"An asteroid or a supervolcano could certainly destroy us, but we also face risks the dinosaurs never saw: An engineered virus, nuclear war, inadvertent creation of a micro black hole, or some as-yet-unknown technology could spell the end of us." -Elon Musk
The possibility of getting hit by a wayward asteroid or comet is a scenario that could range from an expensive inconvenience to a mass extinction-level event, depending on the mass and speed of the potential impactor. While recent events like Chelyabinsk and Tunguska -- and more energetic ones like Barringer crater and the Cretaceous-ending strike that caused the last mass extinction -- remind us how dangerous the Universe can be, that's nothing compared to what Jupiter experiences.
Image credit: NASA, ESA, H. Hammel (Space Science Institute, Boulder, Colo.), and the Jupiter Impact Team, of the aftermath of the 2009 Jupiter impact.
In 1994, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 struck Jupiter with the same energy as the dinosaur-killer that struck Earth 65 million years ago, followed just 15 years later by a strike so energetic it hasn't been seen on Earth in hundreds of thousands of years. Multiple recent events show that collision on Jupiter are far more frequent than we'd expect for its size, and yet gravitation is only part of the rest of the story.
Image credit: Sebastian Voltmer (processing) and Gerrit Kernbauer (data/image).
Why is Jupiter such an impact-prolific world? Get the full scoop on this edition of Ask Ethan!
- Log in to post comments
What is the conversion process of a large Meteor when it smashes into a planet? Is it only a crushing and chemical burning process that releases energy, or is there also nuclear fission/fusion conversion of matter? If so, is there radioactive fallout, like for a nuclear bomb? Or does fallout only occurs because of the fuel that is used to make atomic bombs?
Paul, I don't think any uranium in it's natural state is fissile material.
Speaking of Jupiter, cosmology’s mysteries never cease:
“… over the last 20 years, more powerful telescopes have revealed, far from our solar system, a host of exotic systems with completely unexpected configurations. "Hot Jupiters," for example, are massive "roaster" planets that circle scorchingly close to their stars. Scientists have puzzled over how these gas giants, which supposedly form far from their stars, end up on such blistering orbits.
Now an even weirder planetary system may render the puzzle more challenging…”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328133518.htm
@Paul Dekous #1: You asked, "What is the conversion process of a large Meteor when it smashes into a planet? Is it only a crushing and chemical burning process that releases energy, ..." Yes. The temperatures involved in atmospheric re-entry (due to friction) get up to a few 10k degrees (in _any_ of the temperature scales :-). That's hot enough to form a plasma (fully ionized gas), but nowhere near the millions of degrees needed for nuclear reactions. The temperatures at impact are just a few thousand degrees, much lower, and again, far too low for any sort of nuclear interactions.
There's no _radioactive_ fallout from bolide impacts. There is a huge amount of vaporized material thrown into the atmosphere, which recondenses and may even drift in the air for very long distances. This is quite similar to the material (so-called "ash") from volcanic eruptions, which have comparable temperatures.
You asked, "Or does fallout only occurs because of the fuel that is used to make atomic bombs?" Radioactive fallout occurs when a nuclear weapon is detonated at, or very close to, ground level. In those cases, the material of the ground is vaporized (as with a bolide impact), but is also being irradiated with neutrons and gamma rays. The neutrons, in particular, can be absorbed by nuclei and turn them (the latter) into other, usually radioactive, isotopes. It is that process which leads to the radioactive part of nuclear fallout.
@Michael Kelsey #4
Great reply, thanks! I guess it has to travel close to the speed of light to have a enough energy and be massive enough to have any nuclear effect.
@Paul Dekos #5: Yes. What you're describing are called "cosmic rays." They are individual protons or heavier atomic nuclei, which are accelerated to sufficiently high energies (typically billions of electron volts) to interact with other nuclei directly.
Meteorites are limited to typical solar-system orbital speeds (a few tens of kilometers per second).
@Michael Kelsey #6
Is there an acceleration limit for 'normal' matter (meteorites/crystals/molecules) where Atomic bonds are no longer strong enough to keep things together; and a reason that there is this kind of velocity threshold between meteorites (orbital speeds) and cosmic rays (c), possibly making something like Warp drive impossible; or are Galaxies and Solar systems dragging the speed of everything down because of gravity?
@Paul Dekous #7: None of the above.
Macroscopic objects are necessarily electrically neutral. Therefore, they can only be accelerated by gravitational forces (look up "orbital slingshot") which limits you to more or less the escape velocity of galaxies, a few hundred km/s at most (look up "runaway star").
Cosmic rays are individual protons or atomic nuclei. They can be accelerated by shock waves (e.g., during a supernova) and by electric and magnetic fields.
@Ragtag,
Nature will always surprise us:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natures-nuclear-reactors…
@Craig Thomas #9: Nature is surprising! I think (but I'm just guessing), that Ragtag Media was talking about _present-day_ uranium in its natural state, which isn't fissile.
U-238 has a very high cross-section for neutron absorption, so nearly all the free neutrons in an ore sample get absorbed before they can induce a fission of U-235 (which constitutes significantly less than 1% of natural uranium).
The Oklo reactor "operated" (that's the term used is much of the literature :-) a couple of billion years ago, when the U-235/U-238 ratio was around 3%, comparable to "low-enriched" uranium reactor fuel.
I imagine that on a newly formed exoplanet, the ratio would be around 6% or so (similar to what it was on Earth 4.5 Gyr ago).
Craig Thomas #9 posted an article and Michael #10 made a comment (“talking about _*present-day*_ uranium in its natural state), which got me wondering.
Scientists say uranium is 99.3% Uranium-238 (half-life 4.5 billion years), 0.7% Uranium-235 (half-life 0.7 billion years), and a little Uranium-234.
They also say earth’s uranium came from a supernova about 6 billion years ago.
Questions:
Was there no uranium in the universe for the first 8 billion years after the Big Bang?
If the uranium came from a supernova 6 billion years ago, why is U-238, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, at 99.3% today?
Was it all U-234 6 billion years ago?
@See Noknowledge #11: Do you know how half-lives work? If you do, then you can do the math to get from the current (average) proportions of U-235/U-238, back to what those proportions were at any time in the past. For this exercise, you can ignore the U-234: it has a very short half-life (about 0.25 My); and it's not primordial, it is produced in the decay chain of U-238.
So, now the math. It is much easier to do this by counting atoms, and then recompute the proportions at the end. Start with 993 atoms of U-238 and 7 of U-235. How many of each did we have 1 billion years ago? That's 1.43 half-lives of U-235, so we had 7 * 2^1.43 = 7 * 2.692 = 18.84 atoms. It's 0.22 half-lives of U-238, so we had 993 * 2^0.22 = 993 * 1.167 = 1158.36 U-238. So 1 billion years ago, natural uranium was 1.6% U-235, and 98.4% U-238.
I'll let you work out what the ratio was when the Earth formed 4.567 Gy ago.
Now, as to your questions: Uranium forms in supernovae. There were heavy stars forming about 500 _million_ years after the hot Big Bang, which would have gone supernova a few tens of millions of years after that. So there was certainly uranium starting 500-600 My after the big bang, or about 13Gy ago.
Why is modern uranium 99.3% U-238, if it was formed more than one half-life ago? Because it decays much more slowly than U-235, and so over long periods it will become a larger _fraction_ of the total. At the same time, the total _amount_ of uranium (counting atoms) is less now than it was in the past. That's what your exercise above is about.
Finally, U-234 has a half-life of 246,000 years. Any primordial U-234 (and sure, there was some) is long gone. The U-234 present today comes from protactinium-234 beta decay, which comes from thorium-234 beta decay, which comes from U-238 alpha decay.
To Mikey the SLACker #13:
So, using the math, when the supernova created our uranium about 6 billion years ago, the uranium was roughly equal parts U-235 and U-238.
Interesting that such a cosmic explosion would produce *equal* amounts of parts that behave so *very unequally.*
@See Noknowledge #14: Please, take a basic undergraduate course in nuclear physics. You can learn about nuclear stability, neutron vs. proton numbers, R-process and S-process production, and many other areas of science.
Your statements of ignorance, on just about any subject you care to choose, are truly inspiring.
sn, Michael has provided several complete, simple (even you should be able to understand them) explanations to your questions. The fact that you respond to him as you do is quite telling, as it shows your profound lack of respect for anyone with knowledge of science.
If this is how you viewed and responded to faculty during your "elite" college education it is no wonder you never learned anything.
Scientists say that *all* of earth’s elements (i.e. not just uranium) came from a supernova.
Has Ethan, or anyone, found the definitive answer to Ethan’s 2009 question?
It was:
“Of all the unstable elements that aren’t on Earth, though, I’m curious about why there isn’t any Plutonium?”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/04/03/is-uranium-the-heavi…
To Mikey the SLACker #15:
I hope my math was OK.
Are you saying I’m wrong in stating that when the supernova created our uranium about 6 billion years ago, the uranium was roughly equal parts U-235 and U-238?
@See Noknowledge #18: You wrote, "I hope my math was OK." Yes, it was. The numbers I got were 2663 atoms of U-235, 2502 of U-238, at 6 Gya.
On a side note, this is one example of the method by which we _estimate_ when the material of the pre-solar nebula was formed! From the well-understood nuclear physics, the different uranium isotopes should have been equal, so we can turn the "half-life clock" backward to find out how long ago that was true, given the proportions today. If you want to work that out yourself, you can: from the results you computed, you can see that "6 billion years" is slightly longer than the actual estimate.
You followed up with, "Are you saying I’m wrong in stating that when the supernova created our uranium about 6 billion years ago, the uranium was roughly equal parts U-235 and U-238?" No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you are wrong (or at least being willfully disingenuous) when you write, "Interesting that such a cosmic explosion would produce *equal* amounts of parts that behave so *very unequally.* "
You are stating an absurd false equvalence, which reflects either an ignorance of the different kinds of nuclear physics involved, or a deliberate rhetorical distortion in order to fabricate a "controversy."
As for your plutonium question, the answer is quite simple. There *are* very small quantities of Pu-244 found in nature (which was pointed out in the comments to the article you cited, indicating that you didn't actually read past the title). It has a half-life of 80 million years, so using exactly the methods of my earlier post, you could estimate, for example, how much Pu-244 would have existed initialize if there were (for example) one atom left today. That would allow you to easily do proportionality estimates.
To Mikey the Slacker #19:
“As for your plutonium question, the answer is quite simple. There *are* very small quantities of Pu-244 found in nature (which was pointed out in the comments to the article you cited, indicating that you didn’t actually read past the title). It has a half-life of 80 million years, so…”
I figured plutonium existed on earth because I’ve heard of the element throughout my life. I’m sure it was even on the periodic table I read in high school!
So, I was surprised Ethan would say such a thing in one of his articles.
Were you surprised?
Did you try to scold him the way you’re trying to scold me?
…………
Actually, I was also surprised in another way:
Given the 80 million year half-life of plutonium and it’s 6 billion years ago creation,
there SHOULDN’T be any detectable amounts on earth today.
I mean, can we even detect what remains after 75 half-lives? After just 37 half-lives I’m getting a plutonium remainder of 0.000000000%. (I thinks it gets even worse after that.)
@See Noknowledge #20: You wrote, "I figured plutonium existed on earth because I’ve heard of the element throughout my life. I’m sure it was even on the periodic table I read in high school!"
The periodic table includes _all_ known elements, not just those found naturally. All elements beyond uranium (as well as technetium and promethium) were discovered by creating them artificially, either in reactors or accelerators.
Plutonium was discovered in the early 1940s, as part of the Manhattan Project. DId your high school class cover "natural" vs. "artificial" elements?
You then asked "Were you surprised?" Did you even read the article you posted? Did you follow the links Ethan provided? Did you notice that he pointed out that the "natural plutonium" claim was from a single study of marginal precision?
Is your penchant to cherry-pick quotes and ignore any scientific evidence refuting your magical worldview so deeply ingrained that you apply it even when you're trying not to?
Oh, Dear L-rd, I just indulged a look at S.N.'s Disqus presence. Check this out:
Conduct yourselves accordingly, gay atheist academics.
^ "Conduct Govern yourselves accordingly"
That's more like it, Popehat-wise.
BTW, has anybody pressed S.N. to hand-wave away the Oklo reactor?
Well I've learnt something today: my answer was Jupiter presents a bigger target, and has a much higher gravitational field
I hadn't thought of the factor that bodies further from the sun have less speed, and so are easier to capture out there.
Thanks Ethan!
Of all the unstable elements that aren’t on Earth, though, I’m curious about why there isn’t any Plutonium?
Plutonium-244, with 94 protons and 150 neutrons, has a half-life of 83 million years, which *means that there should still be small amounts of it left today*.
Plutonium is more stable than Protactinium and Actinium, which *are* found in Nature. Only one study, whose results are not universally accepted, claims to have detected natural Plutonium.
So, now for the more subtle point: why isn’t there any Plutonium-244 on Earth?
The supernova that gave rise to us must *not* have been powerful enough to make huge amounts of Plutonium!
@See Noknowledge #26: Did you even bother to read my response to your first ignorant instance of this? If not, why don't you go read the Wikipedia article on Pu-244? It provides citations to all of the original papers, and goes through the quantitative limits. By the way, there _is_ supernova-produced Pu-244 found on Earth, which you would have known if you were able to read anything with comprehension, instead of ignorant quote-mining.
To Mikey the Slacker #27:
“Did you even bother to read my response to your first ignorant instance of this?”
Yes, I did.
That’s why I still have the following issues...
First:
You said:
“There *are* very small quantities of Pu-244 found in nature”,
despite Ethan’s saying:
“I’m curious about why there *isn’t* any Plutonium…there should still be small amounts of it left today.”
So, WHO’S RIGHT?
Is there or is there not natural plutonium on earth?
SECOND:
If there *is* plutonium in nature on earth, HOW COULD THERE BE?
HOW COULD THERE BE, given its 80 million year half-life of plutonium and its 6 billion years ago creation?
What technology would detect what remains after 75 half-lives?
(After just 37 half-lives I’m getting a plutonium remainder of 0.000000000%! A lot more zeroes would have to be added for 75 half-lives).
SN: it has been discovered. As I pointed out on the thread you link to. Though it doesn't surprise me that you didn't bother following a link that disconfirmed your assumption.
Ethan's primary mistake (IMO) in that linked article is that he did the half-life calculation, came up with a detectable-in-theory rate of decay, and assumed that meant the signal should be detectable in practice (hidden/underlying assumption: sample preparation should be trivial). This is not so. As an actinide Pu is going to be found in ores with other actinides, including U and Th which are going to produce radioactive signals that will swamp out the Pu signal. Thus you need to chemically extract the Pu from the U and Th before you have any chance of being able to see it. This is chemically difficult for a number of reasons. U and Pu are approximately the same atomic size. They have some of the same oxidation states. And the orders of magnitude difference of amount in solution is also going to cause problems with any extraction. A good chemist probably can do it, but nobody is ever going to be able to just dig some pitchblende out of the Earth and identify the Pu in it using a gamma counter, as Ethan sort of implies (probably without intending to).
Time to take stock, then; you posed the absence of Pu as a problem for mainstream theories of the formation of the planet (and stellar nucleosynthesis). You were shown to be wrong. So do you admit then that these theories are stronger/more credible than you originally gave them credit for? Because that would be the rational outcome here: you were skeptical because of problem A. Problem A is solved. Therefore some of your skepticism should disappear.
I'm not betting money that that actually happened, though. Your belief in YECism has zero to do with what the science says and everything to do with argument from authority.
we should be easily able to find it.
represents ease of detection.
When a sample is properly isolated, standard gamma counting techniques can see single atom decays. That's the equivalent of approximately 1E-23 mols. You would actually need several orders of magnitude more than that before you'd expect to see a Pu decay because of its half-life (or instead you'd need a very, very long experiment. :) So seeing the remaining Pu from a sample you suspect had 10-100 kg of Pu in it originally should be doable, if you can isolate the atoms you're trying to count from the other radioactive material in your geological sample. Which is very hard to do (see my last post). But the point I want to make with this post is that the gamma ray detection instrumentation we have today is certainly technologically capable of it. In this case the difficulty of the experiment is due to the chemistry, not the physics. It is tough to extract and purify that sort of sample, its not tough to count it once its extracted and purified.
A good rule of thumb is after every 10 half-lives you have about 1/1000 left (technically 1/1024th, but 1E-3 is probably close enough for government work). 75 half-lives means that roughly a fraction between 1E-21 and 1E-24 of the original is left, or about 1E-22%. Because of the remainder I'm ignoring, it may be an order of magnitude or two lower but that's roughly what we're talking about.
To Mikey the Slacker:
You wrote that I “ignore any scientific evidence refuting [my] magical worldview.”
Here’s a worldview that I would consider “magical” - one that ignores common sense, experience, *and* scientific evidence.
The “magic” kingdom where
– *Reality comes from nothing*, that a “point of singularity” came from nothing, which then caused a Big Bang for no reason,
– That Big Bang followed natural *laws which had no lawgiver*,
– Those natural laws without a lawgiver ultimately led the Big Bang's hydrogen and helium to *birth life (abiogenesis)*,
- This life from the non-living then, by a *non-rational* alleged process (evolution), became the *rational* being (or at least a being capable of rationality at times) reading these words.
THAT, is magical.
Is there any more succinct message that says "I have no clue about science and I don't care who knows it" than sn's comment at #31?
@dean #32:
Also, metaphors. "People decided to call them the laws of nature, so there must be a lawgiver! That's just logic."
Never mind that laws actually produced by lawgivers are anything but constant over time and space.
To eric #29:
“SN: [Plutonium in nature] has been discovered (url). As I pointed out on the thread you link to. Though it doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t bother following a link that disconfirmed your assumption.
Ethan’s primary mistake (IMO) in that linked article is that he…”
(Note to Ethan: eric thinks you made a boo-boo or two.)
But let’s get an expert on this.
Mikey and/or Ethan: Does the work of Hoffman, Lawrence, et al, which eric linked to, prove the existence of natural plutonium on earth?
(I wonder if when Ethan said “Only one study, whose results are not universally accepted, claims to have detected natural Plutonium”, he was referring to eric’s link?)
I look forward to the experts’ answer.
………..
“Time to take stock, then; you posed the absence of Pu as a problem for mainstream theories of the formation of the planet (and stellar nucleosynthesis).”
No I didn’t.
I’m reading and learning about science, about plutonium, primarily.
And I’m asking questions, as any good scientist (or scientist-in-training) ought to do.
And the questions I’m asking include:
How is it even possible for plutonium to exist naturally on earth, and why would any scientist *even look* for it, given
1)The science fact that plutonium has a half-life of 80 million years, and
2)The science fact that all of earth’s elements came from a supernova about 6 billion years ago.
?
Scientifically inquiring minds want to know.
Now, you’re saying we have the technology to detect 0.0000000000000000000026% of the remainder of an element (That’s 20 zeroes. I counted them!). In which case, I suspect we’d be able to find plutonium all over the place.
But again, I look forward to the experts’ response.
………….
Lastly, regarding your statement
“[See Noevo] posed the absence of Pu as a problem for mainstream theories of the formation of the planet (and stellar nucleosynthesis)”,
you seem to give the impression that mainstream theories about planet formation and other cosmological wonders are as good as gold (or how about platinum?).
They’re not.
And so we return to the example I began with in #3:
“… over the last 20 years, more powerful telescopes have revealed, far from our solar system, a HOST of EXOTIC systems with COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED configurations. “Hot Jupiters,” for example, are massive “roaster” planets that circle scorchingly close to their stars. Scientists have PUZZLED over how these gas giants, which supposedly form far from their stars, end up on such blistering orbits.
Now an EVEN WEIRDER planetary system may render the puzzle MORE challenging…”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328133518.htm
To Naked Bunny with a Whip #34:
“Never mind that laws actually produced by lawgivers are anything but constant over time and space.”
Do tell!
How about a couple examples?
sn, so your church still endorses slavery and the isolation of women?
Your intentional dishonesty is a constant source of amazement. If only there existed holy book someone like you would read and realize that lying is not a good trait.
Why scientists would want to look for it: because it helps to test our theories of stellar nucleosynthesis as well as what we know about nuclear reaction cross-sections. 'Scientific inquiring' minds try and confirm theories about the past using present observations.
Why scientists would expect to find it: because we expect supernovae to have produced about as much Pu as U. This expectation is in turn based on measured, observed neutron capture cross sections and a pretty good understanding of nuclear reaction dynamics. On Earth this would amount to a (primordial) average of several parts per million in the crust, with a much higher concentration in some ores. The very very small fraction remaining now, the number behind your argument from incredulity (a number I had to calculate for you, since you couldn't or didn't bother to do it yourself) still results in a prediction of atoms remaining per original kilogram. Which should be detectable using current counting technology, if you can identify a sample you think was originally Pu and if you can isolate the remaining Pu from interferents.
Now you know. And since you know, we can now expect you won't repeat the same question and make the same argument from incredulity any more, because doing so now, after you know, would be a dishonest misrepresentation of the science. Right? Now you know, any time in the future you repeat of the same mistaken argument from incredulity, we should not chalk that up to an understandable layperson's ignorance but rather to intentional misrepresentation. Right?
Yes, we do. And this is easily confirmed if you would only bother to look. Look up any article on the discovery of any element numbered 104 or above; they basically all used techniques that first isolate and then detect the decay of a few to a few hundred or thousand atoms. I.e., they detect amounts of material on the order of 1E-20 mols. Such is the power of nuclear detection techniques.
I have already described in pretty decent detail why this is not so. What part of posts 29 and 30 did you either not understand or think are untrue?
Because when they agree with some or all of what I've written, you'll change your mind and declare stellar nucleosynthesis followed by 4-6 billion years of planetary formation a model that is consistent with observed data? Somehow, I doubt it. I can predict what will happen here (if Ethan even bothers to respond): they'll mostly agree with me, probably correct or quibble with some of what I've written, and two months from now you'll be back spouting the exact same arguments from incredulity you make today, having absorbed or believed none of what we've told you in the interim.
I'm really at a loss for what this has to do with stellar nucleosynthesis or the formation of the Earth and our solar system. Yes there are systems that don't resemble ours, and we don't understand how interstellar clouds of material may have collapsed into these unexpected conformations. But AFAIK nobody has ever asserted that since these clouds are forming solar systems in ways we don't understand, they must therefore not be composed of the atoms on the periodic table. You're making a very nonsequitur argument. "Big close planets discovered, ergo supernovae must not be producing Pu" would be a bit like "new phase of water ice discovered, ergo H and O don't make water ice."
See Noevo -- In comment # 31 you posit a worldview that is "magical" absent a "lawgiver" to, well, give us the natural laws studied by scientists. If a law without a lawgiver is magical, how is a lawgiver without its own creator any less so?
To eric #38:
“Why scientists would want to look for [natural plutonium on earth]: because it helps to test our theories of stellar nucleosynthesis as well as what we know about nuclear reaction cross-sections. ‘Scientific inquiring’ minds try and confirm theories about the past using present observations.”
That sounds pretty good.
So, as good scientists, they’re looking for something they don’t expect to find, or, if they *do* find some, it will be only that 0.0000000000000000000026%. Then, their theory will be further supported.
But wait a minute.
Why, then, don’t they *likewise* look for carbon-14 in the bones and soft tissue of those dinosaurs that are presumed to be 75 million to 200 million years old? You know, a blind C-14 test? They’d be looking for something they don’t expect to find, or, if they *do* find some, it might be only that 0.0000000000000000000026% (in which case, the dino would be only about 0.4 million years old, and not 75 million to 200 million years old.).
Then, their theory about when dinosaurs lived will be further supported!
But why haven’t they done that?
…………..
Lastly, with the remainder of your post, you *seem* to be under some false impressions.
1)You seem to think that I question or deny scientists’ explanation of how plutonium is formed, and
2)You seem to think that I question or deny the observations and the math by which the scientists calculated the 80 million-year half-life for plutonium.
IF those are your impressions, you’re wrong.
I just question the *uniformitarian assumptions* upon which the calculations' conclusions are based.
Now you know.
To eric #39:
“I’m really at a loss for what [the above quote and story from Science Daily] has to do with stellar nucleosynthesis or the formation of the Earth and our solar system.”
The formation of the earth, and of our solar system?
Don’t worry. They seem to be at a loss, too.
“Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110222-planets-formatio…
To Patrick M. Dennis #40:
“See Noevo — In comment # 31 you posit a worldview that is “magical” absent a “lawgiver” to, well, give us the natural laws studied by scientists. If a law without a lawgiver is magical, how is a lawgiver without its own creator any less so?”
THAT, Dennis, is the real “magic”.
You could call it “Mystery”.
But it’s a mystery that, seemingly paradoxically,
makes sense.
(Or at least it makes sense to sensible people.)
See Aquinas’ Uncaused Cause.
And maybe we could look at the issue a little differently.
I don’t know if this is an original thought, but
IF *every* “creator/lawgiver” must in turn have a “creator/lawgiver”,
*infinitely* into the past,
then…
We would never get to NOW.
We would never get to you and me.
Sn, you keep bringing up your misrepresentation of the tree material. You've had multiple articles and explanations given to you for why it is not the science breaker you claim it to be.
Stop lying about it.
Do the math, SN. Its very simple and we shouldn't have to spoon feed you this. Or tell me you can't do it and then in my response message I'll do it for you.
For you to accept that Pu has the half-life it has and is formed in supernovae completely undermines YECism. Because if YEC was correct then we should be seeing Pu ore in approximately the same amounts as U ores. Now you can 'reject uniformitarianism' and claim that Pu had a half-life 6 orders of magnitude shorter in the past, but not only is that an extraordinary claim backed up by no evidence, but even if true would lead to the prediction of many Pu-criticality event craters over the earth in the last 10,000 years, and the subsequent extinction of all life on it due to radioactive fallout. Shorter half-life for YEC consistency means all that same energy is released faster, with catastrophic consequences, which are not observed. Or do you propose that in addition to God miracling the half-life down, he also miracled away the neutrons, photons, and kinetic and energy released in Pu fission? That sounds like science!
This is a complete aside but this is also wrong. This sort of reasoning relies on simplistic notions of infinity which may have served Greek and medieval philosophers well, but went out the window with Newton and calculus. There are many convergent infinite series, and any of them could effectively model an infinite regress that occurs in a finite amount of time. Probably the most simple example is if we say that creator N took 1 second to create creator N+1. Creator N-1 took half that time (0.5 seconds). Creator N-2 took half that time (0.25 seconds), and so on, with each previous creator taking half the time of his 'daugter' creator. Then we can answer your question without paradox: could an infinite series of such creators have produced Creator N in a finite amount of time? Yes. We can even calculate exactly how long it took them. 2 seconds! The entire, infinite number of creators and creation events priori to N occupy 2 seconds. No more, no less.
I don't blame Zeno for not understanding infinite series. I don't blame Aquinas or Origen or folks like them either. But c'mon now folks, its been 250 years since Newton published the Pincipia. 21st century philosophers and theologians should at least try and keep up with the mathematical advances of the 18th century. And if they don't, they deserve the LOLZ and dismissal that many technically trained people give them. If you want to talk infinite series seriously, and be taken seriously, FFS at a minimum take High School calculus first.
SN#43 " IF *every* “creator/lawgiver” must in turn have a “creator/lawgiver”,
*infinitely* into the past,
then…
We would never get to NOW.
We would never get to you and me."
... So then it is NOT true that "everything must have a cause"? Why, it appears that we are in agreement, Sir!
You're overlooking the fundamental axiom of S.N.:
"[A]theists’ Golden Rule morality not only has no theological basis, it doesn’t have a philosophical or logical basis either."
The token 'morality' can be replaced by anything that doesn't sit well with S.N. As he ironically states, it's "just a matter of taste." And desperate-for-attention trolling.
Heh.
To Patrick Dennis #46:
“So then it is NOT true that “everything must have a cause”? Why, it appears that we are in agreement, Sir!”
Only if we *also* agree that there is *only ONE* thing that does not have a cause.
THE uncaused cause.
As I said, it only makes sense.
Many debate who that uncaused cause *is*.
I think “its” name is “I Am Who Am.”
To eric #45:
Me: “Why, then, don’t they *likewise* look for carbon-14 in the bones and soft tissue of those dinosaurs that are presumed to be 75 million to 200 million years old?”
You: “Do the math, SN. Its very simple and we shouldn’t have to spoon feed you this. Or tell me
you can’t do it and then in my response message I’ll do it for you.”
I know the math.
But you seem incapable of understanding my plain point.
Please go back and *re-read* the first section of #41, ending with “But why haven’t they done that?”
Then you might be able to answer that question.
"Only if we *also* agree that there is *only ONE* thing that does not have a cause."
There is no one thing that doesn't need a cause
And if anything were to have that feature, it would in no way concord to your assertion of godhood.
"As I said, it only makes sense."
Nope, it only makes sense if you're seriously stupid.
"But you seem incapable of understanding my plain point."
You seem incapable of explaining what your "plain" point is, therefore it is obviously not plain.
“But why haven’t they done that?”
Was answered.
