Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

reply to post by beegoodbees


We're still waiting for you to disprove rhinoceros. Unless you're admitting he has some very valid points?

beegoodbees

As far as a motive to cover it up well for an individual scientist like I said already, if they go against the grain they are discredited and pushed aside(not to mention they would be acknowledging that they might be wrong). As far as a motive for the establishment as a whole it really comes down to a desire to prove that there is no God and therefore the establishment is the highest law of the land. Obedience is mandatory!

I think this is merely projection, BgB's faith is threatened by the theory of evolution and he seems to have nothing else to offer other than what he knows, spreading disinformation and claims of corrupt establishments that silence dissenters or anyone that dares to go 'against the grain'.........in other words the very tools religion and the religious have used to stay in power over the past couple of thousand years....

He's not alone though, we've all seen posters of his ilk many many many times before, and no doubt there'll me more to come. I just find it funny and a little sad that they're unable to see what it is they're doing when they say things like 'evolution is a religion'

Prezbo369

beegoodbees

As far as a motive to cover it up well for an individual scientist like I said already, if they go against the grain they are discredited and pushed aside(not to mention they would be acknowledging that they might be wrong). As far as a motive for the establishment as a whole it really comes down to a desire to prove that there is no God and therefore the establishment is the highest law of the land. Obedience is mandatory!

I think this is merely projection, BgB's faith is threatened by the theory of evolution and he seems to have nothing else to offer other than what he knows, spreading disinformation and claims of corrupt establishments that silence dissenters or anyone that dares to go 'against the grain'.........in other words the very tools religion and the religious have used to stay in power over the past couple of thousand years....

He's not alone though, we've all seen posters of his ilk many many many times before, and no doubt there'll me more to come. I just find it funny and a little sad that they're unable to see what it is they're doing when they say things like 'evolution is a religion'

"The belief in things unseen" is how faith is usually defined. If you have not seen evolution take place then your belief in it is (by definition) faith which you project onto all non believers. It cuts both ways you know.

reply to post by beegoodbees

"The belief in things unseen" is how faith is usually defined. If you have not seen evolution take place then your belief in it is (by definition) faith.

You don't see your cell phone signal, yet the sound of your buddy's voice clearly indicates there is one.

reply to post by beegoodbees


Actually bee I think you are a bit confused. Faith is what bridges gaps when there is no EVIDENCE.

You see there is plenty of evidence for evolution so faith is not needed or required.

Faith belongs to religion if you could show evidence of a creator you wouldn't need faith in religion.


Do you understand?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Exclusive evidence. Evidence that indicates only a creator could be responsible.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

"The belief in things unseen" is how faith is usually defined. If you have not seen evolution take place then your belief in it is (by definition) faith.

You don't see your cell phone signal, yet the sound of your buddy's voice clearly indicates there is one.

edit on 31-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

rf signals can be seen with instruments.

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Actually bee I think you are a bit confused. Faith is what bridges gaps when there is no EVIDENCE.

You see there is plenty of evidence for evolution so faith is not needed or required.

Faith belongs to religion if you could show evidence of a creator you wouldn't need faith in religion.


Do you understand?

There are findings that can be interpreted as evidence for evolution, that same evidence can just as easily be interpreted in other ways. It is faith that bridges the gaps in evolutionary theory. Do you understand? If you find an apple under an apple tree you might assume that it fell from the tree and dismiss the possibility that someone placed it there even though it is entirely possible.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Exclusive evidence. Evidence that indicates only a creator could be responsible.

the complexity of dna is that evidence. If this were real science it would have been dismissed upon the discovery of dna. But religious faith ignores evidence in favor of preexisting beliefs.

It really comes down to this. You say creation is impossible based not on any evidence but rather on your belief that there is no creator. Just like you might believe that no one is or was around that could have possibly placed the apple under the apple tree and therefore it must have fallen there even if it has a picture carved into it.

reply to post by beegoodbees


Faith is believing things for no good reason, whether or not something can be seen by the naked eye is irrelevant.

beegoodbees
the complexity of dna is that evidence.

Right because complex things cannot occur naturally...

The argument for complexity is basically a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

reply to post by beegoodbees


History cannot support miraculous or supernatural claims (due to its reliance on probabilistic explanations), and there is absolutely no direct and/or exclusive evidence for the existence of any one religion’s particular god, or view of god.

Evolution has a preponderance of evidence and we keep finding more ergo no need for faith.

beegoodbees
In order to be proven scientifically we need a control or a benchmark if you like. Something that we already know is a certain age to compare these methods against. Since we have nothing that we know indisputably is 50 million or a hundred million years old all of the mentioned methods are based on speculation.

