Answers From Genesis
Brett Schubert
I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
arguments against them. Thanks!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world
Free Lunch
<shpe...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>Hello,
>
>I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
ignorant of the history of dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Creation Research Society and
Institute for Creation Research.
>I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
>talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
>below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
>based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
>the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
>about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
>find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
>arguments against them. Thanks!
>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world
company refuse to repent of their dishonsty. They have a good gig
running a con on Christians. Ken Ham moved to the United States so he
could run his con on a larger population of credulous marks. He has made
himself very rich telling these lies. What he has not done is science.
r norman
is that its insistence on the "evolutionary" theory of an old earth
has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology.
Every single one of those points they raise are totally false, as
evidenced by physics, astronomy, cosmology, and geology. They relate
to science in general, not to the theory of evolution.
If you want to deny all of science including all of physics,
astronomy, cosomology, geology, etc. then go ahead but don't blame
evolution in particular.
pnyikos
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
> >Hello,
>
> >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>
> Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
> ignorant of the history of
about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
further.
> dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
The one demonstrably incorrect statement by them that I've been aware
of has to do with the un-named author of a website not knowing how
nuanced Behe's approach to Irreducible Complexity is.
I've long maintained that a scientific theory of Intelligent Design is
possible even on the purely secular terms that science is generally
meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably* be the
result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
intelligent design.
For instance, structures similar in function to the bacterial
flagellum have been invented in a Japanese laboratory. Thus there is
no need to invoke supernatural agents for the design and invention of
the original bacterial flagellum.
I do think the evidence for that flagellum being the result of
intelligent design is not very strong at present; nevertheless it is
legitimate to explore ways of supporting or falsifying that
hypothesis.
> Creation Research Society and
> Institute for Creation Research.
> >I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> >talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> >below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> >based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> >the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> >about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> >find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> >arguments against them. Thanks!
>
> The lies of AIG have been pointed out time and again
Brett with some documentation; instead you insult him from the get-
go.
If I did something like that, people here in t.o. would have a field
day with me, and I would have nothing to say in my defense.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
>
> >Hello,
>
> >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
or you. I'm turning in for the night very soon and don't have the
time to provide an answer now; but surely, there are t.o. FAQs that do
address it.
> >I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> >talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> >below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> >based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> >the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> >about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> >find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> >arguments against them. Thanks!
>
> Probably the most important thing you should know about that website
> is that its insistence on the "evolutionary" theory of an old earth
> has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology.
> Every single one of those points they raise are totally false,
> as
> evidenced by physics, astronomy, cosmology, and geology. They relate
> to science in general, not to the theory of evolution.
they claim, evolution would have had to happen at an absurdly rapid
rate.
> If you want to deny all of science including all of physics,
> astronomy, cosomology, geology, etc. then go ahead but don't blame
> evolution in particular.
paragraph.
Peter Nyikos
Jeffrey Turner
constant set of stars. They are like a traffic jam on the highway.
Stars enter on the trailing edge and leave from the leading edge. They
don't wind up, they stay where they are.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
> On Sep 9, 9:55 pm, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
>> <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>
>>> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>>
>> Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
>> ignorant of the history of
>
> Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
> about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
>
> If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
> further.
>
>> dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
>> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>
> I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
> that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
> The one demonstrably incorrect statement by them that I've been aware
> of has to do with the un-named author of a website not knowing how
> nuanced Behe's approach to Irreducible Complexity is.
> I've long maintained that a scientific theory of Intelligent Design is
> possible even on the purely secular terms that science is generally
> meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably* be the
> result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
> scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
> intelligent design.
the can down the road. How did the designers come into existence?
> For instance, structures similar in function to the bacterial
> flagellum have been invented in a Japanese laboratory. Thus there is
> no need to invoke supernatural agents for the design and invention of
> the original bacterial flagellum.
a flagellum, why are there still Japanese?
> I do think the evidence for that flagellum being the result of
> intelligent design is not very strong at present; nevertheless it is
> legitimate to explore ways of supporting or falsifying that
> hypothesis.
--Jeff
David Hare-Scott
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
> <shpe...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>
> Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
> ignorant of the history of dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Creation Research Society and
> Institute for Creation Research.
>
David
Earle Jones
<380ebf25-1cee-4312...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Brett Schubert <shpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
Brett: Greetings! You will find many answers in "Answers in Genesis"
but they are mostly wrong.
If you are really interested, and not just looking for confirmation of
your pre-held notions, get a book like "The Age of the Earth", by Brent
Dalrymple. In this book he reviews the available methods of measuring
the earth's age, and presents data on the accuracy and reliability of
these methods. There are quite a few different approaches to judging
the age of the earth. Fortunately, most of these agree to a close
approximation.
Cheers! Happy reading!
earle
*
jillery
The OP made no effort to specify which arguments he thinks are not
addressed. I see no reason why anybody here should waste their time
guessing which ones he has in mind. ISTM the OP could demonstrate his
sincerity by specifying even one argument he would like to discuss.
That is my most sincere opinion.
Mike Painter
compared to AiG, CRS or any of the other such sites.
They do not, by their own definition, practice science.
Science says you must accept the evidence. AiG say that you *must* deny
any evidence that does not agree with their idea of what the bible says.
Incidentally, if you are one of the clever ones here to show us poor
misguided fools how wrong we are about the bible and it's True Science
you are one of a long line. You will fail as they did
Ernest Major
<380ebf25-1cee-4312...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Brett Schubert <shpe...@gmail.com> writes
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
--
alias Ernest Major
Cubist
> Hello,
>
> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
because science just doesn't *do* proof. Science does 'supported by
the evidence', and 'well-supported by the evidence', and '*so*
extremely well-supported by the evidence that you've gotta have a
screw loose to reject it', but to repeat, science just doesn't *do*
'proves'. The reason why is that scientists do not pretend to
omniscience, and it's always possible that there *might* be some
factor which has been overlooked that *could* make hamburger out of
whatever scientific theory/conclusion. Of course, if you're going to
present some shiny new theory as if it was a Revolutionary Concept
That Will Revolutionize [insert field of science here], it really
helps if you have the evidence to back you up, as opposed to just
*saying* that whatever-your-concept-happens-to-be will overturn
everything...
> I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> arguments against them. Thanks!
Well, let's see...
sez AiG:
|3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
| According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the
same
| age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a
| comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material
that
| it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years...
AiG's argument is that comets evaporate so quickly that none should
exist any more if the Universe is actually billions of years old
rather than thousands of years old; they dismiss astronomers'
consensus solution to this puzzle (namely, that the supply of comets
is continually being replenished by the Oort Cloud, either directly
from the Oort itself, or indirectly thru the intermediate stage of the
Kuiper Belt) as unsubstantiated, unrealistic speculation.
Well, fine; let's take AiG at their word, and accept the
proposition that there ain't no such animal as the Oort cloud, and
that there is, in consequence, no source of 'fresh' comets. If there's
no source of 'fresh' comets, *all* comets we see must be leftovers
from the Creation, a mere several-thousand years ago.
As it happens, comets do not all have the same period. Halley's
Comet returns once every 76 years or so; Comet Kohoutek, which made a
close pass around the Sun back in 1973, is supposed to do it again in
about 75,000 years; Encke's Comet has the shortest-period orbit known,
and returns once every 3 years; there are a number of other comets
whose periods are 10 years or less.
If *all* comets are leftovers from the Creation, Encke's Comet must
be such a leftover. But its period is 3 years, which means that
Encke's Comet has made *at least* (6,000 / 3 =) *two* *thousand* close
passes around the Sun, with the Sun's light boiling away however-much
of the comet on *each and every one* of those close passes. I say "at
least" because AiG is a bit unspecific about just *how* young they
think the Earth is; their range of acceptable ages runs from around 6K
years to something like 12K years.
Anyway, under AiG's no-source-of-new-comets presumption, Encke's
Comet *must* have made anywhere from *two thousand* up to *four
thousand* close passes around the Sun... and it *must* have made all
those close passes around the Sun *without* having the Sun boil all of
its volatiles away.
Hmm.
And it's not just Encke's Comet: *Any* comet whose period is less
than 10 years, has therefore made *at least* (6,000 / 10 =) *six*
*hundred* close passes around the Sun *without* getting boiled down to
the bare rock.
This is, of course, bullshit.
The bottom line is that under AiG's YEC timeline, one of two things
*must* be true: Either (a) there *must* be a source of new comets to
replenish the comets with periods in the 10-years-or-less category (a
source whose existence contradicts AiG's no-source-of-new-comets
concept), or else (b) there *cannot* be any comets with periods in the
10-years-or-less category. Since super-short-period comets do exist,
AiG's no-source-of-new-comets argument *cannot* be right.
sez AiG:
| 11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
| With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms
| should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years.
This argument seems to be based on the unspoken presumption that
the carbon-14 is *only ever* produced in the atmosphere, thru the
mechanism of nitrogen-14 atoms getting zapped by cosmic rays. And if
that presumption were true, the presence of carbon-14 atoms in ancient
coal and such would indeed be a bizarre and inexplicable puzzle.
