JayB Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Here is an example of a phenomenon predicted by the Theory of Plate Tectonics. 1. Observable Fact: When a magnetic ore is in a molten state and placed in a magnetic field, the magnetic domains within a magnetic field will align with the said field. 2. Observable Fact: The orientation of the Earths magnetic field varies over time. 3. Necessary consequence of observable facts one and two: If molten rock emerges from the sea-floor and solidifies, the magnetic domains within that rock will necessarily be aligned with the Earth's magnetic field. 4. Primary Hypotheses: The earth's continents are not fixed in place, but move over geologic timescales. In some locations the continents move towards one another, in other areas, they move apart. Some areas where continents move apart occur underneath oceans. 5. Test: If continents move apart as the Theory of Plate Tectonics predicts, and molten rock emerges where they do so, then the magnetic domains within the rock that's formed when the rock solidifies will not be constant, but will vary in accordance with shifts in the Earth's magnetic field. This graphic constitutes one of many proofs that the Theory of Plate Tectonics rests upon, and is in no way less forceful or compelling because no one was around to watch the continents move apart and collide. In the same way, one of the Theory of Evolution's predictions is that the more closely related two organisms are, the more precisely their DNA sequences will resemble one another. The idea of molecular phylogeny has been around since long before anyone had identified DNA, much less proposed a molecular mechanism for genetic inheritance. Once both science and technology advanced to the point that it became possible to test this hypothesis, the findings were in perfect accordance with the predictions made by the Theory of Evolution. The fact that there were no immortal observers with ABI 3700 automated sequencers present to analyze sequence data for each new species as it observed doesn't make the proof any less compelling. The real story here isn't absolute proof or observability, it's which side is best able to unite the factual evidence with the most logically compelling explanation. If a murder occurs that no one observes directly, there are those who would argue that it's impossible to know who committed the murder with absolute certainty, therefore all explanations are equally plausible. Others would argue that although no one was actually there to observe the event, and it is by it's very nature non-reproducible, the fact that a given individual's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, the DNA taken from the tissue found underneath the victim's fingernails, the footprints on the rug that match the suspect's shoes, tire-tracks that match the suspects on car on the dirt-driveway, and a series of debit card-transactions that lead from the suspects home to the precise vicinity of the murder on the day the crime occured make the theory that the suspect committed the murder much more likely to be true than the theory that invisible transexual gnomes with magical powers emerged from the light-sockets and planted the evidence to frame the suspect, or any of the infinity of other explanations that one could possibly conjure up to explain what happened. Is it possible to say with absolute certainty that the suspect committed the crime? No, but it's the most consistent with both the evidence, rationality, and logic, so it's incumbent upon the jurors to make their decision based upon the most probable, logically defensible explanation, despite the fact that none of them was present at the scene of the crime to observe the event. The same rules apply in science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 evolution is obvious! god is obvious! sudden creation of white humans in a garden, obviously religious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 evolution is obvious! god is obvious! sudden creation of white humans in a garden, obviously religious. rib's anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmuja Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 its pretty obvious that god the creator invented evolution! duh.... This was once the reasonable position held by most people of the religious persuasion. Unfortunately, thanks to the modern fund-a-mental cases and biblical literalists, today, you either believe the planet is less than 10,000 years old, or youve been brainwashed by commie atheist "evolutionists". seahawks, "something" from "nothing" is well accepted in Quantum Physics so your statement about science rejecting the possibility of the universe coming from nothing etc.. is wrong. In fact, theres a very good chance that it did spontaneously "begin" out of nothing. Also, contemplating "what was before the big bang" is erroneous thinking in as much as the term "before" cannot apply to a state in which time does/did not exist. Concepts like "before" and "after" are only meaningful in the post-bigbang state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Oh, well, of course! As long as you believe in time and all that before and after stuff and that quantum mechamagicalistic shizzle.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 its pretty obvious that god the creator invented evolution! duh..... Is this what they mean by intelligent design? BTW, if you propose ID as an alternative then it's just as well that we were genetically created by an vastly superior alien race from another star system (Google the Raelian cult). Primates were genetically altered to form humans. I suppose while we were speculating about origins that it's just as possible. You could even interject alien encounters into the biblical accounts. Fucks with your head to even consider these ideas. Astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed biotic contributions from extraterrestrial sources that would explain the 'sudden' radiation of mammalian life forms in many niches, this rapid shift from Mesozoic life to Cenozoic life. Speciation (species) can occur as simply as geographic separation of populations. However, the formation of major body plans (phyla) in the PreCambrian to Cambrian is somewhat problematic. Personally, I don't buy into supernatural origins and natural origins such as Hoyle's are also suspect. Hoyle's idea reminds me of Gold's idea of the abiotic origin of petroleum, that petroleum is formed by a process such as Fischer-Tropsch deep in the earth, it's possible but how probable is it as a mechanism? I prefer to see it as an biotic feedback loop where the Earth system is modified by life, things such as the Carbon Cycle. You see an increased efficiency in carbon burial as life evolves to keep the earth within a habitable climate. Witness the evolution of land plants from C3 (gymnosperms) to C4 plants (angiosperms), also the evolution of oceanic plankton, the most efficient carbon burial as the plankton shells