Last chance for Nando to respond!
Jeremy Reimer
message once or twice a day, without fail. It has now been at least three
days since my last post, and he has failed to respond. This is his last
chance.
We had agreed on the following definitions:
> >Science PROVES that the Earth is round.
> >Science PROVES that mountains formed by geological processes.
> >Science PROVES that animals evolved from simpler forms.
> >Science SAYS NOTHING about whether or not God was present, or involved.
> >That is a debate for the philosophers.
> >Science DOES NOT DENY that God was involved anywhere in anything.
> >
> >Got it?
>
> I got it, it's just that you repeatedly and forcefully said otherwise.
> So are you going to change your webpage now?
My response was:
<snip>
Yes, I will change my web page wording so that it no longer confuses people
like yourself, Nando. Are you happy now?
<snip>
Nando's response was:
> Yes.
So it seemed like the discussion was over. But wait! Nando slipped in this
tiny little toad right before the end:
> Except that evolution theory isn't valid science, but that's another
> matter.
To which I replied:
<snip>
Oh! We were _this_ close to a consensus, and you had to spoil it with this
little toad, right before you ended your message.
Evolution theory is valid science, by any reasonable definition of the words
"valid" and "science". Explain why you think otherwise.
<snip>
Well? I'm still waiting...
--
----
Jeremy Reimer
jrei...@home.com
http://members.home.net/jreimeris
Dave Woetzel
Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
snip
>> Except that evolution theory isn't valid science, but that's another
>> matter.
>
>To which I replied:
>
><snip>
>Oh! We were _this_ close to a consensus, and you had to spoil it with this
>little toad, right before you ended your message.
>
>Evolution theory is valid science, by any reasonable definition of the
words
>"valid" and "science". Explain why you think otherwise.
I would not want to put words into Nando's eloquent mouth. However, I think
his quarrel with you would not be about the definition of "valid" or
"science" but with the definition of "evolution." How do you define
"evolution?"
Dave
Jeremy Reimer
news:05a5b285613...@csi.com...
> >Evolution theory is valid science, by any reasonable definition of the
> words
> >"valid" and "science". Explain why you think otherwise.
>
>
> I would not want to put words into Nando's eloquent mouth. However, I
think
> his quarrel with you would not be about the definition of "valid" or
> "science" but with the definition of "evolution." How do you define
> "evolution?"
As I may have to wait indefinitely for Nando to reply, I'll answer you
instead.
I define evolution as a theory that explains the scientific fact that
animals and plants have, over time, evolved from other forms. (I omit the
words "simpler forms" deliberately, as it is a common misconception that
evolution somehow favours increased complexity. It does not) The fact is
shown in the fossil record. The theory explains how it would have worked,
given our knowledge of genetics, DNA, random mutations, and natural
selection, not to mention the few cases in which actual evolution, albeit on
a very small scale, has been observed in nature.
If there is anything missing from my definition, or it needs any further
clarification, please let me know.
Dave Woetzel
Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
Thanks for a well-reasoned response. Your definition is an improvement on
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
which is at best a definition of microevolution. I could quibble with your
using a form of the word we are definining in your definition, but let's
focus elsewhere. What are "other forms?" Do you simply mean progenitors in
the population? If so, I believe that my initial post was correct. Nando
(along with most people) would define evolution more like "a naturalistic
model of origins." This takes in the full scope of cosmic
evolution/abiogenesis/common descent/macroevolution. The problem with your
definition is that it is so limited and undebatable that even the creation
model would be evolution!
Dave
Jeremy Reimer
> Thanks for a well-reasoned response. Your definition is an improvement on
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
> which is at best a definition of microevolution. I could quibble with
your
> using a form of the word we are definining in your definition, but let's
> focus elsewhere. What are "other forms?" Do you simply mean progenitors
in
> the population? If so, I believe that my initial post was correct. Nando
> (along with most people) would define evolution more like "a naturalistic
> model of origins." This takes in the full scope of cosmic
> evolution/abiogenesis/common descent/macroevolution. The problem with
your
> definition is that it is so limited and undebatable that even the creation
> model would be evolution!
Well, the proof is that animals and plants evolved from other forms. The
necessary extension of the theory is that all life evolved from a single,
common ancestor, given the fact that all life today shares the same genetic
molecule and even small bits of genetic code (although I am not an expert in
biology, I doubt that we share that many genes with a bacterium, but the
similarities increase in direct proportion to the "closeness" to other
species, ie, we share more DNA with mammals than reptiles, chimpanzees than
baboons, etc)
Whether a God or Gods had anything to do with this is totally immaterial. It
happened, it happened according to well-understood natural laws that are the
same everywhere in the universe, and that's as far as science needs to go.
I'm not sure how creationists would react to this, because as you can see,
they are not even responding to me any more. (Nando appears to have given
up entirely) I don't think the creationists have a single unified "theory"
of their own-- some believe in a 6000 year old world, some don't, some
believe dinosaurs lived alongside Adam, some believe dinosaur fossils are
just fakes put there by God, some refuse even to discuss dinosaurs.
The whole world of creationism is so fractured and disjointed that it is
difficult to argue with a creationist without knowing exactly what he
believes (funny that there are no female creationists!) and creationists are
loathe to state their actual beliefs in clear language, preferring to taunt,
tease and insult people who believe in scientific fact. Creationists will
say anything to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, but they shy away
from actual, rational discussion, because they *know* they will lose every
time.
Nando Ronteltap
>As I may have to wait indefinitely for Nando to reply, I'll answer you
>instead.
>
>I define evolution as a theory that explains the scientific fact that
>animals and plants have, over time, evolved from other forms. (I omit the
>words "simpler forms" deliberately, as it is a common misconception that
>evolution somehow favours increased complexity. It does not) The fact is
>shown in the fossil record. The theory explains how it would have worked,
>given our knowledge of genetics, DNA, random mutations, and natural
>selection, not to mention the few cases in which actual evolution, albeit on
>a very small scale, has been observed in nature.
>
>If there is anything missing from my definition, or it needs any further
>clarification, please let me know.
I didn't respond because I didn't want to mix the issue. Does natural
selection in every event predict exactly the same results under the
same circumstances, or does natural selection given the same
circumstances give certainty over a range of results? I mean does
natural selection incorporate chance, or is it distinguished from it?
Nando
c...@prontomail.com
Jeremy, I would caution you against your use of the words "fact" and
"theory". Facts are observable events or evidence. The "facts" concerned with
evolution are that we see evolution in populations today and that we see
evidence compatible with evolution in the past (fossil record, etc.). To say
that evolution occurring over the last 3 billion years is a "fact" is an
error of word usage. This would be the "theory" of evolution. The theory
provides an explanation of all of the facts that we presently have...Quite
well, I might add.
The reason that I point this out is that in debating with the creationists,
you have to be very precise in your wording, lest they thrash you with
semantics.
Dave, Biological evolutionary theory was put forward by scientific means and
is well defined in terms of its applicability. To assert that biological
evolutionary theory is attempting to explain abiogenesis or cosmic evolution
is a straw man argument, at best. These things must each be debated in their
own circles. They are apples and oranges, so to speak. For example, if we
were debating about methods of calculating pi to a zillion digits, it would
be wrong of me to say that your method implies that we should all drive to
work backwards. While I agree that "most people" have the impression that
biological evolutionary theory applies to everything from the big bang on,
the fact is that it doesn't. If anyone looks in reference materials for
information on biological evolution, they will find no assertions that cosmic
evolution is involved.
I just wanted to add in a few of my comments...Thank you
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dave Woetzel
Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
>news:02c85282001...@csi.com...
>> Thanks for a well-reasoned response. Your definition is an improvement
on
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
>> which is at best a definition of microevolution. I could quibble with
>your
>> using a form of the word we are definining in your definition, but let's
>> focus elsewhere. What are "other forms?" Do you simply mean progenitors
>in
>> the population? If so, I believe that my initial post was correct.
Nando
>> (along with most people) would define evolution more like "a naturalistic
>> model of origins." This takes in the full scope of cosmic
>> evolution/abiogenesis/common descent/macroevolution. The problem with
>your
>> definition is that it is so limited and undebatable that even the
creation
>> model would be evolution!
>
>Well, the proof is that animals and plants evolved from other forms. The
>necessary extension of the theory is that all life evolved from a single,
You lose me here. The proof of what? And what does this have to do with
the definition of evolution? If you are saying that microevolution or
genetic variation proves common descent, you are wrong. In fact, we know
from selective breeding and genetics that there are limits to microevolution
that must be hurdled for macroevolution to take place. Common descent is
not even endorsed by all evolutionists. BTW, you still have not defined
what you mean by "other forms."
>Whether a God or Gods had anything to do with this is totally immaterial.
It
>happened, it happened according to well-understood natural laws that are
the
>same everywhere in the universe, and that's as far as science needs to go.
Once again you lose me. These "natural laws" (I assume you speak of
evolutionary processes) have not been evaluated anywhere except on earth.
Who knows if they are universal? The mechanisms for macroevolution are
certainly not "well-understood." Witness the debate still raging about P.E.
Perhaps you are talking about cosmic evolution?
>I'm not sure how creationists would react to this, because as you can see,
>they are not even responding to me any more. (Nando appears to have given
>up entirely) I don't think the creationists have a single unified "theory"
>of their own-- some believe in a 6000 year old world, some don't, some
>believe dinosaurs lived alongside Adam, some believe dinosaur fossils are
>just fakes put there by God, some refuse even to discuss dinosaurs.
>The whole world of creationism is so fractured and disjointed that it is
>difficult to argue with a creationist without knowing exactly what he
>believes
There is no more variations among creationists than among evolutionists.
Regardless, this does not invalidate the theory. Have you ever read a book
published by a mainstream creationist organization or are you just making
this evaluation on hearsay?
>(funny that there are no female creationists!)
Baloney! You discredit yourself with absurd and demonstrably false
accusations. Hang around T.O. for awhile and you will see Julie beat up
some Darwinist in a discussion on molecular biology.
>and creationists are
>loathe to state their actual beliefs in clear language, preferring to
taunt,
>tease and insult people who believe in scientific fact. Creationists will
>say anything to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, but they shy away
>from actual, rational discussion, because they *know* they will lose every
>time.
Whoa! Slow down a bit. Last I checked, there are plenty of creationists
that do debates regularly. Again, I would suggest reading a few good books
where the creation model is articulated in clear enough language for any lay
person. I would be happy to make some suggestions.
Dave
Jeremy Reimer
> You lose me here. The proof of what? And what does this have to do with
> the definition of evolution? If you are saying that microevolution or
> genetic variation proves common descent, you are wrong. In fact, we know
> from selective breeding and genetics that there are limits to
microevolution
> that must be hurdled for macroevolution to take place. Common descent is
> not even endorsed by all evolutionists. BTW, you still have not defined
> what you mean by "other forms."
The word "proof" was perhaps not the best one I could have used in that
particular, exact place in the sentence. We have proof of microevolution,
because we have seen it in the lab. We have proof that other, extinct
animals once existed, because of the fossil record. The theory of evolution
is what ties together all the little proofs.
> Once again you lose me. These "natural laws" (I assume you speak of
> evolutionary processes) have not been evaluated anywhere except on earth.
> Who knows if they are universal? The mechanisms for macroevolution are
> certainly not "well-understood." Witness the debate still raging about
P.E.
> Perhaps you are talking about cosmic evolution?
Excuse me, but I took courses in Extragalactic astronomy, and if the
physical laws did not apply beyond the Earth the astronomers would be the
first to know. Physics works everywhere. It may be confusing, and full of
infinite regressive details, but it works, and it is never, I mean NEVER
violated.
As far as this applies to evolution, we do indeed understand the mechanisms
for macroevolution just as well as we do for microevolution. It is just a
matter of scale and extrapolation, not to mention putting together the
pieces of the fossil record. The only argument is over details like
gradualism versus catastrophism, which is hardly an earth-shaking debate,
nor does it invalidate the truth of evolutionary theory.
> There is no more variations among creationists than among evolutionists.
> Regardless, this does not invalidate the theory. Have you ever read a
book
> published by a mainstream creationist organization or are you just making
> this evaluation on hearsay?
No, variations do not invalidate the theory of creationism. The theory of
creationism is invalidated quite nicely by one simple fact: CREATIONISTS
REFUSE TO ALLOW THEIR THEORIES TO BE SUBJECTED TO SCIENTIFIC METHODS. When
a proof is found that renders a particular creationist theory invalid, the
creationists either:
a) shut up and never mention it again
b) claim that it is somehow invalid, without providing any counter-evidence
c) change their minds and start manufacturing a new theory that carefully
avoids the pitfalls of the earlier one, and then use THIS as an argument
against scientists who were engaged in debating the old "theory".
> >(funny that there are no female creationists!)
>
> Baloney! You discredit yourself with absurd and demonstrably false
> accusations. Hang around T.O. for awhile and you will see Julie beat up
> some Darwinist in a discussion on molecular biology.
Sorry, it's just that I've never seen one. It's somewhat surprising that
you would take this one tiny point, which I just threw in as an aside, and
blow it up to absurd proportions. Why did you do that?
> Whoa! Slow down a bit. Last I checked, there are plenty of creationists
> that do debates regularly. Again, I would suggest reading a few good
books
> where the creation model is articulated in clear enough language for any
lay
> person. I would be happy to make some suggestions.
You are the first rational creationist that I've ever encountered in
talk.origins, if indeed you are a creationist.
Jeremy Reimer
news:7eqpbj$u6i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> Allow me to insert a few comments, if I may...
>
> Jeremy, I would caution you against your use of the words "fact" and
> "theory". Facts are observable events or evidence. The "facts" concerned
with
> evolution are that we see evolution in populations today and that we see
> evidence compatible with evolution in the past (fossil record, etc.). To
say
> that evolution occurring over the last 3 billion years is a "fact" is an
> error of word usage. This would be the "theory" of evolution. The theory
> provides an explanation of all of the facts that we presently have...Quite
> well, I might add.
>
> The reason that I point this out is that in debating with the
creationists,
> you have to be very precise in your wording, lest they thrash you with
> semantics.
I find it frustrating that people who argue on behalf of fact, logic and
reason have to be clinically precise in their arguments, right down to
INDIVIDUAL WORDS, yet creationists can be as sloppy as they like, use any
style of language, be it vague or even totally inaccurate, and nobody
blinks. Meanwhile I am trying to be as precise as possible, continually
refining my arguments, and the creationists just post the same old crap, day
after day after day...
Why is there this double-standard? The creationists are the minority,
trying to push their peculiar world-view on others. Why should they not be
held up to higher standards of debate?
Maybe it's just that most creationists are stupid.
Jonathan Stone
|> <c...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
|> news:7eqpbj$u6i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
[snip]
|> I find it frustrating that people who argue on behalf of fact, logic and
|> reason have to be clinically precise in their arguments, right down to
|> INDIVIDUAL WORDS, yet creationists can be as sloppy as they like, use any
|> style of language, be it vague or even totally inaccurate, and nobody
|> blinks. Meanwhile I am trying to be as precise as possible, continually
|> refining my arguments, and the creationists just post the same old crap, day
|> after day after day...
|>
|> Why is there this double-standard? The creationists are the minority,
|> trying to push their peculiar world-view on others. Why should they not be
|> held up to higher standards of debate?
|>
|> Maybe it's just that most creationists are stupid.
or that they're largely parrotting what they hear from their preacher,
their televangelist, or their books. And those books use lines like
``evolution is just a theory'', using the common-English meaning of
`theory', not the scientific one. In the first, `theory' means
something like `hypothesis', and in the second, a theory is the
strongest result you can get in science.
Seems like a fair point.
crwydryn
>> Regardless, this does not invalidate the theory. Have you ever read a
>book
>> published by a mainstream creationist organization or are you just making
>> this evaluation on hearsay?
>
>No, variations do not invalidate the theory of creationism. The theory of
>creationism is invalidated quite nicely by one simple fact: CREATIONISTS
>REFUSE TO ALLOW THEIR THEORIES TO BE SUBJECTED TO SCIENTIFIC METHODS. When
>a proof is found that renders a particular creationist theory invalid, the
>creationists either:
>
>a) shut up and never mention it again
>b) claim that it is somehow invalid, without providing any counter-evidence
>c) change their minds and start manufacturing a new theory that carefully
>avoids the pitfalls of the earlier one, and then use THIS as an argument
>against scientists who were engaged in debating the old "theory".
This is rather too strong a position to take, since by this definition
science isn't scientific either. When proof is found that renders a
particular scientific theory invalid, the accepted responses are:
a) discard the theory entirely and move on to something else
b) search for errors in the argument against the theory
c) modify the theory so that it agrees with the new evidence.
>> >(funny that there are no female creationists!)
>>
>> Baloney! You discredit yourself with absurd and demonstrably false
>> accusations. Hang around T.O. for awhile and you will see Julie beat up
>> some Darwinist in a discussion on molecular biology.
>
>Sorry, it's just that I've never seen one. It's somewhat surprising that
>you would take this one tiny point, which I just threw in as an aside, and
>blow it up to absurd proportions. Why did you do that?
Perhaps because it is exactly the same kind of argument that is often used
against the less well read creationists? "[pick random detail] is wrong.
