How Old is the World?

Turns out, they don’t just ask that of GOPers whom the Democrats have commanded the MSM to destroy – seems that our President was once upon a time asked the question.  From Instapundit:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.

Which is actually a pretty good answer – a bit better than Rubio’s which also wasn’t too bad.  Of course, we don’t know if President Obama has “evolved” on this issue or decided it was above his paygrade.  We’ll need a follow up question – which I’m sure the MSMers will ask at his next press conference in 2015 or so.

The proper answer is, of course, “as old as it is, I suppose” because no one really knows.  You see, the main trouble with pre-historic events is that they are, well, pre-historic.  What happened wasn’t written down in contemporary documents and so we can’t review the material and come to a conclusion about what happened.  We can make some surmises from what we can analyze in the here and now, but we can’t know how it all came about.  One of the troubles we have in studying the distant past is that there is so little evidence for us to go on – and so, all too often, the scientists studying it grasp on to whatever scrap of evidence they can find and run entirely too far with it (this is especially true of paleontologists and their tiny collection of bones).  So much of what happened in the past has entirely vanished – there are a lot of wild guesses about what our primitive ancestors did, for instance, but I find no real profit in looking in to the matter – we’ll never really know.  I’m just grateful that, apparently quite early on, one of them figured out how to make beer.

The fundamental problem with evolution as it is expressed these days it not in the concept that a positive thing called an ape slowly turned in to a positive thing called a man – that is something which no theology can have the slightest problem with.  The error comes in when a proponent of evolution insists that it was all blind, random chance – first off, the chances of it happening are so vastly small as to be nearly zero:  it is a greater miracle that we exist by blind chance than the miracle that we exist because the Word called us in to existence.  Secondly, if it was all blind chance then everything is merely the result of a prior cause; there is no free will and thus no actual thought…including the thought that we evolved.  You see, if all results are merely the blind working out of forces beyond anyone’s control (as they must be if there is no Creator) then there is no validity to the thought that we evolved by blind chance:  the random atoms in your brain just happened to be worked in to a position where your mind spits out the “it all evolved blindly” thought; but a slight alternation in the atoms a billion years ago and you’d have spit out the thought that we all grew out of a rock in the garden – and neither thought is worth commenting on because each are equally meaningless.   The thoroughgoing evolutionist cuts his own intellectual throat.

To me it is just plain as a pikestaff that God created the universe and ordered it towards a certain end.  I really don’t grasp how anyone can think differently – one thing happening can be ascribed to random chance but the tens of billions of things which must have happened to result in my typing on a computer in 2012 makes me highly suspicious that there is an Author to the play I am acting in.  I don’t know if this Author spoke everything in to existence in 6 days or if he decided to go about it through 6 billion years – and to me the whole debate is rather academic.  At the end of it all we are, indeed, here and have to do the things we must do.  The only thing which irks me in this debate is the insistence upon some that in our public life we subscribe to an asinine theory saying that there can be no God in the process of life.  That is just to shut down a massive area of intellectual inquiry – it is a closing of the mind and made doubly irritating because the people who are shutting their minds say they are doing it in the name of openness.

Advertisements

190 thoughts on “How Old is the World?

  1. pelirrojito November 22, 2012 / 2:57 am

    A common mistake that people who take your position make is that no one is saying “no god created the universe” (ok, athiests do, but thats because thats what they believe). They are saying “there is no scientific evidence that there is a god, if you can develop a testable hypothesis, test it, and write a paper on it, then do so.”. As a result, there is actually no “theory” on the origions of life, at least that I’m aware of. Although people have speculated on where it came from. Now the problem that most scientists (and engineers) do have with this issue is that some people want a god to be introduced into the science classroom. Once that problem has been resolved, then the entire debate should be over.

    As a sidenote. Heres a science question he did answer semi correctly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4RRi_ntQc8

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 11:51 am

      Pel,

      And the problem with modern science education is that it has banned God from the classroom: as I noted, it is a deliberate suppression of a massive line of inquiry. It is why we have scientists these days who are technically adept but still amazingly ignorant of some basic facts about humanity.

      • pelirrojito November 22, 2012 / 11:21 pm

        Again, no one wants to completely ban a god being from the classroom. But until there is a theory stating there is a god being then no, it has no place in the science classroom. If someone could develop a theory stating there was such a being, then it would be one of the most amazing discoveries ever and would generate a lot of excitment.

      • pelirrojito November 23, 2012 / 12:46 am

        I’m curious, what facts about humanity does a scientist need? (ignoring the soft sciences, which aren’t really science). A scientists job is to discover how the world and the universe work.

      • M. Noonan November 23, 2012 / 12:53 am

        Pel,

        It is an absolute requirement for a scientist to believe in God – because if there isn’t a Will which can create a cause-less act then there can be no science. Period. Properly educated scientists – ie, those who have studied philosophy and, even better, theology – understand this.

      • pelirrojito November 23, 2012 / 1:41 am

        A couple of questions (and yes, I am actually interested in your opinion, not trying to troll ;))

        1) How would a belief in god actually help with science?
        2) why would training in philosophy help? Logic of course (which should be taught in maths, which is another topic altogether which I have strong opinions on)
        3) How would the combination of these two have helped us discover the higgs boson and discover the age of the earth?
        4) For future advancements, how would a combiation of 1 & 2 help us build colonies on mars, send a telescope to another star, and someday find a way to develop fusion technology?

      • ricorun November 23, 2012 / 3:34 pm

        Mark: It is an absolute requirement for a scientist to believe in God – because if there isn’t a Will which can create a cause-less act then there can be no science. Period.

        If it was an absolute requirement for a scientist (or anyone else) to believe in God, then there would be no free will. Period.

      • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 3:39 pm

        reek-O
        I think marks point flew over the coco’s nest.

      • M. Noonan November 23, 2012 / 7:15 pm

        Pel,

        Because a belief in God – more specifically, the Judeo-Christian understanding of God – asserts positively that the will is free. If we don’t have such a God then we don’t have free will and thus all we’re doing is going through the motions…the greatest of all scientific discoveries become nothing more than the sequel of a previous event which was nothing more than a cosmic accident. You can’t determine if something is true or false – in other words, you can’t practice the scientific method – if there isn’t a free will because if there isn’t then nothing is true or false.

        Think of it like this – the Greeks were as smart as any people, ever. In the works of Aristotle we have a magnificent expression of human thought which in 24 centuries has only been exceeded by the expression of human thought contained in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas (who, among other things, reconciled the incomplete conclusions of Aristotle with the truths revealed by Christianity). Aristotle might be considered the cream of the crop, but it was a large crop. And yet the Greeks never even managed to make something as mundane as a practical steam engine even though they discerned, from observation, the power of steam. The Chinese, too, were very clever people who invented quite a lot of “modern” things; and the Hindus had to have some smarts as they invented our numeric system (they are called “Arabic numerals” because Christians learned them from Arabs and didn’t know at the time that the Hindus made them, or even that Hindus existed). But it was only the Christian West that practical science advanced – because the Christian West was rationalist and used logic and developed the scientific method…and this is because, even more so than the Jews, the Christians of the West were firm in holding to free will and that what is true could be discovered by human investigation (there is an aspect, of course, of faith – but the faith was in a revealed God who is Truth and who ordered the universe in a rational way towards a specific goal…once you’ve got that article of faith you can do all sorts of things from making a steam engine to finding a cure for polio).

        The Higgs Boson was just one in a long line of achievements in the West which resulted from the West’s adherence to free will and absolute truth. Only so long as we hold to the Christian conception of the universe will we continue to advance. It is already drying up as the West becomes increasingly un-Christian (and, also, specifically hostile to Christianity and especially its faith in reason). You might think that you’re still living in a rapidly advancing world but you’re not – for the past 50 years we’ve done little more than refine our gadgets.

        Mark Steyn in his recent book After America came up with a rather effective way of describing this. Just take a person from 1910 and bring him to 1960 and he’d be astounded at the change of airplanes from fragile, fabric-covered contraptions to super-sonic jets; astounded that automobiles had gone from unreliable toys of the super-rich to the highly reliable common-place of the average person; astounded that the record player had changed from an expensive luxury to something everyone had; he would have been entirely surprised by television; astounded not only that everyone had a phone but that such phones could instantly connect a person from coast to coast; that we were launching satellites in to orbit which promised to make communications even faster…now, jump that person from 1960 to 2010 and what has changed? We’ve got computers and I-phones and nothing much else that is new…and all the computers and I-gadgets do is speed up processes which used to be done by other means. Science is dying because the scientist does not learn philosophy and theology – he isn’t instructed in truth and often doesn’t even suspect that it exists, so he spins his wheels in ever smaller groves…stuck in ruts which were laid down a century ago by scientists who did know truth and never imagined a time when it would be unknown.

        If you truly want to travel to Mars one day then you’d better work on bringing God back in to the science classroom – it is the only way you’re going to arrest the rot and allow a resumption of the search for what is true.

      • M. Noonan November 23, 2012 / 7:17 pm

        Ricorun,

        That is a nonsensical statement – whether or not to believe in God is an act of free will. It is just that once you exercise your will to not believe in God you can’t rationally believe that you have any will for further action.

      • pelirrojito November 23, 2012 / 10:16 pm

        Free will doesn’t actually matter. If its all an illusion then what difference does it make? We think and feel that we have free will, so that’s sufficient.

        A major problem with your thought pattern is that all of these ideas were incremental and most didn’t do it for “science”. The Greeks used geometry to teach logic (and got very upset when they discovered irrational numbers). The Arabs developed a lot of what we use in maths today. IE algebra, algorithms, bit of number theory, and i believe algebraic geometry (not sure). The Egyptians used geometry but never developed logic. The only reason the “christian” west made the most impressive (from a layman’s point of view) advances is that they happened to do those particular things.

        As for who actually applied maths (not a science, but that’s another debate) to science and engineering to develop something. You might be shocked to learn many were atheists. A big one, who you can thank for having a computer, was Alan Turing. invented whats now known as the Turing machine (and later applied the idea to make the first computer). Laplace did a lot of work, very famous. Einstein who funny enough let “faith” get in the way of reality (he refused to believe black holes could exist). Stephan hawking developed some of the most amazing ideas which were later accepted as theories.

        Science has been advancing from the 1960s to today, and fairly impressively. The main thing slowing it down though is actually funding. You’re also mistaking science with engineering, creating something like a computer is engineering not science. Since 1960 we have discovered dark matter, created anti matter, discovered 77 planets in the last few years, developed tiny quantum computers, 1953 first we built the first transistor computer. Many of these things don’t impact our daily lives and thus it looks like science isn’t making progress, but it is. And if someone could prove P = NP we’d make massive gains very quickly. It may surprise you, but one of our major problems right now is our concept of computation. And we’re getting quite close to creating new forms of computing. One of the more interesting being DNA based computers. Another reason why it appears to laymen that we aren’t making gains is that research tends to be so complex nowadays that each paper is only a tiny tiny step towards a larger problem.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 23, 2012 / 11:49 pm

        “If we don’t have such a God then we don’t have free will”

        What an utterly absurd thing to say. You clearly swallow religious dogma hook, line, and sinker with nary a thought given to it and that is unfortunate–and it leads to unfortunate statements like the quote above.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 1:47 am

        Pel,

        You’re confusing refinements of existing things with developments of new things – automobiles didn’t exist 150 years ago. Neither did airplanes. Or telephones. Or motion pictures. Or television. Or sound recording. What is a computer? A combination phone, television, telex and typewriter – highly convenient to have them all in one place and very user-friendly, but we’re not doing anything new when we use one. But even if we want to grant that computers are something new in the last 50 years it still doesn’t begin to hold a candle to what was developed new in the 50 years previous to 1960, or the 100 years previous to that.

        Alan Turig was an atheist, you say? Ok, fine – but he was born in 1912 and died in 1954 – his work was done pre-1960 and his education, while being done at a time when Christianity was fading from the universities (which had, however, been created by the Church) still was suffused with the rationalist thought of Christian theology. And Doctoral Adviser? Alonzo Church, a life long and devout Presbyterian. I am absolutely certain, given the sort of education Turig would have had, that he was firmly grounded in theology and philosophy along with his mathematics; he probably learned a bit of Latin and Greek, as well.

        Science, as we know it, was developed by Christians – had it not been for people like Roger Bacon (a Franciscan Friar) and St. Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican Priest) there never would have been a scientific method – while neither men were what we would call an experimental scientists, it was they (along with many others in the sublime intellectual revival of the 13th century) who insisted that we should study things as they are and only draw conclusions about the natural world from things we could see, touch and measure. Further to that there are numerous major contributors to modern science who were not just Christians (yes, even Gallileo remained Christian all his life) but who were priests, nuns and monks – in other words, people who were convinced of such unprovable things as the Trinity and the Incarnation who spent their lives advancing the factual knowledge we have of the world in such areas as astronomy, mathematics, physics, biology, genetics, aeronautics, electricity, mineralogy, cartography, anatomy…heck, the first person to work out a Big Bang theory for the start of the universe was a Catholic priest.

        The first thing to do is to entirely stay away from any conception that to be religious means to seek simply answers to complex questions or to believe that religious people are obscuritanist. It is true that some of our Evangelical brothers and sisters haven’t thought the matter all the way through and so get themselves tangled up in a “young Earth” theory, but the common run of Christians is to question and explore and to find the truth.

    • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 12:01 pm

      perryJello

      Now the problem that most scientists (and engineers) do have with this issue is that some people want a god to be introduced into the science classroom. Once that problem has been resolved, then the entire debate should be over.

      ————————————————————————————-
      REALLY??????

      WHAT engineers? WHO are they?
      WHAT scientists? WHO are they?

      SOME people…..
      WHAT people? WHO are they?

      WHAT problem? and WHAT is resolved???

      then the debate is over….LIKE AGW?

      what total BS!!

  2. Norma Stitz November 22, 2012 / 4:49 am

    I don’t think any credible scientist ever stating knowing the origin of everything. Frankly, isn’t evolution a very sophisticated means for God to run the Universe? Couldn’t evolution BE that Intelligent Designer we believe in?

    What a genius the Creator truly is. Evolution is evidence of His being, it is his means to create Mankind and all the Universe’s creatures, large and small..

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 11:52 am

      Norma,

      My point on that particular subject is that what we see is clear evidence of design and thus of a Designer. It is patently absurd to think that there isn’t a God at the back of it all – it is the only hypotheses which covers all the known facts. Furthermore, the accumulation of facts over the past few centuries has just made it ever more obvious that God created the universe – so, all we’ve done in the intellectual sphere is provide ever more confirmation for things which St Thomas Aquinas was discussing 800 years ago.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 23, 2012 / 11:51 pm

        “what we see is clear evidence of design and thus of a Designer.”

        False. Please present scientific evidence of this.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 1:50 am

        That you exist. Q. E. D.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 2:16 pm

        That is not scientific evidence of a designer. Please try again. And please don’t use “Q.E.D” when you don’t know what it means.

  3. Cluster November 22, 2012 / 9:51 am

    Obviously Obama is not fit to be President. These comments just prove it, and I am sure Mitch, Watson and James will abandon their support immediately.

    • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 1:10 pm

      You’re right. I’m going to join up with those Tea Party folks who are trying to overturn the election. This just can’t stand!

    • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 1:33 pm

      waspstooge

      is dat U?

      What Should America’s Children Be Taught About Thanksgiving? These People’s Answers Might Shock You

      “Well, our nation was founded on slavery, genocide, murder, theft and mass injustice and it continues to this day.”

  4. Amazona November 22, 2012 / 10:00 am

    And there is no scientific evidence that there is not a god. Therefore, the question is a mystery.

    From an excellent explanation on http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

    “Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. As Jonathan Wells wrote, “ID … asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.” Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are “inexplicable on the theory of creation” but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.

    The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: design detection). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily “proving” actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparent design, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.

    In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

    Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.”

    • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 22, 2012 / 2:14 pm

      “And there is no scientific evidence that there is not a god.”

      And there is no scientific evidence that there are not minotaurs, unicorns, leprechauns, sirens, griffins, and krakens.

      You might want to stop reading the national joke that is Conservapedia and learn how the scientific method actually works.

      • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 2:22 pm

        thetruthwillamazeyou

        and learn how the scientific method actually works.

        Tell us….
        then DISPROVE God with that very scientific method…..M Kay?

      • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 2:30 pm

        truffee

        Science means “to know” and “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.” It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don’t “know.” Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

        World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.”

        http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 1:41 am

        What’s the matter, bubble boy——jealous of mitche’s stranglehold on the Insanity Trophy of the blog?

        I doubt that you read the article. I know you did not address anything in it, or even my own statement that there is no scientific evidence that there is not a god.

        A simpering little effort at snide is hardly a response.

        You are passionate about your belief system. But what I think what gets you going is not any belief in any theory, but the fact that the theory of Intelligent Design is associated with conservatives, and therefore must be mocked, attacked and ridiculed.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 23, 2012 / 1:16 pm

        “or even my own statement that there is no scientific evidence that there is not a god”

        Oh, but I did. I pointed out that there is no scientific evidence that there are not minotaurs, unicorns, leprechauns, sirens, griffins, and krakens, so by your logic, we should consider all those things to be real. Or you could consider that you really don’t know how the scientific method works and are just offering up thought-free talking points.

        As for intelligent design, it is also lacking in actual, scientific evidence. All it has is the fervent desire of a mostly scientifically ignorant crowd for it to be true, but every single time ID proponents have been asked to present their evidence–not their criticisms of evolution (criticisms that are frequently wrong, by the way), not their understanding of the Bible, but actual scientific evidence–they fail to do so. And yet they demand that their unsupported hypothesis be considered in the same class as a theory that more than a century of scientific examination has only bolstered, not weakened. They’re trying to impose the view from inside the bubble upon reality outside the bubble; as you saw this past election, that doesn’t work out so well.

  5. Retired Spook November 22, 2012 / 10:43 am

    Bottom line; the question to Rubio was just one of many gotcha questions he’ll get over the next few years if he continues to be seen as a potential presidential candidate. He needs to study and memorize the way Obama has answered similar questions, and simply say that, on questions like this one, he agrees with the President’s position. He also ought to get very good at answering really stupid questions with a question; ie. why would you ask such a question? How is that relevant to anything we’re discussing?

    BTW, you don’t even have to examine living organisms at the genetic level to see evidence of intelligent design. Just look at a flower under a standard lab microscope. It takes much less faith to see the work of a master designer than to believe that it just came about through a random process. The people who are operating almost purely on faith, IMO, are the ones who believe that it all came about as the result of an explosion inanimate matter.

    • Retired Spook November 22, 2012 / 11:41 am

      Mitch,

      The Forbes article makes some excellent points, but, given that Obama’s answer in 2008 was very similar to Rubio’s, doesn’t it reflect just as badly on the President understanding of science?

      • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 11:50 am

        Hell the “scientists” cant even tell the date of a woven shroud……let alone the age of the Earth or the universe……”SCIENCE” my AZZ

        hey LONGfellow Bmitch how did a one cell life form originate?
        then turn into a T-Rex please provide one of your stellar links.

        The PALINIZATION of Rubio has begun.

      • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 10:39 am

        perrywinkle

        The shroud was in a fire , carbon dating is skewed in the first place and forgetabout after carbon was introduced by a smokey (carbon) fire.

        experts

        The experiment *******suggests ********** NOT PROVES = NOT SCIENCE.

        still didnt answer where the FIRST SINGLE cell “LIFE” began and HOW it evolved into a T-Rex

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 11:33 am

        It is so thoughtful of you guys to keep linking to sites that prove us right. Really, guys, it’s not even Christmas yet and you’re already being so generous!

        From your Science News link:

        “NORMAN, Okla. — Since humanity missed the big moment the first time around, biologists trying to understand the origins of complex life have coaxed single-celled microbes to evolve into multicellular forms capable of reproduction.

        Common lab yeast normally live as single cells that bud off single-celled offspring. But challenging generations of yeast with conditions that make solo life tough led to spiky multicelled yeast forms within about two months, said Will Ratcliff of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. The experiment suggests going multicellular may happen more readily than previously thought, he told the Evolution 2011 conference June 18.

        “It was certainly the buzz of the conference,” said Lee Dugatkin of the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

        Evolutionary biologists rank the shift from one to many cells as one of the major transitions in the history of life. “To be able to examine it experimentally, in real time, in the lab, is extremely exciting,” Dugatkin said.

        To provoke evolution in a test tube, Ratcliff and his colleagues put liquid suspensions of yeast cells through a daily ordeal. Every tube of cells got a mild centrifuge spin. Then the researchers saved a fraction of the sludgier part of each tube and — life is hard — tossed the rest. That regimen ensured that any change in the yeast that happened to encourage settling — such as a shift toward heavier bodies made of multiple cells — promoted survival.

        Under these conditions, yeast lineages that retained budding daughter cells rather than splitting them off were more likely to make it through each daily decimation. Those buds in turn retained their own buds, creating bristly multicellular organisms the researchers call yeast snowflakes.

        These snowflakes reproduced by fracturing into smaller pieces that eventually grew and fractured themselves.The researchers even saw hints of a reproductive division of labor, Ratcliff said. A scattering of snowflake cells undergo cell death, or apoptosis, and the resulting weak spots appear to serve as fault lines where babies flake off.

        To see if yeast snowflakes evolve the way true multicelled creatures do, the researchers created another version of the settle-fast-or-else challenge that they varied in severity. Snowflake lineages receiving the harshest treatment responded dramatically, becoming twice as large as their ancestor snowflakes; lineages under gentler treatment changed less. That means that the yeast snowflakes respond to evolutionary pressure as whole, multicellular organisms, Ratcliff said.”

        You see, though the yeast cells did develop into multicelled organisms, sometimes, they were still yeast cells.

        And—and this obviously went right over your head—-THEY STARTED WITH YEAST CELLS.

        They did not bombard granite dust with radiation to create a cell which they were then able to encourage to mutate into a multiple cell organism. No, they STARTED with a life form and then proved it could be modified.

        “Evolutionary biologists rank the shift from one to many cells as one of the major transitions in the history of life.”

        Yep. ONE OF. But I think we can all agree that all of them depend on the first, which would be the transformation of inert matter into a life form capable of reproducing ITSELF.

        This is the big “transition” that is at this point mere speculation.

        Then there would be the shift from a single cell to multiple cells, and then, shazaam, we have sharks and elephants and people inventing computers—-all coming from that single cell that was sparked into life by some cosmic accident.

        And that takes me back to where I always end up—-what was the origin of the matter that was sparked into life by the cosmic accident? There has to be a scientific explanation for the source of that speck of dust, or whatever it was.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 12:48 am

        Excellent question. And its a question that scientists are trying to answer. But at some point we do have to assume “something has always existed”. The real problem with this argument with creationists is that they start by saying “well everything has to be created” to which the other will respond “then what created your god?” to which they will reply “he had no creator”. They’ve just contradicted themselves. Assuming the big crunch does happen, then the universe has no beginning, or end. Think of a sine wave. It has no beginning or end, but it has maximum and minimum points. But still the function is defined for all real numbers.

      • Amazona November 25, 2012 / 12:53 am

        The entire concept of God is one of infinity, of a spiritual entity which always was and always will be.

        But people who do not believe in God seem to have no problem in claiming an infinity of matter, a state of being in which inert matter simply IS and always was, without a beginning.

        So people of faith believe in a spiritual entity which always was and always will be, with no beginning and no end, and people who deny this spiritual entity believe in some form of physical matter which always was, without any beginning or origin.

        The basic underlying concept of evolution of all life from a random spark of primitive life in previously inert matter versus guided evolution within species created by a Master Creator has nothing to do with science and is really a matter of faith in the infinite existence, without beginning, of SOMETHING, and the only difference is what “something”.

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 11:49 am

      Going on 40 year old memories here I seem to recall that as a kid the world was thought to be only a couple billion years old – not the 5 or 6 billion now thought and yet somehow we still managed to build nuclear power plants even though we didn’t know this – to the author – vital fact.

      Its a nonsense argument – a silly idea that if you don’t subscribe to the latest, transitory theory of the age of the universe then you are incapable of doing anything.

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 1:36 am

      mitche’s absolute certainty seems to extend beyond his usual insanity. Perhaps being a son of Zeus conveys this sense of knowing everything about everything.

      I respect Rubio for not getting sucked into a gotcha.

      And I agree, the Palinization of Rubio has begun. How do we know who is most feared by the RRL? We just have to look at who they target for their smear campaigns.

  6. dbschmidt November 22, 2012 / 2:53 pm

    Of course everyone here knows that the Vatican has been leading in scientific studies for years (as in hundreds of)–right? There is no real disagreement with secular science and the Creator except the suppression of the teachings in the public square and schools.

    The Vatican Palace, as a Scientific Institute
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15286a.htm

    Just a quick search reveals more…

  7. Retired Spook November 22, 2012 / 3:29 pm

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone. We’re off the my sister-in-law’s to eat too much. Thanks be to God for all our blessings.

    • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 4:16 pm

      Happy Thanksgiving to all also.

      Spook
      80 degrees, clear sky, light breeze, football on porch, family food & beer…Life is good.

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 1:32 am

      I hope you all had as nice a Thanksgiving as I had. Just enough people, just enough of too much food, good company, lots of stories and laughter, family—a great day.

      And there’s pumpkin pie for breakfast!!

      • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 10:41 am

        And there’s pumpkin pie for breakfast!!

        Having mine as I type……….Cool Whip mandatory!!

