Once again it was reported today that Evolutionists were wrong about something... yet again.Evidently the "Scientists find big differences in Y chromosomes of men, chimps"
I did find the first comment in the article spot on when it says:
"No, it may indicate that the human didn't come from the ape to begin with.
Funny how that logical possibility didn't even occur to them."
This article reminded me of another article that I read last year called
Evolution of the appendix: A biological 'remnant' no more.
In a past post it was mentioned that "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?"
Someday, hopefully soon, they will understand they are going down a rabbit hole and getting deeper and deeper into a failed religion of falsehood.
bit.ly/wrongagain
The fact that the Y chromosome can vary between species does not disprove evolution or a common ancestor for humans and chimps. All it shows is that the Y chromosome is very elastic.
ReplyDeleteNow if they had found that all male chimps had X chromosomes, then yes that might show that chimpanzees and humans are not closely related. The fact remains that we are 99% similar to chimpanzees on a genetic level.
Also, in before "If people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
ReplyDeleteHumans didn't evolve from apes or monkeys, nor did the article imply that.(no understanding of evolution) Humans and apes share common ANCESTRY. There was a split between apes and humans long ago.
ReplyDeleteWhat the evidence discussed in the article shows is merely the "width" of the gap AFTER the split.
This artical has bolsterd the evidence for evolution showing even within an idivduals Chromosomes there is mutations occuring "Y chromosomes are constantly being reshaped"
In addition to what Yaeger and Ant have said, the fact that this study revises the scientific description of the Y chromosome points out, once again, a salient difference between science and religion: while science is constantly revising itself to fit new data, getting an ever-better picture of reality, religion is stagnant: no change to the texts is desired or permissible. I'm much happier admitting that my knowledge is never perfect, and that I am willing to learn, than to say that what I believe is absolutely true and unchangeable.
ReplyDeleteTime for you to do a little more studying on evolution, Dan...again.
ReplyDeleteA vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; Hall 2003; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 9-10; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205).
Look carefully at the dates given for that bit of information.
Also, while note two may be out of date, the first and last points are still valid.
The first link shows how a word definition gets messed up over time in the public view. Even dictionaries can get it wrong.
ReplyDeleteLook up "Sarfati" in that first article I linked to, and you'll see how creationists take advantage of that. (it'll be a link to a creationist article where you'll see what I'm referring to).
Sorry Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'm with the boys. I read the article, and it definitely does not disprove evolution.
Your "debunk" failed.
Dan, this is a really crazy post. You're really out there this time. I hope everything's OK.
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteNone of this gives any evidence for your postulated god.
Yeager:
"Now if they had found that all male chimps had X chromosomes, then yes that might show that chimpanzees and humans are not closely related."
I don't think so. The elasticity argument you presented could simply be extended.
Pvblivs:
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. The elasticity argument you presented could simply be extended.
In what way?
Reynold:
ReplyDeleteThe simplest way to reconcile a condition of chimp males having two X chromosomes through the elasticity would be to postulate that the Y chromosomes were originally X's and just became highly specialized in humans. Since there is no fixed rate for chromosome modification, the explanation is not unreasonable. Another possibility was that an X chromosome in one individual was so damaged that it became what we know as a Y and that, by chance, the patrilineage of all humans traces to the one individual that first inherited it.
You'd have to talk to a geneticist about that Pvblivs. They can tell you whether you're off base or not.
ReplyDeleteI love cheese-deniers -- "there's holes in that cheese, it can't be real"
ReplyDelete--------------------------
The Atheist Perspective
Hmm, well the innate problem here is that I could care less what Christians think about evolution. They crudely buffet science dodging all the points where it renders the Bible silly.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly I feel this gentlemen has no right writing anything on the subject of rational and scientific theories. Even, his own religious hypothesis is simply based off of unreliable emotion, ego gratification, and sadly faith.
Instead of looking for all the holes in everyone else's arguments to prove your imaginary friend. Maybe you should get inline with the rest of the world and look for some evidence for your views before you start playing the "holier than thou" card. People in the real world are less inclined to believe crazy views when their is never any proof. Views such as God, Demons, Hell, Heaven, Unicorns, Elves, Supernatural Powers used to explain the phenomena of our world. However, now we realize that they are no longer a needed explanation.
I'll stick with evolution, at least it has evidence. It's not perfect, but it doesn't make extraordinary claims and back that up the zero evidence and faith.
>>Hmm, well the innate problem here is that I could care less what Christians think about evolution.
ReplyDeleteSaid someone that sought out a Christian blog to say that. Hmm, who are you trying to convince, me or you?
Maybe Christians feel the same about evolutionists like you.
I perfectly understand a secular person not believing in God.
>>Maybe you should get inline with the rest of the world and look for some evidence for your views before you start playing the "holier than thou" card.
Said the sheep that doesn't want to think for them self and instead put their faith and trust in secular atheistic scientists and articles. You do understand that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists that believe in God. Are they all quacks to you? Your presuppositions are strongly in place, that is obvious.
>>It's not perfect, but it doesn't make extraordinary claims and back that up the zero evidence and faith.
Said the person with blinders on. Someday you will understand, let's all hope it will not be too late by then.
Dan, you don't seem to realize just how stupid that cartoon was, do you?
ReplyDeleteYou know that the xian faith demands that you accept "christ".
Where in nature do you find the label for "made by christ" please?
You know that looking at nature says nothing about the creator, right? If it did, missionaries wouldn't be necessary, as people would learn about the correct "god" from simple observation.
Also, it's looking at nature intensely that turns people OFF creationism.
The Ages are revealed to be different than what the bible says, for instance.
Read Ronald Numbers book The Creationists to see examples of people who were creationists until they got out in the field.
Another examples.
You still want to talk about "blinders"?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>You know that the xian faith demands that you accept "christ".
So If someone does not accept something it does not exists? If you run out in the middle of the highway and say I don't believe in trucks it doesn't mean you will not get run over. If you jump out of a window screaming "I don't believe in gravity" doesn't mean you will not get hurt. What matters is the truth.
>>Where in nature do you find the label for "made by christ" please?
Where in nature do you find the label for "made by Darwinian evolution" please?
>>You know that looking at nature says nothing about the creator, right?
Wrong that is all I see. You have to do some mental gymnastics to do otherwise.
>>If it did, missionaries wouldn't be necessary, as people would learn about the correct "god" from simple observation.
It is by God's natural and special revelations that we know Him.
>>Also, it's looking at nature intensely that turns people OFF creationism.
I can show you examples of just the opposite, are you going to claim that they are not "real" scientists if they are believers in a Creator?
>>The Ages are revealed to be different than what the bible says, for instance.
Absolutely false. That is what people, like yourself, want us to believe that is for sure. Your interpretations may have come to a conclusion that seems to show the evidence in the Bible to be false but you never thought that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong and need more data to come to a more accurate conclusion.
>>Read Ronald Numbers book The Creationists to see examples of people who were creationists until they got out in the field.
I know pastors that raped young girls while they were married and turned into atheists because the "church" treated him bad (John W. Loftus)...so what? What does one have to do with another? Maybe, behind the scenes, Morton has a gay lover and a wife and wanted to be free from the persecution of the church so he turned bitter (like Loftus) and turned away from God.
>>You still want to talk about "blinders"?
Yes, yours are firmly in place.
Dan, quoting me:
ReplyDeleteYou know that the xian faith demands that you accept "christ".
So If someone does not accept something it does not exists?
Way to miss my point Dan. Let me try again: Nature tells us nothing about WHO the supposed "creator" is supposed to be, even if one assumes that nature is testament to a creator in the first place!
I'm pointing out that it is the belief in a particular god (ie. Your god) that "saves" you, and that nowhere in nature do you find the "JESUS MADE THIS" brand label.
If you run out in the middle of the highway and say I don't believe in trucks it doesn't mean you will not get run over. If you jump out of a window screaming "I don't believe in gravity" doesn't mean you will not get hurt. What matters is the truth.
As told by a book with talking animals in it, and is demonstrably wrong when it describes the physical world?
A better analogy is standing in the middle of a field and waiting for a flying truck to hit you.
Where in nature do you find the label for "made by christ" please?
Where in nature do you find the label for "made by Darwinian evolution" please?
Not only do you refuse to answer my question, but you ignore the evidence when presented. I asked you to do some learning Dan.
That site describes myriad pieces of evidence for evolution.
What in nature even implies a specific (your "Jesus" as the creator)?
Put another way: Without the bible, would you believe that a being called "Christ" made everything?
You know that looking at nature says nothing about the creator, right?
Wrong that is all I see. You have to do some mental gymnastics to do otherwise.
Then I will ask again: What in nature leads you to believe that "Christ" is the creator? Remember, I'm talking about NATURE, not the bible.
Until you answer that question, you have no right to accuse me of any "mental gymnastics".
If it did, missionaries wouldn't be necessary, as people would learn about the correct "god" from simple observation.
It is by God's natural and special revelations that we know Him.
Explain why no one in the new world had ever heard of the xian god before the missionaries came then. Why didn't he reveal himself to them?
cont'd:
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's looking at nature intensely that turns people OFF creationism.
I can show you examples of just the opposite, are you going to claim that they are not "real" scientists if they are believers in a Creator?
Let's see them first and hear their "testimonies" and hope that they're not along the line of Kurt Wise's
The Ages are revealed to be different than what the bible says, for instance.
Absolutely false. That is what people, like yourself, want us to believe that is for sure. Your interpretations may have come to a conclusion that seems to show the evidence in the Bible to be false but you never thought that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong and need more data to come to a more accurate conclusion.
I'll ask that question of you.
What makes you think that the bible is more accurate?
Oh yeah.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
We'll talk about your blinders later.
Then read up on radiometric dating from a xian's perspective then. Perhaps you'd care to explain just how the universe is only 6000 years old when the light from stars billions of light years can be seen?
(among MANY other evidences of old age of the universe)
Read Ronald Numbers book The Creationists to see examples of people who were creationists until they got out in the field.
I know pastors that raped young girls while they were married and turned into atheists because the "church" treated him bad (John W. Loftus)...so what?
What in hell does that have to do with scientists going out in the field and finding out that the creationist stuff they were taught doesn't mesh with what's actually out there?
What does one have to do with another?
After reading that dumb non-sequitor of yours, that's what I'd like to know.
Maybe, behind the scenes, Morton has a gay lover and a wife and wanted to be free from the persecution of the church so he turned bitter (like Loftus) and turned away from God.
Maybe you'd better back that statement up, please?
Scratch that: Forget the "please".
Back that statement up or retract it.
You still want to talk about "blinders"?
Yes, yours are firmly in place.
I'm not the one who takes oaths promising to never change my mind about what I believe even before I get in the field, and I'm not the one who's spinning asinine baseless "theories" about why Glen Morton left the fold.
Look at how you're acting.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Not only do you refuse to answer my question, but you ignore the evidence when presented. I asked you to do some learning Dan. That site describes myriad pieces of evidence for evolution.
I guess that is a major difference between me and you. You put your faith and trust in websites and man and I put my faith and trust in God and His Word.
>> and is demonstrably wrong when it describes the physical world?
Don't you see that , at this point, it would be difficult to answer this question:
>>Then I will ask again: What in nature leads you to believe that "Christ" is the creator? Remember, I'm talking about NATURE, not the bible.
The fact, and yes it is a fact, that Christ defied nature and the laws of nature makes Him above and in control of nature itself. Now, to say otherwise is mere presuppositions getting in your way.
>>Put another way: Without the bible, would you believe that a being called "Christ" made everything?
Tricky question since Christ is the Word itself. (John 1:1,14)
>>Explain why no one in the new world had ever heard of the xian god before the missionaries came then. Why didn't he reveal himself to them?
That just is not true. You are ignoring all of history. The entire Hebrew Tanakh is written about the promises of a Savior to come. tinyurl.com/ShadowyProphecies for more.
>>What makes you think that the bible is more accurate?
Well that is twofold. First, because I trust my source that is infallible more then your source (fallible man) and second, for two thousand years now secular men have tried to disprove the Bible and they only got as far as James Cameron finding Jesus' tomb, btw that was hilarious!
>>Then read up on radiometric dating from a xian's perspective then.
Don't worry after my public schooling of lies, I have read plenty.
That was funny though, you picked one person (Wiens) to speak for all Christians> Next you will choose Ted Haggard to speak to us about family values. You crack me up. Again, fallible man or God, it is your choice. Just chose wisely.
>> Perhaps you'd care to explain just how the universe is only 6000 years old when the light from stars billions of light years can be seen?
As someone said earlier: God created all things, not just some. The light we see those distant stars by was created when the stars were, as a complete unified creation. He did not create some elements of creation and then wait to let it all work out ... but placed every element of a functioning logical rational creation in place. After all why create the firmament and all its glory as a testament to his own power and nature and then overlook that critical point that no one would SEE IT for x number of Millennium?
Here is AIG's point of view also. Of course you would never, ever, accept any point of view other then the ones consistent to your presuppositions though, right?
(con't )
ReplyDelete>>Back that statement up or retract it.
I said "Maybe", but I have no clue as to the truth of the matter. I was speculating, not making a statement. Shame on your for not knowing the difference.
>>I'm not the one who takes oaths promising to never change my mind about what I believe even before I get in the field,
Bull. You take it on faith that the secular scientists reports and textbooks are speaking the "gospel" truth and you move forward on those assumptions. Now, you never take things into account as to the accuracy of peer reviews, as an example.
Let me quote the report: "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities.
You still want to talk about "blinders"? Look at how you're acting.
Dan quoting me in bold:
ReplyDeleteNot only do you refuse to answer my question, but you ignore the evidence when presented. I asked you to do some learning Dan. That site describes myriad pieces of evidence for evolution.
I guess that is a major difference between me and you. You put your faith and trust in websites and man and I put my faith and trust in God and His Word.
I go by the independent work of experts in various fields whose work all somehow winds up agreeing with an old age for the earth, and evolution for life.
Then I will ask again: What in nature leads you to believe that "Christ" is the creator? Remember, I'm talking about NATURE, not the bible.
The fact, and yes it is a fact, that Christ defined nature and the laws of nature makes Him above and in control of nature itself. Now, to say otherwise is mere presuppositions getting in your way.
Dan. You've not answered my question. All you've done is say that your "christ" made nature. You haven't shown it.
I'm asking you to SHOW it. Think. If "christ" himself was observable from nature, missionaries would have been unnecessary, wouldn't they?
Put another way: Without the bible, would you believe that a being called "Christ" made everything?
Tricky question since Christ is the Word itself. (John 1:1,14)
In other words, no then?
Explain why no one in the new world had ever heard of the xian god before the missionaries came then. Why didn't he reveal himself to them?
That just is not true. You are ignoring all of history.
Prove it, please. Already refuted Messianic prophecies have nothing to do with showing that the people of the New World had knowledge of Christ.
The entire Hebrew Tanakh is written about the promises of a Savior to come. tinyurl.com/ShadowyProphecies for more.
Name ONE missionary account where they ran across natives who already knew about the Christian version of Christ.
What makes you think that the bible is more accurate?
Well that is twofold. First, because I trust my source that is infallible more then your source (fallible man) and second, for two thousand years now secular men have tried to disprove the Bible and they only got as far as James Cameron finding Jesus' tomb, btw that was hilarious!
Look who's talking about ignorance here...I'm referring to things like those books I'm always referring to:
The Bible Unearthed, The View from Nebo and Out of the Desert by Steibing. Then there's the various problems with the bible I've listed in various places on your blog.
Among other things, the Exodus itself is thrown into doubt, yet you ignore what's in those books and pretend that "all" that skeptics have done is Cameron's work?
Then read up on radiometric dating from a xian's perspective then.
Don't worry after my public schooling of lies, I have read plenty.
Yeah...I gave you one example of a christian radiometric specialist, so you make a Ted Haggard comparison.
That was funny though, you picked one person (Wiens) to speak for all Christians.
I picked one christian Radiometric Dating expert.
Guess what, genius? Pretty much all radiometric experts will agree with him.
I just wanted one that you wouldn't be prejudiced against by claiming that he was an atheist or something.
I should have known better...
Next you will choose Ted Haggard to speak to us about family values.
ReplyDeleteWTF? That guy's a pedophile. He's no right to talk about "family values". On the other hand, Wiens is a radiometric expert, so he is qualified to talk about it.
You crack me up.
Your messed-up comparisons crack me up.
Again, fallible man or God, it is your choice. Just chose wisely.
Don't you have to PROVE that YOUR god exists in the first place? As well, it's a LOT of "fallible" people you're ignorantly blowing off here...
Perhaps you'd care to explain just how the universe is only 6000 years old when the light from stars billions of light years can be seen?
As someone said earlier: God created all things, not just some. The light we see those distant stars by was created when the stars were, as a complete unified creation. He did not create some elements of creation and then wait to let it all work out ... but placed every element of a functioning logical rational creation in place. After all why create the firmament and all its glory as a testament to his own power and nature and then overlook that critical point that no one would SEE IT for x number of Millennium?
You're not thinking, Dan...big surprise.
Don't you think that your god could adequately demonstrate "his glory" within the 6000 lyr radius that a recent creation would entail? It would have the bonus of visibly verifying the bible's age, instead of having you apologist wonks dodging the trouble that the actual observations give for your biblical age. (see what you said above)
Here is AIG's point of view also. Of course you would never, ever, accept any point of view other then the ones consistent to your presuppositions though, right?
WRONG Why?
Think of the consequences if the speed of light was not always constant.
To my way of thinking, the second alternative is the dangerous one. After all, an argument for the inconsistency of the speed of light can be refuted by the simple observation that its speed truly is constant, and that's that. The second alternative requires that the Creator of the universe intentionally fashioned a bogus astronomical history extending as far into space as our instruments can probe. And that's not all.
He also set those radiometric clocks to an apparent date for the creation of the solar system of 4.5 billion years, a 40 million percent exaggeration of its actual age, according to creationists. To me, this sounds like a deception most cruel. Their Creator deliberately rigged a universe with a consistent - but fictitious - age in order to fool its inhabitants.
You know, (besides the fact that other than trying to ram the physical observations into a presupposed biblical view that Lisle does)...
I go by the evidence, Dan. That's what AIG absolutely refuses to do. (see their oath and the fact that in the article you quoted, Lisle has to make all sorts of unjustified, unproven assumptions about the speed of light all so that he can explain away what is plainly visible...the great age of the universe.
That's what you refuse to do with your talk about "faith and trust in God and His Word".
You assume right off the bat that your god exists and that the bible is his word and you refuse to accept any alternative
(con't )
ReplyDeleteBack that statement [about Morton having a gay lover] up or retract it.
I said "Maybe", but I have no clue as to the truth of the matter.
Then you have no justification or business saying it, dipshit.
I was speculating, not making a statement. Shame on your for not knowing the difference.
Are you honestly so stupid that you believe that pulling a slanderous statement out of your ass like that and saying it's just "speculation" means that it's ok? (and yes, I knew it was speculation. It was still as asshole move on your part)
Time for a thought exercise. Suppose people "speculated" that kind of thing about you. Publicly, on the net. And then when you asked them to back up their unjustified "speculation" they said: "it's only 'speculation'. Shame on you".
You do not get to pull that shit here. What made you make that "speculation" in the first place?
The fact that you have nothing else to throw against the man so you decide for an ad-hom attack.
Shit, the more I deal with you evangelicals, the more I see of this shit, and the more ashamed that I was once one of you.
I'm not the one who takes oaths promising to never change my mind about what I believe even before I get in the field,
Bull.
Alright. Show me the oath that I, and any real scientists take then.
Back up your accusation.
You take it on faith that the secular scientists reports and textbooks are speaking the "gospel" truth and you move forward on those assumptions.
Guess what? If the future shows those assumptions wrong, theories are modified or discarded.
It's not "faith". There's experimentation and corroboration (confirming each other's results) involved.
How do you think that the report you quote below would even be possible if it was otherwise?
People would never be caught out and used in the report in the first place.
For examples, Evolution was modified, Newtonian physics was modified and at least partially discarded, Lamarckian evolution was outright disproved.
How would any of that be possible if they all took oaths like the creationists do; to never change their minds, no matter what?
Now, you never take things into account as to the accuracy of peer reviews, as an example.
Read it before. Still a hell of a lot more accurate than creationist works. Simply because: People from different disciplines have their work dovetail, and it's other scientists who catch each others mistakes.
Remember, no oaths.
Let me quote the report: "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities.
You still want to talk about "blinders"? Look at how you're acting.
Let's look at the part of that report you left out.
The effective court of appeal should be the editor. Self-correction of review procedures is recommended by:
(I) improving the editorial quality control of peer reviews; (ii) abolition of the cloak of secrecy and anonymity of reviewers; and (iii) active encouragement of critical debate of unorthodox submissions.
Can you imagine any creationist organization being able to do that and still stick to their respective oaths to never deviate from the YEC bible interpretation?
Scientists always try to improve themselves.
They have a demonstrable track record, as shown by, among other things, what we use to communicate to each other.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Don't you have to PROVE that YOUR god exists in the first place?
Not in the least. That is not my job I am to preach the word, if it falls on deaf ears then I merely move on.
>>Think of the consequences if the speed of light was not always constant.