You obviously know nothing about science so you discredit yourself." While
it is true that many creationists bleat their beliefs about science without
bothering to do their homework, and thus make the rest seem foolish along
with them, it's also true that calling the kettle black makes those arguing
for evolution look bad too.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevyn Winkless
crwydryn@gol"rmv".com
Jeremy Reimer
news:ZNhQ2.831$kL....@nnrp.gol.com...
> This is rather too strong a position to take, since by this definition
> science isn't scientific either. When proof is found that renders a
> particular scientific theory invalid, the accepted responses are:
>
> a) discard the theory entirely and move on to something else
> b) search for errors in the argument against the theory
> c) modify the theory so that it agrees with the new evidence.
Yes, and that's what makes the creationist tack even more insidious. They
are trying to co-opt the scientific method for their own, purely political
ends.
To turn the scientific method into the creationist method, simply make the
following adjustments:
1. Refuse to admit ANY evidence that discounts your position. Either
discredit the evidence (without any counter-evidence), attack the person who
posted the evidence, or just ignore it.
2. When you modify your theory, forget that your previous theory existed.
In fact, forget all the things that you said could NEVER be challenged in
your last theory. You can always make up new things that can NEVER be
challenged.
3. If you really run into trouble (for example, as all the creationists who
tried to argue with me did) just run away and hide for awhile. Then a few
days or weeks later, start up the same argument (that you had just lost)
with a completely new person, pretending that the old argument (that you had
just lost) never actually happened.
> Perhaps because it is exactly the same kind of argument that is often used
> against the less well read creationists? "[pick random detail] is wrong.
> You obviously know nothing about science so you discredit yourself."
While
> it is true that many creationists bleat their beliefs about science
without
> bothering to do their homework, and thus make the rest seem foolish along
> with them, it's also true that calling the kettle black makes those
arguing
> for evolution look bad too.
There's a difference between scientists and creationists in this matter
also.
Scientists, when proved wrong, will stand up and say: "the evidence has
proven this theory wrong. As much as I may have wanted this theory to be
true, mounting evidence has shown it not to be true, or requiring serious
revision. Therefore I will abandon this theory, or make major changes to
it".
As an example, as soon as I see a bona-fide female creationist posting here,
I will be able to publicly admit that yes, there are female creationists (or
at the very least, males posing as females, which is rather common on
Usenet)
Creationists, when proved wrong, will jump up and down, scream insults at
you for awhile, then stop talking altogether. Then two days later they will
repeat their original argument as if nothing had happened.
Slight difference there.
crwydryn
>following adjustments:
>
>1. Refuse to admit ANY evidence that discounts your position. Either
>discredit the evidence (without any counter-evidence), attack the person
who
>posted the evidence, or just ignore it.
>2. When you modify your theory, forget that your previous theory existed.
>In fact, forget all the things that you said could NEVER be challenged in
>your last theory. You can always make up new things that can NEVER be
>challenged.
>3. If you really run into trouble (for example, as all the creationists who
>tried to argue with me did) just run away and hide for awhile. Then a few
>days or weeks later, start up the same argument (that you had just lost)
>with a completely new person, pretending that the old argument (that you
had
>just lost) never actually happened.
And with these details added, your original statement becomes more
reasonable - before it sounded entirely too much like you have bad things to
say about the scientific method...
>
>Scientists, when proved wrong, will stand up and say: "the evidence has
>proven this theory wrong. As much as I may have wanted this theory to be
>true, mounting evidence has shown it not to be true, or requiring serious
>revision. Therefore I will abandon this theory, or make major changes to
>it".
Ahem. Science is itself filled with examples of HUMAN scientists refusing
to admit their HUMAN errors and denying new evidence. While it's true that
the ideal is for the scientist to stand up and say "wait a sec, that means
I'm wrong! Guess I'll have to think it over again..." that doesn't always
happen. In my own field Dart's original finds of Australopithicine skulls
in South Africa were dismissed by the Royal Academy for a variety of
political reasons and (most importantly) because they felt that it
introduced altogether too much complexity. The political reasons were
probably most important in my opinion, but the fact of the matter is that
evidence that forced changes to the then-dominant theory was ignored for
years. Don't forget that scientists are human too, and I for one have met
my fair share of arrogant scientists (my favourite are the ones who insist
that you can't apply scientific method unless you have numbers and equations
to work with...) who:
Won't accept data that refutes the dominant theory.
Dismiss data that comes from another field.
Allow personal squabbles and politics to influence their reasoning.
Of course, I must admit that despite travelling more often in scientific
circles than in theological circles, I seem to have met more Creationists
who have these failings than scientissts. You just can't dismiss the fact
that scientists have them too.
>Creationists, when proved wrong, will jump up and down, scream insults at
>you for awhile, then stop talking altogether. Then two days later they
will
>repeat their original argument as if nothing had happened.
Never met one of those outside usenet, yet for some reason I seem to attract
budding missionaries like flies to...well you can fill in the rest. Would
you believe that within six weeks of moving to Japan there was a Jehovah's
Witness on my doorstep? Anyway, most Creationists I've met/argued with are
woefully ignorant of the details which refute them, regurgitate arguments
they heard in church without knowing where the logical errors are, and
sometimes even exhibit ignorance of their own Bible, but I've never met one
that was childish about having these problems pointed out to them - though
knowing what sort of things _I_ believe sometimes sets them off. Perhaps
it's in your approach?
Dave Woetzel
>> the definition of evolution? If you are saying that microevolution or
>> genetic variation proves common descent, you are wrong. In fact, we know
>> from selective breeding and genetics that there are limits to
>microevolution
>> that must be hurdled for macroevolution to take place. Common descent is
>> not even endorsed by all evolutionists. BTW, you still have not defined
>> what you mean by "other forms."
>
>The word "proof" was perhaps not the best one I could have used in that
>particular, exact place in the sentence. We have proof of microevolution,
>because we have seen it in the lab. We have proof that other, extinct
>animals once existed, because of the fossil record. The theory of
evolution
>is what ties together all the little proofs.
We do not need to go into a lab to see microevolution and we do not need to
go to the fossil record to see extinction. You still have not defined what
you mean by "other forms."
>> Once again you lose me. These "natural laws" (I assume you speak of
>> evolutionary processes) have not been evaluated anywhere except on earth.
>> Who knows if they are universal? The mechanisms for macroevolution are
>> certainly not "well-understood." Witness the debate still raging about
>P.E.
>> Perhaps you are talking about cosmic evolution?
>
>Excuse me, but I took courses in Extragalactic astronomy, and if the
>physical laws did not apply beyond the Earth the astronomers would be the
>first to know. Physics works everywhere. It may be confusing, and full of
>infinite regressive details, but it works, and it is never, I mean NEVER
>violated.
There are areas in physics that are still very theoretical and are being
evaluated as we speak. I might suggest you read some of Hawking's works
before you get too excited about absolutes in the area of cosmology.
>As far as this applies to evolution, we do indeed understand the mechanisms
>for macroevolution just as well as we do for microevolution. It is just a
>matter of scale and extrapolation, not to mention putting together the
>pieces of the fossil record. The only argument is over details like
>gradualism versus catastrophism, which is hardly an earth-shaking debate,
>nor does it invalidate the truth of evolutionary theory.
There is not a consensus on the mechanism of macroevolution. "Biologists no
longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of
Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is
often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of
evolution is still debated."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
You keep using the term "truth of evolutionary theory." Science does not
deal with truth, only with knowledge obtained through the scientific method.
At best, if a theory operates consistently without exceptions, we may call
it a law or a scientific fact.
>> There is no more variations among creationists than among evolutionists.
>> Regardless, this does not invalidate the theory. Have you ever read a
>book
>> published by a mainstream creationist organization or are you just making
>> this evaluation on hearsay?
>
>No, variations do not invalidate the theory of creationism. The theory of
>creationism is invalidated quite nicely by one simple fact: CREATIONISTS
>REFUSE TO ALLOW THEIR THEORIES TO BE SUBJECTED TO SCIENTIFIC METHODS. When
>a proof is found that renders a particular creationist theory invalid, the
>creationists either:
>
>a) shut up and never mention it again
So what? No one ever claimed creationists were infallible. Go read up on
some of the supposed human ancestors evolutionists have trotted out over the
last few decades.
>b) claim that it is somehow invalid, without providing any counter-evidence
Give me some examples of mainstream scientific creationists (ICR, AIG, etc.)
doing this.
>c) change their minds and start manufacturing a new theory that carefully
>avoids the pitfalls of the earlier one, and then use THIS as an argument
>against scientists who were engaged in debating the old "theory".
So what? Isn't that the way science is supposed to operate?
>> >(funny that there are no female creationists!)
>>
>> Baloney! You discredit yourself with absurd and demonstrably false
>> accusations. Hang around T.O. for awhile and you will see Julie beat up
>> some Darwinist in a discussion on molecular biology.
>
>Sorry, it's just that I've never seen one. It's somewhat surprising that
>you would take this one tiny point, which I just threw in as an aside, and
>blow it up to absurd proportions. Why did you do that?
Because you are making arrogant sweeping claims like "creationists are
loathe to state their actual beliefs in clear language, preferring to
taunt, tease and insult people who believe in scientific fact. Creationists
will
say anything to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, but they shy away
from actual, rational discussion, because they *know* they will lose every
time." Have a bit more humility and be a bit more careful in what you say
and I won't jump on your case when you goof.
>> Whoa! Slow down a bit. Last I checked, there are plenty of creationists
>> that do debates regularly. Again, I would suggest reading a few good
>books
>> where the creation model is articulated in clear enough language for any
>lay
>> person. I would be happy to make some suggestions.
>
>You are the first rational creationist that I've ever encountered in
>talk.origins, if indeed you are a creationist.
Well, you need to hang around a bit more then.
Dave
tpham...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
> >Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:0483e010419...@csi.com...
[snip]
> >As far as this applies to evolution, we do indeed understand the mechanisms
> >for macroevolution just as well as we do for microevolution. It is just a
> >matter of scale and extrapolation, not to mention putting together the
> >pieces of the fossil record. The only argument is over details like
> >gradualism versus catastrophism, which is hardly an earth-shaking debate,
> >nor does it invalidate the truth of evolutionary theory.
>
> There is not a consensus on the mechanism of macroevolution. "Biologists no
> longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of
> Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is
> often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of
> evolution is still debated."
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
>
> You keep using the term "truth of evolutionary theory." Science does not
> deal with truth, only with knowledge obtained through the scientific method.
> At best, if a theory operates consistently without exceptions, we may call
> it a law or a scientific fact.
Pretty close to correct in all aspects. My only nit is that a law is
something completely different from a fact. It is a short summary or
generalization, with a compact associated equation. Many are known not to be
strictly held. Ideal gas law for example.
> >No, variations do not invalidate the theory of creationism. The theory of
> >creationism is invalidated quite nicely by one simple fact: CREATIONISTS
> >REFUSE TO ALLOW THEIR THEORIES TO BE SUBJECTED TO SCIENTIFIC METHODS. When
> >a proof is found that renders a particular creationist theory invalid, the
> >creationists either:
> >
> >a) shut up and never mention it again
>
> So what? No one ever claimed creationists were infallible. Go read up on
> some of the supposed human ancestors evolutionists have trotted out over the
> last few decades.
Neither are creationists even reliable. Name ANYTHING they've done
that stands up to scrutiny.
> >b) claim that it is somehow invalid, without providing any counter-evidence
>
> Give me some examples of mainstream scientific creationists (ICR, AIG, etc.)
> doing this.
>
> >c) change their minds and start manufacturing a new theory that carefully
> >avoids the pitfalls of the earlier one, and then use THIS as an argument
> >against scientists who were engaged in debating the old "theory".
>
> So what? Isn't that the way science is supposed to operate?
I'm tempted, what the hell:
"Give me some examples of mainstream scientific creationists (ICR, AIG, etc.)
doing this." :) It is all too rare.
c) would indeed be salutary, and there are SOME creationists who do this.
Of course, that mostly consists of correcting outrageous stuff of others
(who care a great deal less about evidence than supporting creationism)
that would never have made it past cursory peer review by scientists.
Usually d) is the case. d) Ignore the refutation and repeat the argument.
> >> >(funny that there are no female creationists!)
> >>
> >> Baloney! You discredit yourself with absurd and demonstrably false
> >> accusations. Hang around T.O. for awhile and you will see Julie beat up
> >> some Darwinist in a discussion on molecular biology.
I though she was not a creationist, by her accounts. You may have to look
a little harder. The % women in chemistry is significant, although it is
trails off at higher levels of academia to 5%. Perhaps the same is
true of women creation scientists - maybe 50% are getting their BS in
creation science, getting jobs as creation scientists, whereas say a third
go to get PhDs and do research in creation science, mostly going into
industry and having only 5% of the professors in creation science.
> >Sorry, it's just that I've never seen one. It's somewhat surprising that
> >you would take this one tiny point, which I just threw in as an aside, and
> >blow it up to absurd proportions. Why did you do that?
> Because you are making arrogant sweeping claims like "creationists are
> loathe to state their actual beliefs in clear language, preferring to
> taunt, tease and insult people who believe in scientific fact.
Ironically, Julie Thomas is a classic case. And what about you, on whether
the evidence indicates common descent?
And when I said all YECs also believed in a young universe, someone using
your name floated out something about maybe not -
some think that time depends on the reference
frames. I responded with a very direct question, which I shall repeat -
Why would the age of the universe in a time frame other than the earth have
any meaning when speaking about the age of the universe? How old is the
universe in OUR time frame?
Will THIS Dave Woetzel "state his actual beliefs in clear language" or hold
to the stereotype and in the process SUPPORT the generalization?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Jeremy Reimer
> We do not need to go into a lab to see microevolution and we do not need
to
> go to the fossil record to see extinction. You still have not defined
what
> you mean by "other forms."
"Other forms" was a layman's term used to try and simplify the argument
without resorting to precise scientific language. You seem to have seized
on these words like a pit bull terrier, and are wanting to use them to imply
that I am being vague and imprecise. I have already posted that it is a
horrendous double-standard that creationists can be as vague, imprecise,
sloppy and inaccurate as they want, but anyone wanting to debate them has to
fight over every bloody word.
Specifically, new species can and have evolved. We see them in the fossil
record and we have seen them in the lab. No, the peppered moth was not an
example of a new species (and it was never claimed as such), it was a shift
between different genetic populations in the same species. But other
examples exist, and have been well-documented. (My web site contains
specific references)
> There are areas in physics that are still very theoretical and are being
> evaluated as we speak. I might suggest you read some of Hawking's works
> before you get too excited about absolutes in the area of cosmology.
As I have a BSc in Physics, and have read all of Hawking's popular works, I
doubt very much that you can catch me out on my Physics knowledge. I was
not referring to Hawking's esoteric theories, which involve things like
singularities (where space and time end and all known laws break down) and
things that may or may not have happened before the Big Bang and before the
beginning of time.
These theories are not what I was referring to when I said that all laws of
physics are absolute throughout the universe. They are. Talking about the
edge of the universe and beyond does not invalidate the fact that all the
laws of physics work _everywhere_ IN the universe.
> There is not a consensus on the mechanism of macroevolution. "Biologists
no
> longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part
of
> Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that
is
> often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of
> evolution is still debated."
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
I never said that we understood the mechanism perfectly. But we understand
it well enough. To within very high tolerances. What we don't understand
that well is the HISTORY of evolution, ie, how bacterium evolved from bare
DNA, because there are no surviving fossils and no solid models that explain
it. Yet.
> >a) shut up and never mention it again
>
> So what? No one ever claimed creationists were infallible. Go read up on
> some of the supposed human ancestors evolutionists have trotted out over
the
> last few decades.
So what??? How can you say so what? When you are in the middle of a
knock-down, drag-out fight with a creationist (as I have been) and they
suddenly, inexplicably, stop responding in the middle of the argument, what
other conclusions can be drawn? They haven't disappeared (Nando posts
replies daily to other people, for example) So what happened? I'll tell
you what happened: they realized that arguing any further would make them
look foolish, and so they went to look for weaker, less-informed targets.
> >b) claim that it is somehow invalid, without providing any
counter-evidence
>
> Give me some examples of mainstream scientific creationists (ICR, AIG,
etc.)
> doing this.
There are no such things as "mainstream scientific creationists".
Creationism is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population. It has
never been and never will be mainstream. It is also not scientific. Because
creationists do not hold to the scientific method, and refuse to admit when
they have been proven wrong, they cannot be called scientific. By using
those two words along with the words "creationists" you are giving them
validation that they have never earned.
> >c) change their minds and start manufacturing a new theory that carefully
> >avoids the pitfalls of the earlier one, and then use THIS as an argument
> >against scientists who were engaged in debating the old "theory".
>
> So what? Isn't that the way science is supposed to operate?
No, you are missing the point. Creationists modify their theories, then use
the new theories against people who were arguing with the old theories (and
winning) as if nothing had happened. "What happened to your old theory?"
the scientists cry, but there is no answer. Creationists pretend as if
their old theory never existed, and any faults in their old theory that were
proven have no validity to their new theory. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. When a new theory is adopted, it must explain WHY the
old theory was wrong, and explain WHY it isn't invalidated right along with
the old theory. Creationists *never* do this.
