How old is the Earth? ( old as dirt of course :-)

[Dok]

now you guys gotta debate how old is that new planet they are reporting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100929/sc_afp/usastronomyplanet_20100929210707

I doubt any one has ever found an extra solar planet. Bet theres even an "artists rendition" of it right.    



yep....  

LOOK it even has a moon, and i love all those stats they have given it.

You ah want to know what the difference is between these so called planets and lets say the so called missing links?

nothing...

[chrisfromchi]

you know i'm poking fun dok.

but really if people want to go into thing like they are all lying to us and whatnot, the sky isn't there and the moon is made of cheese, is a viable conspiracy.

[Dok]

you know i'm poking fun dok.

but really if people want to go into thing like they are all lying to us and whatnot, the sky isn't there and the moon is made of cheese, is a viable conspiracy.

ok,

Do you know just what the nearest star looks like in the worlds most powerful telescope?

[chrisfromchi]

ok,

Do you know just what the nearest star looks like in the worlds most powerful telescope?

who said telescopes aren't the work of the devil...

anyways i know how they claim they determine distances in space.

the nearest star is our sun.

the second most is proxima centauri based on the aforementioned formulas.

i would assume it looks like ours but a slightly different shade cause of the different concentration of gases.

[Dok]

who said telescopes aren't the work of the devil...

anyways i know how they claim they determine distances in space.

the nearest star is our sun.

the second most is proxima centauri based on the aforementioned formulas.

i would assume it looks like ours but a slightly different shade cause of the different concentration of gases.

and what does it look like?

and you buy how they determine distance in space? really?  

you also need to look into plasma physics and hollow sun. they dont really know what our sun is. 

[chrisfromchi]

and what does it look like?

and you buy how they determine distance in space? really?  

you also need to look into plasma physics and hollow sun. they dont really know what our sun is. 

I am not in argument with any of these questions.

[Dok]

I am not in argument with any of these questions.

ok 

[citizenx]

now you guys gotta debate how old is that new planet they are reporting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100929/sc_afp/usastronomyplanet_20100929210707

You mean "Earth 2" -- the "annex"?

[chrisfromchi]

You mean "Earth 2" -- the "annex"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIodlYafwcw

[agentbluescreen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIodlYafwcw

I thought you meant the sleazy "underworld" that's not visible to the naked eye

[chrisfromchi]

I thought you meant the sleazy "underworld" that's not visible to the naked eye

more literally.

its earth 2 plot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_2_%28TV_series%29
In 2192,[11] most of the human population had fled Earth to live on large orbiting space stations. Only a small number of humans remain on the Earth’s surface as the Earth had become mostly uninhabitable.[12]

Billionaire Devon Adair's eight-year-old son, Ulysses Adair, had contracted a rare but fatal disease called the Syndrome,[13] a condition whose existence is not acknowledged by the government and medical community. It is theorized that this disease, which affects only children, is somehow caused by the lack of an Earth-like environment.[14] Most children who are born with the disease do not live past the age of nine.

Desperate to save her son, Devon puts together a group who will pioneer the effort to settle a planet 22 light-years away from Earth, on which other families with members thus afflicted can settle.

Twenty-two years later, the ship arrives at G889, but it crash lands[16]  shortly after arrival on the side of the planet opposite of the original plan. With her group scattered on the planet and supplies missing, Devon begins heading west to the planned site of New Pacifica.

From the article on the discovery:

If Gliese 581g has a rocky composition similar to Earth's, its diameter would be about 1.2 to 1.4 times that of the Earth, the researchers said.

The surface gravity would be about the same or slightly higher than Earth's, so that a person could easily walk upright on the planet, Vogt said.

Gliese 581g was discovered by scientists working on the Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey, during 11 years of observing the red dwarf star Gliese 581, which is only 20 light years from Earth.

Gliese 581 = G889 from the tv show.

so ya...its odd.

[agentbluescreen]

more literally.


so ya...its odd.

Point taken, we should all be a whole lot more concerned about how much more mature both it and us might ever get to be...

[citizenx]

so ya...its odd.

rather

And this is infinitley more interesting than the (off-topic/faux controversy) topic at hand, IMO.

[poncho]

Gliese 581, which is only 20 light years from Earth.

Gliese 581 = G889 from the tv show.

so ya...its odd.