"This sort of reasoning relies on simplistic notions of infinity which may have served Greek and medieval philosophers well,"
Eric, where you fail is understanding that See Nowt is working in a medieval mindset and that this is enough of a problem that he cannot abide or remove the problem Pat wrote down without giving up some very basic ancient-idiocy assertions that underpin his entire "argument" for his ridiculous fantasy being real.
Why make a sophisticated modern argument against a thousand-year-old assertion?
Sigh. The math answers your question, SN. Just because scientists think its reasonable to look for something remaining after 75 half-lives doesn't mean they'll also think its reasonable to look for something after 11,000 half-lives.
You say you knew that math. So, do you reject that math-based argument because you don't believe it? I doubt it. I think what happened is you didn't bother to do the math and erroneously thought the problem of looking for C-14 after 65 million years was roughly equivalent to Pu after 4 billion.
See Nowt, if you have at lest one atom left, how many atoms would you need at a mimimum to expect to have been there after 75 half lives? And how many if there's one left after 11,000 half lives?
Here's a hint:
1) 2^75 atoms ~10^22 ~ 0.1g
2) 2^11000 atoms ~10^3300 ~10^3300kg
SN,
Why must an uncaused, "first cause" also be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, i.e. God? Why could the "first cause" not be, say the field that led to the exponential inflation that is predicted by modern cosmological models? That "first cause" would serve the same purpose as God in terms of the logic of causation, namely preventing the infinite regress of causation.
Note that the assumptions that render a "first cause" necessary are not really based in scientific evidence in the first place. Namely, there is no evidence that every event has a cause, and actually quite a bit of evidence that the opposite is true. There is also no basis in science to reject out of hand an infinite regress of causation. Such a rejection makes sense to us, but there is no reason that we should expect, a priori, that the way the universe works will be sensible to human intellect. I know of no scientific reason that the infinite regress of causes must be rejected, unless it can be definitively proven that the universe is closed and finite. As of now, this is still an open question because the density parameter of the universe cannot be measured to a sufficient degree of accuracy to determine whether or not it equals or exceeds the critical density (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this; I am by no means an expert on cosmology). A flat universe may well be infinite (though it need not be), so infinite regress of causation cannot be ruled out.
Since the "first cause" argument is based on the notion that every event is caused and an infinite regress is impossible, modern scientific knowledge calls into question the necessity of a first cause. Like I said above, even if such a first cause is necessary, there's no reason to identify that first cause with a deity.
Guys, the local ignoranus SN is just pulling all your legs.. asking questions like he actually cares what the answer is. All he's trying to do is drain your hours and energy in futile work. Don't waste time and energy on a retarded troll.
Sinisa, I know what you meant, but I don't care for the use of "retarded" in your comment. Yes, this qualifies me as some level of concern troll, but it is troublesome (even though I realize you didn't intend it to be.)
SN # 49: "I think 'its' name is 'I Am Who Am.' "
... and I think it is "the inflaton." So, it is simply a matter of nomenclature, eh?
Sinisa,
I know we are NEVER going to stop SeeNoKnowledge from posting his crap. However, I for one don't like letting it go unchallenged. As with any website, there are those who just glance occasionally at things and don't read too deeply. If we just let SN post his garbage, these casual observers might come away thinking that he actually has the scientific community flummoxed with his inane responses and lead such people down the anti-scientific path. If we can inspire rationality in some subset of humanity, I think it's worthwhile even though I know SN is a lost cause.
I go back and forth. Some days, I want my response out there for lurkers to see. Other days, like Dean @32, I think the best way to swing fence-sitters against SN's brand of religious anti-scientism is probably just to let his posts speak for themselves. Looks like this week, my mood has been more towards the former.
"...I think the best way to swing fence-sitters against SN’s brand of religious anti-scientism is probably just to let his posts speak for themselves..."
The difficulty comes when sn, when seriously pressed, asked his inquisitor things like "Are you a lapsed Catholic?" "Are you a Jew?" or when he slings insults at a woman who dares to question him.
It is very hard to dismiss him in general when his specific flareups of bigotry come out so publicly.
If you respond to the troll, you give it life. Ignore it completely, and it will surely die.
PJ 2016
To eric #53:
“Sigh. The math answers your question, SN. Just because scientists think its *reasonable* to look for something remaining after 75 half-lives doesn’t mean they’ll also think its *reasonable* to look for something after 11,000 half-lives.”
Sigh. Your blind spot remains.
The scientists who discovered the dinosaur soft tissue did not think it was *reasonable* to find the soft tissue.
But the discovery forced them to take off the blinders (sort of) and realize that their scientific *reasoning* was
very,
very,
very
wrong.
Not 20% wrong. Not 200% wrong.
About 2,000,000% wrong.
And they still can’t explain why.
One reason they can’t explain why is because they’ve blindly presumed they were 2,000,000% wrong *only about* the fossilization process and the time it requires.
Now, when you’re 2,000,000% wrong, you’d *think* they’d *reevaluate* the conventional wisdom on *everything*, in this case, to include the presumed age of the dino bones.
They’ve been (possibly willfully) blind to this other possibility, one that *would solve* their extraordinary soft tissue conundrum:
**Maybe the dino tissue is actually “young”, say, 5K-10K years old.**
This possibility would make far more *reasonable* the fact that the dino tissue is still soft.
A blind C-14 dating with positive results would make highly probable the possibility.
What would be the harm in doing the blind C-14 dating, in exploring *all* possibilities to solve the soft tissue problem?
Why haven’t they done the blind C-14 dating?
I think I know why. And if any of your blindness has been healed, so do you.
.........…………
“You say you knew that math. So, do you reject that math-based argument because you don’t believe it? I doubt it. I think what happened is you didn’t bother to do the math and erroneously thought the problem of looking for C-14 after 65 million years was roughly equivalent to Pu after 4 billion.”
Then you thought wrongly. (And I don’t know where you’re getting this “4 billion”.)
The 0.0000000000000000000026% is the remainder after 75 half-lives. It’s the remainder for plutonium after 6 billion years (when scientists say a supernova created it)
and also for C-14 after 0.4 Million years (429,750 years).
This is seen in my #41.
(Of course, if the dino’s true age is a small fraction 0.4M, the test would detect a much higher % of C-14.
But I guess the test will never happen.
Sigh.)
I'm too tempted to derail things by following down the pseudophilosophical babbling that is part and parcel of a S.N. appearance. Anyway, courtesy of the latter:
This particular string of words appears to be a bona fide neologism, but its wholesale unoriginality is trivially demonstrated. S.N. is simply opposed to thought per se on the general principle that everything is properly ordered according to the Dungeon Master's Guide that he substitutes for understanding the world – even if construed as being in the nature of a dream – as a result of his desperate hope for personal immortality.
I didn't know dino's have been found on Jupiter ! ! ! When did that happen ?
To Sean T #55:
“Why must an uncaused, “first cause” also be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, i.e. God?”
I think the odds are pretty good that the creator and source of all reality is omnipotent.
Omniscient, too.
I mean, do you think you know some things He doesn’t? (Note: Male pronoun used for simplicity.)
As to whether He is omnibenevolent, simply by virtue of His being the creator and source of all reality, that’s a subject for another time.
........................
“Why could the “first cause” not be, say the field that led to the exponential inflation that is predicted by modern cosmological models?”
Are you serious?
……………..
“I know of no scientific reason that the infinite regress of causes must be rejected, unless it can be definitively proven that the universe is closed and finite.”
Firstly, don’t look to science for any “proofs” of anything.
(I believe they might instead use words to the effect of: ‘held to be true, tentatively’.)
So, the scientists will not say they’ve “definitively proven that the universe is closed and finite.”
But I *think* they will say, tentatively, that the universe *is* finite (and was smaller than the point of a pin 13.8 billion years ago).
....................
As to the infinite regress of causes, what did you think of the thought at the end of #43 (“IF *every* “creator/lawgiver” must in turn have a “creator/lawgiver”, *infinitely* into the past,
then…We would never get to NOW. We would never get to you and me.”)?
…………..
“… modern scientific knowledge calls into question the necessity of a first cause.”
So, modern scientific knowledge doesn’t question the source of the alleged point of singularity from which Banged the Big?
Interesting.
I thought modern scientists were more curious than that.
Again, SN, other than you own assertion without evidence, why must a purpoted first cause be a being that is omnipotent and omniscient?
Of course I am serious about inflation being the first cause. Nowhere in the argument for the necessity of a first cause is there anything that requires the first cause to be an intelligent being (let alone an omnipotent and omniscient one). The first cause can equally well be a natural phenomenon. The whole argument boils down to
P1. All things and events have causes
P2. The chain of causality cannot be extended infinitely backwards
C There must have been a first cause, i.e. some entity that exists or some event that occurs which is not caused by anything else.
That is the argument. All that's needed to satisfy it is some entity or event without a cause. The nature of this first cause is irrelevant.
Of course that assumes the soundness of the argument. As I mentioned scientific evidence questioning both premises exists. There are plenty of uncaused events and no reason to believe the universe is finite. Both render a first cause unnecessary. Of course scince will continue to examine theories regarding the origin of the universe, but that hss nothing to do with a first cause. It just is the subject matter of the sciencd known as cosmology. It is undoubtedly of great significance to those who study it, but no more so than any other scientific subject matter is to those who choose to investigate other questions. IOW it is studied for it's own sake, not because anyone is trying to find a first cause.
SN:
They already did. The key is iron. And then they did what good scientists do, and confirmed their explanation by testing it; looking at ancient samples with/without similar iron contents and lo and behold, the results matched their explanation; the other cells with similar iron contents were similarly preserved.
I've told you this before. And I linked to it upstream. But no doubt the next time you bring this up, you'll again misrepresent the mainstream by claiming they don't have an explanation for the effect.
Because the results will be inconclusive. Unlike Pu, C-14 is constantly created, and carbon atoms exchange in the environment. This means that any sample older than about 50,000 years will have approximately the same, non-zero amount of C-14 in it. Which real scientists understand make the technique useless for dating, but which creationists love to take as evidence that there is nothing older than 50,000 years. To reiterate, this is not the case for Pu. It is not created outside of suns, accelerators, and nuclear bombs, so much smaller amounts can be considered credible evidence of primordial Pu and not contamination.
I think its baloney, because I already explained how a counterexample can occur; many different types of infinite regress could result in 'getting to now.' Thus the conclusion 'infinite regress impossible, given we have a now' is simply wrong - its entirely possible to have both the infinite regress and the now. Care to tell me where I'm wrong? Or can I expect this to be another occasion of you ignoring it only to show up a few weeks from now making the same refuted assertion?
To Sean T #67:
“Again, SN, other than you own assertion without evidence, why must a purpoted first cause be a being that is omnipotent and omniscient?”
I never said the first cause “must” be omnipotent and omniscient.
I said I think the “odds are pretty good” that He would be.
It’s *sort of* like the belief that the pottery maker is more powerful and knowing than his pottery.
…………….
“Of course I am serious about inflation being the first cause.”
Amazing.
But wait.
I thought you said it was not inflation, but rather *the field*.
As in, “the field that led to the exponential inflation that is predicted by modern cosmological models”.
Has the field which you say was predicted by modern cosmological models been found?
More importantly, what does science say as to when this field began the inflation?
Isn’t it a specific time, about 13.8 billion years ago?
Why would this field, which apparently *always was*, begin inflation at a specific time 13.8 billion years ago?
……………..
“The first cause can equally well be a natural phenomenon.”
No, not equally well.
In fact, not well at all.
…………………..
“Of course scince will continue to examine theories regarding the origin of the universe, but that hss nothing to do with a first cause.”
I see. So, the study of origins has nothing to do with causes, especially not with the first cause.
I learned something new today!
(But I don’t think I believe it.)
To eric #68:
Me: “And they still can’t explain why.”
You: “They already did. The key is iron.”
No, they did not. As I explained in #23 of http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/04/08/what-is-the-most-ast…
…………..
Me: “Why haven’t they done the blind C-14 dating?”
You: “Because the results will be inconclusive…This means that any sample older than about 50,000 years will have approximately the same, non-zero amount of C-14 in it.”
I’m having a tough time believing what I’m seeing, again.
By God, you really ARE blind!
FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS?
What about samples less than TEN THOUSAND years old?!?!?
Or don’t you remember what I stated, in an attempt to re-emphasize the point I’ve been making over and over and over… AND YOU STILL DON’T SEE?
From #63: “They’ve been (possibly willfully) blind to this other possibility, one that *would solve* their extraordinary soft tissue conundrum:
**Maybe the dino tissue is actually “young”, say, 5K-10K years old.**” ???
DO YOU SEE, YET, ERIC?
I’m talking about scientists NOT PRE-JUDGING the AGE of the sample,
and letting the C-14 testing do its thing.
And if the C-14 test detects C-14 of, say, 25%+ (i.e. remainder after two half-lives), then…
won’t we have some thrilling science news to talk about!
No, we won’t.
Because they won’t do the C-14 test.
Because they don’t want to take the risk of getting that 25%+ result.
Because, well, you know.
SN:
First of all, that link cites no counter-evidence. It's just you using lots of all caps words to say you don't believe their research conclusively proves the iron is doing it. So bzzzt, sorry. SN asserting they did not prove the explanation to SN's satisfaction is not a credible response..
Secondly, and LOL, did you even bother to read your post before citing it? In your post you agree that they have an explanation for the results! Your argument in that post was that sure they had an explanation, but they hadn't "conclusively proven" it. So which is it? Have you flip flopped on whether they have an explanation since that post? Or were you wrong in what you said yesterday and you meant to say they have an explanation but haven't "conclusively proven it" to SN's satisfaction?
.
Sigh. These studies cost time and labor, and scientists typically pursue research they think will yield results, not countering biblical creationism. Why don't you offer a $100,000 research grant through NSF to Carbon-14 test the collagen samples. I'm sure some research group will then take you up on it. Until then, nobody's likely to use their own dime and labor to chase your snipe, because your research interest is just not considered worth the time and money. You might as well ask why scientists don't use bathroom scales to weigh atoms. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain the lack of a atomic-bathroom-scale research effort.
To eric #71:
“Secondly, and LOL, did you even bother to read your post before citing it? In your post you agree that they have an explanation for the results! Your argument in that post was that sure they had an explanation, but they hadn’t “conclusively proven” it. So which is it?”
LOL. It’s *both*, silly.
Your “iron-clad” article
“Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained”
is like stories with headlines like
“Why There’s Life on Earth Finally Explained”.
And then we go on to read about abiogenesis theories, or panspermia theories.
LOL.
……………
Me: “Because they won’t do the C-14 test. Because they don’t want to take the risk of getting that 25%+ result.”
You: “Sigh. These studies cost time and labor, and scientists typically pursue research they think will yield results…”
Yeah, right. It would be a waste of time and $100,000.
*Sounds* good!