> Because you are making arrogant sweeping claims like "creationists are
> loathe to state their actual beliefs in clear language, preferring to
> taunt, tease and insult people who believe in scientific fact.
Creationists
> will
> say anything to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, but they shy
away
> from actual, rational discussion, because they *know* they will lose every
> time." Have a bit more humility and be a bit more careful in what you say
> and I won't jump on your case when you goof.
I need have no humility when talking about creationists. I have, many,
many, many times over seen them lie, hurl insults, argue out of the back of
their ass and when fully challenged simply give up. I stand by my
statement. No creationist has ever lasted more than a couple of weeks in
discussions with me, and most give up after only a few messages when I point
out their OBVIOUS lies, distortions, half-truths and logical fallacies.
Nando was the longest lasting, but even he refuses to even acknowledge my
existence any more. When I challenged him on this, he responded: "well, I
didn't respond because I didn't want to mix the issue" which means NOTHING,
and then he threw out a half-hearted post about chance, and didn't even
respond to my answer (he still replies to other people, though, why is
this?) He gave up. They ALL gave up. What I am feeling is not arrogance,
but frustration. Why will no creationsts debate me any more? Because they
KNOW they will lose.
> >You are the first rational creationist that I've ever encountered in
> >talk.origins, if indeed you are a creationist.
>
>
> Well, you need to hang around a bit more then.
I still do not believe that you are a creationist. But maybe if you start
lying, ignoring common sense and logical realities, and insulting me at
random, I might be a bit more convinced.
Dave Woetzel
Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
>news:0901d032816...@csi.com...
>> We do not need to go into a lab to see microevolution and we do not need
>to
>> go to the fossil record to see extinction. You still have not defined
>what
>> you mean by "other forms."
>
>"Other forms" was a layman's term used to try and simplify the argument
>without resorting to precise scientific language. You seem to have seized
>on these words like a pit bull terrier, and are wanting to use them to
imply
>that I am being vague and imprecise. I have already posted that it is a
>horrendous double-standard that creationists can be as vague, imprecise,
>sloppy and inaccurate as they want, but anyone wanting to debate them has
to
>fight over every bloody word.
>
>Specifically, new species can and have evolved. We see them in the fossil
>record and we have seen them in the lab. No, the peppered moth was not an
>example of a new species (and it was never claimed as such), it was a shift
>between different genetic populations in the same species. But other
>examples exist, and have been well-documented. (My web site contains
>specific references)
I am not trying to sieze on anything. I was genuinely interested in
understanding your argument. Perhaps you can point me to your site for
clarification. (Sorry if you did this already and I missed it.)
I truly am amazed. Everything I have heard is the opposite. Evolutionists
appear to say that they know WHAT happened fairly well. They just do not
know HOW it happened.
>> >a) shut up and never mention it again
>>
>> So what? No one ever claimed creationists were infallible. Go read up
on
>> some of the supposed human ancestors evolutionists have trotted out over
>the
>> last few decades.
>
>So what??? How can you say so what? When you are in the middle of a
>knock-down, drag-out fight with a creationist (as I have been) and they
>suddenly, inexplicably, stop responding in the middle of the argument, what
>other conclusions can be drawn? They haven't disappeared (Nando posts
>replies daily to other people, for example) So what happened? I'll tell
>you what happened: they realized that arguing any further would make them
>look foolish, and so they went to look for weaker, less-informed targets.
Maybe he just got tired of the thread and moved on. Eventually I will have
to do that too. Too many threads and too little time!
>> >b) claim that it is somehow invalid, without providing any
>counter-evidence
>>
>> Give me some examples of mainstream scientific creationists (ICR, AIG,
>etc.)
>> doing this.
>
>There are no such things as "mainstream scientific creationists".
>Creationism is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population. It has
>never been and never will be mainstream. It is also not scientific.
Because
>creationists do not hold to the scientific method, and refuse to admit when
>they have been proven wrong, they cannot be called scientific. By using
>those two words along with the words "creationists" you are giving them
>validation that they have never earned.
You are avoiding the point. Give me some example of a well-known
creationist doing what you claimed.
You need to take a deep breath and calm down. T.O. is not an endurance
test.
>> >You are the first rational creationist that I've ever encountered in
>> >talk.origins, if indeed you are a creationist.
>>
>>
>> Well, you need to hang around a bit more then.
>
>I still do not believe that you are a creationist. But maybe if you start
>lying, ignoring common sense and logical realities, and insulting me at
>random, I might be a bit more convinced.
Are you accusing me of lying about that?
Dave
Dave Woetzel
>And when I said all YECs also believed in a young universe, someone using
>your name floated out something about maybe not -
>some think that time depends on the reference
>frames. I responded with a very direct question, which I shall repeat -
>Why would the age of the universe in a time frame other than the earth have
>any meaning when speaking about the age of the universe? How old is the
>universe in OUR time frame?
>
>Will THIS Dave Woetzel "state his actual beliefs in clear language" or hold
>to the stereotype and in the process SUPPORT the generalization?
I do not mean to ignore anybody. (In fact, I still remember your question.)
Unfortunately there are always a lot more good questions than I have time to
discuss. I generally stick to a conversation with one person so that it
does not get completely out of hand.
If I recollect correctly, the issue was distant star light in a young
universe. My statement referenced the interesting work presented by Dr.
Russel Humphreys and his model on White Hole Cosmology. The idea is that
the universe is young (appx 10K years) in our frame of reference while
billions of years have elapsed in distant space. This effect drops directly
out of the equations of SR when the assumption of an unbounded universe is
changed. It is caused by gravitational time dillation.
Hope that helps,
Dave
free...@netscout.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> If I recollect correctly, the issue was distant star light in a young
> universe. My statement referenced the interesting work presented by Dr.
> Russel Humphreys and his model on White Hole Cosmology. The idea is that
> the universe is young (appx 10K years) in our frame of reference while
> billions of years have elapsed in distant space. This effect drops directly
> out of the equations of SR when the assumption of an unbounded universe is
> changed. It is caused by gravitational time dillation.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Dave
I am not a physicist let alone a relativist or a cosmologist but has any
physicist taken a serious look at the above and found it credible. Sounds
really strange to me.
JFJR
Ken Cox
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> > My statement referenced the interesting work presented by Dr.
> > Russel Humphreys and his model on White Hole Cosmology. The idea is that
> > the universe is young (appx 10K years) in our frame of reference while
> > billions of years have elapsed in distant space.
> I am not a physicist let alone a relativist or a cosmologist but has any
> physicist taken a serious look at the above and found it credible.
It doesn't work, for a variety of reasons. To get the time-dilation
desired, the Earth would have had to be moving rapidly with respect
to the rest of the universe. The desired gamma is about a million,
so even if the Earth had been traveling the entire 10K years at
this rate it would have had to be moving at over 0.999c. Even if
we set aside the problems of collisions with hydrogen gas (which
would have a somewhat sterilizing effect on the planet), this would
produce other effects which should have been noted -- the "starbow"
and the "eye of the universe" effect so beloved of sci-fi writers.
There's also the problem of how you slow the Earth down from 0.999c
to local rest without destroying it. And you've got to get it to
local rest -- we are *not* passing through the galaxy at 0.999c,
in fact we are gravitationally bound to it, and there are things
that we can see that are clearly more than 10K years old. This
includes all the stars in our galaxy and local group that are over
10K light-years away. If, as it seems, Ross is claiming that the
physics is right and just has this gamma distortion, it would also
include the Sun -- which leads to a bit of a problem, since we have
to wonder what the Earth was using for a Sun while it was travelling
at 0.999c or more.
However, the biggest problem is right under our feet. A lot of the
evidence for an old (older than 10K years) universe comes from
*right here on Earth* -- radioactive dating, varves and ice layers,
seafloor spreading rates, coral clocks, and even dendrochronology
all give numbers in excess of 10K years. There's really no way to
explain this -- you can't claim that the *Earth* is only 10K years
old in its own reference frame!
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Jeremy Reimer
> I am not trying to sieze on anything. I was genuinely interested in
> understanding your argument. Perhaps you can point me to your site for
> clarification. (Sorry if you did this already and I missed it.)
My web site is posted at the bottom of every message I post. Hard to miss.
Go to "interests" and click on my essays about evolution.
> I truly am amazed. Everything I have heard is the opposite.
Evolutionists
> appear to say that they know WHAT happened fairly well. They just do not
> know HOW it happened.
It's the same thing, only using different words. Let me try to explain it to
you:
We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.
We DONT have any fossil records of this ancestor (it would predate bacteria,
and we have no difficulty tracing lineage after bacteria)
We KNOW the basic process by which a naked DNA would become a bacterium, but
these are just sketchy models. We have no proof that it actually happened
in a particular way.
We are much more familiar with the processes that lead from bacteria->single
celled animals->multicelled animals->complex animals and plants. You can
see all the intermediate forms today (look at the Volvox and tell me how
that isn't a huge clue about how single-celled beasts joined up to become
multi-cellular organisms)
> Maybe he just got tired of the thread and moved on. Eventually I will
have
> to do that too. Too many threads and too little time!
No. He didn't. That's a weak, pathetic excuse. HE GAVE UP. When challenged
on his giving up, he didn't reply.
When I started posting in talk.origins, about five creationists attacked me
at once, with equal vigor. I replied in turn, and four of them gave up
immediately. Nando held on for a week, then gave up, then I challenged him
directly and he tried HARD to stay with me but kept losing ground, until he
had lost all ground. He had lost ALL the arguments, one by one, slowly and
with a lot of insults from him, but he lost anyway.
You will give up because you know I can prove you wrong, every time. EVERY
time.
> You are avoiding the point. Give me some example of a well-known
> creationist doing what you claimed.
THERE ARE NO WELL-KNOWN CREATIONISTS. NONE. Your argument is totally
invalid, as usual.
> You need to take a deep breath and calm down. T.O. is not an endurance
> test.
Yes it is, and I won. Totally, and without question. (You'll notice that
no creationists have come forward to dispute this fact)
> >I still do not believe that you are a creationist. But maybe if you
start
> >lying, ignoring common sense and logical realities, and insulting me at
> >random, I might be a bit more convinced.
>
> Are you accusing me of lying about that?
I'm not accusing you of anything, because you never answered the question.
Are you a creationist or not? If you are, exactly what are your EXACT
beliefs? I can't refute them if I don't even know what they are, can I?
Dave Woetzel
>And when I said all YECs also believed in a young universe, someone using
>your name floated out something about maybe not -
>some think that time depends on the reference
>frames. I responded with a very direct question, which I shall repeat -
>Why would the age of the universe in a time frame other than the earth have
>any meaning when speaking about the age of the universe? How old is the
>universe in OUR time frame?
>
>Will THIS Dave Woetzel "state his actual beliefs in clear language" or hold
>to the stereotype and in the process SUPPORT the generalization?
I do not mean to ignore anybody. (In fact, I still remember your question.)
Unfortunately there are always a lot more good questions than I have time to
discuss. I generally stick to a conversation with one person so that it
does not get completely out of hand.
If I recollect correctly, the issue was distant star light in a young
universe. My statement referenced the interesting work presented by Dr.
Russel Humphreys and his model on White Hole Cosmology. The idea is that
the universe is young (appx 10K years) in our frame of reference while
Dave Woetzel
>> I am not trying to sieze on anything. I was genuinely interested in
>> understanding your argument. Perhaps you can point me to your site for
>> clarification. (Sorry if you did this already and I missed it.)
>
>Go to "interests" and click on my essays about evolution.
>
>Evolutionists
>> appear to say that they know WHAT happened fairly well. They just do not
>> know HOW it happened.
>
to
>you:
It is not the same thing. In fact it is the diametric opposite. If you
were not so diligent about snipping your previous statements you would see
that you wrote: "What we don't understand that well is the HISTORY of
evolution..." WHAT happened IS history, plain and simple!
>We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.
We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is not supported by the
fossil record. When confronted with the yawning gaps in the fossils
evolutionists respond with something like, "Well, remember that we only have
fossils for 3% of the kinds of animals that lived." If that is the case
(which I do not believe) then we can not come to any informed conclusions on
this little evidence. Hey, you can believe it if you want, but don't go
passing it off like it was scientific fact. If it were as clear as you
imply, than you ought to clue in some of the evolutionists that do not
believe it is clear at all.
>We DONT have any fossil records of this ancestor (it would predate
bacteria,
>and we have no difficulty tracing lineage after bacteria)
>We KNOW the basic process by which a naked DNA would become a bacterium,
but
>these are just sketchy models. We have no proof that it actually happened
>in a particular way.
>We are much more familiar with the processes that lead from
bacteria->single
>celled animals->multicelled animals->complex animals and plants. You can
>see all the intermediate forms today (look at the Volvox and tell me how
>that isn't a huge clue about how single-celled beasts joined up to become
>multi-cellular organisms)
>
>> Maybe he just got tired of the thread and moved on. Eventually I will
>have
>> to do that too. Too many threads and too little time!
>
>No. He didn't. That's a weak, pathetic excuse. HE GAVE UP. When
challenged
>on his giving up, he didn't reply.
>
>When I started posting in talk.origins, about five creationists attacked me
>at once, with equal vigor. I replied in turn, and four of them gave up
>immediately. Nando held on for a week, then gave up, then I challenged him
>directly and he tried HARD to stay with me but kept losing ground, until he
>had lost all ground. He had lost ALL the arguments, one by one, slowly and
>with a lot of insults from him, but he lost anyway.
>
>You will give up because you know I can prove you wrong, every time. EVERY
>time.
I know nothing of the kind. The only one who has been shown to be wrong, so
far, is you...by a quote from T.O. no less. Please recollect the portion
you have conveniently snipped...
>As far as this applies to evolution, we do indeed understand the mechanisms
>for macroevolution just as well as we do for microevolution. It is just a
>matter of scale and extrapolation, not to mention putting together the
>pieces of the fossil record. The only argument is over details like
>gradualism versus catastrophism, which is hardly an earth-shaking debate,
>nor does it invalidate the truth of evolutionary theory.
There is not a consensus on the mechanism of macroevolution. "Biologists no
longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of
Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is
often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of
evolution is still debated."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
>> You are avoiding the point. Give me some example of a well-known
>> creationist doing what you claimed.
>
>THERE ARE NO WELL-KNOWN CREATIONISTS. NONE. Your argument is totally
>invalid, as usual.
Calm down! I am not making an argument. I am asking you a very simple
question. You made the assertion that creationists "b) claim that it is
somehow invalid, without providing any counter-evidence." Please show me an
example or two.
>> You need to take a deep breath and calm down. T.O. is not an endurance
>> test.
>
>Yes it is, and I won. Totally, and without question. (You'll notice that
>no creationists have come forward to dispute this fact)
The difference between a forum and an "endurance test" is that the latter is
won by any brainless idiot that is just one post more stubborn than the
opponent, despite the quality of his arguments. I trust that is not the
contention you are making.
> > >I still do not believe that you are a creationist. But maybe if you
>start
>> >lying, ignoring common sense and logical realities, and insulting me at
>> >random, I might be a bit more convinced.
>>
>> Are you accusing me of lying about that?
>
>I'm not accusing you of anything, because you never answered the question.
>Are you a creationist or not? If you are, exactly what are your EXACT
>beliefs? I can't refute them if I don't even know what they are, can I?
You never asked before. Yes, I am a creationist.
Dave
Jeremy Reimer
<snip>
> It is not the same thing. In fact it is the diametric opposite. If you
> were not so diligent about snipping your previous statements you would see
> that you wrote: "What we don't understand that well is the HISTORY of
> evolution..." WHAT happened IS history, plain and simple!
Dave, I snip previous quotated material because it makes the resulting
message shorter, must less annoying to scroll through, and more pleasing to
the eye. The thought that I would do so to somehow "ignore" arguments is
laughable. Dejanews, not to mention the THREAD ITSELF is there for all to
see. I stand by ALL my statements. If I am wrong, I correct myself and
move on. I don't pick on endlessly about minutae. I don't need to in order
to support my arguments, which stand on their own merits, and don't require
semantic debates about individual words, as you seem to do.
> >We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.
>
> We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is not supported by the
> fossil record.
Yes it is. Your "God of the Gaps" is disproved every time a gap is filled.
The more fossils are discovered, the more gaps are filled in. We didn't
know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but we speculated they did. Then we
discovered fossils that were transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.
There was the Pterosaur, a dinosaur that flew, and Archaeoptryx (sp?) a
dinosaur that had feathers and limited flight ability. This proves the
mechanism and the theory of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> When confronted with the yawning gaps in the fossils
> evolutionists respond with something like, "Well, remember that we only
have
> fossils for 3% of the kinds of animals that lived." If that is the case
> (which I do not believe) then we can not come to any informed conclusions
on
> this little evidence.
Yes you can. 3 percent is statistically significant if you have a good
proportion of the original sample. Obviously you know nothing of
statistics, or you would be able to compare this to actual statistical
samples, which make highly accurate predictions of a global result based on
samples of around 3 to 5 percent. Because I am educated, and I know about
how this works, I can demolish your argument without even pausing for
breath. It is the quality of the sample that matters, not the sample size.
Very good results can be and are achieved with 3% sample sizes every day.
