Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Earthlife 2.7 Billion Years Old 348

Posted by Roblimo from the taking-the-long-view dept.
Dodja writes "Just as Kansas decides there's no reason to teach evolution, Aussie scientists are announcing signs of life a billion years older than previous findings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earthlife 2.7 Billion Years Old More

Earthlife 2.7 Billion Years Old

Comments Filter:
  • "He (and most evolutionists) define science as to exclude out of hand any theory that includes or implies a belief in God. Thus, creationist arguments are a priori disallowed. Clever way to win an argument. "

    Then why not explain all new and confounding scientific discoveries (nuclear fission?) with "God energy". Bringing magical forces into science defeats the purpose. Sheesh...

    Chris
  • Religion assumes the existence of non-repeatable phenomena.

    I don't understand your assertion. Would you elaborate on this? Can you provide examples of 'non-repeatable' phenomena (which religion assumes exists)?
  • Further, the Church teaches that speciation through evolution is not inconsistent with Christian faith, though that evolution was (at least in the case of man) directed by God.

    Just a few years ago that was changed to say that evolution had actually happened. The distinction is that before it was OK for a good Catholic to believe in evolution. Today they are supposed to believe in evolution. I call that progress. :-)

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • certainly things may be proven true. thats why we have the category of "law". i agree that most of the creationist babble is just that. and highly uninformed at the leaast. but i also see the circular logic used to defend the "scientific" point of view. longstanding belief in something does not make it more "true". its usefulness does not make it more "true". ive read both sides of this argument for 20 years now, and there are enough major holes in both arguments to place both on a shelf.
  • While there is evidence for evolution, there is NO evidence for creation. We would never dream of teaching a SCIENTIFIC theory with as little basis as creation. The Bible's creation story ought to be taught also, perhaps, but with a disclaimer. I'd like to see other creation myths too. How much do you know about the Zoroastrian Creation?

    >not teaching evolution is probably a smart move until Evolution can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    No, it is still a very important thing to learn. And we do still call it a "theory", don't we? No sneaky underhandedness here.

    Yes, you are missing something. It's gray and squishy and weighs a couple pounds.
  • actually darwins entire argument comes from aristotle. it was neither new nor unique.
  • "The refute to that is:
    Apply it.

    I am perfectly comfortable with the concept of micro-evolution, evolution within a species can be demonstrated in a lab, or observed in the real world. Speciation or Macro-Evolution can not. I challenge ye, turn any given species into a significantly different species. "

    Speciation? Would you believe that a dog is related to a wolf? A bonobo monkey contains 98% of our genetic make up and refelect that in many ways. The 2% deviation occurred probably 8 million years ago, are you expecting someone to synthesize that within your lifetime? Boy are creationists weird...Everything has an explanation in science, although we may not have found it yet. If you want to ask a question, ask *WHY* the big bang ocurred (another theory you hate). That, in my eyes, does not preclude the existence of a god. Like fish in an aquarium we could be...

    Chris
  • They can teach creationism all they want, in the History or Religion classes, but not on Science classes.

    Religious beliefs are all well and good, but they have no place in a science curriculum.

  • why? so punctuation nazi's like yourself can be happy? get a grip.

    to any others, i apologize for my poor spelling and punctuation.

    I will try to do better.
  • I'm glad to see that some Christians are capable of scientific thought.

    (By the way, I am a devout Athiest. Christianity is the least disturbing explanation for the facts, so I might believe it right before I die.)
  • However, economic success is not necessarily related to population growth rates.

    Actually (and excuse me while I pull this out of my ass) I seem to recall that economic success causes a reduction of population growth. That's just a vague memory so if anyone has some hard references, it'd be appreciated.

    Generic Man
  • >Or, and this is my personal view, the means that
    >science condones (randomness, mutagens) are the
    >tools of the divine, omniscient but non-
    >conscious universe that just plain IS.
    >
    >It's been said that mankind is the universe's
    >attempt to comprehend itself. That all of
    >creation is God made manifest. That we, being
    >part of creation, are each a different face of
    >God.

    My sentiments exactly! That we as humankind are a single part (an organ?) in an amorphous, pantheistic but non-partial, and at most only partially sentient entity, is the only conclusion that I can adhere to without behaving like an over-religious zealot that craves for confrontation with other like zealots (Serbs vs. Kosovars, Pakistani vs. Indians, ..., the list goes on and on ...)

    One's beliefs can't be contradictory to science in any realistical ways, by any larger margin. Of course the science as conducted in the West might be even fascistically narrow-minded in perception, but as it evolves, it must take into consideration the full depth of the phenomena in Universe. I believe that the Universe genuinely has such physical capabilities which can be utilized by higher cultures in some godlike characteristics. Remember the A.C.Clarkian principle that any sufficiently high technology is undistinguishable from magic! And consider godlike but not divine beings like the Q in ST: TNG! Gods are not needed, but they might exist nonetheless. Gods are not omnipotent any more than your parents were when you were an infant.

  • if you think evolution is ridiculous its for one of two reasons

    1. You dont truly understand it because you have been misinformed or not researched it engouh.

    2. Your dumb

    its okay to be dumb, but at least know that can keep your mouth shut. If your number 1 please try harder.
  • Mathematics has the interesting distinction of being both purely abstract, and one of the few entirely provable pursuits out there. Pi cannot be seen, but it's existence can be proven. Actually starting from basic axioms all of mathematics can be proven. If you pick different axioms, sometimes you can arrive at another, but consistent and sometimes usefull number space. Once the axioms are accepted, all else can be proven.

    Science is unfortunately different. Proof is impossible. Even gravity cannot be proven; sure you can observe that every time you throw a ball into the air it falls back to the earth, but you cannot prove that it will the next time! However, what you can do with science, is gather a mountain of evidence. Then you have a very strong theory. Sometimes these strong theories aren't quite right(i.e. Newtownian Mechanics was replaced by Relativity), but they are still the most supported available theory. That's what makes it science, we grudgingly assume whatever has the most evidence is true... until there is new evidence to consider. Evolution does have a veritable mountain of evidence behind it. We have done tests on populations with various allele characteristics, and the results consistantly match the predictions derived from assuming evolution to be true.
  • I've been degenerating on summer break for a while now, and i'm a little rusty on my molecular bio, but don't prokaryotes have lipids, too? or was it the specific type of lipids they found that indicated eukaryotic life? If anyone not busy debating evolution vs. creationism and the true nature of what we call Randomness has some more detailed info it'd be appreciated.

  • Yes you most certainly are missing something.

    You are like a few hundred other posters who seemingly don't read before they post. (No offence intended - it's just that this point has been made and refuted several hundred times in the past few days on /.)

    The word "theory" colloquially has a meaning of something which may or may not be true, just an idea that someone is throwing out, etc. etc. This is *not* it's meaning when speaking of scientific theories.

    A theory in science is a hypothesis which has made so many correct predictions about observations that it has become generally accepted by all reasonable opinion.

    Evolution qualifies 100% as a theory because it has made so many predictions that have then been observed to be true. Quantum theory, the theory of reletivity are other theories of which you may have heard. Evolution has the same standing in science as these theories.

    Creationism does not qualify *at all* as a scientific theory. It has made no predictions which have been observed to be true. It is not falsifiable. It cannot have any status within science at all because it puts forward supernatural explanations. Science by its very nature restricts itself to the natural world. It has nothing to say about religious belief.

    If you wait until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you cannot teach anything about science at all. Science does not "prove" anything. In science nothing can be *absolutely* proven. There is always room for doubt that we may not have the 100% correct answer. That is fundamental to the nature of science. If you don't want to teach science at all that's your perogative but you would be mistaken in my point of view.

