…and this is a 
Just wait — this one will be featured in some cheesy Sci-Fi channel creature feature in a few months. Paleontologists have dug up a fossil boa that lived 58-60 million years ago. They haven't found a complete skeleton, but there's enough to get an estimate of the size. Look at these vertebrae!
a, Type specimen (UF/IGM 1) in anterior view compared to scale with a precloacal vertebra from approximately 65% along the precloacal column of a 3.4 m Boa constrictor. Type specimen (UF/IGM 1) shown in posterior view (b), left lateral view (c) and dorsal view (d). Seven articulated precloacal vertebrae (UF/IGM 3) in dorsal view (e). Articulated precloacal vertebra and rib (UF/IGM 4) in anterior view (f). Precloacal vertebra (paratype specimen UF/IGM 2) in anterior view (g) and ventral view (h). Precloacal vertebra (UF/IGM 5) in anterior view (i) and posterior view (j). All specimens are to scale.
Just to put it in perspective, the small pale blob between a and b in the photo above is an equivalent vertebra from an extant boa, which was 3.4 meters long. The extinct beast is estimated to have been about 13 meters long, weighing over 1100 kg (for us Americans, that's 42 feet and 2500 pounds). This is a very big snake, the largest ever found.
The authors used the size of this snake to estimate the temperature of this region of South America 60 million years ago. Snakes are poikilotherms, depending on external sources of heat to maintain a given level of metabolic activity, and so available temperature means are limiting factors on how large they can grow. By comparing this animal's size to that of modern tropical snakes, and extrapolating from a measured curve of size to mean annual temperature, they were able to calculate that the average ambient temperature was 30-34°C (American cluestick: about 90°F); less than that, and this snake would have died.
From other data, they know that the atmospheric CO2 concentration at this time was about 2000 parts per million, and that the forests it lived in were thick, wet, and rainy. They also estimate that slightly later, about 56 million years ago, mean tropical temperatures would have soared to 38-40°C (102°F), and would have killed off many species.
So there you go…this is one place I think I'd avoid if I had a time machine. It was a thick-aired, muggy, sweltering oven, with giant snakes crawling about. They were likely to have eaten large crocodilians, so I suspect a time-traveling human would be nothing but a quick hors d'ouevre. They're still interesting, though, especially as an example of evolution and climate science meeting in a mutually revealing fashion.
Head JJ, Block JI, Hastings AK, Bourque JR, Cadena EA, Herrera FA, Polly D, Jaramillo CA (2009) Giant boid snake from the Palaeocene neotropics reveals hotter past equatorial temperatures. Nature 457(7230):715-718.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: hje | February 5, 2009 11:26 AM
Hey, I just saw this on MonsterQuest : )
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 5, 2009 11:26 AM
It's amazing what fossils Satan buries to fool the righteous.
Anyway, teach the controversy.
Seriously, what a fright that snake would be.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Steve | February 5, 2009 11:28 AM
Great, nightmarish, beautiful stuff.
PS. But what about this did I not already know? What did I NEED to know? Ha!
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 11:30 AM
I wish my good friend, Garfunkel, would stop by and explain that there is not enough evidence and that this is largely a philosophical affair.
But I am sure that millions of kids think that Titanoboa is the coolest thing.
Posted by: Holbach | February 5, 2009 11:30 AM
I had a feeling I saw that giant crusher cloned to life in the movie "Ananconda"!
Posted by: Prillotashekta | February 5, 2009 11:31 AM
I remember when the authors announced this at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology symposium last October. At that point it was sort of like a movie preview; a "Hey, check this out, and watch for our paper coming soon!" Details were sketchy at that point, but it was already the talk of the meeting.
Posted by: Tulse | February 5, 2009 11:33 AM
Science is always interesting, but sometimes it is So. Frickin'. Cool.
Posted by: hje | February 5, 2009 11:33 AM
"It's amazing what fossils Satan buries to fool the righteous."
They would rationalize it to being the serpent from the garden of Eden--drowned in the great flood!
Posted by: Lorax | February 5, 2009 11:34 AM
Sweet, I dodged away from that croc! Wait, whats that sound? AAIIIIEEEEEEE......
Posted by: Sauve | February 5, 2009 11:34 AM
Was wondering how long until you posted about this one.
Neat find.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
February 5, 2009 11:36 AM
@Glen D (#2)
Mock all you want, but you'll be eating your words when scientists find that serpent's larynx and prove that the Genesis account is true!
Posted by: Marsha | February 5, 2009 11:37 AM
Eye-yai-yai... maybe religion is good for something because all I can think of is HOLY MOLEY!
Posted by: JD | February 5, 2009 11:37 AM
Well sir,
You need to know that snakes had babies on land at one time, and what a profound revelation that is!
Just another rambling idiot,
DH
Posted by: Cruithne | February 5, 2009 11:37 AM
It's amazing what fossils Satan buries to fool the righteous.
Tsk tsk Glen, didn't you know that it's God who puts these things there in order to test our faith.
God's a southern baptist and an anti intellectual.
As any fule kno
Anyway, awesome snake, imagine the boots you could make out of the fucker,
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 5, 2009 11:38 AM
I just love the correlation between size and temperature. And the confirmation from other sources of possible greenhouse effects. Sniff. The smell of science. Thanks PZ.
Posted by: Anon | February 5, 2009 11:38 AM
Doesn't look the same without J-Lo.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
February 5, 2009 11:39 AM
Damnit! hje beat me to it. :-(
Posted by: Nick | February 5, 2009 11:43 AM
This post got 11 comments (12, counting my own).
The long-winded letter from the very angry young man got 273 comments.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: TheNaturalist | February 5, 2009 11:43 AM
Is it any wonder that this creature is extinct? There's no way it could fit on the ark!
;-)
Posted by: Bckcntry | February 5, 2009 11:46 AM
"But I am sure that millions of kids think that Titanoboa is the coolest thing."
I'm 28 and I think this is the coolest thing.
Posted by: Randy | February 5, 2009 11:47 AM
This must be the snake from The Garden of Eden(R). If a bruiser like that told me to eat an apple I wouldn't pause to ask if it was okay with Gawd.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | February 5, 2009 11:49 AM
From viewing the image of the bones and consulting my Bible science adviser, I’ve dated the fossil to be 5,732 (±6.83 days) years old. [/getting jump on AIG]
This would explain why Eve listened to the snake.
Posted by: NJ | February 5, 2009 11:50 AM
Edited for accuracy.
Posted by: Vic | February 5, 2009 11:51 AM
When I first mentioned this snake to my gf last night I forgot to add the word "extinct" in my description. She became very concerned!
Posted by: strangest brew | February 5, 2009 11:51 AM
14*
'Anyway, awesome snake, imagine the boots you could make out of the fucker'
'Okay we need non-volunteers to take one step backward...where the fuck do you think you are going Garfunkel'?
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 5, 2009 11:51 AM
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfuckin' snakes in this motherfuckin' Palaeocene!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 11:54 AM
Bownian L Jackson
Posted by: Tiranna | February 5, 2009 11:56 AM
You think it would bother to eat a human? We'd be so small it'd barely have to open its mouth. I keep imagining what it would look like unhinging its jaw to swallow a much tastier, larger meal.
Would the 38-40°C temperatures kill these snakes? It wouldn't make them bigger or less active/nocturnal?
Posted by: Matt White | February 5, 2009 11:58 AM
#26
"Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfuckin' snakes in this motherfuckin' Palaeocene!"
LOL! How did I miss that one?!?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 11:59 AM
Brownian L Jackson even
KoT
Posted by: Bostonian | February 5, 2009 11:59 AM
We know the vertibrae were extra huge, but I don't quite see how the length can be estimated except by applying this larger girth to a larger length. I'm no snakespert, but is it possible these estimates are in error and that this extra-thick snake was far shorter in proportion, or perhaps even had use of its limbs?
Posted by: DaveX | February 5, 2009 12:00 PM
I saw this (minus the super-cool bone photo) over at BoingBoing yesterday. I loved all the comments from folks heralding this as YET ANOTHER good reason to fight global warming, haha! Nobody wants giant snakes making a return!
Posted by: strangest brew | February 5, 2009 12:02 PM
28*
'Would the 38-40°C temperatures kill these snakes?'
Nope the opposite apparently...that is why this mutha existed!
Posted by: justin | February 5, 2009 12:07 PM
So could this be turned into some sort of argument to be used against the global warming denialists. We can't let the temperatures rise because then the world becomes perfect for big mofo snakes. It could be an easy to digest Hollywood movie, "Snakes on Plane 2 - Global Warming" and Samuel L Jackson could become snake kibble at the end of the movie.
Posted by: Ted | February 5, 2009 12:09 PM
To all the faith-driven snake-handlers: Handle this!
Posted by: strangest brew | February 5, 2009 12:12 PM
33*
28*
'Would the 38-40°C temperatures kill these snakes?'
Nope the opposite apparently...that is why this mutha existed!'
Actually nope... me bad...misread temps it would have killed them...according to the text!
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | February 5, 2009 12:12 PM
There must have been a lot of other animals in those days for this thing to eat. A breeding colony of these suckers must have had an incredibly large territory to keep themselves fed. How long did it take for them to go extinct?
Posted by: Gryphin | February 5, 2009 12:14 PM
#31: Actually, the relationship between vertebrae size and body size in snakes is a pretty well-kept ratio. A short, wide snake would not be able to propel itself properly, be able to climb a tree, or in the case of a boa, attack in a non-venomous fashion.
As far as if the fossil had legs, I'm not cool enough to know if the existing bones could preclude that theory, but since the guys who dug it up are calling it a boa, I'm going to rely on their expertise until something or someone else comes along, and gives proof otherwise. My guess, is that since snakes have been at an evolutionary standstill, (or perfection, depending on your love for snakes) that the bone structure has distinguishing characteristics that separate it from a leg-bearing reptile. Probably something along the lines of bone density and rib connection points.
Posted by: Andrew Campbell | February 5, 2009 12:15 PM
Cryptozoologists are already touting this find as evidence for giant snakes still alive today.
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/titanoboa/
Posted by: Valis
|
February 5, 2009 12:22 PM
Holy shit! That is one big snake.
Well, in my (admittedly limited) experience in keeping boas, they don't eat very often. One good meal keeps them satisfied for a week or two. I'd guess something the size of a turkey would keep this one happy for a while. Snakes are very sedentary, and don't burn a lot of energy, especially being cold-blooded.
BTW, thanks PZ for using units that 95% of the world uses and understands.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 5, 2009 12:24 PM
The biomass necessary to keep a population of these snakes might not have been that large. Poikilotherms only need a third to a tenth of the energy than similarly sized homeotherms to maintain a population, especially given a tropical environment where the ambient warm temperatures can support greater hours in the day available for hunting.
Posted by: Watchman | February 5, 2009 12:25 PM
Our snakes go to "11".
Posted by: Her Reference Ron Sullivan | February 5, 2009 12:26 PM
(sigh) Isn't she loooovellyyyyy...
Brownian wins this thread, tho'.
Posted by: Erp | February 5, 2009 12:28 PM
Well human size prey was probably for the kiddies (or for the crocs that in turn the snake probably ate).
I also note they found bones from 28 different individual snakes. Apparently 8 were this large size.
Posted by: Nangleator | February 5, 2009 12:39 PM
Wow, the movie "Anaconda."
I remember that huge thing. The way it moved. Imagining it smothering me. So scary.
The snake was just bad CG, though.
Posted by: varlo | February 5, 2009 12:43 PM
Is the 1100 kg figure before or after ingesting a giant sloth (or a prehistoric Rush Limbaugh)?
Posted by: Richard | February 5, 2009 12:43 PM
42 foot snake? That's nothing. We've got 49-footers in Asia today! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3845750/
Posted by: S.Scott | February 5, 2009 12:44 PM
Why did it have to be a snake?!
Stacy
Posted by: FishNChimps | February 5, 2009 12:59 PM
Where is the fossilised voicebox? Was there a fossilised apple nearby?
Posted by: Mother Batherick
|
February 5, 2009 1:09 PM
Land snakes! Snake's alive! For Christ's snake!
I got a million of 'em....
Posted by: LisaJ | February 5, 2009 1:11 PM
Saw this on the news last night... so cool! I can't believe the size difference between those vertebrae. One of the authors proclaimed that this snake could have taken, and beaten, a T-rex. Now either that's one super proud (and biased) scientist, or this was one monstrous beast of a snake.
Posted by: Knathon | February 5, 2009 1:12 PM
"Snakes are poikilotherms, depending on external sources of heat to maintain a given level of metabolic activity, and so available temperature means are limiting factors on how large they can grow."
Ok, being an marine invert biologist, this seems a bit confusing to me. There are 1000lb+ Mesonycoteuthis in Antarctic waters, which are much colder. So this doesn't seem to be a universal principle with poikilotherms, so when is different about snakes that causes this limitation. I guess I should go read the article.....but that time and being a grad student thing.....
Posted by: LisaJ | February 5, 2009 1:13 PM
... or a little of both. (An extension of my post @ #51).
Posted by: Mother Batherick
|
February 5, 2009 1:15 PM
Anyway, it's still not as big as what I've got in my pants. Ladies, please form an orderly queaue to my right, your left...
(Hey, somebody had to say it...)
Posted by: 60613 | February 5, 2009 1:20 PM
Gigantic (titan) snakes don't bother me.
What would freak me out is if they found a SPIDER that large - or even worse, a >shudder
Posted by: Andyo
|
February 5, 2009 1:27 PM
Great. I come here for the atheism, and what do I find? Science! Where is the atheism? WHERE!?
Posted by: giotto | February 5, 2009 1:32 PM
We've got 49-footers in Asia today!
Not so much:
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/bigsnake.asp
I like esp. the quote from a python expert: "These giant pythons always shrink whenever a tape measure turns up.
Empiricism 1, Rumor mill 0
Posted by: Rystefn | February 5, 2009 1:32 PM
So it was east Texas? Well, I will say this - at least there aren't any 50ft snakes about eating our alligators.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 5, 2009 1:34 PM
Wait for the correction, when the authors say, "On further analysis of the vertebrae, it now appears that this specimen was in fact ... just a baby!"
Posted by: S.Scott | February 5, 2009 1:36 PM
I looked and looked for it but I can't find where PZ mentions that these scientists are from the Univ. of Florida! http://news.ufl.edu/2009/02/04/giant-snake/
See!!Some Floridians are not backward hicks! :-)
Posted by: blf | February 5, 2009 1:46 PM
Is it any wonder that this creature is extinct? There's no way it could fit on the ark!
Nah, it'd fit just fine. It'd just have to eat—or scare away—everything else first. Including the T. Rex.
Posted by: Paper Hand | February 5, 2009 1:51 PM
#60
Yes, UF does have a lot of good science. How that happens in Florida, I could never figure out. :-)
they were able to calculate that the average ambient temperature was 30-34°C (American cluestick: about 90°F); less than that, and this snake would have died.
I'm confused - why do higher temperatures allow for larger sizes? I would've thought it would be the opposite, due to gigantothermism.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 5, 2009 1:52 PM
I second that.though I'd prefer to avoid any contacts with carnivorous fauna that's heavier than me :-/
Posted by: Andyo
|
February 5, 2009 1:53 PM
Wow, what a shoddy piece of lazy-ass reporting from NBC. Not surprising, I guess.
Posted by: Sili | February 5, 2009 1:53 PM
Does this mean Noa needed a bigger arc, or was this critter killed in the Flood?
Soooo ... do poimegatherms live in volcanoes?
Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 5, 2009 2:18 PM
Any word on how closely related to the modern Anaconda this monster might be?
Posted by: Nessa
|
February 5, 2009 2:27 PM
Thank you for posting this! It's so exciting!
I'm thinking you might want to avoid my city too. It's in the present, but gosh, what a horrible weather.
Posted by: Qwerty | February 5, 2009 2:35 PM
I read about this yesterday and thought of the Los Vegas woman who was snake-sitting when her child became Purina snake chow. It took about 5 police officers to cart the snake away after they killed it.
This ancient snake would need an army to cart it's carcess away. Impressive!
I am sure someone will make a movie. It will probably be a Japanese horror movie with bad dubbing.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | February 5, 2009 2:44 PM
Sweet zombie Jesus! Somebody get my lightsaber!!!
Which one is it???
The one that says "bad motherfucker"!
Posted by: CG | February 5, 2009 2:52 PM
@55
You had to bring up giant spiders didn't ya? Now I won't sleep for a week. Seriously I'd take two snakes that size over a skittery creepy arachnid half the size. *shiver* Well I guess I wouldn't take them anywhere really, they are pretty big...
Posted by: meh1963 | February 5, 2009 2:54 PM
Snakes are poikilotherms, depending on external sources of heat to maintain a given level of metabolic activity, and so available temperature means are limiting factors on how large they can grow.
That's amazing. I would have thought that anything that large had to have developed some means of regulating temperature. A snake that big basking in the sun would give me the shivers, 40C or no.
Posted by: dNorrisM | February 5, 2009 3:06 PM
It's name is Nasu and it eats heffalumps in the Gaian underground cave system.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | February 5, 2009 3:07 PM
Wow, it's amazing what a toss-up the planet was after the K-T extinction event cleaned out so many ecological niches-terrestrial crocs, killer flightless birds, now this beauty.
I bet the folks at AIG are searching for giant pumpkins that it could have eaten before "the Fall"...
Posted by: Larry | February 5, 2009 3:09 PM
While running errands in the car I occasionally tune to the AM to see what sort of inannity I can find from a wingnut for some amusement. I happened to catch the Glen Beck show as he was talking about this very topic. Holy Crap! My brain still hurts from the stupid. Feast your brain on this if you dare:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21101/
Posted by: Eric Saveau | February 5, 2009 3:09 PM
Its name is Nasu and it eats heffalumps in the Gaian underground cave system.
Ha! And it will soon be seen wrapped around a wanna-be god in the form of a 50-foot tall copy of Marilyn Monroe!
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 5, 2009 3:10 PM
"or even worse, a >shudder"
A shudder that big would only be dangerous if it closed on you.
Posted by: Zemmie | February 5, 2009 3:13 PM
Yesterday's 'In the News' picture on Wikipedia showed thousands of people cheering at the Super Bowl. The snippet reporting the finding of titanoboa was right beside it.
For one brief and happy moment I thought 'Wow, paleontology has more fans than I would have expected!'
Posted by: Sili | February 5, 2009 3:15 PM
I have to admit that the pictures of Clock-spiders make me squirm, but I do realise that the dangerous ones and the small ones.
Now - if you show me evidence of a mansized snail/slug, I'll be the first to scream like a little girl and have a nervous breakdown.
I hate hate hate gastropods.
Posted by: erasmus31 | February 5, 2009 3:16 PM
That's all very well, but did they get enough DNA to clone this thing?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 5, 2009 3:18 PM
Oh yeah. They showed the comparison to the Boa vertebra, and the whole room was taken aback.
What? What crowd did you hang out with? :-)
What reason is there for such an assumption? The proportions of known snakes are fairly constant.
No. It's not just simply a snake, it's specifically a boa. Therefore, it can't possibly have had functional legs (though, being a boa, it almost certainly had the typical spur-like hindlimbs used for holding each other during copulation).
Unknown. All of the vertebrae found so far are from the same level (and ribs, skulls, or pelvic girdles haven't been found yet).
Sloths didn't exist yet, and (I hope) neither did Limbaughs...
Silly herpetologists! Once the T. rex bites, the snake is history.
Nope, that's easy to see by whether the neural arches and the centra of the vertebrae are fused.
Bigger snakes have slower metabolisms. Too big snakes at too low temperatures would have too slow metabolisms to survive.
And how can anything snake-shaped be seriously gigantothermic? The only known gigantotherm is the leatherback turtle -- constant locomotion, locomotor muscles located inside the shell, shell and thick fat layer adding to the insulation that the shape already provides...
The anaconda, too, is a boine boid.
Posted by: blf | February 5, 2009 3:24 PM
I hate hate hate gastropods.
They are quite tasty. Try some with a bit olive oil, garlic, and some wine.
Posted by: dNorrisM | February 5, 2009 3:43 PM
OUCH! Beaten by
MONTHS!
Posted by: cactusren | February 5, 2009 3:45 PM
So. Fucking. Cool.
Posted by: Lee Graham | February 5, 2009 4:13 PM
I wonder if the temperature estimate based on body size jibes with estimates from other sources and methods for the same time period and location. Always a beautiful thing when multiple independent methods point to the same value. Anyone know?
Posted by: Rich Lawler | February 5, 2009 4:16 PM
I think God did a bang-up job on this one. Probably went down like this: God was stumbling home a little buzzed from a party, perhaps a bit lit up and thinking about that one dude who kept monopolizing the conversation while in line for the kegger. God's mumblin' to himself "...'connoisseur of scotches'...my ass!...who does this guy think he is?" And a few steps later, God is all like "f_ck it, I'm making a snake the size of a f_cking bus!"
And Shazzam! 60 million years later Bloch et al., are digging up vertebrae the size of milk crates.
Posted by: SnakeEnvy | February 5, 2009 4:48 PM
What would the diameter of that monster be?
Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 5, 2009 4:50 PM
David Marjanović @80,
I understand they are both boine boid. I'm wondering if it is even more closely related. Perhaps a direct line ancestor species or even a nearly identical species. Or are they no more closely related than modern Anaconda and other modern constrictors? I imagine that is extremely difficult to determine considering the limited information at present, but I'm curious.
Posted by: Roger | February 5, 2009 5:05 PM
I hate snakes. Really, really, really hate them. Imagining this...beast is probably going to haunt my dreams tonight.
Yeah, let's wonder how the AiG people are going to spin a behemoth like this as a "good" thing. Like, what the frak was "God" thinking when he created that? I'm sure they'd say some shit like, "Oh, but it was a pretty, nice snake before Eve (that whore) saw the apple and listened to the pretty, nice snake."
Posted by: kermit | February 5, 2009 5:06 PM
Larry: Holy crap, I couldn't finish that Beck article. It was like wandering into one of the two offices here at work where Rush Limbaugh rants at high volume.
Among other things, that idiot gloated that science doesn't know everything yet. Duh. I'd feel sorry for ignorant and simple-minded folks if they weren't so determined to stay that way.
Anyway, let me be the first to welcome our heartless, expressionless, serpentine overlor... aw, the hell with it. I can't say it. I'm not normally creeped out by snakes but this is absolutely magnificent.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 5, 2009 5:23 PM
My apologies to both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. I was wrong. Very clearly there is somebody less intelligent than both of you. Glenn Beck defiantly takes the prize for Media Moron. That level of stupid goes way beyond burn.
Posted by: Larry | February 5, 2009 5:42 PM
kermit: Sometimes I feel like I need to bear witness to the idiots like Beck, Limbaugh, O'Liely and Sean Inannity so that I may warn others when this nonsense comes up. Sadly, this moron has a pretty large following, sort of like Palin, but at least he is where he belongs now, on Fox, where the facts and reality never get in the way of their blathering. And worse, Beck thinks he's funny!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 5, 2009 5:48 PM
Larry, that transcript was headache-inducing. is it possible to call a Godwin on a radio-show?
Posted by: Lance
|
February 5, 2009 6:45 PM
You all are all so very wrong. As we all know, nothing died before The Fall. This was a regular boa and nothing more. It's just like how a T-Rex is really just an older crocoduck...err dile.
Serious time now. Sweet. I am also glad we don't have those anymore.
Posted by: JDP | February 5, 2009 8:25 PM
Quoting David Marjanović, OM
Yes, but with some really notable exceptions. Big boas and pythons tend to break the rules pretty regularly (see Head and Polly 2007, Head et al.'s citation #13), and you have both long, slender snakes with small vertebrae (e.g. the Morelia amethystina complex) and short-bodied snakes with rather large vertebrae (the Python curtus complex). I was not satisfied with how Head et al. 2009 dealt with the conclusions of Head and Polly (2007).
However, there's no doubt at all that this is a huge snake. I remember, at SVP, holding my hands out in front of me to visually estimate size when they mentioned the vertebrae were about 10 cm in diameter, and nearly falling out of my chair.
Posted by: Andrew JS | February 5, 2009 8:30 PM
I think this is a pretty interesting find.. thats a big snake! But I'm more impressed that the lead researcher teaches not only at my school but my campus! University of Toronto Mississauga making media appearances. I like it.
Posted by: JDP | February 5, 2009 8:34 PM
RE: DGKnipfer
Head et al. suggest a phylogenetic relationship with genus Boa to the exclusion of other boine snakes on the basis of features of the paracotylar fossa and foramen. They do not subject the material to a phylogenetic analysis, though, which is understandable given the nature of the material (and the nature of the snake record in general).
Posted by: Chakolate | February 5, 2009 10:26 PM
If there is a well-defined relation between snake size and the temperature at which a snake can live, surely this snake must be an outlier. Isn't there a danger in extrapolating data beyond what is observed?
Posted by: Ricky | February 5, 2009 10:35 PM
For a snake that was as long as a bus (estimates up to 15 meters), and as heavy as ute (over 2 tonnes) that snacked on crocodiles, could munch a grown human as a single-bite apetiser, no wonder there is a huge fascinatiion over such monster.
If one ruled over the world today, it could easily crush any animal it faced, swallow goats and bulls, and nothing could be used to excavate such animal for further investigations.
So, if you are living in a Colombian rainforest, I d suggest that you close all your windows (not that windows would stop such monster enter your house), and hope that this monster doesnt flatten your house from the top.
Posted by: Rob | February 6, 2009 12:14 AM
Darn humans and their SUV's back the must have caused the global warming that killed off the snake :-0
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | February 6, 2009 12:21 AM
Run come see! - David Marjanović, OM made a factual error!
Actually, snakes don't have neurocentral sutures at any stage (or epiphyses, at least in the crown clade). However, it's still possible to tell a juvenile from adult by proportions (relatively short, wide and depressed vertebrae with large neural canal) and histology (more endochondral and less lamellar bone, with few or no LAGs).Good point JDP: there are assumptions about vertebra number still implicit in the size-estimation method that may not be strictly accurate, but it's an advance on simple linear scaling from a Recent skeleton (the best we could do previously). The best way to estimate the length of a fossil snake is to find the complete skeleton in articulation, but failing that, you want at least one sequence of articulated vertebrae long enough to measure a gradient (and substitute it into a model of size variation over the whole column). I note that multiple articulated sequences are reported for Titanoboa (Head et al Fig. 1e, and Supplementary Table 1) but gradient-based methods have not yet been applied.
There aren't a large number of discrete characters you can score from snake vertebrae, so hardly anyone has bothered doing phylogenetics with no skull. The number of articulated chunks of Titanoboa lying around makes me very hopeful that skull remains will turn up as well.
I was actually blathering on the radio about this story yesterday. Can't remember exactly what I said, but you can listen here if you're interested. I think I managed not to say "Crikey!" even once.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 6, 2009 1:26 AM
I propose the next striking snake specimen have the genus name "Matricoitophis."
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
February 6, 2009 3:49 AM
Okay, I'm starting a breeding program immediately. If only snakes' genes are as plastic as those of canids, I'll soon be on my way to recreating that ancient snake god.
We'll recruit some of those Pentecostals who are experienced at this sort of thing because, if as they say, they truly believe in Jesus, they will be safe. If not, they become one with the snake god and it is still win-win.
What do you mean, atheists can't start religions? I'm sure that's how every single one had its beginnings.
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | February 6, 2009 5:03 AM
"What do you mean, atheists can't start religions? I'm sure that's how every single one had its beginnings."
Atheists don't make good prophets. The Bible leaves out the part about Moses' smarter atheist brother, Manny. When he saw the burning bush, he just went out and invented the first fire extinguisher. Doesn't have the same ring.
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 6, 2009 8:08 AM
The post suggests Titanoboa ate crocodilians. Is there any actual evidence for that, or is it just speculation to make it seem even more fearsome than its mere size does? There was a photo posted on the web a few years ago of a constrictor that had swallowed an alligator and burst - I wonder if this gave rise to the idea about Titanoboa.
BTW, the rise in temperature that would have killed off Titanoboa (if it were still around at the time) would be the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) of 55.8 Mya, which while not anthropogenic, was apparently due to a sudden rise in atmospheric CO2 - in that case, from vulcanism.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 9:51 AM
This phenomena of gigantism was described in the Bible before actual fossil discoveries were made: Genesis 6:4 - "There were giants in the earth in those days..." (Click here for more descriptions of gigantism.) And don't forget about leviathan and behemoth!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 6, 2009 10:17 AM
That was about the announcement at the SVP meeting. This is about the published description, with a name for the beast and everything.
<slowly taking hat off>
<throwing hat on floor while jumping>
<jumping up and down on hat>
Well, I never claimed to be a herpetologist. In fact, I never even claimed snakes are interesting. Dinosaurs, now, dinosaurs are interesting!
Anacondas regularly eat caimans, and in the time and place where Titanoboa lived, there simply weren't any reasonably large mammals that could have sustained such a big predator.
Nope, from a sudden degassing of methane clathrates on the sea floor, which may or may not have been triggered by tectonic or other volcanic events.
Come ooooon. Gen 6:4 is about giant humans or rather demigods. The leviathan and the behemoth are the Nile crocodile and the hippo, respectively. And the very existence of the Paleocene contradicts both creation stories in Genesis!
Creationism can't explain Titanoboa. It can explain everything and its opposite, in other words, nothing.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 10:40 AM
Behomoth is a "hippo"? Hardly. Job 40:17 - "He moveth his tail like a cedar..." The same holds for leviathan. This animal is described a being impervious to spears unlike a crocodile: Job 41:7 - "Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?" You are overlooking one of the greatest attestations to the Earth's past when you disregard (and distort) the Bible.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 6, 2009 10:50 AM
The KJV translators were too ashamed to translate "penis" correctly. They also talk about "stones"… those are the testicles. External testicles only occur in some kinds of mammal (not even in elephants).
What do you mean by "unlike"? To wound a crocodile with a spear, you have to aim between the armor plates. Crocodiles have lots of bone in the skin. The massive skull directly underlies the skin, unlike in mammals.
You are the one who's doing the distorting here. You aren't even looking beyond the letter of the KJV!
Posted by: bootsy | February 6, 2009 11:01 AM
Hey Alan Clarke, why are there two contradictory genesis stories in the bible? And how did T. Rex fit on the ark (you gigantic dipshit)?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 11:40 AM
“Penis” was first used in 1676 according to Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition so is it any wonder that it doesn’t appear in the 1611 KJV? Your chronology is all messed up.
“Stones” are not “testicles”. A quick jump to a Hebrew lexicon describes them as broken pottery or “shards”. So again, the Bible is way ahead of "modern science" in describing something like a projecting armored plate, like those shard-like projections on the back of a stegosaurus.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 6, 2009 12:00 PM
Yours is. I'm saying that what's moved like a cedar is a(n erect) penis, mammal-style, not a tail.
Concerning "stones", forget the Hebrew lexicon. Instead, try to find out which word is there in the original.
The lexicon you cite gives Job 2:8 and 41:22 as occurrences of the word you looked up. 2:8 is translated as follows in the KJV:
"And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes."
41:22 is in the description of the leviathan: "In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him."
While the "stones" of the behemoth are in 40:17.
BTW, compare the KJV translation of Job 40:15–17 to the translation by Stephen Mitchell:
"40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."
"40:15 Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull. 40:16 Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. 40:17 His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor."
If the "stones" are potshards, what does "sinews of his stones" mean…? You quote-mine the Bible, it's incredible.
Massive fail. The rest of the description doesn't fit Stegosaurus at all, and… Stegosaurus didn't occur outside North America and what is today the Iberian peninsula. Wasn't Israel under water in the Late Jurassic?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 2:09 PM
What a mess! “Tail” becomes “penis” and KJV translation is supplanted by translation of "Stephen Mitchell”. Is it any wonder your road map has landed you in “Alice in Wonderland”? Who on earth is Stephen Mitchell? I wonder how he compares to KJV translator John Bois, who not only read the entire Hebrew Bible at six years of age but wrote Hebrew elegantly at this age.
Good idea. The reference you gave about Job using a “potsherd to scrape himself” supports my argument even more. These sharp broken pieces of pottery (likely triangular in shape) are like the armor on a stegasaurus’ back.
It’s pretty clear from the text that behemoth likely had the ability to move his armored plates (slightly or greatly?) since there were sinews attached to them. Sinews and muscle tissues are not preserved well by fossil evidences whether mammal or reptile. That’s why these Biblical descriptions are priceless. None of this is “incredible” when you consider that a modern-day porcupine or a frilled lizard has the ability to move its protection. When one puts “flesh” on a fossil such as a coelacanth, the evolution argument dissolves. Never was my intention to say behemoth was a Stegosaurus. I was using its armor for visualization purposes only. Without even knowing where you live, I bet you’re standing on top of water-laid sediments right now. Pretty strong evidence for a global flood, eh?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 3:11 PM
Talking about this big bastard on NPR science Friday right now.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 3:14 PM
No.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 3:35 PM
No global flood? You're not one of those contortionists are you?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 6, 2009 4:11 PM
Penis is a Latin word meaning penis.
Why should we accept the KJV, with every mistranslation, use of what was then archaic language, and use poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation? The KJV is a masterpiece of English literature. It is not a particularly good translation of the Bible.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 6, 2009 4:46 PM
Wait, what?
You're choosing two verses 39 chapters apart and saying they have something to do with each other?
Especially when you're talking about stegosaurus — which lived on land — and referring to the description of fucking Leviathan?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 6, 2009 5:15 PM
Oh, I see. You're referring to the word "חרש", specifically.
That is the same word in both places.
In the first instance, the Septuagint gives the obvious "οστρακον"; in the second, it says "ὀβελίσκοι ὀξεῖς". Hm.
But still. The verse says under.
Why do the words "χρυσος θαλασσης" show up in the LXX at all? "Golden sea"? That's not in the Hebrew.
Stupid inconsistent texts. Bah.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 5:16 PM
No, but you are obviously a crank.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 6, 2009 5:31 PM
Hm. Maybe it's not "golden sea", but trying to describe a hard-to-describe color. "χρυσος" can also mean yellow; "θαλασσης" can also mean "blue".
And I note that: "Nile crocodiles have a dark bronze colouration above, with black spots on the back and a dirty yellow on the belly."
Job 41:30 looks like an attempt to be poetic about the crocodile's claws, with what might be a reference to its belly that was missing in the Hebrew version that made it into the canon.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 6:19 PM
When science fails to support an argument, resort to ad hominem attacks. That always impresses the ignorant.The KJV is English, remember? If the Hebrew was “shophkah” which actually is “penis”, then the translators would no doubt have used something like “privy member” as they did in Deut 23:1. But since the Hebrew word is “zanab”, they correctly chose the word “tail”, for behemoth’s cedar-like appendage.
All that’s been illustrated thus far in this thread is that the KJV is a masterpiece in translation as well. If a work is “archaic” in language, that does not discredit its voracity. Click here to see how KJV English supersedes modern-day English in articulating exactness in pronouns.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 6:26 PM
Oh, we have alive one, someone who doesn't recognize a work of fiction when he sees it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 6, 2009 7:15 PM
LOL.
My favorite KJV fuckup:
"Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son"
She did what now?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 7:17 PM
Fiction or non-fiction? It's all in the details. When a fiction writer goes out on a limb with too many details, he can easily be discredited. And the converse is true. When too many details are validated, then the "fiction" aspect disolves:
Study your history. Just recently, Herod's tomb was discovered.
Posted by: CJO | February 6, 2009 7:25 PM
When too many details are validated, then the "fiction" aspect disolves
So, I suppose Dickens' accurate descriptions of Victorian London are evidence that Oliver Twist was a historical person?
Posted by: Feliz | February 6, 2009 7:39 PM
Just thought I'd point out that this is clearly the skeleton of a basilisk and therefor incontrovertible proof of the existence of Harry Potter.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 7:45 PM
Alan, I counter with the recent Nova episode The Bible's Buried Secrets where the Torah was written over hunderds of years, and very inaccurately. Your god doesn't exist and the bible is work of fiction. Prove otherwise. Show details of your work.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 6, 2009 7:52 PM
LOL, again.
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
Platform 9¾ exists at King's Cross Station. Therefore, the "fiction" aspect of Harry Potter is dissolved by this validated detail!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 6, 2009 8:29 PM
No, all that's been illustrated is that you've made that claim. Very little evidence to support that claim has been offered. That English which was already archaic in the early 17th Century had more pronouns than modern English has is not a strong argument that modern translations are inferior to KJV.
Many claim that the KJV is the inspired work of God, and that all changes and mistranslations are the direct work of God and any research that questions it is wrong. This is not supported by the historical reality. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people; his intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible, the favored Bible of the time. The marginal notes of the Geneva version made it popular with the common people and contained over 300,000 words that questioned many concepts of orthodox religion.
James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy claiming a king's power came from God, thus the king then had to answer to no one but God. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God. James took this idea so far that he believed even disagreeing with him for a political act was an offense against God. If one considers James himself as inspired by God, the public record must be considered carefully in that judgment.
The KJV translators were limited in the manuscripts available to them. The Dead Sea Scrolls had not been discovered yet (1947). Ancient Greek manuscripts had not yet been uncovered. Aleph, a Fourth Century AD codex, was discovered in 1859 in a monastery at Mt. Sinai. Codex Vaticanus, also from the Fourth Century AD at the Vatican Library, was not made available until a photographic facsimile was published in 1890.
The current KJV being printed differs in a number of details from the 1611 KJV. There are also numerous printing errors in different editions of the KJV. The 1611 editions have "Then cometh Judas" instead of "Then cometh Jesus" in Matthew 26:36. There is the "Wicked Bible" edition where "not" is omitted from the seventh commandment saying, "thou shalt commit adultery." William Kilburne in 1659 found 20,000 errors in six different KJV's. In 1701 Bishop Ussher's chronology was added. Even today there are differences between the KJV published by various publishers.
A number of words are mistranslated by the KJV. The KJV is not a perfect word for word translation. There is some paraphrasing like "God save the king" (I Samuel 10:24, II Samuel 16:16, I Kings 1:25, and II Kings 11:12). A number of words or phrases are mistranslated like John 20:17 which says "Touch me not" but should be rendered "Do not keep holding me."
The "Unicorn" is mentioned nine times in the KJV (Num 23:22; 24:8; Deut 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isaiah 34:7). In Deut 33:17 it says the unicorn has "horns" plural, so the KJV solved this problem by translating "unicorn" as plural "unicorns." It is a mistranslation of the Hebrew "reem" which means "wild ox."
The KJV uses the term "dragon" which comes from the Greek word drakon which means "serpent." It refers to a monster with a scaly snake like body. The Greek New Testament uses drakon 12 times only in the book of Revelation which the KJV translates as "dragon" (Rev 12-13, 16:13, 20:2).
The KJV is a mediocre translation. It's outdated. It's written in archaic English. There are better modern translations that make the Bible easier to read and understand.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 8:48 PM
Harry Potter
Oliver Twist
These two works were chosen for examples because they are known to be fiction. How do we know it? The authors will/would admit it. What more can I say? Paul, who wrote a large portion of the New Testament, did not present his writings in such a way. The cities he wrote about (Damascus, Tarsus, Ephesus, Rome, etc.) existed then and they exist now. Tolstoy wrote of St. Petersburg in "Crime & Punishment" but never attempted to publish his work as non-fiction. How about Joseph Smith? He wrote “The Book of Mormon” as non-fiction but the cities contained therein exist nowhere. You need a combination of both. Israel fought against the “Philistines” then and they are fighting against the “Palestinians” in the same Gaza Strip area today. Even the city that Samson frequented, Askelon, has been in the news lately. (Ashkelon) The mechanisms for discernment are all rather elemental.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 8:53 PM
Alan, no physical evidence you are right. Either put up or shut up. Given your evidence to date, you need to shut up. Welcome to science.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 6, 2009 9:01 PM
Granted: Paul claimed to be have absolute truth.
Fortunately, we are not obligated to accept Paul's assertions about "truth" and his access to same.
The Iliad and Odyssey refer to various Greek city-states, and to Troy, which we now know existed then (well, actually, several cities built on the same location at different times), and some of which still exist now.
Will you bow down to and worship gray-eyed Athena, or bright Apollo? Maybe sacrifice your daughter to Zeus of the thunders?
Elemental dumbfuckery, you mean, given that the Philistines were Mycenean, and the Palestinians are Semitic.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 9:01 PM
Dammit Tis Himself - You weren't supposed to give away the dragon and unicorn mistranslations. Those are two of my favorite subjects to quote on, and I was about to ask the Three Stooges about fossil remains.
Kill joy.
Now I'll have to fall back on asking them why gawd sacrificed his son 4000 years AFTER Adam & Eve ate the apple.
Posted by: windy | February 6, 2009 9:12 PM
"These two works were chosen for examples because they are known to be fiction. How do we know it? The authors will/would admit it. What more can I say?"
What do you say about Whitley Strieber's Communion: A True Story ?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 6, 2009 9:14 PM
Sorry, Patricia.
You can ask about pi being equal to three.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 9:23 PM
'Tis, Patricia might take your spanking couch privileges for a couple of days, but don't worry. Keep whacking the godbots like you have today and she will most likely forgive you. Just leave a little room for others to jump in (fear to jump in is usually not a problem around here though-as Heddle is finding out). (Now where's my list...)
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 6, 2009 9:24 PM
Can I ask about the part where that guy breeds striped goats by mating them in front of a bunch of reeds or something like that?
Posted by: CJO | February 6, 2009 10:03 PM
Paul? We're talking about the gospels --let's just go with Luke, since you started it. Since we have no idea who the author was, nor any about what s/he would or would not admit, your only proffered "mechanism for discernment" is useless.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 10:45 PM
While I do forgive you Tis Himself, you were naughty.
Go to the back of the line for the spanking couch. And no twirling while you wait.
It's tough to be so harsh, but I learned it from gawd.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 6, 2009 10:50 PM
We're getting off the subject somewhat of giant snake fossils but for the record concerning the word, "Palestine": The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". (source)Note to "Tis Himself": Wouldn't you feel better about yourself if you developed your own arguments instead of relying on Stephen C. Meyers? At least give him credit if you're going to copy & paste. (http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm) Perhaps the bigger question is, "Does you life adhere to the modern versions of the Bible or do the modern versions provide less conflict with your current life?"
The KJV translators were indeed aware of the LXX which is the basis for several versions you spoke of and they rejected it. From the translators preface to the KJV: "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty;"
Unicorns?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 11:06 PM
Rey Fox - That is from Genesis 30, 31 they were called ringstraked (striped). The animals conceived before the rods of hazel, chestnut, and green poplar set at their watering troughs.
It would be a long post to quote it all, so I'll leave it up to you to look it up if you care to. It's quite amusing.
er..I mean inspiring and proof of gawd. Whew, almost sent myself to hell.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 11:32 PM
Science has no problems with creationism.
Name a currently accepted evolutionary piece of research that you can refute with creationism.
Be specific. Show your work.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 7, 2009 1:50 AM
Why resort to creationism? Science rejects jumping from inorganic matter to living cells. You wanted me to be specific, so how about the law of biogenesis? How about mathematical probability refuting chances for all components assimilating randomly so badly that even Dawkins in his interview with Ben Stein alluded to life coming from another planet. If it can’t happen on Earth where there is known life, then the HOPE in deep space is nothing more than Star Trek Religion. Get a life! Many “scientists” reject evolution theory. Einstein who was agnostic stated, “God doesn’t play dice.” Evolution can’t exist without “dice”. Presently, “science” is supported by the government, as are casinos. Since both are “fixed”, you’ll lose at either if you play long enough.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 1:52 AM
Massive fail Alan. But that is to be expected. Go read some science books. One must really know what is going on to be able to refute it. You fail miserably, because you don't understand science.
Posted by: JDP | February 7, 2009 2:11 AM
The worst part about this is that references to LVTN are not consistent throughout different books. The book of Yov has been reasonably well-established to have been written by a non-monotheistic author, and fits well within a rather extensive debate genre from Sumer and the various Akkadian city-states. Other references associate LVTN with Tihamat from Akkadian literature both thematically and textually, so you're essentially claiming that a primordial sea-chaos deity is actually a Stegosaurus. This is patently absurd.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 7, 2009 2:23 AM
Alan Clarke wrote:
If that's the case then how did the Judeo-Christian god create humans from clay? How about all the plants and animals, which are living cells? Are you implying that said god made them from himself? And are you then implying that God is made of cells and organic matter?
You might want to rethink that one, Alan.
Posted by: JDP | February 7, 2009 2:24 AM
Quoting John Scanlon FCD
I agree that it's better, but at the same time, it's perhaps even more problematic, because giant boids and pythonids are precisely where you would expect the method to fail. Additionally, the regressions in Head & Polly (2007) do not provide squared residual values, which tends to be an indication that the squared residual value is actually rather low. As for gradient-based methods, I am unsure of whether the articulated units are long enough to actually recognize a size gradient.
Well, given the current state of snake phylogeny, I'm not convinced that skulls are that great, either. Or, for that matter, the molecules. Too many long branches in too many places, methinks.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 7, 2009 2:34 AM
JDP: Please add this to your Stegosaurus portfolio. I figure any contribution to the "knowledge base" can't hurt.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 7, 2009 2:54 AM
Thanks Wowbagger for the correction. I should have stated, “inorganic matter jumping to living cells through pure randomness” is not scientific. But even if all of a cell's atoms were properly in place, would it be living? I say "no". I realize Darwin's theory of evolution speaks nothing about this, but "evolutionism" picks up where Darwin leaves off. The followers are like the Trekkies that William Shatner could never rid himself of.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 7, 2009 3:08 AM
Clarke: read this.
Go learn.
Posted by: clinteas | February 7, 2009 3:10 AM
Alan Clarke,
from your comments,you seem to be lacking some basic knowledge about biology and evolution.
I suggest if you are confused about the distinction between "living" and "inorganic",which by the way is your distinction and not one used in science,you could start with looking up the definition of a virus.
Your assertion btw that science says these living things come into existence by pure randomness,is of course a lie,or shall we say,misrepresentation.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 7, 2009 3:27 AM
"We're getting off the subject somewhat of giant snake fossils"
Off the subject? You're the one who brought up the Bible. How much further off the subject can you get?
"Why resort to creationism? Science rejects jumping from inorganic matter to living cells. You wanted me to be specific, so how about the law of biogenesis? How about mathematical probability refuting chances for all components assimilating randomly so badly that even Dawkins in his interview with Ben Stein alluded to life coming from another planet. If it can’t happen on Earth where there is known life, then the HOPE in deep space is nothing more than Star Trek Religion. Get a life! Many “scientists” reject evolution theory. Einstein who was agnostic stated, “God doesn’t play dice.” Evolution can’t exist without “dice”. Presently, “science” is supported by the government, as are casinos. Since both are “fixed”, you’ll lose at either if you play long enough."
I can hear the grinding as Alan strips his mental gears bare.
"I should have stated, “inorganic matter jumping to living cells through pure randomness” is not scientific."
You would be right. Fortunately, "pure randomness" does not enter into the equation, as there are physical constraints that narrow probabilities. To grossly simplify, it's not "pure randomness" that makes the small pieces of dirt and rock pass through a sieve and the larger stuff stay on top.
Plus, for abiogenesis and evolution, you have a stepwise process where each step builds on the previous one. Since you are the one claiming life to have been "poofed" into existence, you have a lot more explaining to do than us since your explanation is so far outside what natural processes would produce. You are the one who has to account for some extra entity in the process. And pointing to a storybook to explain is considered bad form to those who actually have to consider the physical evidence.
"But even if all of a cell's atoms were properly in place, would it be living? I say "no"."
Um, vitalism has been dead since the 1800s.
"I realize Darwin's theory of evolution speaks nothing about this, but "evolutionism" picks up where Darwin leaves off. The followers are like the Trekkies that William Shatner could never rid himself of."
You are a very confused individual.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 7, 2009 3:35 AM
Clinteas: Isn't hydrogen gas "inorganic"? Doesn't "evolutionism" (not Darwinian evolution) stipulate that the other elements originated from hydrogen, then molecules, then amino acids, then single-cell organisms, multi-cell organisms, then... man? And the progression was without any goal or higher form of intelligence. Correct? Or am I among the company of theistic evolutionists?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 7, 2009 3:58 AM
Exactly, it’s in the “design” of the sieve. I once debated with a guy who claimed a computer program could randomly generate the sentence, "THIS IS REALLY REALLY SILLY BUT WTH LETS DO IT ANYWAY" in under 8000 iterations. But he placed the entire sentence in the program and whenever his “random” attempt didn’t achieve his goal, he discarded it. Try to generate it without placing the sentence in the program. Allow your “sieve” to create itself. Trying to achieve life without “life” as the goal is vanity. Achieving life accidentally is not possible.Posted by: clinteas | February 7, 2009 3:58 AM
Alan Clarke,
-isms like evolutionism are the nomenclature of creationists,not scientists.
As has been suggested to you above,go learn something,try it !
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 7, 2009 4:34 AM
Clinteas: Excuse me for attempting to label you. May it suffice to say many "scientists" who hold to Darwinian evolution, extrapolate their theory to describe non-living things such as planet and star formation. Extrapolating in reverse traces man's origins to primordial HYDROGEN gas as I stated before.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 7, 2009 4:42 AM
you're severely confused. astrophysicists don't extrapolate shit from biology. they are completely independent disciplines, and astrophysics has shit-all to do with the ToE.
and don't come back with "then why are they talking about star evolution"?. I realize creationists are fully incapable of separating words from the things they describe, so I'll explain right away:
nuclear processes in stars != Evolution by Mutation and Natural Selection
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 8:02 AM
I see Alan doesn't want to understand the research in abiogenesis. A lot of progress has been made, but still a long way to go. Real scientists have also postulated the possibility of primitive one-celled life arriving via comet. Gawd is not needed for anything.
By the way Alan, your imaginary god can never be part of any scientific endeavor. We will never use imaginary deities for any explanation, or a reason for something to occur. It's been that way for a couple of centuries, and that will not change. That appears to be your major complaint.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 8:36 AM
Because it is blatantly obvious (at least to me) that that is where you a drawing your "inspiration" from.
And it is a big overflowing cup of fail.
This law of biogenesis you speak of, you should maybe read about it a bit more.
Oh please. Show us the mathematics and we'll who you exactly why those types of calculations are worthless in these types of discussions. Mainly because at some point you are pulling numbers out of your ass. And Dawkin's only left open the possibility that it could have happened that way. A extremely slim possibility. He was not asserting that it did.
A pattern is forming here. And that pattern is that your comprehension skills need some tuning.
What the hell are you even talking about now? How does this even fit into this discussion? Are you tired?
Are you suggesting a scientist cock off? I'll put our measurements up against yours any day.
Einstein was a physicist not a biologist. I'm willing to bet that he would be 100% in support of evolution if you sat him down today and laid out the massive amounts of evidence for it. And you'll have to qualify what you mean about dice. I'm pretty sure I know, but It'll be fun watching you throw a few more shovels full of dirt from the hole you are digging.
There is so much wrong with that that It's hard to know where to begin. The scare quotes around science are nice a touch. yes science is supported by the government. Show me where that is a problem with the subject we are discussion. No assertions, back it up with actual evidence.
Your casino analogy is, frankly, stupid.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 9:38 AM
Um no
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 7, 2009 10:27 AM
O RLY? Why, then, does the KJV have 30,000 known translation mistakes, and why are there so many instances where it seems to have been translated from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text?
Then why are the sinews "wrapped together"?
Your ignorance shows again. They aren't preserved at all -- but their attachment sites on bones are easily visible! It follows that no stegosaur had mobile plates (various suggestions to the contrary in older literature notwithstanding).
Yes and no, respectively, because not all water-laid sediments have the same age. Read this and then come back here.
And what would a cedar-like tail look like? Or, rather, how could a tail be moved like a cedar?!?
If it's another appendage that stiffens till it can be compared to a cedar, everything falls into place. Last but not least the context -- "loins" and "stones"...
