…and this is a 
Below is a short video from AndromedasWake refuting some specific claims by a couple of creationists from the UK, Andrew Inns and Malcolm Bowden. It's nicely done, a good explanation of some basic physics, but what caught my eye is the beginning, when the creationists start explaining that they are going to disprove evolution. How are they going to do it?
Would you believe…by saying that the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, and doesn't even rotate — everything else spins around it with a 24 hour period? Most of our American creationists aren't that stupid!
I feel a brief moment of patriotic pride.
As AndromedasWake asks at the end, what the heck does any of that have to do with evolution?
Comments
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
April 21, 2010 6:31 PM
No? Aren't we the ones with the flat earth society?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
April 21, 2010 6:33 PM
Don't kid yourself, we're definitely No. 1 in Biblical lunacy. Other lunacy, well, if you don't get your nonsense from the Bible or some other venerable woo-source, you have to generate it yourself.
Whether it's better or worse to go for geocentric idiocy depends upon your perspective. OTOH, it's an even richer vein of stupid. OTOH, it's also more consistent, less hypocritical in accepting science and rejecting it in an ad hoc vis-a-vis the evidence, that is) manner like your ordinary US cretin does.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: ian.monroe
|
April 21, 2010 6:41 PM
We have our own relativity-deniers I'm sure. Geocentricism just adds some clear lunacy I guess.
Posted by: ambook
|
April 21, 2010 6:41 PM
We definitely have a higher percentage of adherents to Biblical lunacy. I run into multiple people who believe that the world is 6000 years old every DAY, and I live 20 miles from Capitol Hill. Although that's probably why - too many lawmakers around here exerting their malign influence...
Posted by: SatelliteOne
|
April 21, 2010 6:44 PM
Is this the same Malcolm Bowden who believes the depression and schizophrenia should only be treated by readings from the bible? I vaguely know this man and I can confirm that he is a grade one thicko.
Posted by: BrianX
|
April 21, 2010 6:46 PM
Modern geocentricism is at least as remarkable an example of blatant cherrypicking as most religious believers in this country. As far as I can tell, their entire case, such as it is, comes down to reinterpreting Michelson-Morley, claiming that the lack of difference of observation in the speed of light means that Einstein... and Kepler... and Galileo... and Copernicus... and Hubble... and, well, pretty much every physical or cosmological observation since the Divina Commedia is wrong. 9/11 truthers look smarter than these people.
Posted by: raven
|
April 21, 2010 6:46 PM
20% of the US population thinks the sun orbits the earth, Geocentrism. That is 60 million people. Source, wikipedia.
26% of the fundie xians do so.
The US leads the first world in ignorant morons. The fundies lead the USA.
I don't know why it is so hard to draw a diagram of the solar system. That was what we learned in the first grade.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
April 21, 2010 6:49 PM
Oh dear. That reminds me of the Futurama episode A Clone of My Own: It is revealed the dark matter engines do not move the ship, but instead move the universe, allowing the ship to go faster than the speed of light.
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
April 21, 2010 6:50 PM
That's a stretch. Fundies don't lead the USA. They try, and the GOP caters to them. But last time I checked almost everything the fundies have ever wanted to change about the government hasn't happened. The creepiest thing though is the number of catholics on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Robert H
|
April 21, 2010 6:53 PM
In Part 2 we will learn how everything in the Universe is within 6000 light years of the Earth! Thus your whole twisted "theory" of Devilution will collapse upon your ears, atheist swine! Stay tuned for Part 3 when we learn that the people in Australia don't fall off the bottom of the Earth because they have Velcro on the bottoms of their feet.
Posted by: ckitching
|
April 21, 2010 6:54 PM
And before anyone tries to defend geocentrism with Einstein's relativity theories, keep in mind virtually all of these nuts reject relativity because they associate it with moral relativism. Yes, they are that stupid.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
April 21, 2010 6:54 PM
There is some problem with the equipment that Malcom is using. His brain doesn't work.
PZ, you are hurting me with this stuff. Ouch.
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
April 21, 2010 6:55 PM
No, you don't have a monopoly, not even close. Why just yesterday I was in the Home Despot store in Nanaimo (on lovely Vancouver Island BC, Canada) and spotted a guy wandering about with a T-shirt emblazoned with 'Truth Now!" I assumed he was probably a religionaut and carried on. When I left the store I walked past what was obviously his minivan. Covered in (very well produced) stickers declaiming about 'New World Order is reading your mind' and '9/11 false flag' and the mysterious 'maniggas' (WTF?) and on and on. For some reason I didn't stop to take some photos. Perhaps it was the shear reality-warping strangeness that surrounded it.
And lest we forget, the current Canadian government has a young earth creationist in its midst. Probably several come to that.
Posted by: Navin
|
April 21, 2010 6:59 PM
I know that orbital velocity for the Shuttle and other spacecraft is achieved only by launching Eastward *with* the direction of Earth's rotation to get a free boost of velocity. If the Earth is stationary, I guess the shuttle should not be reaching orbit, or Newton is wrong about motion, or gravity is broken, or something else. This ain't rocket science.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
April 21, 2010 7:00 PM
When I taught celestial navigation one of the first things I told my students was: "Forget Kepler. We will assume the Earth is stationary in the center of the universe and the sky rotates around the it." This assumption keeps the math simple.
Posted by: raven
|
April 21, 2010 7:03 PM
They lead the USA in ignorance, malevolence, and social problems.
On average fundies are lower socioeconomic class and less educated than the national average.
I'm sure they think this is just fine.