    One other thing that may deserve repeating is there is *no* debate in science about whether or not evolution occured. The only open debate in science is *how* evolution occured. Misquoted scientists arguing about the *how* are not some sort of anti-proof of evolution, they are simply misquoted scientists! And please allow me to drive home the very American-centric nature of this "debate" over evolution. This sort of thing isn't happening outside of the USA (except maybe in a few rural towns in western Canada). I think the fact that the US is the only western country with this powerful extemist Christian movement and the only one with this peculiar "debate" is not mere coincidence.

    Anyway good luck rational American people!

  • As an aheist myself, I tend to use the term devout with toungue firmly planted in cheek. Perhaps he is doing the same.

  • Flamebait (Score:1)

    by rve ( 4436 )
    Surely posts like yours are intended only to annoy people.
    ---
  • None of these theoies are presented as 'fact'. Not in university, nor in scientific publications.

    Exactly my point. There is no point in present ANY scientific theory as 'fact'; rather, they should be presented as tested models which have produced useful results.

    However, I would dispute the accuracy of your statement. Are you saying that in all of this century, in all schools and universities, in all scientific publications, there has never been any implication that these theories are true and factual? You speak of the ideal while I address the real. Regardless of what abstract science does, real flesh-and-blood people tend to make asses of themselves, regardless of the situation.
  • If you have read both sides and claim that there are major holes in both, perhaps you would be willing to state a half-dozen major holes in evolution? Note that I said evolution, not abiogenesis (which is a *much* harder problem) - being so well-read you do know the difference?

    Please be very specific. After all the devil is in the details and I would not want to wind up pointing out basic things to you that you should have learned decades ago.

    So - fire away. Be specific. Be detailed. Pointers to the literature are appreciated. A half-dozen major holes hitherto missed by biology coming up.

    I am waiting...
    Ben Tilly
  • I read this wrong and thought it said 'EarthLink' 2.7 billion years old...

    Gah.

  • 3) Starting with data of any complexity, mutations destroy (garble perhaps is a better word) data


    Actually, even in complex organisms, constructive mutations can occur. They are much more improbable that destructive mutations, but they are reinforced by natural selection.


    Energy available for work always decreases. Therefore, eventually - despite the best efforts of man - all life forms will eventually degenerate into randomness.


    According to this, I should be degenerating right now. I would be, except that I consume orderly food while increasing the entropy of my environment. Obviously, life can keep on living as long as it has a supply of useful energy and a way to dissipate useless heat. Under these conditions it can also evolve with no problem.

    Your "intelligent energy" is BS. My air conditioner creates localized order in my house, it just uses up energy to do so.

    Just because the energy available for work always decreases does not mean work cannot be done, and in fact it constantly is, on the cellular level and elsewhere.

    Many others have posted links to articles debunking the entropy argument. I would direct you to them, except that by typing the information on the page, I would accelerate my inevitable heat death.
  • Well, just to put my two cents in, I am an avid Linux user (Debian, thank you very much), was a science geek in high school, and, last but farthest from the least, am a born again believer in Jesus Christ and the Bible. As a disclaimer, I don't have a Southern drawl, I don't own any shotguns, and I'm half way through a college education in a respected college in Boston.

    I want to set straight my own personal opinion on the evolution-creation debate, an opinion which I share with many educated and theologically experienced Christians. I should note however that there are different opinions within the Church regarding the creation of the universe.

    I believe that God created the Earth as well as the entire Universe. That much is without question. I would however take with a grain of salt the supposition that the entire creation of the Universe, the Earth on which we live and every living thing on it was completed within six days. I believe that the language used in the book of Genesis chapter 1 [gospelcom.net] is often times figurative, especially in referring to time.

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

    I believe that this simple phrase encompasses the entire series of events theorized by astronomers, physicists and such. Seriously, who better to produce a "big boom" than the Almighty Sovreign God? Over the next six days of time listed in this passage, Moses, the actual author of the book of Genesis (BTW, I believe that all scripture, in its original language, is the inerrent, inspired word of God given through the mouths and hands of mortal men.) describes the creation of 1. Day and Night, 2. the sky, 3. land, seas, and vegetation, 4. the Sun, Moon, and stars, 5. animals of the sea and air, and 6. animals of the land and Man. By now, 9 out of 10 of you are thinking "this sounds like any other ancient tale of the beginning of the world," and indeed it does. I believe though that this explanation of the beginning of the world is a figurative one, with figurative times as well. I DO believe that if God had wanted to make the entire universe and the modern world appear over the course of one Earth week, He could have easily done so, just as He could have also done it in one billionth of a nanosecond (or even less : ). The fact of the matter is that if God is all powerful, He can make things happen in any way that fits his will. I believe that He did not create the Earth in one week, for a good reason. Physicists are amazed at the way in which our entire world and universe fits together. Scientists have realized that if the position between the Earth and Sun were not precisely the way it is, if the composition of the atmosphere was even slightly altered, if any one of billions of variables were not as they are, life would not exist on this planet. We recognize this, but we just as quickly then chalk it up to a freak occurance of "nature," the infinitely small chance that one special chemical reaction in a puddle of ooze would produce all living creatures on the earth. In my opinion that's a very shaky assumption on which to base a theory of the creation of the world. From another perspective, however, if God designed this perfect set of enviromental variables and set up the physics just right so that the natural world would work as smoothly as it does, would He not want to follow His own perfect rules to create the world? I believe that He would.

    As far as the theory of our alleged primate ancestors are concerned I am without opinion. I don't know whether we were created as a seperate species or are direct ancestors of monkeys through some yet to be discovered missing link. What I do know is that, either way, anything that we have become in terms of our status above the animals and our dominance above all other creatures on Earth has been through the power and grace of God and not through any ambition, talent, or ability of our own.

    "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Collosians 1:15-17.

    In short, as well as I understand the theory of evolution to date, I believe that all discoveries and theories used to explain the evolutionary process can be much better used as signs of the awesome sovereign power of God.

    Hmm. This is flamebait if I've ever seen it. Please keep your replies on an intelligent level and feel free to question my theories or my beliefs. I would be happy to take a crack at any question as best my knowledge allows. God Bless.

    Will Meyer
  • We see no evidence of cross species evolution, only changes within each species, ie: survival of the fittest. We find a complete lack of transitional forms, which "should" grossly outnumber the existing forms.
    And how would you define "transitional forms", a concept that is pretty unscientific, an artefact of classification of species. Oh BTW, you can classify MOST FOSSILS ever discovered as transitional. They aren't here anymore today, so they're ...sort of .....transitional. And if you aren't satisfied until you have a full fossil record from a bacterium to an elephant, tough luck. The earth isn't a WORM drive.

    Do you need to find fossils of every intermediary step between a wolf and a chihuahua before you accept that they ARE related (and in fact , depending on who you ask, the same species). Ditto for a domestic cat and a lion?

    And about the geologist: get a good refernce work on dating and you'll see that his explanation is basically correct.

    So in true Unix style, the only answer to your questions is: RTFM. These are newbie questions, easily researchable on the net.

  • If the monkey evolved into a human then why is the monkey still here? If it evolved it would be a human not a monkey. Or have I missed something?

    If anything evolved wouldn't it be something else instead of its current status?


    -Andrew Cummins
  • Yes, I am strongly opposed to the idea of a god.
    I am a believer in the strong anthropic [sp?] principle, and, using my own concept of "I", I must exist because, If I didn't, I wouldn't know I didn't. I am an intelligent life form, and you cannot map my consciuosness onto ooze, therefore to ask the question "what if you had remained ooze" is meaningless to me.

