News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

There are several questions here which I have posed to CTD and to which I am still awaiting an answer. As more arise I will add them to this thread.

From the "What is Abiogenesis" thread:

Post 252286
Technically Gonzalez espouses "Intelligent Design." There have been court cases where IDers have claimed that ID is science, not religion. So why is Gonzalez claiming religious descrimination?

Post 252372
Can you suggest an experiment that would produce some positive evidence for creationism?

Post 252374
How else do you explain the phyletic gradualism (the small changes in time) of horse evolution? Click the link to horse evolution that I posted earlier. You will see that there are many transitional fossils, each of which shows small differences from the preceding one -- and in the order in which they are found in situ. Is this just a weird coincidence? Did God create one horse ancestor, only to wipe it out and create another slightly different one? And do it again and again? The logical conclusion, where this is repeated across different species all over the globe, is evolution. I repeat, how else do you explain the evidence?

Post 252383
Now if ID and CS must be classed as unscientific because some of the historical events they accept aren't testable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which events are you referring to specifically?

Post 252415
Genetics demolished evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will be news to geneticists as well as other scientists. Do explain how this happened.

Post 252415
First off, it was an evolutionist way back in the 40's or something that showed how flawed that horse story was. It's ancient history (which is why you don't know it - sorry I keep forgetting).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't start backing up these silly claims with some evidence . . .

Post 252415
Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More unsubstantiated assertions.

Post 252415
You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.

Post 252432
it's hard to find discussions of any cosmic models that have any chance of being accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubstantiated fluff. Unless you can provide some . . . gosh, I'm going to have to use that E-word again.

Post 252432
Ain't no need to invalidate them first. You're supposed to be sick of folks knocking holes in evolutionism. You want evidence for creationism, remember?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a slippery dodge. Radiometric dating and astronomical observations present solid evidence for the age of the earth. If you say you don't accept them then of course you need to explain why. Any theories competing with existing theories need to take those existing theories into account, and explain why they don't adequately explain the evidence.

If you can't do this then I don't expect to hear any more assertions on the subject from you.

From the "Cracking Down" thread

Post 252524
If you think the ToE is not a satisfactory explanation for any of the criteria that you listed in your OP, then which ones does it not explain, and what would be your alternative model? Falsifying one theory does not by default validate another one. You don't get creationism validated if you manage somehow to poke holes in the ToE.

Is creationism in any way falsifiable or testable?
____________________________

Before you begin more new posts or threads, maybe you would like to address some of these?

I have skipped over a few others in the anticipation that you will eventually get to the point in your "Cracking Down" thread.

I do not claim to read Gonzalez' mind. I have already answered twice, and explained how the discrimination against Gonzalez was based on the religion of his persecutors.
I can. Who can't?
I'm non obligated to research every ancient issue. Even evolutionists who look into "horse evolution" consider it "a disgrace". Does your browser not have a search feature?

I also don't respond foolishly to loaded questions. I frequently do not respond to off-topic questions. Try another tactic. On an interesting issue.

I have no interest in "horse evolution" It's a bland, boring story and I have but one use for it these days: anyone dragging it out and claiming it's valid demonstrates lack of education or intent to deceive. I honestly don't recall the details, nor do I care to refresh my memory.

Discuss it with someone else, or research it yourself. I have better things to do.
You really don't know what the arguments against CS & ID are, do you? If you did, you'd have no reason to ask this. You just take the conclusions of evolutionists on blind faith, without even examining the reasoning behind them.

Why should I take the time to teach you evolutionism? You wouldn't like the way I'd teach it.
Untrue. Your Oort cloud is unsubstantiated, as is your faith therein.
You've already indicated that any slander levied against a creationist site will be taken as true by default. At this time, I don't see much point in subjecting good persons to further slander.
Space is demonstrably 3-dimensional. Show me a discussion of a cosmic model that doesn't depend upon a 4th spacial dimension. Even 2 creationists models incorporate this fatal flaw. The models I've seen that don't incorporate it aren't cosmic in scale - they're limited to the solar system or galaxy.

