What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
199 Comments
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -10/+42You don't honestly believe the evidence for the species of ***** erectus relies on ONE specimen? There was a time when prehistoric man fought other homonids for control. The versitility of man prevailed and he lived to conquer and flourish on earth. Various excavations into French caves show a rich plethora of activity that record the events.
Just read into it, it's interesting if read right :) - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24The reason why berean fights the notion that there once was other 'people' similar to us but died out is because it would violate his very notion of human life. If you think about it, the mere PRESENCE of evidence that we we once barbaric and nomadic with little semblance of what we are today is hugely disturbing to the modern human psyche.
Add to that that there were other species closely related to us living in the same time period that did not make it-how would that make us?
People claim that humans have a SPECIAL relationship with god above animals and such and that we have a SOUL. The mere...thought and presence that other beings could either share that notion would defeat the purpose of a 'special' relationship. The second becomes irrelevant.
At the very heart of the evolutionary debate is the fight for the belief of what humanity really is-are we god's children that are meant to be here? Or are we just a FREAK of nature, brought to life through incredible odds and mere coincidence?
Oh and by the way, most species that die don't leave a fossil record...so we don't find their bones, or if they did, we haven't found them yet. We're not superhuman like what Hitler said the aryans are-we don't know where to find everything. - the_d, on 10/12/2007, -28/+45Let me guess, you're an evangelical christian aren't you?
- FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26It isn't being kept "Secret". It is a well known fact that they could be from different species, but what he found wasn't a Human skull. Some scientists claim that the femur found near the Skull isn't as old as the skull, not that the skull is a human skull. The area where they were found has had many interesting finds, such as the discovery that our ancient ancestors used to hang out with Evolutionary Split-off species. Becuase of this fact there is a possibility that the Femur and the Skull came from different Species, but they are not from a modern human.
Where did you learn Evolutionary Science from, the Bible?! ***** Sapiens and Neanderthals lived during the same time. What happend was a long time before Neanderthals or ***** Sapiens, some ancestors left Africa and went North up to Europe adn eventually, due to climat change, became Neanderthals. From there some stayed in Africa, but eventually some left Africa as ***** Sapiens. There is much we still don't know, but we get closer every day!
Berean, your Scientific Knowledge is severly dated! - TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20That is the way science works. Obviously this is news to you.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20"-Oil would bleed off into surround rocks in most reservoirs given a large amount of time. The pressure in most oil beds suggests an age of less than 10,000 years. Oil is also being produced in people's backyards in a matter of hours, not millenia."
Oil isn't like hydrogen, it's an amalgam of large complex molecule. In reality, oil beds are too impermiable - if they weren't, then even after only 10,000 years we wouldnt have any of the lighter substances left at all. If the rocks were going to leak, how would they even reach such high pressures anyway?
"-Robert Whitelaw found that carbon dating is inaccurate. In reality, C14 disintegration versus production rates indicate that the "carbon clock" was turned on sometime between 5600 and 11200 years ago."
Robert intentionally fudged his numbers to support his theory. John Woodmorappe continued his work, if you would like to look into it further.
"-The decay of the earth's magnetic moment suggests that the earth is lass than 10,000 years old."
The magnetic alignment of rocks is dependant on the earth's magnetic field when they formed. By studying such rocks, researchers have discovered that the magnetic poles actually flip periodically. The last flip was indeed less than 10,000 years ago. How would *you* explain the rocks which formed directly opposed to the earth's magnetic field? What would *you* say is going to happen when the field 'decays' as you put it?
"-Uranium and Thorium in the atmosphere constantly decay to form helium. If this was going on for millions of years, the atmosphere would contain much, much more helium than it does. In fact, the rate of helium formation and the current concentration suggests an age of less than 10,000 years."
Helium's a light element. It can and does escape the atmosphere.
"-The Mississippi river dumps 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico every year. That would mean the Gulf would have disappeared long ago, but the rate of growth of the delta suggests an age of 4000 years."
... and the sediment layer under the gulf is 7 miles thick. Given the size of the Gulf of mexico, that would take about 78,232,986 years to accumulate, which is far enough back for other geological phenomena to take over.
"-Uranium, sodium, nickel, magnesium, silicon, potassium, copper, gold, silver, mercury, lead, tin, aluminum, carbonate, sulfate, chlorine, calcium, lithium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, zinc, rubidium, strontium, bismuth, thorium, antimony, tungsten, barium, molybdenum, and bicarbonate concentrations in the ocean suggest an earth age of not more than a few thousand years."
Actually, aluminum suggests an age of less than 100 years. Your grandparents were never born, it seems.
I also noticed that you neglected to include sodium, which indicates a 260,000,000-year-old planet.
You're talking about various elements' residence times. 'residence times' being defined as "the average time that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed". Things don't stay in suspension forever, they settle out.
"-Sharp cliffs and unlevel continents testify to a young earth age."
Take two paperback books and ram them into each other. What happens? One gets pushed up, the other gets pushed down. Congrads, you just demonstrated tectonics in action.
Now look at Niagra falls - that's a damn sharp cliff face, and you can actually *watch* it form. Erosion isn't the only factor at work.
"-We're only able to find civilizations of man dating to about 3000 years ago."
India has *recorded history* back to 3000 BCE.
Egypt has protohyroglyphs on pots that date back to about 4000BCE.
Of course, trying to find a written record of people who had no form of writing is difficult, so I don't think many people expect to go back beyond that. However, we've found tools, pots, and other such devices that are well in excess of 10,000 years old. Geologically speaking, civilization is a new thing.
"-Some tree species--like bristlecone--are able to live thousands of years. There's no known reason these trees wouldn't live to be tens of thousands of years old, yet all of them date to less than about 6000 years."