However, that presumption is *not* true. Carbon-14 atoms can also
be produced by carbon-13 atoms getting zapped by gamma rays; by
oxygen-17 atoms getting zapped with thermal neutrons; and by fast
neutrons zapping atoms of nitrogen-15 & oxygen-16. Since carbon-14
atoms make up only *one out of every TRILLION* carbon atoms in
general, it clearly wouldn't take very much 'excess' production of
carbon-14 to put detectable quantities of the stuff in places which
haven't been exposed to atrmospheric carbon-14 in millions of years.
sez AiG:
| 12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
| Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for
| at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time
| the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one
and
| ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with
| artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight
| billion bodies. ... Yet only a few thousand have been found.
This argument contains an unspoken assumption: Namely, that *ALL*
dead bodies have been buried. Since a certain number of humans have
died under conditions which did not allow for their bodies to be
properly buried, and there are cultures whose funeral practices *do
not* include burial, this unspoken assumption is clearly false.
Apart from the false everybody-gets-buried assumption, this
argument contains a second unspoken assumption, that being that *ALL*
bodies which have *EVER* been buried *MUST NECESSARILY* be
sufficiently intact *TODAY* that they can be recognized *as* bodies.
If you're talking about a YEC timeline, in which there *can't* be any
bodies older than a few thousand years, this assumption is not
entirely indefensible; if you're talking about a timeline of anywhere
from hundred of thousands of years on up to billions of years, this
assumption is bullshit.
And there's yet a third unspoken assumption: Not only must *ALL*
dead bodies be buried, and *ALL* buried bodies survive in recognizable
form to the present day... but *ALL* of the locations of *ALL* these
buried bodies *must be known now*. Hmmm.
In short, this argument is a triple-decker sandwich of bullshit
assumptions.
The three arguments I've dissected here are sufficiently bogus that
they can be demolished with no more than a high-school student's
understanding of science. Does that give you any confidence that the
eleven arguments I *didn't* dissect are any more worthy of
consideration?
Nashton
<snip>
>
>> and Ken Ham and
>> company refuse to repent of their dishonsty. They have a good gig
>> running a con on Christians. Ken Ham moved to the United States so he
>> could run his con on a larger population of credulous marks. He has made
>> himself very rich telling these lies. What he has not done is science.
>
>
Peter, do you actually believe that Free Lunch, well known troll and
fanboi can produce anything objective or worth discussing?
How long have you been posting here?
I thoroughly enjoy your posts and even though I don't have much time to
participate in this zoo, which is essentially a forum of world view
clashes and pointless arguments, I go out of my my to read your posts.
Steven L.
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dabab679-e70f-49cd...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 9, 9:55�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
> > <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> >
> > >Hello,
> >
> > >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
> >
> > Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
> > ignorant of the history of
>
> Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
> about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
>
> If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
> further.
>
> > dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
> > Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>
> I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
> that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
You haven't read their Wedge Document, I see.
By their own words, their goals are these:
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is
one of the bedrock principles on which Western Civilization was
built....
"Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under attack
by....Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud....This materialistic
conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our
culture....has been devastating....
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural
legacies....The Center....reopened the case for a broadly theistic
understanding of nature.
"GOVERNING GOALS:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural
and political legacies.
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding
that nature and human beings are created by God."
"TWENTY YEAR GOALS:
"To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and
political life."
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Is that the language that scientific research normally speaks?
I don't think so.
It's the language of social engineering. Or maybe re-engineering, since
the DI thinks that "materialists" like Darwin and Marx already
"infected" our civilization.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:f9f64d7f-ba7a-4e96...@br5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 9, 10:05�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
> >
> > <shper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Hello,
> >
> > >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>
> This statement has not been directly addressed by either "Free Lunch"
> or you. I'm turning in for the night very soon and don't have the
> time to provide an answer now; but surely, there are t.o. FAQs that do
> address it.
>
> > >I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> > >talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> > >below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> > >based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> > >the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> > >about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> > >find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> > >arguments against them. Thanks!
> >
> > >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-youn...
> >
> > Probably the most important thing you should know about that website
> > is that its insistence on the "evolutionary" theory of an old earth
> > has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology.
> > Every single one of those points they raise are totally false,
>
> How about citing even one place where even one of them are refuted?
The *OLD* Earth Creationists have refuted most of them.
The best rebuttal to Answers in Genesis comes from Answers in
Creation--since they can't be accused of being "materialistic atheists."
They specifically reply to Answers in Genesis's claims.
http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm
That's why I usually refer YECs to OECs.
YECs aren't going to believe us with our alleged "materialism."
But what can they say about OECs, who are also Christian fundamentalists
whose interpretation of the Bible is different? (The founder, Greg
Neyman, has a M.A. in religion from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.)
It's interesting how these two different groups of Biblical literalists
disagree on what that literal interpretation of the Bible is.
I've often suggested that one way to put our own "wedge" into Biblical
literalist YECs is to cite the arguments of the OECs.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nngl679s15tnd4tvi...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
> <shpe...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>
> Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
> ignorant of the history of dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Creation Research Society and
> Institute for Creation Research.
>
> >I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> >talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> >below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> >based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> >the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> >about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> >find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> >arguments against them. Thanks!
> >
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-young-world
Why not look at the rebuttals from the Old Earth Creationists? They're
creationists too, but creationists who accept an ancient Earth because
they interpret the Hebrew word "yom" to mean timespans longer than
86,400 second days.
http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm
-- Steven L.
TomS
<L7-dnWDqB4Xh-fbT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
And one can point out another "wedge" from the Biblical literalists
who hold to geocentrism.
ISTM that one can produce a better Biblical literalist case for
geocentrism than for heliocentric YEC.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Free Lunch
<sec...@nospam.com> wrote in talk.origins:
If people want to look at scientific questions they use science, not
religious websites that spread disinformation. If someone tells me they
are interested in X and then points to questions from a site that
rejects all of the evidence about X without once considering whether any
of those questions are valid or meaningful, he's not interested.
If Brett were actually confused about a particular claim of the liars at
Answers in Genesis, then he would have asked a specific question about
it, just sending us to AIG's Greatest Lies is not evidence that he is
serious about evidence that proves the age of the earth, since AIG uses
no evidence at all.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Sep 9, 9:55�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
>> <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >Hello,
>>
>> >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>>
>> Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
>> ignorant of the history of
>
>Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
>about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
I know nothing about Brett Schubert other than the question he asked and
the way he asked it. His question was not about specifics. It included
everyone's favorite creationist tell "proves" and didn't show that he
had spent any time considering whether there was evidence that shows
that the AIG document was wrong.
>If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
>further.
>
>> dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
>> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>
>I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
>that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
What scientific research has it done?
>The one demonstrably incorrect statement by them that I've been aware
>of has to do with the un-named author of a website not knowing how
>nuanced Behe's approach to Irreducible Complexity is.
Isn't it so nuanced now that he has finally admitted that there isn't a
single valid example of irreducible complexity?
>I've long maintained that a scientific theory of Intelligent Design is
>possible even on the purely secular terms that science is generally
>meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably* be the
>result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
>scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
>intelligent design.
As soon as you provide evidence that there is a designer, I'll be
willing to consider the rest of your hypothesis.
>For instance, structures similar in function to the bacterial
>flagellum have been invented in a Japanese laboratory. Thus there is
>no need to invoke supernatural agents for the design and invention of
>the original bacterial flagellum.
We didn't need supernatural agents before that, either.
>I do think the evidence for that flagellum being the result of
>intelligent design is not very strong at present; nevertheless it is
>legitimate to explore ways of supporting or falsifying that
>hypothesis.
Until they find a shred of evidence to show that there is an intelligent
designer, they are just preaching an unknown god.
>> Creation Research Society and
>> Institute for Creation Research.
>
>These others, I have little patience with; ditto AIG.
>
>> >I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
>> >talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
>> >below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
>> >based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
>> >the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
>> >about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
>> >find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
>> >arguments against them. Thanks!
>>
>> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-youn...
>>
>> The lies of AIG have been pointed out time and again
>
>I don't doubt your word on that; but you really ought to have provided
>Brett with some documentation; instead you insult him from the get-
>go.
He told us he was very interested. That implies that he has done work
concerning this.
jillery
Well, sure, but that's a rather low bar to hurdle :)
Burkhard
There are two very good books that I would recommend, both by Brent
Dalrymple, one is The Age of the Earth form 1994, the other,
from 2004, is called "Ancient Earth, ancient skies: the age of Earth
and its cosmic surroundings."
As for the AiG website, most of their "arguments" are based on wrong
extrapolations of cyclical processes that are in addition taken out of
context.
With the same reasoning, you could "proof" that the earth is only a
few hundred years old, since every year, we pass a set amount of
water,
and then you can extrapolate backwards to find that the earth would
have been totally submerged in urine over just a few centuries,
giving
you a very young age of life indeed.
Other "arguments" they provide are simple factual mistakes (to be
generous and assume they really don;t know the facts) E.g. the ancient
DNA
that was discovered (or rather, fragments that in all likelihood were
DNA) were precisely not " in natural environments"
but preserved e.g. in amber, or extracted through modern chemical
processes from fossils, and n 8, they confuse Mitochondrial Eve
with the most recent common ancestor shared by all humans, two very
different things. M.E. is still dated at around 200.000 years ago. .
