Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66

Thread: Increasing acceptance of biological evolution in the US

  1. Top | #41
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    16,122
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    32,951
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    There are four (some now say five) fundamental forces in the universe. Just that fact points to God rather than randomness. But the forces are irreducible. So you can’t explain electromagnetism by gravitational or the strong or weak nuclear forces. Is there really a good reason for this other than that God has established these irreducible forces?
    Which God? A follower of Hare Krishna would say that it is the god Krishna rather than the Xian God.

    Actually, electromagnetic and weak interactions are related in the Standard Model. Grand Unified Theories relate strong and electroweak interactions, and more ambitious theories like string theory relate all of them.

    Aesthete: "Contrary to your claims that science would turned on its head, there’s little if anything in the areas of practical science that depend on evolution or billions of years."

    Geologists would disagree. There is also an interesting emerging application: paleoclimatology. One can look at the geological record for when the Earth gets very warm, and it isn't pretty.

    Aesthete: "Things in medicine like the study of antibiotic resistance depend on natural selection, but that’s not evolution."

    It's a very micro sort of evolution, but it's still evolution.

    Aesthete: "There’s no acquisition of information, only a selection from that which is already present."

    What counts as acquisition of information?

    Aesthete: "Helium in zircon crystals, which should have escaped in an old earth scenario."

    CD015: Helium diffusion from zircons addresses that issue.

  2. Top | #42
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    16,122
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    32,951
    Rep Power
    97
    Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition -- the geological record

    I won't quote the whole article, but I will try to give a summary.

    * Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [e.g., Short et al, 1991]

    * How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
    • the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
    • the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
    • why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
    • why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
    • why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
    • how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
    • why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
    • why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
    • why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
    • why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
    • why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?


    * How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:

    Rain drops. River channels. Wind-blown dunes. Beaches. Glacial deposits. Burrows. In-place trees. Soil. Desiccation cracks. Footprints. Meteorites and meteor craters. Coral reefs. Cave systems.

    * How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?

    * How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? ...

    * How were mountains and valleys formed? ...

    * When did granite batholiths form? ...

    * How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering?

    * How do you explain the formation of varves? (marked-out layers of sediment)

    * How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests?

    * Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.

    Magma. Limestone formation. Meteorite impacts. Other.

    * How were limestone deposits formed?

    * How could a flood have deposited chalk?

    * How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt?

    * How were sedimentary deposits recrystallized and plastically deformed in the short time since the Flood?

    * How were hematite layers laid down?

    * How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.

    * How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding?

    * How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"?

    * Where were all the fossilized animals when they were alive?

    * Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from?

    * How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils?

  3. Top | #43
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    42
    Archived
    1,825
    Total Posts
    1,867
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    Also, I would appreciate a substantive response to my research and comments about vulcanism on Io. That actually took time for me to dig up the papers and read and type in so I believe I have earned a proper response.
    I understand. There’s a lot of material to go through here, and my time is limited. I read what you wrote, and it seemed to me that both you, as well as the authors of the article you mentioned, acknowledged some of the challenges to the standard model, which the current science cannot explain, and suggested some mechanisms other than the one currently favored that should be explored to explain this in a manner consistent with the nebular model. To that, I have nothing really more to say, because it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity. Does it “prove” the creation model true? Well, you know how science works. I would just submit that the creation model is a better fit, given the empirical observations.

  4. Top | #44
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,931
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    10,516
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.
    This is where we disagree. You have not presented any evidence that the heat and volcanic activity is a result of creation. I’ve only seen you point to criticisms of the mainstream model. What is the “recent creation” model that quantitatively explains the vulcanism on Io? How does this model predict a young age?

    You can’t just throw darts at the mainstream and complain that it doesn’t perfectly explain everything (yet). If you have an alternative model then it needs to be presented, the physical framework explained mathematically, and predictions from that model compared to observations. Until you have those things you don’t actually have a viable alternative.

  5. Top | #45
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    42
    Archived
    1,825
    Total Posts
    1,867
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.
    This is where we disagree. You have not presented any evidence that the heat and volcanic activity is a result of creation. I’ve only seen you point to criticisms of the mainstream model. What is the “recent creation” model that quantitatively explains the vulcanism on Io? How does this model predict a young age?

