I found my biology classes spoke of smaller and smaller bits of organisms until I lost count/got bored.

The odds of all of those parts evolving simultaneously (as you say must have happened) would be much, much higher than what I've posted here.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think any 'defence' system would appear immediately - you'd need the presence of hazards (defend itself from other organisms? but this is the first one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) and time for those to develop. Yes this would make any such creature very vulnerable for a (long) period, but if enough survive...

You're right that such complex things aren't likely to appear (talking evolution-style not creation-style http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) all at once. The logical answer is that they didn't but developed over time. If that makes the initial stages of life on earth that we're postulating look utterly useless compared to modern-day amoebae, so be it. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

As for the probability stuff - did you factor in the number of stars in the universe and the number of planets likely to be circling them? It could be that life on Earth was an amazing piece of luck and that there are 10^20 (is it a billion galaxies with a billion stars? guess 20 planets per system including all the satellites) lifeless hulks out there. Is trying 100 trillion times a second reasonable? How did you get that number?

Plus you needn't run the simulated attempts enough times to ensure that the initial formation occurs, only to show that there is a significant chance of it happening. If you said "I can only get the figures to say 5%" I'd say "Well, we're here aren't we?"

A quick sound-bite:
Just because something is statistically improbable doesn't make it impossible.

On the other hand, I doubt play the lottery...

Oh, and the current vogue for universe age is about 14 billion years (at least at the time of writing, by the time I hit Preview Post it could have changed again... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

"How many [comets] did we start with?"
Short-period comets only have a life-span of 10,000 years.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't know the figures for comet-life, but surely it matters little given that new ones can appear? They're only icy rocks that get too close to the sun, and there's a huge number of rocks out there.

"Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago."<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Er, I don't think so. But I can't find anything useful, either way, in the first twenty Google results.

Volcanic "spewing" doesn't account for enough new mass to make up for it, though.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aye, it's plate tectonics - if two plates meet they tend to push each other up (e.g. the Himalayas are the result of the Indian sub-continent pushing against the main Asian plate [or someone hid a lot of ancient fish fossils up there for a laugh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ] also see Iceland and the mid-Atlantic ridge). Eroded soil doesn't disappear off the planet - I'd expect to see the material again eventually.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, have been on the phone whilst writing it.

[Phoenix-D]

Fyron, I don't say this very often, but.. That wasn't helpful. Sssh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Phoenix-D

[Krsqk]

I'm at a loss for where to start. First of all, I am not capable of personally verifying every piece of information I post here in the time frame permitted by this discussion. If all parties followed this rule, Posts would come about once every three weeks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I rely on others who have done research and trust that their information is both reliable and up to date. Obviously, both I and my sources are capable of error, and I am ready to learn when my information is in error. I am not a master of every branch of the sciences, nor do I have the time or the ability to stay current of even the major scientific journals. If you do, you either have a lot more free time than most or play much less SE4 than the majority of forum-readers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

That said, there is no cause to label me as "disingenuous" or state that I have altered the facts. On the one hand, I am to be an ignoramus, unlearned in basic science. On the other, I am to be learned enough in all the sciences that I am consciously editing or selecting which data I present. Which one is it to be?

Frankly, I am disappointed that members of this usually tolerant and friendly community would jump to such a conclusion so rapidly. One might recount previous instances where individuals determined to cause strife were shown much more courtesy than I have been here. An attack on one's character is not helpful to either side in a debate. Indeed, that is how debates of this nature have been stereotyped, although this one had not been personalized up to this point.

If this debate will continue in this direction, it is over on this side. E-mail and personal Messages are much better suited for that kind of communication.

I will do what research I can on the points I have posted. I do find it unlikely that none of them have merit or pose challenges to the evolutionary perspective. Keep in mind, again, that nothing I post is intended to be empirical proof for or against either viewpoint. Both are outside of the realm of empirical science. My post dealt with what I would or would not expect to observe in our universe based on each worldview. To construe it as submitted proof is to take it out of context.

I would enjoy the continuance of this civil debate, provided all parties (and the Moderators) involved find it agreeable.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Neanderthal man was shown to be an old man with severe bone/joint disease (arthritis?). The misshapen face is a result of acromegaly--the forehead and other bones thicken with age.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What year do you think this is? We're not a the end of the 19th century when Piltdown man was still thought to be an ancient human. It's been around a century since the first Neandertals were found, and the several dozen specimens certainly aren't all simply misshapen individuals.

Further, you have the entire Homo genus going back 2.5 million years, then the Australopithecines before that.


No "transitional form" in the fossil record has stood the test of time. Each one has been shown to be something other than what it was first thought to be. Have you seen photos of the skeletons? Or just drawings of the fleshed-out artist's conception? Need I remind you of Java man and his history?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a completely false statement. You can see the transitionary forms of horses for example as they go from dog sized with many toes to modern-sized with a hoof. Or take bison, who have more than halved in size in the past 100,000 years.

Volcanic "spewing" doesn't account for enough new mass to make up for it, though. AFA the continental drift maps, why is Africa actually shrunk?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If it's shrinking it's because one edge is being pulled down into the magma.

What about all that dirt in between the continents on the ocean floor? The continents don't actually float, you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, the continents do float. They float on a bed of molten rock. There is absolutely no reason why a continent can't shrink, all it takes is a subduction zone. Iceland grows larger every single year as the mid-Atlantic ridge pulls apart.