A large part of that speculation is that gravity, geomagnetic, solar and all other forces known and unknown have remained unchanged and that a hundred million years ago every type of rock, mineral and chemical had exactly the same properties as they do now.

To chemically date something you have to know what the chemical composition was when it formed, it is impossible to know this.

Do we have any reason to think that the fundamental forces and constants of the Universe would have changed during the let's say last 200 million years? You seem to assume that they have, and thus disregard radiometric dating techniques. Please let us all know on what exactly this assumption of yours is based on.

The odds that they would all come up with the same answer are 1 to 1. You see they start out with the number they want and then they keep fiddling with it until it says the right number. Using one speculation to prove another is not science. Whenever a test disagrees with the current model, just like the physical evidence it is ignored or suppressed. Here is an excerpt from an article that explains how modern pseudoscience works.

And here we start with your biased preconceptions. You see, they don't start out with a number they want. They don't want any particular number. Why would you think otherwise? And again, especially magnetostratigraphy is completely independent from the radiometric dating methods, so really what are the odds that it gives the same estimate than the other methods?

"What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory."


As I said, just like the distance to the nearest star, it is all speculative. Did you ever ask yourself how scientists "know" how far away a star is?

No scientist would use carbon dating on dinosaur bones. Do you know why? The half-life of carbon-14 is so short, that it can't possible be expected to give the correct age for items older than some 60k years or so. Please try to understand the science behind these methods. You're just displaying your ignorance with the quoted text.

I think you surrendered intellectually a long time ago based on your statements. You must just be repeating what you have heard or read. We in all of our glory and intellectual might cannot create a single cell, yet we are supposed to believe that it was somehow formed by only natural forces on accident. That sounds very plausible.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Junkheap

 

Ok so if you are at one end and I at the other end and we look away from each other what would we see ? Unless you are suggesting there is no center of the universe but I can't imagine how that could be .

It's more a problem of what is the edge of the universe, there is the observable universe but what is beyond that we have a limit to how far we can see back in distance/time.

beegoodbees
I never said static, I said that (and I think it has been somewhat proven since I first hypothesized it) that within the so called junk dna are all of the possible variations of a species. These variations are triggered as needed for optimum survival. Life was made to cope with the natural changes of this planet. A good example of this is the pepper moth.

No, this is not how biology works. The vast majority of so called junk DNA is just repetitive sequence and ancient integrated viral DNA. But let's entertain the idea that "all of the possible variations of a species" is in junk DNA. So, where are the 200 million year old skulls that are sort of similar to those of contemporary mammals?

The pepper moth is often used to prove evolution. In fact this is observable evidence against evolution. The pepper moth changed from white to black and back to white over a relatively short period of time in order to match the changing color of the trees. This should have happened over a very long period of time according to evolution.

Also these changes if happening by accidental mutations would be very unlikely to happen at all. Is it a coincidence that these moths accidentally mutated at just the right time to match the changing color of the trees? First from light to dark and then back again?

Displaying your ignorance here yet again. You see, as in any population, variation within the moths existed already before the industrial revolution. Then tree bark started getting darker and predators had an easier time to pick light individuals and hence there was strong positive selection for being dark. Not long after the alleles that lead to dark pigmentation dominated within the moth population.

So let's get back to the original request. Please explain the mystery of the missing 200 million year old skulls of contemporary species like dolphins and bears.

reply to post by rhinoceros


You are now providing more evidence of your ability to dismiss any possibilities outside of the realm of your own belief system. That is religion. Do we have any reason to believe that the forces of the solar system and the universe are constant over a period millions of years. We know that there have been polar shifts. We know that there has been wild variations in temperature.

carbon 14 dating of dinosaur bones doesn't work only if you start with the belief that they are millions of years old. So they are in fact starting with a number. They dismissed the findings because they did not concur with what is already "known". You see how easy that is.

"When paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil, her discovery raised an obvious question -- how the tissue could have survived so long? The bone was 68 million years old, and conventional wisdom about fossilization is that all soft tissue, from blood to brains, decomposes. Only hard parts, like bones and teeth, can become fossils. But for some people, the discovery raised a different question. How do scientists know the bones are really 68 million years old?"

68 million year old t-rex soft tissue? Yeah, that sounds possible to me. I am sure that finding was also explained away in some convoluted fashion.

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
I never said static, I said that (and I think it has been somewhat proven since I first hypothesized it) that within the so called junk dna are all of the possible variations of a species. These variations are triggered as needed for optimum survival. Life was made to cope with the natural changes of this planet. A good example of this is the pepper moth.

No, this is not how biology works. The vast majority of so called junk DNA is just repetitive sequence and ancient integrated viral DNA. But let's entertain the idea that "all of the possible variations of a species" is in junk DNA. So, where are the 200 million year old skulls that are sort of similar to those of contemporary mammals?

