How To Define "Evolution"?

[Old Rocks]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a Theory

I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.

Sheesh. Fecal, it is you that demonstrate total ignorance of what theory means in science. In fact, the way that you refer to theory is far more the layman's definition than the scientific one.

And Newton was not proven wrong by Einstein. What Einstein demonstrated was that Newtonian physics does not apply when the numbers get very large or very small. We still use the Newtonian equations for most things in our daily lives. The differance between the answers they give, and the answers the Reletivistic equations give is to small to be of use in normal situations. So the underpinnings were hardly destroyed.

I find your endless errors concerning science to be amusing, especially when you try to debate with people with far more knowledge and training in science than you obviously have. And a fellow with a degree in 'dirt', or Geology, is the very person to talk to about evolution. Only a biologist knows the subject better.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.

You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.





While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.






Tutorial coming up:

1. Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.

2. Each atom has a unique spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency. Therefore the light that comes to us from space reveals the composition of distant galaxies.

3. It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts…. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.

a. Why? For the same reason that the pitch of a police siren is changed as the police car disappears down the street: the Doppler Effect, the waves carrying the sound is stretched by the speeding car. That is why the redshift indicates that the galaxy in question is receding! The universe is expanding. Thus, the reasoning behind the Big Bang.






4. So, if the universe is expanding,
a. The particles must have been closer at some time
b. And hotter at some time
c. The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

5. Get it? All the lines converge into…..the beginning! This presents a problem if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending.
That would be you.
The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time....there was no time prior to the Big Bang.Was there a time before the big bang? - Curiosity

6.In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing ‘singularity theorems’. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some ‘singularity’ where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews ?The Nature of Space and Time? by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose · LRB 1 August 1996






OK....now...get ready!

Astronomer Joseph Silk states that at singularity the laws of physics break down! On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books



Check this out....you're gonna hate it:

"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.

At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.



Get it?

"...one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."

Know what he's saying?

Why didn't you simply link to your cut and pasting from an earlier thread?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4638044-post178.html

What a coincidence!!! You read this and thought I was calling you?

I post "..one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."


Exactly who this suggested!!!



You must be ever so sensitive to that phrase....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.

Stupid is as stupid does.

She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."

FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.

The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existance. So the question is: where does the photon come from?
Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them.

Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?

One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.

Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.

And those photons come from what, exactly?

Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I?

FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.

That is correct. What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason. What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

Other than demonstrating your ignorance?

<snip>

The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Interesting argument.

Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.

It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html

Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?

Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others.

There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth".

This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.

2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.

The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.

However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.

But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.

3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.

4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down".

5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.

6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".

Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.

11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.

Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.

14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Lots of problems here . . . .

According to the Genesis account, no heavenly bodies were created until this, the "fourth day". Yet the same account has "day" and "night" appearing on the FIRST day. This is simply impossible, since "day" and "night" are defined according to the earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies. There could not have been any "day" or "night" without a Sun for the earth to rotate near.

The "lights of the firmament" refer to stars and planets. As pointed out earlier, ancient peoples believed that the stars were held up by a clear invisible roof in the sky, the "firmament". Scientifially, we know that the firmament does not exist. We also know that, contrary to the Genesis account, these stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is simply wrong.

Note also that this narration has the lights of the firmament being formed to "give light to the earth". This, of course, had already been done way back in verses 3 and 4, on the first "day". We also see a reference here to "dividing the light from darkness", which had also already been done, in verses 4 and 5. There are in fact several instances where the creation narrative gives two different times for the occurence of certain events. This leads Biblical scholars to conclude that, not only is the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis from a different source than the creation narrative in the second chapter (which contradict each other in several ways), but the narrative in the first chapter is itself a compilation of several different narratives which contradict each other.

Note also that the Genesis account has the sun and moon both being formed at the same time, and has both being placed on the same "firmament" that holds up the stars. This reflects the ancient belief that the "crystal spheres" of the "firmament" --including the ones that carried the sun and moon---revolved around the earth. In other words, the Biblical account concludes, as did all ancient cultures, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and all the stars were carried around the earth by a transparent wall in the sky. Scientifically, we know this is silly.

