Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
inbal zvi
In Article<4to2t5$2...@nntp.igs.net>,
<ssim...@cnwl.igs.net> writes:
> Path:
news.NetVision.net.il!news-penn.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-l
ond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netc
om.net.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!daresbury!yama.mcc.ac.uk!dee
pthot!brtph500.bnr.ca!nrtphba6.bnr.ca!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!
nntp.igs.net!usenet
> From: ssim...@cnwl.igs.net (IG (Slim) Simpson)
> Newsgroups:
talk.origins,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.christian,alt.politic
s.correct,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.christnet,talk.religion.mis
c,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlei
n,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.folklore.urban,rec.arts.c
omics.marvel.universe,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.christn
et.bible,talk.abortion,alt.blasphemy,alt.postmodern,sci.lan
g,alt.catastrophism,alt.fan.publius,alt.activism,alt.conspi
racy,talk.atheism,alt.philosophy.debate
> Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:17:24 GMT
> Organization: IGS - Information Gateway Services
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <4to2t5$2...@nntp.igs.net>
> References:
<Pine.SOL.3.91.96052...@logo.eng.umd.edu>
<rdclark-2905...@news.avalon.net>
<4oigqd$k...@crcnis3.unl.edu>
<4okfon$bb0...@ppp.hooked.net>
<4ong63$m...@sloth.swcp.com> <4p7pmf$i...@daffy.sb.west.net>
<31BA1B...@spindle.net>
<31BDB5...@genesisnetwork.net> <31C04A...@ac.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: ttya0f.cnwl.igs.net
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
> Xref: news.NetVision.net.il talk.origins:42564
sci.skeptic:32592 alt.religion.christian:42550
alt.politics.correct:42778 alt.rush-limbaugh:21915
alt.christnet:45672 talk.religion.misc:30045
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:82763 rec.arts.sf.written:29792
alt.fan.heinlein:5189 alt.politics.usa.republican:96074
alt.folklore.urban:26593
rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe:15600
alt.politics.usa.congress:33185 alt.christnet.bible:19492
talk.abortion:40563 alt.blasphemy:8486
alt.postmodern:11948 sci.lang:7559 alt.catastrophism:4312
alt.fan.publius:6081 alt.activism:44031
alt.conspiracy:40215 talk.atheism:18461
alt.philosophy.debate:190
>
>
>
> >Justin Crandall wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> 1. There are million upon million of fossils, they
have found none (zip,
> >> zero, nada) fossils from "suspected" intermediate
species. We only have
> >> fossils from species that are with us today or
extinct.
>
> You're wrong, Justin. Very wrong. See "Hooking
Leviathan by Its Past'
> in Stephen J Gould's 'Dinosaur in a Haystack" [Harnony
Books, 201 East
> 50th St., New York, New York 10022]. Intermediate
species all the way!
>
> Slim Simpson ssim...@cnwl.igs.net
>
>
> ><snip>
>
>
>
>
> Beowulf How ceaslessly Gredel harrassed.....
>
Hi!
I'm afraid that Slim Simpson is terribly wrong too. In
reality, between any two organisms of say different order
there should have been MILLIONS of intermediates. The
reason is simple: the genetic difference is estimated to
be in the order of millions of different bases in the DNA.
This means [assuming that every change on the average is
one mutation] that between these two creatures there had
existed millions of viable [each one surviving and
becoming the majority in a local large enough population].
In other words - we only find 0.0001% of the actual number
of species that must have existed. There is no point in
claiming like S.J. Gould that all this speciation took
place very quickly and there was no fossilization - this
is simply tailoring the theory to meet the sad facts that
there are no transitional fossils to speak of. [as I have
explained a score won't fill the needs].
Zvi Inbal
Wen-King Su
In a previous article inbal zvi <in...@netvision.net.il> writes:
<Hi!
>
<I'm afraid that Slim Simpson is terribly wrong too. In
>reality, between any two organisms of say different order
<there should have been MILLIONS of intermediates. The
>reason is simple: the genetic difference is estimated to
<be in the order of millions of different bases in the DNA.
>This means [assuming that every change on the average is
<one mutation] that between these two creatures there had
>existed millions of viable [each one surviving and
<becoming the majority in a local large enough population].
>In other words - we only find 0.0001% of the actual number
<of species that must have existed. There is no point in
>claiming like S.J. Gould that all this speciation took
<place very quickly and there was no fossilization - this
>is simply tailoring the theory to meet the sad facts that
<there are no transitional fossils to speak of. [as I have
>explained a score won't fill the needs].
<
>Zvi Inbal
And as I have shown repeatedly that you do not see transitional fossils
is a mere artifcat that no fossil can prove to you that it is transitional.
It is simply not the nature of fossil records to provide such definitive
proof. Such you not seeing transitional fossils does not mean the fossils
arn't transitional. If evolution is right, every fossil we see, unless
it happens to be of the last of its species, is a transitional fossil,
and that would be say, 99.99% of all fossils we find. That is enough
isn't it?
Mark Schlesinger
In article <NEWTNews.839226...@dialup.netvision.net.il>,
inbal zvi <in...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
>of species that must have existed. There is no point in
>claiming like S.J. Gould that all this speciation took
>place very quickly and there was no fossilization - this
>is simply tailoring the theory to meet the sad facts that
>there are no transitional fossils to speak of. [as I have
>explained a score won't fill the needs].
>
theorys are tailored to meet the available facts. If a newly discovered
fact contradicts the theory, then the theory is thrown out and a new one
is put out. This is obviously very different from the people who try and
tailor the facts to meet their particular theory.
Kevin D. Quitt
On Sun, 04 Aug 96 23:15:28 PDT, inbal zvi <in...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>This means [assuming that every change on the average is
>one mutation] that between these two creatures there had
>existed millions of viable [each one surviving and
>becoming the majority in a local large enough population].
>In other words - we only find 0.0001% of the actual number
Actually you're wrong. Single changes do not a species make. Further, the
only changes that are going to show are those related to skeletal structure.
All trully important changes are *not* recorded.
Your insisting on having every individual in hand is intellectual dishonesty
at it best. First of all, gaps in the record don't disprove evolution; all
they do is weaken the evidence supporting it. Secondly, your logic is as
bogus as Xeno's. According to you, we can't get from point a to b because we
have to go halfway first.
--
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
Michael Grice
[The less appropriate groups deleted and followups restricted to
talk.origins. in...@netvision.net.il emailed just in case he reads
this on one of the deleted newsgroups.]
inbal zvi <in...@netvision.net.il> blessed us with the following
wisdom:
>Hi!
>I'm afraid that Slim Simpson is terribly wrong too. In
>reality, between any two organisms of say different order
>there should have been MILLIONS of intermediates. The
>reason is simple: the genetic difference is estimated to
>be in the order of millions of different bases in the DNA.
>This means [assuming that every change on the average is
>one mutation] that between these two creatures there had
>existed millions of viable [each one surviving and
>becoming the majority in a local large enough population].
>In other words - we only find 0.0001% of the actual number
>of species that must have existed. There is no point in
>claiming like S.J. Gould that all this speciation took
>place very quickly and there was no fossilization - this
>is simply tailoring the theory to meet the sad facts that
>there are no transitional fossils to speak of. [as I have
>explained a score won't fill the needs].
>Zvi Inbal
If we could find representative examples of each and every generation
of organism in so much as a single species, well, yes, this is what we
should find. Because we can't find all of them doesn't invalidate the
transitional fossils we do find.
Fossilization is rare, however. We *know* that we've only found a
tiny fraction of the species that have ever lived. We *know* that we
can find species that lived thousands of years apart (at best).
It's like taking a look at a photo album after all but a handful of
photos have been destroyed. You can tell that the children are
"transitional" forms from the baby photos to the adult photos, even
though you can't see more than a few photos as the child grew up.
Michael Grice
gib...@mailbag.com
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, Mark Schlesinger (schl...@Primenet.Com) wrote:
>)In article <NEWTNews.839226...@dialup.netvision.net.il>,
>)inbal zvi <in...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>)>
>)>of species that must have existed. There is no point in
>)>claiming like S.J. Gould that all this speciation took
>)>place very quickly and there was no fossilization - this
>)>is simply tailoring the theory to meet the sad facts that
>)>there are no transitional fossils to speak of. [as I have
>)>explained a score won't fill the needs].
>)>
>) I don't know how they do science in your universe, but in mine
>)theorys are tailored to meet the available facts. If a newly discovered
>)fact contradicts the theory, then the theory is thrown out and a new one
>)is put out. This is obviously very different from the people who try and
>)tailor the facts to meet their particular theory.
Well, you don't live in the same universe as the socialist
bureaucracies of the world...but then who does?
Government "science":
If a model is consistently proven to fail in predicting the correct
results, it is assumed to be true.
Example:
Global warming models -- ALL of the major global warming models
fail in EVERY serious attempt to predict results in past or future model
testing, and of course are therefore declared to be correct.
If something is true under one condition, it is always true under any
inductively related conditions.
Example:
Toxicology -- if something can kill you at dosage X, then if you
expose one million people to one millionth of the dosage, one person will
die. This is the logic used to ban a great many substances which would
otherwise benefit humanity. The fact that 100% oxygen can kill a human if
he breaths it for a week, therefore, means that 20% oxygen will kill one
human in five if they all breath it for a week. Lungs full of water kill
one human, so lungs with one part per million of water would kill 260
people in the US every year.
--
Words of the Sentient:
A competent and self-confident person is not capable of jealousy in anything.
Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity. --Lazarus Long
mailto:k...@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
See also #Heinlein and #Libertarian on the Undernet...
Loren Petrich
This is rather absurdly crossposed, but...
In article <4u7o0h$d...@skipper.netrail.net>, KAZ Vorpal <k...@upx.net> wrote:
> Well, you don't live in the same universe as the socialist
>bureaucracies of the world...but then who does?
How do they differ from capitalist bureaucracies?
As far as I can tell, {}
> Government "science":
>If a model is consistently proven to fail in predicting the correct
>results, it is assumed to be true.
Pure stereotype. Mr. Vorpal, I'm surprised that you haven't been
truck-bombing Federal office buildings. And given the personality you
have displayed ("I'll destroy all my enemies, and I'll enjoy every bit of
it!!!")...
>Example:
> Global warming models -- ALL of the major global warming models
>fail in EVERY serious attempt to predict results in past or future model
>testing, and of course are therefore declared to be correct.
This is a classic example of right-wing antiscience -- one of the
difficulties of predicting climatic change is that our atmosphere is a
rather complicated system, and one counter-effect is a haze of sulfate
droplets that reflects sunlight, thus *cooling* the Earth.
>If something is true under one condition, it is always true under any
>inductively related conditions.
>Example:
> Toxicology -- [...]
It is true that a lot of assessment of risk is irrational, but
saying that this is some special depravity of "government" is absurd.
Consider those people who are more afraid of airplanes or trains than
cars -- even though cars are 10 times more deadly as a function of
passenger-miles traveled.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Yuval Yaron
inbal zvi <in...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
>
>Hi!
>
>I'm afraid that Slim Simpson is terribly wrong too. In
>reality, between any two organisms of say different order
>there should have been MILLIONS of intermediates. The
>reason is simple: the genetic difference is estimated to
>be in the order of millions of different bases in the DNA.
I'm afraid Inbal Zvi is terribly wrong, too. I never saw any fossils of
DNA, so the genetic difference of millions of base pairs is irrelevant.
What is preserved is morphology, and it may be controlled by few genes
only. We won't find evidence for changes of color, blood groups, etc.
Even some morphological changes wouldn't be recorded, because soft
tissues are rarly preserved. If you saw my skeleton, could you tell
the color of my hair, skin, and eyes? the lengh of my tongue, nose, and
penis? My blood group? Did I have haemophilia? If not, you lost lots of
genetic infornation here.
>This means [assuming that every change on the average is
>one mutation] that between these two creatures there had
>existed millions of viable [each one surviving and
>becoming the majority in a local large enough population].
Yes, milion of viiable intermediates existed, but we cannot tell them
apart unless there is a difference that could be preserved in the
fossils.
>In other words - we only find 0.0001% of the actual number
>of species that must have existed. There is no point in
>claiming like S.J. Gould that all this speciation took
>place very quickly and there was no fossilization - this
>is simply tailoring the theory to meet the sad facts that
>there are no transitional fossils to speak of. [as I have
>explained a score won't fill the needs].
Why is it so? S. J. Gould also gave mechanisms to explain his punctuated
equilibrium theory. As a matter of fact, I cannot see why would anybody
expect evolution to move at a constant pace.
>
>Zvi Inbal
>
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
>) This is rather absurdly crossposed, but...
>)In article <4u7o0h$d...@skipper.netrail.net>, KAZ Vorpal <k...@upx.net> wrote:
>)> Well, you don't live in the same universe as the socialist
>)>bureaucracies of the world...but then who does?
>) How do they differ from capitalist bureaucracies?
>) As far as I can tell, {}
The "capitalist bureaucracies" of today are government mandated,
that's how they vary. Not at all is right, because it's been a plague
that exploded with Woodrow Wilson's "Rationalizing of Industry", and is
so ridiculous today that I decided to not incorporate UltraPlex, rather
than deal with the ridiculous bureaucracy FORCED on a corporation, and
yet of course I'm still forced to bureaucratize to comply with entirely
too many government mandates as a partnership or sole proprietor.
>)> Government "science":
>)>If a model is consistently proven to fail in predicting the correct
>)>results, it is assumed to be true.
>) Pure stereotype. Mr. Vorpal, I'm surprised that you haven't been
>)truck-bombing Federal office buildings. And given the personality you
>)have displayed ("I'll destroy all my enemies, and I'll enjoy every bit of
>)it!!!")...
You fulfil the role of political bigot quite adequately. If I
don't believe in FORCING people to submit to socialism(central
management), then I must be planning to kill everyone, and believe that
Limbaugh should be the next president, and of course be a white Christian
with a crew cut who served eight years in 'Nam killing babies because I
liked the feeling of blood and veins in my teeth.
>)>Example:
>)> Global warming models -- ALL of the major global warming models
>)>fail in EVERY serious attempt to predict results in past or future model
>)>testing, and of course are therefore declared to be correct.
>) This is a classic example of right-wing antiscience -- one of the
>)difficulties of predicting climatic change is that our atmosphere is a
>)rather complicated system, and one counter-effect is a haze of sulfate
>)droplets that reflects sunlight, thus *cooling* the Earth.
Right wing anti-science? Since the Liberals are the technophobes,
that's quite an odd assertion. I suppose it's like claiming the
non-Liberals are the anti-intellectuals, when in fact it is the Liberals
who are the irrationalists.
Note that you don't in any way invalidate my statement. The
unpredictability of weather just makes the lies of the Liberals and other
environmental socialists concerning global warming and the models they
use that much more ridiculous and inexcusable.
Weather and ecosystem, like societal economy, are indeed too
complex and self-regulating to be anything but damaged by socialists
barging in and trying to "fix" things...so heed your own words and butt
them the hell out.
>)>If something is true under one condition, it is always true under any
>)>inductively related conditions.
>)>Example:
>)> Toxicology -- [...]
>) It is true that a lot of assessment of risk is irrational, but
>)saying that this is some special depravity of "government" is absurd.
>)Consider those people who are more afraid of airplanes or trains than
>)cars -- even though cars are 10 times more deadly as a function of
>)passenger-miles traveled.
Consider that it is the GOVERNMENT who forces people to live by
and suffer under their response to this insanity, not the guy who's
afraid to fly on a plane after driving to the airport.
This is something socialists really seem to miss: It is FORCING
OTHERS to comply with your ideas or morality that is wrong, not having
the ideas and morality.
--
Words of the Sentient:
If people are free only to make careful, reasonable, fully considered choices
that they will never regret, they are not free at all. -- Jacob Sullum
William McBrine
inbal zvi (in...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
: In other words - we only find 0.0001% of the actual number of species
: that must have existed.
This is rubbish, of course, but what I really want to respond to is this:
: There is no point in claiming like S.J. Gould that all this speciation
: took place very quickly and there was no fossilization - this is simply
: tailoring the theory to meet the sad facts that there are no transitional
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: fossils to speak of.
Tailoring theories to fit the facts is called science. You make a
hypothesis, and then -- now here's the clever part -- you test it.
Sometimes you'll be right the first time, sometimes just a little off,
sometimes you'll have to start over from the beginning. You make a new
hypothesis, and test that. Gradually, you approach the truth.
If you started with an unchangable theory, and ignored any facts which
were at odds with it... why, that would make you a creationist.
--
William McBrine | http://www.clark.net/pub/wmcbrine/html/
wmcb...@clark.net | PyrE! Make them tell you what it is!
brentb
> Right wing anti-science? Since the Liberals are the technophobes,
> that's quite an odd assertion. I suppose it's like claiming the
> non-Liberals are the anti-intellectuals, when in fact it is the Liberals
> who are the irrationalists.
What planet do you live on?! Conservative philosophy embraces a "return"
to values, ideas, and in general the intellect, of the 16th century.
Conservative misogyny, racism, and elitism is also hardly modern.
Conservativism is, by its nature, beholden to Corporate Big Brother, who,
wanting to pollute and exploit the planet as much as possible in the
pursuit of a quick buck, must deny the legitimate science AND common sense
which describes its destruction of the earth. It is therefore plainly
obvious that right wing conservatives are anti-science. In addition, they
refuse to permit science to improve the lives of citizens through fetal
tissue research. The list is endless. The assertion that conservatives are
the true intellectuals is so ridiculous is does not merit response.
--
- bre...@ionet.net
Brent P. Newhall
William McBrine wrote:
> Tailoring theories to fit the facts is called science. You make a
> hypothesis, and then -- now here's the clever part -- you test it.
> Sometimes you'll be right the first time, sometimes just a little off,
> sometimes you'll have to start over from the beginning. You make a new
> hypothesis, and test that. Gradually, you approach the truth.
Granted, and true. I don't think the previous article was suggesting
quite what you seem to think it was, but it's a moot point. You are
correct anyway.
> If you started with an unchangable theory, and ignored any facts which
> were at odds with it... why, that would make you a creationist.
OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
Brent P. Newhall
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to
succeed is always to try just one more time." -- Thomas A. Edison
Wen-King Su
In a previous article david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
<Now, why haven't these thing become significantly different,
>i.e., undergone macroevolution, or vertical change, as a result
<of natural selection working on errors appearing in DNA in the
>millions and millions of years of their existence-- what just-so
<stories do you propose?
I don't know of past environmental changes that would require these
organisms to undertake significant changes in their fossilizable body
parts. If you claim that these organisms should have gone through
significant changes in their fossilizable parts for evolution to be
true, you will have to prove your claims.
>And how many just-so stories must the
>theory of evolution, which has been made unfalsifiable and thus
<unscientific since Darwin's day, bear before it gets thrown on
>the waste heap of ideas where it belongs?
You are lying again. It has been shown to you that there can be
evidence that proves evolution false.
Ray Fischer
brentb <bre...@ionet.net> wrote:
>> Right wing anti-science? Since the Liberals are the technophobes,
>> that's quite an odd assertion. I suppose it's like claiming the
>> non-Liberals are the anti-intellectuals, when in fact it is the Liberals
>> who are the irrationalists.
>
>What planet do you live on?! Conservative philosophy embraces a "return"
>to values, ideas, and in general the intellect, of the 16th century.
>Conservative misogyny, racism, and elitism is also hardly modern.
The 16th century was a time of change and exploration. It's the time
of Renaissance and Shakespeare. I think you need to go back a couple
hundred more years to the time of feudalism in the 12th century.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Wen-King Su
In a previous article "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> writes:
>> If you started with an unchangable theory, and ignored any facts which
<> were at odds with it... why, that would make you a creationist.
>
<OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
the theory wrong.
Brent P. Newhall
No, that's the definition of a(n) hypothesis. A theory, according to my
trusty American Heritage Dictionary, is: "1. A statement or set of
statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena. 2. A
set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an art
or discipline. 3. Abstract thought untested in practice. 4. An
assumption or guess."
This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
call creationism.
Wen-King Su
In a previous article "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> writes:
>
>> Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
<> Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
>> the theory wrong.
<
>No, that's the definition of a(n) hypothesis. A theory, according to my
<trusty American Heritage Dictionary, is: "1. A statement or set of
>statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena. 2. A
<set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an art
>or discipline. 3. Abstract thought untested in practice. 4. An
<assumption or guess."
>
<This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
>call creationism.
The dictionary definition of theory includes:
theory:
a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
Theory is narrower than hypothesis. You got it backward. But anyway,
you will need to concisely describe your theory of creation before there
can be a reply. There are half a dozen different creationism models
flying around the net.
Just in case you are talking about creationism as it was revealed to you
through the Bible, consider this:
If you assume the existance of being or beings with power and
intelligence far greater than you, how can you tell if the one you
believe to be God is or isn't lying to you? (Note, if he is lying
to you, he is not God, but a deceiver who would like to have you
believe him to be God. ie, I do not claim that God would lie to you.)
The short answer is you can't. Any religion that requires belief for
salvation is false because our creator, if there is one, has not given
us the ability to know him, and if he is loving, as the Christian God
is assumed to be, he would not require us to bank our fate on a dice roll.
Thus Christianity in most forms are false, and revelations are the words
of a deceiver. Thus creationism as revealed in the Bible is false unless
the deceiver, for whatever reason, decides to tell you the truth. What
is the likelihood of that?
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, brentb (bre...@ionet.net) wrote:
>)> Right wing anti-science? Since the Liberals are the technophobes,
>)> that's quite an odd assertion. I suppose it's like claiming the
>)> non-Liberals are the anti-intellectuals, when in fact it is the Liberals
>)> who are the irrationalists.
>)What planet do you live on?! Conservative philosophy embraces a "return"
>)to values, ideas, and in general the intellect, of the 16th century.
No, that's Marxism. It's Marx who moans over the disruptive
progress and dangerous freedom to depart from safe old routines that
Capitalism brought with it.
And it is Liberalism that is conservative now; it defends the
Status Quo of the ruling class...the socialist welfare state which has
been the Status Quo since the thirties.
Anti-Liberalism could at worst be accused of being descended from
the 18th and 19th century, the Enlightenment and (classic) liberal eras
which the Liberals rabidly oppose in all but name and pretense. But even
these have been built upon and evolved...even the "Conservatives" having
taken it farther, and the libertarians taking it to the highest point so
far.
>)Conservative misogyny, racism, and elitism is also hardly modern.
What Conservative misogyny, racism, and elitism are is a lie by
the ever-dishonest Liberal socialist movement...a typical example of
their ruling class' complete lack of any kind of ethics or integrity.
Which party has the highest ranking former Klan wizard now in
public office? It's not David Duke, rejected by the Republicans when Duke
changed over from the Democratic party a few years ago...it's Senator
Byrd, Democrat, of West Virginia, who also happened to be a higher
ranking Klan leader than Duke in the first place.
But the corrupt media and educators never mention that, though
they suddenly discovered Duke when he moved from Democrat to Republican,
and would discover Byrd if he did the same, I suspect.
But that is incidental to the /major/ racism the Liberals have
shown increasingly since the late sixties or early seventies...the
separatism, the claim that blacks are so incompetent as members of
society that they need special districts to vote in and special
advantages getting jobs and eduation, beyond mandated equal opportunity.
...much as they have done to women. Their big icon now is a woman
who so personifies the ANTI-woman that she got her power only through
her husband, with whome she stayed, subservient, despite his abuses of
their relationship, in order to get that power which she could not get on
her own...having been an utter failure before their marriage.
And elitism?
Not only are blacks incompetent to earn their way in society, but
EVERYONE is too incompetent to be given freedom of choice in education,
retirement savings, buying any consumer products, or ANYTHING else that
might involve keeping their own money and doing what is best for society
without Big Brotherment "guiding" them.
THAT is elitism.
>)Conservativism is, by its nature, beholden to Corporate Big Brother, who,
Remember where Big Brother comes from? It comes from the
oppression of GOVERNMENT...there being many SINGLE governments which have
killed more people than all private businesses through the history of
mankind combined.
But there is a reason that so many Huge, Faceless, Evil
Corporations spend FAR more money backing Liberals than non-Liberals. It
is because the LIBERALS are the benefactors of Big Business.
All those "terrible" regulations the Liberals impose have two
major effects:
They hurt the poor and middle class, since all costs are
passed straight to them by big businesses, as unemployment, higher
prices, and limited choices...
And they make big businesses STRONGER, because they DESTROY small and
start-up businesses, so that while the big boys may have some suffering
to pass on to the little people, they don't have to worry about new
businesses coming in and competing with them...
Thus you end up with the oligopolies you have in almost every
industry the federal government has regulated.
>)wanting to pollute and exploit the planet as much as possible in the
One of the most ridiculous hate-speech lies of the class hate
Liberal socialists: That somehow these people want to kill women, babies,
old people, and if they can, make the planet on which THEY LIVE
completely uninhabitable for THEMSELVES.