BTW, any updates on the price tag of the Higgs Boson-discovering CERN Large Hadron Collider?
The last I heard it was about $13,000,000,000.
P.S.
“Why don’t you offer a $100,000 research grant through NSF to Carbon-14 test the collagen samples. I’m sure some research group will then take you up on it.”
Why would the keepers of ‘dem bones *even consider* taking my $100,000?
Why would you accept funding for work that could destroy your reputation and career, and bring down the entire edifice of the evolution industry?
Much better for, say, the National Science Foundation to spend $500,000 to develop a video game that simulates a high school prom.
http://dailysignal.com/2013/08/20/morning-bell-15-pictures-of-ridiculou…
I.e., "I don't have $100,000." This is just becoming more and more painfully embarrassing.
SN,
Get it through your head. Science doesn't search for first causes because the whole argument that claims a first cause is necessary is not supported by scientific evidence. There are demonstrable events that occur without a cause, so no first cause is needed. I merely point out the flaw in the argument, if you do accept the premises, that the first cause must be (or, okay, is likely to be) God. Why is it likely to be God, other than your own assertion. Why can't an uncaused inflationary period (or an uncaused field that leads to that inflationary period) be a first cause? You have yet to demonstrate why this is not possible. All the first cause argument requires is an entity or event that has no cause to which all other causes can be traced back.
SN,
Just to give an example; observe a sample of your favorite radioactive element, plutonium, uranium, whatever. Watch it until one of its atoms decays. Why did that atom decay instead of another one? What was the cause of that decay? Quantum mechanics states that there is no cause; it occurred at random. Why did that decay occur when it did instead of some earlier or later time? Same answer as the question of why inflation occurred when it did and not at some other time; there is no reason. It is a random event. Randomness is inherent to the universe according to QM. While you may or may not agree with QM, keep in mind that it's predictions are successful; no contrary observations have ever been made. Scientists certainly take it seriously.
Keep in mind also that you're on a science blog, not some religious site. We are discussing science here and we will take very seriously any theory that makes correct predictions about the universe in all instances. If you think we're wrong, the nice thing is that you don't have to just sit behind your keyboard and type messages. Go out and prove it. Find some observation that disagrees with QM. I don't think you'll do it; heck, I don't think you'll even attempt it, but good luck.
And what would be your asinine and dishonest explanation for why the cost matters?
How did this Jesus god of yours create the Universe? By which process.. how long did it take, what did it involve.. why did it create so many things? Why is there nothing in bible about other galaxies and other planets?
Haven't seen one straights answer from these christian loons. It's all.. how does science this, why you say that.. bla bla bla.. like a broken record.. How about giving some answers from your side. After all, you claim to be correct.. so .. really wanna hear about that "other" option...You ppl claim to know so much... please do share... otherwise.. gtfo..
To Sean T #76:
“…observe a sample of your favorite radioactive element…Watch it until one of its atoms decays. Why did that atom decay instead of another one? What was the cause of that decay? Quantum mechanics states that there is no cause; it occurred at random.”
So, if *Sean T* says, and *QM* says, that there is no cause, then, there is no cause.
Because you guys do not discern the cause, therefore, there is no cause.
It’s amazing just how many infallible people are out there!
I’m not a QM expert, but I do play craps (a game of randomness, of chance) from time to time.
And I know that it’s in the nature of a die to roll *each* of its numbers one sixth of the time, over the long haul.
And I ponder: Perhaps it’s in the nature of those radioactive elements that their atoms decay a certain way over the long haul.
Perhaps their nature causes the result.
But where’d the die and the radioactive element get their nature?
……………
“Same answer as the question of why inflation occurred when it did and not at some other time; there is no reason. It is a random event.”
And where did inflation, er, I mean the field (“the field that led to the exponential inflation that is predicted by modern cosmological models”), get its nature?
.......
“Keep in mind also that you’re on a science blog, not some religious site. We are discussing science here and we will take very seriously any theory that makes correct predictions about the universe in all instances.”
Keep in mind that *your* mind has a mutated mindset
by which the only things worth taking seriously are those that science can (sometimes) demonstrate.
Thus, keep in mind that there are a host of things you can *not* take seriously (e.g. abiogenesis, evolution).
To Sinisa Lazarek #78:
Sin, you’re asking a lot of religious questions.
So, prepare for a real scolding...
from Sean T. (“Keep in mind also that you’re on a science blog, not some religious site.”).
But just so you won’t feel neglected, I’ll try to answer your questions.
1)
“How did this Jesus god of yours create the Universe… ?”
Primarily, by his word (cf. Hebrews 11:3).
2)
“… how long did it take…”
About six days (cf. Genesis 1:31).
3)
“…what did it involve…”
His word (see above) and some dust his word had created (cf. Genesis 2:7, 19).
4)
“… why did it create so many things?”
Because it would be good (cf. Genesis 1:31), and because they would help man (cf. Genesis 2:18-25).
5)
“Why is there nothing in bible about other galaxies and other planets?”
Well, there sort of *is* (e.g. Genesis 1:1,14-18; Psalm 147:4).
But regarding your questions, especially the last, are you the only person on earth who thinks the Bible is supposed to be like some high school science textbook?
You must be.
In the beginning there was nothing. Then God said "let there be Light". And there was still nothing, but now you could see it.
(credit: some scientist I saw on youtube)
"Sinisa Lazarek
How did this Jesus god of yours create the Universe?"
Jesus was in charge of dying for our sins, not creation
Oh, G-d, my head. You understand nothing about stochastic processes.
S.N.'s gross misogyny has been noted elsewhere, so I'll merely state that it's best not to give him an opportunity to change the subject. This has been demonstrated at length over at Orac's.
"Well, there sort of *is* (e.g. Genesis 1:1,14-18; Psalm 147:4)."
This is only one of the many lies you tell about your bible. Were your religious teachers really so poor?
To chris mannering #82:
“Jesus was in charge of dying for our sins, not creation.”
I don’t think so.
More importantly, John doesn’t think so:
“In the beginning was *the Word*, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God;
**all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.**
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
…And **the Word became flesh and dwelt among us**, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”
And please, please be careful about bringing up these religious statements on ScienceBlogs!
For Sean T, your (possible) adversary, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour!
Oh, the irony. Get your act together, S.N.: does the mutual unknowability of conjugate variables represent an epistemological statement or not?
^ Should've added ontological as an option, not that S.N. understands these words in the first place.
^^ Mutatis mutandis whether the law of shatnez is a chuk.
"does the mutual unknowability of conjugate variables represent an epistemological statement or not?"
Well Gonad..Urr I mean Narad surely, you can comprehend the creator of the universe would be "OUTSIDE" of it's laws and rules of physics since said creator is the law giver.
See Noevo - I don't know who is responsible for trying to push religion in this thread (or this blog generally), but whoever it is, it's not a behaviour considerate of the other people who come because they are interested in Science.
Is it you that is doing this? How would you like if a load of science thugs gatecrashed a theist site?
Anyway, as to your point about Jesus. He's the son-of-God. He's not supposed to be God. He says "father, why hath thou forsaken me"? He wasn't talking to himself.
To chris mannering #90:
“See Noevo – I don’t know who is responsible for trying to push religion in this thread (or this blog generally), but whoever it is, it’s not a behaviour considerate of the other people who come because they are interested in Science.”
Firstly, neither do I know who is responsible for pushing religion (or for pushing *against* religion) in this thread.
I’ll just note that
-The first mention of “God” was by eric #45,
-The first mention of “religious” was by eric #60,
-The first mention of “Jesus” and “Christian” was by Sinisa Lazarek #78.
I myself don’t push religion on this thread or at this website. However, I *will* defend and/or explain my religion when it is attacked or derogated.
Secondly, and sure as hell, you’re certainly free to believe in whatever version of Jesus Christ you want to.
But since we’re ALL here to learn (or to criticize or to correct), I’m compelled to inform you, or at least remind you, that *your version* of Jesus Christ is quite foreign to 2,000 years of Christian tradition and teaching.
Chris Mannering" I don’t know who is responsible for trying to push religion in this thread"
Chris, "Religion" IS FUCKING pushed ALL Damn day regardless it's the HOMO's OR the little sisters od the poor,
SN:
No, that's the mainstream conclusions of most physicists who are expert int his subject. While all scientific conclusions are provisional and open to revison based on additional evidence, the scientific conclusion best supported by evidence today is that there are no hidden variables in QM. Unlike your craps case. People have searched for them. They've developed theories about what those hidden variables could look like and how we could observe them. And all such tests for hidden variables have failed. The best, most accurate model of QM effects is that they are not deterministic.
Correct, you are not a QM expert. Because if you were, you'd know its not like craps in being a deterministic process that we simply can't model accurately enough.
To borrow from a comedian I heard the other day: "the difference between me and creationists is that they take every word of Genesis as literally true, while I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer."
Ragtag Media @89:
Great! Its oustide the laws of physics. So Ragtag, SN, do you have a hypothesis for how the half-life of Pu maigcally changed to make it disappear from the earth in less than 50,000 years which is inside the laws of physics?
Ah, I hadn't thought of Thomas Bass's The Eudaemonic Pie for quite some time. Nonetheless, I suspect that S.N. was essentially referring to the ideal "fair coin." Nor does it surprise me that he would aver a penchant for a game of chance with some of the worst bets on offer.
To eric #93:
Me: “So, if *Sean T* says, and *QM* says, that there is no cause, then, there is no cause. Because you guys do not discern the cause, therefore, there is no cause.”
You: “No, that’s the mainstream conclusions of most physicists who are expert int his subject…”
Allow me to revise:
So, if Sean T says, and QM says, and *mainstream conclusions of most physicists* say, that there is no cause, then, there is no cause.
Because you guys do not discern the cause, therefore, there is no cause.
Or, how about this:
Your *fallible* assessment is that there is no cause.
……………..
“To borrow from a comedian I heard the other day: “the difference between me and creationists is that they take every word of Genesis as literally true, while I don’t even think Phil Collins is a good drummer.”
Well, I think Phil *is* a good drummer.
(I guess we can’t agree on *anything*!)
Try a listen at time 5:55 forward in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G501Ii0X0NE
Or at 3:38-4:48, 5:44-7:36, 8:32 forward here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X_3yOUKSOc
I’m actually quite a fan of *early* Genesis.
In more ways than one.
"Sinisa, I know what you meant, but I don’t care for the use of “retarded” in your comment. "
Then don't use it in your comments, dean.
Duh.
"Sigh. Your blind spot remains."
Nope, just because YOU are playing peek-a-boo and "think" that because you can't see them, they can't see you, doesn't mean that's actually the reality.
PJ, All I wonder is where the hell is Brian, complaining about See Nowt's trolling and massive negative posting history.Can't be that he's partisan, can it?!?!? snrk.
"Sin, you’re asking a lot of religious questions."
No, he's asking YOU a lot of questions
"So, prepare for a real scolding…"
So you will scold people for asking you questions, but also scold them for not answering them.
"Primarily, by his word (cf. Hebrews 11:3)."
So how did he word if he didn't exist until his word?
And how do you know Hebrews is right and not just a fantasy tale made up by a moron?
"About six days (cf. Genesis 1:31)."
How do you know that Gen1 is right when Gen2 redoes the creation myth COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY?
How do you know EITHER is right? Were you there?
"Because it would be good"
So Bilharzia is good? Diptheria is good? Creating 100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars each with several planets on average MERELY TO GET ONE PLANET LIVABLE FOR HUMANS is the best thing an "omnipotent being" could do?!?!?!?!?
Pretty fucking incompetent builder if you ask me.
"Well, there sort of *is* (e.g. Genesis 1:1,14-18; Psalm 147:4)."
Except it isn't.
Hence your "sort of", just like that cloud looks sort of like a clock. You just have to BELIEVE. That it doesn't is to be ignored.
And how do you know Gen1 and Psalm are right and not the insane ravings of a luatic? Were you there when it was written?
"But regarding your questions, especially the last, are you the only person on earth who thinks the Bible is supposed to be like some high school science textbook?"
No, he knows YOU think it some sort of high school science textbook. Which is why you want it taught there.
Regarding your assertion, are you the only person who projects their own psychoneuroses onto others?
"Jesus was in charge of dying for our sins, not creation"
Although it was a sin he made up. And he didn't die. And he was his own son, but his only son, made by banging an underage married wife out of wedlock.
What was that about coveting wives again..? Who is going to die to forgive the sins of this massive pervert?
"“Religion” IS FUCKING pushed ALL Damn day regardless "
By findie morons dying to kill everyone else who doesn't follow the same insane death cult religion.
Just like ISIS.
That they can't is because the USA is a secular country.
Hence their insistence on making it a christian country, so they can do all the killing they desire.
"– The first mention of “God” was by eric #45,"
Nope, you've been talking about god on this site for YEARS.
Wasn't there something about laws against lying in your mythology..?
@SN
I am very unsatisfied with your answers, especially the fact that you haven't answered them at all. Instead you posted some irrelevant crap. Is that how christian religion works?
And I don't know if there is some lack of reading comprehension, but I haven't asked any religious questions. I don't care about the nature of immortal soul or hell or angels or any of that. I asked specific questions dealing with the real world around us.
To my first question, you just said "word". What does that mean? For over a year you and yours like.. were nitpicking as every single scientific topic you can find. Is all you have on your end only that answer.. a "word". I want to know what that mean.. but more importantly how it works, and how you know it was made in a such way and by such means. Is there some leftover "wordness" in the rocks that we can check? But to get back to the point. Please do be detailed and specific. Not this nonsense along the lines of.. Q: How does an engine work? A: Up.
Secondly I asked about the universe and again you gave a totaly irrelevant answer about the Earth. I didn't ask about the Earth, I asked about other galaxies and other planets. How long did it take to "make" i.e. Neptune. Am starting to think you don't have answers or are just straight up lying. And I would very much like if you can write the answer instead of giving me some numbers and words Hebrews.. I wasn't asking about Hebrews, thank you very much. Was asking about galaxies.
If you don't know, then say, I don't know.. but don't give me bullshit.
Then you mention something about "being good for men" ?? So how is that galaxy 7.8 billion ly away good or bad for us? How is it benefiting men exactly? And please, give me specifics
"But regarding your questions, especially the last, are you the only person on earth who thinks the Bible is supposed to be like some high school science textbook?"
Hm.. how so? You are the one that claims that, not me! You are constantly yaping about how science is wrong because of what's in that book. So here's your chance to explain things to us... or me.
Getting back a little closer to Ethan’s original topic of answering cosmic questions...
Here’s a news item for which no answers are yet available. (Ethan addressed it to an extent in his “The Biggest Problem With The Expanding Universe Might Be Trouble For Dark Energy (Synopsis)”.)
One of the things that stands out to me is that the scientists are admitting that one of their *long-held assumptions of constancy may be wrong*, specifically, regarding the strength of dark energy.
In other words, one of their *uniformitarian assumptions* may be invalid (see #41 above).
Here are some quotes on that and more:
“The most precise measurement ever made of the current rate of expansion of the Universe has produced a value that appears incompatible with measurements of radiation left over from the Big Bang. If the findings are confirmed by independent techniques, the *laws of cosmology might have to be rewritten.*
This might even mean that *dark energy* — the unknown force that is *thought to be* responsible for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the Universe — *has increased in strength* since the dawn of time.
“I think that there is something in the standard cosmological model that *we don't understand*,” says astrophysicist Adam Riess, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University…
Kevork Abazajian, a cosmologist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the study, says that the results have the potential of “becoming transformational in cosmology”.
… Earlier observations made by Riess and others suggest that dark energy’s strength has been constant throughout the history of the Universe.
… For years, those predictions have disagreed with direct measurements of the current rate of cosmic expansion — also known as the Hubble constant. But until now the error margins in this constant were large enough that the disagreement could be ignored.
… They find the speed of expansion to be about 8% faster than that predicted based on Planck data, says Riess.
If both the new measurement of the Hubble constant and the earlier measurements by the Planck team are accurate, then something in the standard model has to change, Riess says. One possibility is that the elementary particles that constitute dark matter have properties that are different than currently thought, which would affect the evolution of the early Universe. *Another option is that dark energy is not constant but has become stronger* in recent eons.”
http://www.nature.com/news/measurement-of-universe-s-expansion-rate-cre…
..............
We've all heard the expression
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Regarding the possible upset of uniformitarianism, one might say
"The more things stay the same, the more they change."
@chris mannering
"Jesus was in charge of dying for our sins, not creation"
maybe your sins, certainly not mine. I wasn't around back then.
@ WOW, #97 ....
you may have something there.
Hey, SN, you still seem to paraphrase others ideas. Nothing original for you to offer?
"*your version* of Jesus Christ is quite foreign to 2,000 years of Christian tradition and teaching"
Really? OK fair enough. So he's God?
To Sinisa Lazarek #102:
“… I don’t know if there is some lack of reading comprehension, but I haven’t asked any religious questions. I don’t care about the nature of immortal soul or hell or angels or any of that. I asked specific questions dealing with the real world around us.”
But you *have* asked religious questions, Sin, because you’ve essentially asked about the origin of reality, of “the real world around us.”
And these are religious questions.
They’re certainly not the questions of science, for the answers are beyond science’s scope.
...................................
“To my first question, you just said “word”. What does that mean?”
And I answered with Hebrews 11:3:
“By faith we understand that the world was *created by the word of God*, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”
Too hard to understand?
Here are some very imperfect, very simplified analogies.
You’ve heard the expressions
“Your wish is my command, lover”, and
“Just say the word, chief, and we’ll git ‘er done.”
It’s kind of like that.
Creation of the universe's very first matter and energy,
*ex nihilo*.
‘cause He “said” so.
And what word did He say?
Well, without getting too heavy into this,
that “word” can also be shown with a capital W – the Word. It’s another name for Jesus Christ, as I showed in #85 above:
“In the beginning was *the Word*, and *the Word* was with God, and *the Word* WAS God.
He was in the beginning WITH God;
**all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.**
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
…And **the Word BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US**, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”
[from John chapter 1]
…………….
“Is all you have on your end only that answer.. a “word”. I want to know what that mean.. but more importantly how it works, and how you know it was made in a such way and by such means.”
How can I, or anyone, tell you how creation ex nihilo works? We can’t.
And science sure can’t.
But science acknowledges (I think) that
the universe HAD A BEGINNING, allegedly 13.8 billion years ago.
In other words, science acknowledges the universe did NOT ALWAYS EXIST.
So, science acknowledges that something (i.e. the universe) came from “nothing”.
And science can’t say anything more about it.
It’s beyond science’s scope.
The ultimate questions about ultimate reality, man.
You won’t get the answers from science.
……………
“Secondly I asked about the universe and again you gave a totaly irrelevant answer about the Earth. I didn’t ask about the Earth, I asked about other galaxies and other planets.”
No, Sin.
What you asked was “Why is there nothing in bible about other galaxies and other planets?”
And I responded that the Bible *does* have something about them. Galaxies are stars, lights in the heavens.
Perhaps you didn’t look up the verses I gave you, so I’ll spell them out for you now.
Genesis 1:1,14-18:
“And God said, "Let there be *lights in the firmament of the heavens* to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
And God made the *two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night*; he made the *stars also.*
And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.”
Psalm 147:4:
“He determines the number of *the stars*, he gives to all of them their names.”
…………
“How long did it take to “make” i.e. Neptune.”
How long?
I don’t know, exactly.
But logic tells you it *could* be very quickly, like “instantaneously*.
I mean, you can *not* go *slowly* from nothing to something (i.e. the first matter/energy).
Creation ex nihilo is by logical definition *instantaneous*.
………
“Then you mention something about “being good for men” ?? So how is that galaxy 7.8 billion ly away good or bad for us? How is it benefiting men exactly? And please, give me specifics”
Specifics?
Well, at a bare minimum, it benefits a man named Ethan Siegel. He makes his very living thinking and writing about those galaxies and such.
(In fact, he has an article above!)
@SN
You really sound like a politician. Ask him one thing, and he talks about another.
"But you *have* asked religious questions, Sin, because you’ve essentially asked about the origin of reality, of “the real world around us.”
No, and no and for the third time no I didn't. I asked specifically: "How did this Jesus god of yours create the Universe? By which process.. how long did it take, what did it involve.. "
This isn't a question about origin of reality. Since reality is a philosophical term. I asked about the Universe and material stuff in it. Don't care about the nature of perception, care about physical stuff.. how did he/she actually make Iron i.e. or water.. or neptune?
"“By faith we understand that the world was *created by the word of God*, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.” .. ok.. so you obviously have faith and by your own quote, thus you understand how he did it. That's why I'm asking you. If you understand, then you know, if you know then you can explain how he/she did it. That simple. If you can't explain the process to a layman then you don't know and don't understand, and therefore the statement that you understand how is a lie.
"How can I, or anyone, tell you how creation ex nihilo works? We can’t.
And science sure can’t. "
Just right before now you said that you do understand how. Now you say you have no clue. So which one is true?
As for science, science never said anything was made by a "word".. so what does science have to do with this ex nihilo as you put it? Don't change the subject.
"‘cause He “said” so."
This one I don't even know how to address... no comment necessary. But have a subquestion... after "he said so".. what then? An army of minions that made it for him.. or what?
"The ultimate questions about ultimate reality, man."
Nah nah.. never asked anything about ultimates or anything of sorts.. asked about plain simple stuff.. you know.. like oxygen you breathe.. or i dunno.. a magnet.. or.. yeah.. other galaxies. No higher dimensions or meaning of life.. just plain old boring simple stuff.. because (since you brought science again into it).. yes, actually since explains this "boring" stuff like aluminium atom very well.. and rain, and fire and stars and rocks. SO let's start with how god made those and then we can talk about ultimate realities and all that.
"How long?
I don’t know, exactly.
But logic tells you it *could* be very quickly, like “instantaneously*."
no, actually logic tells me quite the opposite. So again you say you or faith or understanding of god doesn't give an answer to that? As in you don't know, even though you say those with faith understand how it's done.. or as in god doesn't deal with it?
To Sinisa Lazarek #108:
“By faith we understand that the world was *created by the word of God*, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.” [Hebrews 11:3]
“.. ok.. so you obviously have faith and by your own quote, thus you understand how he did it.”
No.
Neither that verse nor I say we know *how* He did it.
Just *that* He did it.
And I already said no one can really explain *how* creation ex nihilo works.
My “how” was a very top-level “how” – that He created by his word (and will), bringing into being something from nothing.
Here’s another very imperfect, very simplified analogy:
You could ask me “Do you know *how* your laptop computer works? Describe *how* your laptop works.”
And I could truthfully answer “Yes. I know how my laptop works. I hit the power button, move the mouse around, and type on the keys, and it works fine.”
You respond with “No, you idiot! I mean tell me the *details of how and why* those actions are able to really make things happen on your laptop.”
But since I’m not a computer engineer, I’m unable to know and describe to your satisfaction all the ins and outs of computer hardware and software that are really behind *how* my laptop works.
My answer was true. It just wasn’t satisfactory to you. Probably no answer would be satisfactory to you.
Again, just an analogy.
For we know that the universe, and especially human beings, are far more complex and amazing than any laptop.
Their origin is far beyond science’s ability to explain.
Good bye, Sin.
"“.. ok.. so you obviously have faith and by your own quote, thus you understand how he did it.”
No."
Then stop claiming you know how it was done.
"And I already said no one can really explain *how* creation ex nihilo works."
You claim it can't be created without a cause. So you must have made that claim up.
"Their origin is far beyond science’s ability to explain. "
False.
Complex things can be explained. Their complexity doesn't make them inexplicable.
And just because you don't know how to create an ULA or create a CPU from NAND gates means neither that computers can't be explained, nor that the origins of life can't be explained.
It's downright pathetic to be trying to spout off about physics and biology while admitting that one's level of ideation regarding a computer is "magic box." It does, however, hearken back to the question regarding conjugate variables, which S.N. naturally ignored. No QM, no laptops.
SN:
I said it exactly the way I meant it: the best provisional conclusion of science is that there are no hidden variables. Could science be wrong? Yes. Are the outcomes "mainstream science is wrong about QM" and "SN is wrong about QM" equally likely? No. You said yourself you don't know much about it. You are far more likely wrong than mainstream science is. The possibility of error does not imply any equivalency in credibility between your idea and the mainstream.
So we can agree then that your alternative idea for the creation of the universe is not a scientific hypothesis, right? And therefore shouldn't be taught in science classes, right?
To eric #112:
“Could [QM] science be wrong? Yes.”
Right.
............
“So we can agree then that your alternative idea for the creation of the universe is not a scientific hypothesis, right?”
Right.
But I never said it was a scientific hypothesis.
I think it’s an idea supported by philosophy, common sense and religion (i.e. Christianity),
but *also* one which is not necessarily contradicted by science’s position of a billions-of-years universe,
because scientific positions are not infallible.
................
“And therefore shouldn’t be taught in science classes, right?”
Right.
Creationism and evolution should be taught in philosophy or religion classes, not in science classes.
"Creationism and evolution should be taught in philosophy or religion classes, not in science classes."
Why? Evolution IS science, so should be taught in the science class, and there's nothing philosophical about creationism.
"But I never said it was a scientific hypothesis."
Nobody ever claimed you did. You DO claim it's how it happened, and we merely want to know from someone who "knows" how it happened.
But you've been unable to say.
Proving you DON'T know how it happened.
What on G-d's green earth did you think that clause was supposed to mean? I seem to have completely missed out on the bit when "philosophy" rose practically as one man in favor of occultist supernaturalism.
Have you issued an edict that would be relevant here? Some limit on when physics and mathematics have to be moved into "philosophy or religion classes"? I seem to recall an assertion on your part that astronomy lost its cache sometime around the 16th century, because "navigation," but how about, oh, say, the foundations of undergraduate calculus? Set theory? Topology?
The next thing you know, somebody's going to come up with Cauchy surfaces or something.
@SN
Ok SN, no shame in admitting you don't know how something is done. Can you please point me to some study or paper by a "computer engineer" equivalent in your religion that knows how it's done.
And why did you skip all my other questions and told me goodbye? Ok, we can skip the universe.. let's talk about hydrogen and electricity and all that simpler stuff. There has to be someone in your organizations that know.. no? Because if it turns out that none of you know, then none of you understand and you are just lying your teeth out all this time, and somehow I don't think that's a very "christian" thing to do.
On the other hand, if god and creation doesn't have anything to do with atoms and all the "boring" stuff, and is only interested in ultimates as you put it. Then what's your problem here? Clearly this "science" thing you so dislike deals ONLY in boring simple stuff which your god doesn't deal in. Like i.e. computers and electrons and so on. Clearly we have some answers, clearly you use our knowledge and skill every day without giving a second thought to it.. so what's the problem? You use the computer yet insist that the way we made it is incorect? Then how is it that it's working as intended?
@Sinisa: My apologies for failing to understand your given name above.
@Narad #118
Don't understand what you mean? Understanding my given name above??
Poodoo ! !
Sinisa at 119: I think Narad was referring to the troll's final line at 109:
"Good bye, Sin."
"Some limit on when physics and mathematics have to be moved into “philosophy or religion classes”?"
Sn has stated that without the guidance of catholic dogma modern physics is awash and worthless. Apparently things went awry when the church could no longer persecute people to keep them in line.
No, it was actually my comment 83, i.e., "gross misogyny" – this is perfectly true, but I erred in taking Sinisa as a feminine given name.
The "Good bye" bit simply denotes S.N.'s comical version of a killfile, in which he continues to read somebody's comments but then "pointedly ignores" them or something. It's pretty ironic coming from a desperate in-one-ear-and-out-the-other attention whore.
Put another way, wholesale capitulation with a sad veneer of pride.
But, hey, given S.N.'s overall Mr. Creosote delicate-balance routine, I might as well administer a wafer-thin mint in the form of requesting an explanation of the teleology of Billy Preston.
Oh, wait, S.N. doesn't understand that word. I'll settle for a fallback explanation of how this happened and what it means. The idiotic "uncaused cause" routine does not in fact magically invert time's arrow, y'know; an invocation of "free will" by S.N. here would represent nothing other than moving the goalpost.
"in which he continues to read somebody’s comments but then “pointedly ignores” them or something."
When it doesn't think it has an answer it can use, it ignores the question.
@ Narad
No problem. It's a male name (at least in this part of europe :) ). Couldn't actually find out if it has any meaning. At least none in my native tongue.
Siniša (Serbian Cyrillic: Синиша) is a South Slavic masculine given name of medieval Serbian origin. It may refer to: Simeon Uroš "Siniša" (1326–1371), Serbian ruler of Epirus and Thessaly. The first part (Sin is the equivalent of 'son')
In Tagalog (Filipino), it means 'ashes'.
:)
SN:
Like it or not, evolution is a leading theory in biology, which is why it is and should be taught in science classes. Its based on empirical observation, rather than argument from biblical authority or the argument from incredulity (what you're calling "common sense").
AIUI you're really behind the curve on this one, as creationists have accepted that the TOE is a scientific theory for at least several decades. The 'equal time' gambit that came to a head in 1986 with Edwards vs. Arkansas basically concedes it.
@PJ
didn't know about the Filipino meaning. Cool :)
To eric #127:
“Like it or not, evolution is a leading theory in biology, which is why it is and should be taught in science classes…
AIUI you’re really behind the curve on this one, as creationists have accepted that the TOE is a scientific theory for at least several decades.”
