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

[Phoenix-D]

"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."

Phoenix-D

[capnq]

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

[PvK]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

...

quote:

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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?

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

[Krsqk]

"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.

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 ). 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).

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?"

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.

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.

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

"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."

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 ]

[Suicide Junkie]

C-14 dating (and every other form of radiometric 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.

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"

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.

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...

Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true.

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.

[Baron Munchausen]

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...

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.

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 ) 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 ]

[Taz-in-Space]

"Error: The host which you are attempting to reach was not responding at the time your signals arrived."

or perhaps: "Error: The host which you are attempting to reach will not be responding at the time your signals will arrive."