Bullshit. Why don't you tell us how niggers is natural rapists
who can't live in a civilized society without masters, while you're at
it? Or those damned Jews that your counterparts in Nazi Germany blamed as
the "wealthy, priveledged race" against whom one must pass affirmative
action laws and special taxes and regulations?
Both statements are as transparently false hate speech as your
ridiculous claims that all non-Liberals, especially the businesses which
finance so many environmentalist groups, are intentional mass-murderers
bent on destroying everyone.
>)pursuit of a quick buck, must deny the legitimate science AND common sense
>)which describes its destruction of the earth. It is therefore plainly
Since there is no /legitimate/ science which describes that, only
completely debunked lies like the global warming models which ALWAYS fail
the test of prediction, or the "ozone hole" which has existed over the
antarctic as long as it has rested under a pole which gets six months of
darkness a year...Ozone being produced by sunlight, your statement is
meaningless.
>)obvious that right wing conservatives are anti-science. In addition, they
Since it is the Liberal socialists who oppose voluntary
scientific research as dangerously progressive, and claim it should all
be stifled by safe, controlled, centralized government management as much
as possible, this flies in the face of reality. There is a good reason
that it is the Libertarians first, the Conservatives second, and the
Liberals in a distant third or fourth, who have gotten onto the net and
utilized it effectively.
The anti-technology mindset which reveals itself in the
environmentalist movement, in the Unabomber, in Algore and Exon
attempting to censor and control the net, which have destroyed Aerospace
through regulation which leaves us with aircraft designed thirty to fifty
years ago and spacecraft thirty years out of date before its replacement
is even /scheduled/ to come online...that anti-technology mindset is far
more prevalent in the Liberals than the Conservatives.
>)refuse to permit science to improve the lives of citizens through fetal
>)tissue research. The list is endless. The assertion that conservatives are
>)the true intellectuals is so ridiculous is does not merit response.
So people who believe that a human baby is being killed in cold
blood are being anti-science, but the Liberals who want to end the VASTLY
more important and broadly useful testing and research through lab
animals are pro-science, I take it?
Socialized research support is not in any way a measurement of
intellectualism. The vapid clinging to the ideas of Marx and Gramsci,
hidden under ever more desceptive coverings, while their opposition
continue to move ever more in the direction of freedom of choice for the
collective will of the people as individuals, is a much more accurate
barometer.
The plodding of the peer review pseudo-scientists of the
government bureaucracies are a perfect condemnation of the irrationalist,
anti-intellectual mentality of the Liberals.
It is not the hangers-on of antiquated mainframes, still using
kermit, rn, and mail, writing their own scripts in unix and complaining
that people don't have to suffer for years before a computer is useful
anymore...in other words, the government part of the computer world...
who is producing the Information Revolution and the massive
progressiveness of the Internet. It is the free market, and the free
market supporters. Not you socialists, but the advocates of freedom of
choice.
--
Secrets of the Sentient
Did You Know:
With Concealed Carry of firearms, Florida's Homicide Decreases While National
Average Soars. Homicide Rates Per 100,000 Pop.
AREA 1987* 1992 % CHANGE
Florida 11.4 9.0 -21%
U.S. 8.3 9.3 +12%
mailto:k...@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...
Frank J. Warner
In article <320D47...@gmu.edu>, "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
[many newsgroups trimmed (talk.abortion???)]
> William McBrine wrote:
> > If you started with an unchangable theory, and ignored any facts which
> > were at odds with it... why, that would make you a creationist.
>
> OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
>
We cannot name any facts that are at odds with creation theory because the
standard rejoinder is: "God did it."
--
wild(at our first)beasts uttered human words
--our second coming made stones sing like birds--
but o the starhushed silence which our thirds
--e. e. cummings
'73 poems' (1963)
Micheal Keane
In article <320E28...@gmu.edu>, Brent P. Newhall <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>> <OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
>>
>> Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
>> the theory wrong.
>
>No, that's the definition of a(n) hypothesis. A theory, according to my
>trusty American Heritage Dictionary, is: "1. A statement or set of
>statements designed to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena. 2. A
>set of rules or principles designed for the study or practice of an art
>or discipline. 3. Abstract thought untested in practice. 4. An
>assumption or guess."
That's not a *scientific* theory though. If it's not that, then
creationism has no place in a science class. Creationism carries the same
amount of weight as Last Thursdayism.
>This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
>call creationism.
I'll start off with saying there's no evidence to back up the Bible's
account of creation(which I assume would include the flood and Noah).
Archeological evidence does not support the flood scenario.
Many dating methods(radiometric and others) point to an Earth that's 4.5
billions years old, not 6000 thousand.
Of course you could say God created the Earth with the appearance of old
age, but you end up with two problems:
1. The God of Lies scenario(God is dishonest)
2. This basically amounts of Last Thursdayism.
For those just joining us, Last Thursdayism is the belief that my cat
Queen Maeve created the universe Last Thursday with the appearance of it
being much older. Last Thursdayism has the advantage of being
unfalsifiable(there is no way you can prove it wrong) and logically
unassailable.
Would you care to point out evidence that disproves Last Thursdayism?
Good luck!
--
Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu)
Get the Nowhere Man FAQ at my webpage: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia
Petition Fox and tell them you want a DOCTOR WHO series in the Fall!
Join the Church of Last Thursday of Queen Maeve the Cat and be saved!
Brent P. Newhall
[munched bit about what's a theory or a hypothesis]
Micheal Keane wrote:
>
> That's [definition of hypothesis] not a *scientific* theory though. If
> it's not that, then creationism has no place in a science class.
> Creationism carries the same amount of weight as Last Thursdayism.
Does it really matter WHAT we call it? The theory or hypothesis or
whatever of creation is just a possible explanation of what happened.
[Me:]
> >This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
> >call creationism.
>
> I'll start off with saying there's no evidence to back up the Bible's
> account of creation(which I assume would include the flood and Noah).
Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
kind you and I make.
In fatc, there's a large amount of evidence for creation. It's just
that the regular scienctific community (evolutionary), doesn't want them
known. If it was widely known that there's plenty of reason for
creationism, the "respectable" scientific community would be made a
laughingstock. Nobody wants that to happen, so anything that might
support creationism is carefully stowed away in a dusty warehouse.
No, I'm not suggesting an X-Files-esque conspiracy. I just think that
most scientists would rather not advertise evidence that at least
casually supports creationism.
> Archeological evidence does not support the flood scenario.
> Many dating methods(radiometric and others) point to an Earth that's
> 4.5 billions years old, not 6000 thousand.
But those dating methods are MADE to look for an Earth 4.5 billion years
old. Quotes from some scientific journals:
"Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age,
27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus
living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation
of dissolved HCO3 with which the shells are in carbon isotope
equilibrium." -- Dr. Alan C. Riggs (formerly of the U.S. Geological
Survey, now on the staff of the University of Washington, Seattle),
'Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada
springs'. /Science/, vol. 224, 6 April 1984, p. 58
I.e., they carbon-14 dated LIVING snails and the results said they were
27,000 years old! This method stretches the apparent age of whatever is
measured.
"The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern
mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13,
relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith et al. (16), but are also
extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give
uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years." -- M. L.
Keith and G. M. Anderson (Dept. of Geo-chemistry and Mineralogy,
Pennsylvania State University, USA), 'Radiocarbon dating: fictitious
results with mollusk shells'. /Science/, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp.
634-635.
"These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during
metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it
impossible to determine their geologic age." -- Prof. Gunter Faure
(Dept. of Geology, the Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof.
James L. Powell (Dept. of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in
/Strontium Isotope Geology/, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972,
p. 102.
> Of course you could say God created the Earth with the appearance of
> old age, but you end up with two problems:
> 1. The God of Lies scenario(God is dishonest)
> 2. This basically amounts of Last Thursdayism.
Why has He lied? C-14 dating lies, not God. He put certain amounts of
radiocarbon into things, that's all, just like He put a certain amount
of oxygen into things.
[munched bit about Last Thursdayism; I've just shown it isn't a
necessary belief]
robert averbeck
Guys -
In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
else how can a student truly learn?
rob
Of course, who wants an educated populace? They might come to realize
that things could be a lot better than they are, and then where would
we be?
Aleks
DRIVEL DELETED
What in God's name did all that have to do with Rush?
BTW you seem like a nice religious boy, so tell me, If Jesus were a 20th
century Amreican, would he be more likely to be a supply side
conservative a la Reagan, or a tax and spend liberal a la Cuomo??
Please limit your answers to 100,000 words or more. That should keep
you out of trouble for a little while!
David Jensen
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:55:14 +0000, robert averbeck <rave...@fuse.net>
wrote:
[newsgroupos trimmed, followups to talk.origins]
>Guys -
>
>In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
>allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
>decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
>reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
>theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
>stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
Because we want students to understand the difference between facts and
dogma.
Your investigation was poorly conducted. There are exactly zero (0) pieces
of data that support the Creation Science.
>I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
>else how can a student truly learn?
There is exactly one scientific school of thought that has any evidence to
support it, evolution. Therefore it must be the one taught in science
class. Any other choice will mislead children. It will not teach them to
think for themselves. Telling children lies will not allow a child to
learn.
>rob
>
>Of course, who wants an educated populace? They might come to realize
>that things could be a lot better than they are, and then where would
>we be?
Better off than under the thrall of those who would lie about life to
support their version of god.
---
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Thomas Swanson
In article <320F53...@fuse.net> rave...@fuse.net writes:
>Guys -
>
>In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
>allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
>decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
>reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
>theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
>stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
Creationism isn't a theory. What "legit" points does it have?
>I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
>else how can a student truly learn?
>
Really? You think all of the previous investigations that were shown
to be wrong should be taught anyway? All of the myth and superstition
that came before science should be presented in the spirit of fair play?
You'll have no time left for presenting the "right" material.
Some "wrong" scools of thought are important, from a historical context
or as a prelude. In physics, things like the Thompson model of
the atom and the Bohr model of the atom are presented to show the
dramatic results of experiments or to build up to a better model,
respectively. But the crackpot "relativity is wrong!" garbage
(for example) doesn't deserve any airtime at all. Same thing with
creationism. There's too much legitimate science to be presented
to waste time with that garbage, unless one wants to present
examples of what isn't science.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
robert averbeck
Guys -
In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
else how can a student truly learn?
rob
131G40000-J.BECKMAN(MT4084)1023MT
So, would you also expect that an astronomy course spend
half its time covering astrology?
Jim Beckman jamesb...@lucent.com
Tim Margheim
> [Me:]
>> >This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
>> >call creationism.
>
>> I'll start off with saying there's no evidence to back up the Bible's
>> account of creation(which I assume would include the flood and Noah).
>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>kind you and I make.
Before the other guy says that they must be fakes, I'd like to point out that
they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in and
formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible for it
to be forged.
PS I'm not going to start being in this thread.
PPS Why has rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe been put back int the thread?
****************************************************************
*Respectfully submitted, *
*Tim Margheim, mar...@iw.net *
*ATR characters: LtCmdr Torial Katuba 1 OUTPOST 687 FO/OPS *
* Ens Salong USS PEARSON NCC-14654 OPS/FCO*
* "I still don't remember having it."--Worf, about his amnesia *
* ATR Home Page: http://www.interport.net/~tomlee/atr/ *
****************************************************************
ima pseudonym
In article <320F55...@gmu.edu> "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> writes:
[snip]
>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>kind you and I make.
Sorry, but you are very much mistaken. All of the "human tracks" [Paluxy,
Texas] were either partially filled in dinosaur tracks or outright hoaxes
[= carvings with chisel marks]. Even the main creationist organizations
admit they are phony.
>In fatc, there's a large amount of evidence for creation.
Nope. Nada.
>It's just
>that the regular scienctific community (evolutionary), doesn't want them
>known. If it was widely known that there's plenty of reason for
>creationism, the "respectable" scientific community would be made a
>laughingstock. Nobody wants that to happen, so anything that might
>support creationism is carefully stowed away in a dusty warehouse.
The old conspiracy theory; you'd better watch out for our fleet of black
helicopters.
It's nonsense. Anyone who'd find something as earthshakingly revolutionary
as major evidence for creationism isn't going to suppress his/her big chance
to be rich and famous for the sake of his colleagues' reputations.
>No, I'm not suggesting an X-Files-esque conspiracy. I just think that
>most scientists would rather not advertise evidence that at least
>casually supports creationism.
Ok, so no one never ever mentions it. But you are absolutely sure it exists
somehow. ESP?
>> Archeological evidence does not support the flood scenario.
>> Many dating methods(radiometric and others) point to an Earth that's
>> 4.5 billions years old, not 6000 thousand.
>But those dating methods are MADE to look for an Earth 4.5 billion years
>old. Quotes from some scientific journals:
>"Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age,
>27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus
>living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation
>of dissolved HCO3 with which the shells are in carbon isotope
>equilibrium." -- Dr. Alan C. Riggs (formerly of the U.S. Geological
>Survey, now on the staff of the University of Washington, Seattle),
>'Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada
>springs'. /Science/, vol. 224, 6 April 1984, p. 58
>I.e., they carbon-14 dated LIVING snails and the results said they were
>27,000 years old! This method stretches the apparent age of whatever is
>measured.
Your creationist source you take this from is incredibly dishonest. The
study was showing that the carbon in the snail shells was derived from "old"
dissolved carbonate, [see that "HCO3" up there?] not "new" atmospheric CO2.
C14 dates only work for dating newly fixed atmospheric carbon. The scientists
involved knew full well that the C-14 content would not give a "correct" age
for that reason. They are describing situations where carbon dating won't be
expected to give correct ages.
[snip]
>Why has He lied? C-14 dating lies, not God.
Creationists lie, not C-14 dating.
>He put certain amounts of
>radiocarbon into things, that's all, just like He put a certain amount
>of oxygen into things.
Can you explain the details of the observed distribution of radiocarbon? Why
does the ratio vary according to apparent age? "Because God put it there"
doesn't explain why it is there in these particular amounts.
cheers
[newsgroups trimmed, but perhaps not enough]
>[munched bit about Last Thursdayism; I've just shown it isn't a
>necessary belief]
You did? Where? OK, so maybe no religion is necessary.
Croooow
robert averbeck wrote:
>
> Guys -
>
> In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
> allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
> decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
> reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
> theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
> stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
>
> I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
> else how can a student truly learn?
But they already are taught. You go to Biology to learn the truth, and you go to History or Philopshy
to learn what foolish thoughts they had in the past. Such as:
1) The earth is flat
2) The sun revolves around the earth
3) Lighting and Thunder came from the greek and norse gods
and 4) Creationism
Then we all go back to science classes to learn the truth about the universe, dinosaurs,
evolution, genetics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and how to spot a week minded fool.
-----------------------------------------------
Visit Croooow's Ultimate Guide to the Movies!
http://home.earthlink.net/~Croooow
New - ESCAPE FROM LA / FRIGHTENERS / PHENOMENON
Plus Most of the other movies of the summer!
David E Romm
In article <4umc6m$s...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
(Micheal Keane) wrote:
> Of course you could say God created the Earth with the appearance of old
> age, but you end up with two problems:
> 1. The God of Lies scenario(God is dishonest)
> 2. This basically amounts of Last Thursdayism.
What about... Next Thursdayism? By the 'rules' of Creationism, there's
nothing to say that the world hasn't been created yet.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
Why does a seagull fly on the sea instead of by the bay? Because if he flew by the bay he'd be a bay gull.
Thomas Scharle
In article <320F55...@gmu.edu>, "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> writes:
|> [munched bit about what's a theory or a hypothesis]
|>
|> Micheal Keane wrote:
|> >
|> > That's [definition of hypothesis] not a *scientific* theory though. If
|> > it's not that, then creationism has no place in a science class.
|> > Creationism carries the same amount of weight as Last Thursdayism.
|>
|> Does it really matter WHAT we call it? The theory or hypothesis or
|> whatever of creation is just a possible explanation of what happened.
|>
Sorry, creation is not an *explanation*. At least in Christian
orthodox opinion, there is no attempt to explain the connection
between creation and the world. Creation is equally compatible
with any feature of the world, or its contrary. "God did it" is
as much an "explanation" of the world being round as it is of the
world being flat, or of there not being a world at all.
"As we know from 2,000 years of theology, the hypothesis of
divine creation does not even envision, let alone specify, an
appropriate _intermediate_ causal _process_ that would _link_
the presence of the supposed divine (causal) agency to the
effects that are attributed to it. Nor, it seems, is there
any prospect at all that the chronic inscrutability of the
putative causal linkage will be removed by new theoretical
developments.... As far as causation goes, we are being told,
to all intents and purposes, that an intrinsically elusive,
mysterious agency _X_ inscrutably produces the effect, and the
appeal to the supposed divine attributes of omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnibenevolence merely baptizes this cardinal
explanatory lacuna."
A. Grunbaum, "Creation in Cosmology" pp. 126-136 in
Encyclopedia of Cosmology, ed. N. S. Hetherington, Garland, 1993.
The quotation is from page 127.
--
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
"Whatever it is, I'm against it."
Quincy Adams Wagstaff
President, Huxley College
Disraeli
Brent P. Newhall wrote:
>
> [munched bit about what's a theory or a hypothesis]
>
> Micheal Keane wrote:
> >
> > That's [definition of hypothesis] not a *scientific* theory though. If
> > it's not that, then creationism has no place in a science class.
> > Creationism carries the same amount of weight as Last Thursdayism.
>
> Does it really matter WHAT we call it? The theory or hypothesis or
> whatever of creation is just a possible explanation of what happened.
>
> [Me:]
> > >This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
> > >call creationism.
> >
> > I'll start off with saying there's no evidence to back up the Bible's
> > account of creation(which I assume would include the flood and Noah).
>
> Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
> of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
> exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
> sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
> same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
> they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
> kind you and I make.
You're talking about those "footprints" in Texas, the ones that
were proven hoaxes in the '30s? It's an easy matter to take over-
lapping dinosaur prints and fill in portions with sand to "create"
your anachronism. Generally, the pictures are also all in black
and white, and the area is often a private parcel of land so as to
discourage those who would actually investigate these "footprints."
> In fatc, there's a large amount of evidence for creation. It's just
> that the regular scienctific community (evolutionary), doesn't want them
> known. If it was widely known that there's plenty of reason for
> creationism, the "respectable" scientific community would be made a
> laughingstock. Nobody wants that to happen, so anything that might
> support creationism is carefully stowed away in a dusty warehouse.
No, I don't think that's the case; when something is discovered
that radically changes thoughts on evolution, the theory is
flexible enough to be reformulated to take such evidence into
account. Again, the "evidence" you purport to be privy to
does NOT confirm creation, but rather plays a tenuous game of
Manichean anti-logic.
> > Archeological evidence does not support the flood scenario.
> > Many dating methods(radiometric and others) point to an Earth that's
> > 4.5 billions years old, not 6000 thousand.
>
> But those dating methods are MADE to look for an Earth 4.5 billion years
> old. Quotes from some scientific journals:
Carbon-14 dating is made to look for an Earth 4.5 billion years old?
Where are you getting this? First of all, K-Ar dating is used to
deter-
mine the age of plastic rock strata (that which is part of the
original
coalescent mass of the planet). Carbon-14 dating is used on open-air
organisms that take in fresh carbon from living sources. The strata
below
are known to have undergone a metamorphosis that radically altered
them;
K-Ar dating is used for sedimentary rock, not metamorphic forms. Just
because it's not applicable in a certain case does not make the
technique
useless; kind of like expecting to cure a wart with quinine, if the
cure
isn't designed for the ailment, it's just not going to work. The key
is
knowing how.
> "Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age,
> 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus
> living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation
> of dissolved HCO3 with which the shells are in carbon isotope
> equilibrium." -- Dr. Alan C. Riggs (formerly of the U.S. Geological
> Survey, now on the staff of the University of Washington, Seattle),
> 'Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada
> springs'. /Science/, vol. 224, 6 April 1984, p. 58
>
> I.e., they carbon-14 dated LIVING snails and the results said they were
> 27,000 years old! This method stretches the apparent age of whatever is
> measured.
Pretty amazing extrapolation you're doing there. "ONE case is
unusual,
therefore they're all stretched out!" You don't mention the thousands
of cases where it's been tested on materials of known age, and it's
worked just fine. See below for specifics on the snail age; if you
bothered to read the above, you'd see that they give the exact reason
the 14C count is low.
> "The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern
> mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13,
> relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith et al. (16), but are also
> extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give
> uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years." -- M. L.
> Keith and G. M. Anderson (Dept. of Geo-chemistry and Mineralogy,
> Pennsylvania State University, USA), 'Radiocarbon dating: fictitious
> results with mollusk shells'. /Science/, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp.
> 634-635.
>
> "These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during
> metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it
> impossible to determine their geologic age." -- Prof. Gunter Faure
> (Dept. of Geology, the Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof.
> James L. Powell (Dept. of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in
> /Strontium Isotope Geology/, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972,
> p. 102.
>
> Why has He lied? C-14 dating lies, not God. He put certain amounts of
> radiocarbon into things, that's all, just like He put a certain amount
> of oxygen into things.
One needs to know how the mechanics of the method work
before one can use the method. How much do you know about
radiometry? Not much, I'd guess; otherwise, you'd know that
the snails of which you speak take in dead matter from the
bottom of an environment, material that is already lower in
14C than plant and animal matter in an open-air environment,
or an open sea. Thus, you get an artificially depressed result.
It's the same, and the only, case that is presented by so-
called "creation science," and all it does is supposedly "dis-
prove" 14C dating, not "prove" creation. A certain amount of
radiocarbon into things by Divine decree? Then what's this
"carbon isotope equilibrium" your quotee above talks about?
Lifting passages out of context and mis-portraying a reliable
scientific method (WHEN USED PROPERLY!) is standard Henry Morris
practice, and has spread to the "general" creationist populace.
Radiometric dating is based on the same "theories" that govern
nuclear reactions; now, you aren't doubting that reactors react
and nuclear weapons explode, are you?
Quoting knowledgeable people does you no good when you don't under-
stand what they're talking about.
Thomas Scharle
{newsgroups trimmed. what does this have to do with talk.abortion,
sci.lang, rec.arts,sf.written, rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe?
e-mail sent.}
In article <320F53...@fuse.net>, robert averbeck <rave...@fuse.net> writes:
|> Guys -
|>
|> In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
|> allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
|> decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
|> reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
|> theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
|> stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
To begin with, there is no "theory of creationism", so there is
nothing to be taught as an alternative. It merely consists of "maybe
the scientists got it all wrong about evolution", plus a few things
like the "vapor canopy" and the "Paluxy mantracks" and "Noah's Ark on
Mount Ararat".
|>
|> I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
|> else how can a student truly learn?
Indeed, should all alternatives to sports be taught, also? Maybe
Calvin-ball should get equal time with basketball. After all, the
rules are merely conventions. Wouldn't it be fair for short kids if
getting the ball through the hoop were not required? Or how about
allowing tripping? Let's be open minded about sports.
Yes, let's teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry,
astrology as an alternative to astronomy, and the flat earth as an
alternative to geography. At least they are theories, which puts
them ahead of "creationism".
|>
|> rob
|>
|> Of course, who wants an educated populace? They might come to realize
|> that things could be a lot better than they are, and then where would
|> we be?
--
Kevin Davidson
>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>kind you and I make.
Lemme guess, was it in the Sun or the National Enquirer?
Kevin
George Gehrke
Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> In a previous article "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> writes:
>
> >> If you started with an unchangable theory, and ignored any facts which
> <> were at odds with it... why, that would make you a creationist.
> >
>
> Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
> Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
> the theory wrong.
WHOA! Right There.
Creationism verses Evolution? Here we have, ladies and gentlemen, two
oopposite subjects trying to find common ground for an intelligent
discussion . . . because you both have been anything BUT. (Up too now)
Is it possible to combine the two for a micro-second before confusion
sets in? Is it possible?! Let us try.
We begin with the age old question of evolution laying a creation.
"What came first? The chicken or the egg?"
Answer. The chicken.
Question: Why, you say that boy?!
Answer: Ever see an egg lay a chicken?
giggle
George Gehrke/Professional Sportsman
think-tank of one
Charles Dye
robert averbeck <rave...@fuse.net> wrote:
>Guys -
>In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
>allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
>decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
>reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
>theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
>stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
>I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
>else how can a student truly learn?
Insofar as schools are concerned, the wonderful notion of "fair play"
should be restricted to the students! Giving free mindshare to
blatantly unscientific "theories" may be superbly fair to those who
espouse them, but it's a disservice to the students.
Charles Dye
mar...@iw.net (Tim Margheim) wrote:
>>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>>kind you and I make. [The human tracks, presumably.]