  8. mitchethekid November 22, 2012 / 7:44 pm

    Happy Thanksgiving all and there is always much to be thankful for.
    With that said, this debate is pointless. Science progresses, faith does not. God is an idea of man, and there is no way to either prove nor disprove the opposite.The bible is not literally true and it is not possible to determine the age of the universe by reading a book originally written in an ancient language that no longer exists that was taken from stories that were passed down orally. Creation myths are just that. Myths. They provide explanations for the unknown. It is human nature to try to find logic and consistency, a beginning, a middle and an end so to speak, but to interject the concept of a supreme being into a discussion about the scientific measurement of the age of the planet as explanatory evidence is absurd. It is also disrespectful to state that anyone who doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of the bible is somehow deluded. The universe is filled with paradoxes and from a particular vantage point, it might seem improbable that life arouse by chance. But it is within the realm of possibility and if it is possible, then the odds of it being true increase. Creationism is not science. It is faith based and as such, it is religion and has no business being taught as an alternative to biology in a biology class. The more appropriate forum is in a comparative religion or philosophy class. I would not want to be involved with a doctor who thinks that toads cause warts or that flies come from decaying meat. I want a doctor who understands that biologic evolution is a fact. His or her own beliefs about their personal faith is irrelevant and none of my business. As far as disparaging the fossil record, or being unable to determine much from the ancient past because it wasn’t written down, and because it wasn’t the evidence is unreliable, have you ever heard of forensics? That’s how it works and there is ample evidence in the fossil record. Try investigating Stephen Jay Gould sometime and his treatise on the Cambrian explosion. It has been my experience that people who are skeptical of science are so because it is a challenge to their faith. The irony is, it doesn’t have to be. That’s why i have always been enamored with mysticism and Zen. For example, when the Buddha says that reality is an illusion, on a quantum level, that is literally true. Particles that have no mass do not exist in the everyday understanding of the concept of existence and the undertaking of the proffer of the unified field theory will unlock unlimited resources of energy which will solve a myriad of human problems. (The unified field theory attempts to mathematically “unify” the 4 “known” {as far as we now “know”] forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. When this is finally equated, we will then have the capacity to produce cold nuclear fusion. Sort of like the Mr. Atomic Reactor at the end of Back to the Future. Getting the energy that exists in a glass of water to power a city like NY for a year.
    Anyway, I’ve digressed. I think Obama was being a cautious politician when he made his comment. I think Rubio was being the same but was erring on the side of prematurely pandering to the religious who find causality in an ancient book written by men and who; on that basis, attempt to align the bible with empiricism.

    • M. Noonan November 23, 2012 / 12:58 am

      Mitch,

      It is a long comment and it has quite a lot wrong with it – but I’ll just tackle the easiest error: your assertion that anyone wants Creationism to replace biology. That is laughably false – the whole point of the debate, the reason we have an argument, is because a certain, tiny subsection of people – who happen to have gained control of the “commanding heights” of our higher education – are asserting that God only belongs in the philosophy and theology departments. Our assertion is that nothing in scientific truth can contradict God and thus we want to re-introduce science to philosophy and theology so that those who investigate scientific matters will have the education required to get it right.

      You really should look in to the matter a little further – I suggest Uncommon Dissent as a starting point; or you can try From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 23, 2012 / 1:20 pm

        “Our assertion is that nothing in scientific truth can contradict God”

        And that assertion is so naive as to be embarrassing, not to mention a ham-fisted attempt to force reality to conform to your religious beliefs even when reality refuses to do so (as it frequently does). It may work inside the bubble where everybody will just agree to go along with it, but out here in the real world, it fails.

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 2:55 pm

        Bubble boy, why don’t you try something radically different from your usual posts, and post something besides personal attacks and insults?

        This whole post is nothing but you wallowing in your spite and malice, and contributes nothing but more mental sewage, which of course is plentiful enough when you and mitche get cranked up.

        Since you can’t rebut the statement “Our assertion is that nothing in scientific truth can contradict God” then why do you feel compelled to sneer at and insult those who agree that it is true?

        If there is something in “scientific truth” that contradicts the existence of God, why don’t you share it with us? Speak up, bubbles, and tell us just which scientific experiments, proofs, evidence, prove that there is no God.

        Admit it—you would if you could, but you can’t so you won’t. (I am channeling Dr. Seuss today….) All you can do is try to insult people who understand this.

        As for proofs of the nonexistence of unicorns, leprechauns, etc—–hope springs eternal. The kraken is probably based upon the recently discovered reality of really REALLY giant squid. How can someone who believes that wildly divergent species came from the same spark of life generated by a random collision of particles deny the existence of minotaurs and griffins? After all, all they represent is the simultaneous coexistence of different species in one body, instead of the sequential “evolution” of one species into another. As for leprechauns, how else can you explain George Stephanopoulos?

        I’ll give you the sirens, though I found the examples in “Oh Brother Where Art Thou” pretty compelling.

      • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 3:09 pm

        “Bubble boy, why don’t you try something radically different from your usual posts, and post something besides personal attacks and insults?”

        Ama, that is what Monty, bodie, jeffy, (whatever other aliases he has had) does best.

        He can change his name, but not his writing style or behavior.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 12:01 am

        It clearly upsets you to be told that you’re wrong, Amazona, but you’re wrong, Amazona, and you’re going to have to learn to deal with that.

        As for science that contradicts God, well:
        *Snakes cannot speak in human language
        *Neither can burning bushes
        *Snakes do not turn into rods, and vice-versa
        *The entire world was never flooded by a giant rainstorm
        *Noah’s ark is physically impossible

        That’s just off the top of my head. Now, if you want to admit that the Bible is not “the revealed word of God, then we’d be getting somewhere.

        But it’s nice of you to admit that you believe in griffins, minotaurs, leprechauns, etc.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 12:25 am

        Oh, Bubble Boy, you poor sad humorless little critter you. I had a feeling you would take my comments on leprechauns, etc. seriously, being a typical humor-deficient Lefty who can only find the sour spewings of such as Bill Maher “funny”.

        “But it’s nice of you to admit that you believe in griffins, minotaurs, leprechauns, etc.” is about as succinct example of the odd combination of cluelessness and lying as I have ever seen. Clearly the fact that I never said I believe in those things doesn’t impede your need to claim I did. I doubt that you truly took the comment “As for leprechauns, how else can you explain George Stephanopoulos?” to actually mean I believe in leprechauns, which only leaves us with that old Bubble Boy standby, the blatant lie.

        Surely someone with your personality and your pathology should be quite used to having people make fun of you.

        As I have never, ever, referred to the Bible to support a single thing I have said, you are lying again if you are trying to claim I have, which seems to be the point of your silly challenge to me to deny something I never said in the first place.

        By the way, your silly effort to dismiss all faith in God with your examples is really a primitive and simple minded tactic, particularly as you seem to be making some of this up. I remember that God appeared on or above a burning bush, and spoke to those gathered there, not that the BUSH spoke. As for snakes not being able to speak in human tongues, I would not dismiss that possibility out of hand—we have seen a weasel do so every time Harry Reid opens his mouth, which seems to leave open the possibility of a chat with a snake as well.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 2:20 pm

        You don’t believe in griffins, minotaurs, leprechauns, etc., but you admit that they have the exact same proof of existence as God does: “There’s no proof that they don’t exist. At least I have gotten you to illustrate the flaw of your thinking; I just don’t know if I’ve gotten you to understand it. You seem so intent on hiding out in the bubble and deflecting all truth with snippiness and outright avoidance that you may never really understand it.

        “Apes read philosophy, Otto. They just don’t understand it.”

      • Amazona November 25, 2012 / 1:06 am

        Bubbles, I repeat—-it is impossible to believe that anyone with your personality does not have a lifetime of people making fun of you, yet you seem quite oblivious to it when it happens.

        I feel bad for you, I really do. It must be hell to be you, so helpless in the face of your uncontrollable obsessive fixations, and I’m sure you’ve spent a lifetime being the butt of jokes and ridicule. It’s like this bizarre fixation you seem to have with your “bubble” concept. I have tried a lighthearted approach to your odd pathology but even a little gentle teasing seems to go right over your head.

        I am starting to understand how desperate you are to find, or invent, something upon which to build an argument, but you really need to stop pretending that I have ever made a serious statement about anything as silly as your litany of leprechauns, minotaurs, etc. I see now that you find this all quite serious and significant, but honestly, Bubbles, I was just teasing you, and you really need to get a grip and work on recognizing when someone is putting you on. Taking things like this literally just makes you look really, well, unbalanced.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 25, 2012 / 3:46 am

        Enough. This is not the first time you have been warned about using the blog just to attack people. You have been repeating yourself for several posts and have done nothing but insult and attack. This is a pattern with you and will get this name removed from the blog just as your others have been. //Moderator

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 2:17 am

      And it appears that mitche, in a desperate attempt to make this discussion into something it is not, is purposely distorting facts.

      I do not know of anyone who disputes “biologic evolution”. So yammering on about fossils is nothing more than an effort to imply that people who believe in Intelligent Design, and people who are open to the idea of Intelligent Design, deny the evidence of evolution shown by fossils.

      “It has been my experience that people who are skeptical of science are so because it is a challenge to their faith. ”

      Yeah, but your experience is hardly compelling, and besides, the entire statement is based on a falsehood—that anyone is “skeptical of science”. No, it is more than simply a falsehood. It is a bold and blatant, out and out, lie.Being skeptical of an unproven theory is hardly the same as the sweeping generalization that this is exactly the same thing as being skeptical of science in general.

      When an argument has to be based upon a lie, it’s a good indication not only that the argument is weak but that the liar knows it is weak and will do anything to try to strengthen it. And what we see from people like you is dismissal of people willing to accept Intelligent Design by falsely claiming that such a belief is proof of denial of science, or even being “skeptical of science” when in fact it is nothing more than either rejecting a single theory or questioning this theory.

      What is a denial of science is having such a closed mind that one cannot even admit to the possibility of an alternate theory, particularly when this refusal is based on a knee-jerk antipathy to a group of people you associate with the alternate theory. Bigotry is not science.

      • pelirrojito November 23, 2012 / 3:05 am

        Once again, you do not understand the word theory. There is no “unproven” theory. In science the word theory is not taken lightly, and is only assigned once it has been proven. There are no competing theories to evolution, simply because it has been proven (and thus anything which contradicts it, without disproving evolution, is false. its like claiming a = b and a = c but b != c).

        Inteligent design (aka creationism) is not a theory, simply because it does not fulfill the definition of a theory. As I said earlier, those who want such a theory to exist are free to develop such an idea, develop tests to prove it, then prove it, then use it to predict something, then write a paper (or 1000) on it, publish them, and then call it a theory. Until then, I’m sorry but there is no such thing as “the theory of inteligent design”.

      • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 8:58 am

        Ama, you get the better of mitchie (again) and he resorts to his predictable and repetitive ways.

        Of course, when either of us comes to a hair fraction of what he does, the whining begins.

        Mitchie, you have been outclassed and have your illogical and silly arguments shot down again. Keep up the childish antics, they are truly entertaining.

      • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 10:47 am

        Ama

        Yeah, but your experience is hardly compelling, and besides, the entire statement is based on a falsehood—that anyone is “skeptical of science”. No, it is more than simply a falsehood. It is a bold and blatant, out and out, lie.Being skeptical of an unproven theory is hardly the same as the sweeping generalization that this is exactly the same thing as being skeptical of science in general.

        Im a FIRM believer in GOD, However my whole career and business are based in science and laws. The two are not mutually
        exclusive as bmitch LONGfellow seems to believe.
        Typical leftist non thinking bigotry which they accuse us of while living off it.

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 10:49 am

        tired. as hard as mitche and the redhead try to posture as coming from a position of scientific objectivity, what always comes through is their blind hatred of anything that is even remotely associated with a belief in a Higher Power.

        They are clearly quite threatened, mitche in particular, with the idea that life has meaning—-that it does not stem from a random accidental collision of particles that evolved from a single cell organism into the multiples of widely varying species we have now and have had in the past.

        I think this is because to admit to a pattern of design would be to admit to the possibility that life does have a greater meaning than the here and now and that after the death of this body there is something more than the great void mitche talks about.

        I don’t understand the need to deny even the possibility of a Higher Power, that life may have some meaning beyond the physical life span of any individual. I don’t understand the attraction of seeing life as an accident at the beginning and nothingness at the end.

        But the denial of a Creator-based origin of life and the subsequent inevitably related belief that therefore life is not random but does have a greater meaning, is in and of itself a belief system. And arguing for or against any belief system is usually futile. One has to arrive at a point where moving from one belief system to another is a natural progression for that person.

        What I do see in the random-accident view of life is the same dynamic we see in politics, on the Left—-that is, absolutism on their side coupled with the determination to silence any opposing point of view. This has always telegraphed to me at least a subconscious understanding that exposure to the opposing point of view poses a great danger to their own, so the opposing point of view must be shut down, and also dismissed by ridicule and personal attacks on the intelligence of those who accept it.

        So we have the strident opposition to teaching even the POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design in schools, and we have all religion denigrated as superstitious nonsense for the weak, and we have the effort to trivialize a legitimate comment such as the inability to prove that God does NOT exist by a silly comment about unicorns, etc.

        It is the same playbook, just applied to a different topic.

        But stepping back and getting a broader view, it becomes clear that it is not a different topic after all, but simply a different approach to the secularization of the nation and the excising of God from every aspect of our society, which is and always has been a basic tenet of the Left.

        It was once said “all roads lead to Rome”. We can see in our own experience that all paths of the Left lead to the denial of God. One approach is to try use the Constitution they do not believe in to halt any reference to God in the public arena—no prayer in schools, no mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, no roadside crosses to mark sites where people have died, etc. One approach is to set up the false dichotomy of religion vs science, to try to portray people of faith as deniers of science.

        It’s the Same Old Same Old, just wearing a different hat.

      • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 11:42 am

        perryjello

        pelirrojito November 23, 2012 at 3:05 am #

        Once again, you do not understand the word theory. There is no “unproven” theory. In science the word theory is not taken lightly, and is only assigned once it has been proven.

        REALLY?

        Timeline of cosmological theories

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 12:52 am

        Amazona, I have stated about 5 times that it would be great if someone could provide evidence and later develop a theory on a “higher being”. I have no hatred of the idea. It would be very interesting if such a thing existed. Sadly currently there is no evidence of such a being. If you can point to something that I’ve said where i have shown “blind hatred” of such an idea please show me.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 11:02 am

        Red, I see you are now playing semantic games as well as arguing against the inarguable.