> Hey, you can believe it if you want, but don't go
> passing it off like it was scientific fact. If it were as clear as you
> imply, than you ought to clue in some of the evolutionists that do not
> believe it is clear at all.
If you read the above, I just demolished your argument, so I see no need to
do it again. Your own ignorance leads you to believe that things that are
well-established are not.
<snip>
> I know nothing of the kind. The only one who has been shown to be wrong,
so
> far, is you...by a quote from T.O. no less. Please recollect the portion
> you have conveniently snipped...
Why? I only snip parts that you have failed to address. They are largely
wasted space. Conciseness counts, even on Usenet, and remember YOU were the
one complaining about a lack of time to address all the arguments. Your
feeble attempt to use my small editing of an existing thread as some kind of
basis for an argument is completely laughable and scores you no points
whatsoever.
> There is not a consensus on the mechanism of macroevolution. "Biologists
no
> longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part
of
> Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that
is
> often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of
> evolution is still debated."
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
That's the second time you've mentioned this. Yes, the mechanism is not
totally understood. But it is well-understood. The CAUSES of the mechanism
are understood completely (radiation, mutation and natural selection)
> Calm down! I am not making an argument. I am asking you a very simple
> question. You made the assertion that creationists "b) claim that it is
> somehow invalid, without providing any counter-evidence." Please show me
an
> example or two.
Nando is one. You are another. You fail to provide any counter-evidence.
You make huge, wildly improbable claims, and your only justification is:
"hey, scientists don't have all the answers either!" No, scientists never
claimed to have all the answers. But they have enough answers to prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that your cultish fantasy beliefs are quite
simply wrong, and I have enough knowledge of their efforts to utterly
demolish you in any form of a debate. I will be happy to do so.
> The difference between a forum and an "endurance test" is that the latter
is
> won by any brainless idiot that is just one post more stubborn than the
> opponent, despite the quality of his arguments. I trust that is not the
> contention you are making.
No, I am contending that faced with my relentless, and some would say
stubborn, refutation of argument and devastating control of basic logic, NO
creationists have ever been able to do anything but quietly slink away from
me with their tails between their legs. The proof is right there in
Dejanews, if you want.
> You never asked before. Yes, I am a creationist.
I did ask before, check Dejanews. But it matters not; at least now we are
getting somewhere.
You are a creationist. Now we have to get down to the details of your cult
fantasy beliefs before I can properly refute them.
1. Do you believe in a 6000 year old universe?
2. Do you believe God created all animals in their present forms?
3. Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark fable?
4. Do you believe that micro-evolution is possible?
I'll leave it at these four questions. If you can answer them, then we can
have a proper debate. I make my viewpoints crystal-clear, so please have
the courtesty to do the same.
Dave Woetzel
Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
>news:0a984045519...@csi.com...
><snip>
>
>> It is not the same thing. In fact it is the diametric opposite. If you
>> were not so diligent about snipping your previous statements you would
see
>> that you wrote: "What we don't understand that well is the HISTORY of
>> evolution..." WHAT happened IS history, plain and simple!
>
>Dave, I snip previous quotated material because it makes the resulting
>message shorter, must less annoying to scroll through, and more pleasing to
>the eye. The thought that I would do so to somehow "ignore" arguments is
>laughable. Dejanews, not to mention the THREAD ITSELF is there for all to
>see. I stand by ALL my statements. If I am wrong, I correct myself and
>move on. I don't pick on endlessly about minutae. I don't need to in
order
>to support my arguments, which stand on their own merits, and don't require
>semantic debates about individual words, as you seem to do.
Well, try leaving it intact at least until we get done a particular topic.
Once one of us decides to leave a given point, then snip it.
>> >We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.
>>
>> We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is not supported by the
>> fossil record.
>
>Yes it is. Your "God of the Gaps" is disproved every time a gap is filled.
>The more fossils are discovered, the more gaps are filled in. We didn't
>know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but we speculated they did. Then
we
>discovered fossils that were transitional forms between dinosaurs and
birds.
>There was the Pterosaur, a dinosaur that flew, and Archaeoptryx (sp?) a
>dinosaur that had feathers and limited flight ability. This proves the
>mechanism and the theory of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Please give me an evolutionary authority that claims Pterosaurs were
transitional between dinosaurs and birds (preferably, other than yourself).
>> When confronted with the yawning gaps in the fossils
>> evolutionists respond with something like, "Well, remember that we only
>have
>> fossils for 3% of the kinds of animals that lived." If that is the case
>> (which I do not believe) then we can not come to any informed conclusions
>on
>> this little evidence.
>
>Yes you can. 3 percent is statistically significant if you have a good
>proportion of the original sample. Obviously you know nothing of
>statistics, or you would be able to compare this to actual statistical
>samples, which make highly accurate predictions of a global result based on
>samples of around 3 to 5 percent. Because I am educated, and I know about
>how this works, I can demolish your argument without even pausing for
>breath. It is the quality of the sample that matters, not the sample size.
>Very good results can be and are achieved with 3% sample sizes every day.
This is hogwash. If we had a 3% sample of a GIVEN population, and if it was
for any ONE time, and we if we KNEW that it was proportional, you might have
a case. How on earth meet this criteria with a fossil record that is
supposed to cover billions of years of evolution? If your 3% sample
completely mis-characterizes the species in question, what good is it? How
would you even know? Remember, we are not talking about 3% of the creatures
alive say 100 million years ago. That would be bad enough. We are talking
about 3% of ALL creatures that ever lived!
There is no such thing as the CAUSE of the mechanism (unless you are
referring to God). The list you mentioned (radiation, mutation, and natural
selection) is a possible mechanism. There are those that subscribe to
variations on this. The complete disagreement on the part of evolutionists
(not creationists) makes your statement demonstrably false. Here is some
evidence of how badly you are WRONG...
"A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest
demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and
in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the
whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the
evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging
some new modification."—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star,
(Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution . . . is not only under
attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by
reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the
fossil record, there is growing dissent."—October 1980, p. 88.
What view does the fossil record support?
Darwin acknowledged: "If numerous species . . . have really started into
life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." (The
Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence
indicate that "numerous species" came into existence at the same time, or
does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?
Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: "There are a hundred
million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the
world." (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History
adds: "By the aid of fossils paleontologists can now give us an excellent
picture of the life of past ages."—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington,
Mentor edition, p. 48.
What does the fossil record actually show?
The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:
"Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence
from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very
important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian
interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a
finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."—January 1979,
Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
A View of Life states: "Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and
extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized
invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in
diversity ever recorded on our planet."—(California, 1981), Salvador E.
Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there are
vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian
forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are
almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably
be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the
beginning of Cambrian times."—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: "If progressive evolution from simple to
complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in
the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists
admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of
the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the
theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were
established fits best."—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: "The fossil evidence
could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."—(New York, 1980),
p. 29.
Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of
mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?
Science Digest states: "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key
regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap
theory requires." However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin
Patterson as stating: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these
regulatory master genes." (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is
no evidence to support the theory.
The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: "The fact that most mutations are
damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that
mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants
illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and
monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a
constructive process."—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.
In fact, the mechanisms are so much debated, that totally novel mechanisms
are being very seriously discussed.
quote from:
http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/36/resnews/meeting.htm
"Is the ability to evolve and adapt a skill, learned by a genome as it
moves through time and generations? Over 30 speakers from 10 nations
explored the topic at a conference, Molecular Strategies in Biological
Evolution, held June 27-29, 1998 in New York City and sponsored by the
New York Academy of Sciences.
The conventional explanation, that random changes accumulate one locus
at a time, is unconvincing on both functional and probabilistic grounds
because there is too much interconnectivity and too many degrees of
mutational freedom, asserted James Shapiro of the University of Chicago.
Is this a rebuke of Darwin and Wallace? Not at all. The fittest
strategies survive, along with the genomes that encode them. This
overarching principle of evolution, which has been largely overlooked in
popularized biology, makes more comprehensible both the tremendous
diversity of life on earth and the great biochemical similarities
between diverse organisms. Populations of organisms that can adapt more
efficiently have a selective advantage. Jumps in efficiency - made
possible by the discovery of new evolutionary strategies - could fuel
apparent leaps in species abundance as each innovation evolves.
The very biochemical tools that we now use in laboratories are evolved to
modulate local nucleotide variation, to rearrange genomic DNA sequences, and
to acquire functional DNA sequences from the environment through horizontal
gene transfer. Shapiro pointed out that we are not the first genetic
engineers."
>> Calm down! I am not making an argument. I am asking you a very simple
>> question. You made the assertion that creationists "b) claim that it is
>> somehow invalid, without providing any counter-evidence." Please show me
>an
>> example or two.
>
>Nando is one. You are another. You fail to provide any counter-evidence.
Evidence for what? If my brief discussion with you is the basis for an
argument you made at the beginning of our dialogue, than you're argument is
baseless and you should give it up.
>You make huge, wildly improbable claims, and your only justification is:
>"hey, scientists don't have all the answers either!"
You are using quotes on something I NEVER said. That makes you at best very
ignorant of debate technique, or at worst a liar. I will assume you do not
know any better. Be more careful in the future.
No, scientists never
>claimed to have all the answers. But they have enough answers to prove
>beyond a shadow of a doubt that your cultish fantasy beliefs are quite
>simply wrong, and I have enough knowledge of their efforts to utterly
>demolish you in any form of a debate. I will be happy to do so.
Since you know next to nothing about my beliefs, your characterizing them as
"cultish fantasy" can at best be classified as ad-hominem. At worst it is
ignorant and foolish. Perhaps we can establish which this is very quickly.
How do you define a "cult?"
>> The difference between a forum and an "endurance test" is that the latter
>is
>> won by any brainless idiot that is just one post more stubborn than the
>> opponent, despite the quality of his arguments. I trust that is not the
>> contention you are making.
>
>No, I am contending that faced with my relentless, and some would say
>stubborn, refutation of argument and devastating control of basic logic, NO
>creationists have ever been able to do anything but quietly slink away from
>me with their tails between their legs. The proof is right there in
>Dejanews, if you want.
>
>> You never asked before. Yes, I am a creationist.
>
>I did ask before, check Dejanews. But it matters not; at least now we are
>getting somewhere.
Please point it out to me. If you do not, I will conclude that you are the
one who is fabricating, and not all the creationist you claim to have
"demolished."
>You are a creationist. Now we have to get down to the details of your cult
>fantasy beliefs before I can properly refute them.
>
>1. Do you believe in a 6000 year old universe?
>2. Do you believe God created all animals in their present forms?
>3. Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark fable?
>4. Do you believe that micro-evolution is possible?
>
>I'll leave it at these four questions. If you can answer them, then we can
>have a proper debate. I make my viewpoints crystal-clear, so please have
>the courtesty to do the same.
I will happily respond once we have settled the four topics we already have
going. Since you have bragged endlessly about demolishing creationists, you
should be willing to see those through before running away to other topics.
Dave
tpham...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >And when I said all YECs also believed in a young universe, someone using
> >your name floated out something about maybe not -
> >some think that time depends on the reference
> >frames. I responded with a very direct question, which I shall repeat -
> >Why would the age of the universe in a time frame other than the earth have
> >any meaning when speaking about the age of the universe? How old is the
> >universe in OUR time frame?
My heart is aflutter in anticipation...
> >Will THIS Dave Woetzel "state his actual beliefs in clear language" or hold
> >to the stereotype and in the process SUPPORT the generalization?
> I do not mean to ignore anybody. (In fact, I still remember your question.)
> Unfortunately there are always a lot more good questions than I have time to
> discuss. I generally stick to a conversation with one person so that it
> does not get completely out of hand.
At least you admitted seeing it. Now me not being as interesting as other
posters is something I can accept as a good reason not to keep a thread going.
> If I recollect correctly, the issue was distant star light in a young
> universe. My statement referenced the interesting work presented by Dr.
> Russel Humphreys and his model on White Hole Cosmology. The idea is that
> the universe is young (appx 10K years) in our frame of reference while
> billions of years have elapsed in distant space.
This "old universe" is obviously "young" in earth time, so that makes them
the standard YEC with fancier rhetoric.
> This effect drops directly
> out of the equations of SR when the assumption of an unbounded universe is
> changed. It is caused by gravitational time dillation.
> Hope that helps,
Some. Now isn't the time-dilation a slowing of time in high gravity? So
time is actually fastest here at earth, where gravity is negligible. Which
means the earth is "older" than the parts of the universe that experience
high gravity from the beginning, or negligibly younger that parts of the
universe with low gravity.
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
> >Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> When confronted with the yawning gaps in the fossils
> >> evolutionists respond with something like, "Well, remember that we only
> >have
> >> fossils for 3% of the kinds of animals that lived." If that is the case
> >> (which I do not believe) then we can not come to any informed conclusions
> >on
> >> this little evidence.
> >
> >Yes you can. 3 percent is statistically significant if you have a good
> >proportion of the original sample. Obviously you know nothing of
> >statistics, or you would be able to compare this to actual statistical
> >samples, which make highly accurate predictions of a global result based on
> >samples of around 3 to 5 percent. Because I am educated, and I know about
> >how this works, I can demolish your argument without even pausing for
> >breath. It is the quality of the sample that matters, not the sample size.
> >Very good results can be and are achieved with 3% sample sizes every day.
>
> This is hogwash. If we had a 3% sample of a GIVEN population, and if it was
> for any ONE time, and we if we KNEW that it was proportional, you might have
> a case. How on earth meet this criteria with a fossil record that is
> supposed to cover billions of years of evolution? If your 3% sample
> completely mis-characterizes the species in question, what good is it? How
> would you even know? Remember, we are not talking about 3% of the creatures
> alive say 100 million years ago. That would be bad enough. We are talking
> about 3% of ALL creatures that ever lived!
If your 3% sample is showing a distinct pattern, then your
sample is sufficient. The sample shows a branching tree (or
bush, for you Gouldists) structure. Creationism does not
explain the structure that even a mere 3% sample shows,
evolutionary theory does.
Creationism cannot explain the sorting of the fossil record,
evolutionary theory does.
The short version is, there is evidence against creationism,
there is no evidence against evolution.
> >That's the second time you've mentioned this. Yes, the mechanism is not
> >totally understood. But it is well-understood. The CAUSES of the
> mechanism
> >are understood completely (radiation, mutation and natural selection)
>
> There is no such thing as the CAUSE of the mechanism (unless you are
> referring to God).
Mutation is a cause of variation, in that way it's also a
mechanism of evolution. Likewise, radiation is a cause of
mutation and therefore a part of the mechanism. They are
not mutually exclusive terms.
Good grief, all those quotations, and all of them either out
of context, or just plain inaccurate. Furthermore, every
single one of them has been used before and they still don't
work. Get some new quotations.
--
Non est ad astra, mollis e terris via.
There is no easy way from the Earth to the stars.
- Seneca
Abiel...@aol.com
Or for that matter, that Archaeopteryx.
> >> When confronted with the yawning gaps in the fossils
> >> evolutionists respond with something like, "Well, remember that we only
> >have
> >> fossils for 3% of the kinds of animals that lived." If that is the case
> >> (which I do not believe) then we can not come to any informed conclusions
> >on
> >> this little evidence.
> >
> >Yes you can. 3 percent is statistically significant if you have a good
> >proportion of the original sample. Obviously you know nothing of
> >statistics, or you would be able to compare this to actual statistical
> >samples, which make highly accurate predictions of a global result based on
> >samples of around 3 to 5 percent. Because I am educated, and I know about
> >how this works, I can demolish your argument without even pausing for
> >breath. It is the quality of the sample that matters, not the sample size.
> >Very good results can be and are achieved with 3% sample sizes every day.
>
> This is hogwash. If we had a 3% sample of a GIVEN population, and if it was
> for any ONE time, and we if we KNEW that it was proportional, you might have
> a case. How on earth meet this criteria with a fossil record that is
> supposed to cover billions of years of evolution? If your 3% sample
> completely mis-characterizes the species in question, what good is it? How
> would you even know? Remember, we are not talking about 3% of the creatures
> alive say 100 million years ago. That would be bad enough. We are talking
> about 3% of ALL creatures that ever lived!
3% is much too large a percentage. Less than 500,000 fossil species
are known. One recent estimate I received from T.O. evolutionists is
that there must have existed 5 billion species if the hypothesis of
common ancestry be true. Based on these figures we only have fossils
for less than .01 % of all species that ever existed.
Wesley R. Elsberry
[...]
AB>One recent estimate I received from T.O. evolutionists is
AB>that there must have existed 5 billion species if the
AB>hypothesis of common ancestry be true.
I cited Raup's estimate of 5 billion total species, extant and
extinct. There was nothing about 5 billion species having
been a *necessary* lower bound for common descent to be true.
I invite Arthur to produce a reference for someone stating a
figure of 5 billion total species being a *necessary* figure
as a lower bound with significance for the truth of common
descent. Obviously, if Arthur did not seriously misrepresent
his source, he should easily be able to produce a Message-ID
or URL to document his claim.
I think that we'll wait... and wait... and wait...
