Pharyngula

Latest Ark finding is a fake

This is completely unsurprising. An account from Randall Price has emerged; Price is a notorious Ark-hunter, young earth creationist, and professor at Liberty University, so he has good kook credentials and is the kind of guy who desperately wants the recent claims of the discovery of Noah’s Ark to be true, making this an admission contrary to his biases…of course, it turns out he also has a money motive to begrudge the Chinese evangelicals their ‘discovery’. But this is also a familiar story.

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

A similar phenomenon took place in Paluxy River, Texas. Some creationists find fossil footprints that look vaguely (to the biased eye) human, pretty soon a flood of evangelical Christians are searching the area for confirmation, and very quickly, the locals, being no dummies and seeing a tourism goldmine, start carving up even better footprints.

You can hardly blame the Turks around Ararat. There’s a lot of money being poured into the local economy from these numerous creationist expeditions. It only makes sense to salt a few sites with chunks of wood.

Comments

  1. #1 Kel, OM
    April 28, 2010

    Damn, I was this close to renouncing Darwin. Damn you frauds!

  2. #2 Kausik Datta
    April 28, 2010


    Coming soon…
    At a Mount near you…

    A Sniny Old Ark
    Yes, That Noah’s Ark!

    (Made in China)
    (All parts and characters sold separately)

  3. #3 Rorschach
    April 28, 2010

    I don’t get it. So if this was Noah’s ark, so what? Therefore evolution=false?Judeo-christian/abrahamic god=true?Sumerian flood myth=false?

    That’s not even mentioning the fact that the whole thing was a fraud…

  4. #4 WCorvi
    April 28, 2010

    Can you imagine that? The fraudsters being the victims of fraud?

  5. #5 David Marjanovi?
    April 28, 2010
    Dogubabyazit

    Do?ubayazit.

  6. #6 Jillian Swift
    April 28, 2010

    Quelle surprise.

  7. #7 MolBio
    April 28, 2010

    While they keep failing to find their ark, evolution continues to find its holy grails.

  8. #8 Charlie Foxtrot
    April 28, 2010

    The ‘Made in China’ stamped on the relics was a bit of a give-away, as well…

  9. #9 Charlie Foxtrot
    April 28, 2010

    OK…refresh…read…then post. Dammit.

  10. #10 Doug
    April 28, 2010

    I’d gather up all that wood, hew it sma’, & sell it as pieces of the “true cross”.

  11. #11 MolBio
    April 28, 2010

    Doug, that reminds me of Black Adder the first, when he becomes Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Percy buys the authentic finger of Christ relic, Baldrick reveals he was ripped off they’re cheaper boxes of 10. :p

  12. #12 Sigmund
    April 28, 2010

    Ha!
    I knew it!
    This is definitive proof – that carbon dating doesn’t work!

  13. #13 Larry
    April 28, 2010

    The lead based paint on the walls and the formaldehyde smell were a dead giveaway, I guess.

  14. #14 WowbaggerOM
    April 28, 2010

    David Marjanovi? wrote:

    Do?ubayazit.

    Are you making up for all the times that people have forgotten to include that thing that goes over your ‘c’?

  15. #15 neon-elf.myopenid.com
    April 28, 2010

    And in other exciting news from Captain Obvious: water is wet and fire burns.

  16. #16 AJ Milne OM
    April 28, 2010

    You can hardly blame the Turks around Ararat. There’s a lot of money being poured into the local economy from these numerous creationist expeditions. It only makes sense to salt a few sites with chunks of wood.

    … speaking of, I, myself, just found like, totally authentic ark fragments in my backyard…

    Don’t believe me? Well, see, seein’ as I figured there might be some totally unwarranted skepticism about this ever-so-plausible claim of mine, I snapped this photo as proof…

    (/Fox Network, Liberty U creotards, call me, babes… Operators are standing by to negotiate the terms of yer exclusive…)

  17. #17 Crudely Wrott
    April 28, 2010

    May I give a carpenter’s opinion of the photographs?

    The wood shown appears to be relatively recently milled and joined. The planks and beams do not exhibit the type of drying and shrinkage that occurs to wood over time, regardless of being in a deep freeze.

    The surface of the wood doesn’t show the different shrinkage rates of hard and soft grain. Most noticeably the joint lines cannot be millennia old and still be as close as the photos show.

    If I were to examine woodwork of similar appearance and technique I would guess that it might be as much as two, maybe three, centuries old if it were in a dry, moderate climate. While wood will age (decay) much slower in a dry, sub-freezing climate due to reduced rates of biological causes, I see no way that the ark could have pristine looking wood and tight joints.

    Wood goes away, hence the huge market for paints, varnishes and other protective finishes. In fact, I’ll be repairing some damaged wood trim around a front door this morning. That wood is less than fifteen years old and it has rotted from the unpainted back side, shrinking in all dimensions (not so much along the length of the grain) leaving a hollow shell of paint.

    Another scam-0-rama in the name of God profit and the search for fame and fortune.

  18. #18 Abdul Alhazred
    April 28, 2010

    Just a matter of personal taste, but I like the universal flood story in Ovid’s Metamorphoses better than the Biblical one.

    There’s something very affecting about the survivor’s horror at all the dead bodies after the waters subside. And no silly nonsense about Jupiter doing it because he is just.

    The damage is miraculously undone with the help of a goddess.

  19. #19 Crudely Wrott
    April 28, 2010

    Hhmmm. Protective finishes . . . protective . . . Hey! That’s where all the critter shit went! It was rubbed lovingly into the finely prepared frame and hull rendering it invincible to teh elements. Two problems solved!

  20. #20 Dog Boots
    April 28, 2010

    Well, I guess if evolution is disproved by Piltdown Man and what have you, we can now lay the story of The Flood to rest…as if we haven’t already…

  21. #21 edmundog
    April 28, 2010

    :-|

    Oh, wait, let me get my surprised face.

    :-o

    That’s better.

  22. #22 James F
    April 28, 2010

    It’s a faaaaaake!

    (Oh, but the entire universe being 6,000 years old, that’s still cool)

  23. #23 KOPD
    April 28, 2010

    But…but… they were 99.9% sure!

  24. #24 Holytape
    April 28, 2010

    [creationist] — Just because it’s fake, doesn’t mean it’s not real. You just don’t believe in America and are angry at Jesus for say you can’t live your hedonistic lifestyle.

    [fox] It’s the liberal bias of the media that is at fault here. Elitist limousine democrats in there ivory towers think that they get to decide what is real and what is not real, based on empirical evidence alone. If they were to come down an mingle with the common people and get some common sense, they would know that the story might not have all or even any of the facts supporting it, but it is still can be true. And Obama is a communist.

    < a href = "http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=44279194"> The truer fake story of Noah

  25. #25 Ströh
    April 28, 2010

    Hehe, the misspelled version of Do?ubayazit almost becomes “Dog u Baby A Zit”. Funny.

  26. #26 Jeez-Its
    April 28, 2010

    I don’t get it. If something is true, then why would you have to manufacture an ellaborate (and ultimately not very convincing) hoax to prove that it is true?

  27. #27 FordPrefect
    April 28, 2010

    Crudely Wrott – That does explain the puzzling verse, “Ye shall bring aboard 2 of each kind, male and female, excepting the Lac bug of which you shall bring 2,000,000,000 and work you thus like mad men to lacquer this ‘boat’ lest MY miracle goes unnoticed for all living things are dead.”

    My Sunday school teachers tried to gloss over this when I was a child but to me it smacked of poor planning on god’s part.

  28. #28 raven
    April 28, 2010

    Not surprised and called it based on history and the general way religious kooks operate.

    For 2,000 years there has been an industry based around making and selling True and Real relics from the bible.

    Check out the new catalogue from True Christian Tech International. They have pieces of the True Cross, Jesus’s hairbrush, chunks of the 10 commandment’s stone tablets, and a vaguely humanoid salt pillar from the Dead Sea. This summer, they will mount an expedition to find the Holy Grail which has been salted located somewhere in Southern Europe near some nice beaches and away from any war zones.

