Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This may not be what he's thinking of, but it was the most likely candidate Google pulled up: Speed of Light, Other Constants May Change {link}

This also reminded me of another theory, that the gravitational constant G may also decrease over time. Here's a link which mentions that: Interview with Paul Dirac {link}

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

With those FTL energy packets thing;
Imagine a giant ringworld, with a circumference of one light second. So a little smaller than the orbit of the moon.
Put one of those spinning emergency lights in the middle.
Set the light to spin ten times per second.
The spot of light hitting the ringworld will also go around ten times per second.

Now, that ringworld was one light second in circumference, so that spot of light was moving 10 light seconds each second, or 10 times the speed!

No laws of physics broken, no info of physical object moves faster than light.

With the energy pulses thing, you use a bunch of lasers to interfere with each other, and the pattern shifts faster than light.
Its like you had a big crowd of people on the ringworld, and had them stand up to do "the wave" like it was a giant sports arena as the light goes by. Then tell 'em to keep it up and turn off the light. Then unroll the ringworld into a beam.
"The wave" is still moving 10x the speed of light, but really, the movement is an illusion.

[ December 07, 2002, 19:29: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

but the spot of light is not a physical object that's moving. it's just our perception of it that maks it look like a single moving object...

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where did you read this? I only ask because a "C slowing down" theory has been put forward as an argument for creationism. I don't know if that was something made up for that purpose or something they had borrowed from real science. I don't suppose I'd ever find the webpage again, but I read a really funny argument about this theory between a creationist and someone who actually understood science.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I actually saw this as a story on a science news show (or somesuch). Apparently researchers were able to pick up light from a star several billion light years away (and therefore from several billion years ago) and discovered that it was moving faster than C.

It had nothing to do with creationism. In fact, you are the first person from whom I have ever heard of the connection.

Personally I don't see how it could be used to support the Eden paradigm since it would have a negligible effect on our time frame.

Do you remember what the gist of the argument was?

Shang:

We were working under the assumption of instant (and survivable) acceleration of said twinkie. Mainly because the theoretical effects of of acceleration to lightspeed have been fairly well documented and we armchair physicists don't want to break out the calculators (or break a sweat). Besides, the interesting thing is what happens after lightspeed.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly my point. Its an illusion.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wonder how they were able to figure that out. Do you mean that the STAR was moving faster than c, or was the LIGHT from the star moving faster than c? If the light was moving faster than c, was it still moving that fast when it reached us?

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Not being a physicist or anything, but I think we're talking about the universal expansion constant. I think Einstein first proposed it, but was so disgusted with the idea that the constants of the universe would change over time, that he discarded it. However observational evidence has brought the idea back into vogue. It's either the fabric of space-time is slowly changing it's rate of expansion, or there is a type of "anti-gravity" energy that is capable of driving matter apart. Roll it in with dark matter, and you've got one whacky universe!

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Perhaps time has a half-life. It can't be much different than the half-life of a twinkie.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

This thread is like a tweekie....

Substance on the outside and a creamy filly on the inside.

The preverbale "cake and eat it too..." occurs here.

KirbyEF

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have got to disagree here (I know I'm jumping in a little late but what the heck). If equiping a twinkie with a drive system capable of 10x the speed of light it would travel 10 light years in only one year of our subjective time.
[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where I think you're mistaken/backwards, if you Subscribe to quantum theory. According to QT, in no frame of reference is any physical object allowed to be accelerated to the speed of light. Instead, it will seem to age less quickly, from the stationary frame of reference. So, from Earth, the Twinkie seems to have taken at least ten years to make the trip, but the Calendar clock included as a free gift inside the Twinkie package only shows one year elapsed.

Quote:

This is assuming that said drive system is capable of instantaneous acceleration and deceleration and so negating the turnaround time at the half-way point.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, more or less. Actually, say "nearly-instantaneous". (I believe quantum theory does NOT have anything to say about instantaneous changes in speed, or things which actually do move faster than light - it just says that pushing something to accelerate it up to the speed of light and beyond, starts affecting time between the frames of reference, instead.)

Quote:

The subjective effects of the twinkie are the true unknown. If they are the same as light speed then no time will have passed (subjectively) yet 10 lightyears will have been crossed and one year would have passed in the world.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I really strongly agree with the first sentence - what would really happen to the Twinkie. As was pointed out in an earlier post from the peanut gallery, the Twinkie will probably have big problems under massive acceleration, but that's probably best left to Twinkie-ologists. There are whole web sites (well, at least one) devoted to the effects (or phenomenal lack therof) of all sorts of conditions on Twinkies.

As I wrote above, QT has nothing to say about anything moving faster than or at the speed of light. What it does say, is that objects that are accelerated up to the speed of light, will never reach it, because the closer they get, the greater the time effect relative to other frames of reference. From their own perspective, they seem to accelerate as if there were no speed limit, but when they check the clocks they left at home, they will show more time has passed than the clocks they brought with them.

Quote:

This is the most likely explanation since we have detected forms of radiation that move faster than the speed of light (for the life of me I can't remember what it's called, though I do have it written down somewhere) and they don't show any evidence of time warping properties.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tachyons are particles that travel faster than the speed of light. There have also been experiments in recent years that seem to have managed to send signals faster than light, but as far as I know, this is not necessarily movement, but cause and effect, which may involve forces and particles which we don't understand. It's quite hard to detect or measure faster-than-light objects and effects, when all of our equipment uses sub-light particles and effects.

Quote:

As a side note I recently heard that there is strong evidence to support the fact that C is not as constant as we once thought. Apparently the speed of light has been slowing down slightly over the Last several billion years. Interesting huh?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, it's interesting. However I tend to think modern physicists, as with physicists and philosophers throughout human history, are still extremely overconfident about the degree to which they really understand what's going on at the fringe of their theory and cosmology. I'm not really convinced that they know what they're talking about when they claim to be measuring speeds of light and relativistic effects.