>Before the other guy says that they must be fakes, I'd like to point out that
>they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in and
>formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible for it
>to be forged.
Even if we accept this at face value -- gosh, couldn't be a fake or an
error, says so right here -- so what? Has nothing to do with any
evolutionary theory whatsoever. It just changes the timetables
somewhat.
Ray Blaak
"Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> writes:
>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>kind you and I make.
Are those the Paluxy Creek riverbed tracks? I read that they are either
``random depressions'' or ``partial dinosaur heelprints'' [Stephen J. Gould,
_Bully for Brontosaurus_].
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
bl...@infomatch.com The Rhythm has my soul.
kna...@iphcip1.physik.uni-mainz.de
[off topic posting to sci.lang deleted]
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,talk.atheism,talk.abortion,sci.skeptic,sci.lang,rec.arts.sf.written,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.religion.christian
Please stop that massive crossposting in the name of the cross! Please chosse
only on-topic newsgroups an set a followup-to: header.
--J"org Knappen.
Michael Noreen
(rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe, sci.lang and talk.abortion removed -
I can't see the relevance for this subject there.)
Replying to robert averbeck <rave...@fuse.net>
: reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
: theories, and both have legit points
So, let's hear a legit point for creationism.
: I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
: else how can a student truly learn?
And as has been pointed out there would not be much room for other
subjects if all schools of thought on creation (ie Wiccan, Hindu,
Norse Gods, Babylonian...) were taught.
There is only one school of thought which has a single shred of
evidence in its favour, and that is science. Not surprisingly people
feel that science therefore should be taught in science classes.
: rob
:
: Of course, who wants an educated populace? They might come to realize
: that things could be a lot better than they are, and then where would
: we be?
There is no ban on reading the religious myths in other classes than
the science classes. For a very good reason: religious myth isn't
science.
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
Jerry Bryson
> Even if we accept this at face value -- gosh, couldn't be a fake or an
> error, says so right here -- so what? Has nothing to do with any
> evolutionary theory whatsoever. It just changes the timetables
> somewhat.
Actually, most folks in the field ID the "human" print as another lizard.
I like your note about the timetables. You're right there, too.
I believe it is fine to teach about creationim in schools. I think God
created all this stuff. So, teach creationism in the religion class.
Teach how God went about it in science class.
I'm a creationist myself, but I can't hang out with other Creationists
because of their blatant lies, such as the dino-human prints and the
thermodynamics garbage.
Mark O'Leary
In article <320F55...@gmu.edu>, Brent P. Newhall <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
This entire post by Brent is a recapitulation of all the creationist lies
and examples of ignorance I have seen on sci.skpetic in the last year or so.
I think it ought to qualify as some sort of monument to a dying breed.
>> That's [definition of hypothesis] not a *scientific* theory though. If
>> it's not that, then creationism has no place in a science class.
>> Creationism carries the same amount of weight as Last Thursdayism.
>
>Does it really matter WHAT we call it? The theory or hypothesis or
>whatever of creation is just a possible explanation of what happened.
In Brents world, theres no difference between something that is falsifiable
and something that isnt. They're both just "possible explanations" right?
On to the first creationist lie, which Brent hasn't even managed to get
straight. He doesnt have a location or a date, but he heard it somewhere and
it sounded good, so he's added it to his armoury of "facts" against
evolution:
>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>kind you and I make.
There are numerous reports of such anomalous footprints. In some of them you
can still see the chisel marks. In others, if you follow the trail a bit
further upstream, you can see curious clawmarks around this 'human'
footprint, and you realise you've been tracking a small upright dinosaur.
These so-called anomalies are extensively documented and *not one* is
evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs. The t.o FAQs deal with these
at some length I beleive.
Creationist lie number 2:
>In fatc, there's a large amount of evidence for creation. It's just
>that the regular scienctific community (evolutionary), doesn't want them
>known. If it was widely known that there's plenty of reason for
>creationism, the "respectable" scientific community would be made a
>laughingstock. Nobody wants that to happen, so anything that might
>support creationism is carefully stowed away in a dusty warehouse.
Ah yes, the "global conspiracy". The scientists are so keen to preserve
their well-below-average wages (during my research career I could've earned
more as a garbage collector. I tripled my income by leaving science and
getting this job) that they hide everything away and manufacture
contradictory evidence. Every new generation of graduates signs an oath to
keep the secret going. Over the last century or so, not *one* out of all the
scientists has thought to gain global fame and fortune by blowing the
whistle on this...
>No, I'm not suggesting an X-Files-esque conspiracy.
Yes you are doing exactly that!
> I just think that most scientists would rather not advertise evidence
>that at least casually supports creationism.
Why not? The people who overturn well established theories get *famous*.
Name any famous scientist and you've named someone who succesfully bucked
the system...
Creationist lie no 3:
>But those dating methods are MADE to look for an Earth 4.5 billion years
>old. Quotes from some scientific journals:
>
>"Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age,
>27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus
>living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation
>of dissolved HCO3 with which the shells are in carbon isotope
>equilibrium." -- Dr. Alan C. Riggs (formerly of the U.S. Geological
>Survey, now on the staff of the University of Washington, Seattle),
>'Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada
>springs'. /Science/, vol. 224, 6 April 1984, p. 58
>
>I.e., they carbon-14 dated LIVING snails and the results said they were
>27,000 years old! This method stretches the apparent age of whatever is
>measured.
Can you not read what it actually says there?
Lets explain this clearly for you. We'll run three little thought
experiments - but you could also do these in the lab for a very small
outlay.
Put some snail eggs in a glass tank, well aerated. Date the shells of the
resultant snails: the dates will read as 'modern', because all the HCO3 that
has gone into their shells has come from the atmosphere. (to be honest, I
doubt the young snails would flourish because dissolved atmospheric CO2
wouldnt supply enough HCO3 for them to grow shells...).
Now, add a lump of chalk to the tank, and grow another batch of snails. Some
of the HCO3 from which they make their shells comes from dissolved modern
atmospheric CO2. But some of it also comes from dissolved chalk, and the
carbon in the calcium carbonate has been locked there for millenia. WHen you
date these snails's shells, the date isnt predictable: the shells will
reflect the mixture of 'old' carbon and 'young' carbon from the chalk adn
the atmosphere respectively.
Now, put an air-tight lid on the tank, having filled it with de-gassed
water, and aerate it from a gas mixture which contains no CO2 at all, but
all the other atmospheric gases. For this batch of snails, the only possible
source of carbonate is the 'ancient' carbon in the chalk. If you date the
shells of these snails, they'll look millions of years old...
Theres our little thought experiment. Do you agree with the results? I know
we've ignored the carbon input from snail-food, but this is just imaginary
and that input just adds noise to the fundamental effect rather than
invalidating the experiment.
So. Which of the 3 scenarios does snails living in a pool with a rock base
(old carbonates) fed by streams that flow over and through rocks (more
dissolved carbonates) resemble most closely?
Pretty obvious, eh? I guess this is why 14-C dating labs always send a
polite note explaining that the shells of aquatic molluscs and the like
cannot be dated by 14-C, since the water from which they grew their shells
invariably contains carbon from dissolved rocks as well as from the
atmosphere, and incomplete mixing of the water (especially in the deep
ocean) means that some of the atmospheric-origin HCO3 is not current,
either. It also explains why when *creationists* send m,ollusc shell samples
for dating to 'prove' 14C dating doesnt work, they grind up the sample so it
cant be identified....
>"The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern
>mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13,
>relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith et al. (16), but are also
>extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give
>uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years." -- M. L.
>Keith and G. M. Anderson (Dept. of Geo-chemistry and Mineralogy,
>Pennsylvania State University, USA), 'Radiocarbon dating: fictitious
>results with mollusk shells'. /Science/, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp.
>634-635.
See above. We *know* that mollusc shells can't be dated. *Land* snails can,
as can any other living carbon source that was only in carbon exchange with
the atmosphere when it was alive.
>"These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during
>metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it
>impossible to determine their geologic age." -- Prof. Gunter Faure
>(Dept. of Geology, the Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof.
>James L. Powell (Dept. of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in
>/Strontium Isotope Geology/, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972,
>p. 102.
Geologic dating doesnt rely solely on metamorphic rock. Just another example
of science identifying special cases where the general rule doesnt apply.
Just because carbon dating cant be applied to mollusc shells or metamorphic
rock (I understand the latter suggestion is contraversial) does not mean
that it can't be applied to samples of differing origin.
>> Of course you could say God created the Earth with the appearance of
>> old age, but you end up with two problems:
>> 1. The God of Lies scenario(God is dishonest)
>> 2. This basically amounts of Last Thursdayism.
>
>Why has He lied? C-14 dating lies, not God.
1) 14C dating doesnt lie when applied to appropriate samples (note that the
vast majority of samples are appropriate).
2) You've entirely missed the point. By making the world look to scientists
as though it was ancient and evolved to its present state (which it does),
he has lied to those scientists. Worse, they have drawn the ancient.
evolving model using their god-given mental faculties, so he not only rigged
the evidence, he also rigged the investigators! Theres no reason for such
lying, so we reject that as a model.
> He put certain amounts of radiocarbon into things, that's all, just like
>He put a certain amount of oxygen into things.
God isn't that stupid. He sets the laws of physics running which then put
the radiocarbon into things automatically, over the 4.5 billion year history
of the earth.
>[munched bit about Last Thursdayism; I've just shown it isn't a
>necessary belief]
What you've actually shown is that it is the exactly equivalent beleif to
creationism (substitute a cat for god and '6000 yrs ago' for last thursday,
and it *is* creationism). You find one ridiculously silly and the other
rational and beleivable. How do you manage to do that?
M.
--
-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-. --- --- ... .-.-.- -=-=-=-=-
Mark O'Leary, Voice: Extn. 6201
Network & Communications Group. Email: mol...@dmu.ac.uk
De Montfort University, UK.
Jerry Bryson
> to all intents and purposes, that an intrinsically elusive,
> mysterious agency _X_ inscrutably produces the effect, and the
> appeal to the supposed divine attributes of omnipotence,
That's about where I am. I think _X_ is a precondition, actually. Now,
if there is no God, then the word "God" refers to nothing, has no
meaning. OTOH, we have here this _X_, which has no name. It seems
efficient to me to assign the now-vacant word, "God," to the
hitherto-nameles _X_, and call it God. Most theists would never know we
did it. As a theist myself, it give me a handle on the meaning of God.
Paul F Austin
In article <4uo8nu$e...@news.corpcomm.net> mar...@iw.net (Tim Margheim) writes:
>From: mar...@iw.net (Tim Margheim)
>Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 21:45:37 GMT
>In article <320F55...@gmu.edu>, "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>> [Me:]
>>> >This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
>>> >call creationism.
>>
>>> I'll start off with saying there's no evidence to back up the Bible's
>>> account of creation(which I assume would include the flood and Noah).
>>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>>kind you and I make.
>Before the other guy says that they must be fakes, I'd like to point out that
>they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in and
>formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible for it
>to be forged.
Take a close look at the "footprints". The were made by "men" with strides
varying (for the same individual) from less that a foot to 12 feet. Yup, sure
looks like people dancing with dinos to me. The "footprints" are elongated
potholes. No right-foot/left-foot. No toes. Some "feet"
In politics, sincerity is everything.
If you learn to fake that, you've got it made.
-------------------------------------
Paul Austin
PAU...@HARRIS.COM
Paul F Austin
In article <320F53...@fuse.net> robert averbeck <rave...@fuse.net> writes:
>From: robert averbeck <rave...@fuse.net>
>Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
>Guys -
>In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
>allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
>decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
>reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
>theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
>stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
>I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
>else how can a student truly learn?
Here's the crux. Creationism is based on faith in literalness adn correctness
of the Bible. The bedrock is "the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles
it." There's a basic hostility to _all_ science in that statement. It's not
just evolutionary biology that's at odds with creationism. It's (where to
start?) biology in all forms, astronomy, geology and more basically, the
scientific method that says that any assertion is subject ot the best tests
available in any given year. By drawing a boundary that says "Here be Faith,
Question Not or be Damned" the creationists say text trumps experiment.
Thomas Swanson
In article <320F55...@gmu.edu> "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> writes:
>[munched bit about what's a theory or a hypothesis]
>
>
>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>kind you and I make.
You wouldn't mind giving a reference for this would you? This would
be big news, if true. But the odds are it's a hoax
or just the "human" footprints are misidentified. If you source
says "Paluxy River" then the footprints aren't human.
>In fatc, there's a large amount of evidence for creation. It's just
>that the regular scienctific community (evolutionary), doesn't want them
>known. If it was widely known that there's plenty of reason for
>creationism, the "respectable" scientific community would be made a
>laughingstock. Nobody wants that to happen, so anything that might
>support creationism is carefully stowed away in a dusty warehouse.
Bull. There's no better way to make a namew for yourself than to
rock the foundations of science - but the evidence has to be real, not
manufactured. The science has to be real, too. No waving of
the hands and comparing Mt. St. Helens with the Grand Canyon.
[...]
>But those dating methods are MADE to look for an Earth 4.5 billion years
>old. Quotes from some scientific journals:
>
>"Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age,
>27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus
>living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation
>of dissolved HCO3 with which the shells are in carbon isotope
>equilibrium." -- Dr. Alan C. Riggs (formerly of the U.S. Geological
>Survey, now on the staff of the University of Washington, Seattle),
>'Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada
>springs'. /Science/, vol. 224, 6 April 1984, p. 58
>
>I.e., they carbon-14 dated LIVING snails and the results said they were
>27,000 years old! This method stretches the apparent age of whatever is
>measured.
Read again. "Apparent age" not the real age. Scientists know that
carbon -14 concentrations in the ocean will not yield proper ages
that's why this method ISN'T USED for marine life that doesn't
breathe air!
Aaron Boyden
On 11 Aug 1996, Wen-King Su wrote:
> Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
> Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
> the theory wrong.
Creationism has plenty of verifiable implications. For example, it is
one of the tenets of creationism that the fossil record was produced by
the great flood. Geologists have many ways of distinguishing
flood-deposited material from other kinds of sediment, so if the fossil
record turns out not to be largely flood-deposited, this would
constituted falsifying evidence for creationism. Since that is in fact
exactly what we find, creationism is clearly falsifiable; it is in fact
falsified. The psychology of those who believe in creationism (and who
would reject the evidence) has no bearing on the standing of the theory.
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
Tim Rowledge
In article <4uo65a$l...@newsa.netnews.att.com>,
131G40000-J.BECKMAN(MT4084)1023MT <mailto:j...@mtjeb.mt.att.com> wrote:
>
> So, would you also expect that an astronomy course spend
> half its time covering astrology?
were some reason to consider it less drivelsome than creationism they would
object to it. Pity really - at least it makes claims that might just possibly
be testable. If we had the patience...
--
Tim Rowledge: rowl...@hooked.net
Wen-King Su
In a previous article Aaron Boyden <650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> writes:
>
<On 11 Aug 1996, Wen-King Su wrote:
>
<> Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
>> Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
<> the theory wrong.
>
<Creationism has plenty of verifiable implications. For example, it is
>one of the tenets of creationism that the fossil record was produced by
<the great flood. Geologists have many ways of distinguishing
>flood-deposited material from other kinds of sediment, so if the fossil
<record turns out not to be largely flood-deposited, this would
>constituted falsifying evidence for creationism. Since that is in fact
<exactly what we find, creationism is clearly falsifiable; it is in fact
>falsified. The psychology of those who believe in creationism (and who
<would reject the evidence) has no bearing on the standing of the theory.
Wrong. God could have created fossils in any shape and condition. Whether
you think the ones you find should be associated with flood deposited
sediments is merely your guess. Creationism is not falsifiable.
Graham Head
In article <4uo8nu$e...@news.corpcomm.net>, Tim Margheim <mar...@iw.net>
writes
>In article <320F55...@gmu.edu>, "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>
>> [Me:]
>>> >This is semantics, anyway. My point still stands, no matter what you
>>> >call creationism.
>>
>>> I'll start off with saying there's no evidence to back up the Bible's
>>> account of creation(which I assume would include the flood and Noah).
>
>>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>>kind you and I make.
>
>they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in and
>formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible for it
>to be forged.
>
--
Graham Head
Tom Wrona
bre...@ionet.net (brentb) wrote:
>The assertion that conservatives are
>the true intellectuals is so ridiculous is does not merit response.
But of course, we can always count on some blowhard leftist to reply
anyway.
Tom
This month's thought:
"In reality, the animal rights movement has elevated ignorance
about the natural world almost to the level of a philosophical
principle." -- Richard Coniff, conservationist,
Audubon Magazine (92(6):120-133;1990)
Tom Wrona
www.wrona.com
Tom Wrona
"Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
Aww, come on, this is too easy.
The fossil record.
The Grand Canyon (If the world is young, how'd it get so deep?)
Evolution in our own lifetimes. (Drug-resistant microbes)
Read Hawkings "The Blind Watchmaker"
Bruce R. Davis
Tom Wrona wrote:
>
> "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> >OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
>
> Aww, come on, this is too easy.
>
> The fossil record.
> The Grand Canyon (If the world is young, how'd it get so deep?)
> Evolution in our own lifetimes. (Drug-resistant microbes)
>
> Read Hawkings "The Blind Watchmaker"
>
> Tom
Tom,
You do realize, don't you that you are arguing with a brick wall.
Creationists are a very special sort of wacko who will always fail to
accept fact. Faith is the security blanket that will ever provide them
with a means to avoid dealing with reality.
In some ways, I'm envious of them as reality really sucks sometimes.
BRD
Frank J. Warner
In article <518.6798T...@shell.portal.com>, lo...@shell.portal.com
(Kevin Davidson) wrote:
> >Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
> >of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
> >exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
> >sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
> >same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
> >they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
> >kind you and I make.
>
> Lemme guess, was it in the Sun or the National Enquirer?
>
> Kevin
<sarcasm on>
A week or two ago _The Weekly World News_ published actual photographs of
heaven. How can we doubt evidence like that?
<sarcasm off>
--
wild(at our first)beasts uttered human words
--our second coming made stones sing like birds--
but o the starhushed silence which our thirds
--e. e. cummings
'73 poems' (1963)
Doug Crabtree
> > The fossil record.
> > The Grand Canyon (If the world is young, how'd it get so deep?)
> > Evolution in our own lifetimes. (Drug-resistant microbes)
> >
> > Read Hawkings "The Blind Watchmaker"
Also try www.halos.com. There is a video called "The Young Age of the
Earth." In it, there is a section by Dr. Walt Brown describing this very
thing (Grand Canyon).
Doug
Stephen Watson
talk.atheism deleted from followups.
In article <4ur46e$r...@neptune.myri.com>,
I think I shall appoint myself the U of Edi Untangler of Semantic
Wrangles. In this case the wrangle is over the meaning of the word
"Creationism".
Wen-King appears to be using the word in the generic sense of "God
went ZAP and there it was", and he(she?) is correct that such a
position is scientifically unfalsifiable. However, Aaron's usage is
the more common one for talk.origins -- short-hand for Young-Earth
"Scientific" Creationism, a la mode ICR et al. Sci-Cre eschews the
large-scale use of miracles (except, I think, at the very beginning),
and its child, "flood geology", specifically attempts to explain the
geological/paleontological record in terms of plausible natural causes
(e.g. vapour canopies, subterranean water, ultra-high-speed erosion,
deposition and crustal movement). As such, it is indeed falsifiable
(and was throughly falsified c. 200 years ago, by workers who were
orthodox Christians -- see Davis Young's _Christianity and the Age of
the Earth_).
--
#Steve Watson# swa...@nortel.ca #Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont. Canada #
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not BNR's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Thomas Scharle
{PLEASE stop this spamming. I've eliminated a bunch of clearly
irrelevant newsgroups. email sent.}
As I understand this quotation, it is not an assertion about the
existence or non-existence of God, it is about whether anybody has
ever described (at least in orthodox Christian theology) the
mechanism by which God created the universe (I think any orthodox
Christian would have to agree that talking about the way that God
created the world verges on Gnosticism -- read Irenaeus' Adversus
Haereses book 2 for a 2nd century discussion).
In particular, my dispute is with people saying that the creation
somehow *explains* some facts about the real world. I don't think
that it does, and I use this analogy:
"Why is the Mona Lisa smiling?"
"Because Leonardo painted it."
That, although it is true, is not an explanation.
pharaoh chromium 93
Chapter XVII
THE ARK AND THE DELUGE
The treatment of the symbolism behind the figure of the ark and the
deluge in the Christian Bible naturally belongs in the chapter on the
baptism and the crossing of the water. But this allegory conveys a
recondite message of such luminous beauty and cosmic majesty that it
merits a chapter in its own right. It need hardly be announced at the
start that the ark was not a wooden structure and the deluge had nothing
to do with water. They are ideotypes of the most cogent intellectual
suggestiveness. They are cosmographs, or figurative sketches of grand
universal truth, sublime in conception and challenging in the sweep of
their import.
From one angle of approach the ark symbolism duplicates or parallels
that of the two boats analyzed in the previous chapter. For the exegesis
here again manifests the dual aspect of the meaning portrayed, and shows
two arks pertinent to man's life, one floating on the terrestrial water,
the other soaring across the celestial sea of crystal. The one above is
the paraphrase for Apollo's glorious chariot of the sun climbing across
the sky by day; the one below is the raft, boat or ark in which the
"dead" soul makes its passage by night across the Styx of the nether
world, with Horus, Charon or Christ for pilot. In short, the upper one
is man's body of glowing spiritual light; the lower is his ark or temple
of flesh. And the peculiarity of the operation of the great Law of the
Two Truths comes to view here in the fact that in the alternate arcs of
the cycle each body becomes in turn the ark that houses and preserves
the other. In the earth cycle the physical body becomes the ark that
contains and treasures the spiritual; conversely, in the discarnate
cycle the spiritual body contains and treasures the seeds of the
physical. It exemplifies the eternal alternation of spirit and matter,
soul and flesh, discarnate and incarnate existence in the universe of
life.
422
The one thing that is definite beyond dispute is that the legend of the
ark and flood could never have had reference to a physical vessel
bearing living animals and humans on the breast of a world-ocean raised
to the mountain tops. For thousands it will be a gratuitous labor to
point out the features of impossibility and absurdity in accepting the
account as objective or literal history. They are in this case so
glaringly preposterous that their brief review for the sake of shaking
thousands of stubborn minds loose from literalism appears to be
pardonable.
In the first place no vessel of the size described could house the
number of living creatures--two of every species of "unclean beasts" and
fourteen of every species of "clean beasts"--that Noah was ordered to
take with his family into the ark. It would take a well-equipped army of
many thousands of men at least a year to go over the earth now and
collect the two or fourteen specimens of every living creature. And many
types of animal and insect can not live when transported to different
climatic habitats. Many insects live only a few hours and so could not
possibly be taken a long journey to the ark. Noah and his family were
given by the Eternal just seven days to make this collection, impossible
to begin with! Then, if by some miracle there were space on board for
all the animals, birds and insects (not to say fish and reptiles), there
certainly could not be found space for the supply of food necessary to
tide them over one hundred and fifty days' imprisonment in the ark. And
nearly all animals and insects require different kinds of food,
impossible to provide, even to know what to secure and where to find it.
Carnivorous animals would have to be given other animals to eat. And the
imagination can depict the living conditions on such a boat after a few
days.
Then as to the rain of forty days and nights, alleged to have raised the
ocean over the whole world to the mountain tops! This is allegorism pure
and simple, since forty thousand days of rain could not raise the ocean
an inch! Rain is moisture that has been taken out of the ocean to begin
with, and only returns to it, keeping its level constant. To raise the
entire ocean of the globe, water would have to be brought here from the
"canals" on Mars or other celestial body. Literally the story is as
chimerical as the star of Bethlehem and Jonah's whale.
In addition to all this, an examination of antecedent deluge traditions
and accounts will demonstrate that the Biblical version is but one
423
of numberless presentations admittedly allegorical, and its historical
authenticity will be seen to effervesce away in the profounder import of
the whole cycle of such mythical heritage. Consistent study of
Comparative Religion through the centuries would have prevented
Christianity from wresting its allegories and spiritual constructions in
the scripture so utterly apart from kindred material of the pagan world
in frightful distortion of their meaning.
When we transfer the reference from external symbol to subjective
reality, the myth is seen to be a somewhat fanciful but lucid
pictorialization of the reciprocal relation of the two bodies of man's
constitution, physical and spiritual, as well as a formula for the
routine of evolutionary growth. In life the material body is the ark in
which the soul is carried over the sea of sense and realism; in the
heavenly state the ark is the spiritual body that enwombs the seeds of
physical creation. From the moment of first entry into incarnation the
soul is borne across the waters of earthly existence, from west gate of
life to east gate through the dark underworld, in the ark of the
physical body. But when the six water signs of the zodiac have been
traversed, and the soul comes to the point of emergence from the sea, it
then embarks anew on the ark of Ra on the eastern marge and is borne up
the ascent of heaven to the Paradise about the Pole, to join the company
of the gods and the stars (souls) that never set (incarnate). The ark
below matches and reflects the structure of the ark above, but in
inverted form. The tabernacle was to be fashioned after the pattern of
things in the mount. And the lower and the higher tabernacles were to
enwomb each other in turn.