Well, yes. The area is named after the Philistines (one of the "Sea Peoples" turns up in Egyptian records as p-l-s-t), and today's Palestinians are named after Palestine. Duh. :-|
Bullshit. I had to read Das Fräulein von Scudéri at school. It's an 18th-century novel by Adalbert von Chamisso. Every single person in the book is real, not to mention the locations, and nonetheless the entire plot is fictitious from beginning to end. Some of the people probably never even met. Looks like the author tried to express his admiration for Mademoiselle de Scudéri by making her the heroine of a novel.
The reason we know it's fiction is not that the book says so. (I don't even remember if it says so.) The reason is that the plot contradicts known facts.
Yes, the one who deserve scare quotes reject the theory of evolution because they don't understand it.
Einstein was some kind of pantheist, and this quote was his objection to quantum physics. It was wrong. Einstein was wrong about quantum physics.
Too bad for Einstein -- who, see above, was talking about something else anyway. Stop quote-mining him (...and the Bible, too).
This is the stupidest thing I've read all week. Man. Dude! Get a grip.
1) Doesn't look like any stegosaur. The neck is missing, the head is way too big (it looks like a rhino's except for the missing horn(s)), the tail spikes (and in fact most of the tail) are missing, the forelimbs are much too long and straight, and so on.
2) Stegosaurus itself is only -- only -- known from the upper part of the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation of the western USA, and from a formation in Portugal that has the same age. That's it.
Fucking moron, that's nuclear physics/astrophysics, not biology!!! The theory of evolution is about biology. Evolution is defined as "descent with heritable modification. Neither atoms nor stars can evolve, because they don't reproduce.
You have completely overlooked natural selection. There are sieves in nature -- it's called the environment.
Really, you have a lot to learn.
Kent Hovind does, and you do. And nobody else. That's because it simply can't be done, see above.
Hint: Kent Hovind doesn't understand science. He is therefore not a reliable source of information about it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 7, 2009 10:35 AM
Thanks, Rev. Alan, look at the head... and the tail... and the missing neck... and... even the shape of the "plates", which are most likely the same ornament as those outside of each circle.
Posted by: Iain Walker | February 7, 2009 11:07 AM
Alan Clarke (#143):
This "law" is merely a generalisation to the effect that living organisms do not arise spontaneously from non-living materials over short timescales and under current chemical and other environmental conditions found on earth. That is the conclusion that the evidence supports, and that is all that the evidence supports. It is not a "law" that states that that life does not arise spontaneously from non-life under any conditions and over any timescales whatsoever - and if it did, then that would be a far stronger claim than the evidence supports. To that extent, calling it a "law" is misleading, since it has not been established as a universal principle.
In other words, science does not reject the development of living cells from non-living materials. It simply rejects the idea that it can happen abruptly under certain circumstances.
Einstein was talking about quantum mechanics here, and specifically the idea that events at the quantum level are probabilistic rather than deterministic. This has nothing to do with the "random" elements in evolutionary theory (such as mutation), which are "random" in the sense of being deterministic but (a) not easily predictable except through statistical modelling and/or (b) not biased towards any consistent outcome. Einstein certainly didn't reject the idea of randomness in nature in the latter sense (one of his earliest papers was on Brownian motion, one of the most random of processes). What he was rejecting was the idea that the most fundamental processes in nature were non-deterministic.
In short, the "dice" that Einstein was talking about and the "dice" that operate in evolution are two very different things, involving different kinds of process operating at different levels. Doubt about one does not entail doubt about the other.
So to present Einstein's doubts about quantum mechanics as a scientist rejecting the theory of evolution makes you pretty desperate, not to mention woefully ignorant.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 7, 2009 11:42 AM
Bullshit.
It is true that astronomers will talk of stellar evolution, but when they do so they do not have in mind similarity to biological evolution. That you are not aware of that indicates either you do not know much about astronomy (and biology) or you are simply being dishonest.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 7, 2009 12:20 PM
In fact, what the astrophysicists call "stellar evolution" isn't evolution, it's most similar to what biologists call "development" or "ontogeny" -- the changes an individual undergoes during its lifetime.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | February 7, 2009 12:41 PM
Fuck, totally late to this one. Can I just register the complaint that here we see the problem with a "biology/atheism blog": even a thread about an extremely cool piece of pure biology gets completely hijacked by a KJV-bible cultist. Pisses me off.
So back to
JormungarTitanoboa. Big big snake, very cool, but until I can spend some time with the paper you can color me skeptical about the thermal ecology extrapolations. PZ's definition of "poikilothermy" is a little misleading; a true poikilotherm's body temperature varies directly with that of its environment. The tricky part is defining "environmental temperature," particularly on land when solar radiation plays a role. PZ's definition better fits the concept of "ectothermy" in that an ectotherm's body temperature is determined by external sources of heat.A snake's body size is determined by age and age-specific growth rate. Growth rate is determined in part by body (not, directly, environmental) temperature and by feeding/digestion rate (in turn related to temperature, prey density and size, and the thermoregulatory abilities of the snake, whether behavioral or physiological; and also to poorly-understood internal controls on maximum growth rate). There are a LOT of assumptions necessary to predict air temperatures from maximum snake body size!!!
About the gigantothermy thing, I'd have to look up calculations and references to argue this rigorously, but I am certain that a >1 ton snake would not be fully ectothermic. Much smaller extant pythons can raise their own body temperature impressively while brooding eggs, by raising metabolic rate (in their case by muscular contractions) and decreasing heat loss (by coiling). A snake as huge as Titanoboa could, I suggest, easily raise its own body temperature simply by coiling, especially when digesting a meal.
I must also address a pet peeve: larger animals have higher, not lower, metabolic rates (rates of energy use and heat loss as, e.g., kJ/d). The "lower metabolic rate with greater size" thing refers to mass-specific metabolic rates only (energy loss per unit body mass, e.g., kJ/(kg d)). Statements like "it could get too big for its metabolic rate to support its bulk" make no sense. I can expand on this point indefinitely, if anybody cares.
Posted by: Iain Walker | February 7, 2009 12:42 PM
Alan Clarke (#121):
On the other hand, "tail" is a common euphemism for the penis in many cultures (hell, even the word "penis" derives from the Latin for "tail"). And given the context of the passage (the Behemoth is being held up as an exemplar of male animal potency), the reading of "tail" as a euphemism for "penis" is perfectly plausible, no matter which term the original Hebrew employed.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | February 7, 2009 12:44 PM
p.s. I would be very, very surprised if T. was colored black, as pictured. Black would maximize absorption of solar radiation, implying the need to heat up, which I find unlikely. As an undoubted ambush predator, I'd predict its color would be camouflage in its typical hunting habitat. Of course, I am merely making shit up here.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 7, 2009 1:10 PM
Yep. I heard that every day in school in Austria.
Very good point.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 2:04 PM
Sven i forget. What is it you do again?
Are you a herpetologist?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 7, 2009 2:13 PM
Don't all evilutionists?
'raspberry'
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | February 7, 2009 2:23 PM
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly what I "do," ecological physiology. I measure a lot of body temperatures and metabolic rates in turtles, lizards, snakes, and whatever.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 2:25 PM
I just got a really bad picture of you, a thermometer, a turtle and some lubricant.
sorry. These things pop into my head and there's nothing i can do about it.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
February 7, 2009 2:53 PM
Why is it so hard to believe that it is a Stegosaurus in that picture? And look how it is stomping on the head of a porpoise. There were porpoises back then, or do you scientists believe they just poofed into existence recently?
And down below it we see a unicorn shooting flames out of his head. (The bible, unicorns, burning bushes . . . hmmm? This is EVIDENCE, people!)
And look at the bottom figure. You see it? That is a STUNNINGLY accurate rendition of an English barrister monkey with a CHAINSAW and a CUTE LITTLE SOCK-PUPPET. How do you explain THAT, scientists? How did they have chainsaws back THEN if they are supposedly a modern invention? Why have we not been told about this race of intelligent and LITIGIOUS simians that used cute little sock puppets to COMMUNICATE and chainsaws to protect THEMSELVES from all the Stegosaurus’? Why are you afraid of the truth?
PRAISE JESUS!
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | February 7, 2009 2:57 PM
That picture is a couple decades out of date. Now I have my own grad students.Posted by: Blake Reas | February 7, 2009 3:04 PM
I am not a scientist, so this question will probably sound really dumb. If our climate continues to get warmer does this mean that snakes will get bigger again?
That would be wild. :)
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 7, 2009 3:04 PM
Maybe motivational speaking is your forté? Thanks for writing a book but if your science is as out of control as your person, I doubt it's credibility.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 3:07 PM
Alan, still trying to prove you have no reason to post. here. Don't worry, you are doing a good job of showing your irrelevance.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 7, 2009 3:19 PM
Typical creationist. Can't refute the substance, so he refutes the style.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | February 7, 2009 3:20 PM
It's very difficult to predict how global climate change will affect any particular species, but yes: one possible consequence is that ectotherms experience higher annual temperature profiles and therefore grow faster and bigger. Of course, that is subject to the same simplifying assumptions as the original conclusions. If the prey base decreases then there could be selection for smaller size, or quick extinction if some threshold for successful reproduction is crossed quickly. Et cetera.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 7, 2009 3:21 PM
Alan Clark, you more than earned the title "fucking moron" Even I can tell you got the different fields of science garbled and then forced to fit into your believe in the KJB. This is not a case of David Marjanović being out of control. This is a case of David Marjanović being accurate.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 3:25 PM
In my experience, this is almost always the case.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 7, 2009 3:31 PM
David Marjanović writes several hundred words refuting Alan Clarke and what's Clarke's response? He quotes one sentence and obliquely objects to one phrase of that sentence.
Alan, we're not impressed by your debating skills.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 4:35 PM
I'm not impressed by anything from Alan so far, especially his ability to parse information.
At this point I fully expect Alan to tell us that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Jesus had one he used to ride to give the sermon on the mount.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 7, 2009 9:05 PM
I am highly skeptical of this. It seems to me that the implication that this sniveling little twerp has ever copulated with another human, let alone that he has done so with enough regularity to refer to it as a general state of being, is one of those "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 9:12 PM
Unfortunately Azkyroth, his type breeds. Like rabbits.
However, while he may do it, there is a good chance his partner doesn't enjoy it.
Maybe even the whole hole in a sheet thing.
Posted by: Roger S | February 8, 2009 3:48 AM
David Marjanović,#161
O RLY? Why, then, does the KJV have 30,000 known translation mistakes, and why are there so many instances where it seems to have been translated from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text?
Wow, Glad to have located such a Biblical scholar with knowledge of the true word of God, knowing all the mistakes of the KJV.
Are there any mistakes with these passages?
John 8
23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 8, 2009 4:08 AM
Roger S,
I might be wrong, but I sense that you think you're going to outdo the Pharyngula top guns on scriptural knowledge and interpretation. If that's the case then be prepared to learn a very important lesson the hard way. Here's a hint: if you, personally, can't translate from ancient Greek and Hebrew then stop where you are and admit defeat right now.
But hey, if you think you've got a shot and are prepared to back yourself, you go for it. It's certainly going to be fun for the rest of us to watch.
Where's my popcorn?
Posted by: Iain Walker | February 8, 2009 8:13 AM
Roger S (#187):
No unambiguous factual errors as such, since one can always claim a metaphorical meaning for "I am not of this world" which needn't be outrageously implausible.
Basically, these passages are just the veiled threats typical of any authoritarian cult leader. They don't really have sufficient substance to be right or wrong about anything.
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 8, 2009 1:01 PM
Isn't hydrogen gas "inorganic"? Doesn't "evolutionism" (not Darwinian evolution) stipulate that the other elements originated from hydrogen, then molecules, then amino acids, then single-cell organisms, multi-cell organisms, then... man?
I'd be amused to see such a big puddle of fail, if Alan wasn't typical of far too many people with whom I have to share the road--the type that expects angels to grab the steering wheel and drive for them when their attention wanders.
I wonder if Alan has even the most vague notion of what he means to mock when he claims that evolutionismisticologistamafarians "stipulate that the other elements originated from hydrogen," that poofing into existence by miraculous fiat is supposed to explain so much better. Does he think it's claimed that the hydrogen atoms "mate" to become helium first, or does he imagine that hydrogen atoms just join bigger and bigger clubs to originate other elements? Does Alan think that people who can understand the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram are as ignorant about the origin of the elements as Alan is?
Posted by: SooooSick | February 8, 2009 5:28 PM
question why the fuck would anyone bring up religion to do a scientific thread fuck go to church and stay there where ur away from your computer
Posted by: for those of u | February 8, 2009 5:37 PM
those of you on this looking at that and wondering why god had made such a thing well lets just say he didnt and there is no god the fact that this snake is 60 million years old disproves the bible that is a variation of mixed ancient religions plp have been constantly pray to the sky pointlessly everyday expecting something but in reality get nothing why cuz there is no god no satan no fuckin lucifer angels or fucking demons science-->(truth/reality/facts) and exploration have constantly proved religion wrong but like they say there are only handfulls of intelligent plp and truck loads of idiots right?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 8, 2009 5:39 PM
Shift key, dude.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 8, 2009 5:52 PM
The incoherence of #192 is a good illustration of why you shouldn't huff paint and post.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 8, 2009 7:43 PM
For "for those of u": here. I hope this has been helpful.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 8, 2009 7:47 PM
I want to know more about this
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 8, 2009 7:59 PM
Rev BDC, I'll help you write a grant request to study those.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 8, 2009 11:30 PM
Evolution relies on random mutations. What is "random"? "Random" is where theories on life and planet/star formation cross paths.
Planet "evolution" has an uncanny resemblance to the theory of how life evolved accidentally in the Earth's primordial sea.
You are jumping on board after the random "magic" has been accomplished. Back up a little:1) Both are theoretical; neither were observed.
2) Both infer that incomprehensible complexity originated from non-intelligent, random particle motion.
3) Both overcame incomprehensible odds. The miniscule probabilities gave birth to theories of multiple universes.
4) Both overcame the negative effects of entropy.
5) Both theories were birthed from an a priori assumption that God does not exist.
(non-intelligent processes) = (non-intelligent processes)
I suppose one could build their entire life upon randomness. Look how successful it was in creating life and building our universe. Gamble every day instead of getting a job. Pick a mate by tossing dice. Listen to white noise instead of music. Rig your alarm clock to activate when a dog barks. Blow yourself up when you tire of the alarm.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 8, 2009 11:46 PM
See? SEE?!!!?!Posted by: Ken Cope | February 9, 2009 12:00 AM
Planet "evolution" has an uncanny resemblance to the theory of how life evolved accidentally in the Earth's primordial sea.
1) Both are theoretical; neither were observed.
Were observed? Try are observed. Evolution is happening now, it hasn't stopped. Stars and planets in systems at every stage of development are all about us to be observed. Look, and learn.
What's your story on how the elements came to be? Clue us in.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 9, 2009 12:02 AM
Uncanny!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 9, 2009 12:04 AM
oh wow. I think the ratio of words to falsenesses in #198 is preddy much 1:1. impressive.
1)Evolution is not random. mutation is semi-random (i.e it is unpredictable and goal-less, but it is limited by what it mutates from)
2)Abiogenesis is not random. we do not have the actual complete sequence, but the principle of self-catalyzed protein assembly with non-living chemicals has already been demonstrated; also, which atoms & molecules combine with which is strongly limited by environment, laws of physics, and chemical affinities.
3)Star formation is not random. again, basic laws of physics determine what happens when
4)Star formation has been observed in the sense that we have observed stars at all stages of their lives, and from this we can deduce how their lives look like; you know, the same way everyone under 80 figures out that people turn from babies, into kids, into teens, into adults, into old people, into dead people.
5)of course they are all non-intelligent processes. the only intelligent processes happen on planets with intelligent life on it, which means that there can't be intelligent processes before intelligent life. that's the worst, most obvious tautology EVER
6)non-intelligent processes != randomness
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 9, 2009 12:06 AM
preddy...? *headdesk*
please forgive the typos *sigh*
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 9, 2009 12:09 AM
Damn, Alan Clarke! Your logic is not like our Earth logic.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 12:11 AM
Take Alan Clarke's posts, for instance...
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 12:14 AM
Apart from not teaching him science - or perhaps not ensuring he learnt science - it seems that no-one has explained to Alan Clarke the weaknesses of the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Here's it simply put, Alan - even if there are things science can't explain (yet) we see no reason to default to 'goddidit' because that happens to coincide with the religious beliefs we hold by virtue of (for the most part at least) having been born into a family and/or a society where those beliefs were considered the norm.
If you say these things can't have happened by the means we believe they happened you have to provide scientific evidence of an alternative.
And, as Our Bearded Overlord is wont to say, your ignorance is not evidence*.
*No, not your god - I mean PZ. Your god, on the other hand, loves ignorance - which goes a long way to explaining Christians.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 9, 2009 12:40 AM
Alan @198. What codswallop.
Have you not seen how planetary orbits in Sol's system follow standard rules relating to condensation and mass interaction (related to distance from the sun)? The elliptical orbits described by Kepler. Conservation of angular momentum. And further how this appears to hold consistent for observed exoplanets as predicted?
Ken @200 asks about creation of the natural elements, something I am guessing you will see as the paw of dog. I too would like to see how you can explain this away.
Alan's post at 198 has problems with entropy (a strong one granted that his arguments approach a minimum energy state). Unlike your arguments, it takes effort to climb Mount Improbable - Dawkins has written lots about this and none requires intervention by a magic man. Could I also recommend LIFE: What a Concept
http://www.edge.org/documents/life/life_index.html
which is neither light reading nor short but very informative. Abiogenesis happened, get over it, we are just trying to describe it (then replicate it). Venter's work alone is awesome. Recent discovery (last few weeks) has overcome the long protein chain issue. You wanted it done in what, 7 days and explained in a couple of paragraphs??? The god you imagine must be the Reader's Digest condensed version.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 2:01 AM
Ken, I agree that “evolution” is happening, but it’s going in the wrong direction. Perhaps you could give a better example than this poor fellow.Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 2:30 AM
Alan: variation by accumulation of genetic mutations offers a logical explanation for the birth of creatures with extra limbs or other congenital deformities, and the willingness of humans, for various purposes, to preserve and provide the needed special care to creatures born with such conditions accounts for their survival. The fact that similar deformities can occur in such superficially different species is perfectly consistent with common descent - after all, genes specifying the overall tetrapod body plan would be expected to be conserved.
One has to ask why an omnipotent, benevolent God would do this to them, though. What's your answer?
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 2:35 AM
(Also, the "hah hah! Look at the freak kid!" attitude of your post suggests that you're morally retarded as well as ignorant and intellectually dishonest. You're not doing yourself any favors, scumbag).
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 9, 2009 2:55 AM
Alan Clarke, it says a lot about your character that you link to a hoax.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 3:23 AM
When radiated/mutated fruit flies are “gifted” with a second pair of wings with no muscles attached, others of the same species will not mate with them. How will this ever develop into something beneficial if they don’t propagate? If humans have vestigial tail bones, why did we loose our tails? Wouldn’t women be impressed with men who could perform tricks of dexterity with their tails? A tail could/would provide many useful functions in an urban environment. Evolution theory makes no sense to me in this respect.This blog is full of derogatory ad hominem attacks (scumbag, Fucking moron, etc.) If Janine, Ignorant Slut is attracted only to those who share her limited 4-letter vocabulary, then won’t her descendents die out because of strife, depression, inferiority complexes and inability to articulate deeper meaning? Sometimes teens will smoke cigarettes in order to “fit in”. I wonder if the camaraderie on this blog thrives on the same shallowness.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 9, 2009 3:29 AM
Alan, your mutations are typical of fused twin embryos and similar - these are developmental problems rather than genetic. If they were it would be obvious evidence for evolution through mutation in action, if they killed the person/organism this would be Natural Selection in action.
I'm not going to do your research for you, but look at the kid born in the USA last week with 6 fully functioning fingers and a thumb on each hand. His father had been born with 6 fingers also, but the 6th wasn't functional and was amputated shortly after birth. Maybe you would acknowledge this as a transitional form? Regardless, what is your point (except to expose your ignorance to the whole group)?
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 3:35 AM
Not all mutations are this dramatic (in fact, most don't show up in the phenotype at all).
You've been provided with multiple resources for educating yourself. Stop smugly asking questions that would embarrass most third graders and go READ; it's not our job to do your homework for you.
Additionally, unflattering descriptions such as "scum bag" and "fucking idiot" are not "ad hominem attacks" since they're not being deployed in an attempt to refute your arguments, but rather to punctuate factual refutation and vent our disgust at your character and behavior.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 9, 2009 3:44 AM
I will do mote than show off my use of four letter words, you offensively stupid motherfucker. I just love how you know what I am attracted to. You scum sucking little puke, I will have no descendants because I have no desire to have any. Also, you willfully obtuse jackass, the ad hominem attacks came along with David Marjanović's deconstruction of your incoherent rant. The fact that you think that the formation of planets and evolution are remotely similar show half way informed people that you have nothing to offer.
The reason why there is mostly ad hominem attacks is because most of us are now making fun of you. You have no knowledge to share and you have no interest to learn. You are the lowest self deluded dumbfuck, you how earned nothing but scorn. Now find yourself a cave, burrow in the dirt and wait for your deity of choice to come along and fuck some knowledge into head.
You sick little bug fucker.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 3:56 AM
I would prefer to call these “your mutations” and not mine. Regardless of what you call them, textbooks on evolution theory depend on them:Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 4:09 AM
Janine, I now understand that your language is to "punctuate factual refutation and vent disgust at my character and behavior". Why didn't you just say so! From now on, I'll dispense with the "Ignorant Slut" portion of your name knowing that you're a regular human being venting frustration. BTW, are you actually a woman? Were you in the Navy? I know my conversing with you seems sado masochistic but you've got my interest tweaked.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 9, 2009 6:43 AM
Alan,
I've been generous until now, but you obviously have no desire to benefit from discussion. I just pointed out that what you showed were probably not mutations but chimeras. Don't hold me responsible for poorly chosen fruit fly pictures in some biology textbook.
You reveal yourself as a troll not worth feeding. The comments at #217 were lowbrow physical insults - can't you handle insults without resorting to gender bias? Maybe something non-sexist and equally trite like her counting ability instead? "Motherfucker" and "willfully obtuse jackass" are not 4 letter words regardless of how appropriate. You can count can't you Alan? Reading and comprehension seem a little poor but maths too?
Wot Janine sez, with my own "Fuck off" thrown in
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 9, 2009 10:29 AM
I'm still waiting for Alan Clarke to explain what he thinks explains the elements so much better than astrophysics does.
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 9, 2009 11:07 AM
As for the blistering retort @208, the idea that evolution is going the wrong way is a tempting idea, only because of the increasingly inane spew we have to endure from creationists. Parsimony guides me, so I won't attribute to some new, unexplainable agency, that which can adequately be explained by ignorance and incompetence.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 11:15 AM
Clearly, then, it would be somewhat more accurate to use the phrase "unfucking moron" as description.
Or, to include the entire universe of possibilities, "fucking or unfucking moron".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 9, 2009 11:23 AM
Ah poor Alan, still showing why he has no business posting here. Alan, you are dealing with real scientists who know bullshit like your assertions when we see it. You cannot bullshit us. So, time for you to actually learn some science by say, taking courses and actually reading textbooks. Come back in five years.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 11:24 AM
But this contradicts your above assertion that there is no randomness; with the implication that God is controlling every single solitary speck of the universe. If that were true, then gambling instead of getting a job would be the perfect way to align oneself to the will of the Almighty God; tossing dice to find a mate would be the perfect way to make sure that you would find the mate that God wants you to find; and killing yourself when you're tired of living is exactly the way to get to Heaven — since obviously the God who controls everything would cause the gun to misfire (or otherwise cause the suicide attempt to fail) if he didn't want you dead yet.
You can't have it both ways. Either God does control absolutely everything, or there are things that God absolutely does not control. Which is it?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 1:39 PM
This is quite rich. Could you provide a link to a "well chosen" fruit fly picture? Electron microscope images are permitted. If you are not responsible, then who is? Don't hold your breath for Myers or Dawkins. Why is it that biology textbooks have shifted away from using 4-winged fruit flies on the same page where mechanisms for evolution are explained? What has changed? Science or politics or ?? Rather than sharing your irresponsibility, I’m risking angering people, so your response is quite positive.I'm really not a troll, a hijacker or one trying to prove his intelligence. Allow me to return to the original thread subject and ask a question proving my lack of knowledge: Is Titanoboa's unusually large size because his age or because he grew more quickly during the same life span as modern snakes are afforded? The mechanisms for Deep-sea gigantism are admittedly unknown. Could the reason be that creatures dwelling at lower depths are better shielded from harmful solar radiation? Gigantism seems to be common (click here) rather than a rarity for animal fossils. I think you are discounting a valuable resource when discussing gigantism and six-fingered humans. Also, Ferdinand Magellan’s crew member, Antonio Pigafetta, kept a log of the voyage and recorded detailed accounts of giants in Patagonia. I’m aware that subsequent stories became over-embellished, but Pigafetta’s original account seems to have no such embellishments.
Posted by: RogerS | February 9, 2009 2:16 PM
Dear Owlmirror, You seem unsure of what is the correct Biblical theology.With careful consideration of the passages below you might conclude your latter stipulation is closer to the truth.
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
James 1
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
-Regards
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 9, 2009 2:21 PM
RogerS, when it comes to the bible, Owlmirror will blow you out of the water. Consider this a fair warning.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 9, 2009 2:27 PM
Roger, your bible is work of fiction, on the same order as a novel by Mark Twain. Except Twain is funny.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 2:40 PM
Why is an ancient account of polydactyly valuble? Interesting I will grant, but no more than that.
The phrase that KJV chooses to translate as "born to the giant" ("יֻלַּד לְהָרָפָה") does not mean that, specifically. I note that the LXX for 2 Sam chooses to translate that as "ἐτέχθη τῷ ραφα" and simply transliterates "Rapha", whereas in 1 Chron, the LXX translates the slightly differently-phrased and spelled Hebrew "נֹולַד לְהָרָפָא" as "ἀπόγονος γιγάντων", which is where I presume the KJV translators got "giant".
But nevertheless: So what? Gigantism and polydactyly are obviously not traits that are in any way necessarily linked.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 3:02 PM
There is no correct Biblical theology; theology is inherently contradictory and fallacious. There are only people with different claims of what is correct Biblical theology.
That contradicts this:
1 Corinthians 1
19: For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
ANDTHE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
See? God insists that he's going to destroy wisdom and cleverness. When wisdom and cleverness are destroyed, nothing is left except for confusion.
Another contradiction.
1 Corinthians 1
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
Which insists that God deliberately chose to "tempt" the Jews and Greeks by doing something that could not be found by either signs nor by wisdom.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 3:11 PM
I should have done more searching. There's a more famous example of God tempting man:
Genesis 22:1
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Remember that one? God orders the man to cut his beloved son's throat with a sharp knife and burn the body. For God.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 3:44 PM
Janine, if you need tax advice do you go to someone who hates the government so passionately that he breaks the law at every turn in securing you a larger refund? You’ll end up paying more in the long run. Just look at the ugly picture Owlmirror paints for 1 Kings 3.26:
A copy & paste from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, yields the following for "bowels":
So the KJV is spot on, whereas Owlmirror is ??? Speaking of archaic documents in disrepair: “The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”. Darwin’s original theory fell flat on its face when it encountered Weismann’s barrier. Not only that, but Darwin’s “favor” is in question:
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 4:02 PM
Copying that citation with emphasis:
The KJV is not "spot on". The KJV is fucking well archaic.
Modern English has changed to the point where the primary meaning of the word "bowels" is "One of the divisions of the alimentary canal below the stomach; an intestine, a gut."
Sheesh.
Yes, and every single evolutionary biologist including PZ Myers knows this and acknowledges this.
You fucking or unfucking moron.
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 9, 2009 4:21 PM
So, again, Alan, how do you account for elements? Elementals?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 4:47 PM
Owlmirror doesn't understand the difference between tempting someone for evil and testing someone for good. A Hebrew lexicon for the KJV use of "tempt" yeilds the following:
1) to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test
So which is it in the case of God speaking to Abraham? Consider the following:
Satan to man:
Jump off this cliff and see if God will help you.
Mother bird to baby bird:
Jump out of this nest and realize you can fly.
Owlmirror to Janine:
Don't trust in God because he failed Abraham.
Keep reading after Genesis 22 then tell me if God failed Abraham. Abraham trusted God in his "test" which resulted in his offspring producing Jesus Christ about 1900 years later. This doesn't seem like much of a gain in terms of today's quick solution mentality but when compared to eternity, it means everything. The question that begs an answer is, "Does Owlmirror have anything beneficial to offer?" We see he has built an intricate maze of what not to believe in. What does he believe in? I have nothing against science, but if it's science with the Godless "evolution" slant, be mindful of where it has taken Cornell Professor William Provine.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 9, 2009 4:50 PM
If I need tax advice, I will avoid a person who cannot tell the difference between a pound, a dollar and a yen.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 9, 2009 4:55 PM
Alan, your imaginary god doesn't exist, and the bible is just a work of fiction. Anything else is a lie. Welcome to our world.
If you want to discuss god and the bible, it is up to you to first demonstrate the physical evidence for god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin. Until you do this, the bible is just another work of fiction. Please show us your physical evidence for your god. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate your claims of existence.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 9, 2009 5:01 PM
He's arguing the bible against Owlmirror?!
Haw! Ha ha ha! That's a knee slapper.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 5:04 PM
Alan Clarke,
You're furiously cutting and pasting and consulting dictionaries while Owlmirror is citing and explaining translations from Greek and Hebrew from memory.
That should tell you something.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 9, 2009 5:07 PM
I am done teasing Alan Clarke. The man is insane. I like verbally abusing the obtuse. Not so much when the person needs help.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 5:08 PM
Tempting someone for evil: Like the way God tells Satan to tempt Job.
Tempting someone for evil: Like the way God tempts the Greeks and the Jews.
God, as described in the bible, is indeed evil. What else have you got?
Did you notice that Abraham comes down the mountain alone?
Did you notice that God failed the offspring of Abraham?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 5:25 PM
By your logic we might as well toss out the Rosetta Stone and the Declaration of Independence because of their “archaicness”. Lincoln’s Gettyburg address is undoubtedly offensive to you also because of the “four score and seven years ago”, which sounds like some kind of total for a sports game. Do you like gay people? If you disregard word etymologies, then everything is offensive to you. Get free of it. Post #192 was obviously from a non-native English speaker. You have to consider where people are coming from. You can't expect the world to revolve around your limited preferences of language, science, politics, ???ism, etc. As much as you may hate it, you are basically standing on these people’s shoulders right now.Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 9, 2009 5:26 PM
By your logic we might as well toss out the Rosetta Stone and the Declaration of Independence because of their “archaicness”. Lincoln’s Gettyburg address is undoubtedly offensive to you also because of the “four score and seven years ago”, which sounds like some kind of total for a sports game. Do you like gay people? If you disregard word etymologies, then everything is offensive to you. Get free of it. Post #192 was obviously from a non-native English speaker. You have to consider where people are coming from. You can't expect the world to revolve around your limited preferences of language, science, politics, ???ism, etc. As much as you may hate it, you are basically standing on these people’s shoulders right now.Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 5:37 PM
Unlikely, especially considering that the deep-sea giants are generally separate species from smaller but similar creatures, but possible. What's your evidence that it's true rather than simply possible? How might one test this hypothesis?
You don't see any particular reason why large, solid bones would be more likely to be preserved by the process of fossilization than small, thin ones?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 9, 2009 5:38 PM
What do gay people have to do with the frapping bible? Aside from jebus and david being gay?
You're right Janine, he is crazy.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 9, 2009 5:43 PM
Why would we hate it? The accomplishments of the scientists listed at your link are indisputable. As is the observation that none of their scientific accomplishments had anything whatsoever to do with their putative "Bible-believing christianity." Newton was also a dedicated alchemist, completely full of shit. Neither that nor his religion have anything to do with the calculus.(By the way, citing Henry Morris as an authority about anything is a mistake.)
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 5:44 PM
Heh heh heh. This is gold. Alan Clarke has realised exactly what he's up against (an actual scholar, rather than a hack like himself) and is trembling so much he double posted.
Perhaps you could get a grip on your fear and limit yourself to a single post, Alan - and in it deal with the actual points Owlmirror raised, rather than taking umbrage at the tone. He's giving you the words in the languages the bible was actually written in, not those which have been approved by Popes and committees and subject to the vagaries and subjective biases of the translators.
Or do you believe Jesus and the apostles spoke English?
One more thing - the line 'Do you like gay people' sounds to me like homophobia; that sort of thing is not tolerated here. You keep that shit up and PZ'll ban you.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2009 5:52 PM
In the modern sense, I've met a few I dislike intensely, but overall I feel the same way about this subgroup of humans, on average, as I do about humans as a whole.
In the archaic sense, which I assume is what you're getting at, they frequently irritate me.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 5:54 PM
Way to not get the point.
I am not saying that anything should be "tossed out". For fuck's sake, I'm not even saying that the bible should be "tossed out".
The topic was the appropriateness and accuracy of that particular translation for a modern audience.
The KJV is neither appropriate nor accurate. How hard is it to understand that "רחם" means "mercy; compassion" when it's a verb and "womb" when it's a noun, and find a better translation for the phrase used than "her bowels yearned"?
Sheesh.
And they were standing on the shoulders of pagans, heathens, Deists, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians. What the fuck difference does it make? The only thing that matters is the evidence.
Oh, and Newton denied the Trinity and Pasteur was very secular and may have been an agnostic or Deist. Other refutations could probably be raised about others in that list.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 6:07 PM
I had a look through that list that Alan posted and I, while I didn't check every single birth year, it looked like every one of the people listed were born before Darwin published his books.
Does anyone think that's a coincidence there aren't many (if any) scientists on this list who were wholly educated post-Darwin?
The people on the list were, for the most part, exemplary scientists, yes - but they had been raised in a society where there was no comprehensive scientific explanation for why organisms were the way they were. What was it that Dawkins said? 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 9, 2009 6:16 PM
YAWN, Alan is a bore on top of it all. This is about the hundredth time time some of these same arguments have been made here in the last couple of years. Why do godbots always think they have an argument we haven't heard before? (/rhetorical).
Time to get the popcorn.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 9, 2009 6:19 PM
you're using a KJV-specific dictionary to prove that the KJV uses the correct translations...? that's rich. I'm not sure if this reaches the level of circular reasoning, but it's certainly severely biased towards the specific ways in which the KJV translates stuff, so of course the KJV translation will agree with a dictionary devised to explain its word use
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 6:23 PM
Eh, Alan's crapped himself in fear and stepped away from the PC. Probably a good thing; he had no chance whatsoever - but it would have been fun to watch him try, though.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 9, 2009 6:25 PM
also, WTF does this have to do with anything:
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 9, 2009 6:28 PM
This is about the hundredth time time some of these same arguments have been made here, and it was completely lame each time. Is this some sort of hazing ritual for creationists? Are they sent here as a test of their faith? "Here, take this URL and find a thread to hijack and used these quotemine sources to convince them that the 2LoT refutes evolution! They'll be knocked out and won't know what to say and convert to Xtianity immediately!" It's like theater majors picking up a hammer to work with the tech crew for the first time, and being told to go wash the gels from the spotlights, and be sure and use hot soapy water.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 6:30 PM
Ken Cope wrote:
I don't get it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 6:35 PM
No, he was using the OED. And he had to scroll down past the primary definition, past the ones marked "Obs.", to find the definitions that matched... and ignored that they specifically say "archaic".
And then he comes back and says "spot on"! Well, maybe "spot on" in the early sixteen-fucking-hundreds. Sheesh.
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 9, 2009 6:38 PM
Eh, it's an initiation prank. You're supposed to be surprised when the hot soapy water makes the (supposedly very expensive) gelatine color filters dissolve in your hands. It's stupid hazing. I can't imagine that anybody but a naive dumbass would believe this would be the place to whip out their inane anti-science drivel, unless somebody else convinced them that it would be, snickering into their hands and telling their cohorts, "This oughta be good..."
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 6:44 PM
Maybe he's referring to God's favor, and is trying to hint that God hated Darwin and tortured him with illness out of pure spite for daring to come up with the theory of evolution?
Because God never lets good Christians get sick, of course, and they all live much longer and healthier lives than non-Christians. Why, Christians can heal the sick just by touching them, and can even drink poison and not die, did you know that? Everyone in hospital must be non-Christian!
/sarcasm
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 9, 2009 6:55 PM
Ken Cope,
I was wondering more because I've been involved in amateur theatre for about five years - mostly as a performer, but I've also done backstage crew and lighting - but no-one's ever told me that gels were that delicate. In fact, I had no idea that 'gel' was short for 'gelatine' in that context. But it's good to know, so thanks.
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 9, 2009 7:02 PM
Wowbagger, you'd be told to use the hottest soapy water you can stand and scrub with a sponge, but yeah, they'll dissolve. I did a lot of college and community theater in the 70s, lotsa fun.
Posted by: Damian | February 9, 2009 7:04 PM
Alan Clarke:
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 9, 2009 7:05 PM
actually, I was questioning the following line:"A Hebrew lexicon for the KJV use of "tempt" yeilds[sic] the following:"
because it seemed a really strange, self-referential way of discussing the meaning and usage of words. but the one you're pointing out seems also a case of willful confirmation-bias
Posted by: Damian | February 9, 2009 7:18 PM
This is worth reading:
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 9, 2009 7:25 PM
Heh. Just like Alan Clarke sneered at above @#198.
Alan, why do you hate God and his bible?
Posted by: RogerS | February 10, 2009 12:06 AM
This may have been too obvious and was overlooked:
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
So by definition, Jesus Christ of course had correct Biblical theology. We can therefore learn from his interpretations.
I am a little speechless after this…it would appear that God is trying to speak to you with your own quote. I believe your 1 Cor 1:19 quote and conclusion is about yourself. Please, I honestly do not intend disrespect since all mankind begins as the “natural man” and “of the world”. Natural wisdom falls short in understanding God (being Spirit). The following verses explain why we meet and understand God on His terms, not ours.
1 Cor 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
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.
-Regards
Posted by: RogerS | February 10, 2009 12:09 AM
Dear Owlmirror,
The following passages may help clear up the contradiction matter.
Hebrews 11
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Your buddy Alan points out in #234, multiple meanings for "tempt" 1) to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test
By the Hebrews 11 account above and the known outcome, I would say that God's assay of Abraham's dedication was not for evil, neither was it perceived as evil by Abraham. In verse 19 we learn Abraham had full confidence in God's sovereignty even over death, and figuratively "he received him" back from death.
In context of James 1:13 the word tempted is associated with "...with evil...".
Would like to discuss more –but I have a job.
-Regards
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 10, 2009 12:15 AM
RogerS, #265
The posters here are, for the most part, atheists - which means we don't believe in your god. Why on earth would we care whether or not someone who may or may not have believed in your god wrote things down and claimed they were his words?
Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 12:28 AM
Godbotting alert!!! Godbotting alert!!! Godbotting alert!!!
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 10, 2009 2:39 AM
I was musing over the absurdity of Owlmirror's hatred for the Bible. What is absurd is his attention to Hebrew & Greek detail but he doesn't know the author.
Where would one best learn the martial art of Karate?
From someone who loves Karate or from someone who hates it?
Where would one best learn the Bible?
Reading it for yourself or allowing someone who hates the Bible interpret it for you?
Actually, Owlmirror is a new phenomenon for me. I'm beginning to perceive this forum as a bunch of frat & sorority students that have as their foundation another person who they esteem. I would feel rather intimidated if people worshipped me as a god, but Owlmirror seems to be lapping it up. Since he's currently at the top, I don't see many options for his pharyngulating other than down. I'm not claiming to know everything so I have nothing to loose. I was sincere when I asked a few questions about Titanoboa, but I can see that people have little interest in the original thread topic. I don't blame anyone because I too would have little interest in a big snake if I were in such a spiritual wasteland as Pharyngula. There is such hatred for Christians here that I feel many people may have been molested (or something similar) by a “religious” person. Owlmirror owes it to his followers to make a full disclosure of any such conflicts of interest before he continues his crusade. If he has an “axe to grind”, it should be between him and God alone. Ugly divorces often drag down innocent children. On this blog, women are debasing themselves with such titles as “Ignorant Slut”. I honestly feel that I have more respect for Janine than she has for her(him)self. In the beginning, I questioned a few of the science theories and I’m treated as if I’ve challenged someone’s religion. People seem to be HIGHLY interested in God or the absence of God. I suppose this blog is like a therapy session for affirming one another that God does not exist. The level of insecurity among members is astounding. There's a lot of talk about who has the most knowledge. In my college Chem labs, I remember some students hoarded their lab results forcing others to "dry lab" the data. Many wouldn't share their results because it was below their dignity to converse or share with another partner who was less endowed. That's what I feel this forum is all about. Dog eat dog. Facade personalities. Over-use of 4-letter words and under-use of meaningful words. I hope for the sakes of these persons that they are not over 24 years old:
"I might be wrong, but I sense that you think you're going to outdo the Pharyngula top guns on scriptural knowledge and interpretation."
"RogerS, when it comes to the bible, Owlmirror will blow you out of the water. Consider this a fair warning."
These two people who have no foundation of their own, but the foundation of another fallible human. The last time I made such a statement was when I told a neighborhood kid that my dad could beat up his dad. If anyone is going to "win", it will be the person who becomes the servant of others.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Posted by: clinteas | February 10, 2009 2:46 AM
Alan Clarke,
Im afraid you are beyond hope.Sad excuse for a human being waste of a lifetime arrogant liar for jebus.
Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 2:58 AM
I read that thread Alan Clarke links to in his name, is this guy serious? It reminded me of a Bill Hicks rant.
Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 3:03 AM
Whoops, link didn't work. Take 2
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 10, 2009 3:41 AM
I looked at the Bill Hicks video. He joked at the stupidity of Christians believing in a Bible that makes no mentions of "dinosaurs". I would feel sorry for him, but he dug his own grave. Click here Bill before making a further fool of yourself.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 10, 2009 3:43 AM
It's amazing how, when someone is thrashed so soundly at something they started out thinking they were superior at, they suddenly decide that being the best isn't that important anymore.
And that's exactly what's happened to Alan Clark. He expected that he'd come and lay down his 'vast scriptural knowledge' and we'd all be so impressed that we'd show him the respect he seems to think slightly above-average (at best) knowledge of the bible provides him.
Sadly - for him - he misjudged us, as theists often do with atheists. And he got, as the kids today say, pwned.
So now, in desperation to try and regain any of the footing he's lost, he's trying to undermine the value of the knowledge that he formerly considered paramount and would, had the boot been on the other foot, be crowing about our ignorance of and how we couldn't begin to argue with him until our knowledge matched his own.
You're just seething, aren't you, Alan. Too bad - I guess it sucks to be you. Now even more than normal. All you're left with is tired old theist canards about 'hating god' or 'someone religious must have hurt you for you to be so angry blah blah blah.'
Nice try at an analogy, but our dad didn't need to kick your dad's ass; it didn't even get that close. Your pissweak dad only had to see our dad before he crapped himself in fear and ran off, stinking and covered in his own shit, to hide - leaving poor little Alan, who'd talked so big, blubbering in the street in shame.
Just like you are now.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 10, 2009 3:44 AM
"So by definition, Jesus Christ of course had correct Biblical theology. We can therefore learn from his interpretations."
But we don't have his interpretations. All we have is a gaggle of theologians and their interpretations of Jesus' interpretations. You'd think if God thought this stuff to be at all important, he would have done a better job of making it clear.
"Where would one best learn the Bible?"
From a source unbiased by the unfounded notion that it is the source of all godly wisdom, of course. Same way you'd learn about any other ancient mythology. From people who understand the historical context in which it was written, then edited, then re-edited, then translated and retranslated and re-edited. Frankly, all that stuff makes my eyes glaze over at about the third or fourth "begat", but more power to anyone who can demystify it.
"Owlmirror owes it to his followers to make a full disclosure of any such conflicts of interest before he continues his crusade. If he has an “axe to grind”, it should be between him and God alone."
There ain't no god, so the axe shall be ground upon all the charlatans who claim to speak in God's name.
"I would feel rather intimidated if people worshipped me as a god, but Owlmirror seems to be lapping it up."
Respect for another's expertise is not exactly "worshipping". But I can understand how your views of human interaction would be warped by a religious hierarchy.
"On this blog, women are debasing themselves with such titles as “Ignorant Slut”."
It's called self-deprecating humor, you probably wouldn't understand.
"I honestly feel that I have more respect for Janine than she has for her(him)self."
You're attempting to insult her by questioning her gender. I'd say you have far less respect. I'd even go so far as to say you must have a serious deficit of respect for the entire female gender, because you fit the profile so well.
"I suppose this blog is like a therapy session for affirming one another that God does not exist."
It's a self-selected peer group based on common interests, yes. How that's less noble than any church delusion session, I don't know.
"The level of insecurity among members is astounding."
Projection.
"Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."
And a big ol' "Humperdumperdoo" to you too, from the Book of Ennis, issue 21.
Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 3:50 AM
Way to miss the point by a long way...Though I read your adding of the dates and I wondered just how all the different areas of inquiry got it so wrong. Geologists date the earth through a variety of techniques to being around 4.55 billion years old. Palaeontologists see simple life in the fossil record around 3.8 billion years ago, complex life around 700 million years ago, and from about 530 million years a gradual progression of life and divergence. Through genetics we can trace ancestry of and we see the last common ancestors for mankind between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. We also see the domestication of the dog at about 15,000 years ago. Archaeologists see the remnants of early cultures for around 50,000 years and point to the agricultural revolution at around 12,000 years ago. The invention of beer was before the date you described, as was glue.And all this fits in with observations of galaxies that are over 13 billion light years away.
So how did all those fields of inquiry go so wrong? I'm really curious as to how you can feel that millions of scientists and historians from all walks of life can all have been wrong, sometimes by the factor of over a million. Could it be that all of them are incompetent, misled, or appealing to the authority of evidence instead of the bible?
Posted by: windy | February 10, 2009 3:56 AM
The smart students didn't let you cheat off them? Tough.
Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 3:58 AM
Oh and Bill Hicks has been dead for 15 years. Asking a dead person to do something... well that's making a fool of yourself.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 10, 2009 4:11 AM
The authors were all fallible human beings. The Hebrew bible was mostly written by priests hungry for power and feuding jealously with their rivals. The Greek bible was written by cultists creating a new religion based on bits and pieces of older ones.
From those who honestly analyze it as a human-created compilation of documents.
The only thing worthy of esteem is honest expertise. Your disingenuous attempts to fake expertise simply fail to impress.
*snort*
Oh, yes, I am going to start ordering people around, because knowing something about languages and the history of religion makes me special. Good fucking grief.
*eyeroll*
Dude. There are lots of experts around here, and a few genuine polymaths.
I just happen to be the one who knows more than you about a few things. There are plenty of others who know more than you in other fields — as you might have noticed if you weren't so busy moaning about me, you big baby.
Nah, that's a lie. You just used the big snake as an excuse to preach, equivocate, confuse, and wax disingenuous. Get over yourself.Actually, I read the comments by those with actual expertise in palaeontology and biology with great interest.
Oh, LOL. Good grief, does it not occur to you that people might simply dislike frauds and liars because they dislike being defrauded and lied to? There's agnostic anti-evolutionists out there as well, who aren't particularly motivated by religion, but insist on spouting off their fraudulent, disingenuous, and fundamentally crackpot ideas about science. We make sure that they don't get away with their crap here either.
I'm not ragging on you because you're a Christian. I'm ragging on you because you have no idea what you're talking about, and yet pretend that you do.
No mercy for bullshitters.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 10, 2009 4:21 AM
Owlmirror - Could you use some of your divine powers to rid my yard of the skunk trying to break into my chicken house?
I hate getting woke up at this time of night.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 10, 2009 4:33 AM
you may not realize this, but most of us have read the damn thing. for some, reading it cover-to-cover was the reason they stopped believing
we have great interest in the original topic, it's just that we're the ones with the questions. your godbotting has effectively bored the herpetology-experts to death and they've left the thread. now you're left with people who suffer from SIWOTI Syndrome or enjoy troll-stomping.
it's called humor. and it's a reference to SNL. and a running joke. and you're being condescendingPosted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 10, 2009 4:35 AM
woken up...?I think I should interpret that as a sign that it may be time to go to bed soon :-/
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 10, 2009 11:19 AM
Spoketh the man who needs medical help:
On this blog, women are debasing themselves with such titles as “Ignorant Slut”. I honestly feel that I have more respect for Janine than she has for her(him)self.
I said I was done speaking to this person. I was wrong.
Why are you so obsessed with me? And you do you keep shifting tones?
Despite the shifting tones, the constant theme is your smugness. You act as you are leading a intellectually deficient person.
Let me fill you in on a few things. I post here not because I am trying to fit in to peer pressure. I am here because I love the intelligence and humor I find here.
I am a dyke. I just loved the "Do you like gays?" that you placed in the middle of one of your rants. I guess I am one of your mortal enemies.
Because I can put together some sentences with swear words, you doubt my gender? You have not spent much time around women, have you?
Owlmirror has never lead me anywhere. I left my faith behind twenty five years before I ever read any of Owlmirror's posts. And part of the reason was because, no matter what language they are in, the stories of Abraham and Isaac and of Job are the actions of a moral monster. I just happen to appreciate the depth of Owlmirror's knowledge.
You claim to have more respect for me than I have for myself? Bullshit! You did not know any of the scant personal details about me that I just provided. You treated me as if I am some stupid and impressionable waif. Yet you respect me? Please go fuck yourself.
You do not like the title, "Ignorant Slut"? You show see some of the other titles I have used for myself. Everyone of them were either an insult tossed my way or a joke
You show so little respect for yourself that you show off an understanding of science that an intelligent middle school student would be ashamed of. You try to show off your biblical knowledge to us only to run into someone who can run rings around you. In response, you drop knowledge like it was a fire heated rock and babble on that what is important is that one KNOWS god. That is respect for one's self.
Alan Clarke, you are a delusional, stupid and sick little man. No one is impressed by what you brought here. Most of the people here are laughing at you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 10, 2009 2:52 PM
(SIWOTI!)
And the most famous example of God tempting Man is in the Garden of Eden.
The whole business of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil makes no sense whatsoever except as an example of God tempting man, or rather, Man and Woman.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 10, 2009 2:58 PM
And of course, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden brings us right back to the titanic snake.
"Now the serpent was
more crafty than anythe biggest muthafuckin' beast of the field which the LORD God had made."Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 10, 2009 3:02 PM
If I had the Titanoboa suggesting that I eat a fruit, I think I would eat for the sake of my safety.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 10, 2009 4:19 PM
Ken, I’m not purposefully trying to avoid you. People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than by those found by others. What are you really looking for? If you’re looking for me to fall on my face then rest assured I’ve done it many times and I’m not an astrophysicist. Now that I’ve lost your interest, let me move on to what may be more important than not finding God through astrophysics:Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book "On Death and Dying, describes, in five discrete stages, a process by which people allegedly deal with grief and tragedy, especially when diagnosed with a terminal illness. The stages are known as the Five Stages of Grief.
1. DENIAL: I feel fine. This can't be happening, not to me!
2. ANGER: Why me? It's not fair! How can this happen, I hate this world!
3. BARGAINING: Just let me live to see my children graduate. I'll do anything, can't you stretch it out? A few more years. I will give my life savings if...