    If there were a god, would he wonder who had created him? No, since God knows everything, He would know that either:

    1) A higher god had created him, (same question there), or

    2) No, nobody created him, he was just a fluke.

    If there is another option, wouldn't it apply to humans?

    Some people reason that if we can create things, everything else, including ourselves, must have been created by another intelligent being (god). Ever wonder why god doesn't seem to be bothered by this one? God is smart enough to know his creator doesn't need to exist; why arent we?

    If you choose to believe that god was created by another god, who was in turn created by yet another god, and so on, ad infinitum, think about this: god must have had a purpose in mind when he created people, yet what is more purposeless than an infinite chain of gods? Also, why did our god choose to break the chain? That behavior must have been programmed into him by his god. but why would god's god do a thing like that? Why, god^3 must have done it, and so on, and so on. Ouch. My brain hurts. That was really pointless. Excuse me, I feel a sudden urge to evolve another brain.
  • I think this is more commonly understood although the media may not portray it that way. Just look at the health news: Every new study makes the news.

    Check out: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [emory.edu] by Thomas Kuhn [philosophers.co.uk]

    He show's quite nicely that the questions asked and answers found by science are focused by the paradigms that are currently accepted.
  • Are you saying that in all of this century, in all schools and universities, in all scientific publications, there has never been any implication that these theories are true and factual?
    Of course these models (relativity, quantum mechanics, gravity) are presented as fact in school courses. It is a tradeoff between clarity and level of detail required. That's why it is called the "Law of gravity" when doing simple calculations like escape velocity for rockets in high school. It's called "Theory of gravity" when you are studying gravity.
  • re punctuation: sorry.
    re FACT:
    hahahah

    Try reading a book sometime, maybe even a real physical science book.
    If evolution were a fact it would be called a "law", as in the "law" of gravity.
  • Lipids eh? nice to know that fatty acids werent a problem back then (looks at ponch). This just goes to show. Despite governmental ignorance and religious paranoia science moves on. Im glad these findings were published so soon afterwards that entire Kansas headache was. Sort of throws it in their face. Truth be told, i leanred about evolution despite my schooling so im not worried. Kids will leran about it one way or antoher. Charles Darwin comes up more than once in studying science in addition to poping up in many diffrent concentrations. Im worride about stuff like this not getting to children. Findings like these stimulate minds and even if they arent too keenly interested, they at least know what is going on.
  • Please read the relevant FAQs [talkorigins.org] before spouting off again. Evolution does not contradict evidence, logic, religion, or the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution and abiogenesis are different issues, and Behe's book is about the latter, not the former. Punctuated Equilibrium, whatever caricatures you may have heard notwithstanding, is really Darwinian evolution. And please don't say, "It is just a theory" or "What evidence do they really have?" until you have actually looked at what evidence has been uncovered from the combined efforts of several scientific fields for 150 years.

    Oh, and those who claim that there is a debate, there is not. The last serious scientific challenge to the theory of Evolution was in the first decade of this century. (Brownie points to anyone who knows the substance of the challenge and/or the resolution!) If you think that you can turn up quotes contradicting this, check the original reference for the quotes before repeating them. There are a lot of out-of-context quotes which are spouted that do not - in context - mean what Creationists claim that they do. And there are a lot of upset scientists who are good and tired of being misquoted.

    So please, read those FAQs before posting.

    Thank you,
    Ben Tilly
  • Wasn't this common ancestor a monkey too? Just a species of ape that no longer exists.
    ---
  • Why is every piece of evidence found that is linked to evolution always treated as proof. It's evidence, they even call it that, but then they treat it as proof.

    Science is not the end all of everything. I think that the scientific world as a whole is quite arrogant.

    Many people would say, "that's not logical. science is the system of logical truth finding, and is the basis of solid understanding."

    That's true from the perspective of us looking out at everything, but in the perspective of everything out there and then how small we are, we are far to meek.

    It's cool to search for truth, but don't think that you know.
  • You claim that scientists change the theory to fit the facts. That seems to me to be an excellent straw-man argument. Please come up with concrete examples.

    At issue in particular is Darwin's theory of evolution, which states that there is descent with modification where those traits that are beneficial to having plentiful surviving descendants will spread. And this ongoing process, visible today, is responsible over time for the modification and branching of the species.

    I maintain that this statement of Darwin's theory has been accurate since The Origin of the Species was published in 1859. Our understanding of that theory has changed significantly. For instance the discovery that inheritance is discrete rather than continuous was a significant change. Likewise there have been ongoing changes in thought about such details at rates, pacing, etc. And there have been many specific examples that have modified, for instance Darwin initially thought that lungs evolved from the swim-bladder of a fish, but later research and fossil evidence shows that the connection is the other way, the swim-bladder of the "higher fishes" evolved from a lung.

    But through the entire history of the theory, the basic statement has never changed. Our thoughts and understanding of details have changed, but not the basic theory!

    Oh, and do some reading on the history of biology will you? Darwin's theories did not win instant universal acceptance by a long shot. In fact they continued to face serious scientific challenges for 50 years, and I assure you that the critics were not gentle with the theory.


    And being fair, we need to examine Creationism fairly. I maintain that Creationism is a belief maintained in spite of all facts and evidence. If you doubt me then explain how one can seriously believe today in a global Flood that purportedly happened 4000 years ago in spite of there being lake bottoms that have been undisturbed in longer than that, Chinese history going back farther than that, ice cores that have survived undamaged for well over 30 times that long, and a distribution of species around the world that is absolutely impossible based on the story of Noah's ark? Wilful ignorance of the facts is not a reason to respect a position!


    Moving on to your apparently rhetorical question of mutations, yes, detailed studies have been done on mutation rates. And yes, the numbers do add up. In fact mutation rates have been used to form a "molecular clock" of how long populations have been seperated, and the time-lines that result are in generally good accord with the independent evidence from other lines such as fossil evidence.

    Surprised? You should not be! It is characteristic of normal science that it constantly finds new ways to test its basic beliefs with more and more sensitive tests. Evolution is the product of normal science and has survived a century and a half of tests. I strongly doubt that there is any test you can think of which can be carried out in under a decade that has not been performed!

    Sincerely,
    Ben Tilly
  • There's a lot more than fossils to account for. Astronomers can observe objects that are billions of light years away. To believe (like the hard-line Creationists) that the world is new, you have to believe that either (a) God is faking the far-off light to test our faith or that (b) all science is bunk.

    And yet I recently saw a poll that showed around 40% of people (I'm sorry, American people) believe that God created the world as it is a few thousand years ago. Just ten percent take a secular evolutionist perspective: life took care of itself. The rest believe in divinely guided evolution, which I think is Catholic Church doctrine.

    Marginally relavant but interesting is this chart [sciam.com] from a recent Scientific American on church attendance. America is topped only by Poland and Ireland.
  • Dodja writes "Just as Kansas decides there's no reason to teach evolution, Aussie scientists are announcing signs of life a billion years older than previous findings."

    Why does everyone assume that if we prove the earth is old, that proves evolution, and that creationism can only be applicable if the earth is young -- e.g. created at 9:15AM on March 4, 4004 B.C. (obviously absurd).

    Just because the creationist-extremists who get on the news are all "young-earthers" does not mean that all people who believe that the universe itself and life on earth were created as the result of direct intervention of a higher being, share the young-earth view. In fact, the young-earth view is mainly promoted by one activist organization, the Creation Research Institute. If you're a lazy reporter, you'll go to one source with a recognizable name, and assume that you've done your job. Most reporters are lazy.

    I thought Slashdot readers were more astute than to assume that the media stereotype of a group applies to all members of that group.

  • :)
    Long example page. lots of links. i'll read it. For brevity here, it is a /. post after all, i chose #9, (reptile to birds). I'll get back to that in a moment.
    first.
    re dating methods:
    c-14 dating (like all of the other dating methods i have seen.) assume perfect linearity in the decay rate of the sample. (they also assume to know its original composition.). works only on organic materials, works only within the range of 50-100,000 yrs or so. It also works only if the samples have not been submerged in water (leaching), or exposed to fire. While i see no evidence that fossil bearing layers have been exposed to fire. (except in areas of magmatic activity or catastrophic event) there is a great amount of evidence of water having existed within those layers, and possibly the covering of it with water was the cause/contributor of the fossilisation. given this data, and the fact that c-14 does not work within the real of geologic time, it is useless for dating fossils.
    next we have

    K-40
    U-Th-Pb
    Rb-87

    only the last two are useful within the time range we are discussing, but they are succeptable to the same leaching effect as c-14. Water is a powerful solvent. Water can/will absorb lots of material, and is quite capable (by thermal transport and other methods) of carrying even more material than it may hold at any given time.
    While these methods are at least useful within the time scale, they must be used only within the areas of samples of known histories, or the results are useless.

    The dozen or so other radiometric dating techniques... same problem.

    Essentially i see this as the broad problem with any and all radiometric dating method and as the strongest argument against the validity of such dating.

    Dating by analysis of magnetic orientation of molecules with the structure?
    yes it works.
    but it assumes the same linearity as radiometric dating does. and assumes more knowlegde of the history of the specimin than is actually to be had.
    I hold these to be invalid assumptions.
    Im sure there are many other dating methods.
    they dont come freshly to mind.

    This is not my field, but i do have a great interest in rocks, and in how our planet came to be in the condition its in.

    back to the birds.

    As I understand birds, they first appeared in the jurassic, some 150 million yrs ago +- 50%.

    On chapter 9 of your example page where this is discussed, We get all the way down to the bottom of the page before we meet our very first birdlike transitional friend Archeopteryx. seemed to have lived within the right period. (if the above mentioned dating methods worked ) the problem here is the complete lack of anything that points to a reasonable ancestor outside of its own era,or outside of its own species. nor do we have successors. my guess is it died of "survival of the fittest". but that it was simply a variation of "bird".

    Ill read the rest of the chapters.
    I do hope they offer more conclusive evidence than this though.
    later
    steve


  • You are right that various parts of certain creation myths are falsifiable if taken literally but since no "Theory of Creationism" generally accepted by creation "scientists" has been put forward we can't count on any particular detail to be in any particular account. Creationism as defined by "a supernatural being created the universe" is pretty much an unfalsifiable statement best left to philosophy and theology. (At this point in history anyway). How can modern science try to disprove such a "hypothesis"?

    The further we go back in time the murkier the scientific method gets (until we hit the greeks I guess and things clear up for a bit). When Europe was basically a corrupt theocracy the majority of scientists probably considered God to be part of the natural world - the distinction hadn't been clearly made yet. We begin to see rationalists making the distinction when we see the rise of deism and the concept of the "Watchmaker God" among the leading figures of the Enlightenment.

  • If you did you might know that it is called Newton's Theory of Gravity. And you have the Theory of Quantum Mechanics.

    Your ignorance is showing...

    Ben Tilly

  • I'm not sure if it has been proven that a random mutation has added new information to a genetic structure- but it is certainly possible and (depending on what you believe the rate of random mutations to be) even likely that a given trait came into existance from a mutation.

    Of course, it is not likely that a particular random mutation will produce a favorable trait. It is much more likely that a mutation will cause a gene to become random garbage and cause the death of the organism. Life has evolved many mechanisms to prevent mutations from ever occuring. And, if a mutation does occur, there are mechanisms in place to detect and repair the mutated gene before it can be passed on to offspring.

    Even so, some mutations inevitably get through and become a part of the genome. Most will cause death (cancer maybe) or reduce the ability of the organism to breed effectively and thus not get passed on from generation to generation. However, when a beneficial mutation does occur it is passed on very rapidly. (Ok, so "rapidly" means hundreds or thousands of years :)

    You know, this sounds a lot like, "given enough monkeys banging on typewriters you can produce the complete works of Shakespeare". And I guess it is. Mathematically, both are reasonable. It just takes a really long time!

  • Please quote Aristotle chapter and verse on that!

    Nice troll...

    Ben
  • no. i accept "dog" as a generic form. with all the possible mutations of that.

  • Time. (Score:1)

    by Peyna ( 14792 )
    Okay, I'm going to look at this from a creationist point of view, and you feel the need to flame me for that, get a life. Anyways, it makes perfect sense from my point of view that obviously not every single thing that existed when the earth was created would be how ever many years old since the creation of the earth. In other words, even if God may have created earth on say January 1st, 4000 BC or something, that doesn't mean that materials in existence can't be older than 6000 years. Does that make sense to anyone else? It does to me anyways. Well, now that you all know that I'm not a firm believer in evolution go ahead and take a swing at me.

    - Andrew

  • Yes, the concept of a god is offensive to me. Using a slightly different concept of "I", I argue that I must exist, because, if I did not exist, I wouldn't be able to contemplate my nonexistance. since by definition I must think, I must exist. It is meaningless to ask the question "What if you had remained ooze?", because if I had, no one would be asking me a question.

    We see that we can create things, and assume everthing must have a creator. Does god reason along those lines? God must think either:

    1) "Okay, I'm just a fluke. I can live with that." Or,

    2) "I must have been created by another god. That explains it!"

    If there is a third option, why doesn't it apply to us? Actually, there is!

    3) "Hey! I don't need a god, I am a god! Look- I made all this stuff!"

    If that sounds too arrogant, remove the "god" bit, and there you have it: my belief system, in a nutshell.

    If the other options appeal to you, how about this:

    1) If god is a fluke, that is not an uncomfortable notion to him. He has a purpose- he created us! Our purpose, likewise, is to create.

    2) If god was created by another god, god knows it. God is also smart enough to realize the truth: His god must have been created by another god! "Wait a second! Who created god's god's god?" god asks. All this makes god's head spin. God goes home to evolve a bigger brain. I wil do likewise.
  • All too ironic. My theory (which is only based on my observation ;) is that many of the people shunning those who do not believe in evolution were probably also shunned for their belief in evolution, or were responding to the fact that others have been shunned for the same thing... and in the same way those who have shunned those who believe in evolution were once shunned or were responding to the fact that other's have been shunnded for not believing too. However there are also those of us who want peace.
  • Sorry to post double. I thought my first had not been submitted when IE crashed.
  • Heh. Having been born and raised in a Catholic country, I find that the Catholic Church is evil, but not stupid.

    For stupid, you have to look at some other Christian denominations... :)

  • One of the test I know of that shows C-14 assumptions are wrong is when they tested material from a living mollusk and by the C-14 method it was found to have been dead for over 10,000 years. (I can get you a reference, but I will have to dig through material at home(I am not at home at the moment)).

    The basic assumptions of radiometric dating are:

    1) The amounts of radioactive particles in the atmosphere has been relatively constant.

    2) The ratios of radioactive to nonradioactive within given materials are always the same when created (or if organic material -- at death).

    3) The rate of decay is constant.

    The first is obviously flawed as volcanoes emit lots of radioactive particles and the amount in the atmosphere fluctuates constantly.

    The second is flawed and an example is already given that shows this for C-14.

    The third assumptions is based on the fact that the evidence we have is that the decay rate fits an equation that includes the speed of light. There have been a couple of researchers that have discovered evidence that the speed of light has slowed over time. I have looked at evidence both for and against this finding and have not been able to come to a conclusion on this. This puts assumption 3 in question.

    There are a lot of facts that can be interpreted either for a long age of the earth or a short age of the earth or at least short age of life on the earth. Not all creationists believe that the earth was created X number of years ago (the most common is 6000), but some believe that the earth was here before that, but that life was created at that time.

    Evidence is clear that the magnetic field of the earth has been weakening. The best mathematical models of the data show that if (big if) the magnetic field has been weakening constantly fitting the same equation, 10,000 years ago life forms we know could not have existed and 40,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field equivalent to a magnetic star.

    The amount of dust on the moon (approx. 1/8"), according to the current rate of collection of dust, only allows for a time frame of 4000-40,000 years for dust to have been collecting on the moon.

    If you want references, I can get them, but I am currently not at home were I can get them.

    The purpose of most of the efforts such as the one in Kansas (I cannot speak of that effort specifically as I don't have first hand knowledge of what is going on in that state, but I do have first hand knowledge of some similar efforts in some states), is to have the evidence both for and against evolution presented, and not have evolution presented as a fact. It currently is presented as a fact in schools and most scientists, in high school as well as colleges and universities and elsewhere, do not look at all of the evidence and many times evidence that does not fit evolution does not get published. (I am sure you would agree that establishments, i.e. media, government, medicine, science, monopolies(MS), industries (tobacco, power, agricultural), etc., often cover up evidence that contradicts or threatens their theories, ideas, way of life, means of making money, etc.) Most people never hear about the evidence that gets covered up or that journals and magazines among other forms of media, refuse to print or cover. There are too many examples to list. If you want to see all of the evidence you really have to dig. You can't be content with mainstream press and text books.

    I used to be a high school math & science teacher and have studied lots of evidence on both sides of many topics. (You have to if you want to actually know what you are talking about and have informed answers for teenagers, who often see through things that most adults can't).

    If you are interested in studying all of the facts and want to discuss the facts and their possible implications intelligently, (no flames, can agree to disagree and still study facts together, provide references (which I couldn't do from work--writing this on lunch break), let me know, I would be glad to carry on ongoing discussions with you regarding this.

    Randy
    randy@nospam.hesscomputers.com
  • >>Religion assumes the existence of non-repeatable
    >>phenomena.

    >I don't understand your assertion. Would you
    >elaborate on this? Can you provide examples of
    >'non-repeatable' phenomena (which religion
    >assumes exists)?

    Sure. I meant miracles, or any other supernatural happening. For example, someone dying and coming back to life. These are usually one-of-a-kind happenings. They generally cannot be made to happen on command. You can't write them up for a reputable journal and expect the scientific community to confirm them.
  • Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
  • Was I unfair? Jimbo asked how one could treat evolution and Creationism fairly. The doctrine of Creationism as espoused by the ICR and other such groups indeed does say that the Earth is about 6000 years old, and there was a global flood about 4000 years ago. This is not a straw-man argument, this is a direct statement of the mainstream Creationist position as believed by a significant portion of the US.

    Very few people describe themselves as Creationists and simultaneously do NOT subscribe to this belief system.

    I feel that responding this was is, in fact, particularly appropriate in this case when responding to someone who is accusing scientists of changing their theories. Creationism is a well-defined position and it comes with a considerable theological baggage. If scientists are criticized for modifying theories produced by humans, then how much more disingenous would it be to modify theories purportedly laid down by God?

    No, I don't feel that I was at all unfair in what I said.

    Sincerely,
    Ben Tilly
  • Not that I saw! And you didn't even have the guts to sign it.

    Let me take this bit by bit.

    There is no proof that Evoltion is true.

    You cannot even spell Evolution! As for evidence, you did look in the FAQs [talkorigins.org] that were pointed to above?

    Darwin himself later in life admitted that he was wrong.

    The infamous Lady Hope [talkorigins.org] story. Known to be a lie.

    There is only evolution with in a class.

    It seems that you have a common confusion about what macroevolution [talkorigins.org] is and isn't.

    Every "ape man" ever found has been proved wrong. The bones that they found where hundreds of feet even miles apart and in different layers of the earth.

    You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. In a word, "Lucy".

    In evolution you only evolve to have what you need. So since we don't need a third arm that is why we don't have a third arm. Well then how come we only use 10% of our brain. Why did we "evolve" to have such a big brain?

    Warning, warning, urban legend [urbanlegends.com] alert! Do do have a reference [fireplug.net]?

    If Evolution is real then there would be hundreds even thousands of transition fossils and yet there isn't even one!

    Funny, the scientists seem to think otherwise [talkorigins.org].

    Evolution is a theory and all it takes is one thing to prove it wrong and then it should thrown out. There are to many things that prove evolution to be wrong and not enough to back it up.

    May I hold Creationism to the same standard?

    To me it is easier to beleive that a living God made the earth and it didn't just happen. Have you ever seen a tornado go through a junk yard and assemble a perfectly working car. No! So what makes you think that something as big and complex as the earth and every living thing on it can happen by chance.

    And that is a straw-man [talkorigins.org] argument.

    If you just look around you you will see that there is someone out there that is bigger than each and everyone of us. Just open your eyes and you will see.

    Is closing my eyes also a pre-requisite? So far your batting average is pretty darned pathetic...

    Sincerely,
    Ben Tilly
  • This is not evidence that Creationism is wrong.

    Given that you have an omnipotent, omnescient being doing all the work, anybody can easily see that the earth can be 6000 years old, despite any evidence to the contrary. How? Simple. God created everything in-situ 6000 years ago, fossil records, decayed carbon isotope ratios, meteor impact evidence, geological drift stress fractures, everything. Of course, by this logic, the Earth could have been created JUST NOW.

    As in, right now, including your memory of reading the previous paragraph.

    Gee, it must be nice to have God to explain everything for you folks. Zero thought required. How marvelously convenient.

    "Dad, how does a car work?" "God makes it go."

    I don't believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in the separation of church and science. Believe anything you want, but trust me, God is of absolutely no use in research or just about anything technical.

  • (gasp) a...a...a rational, noninflammatory discussion on slashdot? (swoon)

    email me at dillon_rinker@hotmail.com, as I'd like to continue the discussion beyond here.

    Science does not assume that non-repeatable phenomena do not exist.
    I would have to respectfully disagree. Given the same initial conditions, the same result will occur; this is the bedrock of the scientific method. Correct me if I'm wrong. If an observation is nonrepeatable, you can't really do much science with it.

    Instead it deliberately tries to work with and extrapolate from repeatable phenomena wherever possible.
    Unrepeatable phenomena yield no information. HOWEVER, what is at first glance a unique event may, upon sufficient abstraction, be found to be like lots of other events. If you drop a rock, it will fall to earth. This exact event will never happen again, as you will have aged, the earth will have moved, friction will have sheared off a few molecules, etc. Regardless, I still maintain that science is in the business of drawing conclusions from repeatable events.

    Even in such cases science will try to figure out what happened according to rules that themselves come from repeatable phenomena.
    Sure. This is where science is useful. On a some level, as I indicated, I don't think that any event is repeatable. But given a particular event and a high enough level of abstraction, you can ask if current theory could have predicted it, or if the event violates current theory.

    The start of life.
    Isn't there some hypothesis that given the number of galaxies, and the number of stars, and the number of planets, there should still be 10^? planets with life on them? And if we nuked the earth and dropped a few asteroids on it, doesn't current theory suggest that the return of life (possibly very different life) is at least possible?

    The extinction of the dinosaurs.
    If they existed again, they could be made extinct again. See previous bit about nukes and asteroids :)

    The Big Bang
    I don't know much cosmology. My understanding is that current theory can't predict what existed before the big bang - it's a singularity or something. My impression was more that the Big Bang was a conclusion, rather than a piece of evidence, with the logic going something like this:
    - the stars are all moving away from a point; reverse the motion far enough and all matter was at that point.
    - Do lots of other complicated math using other cosmological observations and quantum and relativity and chaos and other cool words and it quantifies this.
    - Let's call that point (or rather the events that involve it) the Big Bang.
    - If there were a Big Bang, there'd be background microwave radiation. There is; ergo there was a big bang.

    Even if the Big Bang was a cosmologically unrepeatable event, it doesn't matter, because the big bang was not observed; it was predicted. Science can perhaps predict non-repeatable events, but it can't draw conclusions from them. You can't extrapolate from a point.

    As for religion, I agree that some religious beliefs are contradicted by scientific findings. However evolution itself does not imply atheism, and there are many people who both are devout Christians and who believe in evolution.
    Sure. I mainly meant to address your rather broad original statement "evolution does not contradict religion".

    It is not silly of scientists in general to suggest that their epistemological beliefs are of greater value than others when there are several hundred years of evidence suggesting just that.
    The scientific method excels above all else at increasing knowledge of the physical but fails dreadfully where the metaphysical is concerned. That may not even be an issue to you; I don't know.

    The priests used to say that faith could move mountains, but nobody believed them. The scientists tell us that science can level mountains and nobody doubts them.

    Reflect on that for a while...
    Ummmm...Ok, done. Campbell was wrong; millions believed them. Scientific American this month says that science can't build an effective natinal missile defense system. Does anyone doubt that? And I would ask "Should we level the mountains?" To me, that is the point of this particular discussion. Science can answer some questions, but it cannot answer all questions. I believe it is foolish to believe that the only important questions are the ones science can answer, or that science can answer all important questions. Reflect on the following...

    Is there a god?
    What is right and what is wrong?
    Is there life after death?
    When does life begin?
    Are people happier now than they were before modern science existed?
    Should we map the human genome?
    What will humanity be like in 10,000 years?
    What do women REALLY want?
  • Well, I don't know about a pure blod foobar, but I'd bet you could get a mutant one, just have lots of sex! even if you don't end up with one, you still have lots of sex. it's a win win situation!
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

  • brad (Score:1)

    by warrior ( 15708 )
    Christ your sad. Brad or maybe just glad? could it be a fad? I think being first is rad. actually, that guy made me mad. wanna crash at my pad? damn that microsoft ad. this is getting bad.
  • ..is out..
    This story is to damn big. I'll put it online when the server isn't screwed up.

    YOU SUCK :))

  • And.. (Score:1)

    by Axe ( 11122 )
    ... your existence is the proof of it. You never made it out of the ape ...
  • I dunno about completely.. some people, as seen on slsahdot, take things so out of perspective. I' mean c'mmon...take a minute, and think.
  • http://webug.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys150/fall 97/slides/lect08/sld001.htm

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav .html

    http://www.msms.doe.k12.ms.us/ap_physics/tutoria ls/chap3/chap3_5.html

    looks like a law to me.
  • Incidentally this isn't really true there is relativistic quantum mechanics... its just another term... There are tons of things that go around mucking up the werks tho :)
  • Computers are now so fast that we can quickly simulate millions of years of evolution. Theoretically, we should be able to start with a core program, feed it some /dev/random/, compare it with the selection criteria, select the closest and repeat until we arrive at Linux 3.0. Why isn't anyone proposing this as a valid method of development? Because it doesn't work!

    Obviosly, it *would* work, it would take a very long time (like a few billion years, maybe), and we would need a working copy of Linux 3.0 to compare it with.

    If you had a clue, you would relize that what's created by man, and what's created 'randomly' would be completly diffrent. Computers do *not* have the speed to go through 'millions of years' of evolution very qickly. as far as 'evolutionary' computing there is no reason that you couldn't end up wiith somthing pretty intresting, but you won't end up with linux 3.0, beacuse that's a spasific set. it's like throwing paint at a canvas, you might get somthing pretty but you are not going to get a exact copy of somthing for a long time
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • You re-iterate the question whether I am willing to consider evidence that people with religious beliefs might be right. Thereby insinuating that I have shown myself not ready to do so. Well the fact is that I answered that question. If someone comes up with novel evidence for me, I am willing to think about it. When people come up with evidence of a path that I have been down many times before, and which I know both sides of better than they do - no, to that I won't be very open.

    As for how I approached religion, that is a different question. I do not see that I have any need to spout my personal experience with religion here. The narrower question that was asked is whether people with those beliefs are right, IOW it is the evidence for the beliefs that is in question. And that is not a question of trying to approach religion like science, that is a question of taking claims that are made and putting them through a BS detector.

    As for the charlatans - yes, you are right that they are out there. Most people are aware that such exist. What I wish is that more religious people would be aware that charlatans exist and have their BS detectors open. And in particular investigate both sides of the story before repeating information from a possible charlatan.

    Sincerely
    Ben
  • I find it interesting then that Satan quotes scripture himself. Satan is also a creationist. Did I miss something there? I don't remember the verse where he quotes scripture, but if need be, I can find it for you.

  • Science does not assume that non-repeatable phenomena do not exist.

    I would have to respectfully disagree. Given the same initial conditions, the same result will occur; this is the bedrock of the scientific method. Correct me if I'm wrong. If an observation is nonrepeatable, you can't really do much science with it.

    Glad to maintain your respect. :-)

    Your original statement, and my reply, had to do with non-repeatable phenomena. This is a major issue in any historical science. Sure, theoretically, if you set them up the same way, perhaps it would turn out the same way. But we do not have the freedom to do that. We know that the phenomena happened, but we cannot repeat it.

    Therefore, non-repeatable phenomena both exist and are part of science.

    As for repeatability, even in the strict sense that is not true. For instance in quantum mechanics the same set-up can result in different outcomes. Does that prevent the subject from being dealt with scientifically? Allow me to quote Feynman,

    "Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong...What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.


    (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 1, 2-3.)

    This is as true in a historical science as in any other. To name but one example, Astronomy all of the time has to deal with fundamentally non-repeatable observations. A supernovae in this galaxy is not something that happens on demand, and we cannot choose when to observe it.


    As for the limits of science, they are very strict. Within its limits science has tremendous explanatory power. Outside of its limits there are blank areas that it simply cannot address.

    What gives rise to the feeling of being aware? We cannot even address this problem. Science is useless.

    When the germanic tribes (the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) invaded England, did they displace the Celts or merely take over leadership? Science can address this, the two racial groups have recognizable phenotypes. (The germanic tribes displaced the Celts.)

    The former question, science will never address. The latter it gives an answer to that there is simply no real point in doubting.

    Cheers,
    Ben Tilly
  • Its kinda funny. Its not really evil (imho). I find that it has people just like the techno (whatever its called) community. There are the zealots, the conservatives, the newbies and the momos, the good guys, the intelligent and the misled. Guess its experience based =)
  • Actually the Hebrew word for 'day' in Genesis *does* mean a literal 24 hour time span.