Scientifically, we also know that the sun and moon were not formed at the same time, as the biblical writer states. The sun already existed when the earth accreted. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth---this impact debris accreting to form the moon. The Genesis account here is simply wrong.

Another problem: according to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this.

Finally, note here that verse 16 has God creating the "stars", which had already been created back in verse 14. Another instance of two different narrations being edited together (and not quite fitting).

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

The Genesis account here places the appearence of marine life AFTER the appearence of terrestrial grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this to be wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first (if not THE first) marine life to appear. Wrong again. Whales are a very recent appearence, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other terrestrial animals---the "creeping things" (the literal translation of the latin root for "reptiles"). This is simply not true. Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group.

25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, reptiles, amphibians and other "creepy-crawlies") at the same time as the creation of mammals ("cattle"). According to Genesis, these things all appeared AFTER grasses, fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. And Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land.

The reference to the creation of "cattle" is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal that were produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. The ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of archaeology, got this wrong.

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Note here: God says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Yet another leftover reference to Judaism's polytheistic past, that hadn't been edited out of the creation narratives. . . .

The least sophisticated of Biblical readers interpret "in our image" to mean the PHYSICAL image of God, and this is the source of most creationist opposition to evolution. It is an untenable interpretation. God has no more a "physical image" than does gravity. Note also that despite all the creationist howling, the Biblical account doesn't say a word about HOW man was created (although this IS described in the different creation narrative found in genesis chapter two).

Note here that this creation account has man and woman created at the same time, in contradiction to the second creation account in chapter two, which has woman created after man. Yet another indication that the Genesis accounts are edited and redacted versions of several different narratives, each written and passed on independently of the others until spliced together by the emerging Hebrew preisthood.

On to Genesis Chapter Two:

1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The idea here is that creation is completed---i.e., there are no new things appearing. Wrong. New species have been observed forming in the wild. Humans, despite the Genesis account, were NOT the last living things to appear.

The end of the first creation narrative is reached with verse 3 (the diving lines between chapters in Genesis do not reflect the dividing lines between the different narratives that were spliced together). I include it only to note with interest that, according to the Biblical writer, God "rested" after his creation, and to wonder why a presumably omnipotent being would feel any need at all to "rest" . . . .

4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Here begins the second narrative of the creation story---a much shorter one than the first narrative. There are several differences between it and the earlier account in chapter one. First of all, the word for God used here is NOT the plural "elohim". This indicates that the second account was written long after the first one, at a time when Judaism had already firmly rejected its polytheistic roots.

We immediately run into the first contradiction between this creation account and the preceding one. According to Genesis 2, plants and herbs had appeared, but there had never been any rain yet. Not only is this scientific nonsense (plants cannot live without water), but it also contradicts Genesis 1, which talks about the "waters above the firmament" (presumed by the ancient cultures to be the source of rain) and "separating the waters of the earth". The Genesis 2 account then describes the earth being watered by a "mist", which is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and which is contradicted by the account of God dividing the waters. Note too that in Genesis 1 the earth is covered with water and dry land appears when the oceans are gathered up-----in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and water comes from within it. The two accounts are mutually exclusive.

7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Here we have the second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing.

9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now we have fruit trees and other plants being created AFTER humans had already been created, a contradiction with the earlier account, which has trees and plants created before any humans.

10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

And here we have the rivers being "parted", despite the fact that the first Genesis account has the waters being "divided" BEFORE the appearence of plants or humans. Yet another instance of the two separate narratives failing to conform to each other.

19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative.

21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And finally we have a story here where woman was created AFTER man, in contradiction to the earlier account which has them both created at the same time.

*******************
Sorry, genesis is not remotely based on reality. By the way, that video I posted for you if an episode of "How the Universe Works", and is very good. I highly recommend it.

Watch How the Universe Works online (TV Show) - on PrimeWire | LetMeWatchThis | Formerly 1Channel - Season 2 and Episode 8

Bravo --- you have demonstrated the complete lack of appreciation for literary license and a VENOMOUS desire to crush anything that disturbs you..