Assuming you don't die, you'll live forever too. That argument is a non-starter. Fires happen, animals happen, earthquakes happen, lightning happens.
Of course, if you mean to say that we lack a fossil record of them - go to your nearest forest and look at the branches on the ground. See how they're rotting and decaying? How much longer do you think they'll be around for? Fossils take a rare set of circumstances, they're not something that everything turns into and can be found on-demand.
Interestingly enough, those very same tree rings show that there was never the kind of flood described in the bible.
"-When plants and animals die in the ocean, they build up an ooze on the ocean floor. This builds at a rate of roughly one inch every 10 to 50 thousand years. The amount of ooze also suggests a young earth."
Thanks for removing the circle of life from the equation! When things die, they get eaten and converted into new living creatures. They don't just settle out.
Heck, if they were building up such an ooze, where are they getting the materials from? If you say sediment from rivers, then why not just skip the whole life bit and cut straight to that? Are you saying that it spawns out of nowhere?
"-The rotation of the earth gradually slows. If the earth were billions of years old, it would have been spinning so fast that the oceans would be moved to the poles, and land would have been spun out to 40 miles high, making the earth into a pancake. But the earth is actually quite round."
First: When things spin, they move outwars, not inwards. Our equator has no poles on it.
Second: The earth is losing time at 0.005 seconds per year per year, which works out to a 14 hour day 4.6 billion years ago. Given that the difference between effective gravitational pull at the poles and equator, even neglecting the distance difference, even you would have to conclude that doubling the spin would not flatten the earth like a pancake. Indeed, the earth is only a mildly oblate sphere.
"-Ocean sediment deposits would leave a layer of sediment in the ocean over 100 miles thick, yet the sediment is actually only a few thousand feet deep at most."
Aside from the places where it's 20km thick, you mean. You're also mistaken at the amount of sediment that flows into the oceans, and you are again forgetting about tectonic action.
"-Evolutionists say that the water on the earth was brought about by volcanic eruptions, but even if there were no water to start with, all the water on the earth would have been generated in MUCH less time than old earth theorists suggest. Also, the amount of water would require more volcanic material (including rocks) than our planet contains."
Strawman. Your argument makes no sense. It has no basis in science, and has never been accepted as by scientists as fact.
Science suggests that water came from meteorites, the likes of which are still providing the earth with water at a rate constistant with the earth's scientifically-accepted age.
"-Cosmic dust filters down to the earth at a rate of about 14 million tons per year. In the millions of years this would accumulate according to evolutionists, this dust would be 50 feet thick. The amount of dust on the earth and the moon both indicate only a few thousand years of existence."
You're kidding, right? On earth - what, you think that 50 feet over billions of years is just going to hang around? Name one spot on the planet that would recieve space dust, but no precipitation of any kind.
Now, the meat of this one is another fumbled retelling of an old claim. Did you know that the figures you cited were based on the accumulation of dust in two ground-based air filters in hawaii? Did you know that the actual levels of cosmic dust measured by sattelites (read: Not as subject to contamination) were consistant with an accumulation rate which would put the dust depth on the moon as being about 1.5"?
"-According to astronomers, no new comets have ever been added to our galaxy. The rate of decay of comets suggests that millions of years ago, the hundreds of comets in our galaxy would have been much larger than even the sun, which means the sun would have revolved around them!"
How do you revolve around something that's dispersed around you? Irregardless, your statements are incorrect. Comets are added to the galaxy when one large chunk of matter collides with another large chunk of matter and throws out a great many smaller chunks of matter. Also, you're forgetting about the oort cloud.
"-Small particles of cosmic dust exists in abundance in space. Stellar radiation pushes this dust out of the solar system, and if the universe were only a few million years old, this dust would be completely gone, and yet so much of it remains."
You're screwing up the arguments again - the argument is that the Poynting-Robertson effect causes solar radiation to bleed off the momentum of particles and cause their orbit to decay. Irregardless, gravity is at work in both cases, and various kinds of space debris are more than happy to shed more dust everywhere. Ever wonder what a comet's tail is made of?
"-Cosmic dust accelerates over time. The speed of this dust indicates an age of a few thousand years."
1: You're contradicting your previous statement.
2: Gravity and orbits.
"-Almost all meteorites that have hit earth are found in surface rocks. All the craters we have are dated at only a few thousand years old. We are the meteorites in the rest of the geologic strata?"
Do you know how to tell the difference between a meteorite and a normal rock? You look for the crater.
Once a rock has been eroded it's pretty much impossible to tell. However, scientists DID get lucky in 1952 and found a meteorite that crashed 463 million years ago and ended-up inside a limestone slab in Brunflo, Sweeden. Since then dozens more have been discovered.
"-The rate of earth cooling suggests that the earth could in no way of formed as long ago as big bang theorists and evolutionists require it to have formed."
"Earth cooling"? You're going to have to be more specific - are you trying to say that the molten core should be frozen over, or are you trying to tell me that the atmosphere should be frozen?
The earth's core is huge, hot, and insulated. It's not cooling off very fast at all.
The earth's atmosphere is subject to weather effects, and has been known to go through cycles of heating and cooling.
"-The inert gases on the moon suggest a date of between 1 and 10 thousand years."
Suggest how? Assuming you're talking about concentration, then you're just saying that the equilibrium period is about 10,000 years - same as with the various concentrations of elements in seawater above.
"-The worldwide amount of topsoil averages to about 8 inches thick. This would take no more 8 thousand years to form."
Where do you think fossils come from? Some places erode, some places lay sediment. Matter is created in neither case, but it IS sometimes converted to sedimentary rock. Topsoil is constantly being created and destroyed, it's not just sitting there as more forms fromt eh aether.