The figure of the womb as matching the ark-type is by no means an
impertinent fancy. There is no sense in which the ark symbol can be
better understood in its truest reference to cosmology and anthropology
than in its character as the womb. Ancient religion tended to take on
phallic coloring because all living process is a birthing, and life
passed from one womb to another. It swings from a gestation in matter to
a gestation in spirit. The soul is incubated in the physical body; but
the form of the next body is incubated in the deep womb of the soul
after death. Mind gestates in body, but body also gestates or is
engendered in mind. Intelligence conceives the creation, matter gives it
birth. We must be born of water (matter) and the spirit. Life has two
wombs, and every sun-god had two mothers. All life is conceived
424
in the womb of Nut or Isis and given manifest birth in the body of
Nephthys, Egypt told us five millennia ago. The great Ritual of that
land condenses this mighty truth into a sentence in the discourses to
Pepi: "O Ra, the womb of Nut is filled with the seed of the Spirit which
is in her." Our word "nut," the fruit of the tree, may be derived from
this venerable source. The Hindus had their Argha-Yoni, the feminine or
uterine symbol of all creative source. And Argha is cognate in root
derivation with "ark." The ark is the inner shrine and most holy
sanctuary of life, from which the worlds issue.
Matter has been conspicuously published as being the Mater or mother of
spiritual manifestation, but the correlative truth that in the opposite
swing of the cycles of life and death, spirit likewise in its arc of the
round becomes the gestating mother of the next expression in matter, has
apparently become too abstruse for popular conception and has been lost
out of the theological picture. Spirit goes into the cabin of the boat
of the physical body to be gestated to new birth there. In turn, the
body, going to dissolution outwardly, sends its principles into the
inner shrine, or ark of the covenant, to be incubated there for its new
birth in the next generation. Matter and soul eternally reciprocate
dominance and leadership in living nature. And the flesh is no more the
ark of the soul than soul is the ark of the flesh. Spirit conserves the
gains in matter, to reproduce them in later forms, as matter does those
of spirit.
As soon as Life bifurcates into its two opposite but complementary
nodes, there is set in motion the operation of mutuality and
reciprocity, rhythm and balance, between the two. Deep inside the ark
was the shrine for Deity; buried in the secret depths of every physical
man is Amen-Ra, the hidden Lord. But when the form of material man has
vanished off the scene, deep within the heart of the god is the
conception of the next organic form to be deployed into the visible
world. And it is worth a moment's comment in passing, to assert that a
familiarity with the truth of this mutual and alternate birthing of soul
and body in the order of life would have saved the western world the
degradation of descent into the modern age of materialism now happily
passing out. As noted in the first chapter of our study, modern science
has now announced that all evolution is but the unfolding from within
the geneplasm of qualities that were already implicit in the system of
nature. Had vision not been beclouded by crass theological
425
obsessions, and symbolic science not obliterated, these great truths
could have been descried in Biblical texts in one or another form. In
Exodus (25) the Lord's instruction to Moses is given: "Inside the ark
you must place the laws I give you." This is not an order to deposit
documents in a chest, as childish orthodoxy might suppose. It is the
divine decree that bids mankind imprint the laws of life, learned from
mundane experience, indelibly upon the inner tablets of the human
spirit. Says the Eternal: "I will write my laws upon the hearts, and in
their minds will I write them." The lessons of truth must be engraved
upon the eternal memory of the seminal divinity within. Thus, when the
outer body of life is dissolved, the imperishable soul preserves the
fruits of all past living in the unseen world of ideal archetypal forms.
Inside the physical matrix there hides the form of the god. Inside the
god (when not embodied) hides the form of the (next) body. Each will
give birth to the other in the cycle. To carry the image of birth in and
from water, the boat or ark symbol was introduced. And the vastly
important identity between the ark of the Biblical flood and the ark of
the covenant in the Old Testament--the boat on the water and the chest
in the temple--has been entirely lost sight of. Egypt kept the intimate
relation in view when the chest from the sanctuary was carried on the
shoulders of priests in procession in the shape of a boat or inside a
boat. The tabernacle was a combined boat and shrine, or ark sanctuary.
The fire on the altar or the shrine in the holy of holies was the symbol
of divine mind nestling imperturbably in the heart of every material
form.
When the Ritual expounds that the womb of Nut (nature) is filled with
the seed of the spirit to which she is to give birth, the passage gives
us the one central clue to full comprehension of the whole structure. It
is found in the word "seed." Here is indeed our Ariadne thread by which
to reach understanding. The entire scope and full force of the meaning
can not be seen without viewing it through the analogy of the function
of the seed in relation to its parent tree or plant. The ark is the seed
of life. The analogy must be drawn in full.
Life, as said, ceaselessly alternates shuttle-like between the two nodes
of manifestation and withdrawal, activity in matter and rest in spirit.
From the heart of invisible being it issues forth to express its
creative pleasure in building the universe. But it operates rhythmically
in cyclic
426
rounds, for it is never static; and its periodic activity is focalized
in time, and runs its course to an end, at which the forms built up to
express its nature are dismantled and vanish away. The Hindu Trinity
expresses aspects of truth that the Christian Trinity has never
conveyed. There was Brahma, the Creator, and opposite him Shiva, the
Destroyer; and between them Vishnu, the Preserver of the eternal balance
between them. The vast and vital function of Shiva has not been given
due place in theology. Life has power to build forms, but if it did not
also have power to destroy them, it would have to remain forever
prisoner to its own formations! Nothing would be worse than that it
should have to live eternally in the forms it first built. There could
be no evolution. Life's power to destroy a present construction and
build a "more stately mansion" for its dwelling is its guarantee of
advance to more abundant richness.
But provision then had to be made for preserving its grains at the end
of each cycle when Shiva's force brought all material forms to decay.
Nature's provision for this contingency is of course the seed. Every
living organism has inherent in it the marvelous capability of
nucleating on its outer periphery, just before the end of its career or
of each "year" of growth, a miraculous embryonic reproduction of itself,
its child in its own image and likeness, which has implicit within it
the potentiality of renewing its parent's life in complete stature in
the next generation. In a word, every organic being, before death, is
able to pack all its essential attributes into a tiny chest--Pandora's
box--in which is harbored the possibility of its living organically
again in the next cycle, when the present corpus of matter is gone. This
is its going into the ark, for the ark is the seed. It is that tiny
vessel of sheer potentiality into which the living qualities now
expressed in organic body can retire unseen, and be preserved in safety
during the period when dissolution sweeps like a deluge over all the
"earth" and washes all forms away! Earth here is a type of materiality,
as heaven is the type of spiritual consciousness. The astute reader will
already have divined that the Flood or Deluge is nothing other than the
tide of Shiva's force that, under the water typology, sweeps away all
living forms and creatures. When that flood has washed away all foothold
for soul or life to stand upon in cosmic waters, matter being the
resting place for spirit, the indestructible nucleus of consciousness
must retire into the invisible worlds and find a locale in structures of
spiritual tenuity.
427
The innermost vessel of purely spiritual substantiality in the invisible
realms is the ark shrine of man's life, and is at the same time his seed
vesicle, for in it are condensed as in a capsule the capability of
renewal and reproduction of every character of his present life, to
start a fresh expression in due course.
The great Flood, then, is the tide of dissolution of forms at the end of
each cycle. Massey comes close enough to the significance of the Deluge
legends to assert correctly that the Flood marks the end and the new
beginning of a cycle. Life must go on; there must be a next cycle. The
ark is the inner shrine or seed body--in the tree visible, in man
invisible and spiritual--into which the life principles of any being
retire to be tided to security over the period when the waters of
dissolution wash away all other foothold on earth. And at the end of the
Flood it will emerge from the ark to set foot on or in matter once more,
and renew the living creatures on "earth."
The clue and the certification to the correctness of this interpretation
lie in the very meaning and origin of the word "ark." The dictionaries
give the source of the word as from the Greek arkein, "to keep off, ward
off, fend, defend, protect in an enclosure," such as a palisade or
corral. Moses' ark of bulrushes is a typical mythical usage of the idea.
The seed is just that enclosure of safety into which it withdraws when
the waters of menace to its continuity are swirling around.
But who shall find authority strong enough to deny that the Greek arkein
is not a slight variant or modification of the primary stem arch-? In
this stem at any rate is the source of the basic meaning of the typism
underlying the ark symbolism. For arche (Greek) means, most
significantly, "the beginning"; and the seed is the beginning of the new
generation, as it is the end of the preceding growth! When the cycle is
ended and life has had its development and withdrawn from the form, it
goes into rest for a night, after which it begins another cycle to gain
further advance in enrichment. And here life operates according to a
methodology that is basic for knowledge of its laws. In every new life
period the indwelling and animating principle of soul begins its new
career back at the point of the original beginning of all evolution
itself. Every minor cycle becomes a miniature and reflection of the
whole cycle of life in manifestation. It starts each new round at the
point where first life started, or as the first word in the Greek Bible
(Genesis) has it, en arche (Hebrew B'rashith), "in
428
the beginning" of all creation. Each round starts from the same arche,
for it has retired into that arche, or first primeval state of being, at
the end of the preceding cycle, and must issue thence at the beginning
of the next. More quickly, however, in each succeeding round it
recapitulates its initial stages of growth. It is itself the Ancient of
Days, a spark of that Infinite Being which is neither young nor old, but
is ageless. Its new physical vehicle in each generation, however,
traverses the successive stages of the entire evolution up to the point
which the soul had achieved in the last activity, to go on a step
farther from there. The immortal principle of soul retires into the
primordial abysmal arche at the end of each active period, and emerges
from it at each new beginning. And while in retirement in this arche it
is tided safely over the waters of dissolution of form. Life does
nothing else endlessly but go in and out of the arche. From manifest
appearance in the worlds of actuality it retires into just what Plato
denominated it, its archetypal form in noumenon. It comes out of this
bosom of primordiality and withdraws into it in endless turn. It
shuttles between adult growth in one cycle and embryonic seed beginnings
in the next.
What characters, then, should we expect to find going into the ark to
ride the flood? The names of Noah and his sons have not been competently
etymologized, and much of the sequel is found here. The Greek word for
the divine Mind is Noe, a feminine form of the universal cosmic
Intelligence, the Nous--though Massey traces it from the Egyptian Nu or
Nnu. The feminine form of the word, Noe, is quite significant, since it
is in its feminine form in the Hebrew language that it comes to its form
of No-ah, ah being a feminine termination. The no- is the stem of our
own word "know," and of course the basis of such a word as "Gnosis."
Noah is therefore the name of the divine intellectual principle, which,
having projected itself into matter for the period of the active cycle,
withdraws into the arche at the dissolution of its outward forms, as the
spirit of the oak tree retires into the acorn before the storms crash
its form to molder away. The French word for "Christmas" derives from
the same stem, being No-el, which reads "(the birth of) God-Mind." And
who are Noah's three sons, who go with him into the ark?
This divine principle of mentality manifests or deploys outward into the
cosmic field of creation, not as one ray, but divided into three, which
give ancient religions their "solar triads" of mind-soul-spirit,
429
three aspects or modifications of the one single first emanation of
cosmic mind. They find Biblical typing in the persons of the three
angels who visited Abraham under the oaks of Mamre, the three men in the
fiery furnace in Daniel, and the three magi who come with the
incarnating Messiah to "adore" him. They even find a physiological
replica in the threefold segmentation of the spermatozoa of the male
creative fluid, which is often the type of creative mind. Noah's three
sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, must be taken as the three primal
segmentations of the first ray of divine consciousness. They are
sometimes equated with the first three patriarchs of Israel,
Abraham-Isaac-Jacob. Since a twelvefold progeny eventually issued from
their cosmic activity, Jacob's parentage of a race of twelve groups of
Israelites is in line with the graph of the emanations. So, then, when
the conscious principle is called upon to retire into its aboriginal
arche at the "end of the aeon"--most disastrously translated "the end
of the world"--it is quite clear that the intellectual entity could not
disappear off the scene without absorbing his three radiations back into
himself to disappear with him. Likewise their three shakti or materially
implementing forces, or "wives," accompanied them into "the ark."
Then they were given "seven days" in which to build their structure of
safety and gather the fourteens and twos of all creatures together. To
be sure, the period for accomplishment of the work to be consummated in
every cycle of life is "seven days." Life could not withdraw from its
outward manifestation in matter before the end of the cycle, which is
seven "days" of creative activity. Thus the allegory is in utter true
conformity with ancient cosmology.
The collection of seven (presumably of each gender) of "clean beasts"
and but two of each kind of "unclean beasts" into the ark has been an
item of puzzlement to exegetists. This is simple enough. To be "clean,"
the lower animal nature would have had to be perfected by its
development and purification attained at the end of the entire cycle of
seven sub-cycles. Those that were figured under the number of the primal
duality, which represents the condition in which they begin the cycle,
when purgation of evil has but only begun, were the "unclean." The
"sevens" were finished and "clean"; the "twos" were still imperfectly
developed and "unclean."
The forty days of rain types the period of the "inundation," which is
another glyph for the incarnation or incubation in the womb of
430
matter. The grain of Egypt was considered to be forty days in the ground
before germination, when planted in the overflowing waters of the
inundated Nile. The germ of human life incubates forty weeks in the womb
of the mother before birth. The 120 days of durance in the ark seems to
represent this typical period of forty, number of incubation, considered
as threefold, in conformity with the kindred emblemism of the three days
in the tomb, that is, forty taken three times. The basic significance of
the three numbers--three, seven and forty--which occur endlessly in
Bible symbolism, is uniformly that of the gestation of incarnation. It
is buried in the three lower kingdoms, mineral, vegetable and animal; it
works in matter through the seven cycles of any period; and it lies
latent through the forty days of prenatal growth.
The dove is the emblem of spiritual fire as in the baptism at the
Jordan. As divinity sent out its Son, so likewise it sent out,
figuratively, its dove, which could not find a landing to settle on the
earth until the waters had ceased raging and the time of the new cycle
was at hand. The raven is the type of the first, natural, carnal nature,
the animal Adam, and obviously, as Paul says that is first which is
natural, the raven was sent forth first as the forerunner and preparer
of the way.
And lastly comes the significance of the landing place of the ark when
the flood of dissolution had ended and the principles could move out
into material organization once more. This is a most important item of
the allegory, and that it has been missed utterly bespeaks the gaucherie
of centuries of Bible elucidation. Again the name reveals the hidden
sense. In the case of a human being, the principles at death flee from
earth habitat to heaven or higher consciousness. When the time is ready
for their next embodiment in flesh, they return from heaven and land
again on earth, where alone a body of requisite character is available.
There is, then, only one place indicated as appropriate for the ark to
land after the flood has subsided, and that is--on earth. And that is
precisely what the word "Ararat" means! Life fled into the ark when the
earth was obliterated and washed away. If it is to be active again, it
must return to earth and let the principles out to begin creation anew
at the point and place where they had left off at the end of the
previous cycle. Many times in old scriptures, indeed in the Bible, the
earth is designated at "the mount
431
of earth"; and at any rate it was typed under the figure of a mound or
mount amid the water of space, a landing place amid the waters of the
abyss, a station of security or foothold for life based on matter. We
have seen it as Mount Sinai, and we shall see it as the "mount of the
horizon." It is that Mount of the Lord on which the Christos delivers
his "sermon" or divine message to humanity. This is no far-fetched
alignment, but the downright meaning of the various Biblical mounts. And
Ararat is the patent, obvious, direct word "earth" itself. The present
Hebrew word for "earth" is arets. And one reliable authority states that
it was earlier areth, or practically the English "earth." Mt. Ararat is
just this old earth, on which life had to "land" in order to express
itself in its next turn at physical existence. And in the light of this
exposition it is to be hoped that the befuddlement of the western mind
by bigoted literalism may be washed away in the flood of the dissolution
of the incrustations of ignorance by a rain of ideas and symbols that
will bring the ark of sanity back again to land on "Mount Ararat."
The ship or ark was also the navis, from the Latin stem na-, which has
already yielded for us the cognate ideas of "to swim" and "to be
born,"--the new birth in water. In Egyptian the ark was the theba, or
teba; whence can be seen the origin and implication of the word Thebes,
as a city name, carrying this whole segment of meaning in the
uranograph. As Abydos and Annu were cities named to portray the death
and rebirth of the sun-god, so Thebes was named to convey the idea of
the soul's voyaging over the waters in the ark of the body, and finding
its new birth therein.
The sacred chests that play a part in many myths of creation find their
clue in relation to the ark. In them always are kept the most holy
things, as in the ark of the covenant. In the Mysteries of Bacchus a
sacred box was carried in procession. There is the legend of Pandora's
box containing the seeds of all good and evil; the Argo of Jason; the
moon-shaped boat in which Isis floated over the waters and gathered
together the dismembered limbs of Osiris; and the whole list of coffins
and chests out of which the various gods rose from a state of death for
the redemption of the world. That the ark was identical with the coffin
and mummy-case is attested securely by that remarkable line quoted
before, the utterance of the Manes: "I am coffined in an ark like Horus,
to whom his cradle is brought." The
432
ark, as the physical form in the lower lake carrying the soul across the
sea, is the coffin and tomb, as it is the womb; the tomb of death and
the womb of new life all in one. The boats, arks and coffins alike
evidently refer to the mystic womb of nature, typed by that of woman,
and are symbols of salvation amid the "defluxions" of mortal life, as
Plato intimates. The Manes says: "I have not been shipwrecked, I have
not been turned back on the horizon, for . . . the Osiris-Nu shall not
be shipwrecked in the great Boat."
There is a secondary imputation of meaning in the flood or deluge
allegorism that can be delineated briefly. It is possible that the
deluge epic can be taken, in a poetic sense at any rate, to adumbrate
the release of the higher water (or fire) of spirit and intellectuality
by the god upon the animal part of man after incarnation; and
conversely, in its opposite phase, the release of the lower water
(sensualism) upon the god by the lower animal man. Each flooded the
other with their respective higher and lower forces, and this is in some
sense an implied connotation of the deluge, as of the baptism.
Revelation does say expressly that the Dragon loosed a water flood to
overwhelm the Woman who fled from heaven to this refuge, and that earth
swallowed up the flood and helped the Woman. We have seen that this
interchange of influences underlay one meaning of the baptism, god and
man reciprocally baptizing each other, the one with water, the other
with fire. It could be extended to the deluge symbolism. Likewise god
and man intoxicate each other, the one with spiritual, the other with
sensual, wine of life. The gods were almost submerged under the mighty
tide of sensuality that swept in upon their souls at their entry into
animal bodies. A deluge of passion and beastliness broke loose to engulf
all humanity and carry the Christ principle down into the "belly" of
fleshly instinct.
A mass of legends center about the fact that in the early stages of
human history an Eden of happiness was submerged under a deluge that
covered the Mount. An initial Paradise was overthrown and buried under
waters that flooded the earth. Various people even localized this
drowned garden under the waters nearest them. The Black Sea, Lake Van in
Armenia and Lake Copais in Egypt were a few of the seas on whose bottoms
the sunken Eden might be found. A typical deluge myth that preserves the
sunken Eden feature is one related by a Miztec tribe of Indians, to the
effect that "in the day of
433
obscurity and darkness the gods built a palace that was a masterpiece of
skill, and made their abode on the summit of a mountain. The rock was
called 'the Place of Heaven.' It was the primary dwelling of the gods.
The children of the gods then planted a garden of fruit trees." But the
universal fate of such gardens overtakes it: there comes a deluge; the
garden of delight is submerged and "many sons and daughters of the gods
are swept away" (Bancroft: Native Races, Vol. 3, p. 71). Massey says
that "inevitably at times our earth gets substituted for the mound
(mount), island," or eminence of whatever name that stands for a refuge
of stability and security amid chaos. Naturally enough; for the reason
that the "mount" was the earth. The celestial mount was transferred to
earth by and with the arrival of the gods. The gods sank the Eden of
spiritual mindedness and semi-Nirvanic blissful dreaminess under the
deluge of the carnalism that the Dragon released to overwhelm them as
they enter the lower sea of bodily life. There was for a time a Golden
Age of angelic delight on the globe itself. But this was in the
incipient stages of the descent, when as yet the higher mind hovered
over, rather than fully inhabited, the physical constitution. Then it
passed away under the encroaching waters of sensualism, as the angels
were swept deeper into the coils and toils of incarnation. The gods
transferred their focus of consciousness and interest from the heaven
world of intellect down into the belly of sense and lust for physical
life. They moved from the regions of air and fire down into the morasses
of earth and water, all, however, within the frame of man's material
existence. Egypt and Plato both remind us that through intellect we are
gods in heaven, while through body we are animals on earth. The god may
descend from his tower or parlor to live in his stable. The submergence
of Eden was the shift from divine mentation to gross carnality. To
transfer Paradise from heaven to earth was for the gods merely to
undergo the drastic delimitation of their scope of consciousness
necessary to achieve incorporation in bodies of lower capacity.
The baptism or deluge from above on life below was well imaged by the
Nile inundation in Egypt. The fresh water poured down from heaven in the
upper ranges of the hills of source in Central Africa and flooded the
land of Lower Egypt. And whether one takes this deluge in an evil or a
good sense is only a matter of judging temporary burial of the land
against lasting enrichment. Similarly with
434
the human deluge. It flooded lower man, but with the waters of more
abundant life. It is as the gentle rain from heaven, that blesses the
earth. The deluge was the descent of the fiery solar god, through the
air, in the form of water to nourish and make fertile the earth. And
this is the outward description of the history of the human soul.
Likewise it was the central theme of Mystery drama.
The mount of heaven was the original place of bliss and security; later
the mount of the earth became the refuge of safety. It afforded a firm
landing place for souls destined to wrestle with matter's inertia to
achieve greater power.
The sunken Eden is not a stranger to Bible pages. It is definitely
alluded to by Ezekiel as lying in the nether parts of the earth, typed
now as Assyria instead of the usual Egypt:
"To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of
Eden? Yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden into the
nether parts of the earth. Thou shalt be there in the midst of the
uncircumcised"--obviously the still animal races.
The Ovaherero, an African tribe, say that the sky was once let down in a
deluge by which the greater part of mankind was drowned. This falls into
agreement with the general Egyptian conception of the downfall of
stellar hosts due to the shifting of the polar axis and the resultant
dropping of many stars below the horizon. All this was set forth in
Egypt as the superseding of the earlier gods, Nnu, Seb, Shu and Taht by
Ra, the supreme god of Intelligence, or their reduction to subserviency
under him. Ra rose to hegemony over all the elemental powers when he
"resolved to be lifted up in an ark or sanctuary." This was the
spiritual inner body of light now being formed within us, as Paul says,
in which the principle of Mind could rule the natural creation in and
through man.
The deluge from heaven brought down seven great powers to be submerged
under the lower waters. The seven great pole stars fell one after the
other, as the end of each aeon brought a shift in the axis. At each turn
of the cycles one of the seven mountains was submerged, one of the seven
provinces inundated, one of the seven rulers dethroned. These seven were
imaged under many forms of description, as seven kings, seven heads,
seven horns, seven mountains, seven islands, seven lampstands, seven
stars, seven eyes, seven pillars and
435
seven angels. The dragon that falls from heaven and goes to perdition is
none other than these seven collectively. The fall of the seven as
islands sinking in the abyss is stated with surprising clearness in
Revelation (16:20): "Every island fled away and the mountains were not
found." They had gone down to earth. We have seen that the mountain went
down into the sea and turned it into blood.
In Wales there is the legend of the destruction of the seven divisions
or provinces of Dyfed, when the drunken Seithenkin let in the deluge and
drowned the land. The Mangaians recognize the seven islands of the
Hervey group as the seven islands of Savaiki (Sevekh!), which they say
lie in the underworld, or beneath the waters.
We read of the "deluge that afflicted the intrepid dragon." The seven
heads of the Dragon were cut off one by one and thrown down as the seven
cycles rolled around. The crowning stroke of creational activity was the
dethronement of the last of the elemental seven by the solar god, who
slew and succeeded the Dragon, after cutting off its seven heads. The
overthrow of the Dragon by the solar god is one of the most ancient
traditions of Greece. Apollo overcame the Dragon and took his place as
guardian and insp irerof the oracle. In Babylonia Bel became a solar god
and conquered the Dragon. Michael conquered him in Revelation. In the
place of the outcast seven powers, devils, giants, ogres, "the god of
the bright crown created mankind." This was the seventh creation, and
astronomically it was marked by the passage of the pole from Lyra, the
Harp, into the constellation of Herakles, the man, typing the inception
of the reign of intelligence.