Your request for evidence that no such discussions are easily found is absurd. Are discussions of orange and purple striped alligators easily found? Please submit evidence.


Do tell! Isn't it then obligatory for DNA-world researchers to conclusively demonstrate the flaws in RNA-world (and half a dozen others)?

Uh-oh? Just what happens when I fail to meet your expectations?

It was inappropriate to ask off-topic questions. It would have been inappropriate for me to respond to off-topic questions. You are in error when you maintain otherwise.

I have observed that you've been frustrated in the past while trying to drag Russ off topic in many a discussion. I understand your desire to practice this tactic in compliance with the customs and traditions of evolutionism. I do not think you have any right to complain when I decline to be the victim of such practices. If you disagree, please present evidence.

You seemed to suggest at one point, puzzlingly, that they must have fired him because he was Christian. Please explain the logic of this, since the majority of US scientists are actually Christian. Explain what it would have specifically been about his Christian beliefs, as opposed to his beliefs in ID, that could have been a factor. I'll hazard a guess: you can't.



Please do so.



You came here and presented the assertion. You give the evidence for it. Otherwise it is totally groundless. At least Bex puts her money where her mouth is. You present assertion after assertion and come up with the most ridiculous excuses for why you won't explain them. It's off topic. It's not interesting. It should be obvious. You want us to research your own claims. You'll get to it later. I don't know what I'm talking about/too stupid to realise/uneducated etc.

Answer the questions.



Answer the question. What historical events that ID/CS accept are not testable?



Answer the question. What are the 20+ scientific methods of dating the earth to be under 50k years? I'll make it easier for you. Name one.



Answer the question. If your claim is true, and there are no scientific inaccuracies on the websites you had in mind, then there's no reason why I would point any out to you is there? Since when was correcting scientific inaccuracies "slander"?



Where is your evidence for this? What you experience with your 5 senses? There's a lot in the world that we don't experience with our 5 senses.I also do not understand what you mean by "cosmic models". This is a rather vague term.



But the RNA-world and half a dozen others are not accepted theories. They are other competing ideas which attempt to explain abiogenesis. Having said that then yes, they do need to be taken into account and the other ideas would need to show why they explain the evidence better.

You're quite keen to cry "off topic" when you don't want to answer a question. Yet you were complaining about the perceived martyrdom of creationist scientists in the abiogenesis thread. I'm a little mystified.

LindaLou, your statement is just preposterous and flies in the face of all logic and reality. Either you are seriously mistaken or perhaps you're trying to make your argument look more credible by trying to downplay the obvious discrimination against Gonzalez.

This should help clear up any confusion you might have on the subject of Christianity among U.S. scientists. This article was published in the international weekly journal of science, Nature. Leading scientists still reject God




This quote below from the same article is quite telling of the mindset of U.S. scientists (or scientists in any country for that matter). I would submit to you, LindaLou, that this mind-set is a much more accurate description of the mentality of the majority of scientists:




But of course, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) knows that encouraging the teaching of evolution in taxpayer-funded public schools is an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. (I just love the oh-so-veiled contempt for Christians in this sentence...)

So, they make sure their president reminds the readers of Nature that...



Right. Even the researchers conducting the study didn't buy that one. Their response?



I've seen you say several times in discussions on this forum that many scientists are Christians. Well, it seems that the majority of scientists don't agree with you.

Then again, maybe these same scientists who profess not to believe in God are really Christian at heart and they just don't want to openly admit it for fear of losing their jobs, their tenure, or their respect among "greater scientists".

But then that would mean that discrimination against religion really does exist in the scientific community. Unless you want to go so far as to suggest that any scientist who is a Christian is just a poor scientist and not capable of performing his/her job satisfactorily.

You might find this site to be of interest Laura.

It links to several surveys, including the one you cite. The conclusion here:



While atheism has some prestige and popularity these days due to people like Richard Dawkins (of whom I am certainly not a fan), I think you'll find that most scientists will tell you that science and theism can be compatible. For example, there are many who believe that God got the ball rolling so to speak, and that his hand has guided evolution.

hmmm, so, a vague sense of god, a belief in a god of some sort, results in the majority of US scientists being christian?

hmmm.

I wonder if that logic works in tibet. It might cause a major uproar in Iran, maybe that would be a better place to investigate.

Maybe a better term, then, would be "theists." And most theists in the US are Christian, yes.

The issue here seems to be not whether someone believes in a supreme being, or even the Christian one; but whether they believe in a particular religious ideology that includes a literal reading of a holy book, which is at odds with scientific evidence and theory. If you deny the reality of the evidence and theory, and you are a scientist, then there's a problem.

There are other creation stories from cultures around the world. Some talk of original gods dividing themselves up to make other gods, and then people. Some talk of the gods fashioning people from clay and then bringing them to life. According to the Iriqois,the Sky Woman oversaw the making of the earth while she sat on a turtle; the turtle holds the earth up to this very day.

If a scientist claimed that their holy book told them the earth was held on the back of a turtle, so therefore it must be true, I would have serious problems with trusting them to be doing objective science. I would have the same problems with a scientist claiming that the earth is young and that all living things on the earth were created concurrently.

All of that is understandable Linda, from the perspective of many conversations (aka) with you, and it's probably very akin to why people have difficulty trusting your observations and comments about evolution, or anything else for that matter.

Because most of them do not add up to much of anything and are generally ungrounded in fact but nonetheless you insist they are true.

Sometimes so-called myths/legends can indeed have their basis in truth. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss or make fun because of the obvious ficticious fluff thrown in. You can start to see interesting and similar patterns amongst many "stories" from cultures around the world sharing similar traits of the past that go beyond mere coincidence. There is something to be said for the oral history/legends of our ancestors. We have maori legends here in New Zealand that also, many times, have their basis in truth and actual events, but that too has to be dissected and understood amongst the obvious fiction. It is very interesting!



Try the big bang or primordial soup. That's almost as funny, but not nearly as cute <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/babypacifier.gif" alt="" /> It's often backed up with animated pictures too!

What it boils down to, Bex, is evidence. There is a lot of evidence for the big bang. Not so much for the earth perching on a turtle's back. If you look in the abiogenesis thread you will also see that there is growing evidence for the possibility of life arising from organic chemicals. On the other hand, the evidence points against the earth being young, or all life on earth that's ever existed, arising concurrently.

When you say that there can be truth in myths, I agree. Comparative mythology is something I have an interest in. What some people dismiss as "myth," i.e. an untruth, I see as "greater truth." Metaphors can guide us to truths about life, and myths are meant to teach us.

However, that greater truth is lost when the myths are read as factual. In many cases, that was never their purpose.

In other cases, they might well document some real events that have happened to people. But we have to be careful about how we interpret them. They are not the same as historical documents. Even ancient historians such as Herodotus embellished their accounts to make them more fun to read. And when someone from an ancient civilisation says that the world was covered with water, we have to keep in mind that their concept of the world was probably very different, and much smaller, than ours.

If you want to try to make a plausible case for the earth literaly perching on the back of a turtle, you are of course welcome to do so.

I notice that CTD hasn't answered most of the questions I've posed here yet. I'm not holding my breath.

Linda, as I said in my earlier post, one must brush aside the obvious fables that often cloud the underlying truth. So the turtle story? yeah um ok, if you wanna believe I find that logical, you're welcome to believe that. Perhaps it makes your arguments seem more credible in comparison?

I find the big bang just as illogical. As though an explosion could conceivably have means of containing the materials for life. Have we observed this? Let me know if you know of any outcomes from an explosion that has produced anything other than chaos! Rather instead complexity, purpose and order.



What it boils down to Linda ongoing claims of "evidence". Again you are not talking of solid evidence, but rather ideas and ideas that come from fallible people that were not there, whose theories are subject to scrutiny and change. If this was an undeniable scientific fact, we would not be able to argue about it, because as more evidence comes to light, the arguments are silenced. Why do the arguments against evolution seem to be growing rather than being silenced by fact? Why are more people questioning this theory Linda if there is undeniable scientific proof? in other words, there isn't.

I have a theory too. I believe that there was power, life/intellect behind all of this. You seem to believe that organic matter somehow existed, containing the information for all life to evolve. Yet you can never really tell me where it came from and how. This is not evidence Linda. It's a theory yes. I cannot give you evidence for a Creator in a manner you would ever be satisfied with, because my observation of the world around me is through the eyes of faith, as well as what I feel is logical and crystal clear (to me) and added to this, personal supernatural experiences. The creator hides Himself (for the most part), but the evidence of Him (I believe) is all around us and as the bible says "they are without excuse".

Sure you are free to poo poo the idea of a living God who created the universe / solar system in all it's balance and wonder, and instead put it down to inexplicable events like a big bang, and organic matter etc, or whatever else the evolutionary scientists come up with. I see a watch or a computer and logic tells me it has a designer / programmer. I see similar in nature itself. I see also that humans imitate nature in his/her own designs, be it pictures, aeroplanes, etc.

I think the signature of design is contained within each and every human beings original DNA code. I do not believe any of this can be so readily explained away by big bangs, promordial soups etc. Though you can give it a good try because scientists always think that so long as they exclude intelligent design, that they're being "logical" and "scientific".

It doesn't work that way. I think the way a person interprets the evidence also has a huge impact on what we're being "told". You can interpret a fossil anyway you like, but the only thing you can definitely say about it is "it died". Apart from that, it's up for interpretation and bias for the most part. And there's plenty of it.

The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

I look at this body of evidence and I accept that the big bang is the most likely explanation. Do you have an alternative model which explains it better?

I don't know how or why. I don't know what would have existed before. I don't know if our universe is a little bubble in a bigger universe. All I can do -- all anyone can do -- is look at the evidence and interpret it accordingly.


The whole religious right movement has been growing, but I don't see that as evidence of people finding truth. In my opinion it is a reaction against various directions in which our society is perceived to be headed, and there are those who think that a return to the past is an ideal response.

Scientists also don't help their cause much sometimes. Believe it or not, I have been locked in my own debates with them on other sites and some of them are insufferable. The majority of them say that anecdotal evidence is useless and that most people are mistaken or lying about their reported experiences. This does nothing to endear the public to science -- which actually is founded on experience and which should indeed take account of those of the public as well as scientists. Within limits, of course. I wouldn't say that denial of evidence counts as an experience that can be reported, though things like the power of prayer can be.


I disagree. I've just said that people's experiences should count -- mind you, I didn't say their interpretations of those experiences should be assumed to be correct. There is a lot more that you can say about a fossil apart from the fact that it died. Where it is found can reveal a vast amount of information, including how long ago the organism died and in what kind of environment it lived. If you deny this then you need to find an alternative explanation of the sorting of the fossil record. You can also compare the fossil to other existing ones to determine whether you're looking at a new species, a probably ancestor to an existing one, etc. I think any paleontologist or archaeologist could elaborate on this. Are they just wasting their time; do you think they haven't learned anything but lies in years of study?

Ha!! Which ones?

You can read about it in detail here. A few of the things that were predicted would be that the cosmic background radiation would be highly uniform and a perfect blackbody, that there would be an abundance of light elements early in the universe, and that the universe would exhibit large-scale homogeneity.

There is an exciting new generation of technology on the way which should increase our knowledge further. The James Webb space telescope will be many times more powerful than Hubble and will hopefully help us to see some of the first stars and galaxies. The cosmic microwave background will be measured in even more detail; there will be large-scale surveys of galaxy distributions and supernovae; and the Large Hadron Collider goes on line next month.

I anticipate (if you do understand the term) you'll emphasize "large-scale", and try to maintain it exists. That's no help, as CMB is a "large-scale" result.