        It clearly meets your needs to define Intelligent Design as “creationism” though the second term more accurately reflects the idea of creation of the earth and all upon it in seven days as we know them and the resulting age of the earth to be just a few thousand years old, an idea held by very very few and not part of this discussion.

        Intelligent Design, or guided evolution, is quite different, though both do begin with a Creator who created the original form of each species.

        Many people who are not religious in the usual sense of the term also believe in Intelligent Design or guided evolution, simply because nothing else explains the things we are trying to understand.

        I see you also fretting about the use of the word “theory”, trying to restrict it only to the most rigid scientific form, but the problem with this is that the theory, to use the word the way you want to use it, can’t accurately be applied to all life originating from one or more random cosmic events and then evolving into many disparate species. It can’t be accurately applied because it has not been proved, can’t be replicated, and is only speculation.

        Remove the word “theory” from the discussion, then, as it seems to nudge you off course into another train of thought. Let’s just say that there is speculation among many scientists that all life began as a random cosmic accident, or a series of random cosmic events, and then evolved from one or a few very primitive forms of life into many different species. And there is speculation that life was created by a Higher Power, who/which created the universe and all that is within it, and the many species which populated the Earth, after which the planet and the original species upon it changed, mutated, and evolved into what we see now.

        Both of these speculations are parallel and compatible, working backward from today, until a certain point along the time line is reached. At that point one belief splits off and goes in the direction of all species coming from the primitive life forms created at random by cosmic accident, and the evolution from one species to another through this process, and the other belief is that the different species were created as different species and then proceeded to evolve and change but always within the same species.

        The problem for both sets of belief is that neither can be proved in the scientific sense through predictable results of carefully regulated scientific experiments. Both actually depend on BELIEF, which is based on many things, including intuition, belief in or antipathy toward the idea of God or a Higher Power, and sad to say in 21st Century America, on political bigotry.

        I say “political bigotry” because of the artificial lines drawn by the Left to not only divide people along the lines of their belief systems regarding the origin of life and the nature of evolution but to then link the two sides with political identities, after which the usual strategy of isolating and ridiculing to attack political opposition come into play.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 11:12 am

        And you’d be correct in stating that neither can be proven. And I would hope that no teacher teaches any origin of life other than to say “we do not know how life originally developed, we do know what happened afterwards though” and then teach evolution. They can even mention “some believe a god like being (I say god like being because I don’t believe in a god, and there are literally thousands of man made gods, and there are those who think life may have arrived on an asteroid) planted life on earth”.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 11:16 am

        Actually no, I’m sorry I missed the little bit about some believing that species only change within themselves. That’s false, its proven that its false, and should never ever be taught. Species split. Members of the same species become isolated from each other and diverge until they are no longer able to reproduce together. Then they’ve become another species.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 11:39 am

        Red, I am fine with teaching that there are several theories (to use the word in the usual, non-pure-science way) of the origin of life on this planet.

        I’d prefer that the idea of random cosmic events sparking life from inert materials therefore leading to the evolution over many billions of years into the multitude of existing and extinct species be taught as one concept, and the idea of a Creator creating the Earth and its millions of species, existing and extinct, which then either disappeared or became what we see today, as the two most prominent speculations—with equal emphasis on both.

        And I would insist that the children also be taught that there is no evidence, or proof, that any species has ever changed into any other species, though many believe this has happened and this is what explains the multitude of species which have existed on this planet

        And then I would definitely at least mention the speculation that the life forms which evolved into the many species, etc. might have come to Earth on asteroids but the origin of those life forms is still a mystery. I’ve got no problem with the speculation that advanced life forms in the universe seeded the Earth with many species, including man.

        The idea is to get children to start thinking, arguing, supporting one approach over the other, considering the pluses and minuses of each. It should be an exercise in critical thinking, encouraging open minds and teaching how to evaluate contradictory information.

        Indoctrination is not teaching, but refusing to acknowledge any possibility but the only accepted one and then instilling it into children is indoctrination.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 11:42 am

        “Species split. Members of the same species become isolated from each other and diverge until they are no longer able to reproduce together. Then they’ve become another species.”

        This is a belief system, an intuitive leap never replicated in any formal scientific experiment. There is no problem in teaching that some people believe this, as long as it is also taught that most people do not.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 11:49 am

        But again you’re wrong. We do have evidence, a lot of evidence. And the sad reality is, if they do not know what a theory actually is, then no college or university on this planet should accept them into any of the sciences. If they do not understand evolution, they cant be doctors. It is central to modern science. As a very simple example, we see single celled organisms changing on a regular basis. We use this as a way to combat them.

        Curious, what do you consider evidence? Do you consider it something we can directly see?

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 2:24 pm

        “This is a belief system”

        Yes, facts are a belief system, I suppose. And you want to push an alternative belief system. Trouble is, Amazona, science deals with facts. That’s why creationism in a lab coat (ID) belongs outside the science classroom: It isn’t science. When will you comprehend this very simple fact?

      • Amazona November 25, 2012 / 1:36 am

        Red, you keep insisting that there is all this “evidence” of all life originating from inert matter somehow sparked into a primitive form of life in some cosmic event, and then evolving into millions of disparate life forms. But you never give us any of this “evidence” and just expect us to accept your word that it exists.

        You gave us a link to an experiment where a single cell of yeast was stressed till it became a multiple celled yeast—but the experiment started with yeast and ended with yeast. There was no creation there—it was mere manipulation of something that already existed.

        You state with absolute certainty that there is proof that one species has developed into another, yet you never offer any examples of this “proof”.

        Yes, you can take any group—all the birds in the world, or all the bovines, or all the camelids, and within any such group you can find evidence that they may have had a single origin. But there is no evidence that a camelid such as a guanaco came from the same original life form as an ostrich or a buffalo. You can prove a link between an ostrich and a hummingbird, but not between a hummingbird and a horse.

        If you can, do, but don’t just keep insisting that there is such proof if you can’t provide it.

        You say “As a very simple example, we see single celled organisms changing on a regular basis. We use this as a way to combat them.” Fine. Tell us—changing from what to what?
        And why do we want to “combat them” and how does the fact that THEY change affect how we “combat them”?

        You say “…those who want …..a theory to exist are free to develop such an idea, develop tests to prove it, then prove it, then use it to predict something, then write a paper (or 1000) on it, publish them, and then call it a theory.” OK. So an idea is developed of all life beginning from a random event that somehow changes inert matter into a primitive life form less complex than a cell and then becoming so complex and so sophisticated that it develops into every form of life on the planet. What tests have been developed to prove this? What tests HAVE proved this? What predictions have been made based on these proofs from these tests? How accurate have these predictions been? Just how or why does writing a paper, or 1000 papers, affect the outcome or validity of these tests?

  9. mitchethekid November 23, 2012 / 2:45 am

    You Mark, are not the arbitrator of what is right or wrong and to assume that perspective and state it with such conviction only emphasizes my point. You have an opinion, predicated upon your religiosity. To use the word “laughably” is further evidence that what I say is accurate. You attempt to discredit my statements via deflection with word choices. There is no” tiny subsection of people” who have the same faith as you in demonstrable, empirical scientific facts.Ships sail because of the physics of buoyancy, airplanes fly because of the vacuum created by the shape of wings and weight is displaced by fulcrums. God has nothing to do with these matters. When you say “our assertion” to whom are you referring? When you say ” having (sic) the education to get “it” right”, you are presupposing that science is somehow jaded,mistaken and the belief in a casual (as in the cause) deity is the ultimate source of all absolute truth. This is an expression of your fundamentalism. To you, religion is the basis of your entire world view and you categorize the “us” vs the “them”. For example, just look at how often you say “our resident liberals”. You do not own anyone. You do not own an ideology nor do you own a perspective. You say these things in an attempt to reinforce your absolutism because to engage an alternative would undermine your deluded convictions. To me, god and religion are incidental, not causal. Science does not exclude a god but as I have said, this discussion is ageless, is part of the demarcation between science and religion as ways of understanding the world but more to the point, has no business being taught as an alternative to a provable reality. There is no competing theory to mathematics, is there? Or gravity. Or the speed of light. If you personally desire to see a supreme, human like being writing the code for the existence of the universe that’s fine. But don’t be so arrogantly presumptuous and condescending to impose your small mindedness and inability to embrace anything more abstract on everyone else and then claim that they are ignorant for not subscribing to your shrew like mentality. What you think about the nature of existence is not the standard of measurement for the rest of mankind. It is, yours. And when you post these types of comments you are preaching to a very small choir. They already think that there is some grand design and that Jesus is coming back. There isn’t and he’s not. And just so you know, I too have a faith but it is not in my brains cognitive ability to understand the nature of reality. For that, I rely upon science. For reason, (if there is any because that’s a human projection) I have faith in the unknowable. I will leave you with this. All religion, going back to magic and superstition and the Neanderthals and cave paintings and all of it, is predicated upon an awareness of and a fear of death. No more you. No more consciousness. No more ego.

    • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 10:49 am

      Bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha

      airplanes fly because of the******* vacuum******* created by the shape of wings .

      Bzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttt

      • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 10:51 am

        GMB

        ole bmitch LONGfellow pro-ports to be a “pilot” yet thinks wings form a **********VACUUM********* ROTFLMAO………ha ha ha ha ha

      • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 12:19 pm

        Vacuum?

        Hilarious…..

        It is too bad that researching for correct terms and data are so far above mitchie’s mental ability. By his writing “style”, it indicates most of it is regurgitated nonsense.

    • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 11:05 am

      bmitch

      There is no competing theory to mathematics, is there? Or gravity. Or the speed of light.

      mathematics is a science, science is made up of LAWS which are provable through mathematics.
      You are talking BS and in circles, a feeble attempt to prove the unprovable.
      God either exists or he does not. a very simple concept you either BELIEVE He does or you BELIEVE he does not.

    • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 11:19 am

      bmitch

      No more you. No more consciousness. No more ego.

      Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

      We believe the energy (spirit) leaves the body and lives in a different form. Therefore the conscious remains, and it being free of the body submits it’s self to God.
      So you are calling millions of people who have clinically died seen God, heaven and some hell are delusional liars and you hold the keys to the truth?

      Laws of thermodynamics

      The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems. The laws describe how these quantities behave under various circumstances, and forbid certain phenomena (such as perpetual motion).

      The four laws of thermodynamics are:[1][2][3][4][5][6]

      Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

      First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved but the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

      Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system—in a process known as “thermalization”. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

      Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero.

      Classical thermodynamics describes the exchange of work and heat between systems. It has a special interest in systems that are individually in states of thermodynamic equilibrium. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a condition of systems which are adequately described by only macroscopic variables. Every physical system, however, when microscopically examined, shows apparently random microscopic statistical fluctuations in its thermodynamic variables of state (entropy, temperature, pressure, etc.). These microscopic fluctuations are negligible for systems which are nearly in thermodynamic equilibrium and which are only macroscopically examined. They become important, however, for systems which are nearly in thermodynamic equilibrium when they are microscopically examined, and, exceptionally, for macroscopically examined systems that are in critical states,[7] and for macroscopically examined systems that are far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

      There have been suggestions of additional laws, but none of them achieve the generality of the four accepted laws, and they are not mentioned in standard textbooks.[1][2][3][4][5][8][9]

      The laws of thermodynamics are important fundamental laws in physics and they are applicable in other natural sciences.

    • M. Noonan November 23, 2012 / 7:33 pm

      Mitch,

      And how do you know that Neanderthal’s feared death? Do you have a Neanderthal book written on the subject? No, you don’t – and you’re just falling for that type of thought which insists upon neat, tidy answers to all questions. You’re in the same position of those who about 100 years ago were asserting that human government arose in pre-historic times because the strongest man of the tribe enforced his will – as if the next two strongest men of the tribe couldn’t have taken him down; or the weakest man in the tribe couldn’t have slit his throat while he slept. You are making assertions about things you can’t possibly know – I, too, make some assertions of that type – but only the authority of God as he revealed himself. You’re just making it up as you go along – or, worse, just accepting what someone told you because it confirms your pre-conceived notions.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 12:03 am

        “just accepting what someone told you because it confirms your pre-conceived notions.”

        Actually, that’s a fantastic description of what you’ve been doing with Catholic dogma, and it’s leading you to make some really embarrassing assertions. I hope you think it through sometime.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 12:11 am

        Ah, yes, the religious bigotry of the rabidly radical Left rears its ugly head once again.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 1:52 am

        Thoroughly thought through – your views, however, do not indicate a line of thinking. They are just the received word of others and you don’t question.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 2:26 pm

        “They are just the received word of others and you don’t question.”

        Exactly–that’s you and Catholic dogma. Unthinking repetition. You may as well be a tape recorder. But I do sincerely hope that you think it through sometime. Not just try to hammer the square peg of dogma into the round hole of reality, but think. It will do you a world of good, and it will spare you an awful lot of embarrassment. Give it a try.

    • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 11:20 am

      I’m not going to waste time on research on this because of my conviction that mitche is batshit crazy and that no amount of factual detail is going to derail his crazy train.

      But……I seem to remember archeologists discovering evidence that even very very old and primitive peoples evidently had some sort of belief in an afterlife, based on the ways they treated their dead. We have not found graves of peoples as far back as the Neanderthal period, but as far back as we have been able to go, regarding physical evidence, we have found overwhelming evidence of beliefs in a Higher Power and in a life after death.

      Awareness of death is a given—duh. Fear of death is a speculation, as many cultures have no fear of death but merely see it as a transition from one plane of existence to another, and the inclusion of tools and weapons with the dead certainly indicate a belief in an afterlife where the deceased would need them.