The pepper moth is often used to prove evolution. In fact this is observable evidence against evolution. The pepper moth changed from white to black and back to white over a relatively short period of time in order to match the changing color of the trees. This should have happened over a very long period of time according to evolution.

Also these changes if happening by accidental mutations would be very unlikely to happen at all. Is it a coincidence that these moths accidentally mutated at just the right time to match the changing color of the trees? First from light to dark and then back again?

Displaying your ignorance here yet again. You see, as in any population, variation within the moths existed already before the industrial revolution. Then tree bark started getting darker and predators had an easier time to pick light individuals and hence there was strong positive selection for being dark. Not long after the alleles that lead to dark pigmentation dominated within the moth population.

So let's get back to the original request. Please explain the mystery of the missing 200 million year old skulls of contemporary species like dolphins and bears.

All of the moths changed twice at almost the same time, not a few mutated and only their offspring survived.(as evolution dictates) Give me a break.

You will provide no evidence to support your ideas but you expect me to provide some to support mine? As far as missing skulls go, We have living variations of bears and dolphins to look at. They vary depending on their habitat. Furthermore those human and ape skulls that were submitted as evidence are more proof of genetic variation. All humans have human dna, however we vary according to our habitat. Africans have dark skin resistant to sunburn because Africa is mostly hot and sunny etc.


This is what you apparently don't know.

"Now, in a series of papers published in September in Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group) and elsewhere, the ENCODE group has produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA. In the process, the ENCODE project is reinventing the vocabulary with which biologists study, discuss and understand human inheritance and disease.

Ewan Birney, 39, of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, England, led the analysis by the more than 400 ENCODE scientists who annotated the genome. He recently spoke with Scientific American about the major findings. Excerpts follow.

Scientific American: The ENCODE project has revealed a landscape that is absolutely teeming with important genetic elements—a landscape that used to be dismissed as “junk DNA.” Were our old views of how the genome is organized too simplistic?"

link to article

www.scientificamerican.com...

reply to post by rhinoceros


and some more

“The studies found a number of hidden switches and signals embedded throughout the entire length of human dna. All cells within the human body have the same genes, but different cells switch on different kinds of genes. Scientists have always wondered how genes are controlled, and what turns certain ones on and off. Researchers collected DNA maps from 349 tissue samples that cover all major organ systems in all stages of human development and contrasted them with genetic studies of more than 300 common diseases.”

As I said "I believe they are switches and it has somewhat been proven."

Link to article

www.collective-evolution.com...

beegoodbees
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

You are now providing more evidence of your ability to dismiss any possibilities outside of the realm of your own belief system. That is religion. Do we have any reason to believe that the forces of the solar system and the universe are constant over a period millions of years.

Yes, we do. For one, matter would have seized existing if e.g. the strong force would have fluctuated. The fact that matter still exists is a pretty good indicator that the strong force has remained constant. Now, as I requested, give me a good reason to think that these forces would not have remained constant over the last 200M years.

We know that there have been polar shifts. We know that there has been wild variations in temperature.

So you agree that polar shifts are a real phenomenon. Now wrap your head around the idea that the last dating method I mentioned is directly related to these shifts.

carbon 14 dating of dinosaur bones doesn't work only if you start with the belief that they are millions of years old. So they are in fact starting with a number. They dismissed the findings because they did not concur with what is already "known". You see how easy that is.

Again, carbon-14 dating has an upper limit. It cannot go past some 60k years for the simple fact that all the 14C will be gone. Your bias is ridiculous. You're not even trying to understand the science because of religious indoctrination.

"When paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil, her discovery raised an obvious question -- how the tissue could have survived so long? The bone was 68 million years old, and conventional wisdom about fossilization is that all soft tissue, from blood to brains, decomposes. Only hard parts, like bones and teeth, can become fossils. But for some people, the discovery raised a different question. How do scientists know the bones are really 68 million years old?"

68 million year old t-rex soft tissue? Yeah, that sounds possible to me. I am sure that finding was also explained away in some convoluted fashion.

Moving goal post. Not addressing my direct questions and introducing new unrelated examples constantly. Why does this tactic seem so familiar, I wonder. Anyway, I recall this story. As I remember, they even managed to sequence partial proteins, which were the closest to birds (supporting the hypothesis that birds descend from dinosaurs). As far as I know, their finding was legitimate. Some soft tissue had indeed survived over 60 million years. Surely the conditions that allowed this to happen were quite extraordinary, but why would it be impossible?

Shall we resume to the mystery of the missing 200M year old skulls that are similar to dolphins, bears, giraffes, rhinos and such now or you will just avoid this question because you cannot address it?