"-The geologic strata actually argues for creation, not against it. Unconsolidated Cambrian rocks indicate that the earth is nowhere near millions of years old, as they would have been consolidated long, long ago."
By random chance? Upheavals happen, and in many places rock layers get upturned or flipped. The key to accurate research is to look for places where there's little geological activity.
"Many geological features suggest the Biblical creation account, and also give evidence for the flood of Noah. The horizontal exposed layers of rocks found all over, including the Grand Canyon, would not exist after millions of years of weathering."
Assuming a rate of erosion of 1"/century, we get an age of 5.5 million years. How fast would you estimate it's eroding?
"River bed formations and shapes suggest a sudden cutting through a young, soft bed, and would not exist if the earth were millions of years old."
No, it really doesn't. If it was caused be a massive flood, then not only would the erosion have been consistant across the entire area, there woudn't have even been much erosion at all!
"-Niagara Falls is calculated to be only as old as 5 to 10 thousand years old, based on the weathering of its edge."
No duh, Niagara Falls didn't exist before the end of the last glacial period.
"-The radiative dust on the moon is only deep enough (not the same as cosmic dust) for a few thousand years of accumulation, and much less than even a million years would produce."
You're screwing up your side's arguments again. Radioactive dust is part of cosmic dust, and so it's rate of accumulation is relative to the accumulation of dust in general in accordance to the ratio of said dust which is radioactive - (that's a truism, by the by) - ergo, the lower rate of cosmic dust accumulation means a lower rate of radioactive dust accumulation, and hence lower levels.
"-Hydrogen is constantly being converted to helium in the universe. The huge amount of hydrogen in we still have speaks to a youthful earth. Fred Hoyle, who doesn't believe in special creation, said, "How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.""
Hydrogen is the simplest atomic structure in existance, ergo when matter came into existance, hydrogen was the easiest to create.
Take an empty room, fill it with stray protons, add a bunch of stray electrons. Result: Hydrogen.
"-The temperature of the moon speaks for its age being less than 50,000 years."
The moon doesn't have a molten core. It's temperature is therefore amient by nature.
"-U-236 and Th-230 are isotopes found in lunar material. If the moon were millions of years old, these isotopes would have long since decayed, yet their presence and abundance indicates an age of only a few thousand years."
U-236 and Th-230 are byproducts of radioactive decay. The moon contains the isotopes they form from, ergo their existance on the moon is obvious.
"Theoretically, the smallest living organism would consist of 124
proteins. This is much smaller than what we've actually found, but this
is what scientists guess would be the smallest."
How did you arrive at this number? Simple, that's the simplest microbe we believe could exist using modern protiens. Unfortunately for you, such a microbe is far more advanced than the first lifeforms - protiens have evolved too!
"Now, living organisms consist ONLY of L-amino acids, and no D-amino acids (just has to do with
orientation)."
The cone snail calls you a liar.
"Outside of a living thing, the proteins change to 50% L and %50 D, no matter what we do to try to stop them. Even if we START with all L-forms, they change to D-forms."
That's a false statement, and one that doesn't even advance your position.
"The likelihood that 100% L-amino acids would ever form to create the smallest 124 proteins is 1 to 10^78436 against. I don't have enough time to type all those zeros, but you get the picture."
Smallest *modern* protein. Your argument is akin to saying that humans aren't intelligent because Jesus drove around a donkey instead of a ford mustang. Things didn't start complex, they became complex over time.
Actually, correction, your argument is that ford mustangs must have always existed because the chances of a precision-refined sparkplug comming into existance from a bunch of sand and copper are so remote.
"Now, the law of probability says anything that is 1 to 10^50 against will never happen, though it's been recently accepted that anything 1 to 10^20 against will never happen, no matter what."
Now THAT is an outright lie. Something that's 1 to 10^50 against is extremely unlikely to happen, but the chance MUST be zero for it to be incapable of happening *by deffinition*.
Geeze, all you've doing is parrot back arguments you've heard in the past, and screwed up the retelling horribly. It's flagrantly obvious from some of your comments that you never even did one damn bit of research!
How can you possibly contend that science has it all wrong, when you yourself haven't even bothered to check your own facts! - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15OK, berean I promised I would have a look at what you said, and I’ll go though your assertions below. Sorry for the delay real life intervened.
First off, I have to say that most of your points seem to relate not to evolution itself, but to the age of the earth and since I’m not a geologist I won’t be able to address most of those, I’ll do what I can though.
“Oil would bleed off into surround rocks in most reservoirs given a large amount of time. The pressure in most oil beds suggests an age of less than 10,000 years. Oil is also being produced in people's backyards in a matter of hours, not millenia.”
I’m no expert, but this seems wrong - most oil reserves, as I understand are trapped underneath layers of oil-impermeable strata. Those that are not have, indeed dissipated. But you have to be more precise - what do you mean by ‘a large amount of time’ - and what are your sources for the assertion of less than 10,000 years?
-Robert Whitelaw found that carbon dating is inaccurate. In reality, C14 disintegration versus production rates indicate that the "carbon clock" was turned on sometime between 5600 and 11200 years ago.
I’m not an expert here - however this may address the issue: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
-The Mississippi river dumps 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico every year. That would mean the Gulf would have disappeared long ago, but the rate of growth of the delta suggests an age of 4000 years.
And your figures for the rate of removal of sediment by ocean currents is? It’s not goig to just sit there? My local shingle beach disappeared entirely one night after a relatively minor storm.
-Uranium, sodium, nickel, magnesium, silicon, potassium, copper, gold, silver, mercury, lead, tin, aluminum, carbonate, sulfate, chlorine, calcium, lithium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, zinc, rubidium, strontium, bismuth, thorium, antimony, tungsten, barium, molybdenum, and bicarbonate concentrations in the ocean suggest an earth age of not more than a few thousand years.
Based on what assumptions?
-Sharp cliffs and unlevel continents testify to a young earth age.
Do your self a favour, next time you post this list, drop this argument since it brings the rest into disrepute. Haven’t you heard of plate techtonics? The world’s tallest, sharpest mountains are indeed relatively young; they comprise folded sedimentary materials. The Himalayas is still growing for goodness sake.
-We're only able to find civilizations of man dating to about 3000 years ago.
Yes, and I couldn’t find my car keys this morning. If there weren’t civilizations more that 3,000 years ago this means what? I can’t see that it says anything about either the age of the earth or the evolution of humanity.
-Some tree species--like bristlecone--are able to live thousands of years. There's no known reason these trees wouldn't live to be tens of thousands of years old, yet all of them date to less than about 6000 years.
What???! If none of them is older that 6,000 years where do you get the idea that “there's no known reason these trees wouldn't live to be tens of thousands of years old” Plants have a natural life span.
-When plants and animals die in the ocean, they build up an ooze on the ocean floor. This builds at a rate of roughly one inch every 10 to 50 thousand years. The amount of ooze also suggests a young earth.
Au contraire, the amount of sedimentary rock around suggests that your ooze has been about and has been turning into rock for millennia. Ever sat on a chalk hill? Ever looked at it under a microscope? Ever say on a limestone cliff?
-The rotation of the earth gradually slows. If the earth were billions of years old, it would have been spinning so fast that the oceans would be moved to the poles, and land would have been spun out to 40 miles high, making the earth into a pancake. But the earth is actually quite round.
I’d like to see the math’s behind that one. By the way, the earth bulges quite considerably at the equator The Earth;s spin is apparently decreasing by around 0.005 seconds per year per year . There is some math’s here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html
-Ocean sediment deposits would leave a layer of sediment in the ocean over 100 miles thick, yet the sediment is actually only a few thousand feet deep at most.
We’re back to the formation of sedimentary rock again. Don’t forget also that the Earth’s current oceans are relatively young - in the mid-Atlantic ridge, for example there is no ooze. Because the sea floor is being actively being formed.
-Evolutionists say that the water on the earth was brought about by volcanic eruptions, but even if there were no water to start with, all the water on the earth would have been generated in MUCH less time than old earth theorists suggest. Also, the amount of water would require more volcanic material (including rocks) than our planet contains.
Don’t understand your argument at all. First - who says it is all volcanic? There is heaps of water in the solar system (see comets etc. ). Furthermore, presumably some could have been produced by hydrogen combustion. But anyway, what are you arguing? That the water could not be coming from volcanos since they would make it too quickly? Makes no sense.
-Cosmic dust filters down to the earth at a rate of about 14 million tons per year. In the millions of years this would accumulate according to evolutionists, this dust would be 50 feet thick. The amount of dust on the earth and the moon both indicate only a few thousand years of existence.
I’m not going to do the maths to work out what 14 million tones per year across the whole earth’s surface equals per square meter. But 50 feet over 4.55 billion years doesn’t sound like a lot to me - that’s - clickety click… 0.0000000111111111 feet per year roughly. Heck an earthworm would shift that in a week.
-According to astronomers, no new comets have ever been added to our galaxy. The rate of decay of comets suggests that millions of years ago, the hundreds of comets in our galaxy would have been much larger than even the sun, which means the sun would have revolved around them!
You seem to be confusing “galaxy” and “solar system” to start with. Putting aside everything else; what makes you think the comets were all originally in one huge ‘blob’ around which the sun would orbit. Rather than scattered into clouds as now?
-Small particles of cosmic dust exists in abundance in space. Stellar radiation pushes this dust out of the solar system, and if the universe were only a few million years old, this dust would be completely gone, and yet so much of it remains.
Umm, the Sun itself is orbiting in an spiral arm of a galaxy that has plenty of dust around. Your argument is like saying that “My car gets bugs all over the windshield” the car cannot be very old because it would have killed all the bugs in its present location” - your car is moving at 70mph mate, there are plenty of new bugs coming along.
-Cosmic dust accelerates over time. The speed of this dust indicates an age of a few thousand years.
It does? Why’s that? What is accelerating it?
-Almost all meteorites that have hit earth are found in surface rocks. All the craters we have are dated at only a few thousand years old. We are the meteorites in the rest of the geologic strata?
Because craters don’t erode do they? By the way, some bloke have just found some new craters using Google Earth - finding surface craters isn’t easy, goodness knows what an eroded, filled, sub-surface crater would look like, I don’t know - do you?
-The rate of earth cooling suggests that the earth could in no way of formed as long ago as big bang theorists and evolutionists require it to have formed.
Sorry, without knowing the assumptions you are making, I can’t answer this - what cooling rate are you assuming?
-The inert gases on the moon suggest a date of between 1 and 10 thousand years.
Again, based on what? Using what assumptions?
-The worldwide amount of topsoil averages to about 8 inches thick. This would take no more 8 thousand years to form.
Soil gets eroded as well as built up, so the average depth does not mean much. Where soil does exist under steady conditions, it does not build up continuously; there is a maximum depth to it determined by climate, ground composition, slope, and local ecology. The depth of a soil says very little about its age. ( response stolen from Talk origins)
-The geologic strata actually argues for creation, not against it. Unconsolidated Cambrian rocks indicate that the earth is nowhere near millions of years old, as they would have been consolidated long, long ago. Many geological features suggest the Biblical creation account, and also give evidence for the flood of Noah. The horizontal exposed layers of rocks found all over, including the Grand Canyon, would not exist after millions of years of weathering. River bed formations and shapes suggest a sudden cutting through a young, soft bed, and would not exist if the earth were millions of years old.
By consolidated, you mean? Which rocks are you talking about, where? Which geological features suggest the biblical creation account? Exactly why don’t you think horizontal strata wouldn’t exist after millions of years (how many layers do you suppose have already eroded ftom the top?) Sure rivers cut through young soft sedimentary rocks. Your point?
-Niagara Falls is calculated to be only as old as 5 to 10 thousand years old, based on the weathering of its edge.
Your point is?
-The radiative dust on the moon is only deep enough (not the same as cosmic dust) for a few thousand years of accumulation, and much less than even a million years would produce.
I’m not an exoert - some possible answers here” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
-Hydrogen is constantly being converted to helium in the universe. The huge amount of hydrogen in we still have speaks to a youthful earth. Fred Hoyle, who doesn't believe in special creation, said, "How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged."
You conflate earth and universe there. Who said anything about matter being “infinitely old?” Not sure what is being argued/.
-The temperature of the moon speaks for its age being less than 50,000 years.
Sorry, without knowing the assumptions you are making, I can’t answer this - what cooling rate are you assuming?
-U-236 and Th-230 are isotopes found in lunar material. If the moon were millions of years old, these isotopes would have long since decayed, yet their presence and abundance indicates an age of only a few thousand years.
Why, how much was on the moon originally?
Theoretically, the smallest living organism would consist of 124
proteins. This is much smaller than what we've actually found, but this
is what scientists guess would be the smallest. Now, living organisms
consist ONLY of L-amino acids, and no D-amino acids (just has to do with
orientation). Outside of a living thing, the proteins change to 50% L
and %50 D, no matter what we do to try to stop them. Even if we START
with all L-forms, they change to D-forms. So somehow, without
intelligence (even though we can't do it today WITH intelligence), 100%
L-forms would have to be found and maintained and put together just
right to create a chemical similarity to living organisms. So let's say
we had 10^31 earths in the universe. That's
100000000000000000000000000000000 earths in the universe, each with
oceans of, instead of water, amino acids. EVERY molecule in these
oceans, we'll say, is an amino acid. Let's say every single amino acid
in each ocean of each earth combined with another amino acid every
second for 10 billion years, non-stop. The likelihood that 100% L-amino
acids would ever form to create the smallest 124 proteins is 1 to
10^78436 against. I don't have enough time to type all those zeros, but
you get the picture. And that's not even being picky about which
proteins you get (very few of the thousands of proteins we know could be
used in these living organisms that supposedly formed). Now, the law of
probability says anything that is 1 to 10^50 against will never happen,
though it's been recently accepted that anything 1 to 10^20 against will
never happen, no matter what. Looks like even just L-proteins could
never form. That's forgetting about D-sugars, cell organelles,
atmospheric conditions that would destroy anything that DID form the
instant it happened, etc.
Indeed molecules can occur in mirror forms and in general reactions, both left handed and right-handed molecules are produced in equal amount. Terrestrial organisms only use one one form.
The phrase: “Outside of a living thing, the proteins change to 50% L and %50 D, no matter what we do to try to stop them” seems to be a major misunderstanding. If I take a jar of righthanded protein molecules and leave them on my desk, half don’t suddently turn left-handed over night (or over 10 years) . From that mistake the author seems to take a logical leap that I don’t understand.
Hope that helps. - Quarks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@The d: We're finding more and more detailed examples of intermediate forms between human forms.
Creationists, though, dismiss these studies.
They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group.
Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two.
These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Scientist: We've found the link P between A and Z!
Creationist: That doesn't prove anything show me the form between A and P & P and Z
Scientist: We've found the link H between A and P & the link V between P and Z
Creationist: Now show me the link between.........
Ad infitum! - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10In fact you quite often find a good deal of debate and argument about this among the scientists themselves. The most recent case was with the "Hobbit" hominid find where the scientific community was split as to whether it was a new species or a deformed individual.
I suspect it is quite rare that a individual with a birth defect would be a well-formed functional individual, so part of the judgement is going to be 'does this look healthy' - finding an elephant man skull gives you that answer fairly swiftly. Secondly there is the issue of whether the new skeleton 'fits' within the evolutionary sequence observed elsewhere. But yes, there's quite a lot of 'lick your finger and hold it in the air, I suspect'.
Interestingly, of course, evolutionary theory suggests that an individual with a birth defect is precisely the way that new species or sub-species form. The question is - was the birth defect 'helpful' would it give the individual and his/her decendents a reproductive advantage over the rest of the population. - riverrunner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I am a Christian. There IS enough evidence for evolution and an old earth to convince me that its true. Just like there is plenty of evidence that the earth goes around the sun. As a Christian I have to wonder about some things in the Bible - but I don't have to believe every word is literal - I like to think of it as a story of Gods greatness etc. Besides I am a Christian not Jewish - I certainly don't follow all of the old testament laws. To me the message of Christ is far more important than trying to make science fit a story by Moses. Was he there firsthand? I think not, he was just writing what he thought was true at the time he wrote it. Meanwhile Paul, John and so on were there to witness the things they wrote in the new testament - so to me these are a bit more relevant.