4. DEPRESSION: I'm so sad, why bother with anything? I'm going to die . . . What's the point?
5. ACCEPTANCE: It's going to be okay. I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it.
Hard-core atheists may only go through 1, 2, & 4 whereas the weaker may succumb to the “bargaining stage” like a pitiful American Idol contestant when they’re about to be booted. Cornell Professor William Provine seems to be where Sigmund Freud was before his demise, stage 4:
I never heard of Bill Hicks until last night. But after viewing his mocking on youtube, I thought to myself, how much longer will this guy continue? Evidently I missed it by minus 15 years. Obviously, not everyone is “stamped out” by God since his nature is very patient and forbearing. Darwin lived to be 73 but the quality of his life was near the bottom of the chart:
I had a friend whose wife left him for a “more intellectual” guy. The guy was a psychologist. I was visiting my friend when his wife was about to leave for a “night out”. She was all dressed up with a short dress and black patent leather knee-high boots. My friend pleaded with tears that his wife wouldn’t leave that evening but it was to no avail. The scene was so I ugly that I wanted to leave but he persuaded me to stay. He confided in me that the guy she was seeing had experienced “religion” and went through the “born again” experience, but later advanced beyond “all that” and left it behind for intellectualism. This cycle continued for about a month. I would get phone calls from my friend who cried like a baby and told me he couldn’t take it any longer. He prayed to God that the situation would end and his wife would return to her senses. He had lost about 50 pounds weight. I couldn’t discern whether the loss was purposeful in an attempt to look better than the boyfriend or if he lost interest in eating from the stress. One night I got another call and he said in a calm voice, “It’s all over.” The boyfriend was riding a bicycle on Division Street in Evansville, Indiana, behind the State Hospital. He got hit by an 18-wheeler truck and somehow managed to get twisted around the axle. My friend’s wife got to the scene and soaked up his blood in a towel which she kept in the trunk of her car. Why she would save the towel made no sense to him but his wife was in a state of shock for about a month. The boyfriend had a closed-casket funeral. Eventually they got divorced. Of course this is all anecdotal as is Provine, Darwin, Freud, Hicks, and Monty Python’s lead actor for “Life of Brian”, Graham Chapman, so please don’t ask why I even bring it up. Sometimes I too need a little therapy. Thanks for listening.
Afterthoughts: Just last night I read PZ’s rules on what gets a person banned from Pharyngula. I’m way off topic but so is everyone else. Perhaps the thread with Jesus depicted next to the snake would have been better. I honestly didn’t know if Janine was male or female until someone alluded to her being a woman (and just now she has revealed herself) so I’ll knock it off. With all the “morphing” going on you never know. Janine, I am not "homophobic". I've sat next to gays in church, had dinner with them, got my haircuts, etc. I'll admit I do view them as extremely troubled people but that’s my limited experience. Maybe you can prove me wrong. Actually if you were locked in a jail cell with me, we would survive.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 10, 2009 4:27 PM
post hoc ergo propter hoc Alan.
Posted by: aratina | February 10, 2009 4:47 PM
Not homophobic? What you wrote in your closing remarks for #287 is the most homophobic thing I've yet read on Pharyngula. I think PZ calls it slagging.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 10, 2009 4:48 PM
Bloody hell, Alan. You're now trying 'atheists are in denial' and 'all the atheists I know are unhappy'?
You really need to spend a little more time reading through some of the threads on this site so you get an understanding of the sort of pro-theism arguments we see here on a regular basis. Here's a hint: on a scale of one to ten the arguments you're presenting rating about a 0.5 - and that's only if the judges are feeling generous.
Learn some more and then maybe you'll be worth the effort of arguing with. Until then you're just going to be mocked.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 10, 2009 5:02 PM
Alan, it's the theists that are in denial. Their imaginary god doesn't exist. Their bible is a work of fiction. Denial is not even considering those facts. Also, they keep draggin their silly god places it doesn't belong, like the public square. Even Jesus was in contempt of those who engaged in ostentatious public prayers, and told his followers to go into the closet to pray. In other words, do it either in the temple or in private. So any True ChristianTM would not engage in public prayer, like at a football game.
Posted by: MartinM
|
February 10, 2009 5:05 PM
...in this thread alone.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 10, 2009 5:13 PM
Ye cats.
God can't be bothered to heal the sick, feed the hungry, or end religious disputes with clear communication... but if people get on his bad side, he's just great at torturing them to death, or murdering them quickly if he's in the mood.
Really, God sounds like the biggest mob boss ever.
"You don't wanna mess with Me. You could have a little accident. I'm a patient and forbearing guy, but I swear, if you make Me unhappy, they'll won't even be able to find all of the little bits that you'll be in. Capiche?"
Strangely enough, staying on God's "good" side doesn't seem to help much.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 10, 2009 5:17 PM
Did any of that make sense to anyone?
I never realized that Janine was a man's name.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 10, 2009 5:18 PM
Bloody hell, Alan. You're now trying 'atheists are in denial' and 'all the atheists I know are unhappy'?
chalk up another religionaut who communicates via projection.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 10, 2009 5:21 PM
Of course this is all anecdotal
:/
indeed.
all of it.
...and always has been.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 10, 2009 5:22 PM
I hate to give anything to the faith heads, but damn they have stamina. He doesn't make one bit of sense for two solid days.
Posted by: tony | February 10, 2009 5:23 PM
It's not - but judging by Alan's comments his grasp on reality is rather weak, so I think we can charitably excuse that as simply more of the same.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 10, 2009 5:23 PM
Actually if you were locked in a jail cell with me, we would survive.
um...
have you considered a visit to your local mental health care professional?
Posted by: windy | February 10, 2009 5:51 PM
his wife was about to leave for a “night out”. She was all dressed up with a short dress and black patent leather knee-high boots ... He got hit by an 18-wheeler truck and somehow managed to get twisted around the axle. My friend’s wife got to the scene and soaked up his blood in a towel which she kept in the trunk of her car
score: 0.5 Rookes
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 10, 2009 6:00 PM
Hey, sorry I missed this one! After a quick skim through, I can't decide whether it's Alan Clarke's stupidity or his unpleasantness that is more egregious. Linking to a picture of a deformed child, and sneering about Darwin's ill-health, in the apparent belief that he is providing arguments against evolutionary theory, combine the two characteristics in a way that few even among godbots can manage. Well done, Alan!
Posted by: E.V. | February 10, 2009 6:02 PM
Shhhhhhhhh. Don't tell Alan "Confirmation Bias" Clarke he's an idiot -ignorance is bliss.
Wendy - love the Rooke Scale. Is it calibrated in "ghouls" or "WTFs"?
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 10, 2009 6:02 PM
windy,
Snap! When I saw the phrase 'leather knee-high boots' I immediately thought of our old friend Pete. The projected necrophilia confirmed the initial judgement.
Alan, you don't have any holy books bound with human skin, do you?
Posted by: Sastra
|
February 10, 2009 6:09 PM
I missed this thread also.
Anecdotes are poor demonstrations for making whatever point Alan Clarke is making -- not least because such stories are cherry-picked to conform to the 'theory' they're supposed to support. Interpretation is significant also.
If Charles Darwin had been a deeply religious man, his productive life despite constant ill health would have been used by Mr. Clarke as evidence for how faith strengthens a person, and helps them endure what would break a godless man.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 10, 2009 6:17 PM
Patricia:
A bit of hand-me-down advice from my grandfather:
If the skunk is in a tree do not (and I can't stress this enough) do NOT shoot the skunk with a shotgun.
Owlmirror: You have the stamina of a legion. Kudos. You have earned yourself a well-deserved break after all that. I'm sure it has been mentioned before and I apologize in advance if this has been covered but were you a believer? Or is the history of the Bible your vocation? Of course you don't actually have to answer - I'm just curious. Because, well, damn if I had a fraction of that knowledge and applied it to trout fishing those buggers would never stand a chance!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 10, 2009 6:41 PM
What the heck is Alan Clarke drinking? He's either blitzed out of his mind, or he's insane.
Pharyngula is not your local mental health center. Get professional help.
Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 10:24 PM
I write a long argument on the problems I have with his argument, and he focuses on the offhand comment about the death of a comedian? Why don't you answer why you think geologists are off by a factor of 700,000 and cosmologists off by a factor of over 2,000,000 instead of complaining about atheists?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 10, 2009 10:32 PM
Awesome.
Not creepy enough to score a full rooke but just disconnected enough to rate a half point.
Posted by: E.V. | February 10, 2009 10:43 PM
I'm starting a fan club. It's the Sastra is Awesome club.
-Not that many of you aren't awesome, as well... ; )
Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 10:50 PM
What's even worse about Alan Clarke's post is that he took the pseudoscience that is the five stages, then applied it in an even more pseudosciency way. Are we sure this guy isn't a poe?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 10, 2009 11:01 PM
Poe? Nah. He's got too many web pages full of astoundingly stupid bullshit.
I just think hes a seriously deluded man. Seriously deluded and egotistical.
Dunning-Kruger
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 10, 2009 11:04 PM
That much rings true.Posted by: Kel | February 10, 2009 11:05 PM
Fuck, there goes another irony meter.
It's amazing to see the ineptitude that Alan Clarke presents. He really should be kept away from concepts he simply doesn't understand - like anything to do with reality.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 11, 2009 6:18 AM
What do the following have in common?
Autosurfing
Burnlounge
Chain letter
Holiday Magic
Lottery
Ponzi scheme
Pyramid scheme
Multi-level marketing
The unified underlying principles of these schemes existed before they were glorified with a name. Most violate man-made laws, all violate God’s laws, and they never achieve net wealth within the confines of a closed system. The proposed mechanisms are similar to theories which violate the laws of entropy. Every perceived “gain” is “lost” somewhere else. Some schemes are perceived “borderline” because their inherent deceptions are more hidden. But after enough time, people get burned and the system collapses just like a supposed perpetual motion machine or the hope for amino acids in a primordial soup accidentally forming a protein. Some people fall for a scheme because the monetary base is seemingly too large or the investors too numerous for the scheme to be perceived as fraudulent. Bernard Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme seemed legit because of its size. The same mentality leads proponents of evolution to believe their theory is safe because of its numerous followers. Here are some of its founders:
Greek Materialists: Leucippus, Democritus (460-370 B.C.)
Avicenna (980 – 1037)
James Hutton (1726 – 1797)
John Playfair (1748 – 1819)
Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875)
Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882)
Nothing is new under the sun. Darwin got his ideas from Charles Lyell then peddled them with the help of self-proclaimed “I am Darwin’s bulldog”, Thomas Huxley. Darwin’s theory is loved by those who hold dear the philosophies of atheism, agnosticism, materialism and uniformitarianism because it eliminates the God of the Bible by theorizing that man instead evolved from monkeys. Notice how the idea of “natural selection” predates Darwin by James Hutton who died 12 years before Darwin’s birth:
Since Darwin’s ideas were borrowed, the argument against “evolution” started before his 1859 “Origin of Species”:
Many founders of our modern-day sciences adamantly rejected evolution’s underpinnings. The inventor of the vacuum tube (precursor to the transistor), John Ambrose Fleming, helped found the “Evolution Protest Movement”. Located in England, the organization continues to this day under the name, “Creation Science Movement” (http://www.csm.org.uk), making it the first and oldest creationist organization in the world.
Conclusion: Many founding scientists on my list rejected evolution theory before Darwin echoed his version of it. Their rejection was based on 1) good intuition: vast information doesn’t create itself accidentally and 2) Greek-based philosophies of materialism were known to fail.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 11, 2009 8:31 AM
Ponzi schemes have nothing to do with evolution at all. There is no relevance. If evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics then so does the existence of life. In fact entropy can favour the production of amino acid chains from individual molecules. A good definition of life is "localised reversal of entropy". Your body has to continually metabolise food producing low-grade heat energy in order to hold itself together. Any local decrease in entropy caused by life on earth is vastly outweighed by the increase in entropy from the sun.
Wikipedia specifically states that Hutton denied that one species could turn into another- a crucial difference between him and Darwin. I also note that Darwin does not mention Hutton as being a precursor to his own theory in the Historical Sketch that accompanies later editions of the Origin- and yet he does mention virtually everyone else who had evolutionary views, regardless of the mechanisms they proposed to explain the changes seen in the fossil record. Possibly this was because he was not aware of them- Hutton was an appalling writer, and most people never bothered to read his original work. The only reason his geological ideas spread was because of James Playfair.
"2) Greek-based philosophies of materialism were known to fail."
Citation Needed! Greek ideas of materialism, and Lyell and Hutton's principles of uniformitarianism have not failed. There is no evidence that they have failed at all. The ideas that everything is made of stuff, which behaves in a predictable and repeatable manner is essential to all areas of science and engineering. It is these principles that you trust when getting on an aeroplane, using a computer or virtually anything else you do.
I guarantee you that Ambrose Fleming was a materialist when it came to building vacuum tubes. And citing engineers and scientists who have no connection with biology or geology is never a good plan.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 11, 2009 2:37 PM
Such as, for example, religion. God violates the laws of entropy, and Christianity is a Pyramid scheme, with its pie in the sky by-and-by.
Autofail.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 11, 2009 2:42 PM
I see Alan Clarke is still drinking the whacko tea. Alan, you have no point and keep proving it with your posts. Time to put your tin foil hat back on and return to your basement.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 11, 2009 3:00 PM
Oh MAN. The inventor of vacuum tubes was on to us. That's it, close up all the biotech labs, stop all the paleontological digs, the jig is up. Evolution is dead, blind faith rules, begin the chanting! Hoona igna chowa neha!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 11, 2009 3:16 PM
argumentum ad verecundiam and false attribution
petitio principii and historians fallacy
petitio principii (again), equivocation and a strawman argument.
argumentum ad consequentiam
Look at all that logical fail.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 11, 2009 10:24 PM
Ponzi schemes and evolution are similar in that they both defy entropy. And when I say “evolution”, I don’t mean pre-existing information contained in genes that allows for limited amounts of variation which are defined by Mendel’s laws. Nor am I referring to loss of information that produces flightless cormorants, bulldogs, and trip-leverless mouse traps that can be used as tie clips. Nor am I referring to scrambled information that produces 6-legged sheep or persons with sickle cell anemia who don’t worry about malaria because they are dying from 100 other problems caused by their “beneficial” disease. I’m referring to the non-existent evolution that produces 6-legged sheep which outrun those with 4-legs. The type that causes Dawkins to suffer memory loss when asked, “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” The monkey-to-man evolution that Darwin talks about.This is true only if life originated from something less ordered and intelligent which is what I’m challenging. People continually tell me they possess a computer program that can generate intelligence. I always discover that their program was made by something more intelligent than the intelligence it generated.
I think failing casinos need a new advertising campaign: “Guaranteed Winnings! Localised Reversal of Entropy!” The only problem is they would need to be subsidized by casinos that don’t utilize the “localised reversal of entropy” technology. More seriously, I originally stated the improbability of “...the hope for amino acids in a primordial soup accidentally forming a protein.” This is likened to the components for an automobile arising randomly but unassembled. I’m telling you this isn’t going to happen but you’re telling me an assembled car with a working engine (i.e. a human body metabolising
), has the ability to travel if someone adds fuel to it. This is true but how is the car going to assemble without an “assembler”? Evolution isn’t the answer because it supposedly works only for living things and our analogy hasn’t reached the “life” stage yet. The probability of all this happening would be less than my original “amino acids in a primordial soup accidentally forming a protein.” But why even bother talking about a car forming accidentally if it can’t run without the miracle of the Sun randomly appearing at the proper distance so that everything doesn’t freeze or melt? Gasoline? Retrieval of crude oil and fractional distillation doesn’t happen without a lot of intelligent work. How does crude oil originate? If you don’t like crude oil then what kind of machine will you need to extract fuel from the atmosphere or soil? Will you have to put more work into it than what you get back? All of this is assuming you are conveniently located on planet Earth. Anywhere else will further upgrade your nightmare.
In 1923, geologist J. Harlan Bretz, theorized that melting glaciers and massive-flooding (later referred to as the Missoula flood) shaped the unusual terrain of the northwest U.S. The remnant flood basin of Dry Falls dwarfs Niagara Falls. Bretz was rejected by critics because his interpretations resembled the Biblical flood and contradicted their uniformitarian dogma. After the advent of aerial photography, huge ripples in the landscape were observed which could only be explained by Bretz's catastrophic flood model. Bretz was further vindicated when the Washington State Parks Dept. installed information panels that utilized Bretz' interpretation. Click here then scroll to bottom for "Overwhelming Proof for an Outrageous Theory" information panel. Click here for another rebuttal to uniformitarianism.
Conclusion: Uniformitarian principles blinded scientists to a truth and continue to blind as the Bible predicted:
2 Peter 3:3-6 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 11, 2009 10:27 PM
Hey, buddy, if yer gonna spew nonsense, could you at least shorten it up a bit?
thanks, ever so much.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 11, 2009 10:34 PM
Evolution does not defy entropy, which makes you a liar and bullshitter Alan. Chemical and biological reactions are all about Gibb's free energy. In any general chemistry text, delta gee is equal to delta aitch minus tee times delta ess. Delta ess is the entropy term. If delta aitch the enthalpy term, is more negative than the tee times delta ess (remember the minus sign), then the free energy, delta gee, is negative, which means the reaction can occur. And the enthalpy of the reaction depends either on the heat given off, or the heat taken in, say by sunlight. The earth is an open system, with the sun supplying energy.
Alan, stop lying to yourself. That is the only way you can stop lying to us.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 11, 2009 10:35 PM
Alan Clarke,
How sad - you must have spent a lot of time typing, cutting and pasting. It's such a shame it's all bush-league drivel we've heard and seen refuted a thousand times before.
Go here to find out why. Take your time - so that you can stop wasting ours.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 11, 2009 10:37 PM
Hey Alan, why don't you join the current most recent post?
It should be right up your alley.
Things that make creationists look stupid
While I know that title leaves it pretty wide open, because there are soooooo many things, maybe you can join the discussion and at least provide an example?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 12, 2009 1:01 AM
LOL. How about taking the trouble to read up on physics and chemistry and find out what entropy is, and how it relates to evolution ?
Uh-huh. The truth that catastrophes can and do happen in a generally gradualist geological history. So what?
So now you think you can tell geologists how to do their jobs, as well as biologists, physicists, and chemists?
You fucking or unfucking moron, do you really think that spewing common creationist claims is going to impress anyone here?
Posted by: Kel | February 12, 2009 1:10 AM
Alan Clarke, you haven't explained just how geologists and nuclear physicists could be so wrong when it comes to dating the age of the earth. You're off by a factor of around 700,000 there. As for cosmology, how do you explain those distant galaxies that are over 13 billion light years away? That puts you off by a factor of over 2,100,000! The question is, how do the plethora of scientists who work in those fields (many of whom have religious backgrounds) get results that are so far off from what you say?
Also, on the topic of evolution. How do you explain the fused chromosome, the ERV markers that are in both us and chimpanzees, the very close genetic code, and the humanoid fossils found in recent rock?
Posted by: RogerS | February 12, 2009 1:27 AM
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm
Moving on from the Cambrian layer, did Darwin provide any evidence at all for intermediate links as evidence for evolution in any of the strata of the fossil record? Darwin wrote in his Origin:
"So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."
He wrote immediately after this in his Origin:
"Independent of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links . . ." .(Origin, Chapter Ten: Imperfection of Geol. Rec.)
In the same section Darwin further confessed the lack of evidence for his theory:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."
By Darwin's own admission we discover that there is a complete absence of any fossil evidence for evolution not only in the pre-Cambrian layer, but throughout the entire geologic column.
Darwin clearly revealed in his Origin that geology, the fossil record, does not affirm any evidence of evolution occurring and Darwin could give no answer to this objection either except to cite the imperfection of the fossil record, hence the title of the chapter in his book.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Posted by: Kel | February 12, 2009 1:35 AM
Darwin wrote about the fossil record 150 years ago, since then a plethora of transitional forms have been found. Do you even keep up with where the evidence of palaeontology is at, or just try and push out an ignorant statement in the hope that those reading don't know better?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 12, 2009 1:47 AM
But Kel, if we can only twist the words of Charles Darwin until they scream, we can just ignore all the evidence gained in the last one hundred and fifty years. All of the fossils, all the genetic markers, the similarities of of organs throughout all of the animal kingdom, we can ignore it all. Chop off the head and the beast dies. Ignorence becomes the greatest virtue.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2009 1:54 AM
By Darwin's own admission
translation:
by deliberately quotemining Darwin, and ignoring the subsequent 150+ years of paleontology which have garnered literally thousands of complete series of fossils, I have created a completely unoriginal and flimsy strawman I like to call "Bob".
Posted by: Kel | February 12, 2009 1:55 AM
I'm just waiting for the quote about how the eye couldn't have evolved that's in The Origin Of Species.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2009 1:56 AM
Ponzi schemes and evolution are similar in that they both defy entropy.
typing this sentence would also likely defy your notion of entropy.
so fucking what?
another moron who thinks there is something to the entropy argument, who knows fuckall about entropy and information.
*sigh*
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 1:57 AM
C'mon, we're dealing with Christians here. They can't comprehend that anything that happened any more recently than two thousand years ago could have any relevance.
Plus they don't realise that, when we admit - freely, without hesitation - that Darwin didn't know absolutely everything there is to know about evolution and the processes by which it occurs it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the contemporary field which his findings instigated.
That's the thing about science - it's a gradual process, a cumulative increase in knowledge over time. Only an idiot would believe that you just get handed the answers to life, the universe and everything all at once from some sort of magic fairy...
Oops, hang on - that's what they believe, isn't it? Silly me.
Posted by: Augustine of Hippo | February 12, 2009 2:05 AM
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 12, 2009 2:17 AM
Imagine if they put forth all that effort to actually understand what scientists have discovered and worked out instead of in a futile quest to shoehorn hundreds of years of observation, experimentation, and deduction into some silly old mythological structure.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 12, 2009 2:20 AM
Imagine if they put forth all that effort to actually understand what scientists have discovered and worked out instead of in a futile quest to shoehorn hundreds of years of observation, experimentation, and deduction into some silly old mythological structure.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2009 2:21 AM
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions...
I'd tell you to look up "the Courtier's Reply", but instead you have me a bit curious as to who you think your "sacred writers" are?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 12, 2009 2:27 AM
Alan Clarke,
FSTDT!
Projection
There are billions of stars out there and billion of planets. Many planets probably had the right stuff to form life but were too close/far away. It looks like a "miracle" when your sample size is 1.
Bullshit. A lot of new ideas come out all the time. Sure you can always go back and say person X had a similar ideas if you play lose with the word "similar".
Nope. Darwin's theory is accepted because the evidence supports it. Also, there are many who believe in the God of the Bible and in evolution.
If Jesus created oil why did he put so much under the Muslims?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 2:39 AM
Ichthyic, that was a historical quote from a 4th century christian philosopher, he might have a hard time answering your questions :-p (but he was spot-on about the effect ignorant christians have on how educated people view religion)
Posted by: Ragutis | February 12, 2009 3:23 AM
Where the fuck did this loon crawl out of?
Alan Clarke: Ok, so your god kills people that mock or question or disobey him and his Bronze Age commandments. Disease, trucks, whatever the gruesome instrument of wrath he chooses. Let's for the sake of argument accept that as true and that your god exists.
Now, why exactly would someone choose to worship and serve a sick monster like that? What kind of jealous, insecure, petulant child of a deity feels angered or threatened by anything a human could say? There's a microbe under one of your toenails right now cursing your name, laughing at your hygienic habits, and telling all the other microbes what a colossal wanker you are. Do you really give a shit? Or are you going to drop a cinder block on your foot and smite those single-celled apostates? FFS! Saddam Hussein tortured those who disagreed with him. Hitler lined them up against the wall. Stalin sent them to Siberia. Your god gives them AIDS or cancer or a Freightliner upside the head. OOH! Where do I sign up for that fanclub?
You're a sick person, Alan Clarke.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 12, 2009 3:47 AM
As demonstrated by people who actually understand chemisty you don't understand entropy. If evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics then so does growth. You developed from a single egg. Evolution isn't the answer for abiogenesis, chemistry is- and chemistry says this sort of thing is possible- and in the right circumstances inevitable.
I’m referring to the non-existent evolution that produces 6-legged sheep which outrun those with 4-legs.
And that's a strawman view of evolution. If you can have a mutation that makes a cormorant's wings smaller, why not one that makes its wings bigger? Either could be advantageous in the right circumstances. Macromutations like six-legged sheep are not advantageous. But a sheep with longer legs, bigger horns or an extra few inches of intestine could be. You only need a few more genes to be a little more active to grow a significantly bigger brain- and bipedalism confers distinct advantages if there aren't any trees for you to live in any more. The step from "monkey to man" is not nearly as large as you might think.
In 1923, geologist J. Harlan Bretz, theorized that melting glaciers and massive-flooding (later referred to as the Missoula flood) shaped the unusual terrain of the northwest U.S. The remnant flood basin of Dry Falls dwarfs Niagara Falls. Bretz was rejected by critics because his interpretations resembled the Biblical flood and contradicted their uniformitarian dogma.
This could happen again if the conditions were right- e.g. ice-dammed lakes. Water wasn't acting in totally different way during the ice age when this occurred. Set up the same conditions today, 10, 300, or 3,500 million years ago and you will see the same features. We even see them on Mars.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 12, 2009 4:28 AM
Kel, one way to check the accuracy of a radioisotope dating method is to measure a rock of known age. I’ve seen reports of recently-created rocks from spewing volcanoes measuring millions of years old. What are you using for your “standard” of calibration and tell me how you are certain of its age. How does Mary Schweitzer know that her T. Rex bone is 68 million years old? How do you know that the neighboring stratum it was found in is 68 million years old? Even if all dates agreed, then knowing the absolute date could still fail if all the “agreeing” dates were adversely affected by a false assumption of the initial amount of the parent isotope. If the decay rate was uniformly and simultaneously affected for all elements on this Earth by an unknown phenomenon (to you) in the last 6000 years, then everything would look consistent but everything would consistently be off. Problems with radiometric dating.
Close genetic code does not prove that two organisms are related. This could be interpreted as good evidence for a common designer (God). I almost exclusively choose wood when I build a book case. Does the fact that they are all made of similar wood prove that one case evolved from another without my intervention? If you didn’t know that I built the cases, I suppose you could interpret the origin of the most ornate case was from the plain case if they both had 6 shelves but you’d be wrong. Interpreting origins using homology.
Everyone starts with an initial assumption (God exists or God does not exist) then they build their framework and theories around their assumption. Your theory rests on the exact same amount of “assumptions and unknowns” as mine. Either way you go, it’s a “belief” system.
Kel, concerning starlight, I am a technologist, computer programmer, and mechanic, not an astrophysicist, so my forte is knowing WHERE to look for answers, but it’s so late right now I can’t do it. (okay, how about this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove) The properties of time, matter and energy all seem to violate known laws of physics (certainly Newtonian) when we are talking about T + .00000001?? seconds after the big bang (your theory) or a similar time when God created the Earth (my theory). During this time, questions about distances, the speed of light, matter, etc. becomes a myriad of disagreement and uncertainty. When you say that the Earth is so many years old because we know that distant starlight…, etc., etc., I hope you can appreciate why I have very little confidence in the “absoluteness” of your or anyone else’s statement. I know it’s a big turn-off to many in a “science” discussion, but my faith in the Bible is magnitudes greater than that of scientific knowledge which reverses, contradicts, falsely projects, etc. I really identified with the previous post:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
This is WAAAAY off subject but I wanted to clear something up. I think the KJV Bible is the best English translation for doing a critical word study without knowing Greek and Hebrew. But it may be awful if you are a person that hates tedium, details, word etymologies, and history. I became a Christian by reading the paraphrased “Living Bible” which is obviously further yet from the original, but it got me started. I bought a case of 30 NIV Bibles when I graduated from the university and distributed them among classmates. So I’m not a cram-it-down-your-throat KJV person at all.
Posted by: Kel | February 12, 2009 4:41 AM
Decay rates are at different rates, for something to have changed them all down to 6000 years would need to affect each one separately. It could be, but those genetic markers I were talking about would be mistakes in genetics. Why would God make it look like horizontal gene transfer took place? Why would God fuse a pair of chromosomes? Why would God make similar active and inactive genes among closer morphologically related species? Actually it's not my theory, it's the current scientific explanation. Are you saying that the speed of light at one stage is over two million times of what it is today?The speed of light has shown to be constant countless times, just as the decay rates of radiometric minerals has shown to be constant as well. If you are alleging they are wrong, can you show a mechanism as to how both can be slowed by the factors of millions that you allege?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 4:48 AM
AIIIIEEEEE!!!! He quotes AiG now!!! We're doomed!!!
Not. for every idiocy on AiG, there's an answer here, I'm not doing your homework for you, read the relevant sections yourself
also, inferring from in-organic, obvious human constructs to organic natural object is a form on anthropomorphizing, and a MASSIVE fail. the universe is not human-like
further, scientists dig not start out with the presumption that there is no god, as the long line of quotes you've supplied evidences. "no god" is a conclusion, not an a priori assumption.
lastly, the KJV is a HORRIBLE book to read in order to learn about biblical writings, archaic language or not. FFS, it translates oxen as unicorns!
Posted by: Kel | February 12, 2009 4:51 AM
Just to add to that: the speed of light has been demonstrated to be constant, it's one of the foundations of the universe. e=mc². Likewise radiometric decay has again shown to be constant, various methods have been tested against artefacts of known ages, as well as confirming with each other the tests also confirm relative dating as done by geologists. If there is a way of speeding up known half-lifes, firstly let the nuclear industry know so we can dispose of all that toxic decaying waste. And secondly if what you are saying is correct, then you should be in line for several Nobel prizes.
So the question is that if you have knowledge of how the science is wrong, why aren't you fighting for your ideas in academia? To me it seems like you are simply speculating on concepts you have no idea about. Why aren't you doing experiments to confirm your worldview? Why instead are you looking to the bible for answers when it's the evidence that doesn't fit the bible?
That's the same thing with all creationists, deny the scientific evidence, offer abysmal excuses for the evidence that is inescapable, and claim that their "theory" is on equal footing to the last 500 years of accumulated empirical measure. Alan Clarke, do some science before you talk on matters about science, because what you are saying now is not only spectacularly wrong but it's also impossible by all standards. And for what? Because a tale with a talking snake somehow trumps the last 200 years of understanding about the world. And what's worse is that you do it all using the champion of the exact same method: the computer. Get a science education before you talk on matters science please!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 4:56 AM
oh yeah, one more thing: if similar genetics/phenotypes are proof of a designer, they are proof of a lazy/inept/cruel designer. what kind of idiot/sadist would use a quadruped blueprint for a biped?the result was a species that has weak knees and backs, and gives birth prematurely (i.e. WAAAY before the young one is ready for the outside; even their bones aren't fully fused) and often dies in the process. if he was gonna use existing blueprints, he should have made us marsupials. MUCH better "design" for a biped.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 5:05 AM
fark. two more things i remembered
1)radiometric dating has been confirmed by dendrochronology to 10000 bp. this is fully independent of decay rates of isotopes, and yet it has shown that isotope decay dates are correct
2)to disprove current dating methods based on radioactive decay you'd not only have to prove that decay rates were faster in the past, you'd have to supply a mechanism by which life would be able to survive the immense radiation caused by such quick decay rates as would be required to shorten timespans of millions of years to a mere few thousands. (basically, such quick decay would mean the garden of eden was about as radioactive as the inside of a nuclear reactor)
Posted by: Kel | February 12, 2009 5:14 AM
I like the analogy that Dawkins uses to describe creationism. To believe that the world is 6000 years old when scientists point to the evidence of the world being 4.6 billion years old is like saying that the distance from New York to San Fransisco is 10 yards. Yet that's the size of the error that Alan Clarke is expecting us to swallow that scientists are making and have been making for the last century or so.
It's amazing that one can be so ignorant of the evidence. The distant galaxies and sheer size of galaxies points to a very big universe, the speed of light makes a very big universe a very old universe. From various observations we can determine the age of stars as well, and we can see some very old stars. And we can age our sun too, and it's age happens to correspond with the age of the rest of the solar system, what a surprise!
From there we can look at the age of rocks on our earth, and we can see that extremely old rocks have no trace of life in them. Go forward to some slightly younger rocks, and we see the first signs of life. Then we have to go a long way up (almost 3 billion years of rocks) before we find multicellular life, go even further up until we see animal life, even further up until we see vertebrates, even further up to see jawed vertebrates, then further to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, to mammals, to birds, then finally to a situation of life as we know it today.
We see human ancestors appearing in the rocks but a few million years ago, correlating perfectly with predictions of morphology and genetic evidence. We see transitional forms between major gaps, and they correspond perfectly with evidence of genetic predictions. Likewise we can look at allele variation and see how long time scales it would take to develop such variations, we can see problems associated with low genetic transfer like in cheetahs and make determinations about heredity on a long term time scale.
We see marker after marker of common ancestry, we see it in the anatomical structure of species, on shared traits, on behavioural patterns, and all this lines up with the tree of common ancestry. For instance we don't see any feathered mammals, nor do we see any mammary glands on reptiles. The morphologies link, the genetics link, the fossil record and geographical distribution link, and all this links with the geological and cosmological histories that are provided. In short, all the evidence correlates with itself to the point where all scientists are either conspiring or that God would have had to deliberately deceived us in order for young earth creationism to be valid. The other option is the old earth, older universe where evolution happened, but you can't lose the talking snake can you?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 12, 2009 5:27 AM
Physics FAIL. That ain't gonna work.
Parsimony FAIL. I guess the fact that you look like your mommy and daddy doesn't prove you're related to them, either.
Logic FAIL. Hey, we just did this one recently.
So you believe that the universe is a lie. Nice.
I'll believe that when you drink a bleach, arsenic, cyanide, and strychnine cocktail, as described in Mark 16:18, of all true believers in Christ.
Until then, you're just another yammering moron who doesn't really have faith, but just thinks that posting lies about science will make God like you and not torture you to death.
Says the guy who hates the details and history of science.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 5:39 AM
*giggle*
*looks at clock*
It's almost 5am. yeah, I'm going to sleep. I'm starting to lose my mind.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 12, 2009 7:28 AM
Well shit. We lose. AIG is of course the preeminent scientific organization and has never been known to distort, deny or obfuscate evidence.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 7:34 AM
Alan still hasn't figured out he is in wwwaaayyyy over his tiny head here. Alan, people here know things, and they know how to differentiate reliable sources like the peer reviewed scientific literature, from unreliable fairy tales like AIG. As I said earlier. Quit lying to your self so you quit lying to us.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 7:54 AM
Hmm, looks like the scientists are hammering Alan Clarke for his problems with science*; I'm just going to hammer him for his stupid...which I guess makes me a stupidist. Damn, I probably should have thought that one through.
Anyway, ol' Al wrote this:
That's so very wrong.
No-one starts with an assumption about god; it's either taught to them or it isn't. And if it is taught to them, it isn't always taught to them as fact. Atheism is the default, and everyone is an atheist until someone explains a god concept to them - and which concept is limited to what those around them believe in. Whether or not they accept the god belief is, of course, a lot more complicated and not something I know enough about to discuss in depth.
But I can speak for myself. I was never a theist. I was raised and taught about Christianity but never accepted it. Subsequently, I see no more reason to believe in gods than I do in mermaids, minotaurs or Valkyries. It is not a belief; it is the state of lacking belief.
Which leads to Alan's next stab in the dark:
Ah, theists and their projections. No matter how many times you make this claim it won't magically become true. C'mon, it's not that difficult to comprehend. Is bald a hair colour? No. Is not collecting stamps a hobby? No. Is atheism a belief system? Wait for it...no!
*He really linked to Answers in Genesis? Good grief.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 12, 2009 2:59 PM
I am astounded at the number of posts that expound the “unchangeableness” of light speed which is utilized to prove the Earth’s antiquity. There are other methods for measuring time such as using the Earth’s current human population and known population growth rates which fits perfectly to there being only 8 people 4400 years ago. (Your model misses it by magnitudes!)I said that current physics fails to articulate with absoluteness the state of affairs at time t=0 (your big bang)plus or minus a nano second. Kel rebutted, “the speed of light has been demonstrated to be constant, it's one of the foundations of the universe. e=mc².” Does everyone notice that he is talking from a reference point of nothing less than t=0 + 6000 years which is way outside of my time in question? How about t – (1 second)? $9 billion was spent on the Hadron Collider so that theories could be validated or invalidated through “observable” science. If the theories were not in question, then the money was a waste, but THEY ARE IN QUESTION, and the “God Particle” is never going to be located. I noticed something that is conspicuously missing from this thread: an astrophysicist that is over 60 years old who has seen so many modifications and changes to what was thought to be absolute, that he now has enough sense to stop talking like 75% of those boasting to the contrary.
I thought this forum was full of academics, Professor Myers, Bible professor Owlmirror, etc.. Am I in the wrong place? Can you please quote me where I have argued for my superior intellect? I’m just doubtful of your “science” as was every other scientific pioneer that upset the status-quo. I don’t have enough money, but I have access to other’s published data. Just this week I read about an alternative theory to Mary Schweitzer’s supposed 68 million year old T. Rex fossil with soft tissue. Thomas Kaye thinks all of the tissues, blood vessels, and red blood cells are nothing more than a “biofilm” that was generated recently. A C14 test on this material yielded a date near 1960. Now it seems practically EVERY dinosaur fossil has the same tissue structures. How is one to interpret this new evidence? To begin with, I would be livid that former “irrefutable” uniformitarian theories kept people from even looking inside similar bones since only minerals were expected instead of the original tissues. “But as Kaye examined more fossils, he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone.” (source: http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino ) Do you see how false assumptions are leading people in the wrong direction? Now the “biofilm” theory is breaking at the seams on the web just within the last three months and people can’t wait to see how Schweitzer will respond because she actually sequenced the proteins and determined it to be like that of birds (like my wooden book case analogy – remember?). Isn’t this rich? I don’t have the money for an electron microscope, but I can utilize the same logic as the Greeks who deducted atoms without electron microscopes. BTW, one of the greatest logicians of all time, Socrates, deducted that the multitude of god statues were a farce since only one God was logical. He ended up dead for this but his ideas are alive and well today. Boy are you ever wrong: “…no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.” So far science has proven nothing BUT this. Do you realize the Hadron Collider has severe limitations which prevent the observers from observing t=0? Do you realize that the absence of life on Mars has caused them to prepare looking in a different place on Mars nearer its polar cap? Do you realize the results thus far of SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) point in the direction of Man being the one-and-only supreme creation? Have you ever considered why the Sun and the Moon from our vantage point are EXACTLY the same size? What are the odds?I’ve been criticized for not keeping up with “real” science:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm
Objects moving faster than speed of light on early expansion (or stretching out) may have effect on time domain:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575
The Bible doesn’t use the words astronaut, nitrogen, protein, and concrete but neither do modern Russian science books, so should we discount them? Look at the ideas and connect the dots:
Jeremiah 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
The heavens are “stretched” as expounded in the above science articles, but His modus operandi (you’re looking for it in naturalism) has thus far been undiscovered as expected since it is “by his discretion”. Can you imagine living on an earth where there are finite limits and thus our understanding can grasp the “beginning to the end”? The upper atmosphere would end with an inpenetratable hard shell enclosure. We would have no free will like Cornell Professor William Provine. I think people take too much for granted and their complaint about “suffering” and God being evil since he is causing it is all man’s excuse for his own failings. I’m happy. Are you?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 12, 2009 3:03 PM
Alan, here is the difference.
We take the evidence and go where it leads us.
You take the evidence and discard anything that doesn't support your preconceived conclusion that the bible is 100% correct or twist it to appear to do so.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 3:10 PM
Alan the idiot. Your god doesn't exist, and your bible is a work of fiction. Thems the facts. Deal with it elsewhere.
Science does not use god for anything. God cannot be proven with science, nor can science disprove your imaginary deity. God cannot be used in any scientific explanation. Also, religion cannot negate science, only science can negate science. So quoting the bible is like me saying it is Thursday, there there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Just nonsense.
Your problem is that science makes religion look silly. The religionists need to deal with this properly. Your approach is not proper. Adjust your religion to fit with the facts. Then your religion won't look so silly.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 12, 2009 3:20 PM
"Everyone starts with an initial assumption (God exists or God does not exist) "
What about leprechauns? What about Coyote? There's lots and lots of assumptions out there, and absolutely no reason why your Yahweh assumption should be priveleged any more than any of them, let alone the good old default null hypothesis that what we can't detect, or can't detect the effects of, AIN'T THERE.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 3:28 PM
Alan, if you are stupid enough to keep posting nonsense, then here's some advise. Keep each post to about one screen ful when diplayed. Otherwise you will get tl;dr.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | February 12, 2009 3:40 PM
WTF? one word: mummiesPosted by: Owlmirror | February 12, 2009 3:46 PM
*sporfle* Population biology, genealogy, archeology, and anthropology FAIL.
Cosmology FAIL.
You wouldn't know a Higgs boson if one passed through your nose! Particle physics FAIL.
Yet you use and profit from the products of that same science, hypocrite.
You don't get to decide which peer-reviewed published data is true unless you actually become an expert in the subject yourself.
We've done that already.
And this has nothing to do with the dating of the fossil itself.
You haven't been. You have no understanding whatsoever of the cosmological and physical science that you pointed at as if it had something to do with the bible.
Cosmology and physics FAIL, again.
False equivalence. Logic FAIL, again.
No. You read up on science and "connect the dots".
Science is real, God isn't.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.
You obviously don't have the free will to not be a moron.
If your God is real, then your God created those failings. Including your own mental incapacity, I might note.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 3:59 PM
this is creo-awesomeness: physical constants may change, but population growth (something that is soooo dependent on culture, hygiene, disease rates, nutrition rates) has been constant for thousands of years.that's pure, unadulterated stupid.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 4:16 PM
I thought this forum was full of academics, Professor Myers, Bible professor Owlmirror, etc.. Am I in the wrong place? you don't know how the scientific process works, do you. this blog may be a science blog, but it's not a peer reviewed journal. we discuss and debate, but nothing we say here has any influence of science unless we take and publish a rigorous paper about it in the appropriate scientific literature for other scientists to review/replicate/poke with a sharp stick to see what happens more concentrated fail. Actually, the line "a C14 test yielded a date near 1960" makes me think of that Epic Fail image of Homer trying to make cereal and setting it on fire... how do you get a date in the 1960's on a method that dates things as "x years Before Present", with "present" being defined as 1950? the thing was dated at -10 BP? that's fucking absurd.also, anyone dating ANYthing that's older than 30000 years with radiocarbon should have their lab privileges removed. it's physically impossible to date anything older than 30000 with C14, since virtually all the radiocarbon will have decayed in such old objects. there's other methods for older fossils
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 4:18 PM
gah, blockquote fail. first sentence and question was supposed to be a quote from our Creobot of the Week
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 4:28 PM
Boy, is Alan a fool. Yes Alan, there are people with PhD.'s floating around, myself included. But you are so wrong, there is no place to start in teaching you anything about science. If you want to learn, shut up and listen. If you think you are presenting science, you are sadly mistaken. You are presenting nonsense. So we won't discuss your ideas because they are sooooooo wrong. That won't change. And the peer reviewed scientific literature is the only place where real science is done. Write your paper and send it off to a journal. Don't be surprised if it comes back in return mail very quickly with the words "this isn't science".
Posted by: Ur-Nammu | February 12, 2009 4:30 PM
only 8 people 4400 years ago.
And, man, were we busy.
"Hey, you! over there! Get back to work! This ziggurat ain't gonna build itself, you know!"
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 12, 2009 4:30 PM
Kaye was trying to see if the biofilm was carbon-datable. I presume that he would have said if the results were beyond the range of carbon dating (and thus old), or younger than that range (and thus not old enough).
The paper itself says "The results were 139.01%±0.65 of modern (1950) of 14C activity" and "The results were ‘greater than modern’ indicating a modern origin for the material"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 4:34 PM
I actually had to go and skim over the relevant articles to unravel the garbled version of that C14 dating that Alan is presenting here. It makes more sense now: they tested the soft tissue to see whether it will date as "too old to date" or modern. the results were fully modern, i.e. tested as "present", not "in the 1960's" (that would be absurd, indeed).
Posted by: Steve_C | February 12, 2009 4:57 PM
Did he really pull out NOAH and the fucking ARK???
8 people 4400 years ago. What an ass.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 4:58 PM
with an average of one person per continent, how exactly did we not get extinct? those must have been some industrious people, considering the wide range of art and architecture that dates to that timeframe:El Tarif Necropolis, Egypt, 1st Intermediate Period of Ancient Egypt: 2160-2055 B.C.
Akkadian Empire, Mesopotamia, 24th &23rd centuries BC
Longshan Culture, China, 30-20th century BC
Mohenjo-Daro, Pakistan, 26th to 19th century BC
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 12, 2009 5:18 PM
Was Ötzi an immediate member of Moses' family?
Did humans settle in the Americas before the flood and then the Americas have to be repopulated again?
I could not survive in a prison cell with Alan Clarke.
Posted by: RogerS | February 12, 2009 5:18 PM
I often happen across articles written by schooled, educated, and those degreed in their field who meet the constant calls here on the forum, or to put it nicely, the recommendations for "getting it right". To my surprise these published articles draw different conclusions from some of the revered "we" crowd here. (Gasp!) I doubt anyone would refute that disagreement commonly occurs within the respected scientific community (see Post's #354 linked articles as an example).
That is why I, am of the opinion, that one's education (or mis-education) is far from being an absolute for discovering truth. Though I would advocate traditional schooling, there are exceptions and you would be the wiser to respect them. I knew of a humble self-taught programmer who worked in Evansville for Whirlpool, who was summoned to the esteemed headquarters in Benton Harbor, MI. Their top notch "experts" failed to match the skills and success the simple home-schooled boy had provided for the Evansville plant and they found themselves disposed to call him up to their own facility. BTW, he got them going.
-LOL
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 12, 2009 5:21 PM
Can you believe that English is my mother tongue?
That should be; was Ötzi a member of Moses' immediate family?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 12, 2009 5:21 PM
Owlmirror: I noticed something conspicuously missing from your last post (maybe all posts??) Your last rebuttal is void of any science of your own. Just look at your words again and you’ll see that they equate to that drunk who stands on the corner yelling at people. At least I engage people as evidenced by the activity on this thread.
Here are your choicest words:
Alan, if you are stupid enough…
WTF? one word: mummies
Population biology, genealogy, archeology, and anthropology FAIL.
Cosmology FAIL.
You wouldn't know a Higgs boson if one passed through your nose!
Particle physics FAIL.
Science is real, God isn't.
You obviously don't have the free will to not be a moron.
I’m sure your friends will come to your aid because drunks can’t defend themselves well, but your whole persona is pitiful. Obviously this is only my opinion because Janine thinks highly of you, but remember: This forum is a lot about “therapy” and members are expected to elevate one another. You will never see yourself unless you are tested by those of differing opinions. I may be your greatest asset. Your words do have a redeeming quality in that they indicate to me you are reading each and every one of my posts. Why are you reading them at all? Normally I do skip through the posts that look to be full of expletives since no real information is contained other than conveying the person is angry. If you were to compile a book of each and every one of your responses, I fear that you’ll have few buyers. Do you lead a Bible study group in your home? With all of your Biblical understanding, I’m sure people are breaking down the doors to be showered with your knowledge. I could be wrong but I’m curious.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 5:27 PM
alan, that's because the moment you started quoting from AiG, you've lost the last shred of respect, and thus do no warrant anything other than having your mistakes pointed out. I've already linked to the Talkorigins archive, where most if not all your nonsense has been refuted. We're not here to do your research for you. from now on, it's all up to you, and we will simply continue making fun of you until you get around to actually do your homework.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 12, 2009 5:27 PM
Rarely do we see someone who is so proud of his meager resources.
You will never see yourself unless you are tested by those of differing opinions. I may be your greatest asset.
Owlmirror, where would you have been without Alan Clarke?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 5:30 PM
because we've never heard those arguments before. which is why we have an entire archive dedicated to answering those things we've never heard before.*headdesk*
you should really get that narcissism treated.
Posted by: D | February 12, 2009 5:31 PM
Janine sayeth:
I personally would place the odds on him not surviving.
Posted by: steve_C | February 12, 2009 5:32 PM
Alan "Noah's Ark was real." = FAIL
You're done. You can't start with the bible is literally true and work backwards from that.
Just stop.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 5:34 PM
Alan, why should we pay any attention to you? Keep it short, a sentence or two.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Alan Clarke,
You presented no 'science' - only often-debunked lies and non-science cultivated by known frauds and liars. Plus you've also admitted - and even if you hadn't, you've certainly demonstrated it in your posts - that you are profoundly ignorant of what science is. What would be the point of Owlmirror citing equations or formulae? You wouldn't understand them anyway.
But what's more important is that you focused on this rather than the substantive points he succinctly raised. You mock his use of 'WTF? One word: Mummies' but you have no answer for why we have preserved remains of humans that blow your age of the earth out of the water.
Do you actually have answers for his other responses, or are you just going write some more drivel in an attempt to evade?
I'll remind you once again, Alan, that we've seen all your 'arguments' before - many, many times. And your pedestrian, bush-league attempts at mocking and insulting are, at best, embarrassingly third-rate by the high standards of this site. But hey, if you want to keep getting soundly thrashed that's up to you. But you're going to need to come up with something vaguely interesting to say before too long.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 12, 2009 5:49 PM
You do know that there were other civilizations around back then outside of the Middle East, right? Why didn't the Chinese or Indus notice the global flood that wiped them out? Silly bastards kept right on going as if they'd never been smote by your god. Ha! How stupid they must have been to keep on building cities and recording history when they were actually all corpses floating and bloating from God's love.
Posted by: Damian | February 12, 2009 6:17 PM
Alan, this is a simple explanation from the website of Leeds University, in the United Kingdom.
Now, are you seriously suggesting that all universities in the world are either grossly incompetent, or lying? And how do you suppose that we have progressed so quickly, if, as you indicate, the most basic conclusions are incorrect?
Who are you trying to fool, Alan? I suspect that we all know the answer to that one. Even you.
Posted by: Stanton | February 12, 2009 7:07 PM
Alan Clarke thinks that there were only 8 people 4400 years ago?
So, are we also to assume that Alan Clarke also thinks that, upon exiting the Ark, that Noah and his family then built the Pyramids of Giza, which also happen to be around 4400 years old?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 7:13 PM
Alan has a few problems. If he would acknowledge god doesn't exist and the bible is a work of fiction, most of those problems would go away. Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: The MadPanda | February 12, 2009 7:16 PM
Ahhh, and here we have Pilty's new room-mate! Come, let us stuff this D'Orc into the barrel along with our other resident trolls and tip the result down the nearest garderobe. It certainly won't learn anything without a little proper flagellation first, and I'm not sure it will learn anything if the flensing it's already gotten hasn't made an impression.
Besides, the new titanboa down in the dungeon wants nummies. Since Trolls regenerate like mad, it seems only fair to give the big Freudian symbol junk food that keeps coming back for more, yes?
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 12, 2009 7:46 PM
If anything, mummies support the Biblical account since the oldest ones seem to coincide with the global flood 4400 years ago. I'm sure you'll locate something with no accompanying written records as is NOT the case with Egyptian mummies. Fossilized remains with no tell-tale signs of annoying flesh are an evolutionist’s delight! How did the walking coelacanth myth get started? You can grind down the pelvis of Lucy to achieve your evidence but it's not so easy when the remains come with inscriptions.
According to many evolutionists, homo sapiens started about 200,000 years ago. Where are the mummies for this time slot?
http://www.google.com/search?&q=oldest+mummy+years
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 12, 2009 7:51 PM
Eight people, four female, four male. The males are a father and three sons. A whole lot of genetic diversity there. Not to mention a whole lot of incest. The Tower of Babel must have done genetic mixing as well as linguistic mixing.
Or else the YECs like Alan are babbling out of their arses.
Posted by: Stanton | February 12, 2009 7:58 PM
Alan Clarke, do realize that a) there are other evidence against a global flood, such as written records from Mesopotamian cities such as Ur, Nineveh and Babylon, which have been inhabited for over 7,000 years, with no suggestions that the cities were destroyed and rebuilt 4,400 years ago, b) the oldest mummies in Egypt are 5,000 to 6,000 years old, and c) there are human remains from 200,000 years ago, they just don't happen to be mummies.
Furthermore, why do mummies support the idea of a global flood, if the Jews, the culture whom Noah officially founded/saved from extinction, do not mummify their dead?
Posted by: Ragutis | February 12, 2009 8:00 PM
Pssst... Alan Clarke... look at the second result your Google search brings up. You don't even have to click the link.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 8:02 PM
You probably should actually look at what a search link provides before you include it - sometimes it backfires, spectacularly, as it has now.
From the third link from your search includes this gem:
When we think of famous mummies, our minds naturally turn to the legendary “Valley of the Kings” in Egypt, final resting place for the great Pharaohs and their queens. But where are the world’s oldest mummies? The answer: Chile!
Around 8,000 years ago, the little known fishing communities of the Chinchorro began mummifying their dead in a sophisticated process that belies their otherwise primitive ways. Without the signature elaborate pottery, jewellery or textiles so common in the grander Inca, Mayan and Toltec civilisations, these humble folk desiccated their deceased relatives in an elaborate process before burial in family “plots”.
Hmmm, I ain't no mathematician, but isn't 8,000 > 4,400?
Epic FAIL.
Posted by: The MadPanda | February 12, 2009 8:07 PM
Ohhh, don't confuse the poor D'Orc with facts! They get in the way of his pretty little fairy stories and that makes him cross. Just line his hat with tinfoil, give him a cookie, and send him on his way.
That his grasp of the essentials is off the table and into somebody's pint of lager is only too obvious. Just as obvious is the sad fact that he's not about to admit that he's about two notches past Epic Fail.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Ragutis | February 12, 2009 8:10 PM
3rd result:
4th result:
5th result:
7th:
8th:
And that's without even clicking on a link!
Way to support your claim there, buddy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 8:16 PM
oh for fucks sake, there's living shrubbery older than Alan's Earth...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 8:20 PM
And Alan will still not get why we think he's a delusional fool. Physical evidence. The bane of the religious mind.Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 12, 2009 8:21 PM
Your right. Owlmirror could do well without me, but he clamors for debate, especially Biblical. He has no way of knowing the state of his belief system and vital signs unless he is engaged. I hope he finds someone (obviously not me) that can challenge him toward a meaningful life.
I really like Janine. She opened herself up for possible ridicule in a previous post. I was shocked when I realized she considered me worthy enough to even address me, so I’m honored. Seriously.
Even though Owlmirror has been slinging from his street corner, someone noticed that he really did have a few remaining coins in his pocket, so I felt compelled to dignify his question about mummies. I really didn’t know for sure what he meant because all of the “mummies” I was familiar with supported the Biblical account. But this is what I like talking about: actual evidences, data, web links, references, etc. Isn’t everyone just trying to support their scientific theory? If I contributed some data points in a chem lab and you doubted my figures, wouldn’t a normal person say, “Are you sure you got that right?” But instead people are saying, “Alan, stop lying to yourself. That is the only way you can stop lying to us.” I sure hope everyone thinks that I'm deluded rather than I'm wittingly lying to them. People are acting like their life is dependent on some data points. Their adherence to a particular interpretation is akin to a person’s religion or the denial that a spouse is cheating on them. Lighten up!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 8:25 PM
Alan you presented nothing scientific. I say this as a 30+ year practitioner of science. What you think of science is not science. It is just unrelated facts that don't quite say what you think they do.
You lie to yourself in that you think what you present is science. It is simply an ineffectual attempt to back up your religion. Stop lying to yourself, then you can stop lying to us. Period. That means your religion must disappear from the discussions.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 12, 2009 8:26 PM
Yes, Alan. I'm willing to accept that you are deluded.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 8:32 PM
maybe if you were the first person to ever come up to us with those data points, that would be something worth looking into. but you're not, and when someone comes up with known mistakes on an experiment, the more experienced person (teacher, senior lab partner etc.) will tell the less experienced one that he's made a common mistake, tell what the mistake was, and that he needs to redo his work. when the less experienced one however insists that his data is correct, and shows him more data with the same errors to support himself, then an experienced person can only sigh and say "stop deluding yourself. you've made a mistake, here's the correct answer, go learn something and don't come back until you have.and for that reason ( and I'm reminding you for the 3rd time now), I've provided you to all the data that counters/answers those things you've brought up. Seriously, go read the info at Talkorigins.org, it's all there.
for some of us, our livelihoods do depend on science being taken seriously, either because science is their job, or because they depend on scientific progress for their healtn. for others, it's a matter of not having our children lied to and disadvantaged by people who want to claim science is wrong. still others, and this includes me, simply suffer from SIWOTI syndrome, and can't resist the urge to correct a wrongPosted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 12, 2009 8:34 PM
Alan you're floating between obnoxious over confident egotistical Creationist troll and obnoxious sappy "I'm just looking out for you"concern troll.
I'm not sure which is worse.
No Alan, scientists (good ones at least) follow the trail the evidence leaves them. It's not an adherence to anything but good evidence based science. Following good scientific methods, they just follow that trail as that is the surest way to find the answers to this world's questions.
Creationists start with the bible and work backwards, concerned only with confirming their bible at the expense of honest inquiry.
One provides insight and gained knowledge (scientific method) while the other only seeks to confirm a predetermined opinion (creationism).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 12, 2009 8:45 PM
Alan, it's quite simple. The evidence doesn't support your delusions and myths. If you had new evidence, we'd consider it. But you're trotting out the same lies and distortions that all the creationists who show up here present. We've already seen "thermodynamics doesn't support evolution," "the speed of light increased a bazillion-fold up until it abruptly slowed down in 1887*," "Noah and his family repopulated the Earth," etc., etc., etc.
We don't accept the Bible as a scientific authority because it's flatly refuted by that niggling little process called "evidence." The silliness you're giving us doesn't count as evidence because it's been refuted.
So go back to your church and tell them how you got all over a bunch of atheistic evilutionists. I'm sure your buddies will accept your lies.
*The reason for picking 1887 I leave as an exercise for the student.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 8:49 PM
'Tis Himself, I think I see where you are going with the 1887 reference. Let's see if Alan the religionist idiot can figure it out. Nice work.
Posted by: TonyC | February 12, 2009 9:09 PM
'Tis Himself - it's been a long time since I looked at that - I thought to myself surely he can't mean the xxx-xxx experiment because I thought that was in the mid 1800's. But no - 1887. (Maybe it was a trigger for the formation of Glasgow Celtic in '88 -- all that light had to go somewhere, right?)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 9:19 PM
i had to look it up, but i had the vague suspicion that's what it was....
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 12, 2009 9:26 PM
Close, but you just missed it. In 1888 Charles Turner becomes the first cricket bowler to take 250 wickets in an English season.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 12, 2009 9:30 PM
(SIWOTI, dammit)
LOL! You don't have any science of your own. You don't actually care about the scientific evidence or the scientific process or the scientific consensus. Why do I need to do anything more than point out your utter failure to understand anything at all about science? Doing anything more would be a waste of time for me.
You know what would convince me that you were halfway serious? If you took the crucial point of dogma that you've been spouting, the 6000-year-old-earth, and said, "You know, given that I don't actually know anything about archeology, paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, radiochemistry, quantum physics, astrophysics, or cosmology, I agree that I'm wrong about the whole young earth thing and our planet really is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is about 15 billion years old."
If you say that, I'll stop mocking you. But if you don't, there is no point in doing anything other than mocking you.
Says the guy drunk on religion who can do nothing but harangue.
Haranguing people is not "engaging" them.
LOL. Reading comprehension FAIL. Neither of those two lines were written by me, or even by the same person!
You can't even scold right.
I have no idea what forum you think you are reading. THIS! IS! PHARYNGULA!!
Says the guy whose only response to "differing opinions" is to ignore them.
Liar. You look specifically for the expletives so that you can whine about how hurt your feelings are.
However, just for you, I will leave off the "fucking or unfucking" from now on. How about that?
"Clamors for debate", whines the whining whiner who can't shut up about what he thinks is true. Hah!
You're just mad because I know what the bible says better than you do.
Dude, you're compounding your reading comprehension FAIL from above. I didn't say anything about mummies.
Although I admit that mummies are a good point, and I'm glad Sven mentioned them.
I'm really tempted to go back on my word, here. Dude. It's obvious you know nothing at all about how the dates for anything are actually determined, even for things in the relatively recent past, like mummies. So you obviously aren't familiar with any mummies at all, if you think they "support" the Bible.
If your figures were obviously 6 orders of magnitude wrong, and you insisted that the reason we were wrong was because we had differing base assumptions, what would be the point in even discussing the matter?
Right. Because you don't care about the actual data. The problem is that your "base assumption" is a lie, and you want to convince us that it's true.
How are we supposed to deal with that? Explain, patiently and slowly why it's a lie, when you ignore every explanation given? What's the point?
To be honest, I have to wonder about that.Are you saying that truth doesn't matter? Because that's really at the heart of this: You not caring what is true or not.
False equivalence. Logic FAIL again. Science is that which can be tested in the real world. Religion is that which cannot be tested at all.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 12, 2009 9:51 PM
Socrates would get some good laughs out of this. Can you give me an example of a scientific theory that doesn’t begin with a “faith” that something is literally true? How do you know you exist?
The reference to Noah’s ark has some interesting implications. I’ve been told that life would never survive on an ark for a year with that many animals and limited food supplies, yet the same people want me to believe a cell arose randomly and survived in a primordial sea. It even found some food and developed a working metabolic pathway to utilize the food, then learned how to reproduce itself! Which is more believable? Pre-existing life surviving on an ark or non-living material surviving entropy on its directionless and random path to life? I venture that the mathematical probability of the ark story happening divided by the probability of the soup story would be a number larger than the electrons in the universe. I DID NOT arrive at my belief in the former as steve_C suspects. I started with the supposition that the Bible was false. When I started reading it for the first time at 22 years of age, one of the first things I can remember underlining was the part where Lot had sex with his two daughters (or his two daughters had sex with him while he was passed out drunk). You’ve got to admit that nothing is being candy-coated here to make someone appear what they are not. How about Noah getting drunk? If the Bible looked like one of the Hare Krishna books with a guy in a lotus position adorned with beautiful flowers and artwork, then I would be suspicious. I noticed recently that the Dali Lama was at his wits end in the conflict with the Chinese communists. All of the façade dissolves when you see a person putting on his pants (or his toga?) like everyone else. When I read abut Jesus being attacked by the envious Pharisees and mocking crowds, I saw that it was real because nothing has changed to this day. You could read my whole conversion process here, but I’ll end in saying that I first found Jesus to be true and incapable of lying. I saw that his literal existence was attributed to a literal set of ancestors that coincided with secular history. Noah is in that lineage of ancestors. And Jesus, who has more credibility than anyone I’ve ever met, heard, or seen, said this:
Do I believe the Bible to be literal? Not always:
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 9:53 PM
I guess it must be a shock to you that there are people in the world who dislike blatant lies and the reprehensible, dishonest scumbags who propagate them. Then again, you're a Christian - you need to be lied to about the existence of a sky-fairy, because you need him to exist in order to make you feel special.
Because, unlike us, without your god you're nothing; a nobody. So you lie to others and yourself and willingly believe the lies you are told.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 9:55 PM
Alan, quite a post with no point. You need to shorten your idiocy. That way you don't look so stupid.
First thing, you're god doesn't exist until you prove that, and your evidence is sorely lacking. That means your bible is a work of fiction until you show conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary god. So you need to get cracking on that before any other discussions are carried out.
We are eagerly awaiting your attempt to show your imaginary deity exists.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 9:58 PM
we've already done solipsism and presuppositionalism. go away. I've lost my patience with you. you don't actually want to learn anything.Posted by: Stanton | February 12, 2009 10:05 PM
And more breaking news: water is wet, and the Atlantic Ocean has just been kidnapped!
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 12, 2009 10:10 PM
How about when Achilles was insulted by Agamemnon? Did you see that that "was real because nothing has changed to this day"?
You're reading third or fourth-hand reports of what he allegedly said, even assuming he actually existed, and you come to this conclusion... how?
How about when he said to hate your own parents? Do you hate your parents because Jesus said to?
Dude, that's the KJV screwing up again. The guttural consonant that ends Noah's name might be difficult to transliterate, but "Noe" is more wrong than "Noah".
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 12, 2009 10:29 PM
I have a suggestion for people who profess atheism (i.e. they “think” they are atheists) but realize their knowledge is not all-encompassing. If you think you are the ultimate source for “truth”, but believe it only 99%, then act upon your other 1% in the fashion that Gideon did. Gideon’s method even allows for Creationism to be taught in public schools and universities since it doesn’t violate so-called “science”. Here’s the text in the NIV (gasp!!) version:Gideon’s method doesn’t prove the existence of God, but it measures a probability for God’s existence. If you doubt God’s existence, then why don’t you formulate a test yourself, like Gideon, instead of waiting on me to prove it for you? People are usually more convinced by reasons they discovered themselves than by those found by others. If God answers specifically according to your formulated question, then you’ll own something that will be personal. You won’t be an echo of another’s opinion.
I don’t live by the “Gideon” method because I’ve developed a relationship where I can address God directly and get answers. But for newcomers, such as yourself, the Gideon approach may be a good starting place. Please don’t confuse this with an Ouja board, tarot cards, etc., which are all methods of contacting someone or something that is NOT God. I really believe everyone here knows a “phony” when they see one, so rest assured, if you make an honest attempt in contacting God, an Alan Clarke figure won’t suddenly appear in your crystal ball with a mocking grin.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 10:35 PM
I guess we can add probability and physics to the list of things Alan is clueless about.
No matter how small the probability of abiogenesis occurring is, it's still considered a possibility, even by moronic creationists. That's what the 'one' in 'one in a gazillion' means. Noah fitting the animals on the ark, on the other hand, isn't a question of probability, it's a question of possibility. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would take about half a second to realise that it is impossible for Noah to a) have obtained the animals in the first place, b) fit them in the ark, or c) kept them alive for the duration.
Low probability beats no possibility. Hands down.
Not to mention that there's absolutely no reason for that fictional monster, Yahweh, to have bothered flooding and saving and arking in the first place when he could have just poofed everyone he didn't like off the earth without having to drown anyone or anything. The flood story, apart from anything else, is just stupid - unless you realise it was the story a bunch of unscientific, superstitious goat-herders came up with to go along with a huge local flood. One guy, his family and a few goats in a boat survived a couple of weeks being washed out to sea before making land again; give it a couple of years and an oral folk tradition and bam! - here's your Ark story.
Entertaining for children and fools; rational, well-balanced adults - not so much.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 12, 2009 10:35 PM
No reason to waste our kids time teaching mythology in science class.
Yep, see one every time I've looked at a bible.
And thanks for acknowledging my ability to do so.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 10:40 PM
Alan, we can recognise a phony when we see it - which is why we're not Christians. You, on the other hand, fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Sucks to be you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 10:49 PM
Yawn, Alan is an incompetent bore. No physical evidence for his alleged deity. Disappointment big time. But what else do we expect from liars and bullshitters who can't show the existence for the god? Put or Shut UP Alan. An eternally burning bush would be nice. Otherwise, take you and your delusions elsewhere.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 12, 2009 10:50 PM
Just out of curiosity, Alan, have you ever considered that it might be possible to be a Christian and to
believeaccept and understand evolution? If you're serious about not believing all the Bible to be literal, then A) Using what criteria do you decide which parts are/aren't and B) What makes you think the Genesis account is accurate? What about Gen1 is more plausible than the story of Pan-Gu, or Marduk, or Brahma?Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 12, 2009 10:53 PM
1) Pascals Wager is pointless, as there's a ridiculously large number of gods. if we're 99% certain there aren't any gods, then the remaining 1% needs to be equally divided among the thousands of gods whose existence is equally unlikely and unproven.
2) Creationism isn't science. only science gets taught in science class. it doesn't matter whether god is a possibility, the stuff that creationists peddle is either non-scientific, or has been proven to be incorrect
3)we had a poster here who tried such a test, but alas, god never turned his water into vodka. so not even the possibility of your god was shown. your suggestion fails.
4)go away, you've nothing to contribute to this conversation that hasn't been said a million times already. your fairytale won't convince us, because we've already seen the evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: RogerS | February 12, 2009 10:55 PM
--EVOLUTION, A BIG PICTURE QUESTION --
If the mechanisms for evolution are still in place, and with over 1.5 million species of animals, plants and algae, why does each kind or specie appear to be "stalled" or confined to remaining within the allowed genetic variations afforded by Mendel's Laws? The tremendous time frames required for changes (which is so slow that even their existence is debated) appear to be contradicted by short time frame allowances by observed extinction rates.
(Willing to learn, LOL)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 10:57 PM
Alan, before we go any further, answer 'Tis Himself's question in post #400. If you fail, you deserve to be ignored.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 11:00 PM
Ah, just love RogerS showing us nothing, because he has nothing. You aren't willing to learn, so why should we talk to you. Go read a real textbook.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 12, 2009 11:00 PM
The flood is one of the things that really amazes me about creationists and the mental gymnastics they have to do to make excuses for it.
Where did all the water come from? Where is it now?
Where is the Ark? Surely something that important and large would have been preserved. I mean we find all kinds of ancient structures and artifacts but no ark.
How did land dwelling insects survive? Freshwater fish? Plant species that can not handle oxygen deprivation or salinity?
How could Noah fit all "kinds"? The engineering of something that size that would have to be involved would be incredible let alone actually fitting them in the size described. Where did the dinosaurs fit? How did noah keep the food needed from spoiling? The fresh water needed would be incredible and it's doubtful that rain water could have contributed enough to resupply for all those "kinds" not even taking into account spillage from the motion of the ark.
This still leaves many questions about the geologic column, tectonic evidence for the topography of the earth and fossils that do not support any notion of a great flood
8 people is not that many to care for all those kinds. How the hell did they accomplish that? Any idea how many employees and animals are at the Washington DC National Zoo?
That's a lot of contortion and back flipping to work your way through coming up with excuses and distorting data to get around those issues.
Posted by: Stanton | February 12, 2009 11:00 PM
RogerS, have you tried googling "orchid hybrids" or "apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella speciation" or "cichlid speciation"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2009 11:02 PM
I'm sure your friends will come to your aid because drunks can't defend themselves well, but your whole persona is pitiful. Obviously this is only my opinion because Janine thinks highly of you, but remember: This forum is a lot about "therapy" and members are expected to elevate one another.
reasons to be plonked into dungeon:
Slagging:
"Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently "X is bad", even in threads that aren't about X, then you're simply slagging, not discussing."
Insipidity:
"A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time."
Concern trolling:
"A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms."
shall I go on?
bye, Alan.
all of your arguments are straight from AIG, and have been refuted so many times already as to have become the backbone of the Index to Creationist Claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
why don't you go through that list first, and when you have actual responses to the evidence-based refutations listed there of your ages-old fucktardness, THEN come back and tell us, eh?
we can always go and read AIG for ourselves, ya know.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 12, 2009 11:03 PM
Alan's arguments probably impress the other kids at Sunday School, but he should have realised that that's hardly a good reason for him to think he can post at a place like Pharyngula and not get treated like a fucking clown shoe. Noah's Ark? Bible quotes? Pascals fucking wager?
I'm sure if I could remember where I put my religidiot creotard bingo card I'd have shouted out twice by now.
Admittedly the Gideon test is new to me. About as uncompelling as any other the other hackneyed drivel he's spouted, but at least it's something different.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 12, 2009 11:03 PM
Nice. Unsubstantiated assertions.
Care to provide us with the research that calls this into question?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2009 11:08 PM
why does each kind or specie appear to be "stalled" or confined to remaining within the allowed genetic variations afforded by Mendel's Laws?
what makes you think so?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php
hardly a case of standard mendelian sorting, eh?
...and that's just one of literally tens of thousands of documented examples from the last 50 years.
you might try actually perusing even popular science magazines once in a while before making asinine generalizations.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 12, 2009 11:11 PM
Oh, and RogerS. please cite a primary peer reviewed scientific journal. Anything less says you are a liar and bullshitter. Welcome to science.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2009 11:11 PM
Noah's Ark? Bible quotes? Pascals fucking wager?
oh, almost forgot:
godbotting:
"Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive."
did I miss any others?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 12, 2009 11:19 PM
RogerS #419
Google "Lensky E coli" and learn something about evolution.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 13, 2009 12:10 AM
I'd maybe amend Owlmirror's paragraph to:
"You know, given that I don't actually know anything about archeology, paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, radiochemistry, quantum physics, astrophysics, or cosmology, I agree that...
I have no basis on which to question the established knowledge and theories on these subjects, because it's really vanishingly unlikely that all these thousands upon thousands of scientists have somehow either gotten it completely and utterly wrong by several orders of magnitude, or are all taking part in a conspiracy on a scale hundreds of times greater than any conspiracy that has ever been attempted, let alone any conspiracy that has ever worked. Or, for that matter, that they are all acting on the mere assumption that there is no creator god, and yet have all come to a pretty close agreement on how the Earth came to be, and how old it is and how life diversified on our planet."
Further Clakre-isms...
"How do you know you exist?"
I will never understand the cognitive dissonance that must be maintained to argue for the bible from solipsism. "Everything is assumptions! Nothing is real! Except this old book of myths!"
"If you doubt God’s existence, then why don’t you formulate a test yourself, like Gideon, instead of waiting on me to prove it for you?"
Oh man, Alan. You're going off script here. I thought God didn't deign to be tested by us lowly mortals. Isn't that the convenient out-clause always invoked by believers when someone says something like "May God strike me down if I'm wrong!"?
Rev.:
"Where did all the water come from? Where is it now? Etc.?"
Let's not forget the curious mystery of how kangaroos and platypuses all got from Mt. Ararat to Australia.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 13, 2009 12:44 AM
YECs know that the oil they drive on is found by petroleum geologists who use the assumption that the earth is 4.5 byo and all the associated Satanic science to do so, right? I mean, they wouldn't be a bunch of hypocrites as well as morons and liars, would they?
No, of course not.
Posted by: RogerS | February 13, 2009 12:56 AM
-Sure, welcome the challenge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#cite_note-Ulansey-22
"Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years."
The estimates for the past are 100 to 1000 times slower but the data facing us today does not look so good. So let's use the most Evolutionary friendly rate for the historical estimate:
50%/(100 x 1000)yrs = 50%/100,000 yrs
The elephant for example, starts with a pretty big ancestor only 38,000,000 yrs ago but what the heck; we can call it a "lucky" single cell. With a linear extinction rate, we would have zero life left today beginning 200,000 yrs ago. Looks bad, so let's throw a bone and use an exponential decay with 100K as the half-life. That would leave about 0.8% in 7 time constants or 700,000 yrs. Evolutionary time frame ratio to extinction time frame:
38,000,000/700,000 = 54.
A 54:1 ratio favoring extinction over evolution was what I was getting at in Post #419.
The numbers are not near the 1:1 equilibrium point; have any better numbers to use?
(Still willing to learn, LOL)
Posted by: Kel | February 13, 2009 1:04 AM
So you think the first picosecond that happened 14 billion years ago is enough to invalidate the constant that we have now? That before light had even formed the speed of light was enough to show galaxies that hadn't formed yet?The speed of light has been known to be a constant and of a precise speed for over 100 years, surely we'd see a slowdown. Honestly it would have been just easier to posit that God created the universe with light already travelling to earth, it would be stupid but at least it wouldn't be super-stupid. Have you ever read a physics book?
There's a good reason why new volcanic rocks give an older age - the radioactive isotopes in the rock form in the mantle. The dating techniques used with rocks have to work over 2,000,000 years for them to be accurate, it's like applying C14 test to a dinosaur fossil. So how are they calibrated? Firstly we can correlate it with relative dating, we know that one layer must be older than the layer above it. Secondly we can see constants like lava flow and show that at the rate it's going, the tests show accuracy. Thirdly we can work out the half-life using a simple mathematical function, we can watch decay and then count it. Fourthly we can calibrate it using the fossil record, fossils of a certain age usually stay in a certain stratum so we should be able to get the same age for the same rock all over the world. And fifthly, they are calibrated with each other. There are a variety of tests, a variety of half-lifes, yet all point to the same date.
Oh and this doesn't take into account C14 testing, because that's for organic material. We can calibrate and verify C14 tests to about 27,000 years using both dendochronology and ice cores. A man won a Nobel prize for demonstrating blind that C14 dating works.
All this shows that you are off by a factor of around 700,000. How can the trained scientists in their thousands of all religious persuasions be off by such a gross amount?
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 13, 2009 1:09 AM
RogerS,
You do realise that humans haven't actually been in a position to drive species into extinction until fairly recently, don't you? Because, you know, there's been life on the planet for a few billion years - not 6,000. You can't compare pre-human rates of extinction with current rates.
Liar.
Posted by: Kel | February 13, 2009 1:15 AM
Alan Clarke, have you ever picked up a physics book? What about a book on geology? And some books onbiology would do you well too. It seems that you are talking out of absolute ignorance for everything that science has taught us then expect that your insight into the bible is on an equal footing. I'm a computer programmer too, my degree is in computer science. So how do I know about geology, nuclear physics, palaeontology, astronomy and cosmogy, biology, and evolution? I've spent a hell of a long time reading about all those topics, and even then I have only scratched the surface. It seems hypocritical on your part that you are casually throwing away almost the entire endeavour of human knowledge while typing on a computer. The same process of discovery that led to computer use has also shown the world to be 4.6 billion years old. Those same laws of physics work the same all the time and that is why such a device like the computer can work. Why do you reap the rewards of the scientific method then throw it to the scrap heap when it tells you that your interpretation of Genesis is wrong?
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 13, 2009 1:24 AM
Simple. Creationists (particularly the young earth ones) are fucking parasites.
Posted by: Kel | February 13, 2009 1:35 AM
On the notion of doubt in the processes, I wrote a post on it. Each one piece of evidence can be falsified, it can be dismissed through doubt. But when several pieces of evidence on different lines all point to the same result, it's really hard pressed to argue that all are wrong. That's what Alan Clarke is doing, and he's doing it from an armchair as opposed to actually testing the shit he's preaching.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 13, 2009 1:42 AM
Oh man, Alan. You're going off script here. I thought God didn't deign to be tested by us lowly mortals.
indeed. wasn't that in large part the lesson to be gleaned from the book of Job?
I rather think the "WERE YOU THERE" argument Ken Ham often likes to use came from a misreading of that very book.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 13, 2009 1:48 AM
Roger - please answer my earlier question:
given that I can provide thousands of documented examples of novel features having arisen that obviously cannot be the result of standard Mendelian sorting, where did you get the idea that species are static?
It's a simple question, surely, since it's one that is based on your starting premise. You are able to at least answer that, right?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 13, 2009 1:50 AM
A 54:1 ratio favoring extinction over evolution was what I was getting at in Post #419.
you might as well have literally compared apples and oranges.
nothing you said in that post makes any sense whatsoever.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 2:18 AM
Oh! Well, in that case, we're done. God failed my test, which was pretty simple really.
All I ask is that God speak for himself and demonstrate that he knows a few simple things about the past, present, and future, so as to demonstrate omniscience.
Easy as pie — for a God that really exists and is omnipotent and omniscient.
What do I get? Nothing.
FAIL.
Why don't you ask God what the next few digits of this random 1024-digit sequence are? I generated it back in July of last year, and the creationist that I offered it to, who also claimed to have a special relationship with God, refused to even try.
The first digit is "9".
md5sum randnum2 6aa60e2155a66e1117cee00c6cffc8a7 *randnum2sha1sum randnum2 a888f87e4646c568e8f7d1bbd2794e7268161021 *randnum2 I'd prefer at least the next 35 digits, but hell, can God even give you 3 or 4? Can God even give you the next single digit? So... God can't move a simple planchette? That doesn't sound particularly omnipotent to me.
Are you sure you're in contact with God? How do you know he's not lying?
Posted by: RogerS | February 13, 2009 2:35 AM
Greetings,
That is the point in post #433, I used the factor of 1000 in the DIVISOR for most favorable rate pro-Evolution. The extreme low "fossil" record period rate being (the natural rate) / 1000. To favor Evolution further, I would need to use a larger factor than 1000; I haven't seen natural extinction rates exceeding 1000 x fossil record rates. If you have better numbers, by all means please point the way.
One Source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/
Current extinction rates are at least 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural rates found in the fossil record, the report stated. The data were released as 3,500 delegates gathered in Bangkok, Thailand, for a World Conservation Union conference focused on halting what's deemed an extinction crisis.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 13, 2009 2:44 AM
I have a new policy. I will trust and believe every person who claims that they talk to God and that God answers back. What could go wrong?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 2:52 AM
Janine - I wanna play, but I only had god show up. He never spoke, and I was too terrified to speak to him.
Does that count?
(My husband never saw a damned thing.)
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | February 13, 2009 2:59 AM
So? Was the message; "Be afraid, be very afraid"?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 13, 2009 3:20 AM
The geologic record reeks of a flood: limestones far inland on all continents, sedimentary strata, oil, coal deposits which originate from massive buried fauna, corals & clams at high mountain elevations, polystrate fossils which intersect sedimentary layers of supposed different ages, “wavy” strata in mountain ranges indicating rapid formation while layers were soft, massive hydrologic erosion in Grand Canyon, flooding from Mt. St. Helen’s eruption created a small replica of Grand Canyon in a few days, presence of massive water-laid fossil “graveyards”, massive and sudden extinctions of the dinosaurs, etc. The real question is, “How do uniformitarianists explain away the massive evidences for a global flood?” They perform the most outlandish contortionist act of raising and lowering mountains, plains, and plateaus in order to keep something above water at all times. I’m frequently told that the fossilized sea fauna on the Himalayas, Rockies and Andes occurred when the mountains were low, then they raised later. Where did all of the energy come from? If all of the Earth’s land masses were completely flat, the existing ocean water would cover everything by a depth of 1.7 miles. Genesis 7:20 says the highest mountain was covered by 15 cubits, so the extreme case scenario of a “completely flat” Earth is not necessary. Where did the energy come from for my model? I asked you the same question for your model. Perhaps it was from the Earth’s warmer crust 4400 years ago. Tectonic plates were not as settled then as they are now. Maybe it was an asteroid impact that initiated the flood. Genesis 7:11 describes both atmospheric and sub-terrestrial waters initiating the flooding: “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.”Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 3:20 AM
No message. He (after I had prayed for hours)just showed up. Robed as black death with red coke bottle eyes. Black satin wrapped hands and feet. Gossamer and floating in the air.
Pretty classic huh? But sure scared the shit out of me. I damn near had a heart attack!
Don't think this apparition didn't effect me. I was scared and twice as devout for over a year. Stupidity doesn't end with childhood.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 13, 2009 3:20 AM
How many large wooden ships built prior to 1600 exist today? See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships The ark would be important today as a museum piece but then it was not as important as salvage for fire wood or building materials. It may have been destroyed by fire as were four ships on the provided link. 2000 years is a long time for unprotected wood to last. Gigantic floating log mats from massive de-forestation. The Mt. St. Helens log mats are floating to this day. The oceans were not as salty then as they are now, but many fish did die. Answered by both above and below.I previously developed a model which answers your questions so rather than repeat it, here it is:
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/showpost.php?p=303027&postcount=352
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/showpost.php?p=303227&postcount=393
I don’t really criticize you for not knowing the fundamental precepts of creationism and flood catrastophism since more than likely you have been protected from such information, but knowing it is useful for debating.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 13, 2009 3:30 AM
Patricia, you were able to get away from that. But seriously, were you ever as delusional as Alan?
He looked like Death from "The Seventh Seal"? I was hoping he looked like Brundlefly.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 3:32 AM
wavy strata is proof of a flash-flood & flash-sedimentation?
I'm really curious now how that works. Are you imagining actual waves suddenly petrifiyng in mid-move?!
All the stuff you listed is proof for plate tectonics & the Ice Ages, and it doesn't require any magic of the petrification of waves.
I'll also not that you COMPLETELY ignored all the civilizations we've listed that somehow stubbornly continued to exist despite global flood and a world population of 8
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 13, 2009 3:50 AM
The Bible has made multiple and numerous prophetical predictions that were fulfilled at a later date. And I’m not talking about cheap predictions such as "A great leader will arise somewhere from the northern hemisphere and lead a nation." One of the fastest ways the Bible could loose credibility would be to risk stating that Babylon would never be inhabited: "it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly desolate: every one that goeth by Babylon shall be astonished", then later be contradicted with modern photography showing the city flourishing. Enjoy the miracle of modern photography here. Please study for yourself Saddam Hussein's attempt to rebuild Babylon here. Pay particular attention to the areas entitled, "Reconstruction" and "Effects of the U.S. military."
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 3:52 AM
and you must be completely blind and deaf to think that the tectonic plates have settled. or are you one of those fuckwits who thought the 2004 Tsunami was Gods punishment?
Plate tectonics have this annoying habit of proving themselves to us with very unambiguous acts, not only here on Earth but on other planets as well. They do a better job of (violently) proving their existence than your God has. hmmm, wonder why that is [/sarcasm]
Posted by: clinteas | February 13, 2009 3:53 AM
Alan Clarke,
*headdesk*
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 3:59 AM
neither saltwater fish nor freshwater fish can live in brackish water for any extended period of time. the same for plants. what complete bullshit. and also, prove that oceans were less salty.Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 13, 2009 4:01 AM
Patricia, I take it back. There is no way you could have been this whacked out.
Posted by: windy | February 13, 2009 4:06 AM
Are you suggesting that Saddam had the power to falsify the bible but was prevented doing so by the US? WTF?
And if the Bible got it "right" on Babylon's desolation why did it screw up on Egypt? And on so many other prophecies?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 4:11 AM
book of jeremiah, written ca. c. 626-537 B.C
Babylon: seat of the 9th Satrapy of Persio, until 311 B.C
experiences great revival during Hellenistic Period
your little prophed failed within 2 centuries of his rambling. massive fail.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 4:20 AM
also, you're weaseling out of your previous suggestion to make a test for God to prove his existence. suddenly we aren't supposed to do that, but rather just trawl the bible for vague passages that can be fitted to fleeting current events?
I used to do that with Pyramidology, and Nostradamus. Works like a charm, every fucking time.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 13, 2009 4:32 AM
Alan: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Just go there and spend a few hours reading. What are you afraid of?
Posted by: MartinM
|
February 13, 2009 4:33 AM
It said something rather similar about Tyre, as I recall. How did that work out, again?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 4:43 AM
and since we're talking about babylon.... explain to me how the tower of babel can date to 3000-2400 B.C, and yet Linguistics give us evidence for several different scrips and languages existing BEFORE that time?
there's evidence for Peruvian Quipu as far back as 2600 B.C, Chinese writing to 2800 B.C, Cuneiform as far back as the late 4th millenium B.C., and Egyptian hieroglyphs all the way back to 4000 B.C.
also, Linguistics put the first diversions in the Proto-Indo-European Language as far back as the 7th millenium B.C., and by the 4th millenium the language had split into the Centum and Satem languages, and continued steadily from there
and in case you don't know what that means: there have been several distinct languages before the tower of Babel, and there is no evidence whatsoever of a sudden linguistic explosion at the approximate time God was supposed to have different languages for the first time.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 4:49 AM
also, I'd highly suggest you stop this condescending shit:
we've told you already, we've heard all this shit so many times, we actually bothered to write the responses all down and index them for future reference. now go read them! (this is the 4th time I have to tell you to go and do you homework)Posted by: Ragutis | February 13, 2009 4:49 AM
And Damascus
Posted by: John Morales | February 13, 2009 5:01 AM
Hm. Alan Clarke the godbot, RogerS the disingenous.
Alan could be disposed of by anyone who cares to look at talkorigins.org, and is just a typical punching-bag.
with RogerS, I admit I hadn't seen this "[species] extinction rates exceed [species] speciation rates, therefore [observed] evolution is impossible" claim before.
A breathtaking example of handwaving the obvious evidence to allow for inane theorising, and thereby reaching a patently false conclusion.
Interestingly, he uses one item of derived information based on paleontology (@443:Current extinction rates are at least 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural rates found in the fossil record) to explain how primary findings of paleontology (the fossil record of speciation) are wrong.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 13, 2009 7:40 AM
Interesting little discussion while I slept. Alan Clarke, please supply us with the physical evidence for god that can be evaluated by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin. Until you do so, you are just another lying godbot with an IQ of 5. Without god, you bible is a work of fiction. So shut up about the bible until you prove your god.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 8:08 AM
Boy Alan. Nothing new from you. You repeat the same debunked creationist canards that we've heard a thousand times. Been memorizing your Whitcomb huh?
Let's start.
Um, no. There would not be enough food supply nor habitat for all the insects to survive. And the st helens log mats are in a contained lake. Not applicable to the the great flood model.
The oceans were not as salty then as they are now, but many fish did die. .
The salinity change as well as the heat, acidity and pressure change that would have been created by the flood would have caused massive fish kills. The species diversity and distribution we see today makes your notion impossible.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 13, 2009 8:17 AM
Alan Clarke,
The remnants of Babylon are found in modern day Al Hillah, Iraq. Al Hillah has an estimated population of over 350,000. The name has changed, but there's still a city where Babylon used to be.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 8:32 AM
Alan repeating canards
From TO
1. Uniformitarian processes explain limestone formations far better than catastrophism does:
* Limestones form continuously today over wide areas (such as the Caribbean) as calcium carbonate is precipitated from water directly and through the actions of organisms. Limestone formation easily fits within conventional geology.
* Limestones appear in strata interleaved between strata of sandstones and other rocks. A single event could not explain all the layers.
* Limestones often include fragile fossils that could not survive catastrophic transport.
Dolomites require no exceptional explanation. They form via diagenesis (a sort of chemical rearrangement in the deep subsurface) from calcite, the main ingredient of limestone. Creationism does not explain the origin of dolomite.
2. Limestone could not have formed quickly from massive precipitation, because the formation of calcite releases heat. If only 10 percent of the world's limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters (Isaak 1998).
You're a big fan of Woodmorappe huh Alan?
You'll have to expound on exactly what you think about the strata that supports a global flood.
You'll have to say why this is a problem without a flood, show your work.
Tectonic plate movement and inland marine inundation (not a single great flood). For example, North American midcontinent outcrops record at least fifty-five cycles of marine inundation and withdrawal. (Boardman and Heckel 1989; Heckel 1986)
"polystrate fossils" A term made up by Creationists. And not a problem.
First you have to establish that there was rapid formation while layers are soft. But its not a problem for there to be "wavy" strata in mountain ranges. Tectonics again Alan.
Oh please.
So , no. The Mt St. helens > Grand Canyon comparison is one of THE worst examples given by creationists. Lame Alan. Very lame.
While true, this again is not a problem for those who accept actual science instead of relying on a single unreliable book.
more....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 8:34 AM
ok I got to this and /head desk
How did the dinosaurs go extinct because of the flood?
Didn't your boy Noah take two of each animal?
You just directly contradicted your story Alan.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 9:04 AM
All supported by actual evidence based science.
And no, science doesn't have to try and keep things above water at all times because there wasn't a massive global flood. You are presupposing one and then projecting that onto what people who actually understand science are telling you.
Jebus fucking Christ Alan. Plate tectonics. It is still happening. It hasn't stopped. Where do you think earthquakes come from? God farting?
Alan, do yourself a favor and read this. Be sure to click on all the relevant links. And here
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 13, 2009 9:10 AM
Alan, I suggest you watch a PBS Nova episode called Bible's Buried Secrets. You can watch it from the PBS web site, or maybe U-Tube.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 13, 2009 10:31 AM
Oh. I had a post, but it appears to have been eaten by the moderator monster. I didn't even put any links in it either. I can um it up in two words though-
Plate Tectonics.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 11:20 AM
Not what I asked for. Read what I wrote; you copied and pasted the words yourself.
And why won't God tell you a few digits of my random number? Is it that he doesn't know, or he can't talk in exact words?
Posted by: God | February 13, 2009 11:31 AM
Oh, I've got a single digit for you all right...
Go ahead, pull My finger!
Posted by: St. Peter | February 13, 2009 11:41 AM
Screw that. Last time you got me on that was around the boy's birthday a couple years back. I was busy for weeks dealing with the influx at the gate.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 11:48 AM
You know, it's kind of strange: There was a Muslim around a while back, claiming that God had spoken in the Quran. When I said that I wanted God to speak for himself, he was confused, and asked if I meant that he should e-mail me the Quran.
No. No. No. Words in an old book are not God speaking to me, here and now. I used the present tense quite deliberately.
Why do the religious have problems reading and understanding basic English words and sentences? Does belief in God make people generally stupid? Or is it just that specifically seeing the word "God" makes their brains turn off, even if they're otherwise very intelligent?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 13, 2009 12:09 PM
Click here. Scroll to bottom. Look and learn.
Click here for more.
I’m quickly seeing a problem here. There are a lot of excellent questions, but they are becoming almost too numerous to answer. I’ve read practically everything and none of it is beyond me, but the time required for answering is beyond me. If some consensus were made, I’d be happy to answer the top #1 or #2 questions. But don’t hold your breath. My wife is going to have a baby in 3 weeks and my time spent on this computer is started to make her nervous!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 13, 2009 12:17 PM
Alan, it is all beyond you. If the flood really happened you should be able to cite the peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that fact. But you cite far lesser quality evidence, evidence you have no of knowing isn't falsified (just a barefaced lie).
Show us the physical evidence for your god. The evidence must be able to be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine (not man-made) origin. An eternally burning bush would be a good example--Moses and all.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 12:23 PM
Janine, Somewhere up thread you asked if I could possibly have been as deluded as Alan. Yes.
Being an ignorant slut, you probably didn't know that there are only two books a female needs to read, the Good Book and a cookbook. Everyone in my world said this, so it was a fact. ;)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 12:26 PM
Ok can you answer them with actual science?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 12:27 PM
#478 - Translated: You guys are showing me the truth, that I'm full of shit, and there is no gawd. I'm scared, so I'm gonna run away.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 12:41 PM
oh man.
Not surprisingly, you do not understand tectonics. Not even a little bit. I even have a thin grasp on the subject and I can see glaring mistakes in your links.
You are basically in the business of denying every single field of currently accepted science from geology, to biology to astronomy to hydrology to archeology to vulcanology (and I'm sure many others we haven't touched on yet) just to confirm your predetermined conclusion that the bible must be true. Your back must get sore from contorting like that.
Do you ever wonder why nearly every single scientific organization in the world disagrees with virtually everything you've said here?
I need a drink.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 12:59 PM
There are a lot of excellent questions, but they are becoming almost too numerous to answer. you're soo deep in bullshit, you don't even realize mockery when you see it. it's very very sad.once more: WE HAVE READ THAT BULLSHIT ALREADY, AND IT'S ALL INCORRECT ON WAAAAAYY TOO MANY LEVELS. YOU'RE NOT SHOWING US ANYTHING WE HAVEN"T SEEN BEFORE, AND CERTAINLY NOTHING THAT ISN'T RIDDLED WITH MISTAKES AND LIES
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 1:03 PM
now I got so agitated, i fucked up my blockquotes. and since this bears repeating:
you're soo deep in bullshit, you don't even realize mockery when you see it. it's very very sad.once more: WE HAVE READ THAT BULLSHIT ALREADY, AND IT'S ALL INCORRECT ON WAAAAAYY TOO MANY LEVELS. YOU'RE NOT SHOWING US ANYTHING WE HAVEN"T SEEN BEFORE, AND CERTAINLY NOTHING THAT ISN'T RIDDLED WITH MISTAKES AND LIES
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 1:27 PM
Liar.
The time required for answering correctly is the time it would take for you to actually educate yourself on the basics of the many various sciences that you keep mangling.
Posted by: Todd Bacon | February 13, 2009 1:57 PM
I know Alan personally.
I've read the majority of this thread.
Amazing the number of incredibly mean people.
I don't know that Alan was trying to proselytize, but that would sure be my goal.
Obviously the vast majority, if not all, the readers of this thread do NOT believe the bible to be inspired by God (and many deny His existence.)
Regardless, I would hope that many could agree with my premise that the teachings of Christ, recorded in the New Testament, are the best way to live. I simply know that those teachings changed my life and are the basis for my decisions.
This thread certainly falls in line with the wisdom of these biblical verses:
2 Timothy 2:23
"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels."
Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
There is a video on the web of Penn - a professed atheist -commenting on a "very nice man" who came to him after a show and gave him a copy of the New Testament. Penn's comment in the video was something to the effect of, "How much do you have to hate a person to truly believe that there is a God and a means to eternal life and choose NOT to tell them about it? If you knew someone was about to get hit by a bus, but they didn't believe you, and you saw the bus bearing down on them, at some point you have to tackle them." Penn mentions that he had ZERO respect for someone who believed in God and that people will either go to heaven or hell, but is afraid to share that belief.
I respect Alan's diligence in remaining and making an effort at civil discussion, but at this point, I would counsel him to leave the rest of you to your unbelief.
I for one will happily remain ignorant of your "science" that, if one judged from this post alone, produces uncivil, hateful, belligerent and angry individuals.
I also pray that the one I believe created each of you opens your eyes to His existence.
My view is that you do not have to defend a lion - you simply set the lion loose.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 13, 2009 2:01 PM
Thank you, Todd.
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 13, 2009 2:06 PM
Todd, it is nice of you to testify to your friend, but in doing so you demeaned your character. We scientist types follow the evidence, and all evidence to date suggests god doesn't exist and the bible is a work of fiction. Testimony does not change the physical evidence.
We atheists base our morality on game theory, where something similar to the golden rule works best. We apply these ethics/morality to all people. But we atheists also note that Xians do not seem to behave according to the golden rule, and they have two sets of rules, one for themselves, and one for all others.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 2:08 PM
concern troll alert
You mean that house cat I saw? I think the neighbors pit bull ate him.
Well goody for Penn.
Alan comes here spouting his creationism as if it is fact. It is far from fact and we've shown him and hundreds like him how exactly wrong it is. Yet his impenetrable skull of faith based ignorance keeps him and the hordes like him from seeing that. You have to understand that quoting scripture does not support your case. Hard empirical evidence does. People get "mean" because we've been through this so many times that it becomes annoying dealing with all the misinformation being spread by people like Alan.
Keep proselytizing Todd. See where that gets you. Quoting scripture proves nothing more than your ability to regurgitate something you read. And in this case possibly a low level understanding of how to use a computer.
That great Todd. You'd rather remain willfully stupid than face your ignorance. And because those big bad mean scientists and atheist said bad words.
Grow up.
Your concern has been noted and is stupid.
Posted by: CJO | February 13, 2009 2:15 PM
the teachings of Christ, recorded in the New Testament, are the best way to live. I simply know that those teachings changed my life and are the basis for my decisions.
So, you've made a complete split with your family, and now live an itinerant life of voluntary poverty? Good for you. But... what are you doing on the internet?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 13, 2009 2:15 PM
Knew I smelled something.Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 2:16 PM
Todd - I urge you do go forth and consider the lord's words, and all that he has for you, Jesus said: He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. John 13:26
Posted by: CJO | February 13, 2009 2:17 PM
Walt Brown farted.
Posted by: Damian | February 13, 2009 2:17 PM
No, he hasn't made an "effort at civil discourse". He has ignored all of the rebuttals of his nonsense, and then essentially stuck his middle finger up at us by presenting evidence from ridiculous creationist websites.
Do you know what? That kind of anti-intellectualism offends us (kind of)! It essentially says that you know that science has provided the modern world, and that will likely ensure that Alan's new baby will survive in to adulthood, but screw that, he'd rather be a hypocrite, and when it suits him, he can ignore science and believe in magic, because it makes him feel all special.
Sorry that I can't just accept that.
Right, but you'll continue to take advantage of what it provides, though. Hypocrite.
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 13, 2009 2:21 PM
EVIDENCES THAT SUPPORT EVOLUTIONISM
People often think, “How can my theory be false if so many evidences support it?” It may or may not be, but remember, a multitude of supporting evidences can lead you astray if your interpretation for each and every one is wrong. How can so many interpretations be wrong? If a theory’s entire underlying framework is supported by one false assumption, then all of the interpretations can be wrong. All of the evidences will have the appearance of “unity”. Each one will support the other.
Wind is caused by the flapping of tree leaves. We know this to be true because every time we feel the wind, we see leaves flapping somewhere. During the winter when there are no leaves, the winds are generated by trees at the Earth’s lower hemisphere where it is summer. The Apollo 11 space flight to the Moon validated the theory when crew members noticed there was no wind as evidenced by the absence of trees. The fact that Mars has no trees but high winds is not fully understood but some have theorized that the atmospheric turbulence is a relic from ancient forests that once existed. The trees were thought to have been far greater in number and size than the Earth’s.
Since there are so many supporting evidences, how can the theory be false? Everything went awry at the first supposition. Some say that the first supposition is a “law”, but I’m telling you many people paid a lot money to have university professors give them head massages. Stepping aside from this analogy, what is the first false assumption made by practically everyone on this forum? ”THERE IS NO GOD”
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 2:24 PM
Projection defined.
You fail at science, again.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 2:27 PM
Well Alan, where is god?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 2:30 PM
I can't not comment again on that last babble from Alan.
That is hands down the worst example of how the scientific method works I've read in months. And that's saying a lot considering the kooks we get on here.
Seriously Alan, with such a basic misunderstanding of how science works you will never be able to grasp how very wrong you are across the board.
And the first assumption you have is that there is a god.
I don't assume there is something that there is no evidence of.
Do you assume that there is Leprechaun living in your ear?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 13, 2009 2:33 PM
Alan just doesn't get it. His continued religous discourse just shows how wrong he is. Alan, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientific papers showing evolution is correct. None that show any other theory to be correct. They cannot be negated except by other science papers. Fail again.
His bible may be meaningful to him, but not to science, who ignores it, and us, who belief it to be a work of fiction.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 13, 2009 2:34 PM
Alan Clarke's Bible Babble:
So, Alan, your god is a liar. A fraud. A spreader of delusion and untruth. A bearer of false witness. And a hypocrite. Even if such a being were real, how could it possibly be worthy of worship?
Of course, your imaginary friend isn't real, and you have not even come close to offering the slightest speck of evidence that it is. Nor will you ever. Not surprising that you worship an imagianry hypocritical liar. You've created your god in your own image.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 13, 2009 2:45 PM
waaaaaaaiiiit a minute...
I thought wind was the breath of Zephyrs or something like that...or, no, that bearded dude with puffy cheeks on the old maps. Ha! What about those evidences, you infidels? Old maps!
checkmate.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 2:53 PM
No, I think that hating your parents and families just so that you can be Christian is wrong. Sorry, I just plain disagree with Jesus there.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 2:57 PM
Yes the god of the bible certainly is worthy of your worship Alan. He just loves babies. "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. Deut. 28:53 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children. Ezk 9:6
And when your wife is in labor Alan, remember god wants her screaming in agony, Genesis 3:16.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 2:59 PM
God Swallows?
too much?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 3:00 PM
So God isn't just a mob boss who tortures and kills people, but is also a con man. Hey, I guess you're happy worshiping a murderer and a liar.
But that does say something rather unpleasant about you.
Posted by: TonyC | February 13, 2009 3:11 PM
Alan
How do you know that the delusions are being sent to us, and the lie is science?
Personally I think the delusion is Christianity and your (Xian) behavior demonstrates the lie.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 13, 2009 3:18 PM
"Stepping aside from this analogy, what is the first false assumption made by practically everyone on this forum? ”THERE IS NO GOD”"
Show us it's false. Show me that there really IS a dragon in my garage. No fair claiming that it's invisible or disappears when I go out there to check.
"I've never been one for blind faith."
Ennis 12:2
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 3:22 PM
that right there is solid proof that you've got no flaming clue how science works. science tests its theories not by accumulating evidence that can be used to support it, but by testing it in ways that could prove it wrong. and how do we test your silly little "wind is made by trees" idea? by growing an indoor orchard. if during a 20 year study the orchard fails to produce wind, wind is not produced by moving leaves. it's called falsifiability, and works by removing all external variables to test a specific claimyou fail.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 3:28 PM
another massive fail."there is no god" is a conclusion. remember all those creationist scientists you quoted a while back? the evidence lead scientists to ditch God as an explanation, because there was no evidence to support it, while the evidence for a fully natural explanation was abundant
also, you keep forgetting that most of us were christians once. Evidence lead us to conclude that there is no god.
you've got your thinking ass-backwards. you're the one viciously trying to fit evidence to a conclusion, we're the ones trying to make a conclusion from available evidence (and even making tests to see if we can prove our conclusions wrong)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 13, 2009 3:29 PM
Hmmm... Alan, are you aware that some wind on Mars cleaned some of the dust off the rover Spirit recently? They know because more light was getting through to the solar panels. Another lie exposed.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 3:30 PM
Yeah, but if he thought too hard about falsifiability, he would realize that God is either already falsified, or unfalsifiable (depending on the claims made about God), and then his head might explode.
It's better for his health all around if he doesn't think too hard.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 13, 2009 3:38 PM
Todd The Godbot Bacon @488:
Imagine all the people who are reading and lurking here and not posting. Think of what mean thoughts are going through their heads. There are dead people who think you’re a deluded moron.
See, from time to time a moron or two plops in here and spouts his version of some ancient text of myths to somehow prove his version of some ancient text of myths. While sometimes funny it does get boring as all fuck.
I believe Groucho Marx said it best and it definitely applies to you and Alan Clarke:
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 3:38 PM
Oh, and I just realized that Alan contradicted his own theology!
@#354:
@#497:
In other words, mans failings are his own, and God deliberately causes failings in man.
MegaFAIL.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 3:55 PM
OK Chimpy, you win.
EEEEWWWWW!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 13, 2009 3:56 PM
One major difference between most goddists and most atheists is that the atheists don't have a need to believe in god. There isn't a void in our lives that cries out to be filled by a petulant, sadistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old.
Your pet deity is the one who sends bears out to maul 42 children because they laughed at the Prophet Enoch's baldness. I can hear Enoch whining: "Lord, those kids are being snotty to me, time to do some smiting." It certainly appears that omniscience, omnipotence, and various other omnis do not a mature divine being make.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 13, 2009 4:02 PM
That could have been a squeegee-Martian. Maybe it's where all those guys went when Rudy cleaned up NY NY.Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 13, 2009 4:05 PM
That Thessalonians quote is famous for use in debates about biblical contradictions.
My favorite is: Thou shalt not bear false witness. Ex 20:16
Then god hauls off and sends strong delusions. Niiice.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 4:11 PM
I was about to counter that with Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi, but then I realized I was talking about a different god. and if it's not from the bible, it's not true anyway :-pPosted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 4:14 PM
hmmm.... good thing i didn't make fun of the reverend for his c/p fail in the "I get mail" thread!
Take two:
I was about to counter that with Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi, but then I realized I was talking about a different god. and if it's not from the bible, it's not true anyway :-p
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 4:18 PM
Bah, I probably deserved it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 13, 2009 4:20 PM
*cough*. Actually, that was the Prophet Elisha.
But still, the point stands.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 13, 2009 4:21 PM
that may be so, but it would make ME look like an even bigger idiot, now that i've done exactly the same ;-)
Posted by: MartinM
|
February 13, 2009 6:58 PM
And yet there are plenty of theists who accept evolution. Were you to visit the biology departments of major Universities, you'd have no trouble at all finding scientists who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu...pick a faith, you'll find it. And they'll all tell you the same thing; that evolution is supported by a mountain of empirical evidence. Who accepts creationism? Fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalist Muslims. And the occasional Orthodox Jew. Yes, there's ideology driving one side, but it isn't ours. Is projection all you've got?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 13, 2009 7:03 PM
I miss Alan Clarke and Todd (I refuse to use bacon as his last name in fear of sullying that wondrous of all pork products) INSERT LAST NAME HERE
Alan PLEASE COME BACK AND TELL US ALL ABOUT MOON DUST PROVING A YOUNG EARTH.
Posted by: E.V. | February 13, 2009 7:07 PM
Why do I feel that Todd Bacon is a sock puppet, Alan?
Posted by: windy | February 13, 2009 7:55 PM
My favorite is: Thou shalt not bear false witness. Ex 20:16 Then god hauls off and sends strong delusions. Niiice.
"whoever says, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of Hell fire." -Jesus
"But God said unto him, Thou fool" -Luke
"You fools and blind men!" -Jesus
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 6:50 AM
Are you serious? I described a method in which you can answer the question for yourself (i.e. Gideon said to God, "If you will …). As far as I can tell, no one has tried as evidenced by the numerous mockings. I don’t really expect anyone to publicly report success on the forum because this would admit defeat. (success = defeat??) What I am expecting is for a few to call upon God privately in a SERIOUS tone when a crisis arrives in their life. Let’s face it. God is not going to reveal his inner person to a mocker any more than a wife would reveal herself to an abusive and mocking husband. The ball is in your court.Posted by: clinteas | February 14, 2009 6:54 AM
You Sir,are one fucked up individual.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 14, 2009 7:00 AM
did he just seriously try to explain talking to god to Patricia...?
and couldn't he have waited another 10 minutes with this post? i was so close to actually getting some sleep tonight *sigh*
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 7:02 AM
What theories are helping petroleum geologists to find oil? It’s not old-earth uniformitarian theories of continental drift & sea-floor spreading:
Oil is found where uniformitarian theory says it shouldn’t:
Read full abstract here.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 7:04 AM
Please correct your “we know” to “we assume”. The layers could be the same age and sorted hydrologically if there was a global flood.Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 7:06 AM
Translation: “Do not quote from a website that is invalidated by my website.”
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 14, 2009 7:08 AM
ergo, you fail.Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 7:09 AM
Removing the trees from their natural ecosystem will undoubtedly stop their leaves from flapping since the indoor orchard can’t duplicate the incalculable number of variables that the Earth’s ecosystem provides. If no wind is produced after 20 years, it will be because the leaves never flapped.
How will you remove “all external variables” to test that evolution actually occurs?
Posted by: clinteas | February 14, 2009 7:10 AM
Alan Clarke,
you are one braindead individual.....Please move on
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 14, 2009 7:10 AM
fixed that for ya.Posted by: clinteas | February 14, 2009 7:13 AM
Jadehawk,
as the resident doc here,I order you to go to bed and get some rest now....
( and I should bloody hell do the same,got to get up and save lifes in way too few hours time lol)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 14, 2009 7:15 AM
oh, I don't know, maybe the way this guy did?please do try to have a thought that hasn't been debunked already
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 14, 2009 7:18 AM
but... but... *whinge*oh ok...
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 14, 2009 7:19 AM
The layers could be the same age and sorted hydrologically if there was a global flood. Alan Clarke
You contemptible, pitiful, halfwit. The fact that the major geological strata were laid down over an immense period of time, and not by a global flood, was firmly established well before the first scientifically developed theory of evolution was published by Darwin. It was established, in fact, by scientists who were Christians, who believed in the fixity of species, and many of whom initially believed they would find evidence of a flood. Being honest scientists, most of these came to accept that the evidence was clear, and that it refuted this belief utterly and completely. They would have held you in as much contempt as I do.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 7:35 AM
Copying & pasting your refutations leave you looking like an automated phone system that has no ability to direct one's call.
You are misinterpreting my use of "hydrologic sorting".
Hydrologic: the effects of water on the Earth's surface.
Sorting: the order that the soil and rocks are placed.
The water I am speaking of is the global flood. How would a catastrophic global flood "place" the soil and rocks? It would place it randomly and "jumbled" up. In other words, Kel's assumption of, "we know that one layer must be older than the layer above it" is wrong.
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 14, 2009 7:39 AM
BTW, Alan Clarke, did you notice the date on that abstact you linked to? 1969. Do you have anything more recent? I thought not. Science moves on you know, and plate tectonics is as firmly established as the periodic table. Meyerhoff was one of the last holdouts - a sad relic of refuted ideas. No wonder you feel a kinship with him - although of course he'd have laughed at your ludicrous fantasies of a global flood.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 7:48 AM
Patricia, notice the verse says, “Happy shall he be…” Who is he? If it is God, shouldn’t the verse read, “I will be happy…”? Nevertheless, I can see you are disgusted with an act of injustice performed against an innocent child. Or is your anger directed more at God? Who are you more concerned about? Where are your energies most directed?
1) Pitying defenseless children
2) Anger toward a disgusting God
3) Pity for yourself (you’re mistreated, misunderstood, and disadvantaged)
Test yourself. How disgusted are you of this recent botched abortion in Miami where the baby was born alive then killed? "Ms Williams' lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Ms Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Ms Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic bio-hazard bag and threw it out."
Or is it the person performing the action that is the most disgusting? As the verse says, “Happy shall he be that…” Just look at the smiling happy faces.
Is God to be blamed for the above? Isn’t God directing the Christians to act against this?
Posted by: Anton Mates | February 14, 2009 7:53 AM
That's pretty much the exact opposite of what "hydrologic sorting" means.
Even most creationists are aware that rock layers and fossil types are, in general, not placed randomly and jumbled up. "Hydrologic sorting" is the hypothesis they propose to explain this, a competitor to the mainstream geological explanation that the layers are ordered by time of deposition.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 14, 2009 8:02 AM
I see our fuckwit Alan still thinks the bible is not a work of fiction. We can't fix your delusions Alan, but we will correct your science. You have nothing of scientific nature to offer, and your lies about the bible are ludicrous. Time for you to move on. Your continuing attempts to testify are boring.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 8:11 AM
Allow me to point out a problem with your logic: The abstract states the that oil discoveries where made in 1968 in locations that weaken unifomritarian theories. Since when did older discovery dates make a find less credible? The 1968 finding was a problem for uniformitarianists then, and it is a problem now.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 14, 2009 8:20 AM
Alan, go away. You are in over your head. Save yourself some embarrassment, which is coming.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 9:04 AM
Thanks for your honest attempt: two separate places
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 14, 2009 9:24 AM
That's what? A mile away? A fucking MILE! Alan, you're getting ridiculous now trying to prop up your favorite bit of fiction.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced that your silliness about "Babylon isn't inhabited" is true. Better luck next time.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 14, 2009 9:54 AM
Alan, have you watched Bible's Buried Secrets yet? It tells how the first five books of the bible were put together. Watch it before you post here again.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 11:16 AM
Jadehawk: I found the hidden caveat emptor of your link to Richard Lenski's "Experimental Evolution" here: “Relative fitness is a dimensionless quantity, which is calculated as the ratio of the growth rate of the derived type to its ancestral competitor during direct competition.”
Here is why his “evolution” is “nowhere”: If something has a “faster growth rate” than its ancestor, does that mean it is more viable? No. If I wind a clock too tightly and it runs faster than all other clocks, does that mean it is more viable? The main spring will probably wear out more quickly. Evolution must gain useful INFORMATION. Where is any information gained in Lenski’s experiment?
Your statement that Lenski has “removed all external variables” is not theoretically possible.
I asked someone previously to provide an electron microscope scan of something that gained useful information, not a quantitative difference. We need a “new component”! Can someone please direct me to the link on this forum if someone has already posted it?
Actually, I was keen to Lenski’s supposed “evolution” on this post last year.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 14, 2009 11:21 AM
Alan, its getting obvious you have no real point. You are too deluded and stupid to discuss the science in a scientific manner. Your attempts to make science look bad are childish and in vain. Now run along and help your wife. You will accomplish nothing with further posts.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 14, 2009 11:31 AM
Alan, you freakin' dope, relative growth rate was used as a fitness measurement because the different bacterial phenotypes were pitted together in a competition for limited resources. It's not analogous to clocks at all.
I'm not sure what you would accept as a new structure or increase in information, but how about the new gut valve in Podarcis lizards? Look it up.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2009 11:57 AM
Oh, yes I did. It's right up there in comment #442.
Been there, done that, got no answer. No answer means there's no one there to answer.
You mean like the way that you mock God by comparing him to a wife? (A wife is supposed to submit to her husband. Colossians 3:18, moron.)
You mean like the way that you mock God by asserting that his feelings are easily hurt and he becomes sullen?
You mean like the way that you mock God by violating his commandment against giving false testimony?
You claimed that you developed a relationship where you can address God directly and get answers.
I offered a pathetically simple empirical way to test this.
You didn't even bother answering.
Ergo, you were lying, and not just lying, but literally bearing false witness. God does not give you direct answers.
Yes, and that's how we now that a catastrophic global flood never happened. Because there is no global layer of randomized flood sediment.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 12:04 PM
I interpret your two question marks as two questions (or two time wasters). There's no need to live in darkness since Google conveniently provided a distance legend at the bottom left corner of my original "Uninhabited Babylon" post. You seem to be infatuated with making Babylon a nice place to live despite the fact that God cursed it. Be my guest. There's a little hole carved in the mud that you might find comfy. View Here What's one man's dump is another man's palace!Posted by: Damian | February 14, 2009 12:06 PM
Alan, Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island.
There are thousands of examples like this.
Look, we know what your game is, sonny jim. There is literally nothing that we could show to you that would count as evolution. Seriously. In your mind, having to accept that life has evolved would destroy almost everything that you believe in. How likely is it, then, that you are going to allow that to happen?
Of course, you couldn't be more wrong, but you would almost certainly have to modify your beliefs, and I can understand how even that would scare the crap out of you. But you need to remember that, if we are right and life on earth has evolved pretty much as the scientific community has described (thus far), you are not only missing out on understanding His method of creation, but denying Him the glory.
If, as many people believe, everything is within God's control, then so too is randomness, chance, and all of the other things that you rail against. You need to make a decision, Alan. Does God decide which side of a coin falls face up, and which lot is drawn, or doesn't he? If he does, then what we consider to be random is entirely within God's purview. If not, you need to decide what exactly is God's role in the universe and stick with it. It is not, after all, for you to decide, arbitrarily.
This is a problem with your own theology, Alan, not with reality. As Deacon over at Evangelical Realism always says, the truth is consistent with itself.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 14, 2009 12:38 PM
Thanks Damian, I'll read up on it when I get some time.
But as expected, I like reading both views:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/life-designed-to-adapt
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 14, 2009 12:45 PM
AIG isn't science. To say so, is an damn lie.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2009 12:48 PM
Which, I note, repeats the question I asked @#223. Alan was unable to answer. Roger S said that no, he thinks we have free will, but then Alan posted that quote from 2 Thessalonians which says that not only does God not allow us free will, but goes so far as to deliberately force us to "believe a lie". And Todd Bacon posted the quote from 2 Corinthians that confirms the assertion that God deliberately lies to us.
All of which makes me wonder what Alan is doing spewing common creationist claims here. Alan, you think that God is forcing us to not believe in him. Who the hell are you to go against the will of the God that you claim to believe exists?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 14, 2009 12:58 PM
Alan, AIG is a joke. It is not science it is only apologetics.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 14, 2009 1:09 PM
Alan,
AiG is a fucking joke. They don't even allow comments on their articles or blogs. This despite the fact that many of their own readers have requested such a function.
Don't you find it ironic that here on an atheist blog your dissenting opinions are heard while on that Christian Apologetics site not only is dissent not tolerated but even those who agree can't be heard?
Posted by: E.V. | February 14, 2009 1:19 PM
I see the pig singing lessons are still proceeding.
Posted by: Damian | February 14, 2009 1:22 PM
Indeed, and that's the source of your problem, Alan. You have no way of differentiating between what is good science, and bad, or what is even science at all. You appear to rely solely on authority, instead.
Anyway, they have essentially admitted that the Lizard has evolved a novel structure. That's terrific, it really is. It's only taken several decades for us to get them to admit that.
I'm not really seeing where the science is, though. That whole article consists of hand-waving, knowing full well that they can no longer deny that novel structures can evolve.
Now, explain why those changes — admitted to even by that monument to anti-science, AIG — cannot continue to accumulate, up-to-and-including the point where an organism is no longer recognizable? In other words, what is preventing it from happening?
Without explaining that, Alan, you have no basis for denying that it can happen — and indeed, does — and thus, you have pretty much just conceded the argument.
Damn, you were just too eager for your own good.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 14, 2009 1:39 PM
Alan sounds like someone who may have spent a little too much of his life behind a bible. Recently, he has spent way too much time at AiG or some place with a similar simple reputation. Since learning to be a skeptic at AiG over the past few months he has decided to plop over here and question reality. Not only won’t he do his own research into many of the matters he has questions about he assumes his witnessing and testifying here will convince at least one of us to begin speaking to his version of his god.
Alan, your ignorance appears to know no bounds. Is there anything you do well besides spouting South Park quotes or whatever the fuck that notated crap is?
Massive FAIL Alan.
Your inability to accept your failure is a sign of mental illness and stubbornness. Stop acting like a child, put down your bible, and watch patiently and quietly. That, everything going on around you, all that unpleasantness, confusing and obnoxious stuff going on around you, that’s reality. Get used to it or cover yourself up in your delusions and please try not to disturb those around you.
There are many times when I wish there really was a filter at the ISP level to remove morons from the online world so that they would be limited to sputtering their nonsense on their own streets and only bother the poor locals.
Alan, when you speak your ideas to others in real life do they nod and mumble “uh huh” a lot? Here’s a clue for you: they aren’t agreeing with you – they think you’re a delusional crank and just about crazy enough that you might hurt them if they disagreed or called you on your bullshit in person. Here online you have been called on your bullshit many times on every subject and yet your major source for rebuttal appears to be a combination of your own stubbornness and an ability to quote South Park or whatever that crap is. The things you don’t know about the things you think you know would fill a library.
Adios muchacho, my dog needs a walk. Hey look, my dog can lick his balls. Can your god do that? I and my dog scoff at your god. Now I think he's doing his Holy Grail impersonation - there was a bark then a growl, then something about waving his freshly moistened testicles in the general direction of your god. I second that.
Posted by: RogerS | February 14, 2009 1:51 PM
Sorry for the delay,
I do appreciate you providing exceptions to look at. I did like learning about the latest research.
Comments:
Orchid hybrids-
Question: Is there any new science here other than what farmers are doing in cross-breeding varieties of corn? Please excuse my weakness on the subject.
Apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella speciation-
I see we have flies with genetic maturing time differences and dividing into 2 food preferences, hawthorn & apple. I also have genetic differences with blacks and I prefer different foods, that doesn’t make me a different species does it?
African Cichlid-
Looks like color sensing chemicals differences in the fish’s eye causing different red & blue sensitivity. I personally attribute my greater sensitivity to light compared to my wife is my light blue eyes compared to her beautiful dark eyes. I may be wrong but have discounted dilation and rhodopsin production. I also noticed that people with different genes than myself also prefer wearing purple to attract a mate, but that’s ok, we are all brothers and sisters from Mitochondrial Eve, right?
Conclusion:
So out of over 1,500,000 species we are reduced to looking at a yield of 3 curiosities: flowers producing flowers, flies producing flies, and fish producing fish.
- I just don’t get the enthusiasm, must be missing the evolutional trend here. It doesn’t look like a good theory to invest in from a business standpoint (unless Gov't funded).
Posted by: Steve_C | February 14, 2009 2:02 PM
What an idiot.
Posted by: Iain Walker | February 14, 2009 2:09 PM
Alan Clarke (#529):
I.e., when they're liable to be in a highly emotional state, less likely to analyse carefully, and most likely to be prone to wishful thinking and all manner of cognitive biases.
Yes, Alan, I imagine that's exactly what you're hoping for. It would never do for people to conduct the test while they're actually capable of thinking critically.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 14, 2009 2:27 PM
Alan - Your answers to me are typical fundie bullshit that equals nothing. You have no idea how many times we have had the same tired rerun. There are no converts here for you. I was a much better true christian than you are. At least when I saw peoples eyes glaze over I would quit. *HINT*
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2009 2:31 PM
But they are, in fact, examples of speciation. What do you think, that we should provide you with examples of flies producing beetles, or beagles? Fish producing frogs? That isn't what evolution predicts will happen in human timespans.
Getting from fish to amphibians took millions of years. That transition is recorded in fossils, as well as in the DNA of living fish and living amphibians: We can compare them and see both the similarities and differences that demonstrate common ancestry.
A couple of simple questions for all you evolution deniers: It's been pointed out that there are biologists who do accept evolution and common descent, and explain it within the framework of believing in God. Would you read book(s) by these biologists that explain why evolution is real? If not, why or why not? If you read the book(s), would you accept that believing the scientific consensus on the age of the earth and the evolution of life could in some way work with believing in God? If not, why not?
Posted by: Walton | February 14, 2009 2:42 PM
'Tis Himself: One major difference between most goddists and most atheists is that the atheists don't have a need to believe in god.
That's my problem - I do have a very compelling emotional need to believe in God, but on a strictly rational, intellectual basis I can't do so. Which is why my comments about religion sometimes seem confused and incoherent; I have no idea what I actually believe, and change my mind from day to day. I have no doubt that theists and atheists alike, reading this, probably consider me a weak-minded fool. But I can't help it.
Posted by: Iain Walker | February 14, 2009 2:44 PM
Alan Clarke (#553):
Wrong. Evolution by natural selection can occur with an increase in genetic information, a decrease or with no overall change. The quantity of information embodied in a genome (by whatever metric you choose to use) has nothing to do with the utility to the organism of any changes in that quantity. Insertion and duplication mutations (which tend to increase the amount of information) can be harmful, and deletion mutations (which tend to decrease the amount of information) can be beneficial - e.g., the CCR5-Delta32 deletion that confers partial immunity to HIV.
Of course, I'm using the term "information" very loosely here (although not as loosely as you, since you show no indication of understanding what the term actually means). No doubt someone else could explain the finer points of information theory to you in the necessary detail, although on past evidence I doubt that the attempt to educate you would be worth the effort.
Posted by: E.V. | February 14, 2009 2:49 PM
The old "no atheists in foxholes" idiocy. You're such a child.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 14, 2009 3:11 PM
amazing. Alan not only fails at science, he fails at English, too.
you do not know what the terms "sorting" "information" "component" "viability" and "growth rate" mean. either you've got the reading comprehension skills of a 7 year old, or are so deep in denial, Eqypt is about to grant you citizenship.
i'll make a deal with you. you'll stop giving canned arguments, i'll stop giving canned answers.though, the fact that you can't even get you own side's story right makes you an extra special kind of stupid. here's a hint: when something is "sorted" it cannot be "jumbled"; those are opposites.
a clock can never be viable on account of it's not alive, you dolt
the bacteria acquired(!) a new skill though mutation and natural selection. WTF do you think "information" is? and it's not only theoretically possible that he removed all external variables, it was practically achieved. your denial of this is meaningless.
oh yeah. you also don't know what "quantitative" means. the difference I've shown you was qualitative. under an electron microscope, you'd be only able to see quantitative differences if gene addition happened, otherwise nothing. you fail basic genetics.oh yeah, and as a bonus:
Tyre, Lebanon. looks like it was build again, after all.
I'm sure you can come up with some hand-waving bullshit why it's ok for this prophecy to fail utterly, but your babylon one is (temporarily) being (almost) fulfilled. here's my take on it: even a stopped clock...
and I'll note that you STILL haven't addressed the existence of civilizations that blithely continue to exist right through your supposed global flood, languages and scripts that existed before the Tower of Babel was built, living plants that are older than 6000 years, or the conundrum of the radioactive Garden of Eden, or the conundrum of non-radioactive dating methods being wrong in such a way as to coincide with the wrongness of radioactive-decay rating methods (a rather massive coincidence, and you don't believe in coincidences, do you?)
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 14, 2009 3:34 PM
Alan Clarke @ #529:
So, in addition to your god being a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite, it's also a scavenger, a carrion eater, a cowardly predatory bastard who takes advantage of the helpless and downtrodden. Primary sources of followers are children too young to think for themselves, and people driven mad by horrible circumstances beyond their control. Your god is a ghoul. A con artist who steals from those down on their luck. Little more than a child molester.
And again you offer not the slightest speck of evidence that such a being exists! Why would you WANT such a monster to be real? What kind of lowlife scum are you that you would willingly serve such a foul thing? How horribly brainwashed do you have to be to think such a thing is actually good?
If your god were real, it would be a monster. Lucky for all of us, it isn't real. If you disagree with this analysis, you could try offering the slightest speck of evidence to support your claims. But we all know you're incapable of that.
Posted by: E.V. | February 14, 2009 3:47 PM
And after the final thrust, Jadehawk walked to the sink and began to rinse the the blood off her finely honed stiletto.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 14, 2009 4:09 PM
You don't need a god, you need a mother. No, I am not being facetious.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2009 4:49 PM
Alan Clarke began his cascade of Epic Fail @#105 by stating that:
Note, by the way, that the verse contradicts the Nicene Creed, saying: "the sons of God". It can also been seen as contradicting the monotheism the bible is supposed to espouse; the phrase "בני האלהים" is more literally "the sons of the God", but "God" is "Elohim", a word which appears as being plural (but usually used in the singular when referring to the God of Israel). The phrase can just as easily be read as "the sons of the Gods".
The Hebrew terms "נפילים" (nephilim) and "גברים" (giborim) are both translated in the LXX as "γιγαντες", (gigantes); giants. But that latter Hebrew term should definitely be "heroes"; "mighty men" in the KJV is probably OK. "Nephilim" is harder to get an accurate sense of; "fallen ones" is suggested because of the closeness of the word to the common Hebrew term that means "fallen": "nafal". Note that the term appears again in Numbers 13:33, in reference to the spies saying that they saw the Nephilim (again translating in the LXX as γιγαντες), "sons (or "children") of Anak" — but "anak" is the common Hebrew term for "giant", and in some cases, "בני" ("bene") can have a more poetic/abstract sense of "deriving from". ¹
So who were all these giants; heroes; "mighty men"? Well... here's an interesting hypothesis. It is based on the simple fact that Alan is quite wrong in saying that the bible predates fossil discoveries.
There are places where fossils simply appear due to the earth shifting for various reasons. In the Gobi desert, Protoceratops and Psittacosaurus bones are eroded from hills and cliffs by the ferocious scouring of sandstorms, and have been for thousands of years; it is suggested that these are the source of the legend of the griffins, which were reported as living in the exact same area, guarding the gold that is to be found there. In the Mediterranean, storms and earthquakes can erode cliffs and hills, exposing Neogene and Pleistocene fossils of elephant-related Proboscidea (various mammoths and mastodons), the giant giraffe Samotherium, cave bears, and other large mammals.
Josephus wrote in Jewish Antiquities 5.2.3. that in the area around Hebron (Israel), the early Israelites wiped out "a race of giants, who had bodies so large and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men."
Now "unlike to any credible relations of other men" suggests something genuinely strange. Not just large, but obviously different from human bones.
Once we take into account that fossils of giant animals were and are in the earth throughout the Mediterranean, and these fossils can simply erode out over time, the stories of giants in the bible, especially in the fable of the spies in Numbers 13, begin to make more sense: The ancient Israelites found these fossils and created stories about them as being the sons of the Gods and men; the original inhabitants of the land of Canaan who were fought and killed by the ancestors of the Israelites themselves.
I've picked this up from reading the first chapters (and skipping a bit to find the parts about Israel) in The First Fossil Hunters, by Adrienne Mayor. She is not the first to suggest that the monsters of myth were actually fossils found by various peoples, but this is a good popular treatment of the subject. Note that she does not actually make the inference that this was the case for all myths; she tracked down references to giant bones in the Greek and Roman classical literature and correlated them with the latest known palaeontological findings. While she references the myth of the griffins and the myth of Andromeda (chained near Joppa, also in Israel) and the myth of Cyclops being a misinterpreted mammoth or mastadon skeleton, and possibly some others which I have yet to read, the specific correlation of the giants in the bible with fossils is my own interpolation, via her citation of Josephus' description of the giant bones of Hebron.
Still, I think it quite plausible that most (or even all) of the stories of giants and giant monsters all around the world may well derive from preliterate findings of millions-years-old fossils.
__________________________________________________________
1: Consider the English phrase "son of the desert" (Arabic "ابن الصحراء", "Ibn al-Sahraa"). Another example in Hebrew is the common name "Ben-yamin", meaning literally "son of the right (hand)" (or "south", because when facing east, the south is on the right). An example in Aramaic is "Bar Kochba"; "son of a star".
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 14, 2009 5:02 PM
Or anti-anxiety medication. Or anti-depressants, perhaps.
I could probably use something for my SIWOTI syndrome.
Posted by: E.V. | February 14, 2009 5:09 PM
What?!! And spare us the pleasure of reading you? Your syndrome is our entertainment (and edification).Posted by: RogerS | February 15, 2009 2:01 AM
So what is the main cause, local FLOODS or the slow building of layers by dying vegetation in bogs resulting in DECAY and not preservation? The local flood pitch is a bit of a sale, but the same sale to explain evidences over the whole globe? The waffling or recalibrating I have come across of late smacks of gamesmanship, but I may be wrong.
I found the exurpts from the following link very compelling with sound logic for the topic above.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
"A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe...
For fossilization to occur, burial or some other form of preservation must be fairly rapid in order to protect the remains from significant scavenging and/or decay.
As far as the fossilized bones of large animals, such as the dinosaurs and large mammals, they are also generally oriented in the same direction for any given layer, and this is true the world over. Did these animals position themselves in the same direction as they died? This does not really sound too likely. Even the legs and tails of these animals are oriented in the same direction for a given sedimentary layer. How does this happen?
There are so many other features of the geologic column and fossil record that seem just as difficult, if not more so, for the notion that very long periods of time are represented. For example, it seems that many land animals, excluding birds and mammals, do not generally have their footprints located in the same layer in which their bodies are found, but in lower layers.56 Did the footprints evolve before they did? --That's it, Regards
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 15, 2009 3:50 AM
all fossils point it one direction? are you confusing graphics with the real deal, or what!? most the fossils i've seen were of severely contorted individuals that didn't always point any which way at all, or even have their bonesspread out over a pretty large area.
as for the rest, i don't know why I have to do your homework, but here it is
also, if a global catastrophe caused fossilisation (rather than personal mini disasters), a far larger percentage of formerly existing critters would have been preserved, since they would have ALL suffered from the same rapid-burial conditions.also, i'd like some citation on that "critters leave footprints in layers older than they are", because all i can think of with such meager info is "he's surprised that critters make footprints in already existing ground, not in the ground that will form after they die...?"
lastly, fossil LAYERS are formed in different ways depending on what the substance is; a lot of it is compressed topsoil, calcification (the shit you need to clean off your faucet) sediment stone etc. in any case, it's all indicative of slow, periodical development, not one massive event. unless you're saying god was in an artistic phase during the flood and felt like stripes when he was making those. (incidentally, having been in those particular hills during rainy weather and seen the effect water has on them: how do you explain mountains of soft clay? shouldn't they have all turned to a muddled goo-puddle and dried as relatively flat from complete and long-term inundation?)
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 15, 2009 4:23 AM
Well, duh. And of course, only if the catastrophe is supported by evidence — which is and was found by the geologists and paleontologists themselves.
Picking out one particularly discordant honk in a cacophonous symphony of FAIL:
Where the hell did you get this from? I'm absolutely certain that it's not in any book on palaeontology, and I don't see why even the dumbest flood geologist would suggest it. How would orientation in the "same direction" be consistent with a global flood?
Unless, of course, it wasn't from a flood geologist, but rather from a flood pulling-it-all-out-of-his-ass-ologist.
Posted by: windy | February 15, 2009 4:27 AM
What, when you just told us that this God is as shy as an abused housewife? Is that the type I want to call upon in a crisis? Unless the crisis is that I need a sandwich so God should shut up and make me one.
Posted by: Iain Walker | February 15, 2009 9:27 AM
RogerS (#582):
Given that local floods occur all over the globe, it's hardly a sale. In any case, many coal deposits were formed in coastal plains subject to periodic inundation by the sea as sea levels fluctuated, so it's not necessary to postulate local flooding of the catastrophic variety.
Supposing this were true (it isn't, but let's pretend), then it would be just as big a puzzle for the flood "model" as for mainstream geology. Fluid dynamics tend to the chaotic, and a global flood occurring in such a ridiculously short timescale even more so. Given such a flood, one would actually expect fossil skeletons to be arranged higglety-pigglety.
Another imaginary creationist "fact". Generally one can't identify the species that made a track from the track alone - one has to look at the fossil fauna from the same or contemporary strata and then infer the most likely candidate (e.g., particularly large theropod prints from the late Cretaceous in North America? Probably a T. rex). And even then, one can often only say "the track was made by an animal like such-and-such". I.e., identifying tracks is not something one can do independently of one's knowledge of what the available candidates are, and the available candidates are those preserved in the same or surrounding layers. So your claim makes precious little sense.
More importantly, the fact that surface features like animal tracks are found throughout the geological column is itself a conclusive falsification of the flood "hypothesis". These are not features that could have formed underwater in conditions of rapid and chaotic deposition. I can wander into Cambridge University's Sedgwick Museum any day of the week and see terrestrial surface features like cracked sun-dried mud and the imprints of rain-drops dating from the Permian. Any semi-comprehensive geological museum has materials like these - geological specimens that are completely incompatible with a global flood.
Posted by: David Godfrey | February 15, 2009 11:13 AM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned- but completely invalidates the idea that a single flood is responsible for all the sedimentary strata are angular nconformities.
How can a flood that took a year account for layers of rock that were deposited, solidified, uplifted, tilted, eroded- and then had another layer of rock deposited on top? This makes absolutely no sense in this context- but if we allow the world to be millions of years old this kind of thing is expected.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 15, 2009 11:49 AM
I'd just like to interrupt to point out for the record that this was one big-ass motherfucking snake!!!!
Please, carry on now with the scholarly discussion of biblical-flood geology. *eyes rolling almost painfully*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 15, 2009 11:58 AM
Jebus, AC didn't appear until around post #100, and here we are approaching 600 due to his denseness. Sigh.Posted by: Owlmirror | February 15, 2009 4:15 PM
The ridiculously pathetic "all fossils in same orientation" assertion didn't just bother me for its brain-exploding stupidity, but because after thinking about it, it seemed to me that I had seen something like it here on Pharyngula before. So I finally broke down and Googled, and found this hilarious gem:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/if_youve_ever_been_tempted_to.php
( see also funny comments )
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 15, 2009 4:58 PM
I knew that the flood proponents were deeply ignorant -- for example, why are terrestrial layers ever found on top of marine ones, such as the Hell Creek Formation (the one with Tyrannosaurus in it) on top of the Bearpaw Formation? And why is that sometimes repeated several times over? And why do phenomena like fining-upward exist? Why is that repeated (as I've seen with my own eyes -- several storm-induced layers on top of each other)? Why do things like limestone or salt or gypsum deposits exist at fucking all?
But I didn't know that they make stuff up, too -- and such ridiculous stuff! All body and trace fossils pointing in the same direction -- I've seen the disproof of this with my own eyes! MORONS!!!
Miscellanea:
-- Back in comment 161 -- that's right: one hundred sixty-one --, I told Alan to read this and come back. He didn't read it, but came back anyway. I conclude he's afraid he could learn something! Shame on him.
-- Oil doesn't require ocean floors to form, and it doesn't necessarily stay where it forms. Heat and pressure can make it go elsewhere. Find me Triassic ocean floor in the Atlantic, and then we can talk about problems with plate tectonics.
-- Creationists copying & pasting from AiG, and then complaining when other people copy & paste from the Index of Creationist Claims, are among the dumbest of hypocrites.
-- Yes, global catastrophes do happen. Plural. There's the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary mass extinction, the Late Ordovician mass extinction, the Frasnian-Famennian boundary mass extinction, the Devonian-Carboniferous (Famennian-Tournaisian) boundary mass extinction, the Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction (the biggest of all), the Olenekian-Induan boundary mass extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic boundary mass extinction, the Early-Middle Jurassic boundary mass extinction, the (roughly) Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary mass extinction, the Aptian-Albian boundary mass extinction, the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary mass extinction, the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary mass extinction, the Eocene-Oligocene boundary mass extinction, the middle Miocene mass extinction, and so on... Some places, like Gubbio in Italy, preserve two or more of these on top of each other in the same section.
Alan and RogerS, you believe that everyone is just as ignorant as you. You believe that any piece of knowledge that you don't have does not exist. You deny Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns".
You are wrong.
Bigtime.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 15, 2009 5:04 PM
Thanks Owlmirror. I did not need to know you did a variation on a Cold War era Yakof Smirnoff joke.
But I have a question to ask of the flood proponents. They do know that the Earth is a spheroid? Are the footprints all running parallel to each other or all they running from one point or running towards a point. That statements makes no sense at all.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 15, 2009 5:05 PM
Of both, that is. I've seen dinosaur and pterosaur tracks going in all directions, and I've seen all manner of bones (mostly, but not limited to, Metoposaurus skulls) lying every which way in the ground.
Posted by: RogerS | February 15, 2009 9:58 PM
I Saw Jesus in a WD Hard Drive
[I would like to share a recent “event” in my life with all of you]
The ice storm had knocked out our power for 14 hours and I had momentary line losses days after power was restored. The server power supply fizzled which was easy to replace. These events got me stirred toward better security, wanting more than the internal server back-up drive on which my engineering services livelihood depended. So I dig out the ol’ reliable 250 GB Maxtor portable DH. The IT tech that set up my server provided two simple 2-click icon programs to run, one to “Sync Server to Maxtor” & the other vise-versa. Being too early to call my tech, I thought surely “Sync Server to Maxtor” is the right choice and ran it (unfortunately target was 1’st, source 2’nd). To my dismay, only outdated file folders appeared on the server. Heck, ran the wrong one! At that point, all concerns with an early morning call to the IT were gone. He informed me a system restore would not work, all files were not deleted but written over and non-retrievable. It was like being in the surgery waiting room and your head flushes as you see an unenthusiastic doctor approaching with bad news. We then checked the (F:) WD Hard Drive, the auto-backup had worked last night, I was recognizing recent work and folders!!! Files were soon streaming back in, work that morning was retrieved from e-mail attachments in the outlook sent box. In short time, I was fully restored, business saved, still employed.
Next morning had an unusual “text” page requiring an F4 command. Windows booted but I sensed a problem. Soon the IT tech was remotely back on and he traced it back to the (F:), sectors going out were scrolling down the screen, the WD Hard Drive was dying before my eyes! It was replaced next day, with a larger drive with more memory, pulled a noisy fan, and at last I was finally in the clear, fully running.
Conclusion:
Luke 24:24 (KJV)
"And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not."
Later I began to reflect on all the problems and stress I went through and reality began to hit hard. I realized how my current life and future was literally in the balance, it could have went either way. I messed up, took the wrong path, with one stroke of the finger I took a huge risk and lost big, really big. I thought how for years the backup WD Hard Drive was always there, quietly running in the background, unnoticed, there, but appearing useless, it performing no realized benefit or interface to my life. Considering how long it lasted was unimpressive; it may have died prematurely. However, when ALL MY ATTENTION was now focused on it, when my life’s past, present, and future were literally on the line, it came through for me BIG TIME, at the very end. It had fulfilled its purpose, it hanged on to the very end, it completed the task intended by the system designer. It restored to me all I had foolishly risked and lost. It “wrote over” my mistake and made it new again, and in this traumatic experience I am humbled, thankful, and saw a type of Jesus Christ.
I write this to you because I hope in the totality of your own life’s journey, it will not be said of you as it is said in Luke above, “but him they saw not”.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 15, 2009 10:07 PM
Yawn, a post full of nothing by RogerS, but then what can one expect from the religiously deluded. Boring Roger. Your god doesn't exist, and your bible is a work of fiction. Get with the program or go away.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 15, 2009 10:08 PM
RogerS wrote:
Was there a point in there somewhere? Because it appears to be nothing more than a poorly-written anecdote with no relevance to, well, anything - other than advice on buying decent hardware.
Posted by: Kel | February 15, 2009 10:12 PM
RogerS could really do with some formatting training. It's not that hard to learn some appropriate HTML tags.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 15, 2009 10:13 PM
RogerS @593 - are you serious????
Proof of god by software? When luke quotes harddrives god protects and recommended restore software, I'll be impressed - until then "but him, they saw not"
Another stupid proof of god through his complete lack of presence or verifiable effect. Anyway, wouldn't it be your god that caused the icestorm and drive failure?
Of course, to send the ice storm to destroy the drive to then show his recovery prowess would then destroy your whole blind faith argument by proving his existence. See how all this crap just tumbles down on your head?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 15, 2009 10:20 PM
Heartfelt, but utterly, completely meaningless.What does hard drive technology of any sort, working or not, have to do with anything being discussed here?
I mean, seriously, we're trying to explain the validity of the fossil record; the correctness of palaeontology, geology and biology; the reality of the genuine evidence for evolution and the billions-of-years-old earth and universe; in some ways, the proper way to do science itself...
What does that personal anecdote have anything to do with anything?
Gah!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 15, 2009 10:21 PM
Aren't religitards illogical. Ice storm and HD failure. Both have natural explanations, but only in the godbesotted deluded mind does such natural occurrences become acts of god. Actually, the acts were telling RogerS to shut up and stay home, but he goes against the wishes of his god by posting here. Tsk tsk.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 15, 2009 10:31 PM
Alan:
I'm telling you many people paid a lot money to have university professors give them head massages
I must have missed that when I was there.
Is it more to get the happy ending?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 15, 2009 10:31 PM
Jadehawk: Sorry about my use of “hydrologic sorting”. I should have realized that your understanding of the phrase encompasses the type of sorting that is accomplished by water of proportions and velocities that you are familiar with. I was thinking of sorting from water proportions and velocities that matched my global flood model, the one you deny even happened. How would the soil & rock distribution look after a global flood? The origins of oil and coal deposits are believed by both creationists (& non-creationists) to be from compressed plant and animal fauna which is why they are often referred to as “fossil fuels”. A coal mine can be almost 1 mile deep but this depth is limited only by the practicality of retrieving the coal. The deepest oil well is about 7.5 miles in Russia but the oil could be deeper as argued for coal. These evidences are easily supported by the Biblical flood where the highest mountain was covered by 15 cubits (22.5 feet) of water. The height of the highest mountain cannot be known for sure since the flood itself would have changed the geography to what we have today. Evolutionists and uniformitarianists are forced to invent alternate theories in order to explain the presence of coal and oil at great depths. How do plants and animals of catastrophic proportions get buried this deep? Wikipedia states: “Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment.” “Buried under heavy layers of sediment” sounds like the Biblical account but how does this happen without a flood? A lot of “little” floods? On land, when plants and animals die they decompose and turn into humus, not coal. Do local floods bury huge quantities of plants and animals in suitable quantities and depths for forming coal? I have never witnessed this phenomenon in my life time. I saw videos and photos of the recent 2004 tsunami in Indonesia but never saw such evidences. Do we need a bigger flood? In the oceans, when sea fauna dies, it too decomposes and leaves little behind. How many times have we seen nature shows which allow us to see for ourselves that the ocean depths are void of mounds of dead organic sea life accumulating for the future production of “coal”? Did bigger catastrophic tsunamis of long ago provide the mechanism?
If floods and catastrophes are needed to explain what the Bible has already stated, then why create another theory? Answer: The Biblical account must be rejected for its account of God and miracles. Unfortunately for evolutionists, another “leader” must be created with miracles that are no less improbable. Whether the “leader” is one’s self or another is debated by many. I say it is one’s self which is the “ultimate” violation of Christ’s teachings.
Luke 9:23-24 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
So, it’s all a matter of what one WANTS to “believe”. Some say, “No! I am only looking at the evidences and forming my opinions from them!” This is impossible. One must have a pre-conception before he can evaluate any evidence. A person examining fossilized bones and deciding to organize his discoveries according to color, size, and proximity shows that he holds the “belief” that color, size and proximity are the key qualitative values for organizing his discoveries. Imagine a person with no prejudices (i.e. “pre” & “judge”). Their mind is a “clean slate”. Ask that person to organize a discordant number of fossil discoveries from animals, humans, plants, extinct species, etc. When he is finished, ask him how the evidences weigh on his “beliefs” concerning his origins. Put yourself in his position. What is your CHOICE of criteria for organization? Your CHOICE will determine everything. If you still claim yourself free of prejudices before looking at the evidences, then I say you must throw everything into one big box with no order and conclude nothing. You have a CHOICE. What do you choose to BELIEVE?
All of our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling. – Blaise Pascal
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 15, 2009 10:34 PM
Still no real peer reviewed scientific evidence from AC. Alan, your bible is a work of fiction, and is not considered reliable for anything. So quoting from it just shows how stupid you are. Yawn.
Posted by: Kel | February 15, 2009 10:35 PM
You need to work on your formatting too Alan. Paragraphs are imperative in making a readable text.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 15, 2009 10:38 PM
Alan,
1) Show physical evidence that your god exists. An eternally burning bush would be nice. Failure to prove god destroys all your arguments to date.
2) Then show your bible is historically accurate. Failure to do so with positive evidence means the bible is a work of fiction.
3) Now, you can use the bible to back something up. Until then, you have nothing with god and the bible.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 15, 2009 10:42 PM
#593 filed away under "confirmation bias". FFS, "Jesus on a Toast" is more convincing.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 15, 2009 10:49 PM
#601 filed under "failure to comprehend large timescales"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 15, 2009 10:55 PM
I "believe" I'll be having dinner in a little while.actually, not even that is true. I have evidence that I will be having dinner in a little while. I guess that means I believe nothing.
Posted by: Kel | February 15, 2009 10:56 PM
The problem is that the bible doesn't explain anything that correlates with observations of the natural world. It's not that God and miracles are rejected, it's that what is written simply doesn't match up with what we've found. The cosmological and geological time scales that scientists are dealing with are in the billions, and many of those scientists believe in a deity. By positing a 6,000 year old earth, you are positing that the sciences of: cosmology, astronomy, nuclear physics, geology, palaeontology, and genetics, are not only wrong but wrong by a factor of millions. And for what Alan? For a tale with a talking snake.
If you think the millions of scientists who have worked on ageing the earth an the universe in the last century are all so inept at their job, surely you can demonstrate just how they are all so inept. Instead you just talk about salvation and quote Luke at us. Do some science damn it!
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 15, 2009 10:59 PM
Dude.
If you actually —ing well cared about —ing sediment deposition, you could —ing well go to a —ing geology website and do the —ing research on sediment deposition. Or you could maybe pick up a —ing book. Or even continue reading —ing Wikipedia.
The fact that you don't do any such thing but instead come here and post your —ing whiny bafflement combined with —ing religious presuppostionialist garbage and —ing scriptural glurge demonstrates that you don't give a —ing shit about geology and how it actually works.
You pathetic infantile —ing μωρός.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | February 15, 2009 11:00 PM
AC @ 601
filed under "failure to prove...er", fuckit - FAIL
AC's post demonstrates a terrible knowledge of any of the sciences. Coal made by tsunami? Hey, maybe all those oil forming algae used "flagella" to swim to their god-mandated resting place. And they used convergent eyes to see the light?
Scripture as geology just fails, fails, fails.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 15, 2009 11:05 PM
he doesn't just fail at the basic sciences, he fails at the derivative sciences as well. he even fails agriculture, if he doesn't understand such basics as creation of topsoil
Posted by: Kel | February 15, 2009 11:06 PM
What do I choose to BELIEVE? I choose to believe the scientists who actually work on questions of astronomy and geology. I choose to believe the nuclear physicists. I choose to believe the palaeontologists, geneticists and biologists. I choose to believe them all because they have the evidence behind them and have done actual science. I choose to believe that one person reading an old book of mythology is going to have a far worse grasp on reality than one who decides what to believe based on the evidence. I choose to believe that God is as much a fairy tale as Zeus, Thor, Ra or Brahman. I choose to believe this based on the sheer number of gods that have been invented by different cultures and I find Yahweh no different.
I choose to believe that Alan Clarke is hurting the image of Christianity by proclaiming he knows better than the entire scientific community, that he makes the bible look foolish by taking the wrong meaning out of the obviously allegorical tales. Quite simply, I choose to believe that testing ones ideas is the only way to validate ones ideas, so Alan Clarke is full of shit until he can demonstrate his wacky ideas on light transmission and radiometric decay.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 15, 2009 11:09 PM
Hey, how about the "preconception" that reality isn't a big —ing lie? How about that "preconception", huh? Is that too big of a "preconception" to have?
How about the "preconception" that people who examine empirical —ing reality with the "preconception" that reality isn't a big —ing lie and honestly record what they find can then have their findings used as a basis to perform more examinations of empirical —ing reality with the "preconception" that reality isn't a big —ing lie? Is that too much to —ing ask?
For —'s sake.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 15, 2009 11:11 PM
Alan, you began trying to impress us with your knowledge of the bible and got thrashed by Owlmirror. Now you're cutting and pasting anti-science lies in a vain attempt to support your baseless, archaic superstition.
Some advice: stop wasting your time and ours. You're taking a beating from people who don't cut and paste but who know the science to counter the lies of AIG and TDI. Once again, when you go up against people who have studied the topics first-hand, cutting-and-pasting from already-debunked sources isn't good enough.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 15, 2009 11:30 PM
Nerd of Redhead: You have requested of me to:
1) show physical evidence of my God.
2) show the Bible is historically accurate.
Your “requesting” is likened to a deadbeat asking Obama to send a welfare check. I gave you some tools so you could find him for yourself, but you refused to work as has everyone else as far as I can tell. So you're sitting in the same squalor. Thus far, your pursuit of "science" has only landed you in front of a computer, incessantly checking a blog to make sure no one has sufficiently discounted your current belief system. Science hasn't gotten you the peace you're looking for. Neither will asking God to perform a miracle do you any good. It's all been tried before and gotten people nowhere. I’m not asking you to “believe” anything because you don’t have the ability to manufacture “belief”. What you do have is the ability to realize your hate for some people only hurts yourself and not the person who is unaware that you are “hating” them. We’ve heard stories of this from ex POW’s. They were miserable for what happened to them because they couldn’t stop hating the person who tortured them. I was beaten by some Russian thugs once to the point I thought I might die. After it was over, I couldn’t turn my brain off on imagining how I wish I could make their lives miserable. I daydreamed about 20 different scenarios on how I would “fix” them. Mike Tyson was my friend, I built a pit with punji stakes, I trapped them in a cylindrical building with slowly rising water, etc. All of my mental exercises produced nothing to provide satisfaction. You are in the same fix. All of your mental exercises are contained within you. Until you can say to God, “I give up hating people. I’m in as much sin as the ones I’m accusing. God, reveal yourself to me in a way that will free me from this directionless life. Forgive me of my sins and come into my life.” If you say you have no SIN, then you’re not ready. You may need to go a little lower before the realization hits you. God is indeed a loving God, but he is also a God of justice and can’t allow you to slip into his kingdom while in your current state. There is no “canned” system for finding your maker. Every Christian has a different story. No two are the same. Who knows? You could be the next Christian world leader. I attribute knowing Jesus Christ to my happiness and well-adjustedness. I know the difference between “blissful ignorance” and “blissful knowledge”.
1Cor 1:18-23 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 15, 2009 11:34 PM
filed under "failure to prove...er", fuckit - FAIL
LOL
sometimes even poking them with a stick gets just too boring and repetitive.
:p
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 15, 2009 11:39 PM
#615 filed under "projection" and "proselytizing"
btw, proselytizing is a bannable offense on this blog.
Posted by: Kel | February 15, 2009 11:39 PM
Do you even know why people are on this blog? Or do you just find making baseless assumptions a good enough descriptor for reality?Posted by: Wowbagger | February 15, 2009 11:55 PM
Alan's post #615 can now add psychology and sociology to the list of topics in which he rates an epic FAIL.
What don't you suck at, Alan?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 15, 2009 11:57 PM
I am having visions of Pete Rooke. God is an abused wife, Nerd refuses to work and we all have been beaten by Russian thugs and dream of revenge. I guess bad analogies are the only tools one can use when one has no working knowledge.
Posted by: Kel | February 15, 2009 11:59 PM
I guess if he can put it on us for being on this blog, then what is he doing preaching on here? Surely the same charge of lacking inner contentment can be thrown at him by his arguing on here.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 16, 2009 12:11 AM
I do pity Christians like Alan Clarke*, since he's obviously suffering from serious doubts about his religion - as would anyone who actually stops to think about it; most, however, don't - and he's here trying to find some crack, some flaw into which he can cram his god-belief in such a way that he can convince himself that the god of his religion actually exists.
So he comes here trying to impress us with his second-rate biblical knowledge - like the most arrogant and ignorant theists, he has no idea that there are atheists with far more knowledge of scripture than many of his people - and gets creamed. Then he tries to refute actual science by cutting and pasting from AIG and TDI, and gets his ass handed to him by actual scientists.
All he's got left now are analogies so lame that even Pete Rooke wouldn't touch them with the two femurs of his favourite decomposed grandmother tied together with a thong made from a leprous howlers monkey's skin.
You're going to love atheism once you get there Alan. It's so much simpler, and you need not lie to yourself anymore.
*Okay, that's not true - I pity all of them, not just those like Alan Clarke.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 16, 2009 12:13 AM
Still ignoring what I wrote @#442, eh? Fine, be that way.
Funny, your religion has got you in exactly the same place.
Of course not, because a God that does not exist cannot perform miracles. Not even little tiny ones.
Who hates who, I wonder?
You wrote, rather smugly, about the bicyclist getting wrapped around a truck axle, and all of those other deaths. Not a particularly loving anecdote, I think.
Oh, really? Assuming it's true, and assuming you were entirely innocent, I offer my condolences.
You don't sound particularly happy or well-adjusted. Why would you need your "therapy", as you posted @#287, if you're so happy? Why does your "well-adjusted" life require gloating over the miserable and painful deaths of those who didn't believe the same thing you do?
Why are you here, if you're in such great shape?
Dude.
That's one of the passages in the bible that I use to show that God and science are not compatible.
It says, clearly, and unapologetically, even smugly, that God deliberately does things deceptively; that God chooses to essentially lie to people; it says that God even does things so as to essentially lie to his allegedly chosen people.
It is utterly anti-intellectual. It says "give up" to anyone who tries using intelligence and reason to understand either the world or God. It says "God hates everyone but us" with a contempuous sneer at everyone else in the world.
You can believe in a God who does that, if it makes you happy. But don't think you're going to convince us that your God is loving, powerful and knowing, when he pulls that sort of cruel trick.
And don't think you're going to convince us that your God has anything truthful to say about the world and how the world works.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 16, 2009 3:34 AM
Alan, regarding your post @ #601 and the assumptions scientists must make in order to so foolishly see evidence that contradicts the biblical account:
Would you include Galileo and Giordano Bruno with those scientists? I'm assuming they're as wrong as Darwin, Arthur Holmes, and all of us wicked evolutionists.
Alan, don't talk about preconceptions tarnishing observation. You're the one that will never change their view no matter how much evidence they are confronted with. Science is littered with the corpses of discarded hypotheses and failed or inadequate explanations. You won't even look at the links you've been offered. Every time you've been backed into a corner of your ignorance, you jump onto something new and change the subject. Your precious faith is so weak, or your need for it's false comfort so desperate that you won't allow the smallest challenge to it.
Yes, Alan. Gods must be challenged and holy words questioned. If man hadn't done so from his very beginnings, we would have never left the caves and achieved the accomplishments that led to the Israelites and their occupation by the Romans, your precious Jesus, the Bible, the Church, Martin Luther, and Answers in Genesis. Done your way, Alan, you'd live in a cave or as a nomadic hunter, and your perception of the world and how you spent your short life would be dictated by the shaman. Be grateful for scientists questioning past assumptions and examining our surroundings critically, it's what gives you the opportunity to be a christian fundie and to spew your ignorance across the internet where it can piss off rational people all over the world.
Posted by: Kel | February 16, 2009 3:55 AM
Maybe Dawkins line about cultural relativism needs to be updated for the internet.
"Show me a cultural relativist on a computer and I’ll show you a hypocrite. The computer is built according to scientific principals it works. It performs billions of calculations a second with no errors. Computers built to tribal or mythological specifications don’t."
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 16, 2009 6:48 AM
Well, duh. Plate tectonics explains vertical movements, too. Sometimes some land areas are lifted and erode, others sink and have sediment swept in over the millions of years. Whether they are lifted, sink, or neither depends on how close they are to midocean ridges and subduction zones and on how active those are; it's all connected.
Now a question for you. Why didn't the Flood fill in the oceans? Why are these thick sediment layers on the continents and not on the oceanic crust?!?
(Is it just because you don't even know the difference between continental and oceanic crust?)
More on the Flood and the innumerable miracles it would have required here. Do NOT come back before you have read that page, and yes, I know it is long.
And indeed, there is no coal on or under the ocean floor, moron. Coal is exclusively found above continental crust.
That's because it consists of moors and mangrove swamps that were slowly covered by advancing deltas and the like.
Why do you act as if you actually knew anything?
Not all at once and overnight, moron!
(Yes, I am losing my patience, in case you wonder.)
Yes, but what's important is that scientists are capable of recognizing when a preconception of theirs contradicts the evidence, and that they then proceed to throw that preconceptions on the trash heap and try another.
Creationists, on the other hand, never let go of their preconception. They stick to it, no matter how blatantly incompatible with reality it turns out to be.
Don't pretend to be a postmodernist. You agree with us that there is such a thing as reality out there, and there is such a thing as a wrong statement.
That's something he was wrong about. :-|
LOL! Best Freudian typo ever. Or was it deliberate? :-)
Excuse me... who are we hating?
Seriously. I have no idea what you mean. Please explain.
What peace are we looking for, and what has science got to do with peace in the first place?
Again, this is a completely serious question.
Are you maybe projecting, as suggested by comments 622 and 623? Are you looking for whatever you mean by peace, have failed to find it, and now imagine everyone else must have failed, too?
But don't answer any of these questions yet. First click on the link I've given and read the whole page.
And don't forget to do the same with the link in comment 161.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 16, 2009 6:52 AM
Oh yeah. I had the whole sentence in the plural, then changed it to the singular, and overlooked this instance.
Now I wish you lots of fun reading, Alan.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 16, 2009 7:51 AM
Alan, your vain attempt to sidestep proof for god and the bible simply says you cannot face the prospect you are wrong in your belief. Until you prove yourself right by showing physical evidence for your imaginary god that passes muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, you have already lost any argument. So you may as well go away. We know you are a liar and bullshitter. Once you prove god, then you need to prove the bible is historically correct before quoting it. Again, all you look like is a lying weasel by dodging these basic proofs.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 16, 2009 2:36 PM
Kel’s statement illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding between two parties on the meaning of the word “evidence”. In a court of law, “evidence” may be a gun, a letter of confession, a tape recording, etc. None of these in themselves convict a person of a crime. In the debate on man’s origins, what are the “evidences”? Fossils, radiometric dating results, planets, physical laws, living things, geologic stratum, etc. Both parties have the same “evidences”, but both disagree on how to in interpret them. I don’t discount that evolution/uniformitarian theory has continuity and supportive arguments for every detail, but I demonstrated earlier in the “flapping leaves produce wind” analogy how an opposing interpretation can have the same features. The analogy has limitations (as all analogies do), but it illustrated the “seeming harmony” in a false interpretation. O. J. Simpson was made to look guilty by Mark Furman who planted false evidences of blood because of his hate for blacks. A bloody leather glove wouldn’t fit O.J.’s hand and he was disabled by a bad leg. The ideas have supporting continuity. When the number of evidences increases, the number of needful interpretations increases likewise. If O. J.’s case required interpretation of the same number of evidences that our planet and universe offers, I suppose the trial would still be happening. Such is the case with the evolution/creation debate. The trial is not completed because we continually become aware of new “evidences”. Who is doing the “science”? The greater number is undoubtedly the evolutionists because that’s where the money is. Creationists can view the evidences such as expensive Hubble images but they can’t control where the telescope is directed. The same non-influential, non-consequential observers stood by haplessly as the elite took control of O.J.’s trial. Potential profits opened the doors of an otherwise closed courtroom and the media thrived for a full year on advertising revenues.
“Science” is adulterated similarly with its elitist majority.
Can the “scientific” elite who control what is taught, funded, and advertised be wrong? My intuition was that O. J. was guilty but the “majority”, the group with the money, the incumbent judiciary, and a jury that was a “true” cross-section of our moral society, prevailed and Simpson was declared innocent. Was O.J. helped by the evidences or by the interpretation of the evidences? At the time, I thought to myself, “The system exonerated him but he can’t fool God. His “life” will be like a prison even though he walks free.” Perhaps my intuition wasn’t so good and I should stop prognosticating the future for evolutionary theory. In the meantime, the evidences keep coming in. What’s O.J. up to now? What’s that “false witness” Mark Furman doing now? What’s the latest science news?
How about yesterday's news which contains the following excerpt:
"So finding species at both ends of the Earth — some of which don't have a known connection in between — raises a whole bunch of evolutionary questions…" – (Russ Hopcroft - University of Alaska Fairbanks plankton ecologist)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 2:40 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 16, 2009 2:46 PM
"Raises evolutionary questions" does not mean "raises questions about whether evolution happened" you dimwit. Two sentences later from the same article you quoted:
Would it be more true in boldface?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 16, 2009 2:48 PM
False equivalence
The way scientists interpret the data is far more discretionary and self checking compared to how creationists deal with it. Creationist are always looking to prove the bible true at the cost of following the evidence where it leads. Scientists are always willing to change a theory provided the evidence is strong enough and leads them in a different direction.
You are being dishonest when you claim that creationists and scientists just "interpret the evidence differently".
They interpret it differently because the methods are not equal. Creationist are working backwards from the bible. Never veering from the course no matter how strong the evidence is against them. They do no use the scientific method and they are demonstratively guilty of denying, obfuscating and ignoring evidence when it is found.
Scientist modify and update their knowledge according to the evidence, not in spite of it.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 16, 2009 2:51 PM
By the way, while this is indeed interesting news, the article itself is a good example of why science should not be done by press release. "Rewriting the textbooks" is purest hyperbole--despite the thousands of species found in these surveys, the tropical oceans are nevertheless far, far more diverse. (see the article for context).
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 16, 2009 2:52 PM
Alan, Alan, Alan...sigh... You linked to a google page, not the article.
Nice quotemining. Here is all of Russ Hopcroft's statement.
CBC
There is no doubting of evolution here. Just how this could have happened.
Alan Clarke, how fucking stupid do you think we are?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 16, 2009 3:09 PM
Alan thinks OJ is innocent? I guess we can add forensics and law to the things Alan doesn't understand.
also court evidence != scientific evidence. but even in court, the eyewitness account is considered the least reliable form of evidence(especially when it's happening under the kind of stress you're advocating as the right time to look for god), i.e. your "personal" experience of god would not stand in court as evidence of god.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 16, 2009 3:13 PM
Alan, go read at last. Go read, and then come back, in this order.
What good is possibly supposed to come out of you discussing things that you do not understand???
Untrue. The creationists don't know that most of the evidence even exists.
Which is precisely why you should go read the two pages I've pointed you to.
For crying out loud, you didn't even know that terrestrial sediments occur on top of marine sediments in many places!
What, then, is the force that makes the leaves flap?
You have introduced an extra entity that you need to account for.
Yes, I am an elitist. I like my elite so much that I believe everyone should belong to it.
Hey, that requires nothing more than education!
That leaves two possibilities, Alan.
Either you are too stupid to read two more sentences.
Or you are a quote-miner -- you are dishonest -- you are, wait for it, an asshole.
I lack the evidence to decide between these hypotheses, and am fully prepared to choose the former because, all else being equal, it's not parsimonious to invoke malice where stupidity would suffice. Unfortunately, however, both possibilities are not exactly flattery.
Hey, he's a creationist. He honestly believes that everyone is at least as stupid -- or at least ignorant -- as he is.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 16, 2009 3:16 PM
So sorry -- three more sentences.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 16, 2009 3:22 PM
Personal experiances with god are now easily understood.
V.S. Ramachandran - Beyond Belief 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBcoYBbqHQ
Ramachandran, The Temporal Lobes and God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg&feature=related
(If these don't work chalk it up to my hillbilly computer skills.)
Posted by: Ragutis | February 16, 2009 3:37 PM
Obviously, the answers are A) Noah and B) Big honking boat.
[/snark]
Speaking of unanswered questions, Alan...
What about your god's failed prophecies about Babylon, Tyre and Damascus? (Your pic of Babylon isn't sufficient for me, Alan. But, show me the fossilized dragon and satyr remains in it's ruins, and I'll give that one to you.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 16, 2009 3:47 PM
David M @#636, re Alan Clarke:
I am certain that that is the case. He repeatedly and proudly asserts that God lies to humans. Why should he be more honest than God?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 16, 2009 3:48 PM
"evidences" is not a word.
"specie" is not a word.
Anyone using these non-words can safely be assumed to not know what he or she is talking about.
That is all.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 16, 2009 3:50 PM
With regards to the common lament "Why should I do your homework for you," I have to wonder what the correlation is between adults who believe in creationism and adults that had their homework done by the "nerds" in school.
Alan the armchair psychologist:
"So you're sitting in the same squalor."
Squalor, eh? You mean, sitting on this computer chair interacting with people thousands of miles away, with a huge wealth of information at my fingertips, not shivering from cold because I'm in an insulated apartment building, nor from vitamin deficiency because of my modern diet, nor from infectious disease because I've been vaccinated against many of them?
Reg: Okay, but apart from all that, what has science ever done for me?
"Thus far, your pursuit of "science" has only landed you in front of a computer, incessantly checking a blog to make sure no one has sufficiently discounted your current belief system."
Perhaps someone can relate to you the fable of the pot and the kettle. It's not from the Bible, but I think it imparts some nice lessons all the same.
"Science hasn't gotten you the peace you're looking for."
I'm calm, Dude. I'm calm.
"What you do have is the ability to realize your hate for some people only hurts yourself and not the person who is unaware that you are “hating” them."
Who's hating? What you see as "hate" is merely the exasperation any adult would feel if they were trying to fix a car and some neighbor kid kept getting in the way and trying to tell him to fix it by putting a rocket engine on.
BigDumbChimpWhoParadesAroundLikeaHumanLookWhatEvolutionHathWrought!:
"The way scientists interpret the data is far more discretionary and self checking compared to how creationists deal with it. "
Yeahbut...scientists are still operating on the ASSUMPTION that up is not down and black is not white and there is no cosmic trickster moving everything around when we're not looking. It's all in what you BELIEVE, man.
Posted by: Kel | February 16, 2009 4:01 PM
In science, evidence means empirically derived fact, and that's what I'm talking about. Are you going to show the facts are wrong, go ahead!Like I said, we've shown the speed of light is constant, and through a variety of standard candles we've been able to measure galaxies millions and even billions of light years away. That ages the universe in the billions of years. Show me I'm wrong.
Like I said, we can see the radiometric decay of certain materials and show empirically that decay always sticks to a certain formula. From that we can measure the age of the earth through a variety of techniques all with a different half-life that also correspond to relative dating techniques. Show me I'm wrong.
We can show through the geological strata that there is a gradual emergence of life, the first evidence of single cellular life around 3.8 billion years ago, the first multicellular life around 700 million years ago, and a gradual emergence and change in life where we have found many transitional form including some big ones like fish to amphibian and reptile to mammal. Show me I'm wrong.
We can see in the genetic code markers of common descent, ERV markers that sit not only on our genome but in the genome of chimpanzees as well. We see a fused chromosome in our genome. We have inactive genes and vestigial organs. Just like other species too. Show me I'm wrong.
Through dendochronology, we can date the earth to at least 10,000 years. Through ice cores, it's about 27,000. That's already putting the earth thousands of years past your biblical estimate. Show me I'm wrong.
What you are doing is false equivalence, it's not a matter of cultural relativity. Quite simply the science works and if you think it's wrong then you are welcome to demonstrate empirically that fact. I await your tests, because that's what science is all about. It's not looking at evidence and going "that supports X," we see it as supporting X then think of ways to falsify that position and put it under rigorous testing. That's what sets science apart from your deluded fantasy, and if you think that sitting in an armchair and reading the bible is the equivalent to the millions of scientists who have spent decades researching the evidence and furthering mankind then you are truly deluded. Quite simply, put up or shut up. Do a fucking experiment instead of talking out of your arse!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 16, 2009 6:38 PM
More like 2100 million years ago. But that doesn't matter, because multicellularity evolved several times independently. The oldest fossils of (multicellular) animals are roughly 700 million years old, or maybe twice that (the "worm traces" of Chorat in India).
No, 800,000 last time I checked. Greenland alone reaches back to 250,000.
However, good that you remind me of that. How can a YEC possibly deny the yearly layers in an ice core? Noah's Flood my ass!
And, in many cases, in many other animals too: all primates, all "glimates", all placentals, all mammals, all limbed vertebrates, all sarcopterygians, and so on...
Posted by: Kel | February 16, 2009 8:33 PM
Thanks for the fact checking there David. I can see where I got the 700 million date from, but i have no idea where the hell I pulled out 27,000 for the ice core ageing.
Maybe it happened in the same way as they think the geological column was made. Sequential freezing of layers of ice... of course that defies all known physics, but then again so does everything else they say.Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 17, 2009 1:28 AM
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/tyre.htm
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 17, 2009 1:47 AM
yeah. and if I show you the ruins of the Capitol, that'll be proof that Rome no longer exists?
your straws are getting flimsier. go away.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 17, 2009 1:55 AM
Alan Clarke, just what is the point of those travel photos?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 17, 2009 4:32 AM
HAS TYRE BEEN REBUILT, THUS DISPROVING THE BIBLE?
Alan: http://www.galenfrysinger.com/tyre.htm
Look who's "hand-waving". The picture says it all. If someone killed your family, burnt down your house, and erected THEIR house in its place, would you argue that you prevailed? If tourists came by to gawk at the ruins of your burnt house, would you argue that you prevailed because someone else's house(s) stand nearby your former?
Ezekiel 26:4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.
Read for yourself from Wikipedia and notice that "Tyre" was an island separated from the mainland district “Ushu” until Alexander the Great built a causeway to the island of Tyre when he seiged it. The district on the mainland was not even called "Tyre". It was called "Ushu". So what does the original "Tyre" look like today? I provided the link which shows nothing but ruins for tourists to stare at. What does the mainland "Ushu" look like today? Ushu will be of little value to you if your goal is to disprove the Bible since the Bible says nothing about Ushu. The prophecy was made against the inhabitants of Tyre which is that destroyed area sticking into the sea. Your blurry Google satellite map failed to show that the structures are nothing more than ruins.
Wikipedia - Tyre, Lebanon:
Tyre was not only separated from the mainland by water but by culture. Wikipedia states: “Josephus even records them fighting against each other…” If you attempt to expand the original Tyre to include areas that were not originally Tyre, such as Ushu, then I suppose you’ll have the consolation that Babylon, New York is proof that ancient Babylon is thriving today also.
Will Tyre ever be rebuilt? I don’t have to “stretch” anything to prove my point. Keep on reading Wikipedia:
Photos say it all. Click here and see for yourself that not only the original island Tyre remains in ruins, but the mainland area (original Ushu) is a mess also. Notice the numerous bombed buildings and dying people.
Conclusion: Those who try to refute the Bible’s voracity loose their own voracity.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 17, 2009 4:56 AM
Lame.
Damascus, Alan. Damascus. I'm curious to see what weaseling you attempt about a city continuously inhabited since a few thousand years before you think the world was created.
Ooh! And maybe some pretty pictures too! Please!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 17, 2009 5:03 AM
eh. By that logic, Dresden doesn't exist either. Neither does Athens, or Rome, or Carthage, or any other Ancient City sacked and destroyed at some point, for that matter.
High wordage weaseling. I was right. Now you need to listen to everything I say, since I'm obviously a prophet!
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 17, 2009 5:11 AM
If you mean "veracity" you should learn to spell it. Voracity is something entirely different and makes an amusing mess of the sentence.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 5:37 AM
Heck, the Sumerians had had glue and beer for a thousand years prior to when Alan thinks the world was created. You'd think they'd have noticed that they hadn't been created yet - but then again, it might have been really good beer...
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
February 17, 2009 5:43 AM
and really good glue...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 17, 2009 7:05 AM
Alan, you came back without reading the pages I gave you to read. Shame on you once again. Go read at last.
And besides, do look up what "voracity" and "veracity" mean. It's hilarious!
LOL!
ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 17, 2009 7:08 AM
Inhabited? Hah. Jericho has city walls that are older than the YEC world! And Çatalhöyük... but I digress.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 17, 2009 7:40 AM
Alan, you god doesn't exist and your bible is a work of fiction. It is up to you to prove that both god exists and the bible is historically accurate. Your failure to do so to date says you are a liar an and bullshitter. At this stage, everything you say is considered a lie.
Evidently you still haven't watch The Bibles Buried Secrets, which indicates you are interested in a dialog, but merely want to proselytize. That is crime against Pharyngula. Discussions of god and religion are fine, but not you just preaching, which is what you are doing. Either make this a true dialog or go away.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 17, 2009 8:50 AM
No matter the context, this is rich. But Alan, why have you not defended yourself from charges of quotemining? Do you concede thatyou were wrong? If so, why did you feel the need to lie?
You do realize you have no credibility? Why do you keep trying?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 17, 2009 11:07 AM
Your are exactly right Steven. I should have said, "Those who try to refute the Bible loose their verasses."Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 17, 2009 12:03 PM
Alan, go read.
What's up? Are you afraid of something?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 17, 2009 12:11 PM
Next up, trying to inform Alan that "loose" is not the same as "lose". In about a week, he may successfully say what he means. He'll still be wrong, but coherent would be a good step.
Anyway, Bible refutation takes zero effort. Genesis 1, Genesis 2, contradictory and both wrong, game over, next myth please.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 17, 2009 12:42 PM
And worse, Genesis 1 talks about "morning" and "evening" and "days" for 3 days before Elohim gets his lazy ass around to creating the sun; coming after plants, even..
Although he might be forgiven a little, given that Shamash (= sun) was a rival deity to Elohim. Hey, if I were going to pretend my god created what other people are worshiping as a rival god, I might have my god do it late in the week too just to diminish said rival's importance.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 17, 2009 12:57 PM
Dear all that is holy, Alan Clarke is fucking retarded. And willfully so.
Hey Alan, Quoting the bible? Come on, you can get more deluded, ignorant, and moronic than that, can't you? Aren't there some worms you can quote? Or some dust bunnies to learn from? How many times do you think we would need to hit ourselves on the head with a hammer to reach your level of stupidity? How many seconds do you think we would need to breathe from a vat of methyl ethyl ketone before we could approach your level of idiocy? Dude, drop the hammer and step outside for some fresh air.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 17, 2009 2:18 PM
Voracity or Veracity? Loose or Lose?
Don't say I didn't warn you: Click here.
In all seriousness, thanks for the spelling lesson. See, you do have something to offer!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 17, 2009 2:25 PM
Alan, you not only lack any ability to see how utterly ignorant you are on science, you are also sorely lacking in any sense of humor.
Posted by: E.V. | February 17, 2009 2:32 PM
Why does Alan sound like the SHAMWOW! guy?
Alan, if you were the least bit introspective, you would be mortified over how limited your thinking actually is. You are clueless as to how much you don't know. Reading your comments is like watching The Gong Show - I'm embarrassed for you, but many here will just feel schadenfreude and point and laugh. So post away, Bible Boy!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 17, 2009 2:41 PM
That's the last time I click on one of Clarke's links. Is he Pete Rooke in disguise?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 17, 2009 2:49 PM
I don't think so. Both are so besotted with dog that they can't think straight, but my impression is that Alan is some type of Protestant. Still, the stupid is found in both of them.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 17, 2009 2:53 PM
Alan, you troll! Go read!
Yep. It seems to be the whole point of Genesis 1 to establish quasi-monotheism: everything that other people(s) worshipped as gods was merely created by Elohim. It's the oldest example of atheism-minus-one that I'm aware of.
(Even though the polytheism isn't quite gone yet -- "let us make man".)
Posted by: Ragutis | February 17, 2009 4:03 PM
The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. Isaiah 17:1
Posted by: DaveL | February 17, 2009 4:49 PM
I took a look at your photos. The aerial view shows conclusively the presence of a large built-up area in the northern part of the original island, with modern roads & buildings.
In other words, yes it was rebuilt.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 17, 2009 10:32 PM
CITY OF TYRE REBUILT?
Eze 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be [a place] to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken [it], saith the Lord GOD.
Dave, thanks so much for pointing this out. I found another map site that had superior resolution, and saw exactly what you’re talking about. One half of the former island on the north has homes and one half on the south has the original ruins.
I am not one who likes stretching interpretations to suit my needs. The “gap theory” interpretation of Genesis 1:2 has this characteristic. Using a “stretching” approach leads one further from the truth, so it should be avoided at all costs. Also, this approach positions MAN as the ultimate source of truth which doesn’t jibe with my theology. So, what am I to do with this new information? All I can make of it is this:
1) The original city provided a separation from outsiders by 150-foot-high walls (Wikipedia) which were never rebuilt. So perhaps the “shalt be built no more” refers to Tyre’s original fortifications and structures. The original ruins are designated as a "Cultural Property" which explains why they can't be rebuilt.
2) The current city has fishing boats docked on small peers on the north side which can clearly be seen from the map link I provided. This seems to conform with Ezekiel 26:14: “thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon”, indicating that it won’t be without persons since someone will obviously be there to “spread nets”.
Here are links to show that those boats are actual fishing boats with “nets” drying:
http://flickr.com/photos/nailman/2516744287
http://www.phoenician.org/pic_tyre_harbor.htm
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 17, 2009 10:37 PM
Alan, your god doesn't exist, your bible is a work of fiction, and you are a known-nothing BORE. Until you look at our evidence, we won't look at yours. Fair is fair, and if you think this is a monologue, we will do the same.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 10:47 PM
Alan Clarke, with no concern for those readers with irony meters, wrote:
Reality begs to differ.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 17, 2009 10:56 PM
Alan, Ezekiel claimed that Tyre would be destroyed forever (by Nabuchadnezzar). Isaiah that it would be barren for 70 years. Both failed and you have not provided evidence to the contrary. For that matter, how do you reconcile those two incompatible prophecies?
Oh, I almost forgot...
Damascus
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 17, 2009 11:11 PM
Ragutis, thank you for the challenge. The original pieces of the Ishtar Gate of Babylon are spread throughout the world in various museums. The Pergamon Museum in Berlin has a lot of it. You can read all about it in Wikipedia: “Ishtar Gate” I don’t mean to be condescending, but I’m rather surprised that you doubt the discovery of ancient Babylon. Do you think all of these excavations are a hoax? Even in my own lifetime, some people were uninformed of the actual existence of Babylon, thinking it to be a Bible fable. Just yesterday I saw a travel video called “Passport to Europe - Germany, Switzerland & Austria” hosted by Samantha Brown. She stated that she thought Babylon was a fable for many years. Prior to Babylon’s discovery over 100 years ago, the idea of it being a fable was almost universal. So the Bible proved to be ahead of archeological science and correctly described Babylon as a “literal” place. How about Damascus?
Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Believe it or not, every time I get challenged on something like this, I have no idea where it will lead but I end up having my faith increased. I realize that a printer can misplace his typeset and end up with something like, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”, but is the Bible to be faulted or the printer? I’ve seen some awful translations in my life like the OMV where Abraham returned from Moriah empty-handed without Isaac. But don’t we know the Owl Mirror Version to be false since no other version has this foolish interpretive scribbling in the margin? Some have suggested that the OMV could be useful if each idea is simply reversed in order to get the proper rendering. But how do we know if all of its ideas are reversed? For this reason, I advise to avoid the OMV like one would avoid rat poison. 98% of it may be wholesome but 2% of it will kill you. Is the Bible to be faulted or is the OMV author?
Notice the difference between Isaiah 17:1 and a verse four chapters earlier concerning Babylon:
Isaiah 13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
One verse says of Damascus, “It shall be a ruinous heap”, while another says of Babylon, “it shall never be inhabited”. The question is, “Was Damascus turned into a ruinous heap anytime after Isaiah made his prophecy?” Or better yet, “Was Damascus turned into a ruinous heap shortly after Isaiah’s prophecy?”
741 B.C. - Isaiah’s prophecy *
732 B.C. – City destroyed (Wikipedia – Damascus)
* My source for Isaiah’s prophecy is “Thompson Chain Reference Bible” Kirkbride Publishers, and Wikipedia “Isaiah Prophet” which lists a date that corroborates with my Bible. I’m certain you’ll want to seek alternate sources for a possible refutation, but this is what I’d do myself if my theory was challenged.
Conclusion: The Bible wins two-fold on “Damascus”. It not only maintains its integrity on the fact that the city was destroyed, but it predicted it as well.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 17, 2009 11:41 PM
Actually, we know that what I wrote was true and 100% correct because that's what the text says.
Go ahead. Read Genesis 22, even in the KJV translation that you think is so great. Tell me where Isaac is mentioned as descending from the mountain with his father.
You cannot, because it is not there.
Abraham goes down from the mountain alone.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 11:52 PM
Alan Clarke,
Only when you're able translate the scriptures from Ancient Greek and Hebrew yourself may you criticise Owlmirror's translations. Until then you remain a desperate, scrabbling cut-and-paster dependent on the unreliable work of others.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 12:06 AM
You're the one who offered the verses that proudly proclaim that God lies and deceives.
Alan Clarke @#406:
Alan Clarke @#496:
Alan Clarke @#615:
And check this out:
Alan Clarke @#676:
Alan Clarke @#130:
EPIC FAIL. LOL.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 18, 2009 12:09 AM
fuck alan clarke with a bumpy stick, damnit!
can't we just vote him off the island already?
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 12:28 AM
Considering how soundly Owlmirror is thrashing him on every topic he unwisely brings up, I can't imagine that his head will remain unexploded for much longer.
For a while I wondered how it is someone so patently stupid can justify sounding so smug in his posts, but then I remembered that it is the Christian way to take pride in ignorance and revel bizarre rationalisations concocted to distract themselves from the obvious - that their god cannot exist.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 18, 2009 12:42 AM
Well, I certainly am surprised. I was expecting the standard fundie response "It hasn't been destroyed... yet." You're the first not to try to tell me that it'll be fulfilled at some undetermined point in the future by an Israeli nuclear strike.
You're also the first to completely wave away that Isaiah foretold that Damascus would cease to be a city. (But I guess you had to.) Hence everyone one else I've ever seen attempting to defend that prophecy going with the nuke scenario.
This won't matter an iota to you or your delusions, but IMHO: Fail.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity though. Wanna give the one about the Nile drying up a shot? Nabuchadnezzar's conquest of Egypt? Reconciling Ezekiel and Isaiah's takes on Tyre?
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 12:51 AM
Give poor Alan a break - he can only cut-and-paste so fast you know!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 18, 2009 12:59 AM
Big snake.
Wow.
That's a big, big...BIG snake.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 1:10 AM
Does God lie when he sends a strong delusion? On this forum there are two contending spirits. One is obviously lying because both can't be true. Is it God doing the lying or is it a person doing the "dirty work"? Look at these verses and you'll see that "lying spirits" are indeed at play here. A person willingly opens himself up as a spokesperson on behalf of a lying spirit. God is not a liar. Satan is a liar and he uses men as pawns. The next question that begs an answer is, "How much do you have control of yourself?" If you are continually doing things to yourself and others that you hate, then you have little control because sin is running your life. What other explanation do you have for not being able to become the moral person you want to be?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 1:17 AM
I'm confused why everyone seems to be confused on Damascus. What is the problem? It existed then and it exists now. It got destroyed at least once in the middle by Tiglath-Pileser III in 732 BC.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 18, 2009 1:18 AM
Speaking for no-one but myself, I am the moral person I want to be, Alan.
Satan? Seriously?
Using men as pawns?
Are you serious?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 18, 2009 1:19 AM
I think someone is trying to get back on topic. Funny thing, that big, big...BIG snake has been dead for millions of years but it still has more sense than Alan Clarke.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 1:27 AM
Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth. - Blaise Pascal
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 18, 2009 1:27 AM
That is just the story of Job. Jehovah and Satan are shooting the shit and Jehovah, full of pride, points at Job as being all devout. Satan says that Job will curse Jehovah's name if all of Job's fancy thing are taken away. So a friendly wager is placed. Satan causes Job's farm to fail, kills all of Job's children and gives Job an ass full of boils. Yet Job remains a good little sheep.
I say that chess players treat pawns better than the big sky daddy treats humans.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 18, 2009 1:30 AM
Alan, you silly little git, stop using quotes. You just hurt yourself when you do.
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 1:31 AM
I've always wondered about my own behaviour, whether I am moral and whether I do the 'right' thing, if indeed there is a right thing. Is there some impossible-to-obstain standard base for morality, or is morality contingent on culture? In the end I realised that I like who I am and I feel that overall I am who I am. There's no desire to be better or worse, no need to live up to a standard I don't believe exists nor do I sest myself a low standard in order to feel good about myself.
In short, I am the moral person I want to be. And if that's Satan using me as a pawn, then the way he makes me help out others, to be kind, to be open and honest as much as possible, then that Satan character seems like a pretty decent guy. Though I prefer the game theory and a mix of genes and memes as an explanation. It makes so much more sense that my behaviour is largely dictated by the environment around me than by some supernatural being.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 1:34 AM
Sven: Satan? Seriously? Using men as pawns? Are you serious?
In your view, the only things that exist are those things you have experienced. How old are you?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 18, 2009 1:42 AM
That is so cute! The itty-bitty little troll is trying to understand how an other person thinks. But he just cannot get it right.
Who's the cute little troll? Who's the cute little troll?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 18, 2009 1:44 AM
I'm 49. So what?
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 1:45 AM
I once experienced Satan... the bastard didn't call the next day!
Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | February 18, 2009 1:52 AM
I heard that he had to get back to his main sweetie, Saddam Hussein. Saddam is quite jealous and abusive.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 2:09 AM
Please, stop! You're embarrassing me!
Besides, many are far more knowledgeable than I am in far more topics, and have more of them immediately accessible in their memory.
And I found myself wishing that Josh was here to respond to the brain-dead silliness about petroleum geology.
Speaking of which!
The link posted @#531 is to a 40-year-old article by A. A. Meyerhoff. Note, by the way, that Meyerhoff does not appear to have any problem whatsoever with the standard geological dating system.
Naturally, I wondered, who Meyerhoff is (or was), and if anything he did had any influence, or if he changed his mind.
He's apparently accepted continental drift:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/continental_drift.html
And he's contributed to writing a book, which appears to have a non-standard model for how continents move.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Surge-Tectonics/Arthur-A-Meyerhoff/e/9780792341567
I could find nothing suggesting that he is any sort of creationist, or that he has any problem whatsoever with the earth being dated to 4.5 billion years.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 2:22 AM
God is a liar, by your own bible verses.
Satan was created by God. If God knows what Satan does, and knew what Satan would do before Satan did it, and allows and orders Satan to act, then God is responsible for Satan's lies and Satan's actions.
Job 1:12, Job 2:3, Job 2:6
I'm sorry that you have no control over yourself and that sin is ruining your life.
Have you considered meditation or psychotherapy, or medication?
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 18, 2009 2:26 AM
"Does God lie when he sends a strong delusion?"
"Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie, and one to listen."
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 2:52 AM
Ah, it's hilarious to behold. Alan's downward spiral continues; he's now blaming Satan for his inability to compose cogent arguments.
Comedy gold!
Posted by: windy | February 18, 2009 2:56 AM
So according to you the Bible predicted fishermen in a town on the Mediterranean coast. Oh wow, how could anyone have guessed such a thing?
...or could it be that even Ezekiel wasn't that big of a bore and he actually thought that Tyre would sink underwater?
26:18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
26:19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;
(Owlmirror, got any juicy textual commentary on this?)
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 3:07 AM
So if God is not a liar, but Satan is... When all the natural evidence points to an old world and universe, when all evidence points to live evolving over billions of years, when scientists of all faiths and none at all all agree on these commonalities and the preacher lies and says it's not true... which one is more likely to be the agent of satan?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 18, 2009 7:50 AM
Alan just can't seem to understand how far in over his head he is. Alan, the first rule of holes is when you are in over your head, stop digging. In your case, that means stop posting. I think you came here to show us testimony that evolution doesn't exist, but god created the world according to the bible. You found us ignoring your testimony, ignoring your god, and showing the bible isn't quite as accurate as you thought, and you tried to save it (deeper), again and again (deeper). Now, you don't know how to get out. It's very simple. Just stop posting. Most creobots and godbots declare victory then leave. Do so.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 7:56 AM
Or possibly stop believing in fairy tales.
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 8:13 AM
Anyone who thinks that adding the dates of the bible up constitutes a valid history of the earth is going to be in over his head anywhere he goes.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 2:16 PM
Never heard of "freezing layers of ice" for describing the global flood in its totality. The waters were accompanied by freezing but this in no way properly describes coal formation, sedimentary layers on Everest, etc. If a flood stripped off minimally a 1-mile layer (7 miles in some places??) of the Earth's surface and re-arranged it, wouldn't that stripping action expose dormant geologic layers that were volcanic? Wouldn't there be a lot of volcanism mixed with flooding and later freezing? Ice dams would proliferate in sizes never before seen. The U.S. Northwest is explained with an accepted catastrophic interpretation: "The Missoula Flood". There is a remnant water fall basin that is twice the size of Niagara in depth and width. Before you ridicule catastrophism, you better make sure you're not contradicting your own colleagues.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 2:25 PM
Welcome to the club of non-convincing arguments! “No one can observe it today because it happens too slowly, but we know it happened millions of years ago from the evidences. The interpretations of the evidences are OBVIOUS!”
OBVIOUS defn: Apparent from observation.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 2:26 PM
In what way?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 18, 2009 2:30 PM
Alan digs himself deeper and deeper. Still no peer reviewed scientific literature, which means both his posts are worthless dreck. Alan, go preach somewhere else. If you want to talk science, then you need about a year of schooling offline to realize how little you know, and why you shouldn't have posted here in the first place.
Your god doesn't exist, and your bible is a work of fiction.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 18, 2009 2:35 PM
The fossils of marine life found in rocks from mountaintops means nothing while the remnants of a water basin implies a flood. Alan Clarke, tiresome and stupid. Hey Alan, have any more quotemines from scientists that you want to share.
Funny that you have nothing to say about that.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 3:50 PM
Oh, only a few notes, here and there, as the thoughts strike me.
Ezekiel 26:7 For thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army.
Wait, what?
God says that the same fucker who sacked God's holy city, destroyed God's holy temple, and killed and enslaved God's chosen people, is now going to be directed, by God, against Tyre to destroy it?
I mean, he says that the ones being killed will know that YHWH is God... they're going to know this how, exactly? Given that it's the enemy and destroyer of everything that belonged to YHWH who is doing this, I would think they would know that Nabu is God, or maybe Marduk ¹ is God... why the hell would they think that YHWH, the loser, is God?
Of course, the point is moot. YHWH fucked up his predictions again. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre, but rather accepted a surrender with tribute. Really, if YHWH meant that Alexander the Great would destroy Tyre, about 250 years after Nebuchadnezzar, he could maybe say "a Greek named Alexander from Macedon, in about 250 years from now"?
On predicting that Tyre would be covered by the sea: Given the complex geology of the Mediterranean, it actually isn't that far-fetched that a generic piece of land might be undercut by erosion or subsidence, and maybe shaken to pieces by some spaced-out sequence of earthquakes.
But that isn't going to happen with Tyre. The name of the place does mean "rock", after all.
In fact, exactly the opposite happened with Tyre. A sandbar that had been growing larger and taller for thousands of years between Tyre and the mainland was what enabled Alexander to reach Tyre, and the entire area is now being used.
Geoarchaeology: Sandbar led Alexander the Great to victory
Holocene morphogenesis of Alexander the Great's isthmus at Tyre in Lebanon
I suppose that rising sea levels from global warming might "fulfill the prophecy", but you know, that will also drown the coastal cities of Israel (not to mention the entire Mediterranean basin!). Although, that strikes me as being like God getting Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Jerusalem in the first place, as a "punishment" to the people, so you never know.
_________________________________________________
1: Wikipedia says: The Akkadian name, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, means "Oh god Nabu, preserve/defend my firstborn son". Nabu is the Babylonian deity of wisdom, and son of the god Marduk.
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 4:01 PM
Do you even understand the lines of evidence that are brought forth in order to formulate and support scientific theories? Do you know how we date the universe and the age of the earth? Or did you prefer to see who begats who and think that you know better than the millions of scientists who have actually studied the evidence?Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 4:19 PM
Dude?
Geologists estimate that the cycle of flooding and reformation of the lake lasted on average of 55 years and that the floods occurred approximately 40 times over the 2,000-year period between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago.
Before you ridicule the scientific consensus on geology, you better make sure you're not contradicting your own biblical chronology.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 18, 2009 4:19 PM
Considering how soundly Owlmirror is thrashing him on every topic he unwisely brings up, I can't imagine that his head will remain unexploded for much longer.
bah.
surely you know that creationists automagically reset with each new day to square one?
projection followed by denial followed by projection...
sez Alan today:
"No one can observe it today because it happens too slowly, but we know it happened millions of years ago from the evidences. The interpretations of the evidences are OBVIOUS!"
I've seen cyclical arguments with self-deluded fools like Alan go on literally for YEARS.
meh, maybe I'm just bored of poking feces flinging monkeys, that have constructed their own cages.
moving on.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 5:21 PM
How has evolution advanced us or led us to look in unsuspecting places like dino bones with soft tissues. Wasn't it evolution theory that prevented evolutionists from looking since they "knew" nothing could exist that long. Even if it ISN'T dino tissue, their theories prevented them from entering new theorized world of biofilms that emulate tissues. I think the biofilm theory fails considerable for explaining the dino bone's inner properties but who's to stop another from dreaming?
The Age of Enlightenment was not driven by evolution theory!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 5:25 PM
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 5:34 PM
Alan Clarke wrote:
Amazing, Alan - you managed to work out that 1859 comes after 1800? What a genius you are! Did your Mom help you with that?
Tool.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 18, 2009 5:37 PM
But the Thirty Years War was driven by people acting in the name of Jesus.
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 5:37 PM
WHo is ridiculing catastrophism? I'm just ridiculing the idea of a global flood - and one that happened within the last 6000 years. You do realise that there's a difference between localised flooding and global flooding right?Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 5:41 PM
No no no kel, you don't understand. All evidences of any flooding are evidences of the "great flood". It's all a matter of perspective. Mainly that you are looking back in time at it and that you are a a presupposing biblical innerancy believer.
Given enough time creationists will swear the flooding from Katrina and the tsunami in SE asia from a few years ago were all part of the great flood. Just give them a few hundred or thousand years to compress time.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 5:43 PM
Kel wrote:
Don't give Alan too much to think about, Kel - I believe he's still working on his essential research project Ass vs. Elbow: Which is Which?
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 5:48 PM
And in other obvious statements, England were the first europeans to colonise Australia and Neil Armstrong was the first person on the moon.Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 5:53 PM
Oh drat, I knew I was missing something. Here I was thinking that something that happened on a global scale would leave the same evidences at the same geological timeframe. I guess I've been spoilt that way from the K-T boundary where there's evidence all around the world of a global catastrophy. What I really needed to do was look in the bible and then I would have found all the evidence I ever needed (or could handle)...Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 5:59 PM
You mean besides teaching us how to successfully combat the spread of viruses and bacteria, help us in the fight against AIDS, explain our anatomy and how it fails, given us a mechanism by which to fine-tune engineering, and account for many different biological and palaeontological empirical facts? Say for instance like travelling into the arctic region where there exists freshwater devonian rock which by evolutionary theory should house transitional forms between fish and tetrapods? Then when checking in the rocks of the right age, one discovers a fishapod that shares the exact morphology as one would expect in a transitional form between fish and tetrapods?Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 6:04 PM
LOL! *sporfle* Made of win!
And 3 comes after 2, and not before!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 18, 2009 6:08 PM
Burro?
Burrow?
Burro?
Burrow?
Ass?
Hole in the ground?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 18, 2009 6:33 PM
David, let me offer you a little advice when debating scientific theories. Avoid use of words like "moron" in describing others, and sentences like, "Why do you act as if you actually knew anything?" They could come back to bite you. All it takes is one little discovery that negates your position. Secondly, use of such language will lower your credibility in a board meeting of scientists. Scientists are looking for answers, not for showmen who can yell louder and cuss people out.
What is disturbing are the number of people who I assume are older or more "mature" than David but offer nothing to help David in his untenable assumption that coal doesn't exist under the ocean floor. Surely a simple Google search would refute his false assumption. But everyone seems to keep quiet. Rather than advance "science", helpful information is suppressed in order to advance a "theory". Shame on you!
If coal is found under ocean floors what are the implications for uniformitarianist interpretations of geology? A discovery like this would help support the idea of a world-wide global flood. Keep in mind that coal may not have been discovered under ocean floors similarly to soft-tissue (or biofilms) in dino bones not being discovered because no one bothered to look. If you do a little research you will find that the tissue/biofilm phenomenon is practically everywhere. Coal may not have been explored under ocean floors simply because the technologies weren’t available as they are now and/or the expense in retrieving it would far exceed that of coal more easily retrieved under the continents.
David, I am speaking to you as a friend. The day will come when all of these questions will be answered by a single event. I will not gloat or say, "I told you so!" There will be no time for that. Each person must account for himself. I will have enough problems of my own to account for let alone those of another. The only satisfaction I could get from "winning" a debate would be for you to find happiness.
Respectfully, Alan L. Clarke
"UNTAPPED coal reserves under the Pacific Ocean could provide enough energy to power every house in NSW for about 13000 years..."
source: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/09/ucg-retreats-under-sea.html
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 6:54 PM
If David was dealing with someone who actually knew something about science then I imagine he would converse with them in a civil manner. As he is dealing with you, an ignoramus of epic proportions, why should he bother? Surely a
deluded, superstitious cretinperson of religious persuasion is familiar with the expression commonly shortened to 'pearls before swine'?Liar.
Delusional idiot.
Liar - again. You're already hoping your wacko religion's version of Ragnarök happens for precisely this purpose, you pompous twerp.
Oh, you've got problems alright. I'd have them seen to before you die, though. Just in case.
Liar - for a third time. Oh, and I can't bring myself to believe that you've ever 'won' a debate, Alan - unless it was one against one of the few people in the world less capable than yourself. Or perhaps a poorly-watered houseplant.
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 7:01 PM
What a great big appeal to emotion there. I guess if you can ignore evidence, why not ignore logic too?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 18, 2009 7:03 PM
I see Alan is still being stupid and posting here. He has nothing to offer, and is not really dialoging, since he really isn't looking at our evidence. Alan, you have lost every argument you started, except that of your faith, which we didn't really have any expectations of changing. But then, nothing you have said has changed any of our minds because what little evidence you presented wasn't proper scientific evidence. Just your opinion and from your fictional bible, both of which are worth exactly zero. It is time to retire from posting here, and take care of your wife. I suspect PZ is going to have to eventually have to close the thread.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 18, 2009 7:35 PM
Alan Clarke, you are in no position nor have any authority to give anyone advise about science and how it is conducted. You have shown your self to be illinformed, incapable of logic, unable to tell the difference between physics, chemistry and biology and have no idea how they intersect. You have posted bad information, you have lied and then pretend that you have not done so. You are simply one of the most foolish persons to have stumbled into this place. You are shown disrespect because you have earned enough for a dozens trolls.
Do not talk to any of us like we might be friend for we are not. You are just being disingenuous and rather creepy. The only reason why people keep respond to you is because it is fun to taunt you. Juvenile? Yeah. You you have not posted anything that an intelligent middle school student could not blast through, let alone people with higher degrees.
Alan Clarke, you are a joke.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 18, 2009 7:46 PM
Alan, David Marjanović, OM, IIRC, is in a PhD program in (correct me if I'm wrong) paleontology. You telling him about science, is like the non-scientist twit who was trying to tell me, a PhD with 30+ years in science, how science is done. We both know what is and isn't science, and having ignoramuses like you pretend to know more about science than us is just laughable. You are just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 7:50 PM
Which scientific theory are you talking aout Alan? All I hear is apologetics. If I am wrong please correct me by showing us all some science.
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 7:53 PM
Only at this point? As soon as he linked to himself explaining the age of the earth using biblical chronology, he effectively wrote "I'm a complete joke" in permanent marker on his forehead.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 18, 2009 8:37 PM
Alan, first you go read the sites I linked to. Then we'll see if I find a reason to apologize for losing my patience and calling you a moron. In this order.
That you, at present, don't understand what you're talking about is so plainly obvious that I really can't imagine I'll ever have to apologize for saying so.
Whether this state of affairs will persist, however, is something you have control over. You can learn. You can read.
What? How is that supposed to work?
How does this explain the fact that we have ice cores that reach back eight hundred thousand years?
This is not the late 19th century, Alan. Nobody ridicules the idea that catastrophes happen at all. What we ridicule is how you imagine the consequences of a flood that would be orders of magnitude bigger than anything explainable!
The only way to trigger a flood of Biblical proportions would be the impact of a really big asteroid. Maybe the Texas-sized one in the (in this respect) rather crappy movie "Armageddon" would suffice. Well, if such a thing had come down in the last half-billion years, we'd know it. Or rather, we'd never have existed in the first place.
Oooooh, you want to propose a miracle instead. Fine, then show us that such a miracle happened. Good luck.
If he had read the first of the two pages I directed him to, he would.
But he's afraid of learning, or something.
See, Alan, here's an example of you not understanding what you're talking about.
Evolution is merely descent with heritable modification, and the theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift explains how evolution works. That the end-Cretaceous layers where the mentioned fossils were found are about 67 million years old was not and cannot be derived from the theory of evolution! It comes from radiometric dating, and if you had read the second of the pages I directed you to, you would already know how radiometric dating works.
How so? How does the theory of evolution predict that fossil bones can never contain a biofilm?
See, Alan, that's yet another example of you not understanding what you're talking about.
A biofilm probably is present, but chemically altered (!) protein from the original tissue is also present. There are lots of things that can't be explained otherwise.
By "chemically altered", BTW, I mean "the peptide molecules are crosslinked by a chemical reaction that involves iron ions from the blood"; reactions similar to the ones that must have happened there are fairly well known.
One would naïvely think that a statement cannot be both correct and deeply, deeply stupid. Well, here's a counterexample.
On both sides, funnily enough.
Indeed. In that case, I will gladly eat my words. Scientists do that all the time. :-|
"Board meeting"? What do you mean? ~:-|
I give a talk at several scientific congresses every year, and though (of course!) lively discussions sometimes result, my contributions have always been well accepted so far. Obviously, at such congresses it's extremely rare that anyone doesn't understand very well what they're talking about, so such disagreements never get as heated as this here.
Above I mentioned I've seen two scientists almost jump at each other's throat. Didn't come to pass, because one reminded the other about some evidence the other had forgot to consider... that's a rare event... and then the situation defused.
Scientists, too, are human. They, too, have a finite patience. Your insistence on refusing to learn what is only a click away, and the fact that you continue to behave as if you could teach others about subjects that, as your mistakes so clearly show, you haven't understood yourself, of course make me angry.
Seriously, what did you expect?
How would you react if, say, I kept claiming that Christianity must all be wrong because Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier called Panthera -- and kept refusing to consider the facts that 1) Panthera would be a very, very strange name for a Roman and 2) it can very easily be explained as a distortion of párthenos, "virgin" in Greek, by someone who had heard that Jesus was claimed to be the son of párthenos but didn't know enough Greek? Would you just smile and say "I disagree"? After six hundred comments, and after going through this discussion with different people for the twentieth time in, like, twice as many weeks, would you still just smile and say "I disagree"?
How so?
No, honestly, I don't understand how that's supposed to work. Please explain.
Some semblance of keratin often gets preserved in those very few sites with exceptional preservation, like in volcanic lakes, under collapsed dunes, or in plate-limestone lagoons, but that basically is it. There's one such exceptional site in Spain that preserves some altered form of soft tissue inside bones, but it's merely 10 million years old... What else are you thinking of? Off the top of my head, I can't find more. Oh, yes, the body-outline "shades" around, for example, the fossils of Holzmaden, which formed on the oxygen-free floor of a marine basin, but that's just... well, coal, basically.
Is that so?
Evidence, please.
Oh, sorry for not making myself clear enough. I used "ocean floor" in the geological sense. Coal of course occurs in the continental shelf -- the parts of the continents that happen to be underwater right now, the entire North and Baltic seas and the entire Hudson Bay for example, never deeper so than about 200 or (if recently covered by inland ice -- the Barents Sea is the only example I know of) about 300 m. Ocean floor in the geological sense is underlain by oceanic crust, which is denser and deeper than continental crust and therefore lies much deeper under the sea level, on average 4000 to 5000 m, unless there's an upwelling of hot magma under it -- midocean ridges, including all of Iceland, are ocean floor in this sense, and so is the hot-spot volcano of Hawai'i.
Actually, I think I've already told you to look up the difference between continental and oceanic crust... Wikipedia must have a good explanation of that.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 8:38 PM
Actually, Herr Doktor David Marjanović, OM, Ph.D completed his thesis in lissamphibian palaeontology a couple years ago, and has been doing post-doctorate work since then.