VoiceOfReason
indicates an age for the earth greater than ~6,000 years, and 2)
concoct nonsense stories about how science supports their literalist
interpretation of Genesis. In short, they're a pack of liars.
If you want to know the facts, these links should help:
US Geological Survey: Geologic Time
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/contents.html
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Boikat
> Hello,
>
> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
> I've looked on both sides of the argument,
earth, and how it was derived, the answer is in science, not religious
mythology.
> and wanted to ask you at
> talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> below.
to look there for information on the age of the earth?
> Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized.
yourself. That way, you'd be able to see that AIG is, by and large,
full of crap.
> Several of
> the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> arguments against them. Thanks!
answers is in Genesis, or any other books from the Bible. The Bible
is not a science book, *period*.
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-youn...
Boikat
Harry K
Only if there is some evidence that the 'arguement' may possibly lead
somewhere worthwhile. Repeating "it looks designed" is not evidence.
> For instance, structures similar in function to the bacterial
> flagellum have been invented in a Japanese laboratory. �Thus there is
> no need to invoke supernatural agents for the design and invention of
> the original bacterial flagellum.
>
There is also no need to invoke an Intelligent Designer. BTW: Where
did your first IDer come from?
> I do think the evidence for that flagellum being the result of
> intelligent design is not very strong at present; nevertheless it is
> legitimate to explore ways of supporting or falsifying that
> hypothesis.
>
So explore it. Post all the evidence you find for it and it would
lead to a good discussion. BTW. ID is _not_ a hypothesis - those have
at least some evidence supporting it. ID is at best a WAG.
<snip>
Harry K
Vincent Maycock
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
>> <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >Hello,
>>
>> >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>>
>> Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
>> ignorant of the history of
>
> Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
> about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
>
> If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
> further.
>
>> dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
>> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>
> I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
> that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
> The one demonstrably incorrect statement by them that I've been aware
> of has to do with the un-named author of a website not knowing how
> nuanced Behe's approach to Irreducible Complexity is.
>
> I've long maintained that a scientific theory of Intelligent Design is
> possible even on the purely secular terms that science is generally
> meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably* be the
> result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
> scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
> intelligent design.
TomS
<5mtm67lr7r7kpcd2v...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."
But a young earth already sets a low standard.
As far as Biblical support, geocentrism is quite explicit in the Bible.
Early Biblical commentators often had interpretations of Genesis 1
other than that creation took six solar days. But nobody varied from
geocentrism until a thousand years later.
TomS
<380ebf25-1cee-4312...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Brett
Schubert stated..."
>Hello,
>
>I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
>below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
>based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
>the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
>about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
>find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
>arguments against them. Thanks!
>
>
You might want to look at one of these books:
Falk, Darrel R.
Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology
Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2004
Walton, John H.
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
InterVarsity Press, 2009
Will in New Haven
> Hello,
>
> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
> I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> below.
entire science of geology. If you were _truly_ interested in evidence
you would only be in doubt if you were incredibly stupid.
--
Will in New Haven
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On 9/9/2011 9:25 PM, Brett Schubert wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
> > I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> > talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> > below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> > based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> > the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> > about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> > find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> > arguments against them. Thanks!
>
> Just to take the first one: The arms of the galaxy aren't made up of a
> constant set of stars. They are like a traffic jam on the highway.
> Stars enter on the trailing edge and leave from the leading edge. They
> don't wind up, they stay where they are.
Wikipedia, tells you not to believe, "density theory" describes how
stars are made, burn for a while, and go out, in a pattern across
space, made out of fields of the thin gas and dust that fills the
whole galaxy. So there happen to be new stars getting switched on in
some regions of the galaxy and not in others, at any given time - but
there aren't straight lanes of stars across the galaxy as initially
created, that then get bent around into a spiral.
Also, the stars on the far side of the galaxy are about 100,000 light
years away from Earth, and we see them now as they existed that long
ago, so AIG probably would do better not to draw readers' attention to
astronomy.
Although 100 years ago it was speculation, at best, to say that some
of the fuzzy shapes of light in the sky /are/ other galaxies like our
own. Astronomers thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe,
pretty much. I suppose that meant that the question of it being a
spiral galaxy didn't particularly arise then. And some, like
Einstein, also assumed that it had always existed in its present-day
form, and always would. Odd.
AGWFacts
<shpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
Earth. In fact there is no proof Earth has an age.
> I've looked on both sides of the argument
are billions and billions of incorrect ages.
> and wanted to ask you at
> talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> arguments against them. Thanks!
>
--
TRUTH NEEDS ALLIES!
http://epa.gov/climatechange/
jillery
wrote:
existence of some version of a universal designer, for whatever
reason, also believe in some variation of Intelligent Design? IOW how
tightly coupled in peoples' minds are these two related but separate
concepts?
Garamond Lethe
> I've long maintained that a scientific theory of Intelligent Design is
> possible even on the purely secular terms that science is generally
> meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably* be the
> result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
> scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
> intelligent design.
Let's set aside intelligent design for a moment. As an more neutral
example: back when I was doing laboratory robotics work, I observed a
fellow developer's machine launching a microtiter plate of DMSO onto
the floor. I immediately went up to his office to let him know; he
was very skeptical that his code would do such a thing, and pointed
out that it was conceivable that a cosmic ray had flipped a bit and
this was just one of those things.
I went back into the cleanroom without him and watched his machine
launch another microtiter plate at the floor.
Now it's certainly *conceivable" that I just witnessed two cosmic ray
strikes on the same bank of RAM which affected the machine in exactly
the same way. This *is* a testable scientific hypothesis.
Is it acceptable to make that argument? I would say no. If there are
more likely alternate explanations (like buggy code) that haven't yet
been explored, then it's both rational and ethical to reject
explanations that are merely conceivable.
Now let's bring intelligent design back into it. I work at a national
lab. Some of my experiments have a large amount of noise in the
signal. It is conceivable that the Chinese have hacking into these
supercomputers and are introducing noise in order to degrade our
experiments --- the phenomenon is due to intelligent, intentional
design. It's also conceivable that there exists several "natural"
causes for the noise, including failing ECC RAM, jitter magnified by
certain communication patterns, etc.
Is is scientifically acceptable for me to argue for the former without
first thoroughly investigating the latter? Hell and no (although if I
was a computer scientist in Iran I might spend substantially more time
thinking about the former than I would have a few years ago).
So: acceptable scientific arguments in general must be more than
conceivable, and arguments for intelligent design are not an
exception.
Garamond Lethe
> Hello,
>
> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
> below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> arguments against them. Thanks!
>
It's been a while since I checked in on Answers in Genesis. Let's
take a
look.
<q>
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic
center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the
outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our
galaxy
were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a
featureless
disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.[1] Yet our galaxy
is
supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this
“the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty
years.
They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one
failing
after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma
also
applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored
attempt
to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density
waves.”[1] The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily
and
very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the
Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure
in
the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.[2]
</q> [Humphreys, June 2005]
[1] Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and
Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–3 53, 401–
413.
[2] D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of
the
galaxy M51, Nature 364:313–315 (July 22, 1993).
First: this is about as good as young-earth creationism is going to
get. The HTML is professional-grade, the text has a calm, reasonable
tone and even cites the peer-reviewed literature. To someone who
doesn't
have science as a fairly serious hobby, this might look plausible. I
have no trouble appreciating this for the PR work that it is.
A few observations:
1. The "winding problem" was first noticed by Bertil Lindblad in
1925.
2. The astronomical community promptly concluded that the spiral
arms
could not be "rigid", and so set out trying to find what was going on.
3. The "density wave" model was proposed in the 1960s and has
continued
to be refined.
4. One of the refinements came from Zaritsky's et al. work on M51.
He
concludes his abstract by stating:
"We suggest that a combination of several mechanisms, such as the
interaction of M51 with the neighbouring galaxy NGC5195, forcing by
the
central 'bar', or distortions from density waves, is required to
generate
the observed structure."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6435/abs/364313a0.html
Humphreys would like you to read that and conclude the "density wave"
hypothesis has failed.
5. M51 has proven to be a fertile testbed for refinements to the
"density wave" hypothesis.
"We present hydrodynamical models of the grand design spiral M51 (NGC
5194), and its interaction with its companion NGC 5195. Despite the
simplicity of our models, our simulations capture the present day
spiral
structure of M51 remarkably well, and even reproduce details such as
a
kink along one spiral arm, and spiral arm bifurcations."
C. L. Dobbs et al., "Simulations of the grand design galaxy M51: a
case
study for analysing tidally induced spiral structure", 2010.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.1201
So, Humphreys has grossly misrepresented the state of the research.
He
has a Ph.D. in an unrelated area; I have a Ph.D. in an unrelated
area.
If I can track down this record in 30 minutes on a lazy Saturday
afternoon there's absolutely no reason he couldn't have done the same.
Whether or not he was deliberately lying I'll let him sort out with
his
God.
Humphreys begins by proposing that the spiral arms of galaxies are
"material", despite the fact that he has no evidence of this and
despite
no working astronomer holding this position. In order to support his
point of view, he then has to get rid of everything we know about
physics, nuclear chemistry, geology, cosmology and astronomy.