I disagree.. I pointed out the GENERAL agreements with science theory -- that light was before matter and all the rest.

It's almost comical how desparate the attempt to squash those rational observations about the story are. For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH --- since there is no proof of a steady-state map of the territory. And the literary comment about God's face "upon the waters" is taken WAAAAY too literally. It was clear in the progression of events that there was no Earth, no light, only VOID. And I'm happy to imagine to imagine the "waters" as ether.

There's only one thing I hate in this life --- and that's those who HATE so badly -- that they lose all sense of proportion and rationality.

Go on believing that LIGHT pervaded the universe before the Big Bang. If that's your "FAITH" -- I won't mock it..
Just like I won't mock your nutty belief that all matter and energy in the universe fit into an area the size of a pinhead prior to the "bang" ignition.
How much FAITH does that take eh??

Won't continue this here. Don't want to distract from "Darwin explains everything evolutionary" nutcases who don't understand the evidence or lack thereof..

I should probably know better than to ask, but what do you mean by “literary license” in the context here?

Are you suggesting that the words in the bible are sometimes metaphorical - sometimes not? Sometimes in “general agreement” - sometimes not? Sometimes an accurate rendition – sometimes not?

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words / verses are “gospel” and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?

Of course there is literary license in the Bible.. Why would we have so many preachers and rabbinical students if there was only ONE WAY to read it. There are some that take every word literally.. I'm not one. I'm spiritual and FULLY SUPPORT people of faith, but I'm not as fundamental about religion as I am for instance about my political and social "beliefs".

I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct. Why not simply be clear and do not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers a god who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.

Even more reason to cut the narrative some slack.. From where the Earth sits at the moment --- would have been several hundred thousand years for the light to arrive.

This is most spectacularly displayed with apologists’ tendency to interpret length of days, well, this puts you firmly on a slippery slope. The story doesn't indicate anything is particularly metaphorical-- it seems to be in the context of "This happened, then this happened". Suddenly you can play fast and loose with the term "day" (and I know there are numerous translations of the word "day" from the Hebrew and Greek, but then we'd get in the problems with shoddy translation and why god'd allow that, etc. and that is a different thread). Well, if you can play fast and loose with the term "day", then so can anyone with... oh, the parting of the Red Sea. The Flood. The resurrection.

And yes, as a materialist, I can dissect the stories because I believe them to be wholly fabricated. You have a lot less latitude if you wish to assert a perfect god is the author of all of this, directly or otherwise.

Your loss. Ever hear the Native American accounts of Creation? You had time to read Homer? Maybe some Beowolf? What's the diff? Unless you're FRIGHTENED of early accounts of civilized culture --- you should have nothing to fear.

Unless you regard the Bible as a symbol of your own arrogance and believe you are above it all. Like the parent who lets' out a snicker at a cartoon that he just told his kid not to watch. Beating up on FAITH is for stupid folks who BELIEVE themselves to be intellectually superior. After a good portion of a career in science and engineering, I'm here to tell you that without FAITH -- nothing would get innovated.

Here we are discussing Darwin and missing links and the predictable DEFENSE of "natural selection" still continues DESPITE massive NEW science and revelations since the Beagle sailed. WHY? Because the folks who HATE people of faith with a passion --- would have to admit that in their RECENT HISTORY --- they've ignored basic weaknesses in the theory that they trusted implicitly and ADMIT that some creationist arguments MIGHT have had validity.

And their arrogance won't let them admit that..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.

You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.





While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.






Tutorial coming up:

1. Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.



Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.

3. It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts…. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.

That is correct. What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason. What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

<snip>

Check this out....you're gonna hate it:

"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.

At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.



Get it?

"...one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."

Know what he's saying?

The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?

Loser.


How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"

 

[Old Rocks]

When ol' PC starts posting real information from people like Ernst Myer, then she will have something to say. Not likely to happen in this lifetime.

Ernst Mayr Biography -- Academy of Achievement

 

[orogenicman]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a Theory

I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.

Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein. Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders. His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible. That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.

As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity. And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises. So I eagerly await publication of your treatise. You are working on it, right?

 

[flacaltenn]

Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.

You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.