Now:
Consider what David M. wrote:
Consider that the article pointed to by Alan referred to the coal as being between Wollongong and Newcastle, both cities on the eastern coast of Australia where coal seams are already known to exist.
Consider the continental shelf of Australia:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23574192-2,00.html
Consider Alan Clarke boasting over his ability to Google, and failing to Google enough.
So, Alan, just a little advice: When you're telling someone not to call you a moron, it would help if you try to avoid being a moron.
No, Alan. You ignore the fact that the coal formed, as expected, on the coast of a continent, and, over geologically long timespans, the sea level has risen and covered what were once, indeed, moors and/or mangrove swamps.
No world-wide global flood. Just geology as usual.
Now, David M. might have been a little unclear with this phrasing: "And indeed, there is no coal on or under the ocean floor, moron". Indeed, the news article itself implies that the terms "ocean floor" and "seabed" means "any earth under the waters of the ocean". But the technical oceanographic meaning of "ocean floor" is indeed that which is lower than the continental slope — far below the waters that the mining company wishes to explore.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 8:45 PM
*grumble* I swear that I refreshed before posting, and didn't see that David M had already responded.
Oh, wait. I was only off by one minute. Spooky!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 18, 2009 8:52 PM
And why does coal occur in the continental shelf?
Because some of it happened to be dry land during a time when mangrove forests grew on it, got buried, and had enough time to become coal. Which parts of a continent are above sea level depends not only on the sea level (which depends on the climate and the speed of plate tectonics*), but also on plate tectonics, which lets mountain ranges grow at to zones of pressure and lets land slowly sink next to zones of strain, and on erosion (and deposition -- like growing deltas --, which depends on erosion elsewhere).
* Because when that speed increases, that's because the magma under the midocean ridges is hotter. This means the midocean ridges get lifted, and the oceanic crust on either side sinks more slowly to abyssal-plain levels.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 18, 2009 8:54 PM
Thank you Owlmirror. My sincere apologies to Herr Docktor David Marjanović, OM. I skimmed through a section of the archives and may have missed the announcement. This is why I asked to be corrected. And he did a magnificient post #736.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 18, 2009 9:00 PM
In his copious free time, I wonder if Alan would care to respond to Robert A. Moore's The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark? Here's just a sample of Moore's problems with the Ark:
Posted by: Kel | February 18, 2009 9:04 PM
That's what I love about posting at this place. So many people here with years / decades of training and experience in a wide range of disciplines. Each time I come on here, I supplement and further my knowledge by leeching off those who spent the time doing the hard yards. Though all the actual scientists here are making me want to go back to university and do a proper science degree, computer science seems like a dead end intellectually.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 9:05 PM
Alan Clarke's a gem, isn't he?
He comes to a science blog and, expecting to find only ignorant, unschooled atheists with no knowledge of the bible, decides to cite scripture in order to bignote himself. But he gets reamed by people who know his own holy book - the only thing he knows anything about - better than he does.
What does he do next? Starts trying to argue science.
It's like offering to fight someone with one arm tied behind your back, getting your ass kicked, and then trying again with both arms tied.
Kind of sad - but funny to watch.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 18, 2009 9:10 PM
Interesting. Where did you get that from? No, I'm only 26 years old, I'm still working on the origin of lissamphibians* and turtles; my thesis is supposed to be finished late next year, though I think it will likely take longer.
And if we're pedantic, I won't be a PhD because that's not how things work over here anymore. In Austria, I'll be a Dr. rer. nat., a doctor of natural sciences, not of philosophy; in France, I'll be a Docteur de l'Université Pierre et Marie Curie -- apparently they put the institution and not the field of study into the title. (It's a cosupervised thesis with two supervisors in two countries, therefore the duplication.)
* Those amphibian groups that survive to the present: frogs (including toads etc.), salamanders (including newts etc.), and caecilians (look them up, they only occur in the tropics).
No, in this particular case the continent has probably sunk in that particular area, at least if the coal in question is Carboniferous in age (as most of it worldwide is). The sea level was higher back then -- there were no ice caps for most of the period.
Or rather, I should have gone to bed long ago. It's 10 past 3 at night. I'm only still up to feed the troll...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 18, 2009 9:16 PM
That's the second of the webpages I've been trying to push him to all the time.
Good observation.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 18, 2009 9:17 PM
Alan, walk away.
Seriously, at this point, man, just disappear.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 9:19 PM
Tis Himself,
Yeah, I'm fairly sure no-one who believes in Noah's Ark has ever worked at housing animals in any serious capacity.
What I also like to ask people who think it's true is why did their god need the humans to save any of the animals in the first place - since all said god would have needed to do is poof brand new animals into existence.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 18, 2009 9:21 PM
I have no problem if he comes back -- after he has read those two pages.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 18, 2009 9:32 PM
By the way, glad to hear you're still working on the turtle problem, David. Can you let any preliminary guesses or conclusions slip?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 18, 2009 9:41 PM
I saw your first published paper linked to a while back, and obviously mistook it for a thesis. Or perhaps the person linking it stated that it was your thesis? There may have been some other confounding factors.
Plus, you know more about more subjects than nearly anyone else around, which is intimidatingly like a full professor.
Tet Zoo, woot!
Well, perhaps I got that detail wrong. I did remember that Australasia (or Meganesia, or Sahul, or whatever the combined Australia-New Guinea area is called) was one plate, and the shelf was pretty shallow, and that during the ice ages, at least, the area where they are looking for coal would not have been under the ocean. I'm pretty sure, anyway.
SIWOTI!Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 18, 2009 10:06 PM
I will second this. With the likes of Owlmirror, David Marjanović, SC, Sastra, Nerd and all the others(I hope are not insulted that I don't name them.), I really am out of my league. I love all the bit of knowledge that I find here. And I am humbled that they put up with me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 18, 2009 10:12 PM
third
Comparatively I know squat. I just have a finely tuned bullshit detector.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 18, 2009 10:28 PM
Yeah, I can't make claims about contributing too much to the science-fu either. I just pick holes in the (small 'l') logic where I see it, and hammer those who set my layperson science-spidey-sense to tingling.
Humorous snark, on the other hand, is my weapon. That and perseverance. Two! My two weapons are...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 18, 2009 10:31 PM
Janine, not all of us need to be scientists. I admire your knowledge of various music genres and U-tube videos. So you contribute in your own way. We are a very diverse group.
So I was right about our resident turtle expert not having his degree yet, but that will change. I will proudly raise to toast to his success when he presents his dissertation.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 19, 2009 1:11 AM
Let me direct this to you, Alan, or any other creationists that might be reading:
There's a wealth of knowledge around here, in PZ's posts and in the contributions of many extremely intelligent and knowledgeable regulars. Take my advice and consider what they say, follow the links they provide. It's highly educational and very rewarding. This community is a resource as much as a place to hang out, be snarky, or shoot the shit. You simply don't understand how silly you appear attempting to chastise or lecture people waaaaaay more knowledgeable in the field than you. You're like a patient laughing at the doctor for a diagnosis and smarmily telling them "You medical elite with your cancers and tumors. It's demons. Cancel the chemo and get me an exorcist."
I'm not a science professional or expert in biology. I haven't even finished university. (Although, I am returning soon) I'm aware of these limitations and realize that when I reach the limits of my knowledge A) it's usually best to defer to the professionals/experts, and B) if I shut up and listen, I'm likely to learn something.
You, apparently, do not. Google "Dunning-Kruger Effect".
With some humility and introspection, you can avoid making a fool of yourself any further and learn something new instead. Try it. It's a wonderful thing.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | February 19, 2009 8:22 AM
Alan-
How long have you been arguing against evolution? (I don't mean here, I mean everywhere). Virtually everyone here has been debating creationists off and on for years. I first encountered David Marjanović on the BBC Science boards about 5 years ago- I've been sparring with people like you for 10 years- and we're newcomers to this game compared to some.
You will lose because we have the evidence, we are familiar with it, and we've all done this before. You could do something suprising though- you could read the links David Marjanović gave you, and actually learn something. You never know, you might find out you like being educated.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 19, 2009 7:38 PM
I have just witnessed the greatest concentration of back-patting, credential-advertising, and degree-boasting of my life.
The global flood buried masses of land and ocean fauna under the Earth’s surface. Land masses containing forests & vegetation, provided the raw materials for oil and coal. One would expect certain fossil fuels to be distributed in relative proximity to their sources (i.e. the continents and continental shelves!). The temperature of the oceans rose from volcanic action and killed masses of sea fauna (i.e. plankton, sea creatures, etc.). When the flood waters assuaged, tidal actions were less restricted by the continents since much was still submerged. Much material was washed onto the continents as evidenced by today’s limestone and oil deposits (and much, much, more). Much material was also covered under our ocean floors, far from the continental shelves, as evidenced by known recoverable and non-recoverable oil deposits.
Is it any wonder that fossil fuels are referred to as “Non-Renewable?
The city where I live is planning to utilize the landfill to extract methane gas from the trash heaps for an alternate source of energy. If hydrocarbon fuels can be produced in a relative short time, why aren’t we seeing coal and oil produced naturally today in large volumes? How about small volumes? Can someone provide me a photo of a pile of organic material sitting on the ocean floor waiting to be turned into future oil? My guess is you won’t because uniformitarian theory fails miserably. How about a photo of organic material sitting somewhere on dry land waiting to be turned into coal or oil? My guess is you won’t find that either unless of course YOU PAY FOR THOUSANDS OF DUMP TRUCKS TO PILE UP A MASS OF ORGANIC GARBAGE AND DEBRIS. But why bother? One big global flood will do it for you. And you’ll have it distributed EVERYWHERE!
“Decomposing waste in Laubscher Meadows Landfill generates enough methane gas to equal about 70,000 barrels of crude oil or 15,000 tons of coal each year.”
source: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/apr/23/landfill-methane-put-to-use
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 7:41 PM
Owch.
Alan please. Watch where you are swinging that stupidity around. It hurts when you get hit with it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 19, 2009 7:44 PM
I have just witnessed the greatest concentration of back-patting, credential-advertising, and degree-boasting of my life.
Did you just come back from a visit to Uncommon Descent?
otherwise, I'd say you need to get out more.
Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2009 7:51 PM
Alan, there either was no global flood, or whatever agent was responsible for it 1) completely erased all evidence of said event and 2) erected a geological record that says there was no global flood. We disproved the flood hypothesis centuries ago. The people out there who support flood geology are either completely ignorant of the entire discipline of sedimentology or are lying/deluded.
Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 7:53 PM
Alan Clarke's way of arguing for debating -
Alan - Evidence A requires a global flood as an explanation, so the bible = true.
Everyone else - A global flood is contrary to evidences B through V, each one of those is impossible if there were a global flood. And A is explainable through X.
Alan - nope, you can't explain A. Therefore God created the world 6000 years ago.
Everyone else - *facepalm*
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 19, 2009 7:54 PM
Says the moron who thinks he has the truth direct from the creator of the universe itself.
There was no global flood.
Sorry, you don't get to say that the actual geology supports your moronic false claim.
Good for them.
Because they require heat and pressure, as you would know if you bothered to look it up.
I realize this is hard for you to grasp, but methane gas is not oil nor coal.
You really have a hard time thinking, don't you?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 19, 2009 7:55 PM
Guesses? Yes. Strangely enough, it more and more appears that my supervisor is right, and turtles and procolophonoids are sister-groups. For the pareiasaur hypothesis, certain features of Proganochelys (like the fully functional basicranial articulation) had to be interpreted as reversals, but Odontochelys shares them, and its teeth are not adapted to herbivory. I still haven't read the paper on the procolophonoid Sclerosaurus in the latest Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, but I note with great satisfaction that it has one row of osteoderms per rib...
However, I haven't run any analysis yet, not even a very preliminary one. (Because of all the lissamphibian work, I'm still stuck in the snout and have yet to fuse characters of the rest of the skeleton.) So, everything could change.
Together with the second paper, it will -- retroactively -- become a chapter in the thesis, and I might have mentioned that...
Exactly. :-)
All of the above...
Correct.
Last time I was accused of having the patience of a saint, I said I have the perseverance of a nerd instead...
Well, duh. Unlike Alan, you are (as your name says) aware of your ignorance. :-)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 19, 2009 7:56 PM
Well, if Alan is still being stupid, I'll repeat myself too. Alan, your god only exists between your ears, and no place else, the bible is proven work of fiction. There, twice as much content as he provided.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 19, 2009 7:58 PM
Alan,
A couple of days to search and that's the best you can come up with? Sheesh. My scientific education went as far as first-year Univeristy chemistry and I'm a genius compared to you. Maybe you should go away again and think about the processes involved in turning organic matter into oil and coal. There's more to it than time and pressure.
Posted by: Kel | February 19, 2009 7:59 PM
That's brilliant, must use that in the future.Posted by: DaveL | February 19, 2009 8:05 PM
Hold on, hold on... are you trying to argue that because I don't shit crude oil, uniformitarian geology is false?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 19, 2009 8:06 PM
Hi Josh,
Alan Clarke linked to a paper on petroleum geology at #531 (Meyerhoff 1969). I don't have the expertise to figure out what Meyerhoff was trying to say, so I was wondering if you might be able to decipher it? Of course, I'm certain that Alan didn't understand it either; he was probably thinking along the lines of "Scientist says there are anomalies, therefore God, nyah!"
And have you heard of Meyerhoff's "surge tectonics" (linked to @#698), just out of curiosity?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 8:15 PM
I think I'll refer to "teh flood" as "teh flood" from now on.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 19, 2009 8:17 PM
Strangely enough, it more and more appears that my supervisor is right,
I can't count the number of times I essentially said that very thing as a grad student.
:)
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 19, 2009 8:19 PM
Hold on, hold on... are you trying to argue that because I don't shit crude oil, uniformitarian geology is false?
LOL
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 19, 2009 8:21 PM
Sheesh, what's the point of studying for years and defending a thesis if you can't pat each other on the back over it? If I can get into grad school this year after two previous years of insufficient funding and whathaveya, I expect everyone to kiss my ass just for THAT.
Oh, and also, that is one HUGE ENORMOUS MOTHERFUCKING SNAKE. Just saying that so that "Titanoboa" might not end up forever associated in our minds with superstition and obstinate fractal wrongness.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 19, 2009 8:22 PM
Alan, you are an insufferable git.
One word for you: peat
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 8:24 PM
Randy, tell me something.
How do you think that scientists promote their theories / hypotheses in the scientific community? I'm not just talking about evolution, I'm talking about all fields of science.
It's through peer review. It is the best structure for weeding out the good from the bad, the unsupported from good empirical science, the crack pots from genuine new discovery.
Why should that change? So far what we have seen from creationists is trash. From ID it is sciency trash. It is rejected because it doesn't measure up. If you are so convinced of your science shouldn't it be easily supported?
Now if it works for the entire rest of the many scientific fields why do you supposed it shouldn't work for this subject? Is there that big of a conspiracy?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 8:28 PM
Crap
wrong thread
shit
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 19, 2009 8:40 PM
Which explains why all oil and coal has exactly the same age, contains as much 14C as one would expect of something that's barely 4000 years old, and...
Nope, none of that is the case. You can even find oil fields on top of each other, and finding lots of coal measures on top of each other is the normal condition -- coal measures don't normally come alone.
Of course. I don't see what your point is here.
Yeah. That explains the Permian salt deposits of northern Germany that reach far under the North Sea. Riiiiight...
Nice to see you're acknowledging your mistake about the coal.
Methane can be. Oil and coal can't -- no matter what amount. Next question!
You don't even know what oil and coal are chemically, do you.
Try to look up what kerogen is.
Why, why, why do you keep parading your ignorance so aggressively?
Plant matter that sits on top of dry land just rots. It has to be covered so well that no oxygen reaches it during millions of years.
Do you know what peat is?
Take a peat bog. Put a river delta next to it. Have the delta cover the bog -- if this takes a few hundred thousand years, fine. Then have the delta keeping on growing, so that a few hundred meters of sediment are deposited on top of the peat. (This takes tens of millions of years and usually requires that the land sinks.) The pressure of the sediment, and the heat present several hundred or thousand meters below the surface, trigger slow chemical reactions that make the plant matter give off water, methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and the like, so that it turns into coal. Depending on how much pressure and heat there is, you get lignite, coal in the strict sense, anthracite, or even graphite.
Really, Alan, you should stop acting like the whole science of geology just didn't exist.
And now go read the two pages I pointed you to. Here they are again.
The first is this article, which is entitled "Radiometric Dating -- A Christian Perspective". The abstract follows:
So, you can read it without fear of downloading the devil or something.
The other, entitled "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark", is an excruciatingly meticulous list of the miracles that are required to make the Flood story* possible. You thought the Flood was a single miracle, or five, or ten? You're mistaken. You're mistaken by several orders of magnitude.
Here's the introduction:
And mind you, that study doesn't even mention the contradictions in the story, for example that the Flood lasted both 40 (Gen 7:17) and 150 days (Gen 7:24 and 8:3) at the same time, that Noah was told to take both one couple of every animal (Gen 6:19, 7:8-9, 7:15) and one couple of every unclean animal and seven couples of every clean animal (Gen 7:2), that the Ark was afloat both seven (Gen 8:4) and ten months (Gen 8:5), that the earth dried both on the first day of the first month (Gen 8:13) and on the 27th day of the second month (Gen 8:14), and so on... It's obvious that two different Hebrew versions of the ancient Mesopotamian flood story were intertwined here. But I digress.
Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2009 9:26 PM
Heya Owl,
Well, it seems to me (and I have to admit, I didn't go back up and wander through whatever else Alan had written, so I might be a bit off on the real thrust of the conversation) that Alan linked to that paper as support that oil isn't found where we uniformitarianists(tm) would expect to find it? Well, if he is trying to push that idea using that article, he should perhaps go back to the library.
Meyerhoff was basically a Plate Tectonics denier (even though he comes out and says it at the end, the code words for this is that he's still referring to it as drift in bloody 1969--we can go into that if you like--it's not directly relevant to this argument), and whereas he did have a few points to make in that article, most of what he wrote was irrelevant even then and much of it has subsequently been blown to pieces (e.g., his insistence that low-latitude Gondwanan glaciations were impossible-HA is all I have to say about that). Actually, looking back at the abstract again, he got almost everything wrong. I mean, he actually asserted that sediments proximal to island-arc trenches don't get deformed! As if it were a fact. I have no idea what the hell Meyerhoff was smoking when he wrote that, but I'd like some. Who did he think he was, Martin Lockley? That paper is worthy of the recycle bin and little more, except as a historical piece. If Alan needs it, I can point by point list out everything that has been subsequently refuted, but I'll hold off on that for the moment because it take a minute and will be fucking tedious to both write and read. The refutation will probably take as long to write as the bloody manuscript did in the first place.
But what's more, it isn't like Meyerhoff was arguing against uniformintarian models. Why the hell is Alan using him as a poster child? Meyerhoff was simply arguing against this particular scientific theory (badly). Based on what I know of him, to say that Meyerhoff didn't accept an old earth or uniformitarianism is like trying to argue that Gould was a creationist because he was a punctuated equilibrium proponent. It's ridiculous. LOTS of geologists took a while to accept Plate Tectonics. That doesn't mean that they were catastrophists or some shit.
Seriously, Alan, try another angle to support your assertions than offering up mid-20th century detractors from Plate Tectonics as evidence that geology is wrong. You're out of your league.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 19, 2009 10:57 PM
David M @#776:
There might be one or two other places where the only explanation for the weird changes in phrasing is text interlacing like the flood story, but I forget exactly where.
This shows the interlacing nicely for Gen 7 & Gen 8, though.
Josh @#777 (jackpot!):
Then, seriously, don't bother. It's only worth the effort if it actually interests or amuses you, and I really think that Alan can't sustain the extended intellectual effort necessary to understand the refutation anyway. He's a real short-little-span-of-attention kinda guy.
But it would be nice if you hung around in case he tries any more "Fossil fuels, therefore Global Flood!" bullshit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 19, 2009 11:16 PM
Alan using a plate tectonics denier as evidence?!?!?!?!?
I'm shocked.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 20, 2009 2:30 AM
If this is what is keeping you from God, then you have one of the lamest excuses ever invented. Or should I say ever swallowed by an uneducated generation void of critical thinking and originality. The North Koreans may have a better chance of breaking from Kim Jong Il’s domain. Here is why my sarcasm has validity:
When I constructed post #676 describing the locations of the Babylonian ruins in various museums, I didn’t realize until I was about 90% finished that the “dragon and satyr remains” Ragutis was referring to were not images inscribed on the Ishtar Gate, but supposed “mythical” ones described in the Bible, implying that the Bible is a fable. I decided to post it anyway and deal with the “mythical” animals at a later date. A Harvard or Oxford student from the 1800’s could have easily refuted this false deduction, but a current student cannot. The difference is that people have become “less educated” in languages, word etymologies, and Biblical history. Instead, they have become indoctrinated by a world-view that obscures former knowledge.
Suppose our current English-speaking civilization ceases to exist tomorrow. One thousand years later someone unearths a document that has the words “catbird”, “walking stick”, and “dragonfly”. Suppose these animals are extinct. The discoverer might somehow piece the meanings together and think surely the animals are mythical since a stick can’t walk, cats and birds can’t crossbreed, and dragons can’t fly. His deduction would be that our current-day zoology books were mythological in nature.
Similarly, another archeologist unearths an old astronomy textbook that has the word “Uranus” which he interprets as “Father of the Sky and of Titans who banished the Cyclopes to the underworld.” After cross-checking multiple Greek documents, the archeologist deducts the book is mythological in nature.
You may argue that archeologists will not come to this absurd conclusion if they have evidence showing that the Greek’s usage of “Uranus” referred to a planet or evidence exists depicting a “walking stick” insect next to a textual inscription, etc. Are supplementary evidences available to guide the proper interpretation of the Hebrew word שָׂעִיר which literally means “hairy” and was translated “satyr” in the King James Bible?
Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
If not, then would it be wise to translate the above verse as, “…and the hairy shall cry to his fellow…”? Suppose the actual animal was a goat, but a certain type of goat that earned it the name “hairy”. Or perhaps this type of goat achieved a legendary status by copulating more frequently than other breeds and earned itself a vulgar Hebrew slang name like “hairy” which had a double meaning. Even in our English language, “hairy” has multiple slang usages. But as explained before, a translation like, “…and the hairy shall cry to his fellow…” would not reflect this baser meaning. What was the original Hebrew meaning for “hairy” as applied to this animal? Who would have the greater chance of knowing? Desiderius Erasmus was considered the most learned man in Europe 500 years ago. He was much closer to the original sources and had great influence on subsequent translations such as the KJV. The KJV translators chose the word, “satyr”. Unless someone can prove they chose wrong, I’ll stick with “satyr” since current non-mythical animals and objects may have mythical names. Orion and the Pleiades are good examples.
Suppose an archeologist comes across a small papyrus written in a discernable ancient language describing a large %*#? animal. Everything is understood and translatable except for one single word which is the animal’s name (indicated by %*#?). The animal terrifies other animals, leaves huge footprints, and roars loudly. Is the animal extinct or extant? Some argue that it has elephant-like attributes, others disagree, etc. Rather than risk guessing wrongly, the translator assigns a “generic” name such as “giant” or “behemoth” or “dragon” or “leviathan”. The problem with this approach is even the generic names connect to some former meaning that may be specific. Put yourself in the translator’s shoes and derive a non-commital name for an animal if you don’t know the animal with certainty. Or if you are a writer trying to convey ideas about cats, make sure no one will misunderstand you 3000 years from now in case all cats become extinct. You’ll want to avoid using words and subjects that will be misconstrued by future civilizations where there may be mythical meanings, like “catbird” or “sphinx cat”. Avoid “generic cat” which will mislead translators into thinking they are purchased in a special area of a grocery. Drawing pictures may not be feasible if your document is to be copied multiple times where only text is easily reproduced.
Plants, trees, and herbs provide even more problems. I challenge someone to write a poem about the beautiful sycamore tree. Write the poem so that no one in a future non-English speaking culture will confuse the sycamore with a birch. You don’t want them ridiculing, “The fool is unaware that birch trees never existed where he reports them to exist!” One will argue, “Surely someone would interpret “sycamore” properly if they were to excavate America 3000 years from now. We have so many libraries that will inform them! We have microfilm, and computer chips with information. We have photographs, iron engravings, pictures of sycamore trees adjacent to the word “sycamore”, DVD’s with the information locked in fire-proof safes!” Your arguments are not applicable for a Hebrew culture that didn’t have these technologies or quantities of evidences. Your attempt to convey “sycamore” may fail future readers if the tree is not sufficiently described so as to differentiate it from a birch.
Conclusion: Many perceive the Bible as having errors because they are unknowledgeable of word etymologies, semantics, literary mechanisms, original languages and cultures, history, etc. An example of this lack of knowledge is evidenced by those asking the question: “Why doesn’t the Bible say anything about dinosaurs?” Consider that the 1611 King James Bible was translated before Sir Robert Owen coined the word “dinosaur” in 1841. Don’t become a victim of “stupid on purpose” syndrome or as the KJV puts it: "willingly are ignorant".
Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 2:56 AM
I make a snarky remark and you do all that tapdancing? Seriously?
This is fun! :p
No, Alan, that's not the thing "keeping me from God". What's "keeping me from God" is his nonexistence. Same as what's "keeping me from Zeus" and "keeping me from Vishnu" and "keeping me from Ra". If evidence of a creator being or race emerges, well I'll judge then whether to admire, follow, or worship He/She/It/Them.
Although, I would like to see Owlmirror's take on your wall o' text. I see a lot of speculation and "suppose", but no evidence you actually know any of the "word etymologies, semantics, literary mechanisms, original languages and cultures, history, etc." I suspect you're bullshitting. Owlmirror? A little help?
BTW: peat
I wanted you to look it up, but David made it easy for you. Read. Think. Learn.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 3:01 AM
Alan,
Okay, I've waded through your tidal wave of banal inanity and realised this that your argument is this: 'Writers use poetic license and language changes over time; therefore, my god exists'.
Seems like it would have saved you a lot of time and effort if you'd just written that. It's about as compelling.
Posted by: John Morales | February 20, 2009 3:11 AM
Alan the logorrheic.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 3:24 AM
Well, here's what I've come up with...
and:
Do I really need to point out that dragons were common in the mythologies of the area of the time?
It's looking like "Dragons" and "Satyrs" is what they meant.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 4:18 AM
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=satyr
Now, I don't know why the KJV translators chose the word, but it looks like one they got right. Whether the vague "hairy devil" of the Hebrews or the more familiar half-man/half-goat of the Greeks, Romans, and Arabs, there certainly appears to have been a belief in this type of creature in the region and timeframe. "Goat" seems to appear on a lot of apologetics sites, but not anywhere unbiased. But I'm just casually looking.
Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 5:05 AM
The first sentence has good support. The second is a helping of Waldorf word salad.
Posted by: Kel | February 20, 2009 5:11 AM
This has got to be the dumbest evasion of a serious question I've ever heard. You don't have to have a word for dinosaurs in order to mention them. "Fucking giant killer lizards" would have done just fine.Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 5:53 AM
Your ability to completely miss the point is nothing short of astonishing. You remind me of some former students I've had. You can't run around screaming "the flood was real and global!" on one hand because the text says it is and then, in other place, say, well, the text says this, but that's just poetry.
Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 6:07 AM
Common mistake. Owen didn't coin the word during the 1841 lecture. The name was published in 1842.
Owen, R., 1842, Report on British Fossil Reptiles, Part II. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Plymouth, England.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 6:12 AM
Ah, the genre defence. I only started hearing this one recently - the idea being that, wherever the bible contains some serious batshit, it's not meant to be taken literally because it's not just a book, it's a collection of stories written in different genres.
Of course, when you ask them how it is they tell the difference - and to clearly identify which bits are to be taken literally and which aren't - you get the same hand-waving nonsense and evasion. Or, if you're really lucky, they'll point out how interesting they find it that atheists and fundamentalists think the same way about literalism.
Welcome to the cafeteria!
Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 6:15 AM
No, he's actually got a point there. Dragons and many other mythological creatures are very likely (I'd guess almost certainly, from the gut) based on fossil remains of dinosaurs and other extinct critters. The point Alan is missing is that the ancient Hebrews believed in dragons and these satyrs/hairy desert demons. So (to me at least) the Book of Isaiah is likely to have said and meant just what the KJV attributes to it: Hairy goat/man demons would dance in the ruins of Babylon and "Fucking giant killer lizards"( to borrow your phrase) would sleep in it's palaces. Especially since (IIRC), the KJV OT is closer to the Hebrew than other translations. The little googling I've done seems to support this. (Feel free to correct me, folks)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 20, 2009 7:03 AM
Alan, your testament is worthless. By now, you are proven liar and bullshitter, so you have to take the evidence out of yourself and onto a third party. That is called citing the literature. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is a work of fiction. Watch The Bible's Buried Secrets and see show books were put together over centuries by many scribes. See, a citation. Now either watch the show or shut up.
Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 7:05 AM
David, your "tens of millions of years" requirement is too long. Rivers aren't as short-lived as lakes, but geologically speaking, they're still pretty ephemeral. We do have some "long-lived" rivers crisscrossing the modern planet (e.g., the Nile), but most river deltas aren't accumulating sediments for stretches of tens of millions of years (at least not from the same river usually). A few hundred thousand? Easy. A couple of million? Okay. Multiple millions? Probably only a few of the rivers currently active on Earth can boast this (but keep in mind that I'm part of the school that views a single river as an uninterrupted flow regime--I see most "ancestral" rivers as entities that are distinct from their currently active "descendants"). Otherwise, nice description. I love the use of a prograding delta to cover the bog.
TO ALL CREATIONISTS/SCIENCE DEINERS WHO ARE WATCHING: Do you see? This is how science works. Heck, this is how learning should work. I disagree with David on a detail within a larger argument that he's making. But (wait for it...), his larger argument is solid (gasp!); of the paragraph I cited, only this detail is in dispute. More importantly, and why I bring it up: the detail could be argued as being minor and it does not alter the overall thrust of David's point. What I'm doing is trying to refine his description of the process of peat burial and alteration. I'm not disputing the process itself.
This is what we do. He has done it to me in the past and I have done it to him. We'll do it in the future. It doesn't change the overall point: we are both on the same sheet of music with respect to the general process of peat burial and alteration.
Now, do two things. First, extrapolate this example to all those disagreements between professionals that you so love to point to and say "See! This proves that there's a lack of consensus among scientists about the validity of evolution!" Second, turn your brains on.
Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 8:15 AM
Alan, could you please point to some references that show flood indicators preserved within a limestone sequence?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2009 8:24 AM
Or more appropriately, turn your brains in. You aren't using them anyway.
Posted by: eddie | February 20, 2009 9:46 AM
Giant snake seen in borneo, allegedly.
Story picked up by telegraph and mail so it's probly a fake.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 11:11 AM
Please. "Animals, cats, and dogs"?
The sycamore (sycomore?) is Platanus, right? In that case, why not simply mention the leaf shape, which could hardly be more different? Or even just the leaf size?
Describing the bark and completely failing to mention the black-and-white pattern of birch bark should also help.
I find the question strange to begin with. Except for the creation stories, all of the Bible is supposed to take place within the last few thousand years. It would be very surprising if any dinosaurs other than extant birds were mentioned!
And indeed, there aren't any mentioned. The behemoth and the leviathan are quite obviously based on second-hand information on the hippos and crocodiles of the Nile.
Let me just repeat that.
AFAIK, he did coin it during the lecture, but the lecture wasn't printed till the next year, and that (publication in ink on paper) is what counts for biological nomenclature -- when the name was actually coined is irrelevant for it.
That's generally true. What I was mostly thinking about is that depositing several hundred meters of sediment takes a little longer.
Alan, go read already.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 11:15 AM
Regarding leaf size and shape of sycamores, you can go very far without making any confusion with birch leaves possible. Even if you say "its leaves are as hands", you might mean a maple, but not a birch!
I think, Alan, that you aren't used to thinking your scenarios through.
Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 11:37 AM
Huh...that's funny. I was under the impression that he didn't actually utter the word during the lecture. I'm gonna try and dig around. But yes on publication date.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 20, 2009 11:44 AM
For your safety, I advise you to steer away from the current so-called "science" of astronomy. My first suspicions arose when I came across a university textbook with a chapter entitled "The Solar System". The chapter was filled with references to "Neptune", "Jupiter", and "Mars". I quite reading such foolishness years ago, but a friend recently tried to re-kindle my interest by suggesting I read the next chapter. But it had all the same mythology! Orion and Pleiades! What a joke! My friend is a Christian who attributes the entire universe's origin to God. He has no credibility.
You are in the exact same quagmire.
Your “quagmire” is further exemplified. I have NEVER built such an illogical argument. My God exists far beyond the fact that he personally answers my questions. What is your basis for the belief in God’s non-existence? He never “spoke” to you? You didn’t see him in a telescope? Look at the pitiful state of another man’s logic that is a product of his Netherland culture:
How did you first manage to get into the quagmire? Rather than have an opinion of your own, you built upon the opinions of others. Two days ago I thought I saw a man with a familiar face at the local Walmart. When I addressed him with a few questions, he resorted to his elderly mother seated in a wheelchair for each answer. I realized he wasn’t “all there” when he looked to her before responding that he was 51 years old.
Owlmirror!!!! Owlmirror!!!! Where is Owlmirror???
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 20, 2009 11:50 AM
Wait
What?
Posted by: Steve_C | February 20, 2009 11:54 AM
Umm... yeah Alan is off his meds.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 11:56 AM
Dude, why don't you recognize such an obvious joke when you see it?
And why are you still here? Why don't you read the two pages we've been pointing you to? What am I supposed to do, reach through the Internet, grab your occiput, and press your nose against the screen?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 20, 2009 11:58 AM
I think we are watching Alan Clarke's brain melting as he types out his words. Such an odd sight.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 20, 2009 12:03 PM
Alan, you need to quit bothering us. You have lost all credibility. Your god doesn't exist and your bible is fiction. You have been trying to prove otherwise for weeks without making any dint in our skepticism, due to your inability to cite the refuting scientific literature. We will simply not take your word for anything.
If PZ has any mercy on poor Alan, he would close this thread.
Posted by: E.V. | February 20, 2009 12:12 PM
Allan:
... Just sayin'.
Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 12:35 PM
*sigh* So, of course I made the mistake of reading further up.
Okay, so volcanic activity. Okay, so enough volcanic activity to raise ocean temperatures to lethal levels for lots of marine species. Okay.
Sooooo, are we talking about a "during-flood" ocean volume here (the order of what you wrote in your comment would suggest yes). If so, and indeed, even if not, where are the deposits from such volcanic activity? Volcanic activity, even subaqueous, tends to make things rather messy, depositing ash everywhere and spewing lava about. Hawaiian volcanism has had documented effects on marine life, very proximal to the point where the lava is entering the water. You're talking about raising the temperature of the ocean to levels that "killed masses of sea fauna." That's going to require a powerful lot of volcanic activity. There's going to be a record. You're talking about massive volcanically induced marine extinctions in the recent past ('cause the flud was like 4000 years ago, right?). Yeah--that's gonna leave a trace we can see. Where are the volcanic rocks that support this hypothesis?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 12:44 PM
Owlmirror is a human being in the real world (who is not reading Pharyngula 24/7). Why are you so overexcited?
Here in the real world, real human beings who know actual facts can answer questions based on what they know, or at the very least, say that they don't know the answer.
Since God can not give you answers to real-world questions about languages, geology, biology, mathematics, or, indeed, anything really, the inescapable conclusion is that "God" only exists inside of your own head. The "answers" that you're getting are just you talking to yourself.
Stop trying to pretend to us that God is real outside of your own head.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 1:58 PM
My diagnosis: Yup, that's a wall o' text, all right.
Alan rambles on about how "שָׂעִיר" means "hairy", then switches around and says, no, "satyr" was right because that's what the KJV used.
Really, "hairy ones" would have been just as good, and avoids the obvious mental image of a Greek satyr — which may or may not be correct; we simply do not know.
Speaking of satyrs, the book I cited from @#578, The First Fossil Hunters, also mentions intermittent reports of satyrs in classical era. They were sort of the "Bigfoot" of that time and place.
Speaking of "hairy ones", though, I am reminded that there are real albeit rare mutations that results in hair growing all over the body: hypertrichosis lanuginosa. The book that I have that describes it, Mutants, by Armand Leroi, also mentions that Darwin was aware a famous Burmese family that had it, and wrote of them in The Descent of Man. Could the Hebrew word have something to do with an ancient memory of a similar mutation?
As long as I am speculating, I note that "שֵׂעִיר" ("Se'ir") was also the name of a mountain in the southeast of Israel, the alleged inheritance of Esau in Edom. Given that Isaiah is ranting about Edom anyway, is it possible that he simply meant animals that live on that particular mountain? That seems parsimonious and simple.
Meh.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 20, 2009 2:24 PM
In response to my example of a landfill generating hydrocarbons for an alternate energy source:
The landfill has been in existence for about 25 years and is it at a relative shallow depth compared to sediments deposited by the global flood 4400 years ago at much greater depths. The bottom line is, methane gas is a hydrocarbon and is an accompaniment of naturally occurring oil. Connect the dots…
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 2:59 PM
Note that one representation of a "drakon" in Greek imagery was ... a big mothafuckin' snake, just like Titanoboa:
http://www.nikawatters.com/picture_gallery.html
Note the skull there of Giraffokeryx, which as the name suggests was a fossil species of giraffe.
Another possible dragon culprit that should not be overlooked is Eocene whales.
See also The First Fossil Hunters.
Speaking of "dragons" and Isaiah - I note that the only place the KJV could have gotten "dragon" from was the Latin Vulgate. Translating "תַנִּים" (jackals) as "draconum" is a fuckup, pure and simple.
Actually... I can almost see how it might have happened. Maybe the Latin translator asked someone "Quid 'tanim' est?", and the word was misheard as 'tanin'. Which means "crocodile". LOL. I can just see the Hebrew-speaker waving his arms and trying to describe this big, long, green, man-eating beast, and Jerome (or whoever) saying to himself "O! Draconis!"
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 3:09 PM
There. Was. No. Global. Flood. Ever. You. Moron.
The "dots" that I connect are that you don't know anything about methane or oil.
There, that was easy.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 3:11 PM
Alan, you're attributing things to me that others said. And are you mocking me for asking someone more knowledgeable than myself for an opinion? One can only guess what you think of me inviting others to correct me. That kind of thinking is antithetical to you, isn't it? You've drawn your conclusions and all evidence to the contrary be damned! (literally)
You've yet again shown us your aversion to learning. Why you choose to wave willful ignorance like a flag, I don't understand.
Also, you may not have noticed subsequent posts where I *gasp* went looking for further information on my own. You should try it sometime. You've even been provided with links.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 20, 2009 3:26 PM
Ragutis, I apologize. My actions may have become rather "knee jerk" after being inundated with "moron". I'll try to look past it. Best Wishes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 20, 2009 3:28 PM
Alan, you need to quit preaching at us and leave. You lost the intellectual arguement about 600 posts back, and you never had a chance with an emotional argument, which you lost even sooner. You are continuing because you don't know how to quit. It is very easy to quit. Remove us from you bookmarks and never post here again. Take care of your wife and soon to be child.
Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2009 3:37 PM
*sigh*
Do we have to go through this again?
Alan,
THERE WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD.
Period.
There simply was NOT.
Let it go.
OR: Whatever supernatural agent was responsible for said flood did two things. It first, erased all record of the flood and second, created a rock record that screams at every possible turn of a sand grain, THERE WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD.
Yes, there are geologists out there who assert that there is geological evidence for a global flood. They are not just wrong--they are lying. And worse, they know they're lying.
A group of fairly hard-core Christians, who set out to prove that there WAS a flood, were shredding the flood hypothesis a hundred years before you were born. There are some aspects of Christian Creationism that are scientifically testable. The flood hypothesis is one of those things. It's has been continuously falsified pretty much since people started systematically trying to prove it.
There is about as much geology supporting the idea of a global flood as there is astronomy supporting the idea that the earth is flat. It's in the same category. And again, you can moan that the geology is all wrong, and that we're all misreading the data, but if so, you're being a hypocrite. How? Because you're arguing against geological methods and principles in some areas, and welcoming with open arms the fruits of those same principles in others (e.g., you're sitting here today making your arguments on a computer built in part out of plastics and silica-derivatives that geologists (using the principles we're talking about) found the raw materials for, and running on electrical power, most of which is generated by means that geology (using the principles we're talking about) plays a central role in finding the raw materials for). Doesn't your theology have a rather large problem with hypocricy?
Jeeze...how many times have we all written varients of this comment? And they complain about us not being able to see.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 3:38 PM
Owlmirror, thanks for the input.
The KJV translators apparently did consult the Vulgate, but I'm finding where it's claimed that in Job and Isaiah "Nachash Bare'ach" is used. This is "Pole Serpent" and was associated with Thuban (Arabic for dragon and pole star of the time) and the constellation Draco.
Or am I missing something or making some horrendous mistake?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 20, 2009 3:39 PM
Alan Clarke @ #810:
Apparently you are under the impression that all hydrocarbons are identical. To test this, please pour several gallons of kerosene in your car's gas tank. See how well it runs?
You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. That's been obvious since your first post here. Yet no matter how many times your nonsense is exposed as such, you can't even imagine the possibility you could be wrong. The Dunning-Kruger effect has been mentioned before, but of course you won't read about it, precisely because you are a living example of it.
I know next to nothing about hydrocarbons, but even I know that coal, oil, and methane are different substances that form through different processes! Yet you spout off idiocy without the slightest understanding of the differences, without even attempting to understand!
Do you put DVD-ROMs in you car's CD player and get mad when they don't install correctly? They're both disks, right?
Do you take a FireWire cable and pound it into your computer's USB port with a hammer, then scream bloody murder to tech support because it doesn't work right? They're both cables, aren't they?
Do you regularly give your cats hemlock instead of catnip, then get pissed off when they die? They're both plants, aren't they?
When your doctor prescribes antibiotics, do you take horse tranquilizers instead? they're both pills, aren't they?
Have you ever bathed in sulfuric acid? It's a clear liquid, just like water, right?
Posted by: E.V. | February 20, 2009 3:49 PM
I'm thinking phantomreader42 has reached a breaking point and will no longer suffer
foolsidiots gladly.Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 20, 2009 3:50 PM
Alan, a global flood would leave evidence everywhere. There is not the slightest speck of evidence of such a flood. There are people in the world who study rock and layers of earth and the things found therein. These people are called "geologists". They would have noticed evidence for a global flood if there were any. They haven't. One of these geologists in this very thread has explained to you, in great detail, that there is not the slightest speck of evidence for a global flood.
Of course, no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong by experts in every field you spout off about, you won't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong. No, no, no, you, Alan Clarke, cannot possibly be wrong! All the scientists in the world must be engaged in a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids! The alternative, the possibility that you, Alan Clarke, might have made a mistake, is simply too horrible for you to contemplate.
Alan, you are profoundly, hopelessly, willfully ignorant. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you don't WANT to know. You are a sad, pathetic creature. Why is it creationists treat learning as a fate worse than death?
I'm surprised no one's used this yet with Alan's methane idiocy: I fart in your general direction!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 20, 2009 3:54 PM
E.V. @ #819:
I haven't suffered fools, idiots, frauds, liars, crooks or sociopaths gladly for as long as I can remember. Creationists tend to fall into those categories, often all at once.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 20, 2009 4:15 PM
I was gonna say...I had a bean burrito for lunch and there is already evidence of methane production a few hours later. Whereas I have never once shit out any coal.
Posted by: E.V. | February 20, 2009 4:25 PM
Add a little habanero to that burrito Sven, and you just might shit fire.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 20, 2009 4:25 PM
Ah, but that's for a different verse in Isaiah (I was looking at 34:13, which definitely has "dragon" for "jackals").
Huh. While "Nachash" is indeed "serpent", the translation of "Bare'ach" as "Pole" looks wrong to me. WTF? Other translations of the verse do say "fleeing"; that seems more correct to me (The verb "ברח" (barach) does mean "flee").
Job 26:13 and Isaiah 27:1 look like they might be faint echoes of attempts to syncretize YHWH with the Babylonian Marduk, and turn the destruction of Tiamat into a prediction. I dunno
It looks to me like someone bunged some cosmogonic woo into the Wikipedia article on dragons with that "Pole Serpent" business, and I do not trust it at all. Who is the source of that particular claim? The citations say "Kaplan"; who is Kaplan? What's the damn title of the work?
Thuban/Alpha Draconis would have been the pole star long before either Isaiah or Job was written.
Checking the Wiki article on Draco, I note that the whole dragon interpretation was Greek, and the Arabs presumably named Thuban because they picked it up from the Greek Astronomers. However, Wikipedia says that the original Arabic interpretation of the constellation was "The Mother Camels". LOL. Real dragon-like, there.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 20, 2009 4:44 PM
Alan's new arguments:
'Astronomers named stars, planets etc. after mythological gods; therefore, my god exists.'
and
'Methane is a hydrocarbon. Coal and oil are hydrocarbons, too; therefore, my god exists.'
What's next?
Posted by: Ragutis | February 20, 2009 4:53 PM
Yeah, Wikipedia was about all I could find in limited time, and the lack of information on the Kaplan source bugged me too. And I should have spent more time looking into Thuban(Th'uban) and Draco instead of relying on fragments of memories from a long ago astronomy class. My bad.
Thanks for the info and taking the time to respond, Owlmirror.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 20, 2009 4:57 PM
About all that is left, is "I fart and/or shit, therefore god exists".
Coal and oil are both hydrocarbons, but coal is a lot more aromatic (graphitic) in character. In order to make gasoline from coal, a lot of hydrogen is required.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 20, 2009 6:21 PM
If I remember my high school chemistry correctly, methane is an odorless gas. Are you sure that you were producing methane?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 20, 2009 6:35 PM
The Mythbusters showed that methyl mercaptan and dimethyl disulfide are present in flatus. These are the main odorants. Add trace amounts of a few volatile aldehydes and ketones for slight change in odor.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 7:20 PM
Indeed. The air would be chock full of carbon dioxide!
Dracones, more likely :-}
----------------------------------
Alan, go read.
And then come back and explain the thick Early and Middle Jurassic desert sediments (fossil sand dunes) in the US Southwest -- which periodically record somewhat wetter periods like how the Sahara, including Arabia, was more or less green 9000 to 5000 years ago. I'm saying there are many such events recorded on top of each other.
But first go read.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2009 7:23 PM
Hey, look which random quote just popped up.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 21, 2009 2:00 AM
Kel, I suspect you may be a computer programmer. Your excellent logic example illustrates how one conclusion spawns another. I remember how the Pope once spoke “ex cathedra”, literally meaning “from the throne”. The idea was that any statement he made when speaking “ex cathedra” was incapable of error since his words were in fact “from the throne of God”, thus the doctrine of “Papal infallibility”. About 18 years ago, a woman geologist was working for me who was Catholic. I asked her about this questionable-sounding doctrine. She said that many critics “overplayed” its importance because it was exercised only once by one Pope. My interest was really tweaked wondering what this one-time utterance was.
The 1854 declaration generated the question, “If Mary had no sin, the penalty for sin, “death”, would not have affected her. If she never died, then where is she now?” Every good question deserves a good answer, so Pius XII was forced to respond, “Mary didn’t die. She ascended into heaven.” Obama is forced to spend 1 Trillion dollars because he must fulfill his campaign promises. Nasser was forced to attack Israel in 1967 culminating in the disastrous Six-Day War because his “attack-based” political platform demanded it.
The examples illustrate how a single blunder in the beginning propagates a bigger problem or lie in the end. What was my first logical assumption and subsequent logic that led me to becoming a Christian and believing the Bible as “truth”? I’ll answer the question without giving thought to the negative consequences of a possible “illogical” progression. I’ve never answered this question before (in detail), so I have nothing to clip & paste. I’ll just type as I “spill my guts”. I’ve lost everyone anyway so how can I worsen my credibility by speaking the truth? I had to take a lie-detector test once after being robbed and I was fearless even though the detective kept pressing, “Alan! I think you’re lying to me!” Truth has the side benefit of not having to “manufacture” a story.
LOGICAL PROGRESSION OF MY CONVERSION:
Realization of Sin
I reached the “bottom” at about 21 years of age: pot smoking, beer drinking, profanity, robbery, viewing women as “objects” in pornography, complete self-indulgence, etc. At the same gas station where I was previously robbed, I gazed at my blood-shot eyes in the filthy restroom mirror. I had dropped out of the university, I was high, and had cheated about 5 customers that night. As I starred at my pupils in the mirror wondering what was behind them, I began to question myself out loud, “Alan! Who are you?” For the first time, I realized that the only difference between me and a full-time bum behind bars was that I had not been caught. Looking back, I realize the first step in my conversion was becoming aware of my sin condition.
A New Mentor
I returned to the university with a gift Bible from my mother. No one attended church in my family, so I attributed her actions as a last resort to help me since my debauchery was not hidden from her. I was so clueless that I didn’t realize the book my mother had given me was a Bible since the title was “The Way”. My admiration for Jesus started when I saw that the religious establishment persecuted him out of jealousy. He character, wisdom, and wit were “untouchable” by the Pharisees or any other character I had known, personal, literary fiction, or literary non-fiction. I developed an immediate admiration for this man.
Reality or Fable?
When I first read Jesus’ words in John 14:15-16 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.", I immediately perceived that his words applied to latter generations of people such as myself. I took him at his word and tried to “obey what he commanded.” They events in my life that followed were such that I could attribute my complete reversal of character and enlightenment to human nature to no other than what Jesus had promised – “A Counselor” or “Holy Spirit” must have been sent to me. I’m sure an unbeliever will have an alternate explanation, but people that knew me before, commented that I was not the same person, and people who knew me thereafter could not believe I could have been the old person I described above. Go figure.
Short-lived excitement?
I was told by others at that time, that my new-found “religion” was a “temporal high” and I would eventually return to “normality”. My grandfather warned me, “Religion can make a person go crazy.” A university professor told me that the Bible fails to explain the knowledge that can be gained through mind-enhancing drugs. The barrage of voices never ceased: “If you solely dedicate your life to helping others, you will go broke and hungry.” “If you help someone before a test, you’ll hurt yourself by raising the grade curve.” “If you proclaim Jesus before others, you will be taken for a fool.” “If you don’t start interviewing for a job, you will lose your only opportunity for success.” “If you don’t start making more money, you’ll never attract a mate.” I chose instead to listen to the inner “Holy Spirit” that contradicted every one of the above advices and a thousand more. During the 33 years of following the Spirit’s advice, I developed a firm belief.
Final Logical Conclusion
I can’t “prove” God to anyone, but I have “proved” him for myself, or should I say, “He has proved himself to me” too many times for me to attribute my fortunes to chance. The “voices” on this forum are reminiscent of those 33 years ago that battled and raged for my allegiance. They all proved themselves to be lies so at this stage in my life, I almost welcome derogatory remarks because they remind me of my true counter-identity, the one that I received from Jesus Christ. I can now look at myself in the mirror, for a long time, and without reservation.
Is the Bible Scientific?
The question is, “Are theories that oppose the Biblical account scientific?” I’ve noticed a pattern in life: The wisdom of man invariably fails and the wisdom and words of the Bible renew each successive generation. Trusting an opinion or theory simply because it has the “majority” backing is prone to failure. I’ve learned to discern supposed “scientific” theories that have their roots in “God-denial”. Evolution is patently false to me because it not only denies the Creator, it fails miserably in its believability by proposing that man formed accidentally without a designer. The theory is as viable as a full-time bum playing the slot machines at a casino in order to produce sustainable wealth. Actually, the bum may be more viable than my home-town casino: http://www.google.com/search?&q=casino+aztar+bankruptcy
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 21, 2009 2:52 AM
What? What?
uh...Sorry...must have dozed off there.
What?
Posted by: Kel | February 21, 2009 2:57 AM
So you deny evolution because of your belief in God? Got it.
Posted by: clinteas | February 21, 2009 3:04 AM
Alan Clarke,
so you were a cheating stealing druggie,then became religious and now you are a brainwashed moron that has "found god" as a way to sublimate.
Cant say Im impressed.Just confirms the fact that most religious people are either intellectually disabled,simple-minded,or sublimating.
Posted by: Kel | February 21, 2009 3:09 AM
Since I asked this question to other people, I may as well ask it to Alan as well -
If all the evidence points to evolution, what does that say abut God? Does it say that God has deliberately deceived us by making it look like evolution happened, or does it tell us that God worked through evolution in order to create us? I'm really curious, because when so many lines of evidence all point to life evolving over time, when the size and age of the universe are huge, it brings theological implications of either a deceptive God or a God who works through nature.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 21, 2009 3:50 AM
Alan, it's great that you were able to turn your life around. (although, frankly it sounds more like you were just a bit of an irresponsible prick than in some bottomless well of despair. Beer, weed, porn? That's college, not rock bottom. I've seen people at "rock bottom" and trust me, it sounds like you had a long way left to fall. But good that you recognized a change was in order.)
Anyway, good for you. Sincerely. And if a belief in Jesus helped you somehow. Great.
It's just too bad you felt it necessary to sacrifice reason and critical thinking. Millions of others have been in similar situations and far worse. Millions of others found faith and used it to help rebuild themselves. And millions have done it while having no conflicts between their beliefs and established scientific fact. Seriously, you simply wave away the fact that several civilizations continued, uninterrupted and without even noticing, your catastrophic global flood. Just so you don't have to do any extra thinking about your beliefs. Beer is older than you think the universe is.
Obviously you credit your god with this beautiful world full of fascinating creatures and wondrous places. Fine, if you must. But you're shorting him by many orders of magnitude. The god described in the bible is pathetic compared to say, Ken Miller's god, the one that set up the evolution of billions of creatures over billions of years, and potentially in hundreds of billions of places in the universe. The god described in the bible is a chump compared to one that would actually explain what science reveals about our surroundings.
You want to believe in a god? Fine.
But why such a small one?
Posted by: Josh | February 21, 2009 8:29 AM
Alan, you have come in here to have a discussion. But there are two problems.
One, you have shown up at a poker event having never learned how to play the game, and yet you expect to be seated at the table with those of us who play it for a living.
That text of yours that I've copied above completely misrepresents how evolution works. The word that begins turning your comment into word salad is "accidentally." Your bum in the casino analogy fails spectacularly because it misrepresents what the theory of evolution actually says. It's a terrible analogy that says nothing at all about evolution. You're screaming that you don't think the accepted rules of baseball can allow anyone to win the game, but we're sitting here playing football. You've shown up to play poker with the professionals, but you don't even know what all of those pretty colored plastic chips are for.
Now, that shouldn't be a problem, in and of itself. Evolution is not the most user-friendly scientific theory out there and much of the information you can quickly, and easily, find about it is confusing or, well, simply wrong. So, there should be no harm and no fowl, and wouldn't be, except for problem
Two. Problem two is this: you have repeatedly demonstrated a completely unwillingness to learn how the game of poker is played. You don't want to wander over to the beginner's table and spend some time learning how to play. You don't want to sit down with them and actually play a few hands. Instead, you want to come over and sit at the pros' table. That would be fine too, except that you don't want to watch and listen and learn. No--you apparently hate that last word. Instead, you want to sit there and tell professional poker players that their game has fatal flaws and that every time they win a hand it was just an illusion: they're just deluding themselves because the hand was never really played in the first place. Rather, they're just blind. But--of course you've offered no evidence that they haven't been playing hands of poker and you're yelling this stuff at them when it's obvious that you have no idea what the game of poker even is. And then you get annoyed when they are confused by your arguments and don't take them seriously.
Additionally, it doesn't matter if evolution appears false to you. Science isn't about public opinion. Your opinion of a scientific theory is irrelevant. My opinion of a scientific theory is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you like evolution or if you "believe" evolution. Evolution explains the relevant observations regarding the development of life through time. Period. I have 150 years of continuous work behind me backing that statement up. If you are going to come in here and assert that we are all reading the observations wrong, then please at least have the common courtesy to learn what the poker chips stand for. You're walking into the Ford plant and screaming that cars don't exist. It's not our fault that you've never taken a tour of the assembly line floor. I wouldn't even think of dropping myself into a blog that has spent time discussing the finer points of Christian theology without first doing two things. One, learning what religion was, and two, reading the Bible. You are just being rude, and, I will reiterate, hypocritical, since you are screaming that no hands of poker are being played while you're wearing clothes that were purchased with the money from last week's winnings.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 21, 2009 8:45 AM
Alan, your testimony may be compelling to you, but it is simply less-than-poor evidence to us. Until you understand that your bible is a work of fiction we can't have a discussion. If you can't accept that, stop posting here.
Science doesn't care what you or any non-scientist thinks. Your opinion doesn't count, because you don't work in the field, and are truly uneducated as to the nuances of science. So science is democratic within science, but doesn't include anybody outside of science. You can keep presenting your uninformed opinion, but nobody is going to it seriously. Until you understand the need for hard physical evidence, and have the ability to put it into context without a holy book, there can be no discussion.
We are wasting both our times. You need to quit posting. We will have the last say.
Posted by: DaveL | February 21, 2009 9:07 AM
Congratulations, you have proven your grandfather right.
Oh, I don't know about that, but I would counsel you to listen to this somewhate related piece of advice from St. Augustine:
De Genesi Ad Litteram Libri DuodecimPosted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 21, 2009 9:09 AM
So you live in a cave, eating raw meat you kill yourself and whatever nuts and berries you can scrounge from trees and bushes. You must do this because you reject god-denial science. The folks who designed and built your computer didn't say prayers before they produced the machine you're using to post your screed. No virgins were sacrificed when your car was designed and built. Your doctor doesn't get a priest's blessing before he treats your bursitis.
Science isn't god-denial. Science neither accepts nor rejects god. Napoleon asked Pierre Simon Laplace why he hadn't mentioned God in an astronomy book. Laplace replied "I had no need of that hypothesis" (Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là). What was true for Laplace is true for all other scientists.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 21, 2009 9:17 AM
One point you might consider about the St. Augustine quote that DaveL gave. [i]De Genesi Ad Litteram Libri Duodecim[/i] (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis) was written around 400 AD. Augustine considered creationism (and the Noachian flood) over 1600 years ago. He rejected your opinion. Are you claiming you're a greater theologian than Augustine?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 21, 2009 9:18 AM
OK, Alan. Let's postpone reading those two pages that you treat with "la, la, la, I can't hear you" for a few more hours. I'll go through your latest comment.
It is great that you put these two sentences right next to each other. We'll get back to this.
Erm -- wait a minute.
How is that possible? The Bible contradicts itself all the time. This makes a lot of sense if you just consider the idea that the Bible has a history, but if you believe it came down from Heaven in one piece, it just doesn't work.
Even the two creation stories contradict each other. Was Adam created first, then the rest of the world, and then Eve, or did "as man and woman let us create them" happen at the very end? Tell me, Alan. Tell me.
And it's not just stories about physical reality where the Bible contradicts itself. The New Testament contradicts itself all the time on how to reach salvation. Even some gospels and some of Paul's epistles contradict themselves on which conditions are necessary and/or sufficient for salvation. Look, if you dare.
I don't doubt your innocence, but pedantry compels me to point out that the lie detector doesn't measure whether you lie. It measures whether you're excited. If you're afraid (as the detective was trying to make you), you'll be considered guilty; if you're capable of lying in cold blood (and that's something you can train), you'll walk free. This is why the so-called lie detector is forbidden outside the USA.
I have to agree with Ragutis here. Except for robbery, all of this is normal. Fine, I have never drunk alcohol (it stinks) or smoked anything (it stinks) or used pornography (most of it isn't even my taste), but I am not normal... Alcohol can of course utterly destroy a life, but even if you get drunk once in a while, long-term consequences are unlikely -- when you get drunk every day, that's different. Pot is probably less harmful than tobacco (just don't drive if you're high).
And profanity? Rock-bottom? What the -- I'll spell it out -- fuck? Do you mean blasphemy or something?
1) It's hard to imagine you grew up without any contact to basic Christian doctrine in the USA. Really. I'm not sure whether you aren't exaggerating here.
2) Yes, if we kindly gloss over the constant and sort of random threats of hellfire, the Jesus character is pretty admirable. But how does that make him different from Luke Skywalker? Don't tell me "but Luke is fiction". Whether this is a difference should be a conclusion, not a presupposition.
That was you yourself.
That much is true.
LOL. Knowledge? Through drugs? Not if you don't test your hallucinations afterwards -- in other words, not if you don't do science. :-) What did that professor teach?
Would surprise me.
WTF. Does it work like that in the USA?!? That's crazy!!!
Over here, yes, because over here the faithful obey Matthew 6:1-8. But in the USA?
I don't think it's that bad.
Never say never again! Stranger things have happened.
Again, that's yourself. Aren't you committing blasphemy here by your own criteria? :-)
What? Why do you suddenly change the topic?
That depends on whether they fulfill the definition of "scientific". Here goes: Are they testable? Can it be found out what evidence that would disprove them would look like? If the answer is "yes", then they are scientific.
"Scientific" neither means "correct" nor "in accordance with anything".
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 21, 2009 9:35 AM
Shit, another blockquote failure.
Anyway, here's another quote for you, Alan. It's from Thomas Henry Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog", the paleontologist who, upon reading On the Origin of Species, said "how stupid of me not to have thought of this myself!"
As long as you continue to ignore all facts that might contradict your preconceived notions, as long as you keep not even wanting to find out where the evidence leads, you will continue to learn nothing.
And don't tell me -- or yourself -- that you don't need to learn anything. Creationism can't explain a single champsosaur.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 21, 2009 9:40 AM
While I am at it, here's another quote, this time from Francis Bacon, one of the people who developed the scientific method:
BTW, you almost certainly don't know what a champsosaur even is. That was deliberate. I'm trying to illustrate to you that there's orders of magnitudes more knowledge out there than you'd ever have suspected even exists.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 21, 2009 9:48 AM
Champsosaur
{Google is my friend.)
Posted by: Dr. Hunter S. DiMilo | February 21, 2009 10:22 AM
uh...what about the, you know, next 25 years after college? or am I doing it wrong?Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 21, 2009 10:59 AM
Oh, I am happy to hear that, because I just love saying the word "procolophonoid" out loud (the other fun one is lophotrochozoan). So what about all the strange molecular results? Are procolophonoids also diapsids in disguise? What about the rest of the parareptiles?Posted by: Owlmirror | February 21, 2009 3:19 PM
Shorter Alan:
1) My life was a mess.
2) I read a bible and turned my life around
3) Therefore God exists.
Such as? Examples, please, of this invariable failure.
Also: What "wisdom of man" failed in producing the computer that you are using at this very moment?
Such as? Examples, please.
Especially since you've consistently demonstrated nothing but folly in the Bible.
That's true. Christianity is the majority opinion in the Americas and Europe, and of course, it fails to explain anything about anything real (other than the history of Christianity).
Islam is the majority opinion in North Africa and the Middle East, and of course, it fails to explain anything about anything real (other than the history of Islam).
No scientific theories have their roots in "God-denial". Scientific theories have their roots in examining the physical universe (and in assuming only that the physical universe is not a lie).
Evolution does not deny the Creator.
Of course, it denies a Creator that does not permit evolution — but then, physics denies a Creator that does not permit gravity, or electricity, or magnetism, or light or radioactivity. Yet the same physical forces that are used to demonstrate the age of the earth and of the universe are also used to drive the technology that you are using right this very instant. And as Kel notes, that means that God either does permit all those things, or God provides an enormous set of perfectly inter-consistent observations that are nevertheless all lies. And if you pick the latter, then you have no basis on which to claim that we are denying God. If physical reality is a lie of God, then God denies himself. Who are you to challenge God?
Getting back to biology: Evolution is an explanation of how life changes over time.
"Nothing about biology makes sense except in light of evolution" was the famous line by religious biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and it is echoed and repeated by religious biologists such as Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala.
If you see evolution as denying God, then it is your own understanding of evolution that is wrong.
Nonsense, of course. You don't believe it because you don't understand it. You have demonstrated repeatedly an enormous amount of things that you don't understand, so your complaints about "believability" are as laughably silly as a small child not "believing" that the Earth is round rather than flat because he doesn't understand the geometry used to demonstrate that simple scientific fact — or the refinements in our understanding of the Earth's shape.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 21, 2009 7:02 PM
We'll see. I like to throw accusations of long-branch attraction all over the place, but we'll see.
There is one molecular analysis that finds the turtles outside the (crown-group) diapsids; it's a byproduct of the great big lissamphibian phylogeny of Frost et al. (2006).
Now that would really surprise me.
Well said.
Though... wait. Even this is not necessary. It does not really matter for science if the physical universe is a lie -- it just has to be a consistent lie!
This I can agree with. :-)
Posted by: RogerS | February 22, 2009 4:38 PM
I'm back but not well yet, wanted to share a notable personal life experience in investigative science.
A Case of False Assumption Leading Research
I need to be a little nonspecific with this story since I kept no connection with the timing of the legal proceedings. I was sourced by company X as “the best man” to travel with a company official in-charge of handling a potential wrongful death lawsuit. The destination was a high tech research consortium where the failed and fire damaged remains of a product was being analyzed. Upon arrival, a Tech buddy from California filled me in on the details of the research while representatives of multiple “at risk” companies with lawyers & analysts in tow were coming and leaving the various research rooms. The investigation was winding down to a “module” manufactured by company X. The room of attention happened to be where the “module” was being dissected. Surfaces were being scanned by an electron microscope and the mass spectrometer was divulging the metal composition with attempt to prove that exposure of certain underlying metals indicated premature wear that lead to failure which lead to etc, and eventually to the sad incident. I began to take in how this focused attention (by truly experts in their field) with the use of impressive high tech equipment had began to solidify a consensus among those there. They seemed to be gleaning assurances from each other in their pursuit which ultimately was laying blame at the feet of company X.
I wasn’t ready to drink the Kool-Aid because of God given insight to the nature of corruptible man. A nature that fears going against a consensus or disagreeing with the “research” of the highly educated elite. A reflex nature instilled across campuses to only formulate answers the instructor approves of, that is if you want to succeed under their rules. The real world is just a bigger campus where reality can be bought and paid for. Contracts, status, career building, politics, peer acceptance, we can all name many people who have become so tainted of late that society can no longer tolerate their “criminal” actions. On the other hand, only a few are willing to take arrows in opposing “the apparatus”. (Ok, enough preaching, sorry for paragragh errors, and back to the story.)
I began to dig in the other rooms which involved some of my buddy’s research of specific parts. Discussion naturally lead to possible different scenarios which generated limited discussion among those present which lead to someone (most likely a lawyer) pulling a fellow aside and in hushed tones said, “Don’t talk to him.” The time of our stay was coming toward the end and my focus was on the burned sensor assembly which CONTROLLED company X’s module. The sensor was disconnected and lying in the bottom area, possibly done very carefully on site as various parts were examined. That sensor had a welded-on bracket with two holes for securing.
It was obvious that only one hole had been “upset” by a sheet metal screw. The conclusion soon followed that a single screw would naturally loosen due to movement and a miss-positioned sensor would be catrosphic. Everything moved very quickly from there and I began to pity those representing the installers as we left. The company X companion expressed delight he was able to solve this and put the issue at rest; I was glad for his career.
Conclusion:
Don’t trust in research built upon a false premise, it may all be conducted by people who are simply missing a screw.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 22, 2009 4:45 PM
RogerS, what was the point of that? Boastfulness?
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 22, 2009 5:07 PM
Uh-huh. Like the false assumption that the real world is a lie? And the false assumption that only the literal meaning of words inside the covers of a particular 2700 book can possibly be true, even when in direct contradiction to what can be observed in and about the real world?
Sheesh.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 22, 2009 5:14 PM
Don’t trust in research built upon a false premise, it may all be conducted by people who are simply missing a screw.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong but did not chemistry and astronomy emerge out of the false premises of alchemy and astrology?
The trick is to find the truthful nuggets and making use of them in a better setting.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 22, 2009 5:19 PM
RogerS, your god doesn't exist except between your ears, and the bible is a proven work of fiction. Yawn, these godbots are so boring and pointless.
Science gets rid of the false stuff and only keeps that which works. Theory of evolution works. Atomic/molecular theory works. Theory of gravity works. Theory of relativity works. God doesn't, so science ignores god.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 22, 2009 5:47 PM
RogerS - for you analogy to be appropriate to evolution and ID the screw would have had to have been loosened by a unicorn - one which not only could be seen and which left no tracks, but which also had the power to make it look as if it'd be done through a slow, gradual process over billions of years.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 22, 2009 6:01 PM
Er... Roger... you do realize that creationists would be the ones working on the false assumption and looking in the wrong place, and the proponents of evolution via observable natural means would be you, the hero of the story?
All ID and the other forms of creationism are doing is insisting that the original, "obvious" yet thoroughly refuted answer is still correct.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 22, 2009 6:06 PM
My post #856 - that should be '...a unicorn which could not be seen and which left no tracks...'
Apologies.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 22, 2009 6:16 PM
A guy was not killed by a malfunctioning piece of equipment but by a different piece of improperly installed equipment, so god exists.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 22, 2009 6:33 PM
With a bit more detail:
Such as the glib and unexamined religious consensus that the bible is literally true even though it contradicts itself and empirical reality?
The difference between the consensus of religion and the consensus of the highly educated elite in the hard sciences is that the consensus of religion rejects analysis, rejects falsifications of religious statements about reality, and in the worst case rejects reality itself.
The consensus of the highly educated elite in the hard sciences welcomes systematic analysis, and welcomes falsification with empirical evidence of the current scientific model.
Religion does not have evidence that falsifies current science, and if it did, that falsification would become part of the current scientific model, open to being falsified itself.
If it can be demonstrated that some premise is empirically false, or that the tools being used are somehow defective, then you might have a point.
Are you willing to put up or shut up? Are you willing to apply the same reasoning to your religious assumptions? If every step of reasoning and evidence showing that the bible cannot possibly be literally true was given to you, would you then agree that the premise of the bible being literally true was false?
If not, why not?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 22, 2009 9:53 PM
If this is true then what do you have besides science to conclude that my God is an "imaginary diety"? Your statement destroys itself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 22, 2009 9:58 PM
Alan, you deity is imaginary because it only exists between your ears, no place else. Otherwise you need to show physical evidence, like an eternally burning bush, to prove your god.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 23, 2009 3:43 AM
Ragutis attempted to disprove the Biblical account of the world being 6000 years old by posting ages of the world's oldest mummies in post #392: 9000, 9000, 6000, 5000, and 9000 years. Notice that most (maybe all??) of Ragutis' links have something conspicuously missing: How the ages are determined is not stated. If they were determined by mechanisms of evolution/uniformitarian theory, then this is likened to the forbidden practice of defining the meaning of a word by itself. (i.e. “Kill” means to kill something.)
Look at the multitude of problems with C14 dating techniques that I garnered from Wikipedia’s "Radiocarbon dating":
A hypothesized global flood would affect no less than 5 of the above conditions. Volcanic eruptions can belittle atomic bombs. Thus, a global flood could easily account for mummy dates exceeding 4400 years. But what really plagues Ragutis' position is the oldest mummy dates of 9000 years are much closer to the creation model than evolution's Homo sapiens which supposedly began about 200,000 years ago. Where are the 200K, 150K, 100K, and 50K year-old mummies that have age evidence outside the highly questionable C14 method, such as sarcophagi inscriptions similar to the Egyptians? If you can't produce them then let me help your defense. Just say that writing never "evolved" until that time. To say that mummification practices never occurred until the last 4% of Homo sapiens’ existence is hardly believable.
For a real “eye-opener”, read Wikipedia’s Radiocarbon Dating and see for yourself the multiple assumptions necessary for the method to work. If you can’t prove a young Earth through C14 unless principles of uniformitarianism are not upset by a hypothesized global flood, then you have “proven” nothing. Notice that I am sticking to “science” by merely “hypothesizing” the global flood event.
Someone said there is absolutely no evidence for such a flood. This statement seems unfounded in lieu of the fact that the entire Earth shows evidence of sedimentary deposition from the lowest basin to the highest mountain. Another evidence you can add to your list is the 1.5 million km^2 Morrison Formation in North America which reinforces flood catastrophism since its chocked full of dinosaur fossils, thus explaining their sudden mass extinction, and is explained (even by evolutionists) as being formed by water.
A second evidence is the Powder River Basin coal bed which is 200 miles long, 120 miles wide, and in some places more than 200 feet deep. Explaining this anomaly by gradual accumulation of peat is awkward since over 1200 feet of it would be required to achieve 200 feet of coal. Are there any 200 mi. X 120 mi. X 1200 ft. peat beds today? According to Wikipedia, peat grows at about 1mm/year. Could an ecosystem remain constantly conducive for peat formation for 365,000 years? In the short period of recorded human history, we know that the ecosystem has changed before industrialization existed. The Sahara desert has increased. Why would the Egyptians build pyramids in a parched desert to honor their kings? Nothing is constant. A steady environment for this much peat accumulation belies reality.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 23, 2009 3:58 AM
Alan Clarke, in desperation, wrote:
That you can possibly be so stupid and yet manage to operate a computer is fascinating.
You do realise that things like mummification and writing are human inventions? Did humans always have electricity, or the internet, or aeroplanes? No. We invented them. Someone had to invent mummification; mummies appear after that point. Ditto writing.
Sheesh. I'll let someone else take you to task for your egregious foolishness about dating. I can only handle so much stupid.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 23, 2009 4:22 AM
You still haven't read the link David provided in post #161 (and 3 or 4 times since), have you?
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Read it
Then ask any questions you may still have about radiometric dating methods. You've been pointed to the answers to these questions repeatedly. So fucking read it already or admit you aren't interested in learning anything at all.
Read that link, and maybe tomorrow we'll get around to explaining to you why mummies and writing weirdly only appear after certain dates and how that relates to the strange fact that no cell phones have ever been unearthed in ruins from the Roman Empire.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 23, 2009 4:43 AM
Poor, desperate Alan, full of FAIL.
Dude. You can't have writing before writing was invented.
No. Writing did not "evolve". Writing was invented.
What the fuck do you know about "mummification practices", and how "believable" it is that they were the inventions of particular times and places, you pathetic stupid pig-ignorant cretin?
If you want human remains dated through other means than radiocarbon, there is always "Thermoluminescence dating of Mousterian Troto-Cro-Magnon' remains from Israel and the origin of modern man", as but one example.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 23, 2009 11:05 AM
Alan, you keep talking about things that you don't understand. Why? Why?
Yes, and for the last several tens of thousands of years, these variations are now very well known. That's what all the talk about "uncalibrated" and "calibrated radiocarbon years" is about.
Did you seriously think all those physicists are gibbering, drooling morons? Did you seriously believe that all these hundreds or thousands of people never tried to find out what the uncertainties are and precisely how big they are? Did you seriously believe that they never even tried to get them under control?
If so, your stupidity is beyond my wildest imagination.
1) Why do you keep tying the Flood to volcanic eruptions? ~:-|
2) The reason atomic bombs produce 14C is the radioactivity. Bombard air -- which mostly consists of 13N -- with neutrons, and you get lots of 14N, which then undergoes rapid β decay and becomes the less unstable 14C. The fact that an atomic-bomb explosion happens to be an explosion has nothing to do with it.
Do you even know what the notation "14C" means? I was taught it in public school… it's in the national curriculum where I come from.
The opposite, you lackwit! Nuclear explosions produce 14C, they don't destroy it -- and stuff with more 14C looks younger!!!
You read of uncertainties and automatically assume they are all in your favor. How much more stupid can one possibly get?
I think you understand now why I've lost my patience.
Why, no -- how should a population of hunter-gatherers in the African savanna mummify their dead?
Did you ever think about that?
OK, so you have never thought about that, and I have to adjust my ideas about the maximum extent of human stupidity, because you just falsified them. Oh well, science progresses.
<sigh>
This is not truly stupid. It is merely ignorant.
You see, there are other methods.
First of all, 14C is just one of dozens of radioactive isotopes that can be used for radiometric dating; all others are not subject to the vagaries of the atmosphere or solar radiation, and many have much longer half-lives -- for example 238U has one of 4.5 billion years.
Then there are completely different methods.
You can, for example, count year-rings in trees. Each year has its own weather, so each tree has its own pattern of tree rings of variable thickness; trees of overlapping age have overlapping patterns. This is called dendrochronology and -- in some regions -- reaches back about 10,000 years. All of them happen to be in north-central Europe, which had only glaciers and cold steppes before about that age…
You can only count the yearly layers in a glacier. People have been to the thickest part of the ice shield of Greenland and drilled down. Lo & behold, 250,000 year-layers before the rock with the fossil tree stumps and pollen comes -- and keep in mind that this is less than the age of the inland ice of Greenland, because the ice flows.
People have also been to one of the thickest part of the ice shield of Antarctica and drilled down. Lo & behold, 740,000 year-layers. The last eight ice ages are recorded in that core. And it has not yet reached the bottom!!!
Thermoluminescence dating has already been mentioned…
Yes -- mountains consist of folded sediments (and often metamorphic and/or plutonic rocks, too). Why is that? Why don't they have horizontal layers?
I mean, have you ever been to a mountain?
Also, what the fuck makes you think that only floods can deposit sediments?
You have no idea how ridiculous this is.
1) The Morrison Fm is very thick. It spans a lot of time. And dinosaurs are everywhere in it.
2) Above the Morrison Fm (more precisely, its uppermost member, the Brushy Basin Member) comes the Cedar Mountain Fm (except in those places where it has been eroded away -- how did that happen exactly… hmmmmm…) (more precisely, its lowermost member, the Yellow Cat Mb). It, too, is thick, spans a considerable amount of time, and it, too, has dinosaurs in it. Different dinosaurs. And different mammals, different crocodiles, different lungfishes, different pollen, and so on! The Morrison Fm is Late Jurassic in age, the Cedar Mountain Fm is Early Cretaceous in age, and -- except for the modern birds -- the dinosaurs died out at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, which is recorded in the Hell Creek and Lance Fms among others.
3) Yes, the Morrison Fm is mostly water-lain. More precisely, it consists of river sediments. Lots and lots of river channels that cut through each other and then redeposited sediment on top of each other. Probably you were so incredibly stupid that you honestly believed all sediments -- whether laid by meandering rivers, braided rivers, deltas, estuaries, seashores, sand dunes, whatever -- look exactly the same. If so, well, you were mistaken. There's a whole fucking science called sedimentology.
4) Why did I say "mostly"? Because there are paleosols in it. Fossil soil. The sort of stuff that would be washed away and dissolved by a flood of any size.
"Evidence" is a mass noun, like "information" (in English), "sand" or "water". It is not countable. You have to say "further evidence" or something.
You've misunderstood. Coal beds are hardly ever over a meter thick. What you're talking about is a place that has lots and lots of such beds on top of each other, separated by rock layers which are maybe a few meters thick. You're not talking about 60 m of nothing but coal.
1) Peat bogs -- muskeg -- are inland freshwater environment where a certain moss species grows on top and dies at the bottom; the dead parts form peat. Coal can form from any buried vegetation if the conditions are right (mainly lack of oxygen); the Carboniferous coal, which is full of fossil tree parts, has formed from something like mangrove forests.
2) I don't think a single coal bed has to have exactly the same age (down to the millennium) all over its extent. It must be due to a single process, like a swamp being covered by an advancing delta or an advancing seashore, but such a process can take a while or three or a thousand.
With interruptions (see above for the rock between coal beds), yes, of course.
Yes -- though that's because we're currently living in comparatively unstable times: wobbly ice ages which are punctuated, about every hundred thousand years, by a fairly stable but short interglacial. This has only been the normal state of affairs for the last 3 million years; most coal is over 300 million years old.
Several reasons.
0) Yes, it was already a desert at that time, even though its southern border was IIRC a bit farther north than today.
1) Try putting a pyramid on Nile mud. What will happen? -- Remember that the pyramids were intended to last for eternity. Their own homes the ancient Egyptians built and rebuilt of mud bricks, not of stone.
2) Said Nile mud was still needed for agriculture. Pyramids don't need to be surrounded by fields.
3) The Nile valley is pretty deep. It's more impressive when the pyramids are above it than when they are in it, don't you think?
In sum...
4) The ancient Egyptians simply weren't quite as stupid as you think.
Yes, and that was only the start of the development. Classical Egyptian mummification -- which is not what the oldest mummies even in Egypt have undergone -- was a very complicated and extremely time-consuming process that required materials that had to be discovered first (natron for example) and don't occur everywhere (natron is hard to get outside the Wadi Natrun in Egypt, for example).
Now, Alan, heed Ragutis's advice. It simply makes no sense if you keep blathering about stuff that you don't understand.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 23, 2009 4:16 PM
I read Wikipedia’s entire Radiocarbon Dating. The assumptions and problems with this dating method are staggering. To say “for the last several tens of thousands of years, these variations are now very well known”, is not true at all. It is especially not true as illustrated by your later, and frequent allusion to tree growth rings. And what do tree growth rings tell us? They are a second piece of evidence that supports my original argument using mummies. No trees existed before 10,000 years ago.Your repeated appeal to populism damages your credibility as a scientist. Get into politics. Yesterday I e-mailed a Ph. D. chemist at a large company that supplies petroleum additives for fuel and lubricants for Exxon Mobil hoping that he could provide some information to support my argument. Unfortunately, his field was too specialized and he referred me to another doctor higher up who responded, “I am not an expert on the formation of oil and coal because most of my interest is on upgrading and refining.” He eventually provided some textbook information which is readily available on websites. Often we esteem others too highly. The less we know about a person’s limitations, the more we can inflate them in our imagination. I fear that you have succumbed to being awed by those in “high position”. Perhaps one day you’ll have a son or daughter that insists upon marrying a “dream” person who you know is a phony.
The Biblical account demands it:
Genesis 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.
The key phrase is “all the fountains of the great deep broken up”. This indicates there was an upheaval in the Earth’s crust. The Grand Canyon was obviously cut by water, but there are also basalts flowing over the edges of the canyon walls. Sometimes floods are created by volcanic eruptions as in the case of the recent Mt. St. Helens eruption. Catastrophic flooding and volcanism work hand in hand.
I’m so thankful I can admit my mistakes, learn, and move on. Even the best of us sometimes unwittingly support our opponent’s argument as poor Josh did. Maybe Josh is a creationist? If not, thank you Josh for bolstering my argument by an additional one year:Nevertheless, the atomic bombs illustrate something more important: The atmospheric C14 can be changed by outside events which may (or may not) support a young or old Earth. The case in point is your dogmatism on C14 has little basis.
Don’t get too excited about my mistake. The atmospheric pollution created by a volcanic eruption reduces the cosmic radiation and thus reduces the atmospheric C14.
David, you practically wrote a book on your post and I credit you with that. A lot of time is undoubtedly required for such an undertaking and I’m sure your supporters appreciate it. Keep up the good work! Many are learning.
One thing is obvious in this debate. Each person is convinced of their own theory because there is continuity and harmony in the interpretations of the evidences. Continuity and harmony is not a sign of truth however. Many stories can be manufactured and woven seamlessly to support a falsity. There is something more basic that underlies this debate which determines each person’s perception of reality. I am not disagreeing that your arguments have an appearance of agreement, continuity and harmony. We both have the same evidences. We are interpreting them differently.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 23, 2009 4:23 PM
Alan, you lie again. All the problems with carbon dating are explained. Carbon dating is reliable.
However. all the problems of your work of fiction called the bible are not explained. You have presented absolutely no evidence of the flood except from your work of fiction. You keep pretending that the bible has any authority. We know it is a work of fiction, and it has no authority. Until you understand the need for an impartial third party, like the peer reviewed scientific literature, you cannot do anything other than continue your lies. Your god doesn't exist except between your ears. Deal with it elsewhere.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 23, 2009 4:25 PM
Maybe Josh is a creationist?
Not in the least but then, paying attention is not your strong suit.
Posted by: Kel | February 23, 2009 4:34 PM
Alan still hasn't accounted for galaxies we see 14 billion light years away. He still hasn't accounted for the dwarf galaxy orbiting our own we see 168,000 light years away. The universe is huge, and thus old.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 23, 2009 4:34 PM
And Young Earth Creationism is exactly that: A lie manufactured and created by human beings who would rather lie about reality than admit their religion is a lie.
No, you are ignoring and lying about everything that contradicts you.
For example:
This is a lie; the sort of complete and utterly stupid lie that only a religious fanatic could come up with.
David M pointed out that there are ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years.
He also said: "Lo & behold, 250,000 year-layers before the rock with the fossil tree stumps and pollen"
I realize that you are stupid and deluded beyond anything remotely resembling sanity, but what that means is that there were 250,000 years worth of ice layers, and underneath that was fossil trees, and evidence of living trees (pollen).
Sigh.
Why do we even bother? You'll just find some other lies to throw out there, because you are a liar who loves lies and hates truth. That's what's really driving you, isn't it? Hatred, pure hatred, of the simple truth that we live on an old planet in an old universe.
Posted by: DaveL | February 23, 2009 4:39 PM
Then where, pray tell, do calibration curves like these come from?
You can count years by counting rings, and date the material between rings to get the corresponding carbon age, thus generating a calibration curve. That's what growth rings tell us.
Oh, sweet tittyfuck.
We have ample evidence that trees go back much farther than 10 000 years ago.
What we only have going back 10,000 years is a continuous series of growth rings.
Posted by: Kel | February 23, 2009 4:41 PM
Agreed, Alan is just another Liar for JesusTM, one who blatantly misrepresents science to try and create enough doubt for his obviously and manifestly false claims to sit in there. If he had any intellectual honesty he would stop misrepresenting the science involved and actually do some experiments in order to verify.Posted by: Ragutis | February 23, 2009 5:41 PM
OH, FFS!
Yes, Alan... trees did exist more than 10,000 years ago. There are trees alive today that have stood for several thousand years and others that have been cloning for tens of thousands of years. You are just completely unwilling to consider any evidence that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible and absolutely adverse to learning anything that may require you to reexamine your beliefs. Just how weak is your faith that not even the smallest change can be risked?
READ THAT LINK or don't bother responding any more. You're not going to convert anyone here, and it appears that we have no chance of getting you to learn anything or move your mind out of the Bronze Age.
Have fun with your stork theory of the planet's origins. Enjoy your tiny world and your simple god and be sure to keep that small mind tightly shuttered lest you learn something by accident and jeopardize your immortal soul.
Posted by: Kel | February 23, 2009 6:08 PM
So Alan is saying the world is only 6000 years old, but agrees there are trees that are 10,000 years old as demonstrated by dendochronology? Would he agree that the ice core layering means you need hundreds of thousands of years to get the layering cycle? Though I doubt he's interested in seeing how science really works, just about selectively using data to make his fantasy of a 6000 year old earth plausible.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 23, 2009 6:13 PM
You fools! You're shackled by your dogmatic assumptions, like uniformitarianism for example. How do you know the speed of light didn't used to be faster? Ice packs probably used to lay down 5 or 6 "annual" layers per day! Treerings too; what makes you think it's always been one per year? Unsupportable assertion! All radiometric dating systems are suspect for similar reasons: the background rate used to be all over the place. Why don't you read something and learn a little before wasting Alan's time with all of these easily-refuted poopyhead "evidences"?
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 23, 2009 6:39 PM
Sorry for the confusion Josh. I was using “evolution” in the broader term as in “evolutionism” which utilizes randomness and chance to achieve increased complexity from non-living matter in order to achieve life, (i.e. the first living cell). As applied to this, my casino slot machine analogy is excellent because there is nothing to “learn”. There is no organism that can remember a positive or negative experience. With non-living matter, there is no “goal”, only randomness. I noticed in your rebuttal you jumped ahead in the assumption that non-living matter has already “won”, a cell is created, and now it’s time to learn the game of “Darwinian Evolution”. Since Darwinian Evolution indeed applies to living things then it’s time to “roll the dice” or take note of those “pretty colored plastic chips”:
Josh, the sad reality is that there is no game to be played if the first cell doesn’t form. Some hopeful players have not been informed and are rolling the dice but the Feds have already surrounded the building. All of the “perceived winnings” are an illusion.
Enthusiastic “players” beware! There is nothing to learn on a slot machine, remember? You just pull the lever. But I know evolutionists inside and out. The next objection is one can win at a slot machine if they monitor the machines that haven’t paid out in a long time. Play those machines! The image of that 65-year-old retired floozy in Las Vegas is fresh in my mind. She had too much makeup; she was drunk and had a cigarette dangling from her lips. She had spotted such a machine that hadn’t paid in a while. But she was fearful to leave the machine that already contained her entire purse. She wanted someone to “watch it” for her. The expression on her face said it all. Oh, and she was alone. Any man in his right mind would have nothing to do with her.
What was I doing there? Maybe God was giving me a glimpse of what to avoid.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 23, 2009 6:45 PM
Alan, you are just talking drivel. That is to be expected from godbots in over their heads. You have proven nothing to date. Your god doesn't exist-not proven. Your bible is fiction-it being true is not proven. Science and evolution being false-not proven. Now what? Your continued testament will show us nothing, since we consider you a liar and bullshitter. So your only reasonable option is to just fade into the bandwidth.
Posted by: Kel | February 23, 2009 6:46 PM
How the first replicating cell formed and the question of evolution are two very different things. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and it's all still valid even if we don't know how the process originated. But positing that because we don't know where the first cell came from, therefore Goddidit 6000 years ago is a blatantly dishonest way of misrepresenting what we do know by equating it to what we don't.There's a difference between "We don't know where the first cell came from, so God started off the process" and "We don't know where the first cell came from so God made all life in it's current form 6000 years ago". One is putting God in a gap in our knowledge, the other is taking a gap then pretending that it means there's a gap where it was long filled.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 23, 2009 6:54 PM
Alan Clarke, off-topic as usual, blathered an analogy worthy of maybe 0.5 of a Rooke:
Hmmm, waiting and hoping your whole life for something that you've got no evidence for believing is going to happen plus a whole industry based around extracting money from you for giving you that false hope.
Doesn't sound like science to me. Sounds a whole lot more like something else. What could it be? What is it that offers you something but can't say for sure is going to happen, but tells you you're better off believing just in case?
Oh, yeah - it's religion.
Epic analogy FAIL.
Posted by: E.V. | February 23, 2009 7:16 PM
Alan just gets funnier and funnier with his little "anti-evolutionist" tap dances. I wonder if he wears white short sleeve dress shirts with a tie and rides a bicycle?
Keep on putting it out there. I love your ignorance of biology Bible Boy, that makes you this evening's entertainment. Tell us again about the first cell.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 23, 2009 7:35 PM
Alan, you can't use the unresolved matter of abiogenesis to disprove evolution. Mainly because, in terms of the ToE's validity, it doesn't matter where the first protocell came from. Evolution addresses the changes in organisms that have occurred and are occurring since. You're saying a man can't have been born and grown up because we don't know if he was the product of natural or artificial insemination.
And yes, as Wowbagger said you're the one that that's desperately unsatisfied and gambling on the promise of something more. We're quite happy with the universe around us and the opportunity to live in it, appreciate it's wonders, and explore it's mysteries.
Posted by: DaveL | February 23, 2009 10:52 PM
Alan,
There's something (Ok, one thing among many) that you don't seem to understand:
Even if your god or any other god literally miracled the first cells into being, it would not invalidate the theory of evolution.
Evolution would remain by far the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth.
Now, as yet there is no firm theory on how the first life forms first arose, but what scientific work has been done on the problem still stands head and shoulders above the "God did it" explanation. What explanation can religion give us for biological chirality that it couldn't just as easily have applied if it had turned out opposite what it is? What about God can tell us whether metabolism, replication, or encapsulation occurred first? These are real questions that any real theory of life's origin must explain.
You see, we've tried it your way. We really have. Appealing to supernatural agency was the first and last resort for explaining the natural world for untold thousands of years stretching back into prehistory. In all those thousands of years, this approach has given us... precisely squat.
No further avenues for research, no specifics, no applications. Nothing.
We've since found a better way. We used to explain illness in terms of evil spirits - that's no longer the case and mankind is far better off for it. We used to explain earthquakes in terms of the gods' anger. Since we stopped doing that we've figured out how to build earthquake-resistant buildings rather than sacrificing virgins. We used to rely on God's whims for good harvests. Now we feed the world with crop science based on evidence and reason.
Invoking God as an explanation is a useless exercise that has been thoroughly tried and found universally wanting.
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 24, 2009 2:26 AM
Someone suggested I should have heeded my grandfather’s warning, “Religion can make a person go crazy!”, but lacked knowledge that his statement was accompanied by a belief that WWF Professional Wresting was real, heat produced by a hacksaw cutting an iron pipe would be retained longer than heat from a flame, Truman was President in 1978, and man had never walked on the moon prior to 1977 and never would.
Posted by: John Morales | February 24, 2009 2:37 AM
Alan @885, you seem to be appealing to the genetic fallacy.
Posted by: Ragutis | February 24, 2009 2:40 AM
Hey! Nice way to avoid all the points people have been making that tear apart your arguments!
Did you read this link yet?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 24, 2009 2:54 AM
Um, someone has to point this out to you. The description of your grandfather sounds more sane than all of the madness you have scrawled here.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 24, 2009 5:05 AM
So... telling us that insanity runs in your family is supposed to convince us that you're not crazy?
It certainly seems like you have early-onset dementia, just like your granddad, only instead of an insane belief in moon-mission denialism, physics denialism, and some sort of weird conspiracy about Truman, you have an insane belief in the literalness of biblical history.
There's not much point in anyone telling you to educate yourself in geology, or about all of the myriad problems with a "global flood". You'll just ignore them/reject them, as I am sure your grandfather rejected any biographies of Truman or pictures and movies from NASA of the moon missions.
Why bother believing true things when holding on to delusions is so important to you?
But can you at least stop posting here? You're not going to convince us of the literal truth of the bible any more than your grandfather could convince you that any of his wacky ideas was true.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 24, 2009 10:09 AM
No, it does not. And anyway, volcanic ejecta don't stay in the atmosphere for more than a couple of years.
Now stop worrying about 14C dating, which only goes back 50,000 years (and even that only if you're willing to accept large uncertainties -- if you want uncertainties in the centuries range, you have to stop at 20,000 years ago) and learn about the other dating methods: counting tree rings, counting ice layers, counting lake sediment layers, and the radiometric methods other than 14C.
Really, as long as you haven't read that, there's just no reason I should continue talking past you.
It really bamboozles me that you completely refuse to read that page or even mention it!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 24, 2009 11:13 AM
Damn SIWOTI syndrome.
So what? I was talking about people working on their very own field. Did you really manage to completely miss that?
Yes, I have seen large amounts of people making errors, even the same error, in my own field. What I have not seen is large amounts of people making the same stupid and extremely short-sighted series of errors.
Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy.
I've never come across that interpretation. I've always thought the "fountains" were supposed to be taken more literally -- as springs, from which water was supposed to have come and contributed to the Flood waters.
(Hmmmm. Are you a literalist, or not? B-) )
The Grand Canyon was obviously cut by water, but there are also basalts flowing over the edges of the canyon walls. Sometimes floods are created by volcanic eruptions as in the case of the recent Mt. St. Helens eruption. Catastrophic flooding and volcanism work hand in hand.
First, your logic is wrong. You say "sometimes" in one sentence, and then act as if it meant "always" in the next sentence.
Second, your facts are wrong to begin with. What the eruption produced was a debris avalanche. It just so happened that the mountain was covered with snow, which melted in the process, and surrounded by water courses, so the debris avalanche became a mud flood.
So much distortion just to uphold a highly questionable interpretation of one little sentence fragment in the Bible. So pathetic…
Then propose a process that was capable of leaching all the 14C out of all fossil fuels. Or just give up.
You know, all fossil fuels are older than 50,000 years and therefore lack 14C. I guess you didn't know that…
Your flattery is misplaced, and very tellingly so! It took me couple of minutes. It practically flowed out of my fingers. I'm a tetrapod paleontologist, I'm familiar with all this stuff. I had read about the Yellow Cat Mb of the Cedar Mountain Fm and its contact with the Brushy Basin Mb of the Morrison Fm just the evening before, for example…
Oh, of course not. However, disagreement with physical reality is a sure sign of falsity.
That's why science cannot prove, only disprove. It's also why YEC is disproved: there's evidence -- facts -- that contradicts it.
No, we don't have the same evidence*. You fucking deny the very fucking existence of fucking 90 % of it. And then you have the gall to claim we have the same evidence!
You don't interpret the existence of the Cedar Mountain Fm and its fauna differently than I. You don't interpret it at all, because you didn't even know it exists in the first place.
Oh, BTW, there are champsosaurs in the Morrison Fm. B-)
* I already told you it's a mass noun. It's uncountable. It's like "sand", not like "sand grain".
But there is no such thing!
Evolution means descent with heritable modification. It can therefore only happen to something that is capable of replicating itself -- and that means that whatever process generated the first self-replicator was by definition not evolution. And this means that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with it. It takes the first replicator for granted. How the first replicator arose is a very interesting question, but it's another question.
Ever wondered why only creationists ever use the term evolutionism?
But no, don't answer to this question just yet. First read comment 873, and then read this page. It was written by a Christian for Christians, so I doubt that the devil will jump out of your screen if you click on the link, o most embarrassing of all cowards.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 24, 2009 1:52 PM
The Hebrew word "מעין" (ma'ayan) means more literally "spring; well", although "fountain" does appear to be an acceptable translation as well. It definitely means a water source, rather than anything that might be considered a volcano.
Speaking of volcanoes inspired me to search for Mediterranean volcanoes, which serendipitously found a tidbit about the mountain so loved by flood proclaimers: "Ararat appears to have been active during the 3rd millennium BC; pyroclastic-flow deposits overlie early Bronze Age artifacts and human remains."
Re: evidence/"evidences":
I have pretty much only seen the term "evidences" used by creationists/apologists (I have do wonder: do they think that police find "evidences" of a crime? One footprint is evidence; two footprints is evidences?)
Although... oddly enough, while the number of google hits for "evidences" is lower by 2 orders of magnitude than for "evidence", and most of the top ten hits are religious/creationist apologist sites, one of the first ten hits is this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Ah, I see that he was quite deliberate (being quasi tongue-in-cheek) in choosing that particular term, as he explains when you click on the word "Evidences" in the title:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html
I assume that the term is used today by apologists as a sort of defiant deliberate linguistic archaism — like sticking to the KJV when better translations do exist.
"Thou shalt have mine auncient Godde-inspyred woordes and phrazes when thou pryest them from mine colde dead fyngers, thou modernizing knave and rogue!"
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 25, 2009 11:44 AM
:-D :-D :-D
Goes to show, once again, that cdesign proponentsists only look to each other for information and completely ignore the rest of the world.
BTW, here's a quote for Alan from someone he might (!) respect:
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: RogerS | February 25, 2009 5:40 PM
Hi David, I am glad to see you find the Bible worthy of your time for comment. As you can see in the following verses the Bible makes use of redundancy for reinforcement.
> Verse 12 is extremely clear for explaining the 40 day duration:
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
> Verse 17 re-iterates the 40 day period of the increasing deluge and adds additional detail:
Gen 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
> Verse 20 uses the word “prevail” although the rain had stopped at the 40 day period. The “fountains of the great deep” were not stopped until Gen 8:2. Here we learn the cresting height.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
> The same word “prevail” is used again in verse 7:24 as a 150 day duration before it begins to recede. This is further clarified in Gen 8:1-3.
Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Gen 8:1-3 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
> David, I could continue with clearing up your confusions but I think you are more focused on refuting at this point.
Respectifully, RogerS
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 25, 2009 5:47 PM
Ah, RogerS, but it is all fiction. There is absolutely no sign of the world-wide flood outside of the bible. If you would watch The Bible's Buried Secrets on PBS, you would understand that the Torah was put together over several hundred years, and included myths, including the flood, from the area. The Torah came together as a means to solidify Jewish culture from the other inhabitants of the region. In particular, so they wouldn't be absorbed by Babylon.
So you still have nothing. Come back with a third party evidence or just stay away.
Posted by: E.V. | February 25, 2009 5:55 PM
Jebus! Will this thread never die?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 25, 2009 5:56 PM
Why!
'WHACK'
Won't!
'WHACK'
This!
'WHACK'
Thing!
'WHACK'
Die!
"WHACK'
Posted by: Kel | February 25, 2009 5:58 PM
I'm finding it really hard to reconcile that it's the year 2009 and there are approximately 6 million species of animal on this planet with the fact that people believe in a literal reading of the flood story. You'd think that even a single walk through a zoo would show that the whole endeavour would be physically impossible - not to mention the myriad of other things wrong with the whole concept.
And this is why I can't take religion seriously. For all the modern theologians, for all those who make a more philosophically and ideintifiable version of God, it still comes back to the absolute lunacy as personified by biblical literalists.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 25, 2009 6:04 PM
RogerS,
Why do you think God didn't chose to let all the animals die and just poof new ones into existence after the floodwaters had receded?
Why do you think God needed to flood anything at all when he could have just snapped his fingers (assuming he has them) to achieve the same goal - which also would have saved a lot of time and effort?
Why would an omnipotent god be limited to manipulating physical elements to achieve his goals?
Posted by: CJO | February 25, 2009 6:06 PM
So, Roger, did Noah take two of every kind, or seven each of the clean kinds and two each of the unclean kinds?
You're presumably aware that Genesis 6-8 is a redaction of two separate and originally independent flood stories according to the Documentary Hypothesis.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 25, 2009 6:07 PM
"Whack"
"Whack"
We need some help. Paging Tony Soprano...
Posted by: E.V. | February 25, 2009 6:08 PM
Kel:
I typed your basic premise up and then hit delete. Physics challenged Godbots always rely on "with God anything is possible." The capacity for the human mind to avoid reality is amazing indeed.
It's time for PZ to close this thread.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 25, 2009 6:18 PM
#s 896 & 897
The bells of hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me,
And the little devils how they sing-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me.
Oh death, where is thy sting-a-ling-a-ling?
Oh grave, thy victory?
The bells of hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me.
From Oh What A Lovely War
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 25, 2009 6:22 PM
Shorter RogerS:
"What are you talking about? I don't care what you say! All these disconnected parts and pieces and screws you're pointing to don't matter! The sensor is NOT disconnected and THERE IS NO LOOSE SCREW!"
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 25, 2009 6:27 PM
That's a great show - my community theatre company put on a production of it a few years back and I was running the follow-spot. I got teary every night - though not over that particular song...
It's also very informative. I learned that war profiteering - in my mind one of the worst crimes imaginable - isn't a recent invention.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 25, 2009 6:38 PM
Sadly, Blue Heaven brings to my mind, The Pogues.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 25, 2009 6:46 PM
That's it.
I'm calling in a cleaner on this thread.
It has it coming.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 25, 2009 6:51 PM
Bah god damn it.
Wrong link
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 25, 2009 6:53 PM
ok i give up. Multitasking fail on multiple fronts.
Time to start drinking
SOMEONE KILL THIS FUCKING THREAD
Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 25, 2009 7:05 PM
Be aware that although Genesis is written chronologically, there are some exceptions that divert from the “chronologicalness". Look at Genesis 2:5 for example: “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." (emphasis mine) Man is created in Genesis 1 but this verse states man is not created yet. This is a common literary device in which the author “backtracks" in order to explain something more fully.
I have written this way myself:
I "backtracked" in the sentence, "When I first saw my wife…" How can one know when the Bible is breaking from the usual chronology and “backtracking"? The methods are no different from other classical and modern literatures. Don’t get hung up on "literal" or "not-literal" arguments. The Bible uses the full gamut of literary devices as well: similes, metaphors, analogies, etc. But for chronology, here is a phrase that frequently precedes a "backtrack": "these are the generations of"
Posted by: Ragutis | February 25, 2009 7:06 PM
Because suffering in hell for all eternity was too good for those sinners, their innocent children, Fluffy the camel, and Spot the goat! They had to die in an excruciating, terrifying manner to boot!
Or perhaps God was being merciful by letting those millions of hellbound bring with them all the water that they could carry... in their lungs.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 25, 2009 7:07 PM
Alan Clarke, you are an idiot.
Yes, this thread is dead.