Once we've done all this, do we at least have a greater understanding
as
to why spiral (and other, more strangely shaped) galaxies are the way
they are? Humphreys is silent here as well, as he must be. Making
the
universe younger does not solve the problem of the origin of these
structures.
Thus....
Here is the choice that Humphreys does not want to spell out. You
may
accept as true an idea rejected in 1925 and not picked up since in
order
to reject the idea of an old universe, while reducing our ability to
explain the world we see around us, or...
You accept that spiral arms are not "rigid", thus no "winding
problem"
exists, and that by the application of lots of "complicated" math
we're
now able to generate computer models of not only single galaxies in
isolation, but how galactic interaction affects the shape of galaxies.
This isn't two side of a question. There's nothing to debate here.
Humphreys relies on the fact that most of his readers either can't or
won't consult the peer-reviewed literature. Once you invalidate that
assumption the magic of his words dissipates.
The rest of Humphreys's arguments are equally bad. If there's one in
particular you're curious about, please post it.
For a good summary of density waves, consult wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
doctrine that says some things didn't just happen, someone made them.
Simply, it's the act of saying about some stuff, "That doesn't look
natural", and, also, deliberately going out to look for stuff like
that. Which is the wrong way to do the science of that stuff, but, I
suppose, a reasonable way to look for real evidence of a Great Stuff-
Maker. Why you would do that if you /don't/ have evidence of a Great
Stuff-Maker, though...
jillery
a Great Stuff-Maker (I like that technical phrase BTW), and it is this
axiom that paves the way for them to conclude from additional evidence
they recognize the pattern of said Stuff-Maker's actions, ie
Intelligent Design. Are there people who cognitively reversed that
order, where they first recognized Intelligent Design in the Universe
and from that, and that alone, concluded the existence of a Great
Stuff-Maker? If not, ISTM that answers my question; if someone
believes in Intelligent Design of the Universe, they necessarily
believe the Universe had an Intelligent Designer.
Vincent Maycock
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dodp67dmlt5fo83hl...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:42:49 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
snip
There are people that claim they've done this, but in our universe (as
compared to one where there
was an evident designer) their ideas are untenable.
>Are there people who cognitively reversed that
> order, where they first recognized Intelligent Design in the Universe
> and from that, and that alone, concluded the existence of a Great
> Stuff-Maker?
I suppose that could happen in an alternative reality, but in our world
there is no evidence leading
to a great Stuff-Maker. Christians, for example, are unable to explain why
this designer avoids
appearing outside of their own thoughts and emotions, much the way
nonexistent entities behave.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com>:
>On Sep 9, 6:25�pm, Brett Schubert <shper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>> I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
>> talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
>> below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
>> based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
>> the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
>> about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
>> find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
>> arguments against them. Thanks!
>>
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-youn...
Nominated:
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> >
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory>
I just want to point that I, also, recommended consulting Wikipedia.
Well, implicitly I did. So where's /my/ POTM nom? :-)
jillery
wrote:
>
>>Are there people who cognitively reversed that
>> order, where they first recognized Intelligent Design in the Universe
>> and from that, and that alone, concluded the existence of a Great
>> Stuff-Maker?
>
>I suppose that could happen in an alternative reality, but in our world
>there is no evidence leading
>to a great Stuff-Maker. Christians, for example, are unable to explain why
>this designer avoids
>appearing outside of their own thoughts and emotions, much the way
>nonexistent entities behave.
who believe in a Great Stuff-Maker, they see the evidence all around
them. Further, IIUC they believe their thoughts and emotions are from
the same Great Stuff-Maker as the thoughts and emotions of the
millions of other like-minded believers, past, present, and future, in
a consilience of Great Stuff-Maker believingness. That you and I say
that their beliefs are materially wrong seems not to phase them. My
impression is that material evidence is immaterial to their beliefs.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
of natural evolution, then design is another plausible guess at how
they got to be the way that they are. The rest, less so.
James Beck
wrote:
jillery
[ID] can taken seriously". But there are lots of people with whom
your test is already satisfied. ISTM those people will perceive
hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as plausible, and likely (?)
more plausible than hypotheses based on natural evolution. While
those who have no prior acceptance of a designer will perceive
hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as less plausible, and likely
(?) nonsensical. From this ISTM the issue people should address first
is what they think is evidence for a designer. When you don't agree
on that, then you're just talking at each other.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
things in the world work too neatly and well to be accidental - and
Intelligent Design with capital letters, which is the lying cowardly
doctrine of the Discovery Institute, got up immediately after Creation
Science was barred from schools as unscientific religious teaching,
and by crossing out the word "creation" and writing in "design" in the
prospective Creation Science schoolbooks - or rather, as is well known
(here anyway), by search and replace. Intelligent Design, with
capitals, is not a point of view or even a natural error, it is a
despicable deliberate fraud specifically against the American public
and in particular the American taxpayer, to rob you to pay for
religious teaching in public schools, which is an illegal use of
taxes. "As scientists," the Discovery Instituters say, "we believe
that there is real evidence that all this didn't just happen." Until
now they generally didn't claim to /have/ that evidence, only that
they knew it existed and they were going to try to get it. Well, they
aren't scientists, and they aren't open-minded. They're just not.
Not a single one of them owns a white lab coat, I am quite sure -
except for the employees of the Washington Laboratory of the Discovery
Institute And Mainly Lobbying, I Shouldn't Wonder, who are probably in
fact just actors. And their bosses in the DI are wicked, wicked
liars. And Intelligent Design is a wicked lie.
Oh, well, sometimes the leading scientists in creationism turn out to
be qualified dentists, when you ask. They probably have white coats.
But some others are in the real estate business.
TomS
<8a7e1ca0-04ef-42ff...@d25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Robert
Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org stated..."
happen, what they do *not* tell us is what *did* happen.
And it isn't only that they are not being scientific about it,
they don't have *any* kind of an accounting for what resulted. Not
scientific. Not historical. Not esthetic.
They don't have something that meets the standards of a term paper
or a newspaper article: Who. What. Where. When. Why. How. None of
those.
They don't address the traditional criteria for solving a crime:
Means. Motive. Opportunity.
They don't give any examples of things which are *not* "intelligently
designed". Not even any unreal, hypothetical things that are not
designed; not even any impossible things. (After all, things like
shmoos and flying carpets and "Penrose triangles" seem to be as
much designed as watches and mousetraps.)
Nor do they show any interest in exploring the possibilities. Not
experimentally, of course, but not theoretically, either.
Ernest Major
<8a7e1ca0-04ef-42ff...@d25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>things in the world work too neatly and well to be accidental - and
>Intelligent Design with capital letters, which is the lying cowardly
>doctrine of the Discovery Institute, got up immediately after Creation
>Science was barred from schools as unscientific religious teaching, and
>by crossing out the word "creation" and writing in "design" in the
>prospective Creation Science schoolbooks - or rather, as is well known
>(here anyway), by search and replace. Intelligent Design, with
>capitals, is not a point of view or even a natural error, it is a
>despicable deliberate fraud specifically against the American public
>and in particular the American taxpayer, to rob you to pay for
>religious teaching in public schools, which is an illegal use of taxes.
>"As scientists," the Discovery Instituters say, "we believe that there
>is real evidence that all this didn't just happen." Until now they
>generally didn't claim to /have/ that evidence, only that they knew it
>existed and they were going to try to get it. Well, they aren't
>scientists, and they aren't open-minded. They're just not. Not a
>single one of them owns a white lab coat, I am quite sure - except for
>the employees of the Washington Laboratory of the Discovery Institute
>And Mainly Lobbying, I Shouldn't Wonder, who are probably in fact just
>actors. And their bosses in the DI are wicked, wicked liars. And
>Intelligent Design is a wicked lie.
don't posses white lab coats is reckless.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mark Buchanan
> Hello,
>
> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
> I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
> talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
> below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are accurate,
> based on good measurements, and which are sensationalized. Several of
> the arguments made at the link below are not addressed on your page
> about evidence for an old Earth. Please let me know where I can go to
> find information about these arguments, or if are able to find debates/
> arguments against them. Thanks!
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-youn...
evidence for an old earth convincing?
What specific young earth arguments to you find convincing?
Most creationist arguments are of two types: ones based on bad
science, and ones based on issues that science hasn't found answers to
yet. The latter type are convincing only if you have a limited
understanding of how science works. Science doesn't have an answer to
every question.
There is enough evidence however to be certain of both an old earth
and that evolution did happen. May I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Science-Faith-Straight-Questions/dp/0830838295
Mark
jillery
don't see them that way, and in other contexts neither would I. Feel
free to search and replace ID and Intelligent Design with Paleyism in
my text, as such action doesn't alter my intent in any way.
Mike Painter
the creature you were examining and the rest of the world.
Even at that with almost anything the stupidity of many of the pieces
and parts is quite apparent.
Why do bees die when they sting when wasps don't?
Why design this insane prey -predator - prey crap in the first place?
Why would you design a system where the most critical parts will die
long before less critical parts?
Would you fill the gas tank through the carburetor, using a flapper
valve to make sure where it went?