It is NOT a constant, dude! Look it up.
>>I go by the evidence, Dan.
Correction: acceptable evidence (there is a difference)
>>Lisle has to make all sorts of unjustified, unproven assumptions about the speed of light all so that he can explain away what is plainly visible...the great age of the universe.
Unjustified and unproven? Do you need the link again that the speed of light can be slowed? Wake up, bigot!
>>You assume right off the bat that your god exists and that the bible is his word and you refuse to accept any alternative
Wrong I know without a shadow of doubt that God exists and to attempt to prove otherwise would be a lie, because I know the truth. BTW, no one has done it yet.
No, he has no proof for his god existing, he never will. Christians spend more time crafting empty arguments based on emotionalism, absolutism, and faith. All pinnacles of pseudo-logical thinking. Ironically they never support the spirit of discovery in science, they are always quick to dismiss it as evil. Why? Because, they know god can't be proven.
ReplyDeleteMan, I never sought you out. Your desperation to be persecuted is almost humorous. Christians are so blind the kind of crap they throw at others, but are quick to throw the persecution card when an alternative theory rains on their bedtime story.
God is an idea, that's all he is. He is a manifestation of the ego and ID you have been taught to suppress your whole life. Thats prolly why you have a "god sized hole in you." Because that's where your psychological know-how once was.
You haven't proved god has existed this whole time. You just danced around the question throwing out scarecrow arguments.
Don't be so worried about peoples seeking you out, to rain on the Lord parade. Its a public blogging site, and insane statements, like god, hell, and unicorns, require evidence. Not tricky personal anecdotes that "can't be explained!"
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
Don't you have to PROVE that YOUR god exists in the first place?
Not in the least. That is not my job I am to preach the word, if it falls on deaf ears then I merely move on.
What stupidity. You're the one making the claim, you're the one who has to back it up.
How stupid, to run around, make all sorts of claims that go against observable science, refuse to give evidence for it, and then expect converts.
Think of the consequences if the speed of light was not always constant.
It is NOT a constant, dude! Look it up.
So far as is known, in nature, it is.
I go by the evidence, Dan.
Correction: acceptable evidence (there is a difference)
Thanks for making a strawman Dan. Go burn it.
Lisle has to make all sorts of unjustified, unproven assumptions about the speed of light all so that he can explain away what is plainly visible...the great age of the universe.
Unjustified and unproven? Do you need the link again that the speed of light can be slowed? Wake up, bigot!
How in hell am I a "bigot" for pointing out that that Lisle has NOTHING to base his wild theory on?
That article you linked to does not help you, Dan. Why?
Since you apparently haven't actually read it, let me show you:
Laser beams moving at the normal speed of light collide with the atoms. As the atoms absorb particles of light (photons), they slow down. The laser light also orders their random movement so they move in only one direction.
Get that? The light has to pass through a specially made arrangement of atoms that doesn't exist in nature (since the temperature has to be billions of times colder than interstellar space is).
As opposed to a vacuum which is what interstellar space is made of yet. Get it?
The fact that people can slow light down is old news. From the Discovery link up above:
The denser the medium, the more light loses speed. Diamonds delay light so much that each wavelength bends off in a different direction, giving the gemstone its distinctive flashes of color.
What you and the other creationists need is evidence that light was billions of times faster in the very recent past, not how special lab conditions can make light move slower than it currently is now, and an explanation of how, if that physical constant was so different, how none of the other physical constants (ex. temperature) could have stayed the same to support life. They are related, you know.
Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Lisle's flights of fancy gets cut to shreds on it. Real astronomer's estimates of the age of the universe are based on their observations and testing, not in spite of observations like Lisle's is.
You assume right off the bat that your god exists and that the bible is his word and you refuse to accept any alternative
Wrong I know without a shadow of doubt that God exists and to attempt to prove otherwise would be a lie, because I know the truth. BTW, no one has done it yet.
Only because you basically refuse any evidence that goes against the bible. Example, just above.
Pointing out the mustard seed problem didn't work...pointing out that Jesus' failed prophecy where he said that there will be some of those standing there today who will not die until they see the son of man coming in the kingdom didn't work. (at least I think that this is the blog where I posted that)
What would convince you that your religion is wrong?