PvK

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well... some guy had been through the bible, counted up all the "begats" since Adam and Eve and decided that the universe was just a few thousand years old. Then a bunch of scientists said "but what about all the stuff on Earth that can be proved to be millions and millions of years old and all the distant stars and stuff we can see that are billions of years old and the big bang blah blah blah." Rather than just say "Oh I don't believe in all that", the creationist guy then goes on to try and fit the entire history of the universe into the few thousand years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif He tried it by suggesting that universal constants like C have been changing rapidly, so that galaxies which appears to be millions of light years away are in fact just up the street... Nutter. Anyway, by the time he had finished turning physics inside out, the garden of eden would have been a superheated inferno where no matter- let alone life- could have existed. It really was too bizarre to be true, and extremely funny. I'll have a dig aroud for the link.

Oh, and I'm sure lots of credible physicists do believe C is changing, and I'm not necessarily associating their arguments to the one I mention above. That's just the only time I had heard of such a theory before reading this thread.

Here's a link to sum up my beliefs on the subject. Look at the very bottom track. (Parental advisory)

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't believe the billions of years, or the Bible stuff he read? I'm getting a little lost here. From what I understand of the Bible, it does say the earth is 10 thousand years old or so. If he really believes the Bible, why shouldn't he believe that part, too?

[ December 10, 2002, 15:36: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have got to disagree here (I know I'm jumping in a little late but what the heck). If equiping a twinkie with a drive system capable of 10x the speed of light it would travel 10 light years in only one year of our subjective time.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where I think you're mistaken/backwards, if you Subscribe to quantum theory. According to QT, in no frame of reference is any physical object allowed to be accelerated to the speed of light. Instead, it will seem to age less quickly, from the stationary frame of reference. So, from Earth, the Twinkie seems to have taken at least ten years to make the trip, but the Calendar clock included as a free gift inside the Twinkie package only shows one year elapsed.[/qb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We started with the assumption that the Twinkie was moving at 10x the speed of light! You're not allowed to say it isn't possible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Think of the discussion as thus:
While bending or breaking the fewest laws of physics in order to get a Twinkie moving at 10x the speed of light, what might happen?

for V>C:
gamma = 1/[ (1-V^2/C^2)^.5 ]
1/ (-ve)^.5
or 1/i
So an imaginary number... how do you want to interpret that?

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I mean he didn't simply say "I reject science/ astronomy/ physics altogether." which is the only sensible approach if you're going to take the bible word for word and believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old. It has to be one or the other: trying to reconcile the two is just impossible...

I'm pretty sure that the bible doesn't specifically give an age for the universe, but you can make a guess at the date of creation by counting how many generations of ppl lived from Adam and Eve up to the end of the Old Testament, by which time biblical history crosses over with actual, recorded history. I think- I'm no expert on the matter...

[ December 10, 2002, 16:08: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

I like your link Dogscoff!

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Kwok: I know, it's cool isn't it? I have all those track in my mp3 playlists. My favourite is "All my shootins be driveby":

Time to give a newtonian demonstration/
Of a bullet, its mass and its accelleration/

There is a brief mention of the article I referred to here. I'll try to get some more tonight or tomorrow.

[ December 10, 2002, 17:01: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Having only skimmed the FAQ, I did find some interesting quotes.

This about "aged creation":
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Radiocarbon (C-14) dating (and applicable to all methods of dating):
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration.

Mutations as mechanism:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Isn't the retention of acquired characteristics Lamarckism? And doesn't this assume that mutation results in improvements?

Anyone who says that science "proves" creation is wrong. Creation/religion isn't science. But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution. See the works of Karl Popper on the philosophy of science and the scientific method (greatly summarized, scientific theories must be testable; anything else is outside the realm of science).

[edits-typos]

[ December 10, 2002, 19:15: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

"Radiocarbon (C-14) dating (and applicable to all methods of dating)"

This can't be used against "aged creation" because the idea is the universe was poofed into place exactly *as if* it was X years old. There is no way to test that simply because there's no way to distgiush an old universe with a "fake old" young universe.

"Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration."

Correct. It's formed and lost, and currently that is at a balance. It would always -end up- at equilbrium, but we don't know if the point of balance has changed. OTOH, C-14 dating is only used for fairly recent dating, and there are other methods.

"Isn't the retention of acquired characteristics Lamarckism? And doesn't this assume that mutation results in improvements?"

No, and not exactly. Lamarckism applies to physical characteritics, genetics to the genes of the organism. The difference is that Lamarckism predicts that if you lost an arm, then have children, your children would -also- not have that arm. It also predicts little or no variation in the children, since anything not expressed doesn't exist and can't be transmitted. Neither are true.

Mutations don't always result in improvements; actually most of them are probably BAD for the organism in question. Random chance though, so you'll likely get a good mutation eventually. My biology teacher put it in a good way, like so:

"Say I take a 100-sided dice, and bet you $5 that I will roll a 1. If I roll anything else, I loose. Good bet, right? Now, is it still a good bet if I get to roll the dice *1000 times*, and if I get just one 1 in those rolls I win?"

The best example of this is antibiotic resistant bacteria. They normally don't compete any better against the rest of the bacteria, so their numbers are fairly small. But the antibiotic comes in, kills off the rest of the bacteria, and their numbers can explode. Instant evolution.

"But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution."

Also known as "the current best guess." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

This site {link} has a good summary of how people have estimated the date of the Creation.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We started with the assumption that the Twinkie was moving at 10x the speed of light! You're not allowed to say it isn't possible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I guess we were on different pages, then. I assumed that this was all assumed to be taking place with sub-light acceleration. Gravity, even from the sun, isn't a big deal if you're able to travel faster the light (thinking of the Trek slingshot effect here).

Quantum theory doesn't say anything about faster-than-light travel. There is essentially no data available on faster-than-light travel, since you can't directly observe any of it with sub-light particles and mechanics, which is all we have to work with.