I've seen enough dead people to know air and fuel in the same hole is a
really stupid idea.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
than a reference to Wiki...
But I'll nominate you for "Additional Support". How's that?
;-)
Vincent Maycock
>But there are lots of people with whom
> your test is already satisfied.
explanations of design because
they are themselves merely psychological phenomena, and not a form of
evidence for a
designer.
>ISTM those people will perceive
> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as plausible, and likely (?)
> more plausible than hypotheses based on natural evolution. While
> those who have no prior acceptance of a designer will perceive
> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as less plausible, and likely
> (?) nonsensical. From this ISTM the issue people should address first
> is what they think is evidence for a designer. When you don't agree
> on that, then you're just talking at each other.
course has been refuted. The
claim of evidence for design was also present in the older versions of
creationism, but these claims
have been disproven as well.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In message
> <8a7e1ca0-04ef-42ff...@d25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
> >scientists, and they aren't open-minded. They're just not. Not a
> >single one of them owns a white lab coat, I am quite sure - except for
> >the employees of the Washington Laboratory of the Discovery Institute
> >And Mainly Lobbying, I Shouldn't Wonder, who are probably in fact just
> >actors. And their bosses in the DI are wicked, wicked liars. And
> >Intelligent Design is a wicked lie.
>
> I think your conclusion that Michael Behe and Douglas Axe, for example,
> don't posses white lab coats is reckless.
Michael Behe owns several plaid shirts, and probably one white shirt.
Douglas Axe does not appear in photographs apparently, I hope there is
a rational explanation, but as the Director of the Biologic Sciency-
Sounding Institute, he just tells the actors what to do. Stand over
there, stare into the beaker quizzically, and so on.
Even a Director in a /real/ science laboratory doesn't have to /touch/
stuff.
jillery
explanation only with small samples, and becomes increasingly
untenable as more and different species are included. Using your last
analogy, I could point to the wonderful design of some snakes, which
have an extension to the windpipe, so they can still breathe while
they slowly swallow whole prey several times wider than their head. In
contrast, there are marine mammals, which are obliged to rise to the
surface at intervals lest they drown. How much better off they would
be if they could take oxygen from water like their prey.
The above strongly suggests to me that the only way someone can
believe in Paleyian design is if they have a prior commitment to a
belief in a Universal Designer.
jillery
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
>cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
><rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>
>>> >...For a good summary of density waves, consult wikipedia:
>>> >
>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory>
>>
>>I just want to point that I, also, recommended consulting Wikipedia.
>>Well, implicitly I did. So where's /my/ POTM nom? :-)
>
>I should point out that Garamond provided a wee bit more
>than a reference to Wiki...
>
>But I'll nominate you for "Additional Support". How's that?
>;-)
jillery
wrote:
>
I regret my careless misattribution.
>>But there are lots of people with whom
>> your test is already satisfied.
>
>You mean religious beliefs? These should be excluded from scientific
>explanations of design because
>they are themselves merely psychological phenomena, and not a form of
>evidence for a
>designer.
evidence. OTOH IIUC the people who hold these beliefs don't agree,
because they think the Universe is illuminated by more than material
evidence. And that's my point.
>>ISTM those people will perceive
>> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as plausible, and likely (?)
>> more plausible than hypotheses based on natural evolution. While
>> those who have no prior acceptance of a designer will perceive
>> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as less plausible, and likely
>> (?) nonsensical. From this ISTM the issue people should address first
>> is what they think is evidence for a designer. When you don't agree
>> on that, then you're just talking at each other.
>
>Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
>course has been refuted. The
>claim of evidence for design was also present in the older versions of
>creationism, but these claims
>have been disproven as well.
Robert's suggestion, would that change your reply?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
> <rja.carne...@excite.com>:
> >> >...For a good summary of density waves, consult wikipedia:
>
> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory>
>
> >I just want to point that I, also, recommended consulting Wikipedia.
> >Well, implicitly I did. So where's /my/ POTM nom? :-)
>
> I should point out that Garamond provided a wee bit more
> than a reference to Wiki...
>
> But I'll nominate you for "Additional Support". How's that?
> ;-)
kind of support. :-)
John S. Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Rolf
> On Sep 9, 9:55 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
>> <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>>
>> ignorant of the history of
>
> Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
> about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
>
> If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
> further.
>
>> dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
>> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>
> I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
> that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
> The one demonstrably incorrect statement by them that I've been aware
> of has to do with the un-named author of a website not knowing how
> nuanced Behe's approach to Irreducible Complexity is.
>
> possible even on the purely secular terms that science is generally
> meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably* be the
> result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
> scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
> intelligent design.
>
> flagellum have been invented in a Japanese laboratory. Thus there is
> no need to invoke supernatural agents for the design and invention of
> the original bacterial flagellum.
>
> I do think the evidence for that flagellum being the result of
> intelligent design is not very strong at present; nevertheless it is
> legitimate to explore ways of supporting or falsifying that
> hypothesis.
>
I have yet to see any attempts at exploring that hypothesis.
I see lot of arguments about academic freedom and discussing
weaknesses of evolutionary theory in schools.
I think the Dishonesty Institute would be a more accurate title.
The wedge document makes little mention of exploring a hypothesis.
Who are exploring the hypothesis?
>> Creation Research Society and
>> Institute for Creation Research.
>
> These others, I have little patience with; ditto AIG.
>>> I've looked on both sides of the argument, and wanted to ask you at
>>> talk.origins about your response to the points raised in the link
>>> below. Sometimes it's difficult to know which statements are
>>> accurate, based on good measurements, and which are
>>> sensationalized. Several of the arguments made at the link below
>>> are not addressed on your page about evidence for an old Earth.
>>> Please let me know where I can go to find information about these
>>> arguments, or if are able to find debates/ arguments against them.
>>> Thanks!
>>
>>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/06/01/evidence-for-youn...
>>
>
> I don't doubt your word on that; but you really ought to have provided
> Brett with some documentation; instead you insult him from the get-
> go.
>
> If I did something like that, people here in t.o. would have a field
> day with me, and I would have nothing to say in my defense.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
>
>
>> and Ken Ham and
>> company refuse to repent of their dishonsty. They have a good gig
>> running a con on Christians. Ken Ham moved to the United States so he
>> could run his con on a larger population of credulous marks. He has
>> made himself very rich telling these lies. What he has not done is
>> science.
Rolf
of. There must be lots of science I am ignorant about but I am not worried;
so far science has not let me down ;-)
Rolf
Rolf
> Hello,
>
> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
information :
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web/
Or use tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/bhge
Another interesting subject is Andrew Snelling of AiG:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/snelling.htm
Rolf
Vincent Maycock
snip
>>>But there are lots of people with whom
>>> your test is already satisfied.
>>
>>You mean religious beliefs? These should be excluded from scientific
>>explanations of design because
>>they are themselves merely psychological phenomena, and not a form of
>>evidence for a
>>designer.
>
>
> You and I agree on that point. Their beliefs are not material
> evidence. OTOH IIUC the people who hold these beliefs don't agree,
> because they think the Universe is illuminated by more than material
> evidence. And that's my point.
>>>ISTM those people will perceive
>>> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as plausible, and likely (?)
>>> more plausible than hypotheses based on natural evolution. While
>>> those who have no prior acceptance of a designer will perceive
>>> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as less plausible, and likely
>>> (?) nonsensical. From this ISTM the issue people should address first
>>> is what they think is evidence for a designer. When you don't agree
>>> on that, then you're just talking at each other.
>>
>>Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
>>course has been refuted. The
>>claim of evidence for design was also present in the older versions of
>>creationism, but these claims
>>have been disproven as well.
>
>
> If you replaced "Intelligent Design" with "Paleyian Design" per
> Robert's suggestion, would that change your reply?
"Let's clearly distinguish between paleyism - a natural feeling that
things in the world work too neatly and well to be accidental - and
Intelligent Design with capital letters, which is the lying cowardly
The answer is no. The world does not fit together too neatly to be the
result of natural laws ("accidental" in his useage). So any natural
feelings
caused by this idea shouldn't be part of scientific investigation.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
>Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 12, 10:09 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
>> > cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org"
>> > <rja.carne...@excite.com>:
>> >
>> > >> >...For a good summary of density waves, consult wikipedia:
>> >
>> > >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory>
>> >
>> > >I just want to point that I, also, recommended consulting Wikipedia.
>> > >Well, implicitly I did. So where's /my/ POTM nom? :-)
>> >
>> > I should point out that Garamond provided a wee bit more
>> > than a reference to Wiki...
>> >
>> > But I'll nominate you for "Additional Support". How's that?
>> > ;-)
>>
>> How dare you, I am naturally beautiful and I don't need to wear any
>> kind of support. :-)
>
>I truss you on that.
"You must have trust
Trust you must
Or lucky breaks will spurn ya.
There's nothing like a little truss
In case of a double hernia."
jillery
wrote:
>
>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7hdt67dlruuvpfn7a...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:09:36 -0400, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com>
>
>snip
>
>>>>But there are lots of people with whom
>>>> your test is already satisfied.