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Your lucky number has been disconnected."-fortune
Dave Woetzel
tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7ffuc9$q8u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <0863a572018...@csi.com>,
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >And when I said all YECs also believed in a young universe, someone
using
>> >your name floated out something about maybe not -
>> >some think that time depends on the reference
>> >frames. I responded with a very direct question, which I shall repeat -
>> >Why would the age of the universe in a time frame other than the earth
have
>> >any meaning when speaking about the age of the universe? How old is the
>> >universe in OUR time frame?
>
>
hold
>> >to the stereotype and in the process SUPPORT the generalization?
>
Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in the
general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
Dave
Dave Woetzel
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >And when I said all YECs also believed in a young universe, someone
using
>> >your name floated out something about maybe not -
>> >some think that time depends on the reference
>> >frames. I responded with a very direct question, which I shall repeat -
>> >Why would the age of the universe in a time frame other than the earth
have
>> >any meaning when speaking about the age of the universe? How old is the
>> >universe in OUR time frame?
>
>
hold
>> >to the stereotype and in the process SUPPORT the generalization?
>
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 20 Apr 1999 15:42:43 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
wrote:
>
>tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><7ffuc9$q8u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
[big snip]
>>Some. Now isn't the time-dilation a slowing of time in high gravity? So
>>time is actually fastest here at earth, where gravity is negligible. Which
>>means the earth is "older" than the parts of the universe that experience
>>high gravity from the beginning, or negligibly younger that parts of the
>>universe with low gravity.
>
>
>Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in the
>general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
Of course, if eart was in the vicinity of a white hole close enough to
cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
atmopshere abalted etc.
There are other problems with white hole cosmology as well.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Dave Woetzel
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message <371e443b.11195450@news>...
>G'Day All
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
>On 20 Apr 1999 15:42:43 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>><7ffuc9$q8u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>[big snip]
>>>Some. Now isn't the time-dilation a slowing of time in high gravity? So
>>>time is actually fastest here at earth, where gravity is negligible.
Which
>>>means the earth is "older" than the parts of the universe that experience
>>>high gravity from the beginning, or negligibly younger that parts of the
>>>universe with low gravity.
>>
>>
>>Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in
the
>>general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
>
>Of course, if eart was in the vicinity of a white hole close enough to
>cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
>from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
>atmopshere abalted etc.
The earth as we know it was not in place yet (ie the atmosphere was not
created till the next day).
Dave
free...@netscout.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> If I recollect correctly, the issue was distant star light in a young
> universe. My statement referenced the interesting work presented by Dr.
> Russel Humphreys and his model on White Hole Cosmology. The idea is that
> the universe is young (appx 10K years) in our frame of reference while
> billions of years have elapsed in distant space. This effect drops directly
> out of the equations of SR when the assumption of an unbounded universe is
> changed. It is caused by gravitational time dillation.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Dave
Uh, this is an interesting statement. Has any competent
physicist/relativist/cosmologist besides Mr. Humphreys looked at it and given
it any credence? I am not a physicist myself but I try to follow the current
trends in the subject ( sci.physics.research ) and this is not something I
have everseen Baez,Thorne or Guth consider..
Jerry Freedman,Jr
tpham...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7ffuc9$q8u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> >And when I said all YECs also believed in a young universe, someone
> using
> >> >your name floated out something about maybe not -
> >> >some think that time depends on the reference
> >> >frames. I responded with a very direct question, which I shall repeat -
> >> >Why would the age of the universe in a time frame other than the earth
> have
> >> >any meaning when speaking about the age of the universe? How old is the
> >> >universe in OUR time frame?
> >
> >> If I recollect correctly, the issue was distant star light in a young
> >> universe. My statement referenced the interesting work presented by Dr.
> >> Russel Humphreys and his model on White Hole Cosmology. The idea is that
> >> the universe is young (appx 10K years) in our frame of reference while
> >> billions of years have elapsed in distant space.
> >
> >This "old universe" is obviously "young" in earth time, so that makes them
> >the standard YEC with fancier rhetoric.
> >
> >> This effect drops directly
> >> out of the equations of SR when the assumption of an unbounded universe
> is
> >> changed. It is caused by gravitational time dillation.
> >
> >> Hope that helps,
> >
> >Some. Now isn't the time-dilation a slowing of time in high gravity? So
> >time is actually fastest here at earth, where gravity is negligible. Which
> >means the earth is "older" than the parts of the universe that experience
> >high gravity from the beginning, or negligibly younger that parts of the
> >universe with low gravity.
>
> Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in the
> general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
Please give Humphries' answer these questions:
Where was the white hole supposed to be, exactly?
What is the gravitational field at the earth, and how does that affect
the earth's integrity against disintegrating?
How would it affect earth's orbit? Forgot, no sun to orbit until day 4.
Why does the earth look old with respect to radioisotopes? That is,
the intense gravity should slow down radiodecay to where essentially there
should be no lead in uranium containing zircons, there should be naturally
occurring plutonium, blah blah blah. Created that way, I suppose?
I assume the white hole went away before life was on earth and given an
atmosphere?
tpham...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message <371e443b.11195450@news>...
> >G'Day All
> >Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >><7ffuc9$q8u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>>Some. Now isn't the time-dilation a slowing of time in high gravity? So
> >>>time is actually fastest here at earth, where gravity is negligible.
> Which
> >>>means the earth is "older" than the parts of the universe that experience
> >>>high gravity from the beginning, or negligibly younger that parts of the
> >>>universe with low gravity.
> >>
> >>
> >>Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in
> the
> >>general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
> >
> >cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
> >from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
> >atmopshere abalted etc.
>
> The earth as we know it was not in place yet (ie the atmosphere was not
> created till the next day).
Isn't it curious! The sun has the appearance of age. After all, all of
the stars at the stage of the sun are billions of years old.
Let me see if I got this particular Creation Model right.
Universe and earth are made. Billions of years elapse. On earth only one
day elapses because it is created next to a white hole (even though there
is no reason to think one was ever here). Somehow the earth holds together in
spite of intense gravitational stress. *Later* the earth is given an
atmosphere (miracle?). Then the sun and moon are made. Life gets
sprinkled in on occasion, and are buried in
strata that show huge *differences* in radioisotope composition.
tpham...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message <371e443b.11195450@news>...
> >G'Day All
> >Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
> >
> >On 20 Apr 1999 15:42:43 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >><7ffuc9$q8u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in
> the
> >>general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
> >
> >Of course, if eart was in the vicinity of a white hole close enough to
> >cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
> >from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
> >atmopshere abalted etc.
>
> The earth as we know it was not in place yet (ie the atmosphere was not
> created till the next day).
UH-OH! In another post I said the sun has the appearance of age, because
it looks like the other stars. However, stars were ALSO made the fourth
day, and so should be young. Essentially most the universe was made the
fourth day. When did that white hole go away?
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 21 Apr 1999 06:41:50 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
wrote:
>
>Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message <371e443b.11195450@news>...
>>G'Day All
>>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>>
>>On 20 Apr 1999 15:42:43 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
>>wrote:
[snip to satisfy server limits]
>>>Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in
>>>the general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
>>
>>Of course, if eart was in the vicinity of a white hole close enough to
>>cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
>>from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
>>atmopshere abalted etc.
Blast my typing/proof reading sucks. My excuse is my three week old
son induced lack of sleep.
>The earth as we know it was not in place yet (ie the atmosphere was not
>created till the next day).
Doen't work, as the earth _still_ has to be close to the white hole to
get the time dilation required to get the atmosphere in one "day". Any
atmosphere would be blasted away, in this "day", assuming that the
vitrified surface of the proto-earth _could_ develop an atmosphere
(also assuming that the tidal forces acting on the proto-earth did not
tear it apart).
So if earth formed near a time-dilating white hole, then we would
expect the earth to be an elipsoid, with a vitrified surface devoid of
atmosphere and plate techtonics (no light carbonates, no elastic
plates due to dehydration of the surface rocks) (looks out window)
nope, none of the above. Looks like the white hole model is wrong.
tpham...@my-dejanews.com
reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au wrote:
> G'Day All
> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
> On 21 Apr 1999 06:41:50 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message <371e443b.11195450@news>...
> >>G'Day All
> >>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
> >>
> >>On 20 Apr 1999 15:42:43 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
> >>wrote:
> [snip to satisfy server limits]
> >>>Not if you assume the White Hole and accompanying Event Horizon were in
> >>>the general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
> >>
> >>Of course, if eart was in the vicinity of a white hole close enough to
> >>cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
> >>from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
> >>atmopshere abalted etc.
>
> Blast my typing/proof reading sucks. My excuse is my three week old
> son induced lack of sleep.
>
> >The earth as we know it was not in place yet (ie the atmosphere was not
> >created till the next day).
>
> Doen't work, as the earth _still_ has to be close to the white hole to
> get the time dilation required to get the atmosphere in one "day".
It also needs to be orbiting the white hole. Then there is the little
problem of how the sun was made in a short time (after the white hole gone -
I presume). A miracle, I suppose.
> Any
> atmosphere would be blasted away, in this "day", assuming that the
> vitrified surface of the proto-earth _could_ develop an atmosphere
> (also assuming that the tidal forces acting on the proto-earth did not
> tear it apart).
>
> So if earth formed near a time-dilating white hole, then we would
> expect the earth to be an elipsoid,
if not rubble
> with a vitrified surface devoid of
> atmosphere and plate techtonics (no light carbonates, no elastic
> plates due to dehydration of the surface rocks) (looks out window)
> nope, none of the above. Looks like the white hole model is wrong.
I am not sure why you say the surface would be lithified. Now certainly
SOIL and rock would have to be created (special pleading again) after.
Perhaps that is your point.
Dave Woetzel
tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7fl4cn$gte$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <0140f254010...@csi.com>,
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message
<371e443b.11195450@news>...
>> >G'Day All
>> >Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>> >
>> >On 20 Apr 1999 15:42:43 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> the
>> >>general vicinity of earth (as would be suggested by Genesis 1).
>> >
>> >Of course, if eart was in the vicinity of a white hole close enough to
>> >cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
>> >from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
>> >atmopshere abalted etc.
>>
>> created till the next day).
>
>it looks like the other stars. However, stars were ALSO made the fourth
>day, and so should be young. Essentially most the universe was made the
>fourth day. When did that white hole go away?
<sigh> See Tracy? You wanted just ONE answer to a direct question. Now my
brief answer has only suceeded in confusing the issue to the point where I
have three posts of yours that deserve a response and a couple of others
besides! That's why I am better off letting some good questions just slip
by without a comment.
Let's step through a watered-down, brief chronology of the creation week as
postulated by Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology model (ala Woetzel). The
theory is certainly not perfect and some important issues still need to be
addressed. A more in-depth presentation will have to wait for another
thread. Please note, however, that this model clarifies several things:
distant starlight in a young universe (earth's frame of reference), cosmic
background radiation, red shift, apparent uniform age of stars, light before
the sun, and the creative order of Genesis 1. It is also important to note
that Humphreys utilizes the SAME equations that describe Big Bang Theory,
only changing the arbitrary assumption of an unbounded universe.
BEFORE TIME: God creates the space/mass/time continuum in one ex-nihilo
event described in (Genesis 1:1). This super-dense ball of liquid mass
contained the heaven and the earth (the mass of the entire universe). The
"earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2) near the center of
the ball, which is appx. 2 light years across and has an Event Horizon appx.
.5 billion light years away. The clock starts ticking.
DAY ONE: God intervenes, igniting this super-dense ball of mass with
thermonucleur fusion reactions creating light (Genesis 1:3). It explodes as
a massive white hole throwing out the materials that would become the
galaxies (not unlike the mechanics theorized in Big Bang Cosmology),
literally spreading out the universe (Isaiah 40:22 and a dozen similar
verses).
DAY TWO: Matter has been dispersed and the Event Horizon for the White Hole
is shrinking. Spinning in the vicinity is a remaining ball of matter that
will become the earth. God begins his "formative" acts of
creation...working with the earth's temperature and atmosphere, solidifying
the foundation (Job 38:4) of core and mantle; preparing the planet for
habitation.
DAY THREE: God separates out the land from the sea, preparing both to
support life. Vegetation is created from the ground with the appearance of
age.
DAY FOUR: God finishes coalscing the clusters of materials left behind in
the expansion and thermonuclar fusion begins in the newly-formed stars.
(Note: Because of relative proximity that still existed after only a few
days of motion, the gravitational time dilation would be considerable; such
that the light from these stars would reach earth fairly quickly). The
orbits of our solar system are established around our star.
DAY FIVE: The first animal life is formed in the sea.
(at least Darwinists and Biblical creationists can agree on something.)
DAY SIX: God forms the land animals and man in a fully mature, sinless
condition. The early earth is finished, although its operations are
remarkably different in many ways from what we observe today.
DAY SEVEN: God rests.
Hope this clarifies things a bit, rather than just raising more questions.
Dave
Ryan Scranton
Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip]
>the sun, and the creative order of Genesis 1. It is also important to note
>that Humphreys utilizes the SAME equations that describe Big Bang Theory,
>only changing the arbitrary assumption of an unbounded universe.
This is either misleading or wrong. In assuming a finite, bounded
universe, Humphreys is not using the Friedman equations which describe the
expansion of the Robertson-Walker metric with time. In reality, he's
probably using the Einstein Field Equations, which, of course form the
basis of all of GR. While it's true that the Friedman equations come out
of the Field Equations, so does everything else that's treated in a
general relativistic fashion.
>
>BEFORE TIME: God creates the space/mass/time continuum in one ex-nihilo
>event described in (Genesis 1:1). This super-dense ball of liquid mass
>contained the heaven and the earth (the mass of the entire universe). The
>"earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2) near the center of
>the ball, which is appx. 2 light years across and has an Event Horizon appx.
>.5 billion light years away. The clock starts ticking.
>
>DAY ONE: God intervenes, igniting this super-dense ball of mass with
>thermonucleur fusion reactions creating light (Genesis 1:3). It explodes as
>a massive white hole throwing out the materials that would become the
>galaxies (not unlike the mechanics theorized in Big Bang Cosmology),
>literally spreading out the universe (Isaiah 40:22 and a dozen similar
>verses).
Couple problems here, some fatal, some not so fatal. First of all, this
wouldn't be like the mechanics in standard Big Bang cosmology. The
apparent motions of objects receding away from us are not real motions,
but rather a consequence of the space in between us and the distant objects
growing. To put it another way, real motion involves a change of
coordinates; Hubble expansion involves changing the length of the ruler
that you use to turn those coordinates into distances. In Humphreys'
model, the scale of the metric is not changing (although the metric is
changing since you're changing the mass of the white hole), just the
positions of the objects that occupy it.
Second, since the objects inside the white hole would be moving in a
time-like fashion, there would be no need to have the matter undergo
thermonuclear fusion in order to be propelled out of the white hole. Just
as a body which enters a black hole's event horizon is inexorably drawn to
the center of the black hole, anything not at the center of a white hole
would be eventually thrown out. Don't get me wrong, there would be
thermonuclear reactions in such a system; they just wouldn't need any
help in getting started. If anything, I'd guess that you'd need divine
intervention to get the matter outside of the white hole before you'd
burned your way to a universe full of Iron-56.
Ultimately, however, the thing that kills Humphreys' idea is the fact that
the event horizon of a white hole leads to a very serious instability. As
others have mentioned, photons approaching the event horizon of the white
hole would be enormously blue shifted, infinitely so at the horizon
itself. This effect would be such that, as soon as the first photons
approach the event horizon, they would gain so much mass-energy that they
would destabilize it, converting the white hole into a black hole and
preventing anything from escaping. This is one of the reasons that worm
holes don't work with normal matter. See these web pages for further
elucidation:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~bmendez/html/time.html.
http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/blackhole.html
Of course, Humphreys has already invoked divine intervention once and does
so later to get rid of the white hole, so there's really no need to have
the laws of physics obeyed on this point any more than they are at other
inconvenient points. Unfortunately for Humphreys, that sort of thing is
generally frowned upon in journals that don't include the word "Creation"
in their titles.
-Ryan
Ken Cox
> Let's step through a watered-down, brief chronology of the creation week as
> postulated by Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology model (ala Woetzel). The
I must agree with this, especially if by "perfect" you mean "self
consistent and in agreement with available data".
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Oldridge
<dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><7fl4cn$gte$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <0140f254010...@csi.com>,
>Let's step through a watered-down, brief chronology of the creation week as
>postulated by Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology model (ala Woetzel). The
>theory is certainly not perfect and some important issues still need to be
>addressed. A more in-depth presentation will have to wait for another
>thread. Please note, however, that this model clarifies several things:
>distant starlight in a young universe (earth's frame of reference), cosmic
>background radiation, red shift, apparent uniform age of stars, light before
>the sun, and the creative order of Genesis 1. It is also important to note
>that Humphreys utilizes the SAME equations that describe Big Bang Theory,
>only changing the arbitrary assumption of an unbounded universe.
>
>BEFORE TIME: God creates the space/mass/time continuum in one ex-nihilo
>event described in (Genesis 1:1). This super-dense ball of liquid mass
>contained the heaven and the earth (the mass of the entire universe). The
>"earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2) near the center of
>the ball, which is appx. 2 light years across and has an Event Horizon appx.
>.5 billion light years away. The clock starts ticking.