[Baron Munchausen]

Krsqk,

If you are using 'information' from someone else then let this be a warning to you about taking sources uncritically. At the very least you ought to have more than one source for a claim before using it. I am not a 'professional scientist' by any stretch. I merely read publicly available books and articles at the 'popular' level. Yet I could instantly see the obvious distortions and omissions in those claims.

All of the points I made can be checked Online using a good search engine like Google. There are lots of science magazines and even some pretty decent technical references (like the Usenet Physics FAQ at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ ) available. There are even some good references for common misunderstandings of scientific knowledge, like the Science Misconceptions Page at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon.html And of course you can look things up at any reasonably well-stocked library.

Given how easy the access to vast quantities of detailed scientific information is these days, I cannot see how anyone could look up the depth of the icecap on Greenland and not also learn about the fact that it is constantly being renewed. So the depth of the lost plane in the ice proves nothing except the high rate of turnover. Either this is a very over-eager partisan just grabbing 'facts' out of an encyclopedia and rushing to hurl them at the enemy, or this is a deliberate attempt at deception. The combination of all those distortions together makes it seem more likely to be the latter. I advise you to be very careful of the 'source' of these claims.

[ December 19, 2002, 16:30: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[capnq]

Even multiple sources agreeing doesn't necessarily mean a piece of information is correct.

Sometimes a source cites other sources as support, but if you trace the chains of references, you find a closed loop with everybody agreeing with each other and not mentioning any conflicting references. Groups that are pushing a political agenda are often the worst offenders here.

I had a friend in college who one discovered that a research paper she had cited had gotten the info from one of her own papers.

Then you have the "urban legends" that keep circulating even after they've been publically debunked.

[Fyron]

I am inclined to agree with BM here. Most, if not all, of those "facts" are indeed wrong. I simply did not feel like regurgitating what had already been said about them. I apologize if my post was offensive; it was not meant to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by capnq:
Even multiple sources agreeing doesn't necessarily mean a piece of information is correct.

Sometimes a source cites other sources as support, but if you trace the chains of references, you find a closed loop with everybody agreeing with each other and not mentioning any conflicting references. Groups that are pushing a political agenda are often the worst offenders here.

I had a friend in college who one discovered that a research paper she had cited had gotten the info from one of her own papers.

Then you have the "urban legends" that keep circulating even after they've been publically debunked.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, being in the 'biggest crowd' doesn't automatically make one right in politics or science or anything else. There is really no substitute for thinking for yourself. But we all have a finite amount of time and various priorities. We can't test every single thing for ourselves, so it's good to know how to evaluate authorities and sources.

People do tend to seek out confirmation of what they want to believe, and this is true even of scientists. There is very real resistance to changes of scientific world views because scientists can have vested interests, too. That's also the reason for the persistence of Urban Legends. Just like storms kick up where the right conditions exist (warm air, moisture, etc.) Urban legends appear where some topic of strong public interest (including simple prurient interest) intersects with vague public knowledge of science or statistics, or some news story that fits the public expectation better when garbled.

That's funny about finding your own paper supporting something you chose to cite.

[Wanderer]

In New Scientist (UK edition from a week or two back - can't find an Online link to the story) there's an article about a study that showed that a large number of papers cited in scientific (although the same could apply to other disciplines) papers might not have been read by the person citing them...

They found that a certain paper had been cited 4300 times, with 196 of the citations spelling the paper wrong, putting the wrong year or the wrong page number. Despite there being a wide range of possible errors, there were only 45 different errors and the most popular mistake was made by 78 different people. This indicates people probably just copied the citation from someone else's paper without bothering to check its accuracy, which in turn indicates they probably didn't read the paper.

Which is worrying.

Possibly there's not as much going on as their findings suggest, but I seem to remember fleshing out the citations (with some popular books on the subject I hadn't read) in a university project biography to appear better read...

[jimbob]

One of my favorite citation "errors" was a direct competitor of mine who claimed that such-and-such had been proven in one of his prior publications.
When I went and checked the citation, it in turn referenced a prior paper. When I got to the original, it said something along the lines of "we suggest that such-and-such could be occuring". Really neat the way a 'probably/maybe' morphed it's way into a 'proven'. If the mob did it we'd call it results laundering http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Unfortunately I don't know of any recourse, so I've chosen to simply ignor his research altogether, and publish as if he doesn't exist.

[geoschmo]

Baron and Fyron, there is a huge difference between being wrong about something and lying about something. Let's not turn this discussion into persopnal attacks, please.

(EDIT: After reading the Posts again I should not have included Fyron in this. Sorry Fyron.)

Krsqk, If your argument is that the scientific theories are not supported by the evidence available, then you need to be more careful than normal about the validity of your own evidence. Your position would be better served by simply not responding to some points or admitting you don't know, than to offer incorrect data and weaken the impression of statements you made previously that may have weight on their own.

Everybody take a breath. Let's keep this civil.

Geoschmo

[ December 21, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Combat Wombat]

Don't mind me just bringing a old thread back to life for another lively discussion about Twinkies and such...

[geoschmo]

Well, thread necromancy is one thing, but did you have to dig up a thread that had gone out on such a sour note?

[Combat Wombat]

Yeah I noticed that a bit late... I read the first few pages but didn't read the end of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[geoschmo]

That's the inherrant risk of messing around with raising the dead. Sometimes you bring back a creature that is better off left in the grave. Hmmm, someone should turn that idea into a movie or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif