Big Bang and creation of the universe

04/11/2005 11:32:16 PM · #251

Originally posted by RonB:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of manâ��until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Piltdown Man was indeed a hoax. As more and more fossils were found, it became more and more of an anomaly. So much so, that, by the time that it was conclusively shown to be a hoax, it was being left out of textbooks and there was a shroud of doubt hanging it over it. Itâ��s a very good example of how science is self-corrective. So you have no problem with the other fossils which cast a shadow of doubt on Piltdown Man in the first place?

Originally posted by RonB:

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial"

Thank you. Nebraska man is another example of the peer-review process weeding out false leads. It didnâ��t even take long for Nebraska man to be dismissed from the human family. Notice how, again, it was the scientific community which rejected Nebraska man after further brief study.

While weâ��re talking of Nebraska man, could you please indicate where in the transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial Nebraska man is mentioned?

Originally posted by RonB:

Actually it is not. Occam's Razor says that the most simplistic answer is usually the best one. And, an Intelligent Designer is far and away simpler than man evolving from a long line of ever simpler organisms that ultimately originated in a single dna strand that formed by chance from who knows how many proteins that also formed by chance in the primordial ooze.

Occamâ��s Razor depends of parsimony or, in other words, the answer which depends upon the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct answer. The existence of an invisible super being is one enormous assumption.

Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is not dependent upon the hypothesis of abiogenesis which you appear to be attacking. What in your study of the current state of the hypothesis of abiogenesis leads you state that a single DNA strand formed by chance? Again, what mainstream science texts and peer-reviewed literature are you getting these ideas from?

Also, could you please get back to the flightless cormorant? Iâ��m beginning to feel ignored.

Edited: for grammar.

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 08:53:31.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/11/2005 11:36:06 PM · #252

Originally posted by David Ey:

Oh,and if you really think grammer and spelling is that important, the past tense of "swim" is swam. You might want to go back and correct your errors. I could not care less if my spelling is politically correct.

Could you please address my points regarding Pascal's Wager which was the thrust of my post directed toward you?

[Note: I've changed my earlier post as it was too dismissive.]

Message edited by author 2005-04-11 23:49:53.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/11/2005 11:58:10 PM · #253

Sometimes it's just entertaining to watch the banter. Way too many snippets of half-truths and misconceptions to quote, so I'll just respond to some of the funnier misnomers in no particular order.

GeneralE's use of SEEMS does not imply that he doesn't believe it- only that he's willing to accept other explanations IF they better support the model, rather than the "no proof needed" approach of blind faith.

Scientists can't see black holes because they can't be seen (hence the "black" part). We know they exist from their gravitational effects on objects we CAN see, their ratio of calculated mass to size, and the high energy particles they emit. Can you offer a better explanation for these effects?

You completely ignored the selfish arrogance of assuming that, out of the trillions of star systems readily observed in the universe, an entity would be concerned with the hopes of a football team praying before the game. However, the "WANTS to heal every hurt, but is wise enough NOT to" comment is typical of the fortune teller logic that every outcome can be rationalized as devine will. Lightning is explained as punishment or a test depending on where it strikes. If the most devoted believer is struck by lightning, then it's a GOOD thing (the faithful has been called home). Greek mythology used the same explanations.

Let's see here... scroll, scroll... nobody has observed macro evolution... AHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're expecting a farmer to watch his cows sprout wings maybe? Major evolutionary change in nature takes thousands or millions of years. Scientists certainly observe it in the fossil record. Darwin recognized the expected results in modern nature. We can duplicate it in the lab with gene splicing and selective breeding. Do you think the Egyptians had toy poodles? Yes, they're still dogs, but it clearly shows that new genetic traits are possible. You can find such abrupt "macro" changes as two headed babies and extra fingers, and if similar change proved to be a survival advantage, you'd see a lot more of them.

"All things were created by Him"... nice work on that Marburg virus, not to mention plague, anthrax, smallpox, AIDs, malaria and influenza. Worth noting that some strains have evolved resistance to drugs in contemporary times. Why wouldn't you expect more significant adaptations to be possible over longer timeframes?

A creationist claiming that science is based on assumptions is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. ROFLMAO Evolution makes no claims of intelligent design- only that nature follows logical physical and chemical processes. A sharpened flint is known to have been fashioned because we've found unfinished flints and tools with bones, and because modern indians use the same technology.

We have many examples of early hominid remains, and significant finds are big news. I would expect some people to try to capitalize on that fact, but a few hoaxes do not disprove the overall science. If a few mummies are shown to be hoaxes, what bearing does that have on the existence of ancient Egyptians? It would be just as silly for me to point out forged faces on toast or hoaxed spiritual sightings to dispute theology.

David Ey's cavalier attitude toward spelling and grammar was a hoot. I can picture the bible's authors having the same conversation. "Eh... they'll get the idea."

Your disputed account of Archaeopteryx was based on early work with the first incomplete skeleton. We have since found more complete skeletons and other examples of feathered dinosaurs. You're right that I don't get the hollow bone thing. Penguins and ostriches have solid bones (as you'd expect). Pterasaurs had hollow bones and no feathers, yet they flew. What's your point?

You're grasping at straws with Mitochondrial Eve. If you put two women and some men on an island, and one died or didn't bear children, all descendents would share the mitochondria of the other. You conveniently ignore that we have samples of different mitochondria pre-dating this "Eve," and that the corresponding "Adam" missed her by a few thousand years.

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 00:01:32.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/11/2005 11:58:28 PM · #254

A small exerpt from this article:

In theocracy they trust

On a Friday panel titled Remedies to Judicial Tyranny, a constitutional lawyer named Edwin Vieira discussed Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down that state's anti-sodomy law. Vieira accused Kennedy of relying on "Marxist, Leninist, Satanic principals drawn from foreign law" in his jurisprudence.

What to do about communist judges in thrall to Beelzebub? Vieira said, "Here again I draw on the wisdom of Stalin. We're talking about the greatest political figure of the 20th centuryâ�¦He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty. 'No man, no problem.'"

The audience laughed, and Vieira repeated it. "'No man, no problem.' This is not a structural problem we have. This is a problem of personnel."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2005 12:06:24 AM · #255

Originally posted by scalvert:

Worth noting that some strains {of bacteria} have evolved resistance to drugs in contemporary times. Why wouldn't you expect more significant adaptations to be possible over longer timeframes?

For what it's worth, some strains have not only developed antibiotic-resistance, they have been able to transfer that resistance to other bacterial species.

BTW: notice how they have to have a new flu vaccine every year, because the strains will have mutated since last year to the point that the old proteins are too different to stimulate the human immune system to generate the appropriate antibodies.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/12/2005 07:47:16 AM · #256

Wow - this thread has really come on in the last few days!!

I find it tremendously depressing to see the arguments surrounding the teaching of religion in schools. One of the greatest accomplishments of the founding fathers of the USA was the elimination of references to god in the constitutional documents. For that reason, Jefferson's draft of the constitution for Virginia, upon which the US constitution was later based, is one of the documents that heralded the modern era of statehood.

It is a fundamental acknowledgement that religion is faith based, and there are many faiths, and they cannot all be right. Hopefully no-one will disagree that religion and belief in the accuracy of the Bible (as opposed to another holy book) is a matter of faith. Or that, whether you agree with it or not, scientific theories are based upon observation and experimentation.

This is not to say that religion should not be taught - I do not know how it works in the modern US, but in the UK we have Religous Education classes, in which we are taught about all of the major world religions (how can one understand history without a knowledge of all faiths, or understand Milton without an understanding of Christianity?). But to teach any one version to be the "correct" faith, or to encourage it, is abhorrent.

Teaching of one faith to be correct is the job of another sector: the church (for Christianity), the imams (for Islam), etc etc.

So, should the school teach children information that contradicts one or more faiths? Surely the lessons must teach non-faith based information, derived from our best analytical understanding of the world.

I do not expect:

a history class to ignore stone age archeology, just because it upsets the proponents of one religion;

religious education classes to ignore the history of religion, say, analysis of the geological evidence for a flood in one area of the middle east that may have given rise to the many flood myths in major religions arising in that area only;

a biology class to teach (or make any concession for) one religion's creation story, or any part of it, in preference to the best analysis of direct scientific observation (in the same way that I do not expect teaching of Hindu faith in rebirth);

a physics class to teach anything other than the latest observations of the world and its surroundings that all point towards the big bang theory.

I do expect a school to teach how religions work. I would like them to teach greater understanding and acceptance of all religions.

I find it very depressing that the US, in particular, is weakening the divide between religion and state, and the increasing fundamentalist attitude that is becoming increasingly apparent. This, at a time when religious fundamentalism is a key threat to the Western world, risking fighting fire with fire.

04/12/2005 08:22:53 AM · #257

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by RonB:
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial"

Thank you. Nebraska man is another example of the peer-review process weeding out false leads. It didnâ��t even take long for Nebraska man to be dismissed from the human family. Notice how, again, it was the scientific community which rejected Nebraska man after further brief study.

While weâ��re talking of Nebraska man, could you please indicate where in the transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial Nebraska man is mentioned?

I will clarify this point a little. With the exception of William Jennings Bryan as Biblical expert and Maynard Metcalf, a zoological researcher at Johns Hopkins, no other experts were called to give testimony during the Scopes trial and no physical evidence was presented to the court. Several expert affidavits were read into the record while the jury was absent the courtroom.

04/12/2005 09:07:53 AM · #258

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial"

Thank you. Nebraska man is another example of the peer-review process weeding out false leads. It didnâ��t even take long for Nebraska man to be dismissed from the human family. Notice how, again, it was the scientific community which rejected Nebraska man after further brief study.

While weâ��re talking of Nebraska man, could you please indicate where in the transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial Nebraska man is mentioned?

I will clarify this point a little. With the exception of William Jennings Bryan as Biblical expert and Maynard Metcalf, a zoological researcher at Johns Hopkins, no other experts were called to give testimony during the Scopes trial and no physical evidence was presented to the court. Several expert affidavits were read into the record while the jury was absent the courtroom.

Thanks for pointing out the error of my post. You are correct, while Nebraska Man was a hoax, it was NOT introduced into evidence at the Scope's trial.
Oh, and FWIW, that link does not point to a "transcript" of the Scope's trial, only carefully chosen excerpts.

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 10:06:31.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/12/2005 10:04:45 AM · #259

Originally posted by RonB:

Thanks for pointing out the error of my post. You are correct, Nebraska Man was a hoax, but was NOT introduced into evidence at the Scopes trial.

Sorry, but I have to minorly correct your post. Nebraska Man wasn't a hoax. The discoverors were just plain wrong and a retraction was later published (though I don't know if I would be able to find that retraction if I tried). Piltdown Man, on the other hand, was apparently an intentional hoax.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/12/2005 10:12:30 AM · #260

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks for pointing out the error of my post. You are correct, Nebraska Man was a hoax, but was NOT introduced into evidence at the Scopes trial.

Sorry, but I have to minorly correct your post. Nebraska Man wasn't a hoax. The discoverors were just plain wrong and a retraction was later published (though I don't know if I would be able to find that retraction if I tried). Piltdown Man, on the other hand, was apparently an intentional hoax.

As I understand it (my reading in this area was some few years ago) that's correct; Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, and revealed as such. Nebraska Man was wishful thinking and sloppy science, and was later disavowed even by his "discoverers", who lost a lot of scientific credibility.

Robt.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/12/2005 10:59:41 AM · #261

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The full Stalin quote is: "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."

It wouldn't be the first time the fundamentalists have advocated committing murder to get what they want.

04/12/2005 11:21:22 AM · #262

Originally posted by RonB:

Oh, and FWIW, that link does not point to a "transcript" of the Scope's trial, only carefully chosen excerpts.

You are correct. I should have read the site more thoroughly. You say "carefully chosen excerpts." Carefully chosen to do what?

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 11:30:15.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2005 11:43:47 AM · #263

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I find it very depressing that the US, in particular, is weakening the divide between religion and state, and the increasing fundamentalist attitude that is becoming increasingly apparent. This, at a time when religious fundamentalism is a key threat to the Western world, risking fighting fire with fire.

Those who put their faith in fire
In fire their faith shall be repaid
Oh God, the pride of man
Broken in the dust again

--Hamilton Camp, Pride of Man

itripn

Canon PowerShot G3

Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II

04/12/2005 11:53:45 AM · #264

Well, despite all this fine debate, the issue for me comes down to a simple observation:

I have been praying for a ribbon for months, and none has been given me.

Case closed. I will have to evolve my skills to get one.

Ron
(-:

(Oh, and based on my avg score, the evolution involved will definintely be MACRO)

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 11:55:00.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/12/2005 11:59:41 AM · #265

Finally, a real-world application of all this fine hypothesizing!

04/12/2005 12:01:15 PM · #266

Originally posted by milo655321:

Since Mr. Henry Fairfield Osborn had been professor of comparative anatomy for 7 years ( 1883-1890 ) at Princeton, and professor of biology for 5 years (1891â��96) and of zoology for 14 years (1896â��1910) at Columbia he should have known very well that some pig teeth are quite similar to primate teeth, especially when worn as badly as the sample he received from Nebraska was. He therefore should have never published ANYTHING without more conclusive evidence. Scientists may claim that it was an "error", but given Mr. Osborn's credentials, I still maintain that it was a hoax.

MadMordegon

04/12/2005 12:26:05 PM · #267

Originally posted by itripn:

LOL thats great.

04/12/2005 12:39:18 PM · #268

Originally posted by RonB:

Then I'm sure you take great comfort in Mr. Osborn's damaged career.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/12/2005 01:00:26 PM · #269

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by RonB:
Actually it is not. Occam's Razor says that the most simplistic answer is usually the best one. And, an Intelligent Designer is far and away simpler than man evolving from a long line of ever simpler organisms that ultimately originated in a single dna strand that formed by chance from who knows how many proteins that also formed by chance in the primordial ooze.

Occamâ��s Razor depends of parsimony or, in other words, the answer which depends upon the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct answer. The existence of an invisible super being is one enormous assumption.

As is the assumption that radioactive carbon existed in-situ in samples being tested. For example, dating a mollusk shell by carbon dating would result in an extremely erroneous date because the carbon atoms in the shell were not "originally" part of the shell. They were placed in the shell out of context ( they were drawn from the sea ).

Originally posted by milo655321:

Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is not dependent upon the hypothesis of abiogenesis which you appear to be attacking. What in your study of the current state of the hypothesis of abiogenesis leads you state that a single DNA strand formed by chance? Again, what mainstream science texts and peer-reviewed literature are you getting these ideas from?

Yes it is. The theory of macro evolution requires that every living thing "evolved" from some earlier living thing. Eventually you have to either acknowledge intelligent design ( or creationism ) for the "first" living thing from which all other living things evolved, or take the position that the "first" living thing evolved from non-living things. FWIW, every living thing contains DNA.

Originally posted by milo655321:

Also, could you please get back to the flightless cormorant? Iâ��m beginning to feel ignored.

If you look back at my post of 04/10 at 10:24:46 p.m. you will see that I already answered your question. But, to repeat myself, 1) paddled, and/or 2) walked ( ref Pangaea ).

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

04/12/2005 02:29:43 PM · #270

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I find it tremendously depressing to see the arguments surrounding the teaching of religion in schools. One of the greatest accomplishments of the founding fathers of the USA was the elimination of references to god in the constitutional documents. For that reason, Jefferson's draft of the constitution for Virginia, upon which the US constitution was later based, is one of the documents that heralded the modern era of statehood.

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson
(from this article)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/12/2005 02:33:53 PM · #271

Carbon-14 dating is only accurate back to a few thousand years, after which point other isotopes are used for dating. Whether the isotope existed in a mollusk shell at the time of its death is a moot point. The layer of rock that the shell is found in would still represent the era of the mollusk's life to within perhaps a few hundred years. When you're talking about dates in the millions of years, a few hundred is an insignificant detail.

