It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Egyptian astronomy begins in prehistoric times. The presence of stone circles at Nabta Playa dating from the 5th millennium BCE, show the importance of astronomy to the religious life of Egypt even in the prehistoric period. The annual flooding of the Nile meant that the heliacal risings, or first visible appearances of stars at dawn, was of special interest in determining when this might occur, and it is no surprise that the 365 day period of the Egyptian calendar was already in use at the beginning of Egyptian history. The constellation system used among the Egyptians also appears to have been essentially of native origin.
The precise orientation of the Egyptian pyramids affords a lasting demonstration of the high degree of technical skill in watching the heavens attained in the 3rd millennium BCE. It has been shown the Pyramids were aligned towards the pole star, which, because of the precession of the equinoxes, was at that time Thuban, a faint star in the constellation of Draco.[1] Evaluation of the site of the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak, taking into account the change over time of the obliquity of the ecliptic, has shown that the Great Temple was aligned on the rising of the midwinter sun.[2] The length of the corridor down which sunlight would travel would have limited illumination at other times of the year.
Maya astronomical codices include detailed tables for calculating phases of the Moon, the recurrence of eclipses, and the appearance and disappearance of Venus as morning and evening star. The Maya based their calendrics in the carefully calculated cycles of the Pleiades, the Sun, the Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, and also they had a precise description of the eclipses as depicted in the Dresden Codex, as well as the ecliptic or zodiac, and the Milky Way was crucial in their Cosmology. [14].
...
Although the Maya calendar was not tied to the Sun, John Teeple has proposed that the Maya calculated the solar year to somewhat greater accuracy than the Gregorian calendar.
Originally posted by OldThinker
Statistics is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data. Also with prediction and forecasting based on data. It is applicable to a wide variety of academic disciplines, from the natural and social sciences to the humanities, government and business.
The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:
Define process improvement goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise strategy.
Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data.
Analyze the data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the relationships are, and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered.
Improve or optimize the process based upon data analysis using techniques like Design of experiments.
Control to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects. Set up pilot runs to establish process capability, move on to production, set up control mechanisms and continuously monitor the process.
Thanks to Reynold for finding this, the Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies claims "According to Morris this verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome" (Meyers 1989, 63-9).
Originally posted by OldThinker
Originally posted by arbiture
Sorry friend, I believe your wrong, at least for the most part. I am a scientist and know quite a number of them. Many are quite devout. What I fear and science fears is not "the Bible". but lack of understanding of and being unable to apply the scientific method to solve problems.
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. Keep it out of a science class because it is untestable. Its untestable because it is based on "God said so" and can not be tested by peer review, (or anything else)
I have no problem with it being taught in a class on religion. I'll go further. You can't teach history with out reference to the influence of religion. Pick a war, any war and see people killed because how many believed, often quite honestly, "my Gods bigger then your God". The truth is I really don't care if some one believes in "creationism" What scares me to death is any people being unable to think in a rational manner. My country, the U.S. has its measure of idiots in the political arena. Enough.
Before, I forget you might want to know how you can test evolution. But I don't suggest you do this to your self. Ever hear of antibiotic resistance? We have it in non-organic food and were dosed with it often for no reason, except to get you out of the doctors office. Bacteria adapts. Thats evolution in the flesh.
First, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms. Futumya has noted: “...the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them” (1983, pp. 137,138). What does this mean? Simply put, bacteria did not “mutate” after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics. The Lederbergs’ experiments in 1952 on streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance. Malcolm Bowden has observed: “What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria” (1991, p. 56). These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations.
Second, while pre-existing mutations may confer antibiotic resistance, such mutations may also decrease an organism’s viability. For example, “the surviving strains are usually less virulent, and have a reduced metabolism and so grow more slowly. This is hardly a recommendation for ‘improving the species by competition’ (i.e., survival of the fittest)” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). Just because a mutation provides an organism with a certain trait does not mean that the organism as a whole has been helped. For example, in the disease known as sickle-cell anemia (caused by a mutation), people who are “carriers” of the disease do not die from it and are resistant to malaria, which at first would seem to be an excellent example of a good mutation. However, that is not the entire story. While resistant to malaria, these people do not possess the stamina of, and do not live as long as, their non-carrier counterparts. Bacteria may be resistant to a certain antibiotic, but that resistance comes at a price. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, acquiring resistance does not lead necessarily to new species or types of organisms.
source: www.apologeticspress.org...
Third, regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).
Originally posted by arbiture
Before, I forget you might want to know how you can test evolution. But I don't suggest you do this to your self. Ever hear of antibiotic resistance? We have it in non-organic food and were dosed with it often for no reason, except to get you out of the doctors office. Bacteria adapts. Thats evolution in the flesh.
Originally posted by logician magician