Get the facts straight!!!
Offline Ok I just got off with a few e-mails with a few friends regarding the age of the universe, evolution, and how much distance earth has lost orbit (the last one I really laughed at every one's answers)
So starting off......age of the universe by scientific standards which outweight the biblical version because well, there is evidence behind it....biblical no evidence at all for 6000 years other than it says so. Now I had have to give the answer that a few others gave, 6000 years, less than 1.7 billion, more than 20 billion and less than 100 million years....correct scientific answer....closer to 13.7 billion years.
Next the earth decaying orbit and how much.....the theists stated 1 inch per year.....which after a millions of years puts it past pluto, apparently it is in a scientific book, can someone give me this book please (incorrect distance) , the agnostic.....stated that at that distance from pluto it would take 1.7 billion years, 1000 years older than the universe. My answer, well the universe is first off 13.7 billion, the earth is 4.5 billion. Now some conversion, 4.5 billion years at one inch a year is 4.5 billion inches, convert that to feet it's 375 million feet, convert that to kilometers it's 114300 kilometers, and for you US guys that's 71022.727 miles. Which puts it far less than half the distance between the earth and the moon.
Evolution, theists statement that he did not evolve from a monkey, agnostic was actually quiet on this one. That it is impossible for evolution to have occurred since the orbit of the earth statement before. Ok theists (the ones that don't understand evolution or agree with the following statement) and non evolution believers......WE DID NOT EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS!! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR IGNORANT THICK SKULLS. Second, we evolved from a common ancestor of the ape family, third, MONKEYS and APES ARE NOT THE SAME, they are not even in the same family as humans and apes
Please people on both sides do check your facts.
Thats it, thanks.
- Login to post comments
I agree with the gist of your argument.
The Earth's orbit is expanding at a rate of roughly 1.5 centimeters per year. One centimeter is equal to 0.393700787 inches. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that the orbit enlarges at a steady rate, this means the orbit enlarges 0.5905511805 inches per year for approximately 4,540,000,000 years. That equals 2,681,102,359.47 inches. Divide that by 12 to get 223,425,196.6225 feet. Divide that by 5,280 to get 18,618,766.385208333333333333333333 miles. The largest distance (remember the orbit is elliptical) between the Sun and Earth for the current orbit is approximately 149,597,870,691 meters. One meter is equal to 0.000621371192 miles. Thus the largest distance between the Sun and Earth for the current orbit is approximately 92,955,807.231928533672 miles. Subtracting the orbit-enlargement figure from that derived figure, we learn that the Earth, 4.54 billion years ago, would be 74,337,040.84672020033866666666667 miles away from the Sun if it were at the furthest point along its orbit.
Of course, that's all assuming a constant rate of orbital enlargement. That's too simplistic though. You have to remember that the moon was not always around. The moon was probably created by a large body impacting Earth during its infancy and knocking a huge chunk of it loose. This means two things: (1) the Earth did not have a moon influencing its orbit for a certain period of time; (2) the large body that hit the Earth could've altered its earlier orbit quite significantly. Trying to account for these two things would require some very complicated equations—perhaps too complicated for me, at my current knowledge level, to solve—and that's assuming all the required information is available to plug into those equations, which is doubtful.
Overall, though, there is no merit to the creationist argument about the orbit of the Earth being significantly different from what it is now if you accept the age of the Earth being 4.54 billion years old.
The creationists make it sound as though it were just a choice to accept the age of the Earth as being 4.54 billion years old. The problem with that representation of the situation is the wide corroboration of it in other fields of study. The dating techniques employed for those time scales are corroborated by the dating techniques for smaller time scales. Those, in turn, are corroborated by dating techniques of even smaller time scales. The chain of corroboration continues until you get to carbon-14 dating. (That's not to say atomic dating techniques for even smaller time scales don't corroborate it, they do, but I'm turning my attention to something else.) Carbon-14 dating is corroborated by dendrochronological dating (tree-ring dating) techniques. Those, in turn, are corroborated by our knowledge of annual tree growth. In order to deny the age of the earth being 4.54 billion years old, you have to also deny the annual growth pattern of trees—which no sane individual can do.
Because the age of the Earth is rather solidly established and orbital enlargement poses no problem to the acceptance of the age of the Earth, those also pose no problem for evolution's occurrance. The creationists should sweep those arguments into the dustbin, where they belong.