DNA is an organic chemical which could have formed naturally just like other chemicals, and it's NOT found in every living thing (RNA viruses, for example). Your intelligent design argument creates its own paradox- either the first living thing resulted from natural processes on non-living things or was formed by a divine creator, but then that creator was already a living thing (or at least a "something" in a universe created from nothing). If your argument is that this entity doesn't exist IN the universe, then there's the paradox of having tangible effects on a universe that you don't exist in. Hmm... not exactly the simplest explanation.

My apologies on the cormorant response (I thought you were joking). So your position is that a pair of cormorants paddled over to South America, trekked across the Andes (neither eating nor being eaten), then paddled across the Atlantic, and walked across equatorial Africa, boarded a boat to ride out hundreds of inches of rain per hour for a month plus, THEN did a reverse commute on the way back without leaving any fossils and or showing any sign of leaving Galapagos since then? OR is it that the continents were actually connected (still leaving a long overland hike), and radically separated a few thousand years ago with no corresponding story of a Great Earthquake. Please excuse my skepticism.

dwoolridge

04/12/2005 02:37:56 PM · #272

...enter Richard Dawkins.

MadMordegon

04/12/2005 04:11:17 PM · #273

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

...enter Richard Dawkins.

Indeed, and a very interesting article by him Viruses of the Mind

04/12/2005 04:32:24 PM · #274

Originally posted by scalvert:

And how do you "date" the rock layer?

Originally posted by scalvert:

When you're talking about dates in the millions of years, a few hundred is an insignificant detail.

True in your case. I don't believe in the "millions of years" theory.

Originally posted by scalvert:

DNA is an organic chemical which could have formed naturally just like other chemicals, and it's NOT found in every living thing (RNA viruses, for example).

It's only "called" a chemical because EVERYTHING in science has to be described in accordance with their requirement to avoid God. And, for what it's worth, there is NO concensus in the scientific community that viruses ( either DNA or RNA ) are "alive". From the website of the University of Hamburg
Molecular Genetics - Genetic Information: The Genetic Code, Transcription, Translation (Protein Biosynthesis) and Replication

"Whether viruses are living things is an often asked question. The answer is no. Neither are they precursors of living creatures."

Originally posted by scalvert:

Your intelligent design argument creates its own paradox- either the first living thing resulted from natural processes on non-living things or was formed by a divine creator, but then that creator was already a living thing (or at least a "something" in a universe created from nothing). If your argument is that this entity doesn't exist IN the universe, then there's the paradox of having tangible effects on a universe that you don't exist in. Hmm... not exactly the simplest explanation.

Your latter assumption is the "more" correct one, but still falls short - actually God does exist IN the universe, but He also exists outside of the universe - it could be like you fashioning a bowl out of clay, then filling it with water and putting in a fish. From the perspective of the fish, there is just a bowl, but you can stick your finger into the bowl whenever you want to, and then exist both outside the bowl and inside it. A poor analogy at best, because the fish could detect the finger directly, though we cannot detect God directly.

Originally posted by scalvert:

My apologies on the cormorant response (I thought you were joking). So your position is that a pair of cormorants paddled over to South America, trekked across the Andes (neither eating nor being eaten), then paddled across the Atlantic, and walked across equatorial Africa, boarded a boat to ride out hundreds of inches of rain per hour for a month plus, THEN did a reverse commute on the way back without leaving any fossils and or showing any sign of leaving Galapagos since then? OR is it that the continents were actually connected (still leaving a long overland hike), and radically separated a few thousand years ago with no corresponding story of a Great Earthquake. Please excuse my skepticism.

No. First of all, you have no evidence that the comorants CAME from the Galapagos to the ark to begin with, and secondly, yes, my position is that a pair of comorants somehow made it from Mt. Ararat to the currrent Galapagos Islands. BUT, it is YOU who is assuming that thousands of miles separated the two ( Mt. Ararat and the Galapagos Islands ) in the near timeframe ( 100 years or so ) immediately preceeding and immediately following the great flood. I make no such assumptions. I am still open to the idea of Pangaea ( the single continent ). Even so, at a mere quarter mile an hour average for just 12 hours a day, even a cormorant could travel halfway around the world in just 13 years. Noah had 120 YEARS to build the ark.

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 16:35:01.