As I wrote at the time, what I was talking about was applying acceleration so that the Twinkie would go 10 times lightspeed IF there were no relativistic effects. This means that from the Twinkie's own frame of reference, it would seem to move that fast, except that everything around it would seem to be aging ten times as fast as usual.

Of course, if Twinkies are a product of alien technology, then maybe this has something to do with the secret of their longevity. Naaa, they're just pLastic.

Quote:

Think of the discussion as thus: While bending or breaking the fewest laws of physics in order to get a Twinkie moving at 10x the speed of light, what might happen? for V>C: gamma = 1/[ (1-V^2/C^2)^.5 ] 1/ (-ve)^.5 or 1/i So an imaginary number... how do you want to interpret that?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I interpret the imaginary number result as a contradiction of premises, which is what it usually means - it's impossible given the rules you framed the problem with. The only mathematical solution, without adding new premises, is to move away from your destination, which only sends you back in time according to the children in the back seat, who measure time as "how long until we're THERE?" If time slows down to compensate for any acceleration, then there is no acceleration that will take you faster than the speed of light. You're postulating a simple contradiction.

The idea of bending or breaking the rules "as little as possible" is subjective - in other words, we're back to making stuff up. The Star Trek invention seems like several logic leaps at once, and seems to me to be loosely based on misunderstandings including taking the relativistic effect backwards.

I guess maybe they could imagine that the relativistic effect is backwards on the other side of the speed of light, and compounded by a strong gravitational field. Then maybe you could ... go back in time ... which brings up all sorts of paradoxes, which seem to make the whole thing nonsensical, except from a fantasy point of view.

PvK

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">C-14 dating (and every other form of radioisotope dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now. As for the first, at least three commonly accepted phenomena would affect the formation of radioactive materials. 1) Young-earth creationists commonly accept the existence of a canopy of water (in some form) above the atmosphere during the first 2000 years or so of the earth's existence. This would greatly cut down the amount of radiation (and concurrently, the amount of radioactive materials formed), resulting. 2) Evolutionists commonly accept a cataclysmic event of some sort (meteor collision, etc.) which altered the climate enough to kill the dinosaurs. If such an event can block enough sunlight/heat to change the climate, it would also block radiation, with results similar to the above. 3) The earth's magnetic field is weakening, resulting in lessening protection from radiation. A stronger field in the past would mean less radiation/less radioactives production (now it sounds like SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Any decrease in the ratio of radioactive elements would result in exponential increases in the dates obtained, since the rate of decay is used as the constant in the formula. No extant radioisotope dating method addresses, or can address, this problem; any dates obtained from them are inherently questionable and unverifiable (i.e., not empirical "scientific" proof).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, let me define which biological evolution I do and do not believe in. Micro-evolution (variation within species/sub-species) does occur. These are frequently the result of mutations. Inter-species evolution has never been observed, either in live organisms or in the fossil record, and has never been the result of mutations.

Several experiments by several scientistshave been done in this field. 1) Herman Bumpus found that survival rates were higher for specimens closest to the average for a species. Sub-species are less hardy, not more, than the original species. 2) The "saltation" theory of mutations was based on an observational error. Its author, Hugo deVries was unable to substantiate it. Later, it was discovered that the vast majority of plant varieties are caused by gene factor variations, rarely by mutations. Gene factor varieties may be hardy (though still less than the original), while mutation varieties have poor survival rates. 3) Thomas Hunt Morgan performed the first set of mutation experiments, but failed to find any examples of mutation as an agent of cross-species evolution. 4) H.J. Muller experimented with X-ray-induced mutations in fruit flies for 19 years. Every mutation he and his researchers found was harmful. 5) Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments at UC-Berkeley. He produced more generations of fruit flies than is hypothesized have existed for humans and their ape-ancestors. After 25 years, he began looking for other possible mechanisms for evolution. After 10 more years (1940), he wrote a book debunking all current mechanisms of biological evolution and introduced his own theory: macro-evolution (aka "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" theory). This theory later was adopted by such prominent evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Species variation does not prove cross-species evolution. It may be penicillin-resistant E. coli, but it's still E. coli.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My problem with this is two-fold. First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught.

Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. Consider the Indian carvings of dinosaurs on the Grand Canyon walls. In the 1920s when they were discovered, it was said that they resembled dinosaurs, but they definitely couldn't be, since we knew dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came along. If that's true, then how did the Indians know what they looked like? Belief in evolution despite any evidence to the contrary cripples scientific research, not enables it.

[edits-typos]

[ December 11, 2002, 04:07: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1) It dosen't have to be exacly the same, and it did vary by a little. See the link below.
2) is quite reliable if not technically provable.

Check out:
http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/01_04.htm
and the bit on "How radiocarbon calibration works"

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I'm not sure where you got your textbooks, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
Embryos for animals do tend to look alike, naturally. A head, body, usually four appendages, a tail. Start with a cell, then a ball of cells, then form up some basic parts, heck yeah they look similar for the first while.

Nothing like "human gills" or stupid stuff like that. Sounds like something a mean older brother might scare his little bro with.

Not sure what you're getting at with the Eohippus thing...
Corrections, if shown to be nessesary, are a part of science, and in any case, texts tend to lag behind (as they require writing) not to mention schools need to buy new books on thin budgets.
Of course, the first google hit on the two gives:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hors...pus_hyrax.html
The evidence does lead to billions of years...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And creationists?

If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Wow, what a great thread! I'm waiting for the Tachyon Internet to pop up again so we can have the time-sensitive error Messages. "Error: The host which you are attempting to reach was not responding at the time your signals arrived."

But I did want to make a comment on some of SJ's assumptions...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">These statements show that you are accepting some of the basic precepts of 'Scientific Materialism' and I wonder if you really believe them if you examine them.