Since this topic is gravitating off topic, I'll join in the new direction.  (We need to rename it "Mysteries of the universe- debate inside")

I don't believe what a lot of scientists believe about the speed of light.  (See Dok!!)

A lot of them contend that any matter accerarated to that speed, would become light, aka transform from matter to energy.
But all you have to do is look at what many scientist's said about the speed of sound back in the day.  Most contended that matter would tranform to energy if surpassing that barrier.
I've seen a jet flying first hand above the speed of sound, so they were wrong.

I believe it's possible for mankind to eventually create spacecraft that could fly at or above that speed.
To me, it's just could you ever feel safe?  Hiting even the tiniest bit of space debris at that speed would be catastrophic.

But it is a worthy thing for humanity to try. I'm all for it.

[Michal Ptacnik]

One more thing about Creationism vs. Evolution.

As far as to the random mutations thing, Darwin as presented by latter authors makes perfect sense. With the theory that random mutations present the mechanism by which things actually become more complex, there lies the problem. Randomness should produce entropy, not information which is negative-entropy, not an increase of functional (e.g. practically working) complexity; by the normal rules it should go two steps backward, one step forward, with enough backward steps to have ended the process of life as long time ago. Therefore there should be *something* that makes those mutations non random.

As for the creationist presentation, I talked today with a student of evolutionary philosophy and biology and she basically debunked those statements of the presentation she endured watching... the problem is that creationists present enough depth of science so that even colledge educated people who are not specialists in the respective fields might not know how to properly respond and either accept creationism, typically without proper scientific thought (e.g. without trying to search for a scientific answer or, if there is none, without trying to investigate the matter), or respond with a similar "scientific accuracy" as had been the original creationist argument, e.g. "you are stupid, I don't believe in your statement because evolution says otherwise." Thus they add ammunition to the arsenal of the creationist and the train of pseudoscience goes on down the failroad...

[PeaceAndFreedom]

As for the creationist presentation, I talked today with a student of evolutionary philosophy and biology and she basically debunked those statements of the presentation she endured watching... the problem is that creationists present enough depth of science so that even colledge educated people who are not specialists in the respective fields might not know how to properly respond and either accept creationism, typically without proper scientific thought (e.g. without trying to search for a scientific answer or, if there is none, without trying to investigate the matter), or respond with a similar "scientific accuracy" as had been the original creationist argument, e.g. "you are stupid, I don't believe in your statement because evolution says otherwise." Thus they add ammunition to the arsenal of the creationist and the train of pseudoscience goes on down the failroad...

I invite you to outline a specific example of what creationist talk or claim lacked "proper scientific thought," and what constitutes a "proper response" to such claim. Are you suggesting there are NO scientific difficulties with evolution that any scientist or informed person supporting creation has ever "properly" or competently raised? Or is the use of the phrase "creationist" meant as an epithet only, to pre-define a class of people incapable of engaging science properly? If the latter is your intention, I would suggest such a claim represents merely your own personal dogma, and lacks proper scientific thought.

Back in my college days, I presented two creationist essay papers to my professors (both of who were published authors and researchers), one in astronomy and the other in geology. I critiqued all the concepts of stellar evolution, the big bang, uniformitarian geology, evolutionary paleontology, etc. The professors gave me an A for the astronomy paper, and a B+ for the geology paper (the latter critiqued only a lack of enough documentation in some cases, but neither rejected the legitimacy of my footnotes or argumentation). So apparently creationist presentations are not 'failroad' as far as those professors were concerned.

I also know that in many of the university debates held between creationists and evolutionists in the '70's and '80's, the audience polls that determined the creationists had won the debate often included the votes of the faculty present as well as the students. Why not just concede that the reason evolutionists pressured colleges to stop hosting those debates was precisely because the evolutionists were being so badly pwned on the merits by the better informed creationist scientists who attended them?

[Femacamper]

Q: How old is the earth ?

A: As old as dirt

LOL! GOOD ONE!