>>>
>>>You mean religious beliefs? These should be excluded from scientific
>>>explanations of design because
>>>they are themselves merely psychological phenomena, and not a form of
>>>evidence for a
>>>designer.
>>
>>
>> You and I agree on that point. Their beliefs are not material
>> evidence. OTOH IIUC the people who hold these beliefs don't agree,
>> because they think the Universe is illuminated by more than material
>> evidence. And that's my point.
>
>There's no evidence for a non-material world.
To be precise, there's no material evidence for a non-material world.
Personally, I don't know what non-material evidence looks like, but my
understanding is there are people who claim they do.
>>>>ISTM those people will perceive
>>>> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as plausible, and likely (?)
>>>> more plausible than hypotheses based on natural evolution. While
>>>> those who have no prior acceptance of a designer will perceive
>>>> hypotheses based on Intelligent Design as less plausible, and likely
>>>> (?) nonsensical. From this ISTM the issue people should address first
>>>> is what they think is evidence for a designer. When you don't agree
>>>> on that, then you're just talking at each other.
>>>
>>>Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
>>>course has been refuted. The
>>>claim of evidence for design was also present in the older versions of
>>>creationism, but these claims
>>>have been disproven as well.
>>
>>
>> If you replaced "Intelligent Design" with "Paleyian Design" per
>> Robert's suggestion, would that change your reply?
>
>As in:
>
>"Let's clearly distinguish between paleyism - a natural feeling that
>things in the world work too neatly and well to be accidental - and
>Intelligent Design with capital letters, which is the lying cowardly
>doctrine of the Discovery Institute ..." ?
>
>The answer is no. The world does not fit together too neatly to be the
>result of natural laws ("accidental" in his useage). So any natural
>feelings
>caused by this idea shouldn't be part of scientific investigation.
Would I be stretching your point to say that, in your opinion, all
things in the Universe are deterministic? If so, isn't that rolling
back philosophy to Newton and ignoring quantum indeterminacy?
Garamond Lethe
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7hdt67dlruuvpfn7a...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:09:36 -0400, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com>
>
> snip
>
> >>>But there are lots of people with whom
> >>> your test is already satisfied.
>
> >>You mean religious beliefs? These should be excluded from scientific
> >>explanations of design because
> >>they are themselves merely psychological phenomena, and not a form of
> >>evidence for a
> >>designer.
>
> > You and I agree on that point. Their beliefs are not material
> > evidence. OTOH IIUC the people who hold these beliefs don't agree,
> > because they think the Universe is illuminated by more than material
> > evidence. And that's my point.
> There's no evidence for a non-material world.
Here's your counterexample: integers.
You might have a purely physical model for integers with physical
neural correlates et cetera, et cetera, and I might even find that a
convincing model.
However, as models go it doesn't tell me much about integers or about
how the brain works with them. So while that model may be pretty
close to the truth, it's a long way from being useful.
As evidence for the non-material model I present to you the majority
of working mathematicians who consider integers (and most other
mathematical objects) to have a real, non-corporeal and eternal
existence. It's also predictive: we would expect ancient
civilizations would have used integers more or less like we do (as
integers are independent of individual brains) and should we ever
encounter spacefaring aliens we would expect mathematics to be the one
language we'd have in common.
If the non-material model explains the evidence we have, makes
specific testable predictions and is useful, I'd call that evidence
for the non-material model. You might eventually convince me that you
have better evidence for a competing material model, but to say the
non-material model has *no* evidence simply isn't correct.
Rolf
> On Sep 9, 7:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 9:55 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
>>> <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>>> I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>>
>>> ignorant of the history of
>>
>> Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
>> about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
>>
>> If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
>> further.
>>
>>> dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
>>> Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>>
>> I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
>> that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
>> The one demonstrably incorrect statement by them that I've been aware
>> of has to do with the un-named author of a website not knowing how
>> nuanced Behe's approach to Irreducible Complexity is.
>>
>> I've long maintained that a scientific theory of Intelligent Design
>> is possible even on the purely secular terms that science is
>> generally meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably*
>> be the result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
>> scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
>> intelligent design.
>>
>
> somewhere worthwhile. Repeating "it looks designed" is not evidence.
>
>
>
>> For instance, structures similar in function to the bacterial
>> flagellum have been invented in a Japanese laboratory. Thus there is
>> no need to invoke supernatural agents for the design and invention of
>> the original bacterial flagellum.
>>
>
> did your first IDer come from?
>
>> I do think the evidence for that flagellum being the result of
>> intelligent design is not very strong at present; nevertheless it is
>> legitimate to explore ways of supporting or falsifying that
>> hypothesis.
>>
>
> lead to a good discussion. BTW. ID is _not_ a hypothesis - those have
> at least some evidence supporting it. ID is at best a WAG.
>
Thanks, I've always felt that ID didn't really deserve being called even a
hypothesis.
How ever could an argument from incredulity?
But what does "WAG" stand for? "Wild, - Guess"?
>
> <snip>
>
> Harry K
VoiceOfReason
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
are merely a system for measuring collections things, or "counting" as
we say. They aren't the only applicable system in all cases -
sometimes weighing the things is more useful - and if we didn't have
things to count, then we wouldn't have INVENTED integers.
Or to come at the point from another direction: on a hypothetical
planet that is composed only of physical atoms in electrochemical and
dynamic relationships with one another, do integers exist? And if so,
don't they exist - there - in an exclusively material sense, since
it's an exclusively material world?
r norman
extremely abstract operations based on logic relationships. Although
mathematics was developed originally to express relationships observed
in the real worlld, mathematicians have expanded far beyond that.
Integers, in particular, are based on the philosophical question "why
is there something rather than nothing?" Given the notion of the
empty set, which in fact is a "something" that consists of "nothing",
you can then build the integers from purely abstract set theoretic
manipulations. In any universe in which a "something" exists, there
also will integers exist.
But you don't have to limit yourself to integers, you can talk about
the existence of far more abstract notions like complex numbers and
finite fields and Lie groups and all sorts of other things that have
no physical existence.
Garamond Lethe
mood I'm only using it to make a very modest point here.
Why am I so happy, you ask? Because I was able to put the phrase
"Order-of-magnitude speedup" on a poster title last night. Yay!
> but I think that integers
> are merely a system for measuring collections things, or "counting" as
> we say. They aren't the only applicable system in all cases -
> sometimes weighing the things is more useful - and if we didn't have
> things to count, then we wouldn't have INVENTED integers.
>
> Or to come at the point from another direction: on a hypothetical
> planet that is composed only of physical atoms in electrochemical and
> dynamic relationships with one another, do integers exist? And if so,
> don't they exist - there - in an exclusively material sense, since
> it's an exclusively material world?
non-physical models.
Vincent was making a much stronger claim: *no* evidence exists for
the non-physical models. I'll believe "no convincing evidence" and
"no dispositive evidence", but "no evidence" is a different beast
altogether that should be reserved for ideas like "even prime numbers
greater than 2" and most of SCO's copyright claims.
Burkhard
entourage that travels with the English national football team.
Burkhard
So was there a specific number of brachiosauruses alive at a certain
day 153 Ma years or so ago?
If your answer is yes, it seems to me integers were around even then
>
> Or to come at the point from another direction: on a hypothetical
> planet that is composed only of physical atoms in electrochemical and
> dynamic relationships with one another, do integers exist?
Do you think there is a specific number of atoms on the planet?
If your answer is yes, I'd say they do
>�And if so,
Ernest Major
<39467961-d874-494d...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>> Or to come at the point from another direction: on a hypothetical
>> planet that is composed only of physical atoms in electrochemical and
>> dynamic relationships with one another, do integers exist?
>
>Do you think there is a specific number of atoms on the planet? If your
>answer is yes, I'd say they do
How do you count atoms currently undergoing nuclear reactions?
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
> In message
> <39467961-d874-494d-b3c9-58dda1d05...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> Or to come at the point from another direction: on a hypothetical
> >> planet that is composed only of physical atoms in electrochemical and
> >> dynamic relationships with one another, do integers exist?
>
> >Do you think there is a specific number of atoms on the planet? If your
> >answer is yes, I'd say they do
>
> How do you count atoms currently undergoing nuclear reactions?
> --
From a long distance. away...
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
that if you count them twice you get different answers. It's also
tricky with animals breeding.
But, setting that aside, I do believe that "integers" aren't the
material or non-material reality of numbers, such as of sets of
objects to be counted, but instead, are the system of ideas that we
have created to formalize concepts such as counting.
But I don't think that that means that they're non-material. That
depends on whether /we/ are non-material.
Vincent Maycock
"Garamond Lethe" <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9548f1a6-836e-4203...@g36g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > You and I agree on that point. Their beliefs are not material
>> > evidence. OTOH IIUC the people who hold these beliefs don't agree,
>> > because they think the Universe is illuminated by more than material
>> > evidence. And that's my point.
>
>> There's no evidence for a non-material world.
>
> Can't say as I agree.
>
> Here's your counterexample: integers.
>
> You might have a purely physical model for integers with physical
> neural correlates et cetera, et cetera, and I might even find that a
> convincing model.
>
> However, as models go it doesn't tell me much about integers or about
> how the brain works with them. So while that model may be pretty
> close to the truth, it's a long way from being useful.