They should also sweep into the dustbin the "humans didn't evolve from monkeys" argument. It's silly. Most individuals have first and second cousins. Monkeys are like our billionth cousins, seeing as how their bloodline and our own bloodline diverged such a long time ago. If your argument was that evolution says mankind decended from its cousins, you should read a book about evolution. If that's not your argument, you should read a book about monkeys and learn what a monkey is.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Creationist's arguments can sound very convincing. There may be some true calculations and correct facts behind the statements, yet one thing that they are bad at: Logic. A convincing creationist claim is always backed by bad logic, and claims with good logic have been debunked or have no evidence.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
What's wrong with "God did it"? Jeeze, you act like fictional megelomanic tyranical characters dont exist.
To quote Dark Helmet, "Whats with you man?"
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
People need to face-up to the fact that the paradigm of evolution has been shaken to its foundations. Evolution is SO last millenium.
Even if the universe was billions of years old (which I don't believe it is), it does not invalidate creationism.
More and more scientists are beginning to question the presuppositions of the evolutionary hypothesis.
I heard that the magazine "Nature" stated in 1997 (ten years ago) that 39% of the top 1,000 American scientists either flat-out deny evolution, or question it.
That was ten years ago. The numbers are growing.
I surmize that many (if not most) of them do not believe in evolution, but can't teach against it due to the current policies and restrictions in modern academia.
Dr. Kenyon of Standord told his colleages he could not teach evolution anymore after watching "Origins" (six part video series) by Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith Ph.D Ph.D Ph.D.
And was subsequently terminated.
This is not about science anymore. It is about politics, control and agendas.
My signature is stupid like you know who.
Really? And on what to you base this conclusion? I'm a theist, but iI've never seen anything to convince me that the universe is NOT billions of years old.
My Artwork
This claim is explicitly false. With the modern synthesis, evolutioanry biology has only amplified as a field. I should know considering I work in it.
Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a theory.
"I heard". This is indeed an excellent way to do research. Well, except that it is not. Since I own every copy of Nature published in the last 15 years, by all means go ahead and cite me one of them. I am sure I shall not find it. Because you are lying.
And on grounds should I take your flat out assertion as true?
This is simply an assertion on your part. Nor is it backed. Nor is it a critique of evolution. In fact, it is just your opinion. Can you guess the quantitative worth I place on your opinion? None. This assertion is used only by those who wish to hold arguments at arms length and have nothing intelligent to contribute.
And Wilder-Smith did get published...provided he did real science.
On the other hand, if you think credentials are what will win you your battle here, I assure you I could sink you in a second, considering that I have a double-doctorate (MD/PhD).
Tu quoque, Mr. Kettle. Now, do you wish do actually argue about the science here, or are you going to continue to whine? I imagine the latter considering you do not appear to have any scientific knowledge in what is under discussion here. If you do wish to engage in discussion on the matter, I shall be faintly amused, but I have no shortage of time here.
However, I do not simply allow my interlocutor to launch straight into his diatribe when I pose this challenge, because this usually entails that I have to teach him/her/it basic facts and cure their ignorance. So, now I simply pose a question that 99% cannot answer: Can you tell me the three principles of evolution? If not, you don't even know what you are debating and might as well just leave so as to save further embarassment. And don't even bother using Wikipedia. I will know straight away.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Yes, it is such a political agenda to think that it's okay to terminate someone for being incompetent and not doing their job.
Granted, you're a creationist, which means by definition that you don't know shit about shit and lie about it, so I'll have to look up Dr. Kenyon myself to see how much misrepresentation you're doing about their termination.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
You used the word fact, which means you must have absolute proof of this. Let's see it. But even if evolution doesn't exist, that in no way means that creationism is true. That's like saying that if modern astronomy were proven to be false then astrology must be the only answer. Also, I liked your cute usage of argumentum ad novitatem.
It doesnt validate creationism either. And you say the earth is how old based on what evidence? It's funny how theists cherry pick science.
Don't use an Argumentum ad populum, especially a false one. Although saying most scientists agree is a much stronger argument than if you argued that most americans agree. The majority of scientists don't believe things because they think it sounds neat, but because the theories have been rigorously tested and sometimes do alot to further science. Like evolution for instance.
So you surmise from faulty information (pretty shitty evidence if you ask me) that apparently eveyone agrees with you? How convenient for you. Also, go watch some of the court cases where creationism was put up against evolution in a format where actual evidence had to be presented, and no appeals to emotion, popularity or design were allowed.
Thats cute.
Alberto, can you at least give us those specific details you so conviently omitted, such as the article of Nature Magazine that makes this statement, second, if it is growing, can you please provide the data.
Second the firing of someone told not to teach something that has not been proven false, well then, again, show the evidence do the work and allow it to be properly done as per the scientific requirements in science....then it won't be taught any more. Otherwise, if your saying don't teach this because I believe it's false, to bad, be fired for not doing your job, simple as that not political at all.
Third the reason WHY creationism isn't taught....is because there is no evidence for it at all, there are no valid theories, no proper work done, no proper journals or anything that has been summited to be analyzed, tested or proven, hence creationlism is not even scientific at all, it's just religious bullshit.
Read this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/science/9731
Hurray for screwy poll questions!
These results should be 100% as its a scientists job to QUESTION, but then again, maybe thats what some of the 39% thought, and maybe this played right into your hands >.>
Either way, Americas scientists still end up looking like the fucktards they are.
What Would Kharn Do?
"Tu quoque, Mr. Kettle. Now, do you wish do actually argue about the science here, or are you going to continue to whine? I imagine the latter considering you do not appear to have any scientific knowledge in what is under discussion here. If you do wish to engage in discussion on the matter, I shall be faintly amused, but I have no shortage of time here."
Tu quoque is the fallacy of "two wrong's don't make a right". I don't see why you used it. I didn't commit that fallacy. You people live in a bubble that is bursting. And just because you are a biologist, does not prove you are abreast on the arguments against evolution. Most biologists know very little about the details of evolution. They've been taught to believe in it, but not taught WHY to believe in it. And I invite you to look at all your issues of Nature for 1997. It's there. Just because you were unaware of this, does not make it untrue.
My signature is stupid like you know who.
And it also means "you too". It was an ironic statement since this claim could be applied to the creationist position. It was an irrelevant consideration considering you simply asserted that it was no longer about science, most likely because you were too lazy to construct a scientific argument.
Again, this is a false claim. Evolution is one of the most widely accepted theories in the whole discipline of biology. It is not going anywhere unless you mount a serious scientific challenge. Which you haven't.
Did you not hear me? I said I had been trained in evolutionary biology, and am versed in the techniques of molecular phylogenics and genomic analysis. And do not accuse me of ignorance on creationist arguments, for I would venture to guess I have read more creationist material than most creationists have.
That's it. I'm no longer taking you seriously. There are tens of thousands of papers in every Nature journal for 1997. Either you provide me with the citation or I will not take you for your assertion, but do not expect me to sift through every single copy of Nature. You can either tell me which paper it was published in, or you can't. In which case, I'm not taking you seriously.
Now, you did not respond to my challenge
(1) You said most biologists do not know about evolution. This has a faint tinge of irony considering that I openly challenged you to a genuine scientific discussion on the matter, and you haven't responded. In fact, I would wager your entire response was a red herring to distract from this fact.
(2) I asked you a question that a grade school student should know: Do you know the three principles of evolution? You haven't responded, which suggests either
a) You didn't read my entire post in which case you shouldn't have responded.
Or...
You can take a guess at (b).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Alberto, you said, "People need to face-up to the fact that the paradigm of evolution has been shaken to its foundations." You, sir, are lying. Your fact is actually counterfactual and a misrepresentation of the position of thousands of indiiduals. You then say, "Even if the universe was billions of years old (which I don't believe it is), it does not invalidate creationism." I don't recall anyone claiming that it did invalidate all forms of creationism. Please stop misrepresenting peoples' positions.
You said, "More and more scientists are beginning to question the presuppositions of the evolutionary hypothesis." You are clueless as to the definition of hypothesis. Furthermore, you did not list any presuppositions. I challenge you to name a single presupposition and to provide the justification for naming that specific thing a presupposition. Do not conceal your claims with the veil of vagueness.
You said, "I heard that the magazine "Nature" stated in 1997 (ten years ago) that 39% of the top 1,000 American scientists either flat-out deny evolution, or question it." You have not distinguished between the phenomenon of evolution and the theory of evolution. Further, you do not specify whether those "American scientists" were all scientists in the field of biology or if they included engineers and other people who wouldn't be expected to have an expertise on the subject of biology. You also do not specify what percentage of those American scientists question the theory of evolution or the phenomena of evolution as an isolated figure from those who deny the theory of evolution or the phenomena of evolution. Please provide a citation for your claim so these details can be ascertained, assuming you're not talking out of the wrong end of your body. I'm willing to bet, assuming such a study actually exists, the majority of that percentage is in the questioning category and it applies to the theory of evolution rather than the phenomenon of evolution. If I am correct or you do not provide a citation, you must place the asshat avatar under your name for a week. If I am incorrect, I will place an asshat avatar under my name for a week. Do you agree to the bet? Anyhow, you then go on to say, "The numbers are growing." This is a nice bald assertion. Would you mind citing some evidence in favor of your claim?
You said, "I surmize that many (if not most) of them do not believe in evolution, but can't teach against it due to the current policies and restrictions in modern academia." You say "them" as if you were still referring to those top 1,000 American scientists when you've clearly shifted your attention away from them. Your wording connotes an equivocation fallacy. Furthermore, you are implying a conspiracy to enforce silencing critics without realizing that you've contradicted your argument by referring to statistics among the elites who supposedly doubt evolution but were not silenced. You should truly check the sources of your information because they're contradicting eachother.
You said, "Dr. Kenyon of Standord told his colleages he could not teach evolution anymore after watching 'Origins' (six part video series) by Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith ... And was subsequently terminated." This is a lie. He was not terminated because he stopped teaching evolution. He sought to have creationism included in the biology curricula. The faculty voted to not include creationism in the biology curricula. It was later discovered that Dr. Kenyon began teaching creationism to the students anyway. It was the complaints by students of unscientific material being taught in class in violation of the faculty agreement that got him terminated. He was not terminated because he stopped teaching evolution, he was terminated for actively working against the Stanford faculty. It should also be noted that "scientific creationism," as he called it, later became known as "Intelligent Design," which was found to be unscientific and in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.pandasthumb.org
http://www.talkdesign.org
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.talkreason.org
There, now everyone here can be abreast of the arguments against evolution!
Do you want to know a secret, Alberto? I used to be a creationist too! I, too, thought that I was privy to secret information. Information that the scientific community didn't know, or knew but was trying to keep quiet. I thought that one day, I would be able to go in front of the scientific community and reveal to them the indisputable evidence of creation. Do you know what happened? I learned something. I learned that creationism really wasn't any sort of secret knowledge. Scientists had already heard all of the arguments I'd memorized lovingly. In some cases, they'd heard them before I was born! And they had answers. Good answers, too, that were well-supported, consistent, and detailed, while the creationist version of events consistently lacked detail and support.
Alberto, nothing you say is a new argument that scientists have never heard before. It's all old. It's all been debunked. In some cases, it's been debunked before I was born. You're not bringing anything new to the table. Your arguments are decades old. Why do you think that biologists still haven't accepted them? It is because your arguments are crap. It is because all creationist arguments are based on misrepresentations and distortions of the truth.
Do you actually believe this? Do you think that biologists with Ph.D.'s never once are exposed to the evidence for evolution? Do you think that biologists never find new evidence of evolution themselves?
Maybe you should do your own research to support your own claims, Berto. Feel free to dig up that decade-old article, though. You know, I bet that if someone here really did look it up, they'd find out you're talking out your ass.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Are you going to keep surmising and asserting, or telling us that your friend told you that in an issue of a magazine published almost 11 years ago it might have said that some scientists dont agree 100% with the theory of evolution in its current state? Do you actually think that you can just assert any second hand opinion, and just because you say it, and want it to be true , it is true?
You have a tried and true scientist here wanting to be proven wrong. If I think I know DG, and other scientists with integrity, he would willingly admit to defeat if you prove him wrong. Go for it man we are sitting here waiting.
Thats cute.
This is what I was talking about Alberto, you do not have your facts at all and your looking very ignorant, you state, oh evolution is wrong and they are hiding it,it is on it's last legs, WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? So far you have just made a stupid statement without any backing, and so far have failed to show it to anyone that has asked for it. Second just because you heard something doesn't make it true, it is better if you actually bothered to read the article in question yourself instead of perpetuation someone else's lie. Because what did they poll the question on theory or the phenomena of evolution, and who did they exactly poll top 1000 american scientists in what field of science? Physics? Biologists? Geologists? there are many fields in science. Your next statement is that more and more scientists are going against evolution, again what scientists? Biologists? or others? Because others don't count (i mean they don't count in the sense they don't study evolution), such as biologists beliefs in cosmology don't count in the scientific community since they don't study cosmology.
Oh and biologists don't know about evolution they have been taught to believe in it. oh my are we showing our true colours, you don't understand evolution, don't understand the terms and how it functions therefore no one does. Well sorry alberto there biologists tend to study evolution because it is part of their field of expertise, plus much of what they do, they need to understand HOW evolution functions, how it applies to their studies etc, etc, etc. So please get your facts straight now Alberto, you keep on sounding very very ignorant on the topic and your statements are being torn to shreds.
deludedgod you don't impress me at all. You said you had a double doctorate then mentioned your MA and Ph.D. Last time I checked an MA is a graduate (not doctoral) degree. If you think you're such hot stuff, why don't you debate one of the premiere creation scientists. They would eat you for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They have smoked every evolutionist they have ever debated. That's why the latter are so pissed-off at them. Have you even seen any of those debates?
I want to advise people not to be impressed with deludedgod. His arguments have no validity. He uses expensive and impressive terms, but this only serves to give the impresion he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't at all. I'm very disappointed with him.
My signature is stupid like you know who.
"Creation Science" is an oxymoron - if they are able to win debates it's due to Sophistry - anyone who knows anything about actual science laughs at them. They simply use word tricks and such, like the Sophists in ancient Greece.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
DO you not have the ability to read? It says M.D!
Nonsense. You know why? Because we don't debate them! And there is a reason for that. Stephan Jay Gould was the first to point out they don't care if they get shot to pieces. They only want the "oxygen of respectability", that is to create the illusion that the debate exists. The public, and no doubt yourself included, do not have the capacity to judge scientific theories on their merits. It's also due to the relatively obvious fact that there are no creationists, certainly no "creation scientists" within about 6000 miles of where I live.
How do you know? How can you know this? Suppose I told you (truthfully) that I was writing a 27 part lecture on molecular evolution? You can't possibly know if I know what I'm talking about because you refuse to have a scientific discussion on the matter.
So, here is my ultimatum. You will either answer this question:
Do you know the three principles of evolution?
Or I am cutting you off. It's that simple. You know why? Because if you can't answer the question then your science education does not extend past Grade 8 in which case you should not be here discussing it!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Why? Because he doesn't utter "goddidit" when you ask for explanations?
The creation "scientists" (LOL) have "smoked" the "evolutionists"? By "evolutionist" do you mean "REAL scientists"? This is such a joke. Make a claim that something is true and it magically becomes true? LOL No wonder you believe in religion. A claim was made that god was true so you believe it is reality.
Go ahead and tell us how the banana is the "Atheist's worst nightmare". I need the laugh.
I would urge a head-in-the-sand approach or sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting LA-LA-LA response to DG as well. His points are completely devastating to your assertations. By all means tell the people to not listen to the voice of intelligence, education, and reason. That is poison to your lies and skewed view of reality.
Impression?
....you poor, poor deluded individual.
Of course you are disappointed with him. He's destroying your entire world view-point. Or at least several silent on-lookers world view-points.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
His arguments have no validity? Where do they fail? Be specific. Don't link to some Youtube video or make some handwaving about how he's wrong and how the creationists would smoke him. I want to know, in detail, in your own words, in your reply to this post, exactly what deludedgod gets wrong and why I should not be impressed with him.
Oh, and try not to use any argument on this list. I'll be so very disappointed if you do.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Wow. Dude, you are like fucked in the head. I'm ashamed to be a theist when people like you start flapping thier jaws.
My Artwork
So you going to read me topic or not?
Albert, so far you have done exactly what I expected from someone that has no facts at all but listens to what others say and believes them blindly. Can you or can you not back up what you say? So far you have not once provided any thing to what you have made claims for, who is this creationist scientist that can destroy all arguements but has yet to provide any evidence for it for scientific study? Which article are you refering to in Nature, can you please provide this? Other than saying I believe the earth is younger than 4.5 billion years, can you give me the evidence as to why you believe this? or is it because the creationlists say so and you haven't bothered to check out the so called evidence? Can you show me the so called arguements against evolution that completely destroys it all, but has yet to be proven in the scientific community? Can you back up anything you are saying or are you like my friend that states bullshit stuff because he SO NEEDS GOD to be real and ignores all evidence given contrary to his statements and fails to see that he has nothing to provide, except lies given to him by others. I bet this is the case most likely.