[Michal Ptacnik]

invite you to outline a specific example of what creationist talk or claim lacked "proper scientific thought," and what constitutes a "proper response" to such claim. Are you suggesting there are NO scientific difficulties with evolution that any scientist or informed person supporting creation has ever "properly" or competently raised? Or is the use of the phrase "creationist" meant as an epithet only, to pre-define a class of people incapable of engaging science properly? If the latter is your intention, I would suggest such a claim represents merely your own personal dogma, and lacks proper scientific thought.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[PeaceAndFreedom]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Well, that only took two months, and what is presented is a list archive of brief (and often evasive) evolutionist rebuttals to creation science claims. I truly doubt if the evolutionists would accept a laundry list of 1-2 paragraph creationist responses to evolution claims as being substantial, let alone a basis for dismissing evolution in total. But what was asked for was this: outline a specific example of what creationist talk or claim lacked "proper scientific thought," and what constitutes a "proper response" to such claim. The point was about evolutionists being reasonable or honest about facing up to limitations with their view.

Anyone sampling through the links in the above archive will notice valid issues were indeed articulated, to which the brief rebuttals attempt to dismiss or rationalize away. So the list provided cannot be said to refute the fact that creationists have raised hundreds of properly structured scientific difficulties with evolution. If anything, the list further documents proper objections have been made, while absolutists evolutionists at Talk Origins fail to acknowledge any scientific difficulties with evolution exist. That is, the index cited buttresses my point, not responds to it.

Much of the work quoted in the above link was dated ('70's, '80's), those wishing to examine more current creation research can check here:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts.htm

[Michal Ptacnik]

Sorry, I was just leaving for work and wanted to post something after the two months. It's been very busy for me.

Anyways, the problem really is not with the individual arguments. I looked at the site and there is a plenty of those, probably more eloquently presented than what I could do myself, so I posted it.

The problem is with the ignorance, or rather, rejection out of ignorance, of the scientific method by the greater mass of people. That is, most people either do not know what science is and should and should not provide, or they do know (if dimly), and reject it in favor of a percived greater value, which they find in the biblical fundamentalist worldview.

The scientific method is a way how to deal with the results of your observation, or somebody else's observation. It uses certain principles of logic to provide a language that would be understandable by all scientists and that provides tools to create workable models of reality. The scientific method does not deal in, and does not claim to deal in, either truth or the complete truth. It just presents facts and extrapolates on them. There are certain axiomes, but these are things like "when you see it and there is no reason to suggest otherwise, it is real." Things that are common sense.

Creationism on the other hand works in a different way. It observes phenomena and then takes a pre-made frame of reference, the Bible, or rather, the Bible as seen by the modern creationist consensus, and it catalogises the facts accordingly. It is an ideology, just like dialectic materialism was ideology for the soviet union. As an ideology, creationism and the greater biblical paradigm, offers the truth and the whole truth, simple, without much addo and doubt and speculation. It itches the ears and the eyes. It is likeable. Science is neither of those, but it is fair and unbiased, or tries to be most of the time. Creationism does not strive for this, it strives for completion instead.

Creationism thus is the better of the two deals. Truth, prepackaged, with minimal efford involved. The only price you really pay is the honest and thorough search for truth, and few care for that nowadays...

[Dok]

Science is neither of those, but it is fair and unbiased,

  no its not. it isnt fair and unbiased at all. Just look at the global warming debate on that. And if you want real hard core fact on their so called "unbiased" opinions, just look at all the radiometric dating. Yes, 100 unbiased facts. 

[Michal Ptacnik]

I said most of the time. It is what we as species are collectively capable. We are not perfect. The rest of the times, science is manservant to this or that private interest. Fine. You judge science by those standarts, what about me judging your religion by the likes of Rick Warren?

Global Warming is something that has been mostly refuted for me, but I am no climatologist. As we see on Venus, it COULD happen if there was enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and other right condition, the real debate should be whether or not there are such conditions and with all the fairness, neither me or you can add much to it. Yes I believe it is a fraud, or at least mostly fraud. Some people around me believe it is not a fraud. Some are just brainwashed, it is true, but others follow genuine research.

As for the carbon dating method, that is something which typifies the whole problem. It is right in principle and it is mostly right in application. Mostly. But of course it can not compete with an ideology that has everything given and stated a priori! As I've said, all you have to give up is the honest search for truth and you are served A truth in a pre-packaged form. Just add water....

But then again, why not? I mean, science sure as heck does not give us the answers we require and education does not give us the notion that you CAN search for the truth, it supresses it! Everything is complicated, and unaccessible to the individual nowadays. So why should the people not chose the quick and easy answer, even though it is "totalitarian" in it's one sidedness, even though it contradicts the observation of scientists... the very same scientists who tend to tell them that they are just molecules of carbon and mean nothing...? It is the failure of the educators, not of the priests or the believers that so many people believe the Earth is only 6 000 years old in our so called modern world.