      Personally, intuitively I think that the more primitive a culture, the more in tune with the concept of death we could expect it to be. Uncluttered by the trappings of formal religions and the overload of competing information, which can create a distance between humanity and the sense of being related to, to use a hackneyed phrase, “the circle of life”, it is reasonable to accept that the most primitive of early Man were more comfortable with death than we are now. Certainly death was much more a part of daily life for these people than it is for us, and as recent scientific speculation is that the Neanderthals were far more sophisticated and intelligent than we have given them credit for being it seems quite possible that they had a well developed belief system that included an afterlife, as subsequent but primitive (by our standards) people have been proven to have had.

      • ricorun November 26, 2012 / 7:44 pm

        Amazona: But……I seem to remember archeologists discovering evidence that even very very old and primitive peoples evidently had some sort of belief in an afterlife, based on the ways they treated their dead. We have not found graves of peoples as far back as the Neanderthal period, but as far back as we have been able to go, regarding physical evidence, we have found overwhelming evidence of beliefs in a Higher Power and in a life after death.

        Actually, I seem to remember archeologists discovering evidence that Neanderthals had some sort of belief in an afterlife, based on the ways they treated their dead. In fact, I seem to remember archaeologists finding evidence of the same for Homo Erectus. I could very well be wrong, especially with regard to the latter. Anyway, I agree with your statement. But I also have to point out that in saying what you said, you’re straying far afield of anything resembling the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I don’t have a problem with that, but others here might. And if the occasion arises in the future, I will certainly remind you of what you said here.

        As far as Intelligent Design (ID) goes, we now have abundant evidence that such exists. The trouble is, the evidence at hand only points to Craig Venter. What he has done is truly amazing, but I would hardly call him a god. Consequently, even if evidence accumulates for the existence of an “intelligent designer” in eons past, especially given the current evidence, it follows that there is no certainty that it will necessarily point to anything resembling what any of us would call God. After all, if Craig Venter exists now (and there is overwhelming empirical evidence he does), why couldn’t someone like him have existed in the distant past, perhaps on some other world?

        Of course, the belief in a Ventor-like predecessor in no way precludes a belief in God per se. After all, a more proximal, Ventor-like designer merely presupposes a more omnipotent, more distal designer, right? At least eventually. But if you accept that, you also have to accept that it pokes some serious holes in the Judeo-Christian concept of God — at least as it is literally interpreted in the Bible, both new and old testaments, (along with supporting dogma), right?

      • Amazona November 26, 2012 / 8:35 pm

        rico, I am so relieved to learn that you agree with my statement, though quite predictably it took you many words to do it.

        I don’t think it matters that my commentary strayed, as you put, too far from the Judeo-Christian concept of God, as I don’t remember the general idea of Intelligent Design or guided evolution depending on this concept but rather on a more general concept of a Higher Power.

        I’m perfectly capable of reminding any quibbler that nowhere in any of my comments did I reference a Judeo-Christian concept of God and that, therefore, my comments on prehistoric beliefs in an afterlife are quite consistent with my earlier posts. However, it is reassuring to know that you are at the ready, prepared and dare I say eager to dash in with a reminder that in this instance I did stray from a more contemporary Christian view of God and, as we are talking about eras far in the past from the time of Christ, kept my comments to a more general perception of a Higher Power. This seems significant to you, so I am sure you will record it and keep it at hand in case you need it.

        I try in general to avoid specific discussions of specific spiritual belief systems, as it is seldom productive and can lead to a brisk debate on whether or it is, as some are convinced, “turtles all the way down” among other metaphysical discussions best held over a bottle of brandy.

  10. GMB November 23, 2012 / 8:47 am

    bomber boy and his ilk still can not explain the placebo effect. The results are measurable, they can be duplicated, they can be observed. Yet science can not tell why it happens.

    They want to teach evolution as a proven fact in public schools when it is nothing more than a humanistic garbage religion.

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 11:20 am

      Seriously—you think this Krugman rant is about proving evolution from random collision of particles to, for example, HIM?

      Nonsense. It is a Krugman hit piece, smearing Rubio and throwing out crap in true Krugman fashion. It barely touches on the subject of evolution. It is, instead, just another Lefty lie about how those damned conservatives are fighting science.

      Oh, I can see why YOU were drawn to it—-it represents a slightly glossier version of your own bigotry and validates your own insanity.

      But that’s as far as it goes. And BTW, having Krugman, the poster child for the most disproved economic theory in the past century, who still promotes and defends it in the face of overwhelming proof of its inevitable failure, posturing as someone qualified to write about science is too funny.

      • ricorun November 26, 2012 / 8:39 pm

        Amazona: Nonsense. It is a Krugman hit piece, smearing Rubio and throwing out crap in true Krugman fashion. It barely touches on the subject of evolution. It is, instead, just another Lefty lie about how those damned conservatives are fighting science.

        Actually, you don’t have to be too far to the left to complain about how far right conservatives are fighting science, at least in certain contexts. And in the context of your primary viewpoint as to what constitutes a “far right conservative” (i.e., someone who is a constructionist constitutionalist), it just doesn’t make sense. Said in another way, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which speaks to evolution, or even science in general. I’m not totally in the corner of the constructionist constitutionalist point of view in the first place, but I am sensitive to the concept. On the other hand, when it’s bundled with the anti-science attitude (and other social conservative memes which have nothing to do with the central concept), that’s where I get totally lost.

    • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 11:22 am

      The**** OPINION**** pages

      yawn….next?

    • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 12:12 pm

      Wow, mitchie, you apparently missed the word “OPINION” in that link.

      You reading comprehension and attention to detail are pathetic as ever.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 11:22 am

        Not only that, I don’t think he even read it, as it has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with sliming conservatives.

  11. Amazona November 23, 2012 / 11:13 am

    Yes, the Earth is billions of years old.

    Yes, fossils prove evolution within species.

    Yes, these are proven by science.

    Yes, we can accept them as fact.

    But the entire argument against Intelligent Design depends on a very strict limit on far back we go.

    So where did the Earth come from? What is the origin of the universe?

    Fossils prove an evolutionary process beyond a certain point, but there is no compelling scientific PROOF of what happened in the interim, between the random collision of particles (which evidently just WERE, with no explanation of how they got there) which allegedly created life in a single celled organism which led to the development of separate, discrete and very different species.

    The gap between the random collision of unexplained particles and the beginning of the evolution we can prove through fossil evidence is explained only by a belief system.

    The whole belief system hinges on having an arbitrary beginning of time, before which certain things, like stars and planets, simply WERE. Scientists can speculate about the pinball effect of planetary collisions, and explosions and so on, but I have yet to hear of a compelling explanation of the origins of the colliding, exploding, balls of matter spinning around in our universe, or in any other.

    There has to be a beginning. The evolutionary absolutists who deny even the possibility of Intelligent Design have chosen a time frame and worked forward from that. Theirs is a time frame in which the planet Earth just was, for some reason, spinning through space and being subject to radiation, heat, collisions with other planets, etc. and then they work forward from that mystery to build their speculations and explanations.

    But back beyond a certain point it is all speculation.

    • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 11:32 am

      Ama

      It’s the Same Old Same Old, just wearing a different hat.

      great post.
      The left hates God and the concept of one because they want NO constraints.
      They now are free of divine retribution so murdering babies in the womb, murdering the elderly, theft, sodomy, adultery, lying, and every anti social form of debauchery now becomes THEIR choice, because there are no consequences past life.
      This is how communism, nazi’s, facism rose to power and MURDERED HUNDREDS of MILLIONS in a single century.

      • mitchethekid November 23, 2012 / 12:22 pm

        I don’t hate god Neo. I just don’t have the same simplistic ideas about the concept as you do. It’s easier for you. You don’t have to think, you just believe.

      • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 12:31 pm

        No mitchie, you have simplistic ideas in other areas, which do not help your arguments.

      • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 1:04 pm

        bmitchie

        thats where you have it wrong LONGfellow……..However if Christanity has it correct you are screwed.
        If you have it correct no problem for any one.

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 2:16 pm

        neo, I am sure that you noticed that mitche, when faced with coherent arguments and legitimate questions, has to fall back on the default position of the Left and avoid answers while trying to denigrate the opposition.

        One thing I always find amusing about the mitches of the world is their smug assumption that their arrogance of accepting no greater power in the universe than they somehow conveys intellectual superiority.

        Yet he is not smart enough to realize that his position is a belief system, just as religion based on God is a belief system. He preens about not having one, while illustrating his with every post.

    • mitchethekid November 23, 2012 / 12:20 pm

      Wrap your head around this Amazona. There does NOT have to be a beginning. That concept comes from how YOU view the world. I agree that on a certain level, everything is speculation. But I also know that this argument has been going on for the entirety of human history. The belief in a designer is a conclusion because of a lack of reason. It’s simple to understand. No thought required. Don’t understand something? God did it. Don’t want to take responsibility for free will? It’s god’s plan. God is a concept of man. It is a human conclusion and in this case, we are limited because of our thought processes and cognitive abilities. It’s funny that you think that because I give science more validity than stories or myths, that I don’t believe in a greater power. Science has always been a threat to religious thought. Look what the church did to Galileo. This discussion is pointless. You are smug, condescending and cock-sure of yourself. You have an uncontrollable compulsion to cast yourself as a superior intellect, when you are really just a mean spirited miserable shrew.

      • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        “There does NOT have to be a beginning.”

        Ahhh, mitchie’s argument for abortion and where life begins, variated.

        You keep referring to science, but science has no PROVEN anything definite that you claim. Even your simplistic rants about global warming and its causes, science has failed to prove anything that is currently wild THEORY.

        Evolution is a THEORY. You need to discern between LAWS of science and THEORIES.

        Good luck with that. Your inability to do proper research and verify, while paying attention to detail, falls way short any target.

      • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 12:30 pm

        “Science has always been a threat to religious thought.”

        Yeah, 700-900 years ago, known as the first DARK AGES. The second DARK AGES are occurring now, where governments are manipulating science to further political agendas.

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        Ahhhh, I see. If you don’t KNOW the beginning, then there just doesn’t have to BE a beginning. Stuff just is.

        I guess for someone whose entire “political” philosophy is based on Magical Thinking—‘just because this political model has never worked doesn’t mean it won’t work this time—” it is no great leap to the Magical Thinking that the entire universe had no beginning, was not created, just IS.

        That’s a pretty convenient way to dodge the question of the creation of the materials that supposedly led to the spontaneous creation of life.

        Silly, but all mitche is up to.

        Now we should stop bothering mitche with questions that would require actual answers, and let him get back to his insane mumblings and nonstop attacks and insults. It would be far kinder of us to acknowledge his only talent, and not embarrass him by goading him into blurting out nonsense like “..there does not have to be a beginning..”.

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 2:12 pm

        “…you are really just a mean spirited miserable shrew….”

        See? Ask mitche to answer a legitimate question, and he scurries back into his comfort zone, which is mere name-calling while avoiding an answer.

        Poor baby. He is shown up to be intellectually inferior and not only emotion-driven but driven by the most hateful and toxic of emotions, and his only response is that I am the problem because I am smarter than he is.

        This of course is no more convoluted or dishonest than the rest of his loony tune rants, but it DOES illustrate the default position of the RRL when nudged into a debate corner—ignore facts, dismiss questions, and fall back on personal attacks on the questioner.

        Thanks, mitche. It’s not as if we actually NEEDED more examples of this, but as you are in such a generous holiday mood today we’ll take it.

      • M. Noonan November 23, 2012 / 7:28 pm

        Mitch,

        ROFL – I’m afraid there does have to be a beginning. Though I know that some desperate evolutionists are trying to assert that there isn’t – for two primary reasons:

        1. There isn’t enough time in the supposed age of the universe for life to have evolved unguided to the condition it is on Earth.

        2. If you can get rid of that pesky “beginning” thingy then you can pretend there is no need for a First Cause, ie, God.

    • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 2:29 pm

      “the entire argument against Intelligent Design depends on a very strict limit on far back we go.”

      No, the argument against ID depends on a very strict adherence to facts. Facts, by the way, are something IDers have yet to cite. They are asked constantly for facts, and they never produce any–just anger, lies, and abject silliness.

      Here’s your chance, Amazona. Mark tried and failed, but perhaps you can do better: Provide scientific evidence in support of ID. Go.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 4:47 pm

        Are you saying your existence isn’t evidence? Or that you don’t exist? If its the latter, can I have your stuff?

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 6:01 pm

        “Are you saying your existence isn’t evidence?”

        Correct. Oh, I know you want it to be “evidence,” but outside the bubble, you see, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. It’s a key difference in how the real world works versus the inside-the-bubble world.

        Would you care to take another crack at it? Remember: Scientific evidence, not wishful thinking.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 10:11 pm

        As long as I get all your stuff cause I called dibs on it…

      • Amazona November 25, 2012 / 12:37 am

        Ahh, the bubble again. Bubble Boy is nothing if not predictable.

        He also claims “They are asked constantly for facts, and they never produce any–just anger, lies, and abject silliness.” Of course none of this is even remotely true. There is no anger, there are no lies, and Bubbles seems to have set himself up as the Aribiter of Silly.

        There is as much scientific evidence of directed evolution as there is of random evolution resulting in changes from one species to another.

        I know you are deeply invested in a world where there is no power greater than you, and that arguments that there is, or even might be, upset you. But for all your howling at the moon, you simply cannot PROVE that all life began as a cosmic event which converted inert matter (the origin of which cannot be questioned, but just IS). You can believe it but you can’t prove it.