Don’t you mean TsOE?
*Which* theory of evolution is “scientific”, or are they all equally “scientific”?
And which TOE are they teaching in science classes?
-The old neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE) of ‘random genetic mutations acted on by natural selection’?
-Or the Gould & Eldredge “Punctuated Equilibrium”, whose creation was driven by frustrations with, and weaknesses of, NDE?
-Or the TOE which says natural selection (NS) is all important?
-Or the TOE which says natural selection (NS) is barely important at all?
-Or the TOE recently proposed by people such as James A. Shapiro?
Which TOE *is* taught in science classes?
"*Which* theory of evolution is “scientific”"
Ah, a problem appears right at the outset, see nowt.
How many theories of evolution do you think they are and what are they?
"And which TOE are they teaching in science classes?"
So you either don't know because you've never been to school or your school broke the law and didn't educate you.
"– The old neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE) "
How can something be old and "neo"?
"of ‘random genetic mutations acted on by natural selection’?"
Yes.
Hence "Evolution of the species by the means of natural selection". Which wasn't neoDarwinism at all, you frigging moron.
"– Or the Gould & Eldredge “Punctuated Equilibrium”"
Which is still evolution by the pressures of natural selection, moron.
"– Or the TOE which says natural selection (NS) is all important?"
Both of the above did that, so it isn't a third one at all.
"– Or the TOE which says natural selection (NS) is barely important at all?"
By implication your assertion is that the Gould one is this. So at the very least you're double-dipping here, padding your count.
Apparently maths was never taught to you either. Not even simple counting.
However, they're both the same, so this is "four" that really are ALL the same one.
"– Or the TOE recently proposed by people such as James A. Shapiro?"
If it's recently proposed, how the FUCK can it be one that is being taught in schools to children????
And how does it not be evolution by natural selection???
Did you even understand what you claimed evolution was?!?!?
Which language are they teaching in YOUR classes?
Shapiro has proposed Natural genetic engineering (NGE), a different "paradigm" for evolution. The always dishonest, never capable of understanding science group of intelligent design folks have repeatedly misrepresented his work and claim it is support for their version of creationism. To his credit Shapiro has repeatedly called them on their lies and stated he has no truck for their crap.
But the false claims by the id/creationist folks is quite likely the reason "see i don't ever want to learn nothing" put Shapiro's name out in his latest spam post.
dean, it's little more than a different mechanism for creating the random genetic errors that natural selection can select from in the process of evolution.
No different from transcription errors, combination variations, genetic damage, genetic species transfer or any other method of getting genetic variation in the gene pool to be tested against the rest of the biosphere.
It's STILL evolution by the process of natural selection.
It merely posits a different method of getting that genetic difference in the gene pool.
And it doesn't even say it's exclusionary to any of the others.
@Wow #130: Don't disagree with you response to See Noknolwedge, but just one minor point. The term "neo-Darwinism" was coined in the 1890's; at the time it _was_ "new" (hence the prefix), but as a technical term it refers to a particular school of thought which is no longer particularly new.
Interestingly, after the "modern synthesis" in the 1930's and 1940's (the application of Mendelian genetics as the concrete mechanism for variation by natural selection), some writers refer to the modern synthesis itself as "neo-Darwinism". That is, as Mayr has noted, really improper as the term predates the modern synthesis by half a century.
See Nowt, WHICH god do you mean? I mean PRECISELY here.
Because there are millions of christians who don't believe JC was deific. Millions of RCC members don't believe in transubstantiation actually happening in communion. Hell, most don't believe that it's only Jews that will survive the rapture, even though they believe that the rapture is coming soon.
So you can't just say "The Christian One". Which one PRECISELY exists.
"The term “neo-Darwinism” was coined in the 1890’s; at the time it _was_ “new” (hence the prefix)"
The term, however, isn't old neodarwinism because there's no other neodarwinism other than that neodarwinism. So it isn't old neodarwinism.
It's just neodarwinism.
See nowt's idiocy is merely trying to insist on greater knowledge than it has any right to assert and making, as usual, a huge dog's breakfast of it.
What makes neo darwinism or the current theory of evolution not "Original Darwinism" is the knowledge of genetic information and the MECHANISM for inheritance that Darwin was missing but assumed existed by observation of its effects.
NOTHING changed about it being evolution driven by natural selection.
On the basis of how evolution changes species and creates new species groups, there is no neo or gould or shapiro evolution, they all say the same thing.
Which see nowt doesn't know because they're willfully blind on evolution.
Quite why See Nowt thinks that anyone else should accept his knowledge of evolution WHEN HE PROCLAIMS HE CANNOT SEE IT remains, as usual with the fundie idiots, completely opaque.
"dean, it’s little more than a different mechanism for creating the random genetic errors that natural selection can select from in the process of evolution."
I know - my point was a suggestion for why the creationist troll picked him over something else
Ah, but you're forgetting that 'ш' and Tagalog 's' are different consonants. G—le suggests that the former would be written as 'sy' in the latter's orthography.
Maybe you should actually take one and find out.
^ Oh, and...
Add "how to form the plural of an acronym" to things that S.N. doesn't understand.
@Narad, #138
sin , in Tagalog, means 'ashes'. I have a person here at my work who has given me the direct translation from his language. Wikipedia repeats the same. I can only repeat the info I have been given. Since both confer, that's pretty close.
Just an aside for SN's benefit.
Now, let's get back on topic.
:)
Why don't you take one and find out!
@Craig Thomas #9 Thanks for that link. I do now recall reading about that but as SLACker Mike mentioned that was not my point.
@See Noevo # 14 SLACker Mike??
Is that new?
Damn That's a FUNNY Good One..
Mike I gota give credit when it's due.. LOL
In my defense, once S.N. succeeds in making himself the topic, which is pretty much his sole motivation, at least a linguistic diversion has the possibility of leavening the onanistic tedium, to mix at least two metaphors.
"once S.N. succeeds in making himself the topic, "
Wrong Narad, one is only made the topic if "other" choose to make it so.
Did Norma Jeane Mortenson "seek to make herself a topic"?
To eric #142:
Me: “And which TOE are they teaching in science classes?”
You: “Why don’t you take one and find out!”
Ah, an attempt at humor in an attempt to avoid answering the question.
Maybe they’re teaching Lamarckian TOE, one which I forgot to list in #129.
Of course, Lamarck’s theory of the heredity of *acquired* traits was thrown out in the mid-19th century with the acceptance of Darwin’s block buster novel.
Yet, in substance, Lamarckism *is* being newly proposed, and not at some high school text book level.
This story is sourced from the work of researchers at the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins.
The story begins dramatically...
“… While temporarily standing on its rear feet to reach a piece of fruit, this protohominid spotted another juicy morsel in a nearby shrub and began shuffling toward it instead of dropping on all fours, crawling to the shrub and standing again."
and then...
“A number of reasons have been proposed for the development of bipedal behavior, or walking on two feet, and now researchers from the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins University have developed a mathematical model that suggests shuffling emerged as a precursor to walking as a way of saving metabolic energy.
"…She believes it was an empty belly, along with a need to conserve energy, that prompted that early ancestor to shuffle.
“… Chimpanzees are humans' closest relatives. They basically walk on all fours, partially resting their weight on the knuckles of their hands. "A chimp's body plan is very much like that of a primitive ape, and our last common ancestor probably had a body like that of a chimp. Modern humans are different with long legs and a big head. So chimps are a good place to start," Kramer said.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080529140042.htm
To eric #142 (continued),
One other thing...
As mentioned in the article above, and as *we’ve been taught*, as you might say, “for at least several decades”,
chimpanzees are humans’ closest living evolutionary relative. Chimpanzees, NOT gorillas.
Except, now, *maybe* gorillas!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160302135156.htm
"chimpanzees are humans’ closest living evolutionary relative. Chimpanzees, NOT gorillas"
Except it's bobobos, not himps.
Bonobo, NOT Chimpanzees.
"“once S.N. succeeds in making himself the topic, ”
Wrong Narad, one is only made the topic if “other” choose to make it so."
WRong, teabaggie. If see nowt tries to make the topic himself out of idiocy or any other mental disorder, he is the one who has made the topic himself.
For us to be the cause, he'd have to have ASKED PERMISSION.
Moronic fuckwit.
"Maybe they’re teaching Lamarckian TOE, one which I forgot to list in #129."
If you'd ever gone to school, you'd know whether it's Lamarckian.
However, a VERY MINOR point in your favour is that at least this one ISN'T evolution by natural selection.
Pity you're so clueless all you know is what a google search brought up on it.
The added irony makes this one even more hilarious than when you idiotically teed up the original.
P.S. Once again, "citing" sciencedaily-dot-com only compounds your well-earned reputation as a perpetual also-ran in elections for village idiot.
No, I do really wish you would take a science class rather than asking us to answer all your questions. You'd learn more and Ethan's comment boards would have far fewer repeats of your one trick, the "science can't explain x/changes its mind about x, therefore Jesus" fallacy.
But to give you my best answer: curriculum is set by the state, so every state is going to be slightly different in what they teach. I hope and expect most of them would stick to what the mainstream concludes are the best supported variations, leaving the newer, less proven ideas for advanced courses. But I don't know that to be true. At the collegiate level it would be pretty much the same, only substitute "school" or "biology department" for "state." There, that's a serious answer to your question. And if you're interested in learning more about what they teach, then seriously you should still take some science classes.
Another example of the "science can't explain x, therefore Jesus fallacy."
And another.
Do you understand that no matter how many such articles you reference, they don't provide any credibility to creationism? If it turns out that genetic drift is more important than selection, creationism will still be wrong and the earth will still be ~4.5 billion years old. If it turns out we are more genetically similar to gorillas than chimpanzees, creationism will still be wrong and the earth will still be ~4.5 billion years old. If it turns out that some Oklo-like event produced plutonium and what we find in the ground isn't from stars, creationism will still be wrong and the earth will still be ~4.5 billion years old. Are you detecting the trend yet?
To eric #152:
Me: “And which TOE are they teaching in science classes?”
You: “Why don’t you take one and find out! … I hope and expect most of them would stick to what the mainstream concludes are the best supported variations, leaving the newer, less proven ideas for advanced courses.
*But I don’t know that to be true.*”
Then, why don’t you take one and find out!
…………….
Me: “Yet, in substance, Lamarckism *is* being newly proposed, and not at some high school text book level.”
You: “Another example of the “science can’t explain x, therefore Jesus fallacy.”
No.
Another example of NOT ONE T.O.E., but MANY.
The evo “educators” have many theories to choose from, including those resurrected from the dead (i.e. Lamarckism, initially R.I.P. ~1859 A.D.)
………….
Me: “Except, now, *maybe* gorillas!”
You: “And another.”
No.
Another example of the “facts” of evolution (i.e. ‘chimps are humans’ closest living evolutionary relative’) evolving into, ‘Oh, maybe *not* a fact, after all.’
………………
“Do you understand that no matter how many such articles you reference, they don’t provide any credibility to creationism?”
Do you understand that *no matter how MANY DIFFERENT AND CONFLICTING versions* of evolutionary theory have “evolved”, you ALWAYS trust that ONE thing is true: evolution?
To repeat what I said in #70:
By God, you really ARE blind!
…………..
“If it turns out that genetic drift is more important than selection, creationism will still be wrong and the earth will still be ~4.5 billion years old. If it turns out we are more genetically similar to gorillas than chimpanzees, creationism will still be wrong and the earth will still be ~4.5 billion years old. If it turns out that some Oklo-like event produced plutonium and what we find in the ground isn’t from stars, creationism will still be wrong and the earth will still be ~4.5 billion years old. Are you detecting the trend yet?”
Maybe (but probably not), you are finally detecting the elephant in the room:
If it turns out the earth is NOT ~4.5 billion years old, then…
well, it’s like I told you on a recent thread:
Did you ever stop to think that the entire evolution extravaganza (biological and cosmological) stands on one thing, and one thing only.
It’s not biology, or anything that’s ever been observed in nature or in a lab.
It’s not paleontology, or anything that’s ever been observed in the rocks and fields.
It’s not cosmology, or anything that’s ever been observed in this or any heavenly space.
And it’s certainly not Scripture or any of the 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian religious and theological tradition.
No.
It’s none of those things.
The entire edifice of the evolutionary establishment stands on one thing: TIME.
Specifically, on man’s presumed *infallible* measurement of deep TIME.
...............
And I'll continue to post science articles that give me reason to doubt man's presumed *infallible* measurement of deep TIME.
OK, so you want to pad out your whining by recreating the same fucking information we can all read in this thread and know that nobody can be arsed to read your petulant and ignorant diatribe because death by boredom is a real risk.
"If it turns out the earth is NOT ~4.5 billion years old, then…"
Then it isn't proof it's 6000 years old.
You don't get to claim you're right just because someone else MIGHT be wrong.
If it's not 4.5 billion years old but is in fact 8 billion years old, what does that do to the DEEP TIME you claim is the requirement for evolution?
And god's *presumed* infallible measurement of DEEP time is horrifically and hilariously protected by idiots such as yourself in the face of ALL THE EVIDENCE it's a load of cock and if it WAS god's measurement of the age of the universe, god is a moronic two year old with learning difficulties.
"By God, you really ARE blind!"
Umm, SENO, that is correct, blinded by God, so why drum on against the blind as if they will see?
Seems kinda pointless no?
No you won't. You'll continue to cherry pick select phrases from non-science article in the belief that they support your crap, and it will be pointed out that they do not.
You'll continue to avoid reading any science, for a combination of reasons:
a) you just don't have the background for it and wouldn't understand most of it
b) the few things you would understand would contradict your beliefs, so you would ignore or lie about them anyway
So, your thinking goes, since nothing you post will be true, why bother yourself with articles that have large words, long sentences, and nasty calculations, when you can essentially just make stuff up. That's your history.
SN:
Sigh. Because I'm not the one who questioned what they teach, you did. Sometimes, SN, it seems like you're just retorting for the sake of having something to say.
Yes, science revises its conclusions based on new evidence - though this is probably a bad example, since it seems quite fishy to me.
But whatever. What conclusion do you wish us to draw from the fact that science revises its conclusions based on new evidence? You love to give examples, so what's your point?
To eric #159:
Me: “Then, why don’t you take one and find out!”
You: “Sigh. Because I’m not the one who questioned what they teach, you did.”
Sigh.
I did NOT question what they teach, per se, for I KNOW they’re teaching “evolution”.
I asked WHICH VERSION(s) of evolution theory they’re teaching.
You couldn’t answer, admitting you didn’t know.
…………….
Me: “Another example of the “facts” of evolution (i.e. ‘chimps are humans’ closest living evolutionary relative’) evolving into, ‘Oh, maybe *not* a fact, after all.’”