[PeaceAndFreedom]

But then again, why not? I mean, science sure as heck does not give us the answers we require and education does not give us the notion that you CAN search for the truth, it supresses it! Everything is complicated, and unaccessible to the individual nowadays. So why should the people not chose the quick and easy answer, even though it is "totalitarian" in it's one sidedness, even though it contradicts the observation of scientists... the very same scientists who tend to tell them that they are just molecules of carbon and mean nothing...? It is the failure of the educators, not of the priests or the believers that so many people believe the Earth is only 6 000 years old in our so called modern world.

What self-serving garbage. As the above exchange demonstrated, there is an absolutist attitude among dogmatic evolutionists that speaks to their own belief system being every bit as much metaphysically close-minded, ideological and simplistic as how they try to stigmatize the creation side. Speaking in high minded tones about a mythical "science" that is neutral and open, hardly proves that your evolution stance is neutral or open. It only shows you wish to project your position on origins as being the same as "science," and paint any other origins view, or differing philosophy of science, as "not science." This is a debate over competing "completisms" or meta views, and competing interpretations of "the facts," not the facts versus "easy answers."

Even when a fully secular alternative to evolution was presented that was not based on Genesis or a young earth, in the form of intelligent design, the evolution side was just as militant in attacking and ridiculing the view as they were with traditional special creation---so much, then, for 'religion vs. science' being the issue. My point is that the conclusions and ideas arrived at about the past are not SCIENTIFIC ones, as they are not based on observation and replication. Evolutionists precisely do try to say how everything started, in a 'completist' way, from naturalistic concepts about the development of organic life, to planet and star formation, etc. Creationists simply take the same data and develop counter-interpretations. Evolutionists only want their interpretations presented in the government schools, and want these non-scientific interpretations to be called "science" to the exclusion of rival approaches to the same data. It is the failure of educators to present both sides of that data that is the problem.

[tinfoiltruth]

my only response to this thread is....

NO ONE KNOWS..

the scientists theories are just as right as the Religious theories.

why?

Because they are just THEORIES.

remember the earth is flat, the moon should have 50 feet of dust on it, and the world is going to melt.

science isnt perfect, nore is religion. why? because the are run by people.

[Michal Ptacnik]

When the method used is jumping to conclusions based on a theological dogma, that is not objective, that is not science, that is a priori thinking. The modern society, or modern governments, if you prefer, tend to try to base their education systems on the scientific method, not the a priori thinking. That is why there is no creationism in mainstream schools. And, based on what we know about society, it will not, and SHOULD not be, unless we want our descendants to start worshipping "machine spirits" and lose all touch with their science and technology in favor of religion and, later, supperstition.

The ToE might have had some "piltdown men" of it's own, but that is 19th to mid 20th century. Ask a real scientist, not me, about the scientific arguments. That is why I provided the link to the website where what I've seen are sound arguments refuting the individual points of creationists. Precisely because ToE is not an ideology. One can not defend it as whole, it is about the arguments on that side, while your side takes it wholistically. We can only say things like "it looks like life is related" and "bacteria show macroevolution" and "microevolution has been observed millions of times," etc. The scientific thesis is not that ToE is the Truth, but that based on observation, applying the scientific method, it looks like life evolved. We can not say it was so. We can only say, evidence strongly suggests that it did. No one saw it. No one here saw the Creation either. But you claim that the Bible is true because it is the Word of God (which it is not in it's own words, see 1 John 1, but that is besides the point) so you have a "witness" in the book and therefore can jump from the realm of probabilities and speculation based on facts into the realm of "absolute truth/lie. It was so and so."

I agree that if for instance a new age kind of life force or something was found and measured that would explain a template behind the development of life and would ditch natural selection and macroevolution, those who would find it would have a very difficult job in becomming mainstream. This is the afore mentioned ivory tower. Science is not perfect. Btw. You did not react to the paragraph you reference where I refuted science and said that it made many faults of it's own.

[PeaceAndFreedom]

When the method used is jumping to conclusions based on a theological dogma, that is not objective, that is not science, that is a priori thinking. The modern society, or modern governments, if you prefer, tend to try to base their education systems on the scientific method, not the a priori thinking. That is why there is no creationism in mainstream schools. And, based on what we know about society, it will not, and SHOULD not be, unless we want our descendants to start worshipping "machine spirits" and lose all touch with their science and technology in favor of religion and, later, supperstition.