Posted by: fishyfred
|
April 21, 2010 7:05 PM
I'm no physicist and I understand the absurdity of the claim that the Earth is the center of the universe, but isn't it possibly to construct one's equations so that, from a mathematical perspective, Earth IS the center of the universe?
Posted by: Andyo
|
April 21, 2010 7:12 PM
I remember listening to an interview (either Point of Inquiry or the Infidel Guy) of a guy who investigated the flat earthers. Pretty awesome rationalizing, to be fair. They thought gravity was a product of the flat earth accelerating upwards indefinitely. They do know their physics!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
April 21, 2010 7:13 PM
Here is Part 2 of Redsky vs Reality.
Posted by: Brian
|
April 21, 2010 7:15 PM
Minor editorial improvement.
Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre
|
April 21, 2010 7:17 PM
If the earth was not moving (rotating), there would be no hurricanes.
Posted by: raven
|
April 21, 2010 7:22 PM
IIRC, yes. But if you take a no preferred frame of reference point of view, every single other point in the universe is just as much the center. In other words, the universe has no center and everywhere and nowhere is the center.
Posted by: Sastra
|
April 21, 2010 7:25 PM
The worst creationist argument that I have personally encountered came from a YEC Christian I had known for several years on the IRC. When I asked him how he explained our ability to see light from stars hundreds of thousands of light years away if the universe had only existed for about 10,000 years, he told me that stars do not shine with their own light. They only reflect light from the sun. They're not far away at all; neither are they very large.
I then asked if he thought they were held up in the sky with paste, but he wouldn't answer that one. He was =-- of course -- homeschooling his kids.
Posted by: RL
|
April 21, 2010 7:41 PM
For the love of reason, PZ! That's enough Christ-insanity for one day. My eyeballs fell out of their sockets from watching this video; luckily, they were caught in my mouth as my jaw had also hit the ground.
Don't you have any more videos of animals stealing things from people?
Posted by: SteveM
|
April 21, 2010 7:43 PM
No, not in an Einsteinian universe. General Relativity allows one to identify an inertial frame of referecne from an accelerating frame. If the Earth were stationary it would be inertial and the universe accelerating. GR proves that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference.Posted by: GreenToad
|
April 21, 2010 7:48 PM
Two words - "Foucault pendulum".
Somebody tell them that something like that exists and it's pretty basic.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
April 21, 2010 8:06 PM
geocentrism is equivalent to disproving evolution.
Why? Because the essential claim of "evolution is false" is that science is a giant hoax -- that carbon-dating is wrong and so on and so forth.
So, if you show that Galileo wasn't merely wrong -- but that the last 500 years are all a hoax, then evolution must be wrong, in all probability.
Of course then, ATM's shouldn't work, TV's probably have spirits living in them, mental disorders are probably caused by evil daemons...
World-views do hold together. These guys are just more honest than the American kooks you're thinking of.
Posted by: spiderxray
|
April 21, 2010 8:21 PM
Sorry, PZ. Gerardus Bouw, a Ph.D. from Case Western appears to be the leading geo-eccentric. His website at http://www.geocentricity.com has all the amazing details. He even cites the Braheian Debater which was the organ of the 60s-70s group, the Defenders of the Geocentric Universe, DOTGU, not to be confused with the Defenders of the Lunar Lenticular Annular Relativistic Space, DOLLARS.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
April 21, 2010 8:23 PM
Sorry in advance for not resisting the temptation but...
Q. How many YECs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. They don't have to screw it in, just hold it still while the universe revolves around them!
*ducks the rotten tomatoes and runs off stage*
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
April 21, 2010 8:49 PM
#13 timrowledge
No! No! No! The center of the Universe is Nanaimo, BC because they invented Nanaimo Bars there - if the sugar in them doesn't kill you, the chocolate will.
Posted by: JerryM
|
April 21, 2010 8:52 PM
There is, or at least was, a big pendulum in st Paul's Cathedral, showing that we do rotate.
at least that's what I remember as a child visiting London.
Posted by: Robert H
|
April 21, 2010 8:54 PM
How do you get them inside in the first place?
Do they burn up if the light's turned on?
Do we have to watch?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
April 21, 2010 9:18 PM
Worth trying, shit makes me laugh.
Posted by: Epikt
|
April 21, 2010 9:33 PM
spiderxray:
How ironic. That's also where the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed.
Posted by: Yoritomo
|
April 21, 2010 9:44 PM
Actually I doubt that from a mathematical perspective it's even possible to define "center of the universe" in a meaningful way without some pretty strong assumptions on the size and shape of the universe - "point of origin of your system of coordinates" is something else entirely.Posted by: cuco3
|
April 21, 2010 10:08 PM
#31 I don't know about St Paul's, but there was a large pendulum in the entrance to the Science Museum last time I visited, and I assume it's still there. It's sort of impressive but the idea of it is more interesting than the actuality, 'cause you can't actually see it doing much more than swinging back and forth.
Posted by: Epikt
|
April 21, 2010 10:11 PM
Navin:
It's also why putting things into a polar orbit is more expensive.
Posted by: iamjustme
|
April 21, 2010 10:31 PM
Obviously since you're going the opposite direction to the universe's spin it just *looks* like you've got extra velocity, coz everything else is going the other way.
Duh.
Posted by: killyosaur
|
April 21, 2010 10:38 PM
I've got to wonder, just how fast does this bowden fellow think the rest of the universe is traveling? I think part way through the second part of this I had a moment of sudden realization that the movement of the stars that are billions of light years away would have to be traveling at incredible speeds to move around the earth in a 24 hr period. It just makes more sense that the earth is the thing that is moving.