        Because, as you and Red and the rest of you sneer when you are attacking the concept of a Higher Power, SCIENTIFIC PROOF depends on dependable, replicable results of rigidly designed experiments.

        And for some reason you simply freak out when it is pointed out to you that there is very little difference in the two opposing points of view up to a point, that point being whether the species which have evolved to what we see now all came from the same primordial soup or were created as separate and distinct species which then evolved.

        Your (plural ‘you’) arguments have huge holes in them. You claim your beliefs have been proved, when they have not. You claim that “science” is in agreement with them, when “science” as a whole is not. You claim that only the ignorant and scientifically illiterate can possibly believe in Intelligent Design or guided evolution and then you ignore a list of Nobel Prize winners who believe in this.

        Now you are reduced to claiming statements you disagree with are “lies”.

        A lie is the purposeful effort to mislead someone by saying something that is not true. In this whole discussion the only lies I have seen are in your post claiming that ID supporters are angry and lying, and that ID supporters have never produced any facts.

        You claim that there is proof of evolution from one species to another, yet you have produced none. Yes, it is reasonable to accept that an original avian species might have diverged over eons into various kinds of birds, but it is not reasonable to insist that the same primitive life form, less complex than even one cell, developed into cold blooded birds and reptiles and also into warm blooded lactating mammals. All birds share certain traits, just as yaks share certain traits with buffaloes and Herefords and musk oxen, but birds and yaks have nothing in common.

        And the hard cold fact underlying all this heat and noise is not a passion for pure science but a resistance to the possibility of a Higher Power, which has come out as you guys have been arguing.

        So what I see underneath the posturing of allegiance to scientific principles is mere religious bigotry poorly hidden within a thin shell of pretended respect for science. The longer this goes on, the more obvious this becomes

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 25, 2012 / 3:40 am

        Enough. This is not the first time you have been warned about using the blog just to attack people. You have been repeating yourself for several posts and have done nothing but insult and attack. This is a pattern with you and will get this name removed from the blog just as your others have been. //Moderator

  12. mitchethekid November 23, 2012 / 1:27 pm

    Gee Tired. I’m having a sad. How horrible it is to be living in the dark. Yep, anything that conflicts with what you think is to be pilloried. You can’t have a conversation, you want an argument. How you go from a concept that the universe doesn’t necessarily have to have a beginning; from a human’s understanding of how time works, to abortion is quite a feat. Congratulations. But abortion is legal, Obama is President and it’s all theory.

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 2:35 pm

      Who is trying to “pillory” what?

      You really ought to work on a little more precision in your writing. Merely being polysyllabic is not proof of intelligence or clarity.

      The “…concept that the universe doesn’t necessarily have a beginning…” is YOURS—we find it to be nothing more than another example of your lunacy and your desperate need to avoid giving answers to questions.

      The comment merely points out that your thought processes, such as they are, are chaotic and controlled by your emotions. You merely invent something that supports your emotion-based conclusion, and then present it as fact. You invent a point in time, before which there is no need to establish a beginning or even HAVE a beginning, just a vague era in which there just IS stuff, and from that point forward you invent an elaborate scenario in which the stuff that just IS is bombarded by some violent cosmic event such as radiation, which of course has no beginning either but just IS, and then random particles (which also just ARE) suddenly bloom into some primitive single-cell form of life, which then evolves into many thousands of different species of complex life with different DNAs and characteristics.

      The only way you can cling to this is to avoid the question of where those particles came from, or the radiation, or the galactic masses from which the Earth was spawned.

      And you apply the same chaotic emotion-driven process to explain or justify all of your positions, including your belief that human life has no value before a certain age. What is it before that age? It is most certainly life, most certainly an individual human life with its own individual DNA shared by no other human except an identical twin, but you apply an arbitrary definition, before which the life just IS but is not entitled to the protections given to other human life, and then after this arbitrary time point it changes into what you are willing to accept as human life.

      You deny being arrogant, but you accept no power in the universe greater than you except on a purely physical level, you apply an arbitrary time point in history beyond which nothing was created or has a beginning but just IS and after which you apply a complex series of speculations, you determine that there is a point in the timeline of gestation before which human life is expendable—-there is a pattern to your lunacy and arrogance.

    • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 2:47 pm

      Having a sad?

      Wow. Your following screed of illogical nonsense is indicative of your faulty thought process.

      In Catholicsm, god has no beginning. For you to believe that the universe has no beginning is very strange since theory points toward the Big Bang. A process that will, according to the theory, keeps repeating itself after the subsequent collapse onto itself.

      And, as usual, you miss the link between your “no beginning” and your “life has not begun” when it comes to your view of life and abortion.

      But that is due to your severe intellectual limitations and intellectual dishonesty. You have been caught so many times by Ama in particular. It explains your hostility to those who get the better of you.

      Pathetic.

  13. mitchethekid November 23, 2012 / 3:16 pm

    Caught! Yikes! Like a rat in trap. Ama chases fiction in order to make herself appear superior. Irony strikes again when she claims that I am clouded by emotion and she is so left brained. Look at the adjectives she uses to describe me. Chaotic, desperate, lunacy. Amazona, you are not a standard against which absolute truth is measured and the stance you hold about the value of human life and when it begins doesn’t change the age of the universe, the earth or a woman’s right to choose. Until god comes down from heaven we are the closest beings to he she or it. I am sure you are familiar with Greek Mythology and Plato’s symposium. Or perhaps some Don Henley lyrics; We were stokin’ the fires
    And oilin’ up the machinery
    Until the gods found out we had ideas of our own”
    These social issues that you harp on have not ruined society and women don’t sit around dreaming about recreational abortions. In fact, abortion rates have decreased. I guess education and birth control does have a positive effect. But this blog is representative of a very narrow and restricted mode of thinking that is not very popular. You just reinforce your own opinions about things while screaming at the world. Since you are so smart and so accomplished and possess this vast insight into every subject imaginable, why don’t you run for office? Oh wait, I know. You can’t because one of the most fundamental requirements to being a successful politician is to appeal to a wide group of people. And your skill is to insult and lecture them on how stupid they are. You truly do suffer from some sort of personality disorder. You might seek some help.

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 3:42 pm

      People like mitche and the redhead and of course Bubble Boy love to claim that scientists decry Intelligent Design, yet in a brief search I found several who support it.

      Dr. Charles Towne won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1964 for his work in developing the maser, which was the precursor for laser technology.

      He said “‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’ “ and also:

      ““I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy…I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.”

      Dr. Brian Josephson, who was evidently an atheist, won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1973. He said: ” So I said at some point this theory looks a bit like theology, and I can imagine intelligent design is real. Intelligent Design is rejected just because it’s part of the scientific culture that it cannot be true, you must not talk about it, but it’s not actually disproved. I think it will turn out that there is a design and that the usual theories are wrong there as well.”

      In 2004, Professor Richard Smalley said “The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.”

      “Smalley also invoked cosmic fine-tuning as a scientific argument for God’s existence, and stated publicly that he had been persuaded on strictly scientific grounds that evolution was impossible.

      “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” and

      ““Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.”

      “Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (1903 –1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse. He shared the prize with Andrew Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.

      Most readers with an academic background in either science or philosophy will be aware that Sir John Eccles maintained, on scientific as well as philosophical grounds, that each of us possesses an immaterial soul which interacts with our brain – a view which puts him at odds with Darwin’s account of the human mind. However until recently, I had believed that Eccles nevertheless accepted Darwinism as a biological theory, which fully explained the origin of the human body. Apparently I was wrong: it turns out that Eccles believed in a version of directed evolution, in which certain mutations that were vital for the development of the human body were intelligently engineered by God. What’s more, Eccles also seems to have held that the first life-forms on Earth were created by God. ” ( Source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution)

      Other prominent scientists mentioned on this site who believed in Intelligent Design or Directed Evolution include Wolfgang Pauli, Ernst Chaim, Tihomir Dimitrov, Guglielmo Marconi, and Sir Fred Hoyle, whose “..principal contribution to science was his work on nucleosynthesis: the idea that the chemical elements were synthesized from primordial hydrogen and helium in stars. “

      (“Many scientists were dismayed that a Nobel prize was awarded to his collaborator William A. Fowler, but Hoyle himself was excluded from the prize. (See Fred Hoyle: the scientist whose rudeness cost him a Nobel prize by Robin McKie. Article in The Guardian, 2 October 2010; The Observer, 3 October 2010.) “I have no idea how the Swedes decided to make an award to Chandrasekhar and Fowler but not to Hoyle,” admits astronomer Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. “However, I think it would be widely accepted that it was an unfair misjudgment.” On the other hand, Sir Harry Kroto, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, argues that Hoyle was lacking in scientific objectivity, and that he would have used his Nobel to foist his views on the scientific community, had it been awarded to him. At any rate, there can be no doubt that Hoyle possessed a brilliantly original scientific mind, and was a truly independent thinker. “)

      “Here are some of Hoyle’s better-known remarks on evolution and the origin of life:

      If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of…

      In his 1982/1984 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10^40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), Hoyle argued that even with a whole universe full of primordial soup, blind processes would have little chance of producing life. He claimed:

      “The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

      Hoyle famously compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously. “ (ibid)

      I have made an effort to designate specific quotes from the web site and if I have missed one or two I apologize. I know I quoted a lot, but there is a lot of information on the site and I recommend a visit.

    • neocon01 November 23, 2012 / 3:53 pm

      bmitch LONGfellow

      You can’t because one of the most fundamental requirements to being a successful politician is to appeal to a wide group of people. And your skill is to insult and lecture them on how stupid they are.

      if that were true, she would be Ubama’s running mate screeching about the GOP.
      but as we know it is a bald face LIE.

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 3:56 pm

      mitche, thank you once again for your foray into personal attacks and offering us such a fascinating mix of pop culture and Greek mythology—-it explains a little about the oddities of so many of your posts.

      Yet while flailing at me you also manage to not address anything that was said, such as your conviction that there does not have to be a beginning—which has to lead to the conclusion that some stuff just WAS, floating around with no source, no creation, no beginning, no reason, nothing. It just WAS.

      I find it amusing that when you are quoted, or your comments are referenced, your only conclusion is that this is proof of a personality disorder. Check that mirror, mitche, son of Zeus, student of Plato, proclaimer of invented “fact”.

      I know, it is a guilty pleasure to goad you into your escalating rants and your descending rationality, and I suppose I should stop it. But you come barging in here with such bizarre and outlandish statements, it is hard to just leave them on the table without addressing them.

      And BTW, in addressing them I don’t need to try to make myself SEEM superior—the very nature of my rebuttals and proofs of your chaotic mental processes speaks for itself. I don’t lecture on how stupid you are. I merely present the facts and the logical conclusion appears. You storm around hurling your hodgepodge of talking points, bigotries, insults, attacks, and nonsense, and then you flip out when someone, such as I, calmly points out that you have been shrieking a hodgepodge of talking points, bigotries, insults, attacks, and nonsense. If you don’t like having me hold up a mirror to your insanity, then stop posting it.

    • tiredoflibbs November 23, 2012 / 6:31 pm

      mitchie with the Kid mentality: “Ama chases fiction in order to make herself appear superior.”

      If only you could post some ACTUAL FACTS rather tan the simplistic talking points you regurgitate from some left wing site or an “economist”.

      You have admitted to writing in simile and metaphors. You do this rather than confirmed FACT. You also have trouble distinguishing actual FACT and THEORY.

      Too many times Ama has run circles around you and all you can do os post your typical GFY post or some other insult. Then when it is pointed out that your logic is inferior you whine about attacks.

      Keep flailing mitchie, it is truly amusing.

      • tiredoflibbs November 24, 2012 / 9:10 am

        I see mitchie has again slammed his head into another wall, effectively put up by Ama.

        He can’t respond beyond the dumbed down talking points…. And with that resorts to the only response his intellectual ability can provide: “GFY”.

        Typical and oh so pathetic.

        Way or go mitchie, you have done as predicted.

    • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 7:02 pm

      I love this example of the chaotic nature of what passes for a thought process with mitche: “…..the stance you hold about the value of human life and when it begins doesn’t change the age of the universe, the earth or a woman’s right to choose.”

      Well, he does’t want to discuss my “stance” on the value of human life—that’s a pretty tricky area for the pro abortion folks—or when it begins, which is equally sensitive. They really do not like having it pointed out to them that discrimination, which is a rallying call for Leftists, is really what best defines the position that the value of human life depends on its age, so they try to duck that whenever they can.

      But where mitche escapes the gravitational pull of rationality is when he spins off into trying to link this to “…the age of the universe, the earth or a woman’s right to choose..”

      Looky here….mitche is trying to make something out of the fact that I value human life no matter how much time has passed since it began, but then gets lost in the weeds and starts to mutter incoherently about the age of the universe—a topic on which I have not offered an opinion—-and either the earth or the age of the earth, it’s always so hard to tell what he is mumbling about but in either case another topic about which I have not offered an opinion, and then he collapses into the tired old whine about “a woman’s right to CHOOSE…”

      I suggest that the right to CHOOSE be applied across the board. So the drunk who thinks he is fine after a few shooters ought to be able to CHOOSE to drive—and after all, at least there is a chance no one will die if he does, while the “woman’s right to CHOOOOOOOOOOSE !!!!!” pretty much guarantees at least one fatality per choice. Should mitche’s neighbor be allowed to CHOOSE to drive mitche’s car instead of his own? After all, property ownership is much less established in the culture and morality of the human race than the right to survive.