Many Christians (in the US anyway) want to try and make a square peg fit in a round hole so they have no such wondering. They will eat up any pseudo-science that comes there way and claim the rest is just the media or atheist conspiracy not even considering the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the fields of biology, physics and chemistry. They become instant physicists and usually quickly get shot down - so they just vote for ID since it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I don't claim to know all about biology or physics (my degree is in EE) but I can sure appreciate the scientific method and the evidence we see all around us. Christians claim there is evidence for God in the creation and yes I agree (take it all the way back to the big bang if you need to but its there) - but there is also truckloads of evidence for evolution that they will not see (I used to ignore it as well). Faith and science can coexist - we should not be afraid of truth - in any form. - Steelfox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11And to think, here we are submitting comments on a website on the internet in the comfort of our own homes, and some thousands of years ago our ancestors were sitting there outside making fire with sticks and stones.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10
The difference is that evolutionists accept that their theory is incomplete, and are constantly looking for ways to refine and yes, disprove it. Science itself evolves every day.
Creationists on the other hand look only to support their preconceived beliefs.
As far as berean's "research" goes, if you are referring to that huge rant he posted up there, I'd point out that he is doing exactly what I said creationists do. He's mearly interpreting little pieces of science here and there, and trying to spin them into support of a conclusion he's already reached.
Besides, his "research" falls into the simple trap of assuming everything occurring today, has been occurring unchanged forever. Most of the arguments he's made can be dismissed quite simply by realizing this. So the Mississippi river hasnt been around for a billion years? Ok, I can accept that, but then to jump to the conclusion that this means the earth hasnt been around for billions of years is just childish. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13More accurately, evolution's proponents get angry when people try to dismiss solid facts and science with conjecture, lies, and pseudoscience and try to force religious belief into public science classes.
- slamm6, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Sorry Berean, you are wrong. Right now you have a -4 digg rating.
Look, creationists, this forum is for geeks and the scientifically literate. I am sure there are many forums where you can evangelize. Why don't you go there ? We won't complain too loudly. The problem is your rhetoric detracts from the scientific discussions which we, the majority would like to have. We don't want to have to read through all this crap to find a couple of replies which are on point.
Really, enough already ! Go away. - Gdjrptryjg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Could we please keep this creationist crap (and by crap I mean crap, and not DRM) out of the science section?
- yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Good last point - something many people don't realize. Fossilization is a very, very rare process that happens only when a freak of events occur with perfect timing, where a freshly dead body is gently covered in fine silt or dust until it is buried and never disturbed - do you think any of us are going to become fossils? Almost certainly, none of us.
But where would we be without them? .....perhaps no different from people like 'berean' and other religious folk. - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Sorry but all the bones we find do indeed seem to link up in some way. Which ones don't in your opinion?
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"What if a God used Evolution to finely tune man over the years?
What if a God wanted the Universe to exist and used the Big Bang as a method of bringing it into account?"
Science doesn't look into the "why" of things, just the "how".
"Why don't we just admit we don't know a damn thing and stop arguing about it?"
Young-earth evangelicals want to not only ignore all the knowledge we have accumulated, but are now working to legislate their ignorance upon everyone else. You can't just sit back and watch your country devolve. - slamm6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Is that a promise ? Perhaps you could save us all the trouble and refrain from evangelizing on future scientific threads as well. We'll surely appreciate it.
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Ummm, strangely enough, each time you find a missing link, you make room for two more missing links. Such is life. No contradiction involved.
- fourtythreek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Further more, proponents of evolution, at least the scientifically minded ones, are more than willing to adjust their theories to meet the demands of the evidence. The same can not be said of the vast majority of creationists, especially the religious ones.
Religious creationists often feel that they do not need to adapt their beliefs. All the evidence fits because what they believe is true. Those not blinded by such faith are usually able to see that the evidence doesn't fit quite as well as believers might convince themselves. - sheepshirts, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"religous types were reported as responding by putting their hands over their ears and saying 'NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH, I can't hear youoooooo!'"
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"How about instead of coming up with excuses, you admit that perhaps evolution isn't as scientifically founded as you thought"
berean, none of the stuff you posted really relates to evolution, it's all geological and astrological, and much of it seems to fall into the flaw of believing that everything happening now has been happening, and in the same way, at the same rate, since the beginning of the Earth. - ambrose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ah, the Christian fundamentalists are back at it again.
If we really didn't evolve, why does all of modern science scream that fact? The evidence is extremely compelling. If you want to actually read about the evidence, instead of throw round meaningless conjecture, try this:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
Be prepared, though, this is going to take a *lot* of reading and time. If you aren't scared of having your beliefs changed drastically, it is well worth the effort.
Sadly, though, I suspect that all that will happen is you'll continue to scraping the corners of the globe, looking to prove evolution wrong. And failing miserably. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"People claim that humans have a SPECIAL relationship with god above animals and such and that we have a SOUL."
It's actually possible, and not entirely uncommon, to believe that and still accept the theory of evolution for all its facts. - BritOverseas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11So, let me get this straight, and I quote, from you.
"First off, even if I coped from some website, then you would still have to answer the objections. You're just looking for a way to ignore my post."
"Second, I didn't copy and paste. Well, I copied and pasted from stuff I've written myself, and the information is information I've learned in classes, personal research and reading, etc. How about instead of coming up with excuses, you admit that perhaps evolution isn't as scientifically founded as you thought, and perhaps creationists DO have science to give their view support?"
You are what? A Theological Scholar? Maybe a Biologist? A Geologist?, A Physicist? Any of the specialities that you postulated as "fact" in your argument?
Trust me, I am not trying to "avoid" any of your arguments because I am "Afraid" of anything you have to try to "teach" me.
What I am doing is totally discounting any arguments you have because they are unproven, unscientifically biased pseudo crap, THAT is why.
And you did not answer my earlier question.
"What piece or pieces of evidence will it take to convince you that the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, true and that creationism is not?"
If you say "none", you are a closed minded religious crank.
And before you even say it, my answer IS.
"When he comes to me, NOT in a "dream", NOT when I am taking drugs or drunk and when he cures all disease and rids the world of evil and suffering.". See, I can provide YOU with an answer... - yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The 'Hobbit' was disputed as being a deformed early man, yes. Until that is, they found several other fossil remains at different levels :) - ahhh.. the beauty of science.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That was a right proper owning, sir, I applaud you!
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Umm, which bones are NOT a "link to some degree"? They all appear to be.
- Ryland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It just amazes me how far we've fallen in this country. We used to revere scientists and intellectuals, and look forward to new discoveries. Now we're at the point where Fundamentalist Christians are actively engaging in disinformation campaigns against scientific research.
On the one hand, you've got a guy who spent years getting a Ph.D. in paleontology or biology or a related field, and then maybe spent a couple of decades doing research, digging up fossils, studying them, assembling them, using technology and techniques that have been perfected over the course of a couple hundred years. He creates theories based on the observed facts and tests them. If they hold up, he keeps them; if they don't, he discards them and creates new ones. Some theories hold up over time and become accepted as common knowledge, but even then some new observed fact may come up and cause him to have to discard it and start over.
On the other hand, you've got people like berean. He's got a couple of bible study classes under his belt; if he's really sharp, he's actually read a couple of books on Intelligent Design and thinks he understands them. His primary reference text is a book of mythology. He thinks God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test his faith. And now he wants you to think he's the intellectual equal of the scientist with the Ph.D. and the decades of gathering facts and formulating theories. He wants you to think that scientists and intellectuals have an agenda against religion and are out to silence him. He'll say or do anything to muddy the waters, derail arguments in his favor, pit nonsensical and unscientific "theories" of supernatural agencies against accepted scientific principles in an intellectually dishonest farce of being "fair and balanced" and "teaching the controversy", and generally misinform people about science, all to support his belief in mythology over observed reality.
That bears repeating: he believes in mythology over observed reality. He would rather believe something nonsensical, such as a deity hiding dinosaur bones in the ground, rather than in what he can see and touch and observe, measure with instruments, and explain with reason. The idea that a deity would test your faith by hiding artifacts, that you can't even take your own deity at face value because he might try to trick you, is ridiculous.
Religion always gives way to reality in the long run. It's no longer heresy to believe the earth circles the sun instead of the other way around. We no longer burn people for witchcraft. We no longer regard the use of anesthetics in childbirth as a sin because it allows women to avoid Eve's biblical curse that children should be brought forth in pain. We no longer stone people to death for adultery. We figured out long ago that all those things were stupid and wrong.
So, berean, when I tell you to shut your stupid mouth, it's not because I have an agenda, or because I want to silence Christians, or anything like that; it's because you're an ignorant cretin who has no business challenging his intellectual betters. You simply are not qualified to hold an opinion on this topic, much less have it listened to. All you're doing is making noise and telling lies. So shut the hell up. - kotatsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Brilliant post, one of the best I have ever read on DIGG. Well done!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6why would God use evolution? If God has the power to create it in the first place, why not create it perfectly right off the bat? I don't see how your argument works.
- avantretard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10You seem to have about as much knowledge of humans as your avatar Zoidberg does.
Zoidberg: I'll have a look but I warn you, I'm an expert on humans, not robots.
Fry: Er, I'm not Bender, I'm Fry.
Zoidberg: Really? I thought you were the robot.
Fry: Nope, human.
Zoidberg: Alright, alright, spare me your life story. - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Over-simplistic really; there are enough nicely preserved fossil evolutionary sequences to show that species have indeed evolved over time. The horse is one-such nice example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
However, for many many species, no such sequence exists - fossilisation is an amazingly improbable event after all. In other words there are numerous missing links, but these don't really dent the credibility of the theory as a whole - although more fossil links are always nice. - digitalArtform, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If you look at the forearms of Mastadons - http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/images/nmh_mammoth.gif - you'll see that they have a crossed radius and ulna which in predatory species like saber tooth cats - http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/images/nmh_sabreTooth.gif - allows them to pronate and supinate their hands.
The fact that mastadons have this feature in fused, useless form, clearly suggests two obvious things:
1) Both species share a common Intelligent Designer, and
2) The mastodon is being punished for ancient (but not too ancient!) elephant sins.
http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2004/12/comparative_ana.html - Rabid_Llama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"And don,t give me any crap about society's rules and getting along if you truly believed that there were no spiritual consequences and it not like your going to be sitting around after death going gee I sure miss being alive why wouldn't you and if society came to get you you could always kill yourself." -keeton67
I am an atheist. I try to live my life as a good person. Chew on that.
If you're wondering why, it's because I was taught to be good as I was raised, and I understand what it is like to have someone be nice to me. I'll construct a moral society out of purely selfish people, just for you, just to show that even in the worst end case (people raping and stealing), morality can still result.
So, people like other people being nice to them -- it's the ideal. A selfish person would want everyone to be nice to them. So, what if someone's not nice to them? Let's say this other person rapes them, or this other person rapes one of the first person's friends. Since this purely selfish person counts that friend as property, he is mad at the rapist. The rapist has taken something away. And since this rapist has no doubt taken something away from many people, and done nothing for the rest, the average opinion of all people is negative about him. So, the rest of this "society" each benefits individually by locking this person away. Bam. Moral society out of pure selfishness.
Now, why did I type this? It will probably be lost on most diggers anyway, but it made me feel good :D - yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Neanderthals also had bigger brains than modern man. Whales have bigger brains than man - Brain size does not necessarily mean higher intelligence.
Yes, Java man is widely disputed today. It may well have been a hoaxes - it's not the only hoaxe however, there is also the story of 'Piltdown Man'. Sadly, there are occasions when scientists do stupid things (remember last years Korean geneticists?), but they are rare.
