tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post3830358384951253820..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: A Paradigm for DesignD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-84386195834364105122009-01-26T03:37:00.000-05:002009-01-26T03:37:00.000-05:00Oh, and that stuff you said about biology:The Mode...Oh, and that stuff you said about biology:<BR/><BR/><I>The Modern Synthesis is dead and the importance of natural selection is unknown. The opinion of most biologists who are out of field is irrelevant. What matters is the state of the science. Currently, evolutionary biologists are trying to put together a research program to investigate the degree of importance of various factors.</I><BR/><BR/>So, the Modern Synthesis is dead? Do I have to take your word for it? That would be news to biologists and indeed any halfway informed person. And there's no need to "put together" a research program: there are thousands of research programs going on worldwide, as always- where are the research programs for those who doubt evolution? Show me some Creationist or ID research.<BR/><BR/>And sure, there are disagreements about the weight of various factors. But there is no disagreement within the scientific community about the big picture: evolution happened, and it's happening.<BR/><BR/>Love it or ignore it; but if you want to deny it, you'd better come up with some pretty good evidence. And here's a hint: the Bible does not count as "evidence".zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-74792091689193453432009-01-26T03:25:00.000-05:002009-01-26T03:25:00.000-05:00Tom, you say (to Stan):What are you, an engineer? ...Tom, you say (to Stan):<BR/><BR/><I>What are you, an engineer? You obviously don't understand physics beyond an introductory level.</I><BR/><BR/>Stan, he called you an engineer! I do believe you've been insulted!<BR/><BR/>Tom: my father was an engineer. My uncle was an engineer. While engineers are a standing joke among a certain class of people, I am not one of them. And I think I can safely say that most engineers understand the SLOT better than you do. Hell, even I understand it better than you do, and I'm not a physicist or even an engineer!<BR/><BR/>But that's just an aside. Let's clear this up: do you claim that the SLOT says that order can <I>never increase anywhere?</I> Then you are simply mistaken, the same way countless fundies are. I must admit, I don't understand how people can be mistaken in this regard, because it is pretty obvious that order can be created if energy flows into a system- it can be observed every day.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps your misconception is based on construing the SLOT as a command from on high, something like Nature saying: "Thou shalt not increase thy order", and that God is necessary to countermand this command. No, the SLOT is based on observations of what happens in the real world, and as we see that order does increase under certain conditions such as crystallization, those are taken into account and explained also.<BR/><BR/>Pray tell, as I already asked, what is your explanation for, say, sand dunes? If entropy always increases everywhere, then sand dunes could not form, unless God is there making them. But if that's the case, I would say that what you call "God" is what I would call the "Laws of Nature", including the SLOT.<BR/><BR/>I'm also curious what your advanced degree in physics is, and where you got it. Merely pulling rank is not impressive, unless you can back it up with knowledge.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-28818250465631151792009-01-26T00:03:00.000-05:002009-01-26T00:03:00.000-05:00Stan: What is a closed system in physics?A closed ...Stan: What is a closed system in physics?<BR/><BR/>A closed system is one which is insulated from the transmission of matter and energy across the boundary to the outside (where everything else is) and from the outside into the system.<BR/><BR/>Now answer my questions and quit dodging them. If you don't know the answer, just say so. (What are you, an engineer? You obviously don't understand physics beyond an introductory level.)TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-26603393374763633382009-01-25T23:21:00.000-05:002009-01-25T23:21:00.000-05:00Sorry, Tom, but your claim of having an "advanced ...Sorry, Tom, but your claim of having an "advanced degree in physics" seems quite dubious under the circumstances. Just what do you consider an "advanced" degree, anyway? What degree(s) do you claim to hold?<BR/><BR/>If you're actually claiming that order cannot increase on earth because it violates the Second Law, then you're certifiable. If you're not, please articulate better your actual position, because that's precisely what I hear. Also, your claim that "closed systems are studied more often" is sans citation. Rather than cite a particular study, however, I'm curious to hear your definition of a truly closed system...<BR/><BR/>I suppose I'll await your reply before venturing further.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89099236338022153152009-01-25T19:24:00.000-05:002009-01-25T19:24:00.000-05:00Zilch: The Modern Synthesis is dead and the import...Zilch: <BR/><BR/>The Modern Synthesis is dead and the importance of natural selection is unknown. The opinion of most biologists who are out of field is irrelevant. What matters is the state of the science. Currently, evolutionary biologists are trying to put together a research program to investigate the degree of importance of various factors. There is not unanimity on the question among evolutionary biologists--some say it is merely genetic drift + NS + rapid mutation, while other say that epigenetics (Jablonka's work) plays a major role and there are some other positions, too.<BR/><BR/>SLOT<BR/><BR/>There is no difference in the operation of SLOT in closed systems vs. open systems. With any flow of energy, entropy either increases or remains the same. Closed systems are typically studied more often because entropy changes are easier to measure. There have been some studies of open systems as well; they are considerably more complicated to study.<BR/><BR/>"No, my answer is not just a "Just-So" story, it is the result of having paid attention in junior high science classes. Sorry for the sarcasm, but even AnswersInGenesis has dropped the "life is impossible without God because of the SLOT" argument."<BR/><BR/>I'm not making the "life is impossible without God because of the SLOT" argument. And I suggest that you study and obtain an advanced degree in physics like I did. Sorry to pull rank, but your foolishness made it necessary.<BR/><BR/>The part that you and Stan miss is that entropy must be accounted for in any explanation of energy flows, including the mechanism of supposed common ancestry. I anticipate an appeal to changes in the propagation vector of thermal radiation from the earth vs. the solar radiation vector. That approach will require mathematical substantiation. It currently is beyond the state of our science.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-80472067132411281052009-01-25T16:00:00.000-05:002009-01-25T16:00:00.000-05:00Whoa, there, Tom...The Second Law quite unequivoca...Whoa, there, Tom...<BR/><BR/>The Second Law quite unequivocally provides for local increases in order, and no matter your statements to the contrary, this is precisely what happens on the earth. The order apparent on the earth increases, while the entropy present in the sun -- and in the solar system in general -- increases. Your comments suggest that you are wholly unfamiliar with the actual applications of this law, but feel free to show otherwise...<BR/><BR/>RE: Crystals; Zilch is spot-on. The formation of a crystal -- even if it is not in a "perfect" geometric shape -- <I>is an example of an increase in order</I>.<BR/><BR/>So the Second Law is not being denied, yet order is able to increase locally. Hell, if you really believed what you're saying, you'd have to admit that galaxy/star/planet formation is all in violation of the Second Law as well, yet this is just not the case. If you're still uncertain in this regard, then as Zilch recommends, revisit your junior high or high school science classes. It's rather basic stuff, and if the likes of Ken Ham no longer deny the irrelevancy of the Second Law, I'd guess that you can, too. I tend to assume that <I>everyone</I> is more intellectually capable than <I>that</I> guy.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-49646087856172436632009-01-25T15:27:00.000-05:002009-01-25T15:27:00.000-05:00Hi Tom! You say:In the case of natural selection, ...Hi Tom! You say:<BR/><BR/><I>In the case of natural selection, it is unclear what its degree of importance is as far as evolution goes. Certainly the modern synthesis model is obsolescent.</I><BR/><BR/>This is true: it is not certain exactly how important natural selection is in evolution, as opposed to genetic drift, acquired characteristics, and various non-genetic factors, such as pure luck. But most biologists would rate it somewhere between "extremely important" and "the only factor of importance". If you have evidence showing otherwise, or for your contention that the modern synthesis is "obsolescent", I'd like to see it.<BR/><BR/><I>SLOT is not restricted in application to closed systems. Closed systems merely make entropy easier to measure.</I><BR/><BR/>Pardon, I did not express myself clearly. You are right: the SLOT applies everywhere. But closed systems do not "merely make entropy easier to measure"; a crucial consequence of the law depends upon the difference between open and closed systems. In a closed system, for instance the entire Universe, the entropy of the system <I>as a whole</I> will increase with time. In an open system, entropy may decrease. That's what makes crystals, sand dunes, clouds, and life possible: they are <I>local</I> decreases in entropy, balanced by increases in entropy elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><BR/><B>The Earth is not a closed system, and energy from the Sun can and does reverse entropy, creating order paid for by an increase in entropy elsewhere.</B><BR/><BR/>You replied:<BR/><BR/><I>Do you have a reference to a study that does the mathematical analysis? (This is rhetorical.) Obviously, your answer is merely a "Just-So" story. The question is serious, however.</I><BR/><BR/>No, my answer is not just a "Just-So" story, it is the result of having paid attention in junior high science classes. Sorry for the sarcasm, but even AnswersInGenesis has dropped the "life is impossible without God because of the SLOT" argument. You don't need to know the math to see order forming all the time: didn't you ever make rock candy? Do you think God is personally battling the SLOT every time the wind makes a sand dune? But if you want the math, start out <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life" REL="nofollow">here.</A><BR/><BR/>And about your crystal analogy: just because a crystal does not reform in exactly the same way after having been dissolved says nothing about the possibility of order increasing. As I said, crystallization is a change from a less ordered (solution) state to a more ordered (crystalline) state.<BR/><BR/>But if you want more information about how order can increase in living things, you will have to do some research yourself, because I am lazy, and after having typed this stuff out more times than I can say, I need a break. A good place to start is <A HREF="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/thermo.htm" REL="nofollow">here.</A> I'd be happy to answer any questions you have after reading this link, though.<BR/><BR/>cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-20353609203575524992009-01-25T14:47:00.000-05:002009-01-25T14:47:00.000-05:00Hi zilch."As S.J.Gould said, run the tape of life ...Hi zilch.<BR/><BR/>"As S.J.Gould said, run the tape of life again, and the chances are astronomically low that you would end up with humans again: there are simply too many other ways life could have branched off at any point."<BR/><BR/>I have no way to evaluate Gould's statement. It doesn't even seem to be wrong.<BR/><BR/>***Non-direction and selection rules***<BR/><BR/>Programmers create selection rules.<BR/><BR/>In the case of natural selection, it is unclear what its degree of importance is as far as evolution goes. Certainly the modern synthesis model is obsolescent.<BR/><BR/>SLOT<BR/><BR/>"I would be the last one to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But it applies only to closed systems with no source of energy."<BR/><BR/>Your last statement is wrong. SLOT is not restricted in application to closed systems. Closed systems merely make entropy easier to measure.<BR/><BR/>"The Earth is not a closed system, and energy from the Sun can and does reverse entropy, creating order paid for by an increase in entropy elsewhere."<BR/><BR/>Do you have a reference to a study that does the mathematical analysis? (This is rhetorical.) Obviously, your answer is merely a "Just-So" story. The question is serious, however.<BR/><BR/>Crystal entropy issue<BR/><BR/>You have failed to answer my question. You have a right to maintain your tenacity, though not by pretending to answer the question adequately. Tenacity is good for science, but transparency is essential, and you have failed to maintain transparency.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-37338493093388753762009-01-25T13:42:00.000-05:002009-01-25T13:42:00.000-05:00TomH- you say:The requirement is to begin with a l...TomH- you say:<BR/><BR/><I>The requirement is to begin with a living unit and show how the genome of mankind can be generated using undirected mechanisms.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean here, Tom. Are you saying that in order to prove that humans evolved, we would have to be able to start with some random earlier organism, and evolve humans from it again? If so, I'll agree that would be next to impossible. As S.J.Gould said, run the tape of life again, and the chances are astronomically low that you would end up with humans again: there are simply too many other ways life could have branched off at any point.<BR/><BR/>But that doesn't disprove evolution.<BR/><BR/><I>The lab and computer programming use direction in their mechanisms.</I><BR/><BR/>Depends on what you mean by "direction". If you call any kind of selection "direction", then you're right, in the sense that what is selected is not random, and the fact that the selection is not random is what makes things evolve in some direction and not just stay the same or fall apart.<BR/><BR/>But the direction need not come from a Director: in the case of the computer programs that evolve, one can set the parameters to look for, say, an efficient design for an antenna, and select those random changes that improve efficiency. As I said, such programs have now surpassed human designers, so it's stretching it to say that their products are "designed" by the programmer, when the programmer, in some cases, can't even understand how they work.<BR/><BR/>And in the case of natural selection, the whole world is the Designer, in the sense of providing an environment where organisms are constantly tested for efficiency, speed, intelligence, and many other and different qualities. No God required.<BR/><BR/><I>The natural world doesn't increase order, but entropy, as SLOT makes clear. To prove this, take a soluble crystal which has been fashioned into a particular shape. Dissolve it in water. Cause it to recrystallize. You will find that it doesn't take the original shape. SLOT cannot be denied.</I><BR/><BR/>I would be the last one to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But it applies only to closed systems with no source of energy. The Earth is not a closed system, and energy from the Sun can and does reverse entropy, creating order paid for by an increase in entropy elsewhere. In fact, in your example, crystallization is an example of order increasing locally, at the expense of a decrease in available chemical energy.<BR/><BR/>A crystal has more order than the solution from which it precipitated, just as life has more order than the raw materials from which it is made. This does not violate the SLOT, because this order is paid for.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-56564949016998118512009-01-25T11:04:00.000-05:002009-01-25T11:04:00.000-05:00Zilch- The combination of mutation and selection h...Zilch- The combination of mutation and selection has been shown to be a powerful force for generating order, in the natural world, the lab, and nowadays also in computers.<BR/><BR/>This is all irrelevant to the question of common ancestry of the hominid tree. The requirement is to begin with a living unit and show how the genome of mankind can be generated using undirected mechanisms.<BR/><BR/>The lab and computer programming use direction in their mechanisms.<BR/><BR/>The natural world doesn't increase order, but entropy, as SLOT makes clear. To prove this, take a soluble crystal which has been fashioned into a particular shape. Dissolve it in water. Cause it to recrystallize. You will find that it doesn't take the original shape. SLOT cannot be denied.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-71179002937759485732009-01-23T09:45:00.000-05:002009-01-23T09:45:00.000-05:00Hey kettle,Did you see the rock that rolled down t...Hey kettle,<BR/>Did you see the rock that rolled down the hill and accidentally designed and built a wheelbarrow on the way down to get down the hill easier?Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-12386386520590526352009-01-23T09:37:00.000-05:002009-01-23T09:37:00.000-05:00You're playing pointless semantic games there, pot...You're playing pointless semantic games there, pot.<BR/><BR/>"Here we see the path of the rock as it rolled down the hill."<BR/><BR/>Path? It made a path, people make paths!<BR/>The stone <I>rolled</I> down the hill, it didn't just fall! On its way down it thought "I'm tired of gathering moss!"henwlihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00223426423591084340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36106073843096841982009-01-23T08:04:00.000-05:002009-01-23T08:04:00.000-05:00henwli- Wind can cause different kinds of patterns...henwli- <I>Wind can cause different kinds of patterns on a desert floor. By your standards you'd do as well to say that wind is sentient.</I><BR/><BR/>But what if the wind caused the blueprints for a harrier jet to appear on the desert floor?<BR/><BR/>That's what you believe in if you hold to the ToE.<BR/><BR/>It's evolutionists who repeatedly say things like-<BR/>Natural <I>selection</I> was <I>able</I> to <I>create</I>....<BR/><BR/>Selection, able, and create all imply intelligence.<BR/>An unintelligent intelligence according to the atheist worldview.<BR/><BR/>It's a silly fairy tale.Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-41335290660759413472009-01-23T05:52:00.000-05:002009-01-23T05:52:00.000-05:00Danny said..."How is mutation and selection a...Danny said...<BR/><BR/><I>"How is mutation and selection a "powerful force?"<BR/>You speak like M&S have consciousness, a mind that "generates" order."</I><BR/><BR/>It's actually you who's adding the concept of an active agent into the equation. <BR/><BR/>Someone once commented on this with a modified popular idiom: <I>"It's the pot calling the kettle black, but only because black is the only color it knows"</I>.<BR/><BR/>Wind can cause different kinds of patterns on a desert floor. By your standards you'd do as well to say that wind is sentient.henwlihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00223426423591084340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89554304715783681532009-01-23T03:44:00.000-05:002009-01-23T03:44:00.000-05:00Zilch- The combination of mutation and selection h...Zilch- <B>The combination of mutation and selection has been shown to be a powerful force for generating order, in the natural world, the lab, and nowadays also in computers.</B><BR/><BR/>How is mutation and selection a "powerful force?"<BR/>You speak like M&S have consciousness, a mind that "generates" order.<BR/><BR/>How can you see something like a highly complex designed computer and lab, and still call it a naturalist cause?<BR/>Or for that matter a highly complex and finely tuned/balanced "natural" world, and still insist it is purely materialist?<BR/><BR/>Even without grace, it seems to be pure stubbornness, and rejection of evidence plainly seen.<BR/><BR/>As to evidence of God. You've read some of my testimony.<BR/>I can only say, when all is revealed, your mind will simply boggle.<BR/>To say you will be shocked and pleasantly surprised will be the understatement of all time.Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-19192892781953211022009-01-23T03:03:00.000-05:002009-01-23T03:03:00.000-05:00Froggie- too right.Dani'el: well, I'm still waitin...Froggie- too right.<BR/><BR/>Dani'el: well, I'm still waiting for grace to happen. Until then, I'll stick with explanations that work, and where they don't work, I'll cheerfully admit "I don't know".<BR/><BR/>And sorry, I cannot confess that such a high degree of design points away from Darwin's theory. The combination of mutation and selection has been shown to be a powerful force for generating order, in the natural world, the lab, and nowadays also in computers. Sure, we don't know all the details, and perhaps we never will. But as I, and Stan, and many others have pointed out ad nauseum, if you posit a Creator to explain this order, then unless you can account for His order, you've explained nothing at all.<BR/><BR/>Darwin's explanation for order may not explain everything, but it has already explained a great deal, and made many predictions that have proven true. I have not yet heard any explanations for God's order, nor any predictions based on God's existence that have proven true. Do you have any explanation, other than just "He was here forever"? That's no better than "life was here forever", or "the Universe was here forever", and is more complicated and not observable.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36461092420008612802009-01-22T20:18:00.000-05:002009-01-22T20:18:00.000-05:00Too funny!Almost every post this happens.Zilch and...Too funny!<BR/><BR/>Almost every post this happens.<BR/><BR/>Zilch and Stan take the time to explain sound science and physics to Dan, totally destroying his lame arguments and he responds with:<BR/>"Stan and Zilch,<BR/>I just see a great deal of assumptions going on."<BR/><BR/>Dan- Busted again.Froggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972110380349786742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-78718156965199784532009-01-22T18:30:00.000-05:002009-01-22T18:30:00.000-05:00Zilch,Can you confess that such a high degree of d...Zilch,<BR/>Can you confess that such a high degree of design points away from Darwin's theory?<BR/><BR/>And faith is not required to know and understand that "God did it".<BR/>It does take open eyes, the spiritual vision and discernment that comes by GRACE.<BR/>I'm not going on faith that God designed that flagella, I KNOW He did. How? By Grace He revealed it, both generally to all, and more specifically through the bible.<BR/><BR/>The revelation of God in His creation is plain for all to see.<BR/>It's just your stubborn nature to reject the truth that blinds you. Since that truth means conviction, and the rejection of your false autonomy, you reject it.<BR/><BR/>Like Dan said, I remember well my blind years, and I feel so foolish having believed all those lies.<BR/>My head was so full of them that no light could get in.<BR/>For sure it is difficult as we are taught nothing but falsehoods from our births esp in these last days.<BR/><BR/>I can only say, knowing the truth is a wonderful change, and far from the dumbing down or ignorance that we are accused of. <BR/><BR/>I know when one is in unbelief, the truth about God seems a fantasy, but think about it.<BR/>Look at that microscopic motor, and tell me it "just happened".<BR/>Talk about fantasy!Dani' Elhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08371944082656315654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-19964940221255770652009-01-22T03:38:00.000-05:002009-01-22T03:38:00.000-05:00Dan: you say the fight in you has softened? I hop...Dan: you say the fight in you has softened? I hope you don't mean the fight to make the world a better place for our kids. All other fights are unimportant in comparison to that.<BR/><BR/>I'm looking forward to meeting you this summer.<BR/><BR/>cheers from rainy Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-17557524897539249952009-01-21T19:03:00.000-05:002009-01-21T19:03:00.000-05:00Tom,Who's the microbial geneticist in the U-Tube?D...Tom,<BR/><BR/><I>Who's the microbial geneticist in the U-Tube?</I><BR/><BR/>Dr. Scott MinnichD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5226081143372756742009-01-21T17:58:00.000-05:002009-01-21T17:58:00.000-05:00Who's the microbial geneticist in the U-Tube?Who's the microbial geneticist in the U-Tube?TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-24562198685326241002009-01-21T11:27:00.000-05:002009-01-21T11:27:00.000-05:00Stan and Zilch, I just see a great deal of assumpt...Stan and Zilch, <BR/><BR/>I just see a great deal of assumptions going on.<BR/><BR/>Like I said to Kaitlyn, I perfectly understand your position since I held that same one myself for years. But these new Bible Goggles (not to be confused with beer goggles) help me see things differently. One of us is just wrong and I hope it's me.<BR/><BR/>I am feeling spiritually weak today for some reason. The fight in me has softened.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-90944661593054407652009-01-21T08:54:00.000-05:002009-01-21T08:54:00.000-05:00Stan: nice riff. Indeed.But, if the "bagful of sa...Stan: nice riff. Indeed.<BR/>But, if the "bagful of sand" is mixed with enough water to not pack, then your analogy still holds: any such mixture of sand and water will have a lower specific weight than any stone, not to mention metal, suitable for an ax head. If the sand were to pack, then all bets are off- but you wouldn't call "stuck in the sand" floating anyway, would you?<BR/><BR/>Dan: your only possible defense is "it happened just as the Bible said, because God can do miracles." But in that case, there's no point in talking about the real world, now, is there? It's all faith.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-47119033337051111082009-01-20T23:49:00.000-05:002009-01-20T23:49:00.000-05:00[Edit: bagful of "sand" = bagful of salt][Edit: bagful of "sand" = bagful of <I>salt</I>]Stan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-9276381931869833002009-01-20T23:23:00.000-05:002009-01-20T23:23:00.000-05:00Are you saying the current fossil record shows evi...<I>Are you saying the current fossil record shows evidence for evolution?</I><BR/><BR/>Not exactly. While I support this <I>interpretation</I>, what I am instead saying is that the fossil record does <I>not</I> mix the various species represented in a random manner, as one would expect if all species were present on the earth at the same time (e.g. if a global flood event was the cause for the fossils). Rather, the fossil record quite nicely conforms to the chronology predicted by the Theory of Evolution. So while the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is an <I>interpretation</I>, it is the only one I've heard promoted here that is supported by the record itself... unless you want to say that god, Satan, or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man made sure to put the fossils in such a neat order.<BR/><BR/><I>The data for that lofty extrapolation is highly questionable.</I><BR/><BR/>It's <I>plausible</I>, which is far beyond anything <I>you've</I> promoted, and that extrapolation is not "highly questionable." Even if that were the case, however, the <I>data</I> is <B>not</B> highly questionable, as you erroneously stated. Question the model if you must, but the data is available for anyone, and there aren't any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian. If humans, goats, cows, pigs, dinosaurs, birds, trilobites, and every other sort of living thing was represented at the same time on this planet, then the fossil record <I>should</I> include at least <I>some</I> amount of mixing -- everywhere. It doesn't.<BR/><BR/><I>You are discounting a great deal of data...</I><BR/><BR/>Which I'm sure you'll be happy to provide...<BR/><BR/><I>...and wildly assuming many things.</I><BR/><BR/>Such as the speed of light? The <I>assumption</I> that the laws of physics don't spontaneously change from one locale to another in our universe? The <I>assumption</I> that any stone or metal suitable for crafting an axehead is far too dense -- even in the presence of a bagful of sand -- to float? That certain modern readers of a two thousand-year-old document are so dense that they don't recognize that a fully grown human body, in its upright position, would break the surface tension of liquid water? Enlighten me.<BR/><BR/><I>I would expect something more critical from a man of your caliber.</I><BR/><BR/>Criticism is one thing, incredulity is another thing entirely. I recall in my youth being skeptical of heliocentrism; not because it didn't seem plausible, but because it was jammed down my throat. When the mechanics were explained to me, and especially when I was able to comprehend Newton's [incorrect] Theory of Universal Gravitation, I had no further reason to doubt. Granted, I had long since accepted heliocentrism, but I finally found myself able to understand <I>why</I> heliocentrism was the reigning paradigm, even if Newton's gravity was quite understood to be false.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, I was skeptical of an old universe in my youth, and even had debates not dissimilar to these with those who promoted evolution (I'm not sure of their religious affiliation at the time). Eventually, I was exposed to the many, many converging lines of evidence, all of which point to a universe far older than a scant ten thousand years or so. In fact, I am now quite familiar with many of these lines, including the demonstrated ability to conduct experiments based on the same principles. Yeah, I accept an old universe.<BR/><BR/><I>Let me throw some things out there.</I><BR/><BR/>Knock yourself out.<BR/><BR/><I>First, do you understand that a light year is a measure of distance not time?</I><BR/><BR/>O RLY?<BR/><BR/>You remind me of Einstein. You know, Doc Brown's <I>dog</I> in the <I>Back to the Future</I> series...<BR/><BR/>Sit.<BR/><BR/>Good boy.<BR/><BR/>Roll over.<BR/><BR/>Good boy.<BR/><BR/>Demonstrate for anyone who will listen your complete lack of understanding of all things modern physics.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, you had to assume that the effects of gravitational time dilation are insignificant. Einstein’s theories say, time can flow at different rates under different circumstances.</I><BR/><BR/>Good boy.<BR/><BR/>Since you're so well-versed in physics, <I>Einstein</I>, please identify for me what <I>gamma</I> would be for Doc Brown's Delorian, if it were traveling at half the speed of light (with zero acceleration). Don't forget to include the units of <I>gamma</I>.<BR/><BR/>Before you get too into the math, though, I'm particularly fascinated by this gem:<BR/><BR/><I>Under the right conditions, light from the most distant galaxies could have arrived at earth in very short amounts of time.</I><BR/><BR/>You mean, if the galaxies <B>weren't</B> distant? Or do you mean they might have been moving at, say, 9x10^10 m/s? I guess in either case the light could've gotten here more quickly than previously theorized...<BR/><BR/><I>Yet, you seem to have ignored this important principle of physics.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, something <I>does</I> tell me I've ignored an important principle somewhere... Damn. I forget. It must not have been important.<BR/><BR/><I>Third, Special Relativity shows that the motion affects the measurement of time.</I><BR/><BR/>Yep, you're absolutely right with that one. Tell me, <I>Einstein</I>, if two observers moving at different velocities relative to a [stationary] point, with at least one having a velocity which represents a significant percentage of <I>c</I>, time an event, and the two clocks in question report different spans, which one is correct?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Regarding the Francis Filament, there's an interesting discussion on the topic <A HREF="http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/9774-francis-distant-galaxy-string-vs-bbt-age-universe.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, which is hardly conclusive either way. Unfortunately, the debate waned four years ago, but from what I could gather, a particular [fairly ostracized] astrophysicist has hypothesized an explanation for the filament, which may or may not prove at all useful.<BR/><BR/>I guess you've proven it, then. The earth was the first thing created, followed by the rest of the known universe, some 6,000 years ago. All because of the Francis Filament, the light from which took ~2.7 GY to get here, if the measurements were correct.<BR/><BR/>Oops! I suppose that measurement <I>may</I> have been off by six orders of magnitude, or that General Relativity can explain how the light may have gotten here faster, or that Special Relativity can explain that the time measurement could be off due to the motion(s) involved...<BR/><BR/><BR/>----------<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the sentiment, but if you cry at my funeral, you don't get any beer (those who cry get Cosmopolitans or some other panty-dropper). In the event that you pass first, I'll happily attend your wake. I'll race you!<BR/><BR/>Also, if I die first, and it is at all possible, I promise to haunt you -- err -- to come back and tell you which of us, if any, was right. Please go easy with the proton pack or I'll slime you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Love and hugs,<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.com