I could probably guess what you'll say about my unwillingness to overlook these internal inconsistencies.

Also, does modifying a "theory" to accommodate new evidence count as a "prediction"? I know in standard English it doesn't, but evospeak has different definitions.

Both of the statements above are correct observations. Yes the universe exhibits large-scale homogeneity; you see the same kinds of things in all directions. The large-scale universe looks a bit like bubbly froth.

But yes, there is slight unevenness, because there is that froth -- clusters of galaxies, with voids around them. Scientists think that something happened in the first fractions of a second after the big bang to cause this, and it might be tied up with the reason why there is also a dominance of matter (as oppsed to anti-matter). I've never claimed that scientists know everything. It's an interesting question because it requires knowledge about states of matter which no longer exist in the universe today.

Do you have a problem with any of this?

So: Are you going to answer any of the questions I asked here, or not?

I think it's erroneous to believe any story which is internally inconsistent. Is that what you mean by "have a problem"?

I've just explained to you. If you refuse to listen that's your business I guess.

What on earth does this have to do with Thomas Huxley? gee whiz anyone could see that all you are doing is trying to demean CTD anyone could judge that.

Where is Thomas Huxley in all of this? Did anyone watch CSI last night? How come that is not being discussed here either? they dig up a lot of old bones you know.

He was claiming that my statement about the structure of the universe, and the cosmic microwave background, had inconsistencies. I elaborated for him but he still insists it's inconsistent, though he has given no reason for why he is still claiming it, despite the fact that astronomers have no problem with it. I cannot see how this equates to character defamation.


This is completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? Could you please post a list of reasons that proves it is irrelevant?

How can it possibly be irrelevant if Aldous Huxley wrote science fiction and Carl Sagan defined it?

Does Carl Sagan have any input on the issue? If you cannot make the connection I truly doubt anything else is valid.

During the part of the story when the universe is required to be homogenous, it is. During the part of the story when it can't be, it isn't.

I see that as an internal inconsistency. I do not expect many cosmologists who promote this story to recant on account of it.

Why do you mention astronomers? What would they know? Cosmology's another field, isn't it? Even so, I've given no indication that I intend to buy an internally inconsistent story even if 100% of the cosmologists agree thereupon. No more than I'll buy any such claim held to be true by 100% of all Voodoo witch-doctors.

I said:



All of these things have been observed, as I stated. The CMB is highly, though not perfectly, uniform; and the universe does exhibit large-scale homogeneity -- it is the same in all directions, with matter more or less equally distributed. The big bang is the likeliest model we have so far of how the universe formed because it explains a lot of the evidence, though there are still question marks about aspects. This is science in action and it's fascinating to read about. However, you seem to be saying that what I stated above is false in some way (please explain how), and presumably by default this disproves the entire big bang theory and proves that creationism must be right. I don't see the logic there.



Because Bex brought the subject up.



Please re-read what I re-stated above and tell me how it is internally inconsistent. Would this be the same thinking you are using to claim that circular reasoning also exists where it doesn't?



The fact that you hold all scientists in such low regard is patently obvious.

Here is a nice FAQ on the subject which should clarify things for you.

Ahh. I failed to get that from the context.

Again? I prefer not to go around in circles just now.

Actually, I hold 'most everybody "in such high regard". Not many will sell me an internally inconsistent story. Do you think I should make special exceptions?

On page 2 of your link, I found that they have a conspiracy theory of their own.Off topic, but maybe of interest to some readers.

Great -- if you read pages 1 and 2 of the link, then you will see why the statement I made is not inconsistent. If you continue repeating that it is, then like your circular reasoning claims which were also erroneous, I can only assume that the repitition is designed to provoke.

If you'd clicked the link where it says "science journalists conspire," you would have found that this has nothing to do with conspiracies. The author is simply complaining that people who write astronomy news stories for magazines usually give distances as light travel time distances and do not mention redshifts, which can cause some confusion.

So how about addressing the topic of this thread and answering some of the questions in the OP?

Hmmm. Your motive?