March 1, 2009

Mystery of Life Unlocked



I love this very interesting, honest, and fair presentation on the origins of life. These are the sorts of things that needs to be presented in the public schools to encourage thoughts instead of the current curriculum.

To consider any of these people dumb or misinformed would be intellectual suicide on your part. I really enjoyed Dr. Dean Kenyon's very intellectually honest testimony on his "Biochemical Predestination" hypothesis that was peer reviewed and accepted widely by the scientific community only to be rejected by Dr. Kenyon himself. Now, I fully understand later he tried to downplay Creationism to make it more palatable by calling it ID, which backfired in court. Moving on.

Proteins self assembling sounds wonderful to someone with atheistic presuppositions. But, to risk self preservation and to admit to his "intellectual breaking point" on his own theory was admirable.

Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Does anyone now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?

83 comments:

  1. Dan,

    I have this video. It is soooo stupid. Where do they present anything scientific? All they have done is point to a problem that NOBODY knows the answer to and then conclude something that (1) they haven't any evidence for (2) that cannot be falsified. What is the "intelligence"? How many of them are there? What mechanism did the "intelligence" use?

    Also, are you aware in that court testimony that you blew off, that Kenyon was the author of "Of Pandas and People" where the infamous missing link between creation "science" and intelligent design was found: cdesign proponentists? "Creator" and "creation scientists" were search and replaced with "Intelligence" and "design proponents"...but any typos would fail to be replaced correctly. Kenyon is a bible thumper and this is direct evidence that he is not an honest scientist. Also, nobody in biology thinks that proteins just self-assemble. This is a creationist strawman to introduce a GIGO math figure that is laughable if you know anything at all about proteins (which I know alot about).

    I have one question, Dan, that I don't want you to dodge. How do we falsify an "intelligent designer"? How do we do it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan, don't tell me you seriously believe in intelligent design and love science at the same time. Do you even realise that life 'evolved' (cough, cough, important word here) for about 3.7 BILLION years? I hope you can quantify 3.7 billion in your mind. That's 3 700 000 000 years or 1.35139614 × 10^12 days mate. You can't think outside 6000 can you? Irreducible Complexity? Ha. YOU are making this irreducibly complex by trying to bring in a non-existent supercreator who took 3.7 billion years to 'intelligently' design YOU

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clos,

    I have one question, Dan, that I don't want you to dodge. How do we falsify an "intelligent designer"? How do we do it?

    Show evidence for evolution (Macro). Concrete evidence for Evolution will indeed falsify ID.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Devil's Chaplain,

    Dan, don't tell me you seriously believe in intelligent design and love science at the same time.

    Indeed I do.

    Do you even realise that life 'evolved' for about 3.7 BILLION years?

    Mere assertion without any evidence. Wow never heard that before.

    That's 3 700 000 000 years or 1.35139614 × 10^12 days mate.

    Just try and use 50,000 years times the rate that roaches multiply, or any species, and you extrapolate a number larger then all the atoms in the universe. I hope you can quantify that in your mind.

    YOU are making this irreducibly complex by trying to bring in a non-existent supercreator who took 3.7 billion years to 'intelligently' design YOU

    Are you absolutely certain of this assertion?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh and Clos,

    Also, are you aware in that court testimony that you blew off...yada, yada, yada...

    Yes, I am aware and the reason I mentioned it was to avoid atheists using ad hom's in an attempt to discredit the data given, like you just did.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You impress me with your unshakable 'FAITH'. You really do. There are plenty of concrete evidences for evolution, from fossils to study on Drosophila melanogaster, but due to your unshakable 'FAITH' you will ignore these evidences. You sought pseudo-science like intelligent design to affirm your 'FAITH' and feel better about yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/news/synthetic-life.shtml

    Oops. Looks like scientists will soon find the truth about the origin of life. ...A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution... :D I like the definition.

    What are you going to say about that? Does intelligent design apply to this in any way?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I must ask... Do you accept evolution now that you 'witnessed' the concrete proof?

    ReplyDelete
  9. So a couple of known crevilists get together and produce a mini doc that starts off with the incorrect stops and starts of HMS Beagle in comic form and you expect anyone to take it seriously?
    Please

    ReplyDelete
  10. So you show a semi-doc starring a couple of crevilionists who can't even get the actual stops in the voyage of the HMS Beagle correct in comic form and you expect intelligent people to ohh and aww? Gee You need to get out more.
    Dax

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan said...

    "Show evidence for evolution (Macro). Concrete evidence for Evolution will indeed falsify ID."

    What if the Intelligent Designer designed the evolutionary mechanisms you reject? How can you know this is not the case?

    Let me guess. Revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are awfully quiet today Dan.
    Is it because you are faced with concrete evidences?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan said,

    "Show evidence for evolution (Macro). Concrete evidence for Evolution will indeed falsify ID."

    Just like Henwli said, the intelligent designer (e.g. God) could have been involved in making an evolutionary process, this is what people like Ken Miller think. However, it is not testable, nor falsifiable. In your other comment to me you suggest that I am using ad homs to "ignore the evidence"...the evidence is that that fuck Kenyon is being intellectually dishonest about his creationist tendancies. Further, please explain to me what constituted "evidence" for an intelligent designer in the video. Their "evidence" is a god of the gaps argument. The only thing they presented was ignorance followed by a "what if". What if a God is behind all this gosh darned complexity? Well, whatever, could be, might be, impossible to tell. However, macroevolution (which is well supported by massive amounts of evidence from numerous fields) being shown correct does not falsify ID. This is a false dichotomy. Even if macroevolution were falsified...this does not therefore prove intelligent design. Positive evidence must be presented. However, before this can be done, the theory has to be defined and testable. ID breaks down because irreducible complexity is logically flawed (I will explain if you like) and Dembski's design filter has shown several false positives. What are they left with? Good intentions? Political asperations? A desire to bring Christ back in the classroom?

    Dan, go to the Discovery Institute "research" website and try and find some research that tests the idea that biological organisms were designed. now, by research, I mean a testable hypothesis that would allow us to conclude design. You are going to find a bunch of neologisms and no content. I just looked through it, and much of it is way old, doesn't demonstrate anything and is pathetically sloppy work.

    http://www.researchid.org/wiki/ResearchID.org:Research_categories_tree

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan,

    Have you ever considered theistic evolution?

    And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree." - Genesis 1:11

    And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind", and it was so. - Genesis 1:24

    Notice also in Genesis 1 that God made the atmosphere, the land, water, water creatures, and land creatures before he made humans. It's someone scientifically accurate, with the exception of when the birds and the sun, moon, and stars came in.

    Perhaps the author had a vision of the Creation, and wrote down the details as they saw it? That was my interpretation when I believed the Bible. You seem to be more of a fan of biblical literalism, so you might not accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Substantiating one hypothesis does not falsify another - any scientist interested in falsifying his/her ideas knows this. ID is not science, because it makes no predictions, and thus can not be falsified.

    You're a theist with lots of faith who doesn't understand squat about how information is obtained and made reliable, Dan.

    I see a lot of "A" game here, and virtually no debunking of atheists. When are you gonna change the name of this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  16. WEM is right, Dan, you aren't even being logical, yet you claim to be debunking here. Claiming that proving one theory falsifies another demonstrates your inability to think critically. Did you mean that you would post and we atheists would do the debunking?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Devil's Chaplain,

    There are plenty of concrete evidences for evolution, from fossils to study on Drosophila melanogaster,

    That simply is not true, You still rely on faith of others. The funny thing is like Dr. Bahnsen said that atheist "criticizes Christians believing things, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (God)- and yet he himself has come to believe what he does, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (his teacher!)"

    ...or the Discovery Channel

    Until science can change that "fruit fly" into a bat or something much further down the tree (of life) like an animal, I will not be impressed. All science has to do is change an insect to a animal or fish then I will be forced to reevaluate ID. Until then, I will continue to sing "Amazing Grace"

    You sought pseudo-science like intelligent design to affirm your 'FAITH' and feel better about yourself.

    Not at all my friend, ID is for you to give you alternative ways of thinking, not me. That possibly you are incorrect, not to win an intellectual or philosophical argument, but for your salvation.

    If I am wrong about the earth being less the 10,000 years old, that will not affect my salvation in the slightest but the atheist that believes in evolution will have his salvation affected by continuing not to put his Trust in Christ. I am passing time having fun here, you are playing with your eternal life. Huge difference. I understand the seriousness of this subject enough to discuss it with you in hopes that you change that worldview of yours. Basically I am here to witness a miricle by God.

    ReplyDelete
  18. henwli,

    What if the Intelligent Designer designed the evolutionary mechanisms you reject?

    Then I would be wrong and that is not true and not the case.

    How can you know this is not the case?

    I read the Bible, read Genesis and the 4th Commandment. (Ex 20:11)

    ReplyDelete
  19. At 2:26 AM Devil's Chaplain said"You are awfully quiet today Dan.

    Is it because you are faced with concrete evidences?"


    Wow dude, just wow. No, I tend to sleep at night these days. When God turns out the lights (Sun) it's the indication that it is bed time. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Clos,

    Thanks for the link, I looked up:

    [Articles in category "Origin of Human Life"
    There are 0 articles in this category.]

    Quite fitting, don't you think? Thanks for the laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Kip,

    Have you ever considered theistic evolution?

    I understand what you are getting at but I doubt it. If taken as a whole we still can't get around Genesis and Exodus 20:11.

    I did enjoy the debate between Young Earth and Old earth Creationists, you might find it interesting

    Without an old earth, evolution would be falsified.

    I still side with the YEC's.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wem,

    When are you gonna change the name of this blog?

    When you falsify Biblical Creationism. :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan said...

    Without an old earth, evolution would be falsified.

    I still side with the YEC's.

    That's cool, whatever works for you, but I side with science. If you keep saying that Christianity relies on Young Earth Creationism, then when a Christian looks at the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and evolution and sees the contrary, that puts their religious beliefs in jeopardy.

    I'll admit, I know very little about biology or geology, but I do know a great deal about astronomy. If the universe as a whole was 10,000 to 6,000 years old, then the farthest stars would only be 10,000 - 6,000 light years away at most. Unfortunately, the nearest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. Scientists estimate the universe as a whole to be 14 Billion years old. The only way these observations could fit into the YEC view would be that God created the stars and galaxies at that distance and then created the light "on its way" so that we could have something to look at. But that sounds pretty silly. (The Bible sure made a lot more sense thousands of years ago.)

    Here's my view: Hypothetically, if this universe has a Creator, then the universe would be the standard on which we judge any scripture that claims to be from God. If said scripture doesn't fit in with science, than it's of mortal men, not God.

    You'd think if Christianity were true, there would be mountains of credible evidence for the Resurrection and none for Evolution, not vice-versa.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan said

    Until science can change that "fruit fly" into a bat or something much further down the tree (of life) like an animal, I will not be impressed. All science has to do is change an insect to a animal or fish then I will be forced to reevaluate ID. Until then, I will continue to sing "Amazing Grace"

    Fruit fly into a bat?
    Well that's not a total impossibility.
    Just wait a billion years.
    Evolution is a very slow, gradual change through natural selection.
    I'm still 'amazed' at your non-existent supercreator who took 3.7 billion years to 'intelligently' design you. I think I could have done better job if I was given 3.7 billion years to design you. What a worthless God... or it might just be your delusion. :D

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Clos,

    Thanks for the link, I looked up:

    [Articles in category "Origin of Human Life"
    There are 0 articles in this category.]

    Quite fitting, don't you think? Thanks for the laugh."

    Pretty cavalier in your personal stupidity, huh? You have nothing except snarky comments, and simply dismiss everything that isn't in line with your Bible.

    "That simply is not true, You still rely on faith of others. The funny thing is like Dr. Bahnsen said that atheist "criticizes Christians believing things, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (God)- and yet he himself has come to believe what he does, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (his teacher!)""

    So your mentor thinks that science is useless because we have to rely on other's observations??? Nitwit, we can go out and test other's work! Faith bullshit is different because it could NEVER be tested in ANY way. Thick skull much?

    "...or the Discovery Channel

    Until science can change that "fruit fly" into a bat or something much further down the tree (of life) like an animal, I will not be impressed. All science has to do is change an insect to a animal or fish then I will be forced to reevaluate ID. Until then, I will continue to sing "Amazing Grace""

    Keep on a singin' with the rest of the twits. Let me ask you...what will changing a bug into a bat in the lab convince you of? The person you are responding to told you of the evidence from fossils to fruit flies. You want a tour of pubmed? You sound like a fucking drooling fool. No evidence? Well, I will admit that it is hard to find it if you do nothing to actually look.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kip,

    That's cool, whatever works for you, but I side with science.

    So do I, unless you claim that the Big Bang is observable, repeatable, and testable. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.

    If the universe as a whole was 10,000 to 6,000 years old, then the farthest stars would only be 10,000 - 6,000 light years away at most.

    You are taking a great deal of assumptions with that statement. You do understand the difference between calculated time and observed time right? I just read recently that a scientific experiment that reduced the speed of light down to zero. Does that mean time stood still?

    Scientists estimate the universe as a whole to be 14 Billion years old.

    They were there? (observable, repeatable, and testable)

    If said scripture doesn't fit in with science, than it's of mortal men, not God.

    Find things the Bible claims that Science has shown to be wrong. On a side note, how does science disprove miracles anyway?

    D’Souza said: "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."

    You'd think if Christianity were true, there would be mountains of credible evidence for the Resurrection and none for Evolution

    Great then we both agree then! :7)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Devil's Chaplain,

    Evolution is a very slow, gradual change through natural selection.

    So then evolution is not observable, repeatable, and testable? Great then it is not considered scientific. Great, we all agree.

    or evolution might just be your delusion. :D

    ReplyDelete
  28. Clos,

    Keep on a singin' with the rest of the twits...You sound like a fucking drooling fool.

    My seven year old thinks I am smart, She just said that today even, so I guess your observations are merely subjective. Nanny, nanny, boo, boo.

    Incidentally, should your opinions hold more weight then others? If yes, is it because you are a self proclaimed Lab Coatauthoritarian? :7)

    One more thing do you consider evolution testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is considered scientific?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Evolution IS observable, repeatable, and testable.
    I told you about fruit flies and synthetic life sceintists are testing. That's real science Dan, not biblical hocus-pocus like intelligent design.
    However, you expect me to demonstrate fruit fly to fruit bat evolution and I was making my point that such evolution will take time... Like, billion years. However, I don't have to wait a billion years because I have enough fossil evidences to support my claim. Use your brain Dan... Even your ape ancestors (oops, bold claim supported by overwhelming evidences) would've been better at comprehending things than you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Devil's Chaplain,

    Evolution IS observable, repeatable, and testable?

    Can you then show speciation from one, Biblically described "kind", to another then as in Macro evolution? If your excuse is too much time then it's not observable or testable then.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A Devil's Chaplain:

         Well, small-scale (over the course of years) is observable. I'm not sure I would consider it repeatable if the evolution comes out different each time. However, large-scale evolution (over millions of years) is not observable. (Even if it's true, we can't observe it; we don't live long enough.) Now there have been data supportive of large-scale evolution. But everything I have seen had an out for it. No possible result would falsify evolution. They could explain possible non-confirming results away in advance.

    Dan:

         Is there any chance of going back to the old comment posting system? Your current system won't let me type in my comment and then give my user information. I don't like to log in in advance of knowing whether I will make a comment.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan said...

    Find things the Bible claims that Science has shown to be wrong. On a side note, how does science disprove miracles anyway?


    I don't really give a crap about miracles. Miracles by definition are supposed to defy the natural laws of the universe. I just wonder why we don't see as many of these "miracles" recorded in the Bible today? If you could do what the 1st Century Christians supposely did, I'd be convinced. Hell, I bet you can't even what Elijah did in 1 Kings 18.

    Regardless, you want me to show you how the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. Someone has already done that for me, but I'll list a few of the juicy ones:

    *There isn't enough water in the atmosphere to cover the whole earth. In fact, there is barely enough to reach one inch, much less go above all the mountains.

    *The Tower of Babel story states that humans can build a tower up to Heaven. However, the ancient people couldn't build towers nearly as tall as the ones we have today. Today we know that the clouds in the sky aren't "Heaven". Even if they could build a tower beyond the atmosphere without being burned, they would sufficate in outer space before reaching "God" in "Heaven". Today, modern science has taken to the moon and back (unless you're a conspiracy theorists that thinks it was a fake) without ever reaching "Heaven" or pissing off "God". The story is nonsense.

    *It took the Isrealites 40 years to cross the desert to Caanan. Moses must have had a terrible since of direction, since that trip would have only tooken a few days on foot. That'd be like being lost in your yard for a few days.

    *In Joshua 10, Yahweh makes the sun stand still. Now a days we no the earth spins and the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. Of course, they didn't know this is Galileo's day, so they persecuated him for saying otherwise. Nowadays, verses like this saying the sun moves are considered "figurative". (Just like 100 years from now when Christians believe in Evolution, the Creation account will be considered "figurative".)

    *There is no anthropological evidence for any damn giants. Not that giants of the size described in the Bible can be possible. The muscle and bones of a person X times the size of a normal person wouldn't be strong enough to hold the weight up.

    *Jesus thought God fed the birds directly:

    Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? - Matthew 6:25-26

    If God does feed the birds, he's doing a crappy job. Most baby birds die before leaving the nest, and statisically most die afterwards from starvation, thirst, disease, etc.

    *Ancient people thought skitzophrenia was caused by demons. We know better now, but apparently the Gospel mythers didn't. They claim Jesus cured sickness by driving out demons. He even drove the demons into pigs.

    *In Revelation 2:23, Jesus says, "I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts." Why on earth does Jesus want to search my kidneys?

    I could go on, but I'm too lazy. I'm sure the atheists here will do a better job than me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan wrote When you falsify Biblical Creationism. :)

    The speed of light, rocks, and the Grand Canyon disprove YEC creationism. Considering that we regularly find bones tens of thousands of years old, not having found evidence that our ancestors came from the middle east (and that they in fact come from Africa) falsifies Biblical Creationism.

    I'll be waiting for the name change with baited breath...

    PS. you've still failed to debunk a single atheist

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think I feel like singing a song myself right now...

    Amazing Grace
    Turn off your brain
    Please do not use
    Your mind!

    No matter what
    The skeptics say
    Just be-lieve, and
    Stay blind!

    What do you think? Will I make it to the next round of Atheist Idol?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan, Dan, Dan...

    I just read recently that a scientific experiment that reduced the speed of light down to zero [link to ABC news article in which the speed of light through a specific medium was slowed to ~38mph]. Does that mean time stood still?

    You must realize, elementary Dan, that slowing down photons is a problem for you, right? In order to have any sort of argument which supports your Young-Earth Creationism model, you'll need light to go much faster than its accepted value. If the sort of medium described in your recently-read article permeated the universe at any time, for any significant amount of time, the universe would be far older than current measurements show. You'll need some magical medium which allows light to go faster for a significant amount of time in order to reach your desired 6,000 year-old universe figure.

    You are taking a great deal of assumptions [link to AiG regarding 'calculated time' and 'observed time'] with that statement [that the furthest stars would be within 10k light years from earth]. You do understand the difference between calculated time and observed time right?

    Your last snarky statement notwithstanding, it seems that you fail to grasp the implications of this proposed 'observed time' convention.

    1. It doesn't matter. Occam's razor applies -- the simpler explanation is that light travels isotropically, but as "Robert Newton" notes, it doesn't matter. No matter what, the stars we see were created in fact far earlier than the fourth day, some 6,000 years ago, and this necessarily means that the universe is far older than a mere 6,000 years old.

    2a. This proposed 'observed time' phenomenon -- specifically, the notion that time travels at an infinite velocity toward an observer -- is bunk. To be sure, there is such a thing as 'observed time,' but it is through Einstein's theory that we came to recognize that it is meaningless absent information concerning the relative velocities of the observers in question. Indeed, a simple experiment can be performed to disprove "Robert Newton's" proposal:

    Place two observers and a mirror at fixed distances apart, such that the two observers are equidistant from the mirror, and that the mirror-to-observer lines are orthogonal (at right angles to one another). Note that the actual distances are irrelevant, since none of the three bodies is in relative motion with the other two.

    Now, have Observer 1 turn on a light source, [which is constrained so that the light can only travel directly toward Observer 2 and directly toward the mirror,] and have Observer 2 time the difference in arrival times. If "Robert Newton" is correct, then the light should all reach Observer 2 simultaneously -- after all, the light is traveling
    directly toward him along the hypotenuse of the triangle formed, and it is traveling first directly toward the mirror, and thence directly toward him along the adjacent leg. If the two events are not simultaneous, "Robert Newton" is quite incorrect.

    (Note the constraint is unnecessary, but would probably be useful)

    2b. In the experiment above, the astute reader (read: not Dan) will note that "Robert Newton" could easily object by saying that along the first leg (toward the mirror), the light traveled orthogonal to Observer 2, and thus the difference in arrival times Observer 2 records is due to this directional issue. This is true (that this objection could be made), but to test against this, we can modify the experiment slightly as follows:

    Move Observer 2 (O2) directly away from the mirror (M) an arbitrarily great distance, leaving both the mirror and Observer 1 (O1) at their initial positions, such that O2-M >> O1-M. Again, have Observer 1 turn on a light source, and have Observer 2 time the difference in arrival times. If the recorded difference in arrival times is different at all, then "Robert Newton" is again wrong. The distance from Observer 1 to the mirror is identical to the same distance in the first experiment, as is the direction of the light -- therefore the speed of light along this axis relative to Observer 2 should be the same, according to "Robert Newton." From the mirror to Observer 2, and from Observer 1 to Observer 2 (directly), the light moves directly toward Observer 2, and if "Robert Newton" is correct, light travels at an instantaneous velocity in these cases.

    I could go on, but I shall restrain myself, and instead note the reason for the scare quotes around "Robert Newton's" name. The following quote from the article Dan referenced should be sufficient to the task:

    Robert Newton is the pen name of a creationist astrophysicist currently undertaking research for a doctorate at an accredited university in the USA. He graduated summa cum laude, with a double major in physics and astronomy, and a minor in mathematics. He has also completed a M.S. in astrophysics. Robert is a member of the American Astronomical Society and Phi Beta Kappa. (All emphasis in original)

    To say that this article has lost whatever grain of credibility it may have had is quite the understatement, and one can only wonder if this "Robert Newton" cat is a Poe. I could just as easily write my own technical-sounding article, cite some relatively obscure sources, and claim that the actual author used a pseudonym, but, 'believe me, he's got credentials, and he's legit.'

    Sure.

    --
    Stan


    (P.S. -- Thanks again, Dan, for changing the comment page so that I can post. I appreciate your masochism.)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wem,

    How does the speed of light falsify Biblical Creationism especially when it says God is light (1 John 1:5)

    Grand Canyon disprove YEC creationism? We must be reading different books then.

    Considering that we regularly find bones tens of thousands of years old? Assumptions on radiometric dating is a common mistake. I forgive you. Even soft tissue of a T. Rex has been found right? How can that possibly be 70 million years old then?

    not having found evidence that our ancestors came from the middle east (and that they in fact come from Africa) falsifies Biblical Creationism? Really how so? We all came from a common ancestor regardless where they came from. Thanks for saying "our ancestors" because that is truth but the wide sweeping assumptions for that one is making me dizzy. Are you saying that continents remain consistent or in consistent locations today as they were in the past?

    PS. you've still failed to debunk a single atheist

    Is that absolutely true or merely a subjective opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  37. @pvblivs

    "However, large-scale evolution (over millions of years) is not observable. (Even if it's true, we can't observe it; we don't live long enough.) Now there have been data supportive of large-scale evolution. But everything I have seen had an out for it. No possible result would falsify evolution. They could explain possible non-confirming results away in advance."

    This guy is a broken record with apparently no reasoning ability or reading comprehension. We've falsified your dumb criterion. Earth to publius!

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Dan

    "One more thing do you consider evolution testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is considered scientific?"

    Yeah, and maybe if you actually spent the amount of time I and other scientists do reading the literature, you might one day be just a little bit less ignorant about what science has to offer. Contra publius, just because we can't view changes at larger taxonomic levels, macroevolution is still observable in the sense that there are evidences that are left behind, both in fossils, and in the instruction manual for organisms-the genome. Genomes have really shone a light on how organisms evolve and provide overwhelming evidence that an evolutionary process is responsible for all of life. If you listen to publius and his creationist ilk (Based on his beliefs about science, I see no distinction) you would have to rule out geology, cosmology, even courtroom testimony using evidence found after the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Kip,

    I find it hilarious, even if it was unintentional, to link to my blog when you said "Someone has already done that for me, but I'll list a few of the juicy ones:"

    *There isn't enough water in the atmosphere to cover the whole earth. In fact, there is barely enough to reach one inch, much less go above all the mountains.

    Wild assumptions much? Are you assuming the peeks and valleys of the ocean were the same level back then as they are now? Also are you saying that it was impossible to suck all the waters in all crevices and below ground rivers to the surface to cover said surface? If the odean was more shallow would there be plenty of water to cover the earth? Psst the answer is yes. Are you depending on the fallible logic of man again? tisk tisk

    The Tower of Babel story states that humans can build a tower up to Heaven. However, the ancient people couldn't build towers nearly as tall as the ones we have today.

    The ancestors of the people of Tower of Babel built other pyramids, since it was fresh in there minds still. Possibly the reason why Aztec and Egypt pyramids are similar. You think?

    Besides Genesis 11:1-9 says in arrogance "whose top may reach unto heaven and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." (emphasis mine)

    I wrote something about it on another blog I wrote:

    Mike said "This sentence reveals the arrogance of the people of Babel. they sought a name for themselves rather then to honor the name of their creator, who is above all and whose name is worthy of all praise." Mike went on to say "Throughout history, humans have longed to share God's glory. The serpent tempted Eve with the promise that she and Adam could "be as gods." All man-made religions try to "honor" God by the works of our own hands. God, in contrast, is not impressed by our works. He desires obedience and humility (1 Samuel 15:22-23). Moses's account reminds us how we are all naturally stubborn and rebellious."

    (I should do a post about all of this)

    It took the Isrealites 40 years to cross the desert to Caanan. Nope, God made them wander the desert for that long for not wanting to go to the promised land. (Numbers 32:13)

    Yada yada I have to go make dinner for the family. To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Even soft tissue of a T. Rex has been found right? How can that possibly be 70 million years old then?"

    How could twins age at different rates if one is in space and the other on the earth?? Sometimes we find surprising and counterintuitive things. We have to balance skepticism with acceptance of ridiculous claims when the evidence warrants it. The soft tissue observation is very interesting, and there is debate about it right now (last time I checked). However, what is more likely, that all of the data attesting to an old earth and universe is wrong or that this find represents a special case of preservation? Not to mention a very promising one if we want to find macromolecules that could be sequenced.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Kip,

    What do you think? Will I make it to the next round of Atheist Idol?

    I will call in a thousand times to vote for that one. Hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Illustra Media, who produced the video, is a sham name for the Moody Institute of Science (AKA The Moody Bible Institute) which has clear Christian fundamentalist ties.

    The script was written directly by the Discovery Institute.

    I'm sorry, claiming this video is balanced is a lie.

    That video is creationist propaganda created by the Moody Bible Institute and the Discovery Institute with the company "Illustra Media" being invented to hide the fact that it's a piece of Christian propaganda.

    Why do I even point these things out?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kaitlyn,

    First, welcome back.

    That video is creationist propaganda created by the Moody Bible Institute and the Discovery Institute with the company "Illustra Media" being invented to hide the fact that it's a piece of Christian propaganda.

    Is that your example of balanced? Give us a break. Besides that who is claiming balanced? So you believe if it comes from the Discovery Institute then it's automatically a lie? Ad Hom much lately?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan wrote:
    "Besides that who is claiming balanced?"

    You did, in your post.

    Dan wrote:
    "I love this very interesting, honest, and fair presentation on the origins of life."

    ReplyDelete
  45. Stan,

    Welcome back

    In order to have any sort of argument which supports your Young-Earth Creationism model, you'll need light to go much faster than its accepted value.

    So you are claiming it is impossible to travel fast then the speed of light. Does special relativity forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light? If light can be slowed can it be accelerated? I tell you what lets brush up on tachyons and get back to this subject.

    Is it possible with the infinite amount of energy during the first seconds of the big bang that light could have traveled fast then the speed of light? It's the wild assumptions that are in question here.

    Do you also mean to tell me that Superman cannot travel faster then the speed of light? Prove it :)

    I could just as easily write my own technical-sounding article

    Um...I think you just did, whew. :)

    Now I know you are not saying that the information provided was false because of the credentials of this Robert Newton character right? You would never use Ad Hom's as an augment right?

    Welcome back you sadistic...

    ReplyDelete
  46. Kaitlyn,

    So interesting, honest, and fair equals balanced? I didn't think that.

    Could a presentation be slanted or skewed to one side yet interesting, honest, and fair?

    ReplyDelete
  47. So you are claiming it is impossible to travel fast then the speed of light.

    No, I never made anything remotely resembling such a claim. I merely noted that in order to support your desired conclusion, you'll have to first identify instances in which light does travel much faster than its currently held speed.

    Does special relativity forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light?

    Do you even understand special relativity? Assuming you do, the answer is no -- it merely requires that any such particles involve imaginary mass.

    If light can be slowed can it be accelerated?

    Ahem. Slowing == accelerating. The question you mean to ask is whether it can be accelerated beyond its currently accepted speed. I don't know, but considering the fact that the speed of light is a defined value, I can smirk and say, "no." To be clear, however, I have no idea. Since mass bends light, and since a black hole slows light to the point that it cannot escape (read: it either stops or changes direction), I'd say most likely.

    I tell you what lets brush up on tachyons and get back to this subject.

    Sure, just let me reconfigure the main deflector to emit an inverse tachyon pulse, and we should be fine. It'll just take a couple of hours.

    It's the wild assumptions that are in question here.

    Yeah, the crrraaaaaaaazzzzyyy assumptions that state that the speed of light is constant regardless of the direction from which it is observed, as opposed to "Robert Newton's" completely reasonable suggestion that it has infinite speed when we face it, but finite speed when we don't...

    Do you also mean to tell me that Superman cannot travel faster then the speed of light? Prove it :)

    Your sense of humor is duly noted, but clearly Superman cannot travel that fast when I am in the possession of Kryptonite. (This is where you say, "Gee Mister Luthor...")

    Now I know you are not saying that the information provided was false because of the credentials of this Robert Newton character right? You would never use Ad Hom's as an augment [sic] right?

    No, I'm saying it's not credible because of the lack of credentials of this "Robert Newton" character. Indeed, all Ken Hamm and pal had to do was to get one of the millions of scientists who support AiG to vouch for the article, and the pseudonym could be overlooked, but until such a verifiably credentialed scientist does sign his name and say, "this article is scientifically sound," then no, it deserves no special consideration any more than my own musings on why ATMs have braille instructions, or what they tell the hearing impaired through the headphone jack.

    You have time and again shown that you do not fully grasp the concept of an Ad Hominem fallacy, but rest assured, this was not one. Indeed, I treated the article quite fairly, and even provided a detailed two-part experiment which could settle the matter once and for all. It wasn't until after I had deconstructed his argument that I even discovered the pseudonym, and I deliberately left the discussion of that to the end.

    Now, if you wish to actually address the experiment I detailed, and critique that, rather than skip the substance and cry foul over a perceived insult, I'd be much obliged.

    Finally, if I may be so bold, I'd like to repeat something for emphasis:

    If even one of the [trillion] credentialed scientists who support Ken Hamm had signed off on "Robert Newton's" article, it would have retained whatever credibility an article which appears on AiG could hope to have.

    They didn't, so it hasn't. Presumably, the fact that this undergraduate Physics major came up with a simple experiment on the back of a napkin (literally) to defeat the absurd notion of anisotropic light speed (specifically, the set of anisotropic light speeds which favor moving toward an observer) might have something to do with why we don't see the names of real credentialed persons listed next to "Robert Newton."

    Hell, now you've got me thinking about writing a Poe article on your behalf, hosting it on some official-sounding site, and linking to it (or, better yet, letting you find it on your own), just so I can more directly illustrate why "Robert Newton" lacks credibility. It kills me, in fact, that you have the audacity to accuse me of pulling an Ad Hominem attack, when your own blind acceptance of this article is the direct counterpart of an Ad Hominem: You claimed that I deny the article based on a pseudonym, yet you embraced it based on its URL.

    If you truly support that article, then address my experiment. If you just found something that goes against an old universe, and are working on the premise that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' then you should really check out the pill you're so happily swallowing.

    Gotta run, dinner needs made.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  48.      "Could a presentation be slanted or skewed to one side yet interesting, honest, and fair?"
         No, a skewed presentation is not fair. (It might be interesting; but it is not fair.)

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Could a presentation be slanted or skewed to one side yet interesting, honest, and fair?"

    Interesting: Yes.

    Honest: No. It is intellectually dishonest to have a hidden agenda, particularly this video which from before the beginning attempts to cover up who made and funded it.

    Fair: No. It treats one side with greater weight than it should since it starts out trying to make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It is intellectually dishonest to have a hidden agenda...

    In all fairness, Kaitlyn, I don't think any of us was fooled when the first person on camera was Philip Johnson...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  51. (That last comment had an unfortunate appearance of snide mocking -- it was just sarcasm. The emphasis on 'fairness' was for Dan's benefit)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Pvblivs,

    D-Could a presentation be slanted or skewed to one side yet interesting, honest, and fair?"

    P-No, a skewed presentation is not fair. (It might be interesting; but it is not fair.)

    Was the presentation on general relativity skewed away from Newtons theory of Gravity? Was it right? Possibly. Was it fair? Sure.

    Is not truth fair? I guess my question now is should science worry about fairness?

    I thought the presentation gave valuable air time to explain the "other side" of the argument and then presented another viewpoint. I saw it as fair.

    Stan,

    but clearly Superman cannot travel that fast when I am in the possession of Kryptonite.

    That isn't why you narcissist, it's because the breathing tube and wheelchair gets in the way now. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dan. Is there any way you can break off from your circular reasoning?
    http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/break-the-cycle.jpg?w=700&h=540

    That's pretty much your reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dan, you wrote...
    "I thought the presentation gave valuable air time to explain the "other side" of the argument and then presented another viewpoint. I saw it as fair."

    The reason the video was made was to set forth the agenda from the Discovery Institute's "wedge" document. Their stated goal is to make intelligent design look like a reasonably debated issue within the scientific community when it's not.

    The propaganda of the video is the message that intelligent design (creationism) is an equally valid scientific theory compared to evolution.

    Sorry Dan, almost no biologist takes creationism by any name seriously in the scientific community.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Awww, come on, Dan... Aren't you going to show me how the experiment I proposed is flawed, and how I'm guilty of too many "wild assumptions"?

    I really want to see you critique my proposed experiment, and if you conclude that my experiment would falsify "Robert Newton's" claim, then I would also like very much to hear your next hypothesis plucked from the withering vines of AiG...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  56. Devil's Chaplain,

    Dan. Is there any way you can break off from your circular reasoning?

    Of course what you fail to realize, is that in order for something to be logically fallacious, there must be absolute laws of logic, by which the fallacy can be determined. Problem is, your worldview cannot account for such laws, so you expose your inconsistency by claiming that a fallacy exists.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Kaitlyn,

    Sorry Dan, almost no biologist takes creationism by any name seriously in the scientific community.

    I know you have see the Dissent from Darwinism on my weblinks to show many biologist that disagree with your statement. Is that why you put the word almost?

    With that wordplay I could say: Not all biologist believe in Darwinism

    ReplyDelete
  58. Stan,

    I really want to see you critique my proposed experiment, and if you conclude that my experiment would falsify "Robert Newton's" claim, then I would also like very much to hear your next hypothesis plucked from the withering vines of AiG...

    I will ask how it is possible for you to know anything, before I give a answer. You see, if you can’t know anything, then you have no basis for evaluating any answer I give, or whether or not I have even given one, and I would just be wasting my time. Also, what is the justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you wish to use to evaluate my answer? :)

    ReplyDelete
  59. I will ask how it is possible for you to know anything, before I give a answer. You see, if you can’t know anything, then you have no basis for evaluating any answer I give, or whether or not I have even given one, and I would just be wasting my time. Also, what is the justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you wish to use to evaluate my answer? :)

    You mean, you either don't understand the physics involved in the discussion, or you recognize that the experiment I proposed would bust "Robert Newton's" hypothesis outright, and you prefer instead to ostrich?

    Seriously, man, don't turn into a Sye. He's a douchebag. I asked him repeatedly how he could know that he was certain, given that some people are merely deluded into thinking that they are certain, and he quite explicitly dodged.

    Indeed, my question of him was in a form he could all too well recognize, as it was identical to questions he had posed to me.

    Rather than indulge your bullshit wanna-be-Sye pedantry, I'd rather see you take a stab at my experiment. If you instead choose to clumsily employ Sye's sophistry, that's your prerogative, but unless you plan on changing your avatar and alias, please quit pretending to be Sye. You're better than that.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  60. Stan wrote You're better than that

    With reference to the last 2 months, this is not supported by the available evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You're better than that.

    Edit:

    You've shown that you can be better than that.

    Better?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  62. Stan,

    You mean, you either don't understand the physics involved in the discussion

    That would be a fair assessment. :)

    and you prefer instead to ostrich?

    Consider it what you want, but truth is truth. You actually cannot account for your logic and you want me to join you in delusion. Sye is not a douche bag, even if he was you cannot account for your logic. You cannot give reasons for the logic we use in your worldview.

    Fine, I will appease your delusion. After all you are here for a limited time and I have eternity.

    No matter what, the stars we see were created in fact far earlier than the fourth day, some 6,000 years ago, and this necessarily means that the universe is far older than a mere 6,000 years old.

    Wide sweeping assumptions here. Where you there? How do you know that miracles in fact didn't happen? We would have to figure too much out before we get to this asserted conclusion.

    I said to Clos earlier: The funny thing is like Dr. Bahnsen said that atheists "criticizes Christians believing things, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (God)- and yet he himself has come to believe what he does, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (his teacher!) I added ...or the Discovery Channel

    So why do I have to accept that? Why cannot I ask to account for your logic. If you cannot be certain of anything, how can you know for certain that you are not delusional at this point. It all comes back to the singular of logic. It isn't about Sye or Dr. Behnsen it's the instructions of God. (Colossians 2:8)

    Things are changing for the better Presuppositional apologetics are like the Ten Commandments, they act as a mirror to show you the state you are in. You may get quite frustrated in the future here but is that my fault that you cannot account for your worldview.

    Should Sye or I really get punished if you prefer instead to ostrich on the subject of logic?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dan:

         "You cannot give reasons for the logic we use in your worldview."
         And you can't either. Giving reasons is using logic. Logic is assumed in any worldview. But you already know this. The "how do you account for logic" nonsense is only intended to deflect. If you don't have an answer to Stan's question, just say so. Doing that is far more respectable than embracing Sye's lie.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I had asked:

    You mean, you either don't understand the physics involved in the discussion...

    To which Dan responded:

    That would be a fair assessment. :)

    See? Doesn't it feel good to be honest?

    If you would like an explanation, I'll be happy to provide one:

    In Part 1 of the experiment, the speed of light in a particular direction relative to Observer 2 is measured, by taking the difference in arrival times from the beam sent directly from Observer 1 versus the beam sent first to the mirror, and then reflected directly to Observer 2. If "Robert Newton's" hypothesis is true, then either both beams will meet simultaneously at Observer 2 (which we would not expect to be the case), or the difference measured is a direct measurement of the speed of light with respect to the first leg of the reflected beam.

    Thus, we have the speed of light in a particular direction relative to Observer 2.

    In Part 2, we move Observer 2 directly away from the mirror, leaving the mirror and Observer 1 fixed, and otherwise follow the same procedure. If the difference in arrival times of the two beams is different than that recorded in Part 1, then the only reason, according to "Robert Newton's" hypothesis, can be that the speed of light along the first leg has changed -- but nothing changed in that first leg, so this cannot be true.

    Thus, the only valid conclusion to be drawn is that the change in distance along the second leg was responsible for the change in arrival time. Ergo, the speed of light is independent of its direction of travel.

    QEDMF

    [Physics lesson]

    Incidentally, there is a difference in physics between "speed" and "velocity." Speed is the velocity along a given path -- it is a scalar -- whereas velocity is path-independent -- it is a vector. This may seem a subtle difference to the non-physics student, but it is why we refer to the "speed" of light, rather than the "velocity" of light. Massive particles have velocity, photons have speed. This is effectively what Einstein realized when he formulated the Special Theory of Relativity.

    [/Physics lesson]

    Now then, moving on...

    I had said:

    No matter what, the stars we see were created in fact far earlier than the fourth day, some 6,000 years ago, and this necessarily means that the universe is far older than a mere 6,000 years old.

    To which Dan replied:

    Wide sweeping assumptions here. Where [sic] you there? How do you know that miracles in fact didn't happen? We would have to figure too much out before we get to this asserted conclusion.

    First, there is an issue regarding context which should be addressed. The emphasis placed on "in fact" was based on "Robert Newton's" position. If his hypothesis is accepted, then irrespective of the "observed time" of the winking on of the celestial phenomena, the objects in question were created prior to Day 4. That particular point was merely meant to illustrate to you, the YEC, that Earth wasn't created first.

    Second, I'm not discussing the existence of miracles, at least not in the general use of the term. I'm discussing the age of the universe, just like "Robert Newton." If his hypothesis is correct, then stars came first, at various times less than 15 billion years prior. Or are you prepared to say he is incorrect?

    Third, there is really only one operative assumption held in physics, and hence all of science: that the universe behaves rationally, such that we can offer explanations and make predictions. If this assumption is true, then yes, we can determine that the universe is far older than 10,000 years.

    (If there is a second assumption, it is that one's frame of reference has no influence on the physics; the solution may prove more difficult, but if found, solutions from different frames will agree.)

    You then apparently misquoted Bahnsen, or at least failed to properly quote him:

    [The atheist] has come to believe what he does, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another...

    Dan's noted addition:

    ...or the Discovery Channel

    The funny thing (read: not funny - haha), Dan, is that this is patently false when applied to science. I'd guess that Bahnsen's out-of-context quote refers to the belief that there are no gods, in which case his statement is somewhat fair (I have minor disagreements with it, but they are irrelevant to this discussion). With respect to the application of science, however, both he and you would be quite incorrect.

    In principle, everything you see done on the Discovery Channel -- every experiment, every discovery, every procedure -- can be replicated by you. Indeed, it is foundational to science that if you do attempt one of these things [under reasonably similar conditions], and if you come up with a different result, then the thing in question must be reexamined and/or scrapped.

    Funnier still (read: funny - haha) is that you and Bahnsen have the audacity to claim that we take our belief on the authority of another...

    Should Sye or I really get punished if you prefer instead to ostrich on the subject of logic?

    In case you missed it, I didn't ostrich on anything. I attempted to hold an exchange with Sye, from which he disappeared for a while, and upon his return, he flatly refused to answer my question for over a month, until only this week. His answer, however, was merely a dodge, as your statement slightly earlier to the above shows:

    If you cannot be certain of anything, how can you know for certain that you are not delusional at this point?

    The answer to this question is the answer to my question. I have attempted to show Sye (and succeeded, I suspect) that we are all in the same boat with regard to certainty. You, he, I -- we all presuppose the validity of our ability to reason, and from this presupposition we have formulated the 'laws' of logic, and attempted to make sense of our surroundings.

    Thus far, Sye has refused to admit (publicly) that this is true. The futility of his refusal is evident in his pathetic response to my question.

    First, the question (again, for posterity's sake):

    Since there are obviously those who believe they are certain (based on revelation), who are not certain (as they are incorrect), how do you know you are not one of these people?

    For the slight of mind, this question shows that one who claims certainty may very well be deluded by a false belief in certainty, and that the only way to escape the apparent conundrum is to question beg, by assuming you are not deluded. Such an admission would, however, be a tacit admission of failure on Sye's part, putting him squarely in the same bin as the rest of us: The assumption that we can reason, and that we are not deluded.

    From this assumption/presupposition, all other conclusions follow (read: including the conclusion that god does or does not exist).

    Anyway, here was Sye's response:

    Simple. I do not believe that I am certain, I know it. You on the other hand only presuppose the validity of your reasoning, and cannot differentiate yourself from those who presuppose the validity of their reasoning, whose reasoning is in fact, invalid. You have no mechanism for knowing that your reasoning is valid (or anything for that matter. [sic] (emphasis Sye's)

    You see?

    I do not believe that I am certain, I know it.

    Despite the attempt, this dodge is tacit admission of failure, plain and simple. He is certain because he knows he is certain. He is not deluded into believing he is certain because he knows he is certain, and those who know they are certain cannot merely believe they are certain.

    What, I wonder, would someone, who was deluded into believing they were certain, say to my question...?

    As to the rest of his response, I deny none of it. In fact, it is a pretty fair description of my position, except for one thing, "[y]ou, on the other hand..." should read, "we..." with the verb tenses changed to reflect the subject.

    Look, Dan, Sye is a douchebag, for he's been spouting this crap long enough that he fully believes it, and he's so inundated with cognitive dissonance that I doubt he could admit failure, but you are not there yet. Surely you can see that, despite the obfuscating rhetoric, Sye's situation is effectively identical to my own: We each presuppose the validity of our ability to reason.

    From that presupposition, we each draw conclusions as we see fit. He is no more qualified to claim access to certainty than I am, which is to say, not at all.

    --
    Stan

    (Sorry about the length)

    ReplyDelete
  65.      Actually. photons have velocity, too. As any given photon is moving in a specific (well, as specific as anything else) direction, it can be represented by a vector. The difference between photons and massive particles in this regard is that the speed (the absolute value of the "length" of the vector) is always the same for any photon in a vacuum.

    ReplyDelete
  66. You'll forgive me for oversimplifying. He couldn't grasp the implication of a triangular experiment, so I didn't want to get into photon momentum, finding the magnitude of a vector, etc.

    What do you think of "Robert Newton's" hypothesis, anyway, Pvblivs? What also do you think of the fact that he's submitted an article under a pseudonym, to which no named, credentialed AiG contributor has signed off?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  67. Stan,

    Dr. Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University asserted in an article that science, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe.

    DENNIS OVERBYE in the New York times wrote "There is in fact a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with the universe and its laws. Which “came” first — the laws or the universe? If the laws of physics are to have any sticking power at all, to be real laws, one could argue, they have to be good anywhere and at any time, including the Big Bang, the putative Creation. Which gives them a kind of transcendent status outside of space and time."

    A quote from Einstein “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

    Thanks for the lesson, with a secular viewpoint, on the laws of nature (physics). But since we are in a discussion from an AIG link let me provide just one more.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Stan:

         I am not familiar with Robert Newton's hypothesis. I do not generally follow AIG and the videos I have watched from Dan have wasted enough of my time. Reading the text would be a lot faster for me. And I don't want to listen to 3-5 minutes of background conversation before the person or people trying to make a point even show up.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Re: Davies

    I'm pretty sure that's what I said -- that we assume the universe to behave rationally, such that we can derive explanations and make predictions.

    Re: Overbye

    The only problem I have with that clip is that he leaves ambiguous the term "law"; scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. The "kind of transcendent status" leaves a foul taste in the mouth for much the same reason. I assume that the article from which this was taken was in the NY Times, and we can therefore assume the intended audience consisted of laypersons. I'd guess that his arguments in scientific journals would read much differently.

    Re: Einstein

    I have that on a T-shirt.

    Re: Physics lesson

    "With a secular viewpoint"?! Who are you kidding? That lesson was effectively identical to any lesson concerning the same subject matter you'd hear from any of the billion physicists who contribute to AiG, or whatever other YEC group you prefer.

    Re: AiG's spin on presuppositional apologetics

    That's a far cry from Sye's twisted method. I don't really have any problem with what I read in that article; I don't deny you the right to quote scripture, but when you do so, and simultaneously claim to embrace science, you run into difficulties. AiG pretends to like science, but as I showed with respect to "Robert Newton," what they actually do is make up technical sounding nonsense that fails to stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny -- with no credentialed backing whatsoever, despite the ostensible existence of one or two zillion credentialed scientists under their employ.

    Re: My proposed experiment

    Strange, you didn't respond to the explanation I provided...

    Re: My dealings with Sye

    Stranger still, you seem to have ignored this section entirely.


    No thoughts on those last two? Not daring to engage at all? What's the matter, Dan? Surely you have some original thoughts rattling around in that brain of yours -- let's hear one.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  70. Trust me, Pvblivs, I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. This article by "Robert Newton," however, is pretty straightforward -- you can easily skim through most of it. I'll try to summarize for you:

    1. The speed of light is infinite when its direction is toward an observer.

    2. The speed of light varies when its direction is not toward an observer.

    3. The variation in the speed of light is such that any measurement will find that the speed of light is constant, irrespective of direction, if we deny (1) and (2), and that the value obtained is the currently held value.

    4. By maintaining (1) and (2), however, the Genesis creation account can be explained, and the universe is only ~6,000 years old.

    5. The celestial phenomena we today observe were therefore created at various times less than 15 billion years prior, such that the light from these events reached Earth on Day 4:

    About 4.3 years before Earth is created, ‘the beginning’ occurs for the space near Alpha Centauri. Four days later Alpha Centauri is created. Finally the Earth is created, but the starlight has not yet reached Earth...

    6. "Robert Newton," the name given for the author, is identified as a pseudonym. No named, credentialed contributor to AiG has bothered to sign his/her name.

    Read it if you want, I guess. It's amusing, at least, if you have the time. I'm mostly interested in comments regarding my simple proposed experiment with regard to "Robert Newton's" claims -- comments from someone who can understand the experiment...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  71. What you are saying has absolutely nothing with what I'm asking for. I'm criticising your feeble attempt to establish the Bible as the ultimate source of logic and word of God. Quite frankly, it's not.
    For example, it took Moses 40 days to get the Ten Commandments. Why would it take so long for a supercreator to create 2 stone tablets when he created everything else in a week? Is that logical?
    The logical explanation is that Moses used a hammer and chisel to sculpt two tablets from a solid piece of stone. Moses put in his ideas which he thought would bring peace among his tribes then to enforce those new rules, he used God's name to bring fear to people's mind. The whole same bullshit repeats itself in the Bible. The whole Bible is about power struggle among Jewish tribes itself and with Arab tribes. The main question is "who uses God's name better in killing, raping, enslaving, controlling, conquering and manipulating others?". It obviously does not contain any ultimate logic.
    You will neither go to heaven by keeping those rules nor will you go to hell by breaking any of them, because there are no such places. You might end up in jail of course, and I strongly encourage you not to break secular laws unless you want to waste your only chance in life. :D

    ReplyDelete
  72. Devil's Chaplain,

    Is that logical?

    So you pose that if you cannot explain something it is rendered false? Anyway, I want you to read something on the intellect (the wisdom of men), something you are currently using, in a past post.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Read my comment properly Dan... I explained it. Jebus, can't you even read?

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'm glad to know that we have established one thing between us.

    The Bible IS illogical.

    One step at a time... I think we are getting there Dan. :D

    ReplyDelete
  75. You think you know, but you don't know.

    YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING AND THATS WHY

    Its dark.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Stan: this tweaking the speed of light reminds me of a thread I got bogged down in a couple of years ago, which has, alas, since been pulled: a YEC mathematician proposed a sphere of ectoplasm surrounding the Earth that mediated light in exactly such a way that it gave the appearance of an old Universe. He went into great detail about the kinds of transformations necessary, and when I and others called him on such anomalies as the observations of Cepheid variable stars, he cheerfully added perturbations to account for them. Pretty soon his ectoplasm was a-wigglin' and a-jigglin' like a crazed ball of lime Jello. But he was deadly serious.

    This is of course just an extreme example of something most fundamentalists do: they cling to the evidence if it supports them, and explain away anomalies with miracles. Ultimately, there's no way to answer this, except to point out that it's no better than saying that we're brains in vats.

    Kaitlyn: are you living inside a haiku? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "are you living inside a haiku? Just wondering."

    No, it's dark in here, and I'm being watched, but it's okay. I didn't mean to write a haiku, I just got angry.

    ReplyDelete
  78. we all get angry
    once in a while: that's normal
    hold to the center.

    All watched over by machines of loving grace, we are safe.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Zilch wrote something most fundamentalists do: they cling to the evidence if it supports them, and explain away anomalies with miracles. Ultimately, there's no way to answer this, except to point out that it's no better than saying that we're brains in vats.

    What I don't get, Zilch, is how such people remain convinced that (in doing so) they're being logical.

    You're right about this: evidence is cherry-picked to support the hypothesis, and the gaps are filled in with faith. It's a stone-and-mortar bridge that (if history is any evidence) always leads nowhere, or collapses under its own weight.

    How can fundamentalists not see other failed beliefs lying broken and disheveled along the road-side? Why do they continue to make bold assertions as fact, with nothing more than personal faith in their own perception?

    And, in the process, claim that everyone else is arrogant and close-minded???

    ReplyDelete
  80. I think this goes back to my (and others') musings about theists -- especially Christians -- seeking to provide naturalistic explanations for supernatural events in some cases, and simply appealing to 'goddidit' in others.

    More to the point, and tying in quite nicely with what you just pointed out, if science has proven its ability to explain a certain class of phenomena, which the bible describes in supernatural terms, Christians seek a natural explanation.

    As an example, the Noachian Flood story describes an event in supernatural terms: a worldwide flood, in which the lone surviving family was provided divine instruction regarding how they could weather (pun intended) the storm, and in which enough pairs of animals spontaneously trekked across the globe specifically to board the vessel in question.

    The story is told in supernatural terms, but it contains various naturalistic elements: the flood itself, the animals, the boat; all of which raise questions on a naturalistic level, and which sites like AiG seek to answer without appealing to the supernatural, except where it suits them (read: except where they cannot provide an adequate natural explanation).

    If it's fucking magic, then say it's fucking magic. All they do is point to old stories told by geographical/mathematical/physical/biological/geological/astronomical ignoramuses (if I forgot your favorite science, I apologize -- it, too, likely qualifies here). It's not that they were stupid, they were merely ignorant.

    Nobody expects them to have known that eight people couldn't possibly have managed a floating wooden zoo for that long, especially when the zoo in question was said to contain no fewer than two of everything.

    Nobody expects them to have known that the sun cannot have [appeared to have] stood still [to an earth-bound observer], without dire and easily verifiable consequences.

    Nobody expects them to have known that axe heads cannot float, unless they are quite unsuitable for use as the tool they have been fashioned to be.

    Nobody expects them to have known that the various foodstuffs forbidden are perfectly safe to eat, and in fact were eaten, in many cases, by various other cultures at the time.

    Nobody expects them to have known what caused disease, what a virus was, or what genetic disorders were. Nobody expects them to have known what the structure of DNA looked like, or what implications it had on medicine and biology.

    Nobody expects them to have known that when they described god's first "words" as, "Let there be light," that they'd be obviously guilty of anthropomorphism with respect to the deity, because nobody expects them to have known about the E-M spectrum.

    No, nobody expects any of this of the ancient Hebrews who wrote what is now compiled as the bible, yet for some reason or another, there are many today who persist in their insistence that despite the lack of expectation on these ancient Hebrews, we are today nonetheless expected to believe everything they said, including these many "miracles" as having occurred.

    Strange, then, that these very people continue to seek natural explanations for supernaturally described events. If their every intention was to answer, "goddidit," when cornered, then why bother with the smokescreen in the first place?

    Such a small box, they've found, into which they've crammed their pathetic deity.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  81. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>