You are simply restating your naturalistic philosophy of science dogma that science and religion should never be integrated, and that evolution is purely 'science' while creation is "religion." It is still self-serving, no matter how many times it is reasserted. Humanist based dogma is also theology, i.e., the theology of man as god, only your dogma always presumes naturalism is scientifically superior. Evolution jumps to conclusions when it interprets data one way to the exclusion of the rival model that accounts for the data better. That is not the scientific method, that is presumption-driven analysis.

Both creation and evolution involve some a priori thinking when it comes to accounting for historical events that cannot be replicated or currently observed, because the historical nature of the issues removes both views from the scientific method. These are the considerations that people should be educated about concerning origins, not brainwashed as to only one side's presumptive interpretations of the data. The religion of naturalism should not be imposed on children in the government schools through the guise of "teaching them science" that excludes both sides of a major issue. That is like discussing only socialism in economics class by pre-defining it as the only "valid" economic view, then teaching only socialist interpretations of economic data.

[Michal Ptacnik]

The historical models were created based on empirism in evolution, based on dogmatism in creation. The difference in the present time is that the evolutionistic view tends to be the most probable implication that we know of based on the data that we have collected. All of it. The creation model can not be accepted in it's biblical form, for the above stated reasons (a priori thinking based on religious dogma, you have an a priori model, not based on any observation you made and you could repeat and you just try to fit your data into it), and the "general" creation model, that is, there was A creator necessary in order for life to exist, but not necessarily the biblical God, tends to fall the occam's razor test because presuming a creator is more complicated than presuming just natural processes. We create a new variable by inserting a creator, and a new set of complications, as in "who created the creator?"

My own personal view is that there is intelligent design and, ultimatelly, a creator or creators behind this universe. But I do not believe this should be taught unless proof of at least a realm beyond this one where the creator/s reside and/or the creator/s itself/themselves should be located by the scientific method. To do that would be to enforce wild speculation and to divorce education from the scientific method even further than it already is. Yes, evolution speculates and, to a degree, is dogmatic, and it perhaps should not be. This is true especially on high schools where it is usually taught badly, period. If it was taught well and by good scientists, the teachers would not become creationists upon encountering men like Kent Hovind, simple as that. But this speculation is much less prevalent then speculation is in the creation paradigms, and even if we assume the intelligent design paradigm which is my personal preference. Evolution, atheistic evolution, which I do not believe, is therefore more documented in a scientific, repeatable fashion, than the paradigm I chose for personal reasons.

As a bottom line, I quite agree that maybe the theory of evolution should be taught less, shall we say, dogmatically, then what I was exposed to in Czech Republic. But it should not be complemented by creationism, beyond stating that some people believe in special creation, etc., etc. The facts, e.g. that we seem to be one familly of creatures on earth genetically, that a rough familly tree based on genetics can be extrapolated from that, that these species are closely related to other species, and then what scientists think and theorise should be presented as they are and then evolution as the most scientifically probable theory explaining how that came to be, and why, e.g. that the simplest way to explain this relation is by presuming one familly, therefore it is probable that one as one being within the species begets another, that over time one species slowly turns different by mutation and changes in selection, until it begets another, and that this is corroborated by fossil records and the strata, etc.

[PeaceAndFreedom]

The historical models were created based on empirism in evolution, based on dogmatism in creation. The difference in the present time is that the evolutionistic view tends to be the most probable implication that we know of based on the data that we have collected. All of it. The creation model can not be accepted in it's biblical form, for the above stated reasons (a priori thinking based on religious dogma, you have an a priori model, not based on any observation you made and you could repeat and you just try to fit your data into it), and the "general" creation model, that is, there was A creator necessary in order for life to exist, but not necessarily the biblical God, tends to fall the occam's razor test because presuming a creator is more complicated than presuming just natural processes. We create a new variable by inserting a creator, and a new set of complications, as in "who created the creator?"

The historical models you claim are based on the presumption of empiricism in evolution, which cannot be correct because historical events cannot be currently perceived, thus cannot be empirical in nature. Both historical models thus must draw from a priori sources for their development, you cannot have two different standards where you presume evolution should be given a pass on its dogmatic and a priori limitations, while creation must not be. While you are persuaded that evolution is the most probable implication of the data, the conclusion of others is that creation is the model most compatible, ie a matter of opinion. I draw my conclusion based on the relevant issue of how the views stack up against the data, not based on a prejudicial mis-description of how biblical or secular versions of creation stack up against each other.