In case you're wondering, fossil vertebrates in the pre-cambrian would pretty much scuttle evolution for me, and for the person whose quote I just stole
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDelete>>In case you're wondering, fossil vertebrates in the pre-cambrian would pretty much scuttle evolution for me, and for the person whose quote I just stole
O'rly? That fragile huh? So then there is something that could show that evolution is wrong to you? Sure.
If there were, let's say, intelligent life found on a different planet, then I would believe that I didn't understand God as well as I thought and would study more to find out why I missed that. I would not abandon so easily my faith in Christ because He is real and our God. Faith is much stronger then mere visual evidence.
For example, look at all the fossils out there. You see them, you observe them, and you still feel that they are from many millions of years ago instead of from sediment layers from rapid burial of a world flood. You look at a perfectly preserved leaf and see millions of decades of layering.
I only have to look in my own back yard to know that leaves decay in a very short time and the only way these fossils exist is through rapid burial, the Flood, as recorded in the Bible.
Mental gymnastics? Go for it.
Dan quoting me:
ReplyDeleteIn case you're wondering, fossil vertebrates in the pre-cambrian would pretty much scuttle evolution for me, and for the person whose quote I just stole
O'rly? That fragile huh? So then there is something that could show that evolution is wrong to you? Sure.
Yep. The order of the fossils would be completely thrown out. Precambrian strata is dated to be the oldest there is. If relatively modern animals were found there, than evolution would be thrown for a loop.
It's "creation" that posits that all the animals came into existence at the same time "in the beginning".
If there were, let's say, intelligent life found on a different planet, then I would believe that I didn't understand God as well as I thought and would study more to find out why I missed that.
I asked you what would make you realize that your religion was wrong. I told you my answer.
I would not abandon so easily my faith in Christ because He is real and our God. Faith is much stronger then mere visual evidence.
That is stupidity, as you've just shown. Any wackjob religious person can, and does, say that
Why do you think that you religious people settle your disagreements with each other through wars, while scientists settle theirs through experiments and talking/debating?
For example, look at all the fossils out there. You see them, you observe them, and you still feel that they are from many millions of years ago instead of from sediment layers from rapid burial of a world flood. You look at a perfectly preserved leaf and see millions of decades of layering.
I only have to look in my own back yard to know that leaves decay in a very short time and the only way these fossils exist is through rapid burial, the Flood, as recorded in the Bible.
You need to do more study, Dan.
here
Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as
--burial in sediments in a river delta
--burial in sediments from a local river flood
--burial in a small landslide, as along an eroded stream bank
--burial in ash from a volcano
--burial in a blown sand dune
This is what happens to someone with your way of thinking, Dan. Every piece of evidence that can go against your belief is ignored. Just like you did with all those other methods of fossilization, in favour of the one method you've already made up your mind to believe in, the "global flood".
Also do some reading here
Mental gymnastics? Go for it.
I'll leave that up to you religious apologists and creationists, thanks.
Dan said to Reynold:
ReplyDelete"I guess that is a major difference between me and you. You put your faith and trust in websites and man and I put my faith and trust in God and His Word."
I can see why you don't trust websites and man from a cursory glance at the links provided by your blog.
Lulz
Rhiggs,
ReplyDelete>>I can see why you don't trust websites and man from a cursory glance at the links provided by your blog.
Heh, touché but I consider them to be more of backups of the Bible and the claims instead of the gospel themselves. I am sure Reynold will claim the same from his faith in that Talk Origin gospels.
Reynold,
>>--burial in sediments in a river delta
>>--burial in sediments from a local river flood
>>--burial in a small landslide, as along an eroded stream bank
But, NEVER, ever, a rapid burial in a worldwide flood! Um, em, got it.
Dan
ReplyDeleteReynold,
>>--burial in sediments in a river delta
>>--burial in sediments from a local river flood
>>--burial in a small landslide, as along an eroded stream bank
But, NEVER, ever, a rapid burial in a worldwide flood! Um, em, got it.
I severely doubt that you do, Dan. The reason is because there's no evidence for, and too much evidence against such a flood.
Let me help with information from a christian geologist; someone who's actually been out in the field.
You will, of course, dismiss all that,but at least you won't be able to (truthfully) say that I dismiss the "global flood" because of some "bias".
From one of those links that Dan likes to disparage, but has never been able to refute, these are some of the reasons why a global flood is contraindicated by fossil finds:
ReplyDeleteIndependent dating of sediments via any number of techniques.
Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.
Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary.
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.
Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
Get that? Time must have passed. More than allowed for by one flood.