You: “Yes, science revises its conclusions based on new evidence – though this is probably a bad example, since it seems quite fishy to me.”
Then your sense of smell isn’t very sharp.
Because in the years I've been reading about this stuff, virtually each and every conclusion, er, sorry, “provisional/tentative” evolutionary conclusion has smelled “fishy” to me.
…………
“But whatever. What conclusion do you wish us to draw from the fact that science revises its conclusions based on new evidence? You love to give examples, so what’s your point?”
Firstly, that scientists’ conclusions, even those based on the latest/new evidence, are *not infallible.*
Secondly, that those conclusions look more fallible every day.
Example: A Big Bang Theory, which birthed the “billions of years”, requires an assumption of homogeneity which has been shown to be invalid (e.g. The billion light year-wide stellar structure known as the BOSS Great Wall.).
Example: Allegedly 200 million year-old dinosaur remains which still contain soft tissue, with nothing close to an "iron"-clad explanation.
To eric #159 (continued):
“Sometimes, SN, it seems like you’re just retorting for the sake of having something to say.”
Two points:
1)In case you’re suggesting I’m blog-hogging, you can see that over three-quarters of the posts in this thread are *not* by me.
2)I’m most definitely *not* posting just for the sake of posting, just for the sake of saying something/anything.
I’m quite serious.
It’s almost like…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZSqd5Y8nA
Sn, you've had both the homogeneity thing and the dinosaur bone issue explained to you, and your interpretation on each of them is wrong.. You chose not to read the references and continue your misrepresentations. Move on tonsome new lie, those are getting old.
Again, so much for your elite education. You behavior doesn't sat much for your devotion to your religion either: it is likely the only catholics who have lied more than you are the ones who were in charge of hiding the pedophiles among the priests.
So, the discussion remains as to why Jupiter is clobbered by so many objects in space, not monkeys.
No, the question remains "Why does See Nowt demand answers that he won't read or remember?".
Poor memory sounds like a good candidate for a few on this blog.
:)
SN,
Here I go again, (and I promised myself I wouldn't try to engage you again since you won't listen anyway): You seem to be implying that the real reason the scientific community believes that the age of the universe is about 14 billion years is that this is necessary to make big bang cosmology work. You actually (as usual) have it bass-ackwards. Historically, the predicted age of the universe from big bang cosmology was one of the main stumbling blocks for acceptance of the big bang model. The age of the universe was known (or at least a lower limit for it was known) because the age of the stars in it was known. This was known BEFORE the big bang theory was ever invented. One of the biggest problems historically with big bang theory was that it predicted that the big bang occurred at a time later than the formation of the oldest stars in the universe! Obviously, that is quite a problem; the universe was younger than its components. Fortunately, better experimental observations became available, and the model was revised based on them, the practical upshot being that the revised age of the universe became greater than the age of the oldest stars. Only after that revision could the big bang model become a widely accepted theory.
I am now anticipating your response. You will respond that we don't really know the ages of the stars. True, like all scientific conclusions, the age of the oldest stars is a provisional one subject to change if better evidence comes along. However, the stellar development models are not independent of the rest of science, but rather quite intertwined. If you want to reject basic laws of chemistry and physics, then sure, you can do so and come to the conclusion that the stellar development models are wrong. However, it's then incumbent on you to demonstrate that our understanding of these fundamental laws of chemistry and physics are faulty. If the stellar development models are wrong, there will be consequences in areas unrelated to stellar development, and we would notice these consequences. Either the age of the oldest stars is well known, or we are completely off base in much of our fundamental scientific understanding. At the very least, relativity and quantum mechanics are not even good approximations of nature if these models are grossly incorrect. To get 6000 years for the age of the oldest stars, these theories would have to be grossly wrong as well. If they were, we could not build a functional transistor, computers would not exist and this whole thread would be simply a collective hallucination.
It's true that, like any scientific conclusion, the age of the oldest stars is subject to revision. However, the revision is likely to be something more like 13.9 billion instead of 14.0 billion years. There's almost no chance that evidence will show that the revision should be to 6,000 years instead.
Your beliefs are what they are, and I know they won't change. Quit trying to pretend, however, that your beliefs are evidence-based beliefs that fit well with the best understanding we have of the observations of the universe. They are not. They are faith-based beliefs that you will continue to hold no matter what observations are made.
SN:
AFAIK the only people stating scientific conclusions are infallible are creationists like you intent on setting up a straw man of science to argue against. Has Ethan said they are infallible? Have I? Has Michael? Has Sinisa? Who made this claim that you're arguing against? Can you cite it?
Firstly, that scientists’ conclusions, even those based on the latest/new evidence, are *not infallible.*
The demise of an old earth and evolution has been predicted for 185 years now. Fundamentalists have been proclaiming that mainstream science will be overturned in favor of biblical literalism since literally before the Theory of Evolution was penned. So, would you care to tell us when this overturning will actually happen?
To Sean T #166:
“At the very least, relativity and quantum mechanics are not even good approximations of nature if these models are grossly incorrect. To get 6000 years for the age of the oldest stars, these theories would have to be grossly wrong as well. If they were, we could not build a functional transistor, computers would not exist and this whole thread would be simply a collective hallucination.”
Just curious: Do you have to believe in a 13.8 billion year age of the universe in order to build functional transistors and computers?
………..
“It’s true that, like any scientific conclusion, the age of the oldest stars is subject to revision. However, the revision is likely to be something more like 13.9 billion instead of 14.0 billion years. There’s almost no chance that evidence will show that the revision should be to 6,000 years instead.”
Prior to some very recent scientific history, would you have said ‘There’s almost no chance that evidence will show that dinosaur remains, believed to be 200 million years old, would still contain its original soft tissue’ ?
Yes or No?
…………..
“Your beliefs are what they are, and I know they won’t change.”
You do NOT know that.
In fact, I’d bet my beliefs have changed more drastically and more often than yours have.
I suppose I started out as a creationist. But by the time I was in my teens, I came to believe in evolution, and continued to believe in it for about 30 years. Then, sometime in my forties, I began reading more deeply about evolution, reading what came from the science community itself. And now, actually for over a dozen years, I no longer believe in evolution.
What’s *your* history of personal change on these matters?
"You do NOT know that."
Yes we do. It is written. Ergo true.
TBH, I didn't bother reading anything more in your post. It's never going to make any sense.
And you'll never say what happens if the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, as you contend, but is in fact 8 billion. You apparently think that if it's not EXACTLY 4.5 billion years old, that evolution can't have happened.
Nobody knows why.
"Secondly, that those conclusions look more fallible every day."
As opposed to the godsquad conclusions which were batshit insane and wrong from day 1.
An, you tell that line of crap about about believing in evolution, but you never say you studied it (or any science, math, or statistics either). You changed when you began reading your creationist bullcrap and its falsehoods about science. Don't try to maken it seem as though yours was a rational journey, because you've shown it wasn't.
And the "original soft tissue" line is old, and it is as wrong now as it was when you first used it and had it explained to you, with references, how and why it is wrong. How feeble are you?
To eric #167:
“Fundamentalists have been proclaiming that mainstream science will be overturned in favor of biblical literalism since literally before the Theory of Evolution was penned. So, would you care to tell us when this overturning will actually happen?”
Just in case you forgot, I’m not a Fundamentalist. I’m Catholic.
As far as *when, if ever*, the overturning will actually happen, I don’t know.
I just know that, if it were possible, I’d place a very large bet on the proposition that one day evolution will be revealed to all to be perhaps the greatest embarrassment and shame in the histories of science and of rational thought.
This, this is why you are an idiot.
And your universal denial of modern science, coupled with your religion based (more correctly, based on your view of religion) advocacy of the suppression of women, blatant racism, anti-semitism, brands you as a fundamentalist.
"I’d place a very large bet on the proposition that one day evolution will be revealed "
185 years people have been "betting" on that.
It's been as dismal a failure as any other faithiest prediction: complete and utter failure.
But you never let reality get in the way of a good big hope, do you?
"Just in case you forgot, I’m not a Fundamentalist. I’m Catholic."
So we add "fundamentalist" to the mammoth list of words you don't know the meaning of, then.
You are a fundamentalist.
Just in case you forgot we already worked that out.
@See Noevo #172
It is possible! I'm happy to help. I'll even give you 5:1 odds. If you send me $1000 now and your if prediction comes to pass, I'll send you back $5000! If you want to go bigger, send $10,000 and it could net you a cool $50k!
sn,
To answer your question, in a word, yes. You must believe if you are a rational person that the universe is at least ~14 billion years old to be able to build a functional computer. You can't build a computer without knowledge of quantum physics. The stellar development models are a consequence of quantum physics. These models yield stellar age estimates. The universe cannot be younger than anything in it. Putting the logic together functional computer implies old universe. That was the point of my post.
Certainly you can build a computer without believing the age estimates, but it would not be a rational rejection of the age estimate. You might reject the age because of ignorance of the connection between pc function and the age of the universe. You might reject it because of preconceived notions. In any case, though, rejecting the age estimate given what we know about quantum physics is irrational. Now that you are aware of the logical connection, will you change your belief in a young universe or will you continue to reject the estimates of the age of the universe? Ignorance of the connection is no longer an excuse.
SN:
Well then, rest assured that after the concept of a 4.5-billion year Earth is overturned, I'll change my mind on it.
Then how about a small bet that it will happen before April 20, 2017? If you win, I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice. If its not overturned, you'll donate $100 to a charity of my choice. Ethan will adjudicate. We'll keep the criteria objective: an article must be published in Science or Nature stating that the revised measurement of the age of the earth is less than 100,000 years. That's a pretty reasonable measure of 'overturned;' in reality, there would likely be tens or hundreds of articles on itt if that happened, but I'll donate my money if the young earth hypothesis gets even one.
And if $100 is too rich for you, I'll happily give you 10:1 odds, and put my $100 up against your $10.
To Sean T #177:
Me: “Prior to some very recent scientific history, would you have said ‘There’s almost no chance that evidence will show that dinosaur remains, believed to be 200 million years old, would still contain its original soft tissue’ ?”
You: “To answer your question, in a word, yes.”
Good. That’s rational.
…………………..
“Certainly you can build a computer without believing the age estimates…”
Good. That’s rational.
“… but it would not be a rational rejection of the age estimate.”
Well, perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
BTW, did you mean it when you said
“You MUST believe if you are a rational person that the universe is at least ~14 billion years old to be able to build a functional computer” ?
Would a computer builder who does NOT believe in a 14 BYO universe be guilty of not accepting proven or infallible truth?
Related somewhat to all this, I’ll note that not a single advancement in science or medicine or technology has required a belief in evolution.
Not one.
To eric #178:
By April 20, 2017?
No bet.
Perhaps you didn’t comprehend what I wrote.
If you’ll re-read #172 you may realize that
I said I did *not* *know* *WHEN, IF EVER*, the overturning would happen,
and that I was confident only that it would happen *one day*.
It could be a day in the distant future.
Maybe the day this world ends.
But I don’t know when that is.
I also said I’d place the bet “if it were possible”.
But it’s not possible, for all practical purposes.
In other words, deep down knows his assertion about evolution being overturned (whatever that means) is a load of crap and doesn't have enough faith in his own opinion to stand behind it.
SN,
Obviously my yes answer to you had to do with the idea that the age of the universe is related to the functioning of a computer. You dishonestly took it to apply to the question of preserved biological tissues. I did not address that issue, although I fail to see why it's a big issue. The decomposition of tissue is nothing more than a chemical reaction. Under correct conditions, chemical reactions can be inhibited. Iron inhibits the decomposition of tissues and the ones that were found contained high levels of iron. There is no "magic clock" in biological tissues that cause them to last for x years and no longer. Under conditions in which decomposition is inhibited, they can last an indefinite time period.
All of that is well understood science, so it's not really changing anything fundamental. The basic fundamental science involved is again the same basic principle that governs the functioning of computers and the behavior of clouds of hydrogen gas under high temperatures and high densities (ie. the core of stars in case you didn't get the reference), namely quantum mechanics. There's no "agree to disagree" here regarding the relationship between computer function and the age estimate of stars. You can deny or accept QM. If you accept it, then the age estimates of the stars are correct and the computer functions. If you deny QM, then the computer does not function and the age estimates of the stars are incorrect. Obviously, computers are functional, so QM should not be denied (this is obviously simplistic; there is A LOT more evidence for QM than the functionality of transistors). Therefore, since QM is not denied, the stellar evolution models work, and the age of the oldest stars is correct to at least a reasonable approximation, and the universe must be at least as old as the oldest stars. No room to agree to disagree here unless you're willing to deny basic science.
The problem with you science deniers is that you try to focus on this idea or that idea and fail to consider the big picture in science. The whole crazy notion of the inconstancy of the speed of light springs to mind in this regard (I'm not accusing you personally of this, SN, but it is a creationist idea that has been seriously proposed). The idea was designed to get around the starlight problem, namely that if the universe were created 6000 years ago, we should not be seeing light from stars more distant than 6000 light years away. It's impossible to deny that there are stars farther away than this, so an explanation in terms of faster light speed immediately after creation was put forth. The problem is that changing the constant c does not just have the effect of changing the speed at which light travels. It changes a whole host of other observable properties of the universe. There's no way we could miss a change in c large enough to overcome the starlight problem Nuclear reactions, chemical reactions, time measurements, distance measurement, etc. would all be affected by changing the value of c. We just don't see these effects, so c must be constant.
In similar vein, your denials of a single scientific idea ring of the same problem. You speak of the age of the universe as if there's only one reason we believe it to be billions of years, when in fact multiple lines of evidence point to approximately the same age. If that age is wrong, then multiple branches of science are similarly wrong, and we would notice that our currently understood theories were producing bogus results.
SN:
Oh I did. I just thought I'd ask whether your bluster about being willing to bet a lot on 'sometime' would translate into willingness to bet a small amount on 'soon.' Obviously not.
I guess you don't see the holes in modern theory to be so troublesome that they'll cause an overturn soon, eh? I mean, if they're that big and that obvious, one would think you'd be willing to put your money on science finding them soon.
@Sean T #182: You wrote, "In similar vein, your denials of a single scientific idea ring of the same problem."
Isn't it obvious? See Noknowledge is a firm believer in Descartes' "brain in a pan" model! His gawd is the mischievous trickster who plants the entire Universe with false evidence purely in order to "test our faith." Of course, See Noknowledge's own religion gives that trickster a differnt name from gawd, but really, who can tell the difference?
To eric #183:
“I guess you don’t see the holes in modern theory to be so troublesome that they’ll cause an overturn soon, eh? I mean, if they’re that big and that obvious, one would think you’d be willing to put your money on science finding them soon.”