He departs from the equations of GR right here. The continuum begins
as a singularity. There can be no "event horizon at .5 billion light
years." In fact, based on the estimated mass of the VISIBLE universe
(inflation theory puts the real size as much as 22 orders of magnitude
higher), it should be at about 5000 meters from the center. Of course
it isn't but that's because this whole "model" is flawed with the
assumption of matter expanding into a pre-existing space.
>DAY ONE: God intervenes, igniting this super-dense ball of mass with
>thermonucleur fusion reactions creating light (Genesis 1:3). It explodes as
>a massive white hole throwing out the materials that would become the
>galaxies (not unlike the mechanics theorized in Big Bang Cosmology),
>literally spreading out the universe (Isaiah 40:22 and a dozen similar
>verses).
It's still pretty hot for quite a while
>DAY TWO: Matter has been dispersed and the Event Horizon for the White Hole
>is shrinking. Spinning in the vicinity is a remaining ball of matter that
>will become the earth. God begins his "formative" acts of
>creation...working with the earth's temperature and atmosphere, solidifying
>the foundation (Job 38:4) of core and mantle; preparing the planet for
>habitation.
Temperatures don't fall below 3000K untial 700,000 years into time.
>
>DAY THREE: God separates out the land from the sea, preparing both to
>support life. Vegetation is created from the ground with the appearance of
>age.
>
>DAY FOUR: God finishes coalscing the clusters of materials left behind in
>the expansion and thermonuclar fusion begins in the newly-formed stars.
>(Note: Because of relative proximity that still existed after only a few
>days of motion, the gravitational time dilation would be considerable; such
>that the light from these stars would reach earth fairly quickly). The
>orbits of our solar system are established around our star.
This is relativity-speak drivel. (viepoints so confused the author
clearly has NO idea about GR or SR).
>DAY FIVE: The first animal life is formed in the sea.
>(at least Darwinists and Biblical creationists can agree on something.)
>
>DAY SIX: God forms the land animals and man in a fully mature, sinless
>condition. The early earth is finished, although its operations are
>remarkably different in many ways from what we observe today.
>
>DAY SEVEN: God rests.
>
>Hope this clarifies things a bit, rather than just raising more questions.
Well, I can't say if you're accurately citing Ross or not, but this
model looks to me like a relativistic version of the vapor canopy.
It's worthless as a cosmological model....
Dave Oldridge
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 22 Apr 1999 12:29:17 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
wrote:
[snip intor]
>Let's step through a watered-down, brief chronology of the creation week as
>postulated by Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology model (ala Woetzel). The
>theory is certainly not perfect and some important issues still need to be
>addressed. A more in-depth presentation will have to wait for another
>thread. Please note, however, that this model clarifies several things:
>distant starlight in a young universe (earth's frame of reference), cosmic
>background radiation, red shift, apparent uniform age of stars,
Stars _aren't_ of apparently uniform age, there is a wide variation in
the age of stars, unless you mean poulation II stars which are between
12-10 By old and the poulation I stars which are all under 10 Byr.
>light before
>the sun, and the creative order of Genesis 1. It is also important to note
>that Humphreys utilizes the SAME equations that describe Big Bang Theory,
>only changing the arbitrary assumption of an unbounded universe.
And adding in a white hole.
>BEFORE TIME: God creates the space/mass/time continuum in one ex-nihilo
>event described in (Genesis 1:1). This super-dense ball of liquid mass
>contained the heaven and the earth (the mass of the entire universe). The
>"earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2) near the center of
>the ball, which is appx. 2 light years across and has an Event Horizon appx.
>.5 billion light years away. The clock starts ticking.
This is not even remotely like Humpries model. Also nything inside an
event horizon is no physical condition even remotely resembling a
"superdense liquid mass", nor is there any way to differentiate one
set of mass from another, you can't keep the "earth" mass separate in
something that is well beyond quark soup.
>DAY ONE: God intervenes, igniting this super-dense ball of mass with
>thermonucleur fusion reactions creating light (Genesis 1:3). It explodes as
>a massive white hole throwing out the materials that would become the
>galaxies (not unlike the mechanics theorized in Big Bang Cosmology),
>literally spreading out the universe (Isaiah 40:22 and a dozen similar
>verses).
Do you undrstand what a white hole is? You can't "ignite" this mass
with themonuclear fusion. You are talking about a state of matter that
is crushed beyond a free quark state, where the concept of fusion is
non-sensical.
A white hole is the reverse of a black hole, in the sense that it is
pumping out photons of all energies (and particles form photon-mass
switching). Sure you get matter coming out of a white hole, as
elementary particles, and you get a _lot_ more photons (including
gamma and x-rays).
>DAY TWO: Matter has been dispersed and the Event Horizon for the White Hole
>is shrinking. Spinning in the vicinity is a remaining ball of matter that
>will become the earth. God begins his "formative" acts of
>creation...working with the earth's temperature and atmosphere, solidifying
>the foundation (Job 38:4) of core and mantle; preparing the planet for
>habitation.
As a white hole shrinks (equivalent to black hole evaporation) it
_still_ is pumping out photons and a trickle of matter as partices.
You can't get a _lump_ of matter coming out of a white hole, despite
some fanciful pop explanations, and anything near enough to the event
horizon is caught in a malestrom of photons which should boil it away,
if tidal forces haven't torn it to shreds already.
>DAY THREE: God separates out the land from the sea, preparing both to
>support life. Vegetation is created from the ground with the appearance of
>age.
Pretty hard to do when being blasted by a torrent of photons, because
you still need the time dilation, hence you must be close to the white
hole.
>DAY FOUR: God finishes coalscing the clusters of materials left behind in
>the expansion and thermonuclar fusion begins in the newly-formed stars.
>(Note: Because of relative proximity that still existed after only a few
>days of motion, the gravitational time dilation would be considerable; such
>that the light from these stars would reach earth fairly quickly). The
>orbits of our solar system are established around our star.
Still got time dilation on the order of million years = day? Your
planet is still being blasted by photons (we are talking sereious
gamma rays here) and mangled by tidal forces.
>DAY FIVE: The first animal life is formed in the sea.
>(at least Darwinists and Biblical creationists can agree on something.)
What sea, all the volaties have been blasted away by the white hole.
>DAY SIX: God forms the land animals and man in a fully mature, sinless
>condition. The early earth is finished, although its operations are
>remarkably different in many ways from what we observe today.
On a barren, airless, tidally distorted planet.
>DAY SEVEN: God rests.
>
>Hope this clarifies things a bit, rather than just raising more questions.
No, It raises even more questions. Does nothing for the microwave
background (Humpries puts in an ad-hoc hot hydrogen halo), can't
account for the isotopic structure of the universe, can't account for
galaxy formation, can't account for the formation of the other
planets.
In short, it is monumentally silly.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 22 Apr 1999 11:11:25 -0400, tpham...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <37218aee.10674485@news>,
> reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 1999 06:41:50 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
[snip into re earth around a white hole]
>> >>Of course, if eart was in the vicinity of a white hole close enough to
>> >>cause such an extreme time dilation effect, it would be sterilized
>> >>from gamma and x-ray exposure, not to mention having the entire
>> >>atmopshere abalted etc.
>>
>> Blast my typing/proof reading sucks. My excuse is my three week old
>> son induced lack of sleep.
>>
>> >The earth as we know it was not in place yet (ie the atmosphere was not
>> >created till the next day).
>>
>> Doen't work, as the earth _still_ has to be close to the white hole to
>> get the time dilation required to get the atmosphere in one "day".
>
>It also needs to be orbiting the white hole. Then there is the little
>problem of how the sun was made in a short time (after the white hole gone -
>I presume). A miracle, I suppose.
Or of how any gravitationally bound mass could remain stable that
close to a white holes event horizon.
>> Any
>> atmosphere would be blasted away, in this "day", assuming that the
>> vitrified surface of the proto-earth _could_ develop an atmosphere
>> (also assuming that the tidal forces acting on the proto-earth did not
>> tear it apart).
>>
>> So if earth formed near a time-dilating white hole, then we would
>> expect the earth to be an elipsoid,
>
>if not rubble
Heck, to be time dilated that strongly, the earth would have to be so
close to the event horizon that tidal forces should reduce the entire
thing to atoms, then photon pressure blasts those atoms out to space.
>> with a vitrified surface devoid of
>> atmosphere and plate techtonics (no light carbonates, no elastic
>> plates due to dehydration of the surface rocks) (looks out window)
>> nope, none of the above. Looks like the white hole model is wrong.
>
>I am not sure why you say the surface would be lithified. Now certainly
>SOIL and rock would have to be created (special pleading again) after.
>Perhaps that is your point.
That's _vitrified_, ie turned to glass. The white hole is blasting
out not only high energy photons, but also high energy particles that
should "fire polish" the surface. You would expect the surface to be
somewhat like the moon after a really bad solar flare, only more so.
However, under _realistic_ conditions that close to a white hole, the
earth is torn to atoms by tidal forces and blasted out into space by
photon pressure.
Either way, you don't get the earth.
Dave Woetzel
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message <3720d70c.8700068@news>...
>G'Day All
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
>On 22 Apr 1999 12:29:17 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip intor]
>>Let's step through a watered-down, brief chronology of the creation week
as
>>postulated by Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology model (ala Woetzel). The
>>theory is certainly not perfect and some important issues still need to be
>>addressed. A more in-depth presentation will have to wait for another
>>thread. Please note, however, that this model clarifies several things:
>>distant starlight in a young universe (earth's frame of reference), cosmic
>>background radiation, red shift, apparent uniform age of stars,
>
>Stars _aren't_ of apparently uniform age, there is a wide variation in
>the age of stars, unless you mean poulation II stars which are between
>12-10 By old and the poulation I stars which are all under 10 Byr.
>>light before
>>the sun, and the creative order of Genesis 1. It is also important to
note
>>that Humphreys utilizes the SAME equations that describe Big Bang Theory,
>>only changing the arbitrary assumption of an unbounded universe.
>
>And adding in a white hole.
Wrong. Changing the assumption alone produces two possibilities. Either the
universe was at one point in a Black Hole or a White Hole.
>>BEFORE TIME: God creates the space/mass/time continuum in one ex-nihilo
>>event described in (Genesis 1:1). This super-dense ball of liquid mass
>>contained the heaven and the earth (the mass of the entire universe). The
>>"earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2) near the center of
>>the ball, which is appx. 2 light years across and has an Event Horizon
appx.
>>.5 billion light years away. The clock starts ticking.
>
>This is not even remotely like Humpries model.
Where is it different? Maybe you need to dust off some of his papers or
books.
Also nything inside an
>event horizon is no physical condition even remotely resembling a
>"superdense liquid mass", nor is there any way to differentiate one
>set of mass from another, you can't keep the "earth" mass separate in
>something that is well beyond quark soup.
I never said it was separate.
>>DAY ONE: God intervenes, igniting this super-dense ball of mass with
>>thermonucleur fusion reactions creating light (Genesis 1:3). It explodes
as
>>a massive white hole throwing out the materials that would become the
>>galaxies (not unlike the mechanics theorized in Big Bang Cosmology),
>>literally spreading out the universe (Isaiah 40:22 and a dozen similar
>>verses).
>
>Do you undrstand what a white hole is? You can't "ignite" this mass
>with themonuclear fusion. You are talking about a state of matter that
>is crushed beyond a free quark state, where the concept of fusion is
>non-sensical.
>
>A white hole is the reverse of a black hole, in the sense that it is
>pumping out photons of all energies (and particles form photon-mass
>switching). Sure you get matter coming out of a white hole, as
>elementary particles, and you get a _lot_ more photons (including
>gamma and x-rays).
It is not a White Hole until God intervenes on the first day (I know it
sounds like I am just "invoking God," but that is precisely what
distinguishes a supernatural creation week from the natural processes that
ruled since). The fine-tuned nature of the universe suggest nothing
different.
>>DAY TWO: Matter has been dispersed and the Event Horizon for the White
Hole
>>is shrinking. Spinning in the vicinity is a remaining ball of matter that
>>will become the earth. God begins his "formative" acts of
>>creation...working with the earth's temperature and atmosphere,
solidifying
>>the foundation (Job 38:4) of core and mantle; preparing the planet for
>>habitation.
>
>As a white hole shrinks (equivalent to black hole evaporation) it
>_still_ is pumping out photons and a trickle of matter as partices.
>You can't get a _lump_ of matter coming out of a white hole, despite
>some fanciful pop explanations, and anything near enough to the event
>horizon is caught in a malestrom of photons which should boil it away,
>if tidal forces haven't torn it to shreds already.
<snip repetitive assertions about White Hole destruction>
_Lump_ is a relative word that could mean anything from a local aggregation
of matter to a stable structure like a planet. Depending upon what you mean
by this, some would disagree about your postulation of what could
theoretically be emitted from a White Hole.
My understanding of Humphreys' model would lead me to believe that the White
Hole would have dissipated by the time God began His formative creative
acts. What makes you think differently?
Dave
Dave Woetzel
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message <3720d70c.8700068@news>...
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
>On 22 Apr 1999 12:29:17 -0400, "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>[snip intor]
>>Let's step through a watered-down, brief chronology of the creation week
as
>>postulated by Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology model (ala Woetzel). The
>>theory is certainly not perfect and some important issues still need to be
>>addressed. A more in-depth presentation will have to wait for another
>>thread. Please note, however, that this model clarifies several things:
>>distant starlight in a young universe (earth's frame of reference), cosmic
>>background radiation, red shift, apparent uniform age of stars,
>
>Stars _aren't_ of apparently uniform age, there is a wide variation in
>the age of stars, unless you mean poulation II stars which are between
>12-10 By old and the poulation I stars which are all under 10 Byr.
>>light before
>>the sun, and the creative order of Genesis 1. It is also important to
note
>>that Humphreys utilizes the SAME equations that describe Big Bang Theory,
>>only changing the arbitrary assumption of an unbounded universe.
>
>And adding in a white hole.
Wrong. Changing the assumption alone produces two possibilities. Either the
universe was at one point in a Black Hole or a White Hole.
>>BEFORE TIME: God creates the space/mass/time continuum in one ex-nihilo
>>event described in (Genesis 1:1). This super-dense ball of liquid mass
>>contained the heaven and the earth (the mass of the entire universe). The
>>"earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2) near the center of
>>the ball, which is appx. 2 light years across and has an Event Horizon
appx.
>>.5 billion light years away. The clock starts ticking.
>
>This is not even remotely like Humpries model.
Where is it different? Maybe you need to dust off some of his papers or
books.
Also nything inside an
>event horizon is no physical condition even remotely resembling a
>"superdense liquid mass", nor is there any way to differentiate one
>set of mass from another, you can't keep the "earth" mass separate in
>something that is well beyond quark soup.
I never said it was separate.
>>DAY ONE: God intervenes, igniting this super-dense ball of mass with
>>thermonucleur fusion reactions creating light (Genesis 1:3). It explodes
as
>>a massive white hole throwing out the materials that would become the
>>galaxies (not unlike the mechanics theorized in Big Bang Cosmology),
>>literally spreading out the universe (Isaiah 40:22 and a dozen similar
>>verses).
>
>Do you undrstand what a white hole is? You can't "ignite" this mass
>with themonuclear fusion. You are talking about a state of matter that
>is crushed beyond a free quark state, where the concept of fusion is
>non-sensical.
>
>A white hole is the reverse of a black hole, in the sense that it is
>pumping out photons of all energies (and particles form photon-mass
>switching). Sure you get matter coming out of a white hole, as
>elementary particles, and you get a _lot_ more photons (including
>gamma and x-rays).
It is not a White Hole until God intervenes on the first day (I know it
sounds like I am just "invoking God," but that is precisely what
distinguishes a supernatural creation week from the natural processes that
ruled since). The fine-tuned nature of the universe suggest nothing
different.
>>DAY TWO: Matter has been dispersed and the Event Horizon for the White
Hole
>>is shrinking. Spinning in the vicinity is a remaining ball of matter that
>>will become the earth. God begins his "formative" acts of
>>creation...working with the earth's temperature and atmosphere,
solidifying
>>the foundation (Job 38:4) of core and mantle; preparing the planet for
>>habitation.
>
>As a white hole shrinks (equivalent to black hole evaporation) it
>_still_ is pumping out photons and a trickle of matter as partices.
>You can't get a _lump_ of matter coming out of a white hole, despite
>some fanciful pop explanations, and anything near enough to the event
>horizon is caught in a malestrom of photons which should boil it away,
>if tidal forces haven't torn it to shreds already.
<snip repetitive assertions about White Hole destruction>
nyi...@math.sc.edu
In article <7fgqiv$jke$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Abiel...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <0f57a284217...@csi.com>,
> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
I'm almost afraid to ask--what dastardly deed has Jeremy done
to deserve having a newsgroup set up for him?
Am I correct to suspect that a more honest title for that
newsgroup would have been, alt.bashing.jeremy-reimer?
> > >Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > >news:0a984045519...@csi.com...
[quarrel about snips deleted]
[Did Jeremy write this?}
> > >> >We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.
> > >>
> > >> We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is not supported by the
> > >> fossil record.
I disagree with both statements. Common descent of all animals, especially
all metazoans, is supported by the fossil record, but not so
convincingly that it can be called a known fact.
> > >Yes it is. Your "God of the Gaps" is disproved every time a gap is filled.