    You can’t just throw darts at the mainstream and complain that it doesn’t perfectly explain everything (yet). If you have an alternative model then it needs to be presented, the physical framework explained mathematically, and predictions from that model compared to observations. Until you have those things you don’t actually have a viable alternative.
    The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth. He can create them however He wants to. So He makes the various stars, planets, and moons differ. And that’s cool. Based on a Bible chronology, we know He created the universe about 6000 years old. As that’s not enough time for all of Io’s heat to have dissipated, it conforms to our observations. On the other hand, if it were billions of years old, there is no known mechanism to account for the amount of heat it gives off. At current rates, if it were billions of years old, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times over.

  6. Top | #46
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,931
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    10,516
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.
    This is where we disagree. You have not presented any evidence that the heat and volcanic activity is a result of creation. I’ve only seen you point to criticisms of the mainstream model. What is the “recent creation” model that quantitatively explains the vulcanism on Io? How does this model predict a young age?

    You can’t just throw darts at the mainstream and complain that it doesn’t perfectly explain everything (yet). If you have an alternative model then it needs to be presented, the physical framework explained mathematically, and predictions from that model compared to observations. Until you have those things you don’t actually have a viable alternative.
    The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth. He can create them however He wants to. So He makes the various stars, planets, and moons differ. And that’s cool. Based on a Bible chronology, we know He created the universe about 6000 years old. As that’s not enough time for all of Io’s heat to have dissipated, it conforms to our observations.
    That’s not a physical model that can explain anything.

    Basically anything can conform to observations because you can simply say “God made it that way”.

    There’s no physical utility in that. You are basically back to simply criticizing actual physics for not being perfectly explanatory yet and filling “God” in to whatever it currently can’t explain.

    Are you willing to admit that there is no physics that directly leads to a 6000 year old earth? Because I’ve seen none presented so far.

  7. Top | #47
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,931
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    10,516
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    Also, I would appreciate a substantive response to my research and comments about vulcanism on Io. That actually took time for me to dig up the papers and read and type in so I believe I have earned a proper response.
    I understand. There’s a lot of material to go through here, and my time is limited. I read what you wrote, and it seemed to me that both you, as well as the authors of the article you mentioned, acknowledged some of the challenges to the standard model, which the current science cannot explain, and suggested some mechanisms other than the one currently favored that should be explored to explain this in a manner consistent with the nebular model. To that, I have nothing really more to say, because it seems like the preponderance of evidence is in favor of a recent creation, which would explain the heat and volcanic activity.
    The other thing I realize your response here points out is that you have no interest in understanding the science because you already have your conclusion. You’ve just brushed off my detailed response with no substantive reply.

    If in a few years the scientists develop a better understanding that mitigates or eliminates the current uncertainties would you be willing to reassess your conclusion that “recent creation” is the answer?

  8. Top | #48
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,927
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,873
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth.
    How so?

    If evolution were untrue, that doesn't mean creationism is true. This is a false dichotomy fallacy.

  9. Top | #49
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    16,122
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    32,951
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    The alternative is that God created the heavens and the earth. ...
    Which God, Aesthete, which God? People have worshipped oodles of deities.

    Consider Theogony - Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica/The Theogony - Wikisource, the free online library

    The primordial void begot the first generation of deities, and they begot the second generation, which then overthrew the first generation. The second generation then begot the third generation, which then overthrew them, and which now reign as the rulers of the Universe.

    The leaders of the first generation were Ouranos and Gaia, and their son Kronos overthrew them and castrated Ouranos.

    Kronos began to fear that he in turn would be overthrown, so he swallowed the children that his partner had. All but one, and he was tricked with a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes. That one was Zeus, and he grew up, and made Kronos vomit up his brothers and sisters.

    Zeus and his fellow Olympians then fought Kronos and his fellow Titans, defeating them and taking over the Universe.

  10. Top | #50
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,050
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,550
    Rep Power
    93
    Aesthete must watch weird cop shows.
    There's a murder in the first act. We see the body, clearly murdered, behind the drink table at the fundraiser. There were 40 people in the hotel ballroom at the time of the murder. One had a publicly known motive.
    In the 2nd act, the cops investigate the motivated individual. He had means, opportunity, and a weapon that matches the crime. He does poorly during the interview and his lawyer makes a mistake. His guilt seems a pretty good bet except there's still three commercial breaks before the end credits.
    In the third act, just before they take him out back and shoot him, he provides an alibi. They do not attempt to break this alibi. They just give it the same weight as all the other evidence, both forensic and eyewitness.
    Instead, the lead cop just names his ex-wife as the suspect, because 'if it's not him, it must have been her!' Everyone accepts this and the ex goes to prison.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •