Heeeeeeey! I had him as my physics prof last spring! Biggest. Geek. Evar.
(That's a complement for Dr. Kakalios.)
Still halfway through his book.
Now we know who to blame for Rorshach's improbable grapple gun.
Any spoilers in the video?
No spoilers, but he does explain the origins (to a degree) of Dr. Manhattan. Didn't ruin anything for me, but keep your mouse on the pause button just in case you feel apprehensive.
Oh, BTW, his book is awesome! I'd love to have this guy as a physics prof. I'm 34 and have been reading comics since I was 10 with no plans to stop. I'm dying to see this film next week.
Not only does this movie look like bad science but it also looks to be bad science fiction too! At > $10/person for a movie ticket, I will pass on this one.
But we covered all this when we studied the "Infinite Improbability Drive."
Bob @ #5, read the graphic novel first to get an idea of what this movie is trying to accomplish, then decide whether or not to go see it. The GN really is something that transcends the stereotypes of the medium, and if (albeit this is a big 'if' at this point) the film succeeds in living up to the depth of the novel, it will be WELL worth watching. Whatever the case, I don't think calling it "bad science fiction" is fair or informed.
How can there be any spoilers if you've read the book by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons?
With Wondercon on in San Francisco, on Friday night the 27th, Dave Gibbons, he who creates the world will be at the Cartoon Art Museum along with a display of his original art for the books, along with actual props, paintings and costumes from the film. As you can see from clicking on my name, I already geeked out at a preview of the show last Friday. The level of detail in the framed newspaper clippings recreated with "photos" of the Watchmen, to a lithograph of Moloch as a magician with whispering imps, a "Vargas" painting of The Silk Spectre's mother, details crafted down to the torn left epaulet on Rorschach's trenchcoat, even Rorshach's improbable grapple gun; badges from Veidt Industries, copies of The Black Freighter, and every feather on the Nite Owl's costume next to a yellow and black latex number; the Comedian's weapons, a certain trophy presented to Hollis "In Gratitude," various magazines and books, even an ad for Nostalgia perfume.
NewEnglandBob: Don't knock it right away, Dr. Manhattan is 90% of the suspension of disbelief needed for this movie. Do expect comic book physics, but in general the focus is on the characters and the situations, this is not your typical "hollywood superhero movie".
That whoosh sound you heard was everything he said going over my head.
I'm a colossal comic geek, and I've never been able to bring myself to read the "Physics of Superheroes" book.
I think it's cool that he's found a way to use superheroes to make physics more interesting, but I just can't bring myself to take seriously anything that claims that Superman, Spider-Man, or the Flash make scientific sense.
Am I off-base here?
I just can't bring myself to take seriously anything that claims that Superman, Spider-Man, or the Flash make scientific sense.
Am I off-base here?
Not really. I think it's kind of interesting that a physics professor has offered some sort of scientific blessing by inventing a post hoc rationale for what Alan Moore chose to do, essentially anthropomorphizing Nixonian nuclear Super Power. The only "whoosh" sound is the point of it all being missed by the scientist, who did no worse really than Deepak Chopra would have done for the same money, but ultimately, no better. At least our side knows how to use an oscilloscope, explaining how the essence of sound is separated from noise-reducing headphones, while Deepak would have cashed his check after having used the word "quantum" many more times.
@Scott: I took his spring intro physics class last year and pretty much what he did with superheroes and physics:
1) Spiderman for tension problems- and show that it *can be* possible for Spiderman to swing using spider's silk because of how strong it is (it is a physics course for pre-med and biology students).
2) Superman for gravity/force- for example, we found how much force it would take for Spiderman to leap over a building, and then we figured out how much gravity he'd have to work against to have muscles that strong, and we "calculated" the gravity on Krypton. From there, we also calculated the size of Krypton if it had a certain density, and what not...only to find that the only way Krypton could be solid and have that gravity (at the size we calculated it should have been a gas giant), would be that Krypton had a neutron star (or something) to produce that kind of gravity on a planet roughly the size of the earth.
To add my voice to the chorus for NewEnglandBob@5 - if the movie is a faithful adaption of the comic book it will be at least twenty seven different kinds of awesome.
I don't really see how it could be, really - there are bits of the comic that I don't think will translate well (such as the juxtaposition of the pirate comic stories) - but differences are to be expected; it certainly will be worth at least giving it a chance.
there are bits of the comic that I don't think will translate well (such as the juxtaposition of the pirate comic stories)
Tales of the Black Freighter is reportedly due out animated, direct to DVD. Just presume that in every theatrical venue, there will be somebody who pirated it on their portable device and watching it in the theater during the Watchmen film.
Sold me a ticket!
Amongst the many reasons I keep coming here is this: The creationist baffelgarb may make me laugh, but before I become overwhelmed with the stupidity, there is a welcome cure of science, passion and intelligence.
The lovely goddess and I will be there opening day playing a game we call nerd denial. It's where we scan the line waiting to get in, say snarky things about everyone we see, and pretend we're not just as sad as them.
We invented the game at the first showing of Lord Of The Rings.
I was just excited how in the short clip shown that when the person was thrown back, they weren't thrown straight back, but actually followed a parabolic path!
His students have a very shitty attitude. I would think that students in a university-level physics course would have some interest in the subject or would be planning to work in a physics-related field but apparently not. "Physics is boring. When am I going to use this in real life?" Physics IS real life. Can't something be insightful and useful without necessarily affecting one's day-to-day decisions? Isn't the nature of reality interesting and beautiful enough? Do we really need to dress it up with juvenile fantasies?
Isn't the nature of reality interesting and beautiful enough? Do we really need to dress it up with juvenile fantasies?
Dressing up juvenile fantasies with physics faithfully acknowledging the nature of reality with sufficient verisimilitude to withstand the scrutiny of nerds, geeks, and assorted snarking ne-er-do-wells is a practical use of physics in real life.
juvenile fantasies
Oh, and if you'd read the original graphic novel (which was close enough to actually being the original graphic novel), you'd get that the deconstruction of juvenile fantasies was rather the point of Watchmen.
Ken, please read my original post more closely. I wasn't criticizing Kakalios's involvement with Watchmen. I was criticizing his students' apathy towards physics and the presumed need to dress physics up by applying it to superheroes to make the subject interesting.
to make the subject interesting
We agree that bored people are boring, but is it necessary to dump on fiction just because it isn't real? I don't know how much more the film can accomplish than mere illustration, dimensionalizing the obsessive detail found in the books, but if you had any familiarity with the Moore/Gibbons work, you would not have taken such a cheap shot.
Ken, I get the feeling that you haven't watched the actual video. Towards the end of the video, Kakalios talks about how his students think physics is boring because it doesn't apply to real life so he teaches physics by applying it to superheroes. In my original post, the phrase "juvenile fantasies" was referring to precisely this. It wasn't referring to Moore's/Gibbons's work and it certainly wasn't referring to fiction in general. I am familiar with Moore's and Gibbons's work and Watchmen is one of my favourite graphic novels. You're arguing against a position that I don't hold.
I don't think Alan Moore troubled himself to bring in a physics consultant when scripting the original Watchmen - so why would a production intent on recreating Moore's work seek out an advisor from such a different perspective?
Actually, I think it might be towards the beginning, not the end.
Daniel, you should be able to see why I would infer an attitude toward the book that it took your eventual caveats to dispel by re-reading your posts yoiurself. I'm actually not that impressed by what Kakalios offers as an explanation for Osterman's transformation--he adds nothing to an appreciation for the material and indeed distracts from the role played by the character. To me, Kakalios sheds as little heat as light, providing little more than Treknobabble that verges on woo. Outreach is great, but I prefer Larry Gonick.
Daniel,
it would seem a bit naive to deny that in this 21st century to interest children/students for physics,it might take a little bit of what you call "juvenile fantasies" to get them hooked.
Cant see whats so wrong with it,to be honest.
Ken,
Actually, I don't. I made it quite explicit that it was his students' attitudes that I was criticizing. The first sentence of my post reads "[h]is students have a very shitty attitude." I even went so far as to paraphrase his characterization of his students' disposition towards physics. Whatever, though: I'm not here to argue. I just hate being misunderstood.
clinteas,
Keep in mind that he's a university professor. His students would be university students, not young teens/children. But since you brought it up: I wouldn't deny using superheroes to teach children physics if it gets them hooked but I still think it's pretty shitty to not be interested in the nature of the universe.
Oh man, now I'm going to cringe every time I see an unnecessary Oort ring in that movie. Not that I'm going to refrain from seeing it, though.
I'm not sure what the Professor's discussion has to do with...well, either the movie OR good science. Okay, so electrons have properties of waves. So does light. Got it. And sine waves placed half a wavelength out of phase cancel eachother out when combined. This is some elementary stuff, I mean, really--and it would be fine, if it actually had relevance to the movie or the character of Dr. Manhattan.
As it stands, as terrylong said, he's basically the Infinite Improbability Man. A comic book has to have a superhero with ridiculously nonsensical abilities, and Dr. Manhattan is it--do you really need a reason? I ask the world that accepted Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls way more than it really ought to have, do we really need science behind Dr. Manhattan?
Daniel,
You forget that not every college student in physics is there because they *want* to be there but they're there because they *have* to be there. Many of these students are only in physics because it's required for their degree- and a lot of students are less than enthused when it comes to taking required classes that don't have directly obvious connections to other coursework. Especially calc-based physics when you're doing a degree that rarely uses calculus.
To those interested in the film and who know the novel, the early reviews are promising, but not perfect, and yes, there are the inevitable problems. Thus the hardcore purists will not be satisfied, and that's without considering the changes (such as not including the Black Freighter in the theatrical cut.)
To those who're interested but don't know the novel, all I can say is...since it is VERY close to the novel, check your expectations at the door. I think this is going to be a tough movie for a lot of people to digest. I'm seeing Blade Runner mentioned a lot (in terms of possible public reaction.)
And by "rarely", I mean "never".
Ugh. 'Science Fiction films' continue their downward lurch, plundering yet more obscure comics, FFS, for material.
Can it be a good sign that the studios are sufficiently embarrassed about the crap science in their fiction that they pay real scientists to act as their apologists? I fear it's just a little lubricant on the thin end of the wedge.
Makes me wish there were a Hell, where Spielberg and Lucas could swing by their thumbs for eternity for what they've helped to do to the queen of literary genres.
@Chris Davis
Ugh. 'Science Fiction films' continue their downward lurch, plundering yet more obscure comics, FFS, for material.
Oh, I wouldn't say that.
Bandai's planning to release a new Mobile Suit Gundam series, one that's finally set back in the Universal Century timeline (UC 81 to be exact). Hajime Katoki's also been signed on as the show's mecha designer, so it should be all good :3
...so sue me, I'm a Gundam otaku who's disgruntled with 00
NewEnglandBob,
First, you shouldn't be reading something like Watchmen for the science.
Second, superheros and their exploits, despite some overtures made towards scientific explanations, are not science-fiction, but more of a fantasy (though both SF and F are fantastic literature, I dislike that distinction). In many instances, the trappings of science are used in the same way that westerns use their scenery.
Chris@35: Watchmen isn't exactly obscure. It's true that the comic isn't as iconic as Superman or Batman for the lay audience, but it's a classic of the genre.
I mean, Hellboy got made, and it got a sequel - I doubt too many non-comic book fans were familiar with Hellboy (I hadn't heard of him myself; while I'm not a huge comic fan, I'm probably more well versed that the average movie going public). And that was several years ago.
But really, even if it is obscure, that doesn't make it bad. It has less automatic name recognition so a smaller automatic audience - which might mean, in the best of all possible worlds, that they make sure it's a good movie in its own right to ensure that they get more people to see it than just comic book fans. That's got to be a good thing, right?
Um. Chris...no offense, man, but I don't think you're all THAT well informed there. This thing's been lurching around in various stages of production for over two decades, as various studios, directors and writers have tried and ultimately given up. This is not a recent effort to mine "obscure" material...the comic's generally regarded as among the finest and most important written. That's partly why it was so hard to make, since there are a lot of very strong opinions about how to adapt it, or if it's even possible.
But I will concede that it probably would still be in limbo if not for a number of recent coincidences, among them the continued interest in comic adaptations. So yeah, I'm sure for some of the studio execs, "Another comic movie! Fresh material!" were the main motivators to pushing the button on this particular version.
I still haven't seen the whole movie, but one of the things that struck me about 2001 was the rotating space station. I'd seen much newer documentaries and whatnot pondering what would be like if humans lived in space for many generations, and they talked about atrophied limbs, weaker bones, etc. due to lack of gravity. I still don't understand why a rotating spaceship like that could not replicate gravity with centrifugal force so there's no side effects like that. That was a genius idea whoever had it.
Richard Wolford #4,
Thanks. I'm trying not to watch anything on the movie yet, I'm trying to read the comic first.
Ugh, another Hollywood movie best ignored!
Why the hell do they always have to be so UNREALISTIC?
Sci-fi is fun and interesting when it is at least 50% plausible, not when it's only 0.05%.
And who needs guns, explosions and pyrotechnics to cover for lacking story-line?
As to spoilers for Hollywood movies, just look at the title and the 'actors', and if you haven't spent the last 30 years under a tree-stump you know the story and the outcome. Just mix a few of the similar ones, and the number of permutations are rather limited.
Has there been a Hollywood movie in the last 30 years that after having seen 5 seconds of it, you didn't know the whole 'story'?
As for sci-fi, Dr. Who piss on anything Hollywood from great height!
Has there been a Hollywood movie in the last 30 years that after having seen 5 seconds of it, you didn't know the whole 'story'?
I heard The Passion of the Christ has a good surprise ending.
Notes from a Watchmen Virgin:
I never heard of Watchmen until last year, so I decided to find out what all the fuss was about. I bought the graphic novel a few days ago. I should note that I've never been a big reader of comics and have only been familiar with the big name brands (Bat/Super/Spider: Man.) My impressions:
1. Watchmen does more than just deconstruct the super hero, it destroys the entire concept. I would even go so far as to say Watchmen hates super heroes.
2. In some ways the whole thing was too real. I found it pessimistic, depressing and populated with super narcissists and super losers.
3. All of the characters were so deeply flawed that I found I couldn't really care about any of them.
4. It was thought provoking. I couldn't get it out of my head for a couple of days.
I may go see the movie, if for no other reason than to see how well this story transitions to film.
Re comment on my #35. I have no specific beef with Watchmen. I'm sure it's a perfectly good let's-make-a-fairytale-with-lasers-instead-of-wands-so-people-will-think-it's-science movie and comic.
My objection, as one who has loved real SF since the 50s, is that there has been no more than a handful of hard science SF movies since 2001. I'd cite Terminator, The Abyss, Scanner Darkly and Primer. There are others. The bulk, however, are silly fairy-stories with CGI to make them at least look realistic, largely aimed at those whose disbelief suspenders need new elastic. Small wonder they're mining media aimed at children.
Back in the day we dreamed of the time when the world would recognise SF, and it would become mainstream. Had I known that it would do so by dint of lowered standards I'd have stuck to my Ace paperbacks.
@45: er, the whole point about the Watchmen mythos is that the costumed heroes in it are human, not magical or superpowered. There is only one character who has actual "powers", they're as physics-based as anything in hard SF (certainly at least as hard-SF as Terminator) and a major theme is the way that this separates him from thsoe around him and his own humanity. Ironically, it seems that you've avoided one of the few graphic novels that would actually suit your tastes in SF.
The person who thought up the rotating space station in 2001 was Wernher von Braun.
I don't really think Watchmen should be classified as science fiction at all! Have any of the people accusing it of being another bad science fiction hollywood superhero movie, plundered from an obscure list of old comics actually read Watchmen?
Please, make sure you are at least a little familiar with what you are commenting on before assuming it will be more terrible Hollywood rubbish...
@Chris Davis
I love Terminator as well, but if you can count a movie with evil robots travelling through time as hard sci-fi, you can count the Alien movies. Jee-sus.
Also, you should check out Sunshine. Had it's share of small mistakes and silliness, but it was restrained, level-headed, basically no "oh that is total bull" moments, a sci-fi(horror) treat.
@ Jason Dick #19:
actually followed a parabolic path!
Ah, but for a school-book parabolic trajectory one has to be a flat-earther! Seriously. Go back and look at the maths and think about it carefully. Plus of course it's necessary to be in an atmosphere-free zone too, since any surrounding medium means friction opposing the motion. Then there's the additional tweak for being on a rotating planet (which I'm not unreasonably guessing applies to this Watchmen thing).
There is fantasy, sci-fi and then there is the movie-fication of graphic novels.
The reason that Kakalios makes this video is not as apologetics for the bad science in the film, but to use the film to illustrate through correction the real physics as "Manipulated" by the film. Phil Plait, who has not been a guest on our radio show, started out on this whole internet thing by pointing out the bad science in science fiction films and through badastronomy.com and the Discover blog has drawn many people who would not otherwise be interested in science into learning more about science.
If the movie doesn't inspire viewers to learn about physics, then Jim Kakalios will use videos like this to draw them in by showing them "The rest of the story."
One of my favorite essays of Isaac Asimov's was the one in which he explains how he had to shoehorn physics in order to write the novel Fantastic Voyage. He did his best to keep it real, but had to fudge a great deal in favor of sticking to a storyline. That's what movie producers often have to do.
Now, if Phil Plait would find time in his busy schedule.....
Ri-chan @32
Many of these students are only in physics because it's required for their degree- and a lot of students are less than enthused when it comes to taking required classes that don't have directly obvious connections to other coursework. Especially calc-based physics when you're doing a degree that rarely uses calculus.
Which is probably why the majority of the people in this country live in a La La fantasy land of delusion... witness our current crop of politicians and especially the pseudo scientists (economists)that are our financial wizards. Their complete divorce from reality and lack of understanding of basic science, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology etc... is the root cause of our current predicament. Party on dudes!
That our children, (sorry college students are *NOT* children) are less than enthused about understanding and learning about reality doesn't exactly elicit much sympathy from me. Sigh!
BTW, before someone misunderstands, I do enjoy fantasy and science fiction. In a college level physics class, not so much.
I'm disappointed in the professor's "explanations". Analyzing superhero powers to show that, e.g., Krypton must be a neutron star is solid scientific thinking and is fine. Mumbling about quantum interference and waving his hands does not magically make being at several places at the same time remotely possible. He knows it perfectly well, of course - he even says "not strictly correct"; strictly my... ehmm.... yeah.
These kinds of apologetics only promote bad science and bad appreciation of science in the public. He should have said 'There is no way to do that that I can think of. Sorry". The power was better left unexplained, than poorly explained by bad science.
I'm perfectly fine with superhero powers that defy physics. I'm less thrilled when pseduscientific nonsesne speak is tacked on to explain it. I'm even less thrilled when physicists, who definitely know better, are the ones spouting off the pseudoscience.
I agree with Yair here.
There are bound to be discoveries in physics in future years that will allow us to do things that would look miraculous today. At the moment we cannot anticipate what these physical phenomenon are but we can speculate about the application of these discoveries (i.e. flying cars, cheap energy, teleportation etc). Its far better to keep the physics behind these applications a mystery than to go all Deepak Chopra on it when to anyone with the slightest knowledge of modern physics its obvious you are simply pulling explanations out of your ass.
Dr Manhattan is an unconventional superhero. His story is really an explanation of what happens to a person's humanity when they acquire god-like powers. I'm sure Moore didn't consider the physics behind his creation because it's really not important.
Yair @53 express my thoughts exactly about even thinking about this in terms of science.
As far as this not being good science fiction, my opinion of this kind of story is that it is fantasy and not science fiction. This kind of story as well as horror stories try to pass as science fiction and they are far from it.
To me, science fiction is represented by Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke. Most comic book fiction is fine for the kids but is not serious literature.
Well written science fiction uses possible future technology as a stage for a human story and does not rely on it as a major basis of story telling.
Man I hate the term Graphic Novel. It's a comic people, not a 'Graphic Novel'.
Graphic Novel is a term invented for people too embarrassed to admit they like comic books, and in my opinion that means they don't deserve to enjoy them.
Sorry to be so fundamental and absolutist on this point but some of us stuck with comic books long before they were fashionable.
By the way, Alan Moore says he doesn't write Graphic Novels, he writes big comic books.
It's....a....movie.
Boy, I hope it's a good one.
Has anyone analyzed the physics of Old Yeller yet?
It's fun to watch a spiel on physics stemming from the soon-to-be-released movie, but science was not a huge part of the book, so I hope no one is going to start whining about how the quantum mechanics are all wrong and whatnot when the Watchmen do come out. By all means, take issue with the professor's explanations, but let's not comment on the movie based on "bad science". It is a Hollywood movie, after all. We're lucky if they get gravity right.
That being said, I hope they won't completely destroy the comic book. I'm a big fan of the Watchmen.
@45:"...mining media aimed at children". Please, that gets old. I suggest you explore comic books a little more before passing these kinds of judgment. If a child can pick up something like, say, Dave Sim's Cerebus, I'd be pretty impressed (and if Hollywood turned Cerebus into a cuddly aardvark, I'd cry for weeks).
@52: I do think that a good grasp on reality is greatly aided by knowledge of science. But in the end, I think it's a person's lack of intellectual curiosity that creates the La La land effect (I shamefully confess that I doodled during physics class, including a pretty awesome portrait of Rutherford eating raisin bread).
@57: I've used the term 'graphic novel' a few times, and I'm trying to remember in which context. I think I tend to use it as shorthand for 'limited-run series that's been condensed into one big hardcover and now they've made a collector's edition and I hear the rights to the movie have been sold'. Otherwise, it's all comic books to me.
Ha! I purposely wrote "comic" to see if I could fish out one of those "it's not a comic, it's a GRAPHIC NOVEL!" people. Anyone else has seen the Star Wars movies (the "good" ones) and found them entertaining, but meh? I can't fathom what goes in the head of hardcore fans.
MH@#55:
Agreed on Dr. Manhattan. Any physics talk behind how he got his powers is just Phlebotium; It may as well be "a wizard did it". The point is all about how a ordinary person would cope with being made God.
re Blair: that particular parasite was living in his brain for decades (IIRC correctly it pushed out Marxist historical determinism as his ideology of choice while he was still at Oxford).
Chris, shonny:
Yeah, you definitely don't have a clue what you're talking about--but in this case I truly mean that in a non-nasty way. No, seriously. Theriouthly. :) Your assumptions about the Graphic Novel/Big Comic Book/whatever are so far off...but that's the nature of this book. It's as much aimed at children as your average porno, as much a formulaic Hollywood pic as 2001 (though again, this is barely sci-fi).
You're missing out on a real treat in not having read this one, I think, especially given how tired you seem of the same ol' same ol'.
I love the people on the board here decrying Watchmen as just a kid’s story or just a comic book. Always good to see people who have not read this Hugo Award winning story trashing it as just another juvenile fantasy.
Ken Cope wrote:
... kind of interesting that a physics professor has offered some sort of scientific blessing by inventing a post hoc rationale for what Alan Moore chose to do, essentially anthropomorphizing Nixonian nuclear Super Power. The only "whoosh" sound is the point of it all being missed by the scientist, who did no worse really than Deepak Chopra would have done for the same money, ...
Actually, Deepak Chopra probably would have charged more.
And you know what, as wrong as Deepak is about science, a world that worked the way he thinks ours does would make for an interesting bit of science fantasy.
I wonder what PZ would have to tell the makers of "The Thing" when it comes to biology. Maybe he could hire himself out to the new group filming the prequel...
Anyone saying it's "just" fantasy and therefore inferior Real Science Fiction which explores Possible Future Worlds is a Very Serious Way, is missing the point on an epic scale. The weird stuff requires a suspension of disbelief but the story is about human reactions to it
You might as well say that Márquez, Saramago and Kafka should be taken less seriously than Azimov because they don't give scientifically plausible reasons as to why weird stuff happens in their novels.
Nadya Vessey lost her legs as a child but now she swims like a mermaid.
Ms Vessey's mermaid tail was created by Wellington-based film industry wizards Weta Workshop after the Auckland woman wrote to them two years ago asking if they could make her a prosthetic tail. She was astounded when they agreed.
[...]
Weta costumer Lee Williams, who worked on the suit between film projects with seven other staff, told Close Up she "wanted [Nadya] to be beautiful and sexy".
After seeing Ms Vessey test the tail in Kilbirnie pool then frolic in the harbour, Ms Williams was stoked. "It was absolutely amazing. It's beautiful to watch Nadya swim and to see that dream come true and to be a part of that. I feel quite blessed."
Are some (well, one) of you really comparing Watchmen to Kafka?
I am reading it from all the hype, and I'm a bit interested. I am starting the third volume, but till now it's just a good enough comic. Should I be expecting a mind-blowing experience later on? There were parts where I kind of cringed, cheesy stuff but I guess that's an 80's side effect.
Nice little interview. I had the opportunity to work on optic science classes a couple years ago, and I must say the material held my curiosity very well. I have done experiments similar to his diffraction with the laser for my work on those, and that phenomena can be demonstrated very cheaply using a few handy tools and a laser pointer.
Thanks for posting this.
Those decrying Watchmen as "not proper Sci-Fi" are technically correct but also missing the point spectacularly. The original comic book was not intended as a deconstruction of comics and superhero comics in particular, and any sci-fi elements in it are there merely in service to that goal.
I suspect this is one of the main reasons it's taken so long to get made, and why so many people have had such strong opinions on it. What I'd like to see from the movie is a shift to a deconstruction of films based on comic books. I reckon that's probably the best recipe for success in the new genre whilst staying true to the spirit of the original work. It would be pretty interesting too, especially given the large number of superhero films we've seen recently.
Sorry, that's was intended as a deconstruction of comics. Was.
Dammit.
@45 Sci-fi movies...
Time Crimes is a wonderful time travel movie, much more so than Primer which was a big deception to me (includes a lot of non-sense pseudo-technical speech btw.)
Wall-E, Serenity, Aliens, Blade Runner (not exactly recent movies, but not much older than Terminator or The Abyss)
From what I've heard the movie is very dedicated to bringing the graphic novel to life and that fans of the book will be quite pleased.
@Andyo. I suspect you meant me (since I mentioned Kafka re Watchmen). I was comparing them as such, just doing a reductio on the view that hard SF fans sometimes have of "mere" fantasy. Not explaining all the fantastic elements doesn't make something childish.
OTOH, I am prepared to compare them though. "Watchmen" is a less significant work of art than "Metamorphosis". That's a comparison. I never understood why people talk as though you you just "can't compare" certain things. It's easy; I suspect you where implicitly doing yourself when you objecting to me linking the two.
As for your other question, I thought Watchmen got pretty awesome as it went on but tastes differ.
DOH! "wasn't comparing as such". @Frank Snow: Can I borrow your spare "not".
Andyo: Yeah, I'd say it continues to improve as you move on, but I can't say if you'll find it mind-blowing or not. I guess I did. It bears re-reading, though. I'm still noticing new things years later. And the absurdities are usually deliberate--the characters themselves constantly point out how silly they were/are. If the movie is close enough, then I wonder how many people will think it was being unintentionally cheesy in those parts. But silk spectre's costume is SO obvious, I have to think many will get it.
Frank: actually, one review claimed the movie WAS deconstructing hero films, but I have no idea not having seen it, and I ddn't see other reviewers make that comment.
rrt@62:
The comic book medium is designed for children and ADD-riddled dimwits.
Franz:
I see what you did there. ;)
The comic book medium is designed for children and ADD-riddled dimwits.
Generalize much? What's that crack about ADD supposed to mean, huh? Look you prejudiced, condescending ass, those of us with ADD have to... Wow, look at that. I need to rearrange my desk top.
@77
"Maus" by Art Spiegelman
"Persepolis" by Marjane Satrapi
Any of Larry Gonick's "History of..." books.
Comics are a superior form of communication, blending the depth of image with the explanations afforded by the words. You are a stuffed shirt snob who needs a buttstickectomy.
"Logicomix", by Apostolos Doxiadis et al.
So what were we talking about?
Oh yeah... Matt, I wasn't saying you can't compare things, you can compare an apple to the moon, but it's just that I found it a little exaggerated. But I haven't finished it, and I'm looking forward to some entertainment at work.
KI: I believe Franz was doing a little "chain-yanking". ; )
Not the first time I've been played.
Priam @31, I'm going to cringe every time I see an unnecessary Oort ring in that movie.
Oort Cloud? How do you get Oort Cloud out of a Big Dumb Ring? BDR's aren't cold--nor are they Kuiper belts.
Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.
And as for whether it's Comics, Komix, superheroes or underwear perverts, Will Eisner calls it sequential art.
"Worst thread ever." --Comic Book Guy
KI@80:
I suggest you take a look at my chosen name, and the context in which I posted. I was taking the piss, dude.
Someone disses comic books and you get all uppity? You're the one who needs the stick pulled out of his/her ass.
Yeah, I'm touchy about it, my bible-thumper mom burned a bunch of my comics when I was young so I overreact.
Matt Heath: Please take it. It's making me look foolish.
rtt: That certainly keeps me cautiously optimistic about the film. Do you have a link to the review?
Koyaanisqatsi music. yessss!
Franz@77,
If you don’t like comics, that’s fine; don’t read them. And don’t watch the movies that are produced from comics. That's your choice. If you want to insult to people that do like comics or the movies just to make you feel superior then Fuck Off you self-righteous ass hat.
Andyo: Fair enough; it was exaggerated, deliberately so. If people talking about broad Hollywood comedies were saying that penis jokes are only tool of inferior writers I'd have cited the porter in Macbeth. It's possible that I tend to make points in a slightly overblown way.
Wait. Rereading, you probably mean that the comic was exaggerated not my mentioning Big Literature in relation to it. If so, carry on.
Frank Snow:
I'm stuck on iPhone so can't easily link, but if you go to Ain't It Cool News, then sort through the news items to find the post from Monday where the reviewer says he can't yet review due to a gag (which was lifted yesterday anyway), he links within that post to several other reviews. 'Twas one of those. Sorry I couldn't give the actual link. Note too that only one of those reviews was a major newspaper, the rest were just film sites. The big reviews haven't landed yet.
Chris:
My objection, as one who has loved real>/b> SF since the 50s, is that there has been no more than a handful of hard science SF movies since 2001.
Actually, there have never been more than a handful of occasions when motion pictures (i.e., including both movies and television) have relatively successfully captured literary SF... but that, IMHO, is OK: You just have to think of movie SF and literary SF as fundamentally different genres, even when they share fans and themes and even plotlines. The same is true between SF and comics. Movies probably do a better job of capturing comics than literary SF, because the former is an inherently visual, action-oriented medium. In fact, you can almost look at comics as storyboards for cinematic presentations. But at the end of the day, movies are movies and comics are comics and books are books; it's not really fair to judge one by the standards of another.
BTW, I do think there's a valid distinction to be made between comic books and graphic novels, not based on some snobbish desire to project an air of greater seriousness, but based on form: A graphic novel is a self-contained work, equivalent to a novel or a feature film (and this is true even when it's part of a shared universe, in the same way that multiple novels or feature films can tell stories of the same characters in the same universe, yet be self-contained works); a comic book is an open-ended narrative, more comparable to a TV series. I don't look at "graphic novel" as a high-falutin' term intended to (unnecessarily) legitimize comic-book art and writing, but as a distinct form within the comics genre.
Bill Dauphin @95,
Far too many points in your post to underline and shout agreement with, but especially this:
you can almost look at comics as storyboards for cinematic presentations. But at the end of the day, movies are movies and comics are comics and books are books; it's not really fair to judge one by the standards of another.
Watchmen as filmed storyboard appears to have really happened, based on the props and art I saw at the Cartoon Art Museum and on these lines from this review:
I don't think I realized how close I was to the original book until I saw such a loving, detail-rich, almost obsessive recreation of that universe. It had my heart pounding and head swimming. I barely slept that night. Someone took the most special personal thing of my adolescence and put it on a movie screen. That doesn't happen every day.
In my way of thinking comics are to graphic novels as sci-fi is to SF. Indiscriminately grouping the hackwork with the stuff on which care was clearly taken (no matter how good or bad the results may be) because they share a medium is insulting.
For those thinking 'typical crap' whereto Watchmen consider this; Rohrsharch in an atheist.
Rorschach isn't just an atheist, he's an intentional sendup of a Randroid, inspired by both Spiderman artist Steve Ditko, and one of his characters, according to Alan Moore.
Bachalon (@97):
In my way of thinking comics are to graphic novels as sci-fi is to SF. Indiscriminately grouping the hackwork with the stuff on which care was clearly taken...
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're calling "regular" (i.e., episodic) comic books "hack work." If that's what you mean, I strenuously disagree.
First, I reject the pervasive social prejudice that "big" works are inherently superior (e.g., that novels are better art than short stories, feature films better than TV episodes, etc.)... and in particular, plenty of episodic comics have artistic and literary sophistication that easily the match of their graphic novel cousins. I also reject the notion that "commercial" and "artistic" are mutually exclusive.
Second, even if we stipulate that traditional comic-book-style art has lower artistic aspirations than the more fully realized, painterly art of some graphic novels, don't confuse that with a lack of craft. There's true hack work to be found in any artform or genre, of course (including, BTW, the highest-minded of artistic forms), but the best of "regular" comic books are crafted with every bit as much care as the best of anything else.
Sadly for those who live in the USA or the UK, comics are mostly tied to the superhero genre, which really doesn't make much sense. Imagine if ninety nine percent of radio dramas were historical romances and you get a sense of the absurdity.
One of the great things about living in mainland Europe is that comics are regarded as just another artistic medium, open to everyone.
Just as you'll see people of all ages on trains listening to iPods, so will you see them reading comics, and rarely are they superhero comics.
Of course the UK and the USA have some rather notable exeptions with Love and Rockets or Maus, not to mention the whole underground scene, but they are far from mainstream.
For a lot of people Watchmen is the pinnacle of the medium, when in fact it is only the pinnacle of one particular genre within the medium.
Bill, you do, but I don't have access to a computer for the length of time necessary for a substantive reply at the moment. I hope you don't mind, but I'll leave a comment at your blog later so we can talk more.
Sadly for those who live in the USA or the UK, comics are mostly tied to the superhero genre...
You're right. A wonderful exception is Adrian Tomine.
DGKnipfer@91:
You're not doing winning graphic novel fans any credit for their literary taste when you get angry at "Franz" for hating comic books in a thread where someone has compared comic books and Kafka.
Franz. Kafka. Get it?
"If you want to insult to people that do like comics or the movies just to make you feel superior then Fuck Off you self-righteous ass hat."
Yeah, *I'm* the self-righteous one.
I read "Watchmen" as a hard-bound book featuring a self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end. How is that not a graphic novel? Should I stop calling "Great Expectations" a novel since it was first published as a series of magazine articles?
Should I stop calling "Great Expectations" a novel since it was first published as a series of magazine articles?
Writer Alan Moore believes, "It's a marketing term ... that I never had any sympathy with. The term 'comic' does just as well for me. ... The problem is that 'graphic novel' just came to mean 'expensive comic book' and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics — because 'graphic novels' were getting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel...."
Writer Neil Gaiman, responding to a claim that he does not write comic books but graphic novels, said the commenter "meant it as a compliment, I suppose. But all of a sudden I felt like someone who'd been informed that she wasn't actually a hooker; that in fact she was a lady of the evening.
Ken: Beverage, nose, etc. Damn I like Gaiman!
I genuinely hope that Jim Kakalios received an enormous sum of money for making this big of an absolute fool of himself. How does superhero Y make himself disappear and reappear magically? Ohhhh, he's "a wave" and out of phase waves cancel don'cha know *handwave*handwave*handwave* presto! Magic pawahs! Oh but how does he appear in more than one place at a time? *handwave*handwave*handwave*, diffraction patterns! presto, magic pawahs! Kakalios is a physicist and obviously knows better, but he apparently want's me to believe that he's doing a Feynman fandango to reel people in with pop culture and then teach them real physics, but it's plainly obvious he's actually just doing a Chopra cha-cha to sell to the woo-addled masses who won't know or don't care about the actual difference between real science and comic books. It's time for people like him to stop peddling this stupid BS and say something like "look, this is a fantasy story, physics (and for that matter all rationality) don't apply in the land of FICTION".
Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit and that it doesn't really matter what we call them?
The reason I tend to use "graphic novel" is that "comic book" implies that the book is somehow funny or intended to be so, which is actually pretty uncommon among comic books. "Comic books" is just a label, and one I don't think is particularly apt. I don't have any problem with anyone using it though, so please stop stepping on my (more accurate) "graphic novel" descriptor. And I don't see why Moore's and Gaiman's cultural discomfort with the term should determine my vocabulary.
Though it does create a dilemma for American Splendour and other non-fiction works in the comic book milieu. Graphic non-fiction?
For those of you hating on the medium, please read Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. For those of you insisting that Watchmen itself is juvenile, try reading the goddam thing with an open mind.
And I thought theists were defensive...
Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit and that it doesn't really matter what we call them?
I suppose asking so politely is one way to find out.
Dr. Manhattan is also atheist/agnostic.
"I mean, I don't know what you are. Nobody does. You were disintegrated, you put yourself back together... They say you can do anything, Jon. They say you're like God now."
"I don't think there is a God, Janey. If there is, I'm not him."
Franz,
So let's get this straight: you make a pathetic attempt at humour, a couple of people take you seriously, you get the kind of reaction you were aiming to get in the first place and then you get all offended at that reaction.
Yep, I think you're right. You are definitely the self-righteous one.
a couple of people take you seriously, you get the kind of reaction you were aiming to get in the first place
This is a variety of interaction where context matters a lot. Because of context, before a couple of people took Mr. K. seriously, a couple of people didn't, and played along. What makes you think that wasn't the reaction Franz was looking for? And speaking of context, it wouldn't have taken a lot of reading for #91 to have skimmed enough to learn that Franz K had already copped to taking the piss, so I've got no sympathy. Fuses are so short...
Come on. It's a thread about Watchmen. He was being a stirrer and some people got stirred - a completely predictable reaction. Franz is out of line snapping back at them.
Me, I've got no sympathy for stirrers (even if I do indulge on occasion…).
I've never heard of the movie till a few months ago and have never read the comi...I mean graphic novel but, I'm already as sick of the hype surrounding this movie as I was for "Snakes on a Plane".
#33-
I know there's no way it'll make it, but from what I recall, most of the stuff that initially struck me about The quote correction with the whole "There is a God, and he's American," thing re: Dr. Manhattan, and the "supportive" New Frontiersman article that permanently annihilated my desire to be a superhero (I was in middle school at the time)... So it's rather sad to know that that'll be left out.
That said, I'm loving the Keene Act PSA and false news report, since that seems like a good way to try to pull in some of the depth of worldbuilding found in the original sup stuff.
To all those considering picking it up: try it, really. It's not a nice comic, but it's fun, it's complicated, and Nixon is still president in 1985. So it probably crosses into the horror genre, too.
#99-
Rorschach started off as a Question expy, but ended up having a lot more in common with the notably crazier Mr. A. Ditko loves him some Objectivist author mouthpieces.
Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit...
No.
A comic book is a periodical publication, usually saddle-stitched and relatively inexpensive, that relates a single episode of a long, usually open-ended, story (or sometimes such episodes in two or more different long, usually open-ended stories), or tells a relatively brief story that's part of an open-ended series of brief stories about the same characters.
A graphic novel is a single unified work, usually a perfect-bound softcover book (but sometimes hardbound) and often printed on higher quality paper (and thus more expensive) than comic books, that tells a single unified story that may or may not be related to other stories in comic books or other graphic novels.
These definitions stand regardless of the genre of story the work is telling (humor, romance, personal memoir, superhero, SF, classic adventure, etc.) or your general attitude about the artistic worthiness of illustrated storytelling.
Words have actual meanings; I'm reluctant to "just agree" that they're "semantic bullshit." YMMV.
SCIENCE FICTION & SCIENCE
Aliens finally reach Earth in 8600 A.D.. Unfortunately, man annihilated himself in 2050 A.D. and no record of his existence remains except for the presidents on Mt. Rushmore. The challenge for the aliens is to explain how the heads were formed in the mountain using only naturalistic causes. Any attempt to attribute their origin to fairies, gods, humans, etc. will not be accepted as science. The aliens define “science” by those things which are observed or have naturalistic explanations, thus, fairies, gods, and humans have been discounted. The aliens believe themselves to be unique and more complex than anything they have observed in the universe. The president’s heads are admittedly complex in appearance but are not understood since the aliens have no similar appendages or sensory organs. The aliens decide to perform a surface scan of the presidents’ heads and perform a computer analysis. In-depth mathematical computations are performed using integral calculus, frequency probability, and Bayesian probability. The conclusion is thus: The stone faces are less complex than the aliens by many orders of magnitude. The faces were likely formed by wind and rain erosion. This deduction seems reasonable since the aliens have adopted “naturalistic science” to explain their own origins. Some aliens have disagreed with the conclusion realizing that their opponents are threatened by the idea of fairies, gods, or humans supplanting their uniqueness and intelligence. Also, they realize that even though the faces are less complex than themselves, they are sufficiently complex to discount mechanisms of random rain and wind erosion. Attributing the stone faces to fairies, gods, or humans seems more reasonable but this opposing theory is soon quenched since it incorporates non-scientific “mythical” entities. Besides, the dissenters are ignorant of the finer nuances of true naturalistic science.
Allan Clarke:
You are precious.
You just love to hear the wind rattling between your ears, don't you? And your straw men don't even have the decency to be clothed in anything resembling a coherent or intelligent argument. You use Bayesian in a sentence and it gives you the impression you're a smart guy.
You would be wrong but keep it up, there's comic gold coming from your posts.
The challenge for the aliens is to explain how the heads were formed in the mountain using only naturalistic causes.
So all traces of art, bones, detritus or structures except Rushmore have magically disappeared?
You are the MASTER of cogent arguments. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah... whooh.
Allan:
Um, I have to ask... have you decided which high school you're going to next year? *snort*
E.V.: Thanks so much for your comments. The post is a rough draft so any suggestions on how I can make the analogy more pertinent for atheists is appreciated. You didn't seem to care for the "Bayesian" logic so what would be better? Keep in mind that I'm trying to reach the broadest atheist audience, so even if the "logic" is "illogical", don't rule it out. But didn't I hit the nail on the head with the "naturalistic science" bit? It's a narrow way of looking at things, the box office potential is unlimited, and it's the current craze!
Aliens finally reach Earth in 8600 A.D.
Aliens who have evolved naturally, of course.
Unfortunately, man annihilated himself in 2050 A.D. and no record of his existence remains except for the presidents on Mt. Rushmore.
Because a malevolent supernatural entity has erased all remnants of humanity? Indeed, this malevolent supernatural entity has erased all signs that any vertebrate life ever existed on Earth?
The challenge for the aliens is to explain how the heads were formed in the mountain using only naturalistic causes. Any attempt to attribute their origin to fairies, gods, humans, etc. will not be accepted as science.
"Humans" are the equivalent of "fairies" and "Gods" because you say so, right?
The aliens define “science” by those things which are observed or have naturalistic explanations, thus, fairies, gods, and humans have been discounted.
Right. Because of course, hypothesizing humans — a natural species that evolved naturally, just like the aliens themselves — cannot possibly be naturalistic.
Knowing how demented you are, there's not much point in going into further detail.
blah blah blah, misuse of logic; blah blah blah, zero knowledge of geology and how erosion works; blah blah blah, zero knowledge of probability and statistics; blah blah blah, assume stupid conclusion because hypothetical aliens are as ignorant of math, logic, archaeology, and geology as Alan Clarke is, blah blah
Say, Alan, what kind of crap did your grandfather come up with when shown biographies of Truman? Did he claim that it was a typographical error, or that there was an actual conspiracy to make it look like Truman died at a different date, or what?
So, aliens are stupid in Alan's head; therefore God.
Right.
You don't read much SF do you, Alan?
Go read "Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge" and then we'll talk (maybe).
Allan:
The post is a rough draft...
WTF? A blog comment is a rough draft?? Do you also ramble on with your friends (if any) in real-life conversation... only to let them know that your chat was just a "rough draft" for a talk you're planning to have with someone else?
If you want someone to proofread/edit your half-baked SF, hire someone. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't do that sort of work for free unless I'm asked real nicely.
You don't read much SF do you, Alan?
Alan Clarke is a hardcore no-compromise biblical literalist creationist. I doubt he's read much of anything outside of the bible and creationist apologetics.
Go read "Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge"
He's been asked to read an essay by a Christian on the real science of radiometric dating, geology, and an old earth. The author of the essay is obviously devout, and is possibly even an old-earth creationist. Did Alan read it? He did not, and came up with ever more ridiculous assertions that a global flood a few thousand years ago must have really happened.
He refuses to read or think about anything that challenges his belief system.
If you want someone to proofread/edit your half-baked SF
No, I think he meant a rough draft of a Christian Creationist apologetic, with an SF theme.
He no doubt thinks that SF as a genre is all lies of the devil, anyway.
Owlmirror:
No, I think he meant a rough draft of a Christian Creationist apologetic, with an SF theme.
Ah, you caught me: I didn't actually read his "rough draft" beyond the first sentence or so. Still, I couldn't stop myself from commenting on the sheer effrontery of calling a comment here a "rough draft," as if the hallowed halls of Pharyngula were some sort of out-of-town tryout for his little show. ;^)
Bill, are you still interested in talking?
E.V.: So all traces of art, bones, detritus or structures except Rushmore have magically disappeared? You are the MASTER of cogent arguments.
E.V., your objections to the believability of my story are valid. Some of these will be tough to overcome but I really have looked ahead. I just didn’t want to disclose everything in one post because too much text might raise some eyebrows – like I’m trying to hijack the thread.
When the aliens “die”, their bodies sublime into the atmosphere, so the idea of fossils is completely “alien” to them. What’s more, their planet never experienced a global flood! Because of their pre-conceptions, they would never think of diverting their attention from the atmosphere and start looking for evidences of human origins in the ground. Didn’t the silly pre-conceptions of the humans cause them to overlook the soft tissue (or biofilm??) in dinosaur bones? Now the stuff seems to be in every museum! Traces of art? The Mt. Rushmore visitor center is buried deep under sand and dust just like those pyramids in the Valley of the Kings. The aliens have a limited amount of time before their energy sources run out just like NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander. They are headed due north toward the polar cap but Saskatchewan looks like a wasteland! It’s so sad. Even if they found art how would they recognize it as such? In 8600 A.D., “Piss Christ” will have dissolved itself in its own uric acid. A cow might have pissed it into existence. On the trek to the pole, a few cemetery statues were discovered. They seem to be of the same material and form as the faces on Mt. Rushmore leading to the belief that all such objects were created by wind and water erosion. The mystical creative properties of wind and water are now the focus of attention.
In another chapter I want to address the “silly pre-conceptions of the humans”. The ideas for my drama come straight from the history books so I don’t want to claim too much credit.
Watchmen is the new Titanoboa.
Shorter Alan: Really weird, off-the-wall, nonsensical, farfetched, makes-no-sense, propped up at every turn analogy. Therefore god exists.
The analogy is .33 Rooke.
What’s more, their planet never experienced a global flood!
So their planet is just like earth then...If you are going to make a story for atheists, the least you can do is remove all traces of mythology. There was no global flood, we've looked 4.4 billion years back through time and there has never been any global flood in the rocks... there are however instances of localised flooding, and global markings of a comet impact ~65MYA. Also it would help to stop thinking that scientists put us above all other life in the universe. It's the creationists who do that, not the scientists.
Also it would help to stop thinking that scientists put us above all other life in the universe. It's the creationists who do that, not the scientists.
Amen brother. We humans are just another primate.
Click on my name for my Alan Clarke impersonation (although he probably doesn't drink bottled Guinness).
I just didn’t want to disclose everything in one post because too much text might raise some eyebrows – like I’m trying to hijack the thread.
Too Fucking Late. We See What You Did There.
When the aliens “die”, their bodies sublime into the atmosphere, so the idea of fossils is completely “alien” to them.
Sublime into the atmosphere? Dude, are you high?
"Hey, Volatile Alien Leader, some of the xenoarchaeologists think this structure was carved by intelligent beings."
"Impossible, Volatile Alien Egghead! How could there be intelligent beings that formed such a structure and yet utterly disappeared????"
"Um, maybe they sublimed into the atmosphere when they died, just as we do?"
"Oh! How stupid of me! Too bad we either evolved (or, as some of the weird cultists think, were created by that monumental demented moron Alan Clarke). If we had been created by a truly Intelligent Designer, I'm sure I would have thought of that monumentally obvious explanation!"
The aliens have a limited amount of time before their energy sources run out just like NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander.
Because of course, Volatile Aliens can travel the galaxies but are incapable of coping with dust, just like our Landers?
Seriously, dude, what drugs are you taking when you type this shit up?
So, what did your grandfather say when he saw NASA moon mission stuff? Scream "Fake!" at the top of his lungs? Babble on about sound stages and conspiracies? What?
Alan, haven't you learned anything from L Ron Hubbard? You don't use woeful sci-fi to defend an existing religion, you use it to create a whole new one.
Because of course, Volatile Aliens can travel the galaxies
I was just going to comment on that - naturalistic science gave them interstellar travel, but he's worried that they can't figure out Mt Rushmore? Oh no, their race is surely doomed.
Oh my... that has to be the most ham-fisted, inane bit of allegory I've ever seen. Well, outside of the Bible or Comfort's blog at least. There is just so much wrong with that. Pyramids in the Valley of the Kings? Sublime? Have you ever taken a chemistry class? FFS.
For those of you that haven't met Alan, search for his posts on the now closed Titanoboa thread. Hilarity and headdesking in bountiful measure await you.
You might want to review it too, Alan. There's a few questions, rebuttals and a certain link that you've left unacknowledged.
Purpose
To illustrate that much supposed “scientific objectivity” is subjective. Science is often tainted by “silly human pre-conceptions”. One cannot pursue science while disconnecting themselves from presuppositions, experiences, and an a priori belief system.
What is Science?
AIG isn't science.
Science is real, God isn't.
Science does not use god for anything.
Kent Hovind doesn't understand science.
What you think of science is not science.
our livelihoods do depend on science being taken seriously
that idiot gloated that science doesn't know everything yet.
Get a science education before you talk on matters science please!
Science gets rid of the false stuff and only keeps that which works.
try actually perusing even popular science magazines once in a while
Creationism isn't science. only science gets taught in science class.
learn some science by say, taking courses and actually reading textbooks.
peer reviewed scientific literature is the only place where real science is done.
with such a basic misunderstanding of how science works you will never be able to grasp...
A man sees a brown rabbit at 50 meters in a field of brown dead grass but a 2-year-old fails to locate it. A man sees a green frog on a lily pad but a 2-year-old fails to locate it. Even though the child may have 20/20 vision, the child fails to locate the hard-to-see animal. Why? An adult has knowledge that the child does not. The adult has learned and memorized attributes of the rabbit and frog that the child has not. The adult has learned to differentiate between near-same colors. The adult has learned to be more patient and persevering than the child. The varying theories of cognitive development illustrate that the actual mechanisms are little understood. For example, the following link explains how multiple theories are supplanting Piaget’s traditional theory of cognitive development:
Instead of a child simply knowing where to look because the rabbit was previously in “that place”, the child may have a built-in “core knowledge” which gains them success in locating any object where previously first discovered. What has this got to do with an evolutionist deciding that men and monkeys have a common ancestral relationship because of homological and sequential similarities? It has everything to do with it. The Wikipedia link states: “Recently Piaget's theory has been falling out of favour for a new theory called Ecological Systems Theory. This is based on the contextual influences in the child's life like his/her immediate family, school, society and the world, and how these impact the child's development.” If this is true, and I believe it is, then we can readily see that one’s interpretation of a fossil or DNA sequence is HIGHLY dependent upon family, school, society and the world.
A recent PBS news documentary on North Korea interviewed several Koreans. They referred to Kim Jong Il as “The Great Leader”. Children worked to excel at acrobatics so they could one day please “Our Dear Father” in a national pageant. All adults expressed incredulity at why America wanted to attack them since “The Leader” had nothing but good intentions. No scientist on this forum would want to be grouped as such, but no North Korean or human being for that matter would want to be thought of as incapable of making objective decisions because of pre-conditioning. Look at Owlmirror’s simple matter-of-fact, indisputable, foundational belief on “Titanoboa” post #762: “There was no global flood.” Most if not all of his scientific world-view stands or falls on this supposition. Fortunately, he can relax knowing that his “science” has elevated him to a position where he is incapable from making such fundamental blunders. His objectivity which brought him to this conclusion could not possibly be ill-affected by family, school, society or the world. He is his “own man”, gifted (or evolved??) with insight and faculties untainted by family, school, society and the world. Unfortunately, his own theory contradicts this. Fruit flies with non-beneficial mutations are more likely to be rejected by others of their society. To what extent would Owlmirror exert himself to be “received” back to society if the minutest imperfection were noticed by another societal member? Again, Owlmirror need not worry about such trivia clouding his scientific objectivity because such imperfections are isolated from his psyche.
Is looking at a fossil and drawing a conclusion a simple matter? The required mental processes are far more complex than what many assume:
Is it possible for an adult to behold an object without drawing upon previous experience? If one thinks he is objective and free from prejudices when evaluating evidences, then that person is blind to his own inner-workings. I often hear the amusing words, “My interpretation is based solely on the evidence.” Something must be learned before one can analyze an object. Some people have a knack for finding 4-leaf clovers while others do not. Some can see the hidden objects in 3-D art prints whereas others cannot. People who suffer brain damage in an accident are more apt to understand that previous mental faculties were taken for granted.
Is it possible that current-day science is on the same misguided path as those pitiful aliens searching for the origins of Mt. Rushmore’s granite president heads? By discounting “humans” as a possible mechanism for carving the heads, science is led astray.
Who is more “scientific”? Theists will consider natural causes. Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.
Conclusion:
If God is exchanged, ignored or denied prior to pursuing “science”, then one’s interpretation of evidences may be far removed from the actual truth, if God indeed exists. Reality as seen through naturalistic science alone may be nothing more than an illusion.
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” - Richard Dawkins
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” - William Provine
All of those words tossed onto the wall but this was the only thing that made sense.
Who is more “scientific”?
Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.
It must have been an accident.
Look at Owlmirror’s simple matter-of-fact, indisputable, foundational belief on “Titanoboa” post #762: [... blah blah blah, Alan Clarke psychoanalyzes little ol' me ...]
You're obsessed with me, aren't you?
Do I need to take out an Internets Police restraining order?
If God is exchanged, ignored or denied prior to pursuing “science”, then one’s interpretation of evidences may be far removed from the actual truth, if God indeed exists.
And yet there are devout God-believers who accept the age of the earth and of the universe; devout God-believers who accept the common descent of all life; devout God-believers who accept evolution.
Since they do not "ignore" or "deny" God prior to pursuing science, then their interpretation of the evidence is clearly not far removed from the actual truth, even if God exists.
Your conclusion is falsified. Too bad you wasted all that time typing up such easily-refuted word salad. Ha ha!
Reality as seen through naturalistic science alone may be nothing more than an illusion.
Only if God is a liar. Are you calling God a liar?
So what you're saying Alan, is that we should stop looking at the world with through the filter of our preconceptions, and instead use yours?
It's not science unless it can be mangled and twisted into conforming with a Bronze Age book of folktales?
Does this guy sound like he's ignoring or denying your God?
You've been talking about jumping to conclusions based on what one's experienced, been raised thinking...
What do you think the Stone Age Hebrews knew of geologic time? How big do you think they thought the world was? Did they know about the oceans, or was the Mediterranean the biggest body of water they had any contact with (and of that only the edges). Did they know about any of the other continents? Did they know anything about penguins or bacteria or narwhals or platypus? Did they know that some of those "stars" at night were actually galaxies or nebulae? Did they understand anything about how traits were passed from parents to child, or even what a spermatozoa or ovum were? (I seem to remember something about goats and sticks. Is that correct, Alan? Have the world's biologists really screwed up on the genetics thing? If that's the case, shouldn't we be releasing a lot of inmates who were convicted on the basis of DNA evidence? Shouldn't we be re-arresting those who were exonerated by it?)
The Biblical writers described a world tinted by their presuppositions, prejudices, politics, and perspective. We've learned just a little more about things since, Alan. You don't have to squint through that pinhole anymore.
Bachalon (@131):
I saw your comment at my recently-too-neglected blog; I'll respond this weekend (and restart posting there, for whatever that's worth). The short answer is that I'm always interested in talking, but I don't care that much about arguing over the artistic merits of comic books in particular. I think some folks write them off too easily (and perhaps I was in error in thinking you were part of that group), but I don't lay awake at night over it. ;^)
Alan Clarke can start spewing creationist graphomania (if cutting and pasting is writing) on yet another thread completely unrelated to his particular flavor of bug-shit crazy, and everybody is OK with that?
Bill, thanks for getting back to me here. I'd love to get a chance to explain myself (I think I was a bit vague with my original post), as I'm in complete agreement with you, but figured you deserved clarification for your response, y'know?
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you.
Ragutis: So what you're saying Alan, is that we should stop looking at the world with through the filter of our preconceptions, and instead use yours?
I don’t recommend that you emulate another fallible human. I’ve degraded myself in posting photos of sagging butts. What you need is a standard higher than all of that. If you join a Catholic church you might end up yanking on beads or praying to the Queen of Heaven. In your current fallen state, you might have an affinity for churches that preach on 101 ways to get rich, win friends and influence people. Hopefully you can discern falsity when you shop. I don’t know your exact case but I’d like to refresh your memory:
Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.
If you continue on your present course, you have only a 50% chance of being right. My personal belief is that your scientific foundation is 100% wrong but I’m trying to appeal to your mind which currently can only comprehend natural causes. How else can I communicate to you? For each and every natural cause, there is a natural explanation. Even if the explanation is wrong or unknown, you have faith that the answer will always lie within the realm of “natural causation”. Even though perhaps 50% of the people on this planet are telling you it’s not so, you continue in faith. Here is something else to consider: I have a distinct advantage over you. I have lived on both sides of the divide. My father came from a long-line of engineers who were largely atheists. Everything had a naturalistic answer. In my stupidity, I once swallowed 4 barbiturate tablets during an evening of pleasure-seeking. I miraculously managed to drive home, slept two days while thinking only one had transpired, then was greeted by my father with the question of who had ran over the mailbox. Seeing my tire tracks running straight through the middle of the yard, I confessed that I had taken some pills. My father’s only comment is forever seared into my mind, “If you took some sleeping pills, then why did you drive the car instead of going to bed?” His question was completely void of any spiritual insight to the turmoil of my life at that time. Everything had a naturalistic answer. I know all about “naturalistic” answers, because I was pre-conditioned by my father to think this way for the first 22 years of my life. Why do placebos have a beneficial effect? What is your “naturalistic” answer? Why do hopeful POW’s survive whereas those who lose hope cease to survive? How much does hope weigh? How much does information weigh? Where does information come from? Newtonian physics explains things quite nicely to a certain point. After that point, another science is necessary. Scientific “naturalism” explains things nicely to a certain point. After that point, it completely fails and something else is needed. I never “invented” my answers when my father’s answers ceased to explain. Rather than me finding the answer, the answer found me.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
A lot of people on this forum admit that they’re not looking for any answers. Life holds no perplexities and they are quite satisfied with their current state.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates
"Dear Jesus, in your name I pray. Please have 5 or 6 of your thugs take Alan Clarke into a dark alley and beat some smegging sense into him, then leave him trussed up on some church altar somewhere wearing nothing but a ball gag and some tassels. Failing that, would you please leave him in a prison cell with Walter "Rorschach" Kovacs until he can learn how to stay on topic, or STFU. Since you're both fictional characters, this shouldn't be a problem."
Ken@150: ROFL!
I don’t recommend that you emulate another fallible human.
All religion comes from fallible humans.
I’ve degraded myself in posting photos of sagging butts.
And you do it again... because why? Is there something about degrading yourself that you actually enjoy?
What you need is a standard higher than all of that.
Science has the higher standard of empirical skepticism, which on the one hand acknowledges fallibility, and on the other, has the external natural world as the final test of all truth claims.
Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.
All I've seen you (and other Creationists) do so far is deny natural causes.
My personal belief is that your scientific foundation is 100% wrong
How do you know?
How would you know if you were wrong?
but I’m trying to appeal to your mind which currently can only comprehend natural causes.
Try to define a non-natural cause in a way that is in any way coherent.
How else can I communicate to you? For each and every natural cause, there is a natural explanation. Even if the explanation is wrong or unknown, you have faith that the answer will always lie within the realm of “natural causation”.
No demonstration that anything outside of "natural causation" is real, or even coherent, has ever been made.
Even though perhaps 50% of the people on this planet are telling you it’s not so, you continue in faith.
Who cares what 3 billion (or even all 6 billion) people say, if they have no way of demonstrating that what they say is true, or even coherent?
My father’s only comment is forever seared into my mind, “If you took some sleeping pills, then why did you drive the car instead of going to bed?” His question was completely void of any spiritual insight to the turmoil of my life at that time.
Because he was supposed to magically understand that you were having serious emotional problems?
Say, is that why you keep arguing here? To get back at your own father for not being warm and caring and understanding enough?
Skipping through your questions about placebos and hope... I'm just curious how you get from "Placebos work, and hope keeps people alive" to "The bible is literally true." Again, people can and do believe in God without getting to that level of fanatical devotion.
Scientific “naturalism” explains things nicely to a certain point. After that point, it completely fails and something else is needed.
Sorry, your say-so is not good enough. You will need to demonstrate that "something else" in the real world.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
And yet asking for a real-world demonstration and empirical validation of God's knowledge and power is always, eternally, denied.
Sorry. Your bible is simply not good enough.
A lot of people on this forum admit that they’re not looking for any answers.
We're certainly not looking for your answers, since they are self-evidently wrong and contradictory.
Life holds no perplexities and they are quite satisfied with their current state.
Who, indeed, has said that? We, or you?
Do you agree with this statement:
"We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief."
If you do, then why do you bother coming here to argue?
If not, why do you not actually educate yourself in the sciences which you so continually get wrong in your arguments?
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates
Who lived and died and never heard of Jesus Christ. He certainly would not have agreed that the bible was infallibly true.
Is he burning in hell? If so, why do you cite him as a guide to life?
If not, what does anyone need with the bible or Jesus Christ? All one needs is a philosophy which includes the examination of life. There are quite a few of those, most of which existed centuries before Christianity.
Many of the early philosophers were not atheists... but their philosophies had small or nonexistent roles for the Gods, or God. The natural philosophers and the early scientists did not deny the existence of God; they studied the natural world. Science does not deny God; it simply refuses to ignore anything in the real world — even if that which is in the real world contradicts some prior alleged religious dogma or alleged revelation.
And by the way, what exactly are you examining about life?
Owlmirror: You're obsessed with me, aren't you? Do I need to take out an Internets Police restraining order?
There is something unique about your character that draws my attention to you:
“All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.” – William Shakespeare
What has inspired you to play the part of God’s nemesis? Is it for fame, recognition, or to have a gold star pasted on your homework lesson? (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php) Your posts are usually a rich array of scripture texts with attempts to expound the meaning of God’s words. Those who teach bear a greater responsibility than those who listen. When a country is conquered, to insure that an internal revolt doesn’t develop, those who are in higher authority with greater influence and education are usually executed, imprisoned, or watched more closely. Even if your character is a pretense, the victor won’t waste his time in interpreting you to the contrary, so your demise will be of your own choosing. I don’t know if your choice of “Owlmirror” for your anonymous identity was intentional, accidental, or fateful:
“In general, owls are viewed as harbingers of bad luck, ill health, or death.” - source
You seem to take pleasure in resisting Bible scripture at every turn as did Elymas the sorcerer:
Acts 13:6-10
And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name [was] Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
Often, one’s character is a microcosm of society, a nation, or a popular philosophical science or a globally accepted world-view. The character of Nero exemplifies a society that is drunk on pseudo-reality. Nero is true to Shakespeare’s drama of life but plagues the play by “overacting” his part:
;====== beginning of text =======
Nero's father was described by Suetonius as a murderer and a cheat who was charged by Emperor Tiberius with treason, adultery, and incest.
He (Nero) is known for a number of executions, including those of his mother and adoptive brother, as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned", and as an early persecutor of Christians.
To diffuse blame [arson of Rome], Nero targeted a sect called the Christians. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero returned to Rome and spent the evening in the palace. After sleeping, he awoke at about midnight to find the palace guard had left. Dispatching messages to his friends' palace chambers for them to come, none replied. Upon going to their chambers personally, all were abandoned. Upon calling for a gladiator or anyone else adept with a sword to kill him, no one appeared. He cried "Have I neither friend nor foe?" and ran out as if to throw himself into the Tiber.
Returning again, Nero sought for some place where he could hide and collect his thoughts. An imperial freedman offered his villa, located 4 miles outside the city. Travelling in disguise, Nero and four loyal servants reached the villa, where Nero ordered them to dig a grave for him. As it was being prepared, he said again and again "What an artist the world is losing!".
At this time a courier arrived with a report that the Senate had declared Nero a public enemy and that it was their intention to execute him by beating him to death. At this news Nero prepared himself for suicide. Losing his nerve, he first begged for one of his companions to set an example by first killing themself. At last, the sound of approaching horsemen drove Nero to face the end. After quoting a line from Homer's Iliad ("Hark, now strikes on my ear the trampling of swift-footed couriers!") Nero drove a dagger into his throat. In this he was aided by his private secretary, Epaphroditos. When one of the horsemen entered, upon his seeing Nero all but dead he attempted to stanch the bleeding. With the words "What an artist dies in me.", Nero died on June 5th 68AD/BC.
;======== end of text =========
Owlmirror, why don’t you drop the charade and run from your character as quickly as possible before it envelopes you? If your childhood was miserable, why bring everyone else down with you? If your former church was full of phonies, why should you paste your exposé of falsity on every healthy church? If your parents or former wife said you were a loser, then why don’t you make this disclosure before continuing your parade of “godless science”? Or is it no one’s business because you have achieved what no human before has achieved: pure “science” based on pure “objectivity”, free from all social ills.
Owlmirror: ...[Socrates] lived and died and never heard of Jesus Christ. He certainly would not have agreed that the bible was infallibly true.
"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean." - Socrates
Socrates might as well have quoted 2 Peter 1:21. A person who doesn’t profess to “know it all” has a much greater chance of grasping knowledge lying in uncharted territory. Socrates often stated, “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” He believed that honest men had child-like attributes.
I wouldn’t give up in despair because at least you don’t profess to “know it all” as did the Pharisees, right? Christ had no pity on them.
What has inspired you to play the part of God’s nemesis?
What inspired you to play the part of a crazy person?
When a country is conquered, to insure that an internal revolt doesn’t develop, those who are in higher authority with greater influence and education are usually executed, imprisoned, or watched more closely.
Yes; the Maoists under Pol Pot executed all intellectuals. Stalin murdered or exiled those who disagreed with him. Hitler exiled and killed "non-Aryan" scientists.
Who is this conqueror of whom you speak? Christian soldiers with whom you have allied yourself, committed to a holy civil war until all non-Christians are dead, and all Christians who are not like you are also dead? Why are these conquerors committed to act like the worst monsters of the previous century? Is it just that they are certain that God grants them permission to behave their worst?
Even if your character is a pretense, the victor won’t waste his time in interpreting you to the contrary, so your demise will be of your own choosing.
A death threat? Of course. You would rather commit murder than admit that you might possibly be wrong. Murder is in your heart; murder infects your mind; you would commit murder for your faith.
You seem to take pleasure in resisting Bible scripture at every turn
Why should I accept the lies of murderous madmen like you?
The character of Nero exemplifies a society that is drunk on pseudo-reality.
Yes, a pseudo-reality like your Christianity. How are you different from Nero?
Owlmirror, why don’t you drop the charade and run from your character as quickly as possible before it envelopes you?
Alan Clarke, why do you not seek psychiatric help? Commit yourself to an asylum before you truly hurt someone, or yourself.
Or is it too late for that?
Is there something that you have done that you might want to confess to? Or rather, might not want to confess to?
If your childhood was miserable, why bring everyone else down with you?
You're the one whose childhood was miserable, by your own admission — and you are the one who is now making death threats; who speaks of conquest and killing.
If your former church was full of phonies, why should you paste your exposé of falsity on every healthy church
Since you are manifestly mentally unhealthy, I am proving only you, yourself, to be false in your defiant declarations of happiness and completion in Christ. You lie to yourself, and you lie to us, and you make death threats, and then you dare call yourself "healthy"?
Socrates might as well have quoted 2 Peter 1:21. A person who doesn’t profess to “know it all” has a much greater chance of grasping knowledge lying in uncharted territory. Socrates often stated, “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.”
Exactly the opposite of you, who arrogantly thinks he has direct and specific certain knowledge of God.
He believed that honest men had child-like attributes.
And you yourself are not honest. Nor do you have a child-like curiosity, or sense of wonder, or awareness of the limits of knowledge. You do not emulate Socrates. For you to offer him as an example is nothing but hypocrisy.
I wouldn’t give up in despair because at least you don’t profess to “know it all” as did the Pharisees, right? Christ had no pity on them.
And yet you yourself arrogantly claim to "know it all". You know what God did do and did not do; you don't need to learn; you don't don't need intellectual humility; you don't need to be uncertain; you don't need to be merciful.
PS: Don't be so sure you know anything at all about God.
Matthew 7:16-23:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
There may be a Hell. I may be going there. But if there is a God of Justice, you will go to Hell yourself; you and all the ravening wolves like you.
Owlmirror: There may be a Hell. I may be going there. But if there is a God of Justice...
These are some heavy admissions to post on an atheist site, but I will not ridicule you. You may be closer than you realize. My hope is that if we would meet one day by chance, I would serve you as a fellow human. I wish you only the best.
Alan Clarke
John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." - Who spoke these words? Jesus or someone else?
John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." - Who spoke these words? Jesus or someone else?
Answer: b) Someone else.
We have no reliable evidence to say that the Jesus of the bible existed - and we know for sure that he did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him, since magic doesn't exist. So, while there may have been a person corresponding to some of the stories about Jesus, we've no reason to believe that the words in a book are any more likely to have come from his mouth than the words attributed to Odysseus in The Odyssey.
The best way to describe it would be to say that it was written by someone who thought that that's what Jesus, had he existed, would have wanted.
More importantly is the question that verse raises: why didn't God just forgive humanity? What can possibly restrain an omnipotent being in such a way that he would be forced to order the torture and execution of his son in order to achieve it?
Jesus obviously spoke those words, there's a habit of major figures in the bible speaking in the 3rd person. For instance, author of Torah - Moses spoke almost exclusively in the 3rd person when it came to events surrounding him. So much so that he even wrote about his own death and burial in the 3rd person.
Alan's like the Superman of creationists or something. Contrary points and refutations either just whiz right by him or bounce off of his impenetrable skull. I'm not kidding, watch:
Your god is a monster, Alan. No rationally thinking person would worship or serve a cruel dictator like that out of anything but sycophancy and fear. I don't know what says more about you, Alan, that this is the type of god your imagination yields, or that you gleefully prostrate yourself to a genocidal bastard like that. There's some messed up stuff in your subconscious, son. Most folks could benefit from some therapy, but I'd say it's an imperative for you.
BTW, Alan, have you ever thought about "eternity"? I mean, really examined what that word means? It's longer than you think the universe has been around. It's longer than the orders of magnitude longer that the universe actually has been around. It's longer than a hundred billion years, or a hundred trillion. If you type a 1, then put your finger on the 0 and leave it there for the rest of your life, the resulting number would, in years, still be a fraction of a splinter of "eternity". The universe will fizzle out, and you'll still be left with... "eternity" to go. Do you see how utterly ridiculous the very concept of it is? And is there anything that one wouldn't tire of after a few quadrillion years? And without sex, drugs, alcohol, or rock n roll, I'd guess heaven would get boring a lot sooner than that.
A lot of us would like to live longer than we are likely to. As curious people, we here, and countless others would love to have more time to learn, to see, to live, to love. But we have what we have and that's it. Wishing for more and wasting time bargaining with a figment of ancient Hebrew imagination is time you won't ever get back, time that could have been productive. Time that could have been spent living, instead of wasted being afraid of death. If you're scared of death, eat right, exercise, check regular check ups. That's the best you can do.
Wowbagger: We have no reliable evidence to say that the Jesus of the bible existed…
No one can accuse Wowbagger of diverting from the original “science fiction” thread.
The Bible was written by over 40 different authors over a span of about 1600 years, which makes conspiracy theories concerning its origin hardly believable. Prior to Christ, his coming was foretold. After his coming, the account of his earthly life is recorded in great detail. We have secular historians such as Josephus that wrote about Christ. We have numerous early Christian writers. Secular history coincides with the Biblical record of Jesus. Just recently, Herod’s tomb was discovered. My previous post which described Nero’s demise was largely recorded by the Roman historian, Tacitus. Tacitus, who lived during the first century, wrote this of Jesus:
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” (source)
Something else to consider is the fact that current-day Jews, who discount Jesus as being the true Messiah, seldom argue that he didn’t exist:
"While there is no particular view of Jesus mandated by Judaism some Rabbis have speculated about his life. Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen writes that Jesus was a heretic who sought to annul the Torah. American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 – 1949) wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a noble and loving Jewish teacher."Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (b. 1966) sees reason to believe that Jesus was a rabbi based on some of the statements in the Christian scriptures." (source)
Likewise, the Islam religion which opposes the fundamentals of the Christian faith, view Jesus as a “prophet”. Yassar Arafat visited Bethlehem yearly to commemorate Jesus' birth.
Why have none of the above taken the easier route by simply stating Jesus didn’t exist? The argument will only fly on an atheist website.
The Bible was written by over 40 different authors over a span of about 1600 years, which makes conspiracy theories concerning its origin hardly believable.
um
wait
What?
The Bible was written by over 40 different authors over a span of about 1600 years, which makes conspiracy theories concerning its origin hardly believable.
Alan, the one man FSTDT.
Alan, there is no good evidence that your Jesus existed. Certainly none for the words and actions attributed to him. Yes, there likely was a historical figure around whom these stories coalesced, but there's no real evidence for it, nor any way to tell what is correctly attributed to him, what should be attributed to other mystics, rabbis or "messiahs" of the time, and what is complete fabrication.
These are some heavy admissions to post on an atheist site, but I will not ridicule you. You may be closer than you realize. My hope is that if we would meet one day by chance, I would serve you as a fellow human. I wish you only the best.
Alan Clarke
What a creepy, creepy person.
Ragutis:Alan, there is no good evidence that your Jesus existed. Certainly none for the words and actions attributed to him.
If Jesus didn’t exist, then who was his imposter? He created a huge number of pity sayings and stories:
1)Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (The Golden Rule)
2)A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Quoted by Abraham Lincoln)
3)And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Hypocrisy)
4)Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Overcome evil with good)
5)Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)
The imposter devised even more sayings so as to make himself the #1 most quoted person in history. Some nations and states have founded their governments and laws on the premise of his existence. He must have been a very humble person to deny credit for any of his works. Actually, I can’t think of any imposter in history who equaled the magnitude of this feat. Can you provide any links to studies that provide clues to who this mischievous fellow might be?
I like quoting Wikipedia on this forum because of Wikipedia's EXTREME bias in FAVOR of evolutionism. Just locate the following subjects on Wikipedia and tell me if they don't give you a warm & fuzzy feeling of assurance:
Biological Evolution
Human Evolution
Solar System Formation
When my objective is to provide a meeting place that affords philosophical comfort to those who oppose my views on origins, I choose Wikipedia since it is a haven of rest for evolutionists, uniformitarianists, atheists, etc. The contributors of Wikipedia are world-wide and reflect a “majority viewpoint” of university scholars. So please kick back, relax, and drink in the full content of Wikipedia's Jesus. Scroll midway down and feast upon the heading, "Mythical View":
"A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure."
Notice how the section concludes:
Nevertheless, non-historicity has been rejected by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.
The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question...
Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [mythical view] as effectively refuted.
...standard historical criteria prevent one from rejecting Jesus' existence.
But don’t despair because there is a way out! Submit your historical revisionist views to Wikipedia. Your chances of being accepted will increase if you eliminate “Pharyngula” from your vocabulary, otherwise they may think you have an axe to grind. Others have failed in time past to revise history, but they didn’t know what you know now.
John 19:19-22 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
But don’t despair because there is a way out! Submit your historical revisionist views to Wikipedia. Your chances of being accepted will increase if you eliminate “Pharyngula” from your vocabulary, otherwise they may think you have an axe to grind. Others have failed in time past to revise history, but they didn’t know what you know now.
Alan, Nurse Ratched is coming.
Alan Clarke,
If Jesus didn’t exist, then who was his imposter? He created a huge number of pity sayings and stories:
You really have to learn what the expression 'attributed to' means, Alan. Then you mightn't sound quite so ignorant - though only slightly less so. Many - if not all - of the pithy (note spelling) phrases attributed to (see how easy that was?) Jesus appear in the literature of other cultures well before his time, indicating that humans develop morality, compassion etc. without needing and magic sky-fairy to hand it to them.
Anyway, regarding your fictitious man-god: here's a link to an excellent site (not Wikipedia) that covers much of why many historians doubt the historicity of Jesus - Jesus Puzzle.
But, before you're done, perhaps you can explain why, if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn't they believe he was Messiah? That's always struck me as a little strange.
5) Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)
A man being attracted to a woman proves that sin in universal?
Wowbagger:But, before you're done, perhaps you can explain why, if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn't they believe he was Messiah? That's always struck me as a little strange.
Actually, a bunch of Jews DID believe he was the Messiah. But I’ll address the ones who didn’t believe. If you read the book, the reason becomes obvious why he was rejected among those in authority:
John 11:47-48Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
Jesus was a threat to their job security. Not only that, but he insulted them in practically every verse of Matthew 23.
BTW, are you going to submit the “Jesus Puzzle” to Wikipedia? You could be at the brink of a breakthrough.
Mat 5:28Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)
Janine:A man being attracted to a woman proves that sin is universal?
Janine, your whole live would change course if you could differentiate between these:
1)Lust after a woman
2)Attracted to a woman
3)Love a woman
I resisted #1 when I first met my wife to-be, and now she loves me for it.
Alan, you have given me no reason to take any advice from you. And if I did follow them, I would be worse off.
if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn't they believe he was Messiah?
Because the real Messiah was supposed to fix things (kick out the Romans and unite the struggling factions of Jews) and rule in God's name, not get himself killed.
And because one particularly aggressive faction of the Jesus cult started claiming that Jesus was the only begotten son of God — blasphemy against the idea of God as a pure spirit. And then a later and even more aggressive faction of what the cult had become claimed that Jesus was exactly the same as God — a huge blasphemy against the pure monotheism espoused in the bible.
Not all of the "Early Christian writers" were members of the latter faction (since it did not exist when they wrote).
if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn't they believe he was Messiah?
The answer is obvious. Jesus is not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy.
Wowbagger: "many historians doubt the historicity of Jesus"
Wikipedia: "A large majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the theory."
(a large majority) > (many historians)
If you read Wikipedia's entire "Christ Myth Theory" you will see that the "Jesus Puzzle" has little originality: "Authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells have recently re-popularised the theory."
My hope is that if we would meet one day by chance, I would serve you as a fellow human.
Here's hoping he doesn't mean that in the "To Serve Man" sense. I'm really not too sure.
Owlmirror:“Because the real Messiah was supposed to fix things (kick out the Romans and unite the struggling factions of Jews) and rule in God's name, not get himself killed.
Only the most blind could misinterpret Jesus this way. Certainly you’re aware that your views are esoteric.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Owlmirror, when are you going to disclose your anonymity? Were you at one time studying for the priesthood? You obviously hate phony Christians, as we all do. What, when, and where was your first encounter that instilled this hate?
Owlmirror, what ever you do, do not give Alan Clarke any clues about who and where you are. I would hate to have Alan try to cure you of your "hate".
Alan Clarke wrote both this:
A large majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the theory.
and this:
Jesus was a threat to their job security.
Can anyone see where I'm going?
A large majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the theory.
and this:
Jesus was a threat to their job security.
Can anyone see where I'm going?
*Waves hand in the air* I know! I know!
Owlmirror, what ever you do, do not give Alan Clarke any clues about who and where you are.
No fear. I've seen the sheepshape mask slip and reveal the yellow teeth of the ravening wolf; heard the hungry snarl, covered up by the loud bleating as the mask is readjusted.
Eh?
Alan Clarke @173 quotes the propaganda of the sect that broke away and became more successful at memetic infectiousness to support that cult's contentions...
Unreal.
Imposter? WTF are you on about, Alan?
There probably was a historical figure that was the basis for Jesus. And yes, few historians disagree. But that's a far cry from saying that this person said and did everything (or even, anything) that the Bibles describes. Sure, there probably was some charismatic rabbi that acquired a decent following with a new message. Probably said and did some of the things attributed to him in the Bible. But, as the story grew, as word spread, it's foolish to think that exaggerations did not creep in, details were not confused, or that the words or deeds of other mystics and rabbis weren't accidentally credited to Jesus. Didn't you ever play Post Office or Chinese Whispers? And there's the problem, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the biblical account. No small number of teachings and aphorisms are attributed to Confucius, but since they weren't recorded at the time and only compiled after his death, there's no way to know how many and which were actually his. Misattributions and exaggeration are the foundation of thousands of folktales and legends.
Yes, there likely was a rabbi named Jesus, Alan. The problem is, the biblical portrayal of him is probably about as accurate as Geoffrey's depiction of King Arthur.
It's amazing to comprehend that anyone could believe that a 2nd hand eyewitness testimony written decades later is enough to substantiate the extraordinary claim of divinity - let alone any of the other miracles written there.
Ragutis:And there's the problem, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the biblical account.
Evolution happens so slowly and occurred such a long time ago, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the evolutionist’s account.
Ragutis:But, as the story grew, as word spread, it's foolish to think that exaggerations did not creep in, details were not confused, or that the words or deeds of other mystics and rabbis weren't accidentally credited to Jesus.
Your entire premise falls apart here: “as the story grew, as word spread” and “exaggerations” crept in. Just because Owlmirror can bend and twist the story into illegible meanings, does that mean the original story isn’t true? Does his bending and twisting negate the fact that we have thousands of agreeing manuscript copies dating to the first and second century? (click here) All of your “exaggerations” will have to fit into a very narrow historical time lapse. How can the stories grow and become exaggerated when the museums have already put a lock on these 1st and 2nd century manuscript evidences? The only way we can test your hypothesis is for you to produce manuscripts A, B, and C, which show the progression of degradation. If you can’t, then your theory is nothing but thoughts in your brain. If you think that the corruption of Christ’s story began as a fabrication before he arrived on Earth, then would you please direct everyone to manuscripts A, B, and C which pre-date 0 B.C.?
Evolutionists frequently correct me whenever I criticize their theory’s hypothesis that life arose randomly from non-living matter without the assistance of outside intelligence. They always counter, “Darwinian evolution describes only living things! It says nothing about planet or star formation. Darwin never speculated on how the first living cell arose. He was a true scientist in the sense that he drew upon only what was observed!” The problem with biting into the “forbidden fruit” is once that first swallow is taken, then one’s entire world-view is changed. The new world-view is not “evolution” but “evolutionism”. Every piece of evidence that follows is viewed afresh with the new “ism”. Planet and star formation is explained harmoniously with the new “ism”. All of history can be interpreted as having nothing original but each event has “evolved” from something prior. Every music composer “borrowed” from the previous. Plato borrowed from Socrates. Aristotle borrowed from Plato. There is some truth to this but every once in a while some new information gets injected from outside the closed system. Where is this new information coming from? Socrates provides some insight:
"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean."
When Jesus came to Earth, he brought with him some new information: Mark 1:22And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
John 7:16Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
John 7:45-46 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
If you think that Jesus had nothing original but “borrowed” everything from someone else, then why is he the most quoted person in history? Why isn’t Jesus’ teacher the most famous? Whether Jesus existed or not, there must be a source for the information falsely attributed to him. Can you provide me with the original source material for Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount”? It is true that Jesus would often quote the Old Testament and he encouraged others to read it, but his ideas were unheard of. They were completely original and outside the current realm of knowledge:
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Evolutionists frequently correct me whenever I criticize their theory’s hypothesis that life arose randomly from non-living matter without the assistance of outside intelligence. They always counter, “Darwinian evolution describes only living things! It says nothing about planet or star formation. Darwin never speculated on how the first living cell arose. He was a true scientist in the sense that he drew upon only what was observed!” The problem with biting into the “forbidden fruit” is once that first swallow is taken, then one’s entire world-view is changed. The new world-view is not “evolution” but “evolutionism”. Every piece of evidence that follows is viewed afresh with the new “ism”. Planet and star formation is explained harmoniously with the new “ism”. All of history can be interpreted as having nothing original but each event has “evolved” from something prior. Every music composer “borrowed” from the previous. Plato borrowed from Socrates. Aristotle borrowed from Plato. There is some truth to this but every once in a while some new information gets injected from outside the closed system. Where is this new information coming from? Socrates provides some insight:
Yes it's called rationalism. View the evidence presented rationally.
Scientists tend to try and do this. It helps keeping with the scientific method and keeps one from straying over to irrational though such as creationism. A thought process that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.
Alan, you need to understand the definitionfalse equivalencies - of why they are false. Then you need to understand scientific method and the incredibly sophisticated and complex ways we can determine dates for things, that anyone using the same methods can determine also. Until then STFU. Seriously.
I see Alan is still trying to push his imaginary god and fictional bible as anything other than garbage. Neither is needed to explain the real world. Science ignores god because it is a meaningless concept. Which makes everything Alan proposes meaningless.
It must drive the orderlies nuts that Alan keeps slipping out of his straight jacket.
Evolution happens so slowly and occurred such a long time ago, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the evolutionist’s account.
Bullshit.
It's called "evidence".
The new world-view is not “evolution” but “evolutionism”.
Bullshit.
Slapping an "ism" onto everything isn't a very convincing rhetorical device.
There is some truth to this but every once in a while some new information gets injected from outside the closed system.
Closed? Did you say closed? LOL.
Alan offers many words, but little content. Sorry, Alan, you can't quote the Bible to prove the truth or accuracy of the Bible.
Can you provide [...] the original source material for Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount”?
That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest. If you compare the claims made in it to the site I linked to, you can see that the earliest dates on Alan's table are tiny fragments of papyrus. Note also that my source is actually very pro-Christian and conservative. Most scholars now utterly reject the ludicrous claims that fragments of Mark were found at Qumran cave 7.
Furthermore, Alan's table clearly implies, by listing 5500 as the number of extant original manuscripts, that those fall into the ridiculously early dates given in that row. But, again, compare with my linked source. Those are almost entirely 4th and 5th century Greek manuscripts.
we have thousands of agreeing manuscript copies dating to the first and second century
No, we have a few scraps dated that early. (And nobody denies that the synoptics were composed by the early 2nd century anyway, because that fact alone proves nothing other than that a tradition existed.)
Why the lies, Alan? Are you insecure about something?
That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest.
How very, very shocking. And yet, I suppose this is the kind of dishonesty we must expect from these wild-eyed adherents of Christianism.
CJO:That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest.
Thanks so much CJO for clearing things up. I'll refer to your "improved" link for future postings:
There are over 5,300 known ancient Greek manuscript copies (MSS) and fragments of the New Testament in Greek that have survived until today. Counting an additional 10,000 Latin Vulgate and over 9,300 other early manuscript versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, totaling over 24,000 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.
I'm still waiting for the A, B, and C manuscript evidences showing the gradual degradation of the first century texts. Is Owlmirror out there? Owlmirror! By now John 3:16 should look like, "Fer born thinks rear long time put jebus half she her hers at evolution lust yes single die must therefore Daughter which which De anybody mundo."
The latest manuscript discoveries push the interpretations in my favor, not yours:
The earliest manuscript of the New Testament was discovered about 50 years ago. P52 is a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. This makes it a very important little manuscript, because John has been almost unanimously held by scholars to be the latest of the four gospels. So if copies of John were in circulation by 125, the others must have been written considerably earlier. Moreover, the Gospel of John's greater theological development when compared with the other three gospels has led some scholars to conclude it was written as late as 120 or even 150 AD. The P52 fragment seems to make such late dates impossible. (source)
Alan, still delusional if you think quoting your fictional bible means anything to us. And your god is imaginary, existing only between your ears.
Even if they were eyewitness accounts who wrote down the events as it happened, it's still anecdotal evidence supporting an extraordinary claim. The fact that the gospels have changed little is irrelevant, the fact that it claims the fantastic yet has not left a single archaeological or historical artefact to support those claims is.
BigDumbChimp:A thought process [rationalism] that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.
I thought the “thought processes” of big chimps altered over time:
Charles Darwin:"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" [Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881]
If Jesus were God, surely he would have had some foresight into genetic testing. "My children. Here is a vial of my blood, I give this to you in a sealed container that must not be opened for 2000 years. For when the time is at hand, those will know what to do with it to show my divinity." Nope, none of that. Just the distinct impression he would come back down from heaven any day now...
Owlmirror:
No fear. I've seen the sheepshape mask slip and reveal the yellow teeth of the ravening wolf; heard the hungry snarl, covered up by the loud bleating as the mask is readjusted.
I would have guessed something more like the smug but clueless grin of a Wile E Coyote.
BigDumbChimp: A thought process [rationalism] that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.
Alan, dishonesty is not a trait your god supposedly approves of.
Creationists are the ones who's minds can not be changed by evidence. You have proven this over and over and over.
Thanks so much CJO for clearing things up. I'll refer to your "improved" link for future postings
Good. It serves mainly to illustrate just how fragmentary are all papyri prior to the 3rd century. No reliable evidence for congruence between whole texts can be derived from such paucity of evidence. Your little table implies that whole manuscripts are preserved from those early dates. It's dishonest.
Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.
Refer to the writings of Bart Ehrman. Your assertion is the standard line, but the fact remains: there are more discrepancies in our ealiest manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. While it's true that most of them are trivial copying errors that do not impinge on core Christian doctrines, some of them are in fact quite significant for the interpretation of the texts.
I'm still waiting for the A, B, and C manuscript evidences showing the gradual degradation of the first century texts.
You're missing the point by obtusely repeating this challenge. Even if we had clear evidence of near-perfect transmission of the tradition, the fact remains that the tradition begins late in the first century; at a minimum, forty years after the supposed events of Jesus' life. Plenty of time for the kind of mythmaking that is clearly in evidence when we examine the gospels with the same critical methods we would use for any other ancient text.
Hark! I hear the wolf, growling and snarling again, mixed with his plaintive, oh-so-sheeplike bleatings. Do we need a muzzle for the wolf? Perhaps a cage is called for?
The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a date somewhere between 125 and 160 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows for a range of dates that extends from before 100 CE past 150 CE.[...]
Skepticism about the use of P52 to date the Gospel of John (not about the fragment's authenticity) is based on two issues. First, the papyrus has been rather narrowly dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of textual evidence. Secondly, in common with every other surviving early Gospel manuscript, this fragment is not from a scroll but from a codex; a bound book not a roll. If it dates to the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a codex (around 90 CE, Martial describes the codex form as then new to Rome).
Did that citation previously posted say "125 AD"? The earliest date in a range derived solely from handwriting style is asserted to be the definite, absolute, no-questions, no-doubts, no-uncertainties date the text was written?
Interesting, indeed.
*sigh*
Evolution happens so slowly and occurred such a long time ago, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the evolutionist’s account.
Alan, this is like comparing forensic evidence to hearsay testimony. Actually, very much like it. Also, scientists don't and have never claimed to have the entire picture of the evolutionary record or the ultimate TRUTH ™. Scientists are saying (and have evidence to support) "Tiktaalik lived about 375 myo", not that "Jebus the Tiktaalik, The Great Tiktaalik in the Sky Made Flesh, had this for breakfast then went over here to sun on this rock before trying to score with Mary the slutty Tiktaalik and he got turned down so he and his 12 tiktaalik buddies went on a road trip to here where Jebus got into trouble with the tiktaalik hierarchy and ended up nailed to a giant fern, ascending to the Swamp Eternal, and thereby absolving all Devonian fauna of their sins."
Mark, the first gospel to be recorded, wasn't compiled and written down for between 30 and 50 years after Jesus' death, and John closer to 70 years. You really think that in all those years these stories were orally spread, that no embellishments or mistakes got in? No misinterpretations? No distortion?
Speaking of distortion, you seem to have done a good job with my post (as you have many others (and others')). I never said Jesus "borrowed" his teachings, although he may have. I said that others' words and deeds may have been attributed to Jesus. Again, there's no way of knowing since there's no contemporary account.
there are more discrepancies in our ealiest manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. While it's true that most of them are trivial copying errors that do not impinge on core Christian doctrines, some of them are in fact quite significant for the interpretation of the texts.
The Wiki article on the P52 also notes that the words "ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ" appear to be missing from the text; "and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography."
Kel:The fact that the gospels have changed little is irrelevant, the fact that it claims the fantastic yet has not left a single archaeological or historical artefact to support those claims is.
Kel, you are posting faster than you are thinking. “The fact that the gospels have changed little” is extremely relevant (or refuted) by many individuals on this forum. Please don’t be calloused to their beliefs. It may be their last hope. You have intellectualized an answer for yourself but they may not have attained to your level of understanding. Your concession is like handing the “holy grail” to the enemy. In deference to your colleagues, I won’t hold you to your statement. It was probably a mistake. Here is my recommendation for the wording:
The fact that the gospels have changed little is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible claims things that I have not experienced in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To my knowledge, there is not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage my theory.
I've got some questions for you, Alan.
To whom was the impending birth of Jesus announced, Mary, or Joseph?
Did Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census?
Did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt after the birth of Jesus?
Did John the Baptist baptize Jesus?
Did Jesus' ministry last one year, or over three?
How many times did Jesus go to Jerusalem?
What, exactly, did Jesus say on the cross, immediately before he died?
Did Pontius Pilate agree to establish a guard at Jesus' tomb?
Kel, you are posting faster than you are thinking. “The fact that the gospels have changed little” is extremely relevant (or refuted) by many individuals on this forum.
Honestly I could not give a shit what anyone else here believes on matters of the gospel. The fact remains that you are pushing impossible tales on the veracity of the anecdotal; and second-hand anecdotal evidence written decades after the alleged events took place. Mistranslations, copying errors, these things are irrelevant to the fact that there's not a shred of archaeological evidence that supports the fact that God walked on this earth in human form. You are believing something incredulous and impossible on 2nd hand anecdotal information, and putting that above all empirical inquiry to the contrary.You fail on even the slightest notion of critical thinking.
Ragutis:Scientists are saying (and have evidence to support) "Tiktaalik lived about 375 myo".
The latest evidence is leading scientists to believe that Tiktaalik is related to Barney. Notice the homological similarities between their faces: (click here)
Notice also how the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth forced the artist to remove its legs.
Notice also how the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth forced the artist to remove its legs.
Do you even know how evolution works Alan? If dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves? A living coelacanth does not even in the slighest break the notion that tetrapods could have formed from fish like that.
Alan Clarke,
The fact that the gospels have changed little evolution is still occurring today is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible ToE claims demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt things that I have not experienced closed my eyes to in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To I willfully limit my knowledge, so I may continue to lie to myself and claim there is not overwhelming evidence from numerous scientific fields not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of stopped lying to myself and accepted the evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage would abandon my theory nonsensical, archaic religion which I, deep down, know is false; hence why I fight the losing battle - because I need to convince myself my god is real and thinks I'm special.
Fixed it for you. No, no - that's okay.
Until Owlmirror comes clean, all of his philosophizing is nothing more than the ravings of an embittered old man who was lied to when he was a child. Either his “Christian” parents abandoned him or the nuns made him kneel on cinders as a punishment. Now it’s PAYBACK! If I was in Janine’s shoes, I would at least want Owlmirror to PM me privately to explain why he is so full of hate and revenge. Until then, the impetus and choice of direction for his “scientific” research, “Did that citation previously posted say "125 AD"?” are symptoms of an earlier disease. Janine came out of the closet and no one berated her for it. I don’t even use a pseudonym for my identity. I was forthcoming about my life’s experiences that COULD and DO have influence on my interpretation of evidences. I don’t hide anything in this respect. Owlmirror is supposed to be truly objective but this is becoming as believable as Hitler’s objectivity after being convicted of treason and spending nine months in Landsberg prison.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH! Oh, I love this.
...the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth....
What was that dull, hollow crashing sound?
Why, it was the sound of Clarke's credibility dropping through the floor.
Alan, if you were any dimmer, you'd go out. Have you been able to make a career in point dodging, or do you just do it as a hobby?
The fact that the gospels have changed little is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible claims things that I have not experienced in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To my knowledge, there is not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage my theory.
I'll reword it:
Although there have been some copying errors, mistranslations, and a few instances of deliberate fraud, large parts of the new testament have at their base still the heart of what was first written down ~1900 years ago. Through comparative studies of the text and through archaeological and historical observation, we are able to give a chronological order by which the bible was written. Markian priority is the current accepted means, where the two other synoptic gosleps (Matthew and Luke) were both derived from Mark, with John being a collaborative effort written much later. As Mark came first, we are able to put a timeframe on when the gospels were first written down - around 70CE after the destruction of the temple. From there Luke and Matthew were written within a few decades, and Jon was written down early in the 2nd century. As for historical artefacts, there currently exists not a single artefact belonging to Jesus. No property, no relics, not even the location of his tomb. Nothing physical that can tie Jesus to this world exists. Secular historians of the time don't mention him, but there are two references to Christ by later secular historians - one around 20 years after the first gospel was written and the other about 45 years after. Even Paul did not mention anything about Jesus' life in his letters, only about his death and resurrection. But all of this is quite irrelevant. Even if there the gospels were really written by the apostles, even if they were written as the events were happening, it still wouldn't change that it's anecdotal evidence. And the mind is prone to fallibility. For this was not only meant to be a prophet, but God-incarnate yet nothing remains to this day except a few 2nd-hand eyewitness accounts? If you have any evidence to the contrary, bring it. Show the historical artefacts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Alan, and Jesus being God-incarnate is damn extraordinary.
(Clarke then jumps through the hole, lands feet-first in a rank puddle on the basement floor, and delivers a sloppy ad hom back up through the hole. Hey, it's all he's got left.)
Hark at the ravening wolf! Hear it snarl and growl! See, the sheepshape mask falls off; its sharp stained teeth are bared for all the world to see, as the snarl furrows its muzzle. Now the jaws bite empty air; hear the snap and click of the meat-lusting teeth.
(Chapter 211, in which Owlmirror proves himself to be significantly more poetic than The Watchman.)
the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth....
Dammit! You Aussies were supposed to HIDE the living fossil.
(Oh Alan. What a fucking moron. hahahahahahahahahahahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)
Oh, Alan Clarke's really lost it now - he's foaming at the mouth! Fall to the floor and chew that carpet, Al!
Hee hee hee. We broke his brain.
We broke his brain.
While there was some settling of contents during shipment, it was already fractured before we ever got a look at it. RMA that sucker.
Alan's ranting screed at Owlmirror in #206 is a demonstration of just how differently religionists think from us - he's trying to hold him up as our spiritual leader, someone who we revere in the same way he reveres his own personal preacher/priest/snake-handler.
Which is stupid. We accept what Owlmirror writes because he backs it up with evidence. Yes, it helps that he's extremely intelligent and writes well, but that'd count for nothing if he didn't have what's needed to back those claims up.
I mean, what the fuck does this:
Owlmirror is supposed to be truly objective but this is becoming as believable as Hitler’s objectivity after being convicted of treason and spending nine months in Landsberg prison.
even mean?
And some wonder why many of us don't use our real names. Heck, with people like Alan around I'm not sure anyone here shouldn't be using a handle, just in case.
E.V.Then you need to understand scientific method and the incredibly sophisticated and complex ways we can determine dates for things, that anyone using the same methods can determine also.”
Wikipedia “Radiocarbon Dating”:Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 my yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920±430 BP to 80,000±1100 BP as reported in 2007
Why don’t you just accept the scientific data? Instead of 100 my, the diamonds are 70K years old. Diamonds because of there hardness provide little opportunity for contamination. Why would you doubt the data? Is it because you have a PRE-SUPPOSITION that the Earth must be older so you search for alternative interpretations which allow your theory to remain viable? What is driving further inquiry? The data or the theory? I think your theory is the driving force behind you interpreting the excessive presence of C14 as “background radiation”. How about isotopes of greater half-lives for determining ages of rocks? Your assumptions reach “religious faith” proportions when you date something you are ASSUMING to be a billion years old.
Shouldn’t scientists be EXTREMELY concerned about possible dating errors originating from ASSUMPTIONS that could be wrong when using radioisotopes? Why is it that the possible errors from these ASSUMPTIONS are reported almost exclusively on Christian websites? Shouldn’t they be in every school textbook? My suspicion is that funding and education of evolutionism have more influence on “science” than you acknowledge. If fantastic ages for fossils are not reported, then National Geographic and Nova halt filming and the checks stop flowing.
Are you aware of the contradictory age dating methods for The Great Barrier Reef? Which one do you go with? Do you go with the data or with the theory? Why don’t we have existing reef systems with 15,000 year ages and older? The only thing “incredible” about your “incredibly sophisticated” systems is how incredibly incapable they are. We have detailed genealogical evidences that tell us the Earth is about 6000 years old but you have chosen to discard that data in favor of data that contradicts itself given sufficient time. You probably prefer the phrase, “improves itself over time”. How do you know it’s improving rather than worsening? If the theory has preeminence in determining which data is accepted or rejected, then one would expect the data to fit the theory “better over time”. So it all boils down to which data one prefers. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon which plagues scientific inquiry called “finding what you are looking for”? All data can be interpreted and parsed so as to fit one’s theory.
“The Great Barrier Reef is around 18 million years of age in the north and 2 million Years old in the south, with the existing reef system being between 10,000 and 6000 years old.” (source)
”In a paper in the journal Geology, scientists say the GBR started to grow as a result of sea level changes about 600,000 years ago. This is considerably younger than the 20 million years some had previously estimated.” (source)
Seriously, Alan - calm down. All that froth and spittle can't be good for your keyboard.
In your madness you probably haven't realised you're quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort. Obviously, a well-respected source of scientific data; perhaps you'd also like to refer us to the indepth tests they've done on preferred scents of tanning oil or measurements into optimum bikini sizes.
It's worth a read, though. Port Douglas is a pretty nice place. Haven't been there for a few years, though. If Bride of Shrek shows up she can tell you more about it; it's more her neck of the woods than mine. She's amongst the small proportion of Australians who can refer to where I'm (originally) from as 'down south'.
Why don’t you just accept the scientific data? Instead of 100 my, the diamonds are 70K years old.
Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed. We have been telling you that for days. Diamonds are found in certain volcanic dykes, which can be dated with proper isotopes. For example: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1324313051.html
4.25 Billion year old diamonds. So you lie Alan. You lie through your teeth. Your belief in your bible is blinding you to reality. You have to stop lying to yourself before you can stop lying to us. Which you need to do.
In your madness you probably haven't realised you're quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort. Obviously, a well-respected source of scientific data; perhaps you'd also like to refer us to the indepth tests they've done on preferred scents of tanning oil or measurements into optimum bikini sizes.
snicker
Alan, do you think the hundreds of thousands of geologists and nuclear physicists trained to be able to date rocks would be ignorant of the assumptions and trappings of the method? That it's only those good Christian websites exposing a truth that for almost a century those happening to use the techniques are vastly ignorant of? You credulous fool, Alan. You have no idea about how science works and what goes into discovering information. You have no idea how these techniques work and how to properly apply them - and from that you assume that everyone who uses them must not know either. And from that you extrapolate that because a few dates have been wrong on various items that all dates must be wrong. You are saying that geologists who date the earth are wrong by a factor of 700,000! And why? Because of your own selection bias in finding information in order to discredit something you don't understand.
What does conflicting reports on the age of the GBR have to do with radiometric dating of ancient rocks through several different techniques that through blind testing in different laboratories all give the same date? It seems like Alan just wants to create unreasonable doubt - find one example where there's seemingly contradicting information in a semi-relevent field and then conclude that ALL data is unreliable and not even consider it's admissibility.
Alan, on something as big as the GBR, we would expect to see different ages for different parts since it wasn't made overnight. We have brought far more doubt to bear on your god and bible than you ever will be able to do to science. Science has already thought about any feeble attempt of yours to throw doubt on it, and the answers are already in place. You need to stop posting here, as we will continue to cast doubt on your god and bible, while you can't touch science unless you are a scientist. And you don't know science, nor how to do it.
Gosh, maybe we do have a presupposition! Maybe we have this presupposition of a billions-year-old Earth because we're all just atheists.
For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.
[...]
12. There are only a few different dating methods
This article has listed and discussed a number of different radiometric dating methods and has also briefly described a number of non-radiometric dating methods. There are actually many more methods out there. Well over forty different radiometric dating methods are in use, and a number of non-radiogenic methods not even mentioned here.
Maybe we "presuppose" that the evidence speaks for itself!
Sheesh.
Nerd of Redhead:Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed.
The Earth must be millions of years old to allow sufficient time for Darwinian evolution to work. If the Earth is indeed many millions of years old, diamonds should not have ANY carbon-14 remaining since the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years. Nerd concurs with this hypothesis by stating, “all of the carbon-14 has decayed”. This indicates to me that he and many others may be unaware of the current debate:
The reason he is trying to account for it is because carbon-14 in diamonds has been confirmed by non-creationists:
Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years. (source)
Whether or not carbon-14 in diamonds is from contamination or not is not the point of my argument. I previously argued:
“If the theory has preeminence in determining which data is accepted or rejected, then one would expect the data to fit the theory “better over time”. So it all boils down to which data one prefers. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon which plagues scientific inquiry called “finding what you are looking for”? All data can be interpreted and parsed so as to fit one’s theory.”
An evolutionist cannot claim, “Our theory is supported purely by the evidence.” since in actuality, their theory is supported by their “interpretation” of the evidence.
Kel:Alan, do you think the hundreds of thousands of geologists and nuclear physicists trained to be able to date rocks would be ignorant of the assumptions and trappings of the method? ... You have no idea about how science works and what goes into discovering information.
I can see that you have a GOOD idea about how “science” works. Go with the majority! This “sure win” method has been proven to fail countless times in practically every branch of science, including political science.
Wowbagger:In your madness you probably haven't realised you're quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort.
I was very well aware of it. The tourism site is a perfect example to illustrate accepted word-views that may be disconnected from the “top”. It’s like interviewing 1 million Catholics who say that praying to a statue of Mary is okay but when the Pope is asked, he responds, “Certainly not!” The poor guy that designed the travel website probably thought, “Okay… when I was in school, I was taught the Earth is very old. So I can safely publish the reef is 18 million years old without offending too many potential tourists.” It’s hard to reverse one’s thinking when it has never been exercised but one way.
I can see that you have a GOOD idea about how “science” works. Go with the majority! This “sure win” method has been proven to fail countless times in practically every branch of science, including political science.
It's not about going with the majority, it's about what constitutes basic training. Again, do you think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists in that particular field are oblivious as to the trappings and limitations of the tools they use? Yes, science is fallible. But that's how progress is made. We learn more when things fail, and the scientific means of going about failure is why the process is so successful. When C14 was found in coal and diamonds, they sought to find out why. And they did find a source - the decay of uranium underground contaminated the material. ANd geologists know this, nuclear physicists know this, and they show wherever possible the trappings and limitations of their data. It's why science is a tentative enterprise; something which the likes of you will never understand.
Alan, considering the problems associated with carbon dating, and the appropriate limit of about 50,000 years, it appears that contamination of the sampes is occuring. This is not unknown in any measurement, and must always be taken into consideration. Carbon dating is not meaninful at this limit, so your use of it is not appropriate, and it really doesn't say what you want it to. In no way, does the carbon dating make the other methods inaccurate, and the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth stands.
Nerd of Redhead:Alan, considering the problems associated with carbon dating…
Now we are getting somewhere. What is a good dating method that does not suffer from contamination, possible false assumptions of the initial amount of parent isotope and assumed steady decay rate?
Nerd of Redhead:and the appropriate limit of about 50,000 years
Your statement is a perfect example illustrating that you have exercised your thinking heretofore in only one direction. Have you ever thought of the other direction? Carbon-14 fails at old ages but it may succeed at younger ages, remember?
Nerd of Redhead:it appears that contamination of the sampes is occuring.
Interpretation: “It appears that contamination of the samples is occurring because my theory demands it.” Can’t you see that your theory is in the driver’s seat? The data has been hijacked and is being driven wherever the theory wants to take it.
Nerd of Redhead:…the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth stands.
Stands on what? It stands on the same shaky inefficiencies for long-age isotopes that you complained about for carbon-14. It stands on the assumption that a global flood never occurred which would COMPLETELY change the atmospheric C14 content if a large portion of the Earth’s ecosystem was destroyed. It stands on the assumption that the Earth’s declining (or reversing, or bouncing??) magnetic field has been properly predicted. There are so many assumptions that the only thing we can be certain of is your 4.5 billion year ASSUMPTION will change in your lifetime. It’s changed so many times in my lifetime that I stopped counting. The current atmospheric C14 content is not even in equilibrium as predicted by old Earth theories. Nerd, I'm not doubting your ability to derive an explanation for each and every failure of your theory. I'm just saying a theory becomes less viable when one has to over-exercise their mouth every time new data becomes available.
Q: How can one use less energy in defending their theory?
A: Move to the right side of the equation.
E = m C ^2
E = energy required to defend Evolution(ism)
C = energy required to defend Creation(ism)
m = number of mouth opening and closings for speech
The energy required to defend evolutionism rises exponentially when discussing the formation of granite or the first primordial cell.
Stands on what? It stands on the same shaky inefficiencies for long-age isotopes that you complained about for carbon-14. It stands on the assumption that a global flood never occurred
Actually it stands on the assumption of constant decay rates, and that several radiometric tests which involve different decay rates all happen to show the same. Again, there was no global flood. There's no evidence of a global flood, all you can talk about are isolated structed that exhibit localised flooding. A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide, just as we see global evidence of a comet impact at the K-T boundary.
I'm just saying a theory becomes less viable when one has to over-exercise their mouth every time new data becomes available.
P.R.O.J.E.C.T.I.O.N.
My dear Mr. Clarke, you're a fool and a hypocrite. The "theory" of Creationism has always relied on either a) ignoring virtually all the new data as it comes int, or b) going through contortions to reinterpret the data to fit the assumed conclusion. Starlight has taken millions of years to reach earth? Well then! The speed of light must have been slower 6,000 years ago! It must have been!
What a crock. Creationism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen bronze-age mythology. Ridiculous.
Watchman:What a crock. Creationism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen bronze-age mythology. Ridiculous.
Evolutionism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen big-bang mythology. Eternal non-intelligent matter? The laws of entropy are malleable and life arose from an explosion? Ridiculous.
Alan, boy are you into some funny mushrooms. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. That is a cosmological/physics argument. And you fail at that too.
Evolution is totally biological, and you must stick to that or you show your ignorance. You are doing a fine job of cutting and pasting arguments you don't understand, which makes you look pathetic and stupid. You chances of changing our minds is zero with that tactic. Either cite the peer reviewed primary scientific literature or give up.
Whoah - Alan, you are all sorts of bat-shit crazy. If you're looking for affirmation here, you took a wrong turn somewhere in Magicville.
Kel:Actually it stands on the assumption of constant decay rates, and that several radiometric tests which involve different decay rates all happen to show the same.
Your logic is thus: Paper, wood, and plastic all burn at different rates, but they are known rates. Using the combination of them, we have corroborating evidence supporting the belief that a fire has burned x hours. I’m saying that if you remove 50% of the oxygen from the room, the x hours may become 10x hours. They may all maintain their proportionality, but they all lead to the wrong conclusion of x hours. How about the half-lives of nuclides that don’t suffer from external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field? Read from Wikipedia’s “Radiometric Dating”:
The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.
You act as if radiometric dating is a “closed case” for determining the Earth’s age, but as you can see from the above statement, it is NOT a “closed case”.
Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron.
The above sentence has (3) assumptions:
1)the sample is the same
2)samples formed by the same event
3)were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed
Willard Libby, the inventor of C14 dating, minimally failed in assumption #3.
Kel: Again, there was no global flood. There's no evidence of a global flood, all you can talk about are isolated structed that exhibit localised flooding. A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide, just as we see global evidence of a comet impact at the K-T boundary.
You are exactly right in stating, “A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide”. I would expect all of the highest mountains to show evidences of sedimentary strata. I would expect all continents to have far-inland water-laid sedimentary strata like limestone (crushed skeletons of sea life). I would expect all continents to have fossil fuels like coal and oil deposits. I would expect oil deposits under the ocean floors. I would expect mass extinction of animals (dinosaurs!!) world-wide. I would expect fossilized graveyards worldwide. I would expect sea shells, corals and clams on the highest mountain ranges worldwide. I would expect to find evidences of HUGE buried forests in Antarctica. I would expect LIVING coral reefs not to exceed 6000 years in age. I would expect practically every culture to have flood legends.
The above evidences are not “isolated” or “localized” by any means. They are strewn about randomly as one would expect with flood deposition. Conversely, if uniformitarian theory were true, I would expect the “geologic column” to be uniform throughout the entire world. Instead, the question arises, “Where in the world can one find a complete, undisturbed “geologic column”?” Answer: In the textbooks.
You seem to think that all of the data is slowly converging to one conclusion. Your theory has converged on one conclusion with selected data and interpretations following it.
Alan, still lying to yourself that your god exists and your bible is not fiction. So you keep twisting real evidence to fit your delusions rather than looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions, which is what science does.
All scientific data leads to two things. Radioactive dating is accurate, and a worldwide flood never occurred. So, thems the facts. How you deal with those facts is up to you. So far, you have presented nothing to alter those facts. Quit copying and pasting from creationist web sites. They have already been refute by TalkOrigins.
Your logic is thus: Paper, wood, and plastic all burn at different rates, but they are known rates.
Bad analogy there as fire is dependant on oxygen. How is a global flood going to change decay rates, and different rates at that?
You seem to think that all of the data is slowly converging to one conclusion.
Was this meant to be ironic?
You act as if radiometric dating is a “closed case” for determining the Earth’s age, but as you can see from the above statement, it is NOT a “closed case”.
No, I act as if it's corroborating evidence. Remember that we can date stars by an entirely different means, and we can date the universe by the distance of stars. A 4.5 billion year old earth corroborates with meteorites that have not been subjected to your damn flood, moon rocks - which again not subjected to your damn flood, the age of the sun, and the age of the universe. All together they form a picture, and your pathetic objection is not supported by geology, it's not supported by genetics, it's not supported by anything outside of your damn mythology. Alan Clarke, you have nothing but a book of old myths. Do you really think that if God exists, he would make the universe to fool almost every single person who propely looks at it? Or do you think that God might be more powerful and creative than your petty mythology suggests?
The ravening wolf has his sheep clothes back on and buttoned up, and is bleating and baaing loudly. "Oh, look what a good sheep I am, proudly casting out devils (or rather, casting out truth), and working wonders (or rather, proclaiming nonsense and falsehood) in God's name! I am such a good sheep! Baa, baa!"
Should we heed the ravening wolf in sheep clothes? It bleats so sheeplike. The teeth are hidden now; all is covered by soft white wool. It looks so innocent... except for the eyes. And the lies.
Some of the oldest rocks on earth are found in Western Greenland. Because of their great age, they have been especially well studied. The table below gives the ages, in billions of years, from twelve different studies using five different techniques on one particular rock formation in Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses.
We will digress briefly from radiometric dating to talk about other dating techniques. It is important to understand that a very large number of accurate dates covering the past 100,000 years has been obtained from many other methods besides radiometric dating. We have already mentioned dendrochronology (tree ring dating) above. Dendrochronology is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of non-radiometric dating methods. Here we will look briefly at some other non-radiometric dating techniques.
Ice Cores. One of the best ways to measure farther back in time than tree rings is by using the seasonal variations in polar ice from Greenland and Antarctica. There are a number of differences between snow layers made in winter and those made in spring, summer, and fall. These seasonal layers can be counted just like tree rings. The seasonal differences consist of a) visual differences caused by increased bubbles and larger crystal size from summer ice compared to winter ice, b) dust layers deposited each summer, c) nitric acid concentrations, measured by electrical conductivity of the ice, d) chemistry of contaminants in the ice, and e) seasonal variations in the relative amounts of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) and heavy oxygen (oxygen-18) in the ice. These isotope ratios are sensitive to the temperature at the time they fell as snow from the clouds. The heavy isotope is lower in abundance during the colder winter snows than it is in snow falling in spring and summer. So the yearly layers of ice can be tracked by each of these five different indicators, similar to growth rings on trees. The different types of layers are summarized in Table III.
Ice cores are obtained by drilling very deep holes in the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica with specialized drilling rigs. As the rigs drill down, the drill bits cut around a portion of the ice, capturing a long undisturbed "core" in the process. These cores are carefully brought back to the surface in sections, where they are catalogued, and taken to research laboratories under refrigeration. A very large amount of work has been done on several deep ice cores up to 9,000 feet in depth. Several hundred thousand measurements are sometimes made for a single technique on a single ice core.
A continuous count of layers exists back as far as 160,000 years. In addition to yearly layering, individual strong events (such as large-scale volcanic eruptions) can be observed and correlated between ice cores. A number of historical eruptions as far back as Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago serve as benchmarks with which to determine the accuracy of the yearly layers as far down as around 500 meters. As one goes further down in the ice core, the ice becomes more compacted than near the surface, and individual yearly layers are slightly more difficult to observe. For this reason, there is some uncertainty as one goes back towards 100,000 years. Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most. Ages of 60,000 years may be off by up to 10%, and the uncertainty rises to 20% for ages of 110,000 years based on direct counting of layers (D. Meese et al., J. Geophys. Res. 102, 26,411, 1997). Recently, absolute ages have been determined to 75,000 years for at least one location using cosmogenic radionuclides chlorine-36 and beryllium-10 (G. Wagner et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 193, 515, 2001). These agree with the ice flow models and the yearly layer counts. Note that there is no indication anywhere that these ice caps were ever covered by a large body of water, as some people with young-Earth views would expect.
We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time of Christ.
Nerd of Redhead: Alan, still lying to yourself that your god exists and your bible is not fiction.
The last time I mentioned the word “Bible” was two days ago. The last time I used the word “God” without quoting someone else (Owlmirror loves the word) was four days ago in post #153. The words “God” and “Bible” could be flashing in your mind. Get some rest.
Nerd of Redhead: So you keep twisting real evidence to fit your delusions rather than looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions, which is what science does.
We are both working with the exact same evidences, lizard guts, DNA, Grand Canyon, diamonds, etc. The differences are not the “evidences”. The differences are the interpretation of those evidences. Do you think that “looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions” will allow you to grasp the truth? You’ve got it all backwards. If you know the truth first, you can work backwards in understanding yourself and the things around you. Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Until you come to that understanding, your opinion of yourself and your surroundings will be one big delusion.
Nerd of Redhead: All scientific data leads to two things. Radioactive dating is accurate, and a worldwide flood never occurred.
Thanks for proving my point.
Nerd of Redhead: Quit copying and pasting from creationist web sites. They have already been refute by TalkOrigins.
In post #225, I copied some NON-CREATIONIST radio carbon data results performed at University of California (which I learned through answersinenesis.org). Other than that, during the course of this thread, I haven’t copied & pasted from one single creationist website. I'm beginning to wonder if you can articulate anything for yourself beyond what TalkOrigins has fed you. Maybe I missed it. Please refer me to your post #.
Matthew 24:37-39 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
"Wicked, wicked", bleats the sheep-costumed wolf. "I know the truth", bleats the wolf dressed like a sheep. "My truth is the true truth; you atheists are deluded", bleats the wolf, forgetting himself and licking his chops.
Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.
While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to “intrinsic radiocarbon” raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?
These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon” but are consistent with contamination and background. “Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke “intrinsic radiocarbon” will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C”
Say, who are these ASA people?
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. In matters of science and Christian faith, we offer Christian scholarship, education, fellowship and service to ASA members, churches, educational institutions, the scientific community, and society.
Well. I don't know about anyone else, but I like that "commitment to integrity in the practice of science." That beats ravening wolves in sheep's clothing all hollow.
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
Alan, I'm seeing it out of context, but I'm thinking that you should reflect on this quotation a little more. This is precisely why the scientific method is so valuable, because it does a remarkable job of taking preconceptions and prejudices out of the equation.
Would you prefer that people were sentenced for crimes and then the forensics guys and detectives went out to dig up some evidence that justified the verdict and punishment?
re: Watchmen (the movie)
FWIW, Anthony Lane of the New Yorker (who I usually find to be right on the money) pretty much called it godawful pretentious violent crap. He doesn't seem to be much of a fan of the graphic novel either.
Alan, still quoting your fictional bible. Bad form.
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
sounds like a recipe for cognitive dissonance and mucho rationalization to me.
Is the result of this affiliation the likes of Francis Collins?
If so, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but not much; the stick and the eye are still dangerously close.
...and eventually one has to get rid of the stick or still risk being poked in the eye.
meh, always the ideological strategist here on Pharyngula, I tend to overlook the tactical value of such organizations in the short term.
I copied some NON-CREATIONIST radio carbon data results performed at University of California (which I learned through answersinenesis.org)
ROFLMAO
can't see through the denial, can ya Alan?
so funny, just how fucked up you religionauts are.
The differences are the interpretation of those evidences.
as usual, the easy answer to this is to ask you what color glasses you are wearing, because the sky is BLUE, ok?
We have the exact mechanism showing how light scatters in blue wavelengths to provide independent corroborating evidence (that coincidentally agrees with how our eyes interpret the color of the sky).
what do you have on your side to support the sky is actually a different color?
fucking nothing, that's what.
take off the damn glasses, Alan. See the world the way it REALLY is.
Thank you, Steven Sullivan, for posting on topic, even if Lane did not use any of those adjectives you cited.
Having just finished reading the review, I'd call that resounding "whoosh," as the point of the novel and film went past the critic's head, the most ringing endorsement Snyder and company could possibly hope for. The work Moore and Gibbons poured into Watchmen changed comics; I suspect cinema is safe. I'll pay to see it in the best theater I can find, something I do only every couple of years or so, despite the fact that I don't expect to expect to encounter climactic cephalocalypse, an issue that is of some sensitivity to our host PZ.
Having read Anthony Lane on Watchmen, I can imagine how some rabid and cretinous theists feel about Dawkins and his reading of their holy book, were it not for the fact that, unlike Lane, Dawkins was actually informed and coherent.
Oh dear. I've misspelled cephalopocalypse.
While I'm here, I'll note that Visit W3Schools.com!">Roger Ebert's review concludes with this:
The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.
But enough about Anthony Lane and Roger Ebert. I'm sure we're all on tenterhooks about what Alan Clarke has to say about the science of Watchmen, or about Watchmen the film or Watchmen the graphic novel.
Not to question what is, I am certain, the vibrant and thrilling sex lives of film critics, but I'm not so sure that "film critic" is much higher than "comic book geek" on the social spectrum. Moreover, what exactly do Lane's thoughts on comic book nerds have to do with the quality of the film? What does the reviewer grant the reader by insulting the film's intended audience?
The differences are the interpretation of those evidences.
as usual, the easy answer to this is to ask you what color glasses you are wearing, because the sky is BLUE, ok?
Fair warning: You're shouting into the wind, here.
He's been posting since, what, a month ago in the Titanoboa thread, and had it explained to him, again and again, that science starts with the evidence, not the conclusion; the conclusions that we have are from the evidence, the same for believer and atheist.
He doesn't want to hear it.
He ignores everything, and occasionally goes on violent psychotic/schizophrenic rants (NB: not a professional diagnosis), such as #153 and #206 above. #287 on Titanoboa was also like that, digressing into bodies being wrapped around truck axles, and probably a few others as well.
Just so you know.
Can you imagine a news company hosting a presidential debate, but they choose to broadcast only their favorite candidate? Welcome to the Owlmirror network. At least I had the courtesy in post #225 to link a pro-evolutionist argument from richarddawkins.net so readers can think and decide for themselves. Owlmirror has some serious problems in his “wall” of radiometric dating posts. Why not just provide links instead of filling up the thread? Much of the posted information is Dr. Kirk Bertsche’s attack on Dr. John Baumgardner whose work has brought attention to the presence of 14C in diamonds and coal which neither should have if they are indeed millions of years old. Bertsche argues that the 14C presence is due to “background radiation” or “contamination”. Baumgardner defends his work as follows:
If Bertsche had fully understood the very papers to which he refers, he would immediately realize that his first claim that laboratory contamination is responsible for the high 14C levels routinely measured in “old” biological samples is unsustainable. To highlight the issues he is failing to grasp, I point to the paper by Brown and Southon [1997] who state
Several “14C-free” background materials were used in obtaining these data: 1) Coal (supplied by Beta Analytic), 2) Calcite (TIRI sample F: Icelandic doublespar), 3) QL4766 wood (> 56.6 ka BP), 4) QL1428 wood (>55 ka BP), and 5) Yale Anthracite (YA-13; no measurable 14C activity). The latter three samples, and their 14C contents, were supplied by the Quaternary Isotope Laboratory, University of Washington (Stuiver, pers. comm., 1996). In our measurements there were no significant differences between the results obtained for these background materials, and the data from all these materials were used.
You can read Baumgardner’s entire defense here as well as Bertsche’s original criticisms. The debate is far from over as Owlmirror would want readers to believe in his censored reporting. Evolutionists think radiometric dating is immutable since it is set in stone. I can appreciate your desire for permanency and tangibleness, but your 10 Commandments are a cheap imitation.
Owlmirror, I am shocked, Just shocked to find out you have such power over all information.
How did you get to be so powerful? And could I somehow be able to share in the reflected glory?
Janine, clearly my informational omnipotence was granted to me by higher powers — cosmic rays. Yes, I have a superpower from cosmic rays.
And as for sharing in the glory — You might try changing your epithet to "Sassy Smartypants". And wear a costume (no capes!). And beat up bad guys.
PS: I mean it about the no capes!
Im semi-bummed this movie sucks. I enjoyed re-reading the GN recently.
Alan, your attempts to find C-14 dating older than 50,000 years as anything other than contamination is laughable. You don't know what you are talking about, but it sounds like it might hurt science. So you cut and paste irrelevancies. YAWN. Nothing like that hurts science or radiometric dating. Until you understand your god doesn't exist, and your bible is fiction, you will always have trouble with the real world. Give up. You have nothing.
Nerd: Alan, your attempts to find C-14 dating older than 50,000 years as anything other than contamination is laughable.
What true objective scientist would limit himself with an a priori SUPPOSITION that the sample being studied is more than 50,000 years old, or worse yet, millions of years old? We saw were the same faulty SUPPOSITION prevented scientists (for an entire century!!) from looking inside dinosaur bones for soft tissues.
Never put too much credence in another human. They are known to FAIL:
Although Bertsche styles himself as an “accelerator physicist, formerly at a leading radiocarbon AMS laboratory,” it is clear from his post that, as far as radiocarbon measurement procedures and issues are concerned, he is a novice. If he were truly an insider, he would be fully aware of the history I [Baumgardner] just outlined and that fossil material throughout the Phanerozoic record routinely displays 14C levels hundreds of times above the intrinsic AMS measurement threshold.
Baumgardner is six years senior in his doctorate than Bertsche and has spent much more time outside the world of academia at Berkley. (see for yourself) Which scientist has preoccupied himself at a THEOLOGICAL CEMETERY SEMINARY?
Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.
Religion is built on nothing but humans, and that is why all intelligent and non-delusional scientists, including the religious ones, will reject religion as a source of knowledge about the real world.
Anyone who has the a priori SUPPOSITION that the bible must be literally correct as a description of the world cannot therefore be both intelligent and non-delusional.
Science, including the science of the age of the Earth, derives from the evidence first, and the humans who found and described the evidence only secondarily, as their observations were confirmed multiple times all over the world, including by religious scientists.
But I repeat myself. Oh, well. The wind of deluded WRONGness just keeps on blowing hard.
Just like a big bad wolf (in sheep's clothing).
Owlmirror:Anyone who has the a priori SUPPOSITION that the bible must be literally correct as a description of the world cannot therefore be both intelligent and non-delusional.
In that case, you can scratch me from your paranoia list because my a priori SUPPOSITION was that the Bible was a fable. How did you start?
Alan, you C-14 data does not do anything for you. Why do you persist in repeating contamination problems as meaningful? Do you have any idea on how C-14 is formed? The earth is 4.5 billion years old by much more reliable methods not at the edge of their measurement. So, if you want a younger earth, you need to concentrate on those methods. Until you do, you have nothing. And I'm speaking as a scientist of 30+ years.
Nerd: The earth is 4.5 billion years old by much more reliable methods not at the edge of their measurement.
Dr. John Baumgardner: “This dilemma is that samples they expect to be 14C-free because of their supposedly old age (>100,000 years according to the standard geological time scale), instead routinely display significant and reproducible 14C levels, typically two orders of magnitude or more above the threshold sensitivity of the AMS system.”
Measurements “two orders of magnitude or more above the threshold sensitivity” should be discarded? As objects approach nearer the speed of light, their length becomes less. For all practical purposes, the amount is insignificant and immeasurable. Years ago, I suppose you would have been in the group to argue the length difference didn't exist or should be discarded. For understanding the relationship between energy and mass, the difference is indispensable. By the same token, you are trying to understand something on the “outer fringes” of human understanding: the origin of man and his environment. If you think it’s solely wrapped up in a single INTERPRETATION of long-age isotopes, then I suspect your 30+ years of experience may very well become a casualty when science moves forward. The methodology which ultimately discovered Pluto was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs taken two weeks apart, then examine each pair and determine whether any objects had shifted position. Pluto looked like an infinitesimal dot produced by light leaking into a defective camera body. I have good reason to think that your old-age Earth theory will collapse by a dot.
The least movement is of importance to all nature. The entire ocean is affected by a pebble. – Blaise Pascal
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 5, 2009
Janine, clearly my informational omnipotence was granted to me by higher powers — cosmic rays. Yes, I have a superpower from cosmic rays.
Wait a second, are you Dr. Manhattan? (That is about all I know about The Watchmen.)
Trust me, you do not want to see me in a skin tight outfit>
'snark'
So, is Alan moving on to the "I used to be an atheist' argument?
...all I know about The Watchmen
You didn't watch the Watchmen on Saturday Morning in the eighties? The cartoon in that link ought to catch you up with the whole gang of costumed crime fighters.
No, I am not Dr. Manhattan. Dr. Manhattan was in a paracosmic thermonuclear quantum-collapse explosion caused by an Intrinsic Field subtractor inside of an unobtanium cage with handwavium shielding.
That is completely different from being bombarded by cosmic rays. Really.
Alan is using the "radiocarbon levels no different from background levels is more important for dating the age of the Earth than all of the other dating methods combined" argument.
Presumably because he now has the a priori supposition that the Earth cannot possibly be 4.5 billion years old.
Ken, you are a very odd person. And that is meant as a compliment. That was funny. But the only super hero cartoon I watched in the eighties was The Tick.
Owlmirror, it seems I get my comic book science as wrong as my real world science. Just say it can be done with a sonic screwdriver. I can handle that.
In that case, you can scratch me from your paranoia list because my a priori SUPPOSITION was that the Bible was a fable. How did you start?
Alan likes to use all sorts of bad arguments.
Thank you Janine. I'm a big Tick fan myself. I take it you know that Ben Edlund, after creating The Tick, worked on Firefly and Angel. I worked on more cartoons in the eighties than I watched. I got a kick out of seeing Bubastis as He-Man's green and orange talking cat Cringer.
The graphic novel means a lot to me. I'd been giving a ride to work to a staff writer for the studio who was mostly writing early cyberpunk fiction in his office, and in lieu of gas money he gave me a copy of Neuromancer and the first three issues of Watchmen. I was finally sitting down to learn how to use computers to animate spaceships for syndicated strip, so the book marked a pretty big moment for me.
NEW KEPLER SPACE TELESCOPE
"Kepler's designed to find hundreds of Earth-size planets if such planets are common around stars; dozens of these planets if they're in the habitable zone," Borucki said. "If we find that many, it certainly will mean that life may well be common throughout our galaxy, because it's an opportunity for life to have a place to evolve."
"If on the other hand, we don't find any, that will be another profound discovery. It will mean that Earths must very rare, we may be the only extant life in our universe," Borucki added. "It'll mean no 'Star Trek.'"
Borucki emphasized that no matter what Kepler finds, it won't find little green men.
"Although Kepler will not find E.T., it's helping to find E.T.'s home," he said. (source)
SCIENTISTS’ “A PRIORI” ASSUMPTIONS
1) life can “evolve”
2) “little green men” won't be found
3) E.T.'s home exists
Q: How can one know “little green men” won’t be found? A: One can’t, but don’t talk about it otherwise credibility is lost.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. - Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist
Uh-huh.
Because the a priori adherence to immaterial causes that do no ever demonstrate themselves materially is ... delusional.
It's certainly not science.
Alan Clarke,
Still trying the old creationist crap of argument by quotation I see. Lewontin, fine biologist though he is, is just wrong in your quote, if it's accurate. Science no longer postulates supernatural or immaterial entities simply because doing so has never explained anything, or led to any discoveries whatsoever. If you can demonstrate sufficient evidence that gods, ghosts, souls or leprachauns exist, science will acknowledge and study them.
Alan, keep it up the the irrelevant information. By the way, I am looking for ET as we speak. My computer at home is chugging through Seti-at-home workunits.
So far you have presented absolutely no information to make me think we are special in the universe, and that the earth is not 3.5 billion years old. It will take more than a cut/paste expert who doesn't really understand what he is cutting/pasting to sway my confidence in science.
If you think it’s solely wrapped up in a single INTERPRETATION of long-age isotopes, then I suspect your 30+ years of experience may very well become a casualty when science moves forward. - Alan Clarke
Clarke, don't you know your creationist buddies have been predicting the imminent collapse of old-Earth geology and evolutionary theory ever since they were developed, by scientists who were mostly Christians, in the early-to-mid 19th century? All that time, they have gone from strength to strength, explaining more and more. WAKE UP! The collapse you expect is not going to happen!
Knockgoats:Lewontin, fine biologist though he is, is just wrong in your quote, if it's accurate.
Each generation experiences a “generation gap”. Sometimes young people are ashamed of their parents or grandparents. Knockgoats, please don’t discard “grandpa Lewontin”. He was a professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard for 30 years. For you to say “he is just wrong”, leads me to believe that he knows something that you don’t.
A marathon runner nearing the finish line may vomit, collapse, urinate or defecate on himself. All attempts at trying to remain “photogenic” are discarded when the one true goal is in view. So much can be learned if one discards “Sports Illustrated” and watches the actual finish. Relish in it:
"I don't wanna die like that. I want to shoot myself in the head long before then. I'm gonna do something different." – Evolutionist Professor William Provine, Cornell
"Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: 'Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?' I would have to answer yes." – Richard Dawkins
"The strain told, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits. The cause of Darwin’s illness remained unknown, and attempts at treatment had little success." Wikipedia – Charles Darwin
Ichthyic: take off the damn glasses, Alan. See the world the way it REALLY is.
Thanks for the idea Ichthyic. I can see better now. Clarification: Don’t “relish” in someone’s failure. Relish in the fact that God has given man the ability to "see" what is good and what is to be avoided. But, this ability can be lost if it is suppressed too long.
For you to say “he is just wrong”, leads me to believe that he knows something that you don’t.
And yet you don't apply that same critique to the mountains of evidence produced by scientists that supports the ToE which you claim are wrong.
interesting.
SETI - Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Nerd of Redhead:By the way, I am looking for ET as we speak. My computer at home is chugging through Seti-at-home workunits. So far you have presented absolutely no information to make me think we are special in the universe…
This is quite rich. How about open your eyes and tell me what you see on your at-home SETI computer monitor?
Throughout all the years of SETI’s existence, nothing has ever been found. The universe is big, but that the purpose of SETI – to take advantage of radio waves that go where we cannot. Beyond the many Earth-based SETI probes, the accumulation of non-Earth-based probes, such as Mars' Phoenix, has located nothing.
Italian physicist Enrico Fermi suggested in the 1950s that if technologically advanced civilizations are common in the universe, then they should be detectable in one way or another. (According to those who were there, Fermi either asked "Where are they?" or "Where is everybody?")
The Fermi Paradox
The size and age of the universe incline us to believe that many technologically advanced civilizations must exist. However, this belief seems logically inconsistent with our lack of observational evidence to support it. Either the initial assumption is incorrect and technologically advanced intelligent life is much rarer than we believe, our current observations are incomplete and we simply have not detected them yet, or our search methodologies are flawed and we are not searching for the correct indicators.
Possible explanations for the paradox suggest, for example, that while simple life may well be abundant in the universe, intelligent life may be exceedingly rare. In 2000, Peter Ward, professor of Biology and of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington authored a book claiming the Rare Earth hypothesis. In short, the theory claims that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth required an extremely unlikely combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. This hypothesis contradicts the principle of mediocrity, which SETI takes as an assumption.
Scientific Pursuit Ends Up at Religion
SETI has also occasionally been the target of criticism by those who suggest that it is a form of pseudoscience. In particular, critics allege that no observed phenomena suggest the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and furthermore that the assertion of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has no good Popperian criteria for falsifiability. Science fiction writer Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, stated that "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."
Ahh, poor idiot Alan thinks SETI is unscientific. As a scientist, I can categorically state you are WRONG. It is science, because is investigating the possibility in a scientific fashion. Science is a method. SETI is a method. Another lie for Alan, the godbot liar.
Back tracking a little, Alan, I asked you did you know how carbon 14 was formed?
Here is how it is formed.
(1) 13C(n,hv)14C
(2) 14N(n,1H)14C
(3) 15N(n,2H)14C
(4) 16O(n,3He)14C
(5) 17O(n,4He)14C
(6) Various heavy nucleotide fission.
Except for nuclear fission, all are forms of what is known as neutron activation. A neutron collides with a nucleus, and is either absorbed or kicks out a particle. All well known processes. Now, for the carbon-14 found in plants and animals, equation 2 is dominant process, since the supply is atmospheric. When we consider coal and petroleum, things that have been in the ground a long time, equation 1 is the main method. There are cosmic neutrons that penetrate the ground, and also some neutrons from nuclear decay of uranium and other heavy radioactive elements in the rocks. So the level of carbon-14 is being maintained, albeit at a very low, but measurable level. Another lie for Alan the godbot Liar. Welcome to real science.
Your batting record is pitiful Alan. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is a work of fiction.
Oh, but Nerd, AGW denialist Michael Crichton said SETI is "unquestioningly" a religion, and he's famous, so he must be right!
Nerd of Redhead:
Post# 219: Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed.
Post # 277: So the level of carbon-14 is being maintained, albeit at a very low, but measurable level.
Now that Nerd has firmly established himself, let us proceed…
The presence of Helium in rocks far below the Earth’s surface is an indication that they aren’t millions of years old. The entire uniformitarian theory collapses with this evidence, so alternate theories must be invented to explain the unusual presence of helium:
1)Primordial, undegassed reservoir deep in the Earth's mantle are the source.
2)Cosmic dust settles to the bottom of the sea, then is “recycled” into the magma.
3)Cosmic rays penetrate the ground… blah, blah, blah
On the other hand, Kurz et al. (1987) and Sadnik et al. (1987) measured 3He/4He ratios as high as 1.4 X 10^-3 in diamonds mined directly from kimberlite pipes at depths of about 26 and 200 m, respectively. Since cosmic rays cannot penetrate to such depths, these helium signatures were attributed to nucleogenic production. - "Radiogenic Isotope Geology" – Dickin, 1997
The theories for explaining the unusual presence of Helium are numerous and varied. When a theory expends too much energy in “explaining” then the theory becomes less attractive when contrasted to an alternate theory that requires jumping through fewer hoops. “Johnny, how did you procure that $100 bill?” If “Johnny” expends one hour in explaining how he got that $100 bill, then we might conclude he is lying. A 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham, stated that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is known today as “Occam's Razor”, or "law of economy", or "law of succinctness". When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. The creationist theory explains the presence of helium by postulating, “the rocks aren’t that old”, whereas the uniformitarian theory patches itself with additional lengthy theories.
Often, theories are mistakenly thought to be “laws”, whereas they are only “theories”. For example, many scientists believe the Earth’s magnetic field is induced and maintained by the convection of liquid iron in the outer core (dynamo theory). But this theory consistently fails to explain the existing magnetic fields of celestial bodies within our solar system. Why are these “caveat emptors” so often omitted from science textbooks?
Apply Occam’s Razor to theories explaining these anomalies
1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth’s perspective.
2) Genetic load (accumulation of lethal mutations) would be lethal if Homo sapiens was 200K years old.
3) Why did dinosaurs suddendly become extinct?
4)(current human population) >> (6.7B) if Homo sapiens procreated for 200K years.
The presence of Helium in rocks far below the Earth’s surface is an indication that they aren’t millions of years old.
WRONG! I read no further, as anything you said beyond that point is a lie. You ever heard of thorium and uranium? You know how they decay? They decay through ejecting alpha particles, which are helium nuclei. So, one would expect, and one does, find helium in old rocks. Not all rocks are permeable, and alpha particles are constantly be emitted. Only idiots don't understand these facts. Why do you keep lying to yourself Alan? The earth is 3.4-3.5 billion years old. Until you prove otherwise, and your feeble attempts so far show you are only a cut/paste specialist, who should be banned for stupidity.
You are not showing the ability to overthrow science due to your stupidity and the stupidity of the sites you are copying and pasting from. You have presented nothing that has not already been refuted. Your stymied before you ever do anything.
PZ Banning time for this cut/paste idiot.
Oh, but Nerd, AGW denialist Michael Crichton said SETI is "unquestioningly" a religion, and he's famous, so he must be right!
But he's also dead. So if he was so right, why isn't he immortal?
1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth’s perspective.
and?
1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth’s perspective.
Except when they aren't. We are on an elliptical orbit around the sun and the moon is on an elliptical orbit around the earth. They don't always line up.
Kel, I'm running seti-at-home, but I really don't expect ET will be found anytime soon. Part of me runs seti due to the canceling of funding by congress years ago. Also, the present receiver at Arecibo has a limited view. So some prime candidates are missed. There has been talk of piggy-backing SETI on to the Allen array, but nothing concrete to date has come of that. Still, the bandwidth they are looking at is increasing, and future plans will include some visible light frequencies. SETI is science, even if it is unlikely to succeed science.
LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham's Razor! Funny!
2) Genetic load (accumulation of lethal mutations) would be lethal if Homo sapiens was 200K years old.
4)(current human population) >> (6.7B) if Homo sapiens procreated for 200K years.
Hahahaha! Creationists claim that there are both too many and too few humans simultaneously!
Ockham's Razor: Natural selection means that death, including death from famine, disease, and war, have kept the human population relatively low until recently... and lethal mutations, plural, cannot possibly accumulate. Because those with even one lethal mutation die.
How hard is this to understand?
Oh, and the recent modern spike in population growth is because of technology, not magic. You're eating food which ultimately depends on the discovery of chemical nitrogen fixing and the role of nitrates, phosphorus, and potassium in plant growth. Funnily enough, God never revealed that little piece of information.
How hard is this to understand?
Stimpy seems to make the same mistake. Surely it's not hard to see that if someone inherited a deadly trait that prevented them from reproducing that that deadly trait would not get passed down.
Addendum to post #280. Uranium and thorium are considered ubiquitous elements, which mean they are distributed throughout most rocks is small quantities. There are only a few minerals that concentrate these elements.
Alan, if I respond further, I will always stop at your first lie like I did today. I will not read and respond to any later points in your posts. Your cut/paste techniques make it not worth any further effort, as it is the equivalent of a Gish Gallop.
The whole sun and moon comment leads me to believe that Alan is also one of those types that thinks when he hears a song on the radio that has a thin connection to something he was thinking recently that it is a sign from above.
one of those types that thinks when he hears a song on the radio that has a thin connection to something he was thinking recently that it is a sign from above.
Dude, the universe, is, like, talking to me. You know? I can hear it all the time. Because we're all connected to the One, only some of us can pull in a stronger signal, you know?
And the drugs, man, that's just to open up the doors of perception in my mind. Really. Word up.
Wow, man, your aura is getting really bright blue and glowing. And you're growing, like, a hundred feet tall. Wow. I didn't know you could do that.
Alan Clarke,
Throughout all the years of SETI’s my Christian god's supposed existence, nothing has ever been found.
Fixed it for you. No, no - that's okay.
I wonder if Alan Clarke knows Nat Weeks.
Owlmirror:…death from famine, disease, and war, have kept the human population relatively low until recently.
We can see from data provided by Wikipedia, that the effects from “death, famine, disease and war” have not hindered world population growth. Why? The exponential growth rate overrides the ill effects that Owlmirror is assuming is dominant. Also, countries with the highest population growth rates are not necessarily affluent. Click here. You’ll need to look for another explanation. Maybe Homo sapiens didn't enjoy sex much until about 4400 years ago? 200,000 years of Homo sapiens population supression presents a serious blow to your theory.
What has kept the population "low until recently"? A $100 savings account with daily compounded interest will be low at the beginning, but have a huge balance at the end.
It's time to apply Occam's Razor to a theory that needs TOO MUCH EXPLAINING.
Alan, even if we assume that the re-population of the post-Flood world started at 2400 BC, we still see a pronounced increase in the population growth rate starting about 200 years ago. This is obvious even from the data you yourself have provided in the interest of trying to make your point. You scoff at Owlmirror for asserting that human population remained low until recently, but your hypothesis also needs to explain why population growth was so nearly flat for the 4000 years following the flood. Do you even THINK about what your objects imply about your own claims? Are you suggesting that mankind didn't much enjoy sex until some 30 years after Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence?
This is yet another case of modern science working against the foundations on which it's built. Thanks to scientific advancements, more offspring born than ever before are surviving to reproduce, and life expectancy has doubled in a very short space of time. Take away medicine, take away sanitation, take away electricity and modern agricultural farming practices, and suddenly humans are thrust into a far less sustained environment. Get some Malthus in ya Alan.
I wonder if he knows Ray Comfort. That "accumulation of lethal mutations" is almost, but not quite, as stupid as Ray's "males and females evolving separately" idiocy.
The only factors that have affected human population growth have been non-supernatural ones, such as the agricultural revolution, the discovery of hygiene, and the reduction of infant mortality resulting from childhood disease inoculation, and better nutrition.
Occam's Razor does not say to reject "too much explanation". It says to not multiply entities unnecessarily. But when there is something that is obviously very complicated — such as the weather, or life on earth, including population changes, or the functioning of the brain — of course there is going to be a lot of explanation necessary, and many "entities" that will affect the explanation.
Of course, theists don't really understand what Occam's Razor really does.
Occam's Razor destroys superstitions. There is no point in positing effects from incoherent causes — such as the supernatural.
Occam's Razor destroys religions. Most religions posit unnecessary supernatural hypotheses to account for the natural world.
Occam's Razor slices God into nothingness, or meaninglessness. There is not a supernatural God with the attributes claimed by religions.
Nerd of Redhead:They decay through ejecting alpha particles, which are helium nuclei. So, one would expect, and one does, find helium in old rocks.
I’m not saying all rocks lack parent isotopes for explaining possible helium presence. I’m saying many do not, which is what gives rise to alternative theories for explaining helium’s presence. And these alternative theories are bulky and ugly: Cosmic dust settling to the sea floor is “recycled” into the Earth’s magma during the theoretical “sea floor spreading” phenomena. When theory is built upon theory, upon theory, upon theory, you end up with a stack of blocks that will probably topple.
“Scientific naturalism” always seeks a natural cause for every phenomenon: If God exists then who created God?
Q: Where did life come from?
A: It came from random particle motion.
Q: Where did the particles come from?
A: We don't know but we are seeking natural causes.
There is an a priori ASSUMPTION that only the physical world exists. The ancient Greeks had this philosophy in what we know as “materialism”. Look at the statement made by evolutionist Carl Sagan:
“The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.”
Sagan cannot possibly know for certain what he is talking about because his experiences were confined to a small envelope of time. Is he a prophet of the future? Sagan’s finite mind has miraculously managed to encompass the “infinite” in making his bold projections. Hopefully, his philosophy grasped the fact that he would die.
Someone stated: "As for historical artifacts, there currently exists not a single artifact belonging to Jesus." Atheists despise Catholic churches that collect relics of Christ’s cross, holy grails, drops of Christ’s blood, burial shrouds, etc., but they demand these same relics if they are to believe. How can God win with such impossible demands? Only a person looking for an excuse would create such a blockade.
What is the “naturalistic” explanation for our human-centric universe? From our perspective, the Sun and Moon are the exact same size. What are the odds of a random asteroid crashing into the Earth and breaking off a chunk which becomes our illuminated moon at a proper distance so as to make it appear the same size as our Sun? The Moon serves like a “night light”. It also happens to be a highly reflective white instead of a composition like a black basalt which would be non-reflective. If the Moon had a heavy atmosphere it could absorb the Sun’s light. The Moon’s orbit is sufficient to keep it from crashing to Earth during the entire period of recorded history. The Moon is perfectly round (from a human perspective) as opposed to an odd-shaped asteroid. The Moon provides humans with a method for keeping time with it’s predictable phases. If our Moon had a constant shadow then its benefit would have been negated.
Human’s take too much for granted. Atheists are the most unthankful people in the world. They thank one another. They love their pets. They love their families. They hate their enemies. But so did Hitler. By setting one’s standard to minimally equal Hitler, man justifies himself.
Gen 1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Alan Clarke wrote:
I’m not saying all rocks lack parent isotopes for explaining possible
helium presence. I’m saying many do not, which is what gives rise to
alternative theories for explaining helium’s presence
Such as what, exactly? Invisible helium pixies? The thing is, Alan, is even if we didn't have all the scientific explanations for why the earth and the universe is as old as is it, you still don't have anything even approaching evidence for your god's existence. The fact that we can explain everything else is just a bonus.
Atheists despise Catholic churches that collect relics of Christ’s
cross, holy grails, drops of Christ’s blood, burial shrouds, etc., but
they demand these same relics if they are to believe.
I think the main problem we have with such relics is that, gathered together, you'd have enough timber to build a frigate, enough grails to fill the frigate, enough blood to float the frigate on, and enough shrouds to build sails to catch the wind to sail the frigate on the veritable sea of blood. Relics are the invention of the opportunistic to extract money from the credulous; none has shown to be anything resembling what it is claimed to be.
The Moon serves like a “night light”.
You've obviously never lived very far north of the equator, have you? Why would your god hate the Icelandic so much that he casts their country into darkness for so much longer than the people in the rest of the world? Did they do something to anger him?
Human’s take too much for granted. Atheists are the most unthankful
people in the world. They thank one another. They love their pets. They
love their families. They hate their enemies. But so did Hitler. By
setting one’s standard to minimally equal Hitler, man justifies himself.
This incoherent babble is a sign you're starting to lose the plot again, Alan. Time for your medication.
Alan, you are lying to yourself in attempting to force fit your non-existent god and fictional bible to fit the facts of a 3.5 billion year old earth. . You are WRONG. Period, end of story. There is no alternative explanation except that you lie. We see this. Quit lying to yourself, so you quit lying to us. So far, Alan zero, Pharyngual, all. And the score will never improve for you using the method of trying shove an intellectually untenable theory into the facts.
Atheists despise Catholic churches that collect relics of Christ’s cross, holy grails, drops of Christ’s blood, burial shrouds, etc., but they demand these same relics if they are to believe.
In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
The moon is as much a light as a mirror is. Not to mention the moon isn't always up at night.
Alan, you are lying to yourself in attempting to force fit your non-existent god and fictional bible to fit the facts of a 4.5 billion year old earth. .
Fixed
Thanks Kel.
Alan, here is the heart of the matter. Can you show physical evidence for your alleged god that can pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin? If such evidence doesn't exist, how can the bible be the word of god? If the bible is not the word of god, because god doesn't exist, then there is no need for a young earth. So, you whole theory rests on proving god. We are waiting for your evidence. An eternally burning bush would be good. If you don't have the physical evidence for your alleged god, you need to stop arguing and go away until you have the evidence.
The alternative is that you are a delusional fool. Your choice cricket. Choose wisely.
Catholic relics, now? Dude. You're not Catholic. The KJV that you worship was created by Protestants.
Oh, and for that matter... would these be the same Catholics who have no problem with a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth? Catholics, as in the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître whose study of astrophysics led to the theory of the expanding universe currently called the Big Bang? The same Catholics who have no problem with the theory of evolution?
[So familiar.... ]
And it's theists who have the a priori ASSUMPTION that there is more than the physical world and yet never provide the evidence for anything more. That's whyOccam's Razor eliminates the supernatural.
The only one I see hating here is you, Alan Clarke. And your religion isn't helping. All it's doing is giving a direction to your psychotic impulses...
If catholics do have Christ's blood, surely it can be tested. Hell, there even may be some of that blood on that crown or the bits of the cross. If they hasn't melted the nails down, there may have been blood on that too. Let's see the perfect DNA of Jesus.Though I'm guessing the Catholics are reluctant to have their artefacts tested since the Shroud was shown to be a fake, and believers don't care about testing.
Nerd of Redhead:Kel, I'm running seti-at-home, but I really don't expect ET will be found anytime soon. … SETI is science, even if it is unlikely to succeed science.
Nerd, I don’t think SETI is science because it fails the “falsifiable” test. Your own statement is of the nature, “Evolution is expected to occur on other celestial bodies. I expect my enquiries will return no supporting evidence but I still believe evolution occurs.” In other words, it is not falsifiable. Please explain how your hypothesis is falsifiable.
Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. ... Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically.
After reading Wikipedia’s “Falsifiability”, test your ability to recognize non-falsifiable hypotheses:
1)One million years from now, evolution will make many species barely recognizable.
2)All cats have claws.
3)“We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.” – Wowbagger
4)“The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.” - Carl Sagan
First Occam's Razor, now falsifiability. YEC tries to do science! What next? Flying pigs? The zombie apocalypse?
Number 1 is a prediction. It will be falsifiable. Just wait a million years, then examine many species. Are they recognizable? Note that the prediction is rather sloppy ("recognizable" is not a well-defined term), so you will need to lock down what exactly you mean.
Number 2 is a statement about the present. On the one hand, it is trivially falsified (declawed cats). On the other hand, some minor modifications to the statement ("Almost all cats are born with claws; many domestic cats have their claws removed") is both falsifiable (examine many cats; study claw development) and true.
Number 3 is a statement about the past. That's a bit trickier, but note that changing it to "We know for sure that it is the most reasonable parsimonious inference that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him" applies Occam's Razor to a statement about alleged supernatural claims without evidence. It can be falsified... by God providing evidence.
Number 4 is a definition. You may not like the definition, but hey, it can be "falsified" by providing evidence that there is, was, or will be something more, and asserting that "the cosmos" does not apply to this "something more". Lots of luck with that one.
And finally, SETI is also indeed falsifiable. Again, it's something that will take a long amount of time to falsify, but you know what? Too bad. There's nothing in the concept of falsifiability that has a time limit.... And Occam's Razor does not rule it out, because it's a completely natural hypothesis, not supernatural.
Meanwhile, the God hypothesis is trivially falsified... unless you go with some sort of never-intervening Deist-like God, which is not falsifiable at all. Which one do you think it is?
Wouldn't my statement ("We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.") also be falsified if anyone in the present could be shown to walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine and be dead for three days before rising again?
I feel the invalidity of the biblical claims is less to do with it's having occurred in the past (where we can't test it) than it is with the fact we know people can't do magic. If they could then the historicity of Jesus would become important.
Surely with the artefacts of Jesus that there's at least one we can test for genetic lineage. If God's the father and Mary is the mother, then we should only see a mother's dna. There are 7 foreskins that are all claimed to be Jesus, correct?
Wouldn't my statement ("We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.") also be falsified if anyone in the present could be shown to walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine and be dead for three days before rising again?
Well... Philosophers of science might argue it. I think it might depend on if the hypothetical miracle-performer claimed to be the same Jesus who did those miracles in the past.
I would also suggest that the miracles be very carefully scrutinized ... more carefully than this, at any rate.
Hm. Assuming that the miracle-worker was legit, I think you would be correct inasmuch as the "We know for sure" part would indeed be falsified. OK, point granted.
Posted by: Kel | March 10, 2009
Surely with the artefacts of Jesus that there's at least one we can test for genetic lineage. If God's the father and Mary is the mother, then we should only see a mother's dna. There are 7 foreskins that are all claimed to be Jesus, correct?
Does this mean that Jesus had seven penises? What a man!
#295 Owlmirror: The only factors that have affected human population growth have been non-supernatural ones, such as the agricultural revolution, the discovery of hygiene, and the reduction of infant mortality resulting from childhood disease inoculation, and better nutrition.
If we apply the population growth calculator to find a requred population growth rate to account for 200,000 years of homosapien evolution, the numbers hardly look believable. http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php
Evolutionary model numbers: Beginning with a population of 2 over a period of 198,000 years to arrive at a given population of 200M during “0” AD, a growth rate of .0093% or .000093 yields exactly 198,498,277 or nearly 200M.
This rate is so low that the populace is on the knife’s edge of extinction but this circus balancing act keeps the plates spinning for 100’s of thousands of years!
I doubt that early man was on the edge of starvation or death for this period of time. Are you forgetting that powerful engine of adaptation and natural selection or were they temporarily suspended? Low populations would mean low human competition for food. If one tribe was threatened by another then increasing the tribe’s population = greater safety! Tribal leaders must have understood the math pretty quick. Neighbors could also avoid deadly conflict by moving since there was plenty of room on a sparsely populated earth. Erosion and desertification would not be as extensive as today. Many American Indians simply followed the buffalo. Agriculture was not necessary for those willing to live a nomadic life style since 1,000 lbs of buffalo meat was a spear's throw away.
Currently, world population growth rate is 1.2% or .012.
Niger has the 2’nd highest growth rate of 3.68% and the Gaza Strip is #5 at 3.35%, great places to plan your next vacation. The highest growth rates appear to coincide with the most backward nations while the most technologically advanced are at the lowest. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2…
Conclusion:
The biblical account of a starting point of 8 people 4400 years ago after the flood, coincides with an overall population growth rate of only .467% or .00467 to yield a calculated population close to today’s 6,400,300,740. Some may even question if a .467% rate is too low being 2.6 X less than today’s rate of 1.2%. However, the evolutionary model as calculated above requires a much lower population growth rate of .0093% or 129 X less than today’s rate since a long duration of time is required for man to evolve. Which of the two requires the greater faith to believe, man having survived with a population growth rate of 2.6 X or 129 X less than the current growth rate?
2? Roger you dumbass.
Beginning with a population of 2 [...]
There's your problem. The population of humans has never been down to "2". Populations of ancestors have varied as our species evolved, but have never dropped as low as that.
The biblical account of a starting point of 8 people 4400 years ago after the flood,
There was no global flood. Zero evidence. None. Look, could you please read the entire web-page (or PDF article) of Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective, just to get a sense of why it cannot be the case that there was ever a global flood; why it cannot be the case that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; why science does indeed say that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? It's a bit long, but can you at least make the effort to read and understand?
One million years from now, evolution will make many species barely recognizable.
Owlmirror:It will be falsifiable. Just wait a million years, then examine many species.
This is falsifiable only in theory, but not in practicality. Such is the theory of evolution. The stipulation of long periods of time required for evolution to happen makes if impractical to falsify. Any true scientist should at least be cautious before accepting such a theory.
We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.
Owlmirror:…alleged supernatural claims without evidence.
Sorry, but there is evidence. We have multiple documents containing eye-witness accounts. Obviously, there are varying interpretations on the validity of those documents and the accounts contained therein, but to say the claims are “without evidence” is totally false.
The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be. - Carl Sagan
Owlmirror:…it can be "falsified" by providing evidence that there is, was, or will be something more, and asserting that "the cosmos" does not apply to this "something more".
To falsify this statement, Carl Sagan would need a cosmos-sized brain and equal-sized insight into the past, present, and future.
Kel:As for historical artefacts, there currently exists not a single artefact belonging to Jesus.
There is a fine line between genius and madness; pleasure and pain; theism and atheism. I’m wondering if there is some connection between Catholics who cherish relics and evolutionists who cherish icons of physical proof.
Please describe at least three artifacts that you feel would be the best evidence for Jesus’ existence and/or for his alleged miracles. Keep in mind that Jesus owned little property other than the clothes on his back. Those who crucified him gambled for his garments.
And around and around and around, just like a carousel... or a broken record...
This is falsifiable only in theory, but not in practicality. Such is the theory of evolution. The stipulation of long periods of time required for evolution to happen makes if impractical to falsify.
Wrong. We have the methods to give dates for fossils, and we have ways to measure changes to the DNA between generations. This gives us an at least approximate and falsifiable way to test for changes in different species over time, and make approximate and falsifiable predictions for changes in DNA that can occur in the future.
Indeed, it was a similar falsifiable prediction that led to the discovery of Tiktaalik. They knew the approximate age of what they were looking for; they knew the age of the rocks they were going to search in. Lo and behold, they found the transitional fossil in the rocks of the right age.
We have multiple documents containing eye-witness accounts.
We have no such thing.
We have writings that claim to be records of certain events, most of which are based on each other, and one which is obviously an independent work, and each of which have points that contradict each other.
Obviously, there are varying interpretations on the validity of those documents and the accounts contained therein, but to say the claims are “without evidence” is totally false.
Wrong. The accounts are not evidence of miracles, they are nothing more than evidence of accounts of miracles.
You know what would be evidence of miracles? God coming down and performing genuinely supernatural miracles himself for everyone to see, today. And performing them on such a broad scale, and determinable to not be frauds, that there can be no doubt that they are indeed supernatural miracles.
Nothing else is evidence of miracles. Not stories, not "eye-witness" accounts; heck, not even video recordings can be taken at face value — or are you going to start worshiping Criss Angel? You can even see him walking on water... but can you believe what you see?
To falsify this statement, Carl Sagan would need a cosmos-sized brain and equal-sized insight into the past, present, and future.
Nonsense. Sagan was offering a definition. You are the one who has to falsify it, if you can. The fact that you can't doesn't mean it's not falsifiable... just that you are not up to doing it.
I’m wondering if there is some connection between Catholics who cherish relics and evolutionists who cherish icons of physical proof.
So... now you agree that there are no such relics, and that the Catholics are wrong? What, you needed me to remind you that you're not Catholic and don't accept their claims?
*snrk*
Please describe at least three artifacts that you feel would be the best evidence for Jesus’ existence and/or for his alleged miracles.
Obviously, Jesus himself would be the best evidence for Jesus' existence.
Hey, you're the one claiming that he isn't dead and buried. You bring us this alleged living Jesus and have him perform some miracles.
Sorry, but there is evidence. We have multiple documents containing eye-witness accounts. Obviously, there are varying interpretations on the validity of those documents and the accounts contained therein, but to say the claims are “without evidence” is totally false.
I keep seeing goddists trotting out this statement but it always boils down to the Bible (not written by eyewitnesses) and commentaries on the Bible (written years after the various books of the New Testament were written). Since the main branches of Christianity can't even agree on what's in the Bible, its authenticity is highly suspect.
And please, don't give me Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. There is good reason to think that the passage that mentions Jesus was a forgery written by a Christian apologist to provide historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Historian Michael L. White argues against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from the Antiquities, do not mention the passage.
Please describe at least three artifacts that you feel would be the best evidence for Jesus’ existence and/or for his alleged miracles. Keep in mind that Jesus owned little property other than the clothes on his back. Those who crucified him gambled for his garments.
The cross, the crown of thorns, and an item of clothing. Surely at least one would contain something we can take some DNA from, and if the J-man was who we attribute him then surely we should see only see a mothers' genetic heredity. Beyond that there isn't much we can do, any artefact should carbon date back to ~1980 years ago for it to even have a chance to be valid.
There is a fine line between genius and madness; pleasure and pain; theism and atheism. I’m wondering if there is some connection between Catholics who cherish relics and evolutionists who cherish icons of physical proof.
God is alleged to have walked on earth - started his own cult then sacrificed himself. Have you seen the nature of humanity? We are hunter-gatherers, we collect things that have significance. Are you honestly trying to tell me that his followers both genuinely believed he was God-incarnate and did not try to collect every little thing that God touched?
Are you honestly trying to tell me that his followers both genuinely believed he was God-incarnate and did not try to collect every little thing that God touched?
There are at least three Sacred Spears (the one that stabbed Jesus on the cross) and if all the splinters of the Holy Cross were gathered together we'd find the cross was about 30 meters long and a meter thick.
That's it. There are plenty of supposed relics of Jesus; half a dozen foreskins, a few spears, lots of pieces of cross, bits of the crown of thorns, at least 4 holy chalices, among others - and that's just the surviving relics to this day. Imagine how many there have been in history. Curiously enough the only relic ever to go under proper scientific investigation turned out to be a fake... big surprise there.
Owlmirror # 313 There's your problem. The population of humans has never been down to "2". Populations of ancestors have varied as our species evolved, but have never dropped as low as that.
Sorry, but I believe that “2” ball is in your court. Increasing the starting population number (from 2) with a known fixed ending population (200M @ “0” AD) for a given amount of time (198,000 yrs) requires REDUCING the population growth rate figure. The evolutionary model example with the .000093 population growth rate figure would be reduced further favoring extinction.
There was no global flood.
I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model, requiring less “explaining”.
I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model
Almost every single geologist would disagree with you on that one. The evidence simply doesn't fit the flood model at all.
Alan, the burden of proof is upon you. Show us your evidence. So far, you have shown us nothing, because you have nothing except your testament, which is worthless.
RogerS, the same applies to you.
To both, your god only exists between your ears. The only way out is if you have physical evidence for your imaginary god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Failure to show such evidence means you are tacitly acknowledging that your god doesn't exist and your bible is a work of fiction. And saying "look around you" or "look in the mirror" won't cut the mustard, as we have natural explanations for both.
Were they trying to communicate a noteable event?
Did they all receive text message talking points?
Why is there common agreement of preservation in a "vessel" when heading for higher ground is how you survive local floods?
D = Destruction by Water
G = (God) Divine Cause
W = Warning Given
H = Humans Spared
A = Animals Spared
V = Preserved in a Vessel
D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus' account
D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian's account
D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid's poetry
D G . H . V 23 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35
BTW, they wrote or told the event, not me.
YAWN, nothing of interest as no dates were involved. What a loser. You have no idea of what is required for evidence. And still no physical evidence for your imagainary god. Double loser.
Re. 326:
Wherever there is water, there are floods. Even where there isn't water there will be floods. Show that all those floods occurred simultaneously.
It would seem that if there were such "similarities" in having flood myths around the world that there would be similarities in the names of the survivors.
This is more of a case of human societies setting up bases near water fronts and one of the main drawbacks is the chance of floods. Yet floods do not deter humans from the benefits of living on water fronts.
Sorry, but I believe that “2” ball is in your court. Increasing the starting population number (from 2) with a known fixed ending population (200M @ “0” AD) for a given amount of time (198,000 yrs) requires REDUCING the population growth rate figure.
Dude, the population change curve is an estimate. I know that "estimate" is a big, hard word, maybe too hard for a creationist to understand... but no evolutionary biologist will ever assert that the population of humans was ever only "2", since unlike in your fairy-tale, the earliest human population is not asserted to have been *poofed* from out of nothing.
Learn what you're talking about before spouting off nonsense about it, will you? Or is that just too damn hard for a creationist to do, so you would prefer to spout nonsense for years rather than learn?
I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model, requiring less “explaining”.
Why is there common agreement of preservation in a "vessel" when heading for higher ground is how you survive local floods?
Those that headed for lower ground in a flood died for their self-destructive perversity. Those that had no vessel and could not get to higher ground drowned because of their misfortune.
How smart do you have to be to understand this?
How stupid do you have to be to not understand this?
Owlmirror:LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham's Razor! Funny!
You shouldn’t discount the utility of Occam’s Razor too readily. Wouldn’t Darwinian evolution require its mechanisms to be efficient for it to be viable? In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken. For all practical purposes, light travels in a straight line in a vacuum. If this principle were violated, then I suspect that our current universe would cease to exist. The same holds true for living things. If neural transmission couldn’t find an efficient path from the brain to the fingers, then the organism would undoubtedly be naturally selected out for extinction. The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer. Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.” - Sir Isaac Newton
Alan, you are still looking for gaps that aren't there. And still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. We don't care if you don't like evolution. But you are incapable of coming up with anything we would consider a palbable hit to the theory. Because you don't understand how science works.
Until you show acceptable evidence for your god will will remain a lying loser.
Owlmirror:LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham's Razor! Funny!
You shouldn’t discount the utility of Occam’s Razor too readily. Wouldn’t Darwinian evolution require its mechanisms to be efficient for it to be viable? In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken. For all practical purposes, light travels in a straight line in a vacuum. If this principle were violated, then I suspect that our current universe would cease to exist. The same holds true for living things. If neural transmission couldn’t find an efficient path from the brain to the fingers, then the organism would undoubtedly be naturally selected out for extinction. The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer. Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.” - Sir Isaac Newton
The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer.
If so, the designer really likes a vacuum at 3 degrees above absolute zero, since that's what most of creation is. The material bits are, of course, almost all hydrogen and helium (at least the stuff that isn't dark matter and dark energy). It is profoundly absurd to claim that the trillions of cubic light-years of cold emptiness sprinkled with bits of hydrogen and helium was somehow "designed" to produce humans.
I think RogerS' post on flood legends is interesting from the point that the majority of legends aren't "fire" legends or "plague" legends. Legends often connect to a source of reality, such as the legend of "Annie Oakley" or "St. Nicholas". When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.
Secondly, the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the "floodings" where not simultaneous. I often hear, "This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago." This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.
Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.
LOL! Occam's Razor slices that incoherent (and unevidenced) assertion into nothingness.
It's funny because you invoke Occam's Razor only to completely and explicitly violate it by asserting an unnecessary entity in order to "explain" the self-evident.
Owlmirror #330 Dude, the population change curve is an estimate. I know that "estimate" is a big, hard word, maybe too hard for a creationist to understand... but no evolutionary biologist will ever assert that the population of humans was ever only "2", since unlike in your fairy-tale, the earliest human population is not asserted to have been *poofed* from out of nothing.
I apologize for my inaccuracy in modeling the Evolutionary account pertaining to population growth rate of homosapien with a starting figure of only 2. Since we are dealing with an estimate here (thanks for clarifying that to) we will need a starting population number, ending population number, and elapsed time in years. I had used 2, 200M, and 198,000 respectively which resulted in .000093 for a growth rate. Please provide what you would consider as more accurate numbers, remember, I only expect a rough estimate result. Thanks for your participation. Others with a differing opinion and reasonable support for another set of numbers –please jump in, this can be a collaborative effort.
When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.
Not unless there's actual evidence of a local flood. The Earth is a more reliable witness than human beings.
Secondly, the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the "floodings" where not simultaneous. I often hear, "This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago."
Because there should be no floods whatsoever on a planet that is three-fourths water with a constant hydrological cycle, complex weather patterns, and a changing climate?
This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.
Maybe if you ever actually studied geology, you might figure it out!
But that's just crazy talk, right? No creationist would ever study geology without the a priori ASSUMPTION that the Earth was created from nothing 6000 years ago and then subjected to a global flood.
You never did answer whether the God hypothesis was falsified or non-falsifiable. Guess your creationist brain just shuts down when it sees that sort of question.
Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.
O right, I see now. There must be a God because otherwise the universe might have been no-Euclidean and... o right. The nineteenth century called; they want their physics back.
I think RogerS' post on flood legends is interesting from the point that the majority of legends aren't "fire" legends or "plague" legends. Legends often connect to a source of reality, such as the legend of "Annie Oakley" or "St. Nicholas". When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.
If only there was some large, natural event that could form the basis large numbers of flood stories in different places and was consistent with the geological evidence (which a truly global flood isn't): something like the end of an ice-age causing local flooding to be common...
I apologize for my inaccuracy in modeling the Evolutionary account pertaining to population growth rate of homosapien
Write that as Homo sapiens. Two separate words, genus name ("Homo") capitalized, species name ("sapiens") lowercase, italics often preferred. That's the current taxonomic standard.
Since we are dealing with an estimate here (thanks for clarifying that to) we will need a starting population number, ending population number, and elapsed time in years.
No, no, no. The only reason you brought up the population change was in support of the "global flood". Since there is no global flood recorded in the global geology, we don't need to fiddle with population estimates.
For that matter, there's no "global flood" recorded in the human population or animal population. Read any archaeology or anthropology textbook. There is no instance of humanity (and all other life) disappearing 4400 years ago and starting back up again, in all the places where human settlements are studied.
If you have a problem with radiometric dating, note that Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspectivealso discusses non-radiometric dating systems. Although it's funny how Alan was fine with carbon dating when he thought it supported a 100,000-year-old Earth — a couple of orders of magnitude off from what the bible says. What's up with that, anyway?
But please don't spout nonsense like the Earth being "repopulated" 4400 years ago from a population of 8 humans. It didn't happen. We have the evidence.
Alan Clarke:
the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the "floodings" where not simultaneous. I often hear, "This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago." This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.
The argument against a global orgy is often reduced to an admission that people indeed have had sex, but not simultaneously. This fine line of denial makes me wonder how monogamatarians maintain their faith.
Matt Heath:
There must be a God because otherwise the universe might have been no-Euclidean
According to some, our universe is non-Euclidean, but you really don't want to meet the designers...
When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.
Indeed, it should. It should also consider what is more likely:
(1) A global flood occurred, even though all empirical evidence contradicts this.
(2) That early civilizations arose along river banks and ocean shores. There likely were many independent floods that did a great deal of damage(hell, even with all our modern technology Katrina still caused a lot of damage). These legends then spread to other cultures.
Now RogerS copied and pasted #326 (without attribution). There appear to be many sites with this info ( here is one) that also don't give attribution. It seems like to be a creationist you must complete a checklist of intellectual dishonesty.
Anyway, the lists gives 35 sources of flood myths. Now, what they don't say is that some of these myths aren't independent. "The Epic of Gilgamesh" influenced Berossus' account and very likely Lucian and Zend-Avesta.
It also gives "Divine Cause" as part of the check list. The fact that Ovid, the Eddas and others gave polytheistic causes isn't really mentioned. That aside, people blame "Divine Cause" to pretty much all natural events. To volcanoes, earth quakes, droughts, famines, epidemics, etc. That really proves nothing.
Another category given is "Warning Given". Again, prophecies are very common in myths. Too see problems with "prophecies" go see Postdiction.
Now I don't quite understand the usefulness of the category "Humans Spared". If every single human died how the hell are we here? If it was just a regional flood, then someone must have survived to tell the tale.
We know that word of mouth is a HORRIBLE way to figure out what really happened. Why try and use other ancient myths to prove your particular ancient myth? Why not look at the geological evidence? Is it because it shows absolutely no evidence of a global flood?
Besides, how would you get 2 of every single animal on a fucking boat?
the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the "floodings" where not simultaneous. I often hear, "This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago." This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.
Localised flooding is very different to global flooding. Localised flooding is not only possible but has been observed countless times. A global flood is physically impossible. Multiple local floods explain the flood mythology in other cultures, as well as explaining why the genetic evidence in our species and others, the geographical distribution of animals and their ancestral fossil records, the non-uniform geology, etc. This argument is the equivalent of saying: evolution posits that more advantageous mutations will arise. Wings are an advantageous mutation. Humans don't have wings. Therefore evolution is false.Natural disasters happen, a global flood hasn't.
Late to the party, I am.
Alan wrote:
It stands on the assumption that a global flood never occurred which would COMPLETELY change the atmospheric C14 content if a large portion of the Earth’s ecosystem was destroyed.
An assumption that is:
1. Supported by NO geological evidence.
2. Contradicted by the entirety of the geological record*.
I think we can safely throw this assumption out. Oh wait, we did. A couple of hundred years ago when we figured out 1 and 2 above.
*Not to mention the science of physics.
Tulse: :)
But this universe is non-Euclidean too; that was my point. It's just the curvature of space time is pretty small except near black holes and the big bang.
Saying euclidean space implies god therefore god is like saying phlogiston implies god therefore god.
In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken.
...reading this, with my inside-out laid-out eyes...
*facepalm*
Since when has it been assumed that the human population growth rate has ever been linear? And what;s the use of an average growth rate? The rates were lower when the survival rate was lower, when the infant mortality rate was higher, when life expectancy was lower. The rates have been higher in recent times, for a wide variety of reasons. It's absurd to apply (or to compute) a single growth rate across across hundreds of thousands of years, and then reject it as being either too high or too low.
Plague.
Famine.
War.
Get it?
Tis Himself: …it always boils down to the Bible (not written by eyewitnesses)…
When was the New Testament written? Jesus predicted the destruction Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. Jesus’ words were recorded with slight differences by three individuals concerning the destruction of Jerusalem:
Matthew 24:1-2And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
See the variations as recorded by Mark and Luke: Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6 Why isn’t there any boasting by the Bible’s authors that Jesus properly predicted the destruction? Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened. Nowhere does the Bible gloat over its successful predictions.
Who are we to trust? Tis Himself? Owlmirror? Jesus' closest friend, John? It’s a no-brainer.
1 John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
John knew mankind inside and out:
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
What a stupid godbot. Quoting the fictional bible impresses us not, and is meaningless. YAWN. Still not evidence for your imaginary deity. Double YAWN.
Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened.
According to almost all biblical scholars, you are wrong.
Jesus predicted the destruction Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D.
Postdiction contains several problems with "prophecies".
Let's see how this "prophecy" does:
-Vague
-Open ended: doesn't give an exact date of when it will happen
-Catch-all: Many ways a city destroyed. Jesus doesn't specifically say how it's going to happen. It could have been by fire, by earthquake, etc.
- Unavailable until after the fact: Like Kel points out it's likely that most of the Gospels were after 70 AD .
*snort*
Why isn’t there any boasting by the Bible’s authors that Jesus properly predicted the destruction? Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened.
Funnily enough, not a single goddamn scrap of parchment or papyrus with this supposed prediction exists that can be dated to before the destruction.
Nowhere does the Bible gloat over its successful predictions.
LOL. The entire NT is a huge extended gloat over how Jesus and his followers interpreted the various scattered verses in the bible correctly as predictions, and no-one else did, nyah-nyah.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
LOL. What was the Christ cult supposed to say about those who called them blasphemers and/or liars and/or misguided fools? "Ooh, yup, you got us. We were wrong, but now we have to come clean."
Of course they're going to deny all charges and reverse them against those making them — just like any cultist today. Go to the Moonies and say that Sun Myung Moon is not the second coming of Jesus. Go to the Scientlologists and say the L. Ron was a fraud and a con-man. See what kind of response you get.
Sheesh.
PS: Take your meds. You're going psychotic again.
RogerS @ 326:
Why is there common agreement of preservation in a "vessel" when heading for higher ground is how you survive local floods?
D = Destruction by Water
G = (God) Divine Cause
W = Warning Given
H = Humans Spared
A = Animals Spared
V = Preserved in a Vessel
D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai [...]
Wow, you really nailed it with that very first example. (Pity you put Australia first, it made me curious enough to look it up.)
I found it in Folklore in the Old Testament Studies in Comparative Religion, which seems a likely source for this list itself (but I didn't spent time investigating). Can't cut & paste from Google Book Search, so here's a similar passage from talkorigins:
Long ago, a great flood covered the country. All drowned except a man and two or three women who took refuge on a mud island near Port Albert. Pelican came by in his canoe and went to help them. He fell in love with one of the women. He ferried the others to the mainland, but left her for last. Afraid of being alone with him, the woman dressed a log in her opossum rug so it looked like her, left it by the fire, and swam to the mainland. The pelican returned and flew into a passion when the log dressed as a woman wouldn't answer him. He kicked it, which only hurt his foot and made him angrier. He began to paint himself white so that he might fight the woman's husband. Another pelican came up when he was halfway through with these preparations, but not knowing what to make of the strange half black and half white creature, pecked him and killed him. That is why pelicans are now black and white.
That's not a historical record, it's a (convoluted and weird) just-so story about how a bird got its colouring!
(I'm not quite sure how the flood covered the country while still leaving a "mainland" to swim to, or why the dead pelican determined the colouring for the surviving species, but that's creation myths for ya!)
Do you know how the flood supposedly occurred in this story?
Tiddalik the giant frog was thirsty, and drank all the water in the world; so the animals conspired to make him laugh so he would release the water again.
You want to try and work that into the biblical setting for me?
Owlmirror:Hey, you're the one claiming that he isn't dead and buried. You bring us this alleged living Jesus and have him perform some miracles.
Professor George McNelly at Purdue University once told me that he would accept a gift Bible from me under the condition that I would receive a Bible from him that described how each miracle attributed to Jesus was performed by natural means. Jesus knew how temporal and useless miracles were for long-lasting relationships. Each time Michael Jackson steps on stage, his fans want him to win them over with another “miraculous” performance. The problem is, the fickle crowd becomes progressively immunized by multiple performances, and the “miraculous” becomes commonplace. Eventually, the charm wears off completely to the point that those who were once charmed become those who most abhor their idol. John Lennon died at the hands of disenchanted idolizer Mark David Chapman.
Owlmirror, I fear that your choice to have Jesus appear before you to perform a miracle would leave you as miserable as King Midas. The reason I know so is because you are a prisoner to your “naturalistic” mind. If Jesus did appear, your mind would reject him as an imposter. If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet. If there were no stones, you would think a sheet of ice was submerged about 1 inch below the surface to support his feet. Your naturalistic mind would play tricks on you to no end. If your time for studying the miracle came to an end, you would forever torment yourself for not having investigated your latest idea of a natural cause. Where science would normally be an asset, you would be cursed under a delusion of “naturalism”.
Owlmirror:Go to the Moonies and say that Sun Myung Moon is not the second coming of Jesus. Go to the Scientlologists and say the L. Ron was a fraud and a con-man. See what kind of response you get.
Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.
Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.
lol, thou cracketh me up Alan.
If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet.
the real question is...
why wouldn't YOU?
did you think somehow you would just "know"?
how does that work?
Your naturalistic mind would play tricks on you to no end.
Searching for valid explanation of extraordinary claims is somehow a mental illusion? Lemme guess...perpetrated by the devil to lead the flock astray, no doubt.
And if the excuse for being unable to verify, or even see, a miracle is that it would somehow cheapen the experience of something that no one has experienced in the first place is a weak one indeed.
Jesus knew how temporal and useless miracles were for long-lasting relationships.
Then why perform any miracles at all?
Why do you have a "relationship" with Jesus, if not for a miracle or miracles?
The problem is, the fickle crowd becomes progressively immunized by multiple performances, and the “miraculous” becomes commonplace.
Funny how you imply that Jesus was nothing more than a traveling illusionist, always careful to leave to rubes wanting more. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.
John Lennon died at the hands of disenchanted idolizer Mark David Chapman.
Mark David Chapman was a religious Christian psychotic who hated Lennon because Lennon dared to suggest that he was more popular than Jesus Christ. Mark David Chapman thought that God wanted him to commit murder.
Gee, who does that sound like?
If Jesus did appear, your mind would reject him as an imposter.
And you would just accept anyone who claimed to be Jesus, or performed a few magic tricks. Or you wouldn't, because you have some standards of belief and skepticism.
You're either utterly gullible... or you are no different from me, and would want to be sure that you were not being deceived.
Which is it?
If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet. If there were no stones, you would think a sheet of ice was submerged about 1 inch below the surface to support his feet.
Did Criss Angel really walk on water, or did he fake it? If you believe, why don't you worship him as the returned son of God? If you don't, how are you any different from me in being skeptical?
If your time for studying the miracle came to an end, you would forever torment yourself for not having investigated your latest idea of a natural cause.
Why should the "time for studying the miracle" come to an end? If it's really Jesus, he wouldn't need to stop. He should be performing miracles left and right to convince people that he's for real.
Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.
If I'm inferior to Jesus Christ, why are you so obsessed with me? Stop wasting your time posting here, and go to church.
Criss Angel aka Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos aka Nicolae Carpathia has real magic powers but they do not come from God they come from his father the devil
Criss Angel aka Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos aka Nicolae Carpathia has real magic powers but they do not come from God they come from his father the devil
Which means they come from God. All power comes from the Creator of all things. I have no power but the power that God grants.
Alan @355:
If Jesus did appear, your mind would reject him as an imposter.
A question for you, Alan. Or indeed for anyone else who believes in the divinity, resurrection and return of Jesus.
A man approaches you in the street, and declares that he is Jesus Christ, Son of God, returned to Earth. Would you believe or reject his claim? And on what grounds?
What if the person is of caucasian, or middle eastern appearance? Black? Asian? A woman? A child?
Does your answer change, and why?
Criss Angel aka Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos aka Nicolae Carpathia
The problem is, the fickle crowd becomes progressively immunized by multiple performances, and the “miraculous” becomes commonplace
Yeah, because there's no reason to heal the sick and feed the hungry, if not for the PR benefits.
Poor Alan, those of us who respect the scientific process will require the proper evidence from Jesus to confirm his status. This would include his walking on water at a venue of our choosing, and doing so in the presence of other scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers. And a unanamous decision would be need for proof of divinity. Anything less means we can be conned. Like you have been. There is no evidence that your imaginary god exists, or that your bible is anything other than fiction. But you want to believe, so you do. We see no need to believe, and don't. You've been wasting your time and ours with your stupid posts. Time to call it quits.
Kagato #354 I found it in Folklore in the Old Testament Studies in Comparative Religion, which seems a likely source for this list itself (but I didn't spent time investigating). Can't cut & paste from Google Book Search, so here's a similar passage from talkorigins:
Long ago, a great flood covered the country. All drowned except a man and two or three women who took refuge on a mud island near Port Albert. Pelican came by in his canoe and went to help them. He fell in love with one of the women. He ferried the others to the mainland, but left her for last. Afraid of being alone with him, the woman dressed a log in her opossum rug so it looked like her, left it by the fire, and swam to the mainland. The pelican returned and flew into a passion when the log dressed as a woman wouldn't answer him. He kicked it, which only hurt his foot and made him angrier. He began to paint himself white so that he might fight the woman's husband. Another pelican came up when he was halfway through with these preparations, but not knowing what to make of the strange half black and half white creature, pecked him and killed him. That is why pelicans are now black and white.
That's not a historical record, it's a (convoluted and weird) just-so story about how a bird got its colouring!
An actual event that occurred over 4400 years ago is likely to have embellished accounts with some folklore sprinkled in among various cultures spread throughout the world, I get that. Get 35 eyewitnesses to a traffic accident that occurred in 2008 and hand the accounts to an Evolutionist and I am sure he could find adequate inconsistency to disprove the event. He would pull out one that said the car was “flying down the road” and conclude cars do not fly, therefore false. On the other hand, a professional investigator could conclude the event happened by looking for correlations among all the accounts.
Even the “folksy” Australian account you cite begins with a number of interesting elements all contained within the first two sentences:
1.great flood
2.covered the country
3.all drowned except
4.two or three women
5.refuge on a mud island
Genesis 8:4-5 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
Albert Einstein
RogerS, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god, which means your bible is fiction. And nobody but Noah and his family survived the fictional flood. What part of that don't you understand. You trashed your own claim with your own ignorance by using a flood claim with survivors. BWAAAHAAHAAHAA You godbots sure are stupid when it comes to evidence.
So let me get this right:
Not only do YEC (like RogerS) think humanity began from two people (Adam and Eve), but that it happened twice (second time with Noah + seven family members) within the last several thousand years?
RogerS, there are basically two possibilities:
1. There was NO global deluge ~4400 years ago.
2. Whatever deity was responsible for said event erased all evidence of it after the event was over and then created a rock record that screams very loudly THERE WAS NO FLOOD.
In short, there is no geological evidence supporting the idea of a worldwide deluge ~4400 years ago and all of the evidence that we do have indicates that it never happened. The flood hypothesis is long dead and we have been continually stomping on its rotting carcass for more than 200 years.
An actual [flood] event that occurred over 4400 years ago
...all over the world would have left evidence all over the world.
There's no evidence all over the world of this supposed flood event, therefore the flood event did not happen.
Get 35 eyewitnesses to a traffic accident that occurred in 2008 and hand the accounts to an Evolutionist
Show a little kid playing with toy cars to a Creationist, and he will immediately assert that crashing the toy cars together means that a real accident happened in the real world. This is voodoo, not science.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
Albert Einstein
Yes, and the simple solution is that the bible is false in describing a global flood.
Einstein was neither a YEC, a Christian, nor a follower of any organized religion. And he would have utterly rejected the folly of asserting that a book of primitive myths should trump actual evidence-based science.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein
The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica in the form of chert and/or flint, as well as varying amounts of clay, silt and sand as disseminations, nodules, or layers within the rock. The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Limestone_and_Chemical_Company
Why are huge deposits of marine organisms (limestone calcite) in the middle of continents?
1.Simple answer: a global flood shocking and amassing vast quantities at the same time. The flood covered all continents.
Why are sea shells found in sands in the Midwest and fossilized clams in the closed position found as high as Everest?
2.Simple answer: a global flood carried sands over continents and rapid burial of clams prevented them from dying in the natural open position. Both halves of the shell would not be together given long periods of time.
Why are life forms from sea life to dinosaur bones (with soft tissues) all well preserved in sedimentary layers throughout the world? Why was the American buffalo not preserved?
3.Simple answer: rapid burial by a global flood preserved pre-flood life forms in clay, silt and sand and forever altered the pre-flood climate.
Why are sedimentary layers laid down in vast uniform thicknesses when erosion would have cut grooves and washed away uniform thickness according to terrain?
4.Simple answer: a global flood laid them down at the same time avoiding erosion.
Why do evolutions not have similar conclusions?
5.Simple answer: Their presuppositions automatically filter and reject all answers that conflict with their belief. Observe the mindset in response posts.
John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. — Denis Diderot (Atheist)
Why are sea shells found in sands in the Midwest and fossilized clams in the closed position found as high as Everest?
plate tectonics... Changing earth and all that.
Jesus fucking christ! we've been deluged with fucknutters this week, eh?
This HAS to be from the "I Love Ray Comfort" banana squad.
Yeah, because there's no reason to heal the sick and feed the hungry, if not for the PR benefits.
LOL
reminds me of the Dishonesty Institute, who if pushed would most likely say:
"there is no benefit to doing any science outside of the PR benefits."
and actually believe it.
RogerS, do you have any idea of how many layers of limestone are under Michigan, along with brine layers, shale, sandstone, etc.? They couldn't have been formed in one flood, but would require repeated comings and goings of the sea as the laurentian shield migrated over the earth. Again, you are your own worst enemy by not finding out the truth, versus the little bit you want to hear. True stupidity requires a godbot.
No. Wrong. It's not that simple, and it's not an answer. You've overlooked something critical:
The volume of water required to cover the globe to the height of Everest is several times the volume of water contained in all the world's bodies of water combined.
Answer me these questions, then, and provide some evidence that your answers have any validity at all:
1. Where did all that extra water come from, and
2. Where did all that extra water go?
The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation.
Perhaps, but your interpretation sucks compared to the combined weight of the entire geological community and all of the eduction and experience contained with in.
You interpretation is just that. The interpretation of a highly biased individual that no evidence what so ever will change his predetermined conclusion that the Bible is inerrant.
*reads #372*
Oh for fucks sake.
Where do I even begin? This one might take a minute.
Where do I even begin? This one might take a minute.
I think that pile of excrement will take several minutes. Of course, our fundie idiot also forgot about the nasty glaciers from the ice ages (4 IIRC) which created the unique shape of Michigan.
brokenSoldier:Searching for valid explanation of extraordinary claims is somehow a mental illusion? Lemme guess...perpetrated by the devil to lead the flock astray, no doubt.
I remember a psychology teacher’s story about a monkey sent into outer space. (NASA or Soviets??) The monkey received extensive training to flip certain switches on a control panel at appropriate times to augment the flight. During the flight, the control panel’s actuator lights failed to operate which confused the monkey. The monkey, being outside the familiarity of its training, went mad and destroyed the entire panel by pounding on it. The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.
brokenSoldier, God has no ill-intention toward you nor is it his goal to deceive you. He has provided a complete training manual that should suffice even if the analogous control panel fails. Life is full of “unexpected” failures. Your problem is not that you fail to see the value of training. You love how science affords you to better interpret your environment. But you are not prepared for a control panel failure which takes you outside your comfortable capsule of expectations. I’ve attempted to inform people that a second phase of training is necessary for reaching the destination but I’m labeled as a lunatic for suggesting that another dimension exists. Is it any wonder that people can’t detect this dimension since it is non-physical? I must confess that I have failed miserably in communicating because I keep receiving responses that indicate people are looking for “scientific” answers. Doesn’t it stand to reason that “scientific” answers will not apply to spiritual problems? If you can’t get along with people or you perceive that your every problem is actually “the other person's fault”, then aren’t we entering into a realm that “science” begins to fail? Not only does “science” fall short, but the human mind falls short as evidenced by psychologists who can’t fix themselves:
In 1899 Sigmund Freud got a new telephone number: 14362. He was 43 at the time, and he was profoundly disturbed by the digits in the new number. He believed they signified that he would die at age 61 (note the one and six surrounding the 43) or, at best, at age 62 (the last two digits in the number). He clung, painfully, to this bizarre belief for many years. Presumably he was forced to revise his estimate on his 63rd birthday, but he was haunted by other superstitions until the day he died -- by assisted suicide, no less -- at the ripe old age of 83.
That's just for starters. Freud also had frequent blackouts. He refused to quit smoking even after 30 operations to correct the extensive damage he suffered from cancer of the jaw. He was a self-proclaimed neurotic. He suffered from a mild form of agoraphobia. And, for a time, he had a serious cocaine problem.
Neuroses? Superstitions? Substance abuse? Blackouts? And suicide? So much for the father of psychoanalysis. But are these problems typical for psychologists? How are Freud's successors doing? Or, to put the question another way: Are shrinks really "crazy"? (source)
If you can’t sustain meaningful relationships or you suffer from an extreme physical or mental addiction, don’t you see that “science” is not your deliverer? If a person is fearful of their future, what is the greatest consolation “science” has to offer? If a person can’t stop treating people in a way that he/she knows is destructive, what will “science” offer to change this behavior? I’m trying to describe an apple in 3D color and I’m rebuked at every sentence that exceeds two dimensions and black & white. You have set pre-determined constraints on what you perceive as “reality”. You have seen so many frauds that you are immediately conditioned to categorize every “religious” person as such. In doing so, you have identified yourselves among those who you disdain as “narrow-minded”. Ask yourself, “What social environments am I most uncomfortable in?”, then ask whether the relentless pursuit of “science” has improved your social confidence level. You are using the wrong tool because you have no other.
1 Cor 2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Alan, that post was nothing but proselytization. That will get you banned. You have failed miserably in showing us your imaginary god. Give it up.
The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.
let me guess:
You ARE that monkey, and they taught you how to type as well?
The evidence is before us all, Creationists just make up lies about the interpretation.
Fixed.
[snip a bunch of Creationist made-up lies about the interpretation of the geological evidence]
Why do those who accept evolutions not have similar conclusions?
5. Simple answer: Creationist presuppositions automatically filter and reject all answers that conflict with their belief. Observe the mindset in Creationist posts.
Fixed.
The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.
let me guess:
You ARE that monkey, and they taught you how to type as well?
LOL! Thanks Ichthyic for the good laugh.
Also, it appears Barb has made FSTDT !
Woot! I submitted that during that whole thread hilarity.
brokenSoldier, God has no ill-intention toward you nor is it his goal to deceive you.
So when results for the speed of light are constant, that makes it's God's intention to be constant right? So when we use this constant speed of light to measure distant galaxies, it's God's intention that the galaxies be measurable? So when we see over a hundred billion galaxies ranging anywhere from a few hundred thousands light years away to over 10 billion light years away, it's God intention for us to conclude that the universe is at least as old as the time it took for the light from those galaxies to reach us?So when nuclear physics shows decay rates of certain particles, that's God's intention too? So when a variety of dating techniques that correspond with relative dating, it's God's intention to show that those techniques are valid for ageing the earth? When multiple techniques show certain rocks to be over 4 billion years old, does that make it God's intention for us to see that the earth is over 4 billion years old?When we look at the fossil record, we see a clear progression of life. So is it's God's intention that in rocks billions of years old we see nothing more than traces of bacteria? That in rocks older than 600 million years we see no macroscopic organisms? Is it God's intention that we see a gradual emergence of life over the last 500 million years? That in rocks older than 380 million years we see no land vertebrates, and in younger than 370 we do? That when we look at rocks 375 million years old and find a transitional form, surely that's God's intention. Just as when we see avian features on dinosaurs, just as we see man-like apes before man. Surely the fossil record is God's intention; after all he's not trying to deceive us.This is what I find absurd about Young Earth Creationists. All signs point to both the universe and this earth being old. All signs point to the notion that life has evolved over time, and that we share a common ancestor with all life on this planet (certainly animal and plant life.) This is what the evidence tells us, this is what the overwhelming evidence tells us. What does this tell you about God? That God made the natural world look ancient and interconnected, yet it's really young because of a book ascribed to him says otherwise? It just shows that your faith is in the bible and not God.
I’ve attempted to inform people that a second phase of training is necessary for reaching the destination but I’m labeled as a lunatic for suggesting that another dimension exists.
No, you're labeled as deluded for asserting another dimension. You're labeled as a lunatic for frothing at the mouth and wanting to murder people.
Is it any wonder that people can’t detect this dimension since it is non-physical?
So what if it is "non-physical"? If it were real, it would still have real, physical effects. Heck, the bible even claims it has real, physical effects.
Mark 16: 17 “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
Where are the hospitals with no Christians in the sickbeds but only on the staff; curing all and sundry by laying on hands alone? Where are the Christians demonstrating the truth of their belief by drinking bleach, rat poison, strychnine, and cyanide? Where are the Christian linguists who automatically understand every language.
They don't exist, because the "spiritual dimension" has no real effect, and therefore — by Occam's Razor — can be eliminated as not really existing.
Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica
If we're talking about the limestone fabric itself, then this should be edited to: "limestone occasionally contains variable amounts of silica." I don't think that "often" is any way defensible if we're talking about the bulk fabric of the rock and integrating across all limestones (which is what your sentence implies).
...in the form of chert and/or flint, as well as varying amounts of clay, silt and sand as disseminations,
How are you defining "dissemination" in this context? Are you thinking of it as a formational sedimentary structure or as some sort of weird fluid infill analogous to a mineralization (by far the more traditional use of this word)? Regardless, I presume that you're thinking of a syndepositional feature and not something diagenetic, yes?
nodules, or layers within the rock.
This is a false statement. You shot yourself in the foot by using "layers" in combination with the clastic rocks. Chert beds--fine whatever. But if there are actual layers of clastics like clay, sand, or silt, then we're talking about clay, sand, or silt, not limestone. What you have in that case are different rock types interbedded with each other in a sequence. Just referring to the package of material as limestone in this case is imprecise enough to be wrong. Limestone covers a vast suite of rock types, but the word does not refer to the same formational history as any of those other three materials. You can say "sequences of limestone often contain layers of blah, blah, blah,..." and be fine, but bear in mind that you are referring to different rock types that have different formational histories (which is rather the entire point if we're postulating that they've all been laid down in a single worldwide event).
I also don't really like the use of layers. It's not precise enough for me to understand what you mean given your imprecise use of limestone. I presume you're not talking about lamina I'm sure, but are you referring to bedding planes or entire formations? The difference is hugely important here (beds vs. formations). You're trying to talk about sedimentology. Word choice matters.
The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms.
This is broadly accurate, but it really depends on what kind of limestone you're referring to. Several varieties of limestone are almost entirely the result of direct precipitation of calcite via inorganic processes.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
Albert Einstein
Interesting that you would quote a socialist who denied your god.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Albert Einstein, letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation."
- Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
Woah Alan Clarke - hyper-dimensional christian fuckwittery! Fascinating, fascinating - though I must admit to a feeling of guilt. Sometimes Pharyngula is like the Bedlam of the 18th century - an afternoon out, in which the well-to-do saunter past a line of cages. In each, a slavering wreck of humanity resides, some sad and reflective, others screaming and throwing excrement. Here a "cretin" there a "half-wit", this one's "melancholic" that manic. Most talk to themselves; many, many are self-arguers. Here we see, stark in its effects, the true consequences of religion, and its sad victims.
Am I cruel to want to look?
But what's this - a new cage, with an inmate they say has the wit of fully half a human, a gurning, self-confident fellow, of an instructorial bent. We lean forwards to listen, but the words, once English, make no sense - for drawn from the all the pits of humans idiocy, mixed with the grammar of fact, they twist and turn like smoke plumes in a draughty room. Such eloquence, and all for nothing! We turn away, embarrassed. The keeper stands unsmiling.
"Was that...?"
"Yes," he nods gravely, "that was - Alan Clarke"
Alan Clarke #381
I’m trying to describe an apple in 3D color and I’m rebuked at every sentence that exceeds two dimensions and black & white. You have set pre-determined constraints on what you perceive as “reality”.
You're right, we do have predetermined constraints on reality. They're called "evidence." You've been rebuked and your posts ridiculed because you fail to provide this evidence. What's more, you've been told this more than once but, quite obviously, fail to heed our admonitions.
Ask yourself, “What social environments am I most uncomfortable in?”, then ask whether the relentless pursuit of “science” has improved your social confidence level.
Personally, I am most uncomfortable in situations where I have to deal with people who have oddball, ridiculous beliefs. Creationists, flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, the "Obama was born in Nigeria" wackos, folks like that. Also I feel really uncomfortable when religious proselytizers tell me that I "need to find Jesus" and I'll "be going to Hell because I don't believe." Actually the worst goddists are the people who have the strange idea that I've never, in my entire life, ever heard of Jesus. Dealing with these people is painful. Oh yes, I also really dislike discussing economics and politics with looneytarians.
You are using the wrong tool because you have no other.
I sure don't need religion as a psychological tool. I prefer to think for myself. I don't need a professional virgin wearing a dress telling me that a nine year old shouldn't have an abortion. I don't need some homophobic preacher telling me that gay people shouldn't get married because god thinks "taking it up the ass is icky." And I really don't need some wackaloon fundie trying to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old, Jebus rode a dinosaur around Galilee, and this nonsense should be taught in schools instead of science.
An actual event that occurred over 4400 years ago is likely to have embellished accounts with some folklore sprinkled in among various cultures spread throughout the world, I get that.
So why don't you apply that thinking to the bible as well? I guess a giant frog belching forth water is just silly, but a boat holding a representative of every extant lifeform is hunky-dory?
The flood in the Noah myth, if it happened at all, was written down centuries after the event supposedly occurred. Why is it not more reasonable to assume it too is an embellished story? Maybe a localised flood, with a farmer saving his livestock on a boat?
Anyway. Let's ignore the complete lack of any evidence for a global flood event, and the fact that indigenous Australians have probably been here for over 100,000 years, and just move on:
Even the "folksy" Australian account you cite begins with a number of interesting elements all contained within the first two sentences:
1. great flood
2. covered the country
3. all drowned except
4. two or three women
5. refuge on a mud island
1: How many massive floods have occurred in your lifetime alone? Imagine a small village in the midst of one, with no other settlements out to the horizon; don't you think in a more primitive culture, they might think the whole world might be flooded?
2: The place they supposedly took refuge was coastal -- to cover the country, they would be under hundreds of metres of water! But let's ignore that too, huh?
3,4: So Noah's family weren't the only ones saved after all?
5: How does "evading a big flood on a mud island" fit with "drowning every living thing on earth except Noah's boat"?
oh, and you forgot 6: They were rescued by a pelican in a boat, who ferried them to the mainland.
This is not the same story. For the tale to make much sense at all (and Dreamtime stories are quirky & cool, but most don't), the flood would have to be like a tidal-wave, sweeping across the whole country but not submerging the whole thing. That fits with the frog-barf imagery, but not the biblical flood.
But sure, this is just the first myth off your list.
Maybe among those stories there are a couple of closer matches, but I'd bet the majority are just generic 'big flood' stories. Consider:
* Virtually every culture on earth will have experienced major flooding at some point. It's probably the most universal natural disaster, and is easily attributable to supernatural cause (water falls from the sky!)
* People tend to imagine what-ifs ("what if it were bigger?"), and make up stories about it.
Stories of "divine retribution via massive flooding" really don't seem that surprising to me.
Watchman:The volume of water required to cover the globe to the height of Everest is several times the volume of water contained in all the world's bodies of water combined.
Answer me these questions, then, and provide some evidence that your answers have any validity at all:
1. Where did all that extra water come from, and
2. Where did all that extra water go?
Pre-flood Everest wasn’t as high.
The water is still here, it covers 71% of the Earth.
There is good evidence that the pre-flood world atmosphere could have contained a portion of the water (not all). The evidences are larger than existing land animals (dinosaurs) and forests in Antarctica. Creationists and evolutionist agree that Earth’s current atmosphere and ecosystem is not what it was. The second water source for the flood was sub-terrestrial:
Gen 7:11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
If Mount Everest, which is the tallest point on earth at 8,850 meters (29,035 feet), were set in the Mariana Trench, there would still be 2,183 meters (7,166 feet) of water left above it.
Re-arranging existing land masses could cover the entire Earth with water. Without cracks in seafloors (Mariana, Mindanao, etc.) oceans would be higher.
If the Earth’s land masses were completely flat, (i.e. no Everest or Mariana trench) then the globe would be covered by 1.7 miles of water. I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins. Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by “15 cubits” as described in Genesis 7:20. Where did all of the energy come from? May I suggest the same energy that evolutionist use to raise and lower vast plateaus as needed for their model to evade the global flood.
I unkilled Alan juuuust for a little peek, and my reward was badly sprained eye-rolling muscles. Learned that lesson.
You see? Something about a flood and Antartica which...no, nothing...Oh, energy - that's always there...pleateaus..?
I sure don't need religion as a psychological tool. I prefer to think for myself. I don't need a professional virgin wearing a dress telling me that a nine year old shouldn't have an abortion. I don't need some homophobic preacher telling me that gay people shouldn't get married because god thinks "taking it up the ass is icky." And I really don't need some wackaloon fundie trying to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old, Jebus rode a dinosaur around Galilee, and this nonsense should be taught in schools instead of science.
OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT WAS AWESOME
Hi Josh, (#389)
Try the link I provided, you must have missed it:
Go to the second section titled "Description" and begin reading. You will see your dispute is with my source. If you think your points are valid, you may want to notify them. I acknowledge wikipedia is not without error.
Best wishes,
RogerS
Pre-flood Everest wasn’t as high.
Because of course mountain ranges can form in a year or so, showing all the evidence of being millions of years old, despite being only a few thousand years old. Because Creationism isn't just pseudoscience, it's voodoo science. Big Juju do water magic and make big mountain!
There is good evidence that the pre-flood world atmosphere could have contained a portion of the water
Big Juju do magic and put water into air, and water not fall down as rain until Big Juju make Big Flud!
I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins.
Believer in Big Juju not need no stinking evidence for geological dreamworld! Believer in Big Juju know that Big Juju create flat world make world all bumpy after Big Flud!
Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by “15 cubits”
Ooga Booga! Big Juju make much water and move much earth around!
I see both our liars and bullshitters are still lying and bullshitting.
Still no physical evidence for their imaginary god. Which makes their bible a work of fiction, and anything quoted therein worthless. Welcome to real science boys, and you are both intellectually boys.
First you have to show evidence for your god. Evidence that will pass muster with with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural origin. Not done. Without that god, you have nothing but your imagination, versus the facts of science. Science 100, your imagination 0. Game called for humanitarian reasons. At the moment, we are laughing at your feeble, and I mean feeble, attempts to lie.
Here’s how to understand the Creation Museum:
Imagine, if you will, a load of horseshit. And we’re not talking just your average load of horseshit; no, we’re talking colossal load of horsehit. An epic load of horseshit. The kind of load of horseshit that has accreted over decades and has developed its own sort of ecosystem, from the flyblown chunks at the perimeter, down into the heated and decomposing center, generating explosive levels of methane as bacteria feast merrily on vintage, liquified crap. This is a Herculean load of horseshit, friends, the likes of which has not been seen since the days of Augeas.
And you look at it and you say, “Wow, what a load of horseshit.”
But then there’s this guy. And this guy loves this load of horseshit. Why? Well, really, who knows? What possesses someone to love a load of horseshit? It’s beyond your understanding and possibly you don’t actually want to know, even if you could know; maybe it’s one of those “on that path lies madness” things. But love it he does, and he’s not the only one; the admiration for this particular load of horseshit exists, unaccountably, far and wide. There are advocates for this load of horseshit.
Hi Roger. I did actually read the link. I found it to be typical Wikipedia...
The reason I asked you the questions that I did, and dissected the Wikiblabia text in the detail that I did, is that you used that obviously flawed text to support your retort to my assertion that the geological evidence does not support a worldwide, Noachian-type deluge.
If you're going to use a source to support a point, then you should know enough about the subject you're arguing about to be able to assess the validity of the sources you're using. If you can't, then you have no business telling a professional geologist that "The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation" when talking about geology. You haven't shown me that you're qualified to form an interpretation of the data.
Anyone else find it hilarious/ironic that these Creationists are using myths to prove their claims?
I acknowledge wikipedia is not without error.
I'll take colossal understatements for 1000 Alex.
Anyone else find it hilarious/ironic that these Creationists are using myths to prove their claims?
Not really. What I find hilarious is that they'll cherry pick some very specious evidence (fossils on mountainsides, localised flood-formed geological structures, fables from other tribes) as proof; ignore all evidence against such possibilities (ice cores, tree rings, progressive fossil record); then bring the kicker - make up a fantasy world where the impossible becomes infinitisimally less so. When they say stupid shit like "I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins." you know that they have no fucking clue whatsoever. They are their own argument to absurdity.
Honestly the
Everest wasn't as high
comment sent me screaming.
While technically correct, he is off my many orders of magnitude on how quickly Everest has been rising and working backwards how much "shorter" Everest would be.
It really is amazing how fucking stupid that is and what kind of incredible mental contortionism one has to undertake to even put forth such a ridiculous claim.
Everest is around 29,028 feet (8,848- meters). Measurements suggest that it is rising about 5 mm per year (at the high end of the range) because of the forces of the Indian subcontinent smashing into Asia and pushing the Himalayas upward (yay tectonics).
So lets take that back 6000 years, just to be kind.
5 mm per year x 6000 years - 300 meters. Shorter than the height of the empire state building (381 meters).... except it's 8000 meters higher than the base of the empire state building.
8848 - 300 = 8548 meters.
K2, the world's second highest peak is currently 8611 meters.
300 meter difference. That's a HUGE difference that of course means that the flood is correct.
Idiots.
Alan wrote
Pre-flood Everest wasn’t as high.
That's true in the strict sense depending on when the flood took place. But if we're talking about a flood that happened ~4400 years ago, then we're talking about a few dozen feet of elevation difference probably. Not such a big deal.
What's the evidence that Everest was significantly lower in elevation 4400 years ago? Lower enough for it be covered by a worldwide deluge. What elevation are we talking about here? Please provide a citation for this.
The water is still here, it covers 71% of the Earth.
Calculations that the water in the ocean basins is enough to cover the world's landmasses? If the water is still here, then why doesn't it currently cover the world's landmasses?
There is good evidence that the pre-flood world atmosphere could have contained a portion of the water (not all).
Please provide a citation for this.
The evidences are larger than existing land animals (dinosaurs) and forests in Antarctica.
I don't know what this sentence means.
Creationists and evolutionist agree that Earth’s current atmosphere and ecosystem is not what it was.
When is "was?" 4400bp? Okay, I guess that's true for the atmosphere in a strict sense, but the statement about ecosystem is meaningless. The world possesses numerous ecosystems today. Are you trying to assert that your pre-flood Earth consisted of one ecosystem?
The second water source for the flood was sub-terrestrial:
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Where is the physical evidence of this water? Again, if we're going to talk about "evidences for the flood," then you don't get to invoke miracles. If you're going to invoke miracles, then do it and move on. In that case, evidence is irrelevant and you can stop acting like you're doing science.
If Mount Everest, which is the tallest point on earth at 8,850 meters (29,035 feet), were set in the Mariana Trench, there would still be 2,183 meters (7,166 feet) of water left above it.
Okay--and? Everest isn't in a trench situation. Everest sits upon the Tibetan Plateau. It's, broadly speaking, the result of a collision between India and Asia. What does your hypothetical statement matter in this discussion?
Re-arranging existing land masses could cover the entire Earth with water.
Support for this? A landmass reconstruction? Isostatic analysis?
Without cracks in seafloors (Mariana, Mindanao, etc.) oceans would be higher.
Why? Do you have evidence that subduction zone trenches accommodate a significant fraction of the Earth's seawater? If they don't, then who cares?
If the Earth’s land masses were completely flat, (i.e. no Everest or Mariana trench) then the globe would be covered by 1.7 miles of water.
Evidence for this figure of 1.7 miles? And evidence that Earth's landmasses were ever completely flat? And how flat is completely flat? How much topography are we talking about here?
I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins. Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by “15 cubits” as described in Genesis 7:20.
Can you show me some sort of calculations that support this assertion?
Where did all of the energy come from? May I suggest the same energy that evolutionist use to raise and lower vast plateaus as needed for their model to evade the global flood.
No. You may not. What model for evading the global flood do you think geologists have? We don't have "a model to evade the flood," whatever the hell that means. What we're doing is asserting that you don't know how to read the geological evidence, and that you don't care, and that the rocks don't say what you're trying to insist they say. We don't have a model to "evade" your hypothesis. We're saying that your hypothesis doesn't make any sense and that we falsified it 200+ years ago and moved on.
And please stop calling us evolutionists. Evolution is a biological theory. We use it, but to call us evolutionists is just weird. Your doing it because you've been conditioned to this us versus them view of the world, but the over simplicity of labeling everyone who doesn't accept your position on Earth history is absolutely symptomatic of your entire problem.
bah shit
I conversion fail
nevermind the moron chimp
Anyway. That's 30 Meters shorter not 300 (missed a zero on the calculator, sheesh too many hours staring a a computer today).
But anyway, it even more makes my point.
...and yes I admit my mistakes, something that Alan will refuse to do.
When I saw Roger's "thesis" re daflud, I got reminded of something another pharyngulite wrote the other day:
"On another note, not doing your homework and asking poor questions in a blog filled with atheists & scientists is kind of like going into a bar where all the cops hang out to ask if anyone can help you catch the guy who stole your drugs."
-calladus
Anyway. That's 30 Meters shorter not 300
But Rev BDC, that was before the Marianas Trench migrated from underneath the Tibetan Plateau 5,000 plus miles to east of the Mariana Islands.
You folks are way more patient than me.
I truly cannot understand how anyone could be a young earth creationist. It's so stupid. It ought to be embarrassing to say "I don't understand anything about anything and I don't care to." Yet they seem to think it's admirable to be ignorant.
Yet they seem to think it's admirable to be ignorant.
yes, there appears to be a whole section of the American (at least) populace that seems to have taken 1984 to be an instructional manual instead of a warning.
War IS peace
Freedom IS slavery
Ignorance IS strength
fucking, fucking, sheep.
But Rev BDC, that was before the Marianas Trench migrated from underneath the Tibetan Plateau 5,000 plus miles to east of the Mariana Islands.
And in such a short time frame too.
It's AMAZING.
/still kicking self for using calculator to ensure accuracy and then fat fingering the 1000
The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc creationism.
Double Plus good.
Boys, and I mean boys, it is time to leave. It should be obvious to you by now, that nothing you say will convert us to creationism. You have no evidence to persuade us. And we are much smarter than you, so you can't bullshit us. You can simply cease posting and fade into the bandwidth. This is the smart, face saving way out. Take it.
According to Evolutionist/Uniformitarian theories, where did the Earth get its water?
"It is assumed the water was derived from impacting comets that contained ice."
"If all water in the Earth's oceans was derived from comets alone, a million impacting comets are required to explain the oceans."
Source: Wikipedia – “History of the Earth”
Evolutionists/Uniformitarians often criticize creationist explanations for a global flood, but their explanations for Earth’s origin of water is more incredible. If a theory can't explain the origin of life, then a cheap way out is to bring it in on an asteroid or comet. When a theory can't explain the origin of the Earth's moon, then a cheap explanation is to say an asteroid broke off a chunk of the Earth and put it into perfect orbit! When a theory can explain how the Earth got its water, then a cheap way out is to say a comet brought it in. If a single comet doesn't suffice and one is really desperate, then say a million comets brought it in! Through random explosions, crashes, and catastrophes, a system conducive for life is built! The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening "night light" and a timepiece for the Earth's inhabitants. From man’s perspective, the Moon just so happens to be the exact same size as the Sun. We can thank the miracle of collisions! When the mechanisms for the formation of the first primordial cell can’t be explained then say the ocean’s tidal action mixed it up like a blender and out came life!
The weakest and most non-credible component for evolutionism is the origin of life. If the laws of science were ever violated, this is it.
This is the smart, face saving way out. Take it.
Hear hear! But they never do, do they? Alan Clarke though...no, get thee behind me Moroni...
Alan, time for you to either prove your theory to shut the fuck up. First, show the physical evidence for your creator. We are waiting.
Bah, bed time. First sentenc in #418 should end..toor shut the fuck up.
What a stupid little boy Alan is.
fucking, fucking, sheep.
I thought we'd done that already on another thread (and wasn't it goats that Louis preferred?)
(sorry Louis)
Alan.
Existing, easy to provide evidence for comets and asteroids
vs.
magical poof-in-to-existence God.
Humm.
Fucking hell Alan Clarke is stupid. Evolution = diversity of life. Abiogenesis - origin of life. Nebula hypothesis - formation of the solar system. "Evolutionism" as you put it does not exist, it's jsut a straw-man argument in order to cast doubt on the otherwise overwhelming evidence for evolution. When we see galaxies billions of light years away, how is that not a testament to how the universe is ancient? When we date rocks and see huge geological columns, again how is that not a testament to the earth being ancient? When we see a gradual emergence of life in the fossil record and so many indicators of common ancestry, how is that not a testament to evolution? You say that God is not trying to deceive us, but it seems that either God has deceived over 99% of scientists the majority of whom believe in god in some form or that the holy book is wrong. Again, I put it to you that your faith is in the word of man rather than the actuality of God. Though I guess that's no surprise, Christians love to lie for Jesus, so much so they lie to themselves and convince themselves that the millions of scientists are wrong / lying rather than their holy book being the work of man.
The weakest and most non-credible component for evolutionism is the origin of life. If the laws of science were ever violated, this is it.
Evolution does not even seek to explain the origin of life, evolution only happens on life that is already there. So once you have life (no matter what the cause) you have the ability to evolution to occur. And that's what we see in nature, it's what we see in the morphology of species, it's what we see in the fossil record, in labratory experiments and out in the wild. Your argument is analagous to saying "the biggest argument against gravity is the big bang. All the universe coming from a singularity? That sounds like magic to me." You are denying a well observed and documented phenomenon by the absence of knowledge on a precursor to said phenomenon. If we did find out how life began, would your argument then switch to how the planet formed? And if we found how planets formed, would it then switch to how the universe formed? Evolution happened, it's well supported by evidence. by complaining about the origin of life, it's clear that you don't even understand what evolution is. Get an education you old fool!
Evolutionists/Uniformitarians often criticize creationist explanations for a global flood, but their explanations for Earth’s origin of water is more incredible.
Hm.
Explanation 1: Water comes from outside the Earth several billion years ago in the form of comet impacts. We know that comets exist, are composed of a large percentage of water ice, and can hit planets. We know this from direct observation of the evidence of their existence.
Explanation 2: Water is *poofed* into existence by a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he's so spiritual) for the purpose of drowning every single living being except for a boat full of humans and two of every animal, 4400 years ago. However, there are no geological signs of a global flood 4400 years ago, no sign of any population bottlenecks 4400 years ago, no sign of of interruption of human settlements 4400 years ago, no sign that this supposed flood ever happened... except in the fevered imaginations of voodoo scientists and their superstitious brainwashed followers who know nothing of biology, oceanography, hydrology, archaeology, anthropology, zoology or geology including the science of geological dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, despite the fact that the article on said geological dating methods was written by a Christian and has been offered to them a couple of thousand times over the past month or so.
Gee, which explanation is more incredible? What a difficult choice there is...
When the mechanisms for the formation of the first primordial cell can’t be explained then say the ocean’s tidal action mixed it up like a blender and out came life!
No. Chemical abiogenesis hypotheses are quite a bit more complicated and detailed than that. Not that you would know, because you know nothing whatsoever of organic chemistry.
And of course, your explanation is... a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he's so spiritual) *poofing* life into existence out of dirt, or nothing (depending on which chapter of the bible you read), either before *poofing* man into existence out nothing or after *poofing* man into existence out of dirt (depending on which chapter you read).
Yah-huh.
So, as long as you're spouting of about how great your book of mythology is in describing the origin of life, which chapter is true and which chapter is false? Is chapter 1 true, or is chapter 2 true? Pick one, since you know so much. Explain how you know.
It just shows that your faith is in the bible and not God.
Kel FTW.
Beautiful.
Flood Geology: A discipline characterized by delusional practitioners who have no qualms about making whatever batshit-crazy assertions are necessary to support the stories in their book of ancient mythology, regardless of what the physical evidence actually suggests.
Alan and Roger, don't you ever tire of being comic relief? Of being buffoons who garner, and deserve, no respect whatsoever for your opinions? Do you not ever have a single moment of clarity and wonder what non-stop spewing of lies and absurdities is doing to your minds and your souls?
Kseniya: I know your question was rhetoric, but it was also a little confusing for the likes of Alan and Roger (based on evidence). So I'll answer:
No, we don't have any moments of clarity. We only lie for Jesus. That means it's good. we're goin' to heaven. you're goin' to hell! nyah nyah nyah nyah!
According to Evolutionist/Uniformitarian theories, where did the Earth get its water?
What the bloody hell does the source of water on Earth have to do with evolution? It could have arrived in buckets carried by pixies and it wouldn't affect the theory.
(Though you'd need to explain those darned pixies somehow)
And I'll assume you're using the scientific form of "uniformitarianism", basically saying "things happened in the past the same way they happen today". Seems reasonable in a broad sense to me; if what worked yesterday had no guarantee of working today, science & technology would be impossible, and we'd all be living in terror of flying off into space at any moment. Again. (Or turning into pudding or whatever)
You could just say "science", you know.
"It is assumed the water was derived from impacting comets that contained ice."
"If all water in the Earth's oceans was derived from comets alone, a million impacting comets are required to explain the oceans."
Next line: "Computer simulations show this is not an unreasonable number."
Astrophysics of the changing early solar system aside (of which I personally know very little), think about it -- even if most of the comet impacts happened in the first 1 billion years of Earth's 4.5 billion year history, that's only one impact every thousand years or so.
Evolutionists/Uniformitarians often criticize creationist explanations for a global flood, but their explanations for Earth’s origin of water is more incredible.
Creationist explanation: Miracle.
If a theory can't explain the origin of life, then a cheap way out is to bring it in on an asteroid or comet.
It is a possibility that the organic compounds for abiogenesis came from comets rather than forming on Earth, because organic compounds have been detected on the surface of comets. (It doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have formed here, though.)
Creationist explanation: Miracle.
When a theory can't explain the origin of the Earth's moon, then a cheap explanation is to say an asteroid broke off a chunk of the Earth and put it into perfect orbit!
Not a comet, but another protoplanet as the Earth was still forming. The entire reason for the hypothesis is that the moon has a weird composition (low density, no metal core, material closely resembles combined mantle/crust), which the impact would explain. This is all on the same goddamn Wikipedia page, for crying out loud!
Creationist explanation: Miracle.
The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening "night light" and a timepiece for the Earth's inhabitants.
You know what would happen to the tides if the Moon had a different orbital distance? We'd have different tides. Life is adapted to the tides we have, the tides aren't optimised for life.
And a night light & clock? Seriously? That's right up there with Ray's Banana Theory in the goofy stakes. How convenient that the night light is only intermittent, and the clock is not really in sync with anything else except the biological systems that adapted to be in sync with it.
From man’s perspective, the Moon just so happens to be the exact same size as the Sun. We can thank the miracle of collisions!
Yep. Sometimes flukes happen. That lucky happenstance meant eclipses that helped scientists study the sun's corona and figure out stuff about it... like how it's a massive nuclear furnace about 5 billion years old. If God hadn't placed the Moon so conveniently, it would have been much harder to discover such facts contradictory to biblical teaching.
When the mechanisms for the formation of the first primordial cell can’t be explained then say the ocean’s tidal action mixed it up like a blender and out came life!
Nice mocking summary you have there, which doesn't bear any resemblance to what I've heard (no reference to tides on Wikipedia's abiogenesis page -- apart from peptides & nucleotides). But even if tides were part of the explanation... they would be part of the explanation! Read what you're writing, man!
And, of course, the creationist explanation: Miracle.
The weakest and most non-credible component for evolutionism is the origin of life. If the laws of science were ever violated, this is it.
And again, the old canard. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin. Darwin's book was the On the Origin of Species.
Abiogenesis is an independent, if closely related, field. Similar processes were probably in place for early inorganic replicators; but if some other unknown process started life, evolution still took place on what came after.
Displacement Force of Water
Average ocean depth is 12,340 ft. At that depth, 5,364 psi or 386 TONS per sq. ft. is exerted on the floor. Current ocean crust thickness ranges from 3 to 6 miles. Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable that the added water weight from collapsing waters “above the firmament” during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale. Ever step on a water bed, what happens to a person sitting on the edge? The crust would have been more fluid during and immediately following a global flood.
The Bible states that it had never rained and describes a mist from subterranean sources as the water cycle. The crust thickness and characteristics was evidently nothing that resembled what we have today. There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today’s Polar Regions. Could this radically different “original design” system of water above & below the firmament create a more ideal environment producing greater growth for both plant and animals? (rhetorical)
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest’s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring "catastrophic changes" from hurricanes.
Alan Clarke is proof that evolution is dumb and unguided. Nothing that stupid would ever pass QA in any design process.
RogerS:
There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today’s Polar Regions.
Where is this so called ample evidence? Care t provide any citations?
Of course not. It doesn't exist!
Fucking brain-dead 'tards!
The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening "night light" and a timepiece for the Earth's inhabitants.
You do realize the moon is not in a static orbit, don't you? It's receding due to tidal friction more than 3 cm per year. It used to be much closer, tides used to be higher, and life has adapted to the gradual change because, you know, life evolves.
Owlmirror:We know that comets exist, are composed of a large percentage of water ice, and can hit planets. We know this from direct observation of the evidence of their existence. …Water is *poofed* into existence by a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he's so spiritual)
Comets are *poofed* into existence by an Oort cloud. Your theory has a face only a mother could love.
"The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50 000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun." – Wikipedia – “Oort Cloud”
RogerS, that was such a slippery pile of gibberish I couldn't find a single logical point to get a grip on. You seem to be saying something about "lots of water making the Earth all differenty", but that's all I got.
I'm not sure you know what "firmament" refers to though. Maybe you think it means "solid ground" (I used to before I read up on it more, it seemed logical); it's hard to tell from your ramblings.
But no, the firmament is supposed to be the solid dome that forms the sky over the flat Earth, to which the stars are fastened.
So by all means, try and use The Firmament in a scientific argument! I'm keen to see where this goes...
Hey, where did my tags go?
Tony,
There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today’s Polar Regions.
Where is this so called ample evidence? Care t provide any citations?
It's my understanding that this is correct. The Polar Regions were at various climatic cycles more temperate than today and ice free. There is evidence that this happened . . . millions of years ago. No evidence at all that it happened within the last few thousand years.
it is conceivable
...I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Well, OK, if you think it means "make up stories, fantasies, dreams, and other lies that have nothing to do with reality", then maybe it does.
that the added water weight from collapsing waters “above the firmament” during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale.
Only if the Biblical flood happens inside your own imagination.
Ever step on a water bed, what happens to a person sitting on the edge? The crust would have been more fluid during and immediately following a global flood.
Only inside your own imagination.
The crust thickness and characteristics was evidently nothing that resembled what we have today.
Now, "evidently"definitely does not mean what you think it means. Because you have no evidence of this fever-dream of voodoo geology.
There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today’s Polar Regions.
Could this radically different “original design” system of water above & below the firmament create a more ideal environment producing greater growth for both plant and animals?
Since it never existed in reality, NO. Absolutely NOT.
Sheesh. The stupid, it burns strong in this one.
Tony @ 432 responding to: There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today’s Polar Regions.
Where is this so called ample evidence? Care t provide any citations?
Of course not. It doesn't exist!
Fucking brain-dead 'tards!
http://www.palaeobiology.org.uk/publications/ijfr6-181.pdf
Ancient polar forests experienced the extreme seasonality of high latitude daylength, but flourished in a warm, temperate climate.
(I just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.)
Tony, don't fall for mirroring what "everone else" thinks, take the time to find out for yourself. Sincerely, RogerS
Comets are *poofed* into existence by an Oort cloud.
No, we know comets exist because we see them. With our eyes.
Where is the visible evidence for God; for a global flud; for a 6,000 year-old-Earth? Nowhere.
Science has the evidence. Science wins.
Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable...
No it's not. You know what's really not conceivable? That someone could still be claiming that a global flood event took place, considering that it has been completely and utterly proven that no such thing occurred.
RogerS:
Tony, don't fall for mirroring what "everone else" thinks, take the time to find out for yourself. Sincerely, RogerS
Dammit...my irony meter just broke again...
(I just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.)
LOL! What an interesting way of claiming "the science is on my side"!
This stuff is priceless, just priceless.
Ancient polar forests experienced the extreme seasonality of high latitude daylength, but flourished in a warm, temperate climate.
Sorry, you don't get to cite science on a single point in your favor. You can only have a temperate pole if you take the whole thing as dated, hundreds to tens of millions of years ago.
No magical firmaments and magically warping crusts. You can't have them. Because they don't fucking exist.
(I just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.)
Because it disagrees with your voodoo magical geology that you pull out of your imagination.
Because you have an a priori ASSUMPTION that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Because you prefer the horseshit of creationism to evidence-based science.
Because you prefer a delusion to the truth.
Comets are *poofed* into existence by an Oort cloud. Your theory has a face only a mother could love.
"The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50 000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun." – Wikipedia – “Oort Cloud”
Again, it helps if you actually read the pages you're referencing.
[O]ver the course of the Solar System's existence, the orbits of comets are unstable; eventually, dynamics dictate that a comet must either collide with the Sun or a planet, or else be ejected from the Solar System by planetary perturbations. Moreover, their volatile composition means that as they repeatedly approach the Sun, radiation gradually boils off the volatiles until the comet splits or develops an insulating crust that prevents further outgassing. Thus, reasoned Oort, a comet could not have formed on its current orbit, and must have been held in an outer reservoir for almost all of its existence.
And comets aren't "poofed into existence" in the cloud, they're already out there:
The Oort cloud is thought to be a remnant of the original protoplanetary disc that formed around the Sun approximately 4.6 billion years ago.
You'll also notice there aren't any alternative hypotheses mentioned on that page. Probably because, as far as I'm aware, there aren't any.
Kagato # 435: I'm not sure you know what "firmament" refers to though. Maybe you think it means "solid ground" (I used to before I read up on it more, it seemed logical); it's hard to tell from your ramblings.
If you read further in Genesis we learn that fowl fly in the open firmament.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
FYI, the first "heaven" is where the birds fly, second heaven would be outerspace, the third heaven is God's domain as told by Paul.
2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
RogerS:
FYI, the first "heaven" is where the birds fly, second heaven would be outerspace, the third heaven is God's domain as told by Paul.
The bible does not speak to the existence of outer space at all, and any claim to the contrary is simply revisionism in the pursuit to maintain an untenable claim on the truth concerning scripture.
And FYI, because it is written in the bible is not proof of anything, especially not when the claims it makes are so roundly refuted by the observation of the natural world - i.e., science.
RogerS, what makes you think we give 2 hoots (hah, 2 again!) about what it says in Genesis or 2(!!)nd Corinthians? The Bible has worn its welcome. Time to wipe your ass and flush that piece of crap down the toilet, giving it the all-encompassing deluge it deserves.
Do ice cores show many tens of thousands of years?
Owlmirror:We have ice cores dating back seven hundred forty thousand years. What part of "seven hundred forty thousand years" does your tiny little brain not understand?
Meteorologist Michael J. Oard doesn't buy it and neither do I. Click here. There are a lot of factors in ice core dating that make the calculated age non-absolute and highly dependent upon one's choice of assumptions.
Education:
B.S. Atmospheric Science, 1969, University of Washington
M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1973, University of Washington
Employment:
1964–1966 U.S. Navy
1966–1969 Research Assistant (part time), University of Washington
1969–1970 Research Assistant (full time), University of Washington
1970–1971 Meteorologist, National Weather Service, Great Falls, MT
1972–1973 Research Assistant (part time), University of Washington
1973–2001 Meteorologist, National Weather Service — lead forecaster, Great Falls, Montana from 1981 to 2001 — now retired.
Posted by: JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight | March 12, 2009
You folks are way more patient than me.
I truly cannot understand how anyone could be a young earth creationist. It's so stupid. It ought to be embarrassing to say "I don't understand anything about anything and I don't care to." Yet they seem to think it's admirable to be ignorant.
JFK, what you have to keep in mind is that everyone that are ripping up the statements of Alan Clarke and RogerS are having fun. I doubt that patience has much to do with it because it is obvious that the two jokers are not here to learn.
But the good news is that people like me can follow along and learn from the exchanges so something good is coming from this. And being on the geeky side, I find all of the chaff that the twosome are tossing about to be screamingly funny.
That makes sense. It wouldn't be fun for me, but hey, different strokes. I find Alan depressing. It's like, I know how cool science is, you know? I've experienced awe at how everything fits together. The universe is beautiful to me, because I can take the universe at its word. It doesn't lie about its age.
But Alan can't have that same opportunity. Every scientific fact is a demonic threat to be fought. There's never a moment to just take it all in, without trying to fight off a vast evilutionist conspiracy. It must be so tiring. He must wonder why his god is so determined to test him, why the universe couldn't have just been created to be obviously 6000 years old, so that he could relax. I just feel sorry for him.
Ooh, gee whiz, a research assistant (paid hands) thinks stupid things. Who would have thunk it. Alan, when people like yourself go off the deep end into delusions, their word becomes meaningless. Just like yours. Still waiting for evidence for your imaginary creator, which is absolutely required for you to show proof positive for your theory. Still batting zero.
If you have a large enough population, you'll eventually find some qualified fool to agree with you. Alan cherry picks every single oddball out there on a range of different topics yet still comes up with fantastical bullshit to justify his faith in the bible.
Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest’s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring "catastrophic changes" from hurricanes.
But it's okay for Alan to just assert (with any support at all) that Everest was at a lower elevation in the pre-flud world? You go after Rev because he attempted to see if Alan's statement made sense. You seem to be trying to use scientific reasoning to disagree with Rev's method of verifying Alan's statement, but nowhere have I seen you apply that same criticism to Alan's statement itself. Alan can just make any ridiculous assertion he wants, without critique, because he's on "your side," is that it? That's terrific reasoning there, Roger.
I don't personally agree with Rev's method of extrapolating an average tectonic rate of rise back in time. I don't think we can really do that because there are too many variables involved that we just don't know. He ignores weathering rates and assumes that the rate of rise doesn't change (thus altering the average). But, it was just a quick rough figure, and getting a more precise answer than his quick back-of-the-envelope calculation would require way more work (if it can be done at all without real research) than is justified for a blog comment. Moreover, even with the technical issues I have with his method of calculation, I don't think his 30 meter figure is actually probably far off from whatever the "real" number is. Given the rate of rise and the type of rock involved, it's very likely to be within the same order of magnitude of the "real" number, which thus serves to make his point. What's more important, though, is that he did some work. He applied some reasoning to Alan's statement.
You, on the other hand, haven't provided any evidence what-so-ever that Rev's calculations are off. Nor have you provided anything to support Alan's original statement. You certainly haven't provided any justification for your shore-line sand depth comparison. Your comparison strongly implies the existence of sudden pulses of tectonic activity on Everest that are severe enough to alter the average rate of rise to the point of damaging Rev's calculations. I suppose asking you to provide some justification for presuming the existence of those tectonic pulses is completely unreasonable, right?
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?
JFK:The universe is beautiful to me, because I can take the universe at its word. It doesn't lie about its age.
The universe isn’t “lying”, it is your interpretation of its age that is fallible. Please explain how it is impossible for your ASSUMPTION to be infallible. When something is “stretched”, at the moment of creation (“big bang” time t=0 ??) the rate of “stretching” may be where your calculations are off by a huge factor. The entire “big bang” theory has huge assumptions and problems that make many scientists (creationist and non-creationist) dubious. Before making grandiose statements of the universe’s age, at least become educated. Click here for top 30 problems of big bang theory.
YAWN, more non-evidence by Alan the creobot. Still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You are such a disappointment and abject loser. Here's your chance to really convert people. All you have to do is to produce an eternally burning bush. Go find one.
I don't personally agree with Rev's method of extrapolating an average tectonic rate of rise back in time. I don't think we can really do that because there are too many variables involved that we just don't know. He ignores weathering rates and assumes that the rate of rise doesn't change (thus altering the average)
Oh I fully admit I was only taking the 5mm rise and not taking into account many other factors. It was as you say purely a back of the envelope calculation.
But we are talking about 6000 years here. Or in the case of the flud, 4400.
That is an eye blink in geologic time (as you well know). It was my non-geologist way of making a simple point. I leave the more complicated aspects of it to people like you who actually know what they are talking about on a much deeper level on this subject. And no I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing if the fog of the internet keeps that from being clear :)
Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest’s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring "catastrophic changes" from hurricanes.
See above. 4400 years is a mouse fart in the grand scheme of things. And if there was some massive disaster that would cause everest to be much shorter than it is now or to rise so suddenly that it gains thousands of meters in height in just 4.5 mellenia then you'd need to show some evidence for that.
You have not and you can not.
The universe isn’t “lying”, it is your interpretation of its age that is fallible. Please explain how it is impossible for your ASSUMPTION to be infallible. When something is “stretched”, at the moment of creation (“big bang” time t=0 ??) the rate of “stretching” may be where your calculations are off by a huge factor.
Alan, you are a massive fool. We aren't looking at when time = 0. We are looking at when time = 500,000,000 years. You can't avoid the observation by appealing to an unknown which was resolved 500,000,000 years in advance. When the universe came to be: e=mc² became mathematical law. So when we look at a galaxy that is 13.2 billion light years away, we are using the equation that Einstein provided. The speed of light is constant because it can be no other way. You increase the speed of light, you have to compensate. c = (e/m)1/2, just make the value c higher and see what happens to the relationship between matter and energy in the universe...Your ignorance is really showing Alan. You have no idea of astrophysics or cosmology, nor what astronomy entails. This is why people laugh at creationists, they have no fucking clue whatsoever.
Humm. Meant to say something after this sentence
So the 5mm may be a simple average rate based on a small sample but there is little to suggest that is is off by such a magnitude that would make the conclusion I was shooting at any different (as Josh said above).
so there
Sweet, starting the day off with some formatting fail.
Today is going to be great.
And no I'm not arguing with you,
I know. I was actually pretty damn impressed that you got a figure of 30 meters from that little exercise. I would have predicted it was gonna be a larger number. And for the record (though I suspect you've already figured this out), I wouldn't have nitpicked that back-of-the-envelope at all except that I wanted to show RogerS that those of us here who are trying to have a reasoned discussion will publically disagree with each other when have disagreements. I saw it as yet another way to bang my head against the wall of demonstrating to these people the process of what we do. I took the risk that you would understand what I was going for, but I'm still glad that it didn't annoy you.
Heh no problem. I easily admit my novice position in these matters but it's pretty easy, even as a novice, to see that there would have to be some massive event to make even my hamhanded calculations to be off by a difference that would support the flud.
I'll be waiting patiently for some evidence of that event from RogerS and or Alan.
More on galaxies: the galaxy observed 13.2 billion light years away is only 1 of more than 100 billion galaxies that have been observed in our known universe. There are plenty more galaxies in our close neighbourhood where our observational point is t = 13,700,000,000. Yet we can see dwarf galaxies orbiting our own a couple of hundred thousand light years away. See nearby galaxies only 2.5 million light years away, then there is a whole host of others the further we look out into space. These galaxies can contain somewhere between 1010 and 1012 stars in each, with black holes and the centre that is millions of times heavier than our sun. And on the note of weight, if the stars were closer to us, we'd feel the gravitational effects. Move 1011 galaxies each containing ~1011 stars close enough to us and we are going to end up tearing this solar system and galaxy apart. Galaxies are big, they are full of stars, there's simply no physical way those galaxies could be nearer to us. The only real options are that God is trying to trick us, or that the universe is indeed old. (and very big) It's simply unavoidable Alan, parading your ignorance is not arguing against the fact.Are you going to admit that your belief is not in God, but in the bible? Or are you just going to keep denying evidence exists that shows you know absolutely nothing on the subject at hand?
Shit! Went to bed before I got a chance to respond...
Regarding temperality of polar regions -- I know that they were so, tens to hundreds of millions of years ago (heck - the land masses weren't even in the same place, geographically speaking)
I was looking for dickwad to provide some of his ample evidence for such in the recent past - say 4000 to 6000 years ago.
But hey - If I don't make myself clear, and leave assumptions (like the evidence) unvoiced, then I'm gonna get trampled!
That's why I love you guys so much! :D
On the other brainfart: I don't know about you, but I would not want to be anywhere nearby (like in the same solar system) when tectonic movements as described by dumbass (aka I want to be RogeredSobad) are taking place.
Seriously -- he expects us to believe that Everest rose more than 8000 meters above sea level (which in reality means it rose significantly higher, since the trenches don't make up for the volume of land above water) in a couple of weeks? That's what he says.
pre-flood... flat a a pancake.
post-flood... huge frackin' mountain ranges.
All in 40* days.
Fucking. Dumb. Ass. Creo. Tard.
* Ol' Yahweh must really love that number - turns up everywhere. Or maybe it is just story-allegory for way longer than anyone would believe was sensible, but not so long it's truly out-there.
c = (e/m)1/2, just make the value c higher and see what happens to the relationship between matter and energy in the universe...
There's also c^2 = 1/(ε0μ0), which relates the speed of light to fundamental electric and magnetic field constants. Dramatically increasing c would mean decreasing ε0 or μ0, increasing the strength of EM fields.
Which, of course, govern things like electron shell structure and therefore chemistry.
entertainment panders to emotion and is therefore irrelevant.
Sorry Josh to agree with Alan's #448 ice core date skepticism, but in risk of your displeasure, here goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl
"Glacier Girl is a Lockheed P-38 Lightning World War II fighter plane that was recently restored to operable condition after being buried beneath ice on the remote Greenland Ice Sheet for nearly fifty years.
Glacier Girl, along with five other P-38 fighters and two B-17 bombers, was eventually buried beneath 270 feet of ice."
From Glacier Girl we learn that 270 ft of acculumated ice in 50 years is a significant rate.
Josh- Time to unleash Rev.BigDumbChimps extrapolations?
What's the point of continuing this RogerS? No matter what we bring up, you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position. Remember that in science, it's not just one piece of evidence that leads us to conclusions; all you are doing is casting doubt on individual examples. rather in science, it's about exploring what the full picture tells us. So when astronomy shows the universe to be old, when geology and nuclear physics show the earth to be old, and when genetics (among several other things) show life to have evolved gradually - that's the picture of science. Instead, your faith in the bible means that you'll dismiss piece after piece of evidence without realising that putting it together could solve the puzzle.Do you have anything constructive at all to add here?
RogerS, still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Boy, are you and Alan a pair of wimps. Here you are, with an audience of atheists, and you fail to bring out the only evidence that would sway us to creationism? Or is it because there is no physical evidence for your imaginary deity, and you are simply lying to both yourself and to us? All available evidence point to the latter.
They have to have an imaginary deity for them to show evidence for it. All they have is faith in the bible, and a means to dismiss every single piece of scientific evidence one by one. If they lost their bible stories, they'd have nothing. Of course God isn't tricking them, they don't believe in God. They believe in an old myth and are doing everything they can to pretend that the myth is valid.
RogerS and Alan, you are free to keep your infantile, delusional beliefs. All you have to do is to stop posting. But you will not be able to convince us that we should also believe your delusions. The physical evidence just isn't there. You know it. And we know it. So why are you continuing?
Fucktard RogerS
Trying to equate snowfall on Greenland with Antarctica is like equating snowfall on Ben Nevis (Scotland) with Everest.
Their climactic ranges are completely different.
Try citing some actual peer reviewed science, instead of some tardistic crap cobbled together out of kitchen middens.
Wikipedia is not a reliable citation (reasonable for general commentary - but only truly valid when the actual article has been itself critically verified through multiple unrelated reliable citations)
You really do need to try harder.
RogerS wrote
Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable that the added water weight from collapsing waters “above the firmament” during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale.
What? Magma isn't "virtually incompressible." Where did you get that impression?
Magma is molten. It occurs in various viscosities and it flows. It contains various combinations of minerals that are crystalizing out of the melt, actual melt (not always of uniform composition), and varying amounts of gases (e.g., water vapor). Even fricken Blabbapedia manages to get magma fairly correct:
We tried to get him to read it for eight hundred comments on the Titanoboa thread before PZ closed the thread for having become too repetitive.
Owlmirror has some serious problems in his “wall” of radiometric dating posts. Why not just provide links instead of filling up the thread?
The chutzpa is incredible.
Eight hundred comments last time, and two hundred more here, and all the time we've tried to take your head and push your nose against the link... and now you deny we ever did it?
Are you just trying to drive us insane?
Kel #467 What's the point of continuing this RogerS? No matter what we bring up, you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position. Remember that in science, it's not just one piece of evidence that leads us to conclusions; all you are doing is casting doubt on individual examples.
Kel,
You have a point as well as many others and you all deserve an honest answer so I will give it. I have not been totally fourth coming in information I know of and experiences I have encountered. I am withholding information. This is the missing puzzle piece that you instinctually recognize in trying to make sense of my persistence. You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.
You will understand one day why I have taken this path because you will realize that if I disclosed certain things to you at this time you would not be able to “metabolize” it.
Introducing a new food and removing it can cause allergic reactions later and I would not want that to happen to anyone. So you are just going to have to receive it at the rate you appear to be metabolizing it. (What I know is not way out there somewhere beyond knowledge and experiences of others I know, so you can calm down.)
With all Sincerity, RogerS
Is this the "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" defense?
'I am afraid my eye will remain locked in staring at my frontal lobe position.'
You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.
What a reeking pile of bullshit. Either put up or shut up. We are smarter than you. Your persistance is caused by stupidity. And you have no evidence. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a fool.
Ah
RogerS admits that he is not your garden-variety wingnut.
What I know is not way out there somewhere beyond knowledge and experiences of others I know
Arghhh!
And I was almost drawn into a conversation with him. I feel the need for a shower.
How do I shower my brain, please?
One good thing - Alan: RogerS agrees with you, and he has just demonstrated his unequivocal insanity. What say you, oh wingnut of the first degree?
Why are huge deposits of marine organisms (limestone calcite) in the middle of continents? 1. Simple answer: a global flood shocking and amassing vast quantities at the same time.
It's a simple answer. But it's one that A., doesn't explain the evidence (see below), and B., requires it to be physically possible to produce enough water to cover all of the world's landmasses with water. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Can you provide answers to those questions?
Me asking you to answer these questions is not unreasonable. Not if you're going to continually try to talk about evidence. If you're going to use the evidence that exists on Earth to try and support your flood hypothesis, then you need to provide explanations for the data that are congruent with our current understanding of science (specifically physics, geology, chemistry, and biology). You do not get to simply assert that we’re interpreting the data wrong unless you can back it up. And you do not get to cite only those datapoints that support your a priori assumption that there was a flood. For example, you cannot just blanket accept the data that indicate that the polar regions were warmer in the past, while at the same time blanket dismissing the age data for those same deposits. That’s just retarded. And it’s retarded because you’re accepting the data for warm poles because you want to and you’re dismissing the age data for those same rocks because you want to. You’re not evaluating either set of data. You’re just dismissing that with which you don’t agree without having any evidence. That’s simply stupid.
But, you don't have to do any of this. You can simply rely on miracles and be done with it. You don’t need evidence. As I said in a previous comment, you can just explain the world by god erasing all evidence of the flood and creating a deceptive rock record. I can accept that and we can move on to something else. But if so, then stop talking about "evidence" and leave the rocks, and the science, alone. If you're going to bring the rocks into it, then you need to be accurate about what the rocks actually say. Otherwise you're being dishonest.
So yes, there are huge piles of limestone veneering parts of the continents. That's an accurate statement at one level of precision. Unfortunately, that level of precision doesn't really describe what the rock record is like at all (the reality is much more complicated than that). In fact, it’s inaccurate enough that this level of precision is, well, just wrong. But, even if we leave our discussion at this level of precision (i.e., we presume that portions of the continents are simply covered with “piles of limestone”), then you still have to explain how receding flood waters can deposit massive piles of carbonate. Because that flies in the face of all of the evidence out there.
It's not like we don't know how limestone forms. We're watching it form in numerous environments across the world today (the Bahamas and the Red Sea just to name two).
Bono et al. 2002. Inorganic calcite precipitation in Tartare karstic spring (Lazio, central Italy): Field measurements and theoretical prediction on depositional rates. Environmental Geology 41(3-4):305-313.
Lein et al. 2003. Nature of carbonates in the Gulf of Cadiz. Geochemistry International 41(2):168-181
Harney & Fletcher 2003. A budget of carbonate framework and sediment production, Kailua Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Journal of Sedimentary Research 73(6):856-868
Taborosi et al. Speleothem-like calcite and aragonite deposits on a tropical carbonate coast. Cave and Karst Science 30(1):23-32.
Sutula et al. 2003. Factors affecting spatial and temporal variability in material exchange between the Southern Everglades wetlands and Florida Bay (USA). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science v57 n5-6 (2003 08 01): 757-781
Much of geology is historical. Much of sedimentary geology is not. Thousands of geologists are studying the lithologic record of carbonate rocks, but hundreds of other geologists are also studying modern carbonate deposition around the world right now. Limestones that are growing before our eyes. They grow in fairly quiet conditions. It’s also not like we don’t understand flood deposits and high energy sedimentary deposits. Floods happen all the bloody time, as do high energy depositional events. Again, there are thousands of people studying these deposits, around the world. Receding flood waters do not deposit massive piles of carbonate. They simply don’t. These are not gray areas within sedimentology any more than how volcanoes deposit ash is a gray area.
You have made the decision to bring the sedimentary record into this. You have asserted that limestone deposits in the middle of the continents support the idea of a global deluge of water. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that these continental deposits are not just simply piles of limestone, it is now your responsibility to provide evidence that fairly high energy receding flood waters can deposit large piles of carbonate. For right now, we can even ignore the source of the water and where it went. As a starting point, I will even accept evidence that any receding flood water can generate actual demonstrable deposits of carbonate that resemble the limestones that you're asserting are evidence of the flood. You have erected a hypothesis. Now, show me that it's plausible.
How do I shower my brain, please?
I use mental floss. Very good at removing those little pieces of idiocy.
RogerS, if your position really had overwhelming justification, then you could instantaneously produce and explain supporting evidence for your position.
Given as how you're reduced to stalling for time for something that will never happen, we are forced to conclude that your position is bereft of any fact or worth.
Nerd of Redhead #477
You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.
What a reeking pile of bullshit. Either put up or shut up. We are smarter than you.
Nerd, I believe you have prejudged me.
I don't disagree with you that "we are smarter than you" may be true, but scientific knowledge should not be considered more valable than truth. They do not equate in the past, present, or future. Don't make the mistake of dismissing those you consider "inferior" to yourself, the simplest of persons may be benefiting from "truths" that elude your grasp and personal life. Sometimes we can learn from the simplest.
The best tools for dealing with the bigger questions of life are not science and knowledge, but truth, wisdom, and love. Ask any physiologist which of the two prescriptions he would prefer for his patients (most of which may be pretty brainy).
Best wishes for your journey, RogerS
RogerS, Here is the truth. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is work of fiction. Until you can show physical evidence otherwise, those are the default positions.
Any metaphysical nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Welcome to science.
Looks as if we have another acid casualty disseminating his Intuitive Truth to destroy our evil facts.
My Post #482: Sorry, substitute psychologist for physiologist.
Proves my point -my spell checker lied to me!
Now RogerS is using the "Foolishness Of God" gambit.
'My eyes will never be able to see straight again.'
So, RogerS, given as how you consider "truth" to be more valuable than "scientific knowledge," would you prefer to trust your life and the lives of your loved with a doctor who values "scientific knowledge" or a doctor who values "truth" over "scientific knowledge"?
Posted by: RogerS | March 13, 2009
My Post #482: Sorry, substitute psychologist for physiologist.
Proves my point -my spell checker lied to me!
Your spell checker did not lie, it is merely a tool. You are just a poor composer of words. The fault lies with you.
Kel:you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.
Kel, welcome to the world of “science”. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted? Dale Carnegie exploited a known fact: the most interesting words a person can hear is their own name. People tend to cheer for the team that they picked from the beginning. You’ll inevitably lean toward the theory that you subscribed to early on which bears “your name” (i.e. the one that you told your friends about). The whole idea of “pure objectivity” espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.
Stanton, truth encompasses what is true about our physical universe, what science strives to achieve but never totally arrives at. But knowledge is on a more focused and limited course and therefore does not encompass the largeness of truth.
Josh- Time to unleash Rev.BigDumbChimps extrapolations?
It could be that time. That, however, is for Rev to decide. Not me.
I'm not really even sure what you're asking Josh here RogerS.
Kel:you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.
Kel, welcome to the world of “science”. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted? Dale Carnegie exploited a known fact: the most interesting words a person can hear is their own name. People tend to cheer for the team that they picked from the beginning. You’ll inevitably lean toward the theory that you subscribed to early on which bears “your name” (i.e. the one that you told your friends about). The automobile that you most often notice others driving is the one you own! The whole idea of “pure objectivity” espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.
Stanton, truth encompasses what is true about our physical universe, what science strives to achieve but never totally arrives at. But man's pursuit of knowledge is on a more focused and limited course and therefore does not encompass the larger subset of truth.
Janine, Insulting Sinner #488
Thanks Janine, I knew you had it in you. You got that one totally right.
LOL RogerS
Enough PoMo nonsense, Roger. You said you had overwhelming support for the positions you hold in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Put up or shut up. Don't tell us science is imperfect. Don't quote Hamlet. The failure of anyone else to know everything does not in any way imply that you know anything.
I'm guessing Roger will either:
1) Continue to ignore demands he show his work;
2) Disappear; or
3) Relate to us how Jesus, Batman, and Elmer Fudd appeared to him in a dream and laid out The Truth to him.
Alan, if you think you are a theorist, you are sadly mistaken. You are a deluded fool. You can call yourself what you want, but your actions and evidence speak otherwise. Until you show the physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin, you will have nothing scientific to present. Trying to disprove geology, biology, chemistry, physics, and other sciences does not prove your theory one iota. Proof negative for other theories will never prove yours. Proof positive is required, and that starts with your deity. We await your evidence for your deity.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 13, 2009
Kel: you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.
Kel, welcome to the world of “science”. All theorists look for data that supports their positions.
And the intelligent theorists will change their theories if their gathered data does not support their original theories. All you have done is quotemine in order to make it seem the legitimate scientists could support your believe in a biblical flood. And let's just say that if I can find you mining works, you are doing a piss poor job of it. Welcome to science.
And in case you have not noticed, you have been blown out of the water every time you make a statement. Do you enjoy hitting you head on brick walls?
The whole idea of “pure objectivity” espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.
Alan, please don't put words into our mouths. Who "on the science side" here has asserted anything more than we try as hard as possible to be objective? Show me the comment where one of us has asserted that we are objective.
Oh, and while I have you here: Any thoughts on any of the questions that I asked you in #407?
Alan, please don't put words into our mouths. Who "on the science side" here has asserted anything more than we try as hard as possible to be objective? Show me the comment where one of us has asserted that we are objective.
And rest assured, if you are not objective someone else will sure come along and call you on it.
That is one way to make your name in science. Correcting another scientists work.
That's why overall, science is objective. Because it is competitive and scientists will always be checking other scientists.
Poor Roger, he has his head up his ass since he thinks his shit smells so good. I heard the same crap from the hippies back during my undergraduate days. At least they had the excuse of using drugs. Roger is just deluded.
Come over to the reality of atheism Roger, where without the delusion of god and religion everything is clear.
Heeeeeeey! I had him as my physics prof last spring! Biggest. Geek. Evar.
(That's a complement for Dr. Kakalios.)
Still halfway through his book.
Now we know who to blame for Rorshach's improbable grapple gun.
Any spoilers in the video?
No spoilers, but he does explain the origins (to a degree) of Dr. Manhattan. Didn't ruin anything for me, but keep your mouse on the pause button just in case you feel apprehensive.
Oh, BTW, his book is awesome! I'd love to have this guy as a physics prof. I'm 34 and have been reading comics since I was 10 with no plans to stop. I'm dying to see this film next week.
Not only does this movie look like bad science but it also looks to be bad science fiction too! At > $10/person for a movie ticket, I will pass on this one.
But we covered all this when we studied the "Infinite Improbability Drive."
Bob @ #5, read the graphic novel first to get an idea of what this movie is trying to accomplish, then decide whether or not to go see it. The GN really is something that transcends the stereotypes of the medium, and if (albeit this is a big 'if' at this point) the film succeeds in living up to the depth of the novel, it will be WELL worth watching. Whatever the case, I don't think calling it "bad science fiction" is fair or informed.
How can there be any spoilers if you've read the book by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons?
With Wondercon on in San Francisco, on Friday night the 27th, Dave Gibbons, he who creates the world will be at the Cartoon Art Museum along with a display of his original art for the books, along with actual props, paintings and costumes from the film. As you can see from clicking on my name, I already geeked out at a preview of the show last Friday. The level of detail in the framed newspaper clippings recreated with "photos" of the Watchmen, to a lithograph of Moloch as a magician with whispering imps, a "Vargas" painting of The Silk Spectre's mother, details crafted down to the torn left epaulet on Rorschach's trenchcoat, even Rorshach's improbable grapple gun; badges from Veidt Industries, copies of The Black Freighter, and every feather on the Nite Owl's costume next to a yellow and black latex number; the Comedian's weapons, a certain trophy presented to Hollis "In Gratitude," various magazines and books, even an ad for Nostalgia perfume.
NewEnglandBob: Don't knock it right away, Dr. Manhattan is 90% of the suspension of disbelief needed for this movie. Do expect comic book physics, but in general the focus is on the characters and the situations, this is not your typical "hollywood superhero movie".
That whoosh sound you heard was everything he said going over my head.
I'm a colossal comic geek, and I've never been able to bring myself to read the "Physics of Superheroes" book.
I think it's cool that he's found a way to use superheroes to make physics more interesting, but I just can't bring myself to take seriously anything that claims that Superman, Spider-Man, or the Flash make scientific sense.
Am I off-base here?
I just can't bring myself to take seriously anything that claims that Superman, Spider-Man, or the Flash make scientific sense.
Am I off-base here?
Not really. I think it's kind of interesting that a physics professor has offered some sort of scientific blessing by inventing a post hoc rationale for what Alan Moore chose to do, essentially anthropomorphizing Nixonian nuclear Super Power. The only "whoosh" sound is the point of it all being missed by the scientist, who did no worse really than Deepak Chopra would have done for the same money, but ultimately, no better. At least our side knows how to use an oscilloscope, explaining how the essence of sound is separated from noise-reducing headphones, while Deepak would have cashed his check after having used the word "quantum" many more times.
@Scott: I took his spring intro physics class last year and pretty much what he did with superheroes and physics:
1) Spiderman for tension problems- and show that it *can be* possible for Spiderman to swing using spider's silk because of how strong it is (it is a physics course for pre-med and biology students).
2) Superman for gravity/force- for example, we found how much force it would take for Spiderman to leap over a building, and then we figured out how much gravity he'd have to work against to have muscles that strong, and we "calculated" the gravity on Krypton. From there, we also calculated the size of Krypton if it had a certain density, and what not...only to find that the only way Krypton could be solid and have that gravity (at the size we calculated it should have been a gas giant), would be that Krypton had a neutron star (or something) to produce that kind of gravity on a planet roughly the size of the earth.
To add my voice to the chorus for NewEnglandBob@5 - if the movie is a faithful adaption of the comic book it will be at least twenty seven different kinds of awesome.
I don't really see how it could be, really - there are bits of the comic that I don't think will translate well (such as the juxtaposition of the pirate comic stories) - but differences are to be expected; it certainly will be worth at least giving it a chance.
there are bits of the comic that I don't think will translate well (such as the juxtaposition of the pirate comic stories)
Tales of the Black Freighter is reportedly due out animated, direct to DVD. Just presume that in every theatrical venue, there will be somebody who pirated it on their portable device and watching it in the theater during the Watchmen film.
Sold me a ticket!
Amongst the many reasons I keep coming here is this: The creationist baffelgarb may make me laugh, but before I become overwhelmed with the stupidity, there is a welcome cure of science, passion and intelligence.
The lovely goddess and I will be there opening day playing a game we call nerd denial. It's where we scan the line waiting to get in, say snarky things about everyone we see, and pretend we're not just as sad as them.
We invented the game at the first showing of Lord Of The Rings.
I was just excited how in the short clip shown that when the person was thrown back, they weren't thrown straight back, but actually followed a parabolic path!
His students have a very shitty attitude. I would think that students in a university-level physics course would have some interest in the subject or would be planning to work in a physics-related field but apparently not. "Physics is boring. When am I going to use this in real life?" Physics IS real life. Can't something be insightful and useful without necessarily affecting one's day-to-day decisions? Isn't the nature of reality interesting and beautiful enough? Do we really need to dress it up with juvenile fantasies?
Isn't the nature of reality interesting and beautiful enough? Do we really need to dress it up with juvenile fantasies?
Dressing up juvenile fantasies with physics faithfully acknowledging the nature of reality with sufficient verisimilitude to withstand the scrutiny of nerds, geeks, and assorted snarking ne-er-do-wells is a practical use of physics in real life.
juvenile fantasies
Oh, and if you'd read the original graphic novel (which was close enough to actually being the original graphic novel), you'd get that the deconstruction of juvenile fantasies was rather the point of Watchmen.
Ken, please read my original post more closely. I wasn't criticizing Kakalios's involvement with Watchmen. I was criticizing his students' apathy towards physics and the presumed need to dress physics up by applying it to superheroes to make the subject interesting.
to make the subject interesting
We agree that bored people are boring, but is it necessary to dump on fiction just because it isn't real? I don't know how much more the film can accomplish than mere illustration, dimensionalizing the obsessive detail found in the books, but if you had any familiarity with the Moore/Gibbons work, you would not have taken such a cheap shot.
Ken, I get the feeling that you haven't watched the actual video. Towards the end of the video, Kakalios talks about how his students think physics is boring because it doesn't apply to real life so he teaches physics by applying it to superheroes. In my original post, the phrase "juvenile fantasies" was referring to precisely this. It wasn't referring to Moore's/Gibbons's work and it certainly wasn't referring to fiction in general. I am familiar with Moore's and Gibbons's work and Watchmen is one of my favourite graphic novels. You're arguing against a position that I don't hold.
I don't think Alan Moore troubled himself to bring in a physics consultant when scripting the original Watchmen - so why would a production intent on recreating Moore's work seek out an advisor from such a different perspective?
Actually, I think it might be towards the beginning, not the end.
Daniel, you should be able to see why I would infer an attitude toward the book that it took your eventual caveats to dispel by re-reading your posts yoiurself. I'm actually not that impressed by what Kakalios offers as an explanation for Osterman's transformation--he adds nothing to an appreciation for the material and indeed distracts from the role played by the character. To me, Kakalios sheds as little heat as light, providing little more than Treknobabble that verges on woo. Outreach is great, but I prefer Larry Gonick.
Daniel,
it would seem a bit naive to deny that in this 21st century to interest children/students for physics,it might take a little bit of what you call "juvenile fantasies" to get them hooked.
Cant see whats so wrong with it,to be honest.
Ken,
Actually, I don't. I made it quite explicit that it was his students' attitudes that I was criticizing. The first sentence of my post reads "[h]is students have a very shitty attitude." I even went so far as to paraphrase his characterization of his students' disposition towards physics. Whatever, though: I'm not here to argue. I just hate being misunderstood.
clinteas,
Keep in mind that he's a university professor. His students would be university students, not young teens/children. But since you brought it up: I wouldn't deny using superheroes to teach children physics if it gets them hooked but I still think it's pretty shitty to not be interested in the nature of the universe.
Oh man, now I'm going to cringe every time I see an unnecessary Oort ring in that movie. Not that I'm going to refrain from seeing it, though.
I'm not sure what the Professor's discussion has to do with...well, either the movie OR good science. Okay, so electrons have properties of waves. So does light. Got it. And sine waves placed half a wavelength out of phase cancel eachother out when combined. This is some elementary stuff, I mean, really--and it would be fine, if it actually had relevance to the movie or the character of Dr. Manhattan.
As it stands, as terrylong said, he's basically the Infinite Improbability Man. A comic book has to have a superhero with ridiculously nonsensical abilities, and Dr. Manhattan is it--do you really need a reason? I ask the world that accepted Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls way more than it really ought to have, do we really need science behind Dr. Manhattan?
Daniel,
You forget that not every college student in physics is there because they *want* to be there but they're there because they *have* to be there. Many of these students are only in physics because it's required for their degree- and a lot of students are less than enthused when it comes to taking required classes that don't have directly obvious connections to other coursework. Especially calc-based physics when you're doing a degree that rarely uses calculus.
To those interested in the film and who know the novel, the early reviews are promising, but not perfect, and yes, there are the inevitable problems. Thus the hardcore purists will not be satisfied, and that's without considering the changes (such as not including the Black Freighter in the theatrical cut.)
To those who're interested but don't know the novel, all I can say is...since it is VERY close to the novel, check your expectations at the door. I think this is going to be a tough movie for a lot of people to digest. I'm seeing Blade Runner mentioned a lot (in terms of possible public reaction.)
And by "rarely", I mean "never".
Ugh. 'Science Fiction films' continue their downward lurch, plundering yet more obscure comics, FFS, for material.
Can it be a good sign that the studios are sufficiently embarrassed about the crap science in their fiction that they pay real scientists to act as their apologists? I fear it's just a little lubricant on the thin end of the wedge.
Makes me wish there were a Hell, where Spielberg and Lucas could swing by their thumbs for eternity for what they've helped to do to the queen of literary genres.
@Chris Davis
Oh, I wouldn't say that.
Bandai's planning to release a new Mobile Suit Gundam series, one that's finally set back in the Universal Century timeline (UC 81 to be exact). Hajime Katoki's also been signed on as the show's mecha designer, so it should be all good :3
...so sue me, I'm a Gundam otaku who's disgruntled with 00
NewEnglandBob,
First, you shouldn't be reading something like Watchmen for the science.
Second, superheros and their exploits, despite some overtures made towards scientific explanations, are not science-fiction, but more of a fantasy (though both SF and F are fantastic literature, I dislike that distinction). In many instances, the trappings of science are used in the same way that westerns use their scenery.
Chris@35: Watchmen isn't exactly obscure. It's true that the comic isn't as iconic as Superman or Batman for the lay audience, but it's a classic of the genre.
I mean, Hellboy got made, and it got a sequel - I doubt too many non-comic book fans were familiar with Hellboy (I hadn't heard of him myself; while I'm not a huge comic fan, I'm probably more well versed that the average movie going public). And that was several years ago.
But really, even if it is obscure, that doesn't make it bad. It has less automatic name recognition so a smaller automatic audience - which might mean, in the best of all possible worlds, that they make sure it's a good movie in its own right to ensure that they get more people to see it than just comic book fans. That's got to be a good thing, right?
Um. Chris...no offense, man, but I don't think you're all THAT well informed there. This thing's been lurching around in various stages of production for over two decades, as various studios, directors and writers have tried and ultimately given up. This is not a recent effort to mine "obscure" material...the comic's generally regarded as among the finest and most important written. That's partly why it was so hard to make, since there are a lot of very strong opinions about how to adapt it, or if it's even possible.
But I will concede that it probably would still be in limbo if not for a number of recent coincidences, among them the continued interest in comic adaptations. So yeah, I'm sure for some of the studio execs, "Another comic movie! Fresh material!" were the main motivators to pushing the button on this particular version.
I still haven't seen the whole movie, but one of the things that struck me about 2001 was the rotating space station. I'd seen much newer documentaries and whatnot pondering what would be like if humans lived in space for many generations, and they talked about atrophied limbs, weaker bones, etc. due to lack of gravity. I still don't understand why a rotating spaceship like that could not replicate gravity with centrifugal force so there's no side effects like that. That was a genius idea whoever had it.
Richard Wolford #4,
Thanks. I'm trying not to watch anything on the movie yet, I'm trying to read the comic first.
Ugh, another Hollywood movie best ignored!
Why the hell do they always have to be so UNREALISTIC?
Sci-fi is fun and interesting when it is at least 50% plausible, not when it's only 0.05%.
And who needs guns, explosions and pyrotechnics to cover for lacking story-line?
As to spoilers for Hollywood movies, just look at the title and the 'actors', and if you haven't spent the last 30 years under a tree-stump you know the story and the outcome. Just mix a few of the similar ones, and the number of permutations are rather limited.
Has there been a Hollywood movie in the last 30 years that after having seen 5 seconds of it, you didn't know the whole 'story'?
As for sci-fi, Dr. Who piss on anything Hollywood from great height!
I heard The Passion of the Christ has a good surprise ending.
Notes from a Watchmen Virgin:
I never heard of Watchmen until last year, so I decided to find out what all the fuss was about. I bought the graphic novel a few days ago. I should note that I've never been a big reader of comics and have only been familiar with the big name brands (Bat/Super/Spider: Man.) My impressions:
1. Watchmen does more than just deconstruct the super hero, it destroys the entire concept. I would even go so far as to say Watchmen hates super heroes.
2. In some ways the whole thing was too real. I found it pessimistic, depressing and populated with super narcissists and super losers.
3. All of the characters were so deeply flawed that I found I couldn't really care about any of them.
4. It was thought provoking. I couldn't get it out of my head for a couple of days.
I may go see the movie, if for no other reason than to see how well this story transitions to film.
Re comment on my #35. I have no specific beef with Watchmen. I'm sure it's a perfectly good let's-make-a-fairytale-with-lasers-instead-of-wands-so-people-will-think-it's-science movie and comic.
My objection, as one who has loved real SF since the 50s, is that there has been no more than a handful of hard science SF movies since 2001. I'd cite Terminator, The Abyss, Scanner Darkly and Primer. There are others. The bulk, however, are silly fairy-stories with CGI to make them at least look realistic, largely aimed at those whose disbelief suspenders need new elastic. Small wonder they're mining media aimed at children.
Back in the day we dreamed of the time when the world would recognise SF, and it would become mainstream. Had I known that it would do so by dint of lowered standards I'd have stuck to my Ace paperbacks.
@45: er, the whole point about the Watchmen mythos is that the costumed heroes in it are human, not magical or superpowered. There is only one character who has actual "powers", they're as physics-based as anything in hard SF (certainly at least as hard-SF as Terminator) and a major theme is the way that this separates him from thsoe around him and his own humanity. Ironically, it seems that you've avoided one of the few graphic novels that would actually suit your tastes in SF.
The person who thought up the rotating space station in 2001 was Wernher von Braun.
I don't really think Watchmen should be classified as science fiction at all! Have any of the people accusing it of being another bad science fiction hollywood superhero movie, plundered from an obscure list of old comics actually read Watchmen?
Please, make sure you are at least a little familiar with what you are commenting on before assuming it will be more terrible Hollywood rubbish...
@Chris Davis
I love Terminator as well, but if you can count a movie with evil robots travelling through time as hard sci-fi, you can count the Alien movies. Jee-sus.
Also, you should check out Sunshine. Had it's share of small mistakes and silliness, but it was restrained, level-headed, basically no "oh that is total bull" moments, a sci-fi(horror) treat.
@ Jason Dick #19:
Ah, but for a school-book parabolic trajectory one has to be a flat-earther! Seriously. Go back and look at the maths and think about it carefully. Plus of course it's necessary to be in an atmosphere-free zone too, since any surrounding medium means friction opposing the motion. Then there's the additional tweak for being on a rotating planet (which I'm not unreasonably guessing applies to this Watchmen thing).
There is fantasy, sci-fi and then there is the movie-fication of graphic novels.
The reason that Kakalios makes this video is not as apologetics for the bad science in the film, but to use the film to illustrate through correction the real physics as "Manipulated" by the film. Phil Plait, who has not been a guest on our radio show, started out on this whole internet thing by pointing out the bad science in science fiction films and through badastronomy.com and the Discover blog has drawn many people who would not otherwise be interested in science into learning more about science.
If the movie doesn't inspire viewers to learn about physics, then Jim Kakalios will use videos like this to draw them in by showing them "The rest of the story."
One of my favorite essays of Isaac Asimov's was the one in which he explains how he had to shoehorn physics in order to write the novel Fantastic Voyage. He did his best to keep it real, but had to fudge a great deal in favor of sticking to a storyline. That's what movie producers often have to do.
For more of Kakalios, he was a guest on the Atheists Talk radio show back in June of 2008.
Now, if Phil Plait would find time in his busy schedule.....
Ri-chan @32
Which is probably why the majority of the people in this country live in a La La fantasy land of delusion... witness our current crop of politicians and especially the pseudo scientists (economists)that are our financial wizards. Their complete divorce from reality and lack of understanding of basic science, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology etc... is the root cause of our current predicament. Party on dudes!
That our children, (sorry college students are *NOT* children) are less than enthused about understanding and learning about reality doesn't exactly elicit much sympathy from me. Sigh!
BTW, before someone misunderstands, I do enjoy fantasy and science fiction. In a college level physics class, not so much.
I'm disappointed in the professor's "explanations". Analyzing superhero powers to show that, e.g., Krypton must be a neutron star is solid scientific thinking and is fine. Mumbling about quantum interference and waving his hands does not magically make being at several places at the same time remotely possible. He knows it perfectly well, of course - he even says "not strictly correct"; strictly my... ehmm.... yeah.
These kinds of apologetics only promote bad science and bad appreciation of science in the public. He should have said 'There is no way to do that that I can think of. Sorry". The power was better left unexplained, than poorly explained by bad science.
I'm perfectly fine with superhero powers that defy physics. I'm less thrilled when pseduscientific nonsesne speak is tacked on to explain it. I'm even less thrilled when physicists, who definitely know better, are the ones spouting off the pseudoscience.
I agree with Yair here.
There are bound to be discoveries in physics in future years that will allow us to do things that would look miraculous today. At the moment we cannot anticipate what these physical phenomenon are but we can speculate about the application of these discoveries (i.e. flying cars, cheap energy, teleportation etc). Its far better to keep the physics behind these applications a mystery than to go all Deepak Chopra on it when to anyone with the slightest knowledge of modern physics its obvious you are simply pulling explanations out of your ass.
Dr Manhattan is an unconventional superhero. His story is really an explanation of what happens to a person's humanity when they acquire god-like powers. I'm sure Moore didn't consider the physics behind his creation because it's really not important.
In other news, that parasite called religion has burrowed deep into Tony Blair's brain.
Yair @53 express my thoughts exactly about even thinking about this in terms of science.
As far as this not being good science fiction, my opinion of this kind of story is that it is fantasy and not science fiction. This kind of story as well as horror stories try to pass as science fiction and they are far from it.
To me, science fiction is represented by Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke. Most comic book fiction is fine for the kids but is not serious literature.
Well written science fiction uses possible future technology as a stage for a human story and does not rely on it as a major basis of story telling.
Man I hate the term Graphic Novel. It's a comic people, not a 'Graphic Novel'.
Graphic Novel is a term invented for people too embarrassed to admit they like comic books, and in my opinion that means they don't deserve to enjoy them.
Sorry to be so fundamental and absolutist on this point but some of us stuck with comic books long before they were fashionable.
By the way, Alan Moore says he doesn't write Graphic Novels, he writes big comic books.
It's....a....movie.
Boy, I hope it's a good one.
Has anyone analyzed the physics of Old Yeller yet?
It's fun to watch a spiel on physics stemming from the soon-to-be-released movie, but science was not a huge part of the book, so I hope no one is going to start whining about how the quantum mechanics are all wrong and whatnot when the Watchmen do come out. By all means, take issue with the professor's explanations, but let's not comment on the movie based on "bad science". It is a Hollywood movie, after all. We're lucky if they get gravity right.
That being said, I hope they won't completely destroy the comic book. I'm a big fan of the Watchmen.
@45:"...mining media aimed at children". Please, that gets old. I suggest you explore comic books a little more before passing these kinds of judgment. If a child can pick up something like, say, Dave Sim's Cerebus, I'd be pretty impressed (and if Hollywood turned Cerebus into a cuddly aardvark, I'd cry for weeks).
@52: I do think that a good grasp on reality is greatly aided by knowledge of science. But in the end, I think it's a person's lack of intellectual curiosity that creates the La La land effect (I shamefully confess that I doodled during physics class, including a pretty awesome portrait of Rutherford eating raisin bread).
@57: I've used the term 'graphic novel' a few times, and I'm trying to remember in which context. I think I tend to use it as shorthand for 'limited-run series that's been condensed into one big hardcover and now they've made a collector's edition and I hear the rights to the movie have been sold'. Otherwise, it's all comic books to me.
Ha! I purposely wrote "comic" to see if I could fish out one of those "it's not a comic, it's a GRAPHIC NOVEL!" people. Anyone else has seen the Star Wars movies (the "good" ones) and found them entertaining, but meh? I can't fathom what goes in the head of hardcore fans.
MH@#55:
Agreed on Dr. Manhattan. Any physics talk behind how he got his powers is just Phlebotium; It may as well be "a wizard did it". The point is all about how a ordinary person would cope with being made God.
re Blair: that particular parasite was living in his brain for decades (IIRC correctly it pushed out Marxist historical determinism as his ideology of choice while he was still at Oxford).
Chris, shonny:
Yeah, you definitely don't have a clue what you're talking about--but in this case I truly mean that in a non-nasty way. No, seriously. Theriouthly. :) Your assumptions about the Graphic Novel/Big Comic Book/whatever are so far off...but that's the nature of this book. It's as much aimed at children as your average porno, as much a formulaic Hollywood pic as 2001 (though again, this is barely sci-fi).
You're missing out on a real treat in not having read this one, I think, especially given how tired you seem of the same ol' same ol'.
I love the people on the board here decrying Watchmen as just a kid’s story or just a comic book. Always good to see people who have not read this Hugo Award winning story trashing it as just another juvenile fantasy.
Ken Cope wrote:
Actually, Deepak Chopra probably would have charged more.
And you know what, as wrong as Deepak is about science, a world that worked the way he thinks ours does would make for an interesting bit of science fantasy.
I wonder what PZ would have to tell the makers of "The Thing" when it comes to biology. Maybe he could hire himself out to the new group filming the prequel...
Anyone saying it's "just" fantasy and therefore inferior Real Science Fiction which explores Possible Future Worlds is a Very Serious Way, is missing the point on an epic scale. The weird stuff requires a suspension of disbelief but the story is about human reactions to it
You might as well say that Márquez, Saramago and Kafka should be taken less seriously than Azimov because they don't give scientifically plausible reasons as to why weird stuff happens in their novels.
Prof. Kakalios is the man. I had him last year.
O/T, but fun:
You, too, can be a mermaid (or merman, as the case may be)!
Are some (well, one) of you really comparing Watchmen to Kafka?
I am reading it from all the hype, and I'm a bit interested. I am starting the third volume, but till now it's just a good enough comic. Should I be expecting a mind-blowing experience later on? There were parts where I kind of cringed, cheesy stuff but I guess that's an 80's side effect.
Nice little interview. I had the opportunity to work on optic science classes a couple years ago, and I must say the material held my curiosity very well. I have done experiments similar to his diffraction with the laser for my work on those, and that phenomena can be demonstrated very cheaply using a few handy tools and a laser pointer.
Thanks for posting this.
Those decrying Watchmen as "not proper Sci-Fi" are technically correct but also missing the point spectacularly. The original comic book was not intended as a deconstruction of comics and superhero comics in particular, and any sci-fi elements in it are there merely in service to that goal.
I suspect this is one of the main reasons it's taken so long to get made, and why so many people have had such strong opinions on it. What I'd like to see from the movie is a shift to a deconstruction of films based on comic books. I reckon that's probably the best recipe for success in the new genre whilst staying true to the spirit of the original work. It would be pretty interesting too, especially given the large number of superhero films we've seen recently.
Sorry, that's was intended as a deconstruction of comics. Was.
Dammit.
@45 Sci-fi movies...
Time Crimes is a wonderful time travel movie, much more so than Primer which was a big deception to me (includes a lot of non-sense pseudo-technical speech btw.)
Wall-E, Serenity, Aliens, Blade Runner (not exactly recent movies, but not much older than Terminator or The Abyss)
From what I've heard the movie is very dedicated to bringing the graphic novel to life and that fans of the book will be quite pleased.
@Andyo. I suspect you meant me (since I mentioned Kafka re Watchmen). I was comparing them as such, just doing a reductio on the view that hard SF fans sometimes have of "mere" fantasy. Not explaining all the fantastic elements doesn't make something childish.
OTOH, I am prepared to compare them though. "Watchmen" is a less significant work of art than "Metamorphosis". That's a comparison. I never understood why people talk as though you you just "can't compare" certain things. It's easy; I suspect you where implicitly doing yourself when you objecting to me linking the two.
As for your other question, I thought Watchmen got pretty awesome as it went on but tastes differ.
DOH! "wasn't comparing as such". @Frank Snow: Can I borrow your spare "not".
Andyo: Yeah, I'd say it continues to improve as you move on, but I can't say if you'll find it mind-blowing or not. I guess I did. It bears re-reading, though. I'm still noticing new things years later. And the absurdities are usually deliberate--the characters themselves constantly point out how silly they were/are. If the movie is close enough, then I wonder how many people will think it was being unintentionally cheesy in those parts. But silk spectre's costume is SO obvious, I have to think many will get it.
Frank: actually, one review claimed the movie WAS deconstructing hero films, but I have no idea not having seen it, and I ddn't see other reviewers make that comment.
rrt@62:
The comic book medium is designed for children and ADD-riddled dimwits.
Franz:
I see what you did there. ;)
Generalize much? What's that crack about ADD supposed to mean, huh? Look you prejudiced, condescending ass, those of us with ADD have to... Wow, look at that. I need to rearrange my desk top.
@77
"Maus" by Art Spiegelman
"Persepolis" by Marjane Satrapi
Any of Larry Gonick's "History of..." books.
Comics are a superior form of communication, blending the depth of image with the explanations afforded by the words. You are a stuffed shirt snob who needs a buttstickectomy.
"Logicomix", by Apostolos Doxiadis et al.
So what were we talking about?
Oh yeah... Matt, I wasn't saying you can't compare things, you can compare an apple to the moon, but it's just that I found it a little exaggerated. But I haven't finished it, and I'm looking forward to some entertainment at work.
KI: I believe Franz was doing a little "chain-yanking". ; )
Not the first time I've been played.
Priam @31, I'm going to cringe every time I see an unnecessary Oort ring in that movie.
Oort Cloud? How do you get Oort Cloud out of a Big Dumb Ring? BDR's aren't cold--nor are they Kuiper belts.
Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.
And as for whether it's Comics, Komix, superheroes or underwear perverts, Will Eisner calls it sequential art.
"Worst thread ever." --Comic Book Guy
KI@80:
I suggest you take a look at my chosen name, and the context in which I posted. I was taking the piss, dude.
Someone disses comic books and you get all uppity? You're the one who needs the stick pulled out of his/her ass.
Soz, worst link ever: Big Dumb Ring
Yeah, I'm touchy about it, my bible-thumper mom burned a bunch of my comics when I was young so I overreact.
Matt Heath: Please take it. It's making me look foolish.
rtt: That certainly keeps me cautiously optimistic about the film. Do you have a link to the review?
Koyaanisqatsi music. yessss!
Franz@77,
If you don’t like comics, that’s fine; don’t read them. And don’t watch the movies that are produced from comics. That's your choice. If you want to insult to people that do like comics or the movies just to make you feel superior then Fuck Off you self-righteous ass hat.
Andyo: Fair enough; it was exaggerated, deliberately so. If people talking about broad Hollywood comedies were saying that penis jokes are only tool of inferior writers I'd have cited the porter in Macbeth. It's possible that I tend to make points in a slightly overblown way.
Wait. Rereading, you probably mean that the comic was exaggerated not my mentioning Big Literature in relation to it. If so, carry on.
Frank Snow:
I'm stuck on iPhone so can't easily link, but if you go to Ain't It Cool News, then sort through the news items to find the post from Monday where the reviewer says he can't yet review due to a gag (which was lifted yesterday anyway), he links within that post to several other reviews. 'Twas one of those. Sorry I couldn't give the actual link. Note too that only one of those reviews was a major newspaper, the rest were just film sites. The big reviews haven't landed yet.
Chris:
Actually, there have never been more than a handful of occasions when motion pictures (i.e., including both movies and television) have relatively successfully captured literary SF... but that, IMHO, is OK: You just have to think of movie SF and literary SF as fundamentally different genres, even when they share fans and themes and even plotlines. The same is true between SF and comics. Movies probably do a better job of capturing comics than literary SF, because the former is an inherently visual, action-oriented medium. In fact, you can almost look at comics as storyboards for cinematic presentations. But at the end of the day, movies are movies and comics are comics and books are books; it's not really fair to judge one by the standards of another.
BTW, I do think there's a valid distinction to be made between comic books and graphic novels, not based on some snobbish desire to project an air of greater seriousness, but based on form: A graphic novel is a self-contained work, equivalent to a novel or a feature film (and this is true even when it's part of a shared universe, in the same way that multiple novels or feature films can tell stories of the same characters in the same universe, yet be self-contained works); a comic book is an open-ended narrative, more comparable to a TV series. I don't look at "graphic novel" as a high-falutin' term intended to (unnecessarily) legitimize comic-book art and writing, but as a distinct form within the comics genre.
Bill Dauphin @95,
Far too many points in your post to underline and shout agreement with, but especially this:
Watchmen as filmed storyboard appears to have really happened, based on the props and art I saw at the Cartoon Art Museum and on these lines from this review:
In my way of thinking comics are to graphic novels as sci-fi is to SF. Indiscriminately grouping the hackwork with the stuff on which care was clearly taken (no matter how good or bad the results may be) because they share a medium is insulting.
For those thinking 'typical crap' whereto Watchmen consider this; Rohrsharch in an atheist.
Rorschach isn't just an atheist, he's an intentional sendup of a Randroid, inspired by both Spiderman artist Steve Ditko, and one of his characters, according to Alan Moore.
Bachalon (@97):
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're calling "regular" (i.e., episodic) comic books "hack work." If that's what you mean, I strenuously disagree.
First, I reject the pervasive social prejudice that "big" works are inherently superior (e.g., that novels are better art than short stories, feature films better than TV episodes, etc.)... and in particular, plenty of episodic comics have artistic and literary sophistication that easily the match of their graphic novel cousins. I also reject the notion that "commercial" and "artistic" are mutually exclusive.
Second, even if we stipulate that traditional comic-book-style art has lower artistic aspirations than the more fully realized, painterly art of some graphic novels, don't confuse that with a lack of craft. There's true hack work to be found in any artform or genre, of course (including, BTW, the highest-minded of artistic forms), but the best of "regular" comic books are crafted with every bit as much care as the best of anything else.
Sadly for those who live in the USA or the UK, comics are mostly tied to the superhero genre, which really doesn't make much sense. Imagine if ninety nine percent of radio dramas were historical romances and you get a sense of the absurdity.
One of the great things about living in mainland Europe is that comics are regarded as just another artistic medium, open to everyone.
Just as you'll see people of all ages on trains listening to iPods, so will you see them reading comics, and rarely are they superhero comics.
Of course the UK and the USA have some rather notable exeptions with Love and Rockets or Maus, not to mention the whole underground scene, but they are far from mainstream.
For a lot of people Watchmen is the pinnacle of the medium, when in fact it is only the pinnacle of one particular genre within the medium.
Bill, you do, but I don't have access to a computer for the length of time necessary for a substantive reply at the moment. I hope you don't mind, but I'll leave a comment at your blog later so we can talk more.
You're right. A wonderful exception is Adrian Tomine.
DGKnipfer@91:
You're not doing winning graphic novel fans any credit for their literary taste when you get angry at "Franz" for hating comic books in a thread where someone has compared comic books and Kafka.
Franz. Kafka. Get it?
"If you want to insult to people that do like comics or the movies just to make you feel superior then Fuck Off you self-righteous ass hat."
Yeah, *I'm* the self-righteous one.
I read "Watchmen" as a hard-bound book featuring a self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end. How is that not a graphic novel? Should I stop calling "Great Expectations" a novel since it was first published as a series of magazine articles?
Should I stop calling "Great Expectations" a novel since it was first published as a series of magazine articles?
What? They're calling penny dreafuls novels now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_novel collects some funny objections to the term, including these two:
Writer Alan Moore believes, "It's a marketing term ... that I never had any sympathy with. The term 'comic' does just as well for me. ... The problem is that 'graphic novel' just came to mean 'expensive comic book' and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics — because 'graphic novels' were getting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel...."
Writer Neil Gaiman, responding to a claim that he does not write comic books but graphic novels, said the commenter "meant it as a compliment, I suppose. But all of a sudden I felt like someone who'd been informed that she wasn't actually a hooker; that in fact she was a lady of the evening.
Ken: Beverage, nose, etc. Damn I like Gaiman!
I genuinely hope that Jim Kakalios received an enormous sum of money for making this big of an absolute fool of himself. How does superhero Y make himself disappear and reappear magically? Ohhhh, he's "a wave" and out of phase waves cancel don'cha know *handwave*handwave*handwave* presto! Magic pawahs! Oh but how does he appear in more than one place at a time? *handwave*handwave*handwave*, diffraction patterns! presto, magic pawahs! Kakalios is a physicist and obviously knows better, but he apparently want's me to believe that he's doing a Feynman fandango to reel people in with pop culture and then teach them real physics, but it's plainly obvious he's actually just doing a Chopra cha-cha to sell to the woo-addled masses who won't know or don't care about the actual difference between real science and comic books. It's time for people like him to stop peddling this stupid BS and say something like "look, this is a fantasy story, physics (and for that matter all rationality) don't apply in the land of FICTION".
Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit and that it doesn't really matter what we call them?
The reason I tend to use "graphic novel" is that "comic book" implies that the book is somehow funny or intended to be so, which is actually pretty uncommon among comic books. "Comic books" is just a label, and one I don't think is particularly apt. I don't have any problem with anyone using it though, so please stop stepping on my (more accurate) "graphic novel" descriptor. And I don't see why Moore's and Gaiman's cultural discomfort with the term should determine my vocabulary.
Though it does create a dilemma for American Splendour and other non-fiction works in the comic book milieu. Graphic non-fiction?
For those of you hating on the medium, please read Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. For those of you insisting that Watchmen itself is juvenile, try reading the goddam thing with an open mind.
And I thought theists were defensive...
Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit and that it doesn't really matter what we call them?
I suppose asking so politely is one way to find out.
Dr. Manhattan is also atheist/agnostic.
"I mean, I don't know what you are. Nobody does. You were disintegrated, you put yourself back together... They say you can do anything, Jon. They say you're like God now."
"I don't think there is a God, Janey. If there is, I'm not him."
Franz,
So let's get this straight: you make a pathetic attempt at humour, a couple of people take you seriously, you get the kind of reaction you were aiming to get in the first place and then you get all offended at that reaction.
Yep, I think you're right. You are definitely the self-righteous one.
a couple of people take you seriously, you get the kind of reaction you were aiming to get in the first place
This is a variety of interaction where context matters a lot. Because of context, before a couple of people took Mr. K. seriously, a couple of people didn't, and played along. What makes you think that wasn't the reaction Franz was looking for? And speaking of context, it wouldn't have taken a lot of reading for #91 to have skimmed enough to learn that Franz K had already copped to taking the piss, so I've got no sympathy. Fuses are so short...
Come on. It's a thread about Watchmen. He was being a stirrer and some people got stirred - a completely predictable reaction. Franz is out of line snapping back at them.
Me, I've got no sympathy for stirrers (even if I do indulge on occasion…).
I've never heard of the movie till a few months ago and have never read the comi...I mean graphic novel but, I'm already as sick of the hype surrounding this movie as I was for "Snakes on a Plane".
#33-
I know there's no way it'll make it, but from what I recall, most of the stuff that initially struck me about The quote correction with the whole "There is a God, and he's American," thing re: Dr. Manhattan, and the "supportive" New Frontiersman article that permanently annihilated my desire to be a superhero (I was in middle school at the time)... So it's rather sad to know that that'll be left out.
That said, I'm loving the Keene Act PSA and false news report, since that seems like a good way to try to pull in some of the depth of worldbuilding found in the original sup stuff.
To all those considering picking it up: try it, really. It's not a nice comic, but it's fun, it's complicated, and Nixon is still president in 1985. So it probably crosses into the horror genre, too.
#99-
Rorschach started off as a Question expy, but ended up having a lot more in common with the notably crazier Mr. A. Ditko loves him some Objectivist author mouthpieces.
No.
A comic book is a periodical publication, usually saddle-stitched and relatively inexpensive, that relates a single episode of a long, usually open-ended, story (or sometimes such episodes in two or more different long, usually open-ended stories), or tells a relatively brief story that's part of an open-ended series of brief stories about the same characters.
A graphic novel is a single unified work, usually a perfect-bound softcover book (but sometimes hardbound) and often printed on higher quality paper (and thus more expensive) than comic books, that tells a single unified story that may or may not be related to other stories in comic books or other graphic novels.
These definitions stand regardless of the genre of story the work is telling (humor, romance, personal memoir, superhero, SF, classic adventure, etc.) or your general attitude about the artistic worthiness of illustrated storytelling.
Words have actual meanings; I'm reluctant to "just agree" that they're "semantic bullshit." YMMV.
SCIENCE FICTION & SCIENCE
Aliens finally reach Earth in 8600 A.D.. Unfortunately, man annihilated himself in 2050 A.D. and no record of his existence remains except for the presidents on Mt. Rushmore. The challenge for the aliens is to explain how the heads were formed in the mountain using only naturalistic causes. Any attempt to attribute their origin to fairies, gods, humans, etc. will not be accepted as science. The aliens define “science” by those things which are observed or have naturalistic explanations, thus, fairies, gods, and humans have been discounted. The aliens believe themselves to be unique and more complex than anything they have observed in the universe. The president’s heads are admittedly complex in appearance but are not understood since the aliens have no similar appendages or sensory organs. The aliens decide to perform a surface scan of the presidents’ heads and perform a computer analysis. In-depth mathematical computations are performed using integral calculus, frequency probability, and Bayesian probability. The conclusion is thus: The stone faces are less complex than the aliens by many orders of magnitude. The faces were likely formed by wind and rain erosion. This deduction seems reasonable since the aliens have adopted “naturalistic science” to explain their own origins. Some aliens have disagreed with the conclusion realizing that their opponents are threatened by the idea of fairies, gods, or humans supplanting their uniqueness and intelligence. Also, they realize that even though the faces are less complex than themselves, they are sufficiently complex to discount mechanisms of random rain and wind erosion. Attributing the stone faces to fairies, gods, or humans seems more reasonable but this opposing theory is soon quenched since it incorporates non-scientific “mythical” entities. Besides, the dissenters are ignorant of the finer nuances of true naturalistic science.
Allan Clarke:
You are precious.
You just love to hear the wind rattling between your ears, don't you? And your straw men don't even have the decency to be clothed in anything resembling a coherent or intelligent argument. You use Bayesian in a sentence and it gives you the impression you're a smart guy.
You would be wrong but keep it up, there's comic gold coming from your posts.
Allan:
Um, I have to ask... have you decided which high school you're going to next year? *snort*
E.V.: Thanks so much for your comments. The post is a rough draft so any suggestions on how I can make the analogy more pertinent for atheists is appreciated. You didn't seem to care for the "Bayesian" logic so what would be better? Keep in mind that I'm trying to reach the broadest atheist audience, so even if the "logic" is "illogical", don't rule it out. But didn't I hit the nail on the head with the "naturalistic science" bit? It's a narrow way of looking at things, the box office potential is unlimited, and it's the current craze!
Aliens who have evolved naturally, of course.
Because a malevolent supernatural entity has erased all remnants of humanity? Indeed, this malevolent supernatural entity has erased all signs that any vertebrate life ever existed on Earth?
"Humans" are the equivalent of "fairies" and "Gods" because you say so, right?
Right. Because of course, hypothesizing humans — a natural species that evolved naturally, just like the aliens themselves — cannot possibly be naturalistic.
Knowing how demented you are, there's not much point in going into further detail.
Say, Alan, what kind of crap did your grandfather come up with when shown biographies of Truman? Did he claim that it was a typographical error, or that there was an actual conspiracy to make it look like Truman died at a different date, or what?
So, aliens are stupid in Alan's head; therefore God.
Right.
You don't read much SF do you, Alan?
Go read "Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge" and then we'll talk (maybe).
Allan:
WTF? A blog comment is a rough draft?? Do you also ramble on with your friends (if any) in real-life conversation... only to let them know that your chat was just a "rough draft" for a talk you're planning to have with someone else?
If you want someone to proofread/edit your half-baked SF, hire someone. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't do that sort of work for free unless I'm asked real nicely.
Alan Clarke is a hardcore no-compromise biblical literalist creationist. I doubt he's read much of anything outside of the bible and creationist apologetics.
He's been asked to read an essay by a Christian on the real science of radiometric dating, geology, and an old earth. The author of the essay is obviously devout, and is possibly even an old-earth creationist. Did Alan read it? He did not, and came up with ever more ridiculous assertions that a global flood a few thousand years ago must have really happened.
He refuses to read or think about anything that challenges his belief system.
No, I think he meant a rough draft of a Christian Creationist apologetic, with an SF theme.
He no doubt thinks that SF as a genre is all lies of the devil, anyway.
Owlmirror:
Ah, you caught me: I didn't actually read his "rough draft" beyond the first sentence or so. Still, I couldn't stop myself from commenting on the sheer effrontery of calling a comment here a "rough draft," as if the hallowed halls of Pharyngula were some sort of out-of-town tryout for his little show. ;^)
Bill, are you still interested in talking?
E.V., your objections to the believability of my story are valid. Some of these will be tough to overcome but I really have looked ahead. I just didn’t want to disclose everything in one post because too much text might raise some eyebrows – like I’m trying to hijack the thread.
When the aliens “die”, their bodies sublime into the atmosphere, so the idea of fossils is completely “alien” to them. What’s more, their planet never experienced a global flood! Because of their pre-conceptions, they would never think of diverting their attention from the atmosphere and start looking for evidences of human origins in the ground. Didn’t the silly pre-conceptions of the humans cause them to overlook the soft tissue (or biofilm??) in dinosaur bones? Now the stuff seems to be in every museum! Traces of art? The Mt. Rushmore visitor center is buried deep under sand and dust just like those pyramids in the Valley of the Kings. The aliens have a limited amount of time before their energy sources run out just like NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander. They are headed due north toward the polar cap but Saskatchewan looks like a wasteland! It’s so sad. Even if they found art how would they recognize it as such? In 8600 A.D., “Piss Christ” will have dissolved itself in its own uric acid. A cow might have pissed it into existence. On the trek to the pole, a few cemetery statues were discovered. They seem to be of the same material and form as the faces on Mt. Rushmore leading to the belief that all such objects were created by wind and water erosion. The mystical creative properties of wind and water are now the focus of attention.
In another chapter I want to address the “silly pre-conceptions of the humans”. The ideas for my drama come straight from the history books so I don’t want to claim too much credit.
Watchmen is the new Titanoboa.
Shorter Alan: Really weird, off-the-wall, nonsensical, farfetched, makes-no-sense, propped up at every turn analogy. Therefore god exists.
The analogy is .33 Rooke.
So their planet is just like earth then...If you are going to make a story for atheists, the least you can do is remove all traces of mythology. There was no global flood, we've looked 4.4 billion years back through time and there has never been any global flood in the rocks... there are however instances of localised flooding, and global markings of a comet impact ~65MYA. Also it would help to stop thinking that scientists put us above all other life in the universe. It's the creationists who do that, not the scientists.
Amen brother. We humans are just another primate.
Click on my name for my Alan Clarke impersonation (although he probably doesn't drink bottled Guinness).
Too Fucking Late. We See What You Did There.
Sublime into the atmosphere? Dude, are you high?
"Hey, Volatile Alien Leader, some of the xenoarchaeologists think this structure was carved by intelligent beings."
"Impossible, Volatile Alien Egghead! How could there be intelligent beings that formed such a structure and yet utterly disappeared????"
"Um, maybe they sublimed into the atmosphere when they died, just as we do?"
"Oh! How stupid of me! Too bad we either evolved (or, as some of the weird cultists think, were created by that monumental demented moron Alan Clarke). If we had been created by a truly Intelligent Designer, I'm sure I would have thought of that monumentally obvious explanation!"
Because of course, Volatile Aliens can travel the galaxies but are incapable of coping with dust, just like our Landers?
Seriously, dude, what drugs are you taking when you type this shit up?
So, what did your grandfather say when he saw NASA moon mission stuff? Scream "Fake!" at the top of his lungs? Babble on about sound stages and conspiracies? What?
Alan, haven't you learned anything from L Ron Hubbard? You don't use woeful sci-fi to defend an existing religion, you use it to create a whole new one.
Because of course, Volatile Aliens can travel the galaxies
I was just going to comment on that - naturalistic science gave them interstellar travel, but he's worried that they can't figure out Mt Rushmore? Oh no, their race is surely doomed.
Oh my... that has to be the most ham-fisted, inane bit of allegory I've ever seen. Well, outside of the Bible or Comfort's blog at least. There is just so much wrong with that. Pyramids in the Valley of the Kings? Sublime? Have you ever taken a chemistry class? FFS.
For those of you that haven't met Alan, search for his posts on the now closed Titanoboa thread. Hilarity and headdesking in bountiful measure await you.
You might want to review it too, Alan. There's a few questions, rebuttals and a certain link that you've left unacknowledged.
Purpose
To illustrate that much supposed “scientific objectivity” is subjective. Science is often tainted by “silly human pre-conceptions”. One cannot pursue science while disconnecting themselves from presuppositions, experiences, and an a priori belief system.
What is Science?
AIG isn't science.
Science is real, God isn't.
Science does not use god for anything.
Kent Hovind doesn't understand science.
What you think of science is not science.
our livelihoods do depend on science being taken seriously
that idiot gloated that science doesn't know everything yet.
Get a science education before you talk on matters science please!
Science gets rid of the false stuff and only keeps that which works.
try actually perusing even popular science magazines once in a while
Creationism isn't science. only science gets taught in science class.
learn some science by say, taking courses and actually reading textbooks.
peer reviewed scientific literature is the only place where real science is done.
with such a basic misunderstanding of how science works you will never be able to grasp...
A man sees a brown rabbit at 50 meters in a field of brown dead grass but a 2-year-old fails to locate it. A man sees a green frog on a lily pad but a 2-year-old fails to locate it. Even though the child may have 20/20 vision, the child fails to locate the hard-to-see animal. Why? An adult has knowledge that the child does not. The adult has learned and memorized attributes of the rabbit and frog that the child has not. The adult has learned to differentiate between near-same colors. The adult has learned to be more patient and persevering than the child. The varying theories of cognitive development illustrate that the actual mechanisms are little understood. For example, the following link explains how multiple theories are supplanting Piaget’s traditional theory of cognitive development:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development
Instead of a child simply knowing where to look because the rabbit was previously in “that place”, the child may have a built-in “core knowledge” which gains them success in locating any object where previously first discovered. What has this got to do with an evolutionist deciding that men and monkeys have a common ancestral relationship because of homological and sequential similarities? It has everything to do with it. The Wikipedia link states: “Recently Piaget's theory has been falling out of favour for a new theory called Ecological Systems Theory. This is based on the contextual influences in the child's life like his/her immediate family, school, society and the world, and how these impact the child's development.” If this is true, and I believe it is, then we can readily see that one’s interpretation of a fossil or DNA sequence is HIGHLY dependent upon family, school, society and the world.
A recent PBS news documentary on North Korea interviewed several Koreans. They referred to Kim Jong Il as “The Great Leader”. Children worked to excel at acrobatics so they could one day please “Our Dear Father” in a national pageant. All adults expressed incredulity at why America wanted to attack them since “The Leader” had nothing but good intentions. No scientist on this forum would want to be grouped as such, but no North Korean or human being for that matter would want to be thought of as incapable of making objective decisions because of pre-conditioning. Look at Owlmirror’s simple matter-of-fact, indisputable, foundational belief on “Titanoboa” post #762: “There was no global flood.” Most if not all of his scientific world-view stands or falls on this supposition. Fortunately, he can relax knowing that his “science” has elevated him to a position where he is incapable from making such fundamental blunders. His objectivity which brought him to this conclusion could not possibly be ill-affected by family, school, society or the world. He is his “own man”, gifted (or evolved??) with insight and faculties untainted by family, school, society and the world. Unfortunately, his own theory contradicts this. Fruit flies with non-beneficial mutations are more likely to be rejected by others of their society. To what extent would Owlmirror exert himself to be “received” back to society if the minutest imperfection were noticed by another societal member? Again, Owlmirror need not worry about such trivia clouding his scientific objectivity because such imperfections are isolated from his psyche.
Is looking at a fossil and drawing a conclusion a simple matter? The required mental processes are far more complex than what many assume:
Congitive Learning Theory
Information Theory
Is it possible for an adult to behold an object without drawing upon previous experience? If one thinks he is objective and free from prejudices when evaluating evidences, then that person is blind to his own inner-workings. I often hear the amusing words, “My interpretation is based solely on the evidence.” Something must be learned before one can analyze an object. Some people have a knack for finding 4-leaf clovers while others do not. Some can see the hidden objects in 3-D art prints whereas others cannot. People who suffer brain damage in an accident are more apt to understand that previous mental faculties were taken for granted.
Is it possible that current-day science is on the same misguided path as those pitiful aliens searching for the origins of Mt. Rushmore’s granite president heads? By discounting “humans” as a possible mechanism for carving the heads, science is led astray.
Who is more “scientific”?
Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.
Conclusion:
If God is exchanged, ignored or denied prior to pursuing “science”, then one’s interpretation of evidences may be far removed from the actual truth, if God indeed exists. Reality as seen through naturalistic science alone may be nothing more than an illusion.
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” - Richard Dawkins
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” - William Provine
All of those words tossed onto the wall but this was the only thing that made sense.
It must have been an accident.
You're obsessed with me, aren't you?
Do I need to take out an Internets Police restraining order?
And yet there are devout God-believers who accept the age of the earth and of the universe; devout God-believers who accept the common descent of all life; devout God-believers who accept evolution.
Since they do not "ignore" or "deny" God prior to pursuing science, then their interpretation of the evidence is clearly not far removed from the actual truth, even if God exists.
Your conclusion is falsified. Too bad you wasted all that time typing up such easily-refuted word salad. Ha ha!
Only if God is a liar. Are you calling God a liar?
So what you're saying Alan, is that we should stop looking at the world with through the filter of our preconceptions, and instead use yours?
It's not science unless it can be mangled and twisted into conforming with a Bronze Age book of folktales?
Does this guy sound like he's ignoring or denying your God?
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
How about Ken Miller?
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
You've been talking about jumping to conclusions based on what one's experienced, been raised thinking...
What do you think the Stone Age Hebrews knew of geologic time? How big do you think they thought the world was? Did they know about the oceans, or was the Mediterranean the biggest body of water they had any contact with (and of that only the edges). Did they know about any of the other continents? Did they know anything about penguins or bacteria or narwhals or platypus? Did they know that some of those "stars" at night were actually galaxies or nebulae? Did they understand anything about how traits were passed from parents to child, or even what a spermatozoa or ovum were? (I seem to remember something about goats and sticks. Is that correct, Alan? Have the world's biologists really screwed up on the genetics thing? If that's the case, shouldn't we be releasing a lot of inmates who were convicted on the basis of DNA evidence? Shouldn't we be re-arresting those who were exonerated by it?)
The Biblical writers described a world tinted by their presuppositions, prejudices, politics, and perspective. We've learned just a little more about things since, Alan. You don't have to squint through that pinhole anymore.
Bachalon (@131):
I saw your comment at my recently-too-neglected blog; I'll respond this weekend (and restart posting there, for whatever that's worth). The short answer is that I'm always interested in talking, but I don't care that much about arguing over the artistic merits of comic books in particular. I think some folks write them off too easily (and perhaps I was in error in thinking you were part of that group), but I don't lay awake at night over it. ;^)
Alan Clarke can start spewing creationist graphomania (if cutting and pasting is writing) on yet another thread completely unrelated to his particular flavor of bug-shit crazy, and everybody is OK with that?
Bill, thanks for getting back to me here. I'd love to get a chance to explain myself (I think I was a bit vague with my original post), as I'm in complete agreement with you, but figured you deserved clarification for your response, y'know?
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you.
I don’t recommend that you emulate another fallible human. I’ve degraded myself in posting photos of sagging butts. What you need is a standard higher than all of that. If you join a Catholic church you might end up yanking on beads or praying to the Queen of Heaven. In your current fallen state, you might have an affinity for churches that preach on 101 ways to get rich, win friends and influence people. Hopefully you can discern falsity when you shop. I don’t know your exact case but I’d like to refresh your memory:
Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.
If you continue on your present course, you have only a 50% chance of being right. My personal belief is that your scientific foundation is 100% wrong but I’m trying to appeal to your mind which currently can only comprehend natural causes. How else can I communicate to you? For each and every natural cause, there is a natural explanation. Even if the explanation is wrong or unknown, you have faith that the answer will always lie within the realm of “natural causation”. Even though perhaps 50% of the people on this planet are telling you it’s not so, you continue in faith. Here is something else to consider: I have a distinct advantage over you. I have lived on both sides of the divide. My father came from a long-line of engineers who were largely atheists. Everything had a naturalistic answer. In my stupidity, I once swallowed 4 barbiturate tablets during an evening of pleasure-seeking. I miraculously managed to drive home, slept two days while thinking only one had transpired, then was greeted by my father with the question of who had ran over the mailbox. Seeing my tire tracks running straight through the middle of the yard, I confessed that I had taken some pills. My father’s only comment is forever seared into my mind, “If you took some sleeping pills, then why did you drive the car instead of going to bed?” His question was completely void of any spiritual insight to the turmoil of my life at that time. Everything had a naturalistic answer. I know all about “naturalistic” answers, because I was pre-conditioned by my father to think this way for the first 22 years of my life. Why do placebos have a beneficial effect? What is your “naturalistic” answer? Why do hopeful POW’s survive whereas those who lose hope cease to survive? How much does hope weigh? How much does information weigh? Where does information come from? Newtonian physics explains things quite nicely to a certain point. After that point, another science is necessary. Scientific “naturalism” explains things nicely to a certain point. After that point, it completely fails and something else is needed. I never “invented” my answers when my father’s answers ceased to explain. Rather than me finding the answer, the answer found me.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
A lot of people on this forum admit that they’re not looking for any answers. Life holds no perplexities and they are quite satisfied with their current state.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates
"Dear Jesus, in your name I pray. Please have 5 or 6 of your thugs take Alan Clarke into a dark alley and beat some smegging sense into him, then leave him trussed up on some church altar somewhere wearing nothing but a ball gag and some tassels. Failing that, would you please leave him in a prison cell with Walter "Rorschach" Kovacs until he can learn how to stay on topic, or STFU. Since you're both fictional characters, this shouldn't be a problem."
Ken@150: ROFL!
All religion comes from fallible humans.
And you do it again... because why? Is there something about degrading yourself that you actually enjoy?
Science has the higher standard of empirical skepticism, which on the one hand acknowledges fallibility, and on the other, has the external natural world as the final test of all truth claims.
All I've seen you (and other Creationists) do so far is deny natural causes.
How do you know?
How would you know if you were wrong?
Try to define a non-natural cause in a way that is in any way coherent.
No demonstration that anything outside of "natural causation" is real, or even coherent, has ever been made.
Who cares what 3 billion (or even all 6 billion) people say, if they have no way of demonstrating that what they say is true, or even coherent?
Because he was supposed to magically understand that you were having serious emotional problems?
Say, is that why you keep arguing here? To get back at your own father for not being warm and caring and understanding enough?
Skipping through your questions about placebos and hope... I'm just curious how you get from "Placebos work, and hope keeps people alive" to "The bible is literally true." Again, people can and do believe in God without getting to that level of fanatical devotion.
Sorry, your say-so is not good enough. You will need to demonstrate that "something else" in the real world.
And yet asking for a real-world demonstration and empirical validation of God's knowledge and power is always, eternally, denied.
Sorry. Your bible is simply not good enough.
We're certainly not looking for your answers, since they are self-evidently wrong and contradictory.
Who, indeed, has said that? We, or you?
Do you agree with this statement:
"We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief."
If you do, then why do you bother coming here to argue?
If not, why do you not actually educate yourself in the sciences which you so continually get wrong in your arguments?
Who lived and died and never heard of Jesus Christ. He certainly would not have agreed that the bible was infallibly true.
Is he burning in hell? If so, why do you cite him as a guide to life?
If not, what does anyone need with the bible or Jesus Christ? All one needs is a philosophy which includes the examination of life. There are quite a few of those, most of which existed centuries before Christianity.
Many of the early philosophers were not atheists... but their philosophies had small or nonexistent roles for the Gods, or God. The natural philosophers and the early scientists did not deny the existence of God; they studied the natural world. Science does not deny God; it simply refuses to ignore anything in the real world — even if that which is in the real world contradicts some prior alleged religious dogma or alleged revelation.
And by the way, what exactly are you examining about life?
There is something unique about your character that draws my attention to you:
“All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.” – William Shakespeare
What has inspired you to play the part of God’s nemesis? Is it for fame, recognition, or to have a gold star pasted on your homework lesson? (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php) Your posts are usually a rich array of scripture texts with attempts to expound the meaning of God’s words. Those who teach bear a greater responsibility than those who listen. When a country is conquered, to insure that an internal revolt doesn’t develop, those who are in higher authority with greater influence and education are usually executed, imprisoned, or watched more closely. Even if your character is a pretense, the victor won’t waste his time in interpreting you to the contrary, so your demise will be of your own choosing. I don’t know if your choice of “Owlmirror” for your anonymous identity was intentional, accidental, or fateful:
“In general, owls are viewed as harbingers of bad luck, ill health, or death.” - source
You seem to take pleasure in resisting Bible scripture at every turn as did Elymas the sorcerer:
Acts 13:6-10
Often, one’s character is a microcosm of society, a nation, or a popular philosophical science or a globally accepted world-view. The character of Nero exemplifies a society that is drunk on pseudo-reality. Nero is true to Shakespeare’s drama of life but plagues the play by “overacting” his part:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero
;====== beginning of text =======
Nero's father was described by Suetonius as a murderer and a cheat who was charged by Emperor Tiberius with treason, adultery, and incest.
He (Nero) is known for a number of executions, including those of his mother and adoptive brother, as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned", and as an early persecutor of Christians.
To diffuse blame [arson of Rome], Nero targeted a sect called the Christians. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero returned to Rome and spent the evening in the palace. After sleeping, he awoke at about midnight to find the palace guard had left. Dispatching messages to his friends' palace chambers for them to come, none replied. Upon going to their chambers personally, all were abandoned. Upon calling for a gladiator or anyone else adept with a sword to kill him, no one appeared. He cried "Have I neither friend nor foe?" and ran out as if to throw himself into the Tiber.
Returning again, Nero sought for some place where he could hide and collect his thoughts. An imperial freedman offered his villa, located 4 miles outside the city. Travelling in disguise, Nero and four loyal servants reached the villa, where Nero ordered them to dig a grave for him. As it was being prepared, he said again and again "What an artist the world is losing!".
At this time a courier arrived with a report that the Senate had declared Nero a public enemy and that it was their intention to execute him by beating him to death. At this news Nero prepared himself for suicide. Losing his nerve, he first begged for one of his companions to set an example by first killing themself. At last, the sound of approaching horsemen drove Nero to face the end. After quoting a line from Homer's Iliad ("Hark, now strikes on my ear the trampling of swift-footed couriers!") Nero drove a dagger into his throat. In this he was aided by his private secretary, Epaphroditos. When one of the horsemen entered, upon his seeing Nero all but dead he attempted to stanch the bleeding. With the words "What an artist dies in me.", Nero died on June 5th 68AD/BC.
;======== end of text =========
Owlmirror, why don’t you drop the charade and run from your character as quickly as possible before it envelopes you? If your childhood was miserable, why bring everyone else down with you? If your former church was full of phonies, why should you paste your exposé of falsity on every healthy church? If your parents or former wife said you were a loser, then why don’t you make this disclosure before continuing your parade of “godless science”? Or is it no one’s business because you have achieved what no human before has achieved: pure “science” based on pure “objectivity”, free from all social ills.
"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean." - Socrates
Socrates might as well have quoted 2 Peter 1:21. A person who doesn’t profess to “know it all” has a much greater chance of grasping knowledge lying in uncharted territory. Socrates often stated, “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” He believed that honest men had child-like attributes.
I wouldn’t give up in despair because at least you don’t profess to “know it all” as did the Pharisees, right? Christ had no pity on them.
What inspired you to play the part of a crazy person?
Yes; the Maoists under Pol Pot executed all intellectuals. Stalin murdered or exiled those who disagreed with him. Hitler exiled and killed "non-Aryan" scientists.
Who is this conqueror of whom you speak? Christian soldiers with whom you have allied yourself, committed to a holy civil war until all non-Christians are dead, and all Christians who are not like you are also dead? Why are these conquerors committed to act like the worst monsters of the previous century? Is it just that they are certain that God grants them permission to behave their worst?
A death threat? Of course. You would rather commit murder than admit that you might possibly be wrong. Murder is in your heart; murder infects your mind; you would commit murder for your faith.
Why should I accept the lies of murderous madmen like you?
Yes, a pseudo-reality like your Christianity. How are you different from Nero?
Alan Clarke, why do you not seek psychiatric help? Commit yourself to an asylum before you truly hurt someone, or yourself.
Or is it too late for that?
Is there something that you have done that you might want to confess to? Or rather, might not want to confess to?
You're the one whose childhood was miserable, by your own admission — and you are the one who is now making death threats; who speaks of conquest and killing.
Since you are manifestly mentally unhealthy, I am proving only you, yourself, to be false in your defiant declarations of happiness and completion in Christ. You lie to yourself, and you lie to us, and you make death threats, and then you dare call yourself "healthy"?
Exactly the opposite of you, who arrogantly thinks he has direct and specific certain knowledge of God.
And you yourself are not honest. Nor do you have a child-like curiosity, or sense of wonder, or awareness of the limits of knowledge. You do not emulate Socrates. For you to offer him as an example is nothing but hypocrisy.
And yet you yourself arrogantly claim to "know it all". You know what God did do and did not do; you don't need to learn; you don't don't need intellectual humility; you don't need to be uncertain; you don't need to be merciful.
PS: Don't be so sure you know anything at all about God.
Matthew 7:16-23:
There may be a Hell. I may be going there. But if there is a God of Justice, you will go to Hell yourself; you and all the ravening wolves like you.
These are some heavy admissions to post on an atheist site, but I will not ridicule you. You may be closer than you realize. My hope is that if we would meet one day by chance, I would serve you as a fellow human. I wish you only the best.
Alan Clarke
John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." - Who spoke these words? Jesus or someone else?
Answer: b) Someone else.
We have no reliable evidence to say that the Jesus of the bible existed - and we know for sure that he did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him, since magic doesn't exist. So, while there may have been a person corresponding to some of the stories about Jesus, we've no reason to believe that the words in a book are any more likely to have come from his mouth than the words attributed to Odysseus in The Odyssey.
The best way to describe it would be to say that it was written by someone who thought that that's what Jesus, had he existed, would have wanted.
More importantly is the question that verse raises: why didn't God just forgive humanity? What can possibly restrain an omnipotent being in such a way that he would be forced to order the torture and execution of his son in order to achieve it?
Jesus obviously spoke those words, there's a habit of major figures in the bible speaking in the 3rd person. For instance, author of Torah - Moses spoke almost exclusively in the 3rd person when it came to events surrounding him. So much so that he even wrote about his own death and burial in the 3rd person.
Alan's like the Superman of creationists or something. Contrary points and refutations either just whiz right by him or bounce off of his impenetrable skull. I'm not kidding, watch:
Your god is a monster, Alan. No rationally thinking person would worship or serve a cruel dictator like that out of anything but sycophancy and fear. I don't know what says more about you, Alan, that this is the type of god your imagination yields, or that you gleefully prostrate yourself to a genocidal bastard like that. There's some messed up stuff in your subconscious, son. Most folks could benefit from some therapy, but I'd say it's an imperative for you.
BTW, Alan, have you ever thought about "eternity"? I mean, really examined what that word means? It's longer than you think the universe has been around. It's longer than the orders of magnitude longer that the universe actually has been around. It's longer than a hundred billion years, or a hundred trillion. If you type a 1, then put your finger on the 0 and leave it there for the rest of your life, the resulting number would, in years, still be a fraction of a splinter of "eternity". The universe will fizzle out, and you'll still be left with... "eternity" to go. Do you see how utterly ridiculous the very concept of it is? And is there anything that one wouldn't tire of after a few quadrillion years? And without sex, drugs, alcohol, or rock n roll, I'd guess heaven would get boring a lot sooner than that.
A lot of us would like to live longer than we are likely to. As curious people, we here, and countless others would love to have more time to learn, to see, to live, to love. But we have what we have and that's it. Wishing for more and wasting time bargaining with a figment of ancient Hebrew imagination is time you won't ever get back, time that could have been productive. Time that could have been spent living, instead of wasted being afraid of death. If you're scared of death, eat right, exercise, check regular check ups. That's the best you can do.
No one can accuse Wowbagger of diverting from the original “science fiction” thread.
The Bible was written by over 40 different authors over a span of about 1600 years, which makes conspiracy theories concerning its origin hardly believable. Prior to Christ, his coming was foretold. After his coming, the account of his earthly life is recorded in great detail. We have secular historians such as Josephus that wrote about Christ. We have numerous early Christian writers. Secular history coincides with the Biblical record of Jesus. Just recently, Herod’s tomb was discovered. My previous post which described Nero’s demise was largely recorded by the Roman historian, Tacitus. Tacitus, who lived during the first century, wrote this of Jesus:
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” (source)
Something else to consider is the fact that current-day Jews, who discount Jesus as being the true Messiah, seldom argue that he didn’t exist:
"While there is no particular view of Jesus mandated by Judaism some Rabbis have speculated about his life. Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen writes that Jesus was a heretic who sought to annul the Torah. American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 – 1949) wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a noble and loving Jewish teacher."Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (b. 1966) sees reason to believe that Jesus was a rabbi based on some of the statements in the Christian scriptures." (source)
Likewise, the Islam religion which opposes the fundamentals of the Christian faith, view Jesus as a “prophet”. Yassar Arafat visited Bethlehem yearly to commemorate Jesus' birth.
Why have none of the above taken the easier route by simply stating Jesus didn’t exist? The argument will only fly on an atheist website.
um
wait
What?
Alan, the one man FSTDT.
Alan, there is no good evidence that your Jesus existed. Certainly none for the words and actions attributed to him. Yes, there likely was a historical figure around whom these stories coalesced, but there's no real evidence for it, nor any way to tell what is correctly attributed to him, what should be attributed to other mystics, rabbis or "messiahs" of the time, and what is complete fabrication.
What a creepy, creepy person.
Ragutis: Alan, there is no good evidence that your Jesus existed. Certainly none for the words and actions attributed to him.
If Jesus didn’t exist, then who was his imposter? He created a huge number of pity sayings and stories:
1)Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (The Golden Rule)
2)A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Quoted by Abraham Lincoln)
3)And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Hypocrisy)
4)Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Overcome evil with good)
5)Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)
The imposter devised even more sayings so as to make himself the #1 most quoted person in history. Some nations and states have founded their governments and laws on the premise of his existence. He must have been a very humble person to deny credit for any of his works. Actually, I can’t think of any imposter in history who equaled the magnitude of this feat. Can you provide any links to studies that provide clues to who this mischievous fellow might be?
I like quoting Wikipedia on this forum because of Wikipedia's EXTREME bias in FAVOR of evolutionism. Just locate the following subjects on Wikipedia and tell me if they don't give you a warm & fuzzy feeling of assurance:
Biological Evolution
Human Evolution
Solar System Formation
When my objective is to provide a meeting place that affords philosophical comfort to those who oppose my views on origins, I choose Wikipedia since it is a haven of rest for evolutionists, uniformitarianists, atheists, etc. The contributors of Wikipedia are world-wide and reflect a “majority viewpoint” of university scholars. So please kick back, relax, and drink in the full content of Wikipedia's Jesus. Scroll midway down and feast upon the heading, "Mythical View":
"A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure."
Notice how the section concludes:
But don’t despair because there is a way out! Submit your historical revisionist views to Wikipedia. Your chances of being accepted will increase if you eliminate “Pharyngula” from your vocabulary, otherwise they may think you have an axe to grind. Others have failed in time past to revise history, but they didn’t know what you know now.
John 19:19-22 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
Alan, Nurse Ratched is coming.
Alan Clarke,
You really have to learn what the expression 'attributed to' means, Alan. Then you mightn't sound quite so ignorant - though only slightly less so. Many - if not all - of the pithy (note spelling) phrases attributed to (see how easy that was?) Jesus appear in the literature of other cultures well before his time, indicating that humans develop morality, compassion etc. without needing and magic sky-fairy to hand it to them.
Anyway, regarding your fictitious man-god: here's a link to an excellent site (not Wikipedia) that covers much of why many historians doubt the historicity of Jesus - Jesus Puzzle.
But, before you're done, perhaps you can explain why, if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn't they believe he was Messiah? That's always struck me as a little strange.
A man being attracted to a woman proves that sin in universal?
Wowbagger: But, before you're done, perhaps you can explain why, if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn't they believe he was Messiah? That's always struck me as a little strange.
Actually, a bunch of Jews DID believe he was the Messiah. But I’ll address the ones who didn’t believe. If you read the book, the reason becomes obvious why he was rejected among those in authority:
John 11:47-48 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
Jesus was a threat to their job security. Not only that, but he insulted them in practically every verse of Matthew 23.
BTW, are you going to submit the “Jesus Puzzle” to Wikipedia? You could be at the brink of a breakthrough.
Mat 5:28 Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)
Janine: A man being attracted to a woman proves that sin is universal?
Janine, your whole live would change course if you could differentiate between these:
1)Lust after a woman
2)Attracted to a woman
3)Love a woman
I resisted #1 when I first met my wife to-be, and now she loves me for it.
Alan, you have given me no reason to take any advice from you. And if I did follow them, I would be worse off.
Because the real Messiah was supposed to fix things (kick out the Romans and unite the struggling factions of Jews) and rule in God's name, not get himself killed.
And because one particularly aggressive faction of the Jesus cult started claiming that Jesus was the only begotten son of God — blasphemy against the idea of God as a pure spirit. And then a later and even more aggressive faction of what the cult had become claimed that Jesus was exactly the same as God — a huge blasphemy against the pure monotheism espoused in the bible.
Not all of the "Early Christian writers" were members of the latter faction (since it did not exist when they wrote).
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
The answer is obvious. Jesus is not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy.
Wowbagger: "many historians doubt the historicity of Jesus"
Wikipedia: "A large majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the theory."
(a large majority) > (many historians)
If you read Wikipedia's entire "Christ Myth Theory" you will see that the "Jesus Puzzle" has little originality: "Authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells have recently re-popularised the theory."
Here's hoping he doesn't mean that in the "To Serve Man" sense. I'm really not too sure.
Owlmirror: “Because the real Messiah was supposed to fix things (kick out the Romans and unite the struggling factions of Jews) and rule in God's name, not get himself killed.
Only the most blind could misinterpret Jesus this way. Certainly you’re aware that your views are esoteric.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Owlmirror, when are you going to disclose your anonymity? Were you at one time studying for the priesthood? You obviously hate phony Christians, as we all do. What, when, and where was your first encounter that instilled this hate?
Owlmirror, what ever you do, do not give Alan Clarke any clues about who and where you are. I would hate to have Alan try to cure you of your "hate".
Alan Clarke wrote both this:
*Waves hand in the air* I know! I know!
No fear. I've seen the sheepshape mask slip and reveal the yellow teeth of the ravening wolf; heard the hungry snarl, covered up by the loud bleating as the mask is readjusted.
Eh?
Alan Clarke @173 quotes the propaganda of the sect that broke away and became more successful at memetic infectiousness to support that cult's contentions...
Unreal.
Imposter? WTF are you on about, Alan?
There probably was a historical figure that was the basis for Jesus. And yes, few historians disagree. But that's a far cry from saying that this person said and did everything (or even, anything) that the Bibles describes. Sure, there probably was some charismatic rabbi that acquired a decent following with a new message. Probably said and did some of the things attributed to him in the Bible. But, as the story grew, as word spread, it's foolish to think that exaggerations did not creep in, details were not confused, or that the words or deeds of other mystics and rabbis weren't accidentally credited to Jesus. Didn't you ever play Post Office or Chinese Whispers? And there's the problem, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the biblical account. No small number of teachings and aphorisms are attributed to Confucius, but since they weren't recorded at the time and only compiled after his death, there's no way to know how many and which were actually his. Misattributions and exaggeration are the foundation of thousands of folktales and legends.
Yes, there likely was a rabbi named Jesus, Alan. The problem is, the biblical portrayal of him is probably about as accurate as Geoffrey's depiction of King Arthur.
It's amazing to comprehend that anyone could believe that a 2nd hand eyewitness testimony written decades later is enough to substantiate the extraordinary claim of divinity - let alone any of the other miracles written there.
Ragutis: And there's the problem, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the biblical account.
Evolution happens so slowly and occurred such a long time ago, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there's simply no way to judge the accuracy of the evolutionist’s account.
Ragutis: But, as the story grew, as word spread, it's foolish to think that exaggerations did not creep in, details were not confused, or that the words or deeds of other mystics and rabbis weren't accidentally credited to Jesus.
Your entire premise falls apart here: “as the story grew, as word spread” and “exaggerations” crept in. Just because Owlmirror can bend and twist the story into illegible meanings, does that mean the original story isn’t true? Does his bending and twisting negate the fact that we have thousands of agreeing manuscript copies dating to the first and second century? (click here) All of your “exaggerations” will have to fit into a very narrow historical time lapse. How can the stories grow and become exaggerated when the museums have already put a lock on these 1st and 2nd century manuscript evidences? The only way we can test your hypothesis is for you to produce manuscripts A, B, and C, which show the progression of degradation. If you can’t, then your theory is nothing but thoughts in your brain. If you think that the corruption of Christ’s story began as a fabrication before he arrived on Earth, then would you please direct everyone to manuscripts A, B, and C which pre-date 0 B.C.?
Evolutionists frequently correct me whenever I criticize their theory’s hypothesis that life arose randomly from non-living matter without the assistance of outside intelligence. They always counter, “Darwinian evolution describes only living things! It says nothing about planet or star formation. Darwin never speculated on how the first living cell arose. He was a true scientist in the sense that he drew upon only what was observed!” The problem with biting into the “forbidden fruit” is once that first swallow is taken, then one’s entire world-view is changed. The new world-view is not “evolution” but “evolutionism”. Every piece of evidence that follows is viewed afresh with the new “ism”. Planet and star formation is explained harmoniously with the new “ism”. All of history can be interpreted as having nothing original but each event has “evolved” from something prior. Every music composer “borrowed” from the previous. Plato borrowed from Socrates. Aristotle borrowed from Plato. There is some truth to this but every once in a while some new information gets injected from outside the closed system. Where is this new information coming from? Socrates provides some insight:
"I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean."
When Jesus came to Earth, he brought with him some new information:
Mark 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
John 7:45-46 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
If you think that Jesus had nothing original but “borrowed” everything from someone else, then why is he the most quoted person in history? Why isn’t Jesus’ teacher the most famous? Whether Jesus existed or not, there must be a source for the information falsely attributed to him. Can you provide me with the original source material for Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount”? It is true that Jesus would often quote the Old Testament and he encouraged others to read it, but his ideas were unheard of. They were completely original and outside the current realm of knowledge:
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Yes it's called rationalism. View the evidence presented rationally.
Scientists tend to try and do this. It helps keeping with the scientific method and keeps one from straying over to irrational though such as creationism. A thought process that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.
Alan, you need to understand the definitionfalse equivalencies - of why they are false. Then you need to understand scientific method and the incredibly sophisticated and complex ways we can determine dates for things, that anyone using the same methods can determine also. Until then STFU. Seriously.
I see Alan is still trying to push his imaginary god and fictional bible as anything other than garbage. Neither is needed to explain the real world. Science ignores god because it is a meaningless concept. Which makes everything Alan proposes meaningless.
It must drive the orderlies nuts that Alan keeps slipping out of his straight jacket.
Bullshit.
It's called "evidence".
Bullshit.
Slapping an "ism" onto everything isn't a very convincing rhetorical device.
Closed? Did you say closed? LOL.
Alan offers many words, but little content. Sorry, Alan, you can't quote the Bible to prove the truth or accuracy of the Bible.
LOL..... Can YOU?
No, click here
That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest. If you compare the claims made in it to the site I linked to, you can see that the earliest dates on Alan's table are tiny fragments of papyrus. Note also that my source is actually very pro-Christian and conservative. Most scholars now utterly reject the ludicrous claims that fragments of Mark were found at Qumran cave 7.
Furthermore, Alan's table clearly implies, by listing 5500 as the number of extant original manuscripts, that those fall into the ridiculously early dates given in that row. But, again, compare with my linked source. Those are almost entirely 4th and 5th century Greek manuscripts.
we have thousands of agreeing manuscript copies dating to the first and second century
No, we have a few scraps dated that early. (And nobody denies that the synoptics were composed by the early 2nd century anyway, because that fact alone proves nothing other than that a tradition existed.)
Why the lies, Alan? Are you insecure about something?
How very, very shocking. And yet, I suppose this is the kind of dishonesty we must expect from these wild-eyed adherents of Christianism.
CJO: That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest.
Thanks so much CJO for clearing things up. I'll refer to your "improved" link for future postings:
There are over 5,300 known ancient Greek manuscript copies (MSS) and fragments of the New Testament in Greek that have survived until today. Counting an additional 10,000 Latin Vulgate and over 9,300 other early manuscript versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, totaling over 24,000 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.
I'm still waiting for the A, B, and C manuscript evidences showing the gradual degradation of the first century texts. Is Owlmirror out there? Owlmirror! By now John 3:16 should look like, "Fer born thinks rear long time put jebus half she her hers at evolution lust yes single die must therefore Daughter which which De anybody mundo."
The latest manuscript discoveries push the interpretations in my favor, not yours:
The earliest manuscript of the New Testament was discovered about 50 years ago. P52 is a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. This makes it a very important little manuscript, because John has been almost unanimously held by scholars to be the latest of the four gospels. So if copies of John were in circulation by 125, the others must have been written considerably earlier. Moreover, the Gospel of John's greater theological development when compared with the other three gospels has led some scholars to conclude it was written as late as 120 or even 150 AD. The P52 fragment seems to make such late dates impossible. (source)
Alan, still delusional if you think quoting your fictional bible means anything to us. And your god is imaginary, existing only between your ears.
Even if they were eyewitness accounts who wrote down the events as it happened, it's still anecdotal evidence supporting an extraordinary claim. The fact that the gospels have changed little is irrelevant, the fact that it claims the fantastic yet has not left a single archaeological or historical artefact to support those claims is.
BigDumbChimp: A thought process [rationalism] that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.
I thought the “thought processes” of big chimps altered over time:
Charles Darwin: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" [Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881]
If Jesus were God, surely he would have had some foresight into genetic testing. "My children. Here is a vial of my blood, I give this to you in a sealed container that must not be opened for 2000 years. For when the time is at hand, those will know what to do with it to show my divinity." Nope, none of that. Just the distinct impression he would come back down from heaven any day now...
Owlmirror:
I would have guessed something more like the smug but clueless grin of a Wile E Coyote.
Alan, dishonesty is not a trait your god supposedly approves of.
Creationists are the ones who's minds can not be changed by evidence. You have proven this over and over and over.
Thanks so much CJO for clearing things up. I'll refer to your "improved" link for future postings
Good. It serves mainly to illustrate just how fragmentary are all papyri prior to the 3rd century. No reliable evidence for congruence between whole texts can be derived from such paucity of evidence. Your little table implies that whole manuscripts are preserved from those early dates. It's dishonest.
Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.
Refer to the writings of Bart Ehrman. Your assertion is the standard line, but the fact remains: there are more discrepancies in our ealiest manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. While it's true that most of them are trivial copying errors that do not impinge on core Christian doctrines, some of them are in fact quite significant for the interpretation of the texts.
I'm still waiting for the A, B, and C manuscript evidences showing the gradual degradation of the first century texts.
You're missing the point by obtusely repeating this challenge. Even if we had clear evidence of near-perfect transmission of the tradition, the fact remains that the tradition begins late in the first century; at a minimum, forty years after the supposed events of Jesus' life. Plenty of time for the kind of mythmaking that is clearly in evidence when we examine the gospels with the same critical methods we would use for any other ancient text.
Hark! I hear the wolf, growling and snarling again, mixed with his plaintive, oh-so-sheeplike bleatings. Do we need a muzzle for the wolf? Perhaps a cage is called for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
Did that citation previously posted say "125 AD"? The earliest date in a range derived solely from handwriting style is asserted to be the definite, absolute, no-questions, no-doubts, no-uncertainties date the text was written?
Interesting, indeed.
*sigh*
Alan, this is like comparing forensic evidence to hearsay testimony. Actually, very much like it. Also, scientists don't and have never claimed to have the entire picture of the evolutionary record or the ultimate TRUTH ™. Scientists are saying (and have evidence to support) "Tiktaalik lived about 375 myo", not that "Jebus the Tiktaalik, The Great Tiktaalik in the Sky Made Flesh, had this for breakfast then went over here to sun on this rock before trying to score with Mary the slutty Tiktaalik and he got turned down so he and his 12 tiktaalik buddies went on a road trip to here where Jebus got into trouble with the tiktaalik hierarchy and ended up nailed to a giant fern, ascending to the Swamp Eternal, and thereby absolving all Devonian fauna of their sins."
Mark, the first gospel to be recorded, wasn't compiled and written down for between 30 and 50 years after Jesus' death, and John closer to 70 years. You really think that in all those years these stories were orally spread, that no embellishments or mistakes got in? No misinterpretations? No distortion?
Speaking of distortion, you seem to have done a good job with my post (as you have many others (and others')). I never said Jesus "borrowed" his teachings, although he may have. I said that others' words and deeds may have been attributed to Jesus. Again, there's no way of knowing since there's no contemporary account.
Oh, and one more thing...
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
Why are you so adamant about avoiding that link?
The Wiki article on the P52 also notes that the words "ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ" appear to be missing from the text; "and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography."
Kel: The fact that the gospels have changed little is irrelevant, the fact that it claims the fantastic yet has not left a single archaeological or historical artefact to support those claims is.
Kel, you are posting faster than you are thinking. “The fact that the gospels have changed little” is extremely relevant (or refuted) by many individuals on this forum. Please don’t be calloused to their beliefs. It may be their last hope. You have intellectualized an answer for yourself but they may not have attained to your level of understanding. Your concession is like handing the “holy grail” to the enemy. In deference to your colleagues, I won’t hold you to your statement. It was probably a mistake. Here is my recommendation for the wording:
The fact that the gospels have changed little is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible claims things that I have not experienced in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To my knowledge, there is not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage my theory.
I've got some questions for you, Alan.
To whom was the impending birth of Jesus announced, Mary, or Joseph?
Did Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census?
Did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt after the birth of Jesus?
Did John the Baptist baptize Jesus?
Did Jesus' ministry last one year, or over three?
How many times did Jesus go to Jerusalem?
What, exactly, did Jesus say on the cross, immediately before he died?
Did Pontius Pilate agree to establish a guard at Jesus' tomb?
Honestly I could not give a shit what anyone else here believes on matters of the gospel. The fact remains that you are pushing impossible tales on the veracity of the anecdotal; and second-hand anecdotal evidence written decades after the alleged events took place. Mistranslations, copying errors, these things are irrelevant to the fact that there's not a shred of archaeological evidence that supports the fact that God walked on this earth in human form. You are believing something incredulous and impossible on 2nd hand anecdotal information, and putting that above all empirical inquiry to the contrary.You fail on even the slightest notion of critical thinking.
Ragutis: Scientists are saying (and have evidence to support) "Tiktaalik lived about 375 myo".
The latest evidence is leading scientists to believe that Tiktaalik is related to Barney. Notice the homological similarities between their faces: (click here)
Notice also how the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth forced the artist to remove its legs.
Do you even know how evolution works Alan? If dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves? A living coelacanth does not even in the slighest break the notion that tetrapods could have formed from fish like that.
Alan Clarke,
The fact that the gospels have changed little evolution is still occurring today is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible ToE claims demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt things that I have not experienced closed my eyes to in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To I willfully limit my knowledge, so I may continue to lie to myself and claim there is not overwhelming evidence from numerous scientific fields not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of stopped lying to myself and accepted the evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage would abandon my theory nonsensical, archaic religion which I, deep down, know is false; hence why I fight the losing battle - because I need to convince myself my god is real and thinks I'm special.
Fixed it for you. No, no - that's okay.
Until Owlmirror comes clean, all of his philosophizing is nothing more than the ravings of an embittered old man who was lied to when he was a child. Either his “Christian” parents abandoned him or the nuns made him kneel on cinders as a punishment. Now it’s PAYBACK! If I was in Janine’s shoes, I would at least want Owlmirror to PM me privately to explain why he is so full of hate and revenge. Until then, the impetus and choice of direction for his “scientific” research, “Did that citation previously posted say "125 AD"?” are symptoms of an earlier disease. Janine came out of the closet and no one berated her for it. I don’t even use a pseudonym for my identity. I was forthcoming about my life’s experiences that COULD and DO have influence on my interpretation of evidences. I don’t hide anything in this respect. Owlmirror is supposed to be truly objective but this is becoming as believable as Hitler’s objectivity after being convicted of treason and spending nine months in Landsberg prison.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH! Oh, I love this.
What was that dull, hollow crashing sound?
Why, it was the sound of Clarke's credibility dropping through the floor.
Alan, if you were any dimmer, you'd go out. Have you been able to make a career in point dodging, or do you just do it as a hobby?
Why are you avoiding this link?
I'll reword it:
Although there have been some copying errors, mistranslations, and a few instances of deliberate fraud, large parts of the new testament have at their base still the heart of what was first written down ~1900 years ago. Through comparative studies of the text and through archaeological and historical observation, we are able to give a chronological order by which the bible was written. Markian priority is the current accepted means, where the two other synoptic gosleps (Matthew and Luke) were both derived from Mark, with John being a collaborative effort written much later. As Mark came first, we are able to put a timeframe on when the gospels were first written down - around 70CE after the destruction of the temple. From there Luke and Matthew were written within a few decades, and Jon was written down early in the 2nd century. As for historical artefacts, there currently exists not a single artefact belonging to Jesus. No property, no relics, not even the location of his tomb. Nothing physical that can tie Jesus to this world exists. Secular historians of the time don't mention him, but there are two references to Christ by later secular historians - one around 20 years after the first gospel was written and the other about 45 years after. Even Paul did not mention anything about Jesus' life in his letters, only about his death and resurrection. But all of this is quite irrelevant. Even if there the gospels were really written by the apostles, even if they were written as the events were happening, it still wouldn't change that it's anecdotal evidence. And the mind is prone to fallibility. For this was not only meant to be a prophet, but God-incarnate yet nothing remains to this day except a few 2nd-hand eyewitness accounts? If you have any evidence to the contrary, bring it. Show the historical artefacts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Alan, and Jesus being God-incarnate is damn extraordinary.
(Clarke then jumps through the hole, lands feet-first in a rank puddle on the basement floor, and delivers a sloppy ad hom back up through the hole. Hey, it's all he's got left.)
Hark at the ravening wolf! Hear it snarl and growl! See, the sheepshape mask falls off; its sharp stained teeth are bared for all the world to see, as the snarl furrows its muzzle. Now the jaws bite empty air; hear the snap and click of the meat-lusting teeth.
(Chapter 211, in which Owlmirror proves himself to be significantly more poetic than The Watchman.)
Dammit! You Aussies were supposed to HIDE the living fossil.
(Oh Alan. What a fucking moron. hahahahahahahahahahahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)
Oh, Alan Clarke's really lost it now - he's foaming at the mouth! Fall to the floor and chew that carpet, Al!
Hee hee hee. We broke his brain.
We broke his brain.
While there was some settling of contents during shipment, it was already fractured before we ever got a look at it. RMA that sucker.
Alan's ranting screed at Owlmirror in #206 is a demonstration of just how differently religionists think from us - he's trying to hold him up as our spiritual leader, someone who we revere in the same way he reveres his own personal preacher/priest/snake-handler.
Which is stupid. We accept what Owlmirror writes because he backs it up with evidence. Yes, it helps that he's extremely intelligent and writes well, but that'd count for nothing if he didn't have what's needed to back those claims up.
I mean, what the fuck does this:
even mean?
And some wonder why many of us don't use our real names. Heck, with people like Alan around I'm not sure anyone here shouldn't be using a handle, just in case.
E.V. Then you need to understand scientific method and the incredibly sophisticated and complex ways we can determine dates for things, that anyone using the same methods can determine also.”
Wikipedia “Radiocarbon Dating”: Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 my yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920±430 BP to 80,000±1100 BP as reported in 2007
Why don’t you just accept the scientific data? Instead of 100 my, the diamonds are 70K years old. Diamonds because of there hardness provide little opportunity for contamination. Why would you doubt the data? Is it because you have a PRE-SUPPOSITION that the Earth must be older so you search for alternative interpretations which allow your theory to remain viable? What is driving further inquiry? The data or the theory? I think your theory is the driving force behind you interpreting the excessive presence of C14 as “background radiation”. How about isotopes of greater half-lives for determining ages of rocks? Your assumptions reach “religious faith” proportions when you date something you are ASSUMING to be a billion years old.
Shouldn’t scientists be EXTREMELY concerned about possible dating errors originating from ASSUMPTIONS that could be wrong when using radioisotopes? Why is it that the possible errors from these ASSUMPTIONS are reported almost exclusively on Christian websites? Shouldn’t they be in every school textbook? My suspicion is that funding and education of evolutionism have more influence on “science” than you acknowledge. If fantastic ages for fossils are not reported, then National Geographic and Nova halt filming and the checks stop flowing.
Are you aware of the contradictory age dating methods for The Great Barrier Reef? Which one do you go with? Do you go with the data or with the theory? Why don’t we have existing reef systems with 15,000 year ages and older? The only thing “incredible” about your “incredibly sophisticated” systems is how incredibly incapable they are. We have detailed genealogical evidences that tell us the Earth is about 6000 years old but you have chosen to discard that data in favor of data that contradicts itself given sufficient time. You probably prefer the phrase, “improves itself over time”. How do you know it’s improving rather than worsening? If the theory has preeminence in determining which data is accepted or rejected, then one would expect the data to fit the theory “better over time”. So it all boils down to which data one prefers. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon which plagues scientific inquiry called “finding what you are looking for”? All data can be interpreted and parsed so as to fit one’s theory.
“The Great Barrier Reef is around 18 million years of age in the north and 2 million Years old in the south, with the existing reef system being between 10,000 and 6000 years old.” (source)
”In a paper in the journal Geology, scientists say the GBR started to grow as a result of sea level changes about 600,000 years ago. This is considerably younger than the 20 million years some had previously estimated.” (source)
Seriously, Alan - calm down. All that froth and spittle can't be good for your keyboard.
In your madness you probably haven't realised you're quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort. Obviously, a well-respected source of scientific data; perhaps you'd also like to refer us to the indepth tests they've done on preferred scents of tanning oil or measurements into optimum bikini sizes.
It's worth a read, though. Port Douglas is a pretty nice place. Haven't been there for a few years, though. If Bride of Shrek shows up she can tell you more about it; it's more her neck of the woods than mine. She's amongst the small proportion of Australians who can refer to where I'm (originally) from as 'down south'.
Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed. We have been telling you that for days. Diamonds are found in certain volcanic dykes, which can be dated with proper isotopes. For example:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1324313051.html
4.25 Billion year old diamonds. So you lie Alan. You lie through your teeth. Your belief in your bible is blinding you to reality. You have to stop lying to yourself before you can stop lying to us. Which you need to do.
snicker
Alan, do you think the hundreds of thousands of geologists and nuclear physicists trained to be able to date rocks would be ignorant of the assumptions and trappings of the method? That it's only those good Christian websites exposing a truth that for almost a century those happening to use the techniques are vastly ignorant of? You credulous fool, Alan. You have no idea about how science works and what goes into discovering information. You have no idea how these techniques work and how to properly apply them - and from that you assume that everyone who uses them must not know either. And from that you extrapolate that because a few dates have been wrong on various items that all dates must be wrong. You are saying that geologists who date the earth are wrong by a factor of 700,000! And why? Because of your own selection bias in finding information in order to discredit something you don't understand.
What does conflicting reports on the age of the GBR have to do with radiometric dating of ancient rocks through several different techniques that through blind testing in different laboratories all give the same date? It seems like Alan just wants to create unreasonable doubt - find one example where there's seemingly contradicting information in a semi-relevent field and then conclude that ALL data is unreliable and not even consider it's admissibility.
Alan, on something as big as the GBR, we would expect to see different ages for different parts since it wasn't made overnight. We have brought far more doubt to bear on your god and bible than you ever will be able to do to science. Science has already thought about any feeble attempt of yours to throw doubt on it, and the answers are already in place. You need to stop posting here, as we will continue to cast doubt on your god and bible, while you can't touch science unless you are a scientist. And you don't know science, nor how to do it.
Gosh, maybe we do have a presupposition! Maybe we have this presupposition of a billions-year-old Earth because we're all just atheists.
Oh, wait. What does Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective say?
Maybe we "presuppose" that the evidence speaks for itself!
Sheesh.
Nerd of Redhead: Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed.
The Earth must be millions of years old to allow sufficient time for Darwinian evolution to work. If the Earth is indeed many millions of years old, diamonds should not have ANY carbon-14 remaining since the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years. Nerd concurs with this hypothesis by stating, “all of the carbon-14 has decayed”. This indicates to me that he and many others may be unaware of the current debate:
If there is no carbon-14 in diamonds, then why is this uninformed evolutionist trying to explain why there is?
https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17280&start=0
The reason he is trying to account for it is because carbon-14 in diamonds has been confirmed by non-creationists:
Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years. (source)
Whether or not carbon-14 in diamonds is from contamination or not is not the point of my argument. I previously argued:
“If the theory has preeminence in determining which data is accepted or rejected, then one would expect the data to fit the theory “better over time”. So it all boils down to which data one prefers. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon which plagues scientific inquiry called “finding what you are looking for”? All data can be interpreted and parsed so as to fit one’s theory.”
An evolutionist cannot claim, “Our theory is supported purely by the evidence.” since in actuality, their theory is supported by their “interpretation” of the evidence.
Kel: Alan, do you think the hundreds of thousands of geologists and nuclear physicists trained to be able to date rocks would be ignorant of the assumptions and trappings of the method? ... You have no idea about how science works and what goes into discovering information.
I can see that you have a GOOD idea about how “science” works. Go with the majority! This “sure win” method has been proven to fail countless times in practically every branch of science, including political science.
Wowbagger: In your madness you probably haven't realised you're quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort.
I was very well aware of it. The tourism site is a perfect example to illustrate accepted word-views that may be disconnected from the “top”. It’s like interviewing 1 million Catholics who say that praying to a statue of Mary is okay but when the Pope is asked, he responds, “Certainly not!” The poor guy that designed the travel website probably thought, “Okay… when I was in school, I was taught the Earth is very old. So I can safely publish the reef is 18 million years old without offending too many potential tourists.” It’s hard to reverse one’s thinking when it has never been exercised but one way.
It's not about going with the majority, it's about what constitutes basic training. Again, do you think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists in that particular field are oblivious as to the trappings and limitations of the tools they use? Yes, science is fallible. But that's how progress is made. We learn more when things fail, and the scientific means of going about failure is why the process is so successful. When C14 was found in coal and diamonds, they sought to find out why. And they did find a source - the decay of uranium underground contaminated the material. ANd geologists know this, nuclear physicists know this, and they show wherever possible the trappings and limitations of their data. It's why science is a tentative enterprise; something which the likes of you will never understand.
Alan, considering the problems associated with carbon dating, and the appropriate limit of about 50,000 years, it appears that contamination of the sampes is occuring. This is not unknown in any measurement, and must always be taken into consideration. Carbon dating is not meaninful at this limit, so your use of it is not appropriate, and it really doesn't say what you want it to. In no way, does the carbon dating make the other methods inaccurate, and the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth stands.
Nerd of Redhead: Alan, considering the problems associated with carbon dating…
Now we are getting somewhere. What is a good dating method that does not suffer from contamination, possible false assumptions of the initial amount of parent isotope and assumed steady decay rate?
Nerd of Redhead: and the appropriate limit of about 50,000 years
Your statement is a perfect example illustrating that you have exercised your thinking heretofore in only one direction. Have you ever thought of the other direction? Carbon-14 fails at old ages but it may succeed at younger ages, remember?
Nerd of Redhead: it appears that contamination of the sampes is occuring.
Interpretation: “It appears that contamination of the samples is occurring because my theory demands it.” Can’t you see that your theory is in the driver’s seat? The data has been hijacked and is being driven wherever the theory wants to take it.
Nerd of Redhead: …the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth stands.
Stands on what? It stands on the same shaky inefficiencies for long-age isotopes that you complained about for carbon-14. It stands on the assumption that a global flood never occurred which would COMPLETELY change the atmospheric C14 content if a large portion of the Earth’s ecosystem was destroyed. It stands on the assumption that the Earth’s declining (or reversing, or bouncing??) magnetic field has been properly predicted. There are so many assumptions that the only thing we can be certain of is your 4.5 billion year ASSUMPTION will change in your lifetime. It’s changed so many times in my lifetime that I stopped counting. The current atmospheric C14 content is not even in equilibrium as predicted by old Earth theories. Nerd, I'm not doubting your ability to derive an explanation for each and every failure of your theory. I'm just saying a theory becomes less viable when one has to over-exercise their mouth every time new data becomes available.
Q: How can one use less energy in defending their theory?
A: Move to the right side of the equation.
E = m C ^2
E = energy required to defend Evolution(ism)
C = energy required to defend Creation(ism)
m = number of mouth opening and closings for speech
The energy required to defend evolutionism rises exponentially when discussing the formation of granite or the first primordial cell.
Actually it stands on the assumption of constant decay rates, and that several radiometric tests which involve different decay rates all happen to show the same. Again, there was no global flood. There's no evidence of a global flood, all you can talk about are isolated structed that exhibit localised flooding. A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide, just as we see global evidence of a comet impact at the K-T boundary.
P.R.O.J.E.C.T.I.O.N.
My dear Mr. Clarke, you're a fool and a hypocrite. The "theory" of Creationism has always relied on either a) ignoring virtually all the new data as it comes int, or b) going through contortions to reinterpret the data to fit the assumed conclusion. Starlight has taken millions of years to reach earth? Well then! The speed of light must have been slower 6,000 years ago! It must have been!
What a crock. Creationism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen bronze-age mythology. Ridiculous.
Watchman: What a crock. Creationism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen bronze-age mythology. Ridiculous.
Evolutionism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen big-bang mythology. Eternal non-intelligent matter? The laws of entropy are malleable and life arose from an explosion? Ridiculous.
Alan, boy are you into some funny mushrooms. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. That is a cosmological/physics argument. And you fail at that too.
Evolution is totally biological, and you must stick to that or you show your ignorance. You are doing a fine job of cutting and pasting arguments you don't understand, which makes you look pathetic and stupid. You chances of changing our minds is zero with that tactic. Either cite the peer reviewed primary scientific literature or give up.
Whoah - Alan, you are all sorts of bat-shit crazy. If you're looking for affirmation here, you took a wrong turn somewhere in Magicville.
Kel: Actually it stands on the assumption of constant decay rates, and that several radiometric tests which involve different decay rates all happen to show the same.
Your logic is thus: Paper, wood, and plastic all burn at different rates, but they are known rates. Using the combination of them, we have corroborating evidence supporting the belief that a fire has burned x hours. I’m saying that if you remove 50% of the oxygen from the room, the x hours may become 10x hours. They may all maintain their proportionality, but they all lead to the wrong conclusion of x hours. How about the half-lives of nuclides that don’t suffer from external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field? Read from Wikipedia’s “Radiometric Dating”:
The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.
You act as if radiometric dating is a “closed case” for determining the Earth’s age, but as you can see from the above statement, it is NOT a “closed case”.
Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron.
The above sentence has (3) assumptions:
1)the sample is the same
2)samples formed by the same event
3)were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed
Willard Libby, the inventor of C14 dating, minimally failed in assumption #3.
Kel: Again, there was no global flood. There's no evidence of a global flood, all you can talk about are isolated structed that exhibit localised flooding. A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide, just as we see global evidence of a comet impact at the K-T boundary.
You are exactly right in stating, “A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide”. I would expect all of the highest mountains to show evidences of sedimentary strata. I would expect all continents to have far-inland water-laid sedimentary strata like limestone (crushed skeletons of sea life). I would expect all continents to have fossil fuels like coal and oil deposits. I would expect oil deposits under the ocean floors. I would expect mass extinction of animals (dinosaurs!!) world-wide. I would expect fossilized graveyards worldwide. I would expect sea shells, corals and clams on the highest mountain ranges worldwide. I would expect to find evidences of HUGE buried forests in Antarctica. I would expect LIVING coral reefs not to exceed 6000 years in age. I would expect practically every culture to have flood legends.
The above evidences are not “isolated” or “localized” by any means. They are strewn about randomly as one would expect with flood deposition. Conversely, if uniformitarian theory were true, I would expect the “geologic column” to be uniform throughout the entire world. Instead, the question arises, “Where in the world can one find a complete, undisturbed “geologic column”?” Answer: In the textbooks.
You seem to think that all of the data is slowly converging to one conclusion. Your theory has converged on one conclusion with selected data and interpretations following it.
Alan, still lying to yourself that your god exists and your bible is not fiction. So you keep twisting real evidence to fit your delusions rather than looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions, which is what science does.
All scientific data leads to two things. Radioactive dating is accurate, and a worldwide flood never occurred. So, thems the facts. How you deal with those facts is up to you. So far, you have presented nothing to alter those facts. Quit copying and pasting from creationist web sites. They have already been refute by TalkOrigins.
Bad analogy there as fire is dependant on oxygen. How is a global flood going to change decay rates, and different rates at that?
Was this meant to be ironic?
No, I act as if it's corroborating evidence. Remember that we can date stars by an entirely different means, and we can date the universe by the distance of stars. A 4.5 billion year old earth corroborates with meteorites that have not been subjected to your damn flood, moon rocks - which again not subjected to your damn flood, the age of the sun, and the age of the universe. All together they form a picture, and your pathetic objection is not supported by geology, it's not supported by genetics, it's not supported by anything outside of your damn mythology. Alan Clarke, you have nothing but a book of old myths. Do you really think that if God exists, he would make the universe to fool almost every single person who propely looks at it? Or do you think that God might be more powerful and creative than your petty mythology suggests?
The ravening wolf has his sheep clothes back on and buttoned up, and is bleating and baaing loudly. "Oh, look what a good sheep I am, proudly casting out devils (or rather, casting out truth), and working wonders (or rather, proclaiming nonsense and falsehood) in God's name! I am such a good sheep! Baa, baa!"
Should we heed the ravening wolf in sheep clothes? It bleats so sheeplike. The teeth are hidden now; all is covered by soft white wool. It looks so innocent... except for the eyes. And the lies.
What does Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective say?
and also:
(emphasis mine, of course.)
Here's another interesting bit from Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective:
Nerd of Redhead: Alan, still lying to yourself that your god exists and your bible is not fiction.
The last time I mentioned the word “Bible” was two days ago. The last time I used the word “God” without quoting someone else (Owlmirror loves the word) was four days ago in post #153. The words “God” and “Bible” could be flashing in your mind. Get some rest.
Nerd of Redhead: So you keep twisting real evidence to fit your delusions rather than looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions, which is what science does.
We are both working with the exact same evidences, lizard guts, DNA, Grand Canyon, diamonds, etc. The differences are not the “evidences”. The differences are the interpretation of those evidences. Do you think that “looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions” will allow you to grasp the truth? You’ve got it all backwards. If you know the truth first, you can work backwards in understanding yourself and the things around you. Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Until you come to that understanding, your opinion of yourself and your surroundings will be one big delusion.
Nerd of Redhead: All scientific data leads to two things. Radioactive dating is accurate, and a worldwide flood never occurred.
Thanks for proving my point.
Nerd of Redhead: Quit copying and pasting from creationist web sites. They have already been refute by TalkOrigins.
In post #225, I copied some NON-CREATIONIST radio carbon data results performed at University of California (which I learned through answersinenesis.org). Other than that, during the course of this thread, I haven’t copied & pasted from one single creationist website. I'm beginning to wonder if you can articulate anything for yourself beyond what TalkOrigins has fed you. Maybe I missed it. Please refer me to your post #.
Matthew 24:37-39 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
"Wicked, wicked", bleats the sheep-costumed wolf. "I know the truth", bleats the wolf dressed like a sheep. "My truth is the true truth; you atheists are deluded", bleats the wolf, forgetting himself and licking his chops.
Hm.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm
Say, who are these ASA people?
Well. I don't know about anyone else, but I like that "commitment to integrity in the practice of science." That beats ravening wolves in sheep's clothing all hollow.
Alan, I'm seeing it out of context, but I'm thinking that you should reflect on this quotation a little more. This is precisely why the scientific method is so valuable, because it does a remarkable job of taking preconceptions and prejudices out of the equation.
Would you prefer that people were sentenced for crimes and then the forensics guys and detectives went out to dig up some evidence that justified the verdict and punishment?
re: Watchmen (the movie)
FWIW, Anthony Lane of the New Yorker (who I usually find to be right on the money) pretty much called it godawful pretentious violent crap. He doesn't seem to be much of a fan of the graphic novel either.
Alan, still quoting your fictional bible. Bad form.
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.
sounds like a recipe for cognitive dissonance and mucho rationalization to me.
Is the result of this affiliation the likes of Francis Collins?
If so, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but not much; the stick and the eye are still dangerously close.
...and eventually one has to get rid of the stick or still risk being poked in the eye.
meh, always the ideological strategist here on Pharyngula, I tend to overlook the tactical value of such organizations in the short term.
I copied some NON-CREATIONIST radio carbon data results performed at University of California (which I learned through answersinenesis.org)
ROFLMAO
can't see through the denial, can ya Alan?
so funny, just how fucked up you religionauts are.
The differences are the interpretation of those evidences.
as usual, the easy answer to this is to ask you what color glasses you are wearing, because the sky is BLUE, ok?
We have the exact mechanism showing how light scatters in blue wavelengths to provide independent corroborating evidence (that coincidentally agrees with how our eyes interpret the color of the sky).
what do you have on your side to support the sky is actually a different color?
fucking nothing, that's what.
take off the damn glasses, Alan. See the world the way it REALLY is.
Thank you, Steven Sullivan, for posting on topic, even if Lane did not use any of those adjectives you cited.
Having just finished reading the review, I'd call that resounding "whoosh," as the point of the novel and film went past the critic's head, the most ringing endorsement Snyder and company could possibly hope for. The work Moore and Gibbons poured into Watchmen changed comics; I suspect cinema is safe. I'll pay to see it in the best theater I can find, something I do only every couple of years or so, despite the fact that I don't expect to expect to encounter climactic cephalocalypse, an issue that is of some sensitivity to our host PZ.
Having read Anthony Lane on Watchmen, I can imagine how some rabid and cretinous theists feel about Dawkins and his reading of their holy book, were it not for the fact that, unlike Lane, Dawkins was actually informed and coherent.
Oh dear. I've misspelled cephalopocalypse.
While I'm here, I'll note that Visit W3Schools.com!">Roger Ebert's review concludes with this:
But enough about Anthony Lane and Roger Ebert. I'm sure we're all on tenterhooks about what Alan Clarke has to say about the science of Watchmen, or about Watchmen the film or Watchmen the graphic novel.
"Hrrmm." Roger Ebert's review
Bonus blockquote: Fanboy response to Anthony Lane's review:
Fair warning: You're shouting into the wind, here.
He's been posting since, what, a month ago in the Titanoboa thread, and had it explained to him, again and again, that science starts with the evidence, not the conclusion; the conclusions that we have are from the evidence, the same for believer and atheist.
He doesn't want to hear it.
He ignores everything, and occasionally goes on violent psychotic/schizophrenic rants (NB: not a professional diagnosis), such as #153 and #206 above. #287 on Titanoboa was also like that, digressing into bodies being wrapped around truck axles, and probably a few others as well.
Just so you know.
Can you imagine a news company hosting a presidential debate, but they choose to broadcast only their favorite candidate? Welcome to the Owlmirror network. At least I had the courtesy in post #225 to link a pro-evolutionist argument from richarddawkins.net so readers can think and decide for themselves. Owlmirror has some serious problems in his “wall” of radiometric dating posts. Why not just provide links instead of filling up the thread? Much of the posted information is Dr. Kirk Bertsche’s attack on Dr. John Baumgardner whose work has brought attention to the presence of 14C in diamonds and coal which neither should have if they are indeed millions of years old. Bertsche argues that the 14C presence is due to “background radiation” or “contamination”. Baumgardner defends his work as follows:
If Bertsche had fully understood the very papers to which he refers, he would immediately realize that his first claim that laboratory contamination is responsible for the high 14C levels routinely measured in “old” biological samples is unsustainable. To highlight the issues he is failing to grasp, I point to the paper by Brown and Southon [1997] who state
You can read Baumgardner’s entire defense here as well as Bertsche’s original criticisms. The debate is far from over as Owlmirror would want readers to believe in his censored reporting. Evolutionists think radiometric dating is immutable since it is set in stone. I can appreciate your desire for permanency and tangibleness, but your 10 Commandments are a cheap imitation.
Owlmirror, I am shocked, Just shocked to find out you have such power over all information.
How did you get to be so powerful? And could I somehow be able to share in the reflected glory?
Janine, clearly my informational omnipotence was granted to me by higher powers — cosmic rays. Yes, I have a superpower from cosmic rays.
And as for sharing in the glory — You might try changing your epithet to "Sassy Smartypants". And wear a costume (no capes!). And beat up bad guys.
PS: I mean it about the no capes!
Im semi-bummed this movie sucks. I enjoyed re-reading the GN recently.
Alan, your attempts to find C-14 dating older than 50,000 years as anything other than contamination is laughable. You don't know what you are talking about, but it sounds like it might hurt science. So you cut and paste irrelevancies. YAWN. Nothing like that hurts science or radiometric dating. Until you understand your god doesn't exist, and your bible is fiction, you will always have trouble with the real world. Give up. You have nothing.
Nerd: Alan, your attempts to find C-14 dating older than 50,000 years as anything other than contamination is laughable.
What true objective scientist would limit himself with an a priori SUPPOSITION that the sample being studied is more than 50,000 years old, or worse yet, millions of years old? We saw were the same faulty SUPPOSITION prevented scientists (for an entire century!!) from looking inside dinosaur bones for soft tissues.
Never put too much credence in another human. They are known to FAIL:
Baumgardner is six years senior in his doctorate than Bertsche and has spent much more time outside the world of academia at Berkley. (see for yourself) Which scientist has preoccupied himself at a THEOLOGICAL CEMETERY SEMINARY?
Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche’s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.
Religion is built on nothing but humans, and that is why all intelligent and non-delusional scientists, including the religious ones, will reject religion as a source of knowledge about the real world.
Anyone who has the a priori SUPPOSITION that the bible must be literally correct as a description of the world cannot therefore be both intelligent and non-delusional.
Science, including the science of the age of the Earth, derives from the evidence first, and the humans who found and described the evidence only secondarily, as their observations were confirmed multiple times all over the world, including by religious scientists.
But I repeat myself. Oh, well. The wind of deluded WRONGness just keeps on blowing hard.
Just like a big bad wolf (in sheep's clothing).
Owlmirror: Anyone who has the a priori SUPPOSITION that the bible must be literally correct as a description of the world cannot therefore be both intelligent and non-delusional.
In that case, you can scratch me from your paranoia list because my a priori SUPPOSITION was that the Bible was a fable. How did you start?
Alan, you C-14 data does not do anything for you. Why do you persist in repeating contamination problems as meaningful? Do you have any idea on how C-14 is formed? The earth is 4.5 billion years old by much more reliable methods not at the edge of their measurement. So, if you want a younger earth, you need to concentrate on those methods. Until you do, you have nothing. And I'm speaking as a scientist of 30+ years.
Nerd: The earth is 4.5 billion years old by much more reliable methods not at the edge of their measurement.
Dr. John Baumgardner: “This dilemma is that samples they expect to be 14C-free because of their supposedly old age (>100,000 years according to the standard geological time scale), instead routinely display significant and reproducible 14C levels, typically two orders of magnitude or more above the threshold sensitivity of the AMS system.”
Measurements “two orders of magnitude or more above the threshold sensitivity” should be discarded? As objects approach nearer the speed of light, their length becomes less. For all practical purposes, the amount is insignificant and immeasurable. Years ago, I suppose you would have been in the group to argue the length difference didn't exist or should be discarded. For understanding the relationship between energy and mass, the difference is indispensable. By the same token, you are trying to understand something on the “outer fringes” of human understanding: the origin of man and his environment. If you think it’s solely wrapped up in a single INTERPRETATION of long-age isotopes, then I suspect your 30+ years of experience may very well become a casualty when science moves forward. The methodology which ultimately discovered Pluto was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs taken two weeks apart, then examine each pair and determine whether any objects had shifted position. Pluto looked like an infinitesimal dot produced by light leaking into a defective camera body. I have good reason to think that your old-age Earth theory will collapse by a dot.
The least movement is of importance to all nature. The entire ocean is affected by a pebble. – Blaise Pascal
Wait a second, are you Dr. Manhattan? (That is about all I know about The Watchmen.)
Trust me, you do not want to see me in a skin tight outfit>
'snark'
So, is Alan moving on to the "I used to be an atheist' argument?
...all I know about The Watchmen
You didn't watch the Watchmen on Saturday Morning in the eighties? The cartoon in that link ought to catch you up with the whole gang of costumed crime fighters.
No, I am not Dr. Manhattan. Dr. Manhattan was in a paracosmic thermonuclear quantum-collapse explosion caused by an Intrinsic Field subtractor inside of an unobtanium cage with handwavium shielding.
That is completely different from being bombarded by cosmic rays. Really.
Alan is using the "radiocarbon levels no different from background levels is more important for dating the age of the Earth than all of the other dating methods combined" argument.
Presumably because he now has the a priori supposition that the Earth cannot possibly be 4.5 billion years old.
Ken, you are a very odd person. And that is meant as a compliment. That was funny. But the only super hero cartoon I watched in the eighties was The Tick.
Owlmirror, it seems I get my comic book science as wrong as my real world science. Just say it can be done with a sonic screwdriver. I can handle that.
Alan likes to use all sorts of bad arguments.
Thank you Janine. I'm a big Tick fan myself. I take it you know that Ben Edlund, after creating The Tick, worked on Firefly and Angel. I worked on more cartoons in the eighties than I watched. I got a kick out of seeing Bubastis as He-Man's green and orange talking cat Cringer.
The graphic novel means a lot to me. I'd been giving a ride to work to a staff writer for the studio who was mostly writing early cyberpunk fiction in his office, and in lieu of gas money he gave me a copy of Neuromancer and the first three issues of Watchmen. I was finally sitting down to learn how to use computers to animate spaceships for syndicated strip, so the book marked a pretty big moment for me.
NEW KEPLER SPACE TELESCOPE
SCIENTISTS’ “A PRIORI” ASSUMPTIONS
1) life can “evolve”
2) “little green men” won't be found
3) E.T.'s home exists
Q: How can one know “little green men” won’t be found?
A: One can’t, but don’t talk about it otherwise credibility is lost.
Science is held captive by “family, school, society and the world”. “Objectivity” is only in the mind of the beholder.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. - Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist
Uh-huh.
Because the a priori adherence to immaterial causes that do no ever demonstrate themselves materially is ... delusional.
It's certainly not science.
Alan Clarke,
Still trying the old creationist crap of argument by quotation I see. Lewontin, fine biologist though he is, is just wrong in your quote, if it's accurate. Science no longer postulates supernatural or immaterial entities simply because doing so has never explained anything, or led to any discoveries whatsoever. If you can demonstrate sufficient evidence that gods, ghosts, souls or leprachauns exist, science will acknowledge and study them.
Alan, keep it up the the irrelevant information. By the way, I am looking for ET as we speak. My computer at home is chugging through Seti-at-home workunits.
So far you have presented absolutely no information to make me think we are special in the universe, and that the earth is not 3.5 billion years old. It will take more than a cut/paste expert who doesn't really understand what he is cutting/pasting to sway my confidence in science.
If you think it’s solely wrapped up in a single INTERPRETATION of long-age isotopes, then I suspect your 30+ years of experience may very well become a casualty when science moves forward. - Alan Clarke
Clarke, don't you know your creationist buddies have been predicting the imminent collapse of old-Earth geology and evolutionary theory ever since they were developed, by scientists who were mostly Christians, in the early-to-mid 19th century? All that time, they have gone from strength to strength, explaining more and more. WAKE UP! The collapse you expect is not going to happen!
Knockgoats: Lewontin, fine biologist though he is, is just wrong in your quote, if it's accurate.
Each generation experiences a “generation gap”. Sometimes young people are ashamed of their parents or grandparents. Knockgoats, please don’t discard “grandpa Lewontin”. He was a professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard for 30 years. For you to say “he is just wrong”, leads me to believe that he knows something that you don’t.
A marathon runner nearing the finish line may vomit, collapse, urinate or defecate on himself. All attempts at trying to remain “photogenic” are discarded when the one true goal is in view. So much can be learned if one discards “Sports Illustrated” and watches the actual finish. Relish in it:
"I don't wanna die like that. I want to shoot myself in the head long before then. I'm gonna do something different." – Evolutionist Professor William Provine, Cornell
"Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: 'Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?' I would have to answer yes." – Richard Dawkins
"The strain told, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits. The cause of Darwin’s illness remained unknown, and attempts at treatment had little success." Wikipedia – Charles Darwin
Ichthyic: take off the damn glasses, Alan. See the world the way it REALLY is.
Thanks for the idea Ichthyic. I can see better now. Clarification: Don’t “relish” in someone’s failure. Relish in the fact that God has given man the ability to "see" what is good and what is to be avoided. But, this ability can be lost if it is suppressed too long.
And yet you don't apply that same critique to the mountains of evidence produced by scientists that supports the ToE which you claim are wrong.
interesting.
SETI - Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Nerd of Redhead: By the way, I am looking for ET as we speak. My computer at home is chugging through Seti-at-home workunits. So far you have presented absolutely no information to make me think we are special in the universe…
This is quite rich. How about open your eyes and tell me what you see on your at-home SETI computer monitor?
Throughout all the years of SETI’s existence, nothing has ever been found. The universe is big, but that the purpose of SETI – to take advantage of radio waves that go where we cannot. Beyond the many Earth-based SETI probes, the accumulation of non-Earth-based probes, such as Mars' Phoenix, has located nothing.
Italian physicist Enrico Fermi suggested in the 1950s that if technologically advanced civilizations are common in the universe, then they should be detectable in one way or another. (According to those who were there, Fermi either asked "Where are they?" or "Where is everybody?")
The Fermi Paradox
The size and age of the universe incline us to believe that many technologically advanced civilizations must exist. However, this belief seems logically inconsistent with our lack of observational evidence to support it. Either the initial assumption is incorrect and technologically advanced intelligent life is much rarer than we believe, our current observations are incomplete and we simply have not detected them yet, or our search methodologies are flawed and we are not searching for the correct indicators.
Possible explanations for the paradox suggest, for example, that while simple life may well be abundant in the universe, intelligent life may be exceedingly rare. In 2000, Peter Ward, professor of Biology and of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington authored a book claiming the Rare Earth hypothesis. In short, the theory claims that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth required an extremely unlikely combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. This hypothesis contradicts the principle of mediocrity, which SETI takes as an assumption.
Scientific Pursuit Ends Up at Religion
SETI has also occasionally been the target of criticism by those who suggest that it is a form of pseudoscience. In particular, critics allege that no observed phenomena suggest the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and furthermore that the assertion of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has no good Popperian criteria for falsifiability. Science fiction writer Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, stated that "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."
Ahh, poor idiot Alan thinks SETI is unscientific. As a scientist, I can categorically state you are WRONG. It is science, because is investigating the possibility in a scientific fashion. Science is a method. SETI is a method. Another lie for Alan, the godbot liar.
Back tracking a little, Alan, I asked you did you know how carbon 14 was formed?
Here is how it is formed.
(1) 13C(n,hv)14C
(2) 14N(n,1H)14C
(3) 15N(n,2H)14C
(4) 16O(n,3He)14C
(5) 17O(n,4He)14C
(6) Various heavy nucleotide fission.
Except for nuclear fission, all are forms of what is known as neutron activation. A neutron collides with a nucleus, and is either absorbed or kicks out a particle. All well known processes. Now, for the carbon-14 found in plants and animals, equation 2 is dominant process, since the supply is atmospheric. When we consider coal and petroleum, things that have been in the ground a long time, equation 1 is the main method. There are cosmic neutrons that penetrate the ground, and also some neutrons from nuclear decay of uranium and other heavy radioactive elements in the rocks. So the level of carbon-14 is being maintained, albeit at a very low, but measurable level. Another lie for Alan the godbot Liar. Welcome to real science.
Your batting record is pitiful Alan. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is a work of fiction.
Oh, but Nerd, AGW denialist Michael Crichton said SETI is "unquestioningly" a religion, and he's famous, so he must be right!
Now that Nerd has firmly established himself, let us proceed…
The presence of Helium in rocks far below the Earth’s surface is an indication that they aren’t millions of years old. The entire uniformitarian theory collapses with this evidence, so alternate theories must be invented to explain the unusual presence of helium:
1)Primordial, undegassed reservoir deep in the Earth's mantle are the source.
2)Cosmic dust settles to the bottom of the sea, then is “recycled” into the magma.
3)Cosmic rays penetrate the ground… blah, blah, blah
On the other hand, Kurz et al. (1987) and Sadnik et al. (1987) measured 3He/4He ratios as high as 1.4 X 10^-3 in diamonds mined directly from kimberlite pipes at depths of about 26 and 200 m, respectively. Since cosmic rays cannot penetrate to such depths, these helium signatures were attributed to nucleogenic production. - "Radiogenic Isotope Geology" – Dickin, 1997
The theories for explaining the unusual presence of Helium are numerous and varied. When a theory expends too much energy in “explaining” then the theory becomes less attractive when contrasted to an alternate theory that requires jumping through fewer hoops. “Johnny, how did you procure that $100 bill?” If “Johnny” expends one hour in explaining how he got that $100 bill, then we might conclude he is lying. A 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham, stated that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is known today as “Occam's Razor”, or "law of economy", or "law of succinctness". When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. The creationist theory explains the presence of helium by postulating, “the rocks aren’t that old”, whereas the uniformitarian theory patches itself with additional lengthy theories.
Often, theories are mistakenly thought to be “laws”, whereas they are only “theories”. For example, many scientists believe the Earth’s magnetic field is induced and maintained by the convection of liquid iron in the outer core (dynamo theory). But this theory consistently fails to explain the existing magnetic fields of celestial bodies within our solar system. Why are these “caveat emptors” so often omitted from science textbooks?
Apply Occam’s Razor to theories explaining these anomalies
1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth’s perspective.
2) Genetic load (accumulation of lethal mutations) would be lethal if Homo sapiens was 200K years old.
3) Why did dinosaurs suddendly become extinct?
4)(current human population) >> (6.7B) if Homo sapiens procreated for 200K years.
WRONG! I read no further, as anything you said beyond that point is a lie. You ever heard of thorium and uranium? You know how they decay? They decay through ejecting alpha particles, which are helium nuclei. So, one would expect, and one does, find helium in old rocks. Not all rocks are permeable, and alpha particles are constantly be emitted. Only idiots don't understand these facts. Why do you keep lying to yourself Alan? The earth is 3.4-3.5 billion years old. Until you prove otherwise, and your feeble attempts so far show you are only a cut/paste specialist, who should be banned for stupidity.
You are not showing the ability to overthrow science due to your stupidity and the stupidity of the sites you are copying and pasting from. You have presented nothing that has not already been refuted. Your stymied before you ever do anything.
PZ Banning time for this cut/paste idiot.
But he's also dead. So if he was so right, why isn't he immortal?
and?
Except when they aren't. We are on an elliptical orbit around the sun and the moon is on an elliptical orbit around the earth. They don't always line up.
Kel, I'm running seti-at-home, but I really don't expect ET will be found anytime soon. Part of me runs seti due to the canceling of funding by congress years ago. Also, the present receiver at Arecibo has a limited view. So some prime candidates are missed. There has been talk of piggy-backing SETI on to the Allen array, but nothing concrete to date has come of that. Still, the bandwidth they are looking at is increasing, and future plans will include some visible light frequencies. SETI is science, even if it is unlikely to succeed science.
LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham's Razor! Funny!
Hahahaha! Creationists claim that there are both too many and too few humans simultaneously!
Ockham's Razor: Natural selection means that death, including death from famine, disease, and war, have kept the human population relatively low until recently... and lethal mutations, plural, cannot possibly accumulate. Because those with even one lethal mutation die.
How hard is this to understand?
Oh, and the recent modern spike in population growth is because of technology, not magic. You're eating food which ultimately depends on the discovery of chemical nitrogen fixing and the role of nitrates, phosphorus, and potassium in plant growth. Funnily enough, God never revealed that little piece of information.
Stimpy seems to make the same mistake. Surely it's not hard to see that if someone inherited a deadly trait that prevented them from reproducing that that deadly trait would not get passed down.
Addendum to post #280. Uranium and thorium are considered ubiquitous elements, which mean they are distributed throughout most rocks is small quantities. There are only a few minerals that concentrate these elements.
Alan, if I respond further, I will always stop at your first lie like I did today. I will not read and respond to any later points in your posts. Your cut/paste techniques make it not worth any further effort, as it is the equivalent of a Gish Gallop.
The whole sun and moon comment leads me to believe that Alan is also one of those types that thinks when he hears a song on the radio that has a thin connection to something he was thinking recently that it is a sign from above.
Dude, the universe, is, like, talking to me. You know? I can hear it all the time. Because we're all connected to the One, only some of us can pull in a stronger signal, you know?
And the drugs, man, that's just to open up the doors of perception in my mind. Really. Word up.
Wow, man, your aura is getting really bright blue and glowing. And you're growing, like, a hundred feet tall. Wow. I didn't know you could do that.
Alan Clarke,
Throughout all the years of SETI’s my Christian god's supposed existence, nothing has ever been found.
Fixed it for you. No, no - that's okay.
I wonder if Alan Clarke knows Nat Weeks.
Owlmirror: …death from famine, disease, and war, have kept the human population relatively low until recently.
We can see from data provided by Wikipedia, that the effects from “death, famine, disease and war” have not hindered world population growth. Why? The exponential growth rate overrides the ill effects that Owlmirror is assuming is dominant. Also, countries with the highest population growth rates are not necessarily affluent. Click here. You’ll need to look for another explanation. Maybe Homo sapiens didn't enjoy sex much until about 4400 years ago? 200,000 years of Homo sapiens population supression presents a serious blow to your theory.
What has kept the population "low until recently"? A $100 savings account with daily compounded interest will be low at the beginning, but have a huge balance at the end.
It's time to apply Occam's Razor to a theory that needs TOO MUCH EXPLAINING.
Alan, even if we assume that the re-population of the post-Flood world started at 2400 BC, we still see a pronounced increase in the population growth rate starting about 200 years ago. This is obvious even from the data you yourself have provided in the interest of trying to make your point. You scoff at Owlmirror for asserting that human population remained low until recently, but your hypothesis also needs to explain why population growth was so nearly flat for the 4000 years following the flood. Do you even THINK about what your objects imply about your own claims? Are you suggesting that mankind didn't much enjoy sex until some 30 years after Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence?
This is yet another case of modern science working against the foundations on which it's built. Thanks to scientific advancements, more offspring born than ever before are surviving to reproduce, and life expectancy has doubled in a very short space of time. Take away medicine, take away sanitation, take away electricity and modern agricultural farming practices, and suddenly humans are thrust into a far less sustained environment. Get some Malthus in ya Alan.
I wonder if he knows Ray Comfort. That "accumulation of lethal mutations" is almost, but not quite, as stupid as Ray's "males and females evolving separately" idiocy.
The only factors that have affected human population growth have been non-supernatural ones, such as the agricultural revolution, the discovery of hygiene, and the reduction of infant mortality resulting from childhood disease inoculation, and better nutrition.
Occam's Razor does not say to reject "too much explanation". It says to not multiply entities unnecessarily. But when there is something that is obviously very complicated — such as the weather, or life on earth, including population changes, or the functioning of the brain — of course there is going to be a lot of explanation necessary, and many "entities" that will affect the explanation.
Of course, theists don't really understand what Occam's Razor really does.
Occam's Razor destroys superstitions. There is no point in positing effects from incoherent causes — such as the supernatural.
Occam's Razor destroys religions. Most religions posit unnecessary supernatural hypotheses to account for the natural world.
Occam's Razor slices God into nothingness, or meaninglessness. There is not a supernatural God with the attributes claimed by religions.
Nerd of Redhead: They decay through ejecting alpha particles, which are helium nuclei. So, one would expect, and one does, find helium in old rocks.
I’m not saying all rocks lack parent isotopes for explaining possible helium presence. I’m saying many do not, which is what gives rise to alternative theories for explaining helium’s presence. And these alternative theories are bulky and ugly: Cosmic dust settling to the sea floor is “recycled” into the Earth’s magma during the theoretical “sea floor spreading” phenomena. When theory is built upon theory, upon theory, upon theory, you end up with a stack of blocks that will probably topple.
“Scientific naturalism” always seeks a natural cause for every phenomenon: If God exists then who created God?
Q: Where did life come from?
A: It came from random particle motion.
Q: Where did the particles come from?
A: We don't know but we are seeking natural causes.
There is an a priori ASSUMPTION that only the physical world exists. The ancient Greeks had this philosophy in what we know as “materialism”. Look at the statement made by evolutionist Carl Sagan:
“The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.”
Sagan cannot possibly know for certain what he is talking about because his experiences were confined to a small envelope of time. Is he a prophet of the future? Sagan’s finite mind has miraculously managed to encompass the “infinite” in making his bold projections. Hopefully, his philosophy grasped the fact that he would die.
Someone stated: "As for historical artifacts, there currently exists not a single artifact belonging to Jesus." Atheists despise Catholic churches that collect relics of Christ’s cross, holy grails, drops of Christ’s blood, burial shrouds, etc., but they demand these same relics if they are to believe. How can God win with such impossible demands? Only a person looking for an excuse would create such a blockade.
What is the “naturalistic” explanation for our human-centric universe? From our perspective, the Sun and Moon are the exact same size. What are the odds of a random asteroid crashing into the Earth and breaking off a chunk which becomes our illuminated moon at a proper distance so as to make it appear the same size as our Sun? The Moon serves like a “night light”. It also happens to be a highly reflective white instead of a composition like a black basalt which would be non-reflective. If the Moon had a heavy atmosphere it could absorb the Sun’s light. The Moon’s orbit is sufficient to keep it from crashing to Earth during the entire period of recorded history. The Moon is perfectly round (from a human perspective) as opposed to an odd-shaped asteroid. The Moon provides humans with a method for keeping time with it’s predictable phases. If our Moon had a constant shadow then its benefit would have been negated.
Human’s take too much for granted. Atheists are the most unthankful people in the world. They thank one another. They love their pets. They love their families. They hate their enemies. But so did Hitler. By setting one’s standard to minimally equal Hitler, man justifies himself.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Alan Clarke wrote:
Such as what, exactly? Invisible helium pixies? The thing is, Alan, is even if we didn't have all the scientific explanations for why the earth and the universe is as old as is it, you still don't have anything even approaching evidence for your god's existence. The fact that we can explain everything else is just a bonus.
I think the main problem we have with such relics is that, gathered together, you'd have enough timber to build a frigate, enough grails to fill the frigate, enough blood to float the frigate on, and enough shrouds to build sails to catch the wind to sail the frigate on the veritable sea of blood. Relics are the invention of the opportunistic to extract money from the credulous; none has shown to be anything resembling what it is claimed to be.
You've obviously never lived very far north of the equator, have you? Why would your god hate the Icelandic so much that he casts their country into darkness for so much longer than the people in the rest of the world? Did they do something to anger him?
This incoherent babble is a sign you're starting to lose the plot again, Alan. Time for your medication.
Alan, you are lying to yourself in attempting to force fit your non-existent god and fictional bible to fit the facts of a 3.5 billion year old earth. . You are WRONG. Period, end of story. There is no alternative explanation except that you lie. We see this. Quit lying to yourself, so you quit lying to us. So far, Alan zero, Pharyngual, all. And the score will never improve for you using the method of trying shove an intellectually untenable theory into the facts.
Do you mean relics like the Shroud of Turin?
The moon is as much a light as a mirror is. Not to mention the moon isn't always up at night.
Fixed
Thanks Kel.
Alan, here is the heart of the matter. Can you show physical evidence for your alleged god that can pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin? If such evidence doesn't exist, how can the bible be the word of god? If the bible is not the word of god, because god doesn't exist, then there is no need for a young earth. So, you whole theory rests on proving god. We are waiting for your evidence. An eternally burning bush would be good. If you don't have the physical evidence for your alleged god, you need to stop arguing and go away until you have the evidence.
The alternative is that you are a delusional fool. Your choice cricket. Choose wisely.
Catholic relics, now? Dude. You're not Catholic. The KJV that you worship was created by Protestants.
Oh, and for that matter... would these be the same Catholics who have no problem with a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth? Catholics, as in the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître whose study of astrophysics led to the theory of the expanding universe currently called the Big Bang? The same Catholics who have no problem with the theory of evolution?
[So familiar.... ]
And it's theists who have the a priori ASSUMPTION that there is more than the physical world and yet never provide the evidence for anything more. That's why Occam's Razor eliminates the supernatural.
The only one I see hating here is you, Alan Clarke. And your religion isn't helping. All it's doing is giving a direction to your psychotic impulses...
If catholics do have Christ's blood, surely it can be tested. Hell, there even may be some of that blood on that crown or the bits of the cross. If they hasn't melted the nails down, there may have been blood on that too. Let's see the perfect DNA of Jesus.Though I'm guessing the Catholics are reluctant to have their artefacts tested since the Shroud was shown to be a fake, and believers don't care about testing.
Nerd of Redhead: Kel, I'm running seti-at-home, but I really don't expect ET will be found anytime soon. … SETI is science, even if it is unlikely to succeed science.
First Occam's Razor, now falsifiability. YEC tries to do science! What next? Flying pigs? The zombie apocalypse?
Number 1 is a prediction. It will be falsifiable. Just wait a million years, then examine many species. Are they recognizable? Note that the prediction is rather sloppy ("recognizable" is not a well-defined term), so you will need to lock down what exactly you mean.
Number 2 is a statement about the present. On the one hand, it is trivially falsified (declawed cats). On the other hand, some minor modifications to the statement ("Almost all cats are born with claws; many domestic cats have their claws removed") is both falsifiable (examine many cats; study claw development) and true.
Number 3 is a statement about the past. That's a bit trickier, but note that changing it to "We know for sure that it is the most reasonable parsimonious inference that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him" applies Occam's Razor to a statement about alleged supernatural claims without evidence. It can be falsified... by God providing evidence.
Number 4 is a definition. You may not like the definition, but hey, it can be "falsified" by providing evidence that there is, was, or will be something more, and asserting that "the cosmos" does not apply to this "something more". Lots of luck with that one.
And finally, SETI is also indeed falsifiable. Again, it's something that will take a long amount of time to falsify, but you know what? Too bad. There's nothing in the concept of falsifiability that has a time limit.... And Occam's Razor does not rule it out, because it's a completely natural hypothesis, not supernatural.
Meanwhile, the God hypothesis is trivially falsified... unless you go with some sort of never-intervening Deist-like God, which is not falsifiable at all. Which one do you think it is?
Wouldn't my statement ("We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.") also be falsified if anyone in the present could be shown to walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine and be dead for three days before rising again?
I feel the invalidity of the biblical claims is less to do with it's having occurred in the past (where we can't test it) than it is with the fact we know people can't do magic. If they could then the historicity of Jesus would become important.
Surely with the artefacts of Jesus that there's at least one we can test for genetic lineage. If God's the father and Mary is the mother, then we should only see a mother's dna. There are 7 foreskins that are all claimed to be Jesus, correct?
Well... Philosophers of science might argue it. I think it might depend on if the hypothetical miracle-performer claimed to be the same Jesus who did those miracles in the past.
I would also suggest that the miracles be very carefully scrutinized ... more carefully than this, at any rate.
Hm. Assuming that the miracle-worker was legit, I think you would be correct inasmuch as the "We know for sure" part would indeed be falsified. OK, point granted.
Does this mean that Jesus had seven penises? What a man!
If we apply the population growth calculator to find a requred population growth rate to account for 200,000 years of homosapien evolution, the numbers hardly look believable.
http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php
Evolutionary model numbers: Beginning with a population of 2 over a period of 198,000 years to arrive at a given population of 200M during “0” AD, a growth rate of .0093% or .000093 yields exactly 198,498,277 or nearly 200M.
This rate is so low that the populace is on the knife’s edge of extinction but this circus balancing act keeps the plates spinning for 100’s of thousands of years!
I doubt that early man was on the edge of starvation or death for this period of time. Are you forgetting that powerful engine of adaptation and natural selection or were they temporarily suspended? Low populations would mean low human competition for food. If one tribe was threatened by another then increasing the tribe’s population = greater safety! Tribal leaders must have understood the math pretty quick. Neighbors could also avoid deadly conflict by moving since there was plenty of room on a sparsely populated earth. Erosion and desertification would not be as extensive as today. Many American Indians simply followed the buffalo. Agriculture was not necessary for those willing to live a nomadic life style since 1,000 lbs of buffalo meat was a spear's throw away.
Currently, world population growth rate is 1.2% or .012.
Niger has the 2’nd highest growth rate of 3.68% and the Gaza Strip is #5 at 3.35%, great places to plan your next vacation. The highest growth rates appear to coincide with the most backward nations while the most technologically advanced are at the lowest.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2…
Conclusion:
The biblical account of a starting point of 8 people 4400 years ago after the flood, coincides with an overall population growth rate of only .467% or .00467 to yield a calculated population close to today’s 6,400,300,740. Some may even question if a .467% rate is too low being 2.6 X less than today’s rate of 1.2%. However, the evolutionary model as calculated above requires a much lower population growth rate of .0093% or 129 X less than today’s rate since a long duration of time is required for man to evolve. Which of the two requires the greater faith to believe, man having survived with a population growth rate of 2.6 X or 129 X less than the current growth rate?
2? Roger you dumbass.
There's your problem. The population of humans has never been down to "2". Populations of ancestors have varied as our species evolved, but have never dropped as low as that.
There was no global flood. Zero evidence. None. Look, could you please read the entire web-page (or PDF article) of Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective, just to get a sense of why it cannot be the case that there was ever a global flood; why it cannot be the case that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; why science does indeed say that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? It's a bit long, but can you at least make the effort to read and understand?
One million years from now, evolution will make many species barely recognizable.
Owlmirror: It will be falsifiable. Just wait a million years, then examine many species.
This is falsifiable only in theory, but not in practicality. Such is the theory of evolution. The stipulation of long periods of time required for evolution to happen makes if impractical to falsify. Any true scientist should at least be cautious before accepting such a theory.
We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.
Owlmirror: …alleged supernatural claims without evidence.
Sorry, but there is evidence. We have multiple documents containing eye-witness accounts. Obviously, there are varying interpretations on the validity of those documents and the accounts contained therein, but to say the claims are “without evidence” is totally false.
The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be. - Carl Sagan
Owlmirror: …it can be "falsified" by providing evidence that there is, was, or will be something more, and asserting that "the cosmos" does not apply to this "something more".
To falsify this statement, Carl Sagan would need a cosmos-sized brain and equal-sized insight into the past, present, and future.
Kel:As for historical artefacts, there currently exists not a single artefact belonging to Jesus.
There is a fine line between genius and madness; pleasure and pain; theism and atheism. I’m wondering if there is some connection between Catholics who cherish relics and evolutionists who cherish icons of physical proof.
Please describe at least three artifacts that you feel would be the best evidence for Jesus’ existence and/or for his alleged miracles. Keep in mind that Jesus owned little property other than the clothes on his back. Those who crucified him gambled for his garments.
And around and around and around, just like a carousel... or a broken record...
Wrong. We have the methods to give dates for fossils, and we have ways to measure changes to the DNA between generations. This gives us an at least approximate and falsifiable way to test for changes in different species over time, and make approximate and falsifiable predictions for changes in DNA that can occur in the future.
Indeed, it was a similar falsifiable prediction that led to the discovery of Tiktaalik. They knew the approximate age of what they were looking for; they knew the age of the rocks they were going to search in. Lo and behold, they found the transitional fossil in the rocks of the right age.
We have no such thing.
We have writings that claim to be records of certain events, most of which are based on each other, and one which is obviously an independent work, and each of which have points that contradict each other.
Wrong. The accounts are not evidence of miracles, they are nothing more than evidence of accounts of miracles.
You know what would be evidence of miracles? God coming down and performing genuinely supernatural miracles himself for everyone to see, today. And performing them on such a broad scale, and determinable to not be frauds, that there can be no doubt that they are indeed supernatural miracles.
Nothing else is evidence of miracles. Not stories, not "eye-witness" accounts; heck, not even video recordings can be taken at face value — or are you going to start worshiping Criss Angel? You can even see him walking on water... but can you believe what you see?
Nonsense. Sagan was offering a definition. You are the one who has to falsify it, if you can. The fact that you can't doesn't mean it's not falsifiable... just that you are not up to doing it.
So... now you agree that there are no such relics, and that the Catholics are wrong? What, you needed me to remind you that you're not Catholic and don't accept their claims?
*snrk*
Obviously, Jesus himself would be the best evidence for Jesus' existence.
Hey, you're the one claiming that he isn't dead and buried. You bring us this alleged living Jesus and have him perform some miracles.
I keep seeing goddists trotting out this statement but it always boils down to the Bible (not written by eyewitnesses) and commentaries on the Bible (written years after the various books of the New Testament were written). Since the main branches of Christianity can't even agree on what's in the Bible, its authenticity is highly suspect.
And please, don't give me Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. There is good reason to think that the passage that mentions Jesus was a forgery written by a Christian apologist to provide historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Historian Michael L. White argues against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from the Antiquities, do not mention the passage.
The cross, the crown of thorns, and an item of clothing. Surely at least one would contain something we can take some DNA from, and if the J-man was who we attribute him then surely we should see only see a mothers' genetic heredity. Beyond that there isn't much we can do, any artefact should carbon date back to ~1980 years ago for it to even have a chance to be valid.
God is alleged to have walked on earth - started his own cult then sacrificed himself. Have you seen the nature of humanity? We are hunter-gatherers, we collect things that have significance. Are you honestly trying to tell me that his followers both genuinely believed he was God-incarnate and did not try to collect every little thing that God touched?
There are at least three Sacred Spears (the one that stabbed Jesus on the cross) and if all the splinters of the Holy Cross were gathered together we'd find the cross was about 30 meters long and a meter thick.
That's it. There are plenty of supposed relics of Jesus; half a dozen foreskins, a few spears, lots of pieces of cross, bits of the crown of thorns, at least 4 holy chalices, among others - and that's just the surviving relics to this day. Imagine how many there have been in history. Curiously enough the only relic ever to go under proper scientific investigation turned out to be a fake... big surprise there.
Sorry, but I believe that “2” ball is in your court. Increasing the starting population number (from 2) with a known fixed ending population (200M @ “0” AD) for a given amount of time (198,000 yrs) requires REDUCING the population growth rate figure. The evolutionary model example with the .000093 population growth rate figure would be reduced further favoring extinction.
I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model, requiring less “explaining”.
Almost every single geologist would disagree with you on that one. The evidence simply doesn't fit the flood model at all.
Roger A. Moore's The Impossible Journey of Noah's Ark raises many problems both with the ark and with the flood.
Alan, the burden of proof is upon you. Show us your evidence. So far, you have shown us nothing, because you have nothing except your testament, which is worthless.
RogerS, the same applies to you.
To both, your god only exists between your ears. The only way out is if you have physical evidence for your imaginary god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Failure to show such evidence means you are tacitly acknowledging that your god doesn't exist and your bible is a work of fiction. And saying "look around you" or "look in the mirror" won't cut the mustard, as we have natural explanations for both.
Were they trying to communicate a noteable event?
Did they all receive text message talking points?
Why is there common agreement of preservation in a "vessel" when heading for higher ground is how you survive local floods?
D = Destruction by Water
G = (God) Divine Cause
W = Warning Given
H = Humans Spared
A = Animals Spared
V = Preserved in a Vessel
D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus' account
D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian's account
D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid's poetry
D G . H . V 23 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35
BTW, they wrote or told the event, not me.
YAWN, nothing of interest as no dates were involved. What a loser. You have no idea of what is required for evidence. And still no physical evidence for your imagainary god. Double loser.
Re. 326:
Wherever there is water, there are floods. Even where there isn't water there will be floods. Show that all those floods occurred simultaneously.
It would seem that if there were such "similarities" in having flood myths around the world that there would be similarities in the names of the survivors.
This is more of a case of human societies setting up bases near water fronts and one of the main drawbacks is the chance of floods. Yet floods do not deter humans from the benefits of living on water fronts.
Dude, the population change curve is an estimate. I know that "estimate" is a big, hard word, maybe too hard for a creationist to understand... but no evolutionary biologist will ever assert that the population of humans was ever only "2", since unlike in your fairy-tale, the earliest human population is not asserted to have been *poofed* from out of nothing.
Learn what you're talking about before spouting off nonsense about it, will you? Or is that just too damn hard for a creationist to do, so you would prefer to spout nonsense for years rather than learn?
Since there was no global flood, the data obviously cannot fit with it.
Those that headed for lower ground in a flood died for their self-destructive perversity. Those that had no vessel and could not get to higher ground drowned because of their misfortune.
How smart do you have to be to understand this?
How stupid do you have to be to not understand this?
Owlmirror: LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham's Razor! Funny!
You shouldn’t discount the utility of Occam’s Razor too readily. Wouldn’t Darwinian evolution require its mechanisms to be efficient for it to be viable? In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken. For all practical purposes, light travels in a straight line in a vacuum. If this principle were violated, then I suspect that our current universe would cease to exist. The same holds true for living things. If neural transmission couldn’t find an efficient path from the brain to the fingers, then the organism would undoubtedly be naturally selected out for extinction. The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer. Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.” - Sir Isaac Newton
Alan, you are still looking for gaps that aren't there. And still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. We don't care if you don't like evolution. But you are incapable of coming up with anything we would consider a palbable hit to the theory. Because you don't understand how science works.
Until you show acceptable evidence for your god will will remain a lying loser.
Owlmirror: LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham's Razor! Funny!
You shouldn’t discount the utility of Occam’s Razor too readily. Wouldn’t Darwinian evolution require its mechanisms to be efficient for it to be viable? In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken. For all practical purposes, light travels in a straight line in a vacuum. If this principle were violated, then I suspect that our current universe would cease to exist. The same holds true for living things. If neural transmission couldn’t find an efficient path from the brain to the fingers, then the organism would undoubtedly be naturally selected out for extinction. The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer. Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.” - Sir Isaac Newton
If so, the designer really likes a vacuum at 3 degrees above absolute zero, since that's what most of creation is. The material bits are, of course, almost all hydrogen and helium (at least the stuff that isn't dark matter and dark energy). It is profoundly absurd to claim that the trillions of cubic light-years of cold emptiness sprinkled with bits of hydrogen and helium was somehow "designed" to produce humans.
I think RogerS' post on flood legends is interesting from the point that the majority of legends aren't "fire" legends or "plague" legends. Legends often connect to a source of reality, such as the legend of "Annie Oakley" or "St. Nicholas". When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.
Secondly, the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the "floodings" where not simultaneous. I often hear, "This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago." This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.
LOL! Occam's Razor slices that incoherent (and unevidenced) assertion into nothingness.
It's funny because you invoke Occam's Razor only to completely and explicitly violate it by asserting an unnecessary entity in order to "explain" the self-evident.
I apologize for my inaccuracy in modeling the Evolutionary account pertaining to population growth rate of homosapien with a starting figure of only 2. Since we are dealing with an estimate here (thanks for clarifying that to) we will need a starting population number, ending population number, and elapsed time in years. I had used 2, 200M, and 198,000 respectively which resulted in .000093 for a growth rate. Please provide what you would consider as more accurate numbers, remember, I only expect a rough estimate result. Thanks for your participation. Others with a differing opinion and reasonable support for another set of numbers –please jump in, this can be a collaborative effort.
Not unless there's actual evidence of a local flood. The Earth is a more reliable witness than human beings.
Because there should be no floods whatsoever on a planet that is three-fourths water with a constant hydrological cycle, complex weather patterns, and a changing climate?
Maybe if you ever actually studied geology, you might figure it out!
But that's just crazy talk, right? No creationist would ever study geology without the a priori ASSUMPTION that the Earth was created from nothing 6000 years ago and then subjected to a global flood.
You never did answer whether the God hypothesis was falsified or non-falsifiable. Guess your creationist brain just shuts down when it sees that sort of question.
O right, I see now. There must be a God because otherwise the universe might have been no-Euclidean and... o right. The nineteenth century called; they want their physics back.
If only there was some large, natural event that could form the basis large numbers of flood stories in different places and was consistent with the geological evidence (which a truly global flood isn't): something like the end of an ice-age causing local flooding to be common...
Write that as Homo sapiens. Two separate words, genus name ("Homo") capitalized, species name ("sapiens") lowercase, italics often preferred. That's the current taxonomic standard.
No, no, no. The only reason you brought up the population change was in support of the "global flood". Since there is no global flood recorded in the global geology, we don't need to fiddle with population estimates.
For that matter, there's no "global flood" recorded in the human population or animal population. Read any archaeology or anthropology textbook. There is no instance of humanity (and all other life) disappearing 4400 years ago and starting back up again, in all the places where human settlements are studied.
If you have a problem with radiometric dating, note that Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective also discusses non-radiometric dating systems. Although it's funny how Alan was fine with carbon dating when he thought it supported a 100,000-year-old Earth — a couple of orders of magnitude off from what the bible says. What's up with that, anyway?
But please don't spout nonsense like the Earth being "repopulated" 4400 years ago from a population of 8 humans. It didn't happen. We have the evidence.
Alan Clarke:
The argument against a global orgy is often reduced to an admission that people indeed have had sex, but not simultaneously. This fine line of denial makes me wonder how monogamatarians maintain their faith.
Matt Heath:
According to some, our universe is non-Euclidean, but you really don't want to meet the designers...
Indeed, it should. It should also consider what is more likely:
(1) A global flood occurred, even though all empirical evidence contradicts this.
(2) That early civilizations arose along river banks and ocean shores. There likely were many independent floods that did a great deal of damage(hell, even with all our modern technology Katrina still caused a lot of damage). These legends then spread to other cultures.
Now RogerS copied and pasted #326 (without attribution). There appear to be many sites with this info ( here is one) that also don't give attribution. It seems like to be a creationist you must complete a checklist of intellectual dishonesty.
Anyway, the lists gives 35 sources of flood myths. Now, what they don't say is that some of these myths aren't independent. "The Epic of Gilgamesh" influenced Berossus' account and very likely Lucian and Zend-Avesta.
It also gives "Divine Cause" as part of the check list. The fact that Ovid, the Eddas and others gave polytheistic causes isn't really mentioned. That aside, people blame "Divine Cause" to pretty much all natural events. To volcanoes, earth quakes, droughts, famines, epidemics, etc. That really proves nothing.
Another category given is "Warning Given". Again, prophecies are very common in myths. Too see problems with "prophecies" go see Postdiction.
Now I don't quite understand the usefulness of the category "Humans Spared". If every single human died how the hell are we here? If it was just a regional flood, then someone must have survived to tell the tale.
We know that word of mouth is a HORRIBLE way to figure out what really happened. Why try and use other ancient myths to prove your particular ancient myth? Why not look at the geological evidence? Is it because it shows absolutely no evidence of a global flood?
Besides, how would you get 2 of every single animal on a fucking boat?
Noah was not involved in the Great Flood of 1993 (Jefferson City, MO in the picture).
Localised flooding is very different to global flooding. Localised flooding is not only possible but has been observed countless times. A global flood is physically impossible. Multiple local floods explain the flood mythology in other cultures, as well as explaining why the genetic evidence in our species and others, the geographical distribution of animals and their ancestral fossil records, the non-uniform geology, etc. This argument is the equivalent of saying: evolution posits that more advantageous mutations will arise. Wings are an advantageous mutation. Humans don't have wings. Therefore evolution is false.Natural disasters happen, a global flood hasn't.
Late to the party, I am.
Alan wrote:
An assumption that is:
1. Supported by NO geological evidence.
2. Contradicted by the entirety of the geological record*.
I think we can safely throw this assumption out. Oh wait, we did. A couple of hundred years ago when we figured out 1 and 2 above.
*Not to mention the science of physics.
Tulse: :)
But this universe is non-Euclidean too; that was my point. It's just the curvature of space time is pretty small except near black holes and the big bang.
Saying euclidean space implies god therefore god is like saying phlogiston implies god therefore god.
In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken.
...reading this, with my inside-out laid-out eyes...
*facepalm*
Since when has it been assumed that the human population growth rate has ever been linear? And what;s the use of an average growth rate? The rates were lower when the survival rate was lower, when the infant mortality rate was higher, when life expectancy was lower. The rates have been higher in recent times, for a wide variety of reasons. It's absurd to apply (or to compute) a single growth rate across across hundreds of thousands of years, and then reject it as being either too high or too low.
Plague.
Famine.
War.
Get it?
Tis Himself: …it always boils down to the Bible (not written by eyewitnesses)…
When was the New Testament written? Jesus predicted the destruction Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. Jesus’ words were recorded with slight differences by three individuals concerning the destruction of Jerusalem:
Matthew 24:1-2 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
See the variations as recorded by Mark and Luke: Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6 Why isn’t there any boasting by the Bible’s authors that Jesus properly predicted the destruction? Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened. Nowhere does the Bible gloat over its successful predictions.
Who are we to trust? Tis Himself? Owlmirror? Jesus' closest friend, John? It’s a no-brainer.
1 John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
John knew mankind inside and out:
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
What a stupid godbot. Quoting the fictional bible impresses us not, and is meaningless. YAWN. Still not evidence for your imaginary deity. Double YAWN.
According to almost all biblical scholars, you are wrong.
Postdiction contains several problems with "prophecies".
Let's see how this "prophecy" does:
-Vague
-Open ended: doesn't give an exact date of when it will happen
-Catch-all: Many ways a city destroyed. Jesus doesn't specifically say how it's going to happen. It could have been by fire, by earthquake, etc.
- Unavailable until after the fact: Like Kel points out it's likely that most of the Gospels were after 70 AD .
*snort*
Funnily enough, not a single goddamn scrap of parchment or papyrus with this supposed prediction exists that can be dated to before the destruction.
LOL. The entire NT is a huge extended gloat over how Jesus and his followers interpreted the various scattered verses in the bible correctly as predictions, and no-one else did, nyah-nyah.
LOL. What was the Christ cult supposed to say about those who called them blasphemers and/or liars and/or misguided fools? "Ooh, yup, you got us. We were wrong, but now we have to come clean."
Of course they're going to deny all charges and reverse them against those making them — just like any cultist today. Go to the Moonies and say that Sun Myung Moon is not the second coming of Jesus. Go to the Scientlologists and say the L. Ron was a fraud and a con-man. See what kind of response you get.
Sheesh.
PS: Take your meds. You're going psychotic again.
RogerS @ 326:
Wow, you really nailed it with that very first example. (Pity you put Australia first, it made me curious enough to look it up.)
I found it in Folklore in the Old Testament Studies in Comparative Religion, which seems a likely source for this list itself (but I didn't spent time investigating). Can't cut & paste from Google Book Search, so here's a similar passage from talkorigins:
That's not a historical record, it's a (convoluted and weird) just-so story about how a bird got its colouring!
(I'm not quite sure how the flood covered the country while still leaving a "mainland" to swim to, or why the dead pelican determined the colouring for the surviving species, but that's creation myths for ya!)
Do you know how the flood supposedly occurred in this story?
Tiddalik the giant frog was thirsty, and drank all the water in the world; so the animals conspired to make him laugh so he would release the water again.
You want to try and work that into the biblical setting for me?
Owlmirror: Hey, you're the one claiming that he isn't dead and buried. You bring us this alleged living Jesus and have him perform some miracles.
Professor George McNelly at Purdue University once told me that he would accept a gift Bible from me under the condition that I would receive a Bible from him that described how each miracle attributed to Jesus was performed by natural means. Jesus knew how temporal and useless miracles were for long-lasting relationships. Each time Michael Jackson steps on stage, his fans want him to win them over with another “miraculous” performance. The problem is, the fickle crowd becomes progressively immunized by multiple performances, and the “miraculous” becomes commonplace. Eventually, the charm wears off completely to the point that those who were once charmed become those who most abhor their idol. John Lennon died at the hands of disenchanted idolizer Mark David Chapman.
Owlmirror, I fear that your choice to have Jesus appear before you to perform a miracle would leave you as miserable as King Midas. The reason I know so is because you are a prisoner to your “naturalistic” mind. If Jesus did appear, your mind would reject him as an imposter. If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet. If there were no stones, you would think a sheet of ice was submerged about 1 inch below the surface to support his feet. Your naturalistic mind would play tricks on you to no end. If your time for studying the miracle came to an end, you would forever torment yourself for not having investigated your latest idea of a natural cause. Where science would normally be an asset, you would be cursed under a delusion of “naturalism”.
Owlmirror: Go to the Moonies and say that Sun Myung Moon is not the second coming of Jesus. Go to the Scientlologists and say the L. Ron was a fraud and a con-man. See what kind of response you get.
Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.
lol, thou cracketh me up Alan.
If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet.
the real question is...
why wouldn't YOU?
did you think somehow you would just "know"?
how does that work?
Searching for valid explanation of extraordinary claims is somehow a mental illusion? Lemme guess...perpetrated by the devil to lead the flock astray, no doubt.
And if the excuse for being unable to verify, or even see, a miracle is that it would somehow cheapen the experience of something that no one has experienced in the first place is a weak one indeed.
Then why perform any miracles at all?
Why do you have a "relationship" with Jesus, if not for a miracle or miracles?
Funny how you imply that Jesus was nothing more than a traveling illusionist, always careful to leave to rubes wanting more. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.
Mark David Chapman was a religious Christian psychotic who hated Lennon because Lennon dared to suggest that he was more popular than Jesus Christ. Mark David Chapman thought that God wanted him to commit murder.
Gee, who does that sound like?
And you would just accept anyone who claimed to be Jesus, or performed a few magic tricks. Or you wouldn't, because you have some standards of belief and skepticism.
You're either utterly gullible... or you are no different from me, and would want to be sure that you were not being deceived.
Which is it?
Did Criss Angel really walk on water, or did he fake it? If you believe, why don't you worship him as the returned son of God? If you don't, how are you any different from me in being skeptical?
Why should the "time for studying the miracle" come to an end? If it's really Jesus, he wouldn't need to stop. He should be performing miracles left and right to convince people that he's for real.
If I'm inferior to Jesus Christ, why are you so obsessed with me? Stop wasting your time posting here, and go to church.
Criss Angel aka Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos aka Nicolae Carpathia has real magic powers but they do not come from God they come from his father the devil
Which means they come from God. All power comes from the Creator of all things. I have no power but the power that God grants.
Alan @355:
A question for you, Alan. Or indeed for anyone else who believes in the divinity, resurrection and return of Jesus.
A man approaches you in the street, and declares that he is Jesus Christ, Son of God, returned to Earth. Would you believe or reject his claim? And on what grounds?
What if the person is of caucasian, or middle eastern appearance? Black? Asian? A woman? A child?
Does your answer change, and why?
Using the name from the Left Behind novels? C'mon, this has got to be a Poe.
Yeah, because there's no reason to heal the sick and feed the hungry, if not for the PR benefits.
Poor Alan, those of us who respect the scientific process will require the proper evidence from Jesus to confirm his status. This would include his walking on water at a venue of our choosing, and doing so in the presence of other scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers. And a unanamous decision would be need for proof of divinity. Anything less means we can be conned. Like you have been. There is no evidence that your imaginary god exists, or that your bible is anything other than fiction. But you want to believe, so you do. We see no need to believe, and don't. You've been wasting your time and ours with your stupid posts. Time to call it quits.
Flood Legends reference: http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
Sorry, the omission was an oversight (you can relax now and have an M&M).
An actual event that occurred over 4400 years ago is likely to have embellished accounts with some folklore sprinkled in among various cultures spread throughout the world, I get that. Get 35 eyewitnesses to a traffic accident that occurred in 2008 and hand the accounts to an Evolutionist and I am sure he could find adequate inconsistency to disprove the event. He would pull out one that said the car was “flying down the road” and conclude cars do not fly, therefore false. On the other hand, a professional investigator could conclude the event happened by looking for correlations among all the accounts.
Even the “folksy” Australian account you cite begins with a number of interesting elements all contained within the first two sentences:
1.great flood
2.covered the country
3.all drowned except
4.two or three women
5.refuge on a mud island
Genesis 8:4-5 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
Albert Einstein
RogerS, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god, which means your bible is fiction. And nobody but Noah and his family survived the fictional flood. What part of that don't you understand. You trashed your own claim with your own ignorance by using a flood claim with survivors. BWAAAHAAHAAHAA You godbots sure are stupid when it comes to evidence.
So let me get this right:
Not only do YEC (like RogerS) think humanity began from two people (Adam and Eve), but that it happened twice (second time with Noah + seven family members) within the last several thousand years?
RogerS, there are basically two possibilities:
1. There was NO global deluge ~4400 years ago.
2. Whatever deity was responsible for said event erased all evidence of it after the event was over and then created a rock record that screams very loudly THERE WAS NO FLOOD.
In short, there is no geological evidence supporting the idea of a worldwide deluge ~4400 years ago and all of the evidence that we do have indicates that it never happened. The flood hypothesis is long dead and we have been continually stomping on its rotting carcass for more than 200 years.
...all over the world would have left evidence all over the world.
There's no evidence all over the world of this supposed flood event, therefore the flood event did not happen.
Show a little kid playing with toy cars to a Creationist, and he will immediately assert that crashing the toy cars together means that a real accident happened in the real world. This is voodoo, not science.
Yes, and the simple solution is that the bible is false in describing a global flood.
Einstein was neither a YEC, a Christian, nor a follower of any organized religion. And he would have utterly rejected the folly of asserting that a book of primitive myths should trump actual evidence-based science.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein
The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica in the form of chert and/or flint, as well as varying amounts of clay, silt and sand as disseminations, nodules, or layers within the rock. The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Limestone_and_Chemical_Company
Why are huge deposits of marine organisms (limestone calcite) in the middle of continents?
1.Simple answer: a global flood shocking and amassing vast quantities at the same time. The flood covered all continents.
Why are sea shells found in sands in the Midwest and fossilized clams in the closed position found as high as Everest?
2.Simple answer: a global flood carried sands over continents and rapid burial of clams prevented them from dying in the natural open position. Both halves of the shell would not be together given long periods of time.
Why are life forms from sea life to dinosaur bones (with soft tissues) all well preserved in sedimentary layers throughout the world? Why was the American buffalo not preserved?
3.Simple answer: rapid burial by a global flood preserved pre-flood life forms in clay, silt and sand and forever altered the pre-flood climate.
Why are sedimentary layers laid down in vast uniform thicknesses when erosion would have cut grooves and washed away uniform thickness according to terrain?
4.Simple answer: a global flood laid them down at the same time avoiding erosion.
Why do evolutions not have similar conclusions?
5.Simple answer: Their presuppositions automatically filter and reject all answers that conflict with their belief. Observe the mindset in response posts.
John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. — Denis Diderot (Atheist)
plate tectonics... Changing earth and all that.
Jesus fucking christ! we've been deluged with fucknutters this week, eh?
This HAS to be from the "I Love Ray Comfort" banana squad.
Yeah, because there's no reason to heal the sick and feed the hungry, if not for the PR benefits.
LOL
reminds me of the Dishonesty Institute, who if pushed would most likely say:
"there is no benefit to doing any science outside of the PR benefits."
and actually believe it.
RogerS, do you have any idea of how many layers of limestone are under Michigan, along with brine layers, shale, sandstone, etc.? They couldn't have been formed in one flood, but would require repeated comings and goings of the sea as the laurentian shield migrated over the earth. Again, you are your own worst enemy by not finding out the truth, versus the little bit you want to hear. True stupidity requires a godbot.
Roger:
LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO
No. Wrong. It's not that simple, and it's not an answer. You've overlooked something critical:
The volume of water required to cover the globe to the height of Everest is several times the volume of water contained in all the world's bodies of water combined.
Answer me these questions, then, and provide some evidence that your answers have any validity at all:
1. Where did all that extra water come from, and
2. Where did all that extra water go?
Perhaps, but your interpretation sucks compared to the combined weight of the entire geological community and all of the eduction and experience contained with in.
You interpretation is just that. The interpretation of a highly biased individual that no evidence what so ever will change his predetermined conclusion that the Bible is inerrant.
*reads #372*
Oh for fucks sake.
Where do I even begin? This one might take a minute.
I think that pile of excrement will take several minutes. Of course, our fundie idiot also forgot about the nasty glaciers from the ice ages (4 IIRC) which created the unique shape of Michigan.
brokenSoldier: Searching for valid explanation of extraordinary claims is somehow a mental illusion? Lemme guess...perpetrated by the devil to lead the flock astray, no doubt.
I remember a psychology teacher’s story about a monkey sent into outer space. (NASA or Soviets??) The monkey received extensive training to flip certain switches on a control panel at appropriate times to augment the flight. During the flight, the control panel’s actuator lights failed to operate which confused the monkey. The monkey, being outside the familiarity of its training, went mad and destroyed the entire panel by pounding on it. The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.
brokenSoldier, God has no ill-intention toward you nor is it his goal to deceive you. He has provided a complete training manual that should suffice even if the analogous control panel fails. Life is full of “unexpected” failures. Your problem is not that you fail to see the value of training. You love how science affords you to better interpret your environment. But you are not prepared for a control panel failure which takes you outside your comfortable capsule of expectations. I’ve attempted to inform people that a second phase of training is necessary for reaching the destination but I’m labeled as a lunatic for suggesting that another dimension exists. Is it any wonder that people can’t detect this dimension since it is non-physical? I must confess that I have failed miserably in communicating because I keep receiving responses that indicate people are looking for “scientific” answers. Doesn’t it stand to reason that “scientific” answers will not apply to spiritual problems? If you can’t get along with people or you perceive that your every problem is actually “the other person's fault”, then aren’t we entering into a realm that “science” begins to fail? Not only does “science” fall short, but the human mind falls short as evidenced by psychologists who can’t fix themselves:
If you can’t sustain meaningful relationships or you suffer from an extreme physical or mental addiction, don’t you see that “science” is not your deliverer? If a person is fearful of their future, what is the greatest consolation “science” has to offer? If a person can’t stop treating people in a way that he/she knows is destructive, what will “science” offer to change this behavior? I’m trying to describe an apple in 3D color and I’m rebuked at every sentence that exceeds two dimensions and black & white. You have set pre-determined constraints on what you perceive as “reality”. You have seen so many frauds that you are immediately conditioned to categorize every “religious” person as such. In doing so, you have identified yourselves among those who you disdain as “narrow-minded”. Ask yourself, “What social environments am I most uncomfortable in?”, then ask whether the relentless pursuit of “science” has improved your social confidence level. You are using the wrong tool because you have no other.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Alan, that post was nothing but proselytization. That will get you banned. You have failed miserably in showing us your imaginary god. Give it up.
The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.
let me guess:
You ARE that monkey, and they taught you how to type as well?
Fixed.
[snip a bunch of Creationist made-up lies about the interpretation of the geological evidence]
Fixed.
LOL! Thanks Ichthyic for the good laugh.
Woot! I submitted that during that whole thread hilarity.
So when results for the speed of light are constant, that makes it's God's intention to be constant right? So when we use this constant speed of light to measure distant galaxies, it's God's intention that the galaxies be measurable? So when we see over a hundred billion galaxies ranging anywhere from a few hundred thousands light years away to over 10 billion light years away, it's God intention for us to conclude that the universe is at least as old as the time it took for the light from those galaxies to reach us?So when nuclear physics shows decay rates of certain particles, that's God's intention too? So when a variety of dating techniques that correspond with relative dating, it's God's intention to show that those techniques are valid for ageing the earth? When multiple techniques show certain rocks to be over 4 billion years old, does that make it God's intention for us to see that the earth is over 4 billion years old?When we look at the fossil record, we see a clear progression of life. So is it's God's intention that in rocks billions of years old we see nothing more than traces of bacteria? That in rocks older than 600 million years we see no macroscopic organisms? Is it God's intention that we see a gradual emergence of life over the last 500 million years? That in rocks older than 380 million years we see no land vertebrates, and in younger than 370 we do? That when we look at rocks 375 million years old and find a transitional form, surely that's God's intention. Just as when we see avian features on dinosaurs, just as we see man-like apes before man. Surely the fossil record is God's intention; after all he's not trying to deceive us.This is what I find absurd about Young Earth Creationists. All signs point to both the universe and this earth being old. All signs point to the notion that life has evolved over time, and that we share a common ancestor with all life on this planet (certainly animal and plant life.) This is what the evidence tells us, this is what the overwhelming evidence tells us. What does this tell you about God? That God made the natural world look ancient and interconnected, yet it's really young because of a book ascribed to him says otherwise? It just shows that your faith is in the bible and not God.
No, you're labeled as deluded for asserting another dimension. You're labeled as a lunatic for frothing at the mouth and wanting to murder people.
So what if it is "non-physical"? If it were real, it would still have real, physical effects. Heck, the bible even claims it has real, physical effects.
Mark 16: 17 “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
Where are the hospitals with no Christians in the sickbeds but only on the staff; curing all and sundry by laying on hands alone? Where are the Christians demonstrating the truth of their belief by drinking bleach, rat poison, strychnine, and cyanide? Where are the Christian linguists who automatically understand every language.
They don't exist, because the "spiritual dimension" has no real effect, and therefore — by Occam's Razor — can be eliminated as not really existing.
If we're talking about the limestone fabric itself, then this should be edited to: "limestone occasionally contains variable amounts of silica." I don't think that "often" is any way defensible if we're talking about the bulk fabric of the rock and integrating across all limestones (which is what your sentence implies).
How are you defining "dissemination" in this context? Are you thinking of it as a formational sedimentary structure or as some sort of weird fluid infill analogous to a mineralization (by far the more traditional use of this word)? Regardless, I presume that you're thinking of a syndepositional feature and not something diagenetic, yes?
This is a false statement. You shot yourself in the foot by using "layers" in combination with the clastic rocks. Chert beds--fine whatever. But if there are actual layers of clastics like clay, sand, or silt, then we're talking about clay, sand, or silt, not limestone. What you have in that case are different rock types interbedded with each other in a sequence. Just referring to the package of material as limestone in this case is imprecise enough to be wrong. Limestone covers a vast suite of rock types, but the word does not refer to the same formational history as any of those other three materials. You can say "sequences of limestone often contain layers of blah, blah, blah,..." and be fine, but bear in mind that you are referring to different rock types that have different formational histories (which is rather the entire point if we're postulating that they've all been laid down in a single worldwide event).
I also don't really like the use of layers. It's not precise enough for me to understand what you mean given your imprecise use of limestone. I presume you're not talking about lamina I'm sure, but are you referring to bedding planes or entire formations? The difference is hugely important here (beds vs. formations). You're trying to talk about sedimentology. Word choice matters.
This is broadly accurate, but it really depends on what kind of limestone you're referring to. Several varieties of limestone are almost entirely the result of direct precipitation of calcite via inorganic processes.
Interesting that you would quote a socialist who denied your god.
Woah Alan Clarke - hyper-dimensional christian fuckwittery! Fascinating, fascinating - though I must admit to a feeling of guilt. Sometimes Pharyngula is like the Bedlam of the 18th century - an afternoon out, in which the well-to-do saunter past a line of cages. In each, a slavering wreck of humanity resides, some sad and reflective, others screaming and throwing excrement. Here a "cretin" there a "half-wit", this one's "melancholic" that manic. Most talk to themselves; many, many are self-arguers. Here we see, stark in its effects, the true consequences of religion, and its sad victims.
Am I cruel to want to look?
But what's this - a new cage, with an inmate they say has the wit of fully half a human, a gurning, self-confident fellow, of an instructorial bent. We lean forwards to listen, but the words, once English, make no sense - for drawn from the all the pits of humans idiocy, mixed with the grammar of fact, they twist and turn like smoke plumes in a draughty room. Such eloquence, and all for nothing! We turn away, embarrassed. The keeper stands unsmiling.
"Was that...?"
"Yes," he nods gravely, "that was - Alan Clarke"
Alan Clarke #381
You're right, we do have predetermined constraints on reality. They're called "evidence." You've been rebuked and your posts ridiculed because you fail to provide this evidence. What's more, you've been told this more than once but, quite obviously, fail to heed our admonitions.
Personally, I am most uncomfortable in situations where I have to deal with people who have oddball, ridiculous beliefs. Creationists, flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, the "Obama was born in Nigeria" wackos, folks like that. Also I feel really uncomfortable when religious proselytizers tell me that I "need to find Jesus" and I'll "be going to Hell because I don't believe." Actually the worst goddists are the people who have the strange idea that I've never, in my entire life, ever heard of Jesus. Dealing with these people is painful. Oh yes, I also really dislike discussing economics and politics with looneytarians.
I sure don't need religion as a psychological tool. I prefer to think for myself. I don't need a professional virgin wearing a dress telling me that a nine year old shouldn't have an abortion. I don't need some homophobic preacher telling me that gay people shouldn't get married because god thinks "taking it up the ass is icky." And I really don't need some wackaloon fundie trying to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old, Jebus rode a dinosaur around Galilee, and this nonsense should be taught in schools instead of science.
So why don't you apply that thinking to the bible as well? I guess a giant frog belching forth water is just silly, but a boat holding a representative of every extant lifeform is hunky-dory?
The flood in the Noah myth, if it happened at all, was written down centuries after the event supposedly occurred. Why is it not more reasonable to assume it too is an embellished story? Maybe a localised flood, with a farmer saving his livestock on a boat?
Anyway. Let's ignore the complete lack of any evidence for a global flood event, and the fact that indigenous Australians have probably been here for over 100,000 years, and just move on:
1: How many massive floods have occurred in your lifetime alone? Imagine a small village in the midst of one, with no other settlements out to the horizon; don't you think in a more primitive culture, they might think the whole world might be flooded?
2: The place they supposedly took refuge was coastal -- to cover the country, they would be under hundreds of metres of water! But let's ignore that too, huh?
3,4: So Noah's family weren't the only ones saved after all?
5: How does "evading a big flood on a mud island" fit with "drowning every living thing on earth except Noah's boat"?
oh, and you forgot 6: They were rescued by a pelican in a boat, who ferried them to the mainland.
This is not the same story. For the tale to make much sense at all (and Dreamtime stories are quirky & cool, but most don't), the flood would have to be like a tidal-wave, sweeping across the whole country but not submerging the whole thing. That fits with the frog-barf imagery, but not the biblical flood.
But sure, this is just the first myth off your list.
Maybe among those stories there are a couple of closer matches, but I'd bet the majority are just generic 'big flood' stories. Consider:
* Virtually every culture on earth will have experienced major flooding at some point. It's probably the most universal natural disaster, and is easily attributable to supernatural cause (water falls from the sky!)
* People tend to imagine what-ifs ("what if it were bigger?"), and make up stories about it.
Stories of "divine retribution via massive flooding" really don't seem that surprising to me.
Watchman: The volume of water required to cover the globe to the height of Everest is several times the volume of water contained in all the world's bodies of water combined.
Answer me these questions, then, and provide some evidence that your answers have any validity at all:
1. Where did all that extra water come from, and
2. Where did all that extra water go?
Pre-flood Everest wasn’t as high.
The water is still here, it covers 71% of the Earth.
There is good evidence that the pre-flood world atmosphere could have contained a portion of the water (not all). The evidences are larger than existing land animals (dinosaurs) and forests in Antarctica. Creationists and evolutionist agree that Earth’s current atmosphere and ecosystem is not what it was. The second water source for the flood was sub-terrestrial:
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
If Mount Everest, which is the tallest point on earth at 8,850 meters (29,035 feet), were set in the Mariana Trench, there would still be 2,183 meters (7,166 feet) of water left above it.
Re-arranging existing land masses could cover the entire Earth with water. Without cracks in seafloors (Mariana, Mindanao, etc.) oceans would be higher.
If the Earth’s land masses were completely flat, (i.e. no Everest or Mariana trench) then the globe would be covered by 1.7 miles of water. I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins. Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by “15 cubits” as described in Genesis 7:20. Where did all of the energy come from? May I suggest the same energy that evolutionist use to raise and lower vast plateaus as needed for their model to evade the global flood.
I unkilled Alan juuuust for a little peek, and my reward was badly sprained eye-rolling muscles. Learned that lesson.
You see? Something about a flood and Antartica which...no, nothing...Oh, energy - that's always there...pleateaus..?
OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT WAS AWESOME
Hi Josh, (#389)
Try the link I provided, you must have missed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
Go to the second section titled "Description" and begin reading. You will see your dispute is with my source. If you think your points are valid, you may want to notify them. I acknowledge wikipedia is not without error.
Best wishes,
RogerS
Because of course mountain ranges can form in a year or so, showing all the evidence of being millions of years old, despite being only a few thousand years old. Because Creationism isn't just pseudoscience, it's voodoo science. Big Juju do water magic and make big mountain!
Big Juju do magic and put water into air, and water not fall down as rain until Big Juju make Big Flud!
Believer in Big Juju not need no stinking evidence for geological dreamworld! Believer in Big Juju know that Big Juju create flat world make world all bumpy after Big Flud!
Ooga Booga! Big Juju make much water and move much earth around!
I see both our liars and bullshitters are still lying and bullshitting.
Still no physical evidence for their imaginary god. Which makes their bible a work of fiction, and anything quoted therein worthless. Welcome to real science boys, and you are both intellectually boys.
First you have to show evidence for your god. Evidence that will pass muster with with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural origin. Not done. Without that god, you have nothing but your imagination, versus the facts of science. Science 100, your imagination 0. Game called for humanitarian reasons. At the moment, we are laughing at your feeble, and I mean feeble, attempts to lie.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/12/your-creation-museum-report/
Hi Roger. I did actually read the link. I found it to be typical Wikipedia...
The reason I asked you the questions that I did, and dissected the Wikiblabia text in the detail that I did, is that you used that obviously flawed text to support your retort to my assertion that the geological evidence does not support a worldwide, Noachian-type deluge.
If you're going to use a source to support a point, then you should know enough about the subject you're arguing about to be able to assess the validity of the sources you're using. If you can't, then you have no business telling a professional geologist that "The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation" when talking about geology. You haven't shown me that you're qualified to form an interpretation of the data.
Anyone else find it hilarious/ironic that these Creationists are using myths to prove their claims?
I'll take colossal understatements for 1000 Alex.
Not really. What I find hilarious is that they'll cherry pick some very specious evidence (fossils on mountainsides, localised flood-formed geological structures, fables from other tribes) as proof; ignore all evidence against such possibilities (ice cores, tree rings, progressive fossil record); then bring the kicker - make up a fantasy world where the impossible becomes infinitisimally less so. When they say stupid shit like "I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins." you know that they have no fucking clue whatsoever. They are their own argument to absurdity.
Honestly the
comment sent me screaming.
While technically correct, he is off my many orders of magnitude on how quickly Everest has been rising and working backwards how much "shorter" Everest would be.
It really is amazing how fucking stupid that is and what kind of incredible mental contortionism one has to undertake to even put forth such a ridiculous claim.
Everest is around 29,028 feet (8,848- meters). Measurements suggest that it is rising about 5 mm per year (at the high end of the range) because of the forces of the Indian subcontinent smashing into Asia and pushing the Himalayas upward (yay tectonics).
So lets take that back 6000 years, just to be kind.
5 mm per year x 6000 years - 300 meters. Shorter than the height of the empire state building (381 meters).... except it's 8000 meters higher than the base of the empire state building.
8848 - 300 = 8548 meters.
K2, the world's second highest peak is currently 8611 meters.
300 meter difference. That's a HUGE difference that of course means that the flood is correct.
Idiots.
Alan wrote
That's true in the strict sense depending on when the flood took place. But if we're talking about a flood that happened ~4400 years ago, then we're talking about a few dozen feet of elevation difference probably. Not such a big deal.
What's the evidence that Everest was significantly lower in elevation 4400 years ago? Lower enough for it be covered by a worldwide deluge. What elevation are we talking about here? Please provide a citation for this.
Calculations that the water in the ocean basins is enough to cover the world's landmasses? If the water is still here, then why doesn't it currently cover the world's landmasses?
Please provide a citation for this.
I don't know what this sentence means.
When is "was?" 4400bp? Okay, I guess that's true for the atmosphere in a strict sense, but the statement about ecosystem is meaningless. The world possesses numerous ecosystems today. Are you trying to assert that your pre-flood Earth consisted of one ecosystem?
Where is the physical evidence of this water? Again, if we're going to talk about "evidences for the flood," then you don't get to invoke miracles. If you're going to invoke miracles, then do it and move on. In that case, evidence is irrelevant and you can stop acting like you're doing science.
Okay--and? Everest isn't in a trench situation. Everest sits upon the Tibetan Plateau. It's, broadly speaking, the result of a collision between India and Asia. What does your hypothetical statement matter in this discussion?
Support for this? A landmass reconstruction? Isostatic analysis?
Why? Do you have evidence that subduction zone trenches accommodate a significant fraction of the Earth's seawater? If they don't, then who cares?
Evidence for this figure of 1.7 miles? And evidence that Earth's landmasses were ever completely flat? And how flat is completely flat? How much topography are we talking about here?
Can you show me some sort of calculations that support this assertion?
No. You may not. What model for evading the global flood do you think geologists have? We don't have "a model to evade the flood," whatever the hell that means. What we're doing is asserting that you don't know how to read the geological evidence, and that you don't care, and that the rocks don't say what you're trying to insist they say. We don't have a model to "evade" your hypothesis. We're saying that your hypothesis doesn't make any sense and that we falsified it 200+ years ago and moved on.
And please stop calling us evolutionists. Evolution is a biological theory. We use it, but to call us evolutionists is just weird. Your doing it because you've been conditioned to this us versus them view of the world, but the over simplicity of labeling everyone who doesn't accept your position on Earth history is absolutely symptomatic of your entire problem.
bah shit
I conversion fail
nevermind the moron chimp
Anyway. That's 30 Meters shorter not 300 (missed a zero on the calculator, sheesh too many hours staring a a computer today).
But anyway, it even more makes my point.
...and yes I admit my mistakes, something that Alan will refuse to do.
When I saw Roger's "thesis" re daflud, I got reminded of something another pharyngulite wrote the other day:
-calladus
But Rev BDC, that was before the Marianas Trench migrated from underneath the Tibetan Plateau 5,000 plus miles to east of the Mariana Islands.
You folks are way more patient than me.
I truly cannot understand how anyone could be a young earth creationist. It's so stupid. It ought to be embarrassing to say "I don't understand anything about anything and I don't care to." Yet they seem to think it's admirable to be ignorant.
Yet they seem to think it's admirable to be ignorant.
yes, there appears to be a whole section of the American (at least) populace that seems to have taken 1984 to be an instructional manual instead of a warning.
War IS peace
Freedom IS slavery
Ignorance IS strength
fucking, fucking, sheep.
And in such a short time frame too.
It's AMAZING.
/still kicking self for using calculator to ensure accuracy and then fat fingering the 1000
John 10:11-18
The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc creationism.
Double Plus good.
Boys, and I mean boys, it is time to leave. It should be obvious to you by now, that nothing you say will convert us to creationism. You have no evidence to persuade us. And we are much smarter than you, so you can't bullshit us. You can simply cease posting and fade into the bandwidth. This is the smart, face saving way out. Take it.
According to Evolutionist/Uniformitarian theories, where did the Earth get its water?
"It is assumed the water was derived from impacting comets that contained ice."
"If all water in the Earth's oceans was derived from comets alone, a million impacting comets are required to explain the oceans."
Source: Wikipedia – “History of the Earth”
Evolutionists/Uniformitarians often criticize creationist explanations for a global flood, but their explanations for Earth’s origin of water is more incredible. If a theory can't explain the origin of life, then a cheap way out is to bring it in on an asteroid or comet. When a theory can't explain the origin of the Earth's moon, then a cheap explanation is to say an asteroid broke off a chunk of the Earth and put it into perfect orbit! When a theory can explain how the Earth got its water, then a cheap way out is to say a comet brought it in. If a single comet doesn't suffice and one is really desperate, then say a million comets brought it in! Through random explosions, crashes, and catastrophes, a system conducive for life is built! The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening "night light" and a timepiece for the Earth's inhabitants. From man’s perspective, the Moon just so happens to be the exact same size as the Sun. We can thank the miracle of collisions! When the mechanisms for the formation of the first primordial cell can’t be explained then say the ocean’s tidal action mixed it up like a blender and out came life!
The weakest and most non-credible component for evolutionism is the origin of life. If the laws of science were ever violated, this is it.
Hear hear! But they never do, do they? Alan Clarke though...no, get thee behind me Moroni...
Alan, time for you to either prove your theory to shut the fuck up. First, show the physical evidence for your creator. We are waiting.
Bah, bed time. First sentenc in #418 should end..toor shut the fuck up.
What a stupid little boy Alan is.
I thought we'd done that already on another thread (and wasn't it goats that Louis preferred?)
(sorry Louis)
Alan.
Existing, easy to provide evidence for comets and asteroids
vs.
magical poof-in-to-existence God.
Humm.
Fucking hell Alan Clarke is stupid. Evolution = diversity of life. Abiogenesis - origin of life. Nebula hypothesis - formation of the solar system. "Evolutionism" as you put it does not exist, it's jsut a straw-man argument in order to cast doubt on the otherwise overwhelming evidence for evolution. When we see galaxies billions of light years away, how is that not a testament to how the universe is ancient? When we date rocks and see huge geological columns, again how is that not a testament to the earth being ancient? When we see a gradual emergence of life in the fossil record and so many indicators of common ancestry, how is that not a testament to evolution? You say that God is not trying to deceive us, but it seems that either God has deceived over 99% of scientists the majority of whom believe in god in some form or that the holy book is wrong. Again, I put it to you that your faith is in the word of man rather than the actuality of God. Though I guess that's no surprise, Christians love to lie for Jesus, so much so they lie to themselves and convince themselves that the millions of scientists are wrong / lying rather than their holy book being the work of man.
Evolution does not even seek to explain the origin of life, evolution only happens on life that is already there. So once you have life (no matter what the cause) you have the ability to evolution to occur. And that's what we see in nature, it's what we see in the morphology of species, it's what we see in the fossil record, in labratory experiments and out in the wild. Your argument is analagous to saying "the biggest argument against gravity is the big bang. All the universe coming from a singularity? That sounds like magic to me." You are denying a well observed and documented phenomenon by the absence of knowledge on a precursor to said phenomenon. If we did find out how life began, would your argument then switch to how the planet formed? And if we found how planets formed, would it then switch to how the universe formed? Evolution happened, it's well supported by evidence. by complaining about the origin of life, it's clear that you don't even understand what evolution is. Get an education you old fool!
Hm.
Explanation 1: Water comes from outside the Earth several billion years ago in the form of comet impacts. We know that comets exist, are composed of a large percentage of water ice, and can hit planets. We know this from direct observation of the evidence of their existence.
Explanation 2: Water is *poofed* into existence by a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he's so spiritual) for the purpose of drowning every single living being except for a boat full of humans and two of every animal, 4400 years ago. However, there are no geological signs of a global flood 4400 years ago, no sign of any population bottlenecks 4400 years ago, no sign of of interruption of human settlements 4400 years ago, no sign that this supposed flood ever happened... except in the fevered imaginations of voodoo scientists and their superstitious brainwashed followers who know nothing of biology, oceanography, hydrology, archaeology, anthropology, zoology or geology including the science of geological dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, despite the fact that the article on said geological dating methods was written by a Christian and has been offered to them a couple of thousand times over the past month or so.
Gee, which explanation is more incredible? What a difficult choice there is...
No. Chemical abiogenesis hypotheses are quite a bit more complicated and detailed than that. Not that you would know, because you know nothing whatsoever of organic chemistry.
And of course, your explanation is... a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he's so spiritual) *poofing* life into existence out of dirt, or nothing (depending on which chapter of the bible you read), either before *poofing* man into existence out nothing or after *poofing* man into existence out of dirt (depending on which chapter you read).
Yah-huh.
So, as long as you're spouting of about how great your book of mythology is in describing the origin of life, which chapter is true and which chapter is false? Is chapter 1 true, or is chapter 2 true? Pick one, since you know so much. Explain how you know.
Kel FTW.
Beautiful.
Flood Geology: A discipline characterized by delusional practitioners who have no qualms about making whatever batshit-crazy assertions are necessary to support the stories in their book of ancient mythology, regardless of what the physical evidence actually suggests.
Alan and Roger, don't you ever tire of being comic relief? Of being buffoons who garner, and deserve, no respect whatsoever for your opinions? Do you not ever have a single moment of clarity and wonder what non-stop spewing of lies and absurdities is doing to your minds and your souls?
Kseniya: I know your question was rhetoric, but it was also a little confusing for the likes of Alan and Roger (based on evidence). So I'll answer:
No, we don't have any moments of clarity. We only lie for Jesus. That means it's good. we're goin' to heaven. you're goin' to hell! nyah nyah nyah nyah!
What the bloody hell does the source of water on Earth have to do with evolution? It could have arrived in buckets carried by pixies and it wouldn't affect the theory.
(Though you'd need to explain those darned pixies somehow)
And I'll assume you're using the scientific form of "uniformitarianism", basically saying "things happened in the past the same way they happen today". Seems reasonable in a broad sense to me; if what worked yesterday had no guarantee of working today, science & technology would be impossible, and we'd all be living in terror of flying off into space at any moment. Again. (Or turning into pudding or whatever)
You could just say "science", you know.
Next line: "Computer simulations show this is not an unreasonable number."
Astrophysics of the changing early solar system aside (of which I personally know very little), think about it -- even if most of the comet impacts happened in the first 1 billion years of Earth's 4.5 billion year history, that's only one impact every thousand years or so.
Creationist explanation: Miracle.
It is a possibility that the organic compounds for abiogenesis came from comets rather than forming on Earth, because organic compounds have been detected on the surface of comets. (It doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have formed here, though.)
Creationist explanation: Miracle.
Not a comet, but another protoplanet as the Earth was still forming. The entire reason for the hypothesis is that the moon has a weird composition (low density, no metal core, material closely resembles combined mantle/crust), which the impact would explain. This is all on the same goddamn Wikipedia page, for crying out loud!
Creationist explanation: Miracle.
You know what would happen to the tides if the Moon had a different orbital distance? We'd have different tides. Life is adapted to the tides we have, the tides aren't optimised for life.
And a night light & clock? Seriously? That's right up there with Ray's Banana Theory in the goofy stakes. How convenient that the night light is only intermittent, and the clock is not really in sync with anything else except the biological systems that adapted to be in sync with it.
Yep. Sometimes flukes happen. That lucky happenstance meant eclipses that helped scientists study the sun's corona and figure out stuff about it... like how it's a massive nuclear furnace about 5 billion years old. If God hadn't placed the Moon so conveniently, it would have been much harder to discover such facts contradictory to biblical teaching.
Nice mocking summary you have there, which doesn't bear any resemblance to what I've heard (no reference to tides on Wikipedia's abiogenesis page -- apart from peptides & nucleotides). But even if tides were part of the explanation... they would be part of the explanation! Read what you're writing, man!
And, of course, the creationist explanation: Miracle.
And again, the old canard. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin. Darwin's book was the On the Origin of Species.
Abiogenesis is an independent, if closely related, field. Similar processes were probably in place for early inorganic replicators; but if some other unknown process started life, evolution still took place on what came after.
Displacement Force of Water
Average ocean depth is 12,340 ft. At that depth, 5,364 psi or 386 TONS per sq. ft. is exerted on the floor. Current ocean crust thickness ranges from 3 to 6 miles. Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable that the added water weight from collapsing waters “above the firmament” during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale. Ever step on a water bed, what happens to a person sitting on the edge? The crust would have been more fluid during and immediately following a global flood.
The Bible states that it had never rained and describes a mist from subterranean sources as the water cycle. The crust thickness and characteristics was evidently nothing that resembled what we have today. There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today’s Polar Regions. Could this radically different “original design” system of water above & below the firmament create a more ideal environment producing greater growth for both plant and animals? (rhetorical)
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest’s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring "catastrophic changes" from hurricanes.
Alan Clarke is proof that evolution is dumb and unguided. Nothing that stupid would ever pass QA in any design process.
RogerS:
Where is this so called ample evidence? Care t provide any citations?
Of course not. It doesn't exist!
Fucking brain-dead 'tards!
The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening "night light" and a timepiece for the Earth's inhabitants.
You do realize the moon is not in a static orbit, don't you? It's receding due to tidal friction more than 3 cm per year. It used to be much closer, tides used to be higher, and life has adapted to the gradual change because, you know, life evolves.
Owlmirror: We know that comets exist, are composed of a large percentage of water ice, and can hit planets. We know this from direct observation of the evidence of their existence. …Water is *poofed* into existence by a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he's so spiritual)
Comets are *poofed* into existence by an Oort cloud. Your theory has a face only a mother could love.
"The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50 000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun." – Wikipedia – “Oort Cloud”
RogerS, that was such a slippery pile of gibberish I couldn't find a single logical point to get a grip on. You seem to be saying something about "lots of water making the Earth all differenty", but that's all I got.
I'm not sure you know what "firmament" refers to though. Maybe you think it means "solid ground" (I used to before I read up on it more, it seemed logical); it's hard to tell from your ramblings.
But no, the firmament is supposed to be the solid dome that forms the sky over the flat Earth, to which the stars are fastened.
So by all means, try and use The Firmament in a scientific argument! I'm keen to see where this goes...
Hey, where did my tags go?
Tony,
...I don't think that word means what you think it means...
Well, OK, if you think it means "make up stories, fantasies, dreams, and other lies that have nothing to do with reality", then maybe it does.
Only if the Biblical flood happens inside your own imagination.
Only inside your own imagination.
Now, "evidently" definitely does not mean what you think it means. Because you have no evidence of this fever-dream of voodoo geology.
Not in the past 740,000 years for which we have Polar ice cores. Let me repeat that: We have ice cores dating back seven hundred forty thousand years. What part of "seven hundred forty thousand years" does your tiny little brain not understand?
Since it never existed in reality, NO. Absolutely NOT.
Sheesh. The stupid, it burns strong in this one.
http://www.palaeobiology.org.uk/publications/ijfr6-181.pdf
Ancient polar forests experienced the extreme seasonality of high latitude daylength, but flourished in a warm, temperate climate.
(I just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.)
Tony, don't fall for mirroring what "everone else" thinks, take the time to find out for yourself. Sincerely, RogerS
No, we know comets exist because we see them. With our eyes.
Where is the visible evidence for God; for a global flud; for a 6,000 year-old-Earth? Nowhere.
Science has the evidence. Science wins.
No it's not. You know what's really not conceivable? That someone could still be claiming that a global flood event took place, considering that it has been completely and utterly proven that no such thing occurred.
RogerS:
Dammit...my irony meter just broke again...
LOL! What an interesting way of claiming "the science is on my side"!
This stuff is priceless, just priceless.
Sorry, you don't get to cite science on a single point in your favor. You can only have a temperate pole if you take the whole thing as dated, hundreds to tens of millions of years ago.
No magical firmaments and magically warping crusts. You can't have them. Because they don't fucking exist.
Because it disagrees with your voodoo magical geology that you pull out of your imagination.
Because you have an a priori ASSUMPTION that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Because you prefer the horseshit of creationism to evidence-based science.
Because you prefer a delusion to the truth.
Again, it helps if you actually read the pages you're referencing.
And comets aren't "poofed into existence" in the cloud, they're already out there:
You'll also notice there aren't any alternative hypotheses mentioned on that page. Probably because, as far as I'm aware, there aren't any.
If you read further in Genesis we learn that fowl fly in the open firmament.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
FYI, the first "heaven" is where the birds fly, second heaven would be outerspace, the third heaven is God's domain as told by Paul.
2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
RogerS:
The bible does not speak to the existence of outer space at all, and any claim to the contrary is simply revisionism in the pursuit to maintain an untenable claim on the truth concerning scripture.
And FYI, because it is written in the bible is not proof of anything, especially not when the claims it makes are so roundly refuted by the observation of the natural world - i.e., science.
RogerS, what makes you think we give 2 hoots (hah, 2 again!) about what it says in Genesis or 2(!!)nd Corinthians? The Bible has worn its welcome. Time to wipe your ass and flush that piece of crap down the toilet, giving it the all-encompassing deluge it deserves.
Do ice cores show many tens of thousands of years?
Owlmirror: We have ice cores dating back seven hundred forty thousand years. What part of "seven hundred forty thousand years" does your tiny little brain not understand?
Meteorologist Michael J. Oard doesn't buy it and neither do I. Click here. There are a lot of factors in ice core dating that make the calculated age non-absolute and highly dependent upon one's choice of assumptions.
Education:
B.S. Atmospheric Science, 1969, University of Washington
M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1973, University of Washington
Employment:
1964–1966 U.S. Navy
1966–1969 Research Assistant (part time), University of Washington
1969–1970 Research Assistant (full time), University of Washington
1970–1971 Meteorologist, National Weather Service, Great Falls, MT
1972–1973 Research Assistant (part time), University of Washington
1973–2001 Meteorologist, National Weather Service — lead forecaster, Great Falls, Montana from 1981 to 2001 — now retired.
JFK, what you have to keep in mind is that everyone that are ripping up the statements of Alan Clarke and RogerS are having fun. I doubt that patience has much to do with it because it is obvious that the two jokers are not here to learn.
But the good news is that people like me can follow along and learn from the exchanges so something good is coming from this. And being on the geeky side, I find all of the chaff that the twosome are tossing about to be screamingly funny.
That makes sense. It wouldn't be fun for me, but hey, different strokes. I find Alan depressing. It's like, I know how cool science is, you know? I've experienced awe at how everything fits together. The universe is beautiful to me, because I can take the universe at its word. It doesn't lie about its age.
But Alan can't have that same opportunity. Every scientific fact is a demonic threat to be fought. There's never a moment to just take it all in, without trying to fight off a vast evilutionist conspiracy. It must be so tiring. He must wonder why his god is so determined to test him, why the universe couldn't have just been created to be obviously 6000 years old, so that he could relax. I just feel sorry for him.
Ooh, gee whiz, a research assistant (paid hands) thinks stupid things. Who would have thunk it. Alan, when people like yourself go off the deep end into delusions, their word becomes meaningless. Just like yours. Still waiting for evidence for your imaginary creator, which is absolutely required for you to show proof positive for your theory. Still batting zero.
If you have a large enough population, you'll eventually find some qualified fool to agree with you. Alan cherry picks every single oddball out there on a range of different topics yet still comes up with fantastical bullshit to justify his faith in the bible.
But it's okay for Alan to just assert (with any support at all) that Everest was at a lower elevation in the pre-flud world? You go after Rev because he attempted to see if Alan's statement made sense. You seem to be trying to use scientific reasoning to disagree with Rev's method of verifying Alan's statement, but nowhere have I seen you apply that same criticism to Alan's statement itself. Alan can just make any ridiculous assertion he wants, without critique, because he's on "your side," is that it? That's terrific reasoning there, Roger.
I don't personally agree with Rev's method of extrapolating an average tectonic rate of rise back in time. I don't think we can really do that because there are too many variables involved that we just don't know. He ignores weathering rates and assumes that the rate of rise doesn't change (thus altering the average). But, it was just a quick rough figure, and getting a more precise answer than his quick back-of-the-envelope calculation would require way more work (if it can be done at all without real research) than is justified for a blog comment. Moreover, even with the technical issues I have with his method of calculation, I don't think his 30 meter figure is actually probably far off from whatever the "real" number is. Given the rate of rise and the type of rock involved, it's very likely to be within the same order of magnitude of the "real" number, which thus serves to make his point. What's more important, though, is that he did some work. He applied some reasoning to Alan's statement.
You, on the other hand, haven't provided any evidence what-so-ever that Rev's calculations are off. Nor have you provided anything to support Alan's original statement. You certainly haven't provided any justification for your shore-line sand depth comparison. Your comparison strongly implies the existence of sudden pulses of tectonic activity on Everest that are severe enough to alter the average rate of rise to the point of damaging Rev's calculations. I suppose asking you to provide some justification for presuming the existence of those tectonic pulses is completely unreasonable, right?
HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?
JFK: The universe is beautiful to me, because I can take the universe at its word. It doesn't lie about its age.
The universe isn’t “lying”, it is your interpretation of its age that is fallible. Please explain how it is impossible for your ASSUMPTION to be infallible. When something is “stretched”, at the moment of creation (“big bang” time t=0 ??) the rate of “stretching” may be where your calculations are off by a huge factor. The entire “big bang” theory has huge assumptions and problems that make many scientists (creationist and non-creationist) dubious. Before making grandiose statements of the universe’s age, at least become educated. Click here for top 30 problems of big bang theory.
YAWN, more non-evidence by Alan the creobot. Still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You are such a disappointment and abject loser. Here's your chance to really convert people. All you have to do is to produce an eternally burning bush. Go find one.
Oh I fully admit I was only taking the 5mm rise and not taking into account many other factors. It was as you say purely a back of the envelope calculation.
But we are talking about 6000 years here. Or in the case of the flud, 4400.
That is an eye blink in geologic time (as you well know). It was my non-geologist way of making a simple point. I leave the more complicated aspects of it to people like you who actually know what they are talking about on a much deeper level on this subject. And no I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing if the fog of the internet keeps that from being clear :)
See above. 4400 years is a mouse fart in the grand scheme of things. And if there was some massive disaster that would cause everest to be much shorter than it is now or to rise so suddenly that it gains thousands of meters in height in just 4.5 mellenia then you'd need to show some evidence for that.
You have not and you can not.
Alan, you are a massive fool. We aren't looking at when time = 0. We are looking at when time = 500,000,000 years. You can't avoid the observation by appealing to an unknown which was resolved 500,000,000 years in advance. When the universe came to be: e=mc² became mathematical law. So when we look at a galaxy that is 13.2 billion light years away, we are using the equation that Einstein provided. The speed of light is constant because it can be no other way. You increase the speed of light, you have to compensate. c = (e/m)1/2, just make the value c higher and see what happens to the relationship between matter and energy in the universe...Your ignorance is really showing Alan. You have no idea of astrophysics or cosmology, nor what astronomy entails. This is why people laugh at creationists, they have no fucking clue whatsoever.
Humm. Meant to say something after this sentence
Sweet, starting the day off with some formatting fail.
Today is going to be great.
I know. I was actually pretty damn impressed that you got a figure of 30 meters from that little exercise. I would have predicted it was gonna be a larger number. And for the record (though I suspect you've already figured this out), I wouldn't have nitpicked that back-of-the-envelope at all except that I wanted to show RogerS that those of us here who are trying to have a reasoned discussion will publically disagree with each other when have disagreements. I saw it as yet another way to bang my head against the wall of demonstrating to these people the process of what we do. I took the risk that you would understand what I was going for, but I'm still glad that it didn't annoy you.
Heh no problem. I easily admit my novice position in these matters but it's pretty easy, even as a novice, to see that there would have to be some massive event to make even my hamhanded calculations to be off by a difference that would support the flud.
I'll be waiting patiently for some evidence of that event from RogerS and or Alan.
More on galaxies: the galaxy observed 13.2 billion light years away is only 1 of more than 100 billion galaxies that have been observed in our known universe. There are plenty more galaxies in our close neighbourhood where our observational point is t = 13,700,000,000. Yet we can see dwarf galaxies orbiting our own a couple of hundred thousand light years away. See nearby galaxies only 2.5 million light years away, then there is a whole host of others the further we look out into space. These galaxies can contain somewhere between 1010 and 1012 stars in each, with black holes and the centre that is millions of times heavier than our sun. And on the note of weight, if the stars were closer to us, we'd feel the gravitational effects. Move 1011 galaxies each containing ~1011 stars close enough to us and we are going to end up tearing this solar system and galaxy apart. Galaxies are big, they are full of stars, there's simply no physical way those galaxies could be nearer to us. The only real options are that God is trying to trick us, or that the universe is indeed old. (and very big) It's simply unavoidable Alan, parading your ignorance is not arguing against the fact.Are you going to admit that your belief is not in God, but in the bible? Or are you just going to keep denying evidence exists that shows you know absolutely nothing on the subject at hand?
Shit! Went to bed before I got a chance to respond...
Regarding temperality of polar regions -- I know that they were so, tens to hundreds of millions of years ago (heck - the land masses weren't even in the same place, geographically speaking)
I was looking for dickwad to provide some of his ample evidence for such in the recent past - say 4000 to 6000 years ago.
But hey - If I don't make myself clear, and leave assumptions (like the evidence) unvoiced, then I'm gonna get trampled!
That's why I love you guys so much! :D
On the other brainfart: I don't know about you, but I would not want to be anywhere nearby (like in the same solar system) when tectonic movements as described by dumbass (aka I want to be RogeredSobad) are taking place.
Seriously -- he expects us to believe that Everest rose more than 8000 meters above sea level (which in reality means it rose significantly higher, since the trenches don't make up for the volume of land above water) in a couple of weeks? That's what he says.
pre-flood... flat a a pancake.
post-flood... huge frackin' mountain ranges.
All in 40* days.
Fucking. Dumb. Ass. Creo. Tard.
* Ol' Yahweh must really love that number - turns up everywhere. Or maybe it is just story-allegory for way longer than anyone would believe was sensible, but not so long it's truly out-there.
There's also c^2 = 1/(ε0μ0), which relates the speed of light to fundamental electric and magnetic field constants. Dramatically increasing c would mean decreasing ε0 or μ0, increasing the strength of EM fields.
Which, of course, govern things like electron shell structure and therefore chemistry.
entertainment panders to emotion and is therefore irrelevant.
Sorry Josh to agree with Alan's #448 ice core date skepticism, but in risk of your displeasure, here goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl
"Glacier Girl is a Lockheed P-38 Lightning World War II fighter plane that was recently restored to operable condition after being buried beneath ice on the remote Greenland Ice Sheet for nearly fifty years.
Glacier Girl, along with five other P-38 fighters and two B-17 bombers, was eventually buried beneath 270 feet of ice."
From Glacier Girl we learn that 270 ft of acculumated ice in 50 years is a significant rate.
Josh- Time to unleash Rev.BigDumbChimps extrapolations?
(BTY There were HUNDREDS of layers above the plane, not 50.)
Layer count with photo of the "Bird" upside down, great story:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt#7
What's the point of continuing this RogerS? No matter what we bring up, you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position. Remember that in science, it's not just one piece of evidence that leads us to conclusions; all you are doing is casting doubt on individual examples. rather in science, it's about exploring what the full picture tells us. So when astronomy shows the universe to be old, when geology and nuclear physics show the earth to be old, and when genetics (among several other things) show life to have evolved gradually - that's the picture of science. Instead, your faith in the bible means that you'll dismiss piece after piece of evidence without realising that putting it together could solve the puzzle.Do you have anything constructive at all to add here?
RogerS, still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Boy, are you and Alan a pair of wimps. Here you are, with an audience of atheists, and you fail to bring out the only evidence that would sway us to creationism? Or is it because there is no physical evidence for your imaginary deity, and you are simply lying to both yourself and to us? All available evidence point to the latter.
They have to have an imaginary deity for them to show evidence for it. All they have is faith in the bible, and a means to dismiss every single piece of scientific evidence one by one. If they lost their bible stories, they'd have nothing. Of course God isn't tricking them, they don't believe in God. They believe in an old myth and are doing everything they can to pretend that the myth is valid.
RogerS and Alan, you are free to keep your infantile, delusional beliefs. All you have to do is to stop posting. But you will not be able to convince us that we should also believe your delusions. The physical evidence just isn't there. You know it. And we know it. So why are you continuing?
Fucktard RogerS
Trying to equate snowfall on Greenland with Antarctica is like equating snowfall on Ben Nevis (Scotland) with Everest.
Their climactic ranges are completely different.
Try citing some actual peer reviewed science, instead of some tardistic crap cobbled together out of kitchen middens.
Wikipedia is not a reliable citation (reasonable for general commentary - but only truly valid when the actual article has been itself critically verified through multiple unrelated reliable citations)
You really do need to try harder.
RogerS wrote
What? Magma isn't "virtually incompressible." Where did you get that impression?
Magma is molten. It occurs in various viscosities and it flows. It contains various combinations of minerals that are crystalizing out of the melt, actual melt (not always of uniform composition), and varying amounts of gases (e.g., water vapor). Even fricken Blabbapedia manages to get magma fairly correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma
And magma can be compressed. Just a quick google search, with very little sorting of the results, returns:
URL LINK: rimg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/25
URL LINK: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997.../96RG03263.shtml
URL LINK: geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/5/459
URL LINK: www.springerlink.com/content/m15215k1872486jt/
URL LINK: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.V41C1740M
URL LINK: www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/04327/EGU05-J-04327.pdf
URL LINK: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032521.shtml
URL LINK: sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/1/5
URL LINK: www.springerlink.com/content/nq86t682683v3713/
URL LINK: www.itg.cam.ac.uk/people/heh/Paper176.pdf
So, no, I don't think you can use water weight added to magma to support the idea of post-deluge rapid tectonics.
It could be that time. That, however, is for Rev to decide. Not me.
Why does anyone still reply to Alan Clarke when he still hasn't read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective? Why?
We tried to get him to read it for eight hundred comments on the Titanoboa thread before PZ closed the thread for having become too repetitive.
The chutzpa is incredible.
Eight hundred comments last time, and two hundred more here, and all the time we've tried to take your head and push your nose against the link... and now you deny we ever did it?
Are you just trying to drive us insane?
Kel,
You have a point as well as many others and you all deserve an honest answer so I will give it. I have not been totally fourth coming in information I know of and experiences I have encountered. I am withholding information. This is the missing puzzle piece that you instinctually recognize in trying to make sense of my persistence. You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.
You will understand one day why I have taken this path because you will realize that if I disclosed certain things to you at this time you would not be able to “metabolize” it.
Introducing a new food and removing it can cause allergic reactions later and I would not want that to happen to anyone. So you are just going to have to receive it at the rate you appear to be metabolizing it. (What I know is not way out there somewhere beyond knowledge and experiences of others I know, so you can calm down.)
With all Sincerity, RogerS
Is this the "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" defense?
'I am afraid my eye will remain locked in staring at my frontal lobe position.'
What a reeking pile of bullshit. Either put up or shut up. We are smarter than you. Your persistance is caused by stupidity. And you have no evidence. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a fool.
Ah
RogerS admits that he is not your garden-variety wingnut.
Arghhh!
And I was almost drawn into a conversation with him. I feel the need for a shower.
How do I shower my brain, please?
One good thing - Alan: RogerS agrees with you, and he has just demonstrated his unequivocal insanity. What say you, oh wingnut of the first degree?
It's a simple answer. But it's one that A., doesn't explain the evidence (see below), and B., requires it to be physically possible to produce enough water to cover all of the world's landmasses with water. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Can you provide answers to those questions?
Me asking you to answer these questions is not unreasonable. Not if you're going to continually try to talk about evidence. If you're going to use the evidence that exists on Earth to try and support your flood hypothesis, then you need to provide explanations for the data that are congruent with our current understanding of science (specifically physics, geology, chemistry, and biology). You do not get to simply assert that we’re interpreting the data wrong unless you can back it up. And you do not get to cite only those datapoints that support your a priori assumption that there was a flood. For example, you cannot just blanket accept the data that indicate that the polar regions were warmer in the past, while at the same time blanket dismissing the age data for those same deposits. That’s just retarded. And it’s retarded because you’re accepting the data for warm poles because you want to and you’re dismissing the age data for those same rocks because you want to. You’re not evaluating either set of data. You’re just dismissing that with which you don’t agree without having any evidence. That’s simply stupid.
But, you don't have to do any of this. You can simply rely on miracles and be done with it. You don’t need evidence. As I said in a previous comment, you can just explain the world by god erasing all evidence of the flood and creating a deceptive rock record. I can accept that and we can move on to something else. But if so, then stop talking about "evidence" and leave the rocks, and the science, alone. If you're going to bring the rocks into it, then you need to be accurate about what the rocks actually say. Otherwise you're being dishonest.
So yes, there are huge piles of limestone veneering parts of the continents. That's an accurate statement at one level of precision. Unfortunately, that level of precision doesn't really describe what the rock record is like at all (the reality is much more complicated than that). In fact, it’s inaccurate enough that this level of precision is, well, just wrong. But, even if we leave our discussion at this level of precision (i.e., we presume that portions of the continents are simply covered with “piles of limestone”), then you still have to explain how receding flood waters can deposit massive piles of carbonate. Because that flies in the face of all of the evidence out there.
It's not like we don't know how limestone forms. We're watching it form in numerous environments across the world today (the Bahamas and the Red Sea just to name two).
For example:
URL LINK: www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119587573/abstract
Bono et al. 2002. Inorganic calcite precipitation in Tartare karstic spring (Lazio, central Italy): Field measurements and theoretical prediction on depositional rates. Environmental Geology 41(3-4):305-313.
Lein et al. 2003. Nature of carbonates in the Gulf of Cadiz. Geochemistry International 41(2):168-181
Harney & Fletcher 2003. A budget of carbonate framework and sediment production, Kailua Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Journal of Sedimentary Research 73(6):856-868
Taborosi et al. Speleothem-like calcite and aragonite deposits on a tropical carbonate coast. Cave and Karst Science 30(1):23-32.
Sutula et al. 2003. Factors affecting spatial and temporal variability in material exchange between the Southern Everglades wetlands and Florida Bay (USA). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science v57 n5-6 (2003 08 01): 757-781
Much of geology is historical. Much of sedimentary geology is not. Thousands of geologists are studying the lithologic record of carbonate rocks, but hundreds of other geologists are also studying modern carbonate deposition around the world right now. Limestones that are growing before our eyes. They grow in fairly quiet conditions. It’s also not like we don’t understand flood deposits and high energy sedimentary deposits. Floods happen all the bloody time, as do high energy depositional events. Again, there are thousands of people studying these deposits, around the world. Receding flood waters do not deposit massive piles of carbonate. They simply don’t. These are not gray areas within sedimentology any more than how volcanoes deposit ash is a gray area.
You have made the decision to bring the sedimentary record into this. You have asserted that limestone deposits in the middle of the continents support the idea of a global deluge of water. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that these continental deposits are not just simply piles of limestone, it is now your responsibility to provide evidence that fairly high energy receding flood waters can deposit large piles of carbonate. For right now, we can even ignore the source of the water and where it went. As a starting point, I will even accept evidence that any receding flood water can generate actual demonstrable deposits of carbonate that resemble the limestones that you're asserting are evidence of the flood. You have erected a hypothesis. Now, show me that it's plausible.
I use mental floss. Very good at removing those little pieces of idiocy.
RogerS, if your position really had overwhelming justification, then you could instantaneously produce and explain supporting evidence for your position.
Given as how you're reduced to stalling for time for something that will never happen, we are forced to conclude that your position is bereft of any fact or worth.
Nerd, I believe you have prejudged me.
I don't disagree with you that "we are smarter than you" may be true, but scientific knowledge should not be considered more valable than truth. They do not equate in the past, present, or future. Don't make the mistake of dismissing those you consider "inferior" to yourself, the simplest of persons may be benefiting from "truths" that elude your grasp and personal life. Sometimes we can learn from the simplest.
The best tools for dealing with the bigger questions of life are not science and knowledge, but truth, wisdom, and love. Ask any physiologist which of the two prescriptions he would prefer for his patients (most of which may be pretty brainy).
Best wishes for your journey, RogerS
RogerS, Here is the truth. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is work of fiction. Until you can show physical evidence otherwise, those are the default positions.
Any metaphysical nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Welcome to science.
Looks as if we have another acid casualty disseminating his Intuitive Truth to destroy our evil facts.
My Post #482: Sorry, substitute psychologist for physiologist.
Proves my point -my spell checker lied to me!
Now RogerS is using the "Foolishness Of God" gambit.
'My eyes will never be able to see straight again.'
So, RogerS, given as how you consider "truth" to be more valuable than "scientific knowledge," would you prefer to trust your life and the lives of your loved with a doctor who values "scientific knowledge" or a doctor who values "truth" over "scientific knowledge"?
Your spell checker did not lie, it is merely a tool. You are just a poor composer of words. The fault lies with you.
Kel: you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.
Kel, welcome to the world of “science”. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted? Dale Carnegie exploited a known fact: the most interesting words a person can hear is their own name. People tend to cheer for the team that they picked from the beginning. You’ll inevitably lean toward the theory that you subscribed to early on which bears “your name” (i.e. the one that you told your friends about). The whole idea of “pure objectivity” espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.
Stanton, truth encompasses what is true about our physical universe, what science strives to achieve but never totally arrives at. But knowledge is on a more focused and limited course and therefore does not encompass the largeness of truth.
I'm not really even sure what you're asking Josh here RogerS.
Kel: you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.
Kel, welcome to the world of “science”. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted? Dale Carnegie exploited a known fact: the most interesting words a person can hear is their own name. People tend to cheer for the team that they picked from the beginning. You’ll inevitably lean toward the theory that you subscribed to early on which bears “your name” (i.e. the one that you told your friends about). The automobile that you most often notice others driving is the one you own! The whole idea of “pure objectivity” espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.
Stanton, truth encompasses what is true about our physical universe, what science strives to achieve but never totally arrives at. But man's pursuit of knowledge is on a more focused and limited course and therefore does not encompass the larger subset of truth.
Janine, Insulting Sinner #488
Thanks Janine, I knew you had it in you. You got that one totally right.
LOL RogerS
Enough PoMo nonsense, Roger. You said you had overwhelming support for the positions you hold in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Put up or shut up. Don't tell us science is imperfect. Don't quote Hamlet. The failure of anyone else to know everything does not in any way imply that you know anything.
I'm guessing Roger will either:
1) Continue to ignore demands he show his work;
2) Disappear; or
3) Relate to us how Jesus, Batman, and Elmer Fudd appeared to him in a dream and laid out The Truth to him.
Alan, if you think you are a theorist, you are sadly mistaken. You are a deluded fool. You can call yourself what you want, but your actions and evidence speak otherwise. Until you show the physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin, you will have nothing scientific to present. Trying to disprove geology, biology, chemistry, physics, and other sciences does not prove your theory one iota. Proof negative for other theories will never prove yours. Proof positive is required, and that starts with your deity. We await your evidence for your deity.
And the intelligent theorists will change their theories if their gathered data does not support their original theories. All you have done is quotemine in order to make it seem the legitimate scientists could support your believe in a biblical flood. And let's just say that if I can find you mining works, you are doing a piss poor job of it. Welcome to science.
And in case you have not noticed, you have been blown out of the water every time you make a statement. Do you enjoy hitting you head on brick walls?
Alan, please don't put words into our mouths. Who "on the science side" here has asserted anything more than we try as hard as possible to be objective? Show me the comment where one of us has asserted that we are objective.
Oh, and while I have you here: Any thoughts on any of the questions that I asked you in #407?
And rest assured, if you are not objective someone else will sure come along and call you on it.
That is one way to make your name in science. Correcting another scientists work.
That's why overall, science is objective. Because it is competitive and scientists will always be checking other scientists.
Poor Roger, he has his head up his ass since he thinks his shit smells so good. I heard the same crap from the hippies back during my undergraduate days. At least they had the excuse of using drugs. Roger is just deluded.
Come over to the reality of atheism Roger, where without the delusion of god and religion everything is clear.
The water is great, Roger.