One of the labors of the all-conquering sun in his journey through the
underworld is to obtain command over the lower water. One of his claims
to vindication at the judgment is that he has prevailed over the deluge!
In the Ritual (Ch. 136A) there is this: "He turneth back the water flood
which is over the thigh of the goddess Nut at the staircase of Seb"--or
the ascending grades of evolution on earth, in the thigh or womb of
matter.
The Nile inundation begins in late June (Cancer) and was pouring out the
fullness of its waters in July, the sign of the Lion. Hence the
universally adopted symbol of the lion, or two lions, from whose mouths
gush streams of water in fountains!
Horus, who was born of the water, has given his name to the month in
which the waters of the inundation have their birth in Egypt. June
436
in Egyptian nomenclature is Mesore. Mes is "to be born," "to be reborn";
Hor(Har) is the divine child, Har-Makhu, Har-Tema. Mes-Hor or Mesore is,
then, the godly child born of the June waters. Many hints in old tomes
point to the sign of Scorpio (October-November) as the true beginning of
the year. This was in congruity with the typology of the Nile flood, as
the inundated earth re-emerged from the waters at that time. In
sculptures at Karnak the autumn equinox is represented as one of the
divinities and the first month of the year; the vernal equinox appearing
as the seventh month, when the seven principles of deity were born, or
perfected.
From the deluge imagery rises the symbolism of a ladder, mound or tower,
tree or rock, that should be built high enough to be beyond the reach of
the flooding waters. This is but another variant of the Rock of Ages,
that eternal principle of divinity in man, which though cast into the
midst of the sea of turbulent natural forces, becomes the ark of safety
or the rock of stability outlasting all decay and movement. Bab-El means
"the gate of God," and equates Cancer in the zodiac, the northern gate
of heaven. In the cyclic round of incarnations the soul ascends after
each dip into matter and resurrection therefrom up to the high gate of
heaven to dwell in the bosom of deity. But as the summer turns to fall,
it is cast down again to earth, its unitary mentality is dissipated and
its divine unity of speech scattered into many various dialects.
A Thlinkeet tradition recounts a deluge from which men saved themselves
in a large floating structure. When the waters subsided the building
drove on a rock and broke in two by its own weight. There is a detail
omitted from the Ararat story in Genesis. Again it corroborates the
reading of the earth for Mount Ararat, as deity does break into two
aspects, male and female, when it lands on earth. This bifurcation is
the meaning of the first verse of Genesis, "heaven" and "earth" standing
for spirit and matter.
An Indian saga says that in the deluge a virgin caught hold of the foot
of a bird as it flew above her and was carried up out of the water where
all were drowning. As the bird is the universal image of the soul, the
implication is that man's lower nature saves itself by catching hold of
the foot (heel?) of the soul's power as it sweeps down close to the
level of physical life and being lifted up thereby.
But a strange and at first unaccountable element of mystery and
437
oddity enters the many deluge traditions with the frequent mention of
the monkey. For instance, the Tlascalans say that after the deluge those
who were preserved were changed into monkeys, who later evolved into
human beings. In the Codex Chimalpopoca the result of the great
hurricane was to change men into monkeys (Bancroft). A belief of the
Catalans is that after the deluge those who had been previously changed
into monkeys were subsequently transformed into men. An Arawak rendering
is very curious. It recites that the waters had been confined in the
hollow bole of an enormous tree by means of an inverted basket. The
mischievous monkey saw the basket and believing it contained something
good to eat, he lifted it up, whereupon the deluge burst out from the
tree. A Guiana story runs much to the same effect. The waters were pent
up in the stem of the tree of life, to be let forth in appropriate
measure to fill every lake and stream with water for the fish. But
Warika, the mischievous monkey, forced open the magic cover that held
back the waters, which then gushed out to sweep away not only the
meddling culprit, but all living things besides. The points of
similarity of these fables with that of Pandora should be noted. Many
other legends charge the monkey with being the villain in the deluge
piece.
What is the significance of this connection? In the cosmic sense
adumbrated by the astrological mythology, Hapi, the ape, was one of the
four (of the seven) elemental powers holding up the four corners of the
earth. The Kaf-Ape, Hapi, personated the element of air, and it is from
the powers embosomed in the air that an outpouring of water takes form.
Hapi is typed as the fury of the air in motion, engendering the
hurricane and the deluge. Hurricane, we have seen, is a derivative of
the name of the Quiche deity of the storm wind, Hurakan (French
ouragan), he who brought life to man through breath, Shu. The ape was
the zootype of Shu. Hapi, the Ape, is one of the four who are, in
Ezekiel's vision, the eagle, bull, lion and man; in Revelation the lion,
calf, bird and man; and in Egypt Amsta, Hapi, Tuamutef and Kabhsenuf.
Amsta was the human, Hapi, the ape, Tuamutef the jackal and Kabhsenuf
the hawk. These, so mystifying and so confusedly presented in various
forms, must be conceived to represent the four basics upports of man's
life, the four elemental essences, earth, water, air and fire, of each
of which substances man has a body. These four are placed symbolically
at the four corners
438
or cardinal points of the zodiac, the two solstices and equinoxes.
Massey locates Hapi, the ape, at the autumn equinox, yet in the tables
of the four elementaries he is found at the spring equinox. His position
on the horizon at the equinox is vastly appropriate. The horizon is the
dividing line between two realms, and the monkey stands there as the
type of man because he himself is on the dividing line between the
animal and the human kingdom, and thus symbols man, who in his turn is
on the dividing line between the human and the divine.
Yet it is possible that still another meaning of momentous import lurks
behind the figure of the monkey in deluge mythology. The culpability of
the monkey may be seen from the angle of anthropology. In other
connections reference has already been made to the "harlotry" so
vehemently reprobated by the Lord in the Old Testament, and to the
miscegenation perpetrated by the early sons of God with some of the
higher animals after the descent. The result of this transgression of
natural restrictions upon procreation was the generation of the various
monkey types. They were the offspring of male humans and female animals,
according to much evidence in such old books as Enoch, the Avesta, the
Gilgamesh Epic, the Bundahish and the Vedas. The monkey is by parentage
equally man and beast, and can stand as the type of man, who is man and
god together. When the legends hint that the result of the deluge was to
change men into monkeys, and as in one version to restore men, changed
into monkeys, back to human form, it is, in the guise of a Marchen, the
statement of a great anthropological datum, for the truth of which
science is still groping. The gods were told not "to marry the women of
that place" or to "make alliances with the natives of that land." But it
seems they did so, and the miscegenation that is marked by the existence
of the monkey was apparently used to typify the letting loose the deluge
of carnal lust that swept over the world in consequence. The monkey
would therefore vividly personify the deluge that swept the gods down
to the very depths of sensuous riot. He would stand as the badge of the
god's biological sin, that released the flood of the lower waters to
enmire the feet of deity, and bring the "destruction" of mankind.
Archaic fable reports that early races and continents had to be
destroyed as a result of the breach in evolutionary law, for it is
stated that there were bred monsters terrible and great. Paul has told
us that
439
wickedness changed the image of the incorruptible god into the likeness
of loathsome beasts and creeping things. The monkey is the living sign
of this degradation.
. . . . . . .
There has been substantially covered the body of arcane wisdom touching
the coming of transcendent celestial power to earth to perform a mighty
segment of evolutionary work in this sphere. The god had descended to
the bottom of his arc, his evolutionary nadir, and would go no further.
He stands at that point poised in the balance with material inertia,
gripped in the tentacles of matter, locked in a tense struggle with
opposing powers. He is engaged in the great Battle of Armageddon, which
is fought, says the Ritual, at midnight and on the horizon. To modern
thought, for the first time, is to be revealed the momentous
significance of the mighty Egyptian symbol of the Horizon.
440
Robert Moldenhauer
What, pray tell does this have to do with language? Please remove
sci.lang from your "newsgoups" line. Thank you very much.
In article <32122a56....@news.airmail.net>, fde...@airmail.net
says...
>
>Aaron Boyden <650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Aug 1996, Wen-King Su wrote:
>>
>>> Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable
implications.
>>> Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will
prove
>>> the theory wrong.
>>
>>Creationism has plenty of verifiable implications. For example, it
is
>>one of the tenets of creationism that the fossil record was produced
by
>>the great flood. Geologists have many ways of distinguishing
>>flood-deposited material from other kinds of sediment,
>
>>so if the fossil
>>record turns out not to be largely flood-deposited,
>>this would
>
> Be a miracle, considering the fact that it is already known
>not to have been.
>
>>constituted falsifying evidence for creationism. Since that is in
fact
>>exactly what we find,
>
> creationism is false.
>
>>creationism is clearly falsifiable; it is in fact
>>falsified. The psychology of those who believe in creationism (and
who
>>would reject the evidence) has no bearing on the standing of the
theory.
>>
>>---
>>Aaron Boyden
>>
>>"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will
take care
>>not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained."
-David Lewis
>>
>
>-----
>I'm always right. Even when I'm wrong.
>How can that be? It's a miracle!
frank dever
t...@wrona.com (Tom Wrona) wrote:
>bre...@ionet.net (brentb) wrote:
>
>>The assertion that conservatives are
>>the true intellectuals is so ridiculous is does not merit response.
>
>
>But of course, we can always count on some blowhard leftist to reply
>anyway.
Conservative is synonomous with "fundie."
>
>Tom
>
>
>This month's thought:
>"In reality, the animal rights movement has elevated ignorance
>about the natural world almost to the level of a philosophical
>principle." -- Richard Coniff, conservationist,
>Audubon Magazine (92(6):120-133;1990)
>Tom Wrona
>www.wrona.com
>
-----
frank dever
Aaron Boyden <650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>On 11 Aug 1996, Wen-King Su wrote:
>
>> Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
>> Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
>> the theory wrong.
>
>Creationism has plenty of verifiable implications. For example, it is
>one of the tenets of creationism that the fossil record was produced by
>the great flood. Geologists have many ways of distinguishing
>flood-deposited material from other kinds of sediment,
>so if the fossil
>record turns out not to be largely flood-deposited,
>this would
Be a miracle, considering the fact that it is already known
not to have been.
>constituted falsifying evidence for creationism. Since that is in fact
>exactly what we find,
creationism is false.
>creationism is clearly falsifiable; it is in fact
>falsified. The psychology of those who believe in creationism (and who
>would reject the evidence) has no bearing on the standing of the theory.
>
>---
>Aaron Boyden
>
>"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
>not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
>
-----
Don Henry
: > Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
: > Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
: > the theory wrong.
: Creationism has plenty of verifiable implications. For example, it is
: one of the tenets of creationism that the fossil record was produced by
: the great flood. Geologists have many ways of distinguishing
: flood-deposited material from other kinds of sediment, so if the fossil
: record turns out not to be largely flood-deposited, this would
: constituted falsifying evidence for creationism. Since that is in fact
: exactly what we find, creationism is clearly falsifiable; it is in fact
: falsified. The psychology of those who believe in creationism (and who
: would reject the evidence) has no bearing on the standing of the theory.
Let's say I write a historical account of John Doe, who just happens to be
in Philadelphia when G. Washington and B. Franklin (and others) meet. And
that same John Doe is also in England when the king hears and reacts to
the colonies' misbehavior.
Is this account fact, fact-based, or pure fiction?
You seem to treat this as fact.
Don
--
Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional
My company makes me include:
From IHS--the company the world trusts for its technical and regulatory
information needs.
Randy M. Wadkins
In article <jbryson-1308...@pa3dsp8.richmond.infi.net>
jbr...@richmond.infi.net (Jerry Bryson) writes:
> I'm a creationist myself, but I can't hang out with other Creationists
> because of their blatant lies, such as the dino-human prints and the
> thermodynamics garbage.
Thank god that at least one confessed creationist _finally_
admits the 2nd Law garbage is a lie. My congratulations, sir.
--Randy
***************************************************************
These opinions are my own and not those of the U.S. Navy
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer,
pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more
tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and
attractive..."--Carl Sagan, _The_Demon-Haunted_World_.
***************************************************************
Nick Scholte
"Bruce R. Davis" <bn...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Tom Wrona wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
>>
>> Aww, come on, this is too easy.
>>
>> The fossil record.
>> The Grand Canyon (If the world is young, how'd it get so deep?)
>> Evolution in our own lifetimes. (Drug-resistant microbes)
>>
>> Read Hawkings "The Blind Watchmaker"
>>
>> Tom
>Tom,
> You do realize, don't you that you are arguing with a brick wall.
>Creationists are a very special sort of wacko who will always fail to
>accept fact. Faith is the security blanket that will ever provide them
>with a means to avoid dealing with reality.
> In some ways, I'm envious of them as reality really sucks sometimes.
>BRD
Bravo!
Nick S.
Rob
>>>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>>>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>>>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>>>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>>>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>>>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like
>the
>>
>>Before the other guy says that they must be fakes, I'd like to point out
>that
>>they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in
>and
>>formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible
>for it
>>to be forged.
>>
>The story is familiar, also, from SF. Anyone help with title & date???
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, this old claim again. This has been refuted time and
time again in talk.origins. For a complete explaination of the "man
tracks" at the Taylor site, you may read a lengthy, well-documented,
scientific essay on the subject at:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html
Norm Woodward
Croooow <cro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>robert averbeck wrote:
>>
>> Guys -
>>
>> In regards to Creationism/Evolution, fair play, and an education that
>> allows for open mindedness for the student to make his/her own
>> decisions (like we'll ever have that in human society) is there some
>> reason both schools of thought can't be taught? I've investigated both
>> theories, and both have legit points, and what seem like large
>> stretches to cover their asses. Which I believe is unimportant.
>>
>> I just think ALL schools of thought on a subject should be taught, or
>> else how can a student truly learn?
>
>to learn what foolish thoughts they had in the past. Such as:
>1) The earth is flat
>2) The sun revolves around the earth
>3) Lighting and Thunder came from the greek and norse gods
>and 4) Creationism
>
>Then we all go back to science classes to learn the truth about the universe, dinosaurs,
>evolution, genetics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and how to spot a week minded fool.
>
>
"...how to spot a week (sic) minded fool"? Misspelling is a good start.
Seriously, in today's schools, the kids are taught to be skeptical about
our heroes, our status as a nation, our laws, etc, but some how
evolution has become a sacred cow. The problems of abiogenesis, fossil
gaps, and other controversies are not mentioned, nor are punctuated
evolution, ET-origins of terrestrial life, and other speculative
explanations of these phenomena are not introduced today, so that the
average high school grad thinks that classic Darwinism explains the way
and why things are. After all, evolution was introduced into the
Nation's under the banner of "academic freedom." If we do not present
the challenges the theory must answer, we are only teaching dogma.
By the way, I also do not think religion should not be taught in the
class room, not because I'm a sceptic, but because I think it is too
important to have it mistaught. After all, it has been said that if a
foreign power imposed our current public school system on us, we would
have gone to war. And you can't blame "Creationism" on a system that is
graduating seniors that can't find the US on a world map.
Norm, the Dingbat
Norm Woodward
>and why things are. After all, evolution was introduced into the
>
>important to have it mistaught. After all, it has been said that if a
>foreign power imposed our current public school system on us, we would
>have gone to war. And you can't blame "Creationism" on a system that is
>graduating seniors that can't find the US on a world map.
>
work:-] Sorry about any confusion my last posting may have caused)
As always,
>Norm, the Dingbat
>
Chris (Chris) Carrell
Steve Cowden wrote:
>
> Nick Scholte <nsch...@express.ca> wrote in article
> <4uttod$d...@loki.express.ca>...
>
> > > You do realize, don't you that you are arguing with a brick wall.
> > >Creationists are a very special sort of wacko who will always fail to
> > >accept fact. Faith is the security blanket that will ever provide them
> > >with a means to avoid dealing with reality.
Speaking of brick walls...
> On the contrary, folks, creationsits are very willing to face facts.
First of all, 'creationist' is too broad a term that _can_ encompass
anyone with a faith in God, including those that see the evidence and
draw a conclusion of evolution. The term you are looking for is
'superstitious twit.'
> Trouble is, evolutionists generally insist on confusing personal
> *interpretations* with "facts". Fossils are facts. What story they tell
> is an interpretation. The Grand Canyon is a fact. How it got there is a
> matter of conjecture and interpretation based on a lot of (usually)
> unprovable pre-suppositions.
Such as? BTW, there is no such thing as 100% certitude in science.
This is not like some fundamentalism where followers are 100%
certain of beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. It is
also not like mathematics where theorems are proved from a set of
axioms.
> Love and justice are realities. Evolutionists must claim that these are,
> bottom line, the result of some bio-chemical dynamic (would somebody
> please demonstrate the chemical equations for compassion and dignity, joy
> and sorrow).
Nice strawman. Doesn't work.
But perhaps you could read Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" for an
idea of how these came about.
As for chemistry, I suppose I could open a few serotonin channels in
neural cells. But asking for detailed brain chemistry is just silly
at this point in time. But that is why we do research. Perhaps you've
heard of it. Scientific inquiry - something with which religious leaders
are wholly unfamiliar.
The creationist observes these realities, these "facts" if
> you will, and concludes that they are expressions of a humanity created in
> the image of a personal God. It may be interpretation, but it sure makes
> sense to me!
And evolution makes sense to the reasoning individual. If your faith in
God is shaken by inference from evidence, then your faith is feeble
indeed.
> As for the comment on a "security blanket", I hardly think that faith in a
> holy God to whom we are all accountable and by whom we will all one day be
> judged, affords one much "security". Evolutionism is the "security
> blanket" with which unbelief wraps itself in order to escape moral
> responsibility and a nagging conscience which says to all human beings that
> there is a higher power to which we must all one day answer.
FWEEEEEEEEE! Evolution does not equal atheism or God avoidance.
Thank you for playing and God bless.
Chris
Steve Cowden
Nick Scholte <nsch...@express.ca> wrote in article
<4uttod$d...@loki.express.ca>...
> > You do realize, don't you that you are arguing with a brick wall.
> >Creationists are a very special sort of wacko who will always fail to
> >accept fact. Faith is the security blanket that will ever provide them
> >with a means to avoid dealing with reality.
> > In some ways, I'm envious of them as reality really sucks sometimes.
>
On the contrary, folks, creationsits are very willing to face facts.
Trouble is, evolutionists generally insist on confusing personal
*interpretations* with "facts". Fossils are facts. What story they tell
is an interpretation. The Grand Canyon is a fact. How it got there is a
matter of conjecture and interpretation based on a lot of (usually)
unprovable pre-suppositions.
Love and justice are realities. Evolutionists must claim that these are,
bottom line, the result of some bio-chemical dynamic (would somebody
please demonstrate the chemical equations for compassion and dignity, joy
and sorrow). The creationist observes these realities, these "facts" if
you will, and concludes that they are expressions of a humanity created in
the image of a personal God. It may be interpretation, but it sure makes
sense to me!
As for the comment on a "security blanket", I hardly think that faith in a
david ford
Part 5 of 8: personal God
The incredible order seen in nature points toward the fact that this
Cause purposed/ intended/ aimed to create, and having purpose is
indicative of personhood, i.e., this Cause is not some impersonal
force. Much order in the universe exists, order of the magnitude
present implies design, and design implies a Designer. This design
argument for the existence of a God having personhood is based not on
the complexity present in _living_ systems as depicted by theologian
and naturalist William Paley's examples, but upon the presence of the
exactly right circumstances that would allow for the existence of life.
The especially nice thing about this evidence is that appeal cannot be
made to naturalistic selection of chance yet somehow beneficial
mutations as an alternative explanation because there does not exist
any DNA to utilize.
It is absolutely incredible, the number of different factors that had
to be as they are or things to happen as they did for you and I to be
alive today. In fact, there is a term for these many "coincidences,"
these "unnatural selections,"[aq] the anthropic principle, that,
depending on which definition you use, says the universe is constructed
to be just right for the existence of humans. To illustrate,
astronomers John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk comment that "the universe
would have to be just as large as it is to support even one lonely
outpost of life"[ar] when discussing the fact that heavy life-essential
elements, e.g., carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, and nitrogen, are produced
only by star burning, a process taking billion of years. Billions of
years of burning results in a universe billions of light years across
in size.
In addition to an adequate age and thus size of the universe, here are
some further examples of fine-tuning: right color and age and mass sun,
bachelor sun (in our galaxy, 2/3 are not), right distance from sun, not
a highly elliptical orbit around sun, not a highly tilted orbit, right
tilt in axis, presence of moon to stabilize axial tilt, right rotation
period, presence of Jupiter to reduce incidence of catastrophic comet
and asteroid collisions, right magnetic field strength, right crust
thickness, right carbon dioxide and water vapor and ozone and oxygen
levels in atmosphere, right escape velocity for earth, right speed of
light,
location in right place in galaxy, spiral galaxy (95% are not spirals),
right supernovae explosion rate and location in past for earth's rocky
material and not high rate today, right number and timing of white
dwarf binary stars, right values of strong and weak nuclear force and
gravitational and electromagnetic constants, right ratio of
electromagnetism's to gravity's force constant, right ratio of protons
to electrons, right ratio of electron to proton mass, our existence in
exactly three dimensions, right expansion rate, and slight excess of
matter over antimatter at the time of the big bang.[as]
The universe resulting from the big bang creation event had to have the
right entropy level. Remarks Davies, "If the big bang was just a
random event, then the probability seems _overwhelming_ (a colossal
understatement) that the emerging cosmic material would be in
thermodynamic equilibrium at maximum entropy with zero order....
Penrose has computed the odds against the observed universe appearing
by accident, given that a black-hole cosmos is so much more likely on
_a priori_ grounds. He estimates a figure of 10^(10^30) to one."[at]
Davies wonders, "And if such an exceedingly improbable initial state
was selected, there surely had to be a _selector_ or _designer_ to
'choose' it?"[au] To vaguely give you an idea of the odds mentioned,
10^17 seconds (or 1 followed by 17 zeros) have gone by since the big
bang, and there are 10^80 atoms in the visible universe. In a similar
vein, Hawking commented in 1983, "The odds against a universe like ours
emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous... I think
there clearly are religious implications whenever you start to discuss
the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones..." He
adds, "But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the
religious side of it."[av]
Hawking remarks about the fundamental numbers evident, e.g., the
various ratios above, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these
numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the
development of life."[aw] "Adjustment" points toward consciousness,
toward personhood, and not to some impersonal, uninterested, uncaring
force floating around wherever.
Astronomer George Greenstein sums up the natural reaction to these
numerous things that had to be exactly as they are to allow life when
he observes, "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently
arises that some supernatural agency- or, rather, Agency- must be
involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have
stumbled upon scientific proof for the existence of a Supreme Being?
Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for
our benefit?"[ax] Cosmologist Edward Harrison puts forward "yes" as a
possible answer, saying, "Here is... the design argument of Paley-
updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides
prima facie evidence of deistic design."[ay]
In speaking about the requirement that the atomic resonances of carbon
and oxygen and helium and beryllium must be fine-tuned to within 4% of
each other, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle confessed, "A common sense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed
with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are
no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."[az]
Incidentally, the case of Hoyle brings up yet another "unnatural
selection," the existence of life. He rejects the big bang model, not
because of a lack of evidence for it, but because he knows from ten
years of studying biochemistry that 20 billion years is fantastically
too short to produce anything like the complexity seen in nature.[ba]
To illustrate the improbability of chance _protein_ formation-- not
including the also necessary DNA and RNA-- Hoyle uses the analogy of
the chances that a junkyard having the debris of a Boeing 747 would,
after a tornado had passed through, contain a plane capable of flight
to convey the chances he calculated that a usable set of enzymes for a
bacterium could be formed by chance, specifically, 1 in 10^40,000.[bb]
Much worse odds are provided by physicist Harold Morowitz, who figured
the chances of an _entire_ bacterium reassembling by chance whose every
chemical bond had been broken as being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000.[bc]
Twenty billion years is pitifully inadequate for the chance assembly of
even the "simplest" forms of life; if significantly less complex, they
could not exist.[bd] Rather than accepting God's hand in the creation
of life, Hoyle proposes that the universe is infinitely old using a
jerry-rigged version of his discredited steady state theory and by
saying that life originated in space, since the earth is only 4.6
billion years old.[be] Francis Crick, of double helix fame, has been
driven by the evidence to suggest an even more ridiculous hypothesis
than Hoyle's, saying that a spaceship came to earth and unloaded some
organisms!![bf]
Craig mentions an excellent analogy on a good interpretation of the
different things that had to be for humans to exist.[bg] Imagine a
prisoner faces execution. A 100 person firing squad composed of
sharpshooters bearing different types of guns fires, and the prisoner
discovers that he is still alive. Now he could imagine that his living
was the result of luck, e.g., all 100 happened to be horrible shots for
that one particular discharge, or all the assorted bullets happened to
be improperly manufactured duds, etc.