      But no. The radical Left confines its right to CHOOOOSE!!! only to the alleged “right” to pass judgment on the very real right to live, and decide when that applies and when it does not. (Hint: It does not apply when said life might inconvenience a gestational creature who puts her own transitory comfort ahead of the actual LIFE of another human being—-this is what passes for integrity and morality on the Left.)

      But what is really funny is mitche’s effort to drag in everything but the kitchen sink in one of his meanderings around the fringes of sanity. We are talking about Intelligent Design, and he spins into mitcheland, which is evidently a murky place.

  14. GMB November 23, 2012 / 8:20 pm

    Ole bomber boy strikes again. Vacuum? Vacuum?? That’s a big LOLzer.

    I would like to laugh at the bomber some more but I have all the Green Mountain Daughters trying to sweep the floor by throwing paper planes all over the place.

    😛

    Vacuum????

    • mitchethekid November 24, 2012 / 2:20 am

      Paper airplanes do not fly, they glide until they hit the floor. There is no consistent thrust and they are subject to gravity from the moment of launch. An airplane stays in the air because the sq footage of the top of the wing is greater than the bottom. The air traveling over the top of the wing moves faster than that at the bottom because it has more distance to travel, thus creating a higher pressure, partial vacuum underneath which forces the wing upward. The 4 forces that enable flight are thrust, drag, lift and weight. This discovery was the genius of the Wright Brothers.

      • GMB November 24, 2012 / 2:31 am

        Yeah? And your discovery was a simple search, most likely bing. Again with the plagiarism?

        Just who’s sock are you anyway. There is no way you could be this idiotic by accident.

      • tiredoflibbs November 24, 2012 / 9:28 am

        Wow, not even close mitchie.

        You are only about 10% “correct” with that whopper.

        I’ll let you find your mistakes and extremely broad generalizations with no attention to detail.

        MAYBE you will learn something.

  15. Retired Spook November 23, 2012 / 9:39 pm

    Even the brilliant Stephen Hawking contradicts himself in discussing evolution.

    Our solar system was formed about four and a half billion years ago, or about ten billion years after the Big Bang, from gas contaminated with the remains of earlier stars.The Earth was formed largely out of the heavier elements, including carbon and oxygen.Somehow some of these atoms came to be arranged in the form of molecules of DNA. This has the famous double helix form discovered by Crick and Watson in a hut on the New Museum site in Cambridge. Linking the two chains in the helix are pairs of nucleic acids.There are four types of nucleic acid: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. An adenine on one chain is always matched with a thymine on the other chain, and a guanine with a cytosine. Thus the sequence of nucleic acids on one chain defines a unique complementary sequence on the other chain. The two chains can then separate and each act as templates to build further chains. Thus DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals that can carry out the instructions coded in the sequence and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself.

    We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small.

    • pelirrojito November 23, 2012 / 9:51 pm

      There’s no contradiction. In both cases he said he has no idea how they came to form DNA (well mos likely something much simpler first). And the odds are very very small. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle . When considering the probability of life existing at all, you might want to consider just how big the universe is. 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Around each of these stars there might be an average of 5 planets (planets seem much more common than previously thought, though could even reduce that number to 2). So assuming there’s 200 billion stars and 2 planets per star, then there’s 400 billion chances for life to start in this galaxy. That’s not including the billions of galaxies out there.

      And by the way, evolution does not have anything to do with origins of life. It deals with why there’s so many species.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 12:09 am

        Well, there we have it. We have now been instructed that “…evolution does not have anything to do with origins of life. It deals with why there’s so many species.”

        Aside from the oddity of saying “there is so many species” which is what “there’s so many” really says, “there’s” being a contraction of “there is”, this is really quite interesting.

        Because the argument we keep getting is the complaint that some people do not accept the concept of all life evolving from the single cell organism which resulted from a random collision of particles, or the radiation of particles, or some other cosmic accident.

        We keep saying that we accept the scientific fact of evolution within a given species following the creation of its original form, but not that all life comes from the same single cell life form that was created by this event.

        Now Red is claiming that evolution has nothing to do with origins yet relates to the development of hundreds of thousands of disparate species starting some time after the origin of life.

        So this seems to assert that there was development of life following this cosmic event, and then, later, at some arbitrary time, evolution kicked in and nudged this one kind of organism into many different directions.

        This is the same thing as saying that all life comes from this single cell organism and evolved from it, so this extreme form of evolution DOES have something/everything to do with the origin of life.

        Because the argument is between the group that says that all life began with this random cosmic event and then evolved into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of species that have lived since then, and the group that finds the idea of the origin of life to be an intelligent design of these many species followed by an evolutionary process.

        Each argument goes back to the origin of the life that then evolved, so I don’t see how you can separate origins from the idea of evolution.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 12:42 am

        Simple, they’re two very separate concepts. One deals with how life develops in the first place. Life being a self replicating being. The other explains why life changes (evolution, mutations, natural selection). And yes, you’ve said very clearly that you believe evolution is fact, but still you fail to understand the definition of a theory. I really don’t know how to explain anymore. Look at the scientific definition (A hint, there are 3 separate definitions. 1 that we use in casual conversation. 1 for science. another for maths.).

        And yes, every species on earth evolved from a single (actually, we don’t know that. some think it may have happened multiple times) organism. Using the word cell is incorrect, as a cell is far too complex to come into existence by accident. And it did not happen at some “arbitrary” time after life developed. DNA has this oddity of not reproducing itself perfectly. Things like radiation get in the way. Same reason viruses change so rapidly.

        I’m guessing your “within a species” is this dumbed down talking point of “micro evolution vs macro evolution”, which is to put it lightly, a stupid argument. there is no such thing as “macro evolution”. A change in species happens after thousands of generations, each having small mutations.

        And yes, we all admit we have no idea where life came from. No one denies that science does not at this point have an answer to that. We know it happened at some point. I’ll give you this one, perhaps a god like being dropped some DNA on earth (actually would make an interesting experiment to send some DNA to other planets). So ignoring how it happened, we can focus on why it changed. This is how a lot of logic works, we know something, and we develop based on that. And finally, there is not a single theory (at least that I’m aware of) that states where life came from. There’s speculation, might even be theories on how life can come into existence, And intelligent design (ok, I’m going to stop calling it that. its called creationism) is not a theory. Its as if I were to say gravity doesn’t exist. I could argue the theory is incomplete, and we haven’t tested it fully (to do so would require testing it against every source of mass in the universe), but I’d be incorrect in stating that its wrong based on that alone.

      • Retired Spook November 24, 2012 / 1:13 am

        A change in species happens after thousands of generations, each having small mutations.

        Sorry, Red, even Darwin disagreed with you:

        “Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 1:15 am

        Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. He didn’t have the fossil records that we have, he didn’t even know what DNA was. He knew nothing about genetics. We have advanced a lot in the last 150 years.

      • Retired Spook November 24, 2012 / 10:02 am

        Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. He didn’t have the fossil records that we have, he didn’t even know what DNA was. He knew nothing about genetics. We have advanced a lot in the last 150 years.

        Red, surely then you could provide a list of specific species that have evolved into other species. At one time in the not too distant past there were only something like 4 recognized species of Sparrows. Now there are several dozen, but none of them has ever evolved into a Woodpecker.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 10:49 am

        Sure, here you can see many species that lead to our evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution .
        As for why sparrows don’t evolve into woodpeckers, the two species diverged a long time ago, and there’s no reason to think one would come close to the other. You also have to remember the time frames we’re talking about. Our evolution from tiny rat/shrew like mammals took 65 million years (mammals survived while dinosaurs died)

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 11:26 am

        Red, do you understand how wikipedia works, and where is “information” comes from?

        It’s an OK source for little things, but hardly a definitive source for anything that is at all controversial, and it is odd to see you citing it exclusively.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 11:41 am

        Yes I am well aware of where the information comes from. I’m also aware that for scientific information its highly accurate. And I thought it would be the most readable source for you. But heres one I would hope you cant dismiss. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

      • Retired Spook November 24, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        But heres one I would hope you cant dismiss. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

        Red, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between “dismiss” and “skeptical”. Even in your linked site, you see statements like this:

        While the exact number of early human species is debated, on this page are links to summaries of the early human species accepted by most scientists.

        You see the same kinds of statements WRT the climate debate. Scientific knowledge does not expand by the majority of scientists proclaiming “we’ve got this right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Science progresses by skeptical scientists continually challenging what is believed to be correct. You seem to know a great deal about this topic, and good for you; it’s a fascinating topic. But if you haven’t been taught about skeptics’ contribution to scientific discovery, then your education is missing a vital component.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 2:31 pm

        “Red, do you understand how wikipedia works, and where is “information” comes from?”

        You cited Conservapedia: The Alternate-Universe WIkipedia.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 10:23 pm

        I understand being skeptical, its actually a weird concept to grasp. And of course it needs to be questioned all the time. Though there is now so much evidence towards it that its simply not possible, or at least very unlikely, that its false. One example that i like is “imagine if a history teacher had to prove that Rome even existed”. After all, we cant see Rome. All we have is writing, language, and ruins. In the same way that we have fossils which can be dated, DNA evidence linking 1 species to another and see both mutations and natural selection at work all the time. Natural selection (or better put, artificial selection) is often seen by farmers, for the last 10,000 years, and mutations are often seen in the lab.

        And you’re right that there is still debate on evolution among scientists. For example, in some cases they don’t always know which species a fossil belongs to, due to the difficulty of classifying a species. That comes from the fact that the changes from 1 generation to another are so small that you cant really notice it.

        I also understand the problems that most people have with such topics. The biggest one being “but its just a theory”. The reason we call it a theory is because science is always based on assumptions as is all logic (even maths, but the definition changes because we invented maths), and every theory provides falsifiable tests that could one day disprove it. Although that said, a theory is only accepted after a very long process where evidence is collected, tests are performed, predictions are made. Even at that point, it keeps the name “theory”. So we get the term “its just a theory”.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 10:25 pm

        By the way, if you’re interested in the topic I would highly recommend reading “the greatest show on earth”. There you will even see change within a species (though not turning into a new species)

      • Amazona November 25, 2012 / 1:51 am

        “You cited Conservapedia: The Alternate-Universe WIkipedia.”

        Oh, looky—Bubbles thinks he made a gotcha! And a snarky funny! Awwwww….

        However, even a scintilla of honesty (which leaves out Bubbles, of course) would acknowledge that the link I provided was not opinion but was a compilation of actual quotes, and excerpts from biographies, of the men cited.

        (I doubt that he even read it, consisting as it was of quotes from real scientists, Nobel Prize winners even, whose statements disprove his belief that his own idea of evolution is the only SCIENTIFIC one.)

        But you see, to Bubbles, anything that is not part of HIS reality, skewed as it is, driven as it is by his rather frantic fixations on poorly understood ideas, IS an “alternate universe” because it is not the universe of unique perceptions he inhabits.

      • Amazona November 25, 2012 / 1:54 am

        “I also understand the problems that most people have with such topics. The biggest one being “but its just a theory”. The reason we call it a theory is because science is always based on assumptions as is all logic (even maths, but the definition changes because we invented maths), and every theory provides falsifiable tests that could one day disprove it. Although that said, a theory is only accepted after a very long process where evidence is collected, tests are performed, predictions are made. Even at that point, it keeps the name “theory”. So we get the term “its just a theory”.”

        Sorry, Red, but this is just gibberish.

    • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 1:56 am

      “Very small”, indeed – and if someone as mathematically adept as Hawking would actually give us the odds, then people would see how absurd it is to believe that there could be unguided evolution. I’m not a mathematician so I am not skilled enough to work it out, but I bet it would look something along the lines of 100,000,000,000,000 to 1 against – and that would be for just one strand of DNA getting together, let alone getting together in a manner where successful self-replication could occur…that would probably look like 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 against.

      • pelirrojito November 24, 2012 / 2:11 am

        And you would be right. Then you would have to consider that if the basic building blocks are created on a single planet (probability of that occurring is actually quite high), then you would assume it would develop all over that planet. Lets assume that the entire ocean was filled with this “stuff”. Then the probability suddenly gets much better. You also have to consider “is carbon based life the only kind?”. Highly doubtful it is.

        A very interesting thing to point out is that yes, he is one of the few who can truly understand such probabilities and he also suggests that life could be very common. And has made his opinion clear that he believes that life most likely exists outside of earth.

        In fact something I suggest every layman do is watch his documentaries. Some of the best I’ve ever seen made (other attempts were boring, hes made it interesting). “Into the universe” is the name of the series.

      • bozo November 24, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        “Very small” doesn’t matter here. If our universe expands and contracts, then it’s probable that there have been an infinite number of cycles before ours. Ours then has an infinite number of chances of being the way it is. If our universe is continually expanding as in the “calving” model, then again, there have been an infinite number of times that an infinite set of preconditions have created this universe we are in. We perceive the one we are in simply because we are in it.

        The odds for or against DNA are not relevant after the fact. If you buy an ice cream, there are calculable odds that you will drop it on your left shoe based on a set of preconditions. But after an infinite number of purchases, the odds are one-to-one certain that it will happen. After you stand sadly staring at your left shoe covered in ice cream, determining the odds of such an event are irrelevant to the fact that it happened.