The first as that there exists a valid scientific theory to explain any and every phenomena we have observed. This is the most important underlying assumption that keeps evolution afloat. The primary point which Krsqk is trying to show you is that the evidence does NOT support evolution, at least not gradualist evolution by random mutation. The "evolution" sequence of the horse has been used as an example in text books for generations, but it now seems that even the 'die-hard' evolutionists have had to concede that at least some of the fossils used as 'proof' of the gradual evolution of the horse are actually fossils of other animals. (I was not aware of this, Krsqk, could you give me a reference to an article or book that details this?)

And when you think about it, just how do you 'prove' the connection of ANY two fossils found in rocks considered to be millions of years apart in age and hundreds or thousands of miles apart in location? Structure similarity is all that anyone ever had to go on, and genetic research over the Last few decades has been showing that the underlying genetic code of supposedly related animals is VERY different. For example, all of the spcies of 'frogs' in the world do NOT even have the same number of chromosones, let alone a high percentage of actual genes in common. Yet, these very different genes produce physically similar animals that scientists have been assuming were part of one orderly 'sequence' of evolution starting with a single common ancestor.

The case for evolution was weak before, with no way to 'prove' connections between fossils. Now, with genetic evidence showing that structural similarity does NOT correspond with genetic similarity there is simply no way to support it with existing evidence. Yet, most scientists will NOT admit that 'evolution' doesn't work. There are discussions going on in the professiponal journals about re-arranging taxonomy to suit the new genetic evidence, but no one dares to question whether evolution is even a valid theory anymore. Ergo, it is not a 'falsifiable' theory, it is a religious precept of Scientific Materialism.

Now we come to the sticky part. Most 'science' oriented people, like you, will immediately raise 'Creationism' when evolution is challenged. It is immediately assumed that anyone trying to disprove evolution is trying to replace it with Creationism. I must be very clear that though I grew up in a very 'ordinary' W.A.S.P. setting (Methodist, actually, one of the original 'Puritan' sects http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) I do NOT bring this up in order to defend or restore the competing religious viewpoint of Biblical literalism. My religious views are difficult to summarize. Let's just say that 'Heretic' would be the only label the average 'Christian' would find suitable for me. So I am not a partisan in the 'either/or' conflict between 'Science' and 'Religion' that occupies so much time in the US. I find both views to be inadequate. And what is really annoying though is that most so-called 'scientific' people, even professional scientists, are as unwilling to say 'I don't know' as the most rigid fundamentalists.

This is the other assumption of Scientific Materialism, and oddly enough, of the 'Religious' viewpoint as well... that we can understand anything and everything. Only the theoretical physicists are finally breaking through this one. Once in a while you'll see a physicist say something like this in an article on the latest weird, exotic, and baffling cosmological theories -- "The Universe might not be merely stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

And that's the point I wanted to bring out. The Universe is not our perception of it, it's always different, it's 'not us'... and we may never really understand it. Yet 'Science' does not operate that way. There is an underlying set of assumptions held by the community of professional scientists as rigid as the religious viewpoint they claim to be in opposition to. As Krsqk says, this actually impedes scientific progress.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:46: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">or perhaps: "Error: The host which you are attempting to reach will not be responding at the time your signals will arrive." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

"C-14 dating (and every other form of radioisotope dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now. As for the first, at least three commonly accepted phenomena would affect the formation of radioactive materials. 1) Young-earth creationists commonly accept the existence of a canopy of water (in some form) above the atmosphere during the first 2000 years or so of the earth's existence. This would greatly cut down the amount of radiation (and concurrently, the amount of radioactive materials formed), resulting. 2) Evolutionists commonly accept a cataclysmic event of some sort (meteor collision, etc.) which altered the climate enough to kill the dinosaurs. If such an event can block enough sunlight/heat to change the climate, it would also block radiation, with results similar to the above. 3) The earth's magnetic field is weakening, resulting in lessening protection from radiation. A stronger field in the past would mean less radiation/less radioactives production (now it sounds like SE4 )."

Excuse me while I go try and find the formation of the various isotopes used for dating..I know C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere, but I don't think say Uranium would be affected by this. C-14 is only valid for a couple thousand years at best anyway.

"Any decrease in the ratio of radioactive elements would result in exponential increases in the dates obtained, since the rate of decay is used as the constant in the formula. No extant radioisotope dating method addresses, or can address, this problem; any dates obtained from them are inherently questionable and unverifiable (i.e., not empirical "scientific" proof)."

Questionable yes, unverifiable no. The more independant sources you have giving the same result, the better the result tends to be. Either the result is correct *or* there is something consistantly throwing your results. The effect wouldn't be exponential, either. Start with, say, 9 grams instead of 9, half-life of 5000 years:
10/9
5/4.5
2.5/2.25
1.25/1.125
.625/.5625

Notice that the ratio you're off by at any given time is *exactly* the same as the ratio you're off by when you started.

"First, let me define which biological evolution I do and do not believe in. Micro-evolution (variation within species/sub-species) does occur. These are frequently the result of mutations. Inter-species evolution has never been observed, either in live organisms or in the fossil record, and has never been the result of mutations."

Take two populations, seperate them for a long period of time in different enviorments and allow for that micro-evolution you mentioned. What happens? (that Last statement is as much of a jump as what you're accusing others of BTW)

Check out the different varieties of dogs some time. They result from artifical selection applied by humans. Put a really big dog and a really small dog and try and breed them; what happens? Likely nothing, or the offspring dies. the only reason they can be considered the same species is because of the breeds in between..

"Several experiments by several scientistshave been done in this field. 1) Herman Bumpus found that survival rates were higher for specimens closest to the average for a species. Sub-species are less hardy, not more, than the original species."

Consistant with a species being well-adapted to it's enviroment; change anything and it's less well adapated, unless you get obscenely lucky.

"2) The "saltation" theory of mutations was based on an observational error. Its author, Hugo deVries was unable to substantiate it. Later, it was discovered that the vast majority of plant varieties are caused by gene factor variations, rarely by mutations. Gene factor varieties may be hardy (though still less than the original), while mutation varieties have poor survival rates."

Gene factor: are you refering to the variation produced by sexual reproduction here?