rain down on the ocean bottom over time to form lime muds and eventually limestone. You see the evolution of plankton that incorporates silica in their shells and the evolution of land plants such as grasses as the weathering cycle frees silica from continental rocks most notably during the Cenozoic Era. The smaller scale cyclicity of warm/cool periods superimposed on the larger scale trend of cooling (through carbon burial and leading to oxygen enrichment)from the early earth with its volcanic venting until now (with the rapid but minor exception of the present hydrocarbon-based society) has also been proposed to explain the rise of intelligent humanoids, the idea being that genetically advantaged primates could survive glacial periods. These are broad sketches, of course, but more detail is forthcoming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 so the Grand Canyon is actually a series of tubes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 OMG! Plate tectonics demystified! Source? Hey, who needs one! I can't feel anything moving! I might mention that some plates are moving around at the very observable rate of well over 1 mm per year. But of course, you knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Yes, flouride boy, I did, but thanks. Did you even read what I wrote? If the capacity to make such measurments came along at some point after the theory was proposed, so it'd fit into the general theme of "predictions made by a theory that were subsequently empirically verified." Direct observation of a particular phenomenon is nice, but it's not an essential component of a scientific proof if you can observe, measure, or otherwise verify secondary phenomena that result from whatever it is that you aren't able to verify directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Older than this man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Here's how to win an argument with a zealot: Don't argue with them. They just want a venue to spew their ignorant ideas, and they quickly become enraged when they are unable to repeat their little speeches they learned in church, Younglife, or at "The Inn", about how a pile of wood doesn't stack itself and that the human eye its too complicated to be a product of evolution. The really sad part is that they actually believe the shit that comes out of their mouths. Poor, brainwashed, fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Belief in a creator, a "life-force", that something exists beyond what you can observe...these require faith, but mathematically no more faith than believing we exist by some cosmic accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). “In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 The real issue here is not God v science. The real issue is the authenticity of Jim's assertion. He has posted a single link to a blog/journal maintained by a highly biased group of public employees/environmentalists. If the charges are true, they are a serious case of unwarranted meddling by the Bush Administration. But at this point, I have no reason to believe the charges are anything more than the very same anecdotal bullshit Jim and Mattp so often accuse talk radio of perpetuating. Show me more, Jim. Maybe I'll share your outrage. But until then, I think you're just sucking koolaid - again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) Direct observation of a particular phenomenon is nice, but it's not an essential component of a scientific proof if you can observe, measure, or otherwise verify secondary phenomena that result from whatever it is that you aren't able to verify directly. Wow, Jay, how do you continually come up with these priceless and informative revelations? You mean we don't have to stick a thermometer into the sun to postulate its core temperature? A stunning concept; secondary...primary...I'm confused already! Were you born gifted, or raised in a utopian commune of genuii? You really need a blog. The world needs to know this stuff. You are your own parody. Edited January 13, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) Belief in a creator, a "life-force", that something exists beyond what you can observe...these require faith, but mathematically no more faith than believing we exist by some cosmic accident. The two are not mathematically equivalent, if one compares the body of evidence for each. The body of verifiable, observable evidence for cosmic accident is continually growing as our knowledge base rapidly approaches a complete understanding of how life evolved from atoms to us. The body of evidence using the same criteria for a creator, on the other hand, is zero. When we can create our own custom life forms from scratch, a day which is probably not far off, then the argument for the necessity of a creator will become wholly personal, as it should be. Edited January 13, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 The body of evidence using the same criteria for a creator, on the other hand, is zero. ... the necessity of a creator the assumption made is that , the mind and what it can learn and comprehend is the best and only tool we have to experience the universe. if we stfu for a few instants we can become the universe... the mind's way of 'looking' is by dividing, by doubting. it is like trying to straighten the tail of a dog for good.. but it tries and tries ... a creation without a creator is ludicrous... . the necessity to interact with that creator thing/person/it , that, is personal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Belief in a creator, a "life-force", that something exists beyond what you can observe...these require faith, but mathematically no more faith than believing we exist by some cosmic accident. The two are not mathematically equivalent, if one compares the body of evidence for each. The body of verifiable, observable evidence for cosmic accident is continually growing as our knowledge base rapidly approaches a complete understanding of how life evolved from atoms to us. The body of evidence using the same criteria for a creator, on the other hand, is zero. Adaptation and perhaps evolution are supported. The origin of life without any kind of assistance is not. When we can create our own custom life forms from scratch, a day which is probably not far off, then the argument for the necessity of a creator will become wholly personal, as it should be. Think about what you just said. By "not far off" I think you have faith enough to believe in the Easter Bunny, but I'll be fascinated to see the day when man creates life. Then again, by your own words, we won't have reproduced a cosmic accident. Instead, assuming we see such a day, we will have carefully assembled the necessary ingredients after years of research that relies on technology only made possible by profound intelligence and dedication of resources, and then that life will likely only be sustainable under precisely contolled labratory conditions. I'll be impressed when