        As often as the word “infinite” is used alongside the word “God,” you think there would be a greater acceptance of it’s meaning.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 2:04 pm

        Pel,

        The main thing, for me, is that the extreme odds against it happening, at all, strongly suggest an Author of life – and remember that when you first beat the odds and actually get life you then have to go through the increasingly longer odds that it will develope…that a single strand of DNA could accidentally wind up creating me at this computer and a whale swimming in the ocean is next to impossible…unless there is a God.

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 2:05 pm

        Bozo,

        To me the concept of an infinite number of universes – and thus in this infinity we happen to draw the lucky number and get to live – is just a dodge; a way of avoiding the question…a way of excluding God when all evidence points to him.

      • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 3:01 pm

        perryjello

        ya gotta love all the talk of SCIENCE and PROOF then quote this………..

        he is one of the few who can truly understand such ***probabilities ****and he also ***suggests*** that life ***could*** be very common. And has made his*** opinion*** clear that he ***believes*** that life ***most likely*** exists outside of earth.

        Ya gotta be Fn kidding!!

  16. bagni November 24, 2012 / 1:35 pm

    wow
    hats off to rojito dude…..learned many interesting fun facts
    and
    ama actually couldn’t insult red in her usual response m.o.
    that must be a first

    • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 2:55 pm

      nanu nanu dork

      perryjello posted NO “facts” just THEORIES presented by a few atheists who call them selves scientists.
      Ill stick with the scripture which states ONLY a FOOL SAYS in his HEART THERE Is NO GOD!!

      are you such a fool space boy?

      • bagni November 27, 2012 / 12:46 pm

        oh neo
        that’s right…it’s nothing but fact in the scriptures
        i forgot
        thanks for the reminder oh great cranky one

    • Amazona November 27, 2012 / 2:10 pm

      baggi, I always pictured you as one of those wispy little boys who get pantsed or stuck in lockers at school, someone who tries to compensate for being a 13-year-old butt of ridicule for his feyness by going online to be anonymously fey.

      Seeing your photo and realizing that you are really a 50-ish man, who still posts coy pweshuss wittow darlingisms, changes my reaction from pity to Eeeeuuuuuwwwww!

  17. bozo November 24, 2012 / 2:16 pm

    One thing I enjoy about science over religion is that it DOESN’T say that “there can be no God in the process of life.” It simply hasn’t found one. Religions states that there must be a God in the process for no other reason than it wants one.

    The real debate killer here is that no one has clearly defined “God.” If “God” is everything that is as defined by the rules the universe obeys, then scientists are by far more worshipful than priests. If “God” is the loving, angry, jealous daddy-figure-in-the-sky who spontaneously aborts 15 to 20 percent of all fetuses for “reasons” only He “knows” – well – science has a problem with that definition.

    • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 2:51 pm

      blowzo

      If “God” is the loving, angry, jealous daddy-figure-in-the-sky who spontaneously aborts 15 to 20 percent of all fetuses for “reasons” only He “knows” – well science has a problem with that.

      your knowledge of God is not only childish, it borderlines on insanity….Oh Wait!

      What science?
      Whose science?
      some atheists ? wellll imagine that!

      • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 3:14 pm

        in the LAW of thermo dynamics things are continuing breaking down to their lowest elements, not advancing to higher forms.
        when species are cross bread it leads to a species that is sterile….
        not much proof of evolution is there?

        please answer my question
        HOW did the first life form begin?
        HOW did it replicate?
        How and why did it need to form legs, mouths, ears, eyes, digestive tracts, sex organs, ?
        HOW did it randomly know the placement of all those organs?
        SHOW us in the fossil record of ANYTHING that had eyes on it’s feet, toes on its head and a mouth on its butt?

      • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 3:46 pm

        Life from non-life?

        At the core of evolutionary theory is the big assumption that life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process — POOF — life created itself!

        This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that “All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity.”4

        In other words, inanimate matter never increases its own order, organisation or complexity–these always decrease! And even if the elements could arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals!

        The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches that Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”

        http://deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html

    • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 4:44 pm

      Bozo,

      Well, in 97.8% of cases where liberals are losing the design argument they eventually bring up snarky comments about a “daddy-figure-in-the-sky” that the other side is supposed to believe in. Of course, 36.5% of all statistics are made up, anyway…including the 15-20% spontaneous abortion rate…for goodness sakes, do you realize how many tens of thousands of women you’d have to get for such a study to arrive at that sort of determination? That you’d have to monitor each and every sex act from the second of ejaculation forward? There is no way that anyone ever did any such study – the number is just made up, likely after the study of a tiny population which probably didn’t even take in to consideration all of the environmental factors involved; a bit of pro-abortion nonsense. And you fell for it, because you didn’t think it through.

      • 02casper November 24, 2012 / 5:28 pm

        Mark,
        The15-20% miscarriage rate bozo quoted is the number estimated by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

        http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

        One would think they would have access to records of tens of thousands of women. I doubt the figures were just made up.

      • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 5:47 pm

        catspuke

        so what does that have to do with the thread?

        I say BFD,

      • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 5:49 pm

        BS AGAIN

        number ********estimated*********

        Next?

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 24, 2012 / 5:59 pm

        Well, the fact that liberals aren’t losing the “design” argument–remember, you have yet to produce any scientific evidence of your fairy-tale claims–renders your attempt at snark moot.

      • neocon01 November 24, 2012 / 6:25 pm

        AGAIN

        neocon01 November 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

        in the LAW of thermo dynamics things are continuing breaking down to their lowest elements, not advancing to higher forms.
        when species are cross bread it leads to a species that is sterile….
        not much proof of evolution is there?

        please answer my question
        HOW did the first life form begin?
        HOW did it replicate?
        How and why did it need to form legs, mouths, ears, eyes, digestive tracts, sex organs, ?
        HOW did it randomly know the placement of all those organs?
        SHOW us in the fossil record of ANYTHING that had eyes on it’s feet, toes on its head and a mouth on its butt?

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 10:15 pm

        Casper,

        Provide me a study which had at least 100,000 women where they monitored 100% of the sexual acts over a one year period…unless you have data like that, then the statement that 10-15% or whatever (and I’ve seen claims of anywhere from 10 to 25%) are just guesses. And probably pretty bad guesses, at that. For crying out loud, if that level of failure happens in pregnancy then a woman would have to get pregnant pretty much every time she ovulates just to have one kid. Don’t you guys ever actually reflect on the data you receive? Ask yourself if it makes sense? Why is it that the fuddy-duddy, old Catholic is a better skeptic than you?

      • M. Noonan November 24, 2012 / 11:49 pm

        Casper,

        That isn’t a study – that is an article which provides a data point which is implied to have come from a study. Find me the actual study – If you are able to find such a thing I’ll bet that it won’t be comprehensive enough to be definitive. There’s even a chance there wasn’t really a study as it sounds like the sort of thing which works its way in to the world but started out as a press release from a group with an axe to grind.

      • 02casper November 25, 2012 / 1:00 am

        Mark,
        Just curious. What do you think the percentage of miscarriages is and what do you base it on?

      • Retired Spook November 25, 2012 / 9:55 am

        I’m not sure exactly what the percentage of pregnancies that end in miscarriage has to do with this thread other than Bozo’s assertion that God kills a lot of fetuses, but a simple search yields articles and studies that are all over the map, from 10% to 40%. The 10% figure is of “recognized pregnancies”, while the higher numbers seem to be largely estimates of women who miscarried so early in the pregnancy that they weren’t aware they had miscarried because they weren’t even aware that they were pregnant.

        I guess my response would be, so what?

      • M. Noonan November 25, 2012 / 10:23 am

        Casper,

        How many? I haven’t the foggiest notion – and neither, from what I can tell, has anyone else. I see certain figures bandied about and they vary widely – which means that no one really knows and so some people are just guessing because “I don’t know” sounds weak – at least, to some: to me, it doesn’t. Its just an acknowledgement of fact: I don’t know what percentage of pregnancies and in miscarriage just as I don’t know how old the Earth is.

      • Amazona November 26, 2012 / 5:26 pm

        You gotta love cappy, so utterly clueless.

        Some RRL troll drags out a tired old whine about if there is a God how can you explain—–fill in the blank, cancer or earthquakes or, now, miscarriages—–and he goes howling off in the wrong direction, thinking the thread is about miscarriages.

        I do believe cappy is the Roseanne Roseanneadanna of the blog, but he never catches on enough to come back and say “….never mind….”

      • Amazona November 26, 2012 / 5:28 pm

        “SHOW us in the fossil record of ANYTHING that had eyes on it’s feet, toes on its head and a mouth on its butt?”

        Well, neo, I don’t know about having eyes on its feet or toes on its head, but as far as a mouth on its butt we do have watson and bozo and the bubble boy.

  18. Jeremiah November 24, 2012 / 10:20 pm

    I would say the world is anywhere between 6500 – 7500 years old.

    It is an exercise in futility to argue the merits of a Designer, Creator God with any atheist.
    Afterall, only a fool disbelieves in God. Atheists are atheists purely for moral reasons, and moral reasons alone, not because of evidence, or lack thereof. They willingly disobey because of the restrictions on certain behavior that God has put into place. They want God out of the equation.

    It’s fun to argue about whether or not there is a God…but at the end of the day, when it comes to living one’s life for God, or for the world, this is where it hits home for many, thus atheists want to live the kind of life that is of a reprobate mind, void of conscience. Many millions will wake up in the unquenchable fire of hell one day.

  19. neocon01 November 25, 2012 / 1:24 pm

    And once again, Neo is blatantly incorrect

    because you post some silly article written by moron?
    THAT is your “proof”………. ha ha ha ha ha ha

    LOLzer (quoting GMB)

    • mitchethekid November 25, 2012 / 1:44 pm

      How’s that Neo? Morons?? They believe the same things as you. Imagine that!
      http://biologos.org/about

      • neocon01 November 26, 2012 / 11:32 am

        So you are calling millions of people who have clinically died seen God, heaven and some hell are delusional liars, and you hold the keys to the truth?

      • neocon01 November 26, 2012 / 12:54 pm

        Ooh YEAH!!

        BREITBART: Online activists on the right, unite!

        A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.

        We must not let that go unanswered.

        Read more: BREITBART: Online activists on the right, unite! – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/rules-for-conservative-radicals/#ixzz2DLfHLUdO
        Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

      • Amazona November 26, 2012 / 1:14 pm

        But of course, neo. Because, you see, we cannot routinely kill people temporarily and record their experiences and then document that these experiences are consistent and absolute proof of God. This is not something that can be repeated, with the same results every time, and therefor is of no scientific value.

        We have to compare the actual experiences of people with the vast body of objective scientific research, to which words like “empirical” and “theory” and “proof” can rightfully be applied, and realize that the actual experience of a human consciousness is as nothing compared to the many many times God has been PROVEN to not exist, through replicable and rigidly controlled scientific experiments.

        Just as we must dismiss the evidence of intelligent design or guided evolution because it is not like the often-repeated, with consistent results, experiment of bombarding some kind of particle (based upon a guess of what kind of particle it should be) that has no beginning of its own but somehow just IS, with some unknown energy which also has no beginning but just IS, based upon a guess as to what kind of energy is called for, to create life where none existed before.

        And it is in no way like the equally repeated, with equally predictable results, experiments of taking that primitive life form, less complex than even a single cell, and expanding it to EVOLVE into millions and millions of widely disparate life forms of astounding complexity, many of which have nothing in common with others.

        We have to remember that science depends on the ability to replicate results in a predictable manner, such as it has by first knowing, somehow, just what kind of particle from hundreds of billions of years ago was assaulted by what kind of energy from the same time period, and then accurately and repeatedly creating the same kind of life and then accurately and repeatedly expanding that life to create voles and whales and daisies and man.

        And we have to keep in mind that the fact of existence is not evidence of existence, for such is the stuff of which science is made, according to the RRL exponents of this version of science who lecture us here.

        We must also be ready to accept the corollaries of such a belief. For example, if the existence of Scientist Bob is not evidence that Scientist Bob IS, then by extension the physical effects of Scientist Bob’s interaction with the world around him are also not evidence of his existence. So without absolute proof that Scientist Bob IS, lacking evidence of such proof once we have established that his existence is not adequate for such proof, we also lack evidence that the scientific experiments of Scientist Bob exist. Sadly, the only way to accept the validity of anything Scientist Bob has ever said, done, written or proved depends on accepting that the existence of Scientist Bob IS evidence that he exists.

        Which is denied by the RRL posters here.

        Don’t jump on me because this doesn’t make any sense—-I am not the one who insists that existence is not evidence, or that the inability to prove the existence of God through scientific means is significant but the inability to prove He does not exist through those means is of no import.

      • neocon01 November 26, 2012 / 4:41 pm

        “Life from non-life?

        At the core of evolutionary theory is the big assumption that life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process — POOF — life created itself! This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that “All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity.”4

        In other words, inanimate matter never increases its own order, organisation or complexity–these always decrease! And even if the elements could arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals! The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetched that Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”
        Did Charley make a monkey out of you?

        As for the so-called “simple cell”, from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine declared, “THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YORK CITY.” The well-known evolutionist Loren Eisely likewise admitted in his book, The Immense Journey, that “Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth.”

        Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by itself–POOF–without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution’s imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex “simple” cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind, unguided chance! Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, “It is simple dogmatism–asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.” The absurdity of this evolutionary logic is only amplified as we move on to the even more complex, multi-celled forms of life.”

  20. Jeremiah November 25, 2012 / 9:42 pm

    Psalm 19:1-3 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.

Comments are closed.