>
> As evidence for the non-material model I present to you the majority
> of working mathematicians who consider integers (and most other
> mathematical objects) to have a real, non-corporeal and eternal
> existence.
which has always seemed reasonable
to me. However, I don't know that this is supposed to be taken too
literally. Math could be thought of as a property
of the chemicals in the human brain, and not an actual world of ideas that
continue to exist when no one is around.
>It's also predictive: we would expect ancient
> civilizations would have used integers more or less like we do (as
> integers are independent of individual brains)
like they get "discovered" rather than
"created." I still think it's just a property of the human brain, though.
>and should we ever
> encounter spacefaring aliens we would expect mathematics to be the one
> language we'd have in common.
snip
Vincent
Vincent Maycock
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7hdt67dlruuvpfn7a...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:09:36 -0400, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com>
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>>>But there are lots of people with whom
>>>>> your test is already satisfied.
>>>>
>>>>You mean religious beliefs? These should be excluded from scientific
>>>>explanations of design because
>>>>they are themselves merely psychological phenomena, and not a form of
>>>>evidence for a
>>>>designer.
>>>
>>>
>>> You and I agree on that point. Their beliefs are not material
>>> evidence. OTOH IIUC the people who hold these beliefs don't agree,
>>> because they think the Universe is illuminated by more than material
>>> evidence. And that's my point.
>>
>>There's no evidence for a non-material world.
>
>
> To be precise, there's no material evidence for a non-material world.
> Personally, I don't know what non-material evidence looks like, but my
> understanding is there are people who claim they do.
"natural" universe, where faires, leprechauns, gods,
angels, and Santa Claus don't exist.
pnyikos
> On 9/9/11 11:45 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> >> and Ken Ham and
> >> company refuse to repent of their dishonsty. They have a good gig
> >> running a con on Christians. Ken Ham moved to the United States so he
> >> could run his con on a larger population of credulous marks. He has made
> >> himself very rich telling these lies. What he has not done is science.
>
> fanboi can produce anything objective or worth discussing?
> How long have you been posting here?
Since December. Before that, I posted in 1995-2001 and don't recall
running into "Free Lunch" back then.
And our paths cross infrequently; I don't know much about him -- I had
no idea he was a "well-known troll"--and he doesn't know much about
me. Otherwise he wouldn't have made that remark about how directed
panspermy only pushes the problem of abiogenesis further back. I've
answered that one quite a few times.
> I thoroughly enjoy your posts and even though I don't have much time to
> participate in this zoo, which is essentially a forum of world view
> clashes and pointless arguments, I go out of my my to read your posts.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I know very little about you, but
I did see several posts by you in a March thread that crossposted to
sci.bio.paleontology and you strike me as a caring Christian in those
posts.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dabab679-e70f-49cd...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 9:55 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
> > > <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > >Hello,
>
> > > >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>
> > > Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
> > > ignorant of the history of
>
> > Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
> > about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
>
> > If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
> > further.
>
> > > dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
> > > Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>
> > I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
> > that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
>
Yes, I have. Evidently we interpret it differently.
> By their own words, their goals are these:
What's anti-scientific about a commitment to theism?
> "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is
> one of the bedrock principles on which Western Civilization was
> built....
I interpret "created in the image of God" the Roman Catholic way,
entertainingly paraphrased in an old science fiction short story,
"Balaam" (by Anthony Boucher, if memory serves). In it, a priest
nicknamed "Mule" suddenly starts talking articulate theology, saying
that the image is a spiritual one, to be found in the soul.
The Roman Catholic doctrine is that the body of man may well have
evolved, but the individual soul is created by God. Whether this is
true or not is beside the point: the point is that this is a NON-
scientific and not an ANTI-scientific view; it is simply outside the
realm of science and can never be proven or falsified scientifically.
Well...there is a wild speculation that we have souls made of dark
matter. But though it is extremely farfetched, it is not anti-
scientific and *in principle* it could fall within the realm of
natural science.
> "Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under attack
> by....Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud....This materialistic
> conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our
> culture....has been devastating....
Charles Darwin probably bears no blame for the irrational uses to
which Marxists and Freudians and Spencerians and Nazis have put the
concept of evolution.
> "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
> seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural
> legacies....The Center....reopened the case for a broadly theistic
> understanding of nature.
> "GOVERNING GOALS:
> "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural
> and political legacies.
> "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding
> that nature and human beings are created by God."
> "TWENTY YEAR GOALS:
> "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and
> political life."
>
> http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
>
> Is that the language that scientific research normally speaks?
Missing my point. These goals go hand in hand with what appears to be
an honest effort by Behe and a few others to establish a scientific
theory of intelligent design.
> I don't think so.
>
> It's the language of social engineering. Or maybe re-engineering, since
> the DI thinks that "materialists" like Darwin and Marx already
> "infected" our civilization.
Marx and Lenin WERE materialists and they HAVE infected our
civilization. Do you deny this?
Darwin, however, can be let off the hook on this one.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
> course has been refuted.
blood clotting cascade.
> The
> claim of evidence for design was also present in the older versions of
> creationism, but these claims
> have been disproven as well.
following popularization, which also has some arguments involving more
local phenomena, which I'd recommend you disregard:
http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/intro.html
The following linked site is probably more to the taste of the non-
theists but less comprehensive.
http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf
Peter Nyikos
jillery
people's imaginations. However, for the people who oppose evolution
specifically and science generally, ISTM their concerns aren't based
on whether or not the things you mentioned exist, but on human values.
I'm guessing that's something that also concerns you. That common
ground could be a foundation for mutual understanding.
In either case, this thread has taken a turn I'm uninterested in
following. I'm not sure what the above has to do with the merits of
Intelligent... I mean Paleyian Design. Thanks for your comments.
jillery
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
>> course has been refuted.
>
>Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
>blood clotting cascade.
biological design, and has not been refuted, with appropriate and
specific documentation.
Thank you.
Roger Shrubber
> On Sep 10, 9:16 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:dabab679-e70f-49cd...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 9:55 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:25:15 -0700 (PDT), Brett Schubert
> > > > <shper...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > > >Hello,
>
> > > > >I am very interested in evidence that proves the age of the earth.
>
> > > > Clearly you are not interested in evidence since you are completely
> > > > ignorant of the history of
>
> > > Clearly, you aren't thinking clearly, unless you know quite a bit
> > > about Brett Shubert that you aren't letting on about here.
>
> > > If you don't see why I am saying this, I'll be glad to explain
> > > further.
>
> > > > dishonesty at the anti-science sites like
> > > > Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute,
>
> > > I've seen no sign that Discovery Institute is anti-science but plenty
> > > that it wants to establish a respected science of Intelligent Design.
>
> > You haven't read their Wedge Document, I see.
>
> Yes, I have. Evidently we interpret it differently.
>
> > By their own words, their goals are these:
>
> What's anti-scientific about a commitment to theism?
especially when that commitment is explicitly made to reject
any interpretation that conflict with that prior conclusion.
In this example, that prior conclusion is a theism rooted
in forms of biblical literalism.
The apriori rejection of upsetting conclusions is anti-science.
Further, the mission driven scheme to reach specific
apriori conclusions is just as anti-scientific.
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is
one of the bedrock principles on which Western Civilization was
built....
by....Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud....This
materialistic
conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our
culture....has been devastating....
Ernest Major
<42a17946-e318-43c9...@cd4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
>> course has been refuted.
>
>Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
>blood clotting cascade.
common ancestor, with modification solely by natural processes. This is
not on the face of it compatible with a belief that irreducible
complexity (except in systems present in the common ancestor) is
evidence of design.
Given that simplification, exaptation and coadaptation can result in
irreducibly complex systems why should irreducibly complexity be
considered evidence for design?
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
But Marx - I never got around to studying Marx, I only wonder if maybe
he has been misused in much the same way as the Bible.
I remember a well know Norwegian professor complaining about his
Marxist studens being rather ignorant about the works of Marx.
A lot more people have read or learned at least something from the Bible,
but who knows anything about Marx?
Religions, psychology and science are my only vices.
> Darwin, however, can be let off the hook on this one.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Rolf
>> I've long maintained that a scientific theory of Intelligent Design
>> is possible even on the purely secular terms that science is
>> generally meant to adhere to. As long as something can *conceivably*
>> be the result of intelligent design by purely natural agents, it is
>> scientifically acceptable to argue for its *actually* being due to
>> intelligent design.
>
>
> Let's set aside intelligent design for a moment. As an more neutral
> example: back when I was doing laboratory robotics work, I observed a
> fellow developer's machine launching a microtiter plate of DMSO onto
> the floor. I immediately went up to his office to let him know; he
> was very skeptical that his code would do such a thing, and pointed
> out that it was conceivable that a cosmic ray had flipped a bit and
> this was just one of those things.
>
> I went back into the cleanroom without him and watched his machine
> launch another microtiter plate at the floor.
>
> Now it's certainly *conceivable" that I just witnessed two cosmic ray
> strikes on the same bank of RAM which affected the machine in exactly
> the same way. This *is* a testable scientific hypothesis.
>
> Is it acceptable to make that argument? I would say no. If there are
> more likely alternate explanations (like buggy code) that haven't yet
> been explored, then it's both rational and ethical to reject
> explanations that are merely conceivable.
>
>
> Now let's bring intelligent design back into it. I work at a national
> lab. Some of my experiments have a large amount of noise in the
> signal. It is conceivable that the Chinese have hacking into these
> supercomputers and are introducing noise in order to degrade our
> experiments --- the phenomenon is due to intelligent, intentional
> design. It's also conceivable that there exists several "natural"
> causes for the noise, including failing ECC RAM, jitter magnified by
> certain communication patterns, etc.
>
> Is is scientifically acceptable for me to argue for the former without
> first thoroughly investigating the latter? Hell and no (although if I
> was a computer scientist in Iran I might spend substantially more time
> thinking about the former than I would have a few years ago).
>
> So: acceptable scientific arguments in general must be more than
> conceivable, and arguments for intelligent design are not an
> exception.
I appreciate your comments.
As far as I can tell, ID proponents are leaning backwards to give ID the
benefit
of any argument they think may augment the credibility of the ID
proposition.
Rolf
> On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but
>> this of course has been refuted.
>
> Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
> blood clotting cascade.
>
actually
was predicted by evolutionary science without assigning
the effect to designer intervention, long before ID was created.
Rolf
"Garamond Lethe" <cartogr...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:9548f1a6-836e-4203...@g36g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Rolf
(maybe not beyond 3?); in integers, I presume?
TomS
<j4segj$kjk$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf stated..."
>pnyikos wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but
>>> this of course has been refuted.
>>
>> Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
>> blood clotting cascade.
>>
>
>IC has been the subject of much discussion and I have seen claims that IC
>actually
>was predicted by evolutionary science without assigning
>the effect to designer intervention, long before ID was created.
I suggest that you look at the Wikipedia article on "Irreducible
complexity", under the heading "Forerunners":
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners>
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but
> >> this of course has been refuted.
>
> > Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
> > blood clotting cascade.
>
> IC has been the subject of much discussion and I have seen claims that IC
> actually
> was predicted by evolutionary science without assigning
> the effect to designer intervention, long before ID was created.
statement in a scientific paper and extrapolated it to "irreducible
complexity." The concept nowhere appears in the paper.
pnyikos
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
numbers.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Marx was interested in the dialectics of Hegel and went with Feuerbach
in "turning Hegel on his head" and making a materialistic philosophy
out of it.
But Marx also collaborated with Engels in writing the Communist
Manifesto.
> A lot more people have read or learned at least something from the Bible,
> but who knows anything about Marx?
course at Washington and Jefferson College when I was an undergraduate
there.
Back in those days, W&J remained close to its Presbyterian roots. We
had compulsory convocation once a week and a lot of the convocations
featured sermons by Presbyterian ministers.
Lenin certainly did. So did the other Bolsheviks.
> Religions, psychology and science are my only vices.
>
> > Darwin, however, can be let off the hook on this one.
>
> But I also say that religions has infected our civilization.
than others. And some infections may have been beneficial. I don't
think Marxism was, though, much less Marxism-Leninism.
>
>
> > Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:54:47 +0200, in article
> >pnyikos wrote:
> >> On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but
> >>> this of course has been refuted.
be evidence.
> >> Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
> >> blood clotting cascade.
>
> >IC has been the subject of much discussion and I have seen claims that IC
> >actually
> >was predicted by evolutionary science without assigning
> >the effect to designer intervention, long before ID was created.
>
> [...snip...]
>
> I suggest that you look at the Wikipedia article on "Irreducible
> complexity", under the heading "Forerunners":
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners>
Herman Muller's concept of "interlocking complexity" which some have
misinterpreted as "irreducible complexity." It has to do with certain
part being *necessary* for survival of the organism (well, duh) but
says nothing either about the organism being IC (it almost never is)
nor the part itself being irreducibly complex (it almost never is).
Anyway, thanks for refreshing my memory. I should have read this
post before replying to Rolf's.
Frazetta's tome seems to be the real thing, though, and I hadn't heard
of it before. But Behe himself pointed out that one cannot rule out
indirect routes, but as their complexity increases, it gets harder and
harder to justify a "Darwinian, step by small step" transition. This
is also what makes Cairns-Smith's rather trivial exercise of little
importance--it is a simple circuitous route.
Peter Nyikos
Mark Isaak
> On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock"<vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
>> course has been refuted.
>
> Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
> blood clotting cascade.
evolution. In that, it has been refuted as a general principle, since
there are multiple ways in which IC can evolve.
Second, IC was offered as the first step in the fallacy that no
evolution means yes design. That also has been refuted as a general
principle as bad logic.
So yes, IC as evidence for design has been refuted in all cases.
Pounded to smithereens, in fact.
>> The
>> claim of evidence for design was also present in the older versions of
>> creationism, but these claims
>> have been disproven as well.
>
> Not the ones having to do with the universe as a whole.
design can look like anything, and anything, of course, includes what we
see. However, that same property of omnipotent design makes *evidence*
for design vacuous.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
TomS
<j4tffn$a47$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."
>On 9/14/11 8:30 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock"<vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but this of
>>> course has been refuted.
>>
>> Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
>> blood clotting cascade.
>
>There are two issues. First, IC was offered as evidence against
>evolution. In that, it has been refuted as a general principle, since
>there are multiple ways in which IC can evolve.
With respect to evolutionary biology, IC was, I believe, first
offered as evidence against *natural selection*, and in favor of
a lamarckian form of evolution, by Herbert Spencer.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>On Sep 10, 7:30 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> On 9/9/11 11:45 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> and Ken Ham and
>> >> company refuse to repent of their dishonsty. They have a good gig
>> >> running a con on Christians. Ken Ham moved to the United States so he
>> >> could run his con on a larger population of credulous marks. He has made
>> >> himself very rich telling these lies. What he has not done is science.
>>
>> Peter, do you actually believe that Free Lunch, well known troll and
>> fanboi can produce anything objective or worth discussing?
>> How long have you been posting here?
>
>Since December. Before that, I posted in 1995-2001 and don't recall
>running into "Free Lunch" back then.
>
>And our paths cross infrequently; I don't know much about him -- I had
>no idea he was a "well-known troll"
Nashton's definition of "troll" is apparently a bit
different from the generally-accepted one.
>--and he doesn't know much about
>me. Otherwise he wouldn't have made that remark about how directed
>panspermy only pushes the problem of abiogenesis further back. I've
>answered that one quite a few times.
>
>> I thoroughly enjoy your posts and even though I don't have much time to
>> participate in this zoo, which is essentially a forum of world view
>> clashes and pointless arguments, I go out of my my to read your posts.
>
>Thanks for the vote of confidence. I know very little about you, but
>I did see several posts by you in a March thread that crossposted to
>sci.bio.paleontology and you strike me as a caring Christian in those
>posts.
>
>Peter Nyikos
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
jillery
>"On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:54:47 +0200, in article
><j4segj$kjk$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf stated..."
>>
>>pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 5:09 pm, "Vincent Maycock" <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Intelligent Design has offered IC as an evidence for design, but
>>>> this of course has been refuted.
>>>
>>> Not in all cases, just in cascades involving autocatalycity, like the
>>> blood clotting cascade.
>>>
>>
>>IC has been the subject of much discussion and I have seen claims that IC
>>actually
>>was predicted by evolutionary science without assigning
>>the effect to designer intervention, long before ID was created.
>[...snip...]
>
>I suggest that you look at the Wikipedia article on "Irreducible
>complexity", under the heading "Forerunners":
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners>
bibliography cites an interesting reference:
http://www.genetics.org/content/3/5/422.full.pdf+html
Back in 1918, Hermann Muller wrote an article on lethal mutations. A
relevant passage follows:
"Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of
evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken
place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value
from the effect which it produced upon the “reaction system” that had
been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in
cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose
effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very
numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the
characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an
asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and
factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the
former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or
even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to
disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect
very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of
the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least
disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any
delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system."
Here Muller describes an irrreducibly complex biological system in all
but name, built up in stepwise fashion over time by natural evolution,
and uses that concept to help explain the lethality of dominant
mutations.
Rolf
evolution.
That is the complexity of the entire genetic apparatus. It seems to me that
it doesn't look anywhere near what we ourselves would have designed, nor any
other designer - except a supernatural one.
Who would have problems of his own: Where in the world did he learn how to
design and create anything at all?
Let's start with a young universe with no life at all anywhere. How woudl a
designer know the concept of life and begin to figure out how to make it?
There is nothing in chemistry or physics itself suggesting the possibility
of life or pathways to create it.
Even God would have a problem there. Could h lern by looking into the
future? A future dependent on his own action in the past, before there was a
future? Impossible. Makes no sense, God couldn't have done it! Could he have
designed a designer? Same problem.
Why do people bother with such idle and useless speculation?
I am a rational being, have been since I was four years old.
> Peter Nyikos
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
me "interlocking" in this context does indeed imply irreducible, that
the system minus one or more parts, with any less of its complexity,
does not perform similarly - but a system that is complex and
reducible is no obstacle to an evolutionary interpretation at all.
In other words, surely you know that you're talking rubbish.