A more reasonable interpretation he could make would be that someone
purposed that he should live-- someone had blanks inserted into the
guns or directed that he not be aimed at. Likewise for us: we could
say that it was all an accident, and that we just happened to be the
beneficiaries of chance events, but it would make more sense to
conclude that Someone purposed that we should live, not because He
needed us or felt lonely without us, but because He wanted to. The
proper response ought not be an attitude of arrogance, but of
gratitude, awe, and humility.
Something that on its surface undercuts the force of the analogy with
its numerous different fine-tunings is that concerning _some_, not all,
of the evidence of fine-tuning, physicists may develop a Theory of
Everything (TOE), or unification of the four fundamental forces
(electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity) as
they were in the Planck era, that would allow the various constants and
ratios mentioned to be derived from the theory instead of their values
still requiring measurement.[bh]
The fact that physicists have come to expect an underlying order in
their field of study means something. Such tremendous order denotes
design, and design is indicative of a Designer. Just as Johannes
Kepler did not believe God would have His creation contain numerous
epicycles in the planet's orbits around the sun, but instead something
much more simple, and therefore set out to discover his laws of
planetary motion, so also have physicists come to expect order and
simplicity.[bi] Concludes Davies, "The laws... seem themselves to be
the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product
of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern
physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us."[bj]
NOTES
[aq] Heeren, 178. [ar] _The Left Hand of Creation_ (1983), 206.
[as] Most items listed from Ross, 105-135. See also Robert Naeye, "OK,
Where Are They?" _Astronomy_ (7/96), 39-41. John D. Barrow and Frank
Tipler's _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ (1986) is said to be
excellent in this regard. I don't know how Nemesis, whose existence
was proposed to explain the periodic extinction of organisms on earth
every 26 million years, as an unseen sister star to the sun affects the
claim that our sun is not part of a multiple star system. Concerning
the requirement for the right expansion rate, the inflationary
submodel, which says the universe experienced a short period of very
rapid expansion around t=10^(-34) second, of the big bang model
probably tells us why the expansions rate requirement is met. In any
event, something is behind the right expansion rate, whether a set of
finely-tuned constants or a physical law.
[at] _God and_, 168, 178-9. [au] _God and_, 168. [av] Quoted by
Boslough, 55-6. [aw] _A Brief_, 125. [ax] _The Symbiotic Universe_
(1988), 27. Greenstein replies "no," and his alternative involves
putting an effect before its cause, an incorrect interpretation of
quantum mechanics (Ross, 94-6), and the fallacy of composition: 28,
198, 223-4. [ay] He continues, "Take your choice: blind chance that
requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one."-
_Masks of the Universe_ (1985), 252. Occam's razor would be applicable
to the postulation of multiple universes for which there is no
evidence.
[az] "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," in _Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics_, Vol. 20 (1982), 16; Ross, 107. [ba]
Hoyle's interview in Lightman and Brawer, 59-60. [bb] Hoyle, 17, 19.
[bc] Robert Shapiro, _Origins_ (1986), 128. [bd] Ross, 141. [be]
Hoyle, 242. [bf] Crick's _Life Itself_ (1981). Where did the aliens
come from? Other aliens. And where did _they_.... [bg] Ross, 119,
citing Craig's "Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle Versus
Divine Design," _British Journal of Philosophy and Science_ 38 (1988),
392.
[bh] _A Brief_, 155. The four fundamental forces: 1) Gravity is an
always attractive force between objects resulting from their mass or
energy capable of acting over long distances; mass is the amount of
material of which something is made. 2) Electromagnetism keeps
electrons in orbit around the nucleus, since it interacts with
particles that happen to be electrically charged. 3) The weak nuclear
force governs the radioactive decay of many types of atomic nuclei. 4)
The strong nuclear force binds together the protons & neutrons in an
atom's nucleus, & also binds together quarks, of which protons &
neutrons are made. In relative strength from weakest to strongest are
gravity, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, & strong nuclear force.
See Hawking's chapter "Elementary Particles & the Forces of Nature."
[bi] Heeren, 266-7. [bj] _Superforce_, 243. Where the ellipsis is,
Davies incorrectly refers to laws creating out of nothing-- cf. 192 and
202-3. Note also that the inflationary submodel of the big bang model
does not provide for a creation out of nothing: see Alan Guth's
remarks, Heeren, 148. Quantum tunneling requires space and is merely
the conversion of energy into matter.
david ford
Part 8 of 8: evidence for big bang model not about the singularity
Here are some areas of evidence for the big bang in addition to the
previously mentioned reasons of relativity theory for the singularity
& physical reasons in combination with relativity for the singularity.=20
Discussed will be 1) observed expansion of universe, 2) relativity's
reasons for expansion, with a mention of gravity, 3) cosmic microwave
background radiation, & 4) element proportions. Additional evidence
against an infinitely old universe comes from 5) star burning, & 6)
the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We conclude with an examination of the
1st law of thermodynamics's implication that the universe is
infinitely old.
1) The observed expansion of the universe. Expansion is a necessary,
but not sufficient, condition for the validity of the theory, since
the expansion could have resulted from the explosion of a lump of
matter sitting around. American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered
that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from
us, i.e., the Hubble law says that the distance to galaxies is
directly proportional to their recessional velocity. Such movement is
also seen resulting from an explosion.
In _God and the Astronomers_ (1992), astronomer Robert Jastrow
explains this law using the example of an auditorium. Imagine that
you are in the middle of the auditorium & that it gets doubled in
size. You will not move anywhere, & someone previously one foot from
you will now be two feet from you. However, an individual a hundred
feet away will now be two hundred, & as a result, will have traveled
faster to get there than the person originally only one foot from you.=20
Velocity is distance over time, & since the time spent traveling is
the same while the distances were different, the recessional
velocities for the two other people will be different. However,
unlike the auditorium example, with the universe there is no center to
the expansion as seen with all the dimes moving in the balloon
illustration. (Technically, it would be more accurate to say that the
dimes represent galaxy clusters than galaxies.)
To make the discovery, Hubble used his studies of the brightness of
stars called Cepheid variables located in our Milky Way galaxy as a
benchmark to find the distance to other galaxies that also contained
Cepheids. The velocity of the other galaxies was determined using
their red shift, or lengthening in their light's wavelength resulting
from movement away. (This is similar to the Doppler effect dealing
with sound. Lengthening of wavelength leads to a shift toward the red
end of the light's spectrum. An example of a spectrum is the range of
colors one gets out of a prism. A contraction of wavelength leads to
a shift toward the blue end.) The Hubble law was the result of
plotting galaxies' distance & speed: [x axis is distance, y axis is
speed; graph looks like the line y=3Dx, x>0]
2) Relativity's reasons for expansion. Additional evidence showing
that the universe is not static comes from Albert Einstein's
relativity equations & from gravity. Einstein's equations predict
that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. To avoid
this blow against the reigning belief in a static universe, Einstein
tweaked his famous fudge factor, his cosmological constant. This
constant provided for a force that would exactly counterbalance
gravity: bodies would repel each other, & the force's strength would
be directly proportional to the distance between two objects. To this
day, absolutely no evidence has been found for the existence of this
force, rejection of which can be based on several reasons:
a. When matter is added to a 1917 solution of general relativity
equations produced by Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, even with the
use of the cosmological constant, an expanding universe is the result.
b. Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann independently showed
in 1922 that the constant can allow for non-static solutions.
c. Belgian physicist Georges Lema=8Ctre independently showed in
1927 that Einstein's equations could not make for a static universe.=20
Parenthetically, in connection with Lema=8Ctre's findings, British
astronomer Arthur S. Eddington is quoted in David Foster's _The
Philosophical Scientists_ (1991), 1, as saying, "Religion first became
possible for a reasonable man of science in the year 1927."[cited in
_Show Me God_ (1995), Fred Heeren, 150.]
d. As already mentioned, Hubble's observations of galaxies showed
the universe to be expanding.
In abandoning the term in 1931, Einstein cited reasons b & d, & called
the fudge factor "theoretically unsatisfactory anyway."-Abraham Pais,
_"Subtle is the Lord..." The Life & Science of Albert Einstein_
(1982), 288. Incidentally, Einstein became a deist as a result of the
implications of his equations. Ross laments the fact that Einstein
did not live long enough to learn of the tremendous design evident in
the universe allowing for the existence of humans, this design being
indicative of a personal God & not merely the God of deism.
Einstein's equations correctly describe our universe to the best of
our observations. Relativity has accurately predicted & described
phenomena for which Newton's gravitational laws cannot account. If
you ask whether the equations apply throughout the universe, I would
respond yes: they present in part a recasting of Newton's law of
gravitation. Does gravity exist throughout the universe? As far as
we can tell, yes.
You do not even need relativity to show that the universe is not
static-- you just need gravity. Because of gravitational attraction,
stars in a finite static universe would fall in together. Adding an
infinite number of evenly distributed stars does not help matters
any.[Hawking's _A Brief History of Time_ (1988), 5.]
3) Cosmic (the entire universe is its source) microwave (has a
wavelength of under a meter) background (can be found everywhere in
the universe) radiation (as in radio waves). Using only the big bang
model's theoretical side, Ralph Alpher & Robert Herman, while working
under George Gamow, predicted in 1946 that if a big bang had occurred,
a remnant of it would exist today in the form of radiation having a
temperature of around 5 degrees Kelvin (5 degrees above absolute 0).=20
The idea is similar to what you would get if an initially hot oven
were to expand, namely, a gradual decrease in the oven's (or
universe's) temperature.
When at AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1965, Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson
accidentally found this radiation, which fills the universe & has
since been measured to have a temperature of 2.73 degrees K, very
close to the predicted value. The existence of this radiation is hard
to square with anything other than a very hot & very dense universe of
long ago. In addition, when the frequency of the radiation vs. its
variations in intensity/ brightness is plotted using data presented in
1990, the exact same pattern is gotten as a graph similarly done for
a hypothetical and experimentally confirmed explosion, this second
graph being called a blackbody radiator curve. Plots of the radiation
& the blackbody curve overlap extremely closely: [x axis is frequency,
y axis is intensity; going from left to right, graph looks like a
roller coaster, going up up up and then slopes down like a kid's
slide]
On April 23, 1992, it was announced that the ripples/fluctuations had
been found in the cosmic background radiation. They help describe
galaxy formation. Hawking referred to the announcement as "the most
important discovery of the century, if not of all time."[George Smoot
& Keay Davidson's _Wrinkles in Time_ (1993), 283.] The ripples were
predicted & are a very strong confirmation of the big bang model.
4) Relative percentages of elements in the universe. Calculations
using again only the theory part of the model predict that within
approximately the first 35 minutes after the big bang, 25% of the
initially formed hydrogen would have been converted into helium. When
the prediction is checked against observations of the oldest stars,
this proportion of about 25% helium is seen. The predicted
proportions of deuterium, helium 3 & 4, & lithium 7 are also observed.
[James Truran's interview with Heeren, 314.]
5) Star burning. Stars cannot have been burning for an infinitely
long period of time. When a star burns hydrogen, the waste products
are heavier elements such as carbon, helium, oxygen, iron, & aluminum,
& the hydrogen is lost forever. Looking farther & farther into the
past, one sees increasing levels of hydrogen & decreasing levels of
heavier elements. Eventually a point is reached at which all that
exists is hydrogen.
6) In addition to the big bang theory, the 2nd law of thermodynamics
provides support for premise two, "The universe began to exist." This
law says the that closed systems tend to go to increasing levels of
entropy, or disorder, i.e., over time, an ordered form of energy will
become increasingly disordered & thus less useful. For example,
theoretical & observational evidence indicates that the universe will
continue to expand & not undergo a contraction. What this means is
that in the very distant future, if there is no Divine intervention,
the universe will eventually suffer what is called heat death.=20
Everywhere will be the same cold temperature, slightly above absolute
zero. Suns will have burned out, & black holes, places where gravity
is so incredibly strong that even light cannot escape, will slowly
dissipate & cease to exist. The fact that the universe has not yet
suffered heat death implies that it is finite in age:
lemma: The universe is running down. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
premise 1: If the universe were infinitely old, it would have run
down by now.
premise 2: The universe has not yet run down.
conclusion: The universe is not infinitely old.
Denied is the consequent & thus denied the antecedent, making this a
valid modus tollens syllogism.
Another formulation of the 2nd law's showing that there was a
beginning is presented by Sir Arthur Eddington on 449-50 in the March
21, 1931, issue of _Nature_. He says,
Following time backwards, we find more and more organisation in
the world. If we are not stopped earlier, we must come to a time
when the matter and energy of the world had the maximum possible
organisation. To go back further is impossible. We have come to
an abrupt end of space-time-- only we generally call it the
'beginning'.
Eddington then confesses, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning
of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me.... I should like to
find a genuine loophole." To put Eddington's remarks within the
context of the big bang theory, this maximum organization would
instead be either infinitely or near-infinitely ordered shortly after
the big bang. The big bang model describes an _ex nihilo_ creation,
the creation out of nothing of a universe.
To clear up what may be a source of confusion, we turn now from the
2nd to the 1st law of thermodynamics. Reasoning from the first law,
it is possible to reach the conclusion that the universe is eternal:
premise 1: Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, but
merely converted from one form to another. (1st law of
thermodynamics; also, recall Einstein's equating of matter
& energy in his famous E=3Dmc^2)
premise 2: Matter exists.
conclusion: Matter has always existed.
Since matter obviously exists, & if matter can be neither created nor
destroyed, the matter that exists necessarily could not have been
created & thus must have always existed, meaning that the universe is
infinitely old. Using this reasoning, Plato believed in a Demiurge
that imperfectly ordered an always existing chaos, while Aristotle's
corresponding Demiurge thought solely about itself, & in so doing,
ordered the universe as a magnet orders iron filings.
An argument can fail on two grounds: reasoning, & truth of the
premises. Since the argument is correctly reasoned, we move on to the
premises. Premise 2 is false in one notable exception: matter _was_
once created, i.e., the first law was once violated in the creation
event called the big bang, the idea involved being that the 1st law
had to be originally violated for it to then be capable of operating.
david ford
Part 6 of 8: God no need a cause
david ford wrote:
> OBJECTION: "You say that first cause is God. I reply, what then
> caused God since everything has to have a cause including God?.... If
> we start with God I ask what created God & we're off to an infinite
> regression to arrive at the first cause which is impossible."[bk1]
> In answering the question of what caused God, the attribute of
> eternalness for the Cause of the big bang will be arrived at. The
> Cause of the big bang must exist "before" the big bang if He is to
> start it, & thus exists outside of time.[bk2] While the universe
> requires a cause of its existence, the Cause of the big bang does
> not. The infinite regression stops with God, who has always existed
> while outside of time, i.e., is eternal. This will be shown in two
> similar ways.
> A) Time is defined to be that dimension/ region/ province where cause
> & effect events occur.[bl]
No, time is that dimension where cause and effect events occur _in
accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics_.
> Time is basically the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics in action: the passage of time equals the gradual
> increase in the overall entropy of a system, in this case the
> universe, as cause & effect phenomena happen.[bm] Since time began
> with the big bang, any entity that existed outside of/ "before" our
> time would not be confined to a chain of causes & effects. With no
> time, no cause & effect; with no cause & effect, the Cause of the big
> bang would in turn not require a cause.[bn]
No, with no _2nd law_ time, no _2nd law_ cause and effect; with no _2nd
law_ cause and effect, the Cause of the big bang would in turn not
require a cause.
> While it is certainly
> possible that the Cause of the big bang has a cause, unlike the
> universe, God does not _require_ a cause of His existence.
The imprecision in use of the words "cause" and "effect" can be clearly
seen when comparing this last sentence and what was said previously:
"While it is certainly possible that the Cause of the big bang has a
cause, unlike the universe, God does not _require_ a cause of His
existence." First you say that there was no cause and effect "before"
the big bang, and then in this sentence you say that there _could_ have
been a cause of God, adding that a cause of God is not required.
I think it would be better if you said that the causes and effects can
be traced back, in accordance with the 2nd law, until the big bang is
reached: looking back in time, we see ever-decreasing levels of entropy
in the universe. However, we cannot do this forever, because
eventually we bump up against the creation of the universe itself and
the coming into existence of the 2nd law, for it does not make sense
for the 2nd law to exist if there is no system to which to apply it, no
system for it to describe.
Consider, for example, what is said by the 2nd law: over time, the
amount of entropy, or disorder, will almost always increase in a given
situation (the probability is 1 in 10^80 that disorder will decrease-
Hugh Ross, _The Creator and the Cosmos_ (1993), pg. 16) Now at
singularities, there is no time, so there is no "over time" for the 2nd
law to operate in. Similarly, at singularities there is no matter,
energy, or space, so there is no "in a given situation" for the 2nd law
to operate in.
When we get to the effect called the creation of the universe itself,
we must look for a cause outside of the universe. Now this cause would
not have to be constrained by the 2nd law and its chain of causes and
effects because the 2nd law came into existence with the birth of the
universe. (Ever since the big bang, which was a highly ordered event,
the universe has been running down in accordance with the 2nd law.)
Thus, with a 2nd law that comes into existence with the birth of the
universe to which it is applied, the cause of the universe would not
have to be tied into the 2nd law's chain of causes and effects.
For example, we can ask, "Where did this platinum come from?" It was
created in a supernova explosion. Where did the star that blew up in
the supernova explosion come from? It was the product of some
collapsing hydrogen that had been formed in the first few minutes after
the big bang. Where did the hydrogen come from? It came from the
energy created in the very earliest moments of the big bang. What
caused the big bang? For an answer to this question, we have to appeal
to a cause outside of the universe, because at the big bang
singularity, there is no universe left. With no universe left, there
is no 2nd law left that can be applied to the universe, so the cause of
the universe (with its 2nd law) would not have to have a cause: the
cause of the big bang would not have to be part of the 2nd law's chain
of causes and effects, for there is no 2nd law at the singularity/ at
nothing.
> B) Another twist on showing that God does not Himself require a cause
> involves a sketch of the above. Time is that dimension where cause
> & effect events occur.
"Time is that dimension where cause & effect events occur" _in
accordance with the 2nd law_. You don't want to suggest that God was
not able to do anything "before" the big bang, do you?
> The province of "time" that existed "before" the big bang would be
> another dimension of time. Time then becomes instead of a line,
> something like a plane.[bo] The universe appears on the right & God
> on the left in this plane representing time: [plane of time
> represented by a rectangle, universe depicted by a vertical ray (like
> a flashlight beam), God by a vertical line pointing both up & down,
> with little arrows jutting out all over the place every which way].
> God could interact with the universe, but would not be confined to
> our sequence of causes & effects. This depicts how the Cause of the
> big bang would not Himself require a cause & be eternal.
> [bk1] Letter from Mr. L.T. to the author, Feb. 28, 1996. [bk2] God
> doing things before the beginning of time: Psalm 90:2, John 17:5 &
> 17:24, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Peter 1:20.
Exactly. God did things "before" the beginning of time, and "doing
things" means there are causes and effects occurring. When God makes
a new heaven and a new earth in the future to replace the one currently
wearing down (Psalm 102:25-6), there will be new laws of physics with
no 2nd law, but there will still be causes and effects. Evidence for
new laws comes from the fact that the New Jerusalem ("city of peace")
will be a cube with each side being about 1400 miles long.(Revelation
21:16) Gravity will not exist or be different then, for in our world,
gravity would crush such a structure into roughly a sphere.(Hugh Ross,
_Beyond the Cosmos_ (1996), 197)
Evidence for there being no 2nd law comes from the fact that there will
be no death.(Revelation 21:4 See also Romans 8:20-21) Death is a
process in accordance with the 2nd law: cells wear out, bodies wear
out, and we die. If there is a 2nd law, things will die; after the new
creation, things will not die; thus, in the new creation, there will be
no 2nd law. To summarize this modus tollens syllogism: if l, then d;
no d; thus, no l.
Heaven is not about sitting around all day, doing nothing. Likewise,
"before" creating the universe, God was not sitting around doing
nothing. He was doing things, and doing things involves causes and
effects.
> [bl] Hugh Ross's _The Creator & the Cosmos how the greatest
> scientific discoveries of the century reveal God_ (1993), 70. [bm]
> Stephen Hawking's _A Brief History of Time from the big bang to black
> holes_ (1988), 147. [bn] Ross, 70. [bo] Ross, 75. Even if
> oscillation does occur (which it doesn't-- see a prior posting of
> mine on the topic), the number of bounces is finite because of
> entropy considerations, so the dimension of time "before" the 1st
> bounce then constitutes the 2nd time dimension.
Hawking affirms that time had a beginning on the basis of his and Roger
Penrose's mathematical demonstration of the big bang singularity: _A
Brief History of Time_ (1988): pages 9 & 34 & 46 & 50 & 56 & 115 & 122
& 139 & 173; _Black Holes and Baby Universes_ (1993): 46 & 75 & 89 & 91
& 167 & 172. Einstein correctly said that time is the 4th dimension,
and that space and time are connected in something called spacetime.
A beginning to time thus means a beginning to space. Matter, energy,
the spatial dimensions of length, width, and height, and the dimension
of time, were created out of nothing in the big bang.
david ford
Part 7 of 8: other dimensions
In the example of the plane of time, one time dimension was added. The
only workable theory unifying the four fundamental forces uses 10 or 26
space-time dimensions, meaning that there may exist a minimum of 6
spatial dimensions in addition to the familiar three.[bp] This is
because of the way the mathematics is: to prevent terms that destroy
the coherence of the equations, the number of dimensions must be fixed
at 10. Mathematicians know this phenomenon occurs for a reason, but
that reason is as yet unknown.[bq] In higher dimensions, physical laws
become more simple and are no longer disjointed.[br] An example of how
the use of more dimensions makes things simpler is seen in the case of
seasons. While on the earth's surface, i.e., from only two dimensions,
the reason for the change in seasons is a complete mystery. Yet by
going into space, i.e., by going into the third dimension, seasons'
passage suddenly becomes understandable as we see the earth's tilt and
its rotation around the sun.[bs]
It is theorized that the universe was initially 10-dimensional before
fracturing into a 6 and a 4-d universe, the second of which continued
to expand and is ours.[bt] This "theory" is incapable of testing, for
the energy required would be on an order of that seen in Planck era.
The other 6 spatial dimensions would be curled up with the extremely
tiny size of 10^(-33) centimeters across, while our present three
spatial dimensions are left visible. Curiously, the other 6 dimensions
are said to be present everywhere.[bu] Hawking uses the analogy of an
orange rind: when looked at from a distance, the rind appears smooth
and flat, but when examined closely, bumps are perceptible.[bv]
Similarly, space appears flat, but were it to be examined under
tremendous magnification from a high enough number of dimensions, the
other 6 spatial dimensions would be observed curled up.
To illustrate, consider the case of Flatlanders, or those people living
in a 2-d plane [imagine figures that look like the chalk outlines seen
after a crime]. A Flatlander has only two of the dimensions described
by the phrases "up-down," "backwards-forwards," and "left-right," and
cannot even conceive of a third dimension.[bw] If the points in the
plane were replaced with circles, with only one point of a circle's
outline embedded in the plane, the diameter of those circles would
constitute a third dimension, the dimension described by arrows
perpendicular to this screen.[bx] A Flatlander would never notice the
circles, but we would when looking closely at Flatland. Similarly with
us: we would never be able to see the other 6 dimensions from only our
3-d world.
While discussing this 10-d theory, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku
mentions examples of incredible feats such as walking through walls,
seeing through buildings, performing operations sans incision of skin,
disappearing and rematerializing in a new location at will, and asks
rhetorically, "What being could possess such God-like power? The
answer: a being from a higher-dimensional world."[by] Since we are 3-d
beings and have 3-d ways of thinking, to hint at the options available
to the Creator of a universe with _nine_ spatial dimensions, first
considered are simpler cases involving only two dimensions. Most of
the situations mentioned involve the addition of merely one more
spatial dimension, yet, if the 10-d theory is correct, there exists a
total of at least 9 spatial dimensions, 6 more than those of length,
width, and height, and in addition, there may be further spiritual
dimensions available to God.
To jail a Flatlander, an oval could be drawn around him. For a 3-d
being as us, it is easy to pluck an incarcerated Flatlander out of
prison and place him elsewhere on the plane. Should other Flatlanders
open the cell, they would be astonished at the disappearance. They
might even call it a miracle, which for these purposes will be defined
as a breaking of a law of nature, but we would know better. We could
also do surgery on the inside of a Flatlander without having to cut his
"skin," his body's outline.
We would be omniscient in the sense that we would know every action a
Flatlander made. If one tried to hide from us, we could easily see him
in his futile attempt: [imagine a 2-d staircase, and the Flatlander
hiding under the staircase, curled up and with arms above his head]
The parallel to this for a 3-d world may be a mechanism God uses
contributing to His omniscience.