") Thomas Hunt Morgan performed the first set of mutation experiments, but failed to find any examples of mutation as an agent of cross-species evolution."

I don't think they -could- be, directly. It doesn't make sense. (and what the hell is cross-species evolution? Macroevolution, or what you earlier refered to as inter-species evolution?)

"4) H.J. Muller experimented with X-ray-induced mutations in fruit flies for 19 years. Every mutation he and his researchers found was harmful."

Hmm. For one, X-rays aren't the only way to get mutations; DNA can be changed in other ways, and the repair systems don't always catch it. However this ussually only matters in two cases: if it affects a reproductive cell and/or if it leads to a cancer. Wacking a random skin cell doesn't do too much. For the other I'd have to do more research.

"5) Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments at UC-Berkeley. He produced more generations of fruit flies than is hypothesized have existed for humans and their ape-ancestors. After 25 years, he began looking for other possible mechanisms for evolution. After 10 more years (1940), he wrote a book debunking all current mechanisms of biological evolution and introduced his own theory: macro-evolution (aka "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" theory). This theory later was adopted by such prominent evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould."

1940? Please tell me you're not going to bring up the "Darwin couldn't say how A could happen so A must not happen" point next? Science does advance. You say that microevolution does occur. Fine, -where does the variation come from orriginally-? i.e. you have a population consisting of entirely one type of gene. In your view would microevolution ever occur?

"Species variation does not prove cross-species evolution. It may be penicillin-resistant E. coli, but it's still E. coli."

I always assume in these arguments that I'm dealing with a Bible-literal "nothing ever changes" person until told otherwise. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

"My problem with this is two-fold. First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught."

I think this is more the common science textbook being badly done more than anything else. A wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps, that snowballs into something else.

"Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. Consider the Indian carvings of dinosaurs on the Grand Canyon walls. In the 1920s when they were discovered, it was said that they resembled dinosaurs, but they definitely couldn't be, since we knew dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came along. If that's true, then how did the Indians know what they looked like? Belief in evolution despite any evidence to the contrary cripples scientific research, not enables it."

OK, few comments on this:
-people gennerally assume their worldview is correct, and try to make everything else fit. Yes, this includes scientists. File it under the "yep, they screwed up" catagory. Happens a lot.

-similar topic, but if you try and de-bunk a worldview without offering an alternative, you encouter a lot of resistance.

Phoenix-D

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

...Taz is wading through the preceeding discussion...

Of course you are BOTH assuming that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
How about Evolved Creation. This is the theory that something (GOD?) created the initial conditions and set-up the natural laws just so that now the current conditions are as they are.

Just thought I'd muddy the waters a little more...
(My work here is done - Taz Devil) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Some minor injections:

Evolution occurs, but the method of evolution is just a theory. Just like gravity - it happens, but our explaination is only a theory. Last time I checked, gravity was treated like a fact too.

The rate of radioactive decay is constant and is not affected by external conditions. While the ratio of rad. isotopes to the naturally occuring element is subject to flucuations - it is not exponential as Phoenix has already shown. It would take a *significant* change in the rate to make any dramatic change to age estimates.

The guy who pounded fruit flies for 19 years with X-rays and found no beneficial mutations. Why would he? First of all X-Rays don't exist naturally on Earth and secondly, they are highly energetic and can cause serious damage to DNA and other cell components - not really the kind of mutations that a beneficial change might come from. Aside, mutations aren't the single factor in evolution anyways.

The generations of fruit flies. Umm, let me see, they were in a closed environment - not exposed to various agents of selection? So it might not have been a good experiment to compare to the evolution of a species over time.

Textbooks can get dated in a hurry. Schools don't generally have the funds to get the most recent books for students.

In re: to the E. coli. They are not necessarily the same E. coli! In fact, they are becoming more genetically diverse. Sooner or later, they will be significantly different as one will be able to readily survive harsh conditions while the other will not. However, since E. coli doesn't really reproduce sexually as most higher lifeforms, much of the other mechanisms are not really applicable and the changes less pronounced.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, perhaps a better wording: "If evidence builds up against the current theories, then people will work on developing a better one."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Surely an optimistic outlook is better than a defeatist attitude, eh?
A perfect theory of everything may not be possible, but it is certainly the right direction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Wow, so much to respond to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Where to start:

BM: Excellent description of scientific materialism. As for the horse series, let me give you what I know about it, and then refer you to several other sources. 1) The number of ribs is inconsistent throughout the series, beginning with 18, climbing to 19, then dropping to 15 before ending up back at 18 with the modern horse, Equus. 2) No transitional teeth exist. They are all either browsing or grazing teeth. 3) The series does not exist in order in the fossil record. Frequently, earlier forms are found on top of later forms; Eohippus has even been found in the same strata as modern Equus. In fact, the only places the complete series is to be found is in museums and textbooks. 4) The first animal in the series is not even a horse, but a badger. 5) There are no transitional forms between members of the series. They are all distinct species. 6) There are no transitional forms to link Eohippus to its supposed ancestors, the condylarths. 7) The series is heavily keyed to size; but even modern horses vary in size as much as the horse series does. 8) Skeletal remains are insufficient to determine relationship. Horse and donkey remains would appear similar, but they are vastly different animals.

Here are some further sources for study:</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Science News Letter, August 25, 1951</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The New Evolutionary Timetable</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944)
Hope that helps.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for the clarification.

Taz:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No serious evolutionist or Bible-believer buys into that, or should. The Bible specifically records a six-day creation, and its credibility is at stake. Everything else in the Bible is based on the belief that God created the world the way He recorded it.