    Some people argue the "day-age" theory which means a day == millions of years. Who knows, it could happen, but I tend not to agree with that philosophy.
  • Here are some references on problems with K-
    Ar dating methods.

    http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01.htm
    http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm

    And here is one that looks candidly at problems with both the models of long age of universe and short age of universe.

    http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm

    I am reading the site that was posted, some arguments are well founded and some definitely are not. I will continue studying it and when I can, I will look up the other research again. You should also be aware that there have been more recent studies on moon dust that support the earliest measurements much more than some in-between have, as well as evidence that much of the dust on the moon would have come from the moon itself as a result of meteorite impact rather than just the dust from space. I believe that this is mentioned in the article above.
  • Another common misconception is that the Bon Bon ancestor is NOT the candy. In fact, we evolved from this very delectable ice cream treat. If you don't believe me, you should listen to Soul Coughing: "Super Bon Bon Super Bon Bon! Too fat fat you must cut Clean! You gotta take the elevator to the Mezzanine!" See the allusion to evolution? Hmm. me neither. But then, it's about as close to an accepted theory of evolution as most of the posts in here.
  • A fundamental question about your criticism of dating, do you accept that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, but wonder about how we can know any particular age, or do you deny that there is evidence that the world is more than a few thousand years old? If the latter then there is no need for any sophisticated method. Ice sheets lay down layers similar to tree rings. You can literally take a core, and count back. There are cores from the Greenland sheet that go back over 300,000 years. (The value in these cores is in things like pollen, and in the fact that there is "fossil air" trapped in them.) Clearly the Greenland sheet has existed for that time and not been disturbed by untoward events such as a world flood.

    Therefore I will assume that you accept that the world is more than a few thousand years old, but you question the exact dating mechanisms.

    One of your criticisms, the linearity of decay, is on the face of it ludicrous. The decay rate is an outgrowth of the laws of physics. Unless you believe that they are changing, the linearity of decay is a given.

    The next issue has to do with water and fire. The effects of water and fire are not to be discounted. However they also leave obvious traces. We can assume that geologists are sufficiently aware of their samples to identify when these things have had an effect! Trust me, geologists are very aware of a variety of external effects and take them into account.

    It seems that you are more interested in identifying reasons to NOT accept anything they have to say than in examining the evidence! For instance one question that you refuse to consider is this, if every method of dating is independently bad, then why do they all agree on the relative dates of different layers of rock? Reflect on that and give me a straightforward explanation of this basic fact...


    Moving on to your treatment of the transitional FAQ, I have to really wonder. You are reading a long FAQ, with a tremendous number of examples, and the one example that you JUST HAPPEN to pick is the one listed as being particularly bad for gaps. Your original claim was that there were no transitional fossils known. Well why not look at the transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals?

    Your original claim is clearly false, even if you just went on a fishing expedition for one of the weaker transitions listed in a large number of transitional sequences.

    But even so, the example you picked, Archeopteryx, itself clearly is neither a reptile or a bird. It could be labelled one or the other, sure, but it clearly is a mix. Whether or not it is an ancestor of modern birds (not at all clear), it shows that transitional forms that are midway between what we now think of as very distinct groups did indeed exist!

    Sincerely,
    Ben Tilly
  • ok. but may i start with just two?

    I have no problem with survival of the fittest. that much seems self evident, and proven.
    Where i see the problem is in the fossil record.

    We see no evidence of cross species evolution, only changes within each species, ie: survival of the fittest

    We find a complete lack of transitional forms, which "should" grossly outnumber the existing forms.

    I realize this has nothing to do with this discussion but, i guess what really started this for me was a discussion with a geologist, who, when asked how you date the age of a fossil, stated that "You date the age of the fossil by the layer its found in" and when asked how you date tha age of the layer, replied "You date the age of the layer by the fossils it contains." He never saw the circular nature of his reasoning and was appalled by my ignorance when i pointed it out. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of this though.

    the argument about evolution going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics... i frankly dont see. i think thats a semantic issue.

  • Actually I don't think creationism qualifies as a hypothesis.
    Doesn't a hypothesis have to be falsifiable to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis?
    I don't believe creationism is falsifiable.
    Since creationism rests on supernatural explanations for natural events it puts itself outside the realm of science as science limits itself to the strictly natural world.
  • really had not planned on making this a life long project... but ill look for it. :)
    i do not remember the book. i will however look for the reference for you.
  • There are things called urban legends. Remember telephone, well this is the internet.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/
  • The only "evidence" of species being linked together is some similarities with the look of an embryo in different animals, and similar bone sturctures in some different animals. That

    There is a lot more evedence then that,

    As far as new species coming from old ones, I belive there have been exaples of this in bacteria, although I don't know for sure. in larger animals, I don't belive it could happen in more then a few tens of thousands of years, never in your life time. (the homo sapian race is 30,000 to 40,000 years old, i think)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • I said that economic success is not neccesarily related to poulation growth rates. I chose my words carefully.
    In the modern world, it may cause a reduction. In other parts of the world, economic success translates into lower infant mortality rates. If you can feed a population, it can survive to breed.

    I don't know much about population studies-- but I suspect this negative correlation comes from several sources-- urbanism, and feminism. There's also a moralistic component.

    I may be blowing smoke here, but the pressure to have kids is probably stronger in a agricultural society, where labour is important. Richer societies tend to have less subsistance agriculture.

    Feminism will obviously bring about a reduction in the birth rate, and is connected to female education and literacy-- something that is neglected in poorer societies. A host of other things follow, including birth control, less time forsex, etc.
  • I'd love to see a rock 12.x+1 billion years old! 12.x, though i can belive :)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • do they go to hell?

    aaaaahahahahahahahahahahhaahh :)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • All possible combinations of energy forming matter. Energy is a finite commodity in the universe. We are moving toward equalibrium, but more importantly, there are a finate number of states that life can exist in. I suggest most of you take a look at "variation within kind" logic for a better take on who/what we are. Could support creationism, and is much more sound logic than evolution without boundries.

    This is nonsense
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • actually it was indeed once the theory of gravity. but has been changed to the status of a law.
    also.
    i have read newtons principia mathmatica where its first described.

    the theory of quantum mechanics. nope. i know too little about quantum mechanics to argue for or against ANY stance on it.
  • you would still have a problem, the y1.6k problem, any centry switch would cause the same problem in programs written by idiots who used two bytes to store 100 posiblitys (instaid of a short int witch would store 65,000 posiblitys in two bytes. if they had we would be ok up to the y67k...)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Indeed Snelling's [icr.org] article looks reasonable. However search down for Snelling's name here [talkorigins.org] to find a rather detailed rebuttal.

    As for Falkner's article, the evidence against a global flood is so overwhelming that traditional geology had abandoned that theory before 1820. The evidence is even stronger now. For one instance I have never seen any creationist explain the ice sheets. Ice sheets lay down annual layers, very similarly to tree rings. You can date ice cores by simple counting. (Although this is tedious and so short-cuts are usually taken.) We have cores from Vostok, Antartica, and Greenland that are both well over 100,000 years and clearly show that no global Flood affected them in that time.

    Today "Flood geology" is clearly an attempt to shoehorn the world into a pre-determined religious model. Basic facts are ignored, thrown away, abused, and mutilated. There is no attempt at intellectual honesty, and no attempt to take into account even basic facts.

    All of which makes the second paper even more galling. What it does is walk through a series of topics, and try to point out potential problems in the very detailed current scientific theories. This is truly a case of ignoring the beam in your own eye while complaining about the mote in your neighbour's. What is even more ironic is that their job is practically done for them. The normal process of science includes a constant self-examination and highlighting of all potential issues. Those issues are not hidden, but are instead explored in detail. So all the creationist has to do is go to the scientific literature, and look for articles that raise these issues, and make a list. Throw in a few mis-understandings, and some mis-information, and voila! A list of problems in the current scientific world view!

    Of course a similar self-criticism is never turned towards the Creationist's own views. And the reason is simple, any sincere Creationist with the self-discipline and honesty required to do that long ago ceased to be a Creationist!