We could be closer to two Flatlanders than they are to each other, as
when placing our 3-d hand a trillionth of a millimeter from the
following plane: [2 Flatlanders 1 centimeter apart] This alludes to
something along the lines of God's attribute of omnipresence.[bz]
Though we are so close to them, they would never see us unless we put,
say, our hand into their plane.
Now come a few examples of going upward in dimension number. After His
resurrection, Jesus walked through a wall while some of His disciples
were eating.[ca] In one possible way of doing this, all He would need
would be three of the extra 6 spatial dimensions. His dimensions of
length, width, and height would be moved to the 4th, 5th, and 6th
spatial dimensions, respectively. He could then walk through the wall
before making the conversion back into length, width, and height.[cb]
In going "through" the wall, the wall would have been effectively
bypassed.
Our time by itself constitutes one dimension of time. Adding the time
dimension for "before" the big bang would make time a plane. If there
were yet another spiritual dimension of time, time becomes a sphere.
Our universe's time could be represented by the sphere's equator. God
would be able to sit at the North Pole, see the events comprising our
line of time, and simultaneously affect events occurring both before
and after our present position on the line, as so: [a globe, with
different lines originating from the North Pole and curving down until
reaching the equator, illustrating how God can interact with our time
line] Our time line has a start and end, designating the beginning of
time with the big bang and the end of time when heat death comes as it
appears will happen or with Divine intervention.[cc]
In conclusion, it can be deduced from the high likelihood that material
existence had a beginning in the big bang that it very probably had a
Beginner, and that the Cause setting off the effect called the big bang
has characteristics consonant with the Bible's description of God. The
enormous number of things that had to be exactly right for humans to
exist attests to an intention to create humans, and intentionality
indicates the attribute of personhood, that is to say, the Cause of the
big bang is a personal and not impersonal God. Existence of temporal
and spatial dimensions in addition to the well-known ones of length,
width, height, and time help illustrate some of God's attributes.[cd]
NOTES
[bp] Michio Kaku, "What Happened _Before_ the Big Bang?" _Astronomy_
(5/96), 40. [bq] Kaku, 172-3, 177. [br] Kaku, 12. [bs] Kaku,
viii-ix. [bt] Kaku's statement that the big bang originated from the
fracturing appears incoherent. See 27, 195, 202, 209, and 213.
Understandable is his unwillingness to discuss the singularity. [bu]
Michio Kaku and Jennifer Thompson, _Beyond Einstein_ (1995), 142.
[bv] _A Brief, 163. [bw] Flatlander illustrations are in Kaku, Rudy
Rucker's _The Fourth Dimension_ (1984), and Edwin Abbott's _Flatland_
(1884). [bx] Ronan, 173. [by] Kaku, 46. [bz] Ross, 149. [ca]
Luke 24:36-43, John 20:19, John 20:26. [cb] Ross, 73. [cc] As may
be described in Psalm 102:25-6. Ross, 150. Problems may exist with
God's affecting the past in terms of the future possibly being changed
drastically.
[cd] Things that appear to be paradoxes in our 3-dimensional world, as
a triangle circle, can be made uncontradictory once additional
dimensions are considered. To illustrate, a 2-d triangle having length
& width can be turned upright & spun, i.e., the dimension of height can
be added to the triangle. This turns the triangle into a 3-d cone.
When a plane is inserted horizontally into the cone & moved up & down
parallel to the base, the cone is seen to be composed of an infinite
number of circles, i.e., is circular. However, when a plane is instead
inserted vertically & moved back & forth, the cone is seen to be
composed of an infinite number of triangles, i.e., is triangular.
Thus, by adding a dimension the paradoxical idea of a triangle circle
is no longer paradoxical. The cone is simultaneously triangular &
circular. When using an added dimension, depending on the perspective
a triangle is at the same time equal to a triangle & equal to a circle.
Astronomer Hugh Ross says that in the same manner, additional
dimensions of space & of time than the perceptible 4 (5 if you count
the time dimension of "before" the big bang) can make possible God's
existence as "a Being simultaneously singular and plural."[_The Creator
and the Cosmos_ (1993), 148] Ross uses a total of at least eight space
& time dimensions to make the idea of a Trinity consistent. He states
further that doctrines such as "the atonement of Christ, eternal
security, & the simultaneity of freedom of human choice & divine
predetermination, indicate a minimum of three time dimensions, or the
equivalent, for God."[Ross, 150]
I have not yet investigated these matters, but for the Trinity, the
example of a cone that is in one sense composed of 1-sided circles & in
another sense composed of 3-sided triangles makes sense in explaining
how God can be simultaneously singular & plural. Come to think of it,
the idea of the Trinity seems to make sense in only 4 dimensions, three
spatial & one time. For example, one rope may be composed of 3
strands, a committee may be composed of 3 members, & water can take the
3 forms of water, water vapor, & ice. I still don't exactly get how
there appears to be a contradiction between human free will and divine
foreknowledge-- "but I _can't_ do otherwise." Ross's new book _Beyond
the Cosmos_ discusses these issues in more detail.
Christopher Carrell
Newsfroups scaled back and followups really reduced. I had to cancel
the last article because it was overspammed.
Followups set to talk.origins and talk.religion.misc. Talk.abortion
was really irrelevant, everybody.
Steve Cowden wrote:
>
> Nick Scholte <nsch...@express.ca> wrote in article
> <4uttod$d...@loki.express.ca>...
>
> > > You do realize, don't you that you are arguing with a brick wall.
> > >Creationists are a very special sort of wacko who will always fail to
> > >accept fact. Faith is the security blanket that will ever provide them
> > >with a means to avoid dealing with reality.
Speaking of brick walls...
> On the contrary, folks, creationsits are very willing to face facts.
First of all, 'creationist' is too broad a term that _can_ encompass
anyone with a faith in God, including those that see the evidence and
draw a conclusion of evolution. The term you are looking for is
'superstitious twit.'
> Trouble is, evolutionists generally insist on confusing personal
> *interpretations* with "facts". Fossils are facts. What story they tell
> is an interpretation. The Grand Canyon is a fact. How it got there is a
> matter of conjecture and interpretation based on a lot of (usually)
> unprovable pre-suppositions.
Such as? BTW, there is no such thing as 100% certitude in science.
This is not like some fundamentalism where followers are 100%
certain of beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. It is
also not like mathematics where theorems are proved from a set of
axioms.
> Love and justice are realities. Evolutionists must claim that these are,
> bottom line, the result of some bio-chemical dynamic (would somebody
> please demonstrate the chemical equations for compassion and dignity, joy
> and sorrow).
Nice strawman. Doesn't work.
But perhaps you could read Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" for an
idea of how these came about.
As for chemistry, I suppose I could open a few serotonin channels in
neural cells. But asking for detailed brain chemistry is just silly
at this point in time. But that is why we do research. Perhaps you've
heard of it. Scientific inquiry - something with which religious leaders
are wholly unfamiliar.
The creationist observes these realities, these "facts" if
> you will, and concludes that they are expressions of a humanity created in
> the image of a personal God. It may be interpretation, but it sure makes
> sense to me!
And evolution makes sense to the reasoning individual. If your faith in
God is shaken by inference from evidence, then your faith is feeble
indeed.
> As for the comment on a "security blanket", I hardly think that faith in a
> holy God to whom we are all accountable and by whom we will all one day be
> judged, affords one much "security". Evolutionism is the "security
> blanket" with which unbelief wraps itself in order to escape moral
> responsibility and a nagging conscience which says to all human beings that
> there is a higher power to which we must all one day answer.
FWEEEEEEEEE! Evolution does not equal atheism or God avoidance.
Now that we know your real agenda, keep in mind that the large
portion of those that find evolution to be accurate do have
religious convictions, some of them quite strong.
Chris
frank dever
do...@ihs.com (Don Henry) wrote:
>Aaron Boyden (650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu) wrote:
>: On 11 Aug 1996, Wen-King Su wrote:
>
>: > Creationism is not a theory as it contains no verifiable implications.
>: > Verifiable implication: a prediction that, if found false, will prove
>: > the theory wrong.
>
>: Creationism has plenty of verifiable implications. For example, it is
>: one of the tenets of creationism that the fossil record was produced by
>: the great flood. Geologists have many ways of distinguishing
>: flood-deposited material from other kinds of sediment, so if the fossil
>: record turns out not to be largely flood-deposited, this would
>: constituted falsifying evidence for creationism. Since that is in fact
>: exactly what we find, creationism is clearly falsifiable; it is in fact
>: falsified. The psychology of those who believe in creationism (and who
>: would reject the evidence) has no bearing on the standing of the theory.
>
> Let's say I write a historical account of John Doe, who just happens to be
> in Philadelphia when G. Washington and B. Franklin (and others) meet. And
> that same John Doe is also in England when the king hears and reacts to
> the colonies' misbehavior.
> Is this account fact, fact-based, or pure fiction?
Depends on how many people believe it.
> You seem to treat this as fact.
>
> Don
>--
>Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional
>
>My company makes me include:
> From IHS--the company the world trusts for its technical and regulatory
> information needs.
-----
Graham Head
In article <AE38B10...@199.170.89.82>, Rob <hafe...@shokwave.com>
writes
>>>>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>>>>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>>>>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>>>>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>>>>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>>the
>>>>kind you and I make.
>>>
>>>Before the other guy says that they must be fakes, I'd like to point out
>>that
>>>they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in
>>and
>>>formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible
>>for it
>>>to be forged.
>>>
>>The story is familiar, also, from SF. Anyone help with title & date???
>>
>
>Yeah, yeah, yeah, this old claim again. This has been refuted time and
>time again in talk.origins. For a complete explaination of the "man
>tracks" at the Taylor site, you may read a lengthy, well-documented,
>scientific essay on the subject at:
>http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html
I'm sorry, but I looked at that reference and I can find no indication
to refute my suggestion that the creationist stance is merely a vague
remembrance of an early SF short story. Or did you mis-quote the above?
--
Graham
david ford
Followups set to talk.origins and whatever else you care to leave
in. Your choice.
I'm going on vacation until the 26th, so will be unable to reply
until after then. Coming up is an essay showing that God very
likely exists using recent discoveries in astronomy and physics.
The essay can be found complete/not broken up into parts, in the
newsgroup talk.origins, at the end of the full series of parts.
After the essay, evidence for the big bang other than the reasons
for the singularity is further developed. What's coming up:
part 1: demonstration of the big bang singularity; steady state
model
part 2: oscillating universe model
part 3: parallel universe idea; mother-daughter universe idea;
Hawking's no-boundary proposal
part 4: argument for God's existence based on big bang model;
derivation of attributes of Judeo-Christian God
part 5: design argument for God being a personal and not impersonal
God
part 6: answer as to why, unlike the universe, God does not need a
cause of His existence (I reply to something I posted)
part 7: superstring theory; rederivation and derivation of
attributes of God using additional spatial dimensions; brief
discussion of the paradox of human free will and divine
foreknowledge
part 8: fuller exposition of evidence for the big bang other than
the reasons for the singularity
last piece in talk.origins: the entire essay, parts 1-7 (will not
include part 8)
Pertaining to some unfinished business, just because the electron
is considered a point for purposes of some calculations does not
mean that it is actually a point. Because of the vast distances in
space, astronomers consider stars points for many calculations, and
you wouldn't call a star a point, would you? The mass of an
electron is 9 x 10^(-28) of a gram, but I couldn't find the
diameter. A good physics textbook should have the answer.
all that is, was and will be/ universe much too big to see/ time
and space never ending/ disturbing thoughts, questions pending/
limitations of human understanding.... pursuit of truth no matter
where it lies/ gazing up to the breeze of the heavens/ on a quest,
meaning, reason/ came to be, how it begun-"Through the Never," 1991
Metallica album
Christopher C. Wood
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.96081...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
|> Followups set to talk.origins and whatever else you care to leave
|> in. Your choice.
Didn't work.
|> I'm going on vacation until the 26th, so will be unable to reply
|> until after then. Coming up is an essay showing that God very
|> likely exists using recent discoveries in astronomy and physics.
Probably with the same logical flaws I've seen over and over in your
posts. Transitional fossils don't go away just because you believe
there aren't any.
[ trimmed ]
|> Pertaining to some unfinished business, just because the electron
|> is considered a point for purposes of some calculations does not
|> mean that it is actually a point.
Show a single experimental result that is inconsistent with an
electron being a point charge. Aside, of course, from the ones that
show its wave-like nature.
|> Because of the vast distances in space, astronomers consider stars
|> points for many calculations, and you wouldn't call a star a point,
|> would you? The mass of an electron is 9 x 10^(-28) of a gram, but
|> I couldn't find the diameter. A good physics textbook should have
|> the answer.
So go read a good physics book.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
howard hershey
Norm Woodward <wood...@wrdis01.robins.af.mil> wrote:
>Norm Woodward <wood...@wrdis01.robins.af.mil> wrote:
>>Croooow <cro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>robert averbeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>Then we all go back to science classes to learn the truth about the universe, dinosaurs,
>>>evolution, genetics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and how to spot a week minded fool.
^^^^
>>"...how to spot a week (sic) minded fool"? Misspelling is a good
start.
>>
I thought it was a clever pun to refer to 7-day YECers as week-minded
fools. Don't tell me it was a simple proofreading error.
>>
>(and you can spot a "week-minded" fool by his failure to proofread his
>work:-] Sorry about any confusion my last posting may have caused)
I told you not to tell me that.
david ford
Part 1 of 8: singularity; steady state
"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department.
The physics department isn't much use."[a]
There has recently been a revolution in cosmology, the study of the
universe's origin, development, and structure. Our universe has been
shown to be finite in age with confirmation of the hot big bang model
of its birth. Insofar as it is likely that material existence had a
beginning in the big bang, it very probably had a Beginner, i.e., God
probably exists.
Evidence for the big bang theory has been steadily accumulating
during the 1900s and comes in several areas. One area is the
observed expansion of the universe, the same movement coming from an
explosion. When air is blown into a balloon with dimes representing
galaxies taped on, the balloon expands, and just as it expands, so is
the universe expanding. When going back in time, e.g., by deflating
the balloon, the universe becomes smaller and smaller, until it is
seen to have originated from the big bang singularity, or the
entirety of 3-dimensional space shrunken down to a 0 volume.[b]
The singularity is expected as reasoned from relativity theory in
combination with gravity. As we turn back the clock, the material
gets denser and denser from the force of gravity. The material's
resistance, or pressure exerted by the material in opposition to
gravity, to this crushing cannot stop the effect of gravity because
there is a limit to the amount of resistance: as the material gets
ever denser, eventually a point is reached at which sound waves can
propagate through the material faster than light. Since according to
relativity nothing can travel faster than light, there is a limit to
the material's resistance to the crushing of gravity.[c]
This resistance actually increases gravity's strength because
pressure is a form of energy, and energy can be equated with mass
according to Albert Einstein's E=mc^2. More pressure means more
energy, which translates into more mass which results in a growth in
gravity's strength, and combined with the fact that the material
cannot get infinitely stiff, the whole thing goes to a
singularity.[d]
More importantly than this physical reason for the singularity, in
1970, theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose
rigorously proved with "a series of powerful mathematical theorems,"
in the words of physicist Paul Davies, that the universe must have
come from a big bang singularity.[e] Their reasoning was similar to
that showing black holes resulted from stars which, having imploded
to a certain extent, were collapsed by an ever-stronger force of
gravity to a region with 0 surface area and thus with 0 volume, i.e.,
to a singularity.[g]
The assumptions used were that gravity stays attractive during the
Planck era, or period between time=0 second and t=10^(-43) second,
that there is as much matter as we are aware of, that time only goes
forward, and that Einstein's theory of general relativity is right,
as it was later experimentally shown to be.[f] Einstein's theory of
relativity is a theory of gravity, and because it is classical,
breaks down at Planck time. Work is currently being done to combine
the theory of relativity with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle so
that we have a description of quantum gravity.
In addition to the observed expansion of the universe and the reasons
for the singularity, corroborating evidence for the hot big bang
model comes from gravity's and relativity's reasons for a non-static
universe, and matches between its predictions and observations for a)
various element proportions, b) the temperature of the radiation left
over from the big bang, and c) the characterization of this radiation
as that resulting from an explosion. Variations in this radiation
were discovered in 1992, confirmed yet again the big bang model, and
help describe galaxy formation after the big bang.[h]
The radiation's existence is hard to square with anything other than
a very hot and dense universe of long ago. Its discovery in 1965
marked the final death blow to the steady state theory, which
postulated matter's creation as a law of nature, thereby temporarily
providing for resupply of hydrogen and explaining the presence of
nearby galaxies in the context of an expanding universe, but failing
to circumvent the argument for a beginning based on the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. Stars cannot burn for an infinite amount of time
because while burning hydrogen, their waste products are heavier
elements, and the hydrogen is forever lost.
The 2nd law says that over time, closed systems go to increasing
levels of entropy, or disorder, i.e, an ordered form of energy will
become increasingly disordered over time and thus less useful. If
the universe were infinitely old, it would have been running down in
accordance with the 2nd law for an infinite amount of time and thus
would have run down by now. Since it has not yet suffered heat
death, meaning that everywhere is the same cold temperature, a
fraction of a degree above absolute 0, it is not infinitely old. To
summarize this modus tollens syllogism: if i, then r; not r; thus,
not i. Should the universe have enough mass to reverse the current
expansion, it will not suffer heat death, but collapse to die a fiery
death.
Between 10 and 20 billion years ago, the big bang singularity blew up
at t=0 second in what is called the big bang, and the universe
exploded into being. Matter, energy, the spatial dimensions of
length, width, and height, and the dimension of time, came into
existence. The big bang was an _ex nihilo_ event, the creation out
of nothing of a universe; neither matter nor energy is in the
singularity. Says physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias,
Physicists normally would like a model in which there are no
external parameters. So what we find- the simplest theory- the
one that the astronomers normally espouse, is a creation out of
nothing, the appearance out of nothing of a universe.[i]
It is no wonder that John Maddox, editor at _Nature_, termed the big
bang model "philosophically unacceptable," with science writer John
Boslough criticizing it as "the scientific model of Genesis" and "a
scientific paradigm wrapped inside a metaphor for biblical
genesis."[j]
The common but inexact description of the singularity as a point of
infinite density is the same as nothing.[k] Density is defined as
the quantity of something per unit of volume, area, or length, e.g.,
at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, gold has a density of 19.3
grams per cubic centimeter. If something has density, it can be made
smaller by compaction. Since a singularity has 0 volume and so
cannot be made any smaller, this means that the singularity does not
have density. If d, then s; not s; thus, no d. The closest
physicists can get to creation out of nothing is creation out of
almost nothing. There is a big difference. They do not have any
equations or even theories involving creation out of absolutely
nothing. It is almost too incredible to even think about.[l]
NOTES
[a] Robert Griffiths, winner of the Heinemann prize in mathematical
physics, in Tim Stafford's "Cease-fire in the Laboratory,"
_Christianity Today_ (4/3/87), 18, cited by Hugh Ross on 116 of _The
Creator and the Cosmos_ (1993). Referred to hereafter unless
otherwise noted: John D. Barrow's _The Origin of the Universe_
(1994), John Boslough's _Masters of Time_ (1992), William Lane
Craig's _Reasonable Faith_ (1994), Paul Davies's _God and the New
Physics_ (1983), _Superforce_ (1984), _The Mind of God_ (1992), _The
Last Three Minutes_ (1994), and _About Time_ (1995), Stephen
Hawking's _A Brief History of Time_ (1988) and _Black Holes and Baby
Universes_ (1993), Fred Heeren's _Show Me God_ (1995), Fred Hoyle's
_The Intelligent Universe_ (1983), Michio Kaku's _Hyperspace_ (1994),
Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer's _Origins_ (1990), Colin A. Ronan's
_The Natural History of the Universe_ (1991), and Kip S. Thorne's
_Black Holes and Time Warps_ (1994). Emphasis theirs.
[b] Ross, 76. Technically, galaxy clusters are moving apart. [c]
_The Mind_, 48. [d] Barrow, 38-9; _The Mind_, 48-9. [e] _The
Mind_, 49. [f] _The Mind_, 49; _A Brief_, 50; Ross, 67-9; Ross's
_The Fingerprint of God_ (1991), 110. When discussing the
singularity theorems in _A Brief_, Hawking mentioned just the
requirement that relativity be correct, though he does say elsewhere
in the book that gravity is always attractive. To say that gravity
was not attractive before t=10^(-43) seconds would be even more
horrendous than the singularity is. The matter requirement was met
by the 1965 discovery of the background radiation.
[g] Thorne, 462-3; _A Brief_, 49-50. [h] For the radiation, look up
the phrase "cosmic microwave background radiation" when examining the
literature. [i] 5/4/94 interview on Heeren, 130. [j] Byline of
John Maddox's "Down with the Big Bang," _Nature_ Vol. 340 (8/10/89),
425; Boslough, 56, 223. [k] Barrow, 113. [l] Heeren, 90-4.
david ford
Part 3 of 8: parallel; mother-daughter; no-boundary
Another attempt at squirming out of the big bang is the suggestion that
our universe is one in an infinite series of parallel universes. A
black hole singularity is said to spit out matter and energy that
expands as a new and separate universe; the black hole has become a
white hole. Comments Davies, "White holes are not known to exist, and
most scientists dismiss them out of hand, like all time-reversed
contrivances."[v] Time is reversed because a white hole displays
behavior opposite of a black hole: instead of destroying matter and
time and releasing that previously ordered matter in the form of
disordered Hawking radiation, it puts out matter.
Also proposed is that our universe is the result of a black hole
singularity separating from its universe and expanding. The mother
universe is connected to its baby for a time by a wormhole, or slender
neck going through a higher dimension. Yet, to have a chance at
obtaining such a type of singularity, an energy concentration of 10^28
electron volts-- not seen since the big bang-- would have to be
achieved.[w] While discussing wormhole creation, theoretical physicist
Kip Thorne observes,
Whereas _black holes_ are an inevitable consequence of stellar
evolution... there is no analogous, natural way for a wormhole to
be created. In fact, there is no reason at all to think that our
Universe contains today _any_ singularities of the sort that give
birth to wormholes...[x]
Even if a wormhole did start to exist, its lifespan would be so short
that nothing, including light, could get through it, and anything
trying would be destroyed.[y] Colin Ronan, past president of the
British Astronomical Association, describes the idea of parallel
universes arising through such a means as "highly speculative" with
good reason.[z]
Since mathematically showing that the universe came from a big bang
singularity, Hawking has become a quantum cosmologist, i.e, he studies
the Planck era, during which quantum mechanics is at work and that is
inadequately understood since classical laws, including Einstein's
theory of relativity, break down at Planck time,[aa] and since our atom
smashers cannot create the energies then present. Hawking is now
trying to show that there was no big bang singularity, no abrupt
beginning to time, with his no-boundary proposal that he emphasizes "is
just a _proposal_: it cannot be deduced from some other principle."[ab]
What is advanced makes use of imaginary time. For example, the square
root of negative 1, that many seconds, would be a case of imaginary
time.
The use of imaginary numbers can be a very powerful tool in simplifying
calculations, as Hawking notes: "To avoid the technical difficulties...
one must use imaginary time. That is to say, for the purposes of the
calculation one must measure time using imaginary numbers, rather than
real ones."[ac] But at the end of it all, the conversion back to real
numbers must be made, and it is this conversion that Hawking fails to
do. If he did, then the singularity would reappear.[ad] Thus Hawking
concedes, "When one goes back to the real time in which we live,
however, there will still appear to be singularities," and again: "In
real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities
that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science
break down."[ae]
The laws break down at the big bang singularity and at black hole
singularities because no universe is left to describe. Explains
Davies, "all our laws of physics are formulated in terms of space and
time," and at singularities, there is neither.[af] Because the big
bang singularity is an impasse beyond which science cannot go, the
models in opposition to the idea that there was a single beginning to
physical existence are being examined. Anything said about what
happened or existed "before" the big bang is pure speculation/
philosophy. Science can only take us to the big bang singularity; the
singularity is an impasse beyond which science cannot go, ever.
Returning to Hawking's proposal, all the quantum cosmologies trying to
avoid the singularity make use of this "mathematical... trick"[ag] of
using imaginary numbers.[ah] Also, even with imaginary time Hawking
may be replacing a classical singularity with a quantum
singularity.[ai]
Incidentally, Hawking has advanced his own version of parallel
universes, and the nonsense gotten when using imaginary time and not
real time in the final product can be seen when he states that in real
time, an astronaut falling into a black hole dies with even the
particles constituting him getting shredded apart, while in imaginary
time his particles-- but not in the shape of him-- would survive and
pass into a baby universe.[aj]
Even supposing Hawking does provide a naturalistic explanation for the
universe's birth, he still makes use of laws (as well as mathematics,
geometry, logic, energy, mass, and space [ak]), and Davies notes that
the existence of those laws would have to be accounted for, recognizing
that "though science may explain the world, we still have to explain
science."[al]
NOTES
[v] _About_, 217. [w] Kaku, 190, 213, 274; see also _The Last_, 137.