While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.






Tutorial coming up:

1. Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.



Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.

3. It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts…. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.

That is correct. What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason. What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

<snip>

Check this out....you're gonna hate it:

"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.

At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.



Get it?

"...one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."

Know what he's saying?

The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Not trying to find God in the creation of the Universe. I think we're merely pointing out how much Faith it takes to believe the best science on the subject. 'bout the time you get around to suspending time to make it more palatable -- I'd say you should just relax and take it on faith..

 

[Old Rocks]

You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.





While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.






Tutorial coming up:

1. Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.



Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.



That is correct. What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason. What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

<snip>

Check this out....you're gonna hate it:

"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.

At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.



Get it?

"...one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."

Know what he's saying?

The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?

Loser.


How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"

Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, it was thought that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.

Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.

My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Geology is the study of the planet Earth. The study of soil is pedology. The former encompasses far more than dirt. You didn't know this? Huh.

I can assume, from your user name, that your field is orogeny. That, at best, is the study of a specific strata of the Earth, not the entire planet.

And it is still dirt.

No, just smarter than you.

Yet you insist on displaying your lack of education. Is that because you aren't as smart as you think you are?

I never said that, so don't put words into my mouth. Amateurs make important contributions, but they cannot and don't do it alone. That bulk of amateurs don't have the requisite expertize for many fields of study, nor the capital needed to do the work. Aside from the legal issues, that is why we have no amateur brain surgeons. And any amateur worth his salt knows when to step aside and let the experts do their job. As an amateur astronomer, I may discover a supernova, and may even take some rudimentary measurements such as apparent brightness, location in the sky, and even some spectroscopic data, but I don't possess a 200 million dollar observatory where I can throw the state of the science at the problem, nor do I have the expertize to wield that science. And neither does your creationist lawyer friend.

Philosophically, nobody does anything alone. That does not mean your specialized training trumps the ability of someone to learn everything you know, and jump ahead of you in your own field.

By the way, as an amateur astronomer, I know I can access those observatories, with all their hardware, and contribute significantly to the understanding of supernovas, even if I don't discover them. I also know that similar programs are open to amateur scientists in other fields. Perhaps you should consider moving into the 21st century.

My degree in geology does trump his degree in law in matters of geological science in the exact same way his degree in law trumps my degree in geology in matters of the law.

Only if you ignore the fact that people do not have to go to school to learn, which you seem intent on doing.

Was there any doubt?

You seemed to have some, why else would you insist I was defending someone?

Not once did I say that evolution was guided. I said that it is non-random. That is a statement of fact. Do you understand that concept? Of course you don't.

FYI, any equation that has a random element will always produce a random unless something occurs to random elements from the equation.

Since evolution is dependent on random events, the only way it can be non random is if some sort of intelligent agent interferes to eliminate the randomness of the process.

That means that, by definition, you are saying evolution is guided.

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.

Stupid is as stupid does.

She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."

FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.

The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existance. So the question is: where does the photon come from?
Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them.

Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?

One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.



And those photons come from what, exactly?

Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I?

FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.

That is correct. What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason. What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

Other than demonstrating your ignorance?

<snip>

The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Interesting argument.

Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.

It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.

You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response. As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are. What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read. It is my opinion. That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0? Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs. So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation. However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade. Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen. Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a Theory

I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.

Sheesh. Fecal, it is you that demonstrate total ignorance of what theory means in science. In fact, the way that you refer to theory is far more the layman's definition than the scientific one.

And Newton was not proven wrong by Einstein. What Einstein demonstrated was that Newtonian physics does not apply when the numbers get very large or very small. We still use the Newtonian equations for most things in our daily lives. The differance between the answers they give, and the answers the Reletivistic equations give is to small to be of use in normal situations. So the underpinnings were hardly destroyed.

I find your endless errors concerning science to be amusing, especially when you try to debate with people with far more knowledge and training in science than you obviously have. And a fellow with a degree in 'dirt', or Geology, is the very person to talk to about evolution. Only a biologist knows the subject better.

I get it, Newton is right, except when he isn't. That doesn't mean he was wrong though, just that the Newtonian universe doesn't work.