this accomplished but still not convinced. I don't necessarily belong in either camp on this issue. I only want to point out that you and the folks at Bible camp have something in common: faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 a creation without a creator is ludicrous... Is it? Are we so important that some being with conscious thought had to have created us? I'm not saying there is or is not; but the mind's ability to contrive, including the concept of something greater than one's self, is boundless. Are you sure that the concept of the 'creator' is not possibly the ego's ultimate projection of itself- all powerful, all knowing, owning and ruling over everything? The end goal of desire? We are probably the only species that spends its lives endlessly torturing ourselves, and one another, agonizing over why we're alive. Everything else just seems to be living. the necessity to interact with that creator thing/person/it , that, is personal. True, and it should remain so, yet the history of humans strays far from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Think about what you just said. By "not far off" I think you have faith enough to believe in the Easter Bunny, but I'll be fascinated to see the day when man creates life. Then again, by your own words, we won't have reproduced a cosmic accident. Instead, assuming we see such a day, we will have carefully assembled the necessary ingredients after years of research that relies on technology only made possible by profound intelligence and dedication of resources, and then that life will likely only be sustainable under precisely contolled labratory conditions. I'll be impressed when this accomplished but still not convinced. I don't necessarily belong in either camp on this issue. I only want to point out that you and the folks at Bible camp have something in common: faith. Faith is a belief in something without requiring observable evidence. I don't have anything remotely like that regarding the progress of science. Regarding humans making life, that is a prediction, not a mantra, based on the observable scientific progress which humans have made so far (and which I follow very closely). If the Easter Bunny's involved, that would be a surprise, but surprises do happen occasionally. And humans could re-create the conditions for creating the spark of life by cosmic accident. We've recreated the conditions in interstellar space to successfully grow organic molecules (the building blocks of life) from scratch in amorphous ice, which can only exist at those crygenic temperatures. We've proven that such molecules can survive a comet impact, and therefore be delivered to earth. We've observed self replicating systems of organic molecules that are not technically 'alive'. Through genetic analysis, we've pieced together much about the evolution of the earliest organisms that later become the organelles of our cells. Given such a systematice unveiling of this mystery, is it so much of a stretch to imagine that one day we'll finally get to the juicy center of this puzzle? Does the fact that intelligent beings recreated the cosmic experiment somehow illegitamize our discovery of how it unfolds without our influence? If that is true, then much of our knowledge is, by definition, meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy_t Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Anyone here had a near-death experience? Or equally powerful experience with similar results? When you completely transcend your ego, your mind, and your body... We can't intellectualize these things, as Virendra noted; our minds are not expansive enough to be with that level of experience. Language can't really express it either (evidence this posting). But the experience is overwhelmingly "real", and clear. We aren't meant to dwell in that space; otherwise we couldn't help our body sustain it's necessary functions. But if you have seen that light, it gives you something to refer to while living in this experience, and a sense of peace. Now that was my experience. I don't "believe"; I know what I know. But I also know that other people may have not experience anything like that (heretofore not spelled out) and may have had their own powerful experiences that are not accessible to me. So respect and open-mindedness comes in. But that's what's funny about warring religions, or dogmatic religious thought, like taking the bible so literally. Those who have really known "God" type energies have to know that these religions all refer to the same thing. And that trying to push other people around on the basis of "truths" (for example the Noah's Ark stuff) is folly, an opinion, and ultimately limited and limiting and missing the point. Can't trust that stuff or those people, at least when they are telling others how to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I wonder if this guy lived in the grand canyon? I bet the canyon is older than this guy/girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I've had several near death encounters and I felt only the great indifference of the world around me regarding my potential passing. It's not necessarily a negative thing to realize that the best (or only) friend you've got in a tight spot is you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy_t Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I've had those experiences (and that feeling) too. That's good stuff, the last part. I was originally referring to what some people call "NDE"s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 The only thing that comes close for me was an out of body experience while hauling a big pack over some neve penetente at altitude in Bolivia. It did feel a bit strange to have your consciousness seemingly separated from your physcical body, which continued to function normally 'without' me. It seems as though the conscious and subconscious are capable of producing just about any state imaginable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_Poulton Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Then ask this to yourself: Christian/Islam/Jewish/Mormon/ Native American/ Wiccan does not matter, if someone approached a place of spiritual worship with some political legislative ideal in their favor that stated that you can not stake claim to the evidence found in the Bible because those ideals our not found hear in our geological record of the strata with in the earth that we have revealed! We would all be disrespected in our own chosen houses of spiritual worship...are not the National Parks and Wilderness establishments our place to learn of the Earth's understood history? Why must views be protected/banned...freedom of speech...we all have views and right now Islam and Christian views continue to clash...It's as if all the ice cores from the Antarctic were never pulled? But then again what the F%$^& do we know besides the fact that we die and were born? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.