This pseudo-Occam's razor approach to contrasting the God of the Bible vs. the God of Creation is erroneous, because it is based on the previous error of presuming that 'scientific' origin model is superior to the 'a priori' 'dogmatic" model, when in fact the historical nature of the issue renders both removed from the scientific method, thus both equally subject to 'a priori' or dogmatic presumption. William Occam himself warned against the misuse of his razor, by verbally painting a position one dislikes as more complex or inferior, so that the verbal straw man could be knocked down using the razor test. He also pointed out that the parsimony (razor) test was designed to evaluate like items (apples to apples) and not different items (apples to oranges). So even if there was a different fundamental character between creation and evolution, or between Genesis and Intelligent Design, that would mitigate against using Occam's razor to compare them.

Taken as competing historical models of like kind, the proper way to employ Occam's razor would be to analyze what info each origins model initially predicts about the world based on relevant evidence, and compare how those predictions stack up against the data. The model that overall more directly predicts the facts is the "simpler" model, and the one that requires more explanations and rationalizations to account for the data is the more "complex" model. That way we bypass presumptions and word magic. On that fair playing field, the Creation view (including the Biblical version) emerges as the simpler model.

The creation model is overwhelming more directly predictive of the actual data we actually see and know of, from the patent evidence for intelligent design, to integrated complex systems in life forms and nature (that would have otherwise had to have somehow evolved simultaneously), to the existence of fossil anomalies or contemporaneous fossils, to the absence of true transitional forms (fossils proving macro-evolution), to the evidence pointing to a recent creation (which shouldn't exist at all if the evolution model was correct), etc. Evolutionists have to do an avalanche of explaining away to get past data that is counter-intuitive to their dogmatic naturalistic presumptions. If more people were exposed to an origins discussion where the two models were critical compared in this fashion, the creation side would be found to be far more persuasive, as student/faculty reaction to the college debates on origins has shown. And that is the real reason why evolutionists have sought to keep the public from learning about the case for creation.

[Dok]

The historical models were created based on empirism in evolution, based on dogmatism in creation. The difference in the present time is that the evolutionistic view tends to be the most probable implication that we know of based on the data that we have collected. All of it.

stop ya right there. What data? What data that anything has ever evolved? What data that actually shows the age of anything? Seriously what data are you talking about? 

[Michal Ptacnik]

Dok: I am talking about the data recorded in the various genomes of the animals on the Earth that do hint at common ancestry. Of course it could be instead a common creator or something else entirelly, but the simplest, or at least most well, founded explanation - as it is something we see around here but we don't see many creators working around - is that we are all genetically related by common  ancestry.

As for the dating, there have been documents that are dated by their authors dated and it works. It is not perfect, because different strata can enter the equasion, mistakes can be made, etc. As I've said, it can not hold water against the Bible, if you believe the Bible is the Truth and the Whole Truth and you don't ask. Whenever you stop asking questions about something, science becomes easy and simple indeed, like 1-2-3. Only it stop being science but who cares, right?

PeaceAndFreedom: Historical models do not come from presumption, Darwin himself was very reluctant to assume that it is evolution that created speciation, he did not come with it as a preconcieved idea, he in fact studies theology before the voyage on the Beagle, as you well know. There might be a little too much "crystalisation" in the scientific community and the lack of critical thinking towards those complex models and theories and towards new stuff, that is true - but again, we should not open our mind in science in the direction of dogmatic adherence to a doctrine... a doctrine that is not even biblical, if you take the greek and Hebrew originals.

The scientific origin is superior to the dogmatic origin because it works with the data we observed; that is, we see a lot of biology around us and we can account for the phenomenon of common genes by biology; but as I'd said above, we do not see many creator gods around us using empiric, repeatable, objective methods, so occam's razor applies. This is not a straw man. This is just mistaking the scientific method for a truth-searching method. The SM is not abotu truth but functional and probable explanation based on knowable and repeatable facts.