  29. #29 Charlie Foxtrot
    April 28, 2010

    I guess that 0.1% can crop up more often than you’d expect – eh?

  30. #30 Andreas Johansson
    April 28, 2010

    I guess that 0.1% can crop up more often than you’d expect – eh?

    I believe Pratchett had something to say about million-to-one chances.

  31. #31 MolBio
    April 28, 2010

    How did the carnivores get fed on Noah’s ark?

    and Noah did carve the brontosaurus, and the tyrannosaurus first for they had the most meat and a utilitarian animal keeper had justified the least loss of life to sustain the carnivores. And he extincted the dodo…

  32. #32 Hypatia's Daughter
    April 28, 2010

    As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions)

    An astounding bit of logical thinking in the midst of a search for 4,400 year old boat that you believe exists because a book of fairy tales says so…..

  33. #33 Bethistopheles
    April 28, 2010

    It’s obvious that Satan planted the beams to test their faith,duuuuh. It’s not like you have to be a rocket “scientist” to figure that one out…

    Cheese & crackers, you atheists are stupid.

  34. #34 Ströh
    April 28, 2010

    I think Price deserves a beer for this one. It’s an astounding piece of debunking for a creationist.

  35. #35 Hypatia's Daughter
    April 28, 2010

    And pitch – about that pitch….Where did the pitch come from before the flood, that buried the trees, that made the pitch, that sealed the ark?

  36. #36 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 28, 2010

    Latest Ark finding is a fake

    Well my faith in the religious is shattered.

    No not shattered, what’s the word I’m looking for?

    Upheld. That’s it. Upheld.

    My faith the the religious’ shameless ability to go to any measure to try and support their fairy tale is upheld.

    That’s it.

  37. #37 Victor
    April 28, 2010

    Give me $100,000 dollars and I’ll shoot a couple of minutes of footage for him, too. I’ll take some shots of my backyard, might even drive to the next town for some shots. Price can say it’s the Garden of Eden, or Cain’s first city. Looks like shooting footage for Creationists could be a high profit industry.

  38. #38 Darren Garrison
    April 28, 2010

    The truly impressive part of this is the huge amount of teriyaki sauce that must have been needed while cooking the wood!

    (Okay, some of you will catch the reference.)

  39. #39 Rawnaeris
    April 28, 2010

    Having lived a town over from Glen Rose for my Uni career, I can confirm that we have more than our fair share of wackos.

    My geology class actually took a field trip out there, and my prof pointed the “human” tracks out and explained exactly why there was no way they were human.

    Only a complete moron would think they were human. They are shaped wrong, and are far, far too large. You folks can sleep a bit better knowing that aside from some tourism money, very few people around there are actually are stupid enough to think those are human.

    /You can now return to debunking and ridiculing yet another fake Ark.

  40. #40 rowfantclub
    April 28, 2010

    A hunnert grand, eh? Is that a big enough foolishness to be parted with? Let’s see him deduct that!

  41. #41 Glen Davidson
    April 28, 2010

    I’m so glad that the fraud-makers on our side are so much more adept and extremely competent. Every damn Cambrian rabbit is hidden, Archaeopteryx is impossible to detect as a forgery, and manufactured hominin remains are placed into rocks with no chance of anyone catching on.

    You’d almost think that evolution isn’t a fraud. Yet the suckers taken in by a few cheap artifacts salted into the ice know for a certainty that it is.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  42. #42 Peter Ashby
    April 28, 2010

    Of course the fact that the original of the Noah myth, or at least one much, much older than the biblical version from the Epic of Gilgamesh has it that the ark came to rest not upstream of course, but downstream from a Tigris/Euphrates flood on an island offshore from what is now Kuwait.

    A new account from a rediscovered clay table even gives the construction details. The ark was apparently circular and made from reeds. So looking for wood on Mt Ararat is about as diametrically wrong as you could get, unless they were looking for it being made from dilithium crystals.

  43. #43 elnauhual
    April 28, 2010

    Michale Shermer, the author of Paleobable, seems an interesting people. Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages has done a good lob at debunking the claims from Zecharia Sitchin and other paleo astronauts nuts, yet he is dedicates to biblical studies, A curious people

    http://michaelsheiser.com/

    Yet i recomend hu his sites.. i think it need more people commentingt a them…

    http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/

  44. #44 Glen Davidson
    April 28, 2010

    Oh, and speak of charges of frauds, I’ve enjoyed how many anti-evolutionists (including Hoyle) have tried to claim that Archaeopteryx is a fraud. Not that it’s any problem for creationism/IDiocy if it isn’t a fraud, but they sure would like it to be one. My innocent self would like to know why, since it’s no problem at all for creationism/IDiocy (you know, nothing that evolution predicts and that no design “theory” predicts or even explains).

    And it’s the same, if in the opposite direction for frauds like the Paluxy tracks. You know, it’s not that the succession of life found in the rocks points to evolution (I mean, evolution doesn’t predict it, does it?) at all, and creationists/IDiots have all of their explanations for it. But oh, wouldn’t it be nice if human tracks or “out of place fossils” would be found?

    Archaeopteryx and the succession of life are not the slightest problem for IDiocy or creationism, and don’t you forget it. It’s for, um, other reasons that they’d like to prove Archaeopteryx to be a fraud, and the succession of life not to hold true throughout. Doesn’t mean a damn thing if transitionals and the evolutionarily falsifiable succession of life are facts, they’re just interested in discovering the truth.

    Be sure to buy fossils, bridges, etc., that these people are selling, because they’re the honest ones.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  45. #45 boygenius
    April 28, 2010

    Crudely Wrott #17;

    This carpenter concurs wholeheartedly. If that construction is 4,000 years old, then that Noah feller was one hell of a good carpenter. And I wish I could get my hands on some gopher wood.

    It would be amusing to look at those boards and beams under magnification. Any modern milled lumber would show very distinctive marks indicating whether it had been sawn, planed, or hewn and by what method.

  46. #46 https://me.yahoo.com/a/fl7N_zA63sViSe1FGsev8Lp.BfJZDA--#46d63
    April 28, 2010

    There has been a tremendous amount of hate posted on this thread. I’m sure there will be more investigation toward the authentication of this finding, than there has ever been toward the authentication of Macro-Evolution. Macro evolution theory fits the wizards first rule; People believe it because they want it to be true. Don’t investigate too closely cause the truth might disappoint you. In fact you don’t need to investigate very far at all to disprove the theory of evolution. Simply look at the very first instant, the moment that must have come into existence, literally out of nowhere, that occurred just prior to the “big bang”. A moment of time that somehow formed out of timelessness is an impossibility. You would understand that, if you chose to take the time to conceptualize timelessness. First, understand that without time there is no motion, in fact nothing changes since that would necessitate a moment of time prior to the change event as well as a moment that follows that event. Second, you only need to be a rational human-being to realize that time must be finite or else we would still be waiting for time to make its way through eternity to reach us in the current moment. When you understand the rules of this logic problem you will realize that evolution does not explain the existence of time. The time that would most certainly need to exist for evolution to occur.

  47. #47 Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou
    April 28, 2010

    I’m sure there will be more investigation toward the authentication of this finding, than there has ever been toward the authentication of Macro-Evolution. Macro evolution theory fits the wizards first rule; People believe it because they want it to be true

    Wrong. We have plent of scientific evidence for macro-evolution, all backed up by peer-reviewed data.

    Simply look at the very first instant, the moment that must have come into existence, literally out of nowhere, that occurred just prior to the “big bang”.

    First off, what does the big bang has anything to do with biological evolution? OR time for that matter?

    Please read a biology book before you come in here making stupid remarks.

    There has been a tremendous amount of hate posted on this thread.

    Your fucking concern is noted. Fuck off.

  48. #48 Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou
    April 28, 2010

    When you understand the rules of this logic problem you will realize that evolution does not explain the existence of time.

    Because evolution is a BIOLOGICAL concept, stupid.

  49. #49 KOPD
    April 28, 2010

    Second, you only need to be a rational human-being to realize that time must be finite or else we would still be waiting for time to make its way through eternity to reach us in the current moment.

    Since we can’t have an infinite amount of time before an event, therefore God did it? And just how long did God wait around by himself until he created the universe?

  50. #50 https://me.yahoo.com/a/fl7N_zA63sViSe1FGsev8Lp.BfJZDA--#46d63
    April 28, 2010

    Yes what does big bang theory have to do with logic anyway. You still need to answer the question of how time came into existence before you go off half cocked and assume that biological evolution explains our existence. I know you don’t want to, that is obvious, but you must, since this evolution occurs in the confine of the existence of time. It is like trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 without proving first that 1 + 1 = 2, or even that addition is a valid concept at all. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

  51. #51 iambilly
    April 28, 2010

    Odd. I see no hate. I see mocking. Mocking of people who think fairy tales are real. Mocking of people who are so wrapped up in their fairy tales that they are prime candidates for con games. But hate? No hate. Not too many Christians here, so not a shitload of hate.

  52. #52 SteveM
    April 28, 2010

    A moment of time that somehow formed out of timelessness is an impossibility. … time must be finite or else we would still be waiting for time to make its way through eternity to reach us in the current moment.

    So, genius, it is impossible for time to be finite and it is impossible for it to be infinite.
    You are a moron.

  53. #53 Glen Davidson
    April 28, 2010

    When you understand the rules of this logic problem you will realize that evolution does not explain the existence of time.

    Don’t forget, it doesn’t explain gravity or Lady Gaga, either.

    Nor does it explain fatuous nonsense from ignorant creationists, dammit (at least not directly)!

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  54. #54 Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou
    April 28, 2010

    You still need to answer the question of how time came into existence before you go off half cocked and assume that biological evolution explains our existence

    It doesn’t. Biological evolution explains the existance of species on earth. What part of Biological don’t you understand. Or is your head so deep in creationism that you can’t seem to tell the fucking difference.

  55. #55 https://me.yahoo.com/a/fl7N_zA63sViSe1FGsev8Lp.BfJZDA--#46d63
    April 28, 2010

    How long did God wait around by himself until he created the universe?
    LOL you make a joke that’s a good one. If Time is not involved in what God did prior to creating time, then it must be reasoned that he didn’t wait around by himself for even one instant.

  56. #56 KOPD
    April 28, 2010

    You still need to answer the question of how time came into existence before you go off half cocked and assume that biological evolution explains our existence.

    Evolution does not explain our existence, it explains the diversity of life on Earth. You are arguing against something you do not understand.

    I know you don’t want to, that is obvious, but you must,

    And it has been done. Just because you do not understand the Big Bang does not mean nobody does.

    since this evolution occurs in the confine of the existence of time.

    Diseases occur in the confine of the existence of time, and yet the Germ Theory of Disease does not explain time. If you want to understand time, look for theories that actually address time, such as Relativity.

    It is like trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 without proving first that 1 + 1 = 2,

    Now you are just showing that you don’t understand math proofs either. The more you talk, the dumber you look. You should stop before you get too far behind.

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

    You are not the bearer of bad news, just the bearer of bad logic and a lack of education. Go to talkorigins.org and learn something.

  57. #57 Glen Davidson
    April 28, 2010

    Macro evolution theory fits the wizards first rule; People believe it because they want it to be true.

    Perhaps you’re too stupid to realize that the wizard’s rule refers to magic, that is, to creationism, free will, junk that doesn’t make any real sense at all.

    Prior to Darwin, who wanted to believe that life forms exist due to random mutation and natural selection? No one. The most I’d grant is that some people wanted an alternative to (the societal default) creationism, and several ideas were bandied about, including evolutionary ideas lacking in causal explanation.

    Here’s the difference between science and morons like yourself–the inadequate ideas of Buffon and Lamarck were not well accepted because these ideas didn’t really explain anything. Darwin came along, and showed how evolution was explanatory, given the causal knowledge of the time (which still permitted inheritance of acquired characteristics).

    Evolutionary theory came only from the evidence, as there is no bias toward that in the human psyche, unlike the prejudice of inferring purpose that is about the only thing ID/creationism has going for it.

    So sure, people wanting to believe enters into the discussion, but only with respect to idiots like yourself.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  58. #58 KOPD
    April 28, 2010

    If Time is not involved in what God did prior to creating time, then it must be reasoned that he didn’t wait around by himself for even one instant.

    So you are almost capable of thinking. Now just remove the unnecessary god variable from the equation and you get that time was not involved prior to the expansion of the universe (read a bit about Relativity already, please. and watch this) and time began with the expansion of the universe. Therefore there was no “moment of time prior to the change event” and “we would still be waiting for time to make its way through eternity to reach us in the current moment” is a stupid thing to say.

    Also, please learn to use HTML (directions at the bottom of the page) to make it more obvious which are your own words. Actually, it’s already obvious. Yours are the stupid ones.

  59. #59 Tulse
    April 28, 2010

    without time there is no motion, in fact nothing changes since that would necessitate a moment of time prior to the change event as well as a moment that follows that event

    So if there is no motion without time, then your supposed god literally couldn’t act in any way to bring about the universe. He/she/they/it couldn’t think or decide or ponder, since all those things imply a temporal sequence of cognitive events. (And we’ll leave aside the notion that humans are somehow created “in the image” of a being that exists completely outside of temporal boundaries and can create universes at whim, much less that we could possibly understand the motivations of such an alien entity.)

  60. #60 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    You still need to answer the question of how time came into existence before you go off half cocked and assume that biological evolution explains our existence.

    That is physics not biology fuckwit. You have nothing but inane questions that do not require an imaginary deity to be answer.

    If Time is not involved in what God did

    Still an irrelevant question. This is relevant though: where is your conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity? All physical evidence to date is explained by natural processes through science. We don’t need your delusions…

  61. #61 raven
    April 28, 2010

    me the religious kook troll:

    There has been a tremendous amount of hate posted on this thread.

    Your first sentence starts out with a lie. Then it goes downhill.

    I suppose if your worldview is all lies about mythology being true, lying is a way of life.

    And speaking of hatred, a few hundred years ago, xians had a simple way of dealing with truth tellers. They simply killed them. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for claiming the earth orbits the sun. Which it does.

  62. #62 Glen Davidson
    April 28, 2010

    And because you’re too stupid to understand divisions of knowledge, I’ll state the obvious, that biology (including evolution) presupposes time as a simple empirical fact.

    Time and gravity are real issues, but are physics questions. No one here questions the importance of answering such questions, which is why no one here says “God did it” like an ignorant bozo.

    But we also know how to keep questions within proper parameters, which is why we don’t worry about evolution, since we know that it occurred during the geological time scale, when time was clearly passing. Evolutionary theory is only about explaining life once reproducing organisms existed, being properly limited, unlike IDiocy, which has no real limits at all.

    Btw, if you are incapable of the clarity needed to deal with issues in their context, you’re too stupid to comprehend science at all, and, of course, I have wasted time explaining anything to you (fortunately, I didn’t really write this for you, rather for lurkers, and for regulars who might find it useful way of expressing such issues).

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  63. #63 raven
    April 28, 2010

    me the insane troll:

    You still need to answer the question of how time came into existence before you go off half cocked and assume that biological evolution explains our existence.

    What does “the question of how time came into existence” have to do with evolution?

    Nothing. This makes no sense.

    Linking unrelated ideas together is incoherent. A sign of schizophrenia.

    Take your medications and in a few days, the mental fog will clear away and you will be able to think a little bit. Not much but more than you are now, which is zero.

    BTW, this is probably a multi-ID troll infesting pharyngula. Other nyms include foolie and ratha. His schtick is claiming we are persecuting the poor dumb fundie xians and linking unrelated ideas together under the illusion that they make sense when they don’t. He is likely psychotic, schizophrenic. Stay tuned for another name change soon.

  64. #64 raven
    April 28, 2010

    me the pschotic:

    When you understand the rules of this logic problem you will realize that evolution does not explain the existence of time.

    Why no it doesn’t, evolution does not explain the existence of time.

    It also doesn’t explain where socks hide out after doing the laundry or where my cat’s catnip mouse is.

    Evolution is a theory of biological change. It has nothing to do with the origin of time, missing socks, or lost catnip mice.

    You have now demonstrated 5 of the 3 symptoms of schizophrenia. QED

  65. #65 https://me.yahoo.com/a/fl7N_zA63sViSe1FGsev8Lp.BfJZDA--#46d63
    April 28, 2010

    Yes Steve, Time is a line that starts at one point and continues on forever. The concept that that starting point cannot be explained by anything physical (or biological as you all have been so kind to point out) is the problem that stands between the theory of the big bang and the reality.

  66. #66 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    Time is a line that starts at one point and continues on forever. The concept that that starting point cannot be explained by anything physical (or biological as you all have been so kind to point out) is the problem that stands between the theory of the big bang and the reality.

    Compared to your insurmountable problem of physically showing how your imaginary deity came into being, and then how this imaginary construct created the universe. Nope. No problem for a fallacious presuppoisitional argument, which is all you have. And all presup arguments are false. You need an evidence based argument to show you aren’t a fuckwit. Show the physical evidence for how your imaginary deity came into being, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science.

  67. #67 David Marjanovi?
    April 28, 2010

    Percy buys the authentic finger of Christ relic, Baldrick reveals he was ripped off they’re cheaper boxes of 10. :p

    No, Baldrick reveals he thought they only came in boxes of 10!

    Are you making up for all the times that people have forgotten to include that thing that goes over your ‘c’?

    :-) Yes, but also note it’s -baya-, not -babya-.

    = = = = = = = = = = =

    Yahoomess at no. 46, you have more mistakes than sentences in your comment! That’s quite an achievement. Let’s look at them one by one.

    Macro evolution theory fits the wizards first rule; People believe it because they want it to be true.

    So? Why would anyone want it to be true?

    And what miracle do you propose that would prevent “microevolution” from adding up to “macroevolution”? Who tells DNA polymerase “no, you mustn’t insert an adenine here, because this place once held a guanine and has already mutated too often”?

    Don’t investigate too closely cause the truth might disappoint you.

    If the truth is disappointing, I want to be disappointed.

    In fact you don’t need to investigate very far at all to disprove the theory of evolution.

    Then why hasn’t anyone got the memo?

    Simply look at the very first instant, the moment that must have come into existence, literally out of nowhere, that occurred just prior to the “big bang”.

    BZZZT! Wrong.

    “Evolution” is defined as “descent with heritable modification“. It can only start when the first thing that is capable of imperfectly replicating itself already exists ? by a very generous definition, that’s the origin of life, but it’s not the origin of the universe almost ten billion years earlier!

    A moment of time that somehow formed out of timelessness is an impossibility.

    What makes you think so?

    You would understand that, if you chose to take the time to conceptualize timelessness.

    No. Science always trumps philosophical considerations. Reality is stranger than fiction, stranger than our pathetically limited imagination, many times over.

    First, understand that without time there is no motion, in fact nothing changes since that would necessitate a moment of time prior to the change event as well as a moment that follows that event.

    You should learn some quantum physics.

    Second, you only need to be a rational human-being to realize that time must be finite or else we would still be waiting for time to make its way through eternity to reach us in the current moment.

    So?

    When you understand the rules of this logic problem you will realize that evolution does not explain the existence of time.

    Of course it doesn’t. It’s not supposed to! As has already been explained, it’s supposed to explain the observed diversity of life, the fact that there isn’t just one species.

    The time that would most certainly need to exist for evolution to occur.

    Yes, but it exists anyway…

    Comment 50:

    It is like trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 without proving first that 1 + 1 = 2

    Dude, 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t something to prove. It’s true because of the ways the symbols “1”, “+”, “=”, and “2” are defined, and definitions are a matter of arbitrary convention.

    You’re completely off-topic.

    The concept that that starting point cannot be explained by anything physical (or biological as you all have been so kind to point out) is the problem that stands between the theory of the big bang and the reality.

    Why? Big Bang theory doesn’t even try to explain the cause of the Big Bang, it merely explains why everything proceeded from there the way it did. If you want to learn about possible causes, I recommend (again) that you learn about quantum physics instead.

  68. #68 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 28, 2010

    When you understand the rules of this logic problem you will realize that evolution does not explain the existence of time.

    Dumbest thing I’ve read today.

  69. #69 stevieinthecity#9dac9
    April 28, 2010

    Someone point him to the “Something Out of Nothing” video.

  70. #70 The Other Ian
    April 28, 2010

    Simply look at the very first instant, the moment that must have come into existence, literally out of nowhere, that occurred just prior to the “big bang”. A moment of time that somehow formed out of timelessness is an impossibility. You would understand that, if you chose to take the time to conceptualize timelessness. First, understand that without time there is no motion, in fact nothing changes since that would necessitate a moment of time prior to the change event as well as a moment that follows that event. Second, you only need to be a rational human-being to realize that time must be finite or else we would still be waiting for time to make its way through eternity to reach us in the current moment.

    If the logic is sound, then it should hold up in other contexts. Let’s try counting, which is a lot like cause-and-effect: to count to X, you first need to count to X-1.

    So, to count to 2, you first need to count to 1. To count to 1, you first need to count to 0. To count to 0, you first need to count to -1. To count to -1, you first need to count to -2, and so forth. But we know that we can count to 10, so the conclusion would be that the integers are not infinite; there must be some integer that comes “first.”

    But wait, you might object, that’s not how counting works! We don’t start at negative infinity and count up. We start at zero, and we count the positive integers in one direction, and we count the negative integers in the other direction.

    And you would be correct. Here is where the analogy informs us of one possible solution: perhaps the Big Bang is temporal zero, and there are not one but two universes expanding out from it: the one we live in, in the (arbitrarily designated) “positive” direction, and a “mirror” universe expanding in the “negative” direction, filled with people much like ourselves making the same kinds of silly philosophical arguments.

    And so we arrive at a universe that occupies an infinite stretch of time in both directions and yet still has a first cause. Ta da!

  71. #71 Knockgoats
    April 28, 2010

    Time is a line that starts at one point and continues on forever. – Ignorant creobot

    No it isn’t. Special relativity shows that there is no unique ordering of all events: given two different observers, one might see A happen before B, the other, B happen before A. Tell me, is there anything you are not astonishingly ignorant about? So far we’ve seen that you know fuck-all about biology, physics, mathematics and logic.

    There has been a tremendous amount of hate posted on this thread.
    Oh, and you’re a liar as well.

  72. #72 jcmartz.myopenid.com
    April 28, 2010

    Credulous Crhistians being taken for a ride. That’s what happens when claims are taken at face value.

  73. #73 negentropyeater
    April 28, 2010

    Yes Steve, Time is a line that starts at one point and continues on forever. The concept that that starting point cannot be explained by anything physical (or biological as you all have been so kind to point out) is the problem that stands between the theory of the big bang and the reality.

    No, what you call the starting point, ie moment when the big bang occured 13.7 billion years ago doesn’t need to be the absolute starting point.
    There was a prior state, most probably a false vaccuum in which a quantum fluctuation and extremely rapid inflation caused a very small patch to develop into the huge universe we live in.

    Physicists are working in this field called inflationary theory very actively, and there is a huge amount of empirical evidence that supports it. They will most probably be capable one day of creating such a false vaccuum in a lab and cause the adequate inflation from a very small patch of that same false vaccuum, from which an entirely new inflationary universe will develop independently from ours with its own dimmensions of spacetime.

    If you are interested with this I recommend this short discussion between Lee Smolin and Alan Guth who is one of the Physicists who first started this new field of investigation.

    Way more interesting than any nonsense about a non dimensional bearded homophobic skydaddy creating time out of nothing by the stroke of a timeless magical stick.

  74. #74 ozzraven
    April 28, 2010

    I always wonder from where came all that scientist pride about telling what’s real and what’s fake.
    Its a fact that science is always an incomplete hypothesis. One day people though that things heavier than air can’t fly and then planes came in.

    Why being so proud of using a minimal percentage of the brain?.
    Why being so proud of trust in limited senses?
    Why being so proud when we still hadn’t all the tools to explore the universe?

    ¿Have you ever thought that science still don’t know how to measure and catch the divine concept?

    Science lacks the appropriate instrument, and then believers had to be accused of being fools.

    The only thing i know is that nobody really knows. Science people is as ignorant about the original architect as the most devoted Christian. Neither of them knows the borders of the universe,Neither of them uses his senses at full,Neither of them uses his brain completely.

    All the pride is in the end, the same sad ignorance when we all became dust at the end of our lives.

  75. #75 KOPD
    April 28, 2010

    Have you ever thought that science still don’t know how to measure and catch the divine concept?

    Or how to catch a unicorn.

    Why being so proud of using a minimal percentage of the brain?

    That old myth? We use 100% of our brain, just not all at once.

    One day people though that things heavier than air can’t fly and then planes came in.

    Read The Relativity of Wrong. The beauty of science is that it learns from its mistakes, constantly improving in accuracy, as opposed to dogma that just ignores the facts.

  76. #76 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    Its a fact that science is always an incomplete hypothesis.

    If you mean your imaginary deity, we don’t need it.

    Science people is as ignorant about the original architect

    The original architect is a figment of your imagination. No evidence for one. And you have presented absolutely no evidence for one either, since your inane opinion is not evidence.

    All the pride is in the end,

    The fact that you take pride in your delusions says all we need to know about your lack of cogency. And still no evidence for your imaginary deity. What a loser.

  77. #77 raven
    April 28, 2010

    another moron:

    I always wonder from where came all that scientist pride about telling what’s real and what’s fake.

    Well for one thing, we scientists created the modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization. The one that makes cheap computers so you can be an idiot on the internet. Life spans in the USA increased 30 years in a century and we feed 6.7 billion people. Hey moron, science works even if you don’t believe in it.

    What in the hell have you religious freaks done? Other than fly a few planes into skyscrapers, assassinate a few MDs, and kill each other as often as you can, NOTHING WORTHWHILE.

  78. #78 MrFire
    April 28, 2010

    ozzraven, I sense you are Yahoo, morphed.

  79. #79 https://me.yahoo.com/a/fl7N_zA63sViSe1FGsev8Lp.BfJZDA--#46d63
    April 28, 2010

    HTML commands: italic, bold, link,

    Why? Big Bang theory doesn’t even try to explain the cause of the Big Bang, it merely explains why everything proceeded from there the way it did

    This is exactly my point. If you believe the Big bang theory explains how everything proceeds then you are assuming that it must have occurred but that is still an assumption. Now you, If I’m reading your post correctly, are claiming that quantum physics some how describe a mechanical or biological event that can occur outside temporal bounds. That is silly we can see that the quantum effect is non existent when it is calculated in a zero length time span. So from the perspective of relativity the question is, was space somehow generated in a bang and therefor time exists or is the existence of time necessary for any explosions or quantum effects to occur? We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

  80. #80 monado
    April 28, 2010

    #46 says

    There has been a tremendous amount of hate posted on this thread.

    If I may quote Robert Heinlein, you must be talking about Martian hate:

    Martian hate is an emotion so black it can only be called mild distaste. (from Stranger in a Strange Land)

  81. #81 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    Still no evidence for his imaginary deity. He doens’t prove his imaginary deity by disproving science. He needs more science for the latter, and offers no citations to the peer reviewed scientific literature, where that evidence will be found. Just inane and irrelevant questions that prove nothing. What a loser.

  82. #82 The Other Ian
    April 28, 2010

    We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

    Time and space are inseparable (see specific relativity), so time could not have existed prior to space (if that is even a meaningful statement).

    By the way, contrary to what you were apparently taught, the Big Bang was not an explosion.

  83. #83 The Other Ian
    April 28, 2010

    Where I wrote “specific relativity” I of course meant “special relativity”. Doh!

  84. #84 MrFire
    April 28, 2010

    I always wonder from where came all that scientist pride about telling what’s real and what’s fake.

    From the evidence.

    Its a fact that science is always an incomplete hypothesis.

    Technically meaningless, but in essence you are right for the wrong reasons.

    One day people though that things heavier than air can’t fly and then planes came in.

    And those planes were made by…god?

    Why being so proud of trust in limited senses?

    It’s all we have, and some of us don’t try to make up for those limitations by inventing stuff.

    Have you ever thought that science still don’t know how to measure and catch the divine concept?

    It doesn’t claim to. You do realise that you don’t know either, right?

    All the pride is in the end, the same sad ignorance when we all became dust at the end of our lives.

    You are confusing pride with self-respect.

  85. #85 iambilly
    April 28, 2010

    Correct me if I’m wrong (history major here), but isn’t there evidence of the Big Bang in ‘echoes’ (radiation echoes, I think) throughout the universe? See, a scientist didn’t just sit at a desk and think, ‘wow, I’ll invent the big bang as the start of the universe.’ Science doesn’t work that way (though I can see the allure for some bored goatherds out in what is today the Middle East). Any scientific theory, gravity, evolution, string, is a way to explain a set of facts, the physical evidence in the real world.

    So where are the facts for your ‘god(s)’?

  86. #86 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    The only thing i know

    I think this is exaggeration of the facts.

    I always wonder from where came all that scientist pride about telling what’s real and what’s fake.

    A lot of comes from being able to identify what’s real and what’s fake. It’s one of the first tasks of science; it prevents us wasting our time on fairies and their supposed deeds.
    Oh, wait, you mean pride in the sense of “we know everything and we’ll never change our mind” – no that’s a religous postion.

    One day people though that things heavier than air can’t fly and then planes came in

    And once people thought that boats made of metal couldn’t float. So what?
    Noah’s ark, with all the creatures of the world on it couldn’t.

    You’re an idiot. Thinking isn’t really your first language, is it?

    OnT – could anyone post a link to the wonderful article considering the building of the ark and the real world consequences? An essay smackdown of epic proportions. Can’t seem to find it..

  87. #87 Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou
    April 28, 2010

    Now you, If I’m reading your post correctly, are claiming that quantum physics some how describe a mechanical or biological event that can occur outside temporal bounds

    You are not reading the post correctly. We’ve explain that evolution is NOT a physics issue. Evolution explains the biological speciation of organism, for which we have plenty of evidence. Biology cannot explain temporal physics. Biology explains biology.

  88. #88 negentropyeater
    April 28, 2010

    ozzraven,

    The only thing i know is that nobody really knows.

    If I were you I’d stop immediately typing on that computer in front of you. Nobody really knows what’s happening when you strike a key : maybe there’s a tiny green leprechaun who goes and draws something on your screen and after this dissapears through a tunnel inside the earth and reappears somewhere else to enter someone’s brain and cause a brain tumour. Nobody really knows for sure if that’s not taking place each and every time you type on that keyboard of yours. I’d be careful if I were you.

    Science people is as ignorant about the original architect as the most devoted Christian.

    True, but only if you assume an original architect. Question is why assume something of which everybody is ignorant? Scientists are also quite ignorant about that brain tumour causing Leprechaun I mentionned above.

    Neither of them knows the borders of the universe,

    That’s because the universe has no borders, in the same way as the surface of the earth has no borders : you can travel an infinite distance on its surface without ever encountering a border.

    Neither of them uses his senses at full,

    Don’t you know that scientists have been developing instruments that enable them to make observations way beyond the limitations of their senses. Never heard of the telescope or the microscope?

    Neither of them uses his brain completely.

    And there comes the old canard that people only make use of a small percentage of their brain capacity. You’d do well to educate yourself a bit and stop repeating silly myths like a parrot.

  89. #89 KOPD
    April 28, 2010

    I’m surprised neither of our friends have brought up magnets.

  90. #90 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 28, 2010

    This is exactly my point. If you believe the Big bang theory explains how everything proceeds then you are assuming that it must have occurred but that is still an assumption. Now you, If I’m reading your post correctly, are claiming that quantum physics some how describe a mechanical or biological event that can occur outside temporal bounds. That is silly we can see that the quantum effect is non existent when it is calculated in a zero length time span. So from the perspective of relativity the question is, was space somehow generated in a bang and therefor time exists or is the existence of time necessary for any explosions or quantum effects to occur? We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

    And what exactly does this have to do with Evolution?

  91. #91 Knockgoats
    April 28, 2010

    We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events. – Ignorant creobot

    Time cannot possibly exist without events, and vice versa – what could it mean for time to pass if nothing happened? Relativity theory indicates that time cannot exist without space, either. Your naive maunderings about time might have been of some interest in the time of Augustine, but they are of zero interest to anyone with any knowledge of modern physics.

  92. #92 MrFire
    April 28, 2010

    If you believe the Big bang theory explains how everything proceeds then you are assuming that it must have occurred but that is still an assumption.

    Hence…god?

    No.

    Hence…we are still researching it.

    That is silly we can see that the quantum effect is non existent when it is calculated in a zero length time span.

    Please show all your working in black ink.

    We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

    Please, don’t tell me that your reasoning for this is: “Because it’s obvious.”

  93. #93 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    Ah, got it!
    The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark
    Very funny, in a very true kind of way.

  94. #94 TheBlackCat
    April 28, 2010

    We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

    No, by definition it has to exist starting at the same time as these events. It doesn’t have to exist prior to them. Assuming the current rules of physics applied anyway, which we know they didn’t.

  95. #95 negentropyeater
    April 28, 2010

    yahoo creotroll,

    We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

    Apart from the fact that the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion in any sense of the term, bravo. Nobody says anything different.

    Try to read my comment #73 and the link I recommended. It will open your mind.

  96. #96 stevieinthecity#9dac9
    April 28, 2010

    Geeze. How can time exist before matter exists?

    There is no before. There is NOTHING. That includes time.

  97. #97 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    Two things that can’t refute science:

    1) Religion
    2) Unevidenced philosophy

    And that is exactly what we are seeing both from the creobots.

    The one thing that will refute science:

    1) More science, with better evidence.

    No science with evidence (by citation to the peer reviewed literature) to be found anywhere in their posts. Boring and insipid trolls.

  98. #98 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 28, 2010

    So without proving the big bang, nothing science has discovered or explained actually exists?

  99. #99 ozzraven
    April 28, 2010

    Nice answers !.

    The problem is that you are assuming that if i think that science is incomplete, then i should be some kind of Christian extremist.

    I’m not that at all. I do think , however, that evolution and the life system have a pattern that some ones could call “inteligent design”. I dont see the scandal on that. Its plausible.

    Then, the same pride of men, that for some people, helped to create an “imaginary god”… that pride created another deity called “Science”, because there is all the explanations… and we HAVE TO stop searching in the path of an original architect because Science stated as fact that there is no one…

    Well, the only fact we know, is that science doesn’t have today, an instrument that enable to open their minds in order to get out of the walls of their pride, and that is feeding the ignorance as centuries ago did religion with his static knowledge.

    Id science accept that the Schrödinger’s cat is Dead and Alive and we dont know…and build an entire system above that, i dont see why the existence of a Deity, or tha fact that humanity could be some kind of cosmic experiment is such a taboo….

    maybe the Science rats of your labs, had the same thinking….

  100. #100 Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou
    April 28, 2010

    I’m not that at all. I do think , however, that evolution and the life system have a pattern that some ones could call “inteligent design”. I dont see the scandal on that. Its plausible.

    That “design” is called nature. Evolution, via natural selection, conforms the organism to the natural environment. Therefore, organisms will evolve to reflect its environment. You could very well see a pattern. It’s not something supernatural. The “scandal” of “intelligent design” is that it presupposes some supernatural force to be at work. And almost always is this supernatural force the Christian God.

  101. #101 iambilly
    April 28, 2010

    ozzraven: Intelligent design my left knee!!!!

  102. #102 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    I do not think you know what “thinking” is.
    But your arguments are tedious, and your English is so poor as to demean the word “bullshit”.
    And the last time I looked, Shrodinger’s cat was just fine…

  103. #103 Celtic_Evolution
    April 28, 2010

    I’m tempted to run ozzraven’s rantings through the Bad Translator… but that’d derail the thread completely, I’m afraid…

  104. #104 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    Shrodinger’s dog on the other hand…

  105. #105 Kel, OM
    April 28, 2010

    I’m sure there will be more investigation toward the authentication of this finding, than there has ever been toward the authentication of Macro-Evolution.

    Yep, scientists want you to think they’ve spent timme comparing morphology, checking geographic distribution, digging up fossils, checking the genetic code for unity and divergence… but no. It’s all a show, perpetrated by the Darwinian elite who only push their FaithTM because otherwise they would have to give up eating roasted baby and having bacon orgies and realise they have led a wicked and sinful life in the eyes of the Lord…

    Seriously speaking, what does evolution have to do with this at all?

  106. #106 SteveM
    April 28, 2010

    “me” @65 wrote:
    Yes Steve, Time is a line that starts at one point and continues on forever. .

    This contradicts what you wrote at 46:

    A moment of time that somehow formed out of timelessness is an impossibility.

    Which is it? Arguing from a contradiction is pointless nonsense that proves nothing.

  107. #107 https://me.yahoo.com/a/fl7N_zA63sViSe1FGsev8Lp.BfJZDA--#46d63
    April 28, 2010

    What is so strange about the concept that time can be ticking away without anything happening? Imagine a universe without matter, This imaginary universe could very well be expanding and contain nothing but space. This is completely compatible with the laws of special relativity. I think I saw this in an episode of star trek. It is possible that this universe does not even contain a source of light. When you assert that since time and space are joined together, that somehow infers proof of the existence of matter that is just an assumption. Feel free to twist my words and tell me I’m an idiot, that does not give you any more support for your belief that time could not preclude matter or that the first moment of time could not have caused a 3 dimensional space to form around it expanding in all directions. It is still only logical that time came into existence prior to (causing) the formation of space and most certainly prior to the formation of matter.

  108. #108 raven
    April 28, 2010

    kook lying:

    I’m sure there will be more investigation toward the authentication of this finding, than there has ever been toward the authentication of Macro-Evolution.

    There already has been. It is a fake. Another Arkoid saw them plant the wood.

    There won’t be any more because it is a waste of time and money. And the fakers aren’t going to let anyone do it. This has been the pattern for the last 2,000 years.

    Religious kook lying again:

    then i should be some kind of Christian extremist.

    I’m not that at all. I do think , however, that evolution and the life system have a pattern that some ones could call “inteligent design”.

    An admitted creationist who denies being a religious extremist. Not possible. You could be a Moslem extremist though, they are all creationists too. I suppose in your warped world, someone who hijacks a plane into a skyscraper because god told him to is a “moderate”.

    We need better trolls. The last two were Crazy AND Stupid.

  109. #109 southwindcg
    April 28, 2010

    This is completely compatible with the laws of special relativity. I think I saw this in an episode of star trek.

    Well if it was on Star Trek, it MUST be true.

  110. #110 negentropyeater
    April 28, 2010

    I’m tempted to run ozzraven’s rantings through the Bad Translator…

    I was thinking that it already sounded a bit like something comming out of the Bad Translator at 10x.

  111. #111 negentropyeater
    April 28, 2010

    Imagine a universe without matter, This imaginary universe could very well be expanding and contain nothing but space. This is completely compatible with the laws of special relativity. I think I saw this in an episode of star trek. It is possible that this universe does not even contain a source of light.

    Correct. Such a universe is called a de Sitter universe, which is one of the solutions of Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity. It only has a positive cosmological constant which causes the expansion.

    But what does this have to do with God’s existence?

  112. #112 Kel, OM
    April 28, 2010

    I do think , however, that evolution and the life system have a pattern that some ones could call “inteligent design”. I dont see the scandal on that. Its plausible.

    It’s not plausible, it’s just not impossible. The plausibility will only come when a mechanism by which a conscious designer can act upon nature. Right now, evolutionary theory works with the known mechanisms for variation and heredity. Intelligent Design doesn’t have that, it just has the conjecture of a new mechanism that is as yet unseen. The plausibility of ID rests with showing that there is indeed a designer in nature. Otherwise you’re putting one in there arbitrarily.

  113. #113 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    Feel free to twist my words and tell me I’m an idiot

    Little twisting recquired.

    I think I saw this in an episode of star trek

    Yes. You are aware that some of Star Trek is not science as we know it? What’s that word for things that are made up…Religion?…no, begins with an f

    Look, a little clue, in the fabric of the cosmos as our very imperfect understanding has it, there is no real reality expressed by simply putting sciencey words together in any order and then saying “You see?”
    But let’s be tolerant. Are you taking hallucinogens? We won’t mind, honest ;)

  114. #114 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 28, 2010

    I think I saw this in an episode of star trek.

    Argumentum ad Spock?

  115. #115 Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad
    April 28, 2010

    I think I saw this in an episode of star trek.

    *facepalm*

  116. #116 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    Argumentum enterprisum?
    “It’s thought, Jim, but not as we know it.”

  117. #117 Glen Davidson
    April 28, 2010

    For all of those making fun of the troll’s reference to Star Trek, consider that it’s just as reliable as the Bible.

    Oh, um, darn, I just realized what the problem is.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  118. #118 Kamaka
    April 28, 2010

    Yeesh, this IDer is a real piece of work.

    Someone needs to tell him when he reads Smolin, the book is supposed to be held right-side up.

  119. #119 Kel, OM
    April 28, 2010

    You still need to answer the question of how time came into existence before you go off half cocked and assume that biological evolution explains our existence

    If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe

    You still need to answer the question of how time came into existence before you go off half cocked and assume that your parents explains your existence…

  120. #120 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    that some ones could call “inteligent design”

    Only an ignorant godbot or other type of fool would say that. That has been utterly and totally refuted. No design to be found in nature.

    another deity called “Science”

    More sophistry. Science is a methodology that works. Deity implies a god. We ignore deities since they add nothing cogent to the science.

    Id science accept

    An oxymoron. ID is not science, nor is it scientific. If it was, you would cite the peer reviewed scientific literature. Still no cogent argument, just inane sophistry.

    i dont see why the existence of a Deity,

    Still no evidence presented for one. Which means it doesn’t exist. Welcome to science, where evidence, not sophistry, rules.

    Imagine a universe

    More attempts at sophistry from a loser without evidence. You have nothing until you can refute the science with more science. We are waiting for your evidence, not sophistry and inane questions.

    tell me I’m an idiot, t

    You are an idiot. An evidenceless idjit. Without any hope of convincing us.

    It is still only logical

    You are wrong again. And your logic is a presupposition argument. You presume your imaginary deity and attempt to find evidence, instead of following the evidence like science. Which is why science is growing, and religion is waning. And why you are an idjit for this argument.

  121. #121 KOPD
    April 28, 2010

    This is completely compatible with the laws of special relativity. I think I saw this in an episode of star trek.

    That ranks right up there with “Put on your seatbelt, I wanna try something. I saw it in a cartoon but I’m pretty sure I can do it.”

  122. #122 Kamaka
    April 28, 2010

    @ NoR

    Without any hope of convincing us.

    He cited Star Trek. That’s pretty convincing.

  123. #123 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    He cited Star Trek. That’s pretty convincing.

    Yeah, sure, hey…;)

  124. #124 Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad
    April 28, 2010

    At least a creationist is living up to the spirit of the ‘Star Trek rule’:

    Before quoting the Bible to atheists, always ask yourself whether the same statement would be just as effective in your mind if you were quoting Captain Kirk.

  125. #125 Jadehawk, OM
    April 28, 2010

    proof of the existence of matter

    erm… proving the existence of matter is trivial (assuming we’re not dealing with solipsism). I’m going to guess the troll is confusing “explaining” with “proving”.

  126. #126 Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad
    April 28, 2010

    Imagine a universe without matter, This imaginary universe could very well be expanding and contain nothing but space. This is completely compatible with the laws of special relativity.

    Not as silly a citing Star Trek, but I don’t think you mean ‘special relativity’. General relatvity is the theory concerned with gravity and cosmological models.

  127. #127 The Other Ian
    April 28, 2010

    What is so strange about the concept that time can be ticking away without anything happening? Imagine a universe without matter, This imaginary universe could very well be expanding and contain nothing but space. This is completely compatible with the laws of special relativity.

    Nothing strange about that, although it’s not really apropos. I was under the impression that you were asserting that time must have existed before the Big Bang, i.e. the expansion of space from a singularity, which makes little sense under special relativity.

  128. #128 negentropyeater
    April 28, 2010

    To be fair with the yahoo creotroll, for once he didn’t write something completely meaningless in #107.

    Granted, the star trek reference was hilarious, but an expanding universe void of matter is perfectly compatible with the laws of Physics (general relativity, not special as mentionned by the creotroll, but I won’t hold that against him).
    Such De Sitter universes have long been studied in cosmology and they are a good example to show that a changing state with time doesn’t require matter as long as there is a positive cosmological constant, unlike what steveinthecity mentionned earlier.
    Also, de Sitter universes are not only theoretical constructs. It’s plausible that the kind of false vaccuum that might have existed prior to our universe was within a de Sitter universe, and that the very beginning of our inflationary universe was void of matter (so called inflaton), at least prior to baryogenesis.
    Moreover, the Universe we live in is gradually looking more and more like a de Sitter universe, where density of matter is tending towards zero and a positive cosmological constant is causing an accelerated expansion.

    I do wonder how any of this leads the yahoo creotroll to believe that a God must have created time or our universe, but I guess that’s a generic problem with creotrolls who presuppose the existence of God and then try to twist the laws of nature to fit their presupposition and conclude that God exists.

  129. #129 Sophist
    April 28, 2010

    Now you, If I’m reading your post correctly, are claiming that quantum physics some how describe a mechanical or biological event that can occur outside temporal bounds. That is silly we can see that the quantum effect is non existent when it is calculated in a zero length time span. So from the perspective of relativity the question is, was space somehow generated in a bang and therefor time exists or is the existence of time necessary for any explosions or quantum effects to occur? We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

    Fucking Quantum Mechanics, how does it work?

  130. #130 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    April 28, 2010

    No, Sophist. For maximum effect, it’s “How do they work”. Because they’re actually Quanta in coveralls carrying wrenches and bad attitudes. Excuse me, Quantums.

  131. #131 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    Fucking Quantum Mechanics, how does it work?

    Try a statistical basis, Sophist. Maybe after years of studying physics, chemistry, and mathematics, you will understand. Until then, idjit Cricket, listen to those who know more than you. Which is anyone who has had classes in those subjects…

  132. #132 Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad
    April 28, 2010

    Nerd,

    I think Sophist is parodying the Insane Clown Posse, who (honestly) asked: “Fucking magnets, how do they work?”

  133. #133 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    April 28, 2010

    “Fucking magnets, how do they work?”

    I thought I had answered that. When a north pole and south pole love each other very much… ;)

  134. #134 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    proof of the existence of matter

    I weigh, therefore I am.

    Sigh.

    “Fucking magnets, how do they work?”

    OK so…I know this question is easy/trivial but if there is an attraction between magnets (and there is…oh [magnet porn] iron filings, you sexy fuckers, get over here and look at my pole) where does the energy and hence work come from?

    And would it be disipated by constant exercise?

    No, but really, I’ve worn out so many of them in my apparently loveless attraction – and my inability to produce west and east poles – that I want to know: how do you reinvigorate a worn-out magnet?

  135. #135 eccles
    April 28, 2010

    PZ Great to read your Post. I met you in Melbourne at the GAC. The ‘brain dead” Australian media picked up this story. I have been busy debunking it on Web Sites.

    Regards,, Robert Tobin

  136. #136 Blake Stacey
    April 28, 2010

    that evolution and the life system have a pattern that some ones could call “inteligent design”.

    [snicker]

  137. #137 Owlmirror
    April 28, 2010

    We can determine since motion (explosion) or quantum effect is impossible without time, time must exist prior to those or any events.

    So, time itself is the first cause, and is therefore God. Hooray! Let’s all pray to Time to give us more of itself!

    Are you done yet?

    It is still only logical that time came into existence prior to (causing) the formation of space and most certainly prior to the formation of matter.

    No, no, Time itself is timeless, and existed before the universe, and then caused the universe.

    And of course, since evolution is the change in species over Time, you’ve got God inseparably involved in the process. Ta-da!

    (This stuff just writes itself…)

  138. #138 AnthonyK
    April 28, 2010

    Let’s all pray to Time to give us more of itself!

    Been there, done that, and you know what? The more I prayed, the less time I had. It was almost like T(prayer for more time) = k(1/time remaining)
    where k = stupidity index of prayee.

    I think k is a universal.
    Just a theory, of course.

  139. #139 Rorschach
    April 28, 2010

    More creationist arguments from personal incredulity, yawn…..

  140. #140 Jadehawk, OM
    April 28, 2010

    Try a statistical basis, Sophist. Maybe after years of studying physics, chemistry, and mathematics, you will understand. Until then, idjit Cricket, listen to those who know more than you. Which is anyone who has had classes in those subjects…

    it would help if you aimed your attacks better. your sarcasmmeter seems broken :-p

  141. #141 https://me.yahoo.com/a/hwNJ5ekUgsVrK9l8J4doAslS8Si.U5qM#315a7
    April 29, 2010

    So I can get $100,000 if I convince a Christian that I can find Noah’s Ark? How much could I get for some splinters from the True Cross? What would Muhammad’s hash pipe fetch?

  142. #142 Leigh Williams, WeWhoStormTheGatesOfOmelas, OM
    April 29, 2010

    Let us all ask ourselves:

    Can someone who flunked Biology 1 have any hope at all of understanding quantum mechanics?

    I think we all agree, the answer must be “no”.

    And by the way, I think the first troll and the second are one and the same. It attempted to dumb its language down for the sockpuppet, but that’s surprisingly hard to do convincingly.

  143. #143 Milawe
    April 29, 2010

    While this isn’t completely on topic, I’m thinking that it’s a similar case of the media running with a story as though it were true, when clearly there should be a counter argument saying that we need to be perhaps just a teensy bit skeptical.

    It relates to an Indian fellow named Prahlad Jani, who claims that he has not eaten or had a drink for 65 years. This is the second investigation as far as I can tell. The first one appears to have been in 2003.

    A Google news search on ‘Prahlad Jani’ is throwing me 74 articles atm – which isn’t heaps – but a friend just noticed it on the channel 9 news website (which is a mainstream news site) and pointed me to it.

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1046232/man-hasnt-eaten-drunk-in-70-years

  144. #144 John Morales
    April 29, 2010

    Milawe, it’s a silly story alright, but hey, anyone who needs a skeptical counter-argument to see it’s a crock is already lost to woo-land.

  145. #145 iambilly
    April 29, 2010

    I have found the link that our trolls have exploited in order to bring quantum mechanics into a discussion of arkfraud. Last night, as (((Wife))) and I were playing SuperScrabble (old rules), she played qubit. I immediately challenged and lost my turn as the damn word is in the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary. Apparently, a qubit is a quantum bit (and a qubyte is 8 of them (those of you who play Scrabble, take note — she got 92 points off the damn word)).

    So at 300 qubits long by 50 qubits wide by 30 qubits high (or 37.5 qubytes long by 6.25 qubytes wide by 3.75 qubytes tall), that would make the ark small enough that ten angels could dance around it on the head of a pin.

  146. #146 SteveM
    April 29, 2010

    but a qubit is a superposition of 1 and 0 so it is neither here nor there. But the question is how many cats can your quantum ark hold?

  147. #147 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    April 29, 2010

    It relates to an Indian fellow named Prahlad Jani, who claims that he has not eaten or had a drink for 65 years. This is the second investigation as far as I can tell. The first one appears to have been in 2003.

    If he’s that breatharian I’ve heard about a few times (didn’t follow link), then anyone who buys that shit for even a second needs to take a long nap, have their diaper changed then grow the fuck up.

  148. #148 GravityIsJustATheory
    April 30, 2010

    Speaking of Star Trek, I’ve been wondering lately if ST (and similar Sci-Fi) is to some extent to blame for the poor public understanding of evolution. Given that “evolution” frequently features as a plot device in ST, but “evolution” as understood by the writers of ST typically seems to be based on Lamarkism, possibly with a dash of ID thrown in.

    I’d also mention that the writers of ST seem to think that “logic” means “the most pragmatic way to achieve utilitarian goals, with all emotion and frivolity removed”.

  149. #149 elnauhual
    April 30, 2010

    Seems Dr Randall Price is trying to retract…. he has realized that claiming the current claimn is an hoax… people would realize his own searchs are equally loony..

    http://www.worldofthebible.com/news.htm

  150. #150 Checkers
    May 4, 2010

    So Let me get this straight. Dr Randall Price, this guy who is neither Chinese or Turk, claims that the places in the pictures that he hasn’t even been, are fakes. The cobwebs that he hasn’t even touched or seen with his own hands and eyes can;t possible exist in a place that he hasn’t even been to ever. And we are so suppose to believe HIM?! And those Turks climbed up a around a 14,000 foot mountain, in freezing cold shitty climate , dug a huge hole in ice and volcanic rock, built a bunch of compartments, walls, ceilings floors out of shitty looking wood(to give the old ancient apearance) and used TENONS NOT METAL NAILS(TENONS?!) to put it together, in large dimensions equivelent to what the Ark would be. This is what sounds pretty contradicting to me: Price claimed the Chinese were being duped by the Turks. Yet he claims someone told him the photos were taken in an area by the Black Sea, than why hell would the Chinese be in THOSE photos exploring a completley seperate structure by the black Sea and publish it like its the same place? Again he’s claiming the CHinese don’t know its a hoax, and the Turks are out to rip them off. FINALLY what seems most wierd is this, when do liars and theives go out of their way to expose their lies in national press confrences, and sign a contract with the people their ripping off saying quote “The Turkish government officials will help further scientific search of NAMI in the future. Attendees will invite the participation of scientists and will be committed to scientific search to reveal the truth of Noah?s Ark. They read and signed a co-operation agreement:
    ?We, the undersigned, agree to collaborate on scientific search and study related to Noah?s Ark on Mt. Ararat.
    The results are of significance to the whole world in that humankind should cherish its common beliefs and origins.
    We believe that the discovery of Noah?s Ark will resolve centuries of national ideological conflict.
    We are dedicated to working towards a better, peaceful world.?
    Basiicaly giving the people their ripping off full access investigation to whether or not this find is legit. I mean our goverment will broadcast lies but they won’t INVITE just anyone (especially a bunch of people from another Country) to thoroughly investigate their bullshit. I’de check these people out for yourselves before you dogmatically claim this to be a hoax. If anything it’s a possible hoax or possibly the real thing or possible something else other than the ark, you can’t label it like the title of this essay “Latest Ark finding a fake” if you are basing everything you know from a guys contradicting story. I say skip everyones skeptic views for the moment and jump to the actual explorer’s website who found this wooden structure in Mount Ararat, and check everything they claim, CHECK THE PRESS CONFRENCE VIDEOS FOR SURE, and see if their story and findings don’t add up for yourselves instead. The website is http://www.noahsarksearch.net/eng/

  151. #151 John Morales
    May 4, 2010

    Checkers, how many announcements of the finding of the “Ark” have been made in times past?

    This is just another such claim; watch it die like all the others.

    Time is not your friend… ;)

  152. #152 Checkers
    May 5, 2010

    I don’t see your logic or reasoning, John. We are supposed to assume that this Ark find is bullshit, because a handfull of other Ark explorers were liars? And just throw out their claims? I mean it’s like saying “oh I knew a couple of Mexicans who stole tortillas from Ralphs once, and another time these other Mexican’s stole a car from the mall. Checkers, how many times have Mexican’s stole things in the past. If you see a Mexican, he’s a totilla car stealing theif, you watch and see”

  153. #153 John Morales
    May 7, 2010

    Checkers:

    I don’t see your logic or reasoning, John.

    Clearly not.

    The main point is that Noah’s Ark is mythical and that the Flud never happened — so they’re searching for a mythical thing, which is futile.

    Here: Searches for Noah’s Ark.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.