Posted by: c00l_n3rd
|
April 21, 2010 10:54 PM
I don't understand how people can think that we (the people on Earth) can be at the center of the universe, when we aren't even close to the center of the galaxy we're in!
Posted by: Doug Little
|
April 21, 2010 10:58 PM
But if we weren't rotating we would not have a magnetic field and we would have been fried by the solar wind.
Posted by: MolBio
|
April 21, 2010 11:05 PM
If the rest of the universe is spinning, it's almost a universal speed and direction... how much energy would that require? I hate morons. People always ask me "Why do you have to debunk them, just stop wasting time and let them be." But if we don't attack them, think of the consequences... we can't just let idiots walk around free of the mockery that comes with the office.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
April 21, 2010 11:14 PM
killyosaur,
Even if we take the distance to the furthest star to be 6000 light years making it accurate in biblical terms. The circumference would be roughly 3.3x10^8 light hours which to not break the speed of light would have to be travelled in a 24 hour period. That is 7 orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. I don't think that the Enterprise ever got that fast.
Posted by: F
|
April 21, 2010 11:17 PM
spiderxray @ 28
And Cleveland rears it's ugly head yet again. At least Case has a lot going for it otherwise.
I wonder how long that guy has been doing his thing, as I recall a weird rash of flat-earthishness from back in the '80s, in the Cleveland area.
Posted by: timgueguen
|
April 21, 2010 11:32 PM
Don't know if he was specifically a geocentrist, but there's a letter in the latest Macleans(the Canadian equivalent of Time) from someone who claims the idea that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the Universe is unscientific. Weirdos are everywhere.
Posted by: F
|
April 22, 2010 12:10 AM
Bwa haw!
Thank you, o spiderxray.
Best. PDF. Ever.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no015/index.html
killyosaur, your answers:
http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/itf.html
And you might also enjoy Massive
Superstrings and the Firmament
Posted by: pieroforno
|
April 22, 2010 12:11 AM
Actually, you CAN assume the Earth is fixed and everything else rotates around it. The resulting gravitational field (spacetime distortion) would account for phenomena such as Foucault's pendulum, equatorial bulging, etc. Of course, as has been pointed out by Raven, you can do that with any point of the universe; but saying that the Earth is definitely not at the centre of the universe is just as unwarranted as saying it definitely is.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
April 22, 2010 1:00 AM
And, the craziness continues: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7pjHV8-yvgHW_zKQ1lmSIYIT75w
Posted by: blf
|
April 22, 2010 1:48 AM
No, no, no. They don't fall off because they squashed between the bottom of the Earth and the first turtle underneath.
Posted by: pnrjulius
|
April 22, 2010 3:25 AM
Actually, if Mach's Principle is right (I suspect it is not, but many physicists disagree), then those two scenarios are equivalent---there is no difference in fact between the Earth spinning and everything but the Earth spinning the other way.
Posted by: JMk2
|
April 22, 2010 4:05 AM
On the related subject of UK creationists, has anyone got material which addresses the set of claims of one Dr Grady McMurtry? (Yes, I know of talk.origins FAQ etc.) A web search has found me little. A local churchgoer tells me he is on one of the Sky satellite TV channels here (which I don't have, so I can't see for myself). Apparently the churchgoer thinks it "demolishes 'science geology' (sic) and evolution" and "will be taught in UK schools very soon"! What little I've seen at YouTube looks just like the same old recycled rubbish, but it's new to a lot of UK religious types who are seeing US-style creationists for for the first time, on the satellite TV channels arriving in homes previously without it.
I've found a very little background on this on the web, but even what there is on YouTube is almost all unchallenged material. Flood water from the plate boundaries, would you believe? He's also an anthropogenic climate change critic.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawngrONk9mzwC93GngHJFvpqsQcpq7z8uSI
|
April 22, 2010 4:07 AM
@ #43
Thanks for asking the first question that sprung to mind :-D
It's questionable whether Enterprise reached c x 10^21. According to the warp scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive_(Star_Trek)#Warp_velocities) Warp 10 is equivalent to being everywhere in the universe simultaneously (and is therefore impossible to reach). Approaching Warp 10 one gets closer and closer to an infinite speed; in one episode Enterprise D was thrown by Q across the universe at a speed infinitely close to Warp 10, which suggests that c x 10^21 was exceeded.
However, given it's all a story, it could just be poetic licence ;-)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/t6aFHtwFz4YnlTFlhhjxJ_bsddc6R46rmg--#d1fa5
|
April 22, 2010 5:12 AM
When I first saw this video, I did a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation that showed, if the Earth is stationary and everything else revolves around it, Pluto would have to be breaking the speed of light in order to complete an "orbit" of us once a day. Of course, if these zeebs think they can support geocentrism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they're hardly going to be swayed by little things like logic, or even basic maths.
I particularly enjoyed AndromedasWake's hilarious re-edit of Andrew Inns' video that he put out between parts one and two the debunking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdXhqZYBpX8
Posted by: is.chuckling
|
April 22, 2010 5:55 AM
Of course it is possible to build a theory in which the Earth is the unmovable center of the universe. The drawback is that then you suddenly have a load of very mysterious forces acting on practically everything and you can get lost easily while counting, for example, how many angels does St. Coriolis need to screw artillery shells to one side in the Northern hemisphere and to the other side in the Southern hemisphere.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
April 22, 2010 6:03 AM
Whereas, as a Brit, I feel a crushing sense of despondency that such creationist idiocy is loose in the UK.
(snark)
You colonials are not alone when it comes to creationist insanity. Still, at least in the UK it is doubtful that such mania would ever be used as a basis for actual laws, so don't get too full of yourselves...
(/snark)
Posted by: cnocspeireag
|
April 22, 2010 6:44 AM
These idiots can't be compared fairly to US creationists. As has been said, the typical US example is ignorant and uneducated. These bozos show every sign of having had education, but having been too stupid to make use of it or understand what they were taught.
The UK leads the world in the stupidity of its creationists! I wipe away a patriotic tear.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
April 22, 2010 6:48 AM
When one doesn't understand what evolution actually is, if they criticise enough things eventually they are bound to hit the right target. It's like saying "the lord works in mysterious ways" yet at the same time as saying that there's proof of God's hand. How can it simultaneously be mysterious and discrete? Exactly the same way geocentrism disproves evolution.Posted by: spiderxray
|
April 22, 2010 8:14 AM
It possible to construct quite a number of amazing theories of the universe mathematically. One of my favs is the idea worked out by Wheeler and Feynman that, because the equations are all symmetric with respect to time, a positron is just a time reversed electron. So, the real reason that all electrons are identical is that they are all one and the same electron/positron ricocheting through time! Rather than create the universe from whole cloth, God just slung a few elementary particles bouncing back and forth like a shuttle on the loom of creation. Its kinda poetic. I wonder what a Bouw-ian particle physicist could do with that?
Posted by: Andy
|
April 22, 2010 8:27 AM
In response to the last bit - I'm seeing more and more Creationists using the word "evolution" as a stand-in for "anything that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible".
I had a long, drawn-out argument recently over just what evolution really is. I gave her the basic Bio 101 explanation, and she kept insisting that evolution also included various aspects of cosmology, geology, and physics - basically the "big bang is evolution" fallacy taken several steps further. She wasn't pro-Bible, or anti-evolution... she was entirely anti-science (the fact that she was arguing this electronically from the opposite side of the country was utterly lost on her).
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
April 22, 2010 9:09 AM
Andy @ 59;
Why is it that so many people who are hostile to 'evul book larnin' science' fail to appreciate that the very fact that they are debating over an electronic medium is proof that the scientific method has merit in and of itself? Do they think that the strange magic box in their study/living room/bedroom/local cyber-cafe runs on fairy dust?
Equally, given the fact that they:-
1) Are probably wearing clothing made from synthetic fibers
2) Are probably eating food that has been pasteurised or has otherwise been chemically preserved or purged of parasites and pathogens
3) Are probably only alive at all or in possession of their level of health because of modern medical science
4) Most likely regularly travel by means of a vehicle that relies on internal combustion for its motive power
5) Almost certainly flick on the light switch every night
You would think that they would realize the obvious; they are living as a member of a society that is dependent on technologies that function on principles discovered by science. To put it simply, civilisation itself runs on science. I wonder how anyone can be so wilfully blind as to somehow ignore this.
Posted by: KingUber
|
April 22, 2010 9:17 AM
That violates relativity
Posted by: duckphup
|
April 22, 2010 9:32 AM
Hmmm... if that wanker is right, it means that the most distant galaxies (as detected by the Hubble space telescope) are whipping around the earth every day at about 8 * 1014 times the speed of light.
Posted by: Dyolf Knip
|
April 22, 2010 10:13 AM
I recall reading that modern inertial guidance systems are so sensitive they can detect your motion as the earth rotates, even if you're just standing still.
Posted by: FrankT
|
April 22, 2010 10:39 AM
Oh yeah, we got Relativity Deniers.
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
April 22, 2010 11:52 AM
Yes, in fact this exact argument is made by Nicolaus Copernicus in the first chapter of his book, although I can't immediately find the relevant quote...
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
April 22, 2010 11:56 AM
FrankT:
...and atomic physics deniers:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/
I have seen these guys quoted approvingly on the pages of the Twin City Creation Science Association (the ones that run the science fair).
Anti science is anti science. Once you start, there's no way to stop.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
April 22, 2010 1:54 PM
#60 Gregory Greenwood
Ahh, but all those wonderful things and great knowledge are produced by REAL science. REAL science is repeatable; can be put in a testtube and has all the answers. It is just revealing all the stuff that God created. Sort of like using Nature like the Bible - just open it up & figure out what is being said.Fake ebilutionary type science is just speculation (it's only a theory, after all); can't be observed or repeated (bet you never saw a dinosaur evolve, eh?); and doesn't have all the answers (hah, you admit that you don't know how the first life evolved!).
The great thing about the "dualing science" scenario is that you can keep your cars,computers and cancer treatments and reject all that nasty science that challenges things you want to believe. And you don't have to feel like an ignorant, anti-science rube while you are doing it.
Which is the real goal of the CreoID debaters - their REAL scientists tell people that they are wiser and more educated than all those elitist, lying materialist scientists when they reject all the knowledge that has been collected for hundreds of years.
What shocks and scares me is how many so-called "scientists" buy this line - the 700 who signed the "Dissent from Darwinism"; the shills at the DiscoTute...... We seem to be graduating hundreds of professionals who have no grasp what-so-ever of the scientific method.
Posted by: SteveM
|
April 22, 2010 2:58 PM
As Martin Gardner describes this theory in The New Ambidextrous Universe, this was how Wheeler presented the idea to Feynman, who replied, "but that would require the universe to have equal quantities of matter and antimatter, which it doesn't". Wheeler then tried to handwave away that objection but was not successful.
Posted by: dreamfish.org.uk
|
April 22, 2010 4:17 PM
That's the thing about these guys - they're obscure and powerless and at least have never become head of Government like in other countries I could mention ;)
Posted by: iVerius
|
April 22, 2010 4:42 PM
It's OK to choose a coordinate system with a stationary Earth at the center. The resulting equations of motion for everything else will be a mess, but no laws of physics are violated. The concern about Pluto and beyond exceeding the speed of light is a non-problem, because c (the constant) is an upper limit only in special relativity, i.e. in "inertial" reference frames.
Of course, this has no implications whatsoever for evolution or creationism. And anyone who wishes to use a geocentric reference frame must then take into account the effects of the odd gravitational field that arises from a universe of stuff whirling around us.
Posted by: astrokid.nj
|
April 22, 2010 5:11 PM
How do these people earn a living in their lives? What kind of jobs could they be good at, if they cant think through the geocentric idea?
On the other hand, if they are intentionally lying, they have such low morals.. I expect them to get into trouble with the law on some aspect or the other, and end up in jail.
Posted by: calilasseia
|
April 22, 2010 9:55 PM
From PZ's article:
Oh dear, PZ, it seems you forgot all about the Fixed Earth website ... which was cited in a memo distributed to the Texas House of Representatives as part of a claim that evolutionary biology was "religious"?
Oh look, it seems you told us about it earlier, PZ.
Bit of a slip up there PZ. Not like you to forget your own past reportage ...
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
April 22, 2010 10:36 PM
#72:
but the reportage quotes:
Posted by: calilasseia
|
April 23, 2010 4:44 PM
Point taken.
Mind you, it says a lot about the people involved that they didn't vet the content before using it. Basically, they jsut read the tagline that tickled their ideological erogenous zones, assumed that the content was factual because it tickled their ideological erogenous zones, and made a laughing stock of themselves as far as the intelligent life forms on the planet are concerned.
Actually, when those Texas pols tried pushing that Fixed Earth wankery through the legislature, there were prokaryotes pissing themselves laughing at the resulting spectacle.
Posted by: Redsky
|
June 26, 2010 6:13 PM
Oh dear. Another blog subscribing to the popular theory.
We didn't take Andromedaswake videos seriously at first because in them he unwittingly proves the Geocentric model by using Airey to debunk Klinkerfeus. Then he goes on to deny the aether exists even though we can cite over 20 different experiments that all successfuly detected it some of which are still in use today. Inspite of this, he was quite entertaining albeit misleading so we did release a couple of videos debunking his claims and pointing out the errors he had made to which he didn't reply.
His denial of the aether contradicts modern understanding of the universe in that for every 1 kilo of mass of the stars that exist, 5 kilos of the aether have to exist to provide enough gravity to hold the universe together. Without it, some of our planets would leave their orbits and never be seen again and the spiral arms of the galaxies we can observe would be stretched out.
The fact is, the heliocentric model doesn't stand up and there is no physical difference between either model as Sir Fred Hoyle says, it is a difference of relative motion only. So you can't tell which system we live in by observation.
Secondly, the heliocentric model which relies on gravity and relativity needs the aether to provide the additional gravity for it to work, yet the existence of that aether disproves relativity so the requirements for the heliocentric model contradict themselves.
The fact is that the 4 scientific experiments we quote and explain in our 3 geocentricity videos do collectively prove that we live in a geocentric universe. The heliocentric model only tries to explain our solar system and fails in it's need of the aether yet denial of such.
What does this all have to do with evolution? Rather obvious I thought. It proves the universe was designed and didn't simply evolve out of a big bang.
Posted by: tresmal
|
June 26, 2010 6:25 PM
[[Many]Citations Needed]
Posted by: Redsky
|
June 26, 2010 6:44 PM
I also notice that at the top of this thread is the comment "How are we going to disprove evolution?"
Well of course, you can make up any old nonsense and ask people to disprove it but surely, the burden of proof is on the proposer of the theory?
Oh well, not wanting to disappoint here's a link to a document called Chemistry By Chance which proves that life couldn't start on it's own.
http://www.redskynews.com/books/ChemistryByChance.pdf
And just for good measure, here's another link to a document called Evolution is Biologically Impossible which proves that not only can life not start on it's own, but even if it were possible assuming life started about 4.5 billion years ago, then to date the first protein would only be 43% complete and it takes at least 60,000 of them in 200 complex bondings to form one simple living cell.
http://www.redskynews.com/books/imp-317.pdf
Consider your impossible theory debunked.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:08 PM
Another blog
subscribing to the popular theory.supporting actual science.fixed.
What does this all have to do with evolution?
nothing, of course, you're either bufuck nuts, or trolling some rather stinky cheese-bait.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 26, 2010 7:16 PM
Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 7:17 PM
WTF? Do you even know what evolution is? Even "if" the earth was the centre of the universe it doesn't mean that there wasn't a Big Bang, not that the Big Bang is relevant to the question of evolution. You do realise that the question of evolution is external to the relative position of the earth.Think about it this way. If the earth is the centre of the universe, what is there to stop life evolving? We know the algorithm works, we can see the fossil record and look at the genetic fossil record. Evolution on this planet could happen regardless of whether the Earth was at the centre or not.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 26, 2010 7:27 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that still doesn't have anything to do with evolution. You see evolution explains the diversity of life, so your rant isn't only wrong, it's irrelevant.
Posted by: Redsky
|
June 26, 2010 7:47 PM
That's strange. Darwin's theory tries to explain the origins of life. He obeserves minor changes in the species and then tries to roll that back through theoretical macro changes and to the formation of life itself which as I have demonstrated is impossible.
The only bubble burst here is evolution itself.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 7:47 PM
I call satire.
Redsky cannot possibly believe any of the bullshit spouted above, and is obviously an atheist who also happens to be a performance artist.
It's a long-running deadpan joke.
Redsky, for extra performance points, you should really be promoting a flat Earth as well, and proclaim that the planets rotate inside transparent spheres of quintessence with epicycles and quintessence, and that the space program is a hoax. Why not?
Heck, maybe you already do.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:51 PM
Darwin's theory tries to explain the origins of life.
ah, see, that's where your personal insanity would have made you miss the fact that, no, it was an attempt to explain the DIVERSITY of life, not the origin.
do note the book's title. Pop quiz: the book's title is:
A. The Origin of Species
B. The Origin of Life
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 7:52 PM
I repeat, do you understand what evolution is? Darwin's theory does nothing of the sort! Please try to understand what evolution is before making such proclamations. Otherwise you're attacking one massive straw man!Posted by: Redsky
|
June 26, 2010 7:53 PM
Sorry, there is no room for Ptolemy in the modern geocentric system. No epicycles, no flat Earth and no other lunacy you can try and pin on us.
Heliocentricity doesn't work and evolution is impossible. Those are rational concepts.
Even Richard Dawkins because evolution can't happen here, now proposes it must have taken place on another planet in a Darwinian manner, and then life was planted here by aliens.
Then the cow jumped over the moon etc etc etc...
Ho ho ho..........
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 7:55 PM
Yep, poe.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:55 PM
No epicycles, no flat Earth and no other lunacy you can try and pin on us.
can't put anything past you, eh?
LOL
Posted by: tresmal
|
June 26, 2010 7:57 PM
Umm... no it doesn't. Evolution kicks in when you have something life-ish up and running. It is therefore equally consistent with God poofing the first replicators into existence and their arising by purely natural processes. And those links you provided? Hopelessly stupid. See straw man.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:57 PM
Even Richard Dawkins because evolution can't happen here, now proposes it must have taken place on another planet in a Darwinian manner, and then life was planted here by aliens.
LOL man, you couldn't have gotten that more wrong if you tried.
oh wait, you did!
Is that what you got out of watching Expelled?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 26, 2010 7:58 PM
Citation please.
Posted by: Redsky
|
June 26, 2010 8:00 PM
Evolution nothing to do with the origin of life?
Here's the full title of Darwin's little book...
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Here's a good question. How does natural selection take place if the species haven't originated?
In other words, how is their genetic characteristics passed on if they don't yet exist?
Oh dear, sounds like the cart before the horse to me...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 26, 2010 8:01 PM
I think I can here a clock chiming six o'clock - Poe, Poe, Poe; Poe, Poe, Poe.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2010 8:09 PM
Nope, the origin of life is abiogenesis, as any real scientist knows.Easy, it doesn't. Abiogenesis must occur first. Then, once life has formed and is replicating, evolution is how more complex life including forms, including speciation, comes about. All done without imaginary deities. As any scientist would know.It's obvious you aren't a real scientist, so I just presume you are full of bullshit. Until you cite peer reviewed scientific literature otherwise. If you were a scientist, you would know you must publish there to prove your case. We are waiting for your citations presented here...Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 8:09 PM
I'm sorry that your joke is so limited and one-note. Oh, well.
Nice wink-and-nod that your current joke is indeed lunacy.
Keep it up!
Right, Heliocentricity and evolution are rational, and your joke is lunacy. Very clever!
Nice distortion of Dawkins by way of Crick! Very funny indeed!
Oh, come on. That's just silly. Stick to the plain geocentrism, like you said.
BTW, I found your T-shirt:
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 8:10 PM
You're asking the wrong question. Basically you're saying Britain doesn't exist because for a country to exist it necessitates an island for them to be on.For evolution to happen, it requires genetically replicating organisms. For the purposes of evolution it doesn't matter how those organisms came into existence, the theory is only concerned with the process of replication. Your question is absurd as denying the existence of Napoleon because one cannot explain the existence of the universe!
Evolution is only concerned with life itself. It doesn't explain the origin of life, it doesn't explain the formation of the planet, it doesn't explain the four fundamental forces or the existence of matter. It doesn't explain space-time. It is only concerned with life itself. It's not a theory of everything, just a theory of how life came to be as it is today.
Are you seriously that dense?
Posted by: Redsky
|
June 26, 2010 8:10 PM
Well this is exactly it:
"Umm... no it doesn't. Evolution kicks in when you have something life-ish up and running. It is therefore equally consistent with God poofing the first replicators into existence and their arising by purely natural processes. And those links you provided? Hopelessly stupid."
The species have to exist in the first place before any changes can take place, and all we ever can see is minor changes. The reason is that DNA only passes on information about how you look and not what you are. The majority of inheritance takes place from the cell wall or cortex. This is called the cortical inheritance. So when a human cell divides for example, the cortical inheritance ensures that it will always be a human cell, however DNA dictates how the features will look.
This means, you were always human and so were your ancestors. That's how cell division works.
Posted by: tresmal
|
June 26, 2010 8:13 PM
Seriously, [Citation Needed]
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:15 PM
The species have to exist in the first place before any changes can take place
ah, you're looking for abiogenesis.
that's in Room 12b, down the hall and to your left.
git.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 8:15 PM
redsky, you're dismissing germ theory because it doesn't explain electromagnetic force. You're dismissing World War II because it doesn't account for star formation. You're dismissing tides because it cannot account for the existence of the moon. You're dismissing books because they don't explain spacetime. You're dismissing rainfall because it doesn't account for asteroids. You're dismissing the divergence of replicating life because it doesn't account for replicating life!