Capt. Kwok:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The difference is that gravity is constantly being observed and verified, while evolution has not been observed. It is theoretical. If you mean micro-evolution occurs, you're right; but we've never seen a species turn into another species.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I misspoke (mistyped?) in my previous post. I meant to say that if the rate of formation were decreased (by canopy, magnetic field, meteor dust, etc.), then the rate of absorption would be decreased, resulting in animals which appeared much older than they really were.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If mutations aren't thought to cause evolution, then what is? From what I can tell, that's the current popular mechanism, combined with natural selection. Mutations bring about beneficial changes which allow the organism to survive and pass on its traits to its offspring. Has something new come up?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The horse series has been in doubt since the 1950s. Embryonic recapitulation has been disproved since the late 1800s. I know it's government-funded, but how long does it take? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one has said they're not E. coli. They're just drug-resistant E. coli. We haven't developed any new bacteria since the invention of penicillin; they've just adapted to the drug and are less affected by it. Staph is still staph, E. coli, etc. The only "harsh conditions" its been proven they can survive is the presence of specific drugs; that's hardly "natural" selection. No one knows if they're more fit to survive their natural predators, whatever they are. And why should sexual/asexual reproduction matter? If we came from something else, it had to start with a single asexual cell somewhere. The same mechanisms have to apply to both types of organisms.

Phoenix-D:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can these results come from accurate dating methods?</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!)</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old. </font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old. </font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

How about this quote: "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54) What does that mean, then? That radiometric dating doesn't really matter; it's the strata that determine the age? Or if strata age and radiometric age conflict (which should never happen, if the geologic column were correct), the rock age wins?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one knows what happens, because no one has ever observed it. Science doesn't guess or predict the future.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A dog is a dog is a dog. Science still classifies them as dogs. And who's going to put the current breeds of dogs in a series? Do the small ones or the big ones come first? Or is it the middle ones? Which species is more advanced? Would these varieties exist if not for artificial selection? Are humans the new mechanism for evolution? The hundreds of varieties of dogs are just varieties, not new species. They never result in anything but a dog.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Science has yet to do what Darwin couldn't do. No one has found a mechanism for evolution. If they have, then why are Gould and so many others going with this "hopeful monster" garbage? I don't think anyone will say they're ignorant doofuses or religious bigots.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you mean 500,000 blargs with a single gene, or 500,000 blargs with uniform genetic code? Either way, I would say that micro-evolution would occur, but I wouldn't predict that they turn into snorks. They'd just have more and more blargs, each with variation.
Let's throw another light on the variation/new species question. No two humans in the world are alike (besides identical multiple births). Each has variations on the same human "average." Some have dark skin, some have light skin, some are bigger, some are smaller, etc. Which ones are more advanced? Which ones are more fit to survive? Do we have any that are new species? Do we have any that are still older species? With all of the variations in the tens of billions of people from the Last two millenia, have we got anything other than humans?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And inaccurate textbooks are excusable? Confusion about what? That this is what we think happened, (although the evidence we're giving you is dated or doubtful), and we want you to believe that this is unquestionably what happened (despite any evidence we find to the contrary), so we'll just teach you what we have to so you believe the "right" thing. And, someday, we'll find the missing link or some formula or astronomical evidence will come to light and vindicate what we're teaching you right now.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My worldview is simple. God created the world in six days, the way the Bible records it. He made the world, He owns it, and He makes the rules. That pretty much sums it up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So there's the alternative.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

My turn for questions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?


When, where, why, and how did

1. Man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
2. How did photosynthesis evolve?
3. How did thought evolve?
4. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
6. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
7. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
-It is all they have been taught.
-They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
-They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
-They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
-Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? 11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Looking forward to your responses.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

I'm not a scientist in any shape or form, but I have an amateur's interest I'd like to answer some (not all) of your questions. The fact that I can't answer them all doesn't mean I'm wrong - science acknowledges that we still have things to learn.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't know much about Big bang theory, so I'm not going to attempt to answer these, but can you answer this: Where did God come from?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perfectly organised? Perfect for what? Something cannot be perfect unless it has a purpose to be perfect for. I believe there is no purpose and that space is just chaotic. Matter clumps together into star systems, galaxies etc as a result of physical laws.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe labs have proven that amino acids and other complex organic molecules can be formed by non-biological processes (ie primordial soup).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure that a single cell can reproduce sexually, I think that's the domain of us clever multi-cell beasts. Nitpick aside, I imagine the first whatever with that ability did the deed with another part of itself- even modern plants that are capable of sexual reproduction can self-pollinate.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're right, a creature looking after number one probably would live longer than one that makes the effort to reproduce, but its ancestors aren't going to be the ones running the Earth in 600 million years, are they? Remember, celibacy is not heridtary.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't how your metaphor is relevant. The possibilities for variety within genetic code are staggering- remember, our DNA is something like 50% the same as that of a banana. Your parents combined their genetic code to create a new, potentially improved variety of themselves.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not necessarily. Parallel evolution.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The theory of evolution is designed to explain just that.