There is now plenty of new and verified specimens of ***** Erectus (i.e. Peking Man (1927), Turkana Boy 1984)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Erectus - Mazz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I would love to debate your points but you write like an ass. It doesn't mater if you are right or wrong. You are a jerk.
People would listen to you and we would consider both sides because that what scientist and thinkers do. nothing is more exciting then being wrong about something and opening up a door to new areas.
when you state things in the tone you are using, your comment is just garbage. - florin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Your peers from Afghanistan have more power than you. They can actually execute people who disagree with their religion. Whereas all you can do is yak on a website. nyah-nyah-nyah!
- Rabid_Llama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Since this is already an evolution vs. creationism train wreck, I'll throw in the short version of my two cents.
Falsifiability is a scientific principle meaning that for a theory to be valid, there must be some possible case that could be found that would prove it wrong. This does not mean that science is wrong, it means that scientists don't know everything. So, if a scientist thought that it was some certain genes that caused hair coloration, and another scientist did some tests and found it was different genes, or that those weren't the only genes, then the previous theory would be shown to be false, and science will have advanced a tiny step forward.
Creationism is unfalsifiable, and therefore bunk. You could find any kind of evidence you like that the earth is billions of years old, and it can be shot down. "Look, these dinosaur bones are millions of years old." "God put them there." "Look, there's radiation from the Big Bang still bouncing around out in space." "God put it there." Ad infinitum.
So yeah, just my two cents. I'm also surprised I spelled "unfalsifiable" right on my first try. - Rabid_Llama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The thing is, if someone found evidence for a species of creature that just came out of nowhere with no prior genetic relatives, evolution WOULD be disproved, or at least evolution as we know it. Just because a theory has been correct so far doesn't mean it isn't falsifiable.
As for where life came from, I don't know, but I always thought just throwing your hands up and saying "Well, I can't figure it out, so it must have been some big invisible guy in the sky" wasn't a particularly enlightening answer. - TardHelmet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Perhaps the christians should lanch another set of Crusades. Kill all the scientist and burn down all the libraries. then they can go back to all the other stuff science was wrong about like the earth being round and the entire universe revolving around it.
- cius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8To suggest that the probable truth of our very being, that we are not special and that we did evolve (*every* aspect of us, even our "souls"), would have a negative effect on the human psyche is ***** in my opinion. This is why I claim that anyone who can't face the facts and *needs* to believe superstitious explanations is inherently weak. There is no reason for our evolution or the contingency of our existence to be perceived as a "bad" or negative thing. The human psyche does not have to be weak, it simply has to be adaptable and accepting of the reality before it.
Tangentially, I would never describe us as a "FREAK" of nature. We are just as natural as everything else, and to seperate ourselves as some anomaly is, I think, highly misrepresentative of our condition. - kotatsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It really doesn't matter how much proof is found, and how much scientitic research is done to explain everything - when you have been brainwashed into believing the words written in a thousand year old novel are the truth, no matter how far fetched and ridiculous they are, then you are a lost cause.
Humans still have a lot of evolving left to do. - digitalArtform, on 10/12/2007, -4/+815 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yeah, he continual refers to every scientific theory as "propaganda" and "hoaxes" and "lies" and then wonders why he gets negative rankings?
I really feel very sad for people like him, Im not being sarcastic, I really think they need professional help. There is clearly something wrong with their thought processes. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"So just for you I'll ask where did the matter that the first life form become come originate from? You know that first single cell whatever it was?"
I don't know, but when I find out, my answer won't rely on faith. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Notice their clever use of FUD. In science, data change overnight and we constantly challenge eachother with logic and new data, this does not negate the scientific progress. Healthy science requires incorporating new datapoints and challenging eachother vs believing in a god which isn't open to new ideas/theories/facts/science. One is scientifically based, the other is belief based.
Chill with the FUD(fear, uncertainty, doubt). - bryan8m, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"neither can be observed"
Science is based on observations. What year are you living in? - fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"Wow, you are really closing your ears, aren't you? You claim that this is for the scientifically minded and creationists are not scientifically minded, yet you then refuse to read the evidence? You, sir, are not scientifically minded. You are closed-minded. And a perfect example of most diggers."
There's this thing, it's called the "scientific method". It means that you create a hypothesis based on what you've observed, then you test this hypothesis, then you *change your hypothesis* to better describe the observed data, and thus forming a theoryWhenever information comes up opposing creationism, the creationists decry it as a hoax. When alleged 'evidence' of a young earth is brought to the table, the creationists cry *persecution* when people point out flaws in it.
If evidence is found which contradicts a theory, the theory is altered or replaced. If a theory that better explains previous observations *and predicts future observations better* is created, then it supplants existing thought.
Relativity theory, quantum theory, chaos theory, all these things did a better job of explaining the way the universe works, and correctly predicted things which we had previously not expected.
What does creationism predict? Where has creationism bowed to observable data?
The fact is that creationism is not scientific because creationism doesn't follow the tenants of science, and it's supporters don't even *want* it to. You call it science, but lack the balls to follow through with what that title means. Creationism is a poseur; it wants to play with the big boys, but cries when it's toys get broken in the process.
Tell ya what, you can do one of three things to stop the scientific community from laughing at you. The first option is to stop calling creationism science, the second option is to grit your teeth and follow the scientific method, the third is to declare a crusade/jihad/holy-war/whatever on the modern world and kill all the heathens - not the first time christianity has mass-murdered scientists for their beliefs, but generally considered to be bad for PR (Also, killing off all the people who know how to make vaccines, cars, telephones, power plants, and etc would kinda have nasty results). -
Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