If you listen to Dawkins and others, you will know that in the last paragraph, you just defended the model of evolution, not refuted. The model expects complexity and similar pathways in different species both, as the environment "repeats" itself; and so life forms have to be "periodical" in their appearance, abilities, etc. if they evolve. And btw. there will be NO transitional fossils if the evolution model is true, that is a 19th century fallacy you keep repeating over and over and over again. Because evolution has no long term goals. All the "transitions" are in and of themselves useful. For instance, the eye in a primitive organism could be a "transitional form" of the eye in the more complex organism, or at least a type of this*, but it in itself will be fully functional within the frame of the species's functionality. The slow change is gradual and "from useful to useful."

The only problem I see is that statistically there should be devolution and not evolution as there are very few positive mutations. But that does not imply the biblical creator God, that is jumping to conclusions in the extreme! There could be very well mechanisms both natural (i.e. based on the mathematics of the natural selection process "so that it adds up", etc.) and "supernatural" - that is, using physics we do not know about - that would explain it better. If you prefer God, fine, I prefer Him too, but it is not my scientific opinion, I do not have the objective data and I would want my assumptions to be taught at school.

* a type because the real ancestor of the modern complex form are dead and we can not verify if this or that fossil is them - but it could be the same species or a similar one

[PeaceAndFreedom]

You keep trying to insert scientific method rhetoric into your argument, but there is no actual substance behind it, just the word magic. The historical point is, at present we absolutely do not observe or see repeated the phenomenon of reptiles becoming birds, or frogs becoming princes (after 300 million years) etc. Macro evolution is not observed or replicated today, it is in the same boat as creation, its occurrence must be based on presumptions about the past. Extrapolating minor variations seen today into macro-evolution requires reverse projections into the past, or dogmatism when strongly asserted. Since those same variations within basic kinds of animals are anticipated by the creation model they are not current evidence of evolution from observed biology, just neutral data you are painting as such.

As Darwin largely stole the evolutionary ideas from a contemporary, he definitely had a preconceived notion as to what he would be promoting. The similar structures in many animals is a prediction made by both the creation and evolution models, with the addition that the creation model also correctly predicts critical differences between them, that evolution does not. Again, one must present both models in a critical comparison to notice this, not wax triumphantly about one view to the exclusion of the other. And I used Occam's razor to indicate the creation model was 'simpler' in the sense you had advocated, not as an absolute gage of truth, as you keep alleging.

[Dok]

Dok: I am talking about the data recorded in the various genomes of the animals on the Earth that do hint at common ancestry.

really like what? that a flipper is similar to a wing and a hand? Just what are you talking about? you still havent provided this evidence.

As for the dating, there have been documents that are dated by their authors dated and it works.

Really? According to the scientific method you were just touting, just 1 failure, fails the whole thing. Would like to look at some dating results? + or - 25 million years isnt a good example. Could you imagine a result like that in real science? That is a huge margin, in fact it is so big that the human mind cannot conceive it.

Also no "scientific"  testing site will just do a random test. You have to give the dates to look for. Wonder why that is? 

All dating test work if you do not know the date of the item. AND ALL dating tests fail of you know the date of the item. Sorry but that isnt science, thats called FRAUD!!!

As I've said, it can not hold water against the Bible, if you believe the Bible is the Truth and the Whole Truth and you don't ask.

good thing that isnt true at all. Maybe you should step out of your "scientific" mindset and look a the faith of the greatest scientists that have lived, you know the ones that did real science. The ones that didnt try to cover up or defraud the people. People like Mary Schweitzer who knew exactly what would happen when she presented her findings on Dino Blood,and come to find out the "scientific" community has been covering this up for years.  Please, when real science is used it disproves the whole evolutionist view point. Must be why it is being abandoned for different ideas all over. Yep real science.... 

[PeaceAndFreedom]

If you listen to Dawkins and others, you will know that in the last paragraph, you just defended the model of evolution, not refuted. The model expects complexity and similar pathways in different species both, as the environment "repeats" itself; and so life forms have to be "periodical" in their appearance, abilities, etc. if they evolve. And btw. there will be NO transitional fossils if the evolution model is true, that is a 19th century fallacy you keep repeating over and over and over again. Because evolution has no long term goals. All the "transitions" are in and of themselves useful. For instance, the eye in a primitive organism could be a "transitional form" of the eye in the more complex organism, or at least a type of this*, but it in itself will be fully functional within the frame of the species's functionality. The slow change is gradual and "from useful to useful." 

This is an example of a rationalization to explain away the absence of transitional forms, not an initial prediction. The initial prediction of the evolution model is that there should be a myriad of examples of transitional forms, given the millions of fossils available. There are decades worth of paleo-geological discussions, among evolutionary scientists themselves, that document this expectation. The fact that they can modify the model to accomodate or explain away the absence of gross transitional forms after the fact, does not change that the data did not support the model.

On this major point, under Occam's Razor, the creation model (which initially predicts no transitional forms, or no macro evolution) is the simpler model. This is, again, the exact reason why at least two opposing models should be critically compared respective to how they directly fare in anticipating the data. Otherwise one side may pull a fast one and 'flip the script' about what they are calling their starting prediction, as shown above.

[Michal Ptacnik]

I agree that the two models should be rationally discussed and, believe you me, I'd prefer that Creation was true to Evolution, because there is nothing more bleak than an atheistic, fully materialistic, unfeeling, cold Universe. Even the popular christian insanity of God damning most of us to Hell for eternity of unimaginable suffering... and loving us while at it is more optimistic then that, at least the dogmatic, close minded people who had the luck/privilege/predestination to be converted by the right preacher in their lifetimes and who don't mind listening to the screams of their relatives in Hell for eternity afterwards will have some life after death if not the rest of us!

Dok: In science it is NEVER that it must be all the time right when we are discussing measuring methods. The real world is infinitelly complex and there can come variables that are unforeseen. THEORIES though, that is a different matter entirelly. If a particle of non zero mass is seen travelling over c, theory of relativity stops being proven, at least without placing it to a limited frame of reference (e.g. it applies to matter that has mass above x). Evolution though is not a theory in this sense, it is a model of how the history of life went on and how the current situation came to be. It can be proven, and to my knowledge it is proven by us seeing the macro evolution of bacteria and plants in laboratories, though of course this is not enough for people who do not understand that species are an artificial division more than anything, created by us people to understand the world easier. Nature does not know species, there are just traits that slowly change, and one of them is the ability to "breed true." When the breeding mechanism and other traits in two lines stemming from one species diverge enought (by microevolution of the traits) so that members of the two lines won't breed true, the two lines become two new species to us.

Even the Bible acknowledges this, since it is MAN who names all living things, Adam, not God.

[Femacamper]

Diverging onto the topic of evolution and the big bang, one simple fact remains: destruction does not breed creation. Mutation, a degenerative, devolving process does not breed evolution.

A creator is the only thing that fosters creation. Precise clockwork indicates a skilled clockmaker.

[Michal Ptacnik]

Or simply powerful, non intelligent physical forces having a very long time to foster an equillibrium. I myself believe that intelligence of non biological origin DID play it's part in it, but I also acknowledge that this intelligence is most likely a redundance in the model as we know it - that it seems to make sense in and of it's own. The basic rebutall of your thesis is, I believe, this: That under the circulmstances proposed by scientists and entirelly plausible on the proto-Earth, it became, at one point, physically necessary for complexity of form to increase rather than decrease. It is akin to water, imagine that by some odd play of forces (of gravity, etc.), what is now downhill for a river would seem to us uphill. But it is still downhill, still the path of entropy. Only that entropy now creates a huge, long lasting, "local maxim" or "local deviation" also called life. I honestly don't know how to disprove this as statistically, it is entirelly possible. Not very much likely to happen in a few centuries, but we have millenia and the whole great big universe for chance to experiment upon.

[Femacamper]

Increased complexity does not equal increased order. In fact, it usually means the opposite.

[Kinpa]

Increased complexity does not equal increased order. In fact, it usually means the opposite.

prove that

[Constitutionary]

One has to ask is how old was Tiamat before Nibiru's moons smashed it up and made the Earth and the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter ?

[Femacamper]

prove that

OK: Multiplying grammatical complexity doth not equate more accelerated clock-like precision.

Have you every programmed a computer? Did you know that you can use overly complex code, although it does the same thing as simple code?

On the other hand, I have seen some very amazing programs with low footprints.

Most of these scientists are using complexity to conceal their errors. The hockey stick curve for global warming is one example...they lie by switching the graph upside down, then they use obfuscation to make us believe them. But complexity does not equate veracity, usefulness or truth. Nearly all significant mutations are fatal or hindering to an organism's life.

For those who minds have been opened, no more evidence is necessary. For those who do not believe, no amount of evidence is sufficient.