I'm skipping a bunch of questions I don't know enough about. I'm curious as to why you're picking specifically on whales and sea horses. What did they ever do to you?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, now this one I can answer, I saw it on TV: Something about sluggy creatures with simple, light sensitive cells which allowed them to tell if it was light or dark. Gradually, these cells moved (over many generations) into recesses in the creatures form, so that by moving around it could tell where the light was coming from. The recesses became concave pits (for even better directional vision), kind of like a an empty eye-socket with a retina at the back, and eventually all the fancier features of the eye evolved after that.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The same way anything else evolves. A creature is born, by chance, with something a bit like hair on it. His brother isn't. It isn't an important difference, neither an advantage nor disadvantage in competetion for food etc, so off they both go, reproducing merrily. Dozens of generations later, some of the species has hairyish bits and some of the population doesn't. No one notices and it still doesn't seem important until the environment begins to change- it's getting colder. The population splits with the bald half finding somewhere warmer or dying off, the hairy half thriving in the cold weather. Give it a couple of million years of progression in two seperate directions and- hey presto- two seperate species.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wouldn't it have been easier just to ask "how does stuff evolve?", rather than asking "how does a, b, c, d, e... evolve?" See my previous paragraph for my own, layman's understanding of evolution.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why does symbiosis defy evolution?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because it is an explanation and because it can be proved. If evolution was as unproveable as you say, I'm sure someone (ie, someone without a bible to defend) would have noticed by now.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">it doesn't matter why they started mimicking other animals. All that matters is that the ones who did mimic thrived and the ones who didn't, didn't.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, it was in a tree in what is now western Ethopia on a Tuesday afternoon... how am I supposed to knwo where and when?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree completely. You ever see an elephant or a gorilla that has lost it's offspring or mate? It seems to me that that social, animal bond could easily develop into complex human empathic responses (mercy, guilt) as we becasme civilised.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">uh..?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would have said "that's impossible, they're extinct." If you told me today that you have one I'd say "That must be a very high pressure aquarium." Then I'd say "Did you know that 50 years ago these were thought to be extinct?" What's your point?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand this question. Are you talking about hydrogen being the only element being produced by the big bang and all other elements being produced from hydrogen in stars? I don't have a problem with that theory.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, so do you. I ask again, where did God come from? What raw materials did it use to fashion the universe? What was there first?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In my case they are based on largely on faith, because I'm not a scientist and I don't habve the know-how or resources to run around verifying everyone else's results. As far as I have actually experienced with my own senses the international scientific community could be one crazy guy in an office producing wierd-sounding theories at random and feeding them to the likes of me.
Equally, as far as I'm concerned there might be no such place as America, because I have never been there. However, I choose to believe that there is a place called America because, well, for the same reason you (presumably) accept that there is such a place as (insert name of place you've never been).
And so yes, my answers are based on faith, but it is faith that what I have said is based on scientific, provable facts.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not in 7 days, no. As much as anything else, I can't see that a God would bother doing it that way. Seems to me a far more elegant solution would be to kick off something like the Big bang and let it all unfold...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, quite frankly, that's your problem and not mine. If you could show me an undeniably genuine sticker on the underside of the universe with "God was here" written on it, then I would accept your viewpoint and be happy that a) eternal life is a reality after all and that b) God has a sense of humour. Until that happens, I just have to plod along with what can be proven. I have to say I would *like* to believe - it must be very comforting to believe in all that, but belief isn't something I can just switch on and off.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well it all comes down to your definition of fact, doesn't it? Let me put it this way: You say evolution can't be proved, and so it can't be taught as fact. I say it can be proved, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't make you right. Your theory is certyainly not more provable than evolution, so maybe we should be teaching all these little kids about Buddhism.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who cares? Just 'cause I don't like the truth, doesn't make it any less true. Like I say, it would be very nice to believe in a benevolent God and eternal life and all that jazz, but I'm not going to pick and choose my beliefs about truth according to which one is nicest.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sure there are some, but a lot of the above sounds too much like a conspiracy theory for my taste.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How widespread would religion be today if not for this one?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, we should use all the indated, proven, unquestionable and conclusive ones instead, and we do.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is this list about. AAre these items supposed to disprove evolution? I don't think they do.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. That kind of thing is for the family to teach. I don't think religion has any place in a school, except as something to be studied impartially.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, you are talking as though I can just start believing in God if you make it appealing enough. It doesn't matter how "frightening" or "risky" the truth is, it's still the truth and I can't change that. What's the point in beleiving anything else?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because a school is not a recruitment centre for your religion or any other. It should be neutral, to reflect the diverse beliefs of the children attending. Even as a kid I was an atheist but I was made to sing hymns and pray at school. Now that I am an adult, I realise how offensive that was. When i have kids I'm going to create merry hell at their school if they try anything like that. How would you feel if your kids came home from school quoting the Qu'ran and saying that Allah was the only true God? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That where we will have to agrre to differ. I don't think either side is likely to budge on this point.

[ December 11, 2002, 17:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IT IS A SIMULATION.
We are in a giant Optical Computer and it is all done with mirrors.
God is testing us, and he won't even show us the questions.

Mwahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!!!!!!

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God, by definition, is uncreated. I'm not saying that's scientific (i.e., proveable).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, it takes carefully controlled production to create only left-handed amino acids (the kind in living organisms). Equal distributions of left- and right-handed amino acids form in unconstrained production. Second, amino acids and organic molecules don't equal life, and it hasn't been shown that they will combine to form life once that's produced. Third, there's a vast difference between the conditions in a lab and in a storm-tossed primordial soup.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're telling me there's no organization in nature? Wouldn't random processes result in random results? Wouldn't an explosion like the Big Bang result in an equal distribution of matter across the universe?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the point of the question is whether survival is an individual or a species-wide instinct. Do organisms try to save themselves or save their kind?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And our blood chemistry is closest to that of a butter bean. So which one is a closer relative? Which people alive are most closely related to either bananas or beans? If all organisms have similar DNA, they might be related, or they just might have been created using an efficient design.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not necessarily? The question was could similar design mean common creator.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Natural selection keeps a species around the average or norm. How 1) did so much genetic variation survive? and 2) did we evolve extra chromosomes and genes?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was bitten by a sea horse when I was 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Those animals are examples of organisms which seem contrary to their environment. What sort of conditions would make them evolve like that (i.e., air-breathing but water-dwelling)?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because the things in each list require each other to function--they comprise an entire system. How did vital organs develop? If you need it and don't have it, you're dead--by definition. How did creatures get along with their digestive systems before they developed a resistance to digestive juices? Or if the resistance developed first, what was the trigger for that development?