Other than that tortuous logic, how is my description of a scientific theory, which was meant for a guy that doesn't know what a fact is, inaccurate? What is the precise way scientists use theory to build a worldview? What happens when someone, like Einstein, prove that that worldview is inaccurate?

Feel free to educate us, or just keep pretending you are smarter than everyone else.

 

[flacaltenn]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a Theory

I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.

Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein. Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders. His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible. That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.

As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity. And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises. So I eagerly await publication of your treatise. You are working on it, right?

What cave did you just crawl out of?? As I said to Hollie above, when you do move on from the incomplete and simplistic views of evolution that you've insisted on for your life -- aren't ya gonna have to admit that the creationists were correct about some of their "weaknesses" in your theory?

Ever hear of creating 100 new species in 10 days in the lab?

According to the book "Evolution," by Ruth Moore, it is possible to speed up mutations with radiation:

So Muller put hundreds of fruit flies in gelatin capsules and bombarded them with X-rays. The irradiated flies were then bred to untreated ones. In 10 days thousands of their offspring were buzzing around their banana-mash feed, and Muller was looking upon an unprecedented outburst of man-made mutations. There were flies with bulging eyes, flat eyes, purple, yellow and brown eyes. Some had curly bristles, some no bristles...
Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.

Then, natural selection takes over.

What's the implication of that?

Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

And then there is plenty of work on how periods of great stress from disasters and climate can fuel acceleration of mutation and adaptation. THere is a mountain of non-Darwinian science out there. All pointing toward evidence of MASSIVE LEAPS in evolution rather than random slower adaptations.

 

[orogenicman]

You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.





While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.






Tutorial coming up:

1. Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.



Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.



That is correct. What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason. What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

<snip>

Check this out....you're gonna hate it:

"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.

At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory." Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.



Get it?

"...one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."

Know what he's saying?

The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?

Loser.


How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"

Hmm. Moving the goalpost, I see. You know, people can be stubborn sometimes. They are comfortable with what they know (or think they know). But when multiple people cite multiple credible sources that all show that you are mistaken, you really should be a man (or woman) and admit that you were mistaken, and then move on. All species are transitional because ALL species evolve. There is nothing unambiguous or mistaken in that statement. Like I said, go find me that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian. Go find that, and you will no doubt win a Nobel prize like the theory of evolution did. Good luck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a Theory

I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.

Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein. Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders. His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible. That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.

As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity. And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises. So I eagerly await publication of your treatise. You are working on it, right?

Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.

Stupid is as stupid does.

She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."

FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.



Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?

One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.



And those photons come from what, exactly?

Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I?

FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.



Other than demonstrating your ignorance?

<snip>

The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Interesting argument.

Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.

It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.

You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response. As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are. What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read. It is my opinion. That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0? Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs. So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation. However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade. Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen. Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.

Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?

Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.

 

[orogenicman]

I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.

Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein. Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders. His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible. That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.

As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity. And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises. So I eagerly await publication of your treatise. You are working on it, right?

Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.

The phrase you used was "proven wrong". He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else. As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.

 

[orogenicman]

Stupid is as stupid does.

She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."

FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.



Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?

One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.



And those photons come from what, exactly?

Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I?

FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.



Other than demonstrating your ignorance?

<snip>



Interesting argument.

Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.

It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.

You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response. As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are. What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read. It is my opinion. That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0? Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs. So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation. However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade. Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen. Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.

Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?

Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.

My mistake. I misunderstood what she had said. Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):

She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits". Photons are not electrons. Electrons have mass. A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 &#8722;31 kg. Photons do not have mass. If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.

As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right. What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein. Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders. His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible. That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.

As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity. And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises. So I eagerly await publication of your treatise. You are working on it, right?

Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.

The phrase you used was "proven wrong". He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else. As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.

Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong.

It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response. As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are. What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read. It is my opinion. That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0? Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs. So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation. However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade. Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen. Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.

Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?

Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.

My mistake. I misunderstood what she had said. Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):

She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits". Photons are not electrons. Electrons have mass. A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 &#8722;31 kg. Photons do not have mass. If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.

As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right. What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.

We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.