A strawman definition of "God of the Gaps" seems to be
behind this bombastic statement.
> > >The more fossils are discovered, the more gaps are filled in.
Not always; sometimes fossils create new gaps we didn't know
about. A famous example is *Paleospondylus*, a thoroughly
enigmatic fossil you can read about in both Romer's classic
_Vertebrate Paleontology_ and Colbert's _Evolution
of the Vertebrates_ which was essentially a simplified
update of Romer's book.
> > >We didn't
> > >know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but we speculated they did.
Who is "we"? Lots of paleontologists speculated that they
evolved separately from thecodonts, just like pterosaurs did.
The dinosaur theory was a minority view for the better half
of this century.
Then
> > we
> > >discovered fossils that were transitional forms between dinosaurs and
> > birds.
Loose use of "transitional" here.
For a long time, the evolutionary picture of chordate evolution
seemed to be pretty well figured out except for details within
the classes. Paleospondylus, a vaguely fishlike creature, threw
a spanner into the works, one which has never been figured out AFAIK.
> > >There was the Pterosaur, a dinosaur that flew,
I know of no paleontologist who believes pterosaurs to have been dinosaurs.
and Archaeoptryx (sp?) a
> > >dinosaur that had feathers and limited flight ability. This proves the
> > >mechanism and the theory of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
How bombastic can one get? If this is typical of Jeremy,
I can see why that alt* newsgroup was set up, distasteful though
I consider such newsgroups to be.
> > Please give me an evolutionary authority that claims Pterosaurs were
> > transitional between dinosaurs and birds (preferably, other than yourself).
>
> Or for that matter, that Archaeopteryx.
There are plenty for the latter, but the fun begins when you
try to pin them down to what is meant by "transitional".
> > >> When confronted with the yawning gaps in the fossils
> > >> evolutionists respond with something like, "Well, remember that we only
> > >have
> > >> fossils for 3% of the kinds of animals that lived."
Dave Horn and many others opt for a figure closer to .003%. I know
of no one who takes a figure of 3% seriously except for creationists.
If that is the case
> > >> (which I do not believe) then we can not come to any informed conclusions
> > >on
> > >> this little evidence.
> > >
> > >Yes you can. 3 percent is statistically significant if you have a good
> > >proportion of the original sample.
I'd like to see Jeremy try and argue for .003% instead of this strawman.
Obviously you know nothing of
> > >statistics, or you would be able to compare this to actual statistical
> > >samples, which make highly accurate predictions of a global result based on
> > >samples of around 3 to 5 percent.
Assuming the sample is not biased. But that's a ridiculous assumption
to make here, since animals with hard parts are preferentially
fossilized.
> > >Because I am educated, and I know about
> > >how this works, I can demolish your argument without even pausing for
> > >breath.
Yeah...I think I can see now why the alt* newsgroup was set up.
> > >It is the quality of the sample that matters, not the sample size.
> > >Very good results can be and are achieved with 3% sample sizes every day.
> > This is hogwash. If we had a 3% sample of a GIVEN population, and if it was
> > for any ONE time, and we if we KNEW that it was proportional, you might have
> > a case. How on earth meet this criteria with a fossil record that is
> > supposed to cover billions of years of evolution? If your 3% sample
> > completely mis-characterizes the species in question, what good is it? How
> > would you even know? Remember, we are not talking about 3% of the creatures
> > alive say 100 million years ago. That would be bad enough. We are talking
> > about 3% of ALL creatures that ever lived!
> 3% is much too large a percentage. Less than 500,000 fossil species
> are known. One recent estimate I received from T.O. evolutionists is
> that there must have existed 5 billion species if the hypothesis of
> common ancestry be true. Based on these figures we only have fossils
> for less than .01 % of all species that ever existed.
Not to mention the sampling bias.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Dave Horn
while, but I'll have to spank you anyway:
nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote in message <7fqbmr$8fk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>[posted and e-mailed to both Arthur and Dave]
>
>In article <7fgqiv$jke$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Abiel...@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <0f57a284217...@csi.com>,
>> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
>
>I'm almost afraid to ask--what dastardly deed has
>Jeremy done to deserve having a newsgroup set up
>for him?
I have no idea. But we will see that you once again interject into a
discussion you seem to know little about; and you are avoiding other issues
while doing so.
>Am I correct to suspect that a more honest title for that
>newsgroup would have been, alt.bashing.jeremy-reimer?
Can't say. I've never seen the newsgroup.
>> > >Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:0a984045519...@csi.com...
>
>[quarrel about snips deleted]
>
>[Did Jeremy write this?}
>> > >> >We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common
>> > >> >ancestor.
Maybe this.
>> > >> We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is
>> > >> not supported by the fossil record.
Woetzel wrote this. I challenged it, too, and he has avoided responding.
>I disagree with both statements. Common descent of all
>animals, especially all metazoans, is supported by the
>fossil record, but not so convincingly that it can be called
>a known fact.
As opposed to a fact that *isn't* known? Sort of reminds you of my "tiny
fraction," eh, Nyikos?
Well, I think it is safe to say that the fossil record does, indeed, support
"common descent of all metazoans" enough that we can call it a fact. Nyikos
can speculate all he wants from his occasional perusal of the relevant
literature and can throw in all kinds of qualifications if he so chooses. I
won't even say that that's necessarily a bad thing considering the arrogant
and obnoxious manner in which he usually declares things...but he's still
lacking enough in direct experience that we can certainly turn to more
informed sources to make an intelligent determination.
>> > >Yes it is. Your "God of the Gaps" is disproved every time
>> > >a gap is filled.
>
>A strawman definition of "God of the Gaps" seems to be
>behind this bombastic statement.
"Seems to be" is a reasonable qualifier but it also "seems" that Nyikos is
again tackling a statement made by another person while lacking enough
information to do so.
>> > >The more fossils are discovered, the more gaps are
>> > >filled in.
>
>Not always; sometimes fossils create new gaps we didn't
>know about. A famous example is *Paleospondylus*, a tho-
>roughly enigmatic fossil you can read about in both Romer's
>classic _Vertebrate Paleontology_ and Colbert's _Evolution
>of the Vertebrates_ which was essentially a simplified
>update of Romer's book.
And this is not another Nyikosian fish story. One can read further in far
more recent volumes. However, Jeremy's expertise is in physics (a bit
closer to Nyikos than I, I suspect, since I have always viewed physics as
applied mathematics -- but that *is* just my opinion of the subject).
Jeremy was responding in general terms to vague commentary forwarded by two
of our more recent creationists. Had these creationists chosen to get into
any detail, I suspect that there would have been a lot more to discuss.
Nyikos is on the right track trying to bring up a specific example and if he
can avoid his typical personality wars and "eskimo song duels," it will be
worth discussing. _Paleospondylus_, as I recall, is indeed a fascinating
example -- but my copy of Romer is in storage and I'd have to retrieve
something a bit more recent anyway. Perhaps a perusal of my copy of Cech
and Moyle ("Fishes, An Introduction to Ichthyology") might be in order.
However, again, in context, Jeremy's response was not unreasonable.
>> > >We didn't know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but
>> > >we speculated they did.
>
>Who is "we"?
If Nyikos had bothered to read the thread before responding, he'd know that
this was a general statement.
>Lots of paleontologists speculated that they evolved
>separately from thecodonts, just like pterosaurs did.
>The dinosaur theory was a minority view for the better half
>of this century.
But it is less so now. Another reasonable statement from Nyikos. Who'd'a
thunk it?
>> > Then we discovered fossils that were transitional forms
>> > between dinosaurs and birds.
>
>Loose use of "transitional" here.
Again, Jeremy's degree is in physics while those he was addressing possess
no specific scientific expertise at any level as far as can be discerned
from their newsgroup participation. It was a general statement and, in
context, was reasonable.
>For a long time, the evolutionary picture of chordate
>evolution seemed to be pretty well figured out except
>for details within the classes. Paleospondylus, a vaguely
>fishlike creature, threw a spanner into the works, one
>which has never been figured out AFAIK.
Of course, Jeremy wasn't addressing "chordate evolution" at the time.
>> > >There was the Pterosaur, a dinosaur that flew,
>
>I know of no paleontologist who believes pterosaurs to
>have been dinosaurs.
Nor I. Jeremy was later corrected on this.
>> > > and Archaeoptryx (sp?) a dinosaur that had feathers
>> > > and limited flight ability. This proves the mechanism
>> > > and the theory of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
>How bombastic can one get?
Oh, one can get much more bombastic. Check out any Nyikos-initiated thread.
Meanwhile, the other readers are invited to check out the commentary to
which Jeremy was responding.
>If this is typical of Jeremy, I can see why that alt* newsgroup
>was set up, distasteful though I consider such newsgroups
>to be.
Nyikos is probably just jealous that there is no alt.fan.peter-nyikos.
>> > Please give me an evolutionary authority that claims
>> > Pterosaurs were transitional between dinosaurs and
>> > birds (preferably, other than yourself).
>>
>> Or for that matter, that Archaeopteryx.
>
>There are plenty for the latter, but the fun begins when you
>try to pin them down to what is meant by "transitional".
Reasonable and true.
>> > >> When confronted with the yawning gaps in the
>> > >> fossils evolutionists respond with something like,
>> > >> "Well, remember that we only have fossils for 3%
>> > >> of the kinds of animals that lived."
>
>Dave Horn and many others opt for a figure closer to .003%.
Nyikos presumes to extrapolate my comments that the fossil record is very
inadequate and I have challenged Woetzel's citation of the 3% figure that he
gave (he has not responded); but I never gave a figure of any sort at any
level and Nyikos is presuming to attribute a figure "closer to .003%." I
never said this or anything like it. Nyikos once again descends into lying.
>I know of no one who takes a figure of 3% seriously
>except for creationists.
...or even very few who are willing to be nailed down on a specific
percentage of species represented by the fossil record.
>> > >> If that is the case (which I do not believe) then we
>> > >> can not come to any informed conclusions on
>> > >> this little evidence.
>> > >
>> > >Yes you can. 3 percent is statistically significant if you
>> > >have a good proportion of the original sample.
>
>I'd like to see Jeremy try and argue for .003% instead of this
>strawman.
Nyikos once again presumes to try to force a person to argue a point that he
did not make. And once again, no one made a claim for a .003% figure, least
of all me. Jeremy is by no means obligated to defend a claim that he did
not make, defend a claim that *I* did not make, or even bother to respond
when Nyikos decides to tell a lie.
>> > >Obviously you know nothing of statistics, or you would
>> > >be able to compare this to actual statistical samples,
>> > >which make highly accurate predictions of a global result
>> > >based on samples of around 3 to 5 percent.
>
>Assuming the sample is not biased. But that's a ridiculous
>assumption to make here, since animals with hard parts are
>preferentially fossilized.
Reasonable and true.
>> > >Because I am educated, and I know about how this
>> > >works, I can demolish your argument without even
>> > >pausing for breath.
>
>Yeah...I think I can see now why the alt* newsgroup was set up.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes Nyikos to accuse Jeremy of
all of the things he is so quick to "see" in others simply because they are
confident in their facts and have the knowledge and experience to back them
up -- and they have the unmitigated *gall* to know more about these things
than Nyikos, they tell him so, and advise him to "pack sand."
[Remainder snipped -- lots of verbiage with only one line in response from
Nyikos -- and stats is out of my area, anyway.]
Jeremy Reimer
news:7fqbmr$8fk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
....
>
> I'm almost afraid to ask--what dastardly deed has Jeremy done
> to deserve having a newsgroup set up for him?
Read the FAQ. If the FAQ has expired from the newsgroup, visit my web
page to find a copy of the alt.fan.jeremy-reimer FAQ, or if you can't
manage that, I'll email you a copy of the FAQ. The answer to this
question, and many more, is in there.
> Am I correct to suspect that a more honest title for that
> newsgroup would have been, alt.bashing.jeremy-reimer?
No, you are incorrect in this assumption as you are about almost all
your assumptions. Dave Horn has done a great job of describing in
great detail all your mistakes in this message, so I won't bother to
repeat his work. Suffice it to say that I know all about you, nyikos,
and I know that everyone in talk.origins considers you to be an utter
buffoon. I've only read a few of your posts, but they confirm this
pretty well. Have a nice day!
--
----
Jeremy Reimer
jrei...@home.com
http://members.home.net/jreimeris
howard hershey
>
> [posted and e-mailed to both Arthur and Dave]
>
> In article <7fgqiv$jke$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Abiel...@aol.com wrote:
> > In article <0f57a284217...@csi.com>,
> > "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
>
>
> > > >Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:0a984045519...@csi.com...
>
> [quarrel about snips deleted]
>
> [Did Jeremy write this?}
> > > >> >We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.
> > > >>
> > > >> We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is not supported by the
> > > >> fossil record.
>
> I disagree with both statements. Common descent of all animals, especially
> all metazoans, is supported by the fossil record, but not so
> convincingly that it can be called a known fact.
>
Just to throw Peter off balance, I entirely agree with him. Common
descent of *all* animals is merely a reasonable inference from those
cases with the most evidence, where common descent can be observed in
some detail. Common descent is also consistent with all known natural
law mechanisms of genetics, physics, geology, etc and the sequence
evidence that one can exploit from currently living organisms. Common
descent is a reasonable (and quite likely) material explanation of the
fossil record and other evidences.
But the evidence of the fossil record is *just* as consistent (if not
more so) with the idea that an alien from Xordax came down invisibly to
the earth and created each fossil species from scratch at the time it is
first seen in the fossil record using his prior creations DNA and form
as a design guide. Such a 'creationist' argument is clearly omphalic
and not in line with the creationism of fundamentalist Christians (which
is contrary to the fossil evidences, among other evidences that directly
test that hypothesis, and is obviously wrong). But I cannot think of a
way to refute it either. Perhaps Peter can and will tell me what is
wrong with this argument.
It is a snap to come up with alternative omphalic explanations by
positing perfectly non-supernatural advanced genetic engineers a few
centuries more developed than we are.
Of course, scientists, the party-poopers, insist that such omphalic
explanation is scientifically worthless whether the HYPE omphalist is
natural or supernatural and continue to point out that the idea that for
species where there is no direct fossil evidence still are reasonably
assumed to have arisen by common descent by the logic of scientific
inference. Common descent is not absolute truth. It is a scientific
explanation, the best current explanation of the evidence that doesn't
degenerate into omphalic argument or supernaturalism.
Richard Harter
>nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>> > > >> >We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common ancestor.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is not supported by the
>> > > >> fossil record.
>>
>> I disagree with both statements. Common descent of all animals, especially
>> all metazoans, is supported by the fossil record, but not so
>> convincingly that it can be called a known fact.
>>
>[snip]
>
>Just to throw Peter off balance, I entirely agree with him. Common
>descent of *all* animals is merely a reasonable inference from those
>cases with the most evidence, where common descent can be observed in
>some detail.
[snip remainder]
The fossil record doesn't provide good evidence that all animals have a
common ancestor. The earliest animal fossils are already in separate
phyla. Genetic evidence provides a strong inference but that's not
fossil evidence.
One can argue that it is by no means clear that there is a common
ancestor of the animals until, perhaps, you go all the way back to first
life. Separate lineages at unicellular level can have a lot of genes in
common because of horizontal transfer. (Bacteria have really sloppy sex
lives.)
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers?
Mechanical Engineers build weapons, Civil Engineers build targets.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
In article <0f3c3404215...@csi.com>,
The radius of the event horizon for one, the fact that fusion is not involved
is another. Humphries _does_ have some understanding of what a white hole is.
> Also [a]nything inside an
> >event horizon is no physical condition even remotely resembling a
> >"superdense liquid mass", nor is there any way to differentiate one
> >set of mass from another, you can't keep the "earth" mass separate in
> >something that is well beyond quark soup.
>
> I never said it was separate.
Your statement, "The "earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2)
near the center of the ball" would suggest this. However, even if you did not
say it was separate, again the center of a white hole is a singularity.
Calling this state "matter" is incorrect, even using the word "center" with
regard to a singularity is misleading.
> >>DAY ONE: God intervenes, igniting this super-dense ball of mass with
> >>thermonucleur fusion reactions creating light (Genesis 1:3). It explodes
> as
> >>a massive white hole throwing out the materials that would become the
> >>galaxies (not unlike the mechanics theorized in Big Bang Cosmology),
> >>literally spreading out the universe (Isaiah 40:22 and a dozen similar
> >>verses).
> >
> >Do you undrstand what a white hole is? You can't "ignite" this mass
> >with themonuclear fusion. You are talking about a state of matter that
> >is crushed beyond a free quark state, where the concept of fusion is
> >non-sensical.
> >
> >A white hole is the reverse of a black hole, in the sense that it is
> >pumping out photons of all energies (and particles form photon-mass
> >switching). Sure you get matter coming out of a white hole, as
> >elementary particles, and you get a _lot_ more photons (including
> >gamma and x-rays).
>
> It is not a White Hole until God intervenes on the first day (I know it
> sounds like I am just "invoking God," but that is precisely what
> distinguishes a supernatural creation week from the natural processes that
> ruled since).
While God may "intervene", he doesn't use fusion to start a white hole
emitting, any more than you use fusion to start a black hole absorbing matter.