For example, take the bombardier beetle. He combines two chemicals which instantly create a steaming jet he directs at his attackers. He has a third chemical to keep them from reacting inside his body, and a fourth chemical to counteract the third and allow the reaction. Which of the four chemicals (or the outlet, for that matter) evolved first? How did he survive before the entire system was developed?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They have to develop simultaneously, and even then, what would happen while they're developing? Why wouldn't the original creature develop something to fix its need instead of a secondary creature developing something to meet it?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They do notice it. They say things like, "We believe," "We think," "Maybe," "Our best guess is," etc. But they still teach that it's unquestionably proven.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Randomness and chance are flip sides of a coin. You can't separate them at will. Now you're sounding like EVOLUTION is some mysterious Force or Will or Prime Mover which directs events. Another God, maybe?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Compassion and mercy are weaknesses when the goal is survival. Why do ruthless dictators gain more power than men with scruples? Because they stop at nothing to advance over the competition. Evolution reduces life to a struggle to survive, where softness has no place with the winners.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, 50 years ago, they were "known" to be extinct, according to any scientist you would have asked.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Any proof? Any evidence of elements naturally changing to new elements? Or is it just another unproven theory?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, my worldview states a supernatural origin. Any God worth his salt would be able to create something from nothing--that's part of being God.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And my faith is based on an omnipotent God Who recorded what He did.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And now man is the expert on how God would think? Why would He do it that way if someone might come along and say it all happened by natural processes?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, there's only one definition of fact... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...Which is no more provable than either of these.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Religions spread by conVersion, not just teaching. Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the US?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, they're former proofs for evolution, all disproven or frauds, which still are taught in many textbooks.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not advocating teaching creation as fact, either. Let the kids see the evidence for both and then decide for themselves. That's the politically correct thing to do, isn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Was composing my post while you posted this. Guess we should take this to PM or email if it continues. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

How are the Twinkies? Whether 1 year or 10 years old, they're still great! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ December 11, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I read that to mean that the geological information was used to help calibrate the radiometric scale...
Just like using tree rings...
This tree was X years old when it died, and the radiometric result is Y.Z

So when you do send an object to a lab for dating, and the radiometric result is Y.Z, it is about X years old.

How radiocarbon calibration works
http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/01_04.htm
As I understand it:
- The red line is the measured value in the sample.
- The blue line is the measured values for objects from that point in history.
- The black area is the likelihood that the sample came from that year.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take some critters. The only difference is that one group protects their children and/or immediate family (not nessesarily the entire group, even, while the other is self-centered.

Predators pick off the wnadering children of the uncaring group, while they face the wrath of mature critters of the kind group.
Which one will do better after a few generations?

[ December 11, 2002, 19:31: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They're fine.

I am not trying to shut anybody down. In fact I had second thoughts about saying anything and deleted my Posts while you were quoting it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

If you guys want to keep talking about it I am not going to stop you. As long as everybody realizes they aren't likely to convince anyone in this forum and everything stays as cordial I guess I should just let it be.

It's hard for a moderator to know what to do sometimes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

wow. such a calm and intelligent discussion, im sure the Last thing anyone wants is my two bits.

not to belittle this or anything, but I think the entire arguement is fairly sophmoric:

Creationist: god created the universe on a bet once, when he was drunk.

Scientician: the universe always existed, and came into its current stage via big bang, flying monkeys, or some other popular theory.

C: thats plain silly, where did the stuff come from that the universe came from? god had to create it at some point. it cant have always been there.

S: why the hell not, or i dunno? so where did god come from?

C: he/she/it was always there, of course.

S: so the universe cant have always existed, but god can?

C: you just dont have any faith

S: ive got faith in the universe. its right here. look. (jumping up and down)

C: now thats just plain silly. how do you think you got that soul and free will to jump up and down like that?

S: I evolved from a slug

C: no, along with the platapus, you are one of god's little jokes.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

SJ, if only it were that simple. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The geologic column comes with its own preconceived dates for each strata. Would post links, but Google with "geologic column" would work best. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

I will grant that many people on either side of the debate can act illogical and immature, but the argument itself isn't what I would call sophomoric. It's one of the fundamental questions of our exsistence. What side of the debate you fall on influences almost every other factor of who you are as a human being.

Why are we here? Where did we come from? What does it all mean?

I for one have been delighted by the intelligent give and take, if a bit nervous waiting for the "other shoe" to drop and this thing to blow up on us. But hopefully that wont happen here.

I think that it's good for people of faith to see that people of science do believe in things, just not neccesarily the same things.
I think it's good for people of science to see that people of faith do think, just not neccsarily think the same things.

[ December 11, 2002, 19:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

touche. what you believe tends to govern how you act, what you do, and who you are. realizing and articulating what you believe is an important process, as is understanding the beliefs of others (and how those beliefs were formed) to better understand the people themselves.

this is a good read, and very elucidating. please do carry on.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do you get when you multiply six by nine?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">54? If only the other answers were that easy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

I'll bow out of -this- discussion before I do something stupid, put Last parting comment:

"Wouldn't random processes result in random results? Wouldn't an explosion like the Big Bang result in an equal distribution of matter across the universe?"

Random and equally distruted are two different things. Run the same process twice; if it's random, it could be equally spaced one time and clumped together the next. Or it could be the same both times, or..you get my point?

Also, you're neglecting gravity. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

EDIT: one more..
"My worldview is simple. God created the world in six days, the way the Bible records it. He made the world, He owns it, and He makes the rules. That pretty much sums it up. So there's the alternative."

I meant a testable world view. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Otherwise we'll have to bring up all the -other- creation stories.

Phoenix-D

[ December 11, 2002, 19:32: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do you get when you multiply six by nine?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">54? If only the other answers were that easy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry, the answer was 42. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

"Sorry, the answer was 42."

Only for THE Question, not for this question. 9x6 isn't 42. (Well, I suppose EVERYTHING is 42, but I disgress)

Phoenix-D

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The second google result there seems to be directly addressing the arguments brought up by the first.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

All viruses are snipits of information that use a host to reproduce itself.
We even have no-biological computer viruses.
Often viruses have side effects that are damaging to the host, or induce the host to act in ways detrimental to it's well being.

Can the human consciousness suffer from a thought viruses?

Would Philosophy, Ideology, Nationalism, and Religion fit the description?
---------------------------------------------
I'm going to burn in hell now!!!

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Isn't it true that whenever someone discovers the question, then the entire universe blows up and a new one is created? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Almost. Whenever both question and answer are known, then it blows up.
You can know one exclusive-or the other without harmul effects.

[ December 11, 2002, 20:04: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]