[x] Thorne, 486. [y] Thorne, 55, 486. [z] Ronan, 186. [aa]
Craig, 106. [ab] _A Brief_, 136. [ac] _A Brief_, 134; Barrow, 104-
5. [ad] Craig, 112. [ae] _A Brief_, 139. [af] _The Mind_, 50.
[ag] _A Brief_, 135. [ah] Craig, 113. [ai] Ross, 84, who quotes
Frank Tipler, "The Mind of God," _The Times Higher Education
Supplement_ (London, 10/14/88), 23; probably seen in Barrow's diagram,
108. [aj] _BH and BU_, 121-2. [ak] Barrow, 110; diagram Thorne,
478. [al] _Superforce_, 243.
david ford
Part 4 of 8: God exists; attributes
Proposals dependent upon imaginary time, as well as the ideas providing
for an infinitely old universe, namely, the steady state, oscillating,
and parallel universe models, are found to be wanting. Based on the
high likelihood that physical existence had a beginning in the big
bang, reason says that it very probably had a Beginner.[am]
Philosopher William Lane Craig cogently develops this argument by
putting it in the form of a modus pones syllogism. Premise 1: Whatever
begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Premise 2: The universe
began to exist. Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its
existence.[an]
Premise 1 is obviously true. Craig mentions the example of a tiger's
sudden appearance. One would not suppose that a tiger suddenly
appearing out of nowhere (poof!) appeared uncaused. Concerning those
effects in the universe for which we do not yet know the cause, it is
the aim of science to discover. However, with the case at hand, the
effect called the universe is at issue. Premise 2 is supported by the
well-proven big bang model and the failure of its alternatives, as well
as by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. From the syllogism's premises it
follows that the universe has a cause of its existence.
Now this cause of the universe cannot be within the universe, for if it
was, the cause would rely upon its effect for its existence, and there
would be no cause to start with. If the cause of a system came from
within the system, the cause would be retroactive; the effect would
precede its cause, as when a house burns down before being set on fire,
which is ludicrous. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be
outside the universe. In other words, the Cause of the universe is
non-material, i.e., non-corporeal, i.e., spiritual.[ao]
The Cause of the universe can be also reasoned to be incredibly
powerful, in fact, more powerful than all the power contained in the
universe, because He created the universe. Logically, a cause is
greater than its effect, so the Cause of the universe is greater in
power than all the power existing in the universe and because being
non-material, should not have spent Himself in creating the universe.
In addition, it would be illogical if the Cause of the universe was
limited by His creation. If He made the laws and the material that
followed them, it should be possible for Him to unmake those laws,
i.e., break them. Based on these two exceedingly similar
considerations, we may say that the Cause of the universe is
omnipotent.
It seems rational to believe that if you create something, every last
bit about that something, down to its subatomic particles, then you
would know all about it. Therefore, the Creator of the universe is
all-knowing when it comes to His creation, i.e., is omniscient.[ap]
NOTES
[am] Ross, 14; the story of his replacing deism with Christianity is in
the chapter "My Skeptical Inquiry," with more info on his examination
of Genesis in _Creation and Time_ (1994).] [an] Craig's essay from
address http://www.iclnet.org/clm/truth/3truth11, which also has 2 more
arguments affirming premise 2. [ao] Derivation of attributes on
Heeren, 62-8. [ap] The labeling of omniscience would pertain to
knowing what is the case now, while in Christianity, God in addition
knows the future. Perhaps foreknowledge can be derived using extra
time dimensions.
david ford
Part 2 of 8: oscillating
Following the death of the steady state model, those wishing to avoid,
as Hawking put it, "the idea that time has a beginning, probably
because it smacks of divine intervention,"[m] turned to the notion of
an oscillating universe. Said science writer John Gribbin,
The biggest problem with the big bang theory of the origin of the
universe is philosophical- perhaps even theological- what was
there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give
a great initial impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that
theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way
round this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the
universe expands, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle
indefinitely.[n]
Yet, the amount of matter in the universe appears to be just short of
that needed to halt the current expansion and bring about contraction,
a necessary but not sufficient condition for the model's validity.[o]
Also, there has not been discovered a rebound mechanism that must exist
if the material is to avoid going to a singularity from which it would
never reemerge, just as matter does not reemerge out of a black hole,
the center of which is a singularity.[p] Concerning "a previously
collapsing phase, such as in an oscillating universe model," Penrose
remarks, "the singularity theorems really showed that that couldn't
happen unless one had a gross violation of energy conditions."[q]
Also, even if oscillation did occur, the number of bounces would be
limited by entropy considerations, for the system's entropy would
continually increase being subject to the 2nd law.[r] As a result of
entropic processes, the system grows larger and larger, to the point at
which its expanding phase is so long that it ends in heat death.[s]
Looking into the past, the cycles become smaller and smaller, pointing
toward a beginning of the system. It may be replied that the cycles
forever grow smaller and smaller, but it strains believability to say
that a mechanism would catch the universe in time and rebound it once
the universe became exceedingly tiny as we look into the system's past.
Pertaining to this decrease in size, physicist Richard Morris notes,
It is possible to calculate that in this case there can have been
at most a hundred bounces. In other words, the universe must have
had a beginning at a finite time in the past. We are thus led
back to the 'problem' of creation out of nothing that the
oscillating universe was designed to avoid in the first place.[t]
Also, while the universe developed and collapsed, black holes would be
formed and some would be carried over into the next cycle. However,
our universe does not appear to have the inconsistent appearance that
would result from this carryover of black holes.[u]
NOTES
[m] _A Brief_, 46. [n] "Oscillating universe bounces back," _Nature_
259:15. [o] Ross, 58; Heeren, 192-3. [p] _The Last_, 142-3; Heeren,
88; Thorne, 465. [q] Penrose's interview in Lightman and Brawer, 424.
[r] _The Last_, 144-5. [s] _The Last_, 145. [t] _The Fate of the
Universe_ (1982), 136-7, quoted by Heeren, 89. [u] _The Last_, 146;
Craig, 104.
Aaron Boyden
On 14 Aug 1996, Don Henry wrote:
> : Creationism has plenty of verifiable implications. For example, it is
> : one of the tenets of creationism that the fossil record was produced by
> : the great flood. Geologists have many ways of distinguishing
> : flood-deposited material from other kinds of sediment, so if the fossil
> : record turns out not to be largely flood-deposited, this would
> : constituted falsifying evidence for creationism. Since that is in fact
> : exactly what we find, creationism is clearly falsifiable; it is in fact
> : falsified. The psychology of those who believe in creationism (and who
> : would reject the evidence) has no bearing on the standing of the theory.
>
> Let's say I write a historical account of John Doe, who just happens to be
> in Philadelphia when G. Washington and B. Franklin (and others) meet. And
> that same John Doe is also in England when the king hears and reacts to
> the colonies' misbehavior.
> Is this account fact, fact-based, or pure fiction?
> You seem to treat this as fact.
Well, I'm confused. Facts are true. Above, I argue that creationism is
determinably true or false (and in fact false, though that wasn't the
question at issue). I never suggested that it was true. What leads you
to think on that basis that I'm inclined to go around indiscriminately
calling things true?
John Thompson
In article <321165...@pacbell.net> "Bruce R. Davis" <bn...@pacbell.net> writes:
>Tom Wrona wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P. Newhall" <bnew...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >OK, name some facts which are at odds with the creation theory.
>>
>> Aww, come on, this is too easy.
>>
>> The fossil record.
>> The Grand Canyon (If the world is young, how'd it get so deep?)
>> Evolution in our own lifetimes. (Drug-resistant microbes)
>>
>> Read Hawkings "The Blind Watchmaker"
>>
>> Tom
>
>Tom,
>
>Creationists are a very special sort of wacko who will always fail to
>accept fact. Faith is the security blanket that will ever provide them
>with a means to avoid dealing with reality.
>
I've always thought that the best description of reality-denying mental
tricks is that given by Orwell in 1984. He described three methods of
increasing sophistication which he named crimestop, blackwhite, and
doublethink.
The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught
even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop
means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the
threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not
grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of mis-
understanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc,
and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is
capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short,
means protective stupidity.
How often do we see this here on t.o.?
...there is a need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in
the treatment of facts. The key word here is blackwhite. ...it means
also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that
black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.
Such as "science proves creationism" and "science is worthless because
all scientists are biased" practically in the same sentence?
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in
one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party
intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered;
he therefore knows that his is playing tricks with reality; but by
the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality
is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be
carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be uncon-
scious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence guilt.
Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act
of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness
of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while
genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become incon-
venient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from
oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of ob-
jective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which
one denies - all this is indispensably necessary.
Most creationists are not this sophisticated, but the major creationist
leaders, IMO, are doing exactly this. They couldn't tell such clever lies
without understanding the truth they are lying about, and they couldn't
project such an air of sincerity without really believing themselves.
I would be more comfortable believing they were deliberate frauds, since
those are much less dangerous, but I don't think that is the case.
David Jensen
On 15 Aug 1996 17:26:47 GMT, Norm Woodward <wood...@wrdis01.robins.af.mil>
wrote:
>"...how to spot a week (sic) minded fool"? Misspelling is a good start.
pun, not misspelling.
>
>Seriously, in today's schools, the kids are taught to be skeptical about
>our heroes, our status as a nation, our laws, etc, but some how
>evolution has become a sacred cow. The problems of abiogenesis, fossil
No sacred cow. Abiogenesis is separate and the criticisms of science are
more telling (and useful than those of the religious).
>gaps, and other controversies are not mentioned, nor are punctuated
Would you know about fossil gaps if evolutionists didn't point them out?
>evolution, ET-origins of terrestrial life, and other speculative
>explanations of these phenomena are not introduced today, so that the
>average high school grad thinks that classic Darwinism explains the way
>and why things are. After all, evolution was introduced into the
>Nation's under the banner of "academic freedom." If we do not present
>the challenges the theory must answer, we are only teaching dogma.
What foolishness. First of all, most HS Seniors are inadequately taught
about all of science. I would highly recommend four years of HS math (to
understand the math in science) and four years of HS science. Please do not
confuse "academic freedom" (not generally available in HS, with facts.
Evolution is the fact, it is poorly taught and the theories that explain it
are not taught any better. Dogma != Fact. Learn something!
>
>By the way, I also do not think religion should not be taught in the
I do think that religion should not be taught in the classroom. It violates
our social compact.
>class room, not because I'm a sceptic, but because I think it is too
>important to have it mistaught. After all, it has been said that if a
>foreign power imposed our current public school system on us, we would
>have gone to war. And you can't blame "Creationism" on a system that is
>graduating seniors that can't find the US on a world map.
No, but you can blame the same people who want religion in classrooms
masquerading as science, because they don't care if they tell the truth to
their children about the facts. They just want their religion to triumph.
They are liars. They are evil.
>
>
>Norm, the Dingbat
>
At least you aren't spliffy.
---
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
David Jensen
On 16 Aug 1996 01:11:17 GMT, "Steve Cowden" <seco...@net-master.net>
wrote:
[snip, trim, followups to Talk.Origins]
>
>On the contrary, folks, creationsits are very willing to face facts.
>Trouble is, evolutionists generally insist on confusing personal
>*interpretations* with "facts". Fossils are facts. What story they tell
>is an interpretation. The Grand Canyon is a fact. How it got there is a
>matter of conjecture and interpretation based on a lot of (usually)
>unprovable pre-suppositions.
Get thee to a science book,satan. If this be what thou believist, thou are
truely deluded. Fossils are facts. The interpretation of the facts is
testable. If you have a problem with this interpretation, propose a better
one. The conjecture for the Grand Canyon is based on solid evidence for
each step of the process. It is not in any way unprovable pre-suppositions
(sic).
>Love and justice are realities. Evolutionists must claim that these are,
>bottom line, the result of some bio-chemical dynamic (would somebody
>please demonstrate the chemical equations for compassion and dignity, joy
>and sorrow). The creationist observes these realities, these "facts" if
>you will, and concludes that they are expressions of a humanity created in
>the image of a personal God. It may be interpretation, but it sure makes
>sense to me!
Personally, I still vote for tree will, but I wouldn't be shocked if it
didn't exist. I believe that your second sentence in this paragraph would
be accurate had you written Calvinists for evolutionists, for, for them
everything is predestined.
This point is made in other threads, but why did God create evil?
>As for the comment on a "security blanket", I hardly think that faith in a
>holy God to whom we are all accountable and by whom we will all one day be
>judged, affords one much "security". Evolutionism is the "security
>blanket" with which unbelief wraps itself in order to escape moral
>responsibility and a nagging conscience which says to all human beings that
>there is a higher power to which we must all one day answer.
You are not a Christian, for that is the point of Christianity. All you
have to do is believe and you will be saved. [Full Stop]
Your theology is as bad as your science.
Thomas Swanson
newsgroups trimmed
In article <01bb8b10$28e8bea0$9200...@psecowden.206.30.184.2> "Steve Cowden" <seco...@net-master.net> writes:
>
>On the contrary, folks, creationsits are very willing to face facts.
>Trouble is, evolutionists generally insist on confusing personal
>*interpretations* with "facts". Fossils are facts. What story they tell
>is an interpretation. The Grand Canyon is a fact. How it got there is a
>matter of conjecture and interpretation based on a lot of (usually)
>unprovable pre-suppositions.
You make it sound like all these scientists are sitting around doing nothing
all day long. What they're really doing is testing so that their claims
aren't just conjecture and that the presuppositions are, in fact, supportable.
The interpretations aren't personal. The scientists publish and go to
conferences to present their findings and that invites others to try
and shoot it down. But you've got to meet the scientists halfway -
you've got to learn the basics; what is and what isn't observed, what
the mechanisms are and what kind of tests are made.
If you don't, then you get a bunch of people asserting things like
the erosion of unconsolidated ash at Mt St Helens being the same thing
as the formation of the grand canyon.
[...]
>
>As for the comment on a "security blanket", I hardly think that faith in a
>holy God to whom we are all accountable and by whom we will all one day be
>judged, affords one much "security". Evolutionism is the "security
>blanket" with which unbelief wraps itself in order to escape moral
>responsibility and a nagging conscience which says to all human beings that
>there is a higher power to which we must all one day answer.
I realize that there are people who use evolution to support the
notion that there is no God. But many others are able to reconcile
the two, so I don't see how "evolutionism" is the moral dodge you
claim it is.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
El gato de Chesire
Graham Head <Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Might I point out the fact that just ten years ago or so a large group
>>>of fossilized footprints was found in a dry riverbed (I don't have the
>>>exact place or time in my head, but I've got all the written evidence
>>>sitting around, if you'd like it). All the tracks were from about the
>>>same time (presumably all made within a few years of each other), and
>>>they found dinosaur tracks OVERLAPPING human footprints. Just like the
>>>kind you and I make.
>>
>>Before the other guy says that they must be fakes, I'd like to point out that
>>they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in and
>>formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible for it
>>to be forged.
>>
>The story is familiar, also, from SF. Anyone help with title & date???
>--
>Graham Head
There's this short story, "The sands of time", by P. Schuyler Miller,
before 1957 (I have it in a compilation from that year).
A SPOILER FOLLOWS. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE END OF THE SHORT
STORY, DON'T READ THE REST OF THE MESSAGE.
This paleologist meets a guy that says that has travelled in a time
machine. He doesn't believe it, then the guy comes back with a
dinosaur egg. But he has to go back to the past, because he's met this
gorgeous ET lady in distress there. He never returns back, but the
paleontologist later finds (he's been searching for them, as he has a
description of the place) their footprints in the 60 Myears old beach
sands, crossed with ones from a Tyrannosaurus. Our friend here would
like the last paragraph:
"The tracks which I have described, imprinted in the sand of the
cretaceous beach, are very plain, but workmen are the only people
besides myself who have seend them. They see no resemblance to human
footprints in the blurred hollows in the stone. They know, for I have
told them again and again during the years that I haev worked with
them, that there were no human beings on the Earth sixty million years
ago. Science says -and is not science always right?- that only the
great dinosaurs of the Cretaceous age left their fossil footprints in
the sands of time"
P.S.: I don't know how many copyright laws and Netiquiette rules I've
broken by now, but if any, I apologize for that.
Charles Dye
ezeq...@arrakis.es (El gato de Chesire) wrote:
>Graham Head <Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Before the other guy says that they must be fakes, I'd like to point out that
>>>they can't be. The clay(or whatever kind of rock it was) was pushed in and
>>>formed around the shape of the foot in a way that makes it impossible for it
>>>to be forged.
>>>
>>The story is familiar, also, from SF. Anyone help with title & date???
>>--
>>Graham Head
>There's this short story, "The sands of time", by P. Schuyler Miller,
>before 1957 (I have it in a compilation from that year).
There was also a short story by Isaac Asimov. I think called "Time's
Arrow", but I could be mistaken; haven't read it in years. The "human
footprints" in this story were Jeep tire marks.
ras...@indirect.com
[newsgroups somewhat trimmed, by the Will of the People]
Thomas Swanson
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.96081...@umbc8.umbc.edu> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>
>Pertaining to some unfinished business, just because the electron
>is considered a point for purposes of some calculations does not
>space, astronomers consider stars points for many calculations, and
>you wouldn't call a star a point, would you? The mass of an
>electron is 9 x 10^(-28) of a gram, but I couldn't find the
>diameter. A good physics textbook should have the answer.
>
And you won't find a diameter. The electron is a point particle.
From Frauenfelder and Henley, _Subatomic Physics_
"Leptons are point particles" (Heading of 6.6)
on p. 136 : Both the muon and electron must be smaller than a few times
10^-18 m.
That's not the radius, mind you, it's the *upper bound* of the radius. The
experiments confirm that quantum electrodynamics is correct down to that scale,
and the theory says that leptons are point particles. It's not what is
assumed as an approximation. It's the prediction of a fantastically
successful theory and experiments agree with it.
Michael Noreen
Replying to david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
: of its birth. Insofar as it is likely that material existence had a
: beginning in the big bang, it very probably had a Beginner, i.e., God
: probably exists.
That conclusion does not follow. You assume erroneously that anything
which has a beginning was started by something, and furthermore that
that something had to be a sentient individual. Since cause-effect
breaks down on the quantum level there is no need for a cause, much
less a god.
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
Alan Scott
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.96081...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>The common but inexact description of the singularity as a point of
>infinite density is the same as nothing.[k] Density is defined as
>the quantity of something per unit of volume, area, or length, e.g.,
>at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, gold has a density of 19.3
>grams per cubic centimeter. If something has density, it can be made
>smaller by compaction.
A black hole singularity has infinite density and cannot be compressed.
It has a measurable mass and charge and spin. Therefore, QED, you
are wrong.
>Since a singularity has 0 volume and so
>cannot be made any smaller, this means that the singularity does not
>have density. If d, then s; not s; thus, no d. The closest
>physicists can get to creation out of nothing is creation out of
>almost nothing. There is a big difference. They do not have any
>equations or even theories involving creation out of absolutely
>nothing. It is almost too incredible to even think about.[l]
You are way out of your depth fella.
<snip>
--
Al Scott---Creationist quote of the Month: "It is not possible for there to be
two omnipotent beings, because if they got in a wrestling match, then they'd
tie, and they wouldn't be all-powerful anymore. [...] A cause is logically
greater than it's effect, [...]" (David Ford)
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein, Tom Wrona (t...@wrona.com) wrote:
>)This month's thought:
>)"In reality, the animal rights movement has elevated ignorance
>)about the natural world almost to the level of a philosophical
>)principle." -- Richard Coniff, conservationist,
>)Audubon Magazine (92(6):120-133;1990)
Great tagline, I'm adding it to the Words of the Sentient...
--
Words of the Sentient:
Minimze your therbligs until it becomes automatic;
this doubles your effective lifetime... --Lazarus Long
mailto:k...@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...
Johnny Marr
Alan Scott wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.96081...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >infinite density is the same as nothing.[k] Density is defined as
> >the quantity of something per unit of volume, area, or length, e.g.,
> >at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, gold has a density of 19.3
> >grams per cubic centimeter. If something has density, it can be made
> >smaller by compaction.
>
> It has a measurable mass and charge and spin. Therefore, QED, you
> are wrong.
The concept of density has little meaning beyond the singularity,
although if you were to measure a black hole's volume as the volume
enclosed by the event horizon, and then measure how much mass is in the
black hole, then you certainly wouldn't get infinite density. A black
hole isn't a point singularity, you know...
> You are way out of your depth fella.
"Hey kettle," said the pot, "You're a bit black, aren't you?"
--
Johnny Marr - wadh...@sable.ox.ac.uk
Webpage at- http://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/~jstacey
I left the North again, I travelled South again
Brent Ellingson
lt.politics.correct,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.conspiracy,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.catastrophism,alt.blasphemy,alt.activism
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,talk.atheism,talk.abortion,sci.skeptic,sci.lang,rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.religion.christian,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.congress,
alt.politics.correct,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.folklore.urban,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.conspiracy,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet,alt.catastrophism,alt.blasphemy,alt.activism
References: <320D47...@gmu.edu> <4urle9$c...@amberjack.netrunner.net> <321165...@pacbell.net> <4v2sqr$i...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: University of Alberta
Distribution:
John Thompson (jo...@haagar.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: Most creationists are not this sophisticated, but the major creationist
: leaders, IMO, are doing exactly this. They couldn't tell such clever lies
: without understanding the truth they are lying about, and they couldn't
: project such an air of sincerity without really believing themselves.
: I would be more comfortable believing they were deliberate frauds, since
: those are much less dangerous, but I don't think that is the case.
I am a Christian, and I must say that I have some problems
with Creation Science. I don't have a problem with the
motive of Creation Science -- i.e. encouraging belief
in God by attempting to promote the factual verifiability
of the Bible as literal truth -- but I do have a problem
with what I see as its incompatibility with the Biblical
notion of Faith. We are to come to Jesus Christ by *faith*
and not be *proof*. Why are Christians compelled to bring
others to God by PROVING the truth of the Word of God, when
God makes it clear that he want believers that have given
themselves to Him by *faith*? Would a God who demands
*faith* of his people want those believers scurrying about
trying to ratify that faith with such worldly, and thereby
suspect, enterprises as rationality and the scientific method?
Why would God leave proof of something he wants people to
accept by faith? You don't think your way to salvation,
according to the Bible.
But I'm sure you'll have a chuckle at these questions,
because to you, no doubt, they seem to miss the point entirely.
And to some extent, I'll admit, they do just that.
But if, indeed, these "major" creationist leaders are
telling, self-consciously or not, such clever, Owellian "lies",
to what end do you think they are doing this? Do you
think they have anything worldly to gain by doing so?
Do you really think they care about power as you see it?
They're after souls, you see. Their concern is not this
life, but the life to come. What makes you think that
reason or scientific rationality is so dependable? Do
you think there is nothing else going on here on this
earth but what you can explain and understand through
something as feeble as human reason? Maybe you do.
What lies have you accepted as truth? Just thought
I'd ask.
Brent
Graham Head
In article <4v5bb0$a...@globe.indirect.com>, Charles Dye
<ras...@indirect.com> writes
--
Graham
Alan Scott
In article <3218D2...@sable.ox.ac.uk>,
Johnny Marr <wadh...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>Alan Scott wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.96081...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
>> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >infinite density is the same as nothing.[k] Density is defined as
>> >the quantity of something per unit of volume, area, or length, e.g.,
>> >at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, gold has a density of 19.3
>> >grams per cubic centimeter. If something has density, it can be made
>> >smaller by compaction.
>>
>> It has a measurable mass and charge and spin. Therefore, QED, you
>> are wrong.
>
>The concept of density has little meaning beyond the singularity,
>although if you were to measure a black hole's volume as the volume
>enclosed by the event horizon, and then measure how much mass is in the
>black hole, then you certainly wouldn't get infinite density. A black
>hole isn't a point singularity, you know...
Well, no, I wasn't measuring the black hole's volume as its event horizon.
I was responding to the claim that the density of a singularity is zero,
and therefore it is indistinguishable from nothing. Whether a black hole
is a point singularity or a line or whatever black hole theorists have
agreed is necessary is immaterial to the question at hand. The point I was
making is that a black hole (which contained a singularity last time I
took an astronomy course) has measurable properties which distinguish it
from nothing at all.
>
>> You are way out of your depth fella.
>
>"Hey kettle," said the pot, "You're a bit black, aren't you?"
Are you just sniping from the sidelines or do you have something to add
to the discussion? Ford claims that a singularity can be termed 'nothing'.
Do you agree or disagree with this claim?
Graham Head
in two of his collections). Many thanks!
--
Graham