>The fine-tuned nature of the universe suggest nothing
> different.
>
> >>DAY TWO: Matter has been dispersed and the Event Horizon for the White
> Hole
> >>is shrinking. Spinning in the vicinity is a remaining ball of matter that
> >>will become the earth. God begins his "formative" acts of
> >>creation...working with the earth's temperature and atmosphere,
> solidifying
> >>the foundation (Job 38:4) of core and mantle; preparing the planet for
> >>habitation.
> >
> >As a white hole shrinks (equivalent to black hole evaporation) it
> >_still_ is pumping out photons and a trickle of matter as partices.
> >You can't get a _lump_ of matter coming out of a white hole, despite
> >some fanciful pop explanations, and anything near enough to the event
> >horizon is caught in a malestrom of photons which should boil it away,
> >if tidal forces haven't torn it to shreds already.
>
> <snip repetitive assertions about White Hole destruction>
>
> _Lump_ is a relative word that could mean anything from a local aggregation
> of matter to a stable structure like a planet. Depending upon what you mean
> by this, some would disagree about your postulation of what could
> theoretically be emitted from a White Hole.
"The remaining ball of matter that will become the earth", that is a fair
sized _lump_, how did that form, it can't jump out of the event horizon, and
the conditions near the white hole will not allow substantial concentrations
of matter to form (tidal forces and photons, again).
> My understanding of Humphreys' model would lead me to believe that the White
> Hole would have dissipated by the time God began His formative creative
> acts. What makes you think differently?
You need extreme time dilation to make the local area young while distant
areas are old, if the white hole has evaporated, then no more time dilation,
and the creative acts have to take place in real time.
--------------------------------
#44 Most original poster on TO for November
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue and Jack Francis Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Dave Woetzel
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote in message
Wrong again.
_Starlight and Time_, D. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D., Master Books, 1994
p. 32 "...whose event horizon is half a billion light years away."
p. 33 "And God said let there be light; and there was light. Thermonuclear
fusion reactions begin, forming heavier nuclei from lighter ones and
liberating huge amounts of energy."
Dave
Ken Cox
> >The radius of the event horizon for one, the fact that fusion is not
> involved
> >is another.
> Wrong again.
> _Starlight and Time_, D. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D., Master Books, 1994
> p. 32 "...whose event horizon is half a billion light years away."
But that's what Ian&Peta is/are pointing out. The geometry
inside an event horizon is *not* such as to allow you to give
a radius. At the center, the event horizon is (in effect)
infinitely far away, even though the whole thing might have
a circumference of only a few miles.
Humphreys may be using non-technical language for his audience,
but that just emphasizes that it should in no way be considered
a scientific exposition of his theory. Where are the papers
that *really* describe the theory, not the popularization?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Woetzel
Ken Cox wrote in message <3725D6...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>> Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote:
>> >The radius of the event horizon for one, the fact that fusion is not
>> involved
>> >is another.
>
>> _Starlight and Time_, D. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D., Master Books, 1994
>> p. 32 "...whose event horizon is half a billion light years away."
>
>But that's what Ian&Peta is/are pointing out. The geometry
>inside an event horizon is *not* such as to allow you to give
>a radius. At the center, the event horizon is (in effect)
>infinitely far away, even though the whole thing might have
>a circumference of only a few miles.
>
>Humphreys may be using non-technical language for his audience,
>but that just emphasizes that it should in no way be considered
>a scientific exposition of his theory. Where are the papers
>that *really* describe the theory, not the popularization?
What Ian & Peta said is, "This is not even remotely like Humpries model."
Yet the words I used are nearly identical to what Humphreys says in the
book. If you have a problem with the model, that's fine. But don't accuse
me of misrepresenting it.
Dave
Ken Cox
> Yet the words I used are nearly identical to what Humphreys says in the
> book. If you have a problem with the model, that's fine. But don't accuse
> me of misrepresenting it.
Where did I accuse you of misrepresenting it? All I said was
that I have a problem with the model (it's sloppy, using the
term "radius" for an event horizon). I had thought that was
also one of Ian&Peta's objections to the model; was it not?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Woetzel
Ken Cox wrote in message <37271A...@research.bell-labs.com>...
No. Ian&Peta's objection appears to be directed at me...stating that what I
posted is nothing remotely like Humphrey's model and implying that the
difference is that I am completely without understanding of what a white
hole is. Here is the snippet of dialogue in question...
>> >>BEFORE TIME: God creates the space/mass/time continuum in one ex-nihilo
>> >>event described in (Genesis 1:1). This super-dense ball of liquid mass
>> >>contained the heaven and the earth (the mass of the entire universe).
The
> >>>"earth" is merely some formless materials (Genesis 1:2) near the center
of
> >>>the ball, which is appx. 2 light years across and has an Event Horizon
>>>> appx. .5 billion light years away. The clock starts ticking.
> >>
> >>This is not even remotely like Humpries model.
>>
>> Where is it different? Maybe you need to dust off some of his papers or
>> books.
>The radius of the event horizon for one, the fact that fusion is not
involved
>is another. Humphries _does_ have some understanding of what a white hole
is.
Dave
Ken Cox
> No. Ian&Peta's objection appears to be directed at me...stating that what I
> posted is nothing remotely like Humphrey's model and implying that the
> hole is.
Ah, I see what you mean now. However, I am unable to decide if
you are correct without a copy of Humphries' model. Do you have
a pointer to it?
(Though if you, or Humphries, think the Earth was ever *inside* a
white hole, I would have to agree that you do indeed lack a certain
understanding of what one is.)
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Woetzel
Ken Cox wrote in message <372755...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>Dave Woetzel wrote:
>> No. Ian&Peta's objection appears to be directed at me...stating that
what I
>> posted is nothing remotely like Humphrey's model and implying that the
>> hole is.
>
>Ah, I see what you mean now. However, I am unable to decide if
>you are correct without a copy of Humphries' model. Do you have
>a pointer to it?
>
>(Though if you, or Humphries, think the Earth was ever *inside* a
>white hole, I would have to agree that you do indeed lack a certain
>understanding of what one is.)
Maybe you better get a handle on Humphreys' credentials before you judge
that. Mine are limited to an undergraduate degree in physics. However, the
idea that the earth was once in a White Hole is not the stretch that you
might presume. If one changes the arbitrary assumption of a bounded
universe and runs the same equations that describe Big Bang cosmology, they
point to the universe either having been in a black hole or a white hole at
some time in the past.
It has been a pleasure. I need to sign off for a business trip.
Regards,
Dave
nyi...@math.sc.edu
The Creation Model
where Horn is slow in getting around to his simulating
a pathological liar. But the end does not disappoint.
In article <0b2b415551817...@email.msn.com>,
"Dave Horn" <dh...@henge.com> wrote:
> Well, Nyikos, you were actually showing you can be reasonable once in
a
> while, but I'll have to spank you anyway:
And Horn claims repeatedly that he is not pursuing
a vendetta against me. Sure, Horn.
> nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote in message
<7fqbmr$8fk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >[posted and e-mailed to both Arthur and Dave]
> >
> >In article <7fgqiv$jke$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > Abiel...@aol.com wrote:
> >> In article <0f57a284217...@csi.com>,
> >> "Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jeremy Reimer wrote in message ...
> >
> >I'm almost afraid to ask--what dastardly deed has
> >Jeremy done to deserve having a newsgroup set up
> >for him?
>
> I have no idea. But we will see that you once again interject into a
> discussion you seem to know little about;
Horn has NO sense of irony where he is concerned.
and you are avoiding other
issues
> while doing so.
Not any more, jerk.
> >Am I correct to suspect that a more honest title for that
> >newsgroup would have been, alt.bashing.jeremy-reimer?
>
> Can't say. I've never seen the newsgroup.
"...interject into...know anything about." Does
anyone have an irony-o-meter they can lend Dave?
> >> > >Dave Woetzel <dwoe...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:0a984045519...@csi.com...
> >
> >[quarrel about snips deleted]
> >
> >[Did Jeremy write this?}
> >> > >> >We KNOW that all animals evolved from a common
> >> > >> >ancestor.
>
> Maybe this.
>
> >> > >> We "KNOW" nothing of the sort. Common descent is
> >> > >> not supported by the fossil record.
>
> Woetzel wrote this. I challenged it, too, and he has avoided
responding.
>
> >I disagree with both statements. Common descent of all
> >animals, especially all metazoans, is supported by the
> >fossil record, but not so convincingly that it can be called
> >a known fact.
>
> As opposed to a fact that *isn't* known?
Yes. See SCIENTIFIC BABBITRY for why science doesn't
deal in facts on this scale.
Sort of reminds you of my
"tiny
> fraction," eh, Nyikos?
This from someone who rode Biele mercilessly for thinking
the fossil record is rich.
> Well, I think it is safe to say that the fossil record does, indeed,
support
> "common descent of all metazoans" enough that we can call it a fact.
Not on the basis of the fossil evidence, but on the
basis of that AND biochemistry, we can do so *qua*
human beings. See SCIENTIFIC BABBITRY again.
Nyikos
> can speculate all he wants from his occasional perusal of the relevant
> literature and can throw in all kinds of qualifications if he so
chooses. I
I've probably read more about the fossil record than
Horn ever will in his lifetime, judging from his
ineffectual bumbling about langenidae.
> won't even say that that's necessarily a bad thing considering the
arrogant
> and obnoxious manner in which he usually declares things...but he's
still
> lacking enough in direct experience that we can certainly turn to more
> informed sources to make an intelligent determination.
I've read more informed sources on paleontology than
most people here. Anyone besides MacRae, Nedin, and
Foley who can beat me in that department?
> >> > >Yes it is. Your "God of the Gaps" is disproved every time
> >> > >a gap is filled.
> >
> >A strawman definition of "God of the Gaps" seems to be
> >behind this bombastic statement.
>
> "Seems to be" is a reasonable qualifier but it also "seems" that
Nyikos is
> again tackling a statement made by another person while lacking enough
> information to do so.
To Horn's benighted mind, maybe.
> >> > >The more fossils are discovered, the more gaps are
> >> > >filled in.
> >
> >Not always; sometimes fossils create new gaps we didn't
> >know about. A famous example is *Paleospondylus*, a tho-
> >roughly enigmatic fossil you can read about in both Romer's
> >classic _Vertebrate Paleontology_ and Colbert's _Evolution
> >of the Vertebrates_ which was essentially a simplified
> >update of Romer's book.
>
> And this is not another Nyikosian fish story. One can read further in
far
> more recent volumes.
...and still not learn what this critter is, although
one recent speculation is that its closest living
relative is the hagfish, whose affinities are also
something of a mystery. But at least the hagfish
doesn't have a lot of cranial bones that defy analysis.
However, Jeremy's expertise is in physics (a bit
> closer to Nyikos than I, I suspect, since I have always viewed physics
as
> applied mathematics -- but that *is* just my opinion of the subject).
>
> Jeremy was responding in general terms to vague commentary forwarded
by two
> of our more recent creationists. Had these creationists chosen to get
into
> any detail, I suspect that there would have been a lot more to
discuss.
> Nyikos is on the right track trying to bring up a specific example and
if he
> can avoid his typical personality wars and "eskimo song duels," it
will be
> worth discussing. _Paleospondylus_, as I recall, is indeed a
fascinating
> example -- but my copy of Romer is in storage and I'd have to retrieve
> something a bit more recent anyway. Perhaps a perusal of my copy of
Cech
> and Moyle ("Fishes, An Introduction to Ichthyology") might be in
order.
[...]
In response to a statement about the rough times the
dinosaur theory of bird evolution had this past century,
Horn said:
> But it is less so now. Another reasonable statement from Nyikos.
Who'd'a
> thunk it?
Anyone who has seen posts of mine in sci.bio.paleontology
and sci.bio.systematics, or posts of mine in paleontology
here in talk.origins.
> >> > Then we discovered fossils that were transitional forms
> >> > between dinosaurs and birds.
> >
> >Loose use of "transitional" here.
>
> Again, Jeremy's degree is in physics while those he was addressing
possess
> no specific scientific expertise at any level as far as can be
discerned
> from their newsgroup participation. It was a general statement and,
in
> context, was reasonable.
>
> >For a long time, the evolutionary picture of chordate
> >evolution seemed to be pretty well figured out except
> >for details within the classes. Paleospondylus, a vaguely
> >fishlike creature, threw a spanner into the works, one
> >which has never been figured out AFAIK.
>
> Of course, Jeremy wasn't addressing "chordate evolution" at the time.
Birds and pterosaurs are chordates, as are the hagfish
and Paleospondylus.
> >> > >There was the Pterosaur, a dinosaur that flew,
> >
> >I know of no paleontologist who believes pterosaurs to
> >have been dinosaurs.
>
> Nor I. Jeremy was later corrected on this.
>
> >> > > and Archaeoptryx (sp?) a dinosaur that had feathers
> >> > > and limited flight ability. This proves the mechanism
> >> > > and the theory of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> >
> >How bombastic can one get?
>
> Oh, one can get much more bombastic. Check out any Nyikos-initiated
thread.
...which Horn participates in, and watch Horn get bombastic. :-)
> Meanwhile, the other readers are invited to check out the commentary
to
> which Jeremy was responding.
>
> >If this is typical of Jeremy, I can see why that alt* newsgroup
> >was set up, distasteful though I consider such newsgroups
> >to be.
>
> Nyikos is probably just jealous that there is no alt.fan.peter-nyikos.
There was one, but I had nothing to do with it.
> >> > Please give me an evolutionary authority that claims
> >> > Pterosaurs were transitional between dinosaurs and
> >> > birds (preferably, other than yourself).
> >>
> >> Or for that matter, that Archaeopteryx.
> >
> >There are plenty for the latter, but the fun begins when you
> >try to pin them down to what is meant by "transitional".
>
> Reasonable and true.
>
> >> > >> When confronted with the yawning gaps in the
> >> > >> fossils evolutionists respond with something like,
> >> > >> "Well, remember that we only have fossils for 3%
> >> > >> of the kinds of animals that lived."
> >
> >Dave Horn and many others opt for a figure closer to .003%.
Finally, Dave starts his pathological liar simulation:
> Nyikos presumes to extrapolate my comments that the fossil record is
very
> inadequate and I have challenged Woetzel's citation of the 3% figure
that he
> gave (he has not responded); but I never gave a figure of any sort at
any
> level and Nyikos is presuming to attribute a figure "closer to
.003%." I
> never said this or anything like it. Nyikos once again descends into
lying.
5 billion vs. 2 hundred thousand was the way I recalled it.
.3 percent of 5 billion is 15 million. .03 percent is 1.5
million. .003 percent is 150,000. Seems to me Horn was
endorsing that 5 billion figure, following Wesley's lead.
Maybe Horn can't do grade school arithmetic.
> >I know of no one who takes a figure of 3% seriously
> >except for creationists.
>
> ...or even very few who are willing to be nailed down on a specific
> percentage of species represented by the fossil record.
Wesley seems rather willing. Maybe Horn was just blindly
following him.
> >> > >> If that is the case (which I do not believe) then we
> >> > >> can not come to any informed conclusions on
> >> > >> this little evidence.
> >> > >
> >> > >Yes you can. 3 percent is statistically significant if you
> >> > >have a good proportion of the original sample.
> >
> >I'd like to see Jeremy try and argue for .003% instead of this
> >strawman.
>
> Nyikos once again presumes to try to force a person to argue a point
that he
> did not make. And once again, no one made a claim for a .003% figure,
least
> of all me. Jeremy is by no means obligated to defend a claim that he
did
> not make, defend a claim that *I* did not make, or even bother to
respond
> when Nyikos decides to tell a lie.
There's that pathological liar simulation again.
> >> > >Obviously you know nothing of statistics, or you would
> >> > >be able to compare this to actual statistical samples,
> >> > >which make highly accurate predictions of a global result
> >> > >based on samples of around 3 to 5 percent.
> >
> >Assuming the sample is not biased. But that's a ridiculous
> >assumption to make here, since animals with hard parts are
> >preferentially fossilized.
>
> Reasonable and true.
>
> >> > >Because I am educated, and I know about how this
> >> > >works, I can demolish your argument without even
> >> > >pausing for breath.
> >
> >Yeah...I think I can see now why the alt* newsgroup was set up.
>
> It will be interesting to see how long it takes Nyikos to accuse
Jeremy of
> all of the things he is so quick to "see" in others simply because
they are
> confident in their facts and have the knowledge and experience to back
them
> up -- and they have the unmitigated *gall* to know more about these
things
> than Nyikos, they tell him so, and advise him to "pack sand."
Probably never. I don't see the massive deceit on Jeremy's
part that I see from Horn and from his faithful allies.
This last paragraph of Horn is pure deceit all the way,
making wild false accusations about why I attack people like
him.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer
{a lot of junk]
Hi Nyikos! Glad to see you've found both DejaNews and my newsgroup. I'm
glad you used it to follow up an article that was weeks old with your own
post which contained no new content. It was quite a surprise when I went
to read the new headers in alt.fan.jeremy-reimer!
I'm sorry I'm unavailable to debate all the same things again with you in
talk.origins right now. Please try again later.
--
---
Jeremy "Getu" Reimer
jrei...@home.com
http://members.home.net/jreimeris