How can we make this any more simple for you to understand?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 8:17 PM
Oh, funny!!!!! Very well done! A brilliant satire of biology!
Really, you're doing a profoundly hilarious imitation of biological technobabble, perfect for a bad Syfy movie. Please keep it up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2010 8:19 PM
What deity? Deities are a tool for feeble minded idjits like you. Real scientists don't and won't use imaginary deities in their work. Sorry fool, you are wrong on this concept. Replicating life forms are necessary, then mutation and natural selection will cause speciation. You need to get your mind working. It seems to be stuck up the ass of stupidity.Which has nothing do with anything except a vain attempt to divert your stupidity. You aren't making scientific sense. Try again somewhere else where real scientists don't hang out.Wrong on so many levels, again showing your stupidity, because we are related to all life. Nothing separates us from other in deep time.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:19 PM
. The reason is that DNA only passes on information about how you look and not what you are.
actually, it just contains some blueprints...
but those blueprints are involved in not only how you look, but how you behave, your likes and preferences, etc., etc.
it's just that it's not ONLY DNA that is involved in the end result of a trait, but interaction with development, environment, etc.
wait...
you're not gonna get this at all, are you?
*sigh*
That's how cell division works.
too bad we don't reproduce mitotically.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 26, 2010 8:21 PM
Redsky,
What is evolution? Before you debunk it you have to explain what exactly you're debunking. So, what do you understand evolution to be?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 8:24 PM
Posted by: tresmal
|
June 26, 2010 8:25 PM
Nerd, I'm not Redsky, and personally, I don't give any credence to the skyfairy hypothesis.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:27 PM
LOL @ that pic, owlmirror.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 26, 2010 8:27 PM
Actually, fuckwit, Darwin observed continuity plus change throughout most of the taxa. Indeed, the continuity within higher taxa was evident to earlier evolutionists, and even to creationist chain-of-being believers.
Why would he have cut it off at the species level when the same evidence occurs throughout life. Only morons/creationists do that, and they have no excuse for treating similar evidence differently.
But it's dogma to do so, not science, and since creationists/morons only know dogma, not science, they spew idiocy without end.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 8:28 PM
Ooh, there's even a T-shirt for Redsky's obsession with the nonexistent æther:
Very funny!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2010 8:29 PM
Tresmal, I quoted Redsky for that reply. If he quoted you, I didn't notice.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 26, 2010 8:29 PM
Sigh. Well, on the off-chance you're not a Poe, this at least will be useful for any real fence-sitters reading to understand.
Redsky wrote:
No, we see major changes. But that's because we look with our eyes open, rather than blinkered by delusion.
A yard is not a mile, yet if you travel enough yards, you travel a mile; likewise, if something experiences enough minor changes and you have a major change.
This is quite obvious, even in principle - but we have the benefit of findings like tiktaalik to demonstrate exactly how the process works and put it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Except that the brain and how it works is also determined by DNA, and it is the brain that determines what we 'are' - unless you'd like to provide evidence that supports the contrary, i.e. dualism.
Except for when it doesn't, and new species emerge. Look at the article on ring species to see how this works.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:31 PM
Evolution nothing to do with the origin of life?
remove the question mark, and you've got it!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:33 PM
Ooh, there's even a T-shirt for Redsky's obsession with the nonexistent æther:
where are you getting those?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:34 PM
nevermind, pulled it from the code:
http://controversy.wearscience.com/
neat!
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 26, 2010 8:44 PM
"The majority of inheritance takes place from the cell wall or cortex. "
Wow. He's just completely making shit up.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:47 PM
Wow. He's just completely making shit up.
you're probably right, and so is Owlmirror.
still, being one of the more extreme examples I've seen here this week, I'm having fun playing along.
Posted by: tresmal
|
June 26, 2010 8:50 PM
Misusing it is nearer the mark.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 8:55 PM
Redsky, if you want to critique evolution you have to understand it. You can't think in terms of types but in terms of population. It's not forms but rival alleles that give phenotypic variation, which may infer a survival advantage depending on the environment. Watch this lecture, it explains just how natural selection works and how we know it can work.
Species is something we've imposed upon nature. One species doesn't give birth to another. Two populations of the same species isolated over sufficient time puts in barriers for reproduction. Before you had one group who could all interbreed, now you have two groups. who can interbreed. And so on through the ages. There was no proto-human giving birth to a human, there was just gradual change over time.
Posted by: phantomreader42
|
June 26, 2010 9:08 PM
Insane moron:
I'm guessing this fuckwit not only doesn't know what DNA is, he's too stupid to even look up what it stands for.
Icthyic @ #103:
No, DNA is not a blueprint. It's a recipe. A blueprint specifies where each part is. A recipe gives ingredients and instructions. This will be relevant when the moron starts babbling about preformationism.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 9:10 PM
Misusing it is nearer the mark.
yes, but in an imaginative way.
:P
still, I'm quite curious to see if there are creationist websites now using similar arguments.
I figured redsky would have pointed us to his source by now, if indeed he hadn't made it up himself.
oh, wait... maybe he did:
the ICR graduate school.... You mean the one that was rejected in federal court last week of being able to actually GIVE legal advanced degrees?
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/06/court_upholds_denial_of_icr_de.php
that one?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 9:23 PM
Joey's earth shattering conclusion in his paper fro ICR:
wait, I wonder if he ever read this paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/
Dr. Theobold's personal evaluation (posted here), based on the ACTUAL DATA, and not imagined suppositions is as follows:
emphasis mine.
sorry, bub, but them's the ONLY real probabilities based on actual data ever published.
now, get back to us when you have some actual data to generate probabilities from.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 9:26 PM
No, DNA is not a blueprint. It's a recipe.
semantics, but fair enough.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 9:26 PM
It's always so frustrating when someone links to a paper behind a paywall.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 9:31 PM
It's always so frustrating when someone links to a paper behind a paywall.
Hey, blame the publishers (Macmillan owns Nature Publishing, IIRC; Elsevier publishes most of the others). In fact, we should ALL be blaming them, frequently.
It really is time for the open access model to become the dominant one in science publication.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 9:40 PM
I'm with you on that one. If anyone has access to the paper: kel(underscore)skye(at)yahoo(dot)com please.I really like that many universities are putting their courses up online for free. It really means that anyone doesn't have an excuse for being ignorant anymore. Perhaps redsky should take the time to watch this Yale course before opening his mouth again.
I like the Evolution journal for that reason. I've read quite a few papers off there (as well as saving a whole bunch of others for future reading), I think it's great being able to have access. Did the same when the Royal Society opened up their archives, saved hundreds of papers. Was finally able to read the famed "spandrels" paper because of that.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 9:54 PM
Er...
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/bibliography.html
Gould, S. J., and R. C. Lewontin. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205 (1161): 581-98.
The PDF icon there links to:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/gould.pdf
There are more than a few PDFs floating around of famous papers; you just need to know where to look.
scholar.google.com will link to many, but Google proper will also (sometimes) find those that scholar.google does not.
Just saying.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 10:02 PM
Did the same when the Royal Society opened up their archives
ooh, that's still going on, IIRC.
thanks for the reminder; I actually have a few hours to look for articles there this week.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 10:06 PM
Redsky insists that the Sun, and everything else, goes around the Earth, but that there are no epicycles (and presumably the planets change direction in their orbits for no reason whatsoever?).
Sorry, someone who thinks like that is either making a convoluted joke, or is a complete lunatic.
The only thing the Yale course will teach that sort of mentality is more buzzwords to throw out while distorting, contradicting, and misconstruing the science.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 10:08 PM
Thanks for the link, I have found some of them on my own (for instance I found the paper on punctuated equilibrium). But I haven't exactly had luck with google.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 10:10 PM
If you could post a recommended reading list to the open thread, it would be cool. There's so much there I don't know where to start.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 10:15 PM
Agreed. I wonder how he reconciles the martian probes which were able to get there using heliocentric theories. NASA got lucky? Faked the data? Really used geocentric calculations and hid the fact? Yep, complete lunatic.Of course linking something on the hope that a creationist will take that into account is naive at best. How many times did you link the article about radiometric dating to Alan Clarke? It's for two reasons: 1. to show that the information is there, and 2. so that other people can take advantage of that fact. And if creationist hacks like redsky happen to break the creationist cycle and actually look to understanding what they are arguing against, then that's icing on the cake. But the cake is not for redsky.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 10:16 PM
If you could post a recommended reading list to the open thread
interesting.
not sure which papers I will be able to dredge up there, but of course my first thought would be to recommend seeing if WD Hamilton's papers are there.
I know the key ones are also available elsewhere, but not all of them.
I have dozens upon dozens in a loose list I'll be looking for; if I find them, I'll post the links.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 10:50 PM
yes, as I thought, some of the later papers by Hamilton are available there:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/269/1493/761.full.pdf+html?sid=3ea21077-72cc-404e-bce1-9e4cffd1a5a5
work regarding the Red Queen hypothesis.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/222/1226/1.full.pdf+html?sid=3ea21077-72cc-404e-bce1-9e4cffd1a5a5
looking at measurable variations in fitness in populations.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/268/1475/1489.full.pdf+html?sid=3ea21077-72cc-404e-bce1-9e4cffd1a5a5
Handicap signalling.
Those were some Hamilton papers I was looking for.
his early stuff is available elsewhere. I know I have run across downloadable PDF's of his famous paper:
Hamilton W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. — Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52
but I can't recall where I got it from now :(
I would also recommend (though I don't think these would be Royal Society papers):
Hamilton W.D. (1971). Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 31: 295-311.
and:
Axelrod, R. and W.D. Hamilton (1981) The evolution of co-operation Science 211: 1390-6
many, MANY, papers have been published since testing the theories, or replicating the studies, laid out in those papers.
I simply can't recommend reading his work enough, if one wants to understand much of modern evolutionary theory.
I also know all of his essential work he himself published as collections in this series of books:
Narrow Roads of Gene Land
after that, I would recommend checking out Trivers:
* Trivers, R. L. (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.
* Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp 136–179). Chicago, Aldine.
* Trivers, R. L. & Willard, D. E. (1973) Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179(68), 90-2. pubmed
* Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249-264.
going backwards, looking at Kimura's work on drift would help take the bite out of the purely selectionist arguments:
Kimura M (1968). "Evolutionary rate at the molecular level". Nature 217 (5129): 624–26.
Is pretty much the seminal paper looking at the role of genetic drift; there were later papers actually studying the percentage of traits attributable to drift in various populations of bacteria, IIRC, but it's a cluster of papers, and I don't recall who which would be considered primary on the issue.
then, I suppose Sean Caroll's book on how developmental biology was finally worked in would pretty much complete the picture.
http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Forms-Most-Beautiful-Science/dp/0393060160
seriously, I do believe I could easily construct a nice semester course on evolutionary biology just with those references.
I know this isn't the list from the Royal Society you wanted, but I figured it might be useful anyway.
Posted by: Dania
|
June 27, 2010 6:06 AM
Thanks, Ichthyic, that would be awesome! I've been looking for interesting papers there but, like Owlmirror, I don't know where to start.