    Sincerely,
    Ben Tilly
  • At least in the literal form, the version with an Earth that is a few thousand years old and with the global Flood abour 4000 years ago.

    That is both falsifiable and it was falsified before Darwin. Creationists today don't like admitting that, but it doesn't change the facts.

    Another point, today science does not hold much stock with supernatural explanations, true. However modern science evolved from the science of Newton's time which most definitely sought to demonstrate God's hand in creation. And this bias strongly shaped the initial theories of history and geology. The current lack of supernatural explanations is a result of the scientific process, and not just an a priori refusal on the part of scientists to consider supernatural explanations.

    Regards,
    Ben
  • I'm shre this poster was being sarcastic, however the dinosaur bones being placed there by god is a common statement made by crationists (dispite the fact that this leads to 'last tuesdayism' and other such idiocys)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Well, now that you all know that I'm not a firm believer in evolution go ahead and take a swing at me.

    Ok. :)

    You seem to be saying that everything was created (in place) in other words, that god created the world in such a way that everything would "look" like it was 4 billion years old. The question of cource is, "why" and why, 6000 years ago? why not 12,000? or 40? or 9? How do you know the world wasn't created 12 seconds ago, and everything was put in place, including the memorys of reading /.? is there *any* reason to belive the world is *not* 4 billion years old *other* then the bible? (discounding psudo-sciantific BS from creationiests?)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • You aren't going to find it.

    Aristotle investigated species, (maybe) heredity and formed a biological classification system. However, he believed that species were static; whatever species existed had always existed and, if left undisturbed, always would. I can't recall the reason why he believed this, but IIRC it was derived from his metaphysics.

    I do believe you're right that Darwin wasn't the first to theorize about evolution. I recall reading that there were a number of scientists and philosophers, both contemperaries of Darwin and predating him, who did a great deal of research in that area, and who influenced his own theories.
  • interesting...
    will give it some thought.
  • Nope...we're all hominids - I mean mammals - I mean vertebrates - I mean...

    Names and categories are a useful for communication, but they prove nothing.
  • The strange thing is that the religious people themselves agree with you. Something about "The Lord is my shepherd" comes to mind.
  • Well, that's the official Catholic Church position - theistically guided evolution. So there are indeed some religious people that agree with you. Opposition to evolution remains mostly among the fundamentalist American protestants.
  • Now look what you've done.
    You've spawned a definition of foobar [foobar.co.uk] which is different from other foobar [rabbit.org]s. From now on web searchers will be distracted from their search for the common ancestor of foobar [davecentral.com] by finding this foobar [netspace.org] discussion. And now that you've created this foobar [netmeg.net] meaning, all other foobar [foobar.org]s will vanish.
  • Why do you assume that someone who believes in evolution has never examined the evidence given for Creationism?

    The person you are responding to asked "Are you willing to consider evidence that people with religous beliefs might be right?" Are you?

    I have, in fact, considered such evidence in then past.
    Approaching religion on the basis of scientific evidence strikes me a lot like approaching science by praying to Einstein, Feynman, and Bohr and being disappointed when they fail to answer.

    Is that the act of a moral, honest, and straightforward person?
    So you've discovered that there are charlatans who will take advantage of gullible peoples' religious beliefs. Too bad more people don't take the time to do that.
  • If Mosaic evolved into Netscape and Explorer then why is Mosaic still here?

    Or am I missing something?

  • An unmarked plane left Redmond, carrying disguised passengers, for a remote prt of Australia where evidence of 2.7 billion year old complex cells were located.

    Rumours that the brain cells of one of the passengers were amongst the find were hotly denied. "We have never had any brain cells, here!" said one spokesperson.

    Further investigation shows that, throughout history, a mysterious figure has always lurked in the background, getting people to make dysfunctional products. Speculation that these figures may be one and the same person, and that they may be a robot, made from primeval sludge and controlled by microbes in the cranial region, is intensifying.

    An intrepid reporter, on the scene, reports that the people from Redmond felt the fossil remains were too complex for whatever function they intended. More, on this story, as it happens.

  • Your examples are all interesting - they have all provided useful results, but they are by no means true - all of them yield false results at times. The theory of relativity does not mix well with quantum mechanics (another very useful theory) - you get lots of absurd results (none of which I could explain - I am not a physicist, just a voracious reader). Atomic theory (as you state it) fails when applied to neutron stars, black holes, or the electron beams in CRTs. It is one thing to teach people about useful theories; it is another thing to present these useful theories as dogmatic, unsupported facts.

    BTW, I would suggest that any attempts you might make to prove your own existence to me would also fall under the category of pseudoscience.
  • Evolution does not contradict...religion...
    Religion assumes the existence of non-repeatable phenomena. Science, when developing explanations for events, assumes the non-existence of such phenomena. It is illogical to believe that two contradictory assumptions will NOT lead to contradictory conclusions (consider planar and hyperbolic geometry, for example). In the face of obvious contradictions to your claim (such as religious people hysterically objecting to the teaching of evolution), it is unreasonable to make your statement.

    Oh, and those who claim that there is a debate, there is not.
    I agree that there is no debate among those who believe in evolution regarding the validity of evolution, but it is proves nothing. Consider that members of the Flat Earth Society do not debate the curvature of the earth. It is silly of "creationists" to suggest that the validity of the theory of evolution is still being debated in the scientific community. It is silly of scientists in general (and evolutionary biologists in particular) to suggest that their epistemological beliefs are superior to all others.
  • is that here on /., the plethora of geeks, programmers and students who witness evolution each and every day, fail to make the mental leap and apply it to human evolution.

    Let's look at software. We start with a conceptual framework of a program. Code it, run it, refine it... Evolve it until it solves the problem it is intended to solve. Then the problem domain changes, and we revise the code. The bad or ineffective changes we make result in 'dead' programs - ones that can not survive the environment of the problem. The good changes we make result in the 'fittest' solution to the problem. This is the same process as human evolution.

    Now, the nature of the programmer is what is really the question. It is not rational or reasonable to question evolution. But who spurrs the changes in our DNA? Is it random mutation that just happens to hit it right, in a few of the millions of delta's in each generation? Is it cosmic radiation, radon exposure, valium consumption in teenage mothers who smoke and drink while pregnant?? Or is it a divine force which escapes our reason?

    Or, and this is my personal view, the means that science condones (randomness, mutagens) are the tools of the divine, omniscient but non-conscious universe that just plain IS.

    It's been said that mankind is the universe's attempt to comprehend itself. That all of creation is God made manifest. That we, being part of creation, are each a different face of God.

    That part of the universe that is not us, has read each of the messages posted here about religion and evolution, and is, right now, laughing hysterically behind our collective back.
  • This is not intended to insult ANYONE'S intelligence but I find it suprising that you would jump down someone's throat without even knowing the concept yourself.

    C dating compares the ratio of the C14 and C12 isotopes of carbon in the sample to the ratio found commonly in nature. Nitrogen never enters the picture.

    The premise is that a living organism ingests, inhales, or otherwise absorbs carbon into itself with the ratio of C14 to C12 being relatively constant. Over time, the natural ratio of C14 to C12 changes, hance dating can only be done within a window of several tens of thousands of years. (Volcanic eruptions, meteorites and other non-linear evens tend to change this natural ratio).

    Anyways, when an organism dies, it stops absorbing carbon, and the C14 starts to break down into C12. This process has a well known half-life of 5730 years, and so by measuring the ratio of C14 to C12 in-sample to the current natural ratio, the age of the sample can be estimated.
  • I'd say Atlas, but I hear he's disqualified, on account of holding things up.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.

Close