Oh, they’re troublesome and big, alright.
They’re just not *that* obvious to most people.
And the scientists who *are* aware of them either ignore them or act like they’re not *too* troublesome.
Even though sometimes they let slip things like
“As the discoveries roll in, Mike is *getting more and more uncomfortable*”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/04/12/the-biggest-problem-…
They’ll instead say things like
‘This is an exciting issue, and bears further study.
Oh... and funding!’
After all, they’re reputations and livelihoods are at stake.
To Sean T #182:
“Obviously my yes answer to you had to do with the idea that the age of the universe is related to the functioning of a computer. You dishonestly took it to apply to the question of preserved biological tissues.”
No, you’re wrong again.
As God is my witness, I *honestly* thought you were answering Yes to the other question.
Maybe it was because I followed the question –
“Prior to some very recent scientific history, would you have said ‘There’s almost no chance that evidence will show that dinosaur remains, believed to be 200 million years old, would still contain its original soft tissue’ ?” -
with “Yes or No?”
And your response was
“To answer your question, in a word, yes.”
Honest.
……………
So, let’s try this again.
You said “However, the revision is likely to be something more like 13.9 billion instead of 14.0 billion years. *There’s almost no chance* that evidence will show that the revision should be to 6,000 years instead.”
I responded with
“Prior to some very recent scientific history, would you have said ‘*There’s almost no chance* that evidence will show that dinosaur remains, believed to be 200 million years old, would still contain its original soft tissue’ ? Yes or No?”
I gather your answer is “No”, because you say in #182 that you
“fail to see why it’s a big issue… Under conditions in which decomposition is inhibited, they can last an indefinite time period. All of that is well understood science…”
Well, if that’s true, then
-WHY was the discovery of the soft tissue such BIG news inside and outside of the science community?
-Did you know something prior to, say, 2005, that they didn’t?
-Did you reprimand the science community back then for making a mountain out of mole hill?
And if this is such “well understood science”, does the science community have even as much as unanimous consensus on this ‘indefinite iron preservation’ theory?
See #23 of http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/04/08/what-is-the-most-ast…
I recall a triumphant title
- “Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained” - followed by decidedly less triumphant tells, such as “Schweitzer THINKS she has the answer: Iron…
Dinosaurs’ iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, MAY explain the AMAZING (why amazing?) existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier…
They’re also buried in sandstone, which is porous and MAY wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone…”
As I said in that #23, in short, there’s a big difference between “explained” and demonstrated conclusively/proved. And two years artificial preservation with iron does not 200 million years natural preservation make. Also, lots of “thinks” and “may”s from Ms. Schweitzer.
But this 200 million year preservation is well understood science, you say.
Hmm.
……………
“There’s no “agree to disagree” here regarding the relationship between computer function and the age estimate of stars…If you deny QM, then the computer does not function and the age estimates of the stars are incorrect.”
I’m going to try to remember that couplet.
It’s a classic.
……………….
“Therefore, since QM is not denied, the stellar evolution models work, and the age of the oldest stars is correct to at least a reasonable approximation, and the universe must be at least as old as the oldest stars.”
You never did say how far off those star age estimates were prior to the Big Bang Theory.
Weren’t some scientists saying 16 BYO to 20 BYO?
……..
“The problem with you science deniers is that you try to focus on this idea or that idea and fail to consider the big picture in science.”
Ah, yes. The big picture. Like the big picture with evolution. You run into *problems only* when you go into *the detail* of the picture.
……
“The whole crazy notion of the inconstancy of the speed of light springs to mind in this regard (I’m not accusing you personally of this, SN, but it is a creationist idea that has been seriously proposed).”
That’s good. Because I think you’re right, in that I don’t think I’ve ever proposed that.
But I *did* recently bring up an instance of the cosmologists themselves actually questioning one of their uniformitarian assumptions. Specifically, their questioning the always-assumed constancy of the force of dark energy. See #103 above.
Do you think those cosmologists are entertaining a crazy notion?
…………….
“You speak of the age of the universe as if there’s only one reason we believe it to be billions of years, when in fact multiple lines of evidence point to …”
Oh, Lord!
I’m having another flashback, and I’ve never even done LSD! It’s that damn flashback/dream again. The one I described recently on another thread, about the proverbial ‘mountain of evidence’ for evolution. My experience in exploring these issues over the last dozen or more years – in reading the scientists’ own evolutionary words on biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, radiometric dating, cosmology – is like… like a…
*Bad Dream*:
I’m walking along through the country side, and then smell something “funny.”
I’m startled by a farmer who appears from behind a mountain of manure.
He’s extending to me something in his hand, saying “Here, try this. It’s good!”
I look at what he’s got, and quickly realize it’s a cow chip.
I say to him “No, thanks. I’m not interested.”
I then try to move away slowly.
But he continues: “Really? That’s OK. I got plenty of others. Let me get a different one for ya.”
As he turns to go back to the pile of manure, I start running the other way. Away from him and the smell.
And then I wake up.
………….
Good night, Sean T.
You DO dribble on ! That's probably where the smell of cow chips come from ! Why do you persist with your 'evolutionary' views ??? Definitely not on topic.
"Perhaps you didn’t comprehend what I wrote."
Perhaps what you wrote was meaningless.
"Oh, they’re troublesome and big, alright."
So troublesome you cannot bet on them coming to light?!?!? Nor prove they exist????
"No, you’re wrong again.
As God is my witness"
There is no such thing as god. The one YOU think of is a moronic two year old with attention deficit disorder, psychopathic narcissism, and the learning difficulties of the seriously mentally damaged.
pj, see nowt will spout his crap on and on and on until Ethan decides enough is enough.
So though the fault is entirely See Nowt's psycopathic personality, Ethan has to take some blame for enabling behaviours.
Just like reasonsable and good christians have to take some blame for ISIS fundamentalism with their enabling behaviours.
:)
SN:
How is that a slip that science is in trouble? Scientists on different sides of theory debates argue all the time. The weight of evidence tilts first in favor of one, then the other. None of this perfectly standard back and forth, however, ever points towards young earth creationism. To paraphrase Asimov; Michael's hyptohesis is probably wrong. The creationism hypothesis is probably wrong. But if you think Michael is as wrong as you are, you are wronger than both ideas put together.
You're invoking the false dichotomy that both the courts and the scientific community saw through way back in 1987. Why you can't see through it is anyone's guess, but just to explain (for the umpteenth time): evidence undermining one mainstream hypothesis or another is not evidence for creationism. Only positive evidence for creationism would be that. Creationists will never, no matter how hard they try, be able to build a convincing case on negative evidence regarding other hypotheses, because of logical disconnect between arguing "A incorrect" and "B correct" when there are potential hypotheses C-Z that could be correct instead.
This is really a note for the lurkers, but notice how SN is employing a rhetorical strategy that is guaranteed to leave his creationism safe from the critiques of science. First he claims he's all about fighting a false notion of scientific infallibility. Scientists never actually say it's infallible, but he's not bothered by the straw man nature of this argument, he just keeps harping on about how its not infallible. But then when scientists use words that acknowledge the technique's provisional (fallible) nature - such as "may have an answer" or "thinks she has an answer" - he bolds those words and claims their use means we haven't proven our ideas sufficiently well. Its a nice, hermetically sealed rhetorical bubble: if we claim high confidence in a statement, he'll say that confidence is misplaced. If we note the provisional nature of our conclusions, he'll critique the lower confidence. Either way, he never has to revise his own beliefs. All science that disagrees with him is either overly-confidence or not sufficiently proven, and thus can be ignored.
Well circular reasoning is inevitable for the morons with their head up their arse...
Remember, lurkers, that See Nowt is also asserting by fiat that if science doesn't know the answer, then it must be GAWD!
Because they're a frigging moron with severe learning difficulties.
To eric #192:
I invite you, and the others reading this, to revisit the discussion of Time, T Rex, and Tissue, beginning at #6 of
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/04/08/what-is-the-most-ast…
Why? Are you tiring of not getting it and repeating the question that has been answered and wish everyone else to do all the work now?
I mean, we all know that you were corrected on your error regarding soft tissue and t-rex as well as carbon dating and plutonium dating, if all you have is the same error, why not just say so, rather than ask people to go and read it again?
We read it the first time. You were wrong then and not listening. These things won't change if we read it again.
OK, SN, put up or shut up time. You say soft tissues can't last 200,000,000 years. Okay then, what is the upper limit for how long soft tissues can last? How do you arrive at this upper limit? How can we test this limit? That's how you do science. It's not just questioning current understanding, but when you do question it you put forward an alternative hypothesis and test your alternative.
Surely, you aren't saying that dinosaurs existed during any period of recorded human history, are you? Surely someone would have written something down about these huge lizards, right? There are human written records of most common large animal species, so why not dinosaurs? That's at least evidence that dinosaurs were extinct before writing was developed.
We can give evidence that dinosaurs went extinct even earlier than that, though. There are cave paintings that predate written history. These cave paintings depict most large animals that are found in the fossil record. Why are there no dinosaur paintings? You'd think early humans who were hunters would notice these large animals, and try to hunt them, right? Why no dinos in the cave paintings? That probably means that the dinosaurs were extinct by then.
That puts the time of dinosaur extinction at least 10000 years ago or more. You express skepticism about 200,000,000 year old soft tissue, but would it really be any better if it were 20,000 years old instead? Would you not expect soft tissue to decompose in 20,000 years? Unless, of course, it was preserved somehow, in which case, why not 200,000,000? Question: if the rate of decay of soft tissue is zero (on whatever arbitrary unit scale you want to use to measure it), how much of the soft tissue is left after 1 year? After 5 years? After 200 years? After 20,000 years? After 200,000,000 years?
BTW, SN, what mechanism causes soft tissue to be able to survive X years (you can give your value for X), but not for X+1 years? That's something you'll have to account for in your new alternative hypothesis of tissue decay.
sn, you've had the explanation for the dinosaur issue given to you several times. You continue to lie and say there has been no explanation. The fact that a new discovery surprised scientists, the thing that to you says "aha, all of science is wrong because of this" was, in fact, nothing more than a chance for now data to be studied and explained.
And it has been explained, in the science literature and to you (to with the simplest wording that could be used, just so you would have a chance to understand it). You never read any of it (as usual, since you never really ask a question in good faith).
Look up Mary Schweitzer's discussions of the issue. Note especially where she says that she is a Christian, but a scientist, and that she is very sad that her work has been hijacked and misrepresented by creationists in attempts to push their own AGENDA, not SCIENCE. (My emphasis, her words.)
It is almost a sure bet that reading her discussions will not stop you from lying - in your view she is, after all, 'just a woman' and so nothing she says about science, or anything past housekeeping or being pregnant, should be taken seriously. For people who recognize that nothing damaging to science is involved with this dinosaur issue, hers is an interesting and informative story.
SN:
Why? To my mind, we agree on two of the most important salient points.
1. Scientific conclusions (including this one) are provisional.
2. Creationism isn't a scientific hypothesis (you agreed in #113)
Because of #1, there is no real need for me to reread these articles; you're just belaboring the point. And because of #2, this process of revision will never lead creationism.
I would further add that the god of the gaps reasoning you seem to be trying to imply depends on the logical fallacy of there being a dichotomy, and that even the courts have seen through it. For decades. However you haven't said that you agree with me on that point, so I keep it here as a sort of 'epilogue' rather than adding to the list of salient agreed-upon points. But I'd be interested in getting your argument on it: do you agree god-of-the-gaps arguments are fallacies? Do you agree that the concept of a duality (in which evidence against evolution is considered evidence for creationism) is invalid?
That's a knee-slapper coming from someone who thinks that referring to Clinton as a "b*tch" is totes cool with G-d.
At least fifth posting attempt:
To Sean T #197:
“OK, SN, put up or shut up time. You say soft tissues can’t last 200,000,000 years. Okay then, what is the upper limit for how long soft tissues can last? How do you arrive at this upper limit? How can we test this limit? That’s how you do science.”
Whoa! Whoa!
You shouldn’t have opened your mouth, my “put up or shut up time” friend.
It is YOU, SEAN T, who have to show these things.
For it was YOU who said you “fail to see why it’s a big issue… Under conditions in which decomposition is inhibited, they can last an indefinite time period. All of that is WELL UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE…”
So, show us.
And I never said “soft tissues can’t last 200,000,000 years.” The SCIENTISTS SAID IT, prior to about 2005.
For God’s sake, THAT WHY THEY WERE SO SHOCKED at the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur remains, which they assumed to be 200,000,000 years old.
I merely pointed out that they haven’t come close to figuring out definitively how this could be.
And I merely pointed out that their prior conventional scientific wisdom in this regard was wrong by 2,000,000 percent.
……………………
“That’s how you do science. It’s not just questioning current understanding, but when you do question it you put forward an alternative hypothesis and test your alternative.”
OK.
Let’s play scientist.
Here’s an alternative hypothesis: The reason the dino still has soft tissue is because it’s not 200,000,000 years old but rather something closer to 6,000 years old.
And we test this alternative hypothesis by subjecting the subject dino remains to a blind C-14 test.
Simple.
But why doesn’t anyone want to play?
………………….
“Surely, you aren’t saying that dinosaurs existed during any period of recorded human history, are you? Surely someone would have written something down about these huge lizards, right?”
Maybe that’s what Job was writing about:
"Behold, Be'hemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.
"He is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!
For the mountains yield food for him
where all the wild beasts play.
Under the lotus plants he lies,
in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.
For his shade the lotus trees cover him;
the willows of the brook surround him.
Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened;
he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
Can one take him with hooks,
or pierce his nose with a snare?”
[Job 40:15-24]
See also the Leviathan of Job 41.
Isaiah mentions him too:
“In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.”
[Isaiah 27:1]
But, since we can all agree that the Bible was never intended to be a biology/zoology science textbook, we can also agree we shouldn’t expect the Bible to spend verses saying much more about animal subjects.
..........
“There are cave paintings that predate written history. These cave paintings depict most large animals that are found in the fossil record. Why are there no dinosaur paintings? You’d think early humans who were hunters would notice these large animals, and try to hunt them, right? Why no dinos in the cave paintings?”
Maybe there are.
Google “prehistoric cave art depicting humans hunting dinosaurs discovered in Kuwait”.
……………….
“You express skepticism about 200,000,000 year old soft tissue, but would it really be any better if it were 20,000 years old instead?”
Obviously, yes.
Pfft. Fifth? We've been trying to get you to answer a question posed a dozen times. Stop whining.
"It is YOU, SEAN T, who have to show these things."
No, it is YOU, SEE NOWT who have to show these things. YOU are making claims on them. Prove you have some idea why they are wrong.
Given that you've STILL not answered, I can't be arsed to look at any more of your post.
Shape up or ship out.